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.
An intercessor with a bolt rifle is most likely exactly as effective shooting at a target that is 30" away as he is shooting at a target that is 2" away.
30" is nearly 3/4 the width of the board. What this tends to mean is, functionally, basically nothing is ever 'out of range' in 40k. And if you're fully in effective range, then there's no reason to move to a different location on the board. In an average 40k game, it is the correct decision to sit still and pump out damage for about 1/3 of your units to 1/2 of your units, depending on the army you're playing.
It definitely seems like this slow escalation of ranges has been ongoing since you were no longer forced to field the comparatively lower-ranged troop models in 7th, and lists like "oops all Riptides" became the norm, where everything could just have 30-40" range guns. Adding in Bolter Disipline/BadLer Eevilscipline (or whatever dumbfuck thing they named the CSM version) was just another step in the ongoing escalation. Basically just passing to marines what had been the norm for any shooting focused army for about an edition.
3rd edition: space marines have the unique ability with their troops to shoot 1 shot at 24" if they stand still with their basic gun
5th edition: Rapid Fire is a USR on most basic guns, allowing troops to shoot 1 shot at 24" if they stand still
7th edition: Rapid Fire still a USR, can now shoot 1 shot at 24" even if on the move
8th edition: Space Marines now have the unique ability on their troops to shoot both shots at 24 - or 30" - if they stand still
You can have weapons that have super long ranges while ensuring that there's a trade-off present to trying to sit back and use the long range - just build in modifiers for trying to shoot something far away.
I haven't played 9th but the range thing has really been bothering me recently. Not just as percentage-of-board but also as percentage-of-heavy weapons and ratio-compared to other units.
In 3rd, squad bolters was barely capable at effective engagement beyond 12", while the Lascannon could one-shot a tank at 48". Currently the (Intercessor) bolter fires at full effect at 60ish% of the Lascannon range, and the power of the Lascannon has diminished.
And the poor Shuriken Catapult is still firing at the 12" range.
One shot a tank is generous. I would say Lascannons are more powerful than before, unduly so.
Remember, while it could one shot a tank all tanks died [almost] exclusively to 1 shot results, and a Lascannon had at like best a 1-in-9 chance against a Predator or Vindicator class tank, with a 1-in-18 chance against a Leman Russ, Battlewagon, or Land Raider tank. Now, while it can't one-shot a tank, a few of the things are far more likely to kill a vehicle than before.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/01 18:44:53
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
An intercessor with a bolt rifle is most likely exactly as effective shooting at a target that is 30" away as he is shooting at a target that is 2" away.
30" is nearly 3/4 the width of the board. What this tends to mean is, functionally, basically nothing is ever 'out of range' in 40k. And if you're fully in effective range, then there's no reason to move to a different location on the board. In an average 40k game, it is the correct decision to sit still and pump out damage for about 1/3 of your units to 1/2 of your units, depending on the army you're playing.
It definitely seems like this slow escalation of ranges has been ongoing since you were no longer forced to field the comparatively lower-ranged troop models in 7th, and lists like "oops all Riptides" became the norm, where everything could just have 30-40" range guns. Adding in Bolter Disipline/BadLer Eevilscipline (or whatever dumbfuck thing they named the CSM version) was just another step in the ongoing escalation. Basically just passing to marines what had been the norm for any shooting focused army for about an edition.
3rd edition: space marines have the unique ability with their troops to shoot 1 shot at 24" if they stand still with their basic gun
5th edition: Rapid Fire is a USR on most basic guns, allowing troops to shoot 1 shot at 24" if they stand still
7th edition: Rapid Fire still a USR, can now shoot 1 shot at 24" even if on the move
8th edition: Space Marines now have the unique ability on their troops to shoot both shots at 24 - or 30" - if they stand still
You can have weapons that have super long ranges while ensuring that there's a trade-off present to trying to sit back and use the long range - just build in modifiers for trying to shoot something far away.
I haven't played 9th but the range thing has really been bothering me recently. Not just as percentage-of-board but also as percentage-of-heavy weapons and ratio-compared to other units.
In 3rd, squad bolters was barely capable at effective engagement beyond 12", while the Lascannon could one-shot a tank at 48". Currently the (Intercessor) bolter fires at full effect at 60ish% of the Lascannon range, and the power of the Lascannon has diminished.
And the poor Shuriken Catapult is still firing at the 12" range.
One shot a tank is generous. I would say Lascannons are more powerful than before, unduly so.
Remember, while it could one shot a tank all tanks died [almost] exclusively to 1 shot results, and a Lascannon had at like best a 1-in-9 chance against a Predator or Vindicator class tank, with a 1-in-18 chance against a Leman Russ, Battlewagon, or Land Raider tank. Now, while it can't one-shot a tank, a few of the things are far more likely to kill a vehicle than before.
In 3rd Ed, where vs. AV 13 a Lascannon had about a 1 in 8 by my math. (Remember glancing could kill on 6s)
Vs. a Rhino (Or predator flank) It was about a 1 in 4
At the moment we average 8 Lascannons to kill a Rhino and 9 for a Predator, and flanking doesn't matter.
In addition, there was a good chance of stopping the tank from firing with a Crew Shaken or Stunned result. In practicality a Lascannon had a 1 in 4.5 chance of stopping a Predator from firing in the next turn. Or better than a 1 in 3 against an AV 11.
So I certainly wouldn't say Lascannons are more powerful now. The kill is more grindy, flanking has no effect and there's more pressure to kill over 3rd. where you could more readily switch targets after a Stun.
*Edit: I find the effective range of engagement for basic rifles/troops to be more interesting to follow between editions, but I gtg at the moment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/01 19:20:06
Not based on competitive rules or anything. There is literally no vehicle worth including that is not a dread and the speeders are on the lower end of both durability and damage per point even compared to other vehicles which are already low end based on the fact they aren't core.
There also is nothing along the lines of a noticeable cost for "core" keyword. Even though it has immense value. This is another serious problem with it.
People are confusing "marine vehicles aren't worth it" ( because there are so many choices that are better and safer ) with "all vehicles aren't worth it". The former might be true, but the latter is not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/01 19:40:31
Basic troop weapon range has not actually escalated for many armies (Eldar Guardians have already been mentioned, but lets also not forget Fire Warriors with their mighty 30" range....for half the effectiveness, meaning they get absolutely dumpstered for their point value in the 30"-16" range band by primaris troops)
What's changed for those armies in 7th and beyond was the removal of the need for basic troops in armies and the ubiquity of abilities that allow you to get around the need to actually maneuver or position to come into range. Orks now Da Jump 30 boyz at you on the regular. Daemons have numerous units that can cross the board t1. Marines now choose between troops with range = board, or troops that deploy in no man's land already in range. harlequins have like a 30" turn 1 threat range.
Some armies do exist that don't have the ability to bring their full strength to bear right off the bat the turn they show up on the board. Durability skew with necrons, nurgle, etc is a thing, those armies do still tend to walk up the board not doing much the first turn or so. but between fifth when I started and now, the norm has absolutely 100% changed from "average joe army starts out in transports, moves forward, disembarks/transport gets popped, squads inside fight" to "either your whole army starts basically ready to smash, or you wait until turn 2 and then you deep strike in en masse, ready to smash."
"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!"
And the poor Shuriken Catapult is still firing at the 12" range.
Don't discount 12" guns this edition.
I run 12" Gauss Reapers all day and they're awesome. Now that Dire Avengers are Necron Warrior cost they're pretty similar. Warriors are still better overall even if Dire Avengers can run and shoot w/o penalty. Defenders are probably closer at 8 points - still not as good, but the gap won't be hard to bridge when they get their book.
I don't discount it, but it's the relative fall of the Catapult in relation to the Bolter that concerns me.
Also S5 AP-2 vs. S4 AP0 (with special rule) Is a pretty big difference. (on T4 vs. T3 models, etc. . . )
Not based on competitive rules or anything. There is literally no vehicle worth including that is not a dread and the speeders are on the lower end of both durability and damage per point even compared to other vehicles which are already low end based on the fact they aren't core.
There also is nothing along the lines of a noticeable cost for "core" keyword. Even though it has immense value. This is another serious problem with it.
People are confusing "marine vehicles aren't worth it" ( because there are so many choices that are better and safer ) with "all vehicles aren't worth it". The former might be true, but the latter is not.
Nah...it is that bad. You don't include units that cant take buffs in an army based around auras. Not only are they not compensated in points for their disadvantage - the book they are in is built around rerolling dice. In any case - core is bound to produce the same effect in every army. Non core units will see the bench while core units see the field.
And the poor Shuriken Catapult is still firing at the 12" range.
Don't discount 12" guns this edition.
I run 12" Gauss Reapers all day and they're awesome. Now that Dire Avengers are Necron Warrior cost they're pretty similar. Warriors are still better overall even if Dire Avengers can run and shoot w/o penalty. Defenders are probably closer at 8 points - still not as good, but the gap won't be hard to bridge when they get their book.
I don't discount it, but it's the relative fall of the Catapult in relation to the Bolter that concerns me.
Also S5 AP-2 vs. S4 AP0 (with special rule) Is a pretty big difference. (on T4 vs. T3 models, etc. . . )
Str 5 ap-2 is the most reliable profile in the entire game. T10 does not exist. AP -2 almost always produces. High volume. It perfect.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/02/01 20:10:50
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Rules bloat. I will not be paying for any of it, whereas if rules were responsibly done and with some genius, then I would.
Arbitrary limitations on unit comp and gear.
Restartes. Specifically everything but especially flying tanks and tacticool nast.
Buff aura power command point magic meta level CCG elements. If I wanted to play MtG then I would play MtG... every game doesn’t need to be everything for everyone. 40k used to be a miniature war game. Now it is has manna. Ick.
Small tables with huge units with a WAAC mentality as a given, e sport and “builds”...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/01 20:18:36
I think the 'Core' thing illustrates the exact point I was making earlier. GW "fixes" issues not by changing the rules causing those issues but rather by bolting on yet more rules and exceptions.
I think the whole Core thing could have been made unnecessary by removing/replacing auras. They are the reason for static characters - because they make it more efficient for characters to sit and buff a pile of other units than to engage on the frontlines.
I could maybe get behind melee-buffing auras (as the character would basically have to be in melee himself in order to maintain the buff), but auras that directly buff ranged attacks should really be a no-no.
I can understand GW testing the mechanic, having removed the IC rule, but they would have done well to try something different in 9th.
Instead, they kept auras and added the Core rule to limit what said auras can affect. So what exactly is 'Core' supposed to represent? It sounds a lot like 'troops', but that's a different thing so I guess not. It also doesn't seem to refer to units that are ubiquitous in a given army (otherwise necron Scarabs would be Core). Nor does it seem to refer to units that are mandatory in many detachments (if it did, HQs would be Core).
So I guess a unit is a Core unit if it's a Core unit. Phew, good job we cleared that up.
And bear in mind that units are now lugging around a veritable graveyard of abandoned keywords. Anyone remember back when [IMPERIUM] and [CHAOS] were still relevant? Not to mention the other keywords that have been all but abandoned as GW has repeatedly changed their minds about which distinctions they want to focus on.
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.
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.
An intercessor with a bolt rifle is most likely exactly as effective shooting at a target that is 30" away as he is shooting at a target that is 2" away.
30" is nearly 3/4 the width of the board. What this tends to mean is, functionally, basically nothing is ever 'out of range' in 40k. And if you're fully in effective range, then there's no reason to move to a different location on the board. In an average 40k game, it is the correct decision to sit still and pump out damage for about 1/3 of your units to 1/2 of your units, depending on the army you're playing.
It definitely seems like this slow escalation of ranges has been ongoing since you were no longer forced to field the comparatively lower-ranged troop models in 7th, and lists like "oops all Riptides" became the norm, where everything could just have 30-40" range guns. Adding in Bolter Disipline/BadLer Eevilscipline (or whatever dumbfuck thing they named the CSM version) was just another step in the ongoing escalation. Basically just passing to marines what had been the norm for any shooting focused army for about an edition.
3rd edition: space marines have the unique ability with their troops to shoot 1 shot at 24" if they stand still with their basic gun
5th edition: Rapid Fire is a USR on most basic guns, allowing troops to shoot 1 shot at 24" if they stand still
7th edition: Rapid Fire still a USR, can now shoot 1 shot at 24" even if on the move
8th edition: Space Marines now have the unique ability on their troops to shoot both shots at 24 - or 30" - if they stand still
You can have weapons that have super long ranges while ensuring that there's a trade-off present to trying to sit back and use the long range - just build in modifiers for trying to shoot something far away.
I haven't played 9th but the range thing has really been bothering me recently. Not just as percentage-of-board but also as percentage-of-heavy weapons and ratio-compared to other units.
In 3rd, squad bolters was barely capable at effective engagement beyond 12", while the Lascannon could one-shot a tank at 48". Currently the (Intercessor) bolter fires at full effect at 60ish% of the Lascannon range, and the power of the Lascannon has diminished.
And the poor Shuriken Catapult is still firing at the 12" range.
One shot a tank is generous. I would say Lascannons are more powerful than before, unduly so.
Remember, while it could one shot a tank all tanks died [almost] exclusively to 1 shot results, and a Lascannon had at like best a 1-in-9 chance against a Predator or Vindicator class tank, with a 1-in-18 chance against a Leman Russ, Battlewagon, or Land Raider tank. Now, while it can't one-shot a tank, a few of the things are far more likely to kill a vehicle than before.
In 3rd Ed, where vs. AV 13 a Lascannon had about a 1 in 8 by my math. (Remember glancing could kill on 6s)
Vs. a Rhino (Or predator flank) It was about a 1 in 4
At the moment we average 8 Lascannons to kill a Rhino and 9 for a Predator, and flanking doesn't matter.
In addition, there was a good chance of stopping the tank from firing with a Crew Shaken or Stunned result. In practicality a Lascannon had a 1 in 4.5 chance of stopping a Predator from firing in the next turn. Or better than a 1 in 3 against an AV 11.
So I certainly wouldn't say Lascannons are more powerful now. The kill is more grindy, flanking has no effect and there's more pressure to kill over 3rd. where you could more readily switch targets after a Stun.
*Edit: I find the effective range of engagement for basic rifles/troops to be more interesting to follow between editions, but I gtg at the moment.
Vehicle and vehicle-AT weapon interactions are my big beef with 8e and 9e. [not so much the lack of vehicle resilience, so much as the fact that since AT weapons range 8/9/10 and vehicles range 6/7/8, almost all vehicles look essentially the same to almost all AT weapons. The new bonus to melta makes S8 more prevalent in AT and makes T8 matter a bit more, but it's not a lot.]
Anyway:
I quickly simulated the attack process, including the probability of destroying the vehicle by immobilizing it twice, and got that the mean number of lascannon hits to destroy as:
9e:
Predator: 6.3
Leman Russ: 6.8
5e:
Predator: 8.9
Leman Russ: 17.7
That's a substantial increase in power for the Lascannon, especially against AV14 tanks.
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
Damage charts changed for 5th, and it was noticeable on the tabletop as Space Marine armies looked like parking lots upon deployment.
Okay, for 3e:
the mean number of hits to destroy a:
Predator: 5 hits
Leman Russ: 10 hits
That's a less pronounced increase than going from 18 to 7, but 10 to 7 is still a fairly substantial increase.
Also, I personally think 5e was the height of the ruleset for the subject at hand . I had lots of tanks, my opponent had lots of tanks, mech infantry was good, it was fun and the game, at least for my playgroup, was very mobile as a consequence.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2021/02/01 20:57:21
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
harlokin wrote: As Drukhari player, I'm genuinely unsure whtat these auras are that you lot keep referring to.
Archons - reroll 1's to hit aura no? And get get reroll 1's to would also.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
So basically GW is being GW: releasing a new edition every few years instead of working on one ruleset and making gradual improvements to it based on player feedback.
GW resets everything to sell more books and toys but does not perform intensive playtesting of the new rules prior to release, often resulting in issues with the new and changed rules. Then GW attempts to "fix" the issues with numerous FAQs and Errata documents, leading to further rules bloat before scrapping everything, releasing a new edition, and starting the process over.
Likewise, new codexes are released every few months as another money grab, written at different periods of time by different rules writers, instead of releasing all factions' rules at once, written by a single committee of rules writers (the 8th Indexes were actually a very good concept in this regard), often resulting in significant power disparities between factions. Then GW attempts to "fix" the issues and power disparity with numerous FAQs and Errata documents as well as Chapter Approved and other expansion supplements (more $$$ for GW), leading to further rules bloat before scrapping everything, releasing a new edition, and starting the process over.
My suggestion: get off of the 40k new rules rollercoaster, find an earlier or alternative ruleset that you like with additional house rules as necessary (I happen to prefer 4th/5th, Apocalypse, and even 8th Indexes-only), and try to get other player to join you playing that ruleset. Yes, it will be more difficult than finding games under the current edition, but you will likely spend a lot less money and get more enjoyment from the game. If you are a tournament player and/or dead set on keeping up with the latest edition, then best wishes to your patience, perseverance, and wallet.
CORE is applied based on a logic of "models that can be inspired". Cryptek and Destruction cults fall into the uninspirable. We hoped that CORE would have been more of a scalpel for marines, but you'd probably see a lot of units get dropped. In no way is lack of CORE causing people to drop models. Lack of an effective role against other options does that. Still - we will see the new speeders make their way to tables with DA. Other units will find more purpose as the meta gets weirder.
I can't go with you on this - That's just silly. CORE is supposed to be what units are "CORE" to the army - it's sort of implied in the name. But that's also why it's falling down a bit. If it were "able to be inspired" I don't think ANY Necron models would get it. Their whole point is being soul-less killing machines and actually, if you read "Indomitus" you come away thinking the Skorpek Lord was probably more able to be "inspired" than any of the nobles ...
The issue is, you can't tell me Assault Centurions are "CORE" but, you know, RHINOS aren't ... Everything got CORE in marines except the vehicles. That's ridiculous when you then look at Necrons and see it's what? 4 units. People then say "Yeah! It fits the fluff! Only units that have a relationship with the Nobles got it!" But ... it was supposed to be non-vehicle units that are "CORE" to the army - so, that's wrong. It's not been applied right. ALso, you can't tell me you found ANYWHERE IN ANYTHING a spot where a Warrior literally had direct contact with a Noble. They're emotionless husks so good luck with getting them "inspired". Then we go to DG and not nearly as many things got CORE as in Marines, but probably still too many, and we also see things not CORE that should be.
At the very least, for Crons, there should have been a "Destroyer Core" or some such. Or really, since the ONLY thing CORE does efficiently is keep Captains from buffing Executioners, GW should just have said "Unless the aura specifically states otherwise, Auras do not work on vehicles" and avoided this whole silly thing. It's another example where a small handful of units were an issue, so rather than go in w/a scalpel, they hit it with a sledge hammer ...
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
vipoid wrote: ...I could maybe get behind melee-buffing auras (as the character would basically have to be in melee himself in order to maintain the buff), but auras that directly buff ranged attacks should really be a no-no. ...
If "inspiration" is the mechanic then this makes sense. However, I'm not sure how the presence of a dude in a big shiny hat is able to exhort his troops to shoot more accurately, perhaps he's bellowing the marksmanship principles?
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
They had plenty of keywords to workaround the problem. Yet, they throw another wrench in the mechanism hoping it fixes stuff.
That's what gets me I think. You have a lot of people complaining all the time that there are now (for example) a dozen different versions of "deepstrike" and crying about how the names are different. But the beauty of the system as GW sold it, was that it would enable them to do direct fixes to problem units without causing collateral damage. But I can't think of a single time they've taken advantage of it.
GW Designer: "Captains are skewing tank efficiency in an unintended way"
Other Designer: " Well we have this nice keyword system so we can ju....."
GW Designer interrupts: "Right! We'll just create an entirely new keyword concept that applies to all armies so that the problem army isn't a problem army anymore. Boy howdy is that better! We've come a long way from the old days when we would have just created a blanket rule to smash everything in order to fix this ..."
Other Designer "That's not ... I uh ... right, I'll see myself out ..."
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
FWIW, Marines having Rapid Fire as a unique rule was a 2nd Ed thing, not 3rd Ed. The uniqueness was that only they got a second shot, if at half range, and stationary.
In 3rd Ed, everyone could fire one shot at 12" on the move, or when stationary one shot at 24"/two shots at 12".
Then 4th Ed adjusted it so that you get two shots at 12" whether on the move or stationary, but you had to be stationary to get your one shot at 24".
Now you get two at 12" or one at 24" whether you moved or not.
And you can move and shoot Heavy at -1 (if you're Infantry, otherwise you don't care), whereas in earlier editions you couldn't shoot at all if you moved.
And we have a smaller board.
And big units like superheavies and Knights are now normal, with very long-ranged guns.
And the poster boy faction has 30" basic guns.
Go figure it feels like everything is always in range.
Core just seems to be the unhappy medium of having certain boosts be "this unit gets a buff" and auras.
In practice, if all aura abilities became "this unit gets a buff/debuff" - I'm not sure the Core limitation would be needed. Okay yes, a Captain could stand next to a tank and give it reroll 1s to hit. But... so? Hard to see how its especially cost effective to do so. Arguments "its not very fluffy" seem kind of soft, because you can argue the fluff however you like.
Its when you put together your carpark and boost 1000~ points of stuff that the problems came in. Which you bizarrely can still do so long as its core infantry/dreadnoughts. Thankfully though its mitigated by the fact you can't just castle in the corner all game.
This is also why I think "everything has long range" matters less than in 8th. Yes, it does, but most units should be moving into the mid-board rather than backlining. So range matters less. Also I feel the days of Marines having 40 Intercessors are long past. I'm not sure Bolter Discipline on those 15 incursors/infiltrators really matters (not least because you are often chucking them into the middle of the table before the game starts.)
harlokin wrote: As Drukhari player, I'm genuinely unsure whtat these auras are that you lot keep referring to.
Archons - reroll 1's to hit aura no? And get get reroll 1's to would also.
Yes, youre right. The practicality is somewhat different however, because they are invariably in a transport (or else isolated from your army)....so no aura.
Valkyrie wrote: No. Perhaps a couple of the examples are a bit outdated but I think the point is relatively clear. Some variety would be better than just cookie-cutter lists.
We only have Australian tournaments for the most part, but the lists have been incredibly varied. Even the occasional games outside Murder Bug Island have been pretty distinct.
That might change when COVID is over, but it will take a long time since we'll have so many other codexes by then.
Fair enough, perhaps I haven't played enough 9th in this respect.
Well I guess everyone here disagrees with me on deepstrike. Just do me a favor the next time any of you play. Whenever you are your opponent deepstrikes something in, make sure there is absolutely no enemy units within 9. Each easy to tunnel vision on 1 unit that limits your space and then completely not notice the nurgling squad hiding behind the tall ruin that also messes you. I still maintain that deep-strike is only Useful if you the unit in question can make their charge better or wants beta strike shoot. These units also really need to be cheap enough that you won’t miss them. (Also to the people saying deep-strike on the 3rd turn, that unit better be extremely cheap to justify holding them off.)
Also as far as the core thing goes. I agree it’s fine for unit to not have core as long as there are specific buffs that can be applied to that non-core unit (like in necrons). However, both space marines and deathguard can’t buff their non-core units, which is very much not good.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/01 23:17:07
harlokin wrote: Yes, youre right. The practicality is somewhat different however, because they are invariably in a transport (or else isolated from your army)....so no aura.
This comes up... but why? The Archon's got 8" move. You can't have a blaster any more so you might as well advance him. So he will jog 9-14" across the table. Okay if you roll that 1 its annoying - but terrain etc depending, there really isn't much stopping you from keeping a lot of ravagers/venoms/flyers etc within a 6" aura.
Damage charts changed for 5th, and it was noticeable on the tabletop as Space Marine armies looked like parking lots upon deployment.
Okay, for 3e:
the mean number of hits to destroy a:
Predator: 5 hits
Leman Russ: 10 hits
That's a less pronounced increase than going from 18 to 7, but 10 to 7 is still a fairly substantial increase.
Also, I personally think 5e was the height of the ruleset for the subject at hand . I had lots of tanks, my opponent had lots of tanks, mech infantry was good, it was fun and the game, at least for my playgroup, was very mobile as a consequence.
Did you include flanking and disabling shots? Because that's going to have a big effect (and did during those editions). I spent a lot of time hitting LR's enough so that they couldn't fire, in effect suppressing them while my Marines did whatever they needed to do otherwise.
With disabling (Stun/Shaking) if I'm following your math correctly I get:
Predator: 3 hits against front armor (.5x.666 = .333), 2 hits against side armor (.83 x .666 = .55)
Leman Russ: 5 hits against front armor (.333 x .666 = .22), 2.5 hits against side armor (.666 x .666 = .44)*
This is still not accounting for the Weapon Destroyed result in which taking out that Battle Cannon was the goal (Because Marines were rightfully very scared of the BC)
I personally liked 3rd and 4th more than 5th. 4th in particular.
*12 armor on the side of the LR in 3-4 as discussed in the other thread.
Gnarlly wrote: So basically GW is being GW: releasing a new edition every few years instead of working on one ruleset and making gradual improvements to it based on player feedback.
That's exactly what 9th is. List of some of the issues 8th had complaints over that 9th improved on:
The only steps back GW have taken with 9th is the great points shuffle and the introduction of more faction objectives, but we had those in Maelstrom for 8th as well so that one is not new. Balance also isn't a lot worse than at the start of 8th, the systems are just similar enough between 8th and 9th that a lot of the mistakes GW made with points were obvious. 8th was different enough from 7th that fewer people immediately spotted the issues, but Ynnari were stupidly strong relative to everyone else if you don't remember. GW can also only make so many errata to 8th before it stops being 8th, so they integrated a lot of the feedback they already acted on with previous errata and a bunch of things they never managed to fix with errata and made 9th edition, a gradual improvement based on player feedback to 8th edition. I like and agree with the rest of your comment.
harlokin wrote: Yes, youre right. The practicality is somewhat different however, because they are invariably in a transport (or else isolated from your army)....so no aura.
This comes up... but why? The Archon's got 8" move. You can't have a blaster any more so you might as well advance him. So he will jog 9-14" across the table. Okay if you roll that 1 its annoying - but terrain etc depending, there really isn't much stopping you from keeping a lot of ravagers/venoms/flyers etc within a 6" aura.
the archon advances less than our other units move.
The archon doesnt affect units inside transport in an army that is designed to be spamming units in transports.
harlokin wrote: Yes, youre right. The practicality is somewhat different however, because they are invariably in a transport (or else isolated from your army)....so no aura.
This comes up... but why? The Archon's got 8" move. You can't have a blaster any more so you might as well advance him. So he will jog 9-14" across the table. Okay if you roll that 1 its annoying - but terrain etc depending, there really isn't much stopping you from keeping a lot of ravagers/venoms/flyers etc within a 6" aura.
the archon advances less than our other units move.
The archon doesnt affect units inside transport in an army that is designed to be spamming units in transports.
ItS ToTallY BaLAnCed. MyhReens GeT Auras FoR CorE, YoU GEt AuRa TOoo! I kid I kid. More like where are the Nid Auras.. ?
Regarding the OP:
My top 5 Issues with 8th -
1. Table size getting smaller - This has really hurt a lot of armies relying on outranging or outmoving the enemy. 2. Mission set up with primary and secondary - its always essentially turning game into a dogpile moshpit in the middle of the board... go go terminators Yay... 3. Ob sec is king - makes much more boring & rigid lists in my opinion 4. Lack of mealstorm if you feel like playing a random fun game - Although this could be fixed according to a war com and a new WD issue 5. Would like to see even more terrain rules and vertical engagement range at 5" is dumb..
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/02 00:29:08
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
Then we go to 
I kid I kid. More like where are the Nid Auras.. ? 
Eldar- 4436 pts
