Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Can confirm, took necrons to the local GW store championship, did well, and wasn't the only necron doing well there. Also, had a lot of fun.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

morgoth wrote:

There isn't really a point atm for my main army to be fielded because of the fact that it is basically a predetermined conclusion to the match.
Basically.

"My army can't win ever"

That quote would actually apply equally well to an incredibly underpowered army and a massively overpowered army if your intent is to have a fun game. Stomping someone with no difficulty is equally as boring as being stomped with no difficulty.

It applies to R&H in this case, so make of that what you want. I also am by far not new to the army, having started it during the free FW pdf for vraksian renegades. (4th?!? )
But atm there is not a point to play them due to the simple fact that most indexes allready were better, against most codexes i'd have to run mass horde skew and that is not really funny or how i build my R&H army.

I find it difficult to understand the IGOUGO complaint. This is 40k, and it's turn based system has been ongoing for 30 years.

If you don't want it, play a system that actually matches your preference.

The idea that if GW were to release 40k now and fail is absurd too. If any new game came out with the depth and range that 40k has they would take over just as much.

It's also the size of the range that makes it so hard to balance.

 Sentineil wrote:
I find it difficult to understand the IGOUGO complaint. This is 40k, and it's turn based system has been ongoing for 30 years.

If you don't want it, play a system that actually matches your preference.

The idea that if GW were to release 40k now and fail is absurd too. If any new game came out with the depth and range that 40k has they would take over just as much.

It's also the size of the range that makes it so hard to balance.

Community size.
Issue is most people want a return of their investment, and whilest GW isn't as monolothic a company as MS, it's still the MONOLITH of miniature gaming.

And GW themselves offer alternatives, f.e. KT or APOC. The issue is more the fact that GW offers these alternatives and they show promise and are often ultimately better balanced and deeper mechanics wise yet GW refuses to learn from these, even though they promised to change in early 8th.

Another issue is traits, during 7th some armies gained a kinda prototype of traits and stratagems, these were balanced around point costs though, (e.g. IA13, Corsairs, Legion supplements) now you get the poor internal balance that comes with the basic Pts price tag of 0.
I mean traits are great, to personalize etc, but you can't tell me a AL marine is equally worth 13 pts compared to a WB one. Which is hillarious considering the wider imbalances during 7th ed.

IGOUGO has always been fine because the level of speed and lethality has always been lower than it is today, and terrain blocked line of sight. These factors mitigated the ability of an army to delete multiple enemy units on the first turn, and proper deployment meant that you could be quite safe if your opponent got the first turn. Now that terrain almost never blocks line of sight, everything moves quickly and can charge absurd distances, and shooting units have double or more the number of shots they used to have, the issue rears its ugly head.

You can fix it by abandoning IGOUGO, or you can fix it by reducing the speed of infantry models, toning down the power of shooting, and making terrain block line of sight like it used to. Then most people will magically stop complaining about IGOUGO.

Having alternatives like KT and Apoc is good. My issue comes from people complaining that 40k isn't what they want it to be.

It's just as odd as giving out that chess doesn't play like draughts/checkers. They're different games.

If you want to play chess, play chess, if you want to play draughts/checkers, go play that instead.

I agree that army traits aren't very well balanced, but they do add a lot of character to the game and I'm glad to have them.

Could they be worth points? How would that work? It seems like something that would be tedious to manage and probably not scale well.

 Sentineil wrote:
Having alternatives like KT and Apoc is good. My issue comes from people complaining that 40k isn't what they want it to be.

It's just ass odd as giving out that chess doesn't play like draughts/checkers. They're different games.

If you want to play chess, play chess, if you want to play draughts/checkers, go play that instead.

I agree that army traits aren't very well balanced, but they do add a lot of character to the game and I'm glad to have them.

Could they be worth points? How would that work? It seems like something that would be tedious to manage and probably not scale well.

There is also this gem:https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer/comments/7k1tp0/im_james_m_hewitt_freelance_tabletop_games/drb21t5/


unbalance is atleast partially a sales method of GW. And GW repeating the same thing from 7th in essence raises flags by those that got burnt with it.

Could they be worth points? How would that work? It seems like something that would be tedious to manage and probably not scale well

Generally the issue was solved in 7th by pricing the HQ that generated the trait ith an additional cost, whilest some upgrades also were unlocked. F.e. You wanted to run quasi bloodpact, you had to first pay for the "bloody handed reaver" 35 pts (an upgrade for 1 HQ, which then unlocked 10 pts flat upgrades for Renegade veterans into grenadier squads. Further these had additional requirments, some demanded that you field altleast 3 militia plattons out of atleast 3 x15 Militia members, others demanded all units need to be upgraded with xyz.
It was less book keepy then it sounds and fairly straight forward and also alot better balanced overall then what are now traits. And that was in 7th.

The argument against IGOUGO is that its not especially interactive as players get to do their full output all at once. Due to the damage output of units (which just goes up, and up, and up) this can mean armies are effectively broken by the player going second's turn 3 - and you are just playing out the formalities/chasing a full on tabling.

In theory an alternative activations system would allow for more interactivity - and you wouldn't potentially start the game (or start your second turn) with say 20-40% of your army already dead. Rather than making say 5 "plays" in the gawme (with decisions being impacted only by past success/failure) - you could be making potentially 50, as depending on what your opponent does and so on.

In practice though you are completely changing the game - and yes, you would need a complete rebalance. The amount of time to play a game would also increase - which isn't a problem in itself, it would just mean people would use smaller armies. This is however unlikely to be commercially attractive to GW - both due to the absolute quantity of how much stuff people want, and the fact you have these huge ranges.

Really though I'm not sure what people really want from alternative activations. I think the dream is a sort of computer game RTS type model - where players are constantly interacting. I think this is sort of similar to how people think vehicle facings and armour values gave the game "more strategy" - when to my mind at least it didn't really.

In reality I don't think this is possible. 40k is fundamentally a game where you roll dice and stuff dies. There isn't such a thing as a "perfect" play - even if having your whole army swept of the table because your opponent happens to have hot dice is disappointing.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sentineil wrote:
Having alternatives like KT and Apoc is good. My issue comes from people complaining that 40k isn't what they want it to be.

It's just ass odd as giving out that chess doesn't play like draughts/checkers. They're different games.

If you want to play chess, play chess, if you want to play draughts/checkers, go play that instead.

I agree that army traits aren't very well balanced, but they do add a lot of character to the game and I'm glad to have them.

Could they be worth points? How would that work? It seems like something that would be tedious to manage and probably not scale well.

There is also this gem:https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer/comments/7k1tp0/im_james_m_hewitt_freelance_tabletop_games/drb21t5/


unbalance is atleast partially a sales method of GW. And GW repeating the same thing from 7th in essence raises flags by those that got burnt with it.

Could they be worth points? How would that work? It seems like something that would be tedious to manage and probably not scale well

Generally the issue was solved in 7th by pricing the HQ that generated the trait ith an additional cost, whilest some upgrades also were unlocked. F.e. You wanted to run quasi bloodpact, you had to first pay for the "bloody handed reaver" 35 pts (an upgrade for 1 HQ, which then unlocked 10 pts flat upgrades for Renegade veterans into grenadier squads. Further these had additional requirments, some demanded that you field altleast 3 militia plattons out of atleast 3 x15 Militia members, others demanded all units need to be upgraded with xyz.
It was less book keepy then it sounds and fairly straight forward and also alot better balanced overall then what are now traits. And that was in 7th.

I know that link comes up a lot on how GW make new units OP for sales, but it really doesn't actually stand up in practice. How do we explain most of the new Ork releases being hot garbage (not my words), the new Eldar releases being similar, SM Reivers being less than average, and the host of other examples. Does it happen from time to time if they want to push a model? Probably. Is it a defining feature of their sales method? No.

I like the idea of having warlord traits open doors for army wide traits, bit on its own it doesn't scale at all. If you add in that additional points cost to every unit, then you get back into the micro management. Sure it works for Blood Pact, but that's because that's the only option. When you have 6-8 it just makes it unwieldy.

Not Online!!! wrote:


There is also this gem:https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer/comments/7k1tp0/im_james_m_hewitt_freelance_tabletop_games/drb21t5/


unbalance is atleast partially a sales method of GW. And GW repeating the same thing from 7th in essence raises flags by those that got burnt with it.

I think you've mistaken lack of concern for strategic mishandling of rules. The rules are not perfect, because they don't put enough resources behind it not because they want to push models. And they don't put a lot behind it, because of their confidentiality concerns. It's not wildly different from 'The Formula':





Most people here would find AoS to be an unbalanced system and yet the closing statement of the post you referenced says this, which says volumes about ones perceived perspective of his comments :

Glad you like AoS though Whatever people think of it, it was a real breath of fresh air. I used to have to teach kids how to play Warhammer, and I envy the shop guys who have to do it these days!

Problem with IGOUGO aka alternating player turns comes usually with turns taking too long and going second being a huge disadvantage

Alternating player turns are not a big problem for Warmachine/Hordes or Kinbgs of War

Neither it was during 5th.


People just like to act as if this would solve all Balance Problems of 40k immediately, same as changing from a D6 to D12 would.

But, this is not true, as if a designer is not able to make Alternating Player Turns work out well, no chance that Alternating Unit Activation won't be messed up too (same is if the all the possible variability of a profile values from 1-10 and a D6 is not used, it won't be with a D12 either)

It is just that GW proofs that they are able to write rules from time to time, they just mess up maintaining it and the longer an Edition last the worse are the issues.
(a reason why AoS is the better game at the moment, as the edition is not as old and therefore the issues are not as big, but it is already changing and soon with 9th, 40k will be the better game again)

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:
Dakka does seem an unusual forum in terms of the amount of negativity for the hobby being discussed. It's a shame as it's not reflective of what I see in my local gaming group, and it does seem to be a minority of very vocal members.

I disagree that Dakka is negative about the hobby. Check out the painting and modelling section, not really any negativity there, for example. Or the Fiction section for people's homebrew army fluff.

I don't disagree, but this thread was specifically about the 40K General Discussion forum. I probably should have been more specific. For the record I think the P&M forum is great

Pointed Stick wrote:
IGOUGO has always been fine because the level of speed and lethality has always been lower than it is today, and terrain blocked line of sight. These factors mitigated the ability of an army to delete multiple enemy units on the first turn, and proper deployment meant that you could be quite safe if your opponent got the first turn. Now that terrain almost never blocks line of sight, everything moves quickly and can charge absurd distances, and shooting units have double or more the number of shots they used to have, the issue rears its ugly head.

You can fix it by abandoning IGOUGO, or you can fix it by reducing the speed of infantry models, toning down the power of shooting, and making terrain block line of sight like it used to. Then most people will magically stop complaining about IGOUGO.

Completely untrue. Just because lethality is up doesn't mean that IGOUGO was fine. Deleting units entirely STILL happened a lot when I started in 4th.

Nobody can defend the system in this day and age, sorry. The only thing being used to defend it in the end is familiarity with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sentineil wrote:
I find it difficult to understand the IGOUGO complaint. This is 40k, and it's turn based system has been ongoing for 30 years.

If you don't want it, play a system that actually matches your preference.

The idea that if GW were to release 40k now and fail is absurd too. If any new game came out with the depth and range that 40k has they would take over just as much.

It's also the size of the range that makes it so hard to balance.

Just because it's been the way it's done for 30 years doesn't mean it's good to continue doing it. All the people defending IGOUGO use either "I'm already familiar with it" or "my total Alpha Strike won't work anymore!!!!!!!"

It's all a bunch of crap.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Pointed Stick wrote:
IGOUGO has always been fine because the level of speed and lethality has always been lower than it is today, and terrain blocked line of sight. These factors mitigated the ability of an army to delete multiple enemy units on the first turn, and proper deployment meant that you could be quite safe if your opponent got the first turn. Now that terrain almost never blocks line of sight, everything moves quickly and can charge absurd distances, and shooting units have double or more the number of shots they used to have, the issue rears its ugly head.

You can fix it by abandoning IGOUGO, or you can fix it by reducing the speed of infantry models, toning down the power of shooting, and making terrain block line of sight like it used to. Then most people will magically stop complaining about IGOUGO.

Completely untrue. Just because lethality is up doesn't mean that IGOUGO was fine. Deleting units entirely STILL happened a lot when I started in 4th.

Nobody can defend the system in this day and age, sorry. The only thing being used to defend it in the end is familiarity with it.

I don't think anyone has said AA wouldn't necessarily be better than IGOUGO. What's being said are:
a) Moving to AA would take a *lot* of work to do well. A naive approach - just going to AA mostly "as is" using a naive aproach - would clearly be abysmal. Terribly balanced and wonky. To make it work, you'd need to invest time in developing a solid AA schema (which takes more than vomiting ideas onto paper). Then you'd have to reevalute most core systems for what works/what doesn't with the change. Then you'd have to rebalance every option in every unit in every book. And you have to do all of that very extensively and carefully. Just to get on parity with the quality of the game as-is under IGOUGO.

So a complicated, well-done transition to AA could likely improve the game. But it's not as simple as just saying it. So ignoring any other possible improvement and just ranting on IGOUGO does nothing but shut down any reasonable discussion of balance or improvement.

b) IGOUGO isn't the only problem with the game. And if you were to address the other problems, IGOUGO wouldn't be as eggregious.

As such, further pontificating on "AA > IGOUGO" doesn't really get us anywhere.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Just because it's been the way it's done for 30 years doesn't mean it's good to continue doing it. All the people defending IGOUGO use either "I'm already familiar with it" or "my total Alpha Strike won't work anymore!!!!!!!"

It's all a bunch of crap.

Completely valid - tradition is not always best. Would you have trusted old GW to have done it properly though?

We can see they're aware of the dynamics in Apocalypse with alternating activations and a D12 system. It gives them a testing ground to begin thinking about applications of some of these ideas within 40K. That is the only time I think 9th edition would become a reality. Otherwise we're in the Chapter Approved cycle.

Until then its just IGOUGO.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Just because it's been the way it's done for 30 years doesn't mean it's good to continue doing it. All the people defending IGOUGO use either "I'm already familiar with it" or "my total Alpha Strike won't work anymore!!!!!!!"

It's all a bunch of crap.

Completely valid - tradition is not always best. Would you have trusted old GW to have done it properly though?

We can see they're aware of the dynamics in Apocalypse with alternating activations and a D12 system. It gives them a testing ground to begin thinking about applications of some of these ideas within 40K. That is the only time I think 9th edition would become a reality. Otherwise we're in the Chapter Approved cycle.

Until then its just IGOUGO.

I wouldn't trust old GW with anything. An attempt would at least be something to start with though.

Apocalypse isn't perfect but it's definitely better balanced based on the few games I did.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Just because it's been the way it's done for 30 years doesn't mean it's good to continue doing it. All the people defending IGOUGO use either "I'm already familiar with it" or "my total Alpha Strike won't work anymore!!!!!!!"

It's all a bunch of crap.

Completely valid - tradition is not always best. Would you have trusted old GW to have done it properly though?

We can see they're aware of the dynamics in Apocalypse with alternating activations and a D12 system. It gives them a testing ground to begin thinking about applications of some of these ideas within 40K. That is the only time I think 9th edition would become a reality. Otherwise we're in the Chapter Approved cycle.

Until then its just IGOUGO.

I wouldn't trust old GW with anything. An attempt would at least be something to start with though.

Apocalypse isn't perfect but it's definitely better balanced based on the few games I did.

Who - or what - would you trust to rebalance 40k with AA?

I'm not playing 40k at the moment. Somehow or other this summer I realized I just didn't want to play another game, which is super-weird because previously I got buggy if I didn't get in a game every so often and really jonesed for it. Kinda wondering what happened.

So I have to confess I'm here out of habit, and because I have an ongoing project I hope to follow up sometime in the next year.

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Pointed Stick wrote:
IGOUGO has always been fine because the level of speed and lethality has always been lower than it is today, and terrain blocked line of sight. These factors mitigated the ability of an army to delete multiple enemy units on the first turn, and proper deployment meant that you could be quite safe if your opponent got the first turn. Now that terrain almost never blocks line of sight, everything moves quickly and can charge absurd distances, and shooting units have double or more the number of shots they used to have, the issue rears its ugly head.

You can fix it by abandoning IGOUGO, or you can fix it by reducing the speed of infantry models, toning down the power of shooting, and making terrain block line of sight like it used to. Then most people will magically stop complaining about IGOUGO.

Completely untrue. Just because lethality is up doesn't mean that IGOUGO was fine. Deleting units entirely STILL happened a lot when I started in 4th.

Nobody can defend the system in this day and age, sorry. The only thing being used to defend it in the end is familiarity with it.

I don't think anyone has said AA wouldn't necessarily be better than IGOUGO. What's being said are:
a) Moving to AA would take a *lot* of work to do well. A naive approach - just going to AA mostly "as is" using a naive aproach - would clearly be abysmal. Terribly balanced and wonky. To make it work, you'd need to invest time in developing a solid AA schema (which takes more than vomiting ideas onto paper). Then you'd have to reevalute most core systems for what works/what doesn't with the change. Then you'd have to rebalance every option in every unit in every book. And you have to do all of that very extensively and carefully. Just to get on parity with the quality of the game as-is under IGOUGO.

So a complicated, well-done transition to AA could likely improve the game. But it's not as simple as just saying it. So ignoring any other possible improvement and just ranting on IGOUGO does nothing but shut down any reasonable discussion of balance or improvement.

b) IGOUGO isn't the only problem with the game. And if you were to address the other problems, IGOUGO wouldn't be as eggregious.

As such, further pontificating on "AA > IGOUGO" doesn't really get us anywhere.

Tons of issues cannot BE fixed because of IGOUGO. Melee armies will always suffer, Alpha + Beta Strike will ALWAYS be king, and complete deletion of 15-25% of the opponent's army without appropriate response is garbage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Just because it's been the way it's done for 30 years doesn't mean it's good to continue doing it. All the people defending IGOUGO use either "I'm already familiar with it" or "my total Alpha Strike won't work anymore!!!!!!!"

It's all a bunch of crap.

Completely valid - tradition is not always best. Would you have trusted old GW to have done it properly though?

We can see they're aware of the dynamics in Apocalypse with alternating activations and a D12 system. It gives them a testing ground to begin thinking about applications of some of these ideas within 40K. That is the only time I think 9th edition would become a reality. Otherwise we're in the Chapter Approved cycle.

Until then its just IGOUGO.

I wouldn't trust old GW with anything. An attempt would at least be something to start with though.

Apocalypse isn't perfect but it's definitely better balanced based on the few games I did.

Who - or what - would you trust to rebalance 40k with AA?

Current GW showed they can attempt it with current Apocalypse. There are also homebrewers that do some good work. There's one posted right now in the proposed rules by Anomander for example that looks decent based on my glimpses. It isn't perfect but it's still got tons of potential.

it is still old GW, "new" is just the marketing

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Apocalypse isn't perfect but it's definitely better balanced based on the few games I did.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

We can see they're aware of the dynamics in Apocalypse with alternating activations and a D12 system.

With the difference that Apocalypse works because it was written as one game with everything at once and not independent releases that are loosely based on each other

and alternating unit activation is much easier to be messed up if releases change direction in between than the current system, so unless it is done like Apo and everything is written/designed at the same time, it will become much worse (like AoS perfectly shows)

 Sentineil wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sentineil wrote:
Having alternatives like KT and Apoc is good. My issue comes from people complaining that 40k isn't what they want it to be.

It's just ass odd as giving out that chess doesn't play like draughts/checkers. They're different games.

If you want to play chess, play chess, if you want to play draughts/checkers, go play that instead.

I agree that army traits aren't very well balanced, but they do add a lot of character to the game and I'm glad to have them.

Could they be worth points? How would that work? It seems like something that would be tedious to manage and probably not scale well.

There is also this gem:https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer/comments/7k1tp0/im_james_m_hewitt_freelance_tabletop_games/drb21t5/


unbalance is atleast partially a sales method of GW. And GW repeating the same thing from 7th in essence raises flags by those that got burnt with it.

Could they be worth points? How would that work? It seems like something that would be tedious to manage and probably not scale well

Generally the issue was solved in 7th by pricing the HQ that generated the trait ith an additional cost, whilest some upgrades also were unlocked. F.e. You wanted to run quasi bloodpact, you had to first pay for the "bloody handed reaver" 35 pts (an upgrade for 1 HQ, which then unlocked 10 pts flat upgrades for Renegade veterans into grenadier squads. Further these had additional requirments, some demanded that you field altleast 3 militia plattons out of atleast 3 x15 Militia members, others demanded all units need to be upgraded with xyz.
It was less book keepy then it sounds and fairly straight forward and also alot better balanced overall then what are now traits. And that was in 7th.

I know that link comes up a lot on how GW make new units OP for sales, but it really doesn't actually stand up in practice. How do we explain most of the new Ork releases being hot garbage (not my words), the new Eldar releases being similar, SM Reivers being less than average, and the host of other examples. Does it happen from time to time if they want to push a model? Probably. Is it a defining feature of their sales method? No.

I like the idea of having warlord traits open doors for army wide traits, bit on its own it doesn't scale at all. If you add in that additional points cost to every unit, then you get back into the micro management. Sure it works for Blood Pact, but that's because that's the only option. When you have 6-8 it just makes it unwieldy.

my army alone had 12 Grenadier upgraded squads.
it's as simple as a tick box. And as simple as you make it modelling wise.
That is not valid as an excuse imo for misshandeling traits and warlord interactions as GW does.
Also warlord traits allready don't scale well, cough knights cough.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sentineil wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sentineil wrote:
Having alternatives like KT and Apoc is good. My issue comes from people complaining that 40k isn't what they want it to be.

It's just ass odd as giving out that chess doesn't play like draughts/checkers. They're different games.

If you want to play chess, play chess, if you want to play draughts/checkers, go play that instead.

I agree that army traits aren't very well balanced, but they do add a lot of character to the game and I'm glad to have them.

Could they be worth points? How would that work? It seems like something that would be tedious to manage and probably not scale well.

There is also this gem:https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer/comments/7k1tp0/im_james_m_hewitt_freelance_tabletop_games/drb21t5/


unbalance is atleast partially a sales method of GW. And GW repeating the same thing from 7th in essence raises flags by those that got burnt with it.

Could they be worth points? How would that work? It seems like something that would be tedious to manage and probably not scale well

Generally the issue was solved in 7th by pricing the HQ that generated the trait ith an additional cost, whilest some upgrades also were unlocked. F.e. You wanted to run quasi bloodpact, you had to first pay for the "bloody handed reaver" 35 pts (an upgrade for 1 HQ, which then unlocked 10 pts flat upgrades for Renegade veterans into grenadier squads. Further these had additional requirments, some demanded that you field altleast 3 militia plattons out of atleast 3 x15 Militia members, others demanded all units need to be upgraded with xyz.
It was less book keepy then it sounds and fairly straight forward and also alot better balanced overall then what are now traits. And that was in 7th.

I know that link comes up a lot on how GW make new units OP for sales, but it really doesn't actually stand up in practice. How do we explain most of the new Ork releases being hot garbage (not my words), the new Eldar releases being similar, SM Reivers being less than average, and the host of other examples. Does it happen from time to time if they want to push a model? Probably. Is it a defining feature of their sales method? No.

I like the idea of having warlord traits open doors for army wide traits, bit on its own it doesn't scale at all. If you add in that additional points cost to every unit, then you get back into the micro management. Sure it works for Blood Pact, but that's because that's the only option. When you have 6-8 it just makes it unwieldy.

my army alone had 12 Grenadier upgraded squads.
it's as simple as a tick box. And as simple as you make it modelling wise.
That is not valid as an excuse imo for misshandeling traits and warlord interactions as GW does.
Also warlord traits allready don't scale well, cough knights cough.

The relics don't scale either because they're all the same cost: FREE

my army alone had 12 Grenadier upgraded squads.
it's as simple as a tick box. And as simple as you make it modelling wise.
That is not valid as an excuse imo for misshandeling traits and warlord interactions as GW does.
Also warlord traits allready don't scale well, cough knights cough.

The relics don't scale either because they're all the same cost: FREE

of course. but one issue at a time.

Not Online!!! wrote:

my army alone had 12 Grenadier upgraded squads.
it's as simple as a tick box. And as simple as you make it modelling wise.
That is not valid as an excuse imo for misshandeling traits and warlord interactions as GW does.
Also warlord traits allready don't scale well, cough knights cough.

The relics don't scale either because they're all the same cost: FREE

of course. but one issue at a time.

Relics are easy though: pay for them.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:
Dakka does seem an unusual forum in terms of the amount of negativity for the hobby being discussed. It's a shame as it's not reflective of what I see in my local gaming group, and it does seem to be a minority of very vocal members.

I disagree that Dakka is negative about the hobby. Check out the painting and modelling section, not really any negativity there, for example. Or the Fiction section for people's homebrew army fluff.

What there is on Dakka, is criticism of GWs business model and of GWs ability to write rules for the game. Some people are unable to separate the hobby from the company that makes things for them to use in your hobby.

It's also not exclusive to Dakka, or at all unusual, or even confined to 40K. It happens pretty much everywhere you get a large enough group of people talking anything, unless the discussion is actively curated to remove 'negative' comments.

And from what I've seen (and to be honest, I haven't been following 40K as closely over the last couple of editions, as there's only so long I can maintain an interest in a game I don't actively play any more) it does seem like the general attitude towards 8th edition is largely more positive than it was for 6th and 7th.

 kodos wrote:
it is still old GW, "new" is just the marketing

Community survey that led to Sisters
Legitimate and regular rebalancing
Two week FAQs and regular updates
A plethora of specialist games and avenues into the hobby
Some attempt at playtesting

What about those things is just marketing?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Tons of issues cannot BE fixed because of IGOUGO. Melee armies will always suffer, Alpha + Beta Strike will ALWAYS be king, and complete deletion of 15-25% of the opponent's army without appropriate response is garbage.

Of course they can be fixed. If the problem with the current IGOUGO system is that you can suffer too many casualties before you get to respond, then the way to fix it is to reduce the amount of damage that can be caused in a single turn, and/or give players ways to respond.

The ease with which stuff dies has been one of my issues with 40K for a very long time now... Even aside from a balance perspective, it's a bit crappy when that unit that you really like, or that new thing that you were excited to get onto the table, doesn't actually get to do anything before being obliterated. I trot this story out every time this sort of discussion comes up - but I bought the metal/plastic hybrid Vindicator kit when it was first released in 3rd edition, and it was at least a decade before it actually got to shoot anything before being destroyed.

Removing IGOUGO isn't necessary to fix that. Making it harder to hurt things, and giving players more reactive options and better ways to utilise cover would go a long way. Reintroducing Overwatch was a good start, but it should have been more akin to the 2nd edition version, and been accompanied by other reaction options like taking cover or falling back from enemy attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Community survey that led to Sisters
Legitimate and regular rebalancing
Two week FAQs and regular updates
A plethora of specialist games and avenues into the hobby
Some attempt at playtesting

What about those things is just marketing?

To be fair, the first one was just marketing. They didn't release Sisters because a survey said it would be a good idea. They released Sisters because they finally had plastics technology good enough to do the models properly. Pinning it on the survey was just marketing spin.


But yes, GW's attitude towards supporting their core games has certainly changed from late 5th/6th/7th edition, and it's good to see.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

my army alone had 12 Grenadier upgraded squads.
it's as simple as a tick box. And as simple as you make it modelling wise.
That is not valid as an excuse imo for misshandeling traits and warlord interactions as GW does.
Also warlord traits allready don't scale well, cough knights cough.

The relics don't scale either because they're all the same cost: FREE

of course. but one issue at a time.

Relics are easy though: pay for them.

You kind of do. There's the cost of the "free" slot. There's also the cost of the model that bears it. A 4++ isn't the greatest thing to tag onto a War Dog as opposed to a full Knight - a relic TH is much better on a jump captain than it is on a regular captain than it is on a tech marine.

They probably could cost points or something else, but you'll likely still see issues, because there's such a huge range of relics. Hard capping the number available does well enough for now.

 kodos wrote:
Problem with IGOUGO... People just like to act as if this would solve all Balance Problems of 40k immediately, same as changing from a D6 to D12 would.

As all of the proponents of d=!6 system would tell you, this is only a part of the fix as a whole - a small part of same magnitude of change which would be required if the game was changed to a AA system.

The d=!6 system promotes greater range of stats to better balance the middlings between the humble gretchin to mighty titan.

Couple this change with fleshed out terrain rules, the game would be golden.

Not Online!!! wrote:

my army alone had 12 Grenadier upgraded squads.
it's as simple as a tick box. And as simple as you make it modelling wise.
That is not valid as an excuse imo for misshandeling traits and warlord interactions as GW does.
Also warlord traits allready don't scale well, cough knights cough.

Sorry, I didn't mean number of squads, I meant if you had a number of different traits, which will all have variable value depending on the unit it's attached to.

A trait of reroll 1s is a lot more valuable to a leman Russ than a squad of infantry, which means individual prices for units for each potential trait. It just seems like it gets messy fast.