| 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. |
|
 |
2020/06/19 20:40:03
Subject: Re:You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Freaky Flayed One
New Westminster, BC - Canada
|
Put together some visual examples of the rule since I have to explain to lots of people and I thought it may be useful to someone else:
|
|
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2020/06/19 21:27:14
|
|
|
 |
|
2020/06/19 20:43:50
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin
|
Second to last image is wrong.
|
213PL  60PL  12PL 9-17PL 
(she/her) |
|
|
|
|
2020/06/19 20:47:07
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
Yeah, was very confused by that.
|
|
|
|
|
2020/06/19 20:48:03
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Freaky Flayed One
New Westminster, BC - Canada
|
Yeah sorry I realized after submitting I had placed the old file, I've updated it :+1:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I quite like the rule, it's abstract enough that it keeps all the benefits of the original intent but it opens up a lot of tactical options.
I'll reserve judgment on the balance implications once we have the rest of the picture, but it does set a nice base for 9th that I am liking.
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/19 20:52:46
|
|
|
|
|
2020/06/19 20:58:17
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Wicked Ghast
|
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I apologize in advance for getting your hopes up. 
Though with the changes made so far it seems quite possible.
It's ok, you have given me hope. and while I know that might yet backfire on me like giving an ork a new gun, With it, I will carry the hopes of melee armies everywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
2020/06/19 20:59:38
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
arhurt wrote:I quite like the rule, it's abstract enough that it keeps all the benefits of the original intent but it opens up a lot of tactical options.
I'll reserve judgment on the balance implications once we have the rest of the picture, but it does set a nice base for 9th that I am liking.
I think it makes sense - but as your examples show, I think it may take people a bit of time to get the hang of it. Mainly due to unlearning 8th's rules.
|
|
|
|
|
2020/06/19 21:00:47
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Norn Queen
|
arhurt wrote:Yeah sorry I realized after submitting I had placed the old file, I've updated it :+1: Automatically Appended Next Post: I quite like the rule, it's abstract enough that it keeps all the benefits of the original intent but it opens up a lot of tactical options. I'll reserve judgment on the balance implications once we have the rest of the picture, but it does set a nice base for 9th that I am liking.
The Flowchart you have on the images makes no sense. Why do you have two "No" coming from "Closest?" You can't have three answers to a yes or no question. Your flowchart suggests that a Character that is not closest and not within 3" of a blocking unit is both able to be shot and unable to be shot at. May I Suggest formatting the flowchart as such: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/189811663770353665/723539673548455946/unknown.png
|
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/19 21:02:22
|
|
|
|
|
2020/06/19 21:01:48
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Freaky Flayed One
New Westminster, BC - Canada
|
I just like the concepts that it opens up, as creating new roles for units to be valid, like counter-charge units that stick behind the main assault to provide cover for characters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BaconCatBug wrote:The Flowchart you have on the images makes no sense. Why do you have two "No" coming from "Closest?" You can't have three answers to a yes or no question.
Reson: because did a dumbass rush job, thanks for pointing out the mistake, it's fixed in the OP.
Also added a nice case for multiple 2-man units near a character.
|
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/06/19 21:29:00
|
|
|
|
|
2020/06/19 21:29:07
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Killer Klaivex
The dark behind the eyes.
|
Not a GW rule if it doesn't require a flowchart to explain . . .
|
 blood reaper wrote:I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
 the_scotsman wrote:Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
 Argive wrote:GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"
Akiasura wrote:I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
 insaniak wrote:
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
|
|
|
|
|
2020/06/19 21:33:44
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Norn Queen
|
arhurt wrote:I just like the concepts that it opens up, as creating new roles for units to be valid, like counter-charge units that stick behind the main assault to provide cover for characters. Automatically Appended Next Post: BaconCatBug wrote:The Flowchart you have on the images makes no sense. Why do you have two "No" coming from "Closest?" You can't have three answers to a yes or no question.
Reson: because did a dumbass rush job, thanks for pointing out the mistake, it's fixed in the OP. Also added a nice case for multiple 2-man units near a character.
Me Likey. Good work! You should add another scenario: Same as the last one but with two 3-man units, because now magically the Sorcerer can't be shot.
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/19 21:37:03
|
|
|
|
|
2020/06/19 22:30:12
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
 vipoid wrote:Not a GW rule if it doesn't require a flowchart to explain . . .
Some people are just visual.
|
|
|
|
|
2020/06/19 22:52:10
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
That last flowchart is completely idiotic.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
2020/06/19 22:53:56
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
If only characters could just attach to units...
|
|
|
|
|
2020/06/19 22:59:11
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Attaching characters to units wasn't the greatest though.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
2020/06/19 23:21:24
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
I want my renegades command squad back....
That atleast was simple...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Depended alot in the charachter , IG command squad and similiar ones rarely were an issue unlike the independent deathstar enablers...
|
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/19 23:22:50
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. |
|
|
|
|
2020/06/20 00:31:59
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Daedalus81 wrote:
Given that commanders will stick out like a sore thumb now when they cross the table I can envision that restriction going away.
AIUI, info from people who have spoken to playtesters is that rule is *not* going away.
|
|
|
|
|
2020/06/20 01:11:37
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
Annandale, VA
|
I think all the flowcharts I've seen complicate a pretty simple procedure:
1. Is the character within 3" of a friendly Vehicle, Monster, or unit of 3+ models?
-No: You can shoot it.
-Yes: Proceed to #2.
2. Is the character the closest visible enemy?
-Yes: You can shoot it.
-No: You can't shoot it.
That's all there is to it. If they're not near friendlies, they're a valid target. If they are near friendlies, assess whether they're the closest visible just like you did in 8th.
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/20 01:12:00
|
|
|
|
|
2020/06/20 01:17:15
Subject: Re:You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:Brutus_Apex wrote:But we now need to cross reference things more than ever because everything interacts differently with each other.
I don't have to cross reference anything for what's right there on the datasheet. Regarding chapter tactics and such? Yeah, that takes cross-referencing (which I'm not over keen on, and would be happy to play without any kind of faction traits), but I don't need to cross reference for things like Disgustingly Resilient. I apply it on a case-by-case basis as and when I see it, without needing to flip back and see what that rule means. Whereas USR's will always interact in the same manor because they are all codified properly.
And? What's so hard about reading the datasheet of the unit you're already using, and most likely referencing? So you cross reference once, maybe a couple times if you forget and now you've learned the rule.
You read the rule in your army, and remember it for the future. If you don't, you only have to pull up the datasheet of the unit you're already fielding, so should have on hand anyway. You need to check constantly with the bespoke rules because everything is different, it takes far more time to memorize and makes it far more difficult to build off of an existing structure of rules without running into inconsistencies with another rule.
But you *should* be checking with datasheets, so that you know you're being correct. It's not hard to have the datasheet for the unit you're already attacking with on hand. And memorisation will also come into effect.
It's like constructing a building. Would you want all of your workers using different scaled measuring tapes or would you want the using the same consistent measurement? It's the same thing that applies here. Keep everything consistent.
By that same logic, do I want all my workers using exactly the same tool for every job, because having bespoke, tailored equipment is too hard to learn, and they might not be able to remember the difference between a coping saw and a hack saw?
disagree, it incentivizes gunlines (the worst) and slows the game down with it's re-rolls.
I didn't say auras had to be rerolls. I'm talking about the concept of auras overall - they could be anything from +1 Ld, +1 BS, always striking first, gaining a certain keyword, etc etc.
like, why are we re-rolling absolutely everything? Is this a game of chance or not? That combined with IGOUGO and bespoke rules that need to be checked literally every 2 min to see what a special snowflake rule does, were looking at a good 20 min downtimes where I can mentally check out while my friend rolls some dice at me. Cool. Good Game I guess?
Well, I enjoy that mental checkout. We chat, we drink, we plan ahead. I don't *need* constant back and forth. I have Kill Team for that.
Yeah, that's just my own opinion and preferences, but they're as valid as yours.
Brutus_Apex wrote:They are literally the only proper way to organize a game.
I mean, patently untrue, as Kill Team doesn't use USRs, and it's a perfectly fine game in my opinion.
Again - stop it with this "the only proper way to play" BS. That's your opinion. It's not objective, it's not fact.
Deepstrike, is Deepstrike, is Deepstrike. Why have a different name and different rule. You say you all instinctively know what the rule means. then why have different rules for it?
If it's so easy to know what it is, why not keep it as is? Let players make their own connections. They'll quickly understand similar effects - but if those effects involve extra nuances, they can be applied in a bespoke manner.
Your tool comment isn't the same thing. Measuring tapes all serve the same purpose and therefore should be the same. All hacksaws serve the same purpose so they should all function the same, drills, screw drivers etc. These are different tools to construct much like different USR's are tools to construct a game. You create one rule to apply in a specific situation and apply that equally where it is required.
And I will say to you, please stop defending the indefensible. USR's are objectively and definitively the only proper way to organize a game. We have proven it to you before on other threads and this one. Can you build a game without USR's? yes. But it will always be inferior to one that is built upon a strong organized foundation of USR's. Every time.
The only reason you're defending bespoke rules is because GW did it anyway. Would you be defending USR's if GW had created 8th/9th using that format? Probably.
|
Square Bases for Life!
AoS is pure garbage
Kill Primaris, Kill the Primarchs. They don't belong in 40K
40K is fantasy in space, not sci-fi |
|
|
|
|
2020/06/20 01:37:41
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests
Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.
|
The fact that we're making flow-charts at all proves what a mess this is becoming...
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020/06/20 01:42:58
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
 H.B.M.C. wrote:The fact that we're making flow-charts at all proves what a mess this is becoming...
No. It isn't. Again, some people are visual learners. We understand the rule just fine.
|
|
|
|
|
2020/06/20 02:31:15
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Daedalus81 wrote: H.B.M.C. wrote:The fact that we're making flow-charts at all proves what a mess this is becoming...
No. It isn't. Again, some people are visual learners. We understand the rule just fine.
And they demonstrate why the rule is terribly written
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
2020/06/20 02:39:06
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Daedalus81 wrote: H.B.M.C. wrote:The fact that we're making flow-charts at all proves what a mess this is becoming...
No. It isn't. Again, some people are visual learners. We understand the rule just fine.
And they demonstrate why the rule is terribly written
Do they? Or do people just make mistakes from time to time when they try to demonstrate all the scenarios?
|
|
|
|
|
2020/06/20 02:54:12
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Daedalus81 wrote:Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Daedalus81 wrote: H.B.M.C. wrote:The fact that we're making flow-charts at all proves what a mess this is becoming...
No. It isn't. Again, some people are visual learners. We understand the rule just fine.
And they demonstrate why the rule is terribly written
Do they? Or do people just make mistakes from time to time when they try to demonstrate all the scenarios?
What about the 3 squads of 2 Cultists was wrong?
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
2020/06/20 03:18:23
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
What is the issue with that? There has to be a line drawn somewhere for the untold possible combinations. Just because people conjure up edge cases that seem silly doesn't mean we're dealing with those edge cases all the time and it is really quite easy to apply the rule.
Subjectively not liking something isn't always the same as being objectively bad.
|
|
|
|
|
2020/06/20 03:40:45
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests
Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.
|
Daedalus81 wrote:No. It isn't. Again, some people are visual learners. We understand the rule just fine.
The fact that we're getting so many questions necessitating the need for diagrams and flow-charts is proof that we're not understanding the rule "just fine".
And I already presented the one sentence alternative that would already make all these issues go away so, I ask again, what was so hard about that? Why did one rule need to become 7? What have we gained with GW's increasingly non-technical complicated verbiage?
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020/06/20 04:20:57
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Nihilistic Necron Lord
|
 catbarf wrote:I think all the flowcharts I've seen complicate a pretty simple procedure:
1. Is the character within 3" of a friendly Vehicle, Monster, or unit of 3+ models?
-No: You can shoot it.
-Yes: Proceed to #2.
2. Is the character the closest visible enemy?
-Yes: You can shoot it.
-No: You can't shoot it.
That's all there is to it. If they're not near friendlies, they're a valid target. If they are near friendlies, assess whether they're the closest visible just like you did in 8th.
That is not all there is to it.
3. Has the character 9 or less wounds ?
-Yes: You cant shoot it.
-No: You can shoot it.
|
|
|
|
|
2020/06/20 04:47:44
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Daedalus81 wrote:
What is the issue with that? There has to be a line drawn somewhere for the untold possible combinations. Just because people conjure up edge cases that seem silly doesn't mean we're dealing with those edge cases all the time and it is really quite easy to apply the rule.
Subjectively not liking something isn't always the same as being objectively bad.
How in the world is that an edge case?
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
2020/06/20 07:20:23
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:
What is the issue with that? There has to be a line drawn somewhere for the untold possible combinations. Just because people conjure up edge cases that seem silly doesn't mean we're dealing with those edge cases all the time and it is really quite easy to apply the rule.
Subjectively not liking something isn't always the same as being objectively bad.
How in the world is that an edge case?
Daed, not to be Rude but that is indeed not an edge case for some armies.
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
2020/06/20 07:56:51
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
What's wrong with the 3x2 cultist case? The char can be shoot, seems obvious.
Can someone tell me which absurd semantic loop brings you to think that the sorcerer can't be shoot?
The enemy sorcerer is visible, is not the closest target and has no vehicle or monster or big unit near him. He is toast.
|
|
|
|
|
2020/06/20 08:03:10
Subject: You....you shot me! Uhh, Look out, sir.
|
|
Been Around the Block
UK
|
Spoletta wrote:What's wrong with the 3x2 cultist case? The char can be shoot, seems obvious.
Can someone tell me which absurd semantic loop brings you to think that the sorcerer can't be shoot?
The enemy sorcerer is visible, is not the closest target and has no vehicle or monster or big unit near him. He is toast.
I'm not sure anyone is saying you can't shoot him. I think people are saying it's odd that one sorc with 6 people around him can be shot while another cannot based solely on how those 6 people are organisationally grouped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
