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 fi
Jervis Johnson






AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well without pressing more doom and gloom wouldn't it be good if we could find answers that led to all types of players being happy or unhappy ? Bias one way or the other isn't good game design. We shouldn't need to be riding the roller coaster of balance.

The only thing I've noticed is this, if you own a good amount of all the units a faction you play has it's the only way to always be happy in warhammer. As they will inevitably nerf something to buff another. Last edition was men all over, now I'll need to swap out the majority of boots for tons of vehicles/mechanized infantry to ride out there.

The only way to ride out these ups and downs is own everything, and perhaps that is really what GW wants. Don't ride the meta, get it all and then no matter what the meta is you'll be golden. They can't nerf everything.


You’re exactly right about the necessity of owning everything. That said, the ETC/WTC meta in 8th was a lot more vehicle heavy than the ITC meta in 8th, so those players should be more prepared for Warhammer ’never over 10 models in a unit’. Personally for my Eldar in 8th I got 15 grav tanks and 11 flyers, for SM 6 flyers and about 16 other vehicles/walkers, for Astra/Imp soup about 20 tanks. Only for a couple ITC tournaments and one major I played infantry in 8th.

That said, mostly the GW balance roller coaster that is motivated by sales (now even our tables and game mats are made incompatible) is suited for the casual or habitual players, who simply don’t care what is good or what is bad. If you don’t care about competitiveness you can never be upset about the lack of it.
   
Made in us
Waaagh! Warbiker





dhallnet wrote:
 Gnarlly wrote:
"Beta" rules changes would be proposed and tested by the entire community and accepted or rejected based on feedback after a set period of time and trial.

You mean like giving your ruleset to a bunch of variably well known gaming communities already covering your games for them to playtest it ?

Edit : Ah no, you don't, you wish the community would write the rules. I would be out right away.


No. I mean the entire player community, not select groups who have a financial interest in promoting/selling GW products. Of course there were no complaints in that Tabletop Tactics video or the recent Frontline Gaming video on 9th - you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Edit to follow up on your edit: I am a huge fan of Blood Bowl. I believe it is GW's best ruleset and get more enjoyment from playing it than 40k. For the most part, the current rules are very similar to its 3rd edition published in the mid-90's. Essentially, a rules committee was developed to come up with a "Living Rulebook" and relatively minor tweaks to the rules have been made over the years to improve gameplay based on player feedback. That is what I would envision. Not sweeping changes each edition change that are difficult to balance.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/10 20:43:41


 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 puma713 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:

Another thing that's been pointed out is that units could get cheaper the bigger they get, which is a mechanic in AOS. You're incentivized to bring a big horde because the natural disadvantages to having tons of models in the unit, like them not all being able to fight at once in close combat, are offset by a cheaper cost, so you can use hordes as damage soakers.


This is a great point and something I had not thought of before. It could mitigate some of the anti-horde tidbits we're seeing.

There's a slight difference with the way units are purchased in AoS vs 40k though--notably that units pay their points based on multiples of certain sizes and they're specific to certain unit types/subfactions.

To use an analogy, Plague Marines would get a reduced cost if fielded in a unit of 20 rather than a reduced cost at 7/10/15 when Mortarion is your Warlord.
Chaos Cultists might get a reduced cost if fielded in a unit of 40 compared to a unit of 20 or 30 when Typhus or a generic Death Guard character is your Warlord.
Poxwalkers wouldn't get a reduced cost unless their unit size goes bigger.
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

 Therion wrote:
AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well without pressing more doom and gloom wouldn't it be good if we could find answers that led to all types of players being happy or unhappy ? Bias one way or the other isn't good game design. We shouldn't need to be riding the roller coaster of balance.

The only thing I've noticed is this, if you own a good amount of all the units a faction you play has it's the only way to always be happy in warhammer. As they will inevitably nerf something to buff another. Last edition was men all over, now I'll need to swap out the majority of boots for tons of vehicles/mechanized infantry to ride out there.

The only way to ride out these ups and downs is own everything, and perhaps that is really what GW wants. Don't ride the meta, get it all and then no matter what the meta is you'll be golden. They can't nerf everything.


You’re exactly right about the necessity of owning everything. That said, the ETC/WTC meta in 8th was a lot more vehicle heavy than the ITC meta in 8th, so those players should be more prepared for Warhammer ’never over 10 models in a unit’. Personally for my Eldar in 8th I got 15 grav tanks and 11 flyers, for SM 6 flyers and about 16 other vehicles/walkers, for Astra/Imp soup about 20 tanks. Only for a couple ITC tournaments and one major I played infantry in 8th.

That said, mostly the GW balance roller coaster that is motivated by sales (now even our tables and game mats are made incompatible) is suited for the casual or habitual players, who simply don’t care what is good or what is bad. If you don’t care about competitiveness you can never be upset about the lack of it.
Bullcrap on your claim about tables and mats. MINIMUM size to make the game easier for new players to come into using Kill Team sets.

The only reason you could claim it's incompatible is because the third party tournament organizers adopted it as their table size so they could sell more tickets.
   
Made in ca
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer





British Columbia

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well without pressing more doom and gloom wouldn't it be good if we could find answers that led to all types of players being happy or unhappy ? Bias one way or the other isn't good game design. We shouldn't need to be riding the roller coaster of balance.

The only thing I've noticed is this, if you own a good amount of all the units a faction you play has it's the only way to always be happy in warhammer. As they will inevitably nerf something to buff another. Last edition was men all over, now I'll need to swap out the majority of boots for tons of vehicles/mechanized infantry to ride out there.

The only way to ride out these ups and downs is own everything, and perhaps that is really what GW wants. Don't ride the meta, get it all and then no matter what the meta is you'll be golden. They can't nerf everything.

This is true. Nothing weathers the seas of change like a diverse collection. Why I usually recommend new players expand their army instead of starting new ones.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.


 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

 Gnarlly wrote:
dhallnet wrote:
 Gnarlly wrote:
"Beta" rules changes would be proposed and tested by the entire community and accepted or rejected based on feedback after a set period of time and trial.

You mean like giving your ruleset to a bunch of variably well known gaming communities already covering your games for them to playtest it ?

Edit : Ah no, you don't, you wish the community would write the rules. I would be out right away.


No. I mean the entire player community, not select groups who have a financial interest in promoting/selling GW products. Of course there were no complaints in that Tabletop Tactics video or the recent Frontline Gaming video on 9th - you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Tabletop Tactics has been getting review copies of the rules for a while now despite their complaining.

How about let's not try to shame our playtesters out of ther jobs.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




dhallnet wrote:


I would argue that the weapons with a fixed high number of shots were designed from the start to have this versatility of either aiming at hordes or elite. Random ROF was imo their attempt at making "balanced" weapons designed to deal with hordes (it won't be the first, nor the last, time that GW hopes the rng gods balance part of the game for them) without completely screwing elites. They are fixing that right now and maybe, if it's needed, they'll fix these other weapons in 10th ed


Yeah, but virtually none of the weapons they mention being blast are actually stuff that is designed for shooting big units of crappy models. Look at the list. It's almost all stuff that actually better at shooting elites.

If anything, this blast rule seems to be more about making elite-killing weapons better at killing hordes - even if it doesn't make them actually good enough at it that you'd want to target the horde over the elite if you had a choice.

Precisely because of the issue you identified with how math works, very few of these weapons getting the blast target actually will be best shot at hordes of crappy units, even with the blast attribute. You're never going to want to shoot a D-Cannon, a Battle Cannon, or a Basilisk gun at an 11 man boyz unit if you can avoid it, whether you get max shots or not.

So again, it seems a weird change that doesn't actually do much besides punish a unit size that didn't need punishing anyway.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/10 20:54:03


 
   
Made in fi
Jervis Johnson






 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Therion wrote:
AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well without pressing more doom and gloom wouldn't it be good if we could find answers that led to all types of players being happy or unhappy ? Bias one way or the other isn't good game design. We shouldn't need to be riding the roller coaster of balance.

The only thing I've noticed is this, if you own a good amount of all the units a faction you play has it's the only way to always be happy in warhammer. As they will inevitably nerf something to buff another. Last edition was men all over, now I'll need to swap out the majority of boots for tons of vehicles/mechanized infantry to ride out there.

The only way to ride out these ups and downs is own everything, and perhaps that is really what GW wants. Don't ride the meta, get it all and then no matter what the meta is you'll be golden. They can't nerf everything.


You’re exactly right about the necessity of owning everything. That said, the ETC/WTC meta in 8th was a lot more vehicle heavy than the ITC meta in 8th, so those players should be more prepared for Warhammer ’never over 10 models in a unit’. Personally for my Eldar in 8th I got 15 grav tanks and 11 flyers, for SM 6 flyers and about 16 other vehicles/walkers, for Astra/Imp soup about 20 tanks. Only for a couple ITC tournaments and one major I played infantry in 8th.

That said, mostly the GW balance roller coaster that is motivated by sales (now even our tables and game mats are made incompatible) is suited for the casual or habitual players, who simply don’t care what is good or what is bad. If you don’t care about competitiveness you can never be upset about the lack of it.
Bullcrap on your claim about tables and mats. MINIMUM size to make the game easier for new players to come into using Kill Team sets.

The only reason you could claim it's incompatible is because the third party tournament organizers adopted it as their table size so they could sell more tickets.


I felt that way also, yet these tournament organisers have repeatedly gone on record that GW gave them no choice and are brute forcing the change to smaller tables and mats.
   
Made in il
Warplord Titan Princeps of Tzeentch






Yaknow my favorite part about all this "blast interactions are stupid" arguments?

That they all require the assumption that weapons WHOSE PROFILE ARE BEING ALTERED, are not, yaknow, possibly changing in any way from their current numbers.



The thought that things that are being edited could be edited somehow does not occur to people.





can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




If overall stats were changing too, they would have said so. What they said is there'll be an appendix that lists all the 170 weapons that get the blast rule. Not that these 170 weapons are getting new stat profiles in addition.

The whole point of the transition from 8th to 9th is that you will still use the 8th edition profiles for stuff.
   
Made in us
Waaagh! Warbiker





 BoomWolf wrote:
Yaknow my favorite part about all this "blast interactions are stupid" arguments?

That they all require the assumption that weapons WHOSE PROFILE ARE BEING ALTERED, are not, yaknow, possibly changing in any way from their current numbers.



The thought that things that are being edited could be edited somehow does not occur to people.



Not being facetious or snide: Do we truly know for sure that weapon profiles are being altered beyond a page in the back of the rulebook that lists which weapons are now considered "Blast" weapons and a FAQ to update weapons' points costs? My understanding was that for the time being we would use our current codexes with their current datasheets and weapon profiles, and that any changes to weapon profiles in future codexes are most likely going to be just the addition of the word "Blast" in the notes field for those weapons.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




That is what they've said. If he has inside info that nobody else has it's news to the rest of us.
   
Made in fr
Regular Dakkanaut




 Gnarlly wrote:
dhallnet wrote:
 Gnarlly wrote:
"Beta" rules changes would be proposed and tested by the entire community and accepted or rejected based on feedback after a set period of time and trial.

You mean like giving your ruleset to a bunch of variably well known gaming communities already covering your games for them to playtest it ?

Edit : Ah no, you don't, you wish the community would write the rules. I would be out right away.


No. I mean the entire player community, not select groups who have a financial interest in promoting/selling GW products. Of course there were no complaints in that Tabletop Tactics video or the recent Frontline Gaming video on 9th - you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Edit to follow up on your edit: I am a huge fan of Blood Bowl. I believe it is GW's best ruleset and get more enjoyment from playing it than 40k. For the most part, the current rules are very similar to its 3rd edition published in the mid-90's. Essentially, a rules committee was developed to come up with a "Living Rulebook" and relatively minor tweaks to the rules have been made over the years to improve gameplay based on player feedback. That is what I would envision. Not sweeping changes each edition change that are difficult to balance.

Yeah I know, I also played BB with these rules and a few other games with rules that were maintained by the community. These are pretty close to the original game tho and they aren't 40K, which has a much more sizeable player base and is played in multiple different ways. Just as an example, there is no "should i play competitive or narrative" question to ask yourself when you play bloodbowl, you play competitive by default because narrative doesn't really makes sense.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/10 21:08:54


 
   
Made in il
Warplord Titan Princeps of Tzeentch






 Gnarlly wrote:
 BoomWolf wrote:
Yaknow my favorite part about all this "blast interactions are stupid" arguments?

That they all require the assumption that weapons WHOSE PROFILE ARE BEING ALTERED, are not, yaknow, possibly changing in any way from their current numbers.



The thought that things that are being edited could be edited somehow does not occur to people.



Not being facetious or snide: Do we truly know for sure that weapon profiles are being altered beyond a page in the back of the rulebook that lists which weapons are now considered "Blast" weapons and a FAQ to update weapons' points costs? My understanding was that for the time being we would use our current codexes with their current datasheets and weapon profiles, and that any changes to weapon profiles in future codexes are most likely going to be just the addition of the word "Blast" in the notes field for those weapons.



We don't know, that's my entire point.

We know NOTHING at this point, just a few pieces of a very big puzzle with no real knowledge how they connect, or even any clue how many pieces are in this puzzle anyway

can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Maybe they're moving competitive 40k to the moon. They haven't said they aren't! Anything is possible!

There's no reason from what they've said to think that we're going to see tweaks to weapon profiles. They're adding the blast rule to some weapons, and they're redoing the points values for everything in the game (not just those weapons). This is what they've told us. They've also specifically told us that the stat profiles you find in the 8th edition codexes are remaining the same.

So although anything is possible, there's absolutely no reason to think that stat profiles will be changing, and everything they've told us generally is to the contrary.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/10 21:04:28


 
   
Made in fr
Regular Dakkanaut




yukishiro1 wrote:
dhallnet wrote:


I would argue that the weapons with a fixed high number of shots were designed from the start to have this versatility of either aiming at hordes or elite. Random ROF was imo their attempt at making "balanced" weapons designed to deal with hordes (it won't be the first, nor the last, time that GW hopes the rng gods balance part of the game for them) without completely screwing elites. They are fixing that right now and maybe, if it's needed, they'll fix these other weapons in 10th ed


Yeah, but virtually none of the weapons they mention being blast are actually stuff that is designed for shooting big units of crappy models. Look at the list. It's almost all stuff that actually better at shooting elites.

If anything, this blast rule seems to be more about making elite-killing weapons better at killing hordes - even if it doesn't make them actually good enough at it that you'd want to target the horde over the elite if you had a choice.

Precisely because of the issue you identified with how math works, very few of these weapons getting the blast target actually will be best shot at hordes of crappy units, even with the blast attribute. You're never going to want to shoot a D-Cannon, a Battle Cannon, or a Basilisk gun at an 11 man boyz unit if you can avoid it, whether you get max shots or not.

So again, it seems a weird change that doesn't actually do much besides punish a unit size that didn't need punishing anyway.

There are 174 weapons being changed. You could focus on the 5 examples shown in the article or just wait and see the full list.
I would like to ask how is improving the D-Canon this way, moving away from designing a weapon better suited to take out a higher number of bodies ? And can't we have exceptions, particularly in other mildly elite armies (eldars aren't that much elite anymore sadly) where a weapon is designed to be highly effective against everything ? It's not because the basic intent is to have weapons effective against large count of bodies and less against more modest unit sizes that they can't ever be allowed to also be good at getting rid of smaller squads.
   
Made in us
Waaagh! Warbiker





dhallnet wrote:
 Gnarlly wrote:
dhallnet wrote:
 Gnarlly wrote:
"Beta" rules changes would be proposed and tested by the entire community and accepted or rejected based on feedback after a set period of time and trial.

You mean like giving your ruleset to a bunch of variably well known gaming communities already covering your games for them to playtest it ?

Edit : Ah no, you don't, you wish the community would write the rules. I would be out right away.


No. I mean the entire player community, not select groups who have a financial interest in promoting/selling GW products. Of course there were no complaints in that Tabletop Tactics video or the recent Frontline Gaming video on 9th - you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Edit to follow up on your edit: I am a huge fan of Blood Bowl. I believe it is GW's best ruleset and get more enjoyment from playing it than 40k. For the most part, the current rules are very similar to its 3rd edition published in the mid-90's. Essentially, a rules committee was developed to come up with a "Living Rulebook" and relatively minor tweaks to the rules have been made over the years to improve gameplay based on player feedback. That is what I would envision. Not sweeping changes each edition change that are difficult to balance.

Yeah I know, I also played BB with these rules and a few other games with rules that were maintained by the community. These are pretty close to the original game tho and they aren't 40K, which has a much more sizeable player base and is played in multiple different ways. Just as an example, there is no "should i play competitive or narrative" question to ask yourself when you play bloodbowl, you play competitive by default.


True, though I would argue that for the majority of 40k's existence, players have played "competitive by default." It is only recently that we have seen an attempt to shift away from points to "power levels" and increased emphasis on narrative-styles of organizing armies. Not saying narrative games did not exist in the past. I also would argue that the majority of players still prefer 40k using an equal amount of points per side with a prescribed "balanced" mission scenario (i.e. competitive 40k). It's simply easier to manage for gaming, from pick-up games to tournament level games.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/10 21:09:10


 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

 Therion wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Therion wrote:
AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well without pressing more doom and gloom wouldn't it be good if we could find answers that led to all types of players being happy or unhappy ? Bias one way or the other isn't good game design. We shouldn't need to be riding the roller coaster of balance.

The only thing I've noticed is this, if you own a good amount of all the units a faction you play has it's the only way to always be happy in warhammer. As they will inevitably nerf something to buff another. Last edition was men all over, now I'll need to swap out the majority of boots for tons of vehicles/mechanized infantry to ride out there.

The only way to ride out these ups and downs is own everything, and perhaps that is really what GW wants. Don't ride the meta, get it all and then no matter what the meta is you'll be golden. They can't nerf everything.


You’re exactly right about the necessity of owning everything. That said, the ETC/WTC meta in 8th was a lot more vehicle heavy than the ITC meta in 8th, so those players should be more prepared for Warhammer ’never over 10 models in a unit’. Personally for my Eldar in 8th I got 15 grav tanks and 11 flyers, for SM 6 flyers and about 16 other vehicles/walkers, for Astra/Imp soup about 20 tanks. Only for a couple ITC tournaments and one major I played infantry in 8th.

That said, mostly the GW balance roller coaster that is motivated by sales (now even our tables and game mats are made incompatible) is suited for the casual or habitual players, who simply don’t care what is good or what is bad. If you don’t care about competitiveness you can never be upset about the lack of it.
Bullcrap on your claim about tables and mats. MINIMUM size to make the game easier for new players to come into using Kill Team sets.

The only reason you could claim it's incompatible is because the third party tournament organizers adopted it as their table size so they could sell more tickets.


I felt that way also, yet these tournament organisers have repeatedly gone on record that GW gave them no choice and are brute forcing the change to smaller tables and mats.

I watched Reese talk about it and they had no input on the table size changes in the rules, but they have full control over their tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote:
If overall stats were changing too, they would have said so. What they said is there'll be an appendix that lists all the 170 weapons that get the blast rule. Not that these 170 weapons are getting new stat profiles in addition.

The whole point of the transition from 8th to 9th is that you will still use the 8th edition profiles for stuff.

GW has been drip feeding information. By your logic everything they don't say is automatically the same, despite the fact they keep saying they haven't said everything.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/10 21:10:50


 
   
Made in fr
Regular Dakkanaut




 Gnarlly wrote:
dhallnet wrote:
 Gnarlly wrote:
dhallnet wrote:
 Gnarlly wrote:
"Beta" rules changes would be proposed and tested by the entire community and accepted or rejected based on feedback after a set period of time and trial.

You mean like giving your ruleset to a bunch of variably well known gaming communities already covering your games for them to playtest it ?

Edit : Ah no, you don't, you wish the community would write the rules. I would be out right away.


No. I mean the entire player community, not select groups who have a financial interest in promoting/selling GW products. Of course there were no complaints in that Tabletop Tactics video or the recent Frontline Gaming video on 9th - you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Edit to follow up on your edit: I am a huge fan of Blood Bowl. I believe it is GW's best ruleset and get more enjoyment from playing it than 40k. For the most part, the current rules are very similar to its 3rd edition published in the mid-90's. Essentially, a rules committee was developed to come up with a "Living Rulebook" and relatively minor tweaks to the rules have been made over the years to improve gameplay based on player feedback. That is what I would envision. Not sweeping changes each edition change that are difficult to balance.

Yeah I know, I also played BB with these rules and a few other games with rules that were maintained by the community. These are pretty close to the original game tho and they aren't 40K, which has a much more sizeable player base and is played in multiple different ways. Just as an example, there is no "should i play competitive or narrative" question to ask yourself when you play bloodbowl, you play competitive by default.


True, though I would argue that for the majority of 40k's existence, players have played "competitive by default." It is only recently that we have seen an attempt to shift away from points to "power levels" and increased emphasis on narrative-styles of organizing armies. Not saying narrative games did not exist in the past. I also would argue that the majority of players still prefer 40k using an equal amount of points per side with a prescribed "balanced" mission scenario (i.e. competitive 40k). It's simply easier to manage for gaming, from pick-up games to tournament level games.


When I say narrative, I mostly mean playing because you like the lore first and want to see stuff you think is cool on the table. Which is a huge appeal for many people in GW's 2 main games and tends to be lost when you start streamlining for competitive play.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




dhallnet wrote:

There are 174 weapons being changed. You could focus on the 5 examples shown in the article or just wait and see the full list.
I would like to ask how is improving the D-Canon this way, moving away from designing a weapon better suited to take out a higher number of bodies ? And can't we have exceptions, particularly in other mildly elite armies (eldars aren't that much elite anymore sadly) where a weapon is designed to be highly effective against everything ? It's not because the basic intent is to have weapons effective against large count of bodies and less against more modest unit sizes that they can't ever be allowed to also be good at getting rid of smaller squads.


Examples are there to provide examples. It's pretty easy to tell what weapons are going to get blast, based on the historical list and the examples provided. It literally can only be things with variable shots, so that narrows it down tremendously.

I just don't see that it's a great idea to implement a rule that doesn't really do anything except punish large unit sizes by making them vulnerable both to high volume of fire weapons AND elite-killing weapons. Large unit sizes in 8th had a good balance - there were substantial advantages, but also substantial disadvantages. The 9th rules seem to remove most of these advantages, without compensating.

If anything, this dilutes weapon diversity. Previously volume of fire was good against everything, but big guns were only good against big targets. Now it seems we're going to a place where volume of fire is good against everything, big guns are good against big targets and also decent against large units, removing what used to be a useful distinguishing factor, and MSU units get all the advantages and none of the disadvantages. This doesn't seem like a positive development to me.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/10 21:16:07


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Indiana

 Red Corsair wrote:
 Leth wrote:
So what should the size be then? 13? 15? 17 1/2?

They have to pick a size to set the rules at and most units cap at 10, or like 30. It seems like a reasonable break point for me.

No one is going to take 11 man units so I don’t know why you are focusing on that as if it matters?

Larger units can spread out more with aura abilities, smaller units have a harder time. We don’t know how a bunch of other rules interact in the game goin forward, there might be additional benefits to taking larger units such as more kill point focused missions. We already know larger units benefit more from stratagems, and we will get to use a good number more of them going forward.


Here me out...

You could not tie it to unit size at all...

It's not that difficult if you want to simulate a template while removing arguing.

Blast, pick a model in range and line of site to the firer and roll to hit. If successfully hit, the unit suffers a number of hits equal to the initial model hit and all other models in that unit within X" of that model. Any other hits from models from other units within X" are allocated to those units, not the original target. Measure from the center of the target models base.

That even leaves it open to massive amounts of granularity for blast size.

It also punishes clumping without tying it to unit size.

I am sure theres holes in that too, as I am spitballing, but it wouldn't be hard top tweak.

Or we could just return to blast templates, and start by remove the scatter die if that somehow is causing arguing.


Sounds like a blast template with extra steps.

II am fine with the change as long as weapons are pointed reasonably. Blast weapons were worthless in 8th meaning you had to take volume of fire weapons as the only way to deal with large numbers. Of models.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/10 21:21:01


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

My Deathwatch army project thread  
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Blast template without scatter.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 ClockworkZion wrote:

GW has been drip feeding information. By your logic everything they don't say is automatically the same, despite the fact they keep saying they haven't said everything.


No, that's not my logic. That's your straw man. Please look up the difference.

They have specifically said stat profiles are staying the same as those in the 8th edition codexes and PA books. They have also specifically said that weapons covered by this new blast rule will be listed in the appendix of the rules.

There is no reason to think that when they said "stat profiles aren't changing" they meant that for everything except blast weapons. The way they worded the FAQ listing makes it sound like it is just a list of weapons. If it was otherwise, there is no reason for them to word things how they have.

Is it possible that despite everything they've said, they are changing stat profiles? Yes, and it's possible that Warhammer World is being moved to an artificial island in the middle of the atlantic. They haven't said it isn't. That doesn't mean we should assume it's likely that it will be.

Nothing they have said has provided any suggestion that weapons are getting new stat profiles. They specifically said stat profiles are NOT changing in general. That means we should assume they aren't until we hear otherwise.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Indiana

So back to 1/3 of the game spent properly spacing units. Got it. I don’t miss blast templates because I remember one of the. First questions asked was “how many blast weapons”, slowed the game down a lot.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/10 21:23:20


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

My Deathwatch army project thread  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




If they were actually trying to simulate blast weapons without the clunkiness, they would have done this:

Weapons are Blast:X. When fired, you may fire at the targeted unit, plus any other, non-character units within X" of the targeted unit. Alternatively, you may fire X additional shots at the targeted unit instead, but only if the target unit has more models than the total number of shots you are making with the weapon.

This, of course, does the exact opposite of this rule - it punishes castling with lots of MSU, and rewards shooting at clustered models.

That I could come up with this far more elegant system in 2 minutes of thinking, that actually accomplishes what the idea of a blast weapon is, shows that they either were really bad at coming up with this rule, or that it's actually just an excuse to screw over 11+ man units, not actually about the blast rule itself.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/10 21:31:43


 
   
Made in nl
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Bullcrap on your claim about tables and mats. MINIMUM size to make the game easier for new players to come into using Kill Team sets.

The only reason you could claim it's incompatible is because the third party tournament organizers adopted it as their table size so they could sell more tickets.


Who has four killteam sets, let alone new players?

   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




Alabama

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well without pressing more doom and gloom wouldn't it be good if we could find answers that led to all types of players being happy or unhappy ? Bias one way or the other isn't good game design. We shouldn't need to be riding the roller coaster of balance.

The only thing I've noticed is this, if you own a good amount of all the units a faction you play has it's the only way to always be happy in warhammer. As they will inevitably nerf something to buff another. Last edition was men all over, now I'll need to swap out the majority of boots for tons of vehicles/mechanized infantry to ride out there.

The only way to ride out these ups and downs is own everything, and perhaps that is really what GW wants. Don't ride the meta, get it all and then no matter what the meta is you'll be golden. They can't nerf everything.


QFT.

WH40K
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.

DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+

28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
 
   
Made in nl
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

 Leth wrote:
So back to 1/3 of the game spent properly spacing units. Got it. I don’t miss blast templates because I remember one of the. First questions asked was “how many blast weapons”, slowed the game down a lot.

Never a problem with right minded hobbyists however. Don’t change the game, avoid the player. My advice. And give me back my templates...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Blast template without scatter.

Yes. Or make scatter optional or advanced ...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/10 21:31:39


   
Made in us
RogueSangre





The Cockatrice Malediction

What they should have done is restat blast weapons to separate number of shots and size of blast. So like a Heavy 2 Blast(D6) weapon would get 2 Blast(D6) shots. You roll to hit for each Blast and then inflict D6 hits per Blast BUT the number of hits per Blast is capped at the number of models in the target unit (a bigger blast isn't going to cause a model to get hit more than once per blast). So a Str 3 Heavy 1 weapon with an enormous 10D6 Blast is going to wreck a 30-strong cultist horde, but it isn't going to scratch a knight. It'll tickle a 5-man intercessor squad like 5 lasgun shots.

The rule we got is just hideous. A kludge to end all kludges. Who writes this stuff?
   
Made in fr
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'






 Leth wrote:
So back to 1/3 of the game spent properly spacing units. Got it. I don’t miss blast templates because I remember one of the. First questions asked was “how many blast weapons”, slowed the game down a lot.


The only people missing scattering templates are people who played max 1000 point games. I remember the 10 minutes required to shoot a few wyverns (they were the worst of all).
I would mind as much having the flamer blast back though (or the light flamer blast from even more years ago), but at the end of the day looking at who was under was just too cluncky stuff really

Ere we go ere we go ere we go
Corona Givin’ Umies Da good ol Krulpin they deserve huh huh 
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: