Switch Theme:

40k 9th edition, : App released page 413  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Aash wrote:


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.


But the effect of that is to punish spreading out, and reward castling up. Read my previous post. Horde armies essentially always play by spreading out and occupying space. MSU armies typically play by casting up around key auras and characters. That's just the way it works in 40k. There are a few exceptions to this general rule, but there is no doubt that if you nerf big units, what you are doing overall is nerfing spreading out, and encouraging castling up.
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

Hordes can currently spread out and get auras.

Auras need to go to "one unit wholly within" to make castling less appealing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/10 19:03:21


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






yukishiro1 wrote:
Aash wrote:


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.


But the effect of that is to punish spreading out, and reward castling up. Read my previous post. Horde armies essentially always play by spreading out and occupying space. MSU armies typically play by casting up around key auras and characters. That's just the way it works in 40k. There are a few exceptions to this general rule, but there is no doubt that if you nerf big units, what you are doing overall is nerfing spreading out, and encouraging castling up.


I think I'll need a source on that one. The MSU builds and units I play very often take the minimum sized unit to allow them to be disposable, because I'm going to be using them to punch above their weight class so I don't care if they die. Charging minimum troop squads in to steal an objective with obsec, blocking the movement of a much more expensive unit with a min-size unit, stopping a more expensive unit from firing by tying them up in combat, preventing an expensive unit from deep striking by creating a denial zone, or stringing out to prevent a more expensive melee unit from getting to my good stuff behind the screen.

You're taking a specific example of a build in your head, like a tau gunline, and extrapolating to every build that uses small cheap units. Venomspam is an undeniably MSU build, and basically uses not a single aura at all.

"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!"  
   
Made in us
Wicked Canoptek Wraith



United States

Not sure if anyone pointed this out here, but someonein another thread did.

"if the DICE ROLLED RESULTS IN LESS THAN 3 SHOTS BEING MADE"

roll 3d3

Roll a 1, a 2, and a 2

Results in 5 shots being made

No adjustment vs 6+ models.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 ClockworkZion wrote:
Hordes can currently spread out and get auras.

Auras need to go to "one unit wholly within" to make castling less appealing.


I wonder what inadvertent effects changing the general definition of "within" in the rules to "all models in a unit within" would have? Particularly if we know they've codified the first one I can think of - close combat - to have its own uniquely named Engagement Range rule.

"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!"  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




the_scotsman wrote:


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.


But that's not how 40k is actually played. Nobody runs 10 man ork boyz units because they're junk for all sorts of reasons we don't need to into here unless you want to, but if they did, they'd have to be clumped up more closely together in order to get the same aura benefits and range to buffing psykers as the 30 man gets from conga-lining a far smaller number of models. This is just how the mechanics of the game work. You need to conga 3x as many models in 3 10 man units to get the same buffs as if you conga a 30 man unit. It's just geometry.

Smaller unit sizes result in greater model clumping. This is just how competitive 40k works on a mechanical level. Watch a couple competitive games. It is almost guaranteed that the larger the unit sizes, the less clumping you'll see. It is one of the strongest correlations in 40k. Small units usually cluster; big units usually spread out.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






punisher357 wrote:
Not sure if anyone pointed this out here, but someonein another thread did.

"if the DICE ROLLED RESULTS IN LESS THAN 3 SHOTS BEING MADE"

roll 3d3

Roll a 1, a 2, and a 2

Results in 5 shots being made

No adjustment vs 6+ models.
Yes, that is correct. For some reason people think it applies to the individual dice, which it does not.
   
Made in at
Not as Good as a Minion





Austria

punisher357 wrote:
Not sure if anyone pointed this out here, but someonein another thread did.

"if the DICE ROLLED RESULTS IN LESS THAN 3 SHOTS BEING MADE"

roll 3d3

Roll a 1, a 2, and a 2

Results in 5 shots being made

No adjustment vs 6+ models.


was already pointed out, if the rules are like they are written in the preview, 3D6 Blast won't have a penefit against 6-10 model units as 3 is the lowest possible result

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in us
Waaagh! Warbiker





the_scotsman wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
Hordes can currently spread out and get auras.

Auras need to go to "one unit wholly within" to make castling less appealing.


I wonder what inadvertent effects changing the general definition of "within" in the rules to "all models in a unit within" would have? Particularly if we know they've codified the first one I can think of - close combat - to have its own uniquely named Engagement Range rule.


I think it would be a change for the better. Fewer castles, more strategic choices as to which unit(s) to include in the aura bubble, likely a decrease in the points cost for currently costly HQ units that provide auras. I'm all for such a change across all armies with aura-providing units.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 ClockworkZion wrote:
Hordes can currently spread out and get auras.

Auras need to go to "one unit wholly within" to make castling less appealing.


That would make clumping up more appealing, not less appealing. The major advantage of the current system is it allows units to spread out across the battlefield while still getting buffs. Changing auras to "wholly within" encourages units to clump up very close together.

It would certainly nerf auras at the same time you were encouraging clumping. But encourage clumping it would.
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

The individual die thought came from the less clear explination they gave in stream.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
Hordes can currently spread out and get auras.

Auras need to go to "one unit wholly within" to make castling less appealing.


That would make clumping up more appealing, not less appealing. The major advantage of the current system is it allows units to spread out across the battlefield while still getting buffs. Changing auras to "wholly within" encourages units to clump up very close together.

It would certainly nerf auras at the same time you were encouraging clumping. But encourage clumping it would.

You missed the "one unit" part meaning power pairs, not castles, would be the end result.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/10 19:09:23


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






yukishiro1 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:


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.


But that's not how 40k is actually played. Nobody runs 10 man ork boyz units because they're junk for all sorts of reasons we don't need to into here unless you want to, but if they did, they'd have to be clumped up more closely together in order to get the same aura benefits and range to buffing psykers as the 30 man gets from conga-lining a far smaller number of models. This is just how the mechanics of the game work. You need to conga 3x as many models in 3 10 man units to get the same buffs as if you conga a 30 man unit. It's just geometry.

Smaller unit sizes result in greater model clumping. This is just how competitive 40k works on a mechanical level. Watch a couple competitive games. It is almost guaranteed that the larger the unit sizes, the less clumping you'll see. It is one of the strongest correlations in 40k. Small units usually cluster; big units usually spread out.


Care to field the example of venomspam, then? Current and pretty much always the best build DE seem to have, always MSU, never clumped/castling?

Or are you just interested in engaging that strawman? Because I can leave you to it, man, you seem to be having fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gnarlly wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
Hordes can currently spread out and get auras.

Auras need to go to "one unit wholly within" to make castling less appealing.


I wonder what inadvertent effects changing the general definition of "within" in the rules to "all models in a unit within" would have? Particularly if we know they've codified the first one I can think of - close combat - to have its own uniquely named Engagement Range rule.


I think it would be a change for the better. Fewer castles, more strategic choices as to which unit(s) to include in the aura bubble, likely a decrease in the points cost for currently costly HQ units that provide auras. I'm all for such a change across all armies with aura-providing units.


Yeah, I'm mostly thinking what things would be impacted negatively. The things I can come up with that would be most common are:

1) can't declare a charge unless all models within 12"

2) some aura abilities like the painboy are very short with the idea that they can't be used on a big bunch of units all at once

3) targeting with offensive abilities that target units would need to have all enemy models within range, like psychic powers.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/10 19:11:52


"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!"  
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Savannah

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.


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.


It's completely agnostic to how you arrange the models. It doesn't punish spreading out or reward clumping up at all.

Now, you're free to not like this particular move from interacting with models to interacting with units, but at the scale 40k is currently played at I'd much rather continue down that road a bit more. This hasn't been a skirmish game in decades and what worked with two tac squads and a captain vs. forty orks and a warboss is just too fiddly for the new normal (not that I'd be opposed to moving to Apoc at 2k sized games and leave 40k as the 750-1500pt version while adding a bit more crunch back).

A lot of your complaints seem to be coming from conflating a potentially useful game mechanic with the potential balance implications of its implementation in specific instances that we don't even know all the information for. Would this Blast be bad for balance in the current 8th edition meta without any other point adjustments or other rule changes being implemented? Obviously. But suddenly deciding that the assault rule is too good and doubling (or adding 5pts, whichever is more) the cost of all such weapons because "so fast, guys" would be equally stupid. Bad implementation doesn't make a mechanic bad.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




the_scotsman wrote:


You're taking a specific example of a build in your head, like a tau gunline, and extrapolating to every build that uses small cheap units. Venomspam is an undeniably MSU build, and basically uses not a single aura at all.


No, I'm generalizing across the whole game. You're the one who has taken a specific build here to try to refute a general observation.

There are obviously exceptions to every rule. But the general correlation between larger unit sizes resulting in greater spread is not only real, it is one of the strongest correlations in 40k. Not every MSU army clumps up, but most do. Meanwhile, there are *no* horde armies that clump up. You can find a few army lists that take a single large unit that clumps up to some degree - possessed bomb, for example, or the guardian bomb - but they are both rare and not actually horde armies. And these particular armies are ones that are least impacted by the blast rules, because they have ways to make it impossible to shoot them before they've delivered their payload (guardian blob via deep strike) or very difficult (possessed using the various ways to limit targeting to the closest visible unit).

P.S. I don't think you know what a straw man is. I was directly responding to your argument re: boyz units. That's not a straw man, it's a direct engagement with your argument. If what you were trying to say is that my premise that large units spread out and small units clump up is wrong, that's not a straw man, it's an (allegedly) invalid premise. A straw man is a fake argument you attribute to someone else, not a false argument you make yourself.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/10 19:16:21


 
   
Made in us
Waaagh! Warbiker





the_scotsman wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:


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.


But that's not how 40k is actually played. Nobody runs 10 man ork boyz units because they're junk for all sorts of reasons we don't need to into here unless you want to, but if they did, they'd have to be clumped up more closely together in order to get the same aura benefits and range to buffing psykers as the 30 man gets from conga-lining a far smaller number of models. This is just how the mechanics of the game work. You need to conga 3x as many models in 3 10 man units to get the same buffs as if you conga a 30 man unit. It's just geometry.

Smaller unit sizes result in greater model clumping. This is just how competitive 40k works on a mechanical level. Watch a couple competitive games. It is almost guaranteed that the larger the unit sizes, the less clumping you'll see. It is one of the strongest correlations in 40k. Small units usually cluster; big units usually spread out.


Care to field the example of venomspam, then? Current and pretty much always the best build DE seem to have, always MSU, never clumped/castling?

Or are you just interested in engaging that strawman? Because I can leave you to it, man, you seem to be having fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gnarlly wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
Hordes can currently spread out and get auras.

Auras need to go to "one unit wholly within" to make castling less appealing.


I wonder what inadvertent effects changing the general definition of "within" in the rules to "all models in a unit within" would have? Particularly if we know they've codified the first one I can think of - close combat - to have its own uniquely named Engagement Range rule.


I think it would be a change for the better. Fewer castles, more strategic choices as to which unit(s) to include in the aura bubble, likely a decrease in the points cost for currently costly HQ units that provide auras. I'm all for such a change across all armies with aura-providing units.


Yeah, I'm mostly thinking what things would be impacted negatively. The things I can come up with that would be most common are:

1) can't declare a charge unless all models within 12"

2) some aura abilities like the painboy are very short with the idea that they can't be used on a big bunch of units all at once

3) targeting with offensive abilities that target units would need to have all enemy models within range, like psychic powers.


Actually, some auras may be impossible to actually implement with normal-sized squads. Example: A Cryptek's 3" aura and a 10+ squad of Necron Warriors.

 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

When AoS went "wholly within" most of the auras got bigger to compensate.

And charging isn't an aura so I doubt that'll change.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/10 19:17:34


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





yukishiro1 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:


You're taking a specific example of a build in your head, like a tau gunline, and extrapolating to every build that uses small cheap units. Venomspam is an undeniably MSU build, and basically uses not a single aura at all.


No, I'm generalizing across the whole game. You're the one who has taken a specific build here to try to refute a general observation.

There are obviously exceptions to every rule. But the general correlation between larger unit sizes resulting in greater spread is not only real, it is one of the strongest correlations in 40k. Not every MSU army clumps up, but most do. Meanwhile, there are *no* horde armies that clump up. You can find a few army lists that take a single large unit that clumps up to some degree - possessed bomb, for example, or the guardian bomb - but they are both rare and not actually horde armies. And these particular armies are ones that are least impacted by the blast rules, because they have ways to make it impossible to shoot them before they've delivered their payload (guardian blob via deep strike) or very difficult (possessed using the various ways to limit targeting to the closest visible unit).

P.S. I don't think you know what a straw man is. I was directly responding to your argument re: boyz units. That's not a straw man, it's a direct engagement with your argument. If what you were trying to say is that my premise that large units spread out and small units clump up is wrong, that's not a straw man, it's an (allegedly) invalid premise. A straw man is a fake argument you attribute to someone else, not a false argument you make yourself.



Most of the games I’ve played against orks they have large mobs clumped up, either to get force field protection or to benefit from da jump. In my experience your claim isn’t the case the majority of the time.

As for conga lines, I’d like to see the rules adjusted to discourage them.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/10 19:22:27


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 ClockworkZion wrote:
When AoS went "wholly within" most of the auras got bigger to compensate.


Yes, but none of them got enough bigger that the change didn't result in greater clumping, not less clumping.

Changing auras to be wholly within might or might not be good for the game. But it would increase unit density in the aura radius, not decrease it.

Just like the blast rules will result in more clumping, the exact opposite of what the rule is supposed to simulate.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





yukishiro1 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
When AoS went "wholly within" most of the auras got bigger to compensate.


Yes, but none of them got enough bigger that the change didn't result in greater clumping, not less clumping.

Changing auras to be wholly within might or might not be good for the game. But it would increase unit density in the aura radius, not decrease it.

Just like the blast rules will result in more clumping, the exact opposite of what the rule is supposed to simulate.


Is the rule supposed to simulate less clumping? I thought it was supposed to introduce a difference between weapons that are effective against hordes versus weapons that are good against elites/vehicles/monsters because in 8th weight of fire is good against everything.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/10 19:25:31


 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

Honestly I don't get the clumping thing anyways. Blast templates where the only thing forcing people to spread out before and units are easier to tuck into cover when they move as tight groups.
   
Made in us
Oozing Plague Marine Terminator





Death guard blight bombardment just got insane with the Blasr rules.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Aash wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:


You're taking a specific example of a build in your head, like a tau gunline, and extrapolating to every build that uses small cheap units. Venomspam is an undeniably MSU build, and basically uses not a single aura at all.


No, I'm generalizing across the whole game. You're the one who has taken a specific build here to try to refute a general observation.

There are obviously exceptions to every rule. But the general correlation between larger unit sizes resulting in greater spread is not only real, it is one of the strongest correlations in 40k. Not every MSU army clumps up, but most do. Meanwhile, there are *no* horde armies that clump up. You can find a few army lists that take a single large unit that clumps up to some degree - possessed bomb, for example, or the guardian bomb - but they are both rare and not actually horde armies. And these particular armies are ones that are least impacted by the blast rules, because they have ways to make it impossible to shoot them before they've delivered their payload (guardian blob via deep strike) or very difficult (possessed using the various ways to limit targeting to the closest visible unit).

P.S. I don't think you know what a straw man is. I was directly responding to your argument re: boyz units. That's not a straw man, it's a direct engagement with your argument. If what you were trying to say is that my premise that large units spread out and small units clump up is wrong, that's not a straw man, it's an (allegedly) invalid premise. A straw man is a fake argument you attribute to someone else, not a false argument you make yourself.



Most of the games I’ve played against orks they have large mobs clumped up, either to get force field protection or to be if it from da jump. In my experience your claim isn’t the case the majority of the time.

As for conga lines, I’d like to see the rules adjusted to discourage them.


I'm not trying to be elitist here at all, but do you play competitively? Because I'm really not making a controversial statement here re: horde armies spreading out. This is simply the way competitive 40k is played. Ask anybody.

Clumping T1 is occasionally something you see in ork lists T1 when not going first if they have a KFF to try to mitigate the alpha strike, but as soon as the game starts, those units will immediately move forward out of the aura radius and start taking up space. Nobody tries to move their 90 ork boyz up the field in base to base contact trying to maintain a KFF bubble. In fact, you're more likely to see clumping around a KFF with smaller units than with larger ones.

I mean, all horde units are clumped up in deployment, because there physically is not enough space in the deployment zone on a lot of maps not to clump up if you have 200 models to deploy. But this ends as soon as the game starts and the army starts to move out. It's not clumped because it wants to be clumped, it's clumped because it has no choice but to clump.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Indiana

D2 weapons punish me for taking primaris
Melta Weapons punish me for taking vehicles
Multi-shot weapons punish light infantry
High strength weapons cancel out the points I spend on toughness
Mortal Wounds punish me for taking higher armor saves

It’s almost like things are good against specific things and the rules reflect that. I think the max number of shots is a bit much for multiple D6 weapons, however I expect lots of things to adjust in points or profiles to reflect the change.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/10 19:39:44


People who stopped buying GW but wont stop bitching about it are the vegans of warhammer

My Deathwatch army project thread  
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

 Leth wrote:
D2 weapons punish me for taking primaris
Melta Weapons punish me for taking vehicles
Multi-shot weapons punish light infantry
High strength weapons cancel out the points I spend on toughness
Mortal Wounds punish me for taking higher armor saves

It’s almost like hints are good against specific things and the rules reflect that.

Also, as was stated above, it’s a total regardless of D6, not a max of every die. So the people that are panicking are mis-interpreters of the rules. Suprise suprise.

Good point. The rules do play a lot of rock-paper-scissors-Spock-lizard.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Aash wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
When AoS went "wholly within" most of the auras got bigger to compensate.


Yes, but none of them got enough bigger that the change didn't result in greater clumping, not less clumping.

Changing auras to be wholly within might or might not be good for the game. But it would increase unit density in the aura radius, not decrease it.

Just like the blast rules will result in more clumping, the exact opposite of what the rule is supposed to simulate.


Is the rule supposed to simulate less clumping? I thought it was supposed to introduce a difference between weapons that are effective against hordes versus weapons that are good against elites/vehicles/monsters because in 8th weight of fire is good against everything.


It's literally called "blast." The whole idea is that these weapons have blast radii and that makes them good at blowing up large numbers of bodies packed together.

The implementation is completely opposite, but that's the idea behind the concept. It's not a coincidence that we used to have blast templates. That wasn't just a random choice.

I mean if you want to say that fluff/immersion behind the rule is completely opposite to what the rule is trying to accomplish, and that that is intentional, that's fine, that's an argument you can make. But it doesn't seem to be the argument most people here want to make.
   
Made in us
Haemonculi Flesh Apprentice






 ClockworkZion wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't see how any of that addresses how it makes the game better either.

"We don't know the full rules" isn't an argument for the benefit of this change, it's an argument that we don't know what the full effect will be.

Assume all the changes are very worked out to be totally "balanced" in terms of point values. How does it improve the game to add this feature? What is the gameplay benefit of punishing people significantly for taking 11 models instead of 10?


"We don't know the full rules" is more a plea for cooler heads until we know enough to definitively state that things are indeed actually broken.

Also it's an attempt to make certain unloved units more playable. Like the humble Basalisk.


Why would you choose one of the most played, consistent tanks in the guard army for your example?



Solid rules should never require other rules to bail them out. This is another example where a sloppy solution took me literally 2 minutes to find a problem with. So no, the bigger picture isn't needed. From their own mouth GW stated some 100+ (117 or 170 hard to tell from that guy) existing weapons are being classed as blasts, and you have to be a pretty disingenuous if you seriously suggest that it is somehow difficult to determine 90% of those. We know from their own promo video that at the very least the knights rapid fire BC is blast. That's 3 hits on a 10 man unit, but suddenly 12 on an 11 man unit (Jesus Christ Timmy I told you to stay home). I don't care how terrain interacts with that, it shouldn't be a crutch for a lazy rule with horrible design. The rule was arbitrary enough when I thought it was per die rolled, but immediately became a joke when you realize it's based on the entire lot. Then it also breaks down when realizing d3 hit weapons.

As someone else pointed out, if a death guard player takes 7 plague marines he is suddenly and arbitrarily punished. This not only breaks immersion, it dis-incentivizes fluffy narrative sized units from being taken.

Meanwhile D3 shot weapons gain WAY more by comparison gaining max output verse anything over 5 models. As if there was any more reason why an admech player should take neutron lasers over eradication beamers. Go ahead, tell me to wait and see if neutron lasers are actually blast, as if them not suddenly makes a garbage rule good.

As an aside, before the complainer complainers arrive and pounce on me, I am actually liking the majority of what I am seeing. Just because GW successfully babysits 3 of my kids, doesn't get them off the hook for knocking the 4th into a well.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Leth wrote:
D2 weapons punish me for taking primaris
Melta Weapons punish me for taking vehicles
Multi-shot weapons punish light infantry
High strength weapons cancel out the points I spend on toughness
Mortal Wounds punish me for taking higher armor saves

It’s almost like hints are good against specific things and the rules reflect that. I think the max number of shots is a bit much, however I expect lots of things to adjust in points or profiles to reflect the change.


So why do we need a weapon type to punish squads of 11 men? Do you think there was a gap in the rules previously for weapons that were good at shooting 11 men? I mean you even gave an example of multi-shot weapons already punishing light infantry. Why do we need a special weapon type to punish light infantry in 11+ man squads? What does this add to the game? All those other things add something to the game. What does this add?

I'm not saying there's no possible reason. I'm just asking what this particular reason is. We already have a lot of different weapon profiles that punish different types of targets. Why is the amount of models in a unit a good candidate to punish, and why is it the larger units that should be punished if so?
   
Made in fr
Regular Dakkanaut




I dunno why it needs so many pages of arguing. We had weapons designed to take out high numbers of models that weren't really working because they were too random, now they might do while not auto deleting smaller units.

This being immersive or improving gameplay has barely any relevance, it's just about improving the function of some weapons.
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

I mentioned the Basalisk because it's one of the tanks I have seen shunned by a number of people talking about the Guard codex. Pick a different tank and the point still stands: most tanks that used to have blast weapons are largely sidelined in 8th over tanks with fixed numbers of shots.
   
Made in us
Haemonculi Flesh Apprentice






 Eldarsif wrote:
I am going to wait with a verdict on whether it is bad or not when I can actually get a game in using the entire ruleset and new points.

I think it is no coincidence we'll be getting some terrain previews tomorrow. Could very well be that terrain and cover has changed so drastically that tank and blast weapons are just balancing that mechanic out.

Either way, I am excited for all of this.


It's beyond reason to me that GW didn't lead with new terrain rules when it was easily the single greatest short coming of 8th and arguably has the most responsibility of holding 9th on it's shoulders.

Whoever is responsible for generating PR in GW, if there is one, should seriously be evaluated.

   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: