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.

Loopstah wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Xenos rules are up; just skimming through the Tau and looks like we got shafted.

Dark Eldar got it worse. No Harlequins, no Corsairs... Aeldari can take them, but Dark Eldar can't.

Confusingly, yes Dark Eldar can take them, but the rules to do so are included on the Aeldari sheets, not the Drukhari sheets. 2nd page of the detachment rules.

Okay, that makes even less sense

Rules design for games is actually quite comparable to software design.
Including the fact that most people believe they know how to do it.... but dont

( Disclaimer: i took a few courses in both while at university but choose a slightly different career. So not an expert either )

I'm amused by the big mek in mega-armor providing a 4++, rerolls and flat-out resurrection.

If I take a Missile Pod on a Crisis Suit it's Ap-1, but on a Drone it's Ap-2? Come on GW.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 The Phazer wrote:
We already have a decent primary source in what GW do in terms of playtesting at least up until pretty recently - this video where Peachy interviews James Hewitt about it.

https://youtu.be/GAsX9W2GDTY

I thought it was interesting that some of GW's games that are generally considered to be pretty balanced were not playtested that widely.

It's probably a question of where you're starting from - games like BFG or Warmaster were pretty much written in one go, for all factions, and were thus pretty balanced on the outset (let's just not mention Eldar and Necrons for BFG, thank you), while other games like e.g. Bloodbowl have a rather restricted set of things 'units' can do and are thus inherently easier to balance.

The main culprits that have consistent balancing problems are the mainline games that have accumulated cruft over half-a-dozen editions and more, and that want to cover a lot of things at the same time (Warhammer covering everything from quasi-medieval human armies to all-monsters armies, magic-heavy summoning forces or hyper-elite daemon legions, while 40k spans the range from an individual sniper rifle's ammunition choice being important up to Titans, Airplanes and Orbital Bombardments) and have a lot of historical baggage about how they should 'feel' and play and how individual units should behave.

Over the stretch from 2nd ed to now, that I've watched and heard about GW's "playtesting practices" - everything from in-house playtesting to external playtesters, to using "competitive" groups, etc., there have been three fairly consistent outcomes:

1) When the design studio plays a game, for whatever reason, they play the game using whatever models they have on hand. They don't build skew lists, or optimize interactions. Its often "wouldn't this be cool" or "let's try this". They will also play the game using whatever rules they either wrote, know, or remember, which may or may not strictly follow the rules as written in the actual rulebook. This is fairly common with game designers. When they play the games, they play them differently - which can run into a lot of RAI confusion.

2) When using external playtesters, we know that GW sends them specific stuff and specific points while requesting certain points of feedback. (And let's not talk about the great leak hunts of early internet GW), But not usually the "whole game" or the basic mechanics, or whatever. There was a discussion about feedback from external playtesters about Sisters and Acts of Faith way back. The feedback from the playtesters was "You know, you can stack this, this, and this, and its really powerful and can do this." GW's response was "Why would you do that?". To which the playtesters response was "Because the rules say you can." To which GW replied "But why would you do that?" Its a different way of conceptualizing what the game rules mean, and they're unlikely to match. Which ties into 3:

3) GW doesn't always take and use feedback received for whatever reason. Not enough time to make edits, book is already out for printing, they don't see it as enough of an issue, they don't think players would make those choices (rule of three anyone? - why would anyone take 9 of something?, etc.

And these have been going on in one way, shape, or form since 3rd ed. and the growth of the internet and people wanting to see and be part of whats in the magic sauce, or whatever they think GW is brewing up. Its unlikely to change. But maybe the meme needs to change from "GW doesn't playtest" to "GW doesn't playtest well" or "efficiently" or "doesn't listen to playtest feedback." Its also unlikely to change as they continue to make money hand over fist.

As far as 10th edition goes, I stopped after 8th indexes, bought one 8th codex, and then I had no idea what people were talking about on these boards all of a sudden. I've kept peeking in to see how things progress and I find, for myself, its more of the same. Still don't understand the lingo, don't want to be bothered remembering all the interactions and do-dads and strategems, etc., so I'll keep watching. Maybe 11th. But I am also fairly confident that GW will continue to do what it does, how it does it, beacause for all the gnashing of teeth, people will plunk down and buy in, and then complain (again). The more things change, the more they stay the same.

All those fancy new special rules - Lethal Hits, Devastating Wounds, Sustained Hits, Psychic* - and not a one of them hath been bestowed upon Harli melee weaponry. How far the Halequin's Kiss has fallen.



*Ok not Psychic. Psychic doesn't actually do anything.

Aberrants and Abominants now more Death Guard than Death Guard.

Mining lasers are S12, so GC are doing better in terms of anti-tank than Sisters.

Oof, orks.
Power klaws and kill saws got done dirty.
WS4+ and not terribly impressive stats as a whole package.

Haven't made it all the way through, but the traditional failure to have AT is definitely going on.

No twin-linked on Ghostswords. Would'a thought that was an obvious one...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ok, so, the Xenos data sheets are out. Let's see how I did with a prediction:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wait 'til we see the Autarch sheet, or sheets. I fully expect them to reverse the current Autarch entry and give us two different types: Autarch, and Autarch with Swooping Hawk Wings. The former will have a Wargear option for a Warp Jump Pack, giving it Flicker Jump, and wargear options that match the newer kit. The Wings Autarch will just have the weapons that specific kit comes with.

Well... I was mostly right. Really hoping I wouldn't be.

What we have are three Autarch sheets. One of them is the Jetbike Autarch - I was completely wrong about that; I thought that one was a goner, but I guess not - but that leaves us with, as expected, a foot and wing Autarch sheet.

Unfortunately, they've fethed with the weapon options for no apparent reason. You have to take the Furion Pistol, Power Sword and Mandiblasters as a set. All the others can be mixed'n'matched, but these three options can only be taken as a package deal. There's also no Warp Jump Generator, despite the model having one.

This isn't as bad as I thought it'd be, but somehow makes even less sense.

Annoying that they made the datasheet strict again after reversing it in 9th. Won’t affect me as I play in a casual group so will mix weapons as they’re modeled. The warp jump generator is now same as banshee wings.
I have wings, mandiblaster, spinner and sword, and that’s exactly how he will be used.

So which is it, Mr. Missile Pod? AP-1 or AP-2?

I haven’t read the sheets myself yet, but the Necron Facebook group seems to be in full celebration mode.

The Regenerating biomass rule on the Abominant is delightfully old school vague. "on a 2+ return this model to the table "as close as possible" to where it was destroyed and not in engagement range." Not an issue for me, but not really in keeping with Lawyerhammer of the present.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So which is it, Mr. Missile Pod? AP-1 or AP-2?

both, just because they have the same name does not mean those are the same weapons

you know, stats are on the unit now and can be different for "balance" reasons /s

A quick look at the tau datasheets. Broadsides are 8 wounds, and gun drone squads still exist and have OC 0, and crisis and broadside suits have the vehicle and walker keywords.

I think battlesuits being classed as vehicles is new?

 Overread wrote:

It doesn't work in AoS
An alternate army activation game giving 2 turns to one side is always going to utterly break any semblance of game balance

it works, you just don't know how to play with it in mind.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
I guess they've solidified on the decision that Avengers shouldn't be troops-equivalent anymore? They're OC 1 now and aren't battleline.

EDIT: also holy feth, the spirit seer can revive a body-guard on the command phase, which means one wraithguard, blade, or lord revived a turn.

You can't resurrect a wraithlord as it's only a unit of one. When the lord is removed, the spiritiseer is no longer leading a unit and can't use Tears.

Well, after reading eldar, the wraith host + double avatar dream lives

"Hover Drone: The bearer can Fly and has a Move characteristic of 10"."

So... so why do we need separate sheets for Ahriman and Ahriman on a Disc? This design philosophy is so fething confusing. I swear people working on one book don't talk to people working on others.

 kestral wrote:
The Regenerating biomass rule on the Abominant is delightfully old school vague. "on a 2+ return this model to the table "as close as possible" to where it was destroyed and not in engagement range." Not an issue for me, but not really in keeping with Lawyerhammer of the present.

It's the same rule as the Relic Contemptor. I can see certain people trying to abuse something like that via unit placing, to make for fabuluously teleporting Contemptors that jump behind enemy lines...

maybe they had a certain number of datacards to fill and Ahriman on Disc was the only idea they came up with

Hope folks didn't own 9 D Cannons.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Hover Drone: The bearer can Fly and has a Move characteristic of 10"."

So... so why do we need separate sheets for Ahriman and Ahriman on a Disc? This design philosophy is so fething confusing. I swear people working on one book don't talk to people working on others.

1 extra wound i guess

(or more realistically, they fethed up a copy paste job and ahriman on disk is actually supposed to have different spells)

 AduroT wrote:
I haven’t read the sheets myself yet, but the Necron Facebook group seems to be in full celebration mode.

I'm going through them now, looks pretty good.
Uh. Make that real good. RP gets insane once you start stacking res orbs and reanimators.


However, this made me
Psychomancer:

Nightmare Shroud (Aura): While an enemy unit is within 9" of
this model, subtract 1 from the Leadership characteristic of
models in that unit

Yep. subtract 1 from the characteristic, not tests. 6+ LD becomes 5+. It make enemies better at resisting battleshock.

(Unless you're going full THAC0 math, where subtraction is adding)

Voss wrote:
I'm amused by the big mek in mega-armor providing a 4++, rerolls and flat-out resurrection.

Or Killa Kans getting indirect!

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Well, after reading eldar, the wraith host + double avatar dream lives

Is the Avatar not an Epic Hero and therefore restricted the 1 only?

is Ork boyz being limited to mobs of 20 new for this edition or 9th? never played 9th but have several mobs of 30 here

 Sarigar wrote:
Hope folks didn't own 9 D Cannons.

I hope no one went out and bought a bunch amid the internet furor!

Broadside gets to keep its 2 shot rail weapon. Would'a been nice of Predator Annihilators were afforded such gracious treatment...

Again: It's like the people designing one book don't talk to the people designing another.

leopard wrote:
is Ork boyz being limited to mobs of 20 new for this edition or 9th? never played 9th but have several mobs of 30 here

Yes - standard for all horde units now.