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.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
The terrain rules in 9th are kind of stupid tbh, I kind of wish they’d go back to the old system of doing it.
Was playing a game with my first time friend and it was really confusing for him.

Out of curiosity, what part was confusing for him?

He was able to physically see some orks with some guardsmen, but then it was marked as obscuring so he technically couldn’t. He had kinda positioned himself to shoot a lot of stuff like that, but couldn’t.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
He was able to physically see some orks with some guardsmen, but then it was marked as obscuring so he technically couldn’t. He had kinda positioned himself to shoot a lot of stuff like that, but couldn’t.

Then allowing them to move differently was the play.

i much prefer the current terrain rules personally

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
He was able to physically see some orks with some guardsmen, but then it was marked as obscuring so he technically couldn’t. He had kinda positioned himself to shoot a lot of stuff like that, but couldn’t.

Then allowing them to move differently was the play.

i much prefer the current terrain rules personally

I offered that but he just said it was stupid and moved on. I kinda agree, having it only hide models if it hides the models feels better.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
So we figure GW made all the sales of buggies it wanted in two months when they can barely keep up with the new releases? Solid capitalism right there.

If you're going to strawman as pathetically as that, then please don't waste both our time by replying to my posts.

 Duskweaver wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
So we figure GW made all the sales of buggies it wanted in two months when they can barely keep up with the new releases? Solid capitalism right there.

If you're going to strawman as pathetically as that, then please don't waste both our time by replying to my posts.

And if you're going to make up data then please don't bother posting.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Duskweaver wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
So we figure GW made all the sales of buggies it wanted in two months when they can barely keep up with the new releases? Solid capitalism right there.

If you're going to strawman as pathetically as that, then please don't waste both our time by replying to my posts.

And if you're going to make up data then please don't bother posting.

Well if that were the criteria for posting this place would be empty....

I just figured they noticed that sales figures for 2/3 of the buggies were way down & weren't happy about that. The only "balance" involved is the bottom line.

The subject has been beaten to death and it doesn't matter what GW does. Someone will always claim it was for sales of particular models.

WHC has 4.7M unique users. About 3,000 people played 12 or more games in ITC in 2019 and a ton of those won't be meta chasers. If every single one of those people spent $5,000 directly to GW each year ( no printing or secondary market ) it would account for 3% of their sales.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Weird, the skrapjet is honestly among my least favorite buggies. I love the Boomdakka Snazzwagon and boosta-blasta.

BDSW is to me exactly what the essential ork buggy should be, the only flaw is the two elements that are too distinctive of the ork about to fling a molotov cocktail and the grot strapped to the front (though he can at least easily be left off the model, you have to do a bit more work to alter the gunner)

Actually, the gunner is super easy to replace as he is only attached to the gun by the trigger. The BW gunners, the one from the gorkanaut and really any other ork holding any gun by its grip can replace him. The driver takes a bit more work because you have to flatten the joint to fit arns from other kits, but head swap is easy as well. If you buy a SJD, KBB or squigbuggy in pair with it (SJD works best), there are also a lot of engine and armor bits and gretchin you can swap around, plus all buggy tires fit each other buggy.

My fav is prob the scrapjet as it somehow feels the most generic?, it also has a classic 3rd Ed style ork head instead of the new gakky ones. Just wish I could run my two seperate, instead of having to keep their massive bases in cohesion.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Glad to see that the internet agitation succeeded, hopefully people won't let up and we can continue to pressure GW to actually fix their game.

This is good.

In the same breath there are some people on the internets claiming this is worse because books are outdated faster, they can't keep track etc. so impossible to please everyone. Just glad they made these optional so it's down to each group how current they stay.

Those people have a point too.

GW should release balanced codexes from the start so they don't HAVE to invalidate them with a balance patch.

That argument is not inconsistent with "well they did a gakky job on the dexes so a balance patch is good". It's just the next step: "maybe don't do a gakky job on the dexes."

I genuinely want someone to show me a game that was perfectly balanced from the start. Because I want to see this unicorn.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
He was able to physically see some orks with some guardsmen, but then it was marked as obscuring so he technically couldn’t. He had kinda positioned himself to shoot a lot of stuff like that, but couldn’t.

Then allowing them to move differently was the play.

i much prefer the current terrain rules personally

I offered that but he just said it was stupid and moved on. I kinda agree, having it only hide models if it hides the models feels better.

The part I don't get is why can't they just shoot the stuff you can see?

How about this, if you can see 2 out of the 10 models in a unit you can shoot at them and those 2 models would need to take the saves?

The models being shot at would still get their cover save and would be the only possible casualties. Punishes the unit being shot at & makes positioning Infantry scale models more important.

It always felt wrong that if you can see a single barrel, you can shoot at the whole unit.

It has previously led to rhino sniping but if the player taking the casualties gets to pick which models die I'd be in favour of that change.

 Eldarain wrote:
It has previously led to rhino sniping but if the player taking the casualties gets to pick which models die I'd be in favour of that change.

Just have it so friendly models never count as blocking your line of sight while they can block the enemy’s

I'm coming at it from the frustration of individual model placement minutia in a 40k game that has sprawled well past it's skirmish roots.

Personally I'd like to see things further abstracted along the lines of Apoc/Epic to better suit the model count/range of units represented (grot-Warlord Titan)

The Apocalypse movement trays are really nice.

Well there goes my skwadron....

darn

they couldn't fix the outlier planes, no.. feth planes entirely i guess.
Indeed that would be less of an issue if all armies had an AA unit, or a plane... alas can't have that.. better to throw the missile launcher no bone at all and remain ardent that AA missiles are an stratagem....

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Just have it so friendly models never count as blocking your line of sight while they can block the enemy’s

That has Fish of Fury-esque abuse written all over it- use tanks to block LOS to your units but shoot right through them. Maybe say friendly models normally block LOS, but not for the purpose of casualty selection. This is getting complicated and I'm sure there would still be edge cases; maybe better to just accept that Rhino sniping could be a thing but would be a lot less powerful if the defender could still choose which model is eliminated.

Or just embrace area terrain and abstract LOS, given the size of the game nowadays.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Well there goes my skwadron....

darn

they couldn't fix the outlier planes, no.. feth planes entirely i guess.
Indeed that would be less of an issue if all armies had an AA unit, or a plane... alas can't have that.. better to throw the missile launcher no bone at all and remain ardent that AA missiles are an stratagem....

My airmobile Scion list is now no longer playable, so yeah I feel you.

 catbarf wrote:


My airmobile Scion list is now no longer playable, so yeah I feel you.

The irony is that i Just played a tournament with my Alphork Strike list and went 3 and 0. My closest game was against a Scion Air mobile list because he basically took away most of my 1st turn targets since I have very little ranged firepower.

Super fluffy and it was a blast to play against. another ham fisted move by GW.

SemperMortis wrote:

 catbarf wrote:


My airmobile Scion list is now no longer playable, so yeah I feel you.

The irony is that i Just played a tournament with my Alphork Strike list and went 3 and 0. My closest game was against a Scion Air mobile list because he basically took away most of my 1st turn targets since I have very little ranged firepower.

Super fluffy and it was a blast to play against. another ham fisted move by GW.

Same here, I have a small scion army that is basically 3 scion squads all in Valkyries and a Vulture for support, super fun and fluffy, and in no way OP. Illegal now.

 catbarf wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Well there goes my skwadron....

darn

they couldn't fix the outlier planes, no.. feth planes entirely i guess.
Indeed that would be less of an issue if all armies had an AA unit, or a plane... alas can't have that.. better to throw the missile launcher no bone at all and remain ardent that AA missiles are an stratagem....

My airmobile Scion list is now no longer playable, so yeah I feel you.

atleast my R&H only have 2 valkyries.... right.. ....ah well who am i kidding that list wouldn't even work if you subtracted 25% on all units in it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Salted Diamond wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 catbarf wrote:


My airmobile Scion list is now no longer playable, so yeah I feel you.

The irony is that i Just played a tournament with my Alphork Strike list and went 3 and 0. My closest game was against a Scion Air mobile list because he basically took away most of my 1st turn targets since I have very little ranged firepower.

Super fluffy and it was a blast to play against. another ham fisted move by GW.

Same here, I have a small scion army that is basically 3 scion squads all in Valkyries and a Vulture for support, super fun and fluffy, and in no way OP. Illegal now.

Well, you can always avoid matched play.
Or house rule... but it still kinda stinks that GW rather uses the sledge hammer method to avoid fixing the models instead.

So.. more inconsistency from GW. Leman Russes are Sv 2+... unless of course a heretic, renegade or genestealer cultist is driving it. Then 3+.

Makes sense. I guess the Emperor protects!

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
It has previously led to rhino sniping but if the player taking the casualties gets to pick which models die I'd be in favour of that change.

Just have it so friendly models never count as blocking your line of sight while they can block the enemy’s

No. That's type of abstraction is just stupid.
This isn't rocket science. It's a game played with 3d models & terrain. 99% of the time you can clearly see what blocks what.

callocx wrote:
So.. more inconsistency from GW. Leman Russes are Sv 2+... unless of course a heretic, renegade or genestealer cultist is driving it. Then 3+.

Makes sense. I guess the Emperor protects!

Not sure about GSC, but R&H use the Guard datasheet for our Leman Russes. So, apparently, the Corpse God doesn't do that much after all.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

callocx wrote:
So.. more inconsistency from GW. Leman Russes are Sv 2+... unless of course a heretic, renegade or genestealer cultist is driving it. Then 3+.

Makes sense. I guess the Emperor protects!

Not sure about GSC, but R&H use the Guard datasheet for our Leman Russes. So, apparently, the Corpse God doesn't do that much after all.

99% sure that GSC has their own LR datasheet, so that's a problem.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I genuinely want someone to show me a game that was perfectly balanced from the start. Because I want to see this unicorn.

Ah. There's that word again. "Perfectly".

Again, who's calling for "perfect" balance?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

callocx wrote:
So.. more inconsistency from GW. Leman Russes are Sv 2+... unless of course a heretic, renegade or genestealer cultist is driving it. Then 3+.

Makes sense. I guess the Emperor protects!

Not sure about GSC, but R&H use the Guard datasheet for our Leman Russes. So, apparently, the Corpse God doesn't do that much after all.

99% sure that GSC has their own LR datasheet, so that's a problem.

If it's 2+ in the new book that at least tells us this quarterly thing was in the works for a while.

Not Online!!! wrote:
they couldn't fix the outlier planes, no.. feth planes entirely i guess.

Are you in any way surprised by this? This is the method through which GW fixes rules: They change general rules to fix specific problems.

I have an Inquisitorial Storm Trooper Air Cav army - 60-odd Kasrkin and 6 Valks. They love these rules.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I genuinely want someone to show me a game that was perfectly balanced from the start. Because I want to see this unicorn.

Ah. There's that word again. "Perfectly".

Again, who's calling for "perfect" balance?

The words used

GW should release balanced codexes from the start so they don't HAVE to invalidate them with a balance patch

Now I won't use perfect since you decided to focus entirely on that instead of actually answering the question. Has there been a game that has been balanced without the need for patches down the line?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

callocx wrote:
So.. more inconsistency from GW. Leman Russes are Sv 2+... unless of course a heretic, renegade or genestealer cultist is driving it. Then 3+.

Makes sense. I guess the Emperor protects!

Not sure about GSC, but R&H use the Guard datasheet for our Leman Russes. So, apparently, the Corpse God doesn't do that much after all.

99% sure that GSC has their own LR datasheet, so that's a problem.

Well, GSC's codex is about a month away, so hopefully they'll fix it there. That, along with the price increase to Dark Lances and Admech Laser Chickens could mean that gw realizes that they've made vehicles too squishy. The increases on Dark Lances and Laser Chickens were good, now let's see if they do the same with multi-meltas......