Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 17:55:54
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Trimarius wrote:
It gives them the ability to actually differentiate weapons meant for dealing with light infantry (which are what tend to come in large units) from those with other aims. That's the gameplay benefit.
Ah, finally an actual argument! I salute you for stepping up the challenge.
The trouble is, I'm not sure it's a very convincing one. They already differentiate weapons for dealing with light infantry vs those with other aims. We already have the variables of shot number, strength, AP, and damage. To take your example, plasma guns are already wasted on grots. What is it about the light infantry being in the same unit that means it's good for gameplay for them to be much more vulnerable than if they are split into two different units instead? If the answer is "nothing, but it's too complicated to do otherwise," why is making it easier to kill light infantry with certain weapons such an important objective that it is worth the irrational results the rules produce in order to accomplish the aim of making it easier to shoot light infantry generally? And why is this objective so important that it's worth the collateral damage to elite squads you can take in larger numbers?
Incidentally, the other problem with this argument is that a lot of the weapons - maybe even most - being given blast are emphatically *not* light infantry killers. You'd have to be mental to a shoot a D-cannon at a light infantry blob just to get an average 1 additional shot over shooting it at a tank, for example.
If we really wanted to improve certain weapons against light infantry, wouldn't it be easier and more balanced to do so simply by improving the shot values on these weapons directly, perhaps while also turning down their lethality? For example, you could make a frag grenade 10 automatic shots every time, but at S2 AP0. This would make it very good at killing grots, but pretty much useless against cents. Without the distorting effects this implentation of the blast rule creates.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote:Because blast rules are not about balance, they are about immersion, because players wanted to regain some of that feel of a large blast template deleting a horde unit in one shot.
Ah, but once you start going here, you get into big trouble. Because this actual implementation is not immersive at all. Firing at 11 boyz spread across 25 inches of table, you get max shots - but shooting at 60 models in a tightly packed castle you don't, as long as they're all units of 5 or less.
This implementation of blast is deeply *anti-immersion*. It is almost as bad as the grot standing on the bale of hay laughing at the carnifex.
So we have a rule that has lost the immersion of the old rule, AND lost the gameplay benefits of the old rule. We're left with something that is not very immersive, and doesn't seem to serve any real gameplay purpose either.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/10 18:05:14
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:03:38
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba
|
I imagined someone saying this out loud to me and physically shuddered.
wargames will always need to strike a balance between rules that are "realistic" and rules that take are abstracted and quicker to resolve.
This implementation of blast is, IMO, a pretty good compromise between 8th ed blast and pre-8th template blast. Yes, you can't target multiple units close together but if you allowed the person firing to pick which units he hits, you'd get non-immersive powergaming of where your explosion hits, and if you had to randomize it it'd take just as long to resolve as an old template did.
|
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:09:27
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
It's a compromise that doesn't seem to accomplish anything. I wasn't saying immersion is important, I was just saying this isn't immersive.
They've split the baby and ended up with a rule that is neither immersive, nor does it serve any real gameplay purpose that we can see.
The old blast templates were both immersive and they had a gameplay purpose. They were also clunky to use, so they got taken out because the developers judged that the benefits to immersion and gameplay weren't worth the cost.
This rule, by contrast, adds (minorly) to clunkiness without actually giving you either significant immersion or significant gameplay benefits. And it seems to arbitrarily single out a certain type of army building for a nerf, for no apparent reason. Why implement a new rule that doesn't really do anything but nerf something that nobody seems to think needed nerfing? It just seems bizarre.
This isn't blast in any meaningful sense. It's just anti-big-unit weaponry. It has completely different - in many ways, polar opposite - tactical implications. Did anybody really think what 9th edition needed was better ways to kill large units via shooting? Does anybody seriously think that the problem with 8th edition shooting was there wasn't *enough* volume of fire?
I mean, maybe I'm wrong and people do think that 8th edition shooting didn't have enough volume of fire and wasn't deadly enough to large units of infantry. But I haven't seen anyone make that argument here. And I kind-of doubt anyone will, because the overwhelming consensus is clearly the opposite, that in 8th it was too easy to shoot units off the table, not too difficult.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/10 18:15:39
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:12:43
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
So I was going round and round with the blast rule and firing into combat.
I don't think you'll need really tons of infantry to protect the tanks and here's why. The unit sizes will be smaller, full stop.
If they aren't smaller, the blast rule changes will mulch them up fast. Which will lead to people leaning on MSU to limit auto number of shots from blasts, which in turn means the units are easier to knock out making them less of an issue to tie you up forever in CC.
Also it favors sponsons, and makes those tanks really more useful all over, think of a re tooled defensive gunner strat perhaps ? As well if infantry need to activate or use the objectives they'll be needed and doing less overall fighting.
Unless cover really throws this all out the window it looks like net gains for vehicles that mean less need for infantry outside using objectives. Will depend on terrain info tomorrow I suppose.
For now though ? Hordes feel like they will just be awful.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:19:35
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
FWIW, I do think the impact of the rule is actually overstated re: hordes. If you were taking units of 20+ already, I don't see this changing it at all. The bonuses aren't actually all that large, except for certain gimmicky interactions. For example, grenades being blast weapons is pretty much irrelevant *except* for strats that let you throw a bunch of them at once. Similarly, a blast cannon or D-cannon being blast is totally irrelevant for hordes, because nobody is going to shoot that at a horde unit anyway; if they are, you're already winning because they're shooting at a hugely non-optimal target, even with the max shots.
So I don't think this rule is actually going to matter that much. I just find it a really weird thing they've done, for no apparent gain. The fact that the loss isn't going to be particularly significant either doesn't make it less weird.
The one thing this will absolutely do is cause units of slightly more than 10 to go down to 10. My 12-man troupe squads will certainly go down to 10 man squads instead. You will never see units of 11-15 again. Similarly, you probably will not see units of 6; they will all go down to 5. Which seems like a pointless loss to gameplay diversity, for no real gain.
The other thing it seems likely to do is make indirect fire even more powerful, since much of that is likely to get the blast rule, and those weapons often *are* designed to kill infantry. Which, again, seems like a bizarre choice. Do we really think one of the problems with 8th edition was that indirect fire wasn't lethal enough against infantry?
It seems to be boosting things that didn't need boosting while hurting things that didn't need nerfing. The fact that I don't think it'll change things all that much doesn't change what a strange choice that is.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/10 18:24:14
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:20:16
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Waaagh! Warbiker
|
Yeah, armies that have historically been known as "horde" armies will have fewer optional play styles. When I think of classic Tyranid, Ork, and even Necron armies, I think of hordes of models running across the tabletop to engage in melee, or in the case of Necrons, slowly marching towards the enemy with diminished hordes slowly reanimating.
The state of hordes will likely be very sad in 9th, and I don't see how even the best terrain rules will help. I also doubt that 40k will see the same discount to troops/battleline units that AOS has. The only possible hope for hordes is getting first turn with the ability to advance/charge across a shortened gameplay table in that first turn.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:20:17
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan
Mexico
|
yukishiro1 wrote:
Ah, but once you start going here, you get into big trouble. Because this actual implementation is not immersive at all. Firing at 11 boyz spread across 25 inches of table, you get max shots - but shooting at 60 models in a tightly packed castle you don't, as long as they're all units of 5 or less.
This implementation of blast is deeply *anti-immersion*. It is almost as bad as the grot standing on the bale of hay laughing at the carnifex.
So we have a rule that has lost the immersion of the old rule, AND lost the gameplay benefits of the old rule. We're left with something that is not very immersive, and doesn't seem to serve any real gameplay purpose either.
And that's where you start hitting YMMV, because immersion is subjective. if it isn't immersive to you, well too bad for you.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:22:42
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
It's immersive to you that you get max shots against a unit of 11 boyz strung out across 25 inches of board space, but not against 60 models packed within 6 inches of one another?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:27:47
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
yukishiro1 wrote:It's immersive to you that you get max shots against a unit of 11 boyz strung out across 25 inches of board space, but not against 60 models packed within 6 inches of one another?
Forge the narrative, so that it's one heroic dude jumping in front of the Battlecannon shot somehow!
|
CaptainStabby wrote:If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote:BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote:Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote:ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:28:06
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot
|
Gnarlly wrote:Yeah, armies that have historically been known as "horde" armies will have fewer optional play styles. When I think of classic Tyranid, Ork, and even Necron armies, I think of hordes of models running across the tabletop to engage in melee, or in the case of Necrons, slowly marching towards the enemy with diminished hordes slowly reanimating.
The state of hordes will likely be very sad in 9th, and I don't see how even the best terrain rules will help. I also doubt that 40k will see the same discount to troops/battleline units that AOS has. The only possible hope for hordes is getting first turn with the ability to advance/charge across a shortened gameplay table in that first turn.
Terrain rules absolutely can matter for this. Here’s an extreme example: if the new rule states that any model “toeing in” to terrain grants a Cover Save to the whole unit (like it was in 7th), then a larger unit has more opportunities to toe into cover while holding position across the board (like onto an objective, for example).
Honestly, there’s nothing wrong with assessing potential impacts to these rules: but folks making declarative, absolute judgments on these rules are de facto wrong (even if they turn out to be right in their assumptions later) because these rules don’t exist in a vacuum and we don’t know all of the interactions yet.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:28:18
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan
Mexico
|
Of course blatant edge cases are going to break immersion, specially if someone abuses that interaction.
But my local scene is casual so I doubt it is going to be a notable issue.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:30:27
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
Savannah
|
yukishiro1 wrote: Trimarius wrote:
It gives them the ability to actually differentiate weapons meant for dealing with light infantry (which are what tend to come in large units) from those with other aims. That's the gameplay benefit.
Ah, finally an actual argument! I salute you for stepping up the challenge.
The trouble is, I'm not sure it's a very convincing one. They already differentiate weapons for dealing with light infantry vs those with other aims. We already have the variables of shot number, strength, AP, and damage. To take your example, plasma guns are already wasted on grots. What is it about the light infantry being in the same unit that means it's good for gameplay for them to be much more vulnerable than if they are split into two different units instead? If the answer is "nothing, but it's too complicated to do otherwise," why is making it easier to kill light infantry with certain weapons such an important objective that it is worth the irrational results the rules produce in order to accomplish the aim of making it easier to shoot light infantry generally? And why is this objective so important that it's worth the collateral damage to elite squads you can take in larger numbers?
Incidentally, the other problem with this argument is that a lot of the weapons - maybe even most - being given blast are emphatically *not* light infantry killers. You'd have to be mental to a shoot a D-cannon at a light infantry blob just to get an average 1 additional shot over shooting it at a tank, for example.
If we really wanted to improve certain weapons against light infantry, wouldn't it be easier and more balanced to do so simply by improving the shot values on these weapons directly, perhaps while also turning down their lethality? For example, you could make a frag grenade 10 automatic shots every time, but at S2 AP0. This would make it very good at killing grots, but pretty much useless against cents. Without the distorting effects this implentation of the blast rule creates.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote:Because blast rules are not about balance, they are about immersion, because players wanted to regain some of that feel of a large blast template deleting a horde unit in one shot.
Ah, but once you start going here, you get into big trouble. Because this actual implementation is not immersive at all. Firing at 11 boyz spread across 25 inches of table, you get max shots - but shooting at 60 models in a tightly packed castle you don't, as long as they're all units of 5 or less.
This implementation of blast is deeply *anti-immersion*. It is almost as bad as the grot standing on the bale of hay laughing at the carnifex.
Just adding more shots all the time is what got us into this "all plasma all the time" mess. If you give the grenade launcher 10 attacks at S2, it's now 10 times as effective an anti-tank weapon as a lasgun (assuming you're not in rapid fire range) and 5 times as effective against marines and anything else that's toughness four or five. It's the opposite side of the same problem many anti-tank weapons currently suffer from, where the single d6 damage they can put out is outperformed by multishot D2 guns that are then also obviously superior at dealing with infantry (ideally they address this somehow, too).
The only way to address having a weapon that's supposed to be good against large concentrations of troops is to reference those large numbers somehow. Blast templates did this, but the inevitable result of those was the extremely tedious positioning game that every unit had to go through each time they moved, ran, consolidated, etc.. This wasn't tactical skill or an interesting decision, it was just fiddly and time consuming. And that's without getting into the whole scatter die problem.
The new system will push you away from taking eleven guys in a squad instead of ten or thirty, yes, but there are always going to be break points like that. In a 1 hit per 10 guys scheme, for example, that 11th and 21st dude would run into the same issue.
As for Auras and clumping, that's only an issue because they didn't limit the number of units buffed, which is a different (if important) problem. Castling was traditionally a defensive measure, not a buff-bot enabler.
If you wanted to specifically target clumped MSUs (without the endless tedium of the old ways), though, you'd need to switch to something slightly more abstract, like each unit within 3" of a point chosen by the firer is attacked (and probably exclude characters so artillery isn't suddenly the best sniper in the game). There are a couple of effects like this in the game, most of which are exploding vehicles, so it wouldn't be that outlandish, but then you'd have the weirdness of always firing at the edges of units and it'd go against their current ethos of trying to use a single set of stats for everything.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:31:15
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
yukishiro1 wrote:FWIW, I do think the impact of the rule is actually overstated re: hordes. If you were taking units of 20+ already, I don't see this changing it at all. The bonuses aren't actually all that large, except for certain gimmicky interactions. For example, grenades being blast weapons is pretty much irrelevant *except* for strats that let you throw a bunch of them at once. Similarly, a blast cannon or D-cannon being blast is totally irrelevant for hordes, because nobody is going to shoot that at a horde unit anyway; if they are, you're already winning because they're shooting at a hugely non-optimal target, even with the max shots.
So I don't think this rule is actually going to matter that much. I just find it a really weird thing they've done, for no apparent gain. The fact that the loss isn't going to be particularly significant either doesn't make it less weird.
The one thing this will absolutely do is cause units of slightly more than 10 to go down to 10. My 12-man troupe squads will certainly go down to 10 man squads instead. You will never see units of 11-15 again. Which seems like a pointless loss to gameplay diversity, for no real gain.
If there are no changes to cover/wound allocation/ LoS/blast weapon costs/etc, there are some fairly big impacts.
A Cadian Tank Commander for example, with a battlecannon, heavy bolter, and plasma cannon sponsons, is basically going to take 2 turns to kill a Boyz squad no matter if its 10, 20, or 30 models (on average, against 30, it'll leave 4 Boyz alive after 2 turns of fire, so not a total wipe, but close enough) with these new rules assuming nothing else changes. The damage scaling is such that the blast weapons effectively means that in many instances large unit sizes aren't meaningfully more resilient than smaller units.
As noted, 12 and 15 strong units will disappear, but often in many cases so will 20, and potentially even 30 strong units may not find enough resilience to justify the added investment.
Now, hopefully we'll see some of those other changes, but even very large units are going to be facing some intense pressure.
|
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:31:51
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I'm going to go into the future and say this, what will 9th look like ? For at least the start, people living up limited amounts of infantry and vehicles everywhere as people stretch out with moving and shooting without penalty. The meta may regulate but for a bit its going to be Tanksgiving as people live up the changes.
Which is another reason why you'll see less need for infantry screens. Your tanks don't need to just park, spray and pray. They can all move around and shoot just fine meaning even with a smaller board they can choose to play some keep away which will help them for at least a couple turns to keep out of CC.
I'm curious to see how terrain will factor in and morale having a deeper impact, maybe as mentioned before larger squads will somehow be better for morale ? For all we know right now, MSU is the way, Hordes look smashed and vehicles feel like the flavor of the day with elites.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:33:13
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot
|
yukishiro1 wrote:It's immersive to you that you get max shots against a unit of 11 boyz strung out across 25 inches of board space, but not against 60 models packed within 6 inches of one another?
Was it more immersive in 8th Ed. Rules where you could roll a 1 against the 11 boyz and the 60 models packed together either way?
Was it more immersive when models caught beneath the scattered pie plate took full shot impact while the unit a mere millimeter away took exactly 0 shot impact from the resounding explosion?
Maybe both were immersive for you. Maybe neither were. And that’s the point: forge a narrative with the rule set given to you. The rules, in their various iterations have done better or worse jobs of capturing enough of a narrative element to spark creative thought processes. Personally, I think 9th is better than 8th but worse than Templates from a narrative perspective, but better from a game design (leveraging simplicity and reduced administrative burden) perspective.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:34:38
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
sieGermans wrote:yukishiro1 wrote:It's immersive to you that you get max shots against a unit of 11 boyz strung out across 25 inches of board space, but not against 60 models packed within 6 inches of one another?
Was it more immersive in 8th Ed. Rules where you could roll a 1 against the 11 boyz and the 60 models packed together either way?
Was it more immersive when models caught beneath the scattered pie plate took full shot impact while the unit a mere millimeter away took exactly 0 shot impact from the resounding explosion?
Maybe both were immersive for you. Maybe neither were. And that’s the point: forge a narrative with the rule set given to you. The rules, in their various iterations have done better or worse jobs of capturing enough of a narrative element to spark creative thought processes. Personally, I think 9th is better than 8th but worse than Templates from a narrative perspective, but better from a game design (leveraging simplicity and reduced administrative burden) perspective.
Both aren't immersive either, but these changes absolutely feth up horde armies that aren't guard (which are comprised of 10 men units) as if they needed this nerf (i.e. they didn't)
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:37:36
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I mean it doesn't do guard infantry a huge boon either, it just doesn't hurt them as much as say Orks or Nids. Yeah feels like a dire time to be a horde unless something we don't know will turn that all around.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:38:17
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot
|
Vaktathi wrote:yukishiro1 wrote:FWIW, I do think the impact of the rule is actually overstated re: hordes. If you were taking units of 20+ already, I don't see this changing it at all. The bonuses aren't actually all that large, except for certain gimmicky interactions. For example, grenades being blast weapons is pretty much irrelevant *except* for strats that let you throw a bunch of them at once. Similarly, a blast cannon or D-cannon being blast is totally irrelevant for hordes, because nobody is going to shoot that at a horde unit anyway; if they are, you're already winning because they're shooting at a hugely non-optimal target, even with the max shots.
So I don't think this rule is actually going to matter that much. I just find it a really weird thing they've done, for no apparent gain. The fact that the loss isn't going to be particularly significant either doesn't make it less weird.
The one thing this will absolutely do is cause units of slightly more than 10 to go down to 10. My 12-man troupe squads will certainly go down to 10 man squads instead. You will never see units of 11-15 again. Which seems like a pointless loss to gameplay diversity, for no real gain.
If there are no changes to cover/wound allocation/ LoS/blast weapon costs/etc, there are some fairly big impacts.
A Cadian Tank Commander for example, with a battlecannon, heavy bolter, and plasma cannon sponsons, is basically going to take 2 turns to kill a Boyz squad no matter if its 10, 20, or 30 models (on average, against 30, it'll leave 4 Boyz alive after 2 turns of fire, so not a total wipe, but close enough) with these new rules assuming nothing else changes. The damage scaling is such that the blast weapons effectively means that in many instances large unit sizes aren't meaningfully more resilient than smaller units.
As noted, 12 and 15 strong units will disappear, but often in many cases so will 20, and potentially even 30 strong units may not find enough resilience to justify the added investment.
Now, hopefully we'll see some of those other changes, but even very large units are going to be facing some intense pressure.
I expect the FOC changes will apply a similar opposite pressure. Having to ‘pay’ CP to take a certain volume of troops split across smaller unit sizes versus taking larger units to eek out a CP benefit at the cost of resilience if (and only if) your opponent brings blast weapons.
And if the meta tilts away from taking large units for this reason, then that reduces the requirement to bring blast weapons, which therefore reduces the likelihood of their appearance in opponent lists.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:42:35
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Here's another way of looking at it.
Blast rules are supposed to simulate the impact of weapons with large blast radiuses, and that these weapons are more deadly against multiple bodies close together. Presumably we all agree on this, right? I mean that's literally how a blast radius works.
But this implementation of blast actually does precisely the opposite: it punishes armies that spread out, while rewarding armies that clump together tightly.
Why? Because horde armies are fundamentally board control armies. They are played by spreading out and taking up space on the board. Nobody runs their hordes in tight clumps (besides noobs). The way these armies work is by spreading out across the battlefield. The major advantage of large units (and there are many disadvantages) is that you can spread out while still gaining access to psychic and aura buffs. This naturally leads to a dispersed playstyle where you are more able to string your models across wide areas of space.
Meanwhile, MSU armies are inherently incentivized by 40k's rules to cluster together, for all sorts of reasons (to benefit from auras, to avoid getting wrapped easily, to take advantage of their smaller size to hide behind terrain...we could go on and on here). You are much more likely to castle with an elite MSU army than with a horde.
And yet this blast mechanic penalizes the armies that play by spreading out across the table, and rewards the armies that play by clustering up close together in a tight ball.
So we have a mechanic that actually accomplishes precisely the opposite of what it is supposed to do.
This is the grot locking down the leman russ all over again.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/10 18:46:14
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:45:45
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot
|
yukishiro1 wrote:Here's another way of looking at it.
Blast rules are supposed to simulate the impact of weapons with large blast radiuses, and that these weapons are more deadly against multiple bodies close together. Presumably we all agree on this, right? I mean that's literally how a blast radius works.
But this implementation of blast actually does precisely the opposite: it punishes armies that spread out, while rewarding armies that clump together tightly.
Why? Because horde armies are fundamentally board control armies. They are played by spreading out and taking up space on the board. Nobody runs their hordes in tight clumps (besides noobs). The way these armies work is by spreading out evenly across the battlefield.
Meanwhile, MSU armies are inherently incentivized by 40k's rules to cluster together, for all sorts of reasons (to benefit from auras, to avoid getting wrapped easily, to take advantage of their smaller size to hide behind terrain...we could go on and on here).
And yet this blast mechanic penalizes the armies that play by spreading out across the table, and rewards the armies that play be clustering up close together in a tight ball.
So we have a mechanic that actually accomplishes precisely the opposite of what it is supposed to do.
This is the grot locking down the leman russ all over again.
Oh yes, definitely. While 9th resolves a bit more of this problem than 8th did, it’s definitely more abstract in this implementation than the old Template rules were. Not any less immersive, per se, but definitely more abstract.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:47:06
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
How can you possibly define breaking immersion if it isn't "this rule does the exact opposite of what it's supposed to simulate?"
The impact of the new blast rule will be to discourage spreading out and encourage castling. If that isn't immersion-breaking, what is?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/10 18:47:40
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:48:12
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Angered Reaver Arena Champion
|
yukishiro1 wrote:It's immersive to you that you get max shots against a unit of 11 boyz strung out across 25 inches of board space, but not against 60 models packed within 6 inches of one another?
Maybe it is. Again, subjective.
To be fair I originally got started in pen and paper RPGs in 1991. I have had a few years to practice my immersion.
I would also like to remind that with subjective takes that there is no "winning" the argument. Either you like something or don't. You don't like the new blast rules, more power to you. Others, however, might like it and more power to them.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/10 18:49:54
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:48:18
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
the_scotsman wrote:
This implementation of blast is, IMO, a pretty good compromise between 8th ed blast and pre-8th template blast. Yes, you can't target multiple units close together but if you allowed the person firing to pick which units he hits, you'd get non-immersive powergaming of where your explosion hits, and if you had to randomize it it'd take just as long to resolve as an old template did.
One of the things I'll genuinely be curious about is if they're going to add "splash" damage via the weapons themselves.
The Deathstrike Missile, for example, is currently:
200" Heavy 3D6 S* AP* D* It inflicts a mortal wound each time you hit the target unit. After you resolve the damage on the targeted unit, you roll a D6 for every other unit within 6" of the target unit--on a 4+ that unit also suffers D3 Mortal Wounds.
I could see that getting added on with variable damage scores to other weapons too.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:49:41
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I agree that large units and hordes don’t seem to be in a good place from the rules revealed so far. I’m hoping that there are some other things to come to balance this out. Not sure if there will be, if the comments I’ve read about from playtesters are true: smaller table and points increases are primarily to speed up the game. If speeding up the game is the goal, then hordes of infantry might be getting nerfed to encourage elites monsters and vehicles so that the model count drops and games play faster.
As for the new blast rule, I think it’s ok, not great. If it were me I’d have it as a fixed number of shots capped at a set maximum and never more than the number of models in the target unit. Blast(x) as has been discussed in other threads.
Regarding the max hits on a conga line large unit, I agree this isn’t very nice, I’d hope that the rules have changed so that conga lines aren’t particularly beneficial, I’d like to see aura rules completely reworked if not eliminated completely.
Personally I’d like to see larger units have a place. The sort of rules I’m hoping for to help encourage large units of light infantry are:
Morale is less effective against larger units
Cover saves benefit light armour more than heavy armour (basically going back to an unmodifiable cover save rather than a modifier to your existing armour)
Possibly a points discount for larger units AOS style
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:50:00
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Eldarsif wrote:yukishiro1 wrote:It's immersive to you that you get max shots against a unit of 11 boyz strung out across 25 inches of board space, but not against 60 models packed within 6 inches of one another?
Maybe it is. Again, subjective.
To be fair I originally got started in pen and paper RPGs in 1991. I have had a few years to practice my immersion.
Please find a better metaphor.
But in point of fact, he already answered that even he doesn't think that is immersive.
Does anyone really think it's immersive that the new blast rule punishes spreading out and rewards clumping up? Maybe some of you do. But I kinda doubt it.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/06/10 18:58:30
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:52:09
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Angered Reaver Arena Champion
|
I agree that large units and hordes don’t seem to be in a good place from the rules revealed so far. I’m hoping that there are some other things to come to balance this out. Not sure if there will be, if the comments I’ve read about from playtesters are true: smaller table and points increases are primarily to speed up the game. If speeding up the game is the goal, then hordes of infantry might be getting nerfed to encourage elites monsters and vehicles so that the model count drops and games play faster.
Could be. It wasn't easy to field horde in competitive settings due to how slow they often played unless you were using movement trays that brought its own issues. Considering that GW appears to be focusing on the tourney aspect in many ways I do wonder if some of the design choices are reflecting that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Eldarsif wrote:yukishiro1 wrote:It's immersive to you that you get max shots against a unit of 11 boyz strung out across 25 inches of board space, but not against 60 models packed within 6 inches of one another?
Maybe it is. Again, subjective.
To be fair I originally got started in pen and paper RPGs in 1991. I have had a few years to practice my immersion.
And some people enjoy getting punched in the face and think it shows affection. But I don't think that means that we should change our laws to recognize being punched in the face as a good thing.
But in point of fact, he already answered that even he doesn't think that is immersive.
Does anyone really think it's immersive that the new blast rule punishes spreading out and rewards clumping up? Maybe some of you do. But I kinda doubt it.
That is perhaps the most stupid comparison I have seen. Are you seriously trying to compare liking the new rules to real life abuse?
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/06/10 18:54:42
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:53:35
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
yukishiro1 wrote: Eldarsif wrote:yukishiro1 wrote:It's immersive to you that you get max shots against a unit of 11 boyz strung out across 25 inches of board space, but not against 60 models packed within 6 inches of one another?
Maybe it is. Again, subjective.
To be fair I originally got started in pen and paper RPGs in 1991. I have had a few years to practice my immersion.
And some people enjoy getting punched in the face and think it shows affection. But I don't think that means that we should change our laws to recognize being punched in the face as a good thing.
But in point of fact, he already answered that even he doesn't think that is immersive.
Does anyone really think it's immersive that the new blast rule punishes spreading out and rewards clumping up? Maybe some of you do. But I kinda doubt it.
Does the new blast rule punish spreading out and reward clumping up? I think it’s indifferent to positioning provided it has LOS and range.
It discourages large units and encourages small units, but that’s hardly the same thing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:57:26
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Eldarsif wrote:
That is perhaps the most stupid comparison I have seen. Are you seriously trying to compare liking the new rules to real life abuse?
No. Why on earth would you interpret it that way? The point was that something is subjective is neither here nor there when nobody actually holds those views.
Again: Does anyone really think it's immersive that the new blast rule punishes spreading out and rewards clumping up? Maybe some of you do. But I kinda doubt it.
If you don't want to answer that's fine. But if people can't even answer questions honestly about what they do or do subjectively like, I don't see how we can have any discussions subjective opinions.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:57:56
Subject: Re:40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Waaagh! Warbiker
|
Eldarsif wrote:Considering that GW appears to be focusing on the tourney aspect in many ways I do wonder if some of the design choices are reflecting that.
I think a lot of the design choices are with tournaments in mind, especially speeding up the gameplay in a tournament setting. GW wants control of the tournament scene again. Many tournament players complained about ork horde armies eating up the limited time, sometimes necessitating chess clocks. Let's then reduce the size of armies by increasing points (which is actually the best proposed change IMO), shortening the table size to decrease required movement time (and increase sales of GW-sized boards), and disincentivizing taking a horde army in the first place (because there is more money to be made in tank/vehicle/elite sales?).
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/10 18:58:47
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2020/06/10 18:58:39
Subject: 40k preview, May 23 - 9th edition, new Necrons, Marines
|
 |
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba
|
yukishiro1 wrote: Eldarsif wrote:yukishiro1 wrote:It's immersive to you that you get max shots against a unit of 11 boyz strung out across 25 inches of board space, but not against 60 models packed within 6 inches of one another?
Maybe it is. Again, subjective.
To be fair I originally got started in pen and paper RPGs in 1991. I have had a few years to practice my immersion.
And some people enjoy getting punched in the face and think it shows affection. But I don't think that means that we should change our laws to recognize being punched in the face as a good thing.
But in point of fact, he already answered that even he doesn't think that is immersive.
Does anyone really think it's immersive that the new blast rule punishes spreading out and rewards clumping up? Maybe some of you do. But I kinda doubt it.
I am really failing to understand the logic you're using to make that claim, so...can't really answer the question as you posed it.
Why does my 30 ork boyz being in 3 units of 10 instead of 1 unit of 30 mean that they're necessarily more clumped up? If anything, they have the potential to be farther apart, since now they can secure more objectives and don't all have to be in coherency with one another. But I'd be more inclined to consider the composition as mostly neutral to how close together the models are going to be placed on the board.
|
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!" |
|
 |
 |
|
|