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.

 Insectum7 wrote:

This is a great example of the lack of reading comprehension I was alluding to. More=/= every.

But also the idea that this somehow removes choices in list building is quite the leap. You should bottle and sell the lubrication you use for your slippery slope. You could make bank!

So you're going to leave some armies to twist in the wind then? Or just some units in some armies?

Of course, the marine player will always be fine because his troops carry grenades.

This is why I asked you to show exactly how you wanted to make these changes. I think you have serious blind spots with regard to how this idea will actually play out and lack the game design skill to fix what you see as an issue without breaking something else.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

This is a great example of the lack of reading comprehension I was alluding to. More=/= every.

But also the idea that this somehow removes choices in list building is quite the leap. You should bottle and sell the lubrication you use for your slippery slope. You could make bank!

So you're going to leave some armies to twist in the wind then? Or just some units in some armies?

Of course, the marine player will always be fine because his troops carry grenades.

This is why I asked you to show exactly how you wanted to make these changes. I think you have serious blind spots with regard to how this idea will actually play out and lack the game design skill to fix what you see as an issue without breaking something else.

And you've repeatedly shown a lack of skill to engage with the topic, so I think the conversation is simply not worth continuing.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
This is why I asked you to show exactly how you wanted to make these changes.

You keep asking him to redesign the entire game because you refuse to make any good-faith effort to extrapolate from the illustrative examples you've been given.

I can think of a few ways that a unit like, say, Hormagaunts might be given the ability to interact with armor that they might otherwise not be able to. Declaring that Insectum's broader suggestion- that the game would be better for giving units varied capabilities of dealing with skew- can't possibly work because only Marines get grenades is incredibly myopic.

 catbarf wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
This is why I asked you to show exactly how you wanted to make these changes.

You keep asking him to redesign the entire game because you refuse to make any good-faith effort to extrapolate from the illustrative examples you've been given.

I can think of a few ways that a unit like, say, Hormagaunts might be given the ability to interact with armor that they might otherwise not be able to. Declaring that Insectum's broader suggestion- that the game would be better for giving units varied capabilities of dealing with skew- can't possibly work because only Marines get grenades is incredibly myopic.

The devil is in the details though and those details need to be seen before one can say if the idea is a good one or not.

We've already given players 6s to wound any toughness so that every unit can harm anything else. Presumably, the anti-armor would need to be better than that but as we've seen with melta weapons the current trend is to make handheld anti-tank less reliable than it has been through 8th and 9th. So how good do you want non-dedicated anti-tank weapons to be and how do you propose this is done within the paradigm of 10th edition? There's also still the question of how to combat other forms of skew, why skew players should be punished for playing their list while other players get a buff for playing theirs, and which units get the buffs if not all units end up getting something.

Skew is a function of a counter system. The issue I think is that a counter system is necessary for power fantasies and... a feeling of skill. (There must be a better word for this but I'm failing to find it).

The obvious counter to skew (if you aren't going to limit list-building) is to produce a soft-counter system as said. I.E. shooting your preferred target you expect to get a 40% return, shooting a non-preferred target you expect to get a 15% return etc. This would compare with say a "hard counter" system, where shooting your preferred target gets you a 100%+ return (think guard squads with melta guns one-tapping a tank costing far more points) but you can't hurt non-preferred targets at all.

Taken to the extreme, you could math things out AoS style (clearly its not this skewed in practice) so there is no-counter system at all. Lascannons and lasguns have the same "damage output" whether targeting tanks or termagants. We would be in a world where 500 grots=a knight etc.

But as said, the issue is how far you want to go. A no-counter system as said would seem lame at various levels. I think "Tough units" like say tanks, should be tough. Having anti-tank units be good into tanks, and regular units not be, is a design goal, not a flaw. It feels "fluffy", "realistic", and "skillful" to shoot tanks with lascannons, not lasguns.

Moreover, if most units can look at a Knight and say "I fancy my chances to take out its kneecaps" - that's severely stepping on the toes of the Knight fantasy. Which is presumably to tap dance across whole armies (because its completely out of scale of 40k and should just be banned the end.) See similar complaints about people swatting planes (that should be over the battlefield for about 3 seconds and so shouldn't really be in game either) out of the sky with flamers.

At the other extreme however, I think a hard counter system has major problems in an IGOUGO system. If you've bought 3 anti-tank units, and my "all-tanks army" just alpha-strikes them turn one, then you have none. And we are back to a game where you can't interact with my units. A possible counter to this is making rules such that tanks expect to do almost zero damage to explicitly "anti-tank" units. This would arguably be fair/balanced on the premise that non-anti-tank units can do zero damage to them. But I suspect people would accuse that of being overly gamey. Why for example would a Leman Russ happily chew through a tactical squad, but do nothing to Devastators?

I think skew hasn't really been a problem in 9th partly because of mission design - but also because GW massively upped the damage on everything. This sort of turned 40k into checkers. Aside from when factions have been head and shoulders above everyone, its been relatively balanced because almost everything counters everything. To make an army that couldn't scratch tanks, you really had to deliberately spam units with nothing but S3/S4 AP- weapons. The issue hasn't been massed lasguns - but the fact anything with a decent number of at least S5, AP-2/3 and 2+ damage can contribute. Psychic powers and stratagems to chuck in a few mortal wounds etc.

That may change in 10th. My concern is that its very frustrating to just "fail". And if say melta guns are wounding on 5s, they'll have a high chance to do nothing. I don't think this will mean the counter to vehicles is getting 1000 grots into 12". But making luck the biggest determinant of outcomes is as frustrating as list building being the main determinant of outcomes.

As an example, people really didn't like that brief moment in late 8th when massed Plague Bearers+Tzeentch Psykers was a thing. It wasn't a 70% win rate tournament warping list, but various "casual" armies would use whole shooting phases to kill 20 Plague Bearers. Everything eventually got tied up in these go-nowhere fights, while you got mortal wounded to death.

the problem wasn't the bearers. The problem was horrors, getting killed, spliting in to two blue horrors and in to a poxwalker, because something just died. The lists actualy was getting bigger, as you killed it. Very unfun, even for good armies, And for weaker armies or non optimised stuff it was just mind blowing. And it was easy to build because ton of people had poxwalkers and horrors from prior editions.

Tyel wrote:
Moreover, if most units can look at a Knight and say "I fancy my chances to take out its kneecaps" - that's severely stepping on the toes of the Knight fantasy. Which is presumably to tap dance across whole armies (because its completely out of scale of 40k and should just be banned the end.) See similar complaints about people swatting planes (that should be over the battlefield for about 3 seconds and so shouldn't really be in game either) out of the sky with flamers.

At the other extreme however, I think a hard counter system has major problems in an IGOUGO system. If you've bought 3 anti-tank units, and my "all-tanks army" just alpha-strikes them turn one, then you have none.

Yes. 40k has balance issues because the designers have created a nonsensical system/scale combination that can't every really work.

If you are going to do a platoon-scale game, use appropriate models and functions, don't include operational/strategic level assets because it screws everything up.

If you are going to use the IGOUGO system, you have to mitigate it so that one player can't just win the game in a single turn.

That's not a points problem, its a design problem.

Adding to that is the need to build a completely new gaming system every 3-5 years, so that whatever lessons learned and iterative improvements could have been implemented are lost.

10th is iterative of 8th and 9th. The choices made now are precisely a result of lessons over the past 6 years.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
10th is iterative of 8th and 9th. The choices made now are precisely a result of lessons over the past 6 years.

Awesome! I'm looking forward to the glowing reviews of each and every codex.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
The devil is in the details though and those details need to be seen before one can say if the idea is a good one or not.

No, not really. This isn't a mathematical proof, a scientific paper, or even an exceptionally complex game.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
We've already given players 6s to wound any toughness so that every unit can harm anything else. Presumably, the anti-armor would need to be better than that but as we've seen with melta weapons the current trend is to make handheld anti-tank less reliable than it has been through 8th and 9th. So how good do you want non-dedicated anti-tank weapons to be and how do you propose this is done within the paradigm of 10th edition? There's also still the question of how to combat other forms of skew, why skew players should be punished for playing their list while other players get a buff for playing theirs, and which units get the buffs if not all units end up getting something.

You're looking at this through a lens of giving units broad and reliable anti-armor capabilities, rather than as in the example given specific and limited anti-armor capabilities. Krak grenades that can only be deployed in melee are not going to render meltaguns obsolete, but they might give units that otherwise wouldn't be able to damage tanks (under a system where S4 can't plink Knights to death) something to do and some capability to threaten armor if intelligently deployed. A game where the effectiveness of units heavily depends on how they're used is more interesting than one where everyone just starts shooting at full effectiveness from turn 1 and either it works or it doesn't. And weapons that can do significant damage under very specific circumstances render neither their targets nor more reliable alternatives obsolete.

I'm not going to engage with this rhetoric about 'punishing' players. Nobody's trying to 'punish' anyone, we're talking about how to make a better game, and a game where both players have interesting player-driven means of engaging the opponent is better than a game where one side cannot reasonably fight and has to just go for objectives.

 catbarf wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
The devil is in the details though and those details need to be seen before one can say if the idea is a good one or not.

No, not really. This isn't a mathematical proof, a scientific paper, or even an exceptionally complex game.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
We've already given players 6s to wound any toughness so that every unit can harm anything else. Presumably, the anti-armor would need to be better than that but as we've seen with melta weapons the current trend is to make handheld anti-tank less reliable than it has been through 8th and 9th. So how good do you want non-dedicated anti-tank weapons to be and how do you propose this is done within the paradigm of 10th edition? There's also still the question of how to combat other forms of skew, why skew players should be punished for playing their list while other players get a buff for playing theirs, and which units get the buffs if not all units end up getting something.

You're looking at this through a lens of giving units broad and reliable anti-armor capabilities, rather than as in the example given specific and limited anti-armor capabilities. Krak grenades that can only be deployed in melee are not going to render meltaguns obsolete, but they might give units that otherwise wouldn't be able to damage tanks (under a system where S4 can't plink Knights to death) something to do and some capability to threaten armor if intelligently deployed. A game where the effectiveness of units heavily depends on how they're used is more interesting than one where everyone just starts shooting at full effectiveness from turn 1 and either it works or it doesn't. And weapons that can do significant damage under very specific circumstances render neither their targets nor more reliable alternatives obsolete.

I'm not going to engage with this rhetoric about 'punishing' players. Nobody's trying to 'punish' anyone, we're talking about how to make a better game, and a game where both players have interesting player-driven means of engaging the opponent is better than a game where one side cannot reasonably fight and has to just go for objectives.

Any unit can already, at least in theory, damage any target on 6s to wound and from what I've seen Insectum doesn't think that and skew lists being unlikely to win is enough. Thus I assumed that some capability beyond do 1W on an unsaved 6 to wound was what was being asked for and yes, that likely would be too much to give out to everybody as it seriously degrades the toughness of armor/monstrous creatures. Going into 10th edition where reduction of lethality appears to be a primary design goal this idea makes even less sense.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
10th is iterative of 8th and 9th. The choices made now are precisely a result of lessons over the past 6 years.

Awesome! I'm looking forward to the glowing reviews of each and every codex.

Snark aside I would say they have empirically demonstrated understanding with several of the changes so far.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
10th is iterative of 8th and 9th. The choices made now are precisely a result of lessons over the past 6 years.

Awesome! I'm looking forward to the glowing reviews of each and every codex.

Snark aside I would say they have empirically demonstrated understanding with several of the changes so far.

Hmmm, some saying about a broken clock still being right twice a day comes to mind....

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
10th is iterative of 8th and 9th. The choices made now are precisely a result of lessons over the past 6 years.

Awesome! I'm looking forward to the glowing reviews of each and every codex.

Snark aside I would say they have empirically demonstrated understanding with several of the changes so far.

And completely missing the point on others. Consolidating all combi-weapons into one single profile......

Keep cheerleading and drinking that Kool-aid, Daed.......

GW has always gotten at the point on some stuff and completely missed it on others. They have for 30 years so I really can't see they're being any iterative evolution there because they never seem to actually learn things consistently

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
10th is iterative of 8th and 9th. The choices made now are precisely a result of lessons over the past 6 years.

Awesome! I'm looking forward to the glowing reviews of each and every codex.

Snark aside I would say they have empirically demonstrated understanding with several of the changes so far.

And completely missing the point on others. Consolidating all combi-weapons into one single profile......

Keep cheerleading and drinking that Kool-aid, Daed.......

Do you people lack any sort of introspection or pragmatism?

Did I say ALL of the change? No, I didn't.
Would you say the reaction to most of the changes have been positive or negative? I think you'd be lying to yourself if you said negative.

If you're unable to process new information it's not me that's "drinking the koolaid". And what an absolutely pathetic statement from someone who lords a different game from the same company.

The GW hate train is so deep you forgot to stop and think.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Any unit can already, at least in theory, damage any target on 6s to wound and from what I've seen Insectum doesn't think that and skew lists being unlikely to win is enough.

Because fishing for 6s is ineffective and shuffling onto objectives while mindlessly putting all your shooting into one model is boring.

A mechanic that requires you to use movement and positioning in order to inflict credible damage is more interesting to play. It can simultaneously be more effective if you can pull it off but also, by virtue of being difficult to pull off, not a reliable source of damage unless you seriously outplay your opponent.

If you can't see game design as anything other than average damage output on paper then you're not going to get it and we should move on.

 catbarf wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Any unit can already, at least in theory, damage any target on 6s to wound and from what I've seen Insectum doesn't think that and skew lists being unlikely to win is enough.

Because fishing for 6s is ineffective and shuffling onto objectives while mindlessly putting all your shooting into one model is boring.

A mechanic that requires you to use movement and positioning in order to inflict credible damage is more interesting to play. It can simultaneously be more effective if you can pull it off but also, by virtue of being difficult to pull off, not a reliable source of damage unless you seriously outplay your opponent.

If you can't see game design as anything other than average damage output on paper then you're not going to get it and we should move on.

I would prefer the broader game have more decision making than my primary decision making to be how to get behind a tank. It just doesn't offer as much in an IGOUGO system.

Baby steps. Dealing with armor essentially boiling down to 'either your army has enough firepower or it doesn't' is a specific symptom of broader lack of interactivity.

I'm sure people will have examples from other games - but I think its hard to make movement/positioning feel key in a turn-based game.

It always ends up boiling down to:
"Do you know the trick? No? Then learn the trick."
"Can you do the trick? If yes, do the trick. If no, possibly because your opponent is aware of this functionality, then you are out of luck."

This is a bit reductive - and its the sort of logic that goes "40k is easy, its always obvious exactly what the right decision is" (which in turn produces: "okay then, go win the LVO if its that straightforward.") But it holds up a bit I think. Like Tri-pointing was essential to make assault work in 8th edition. But it wasn't really "skillful" or feel good/fluffy.

Basically if you buff marines so they can melta-bomb Knight legs, don't you then need to buff Knights so they can do something without being insta-melta'ed?

Its the difference between say "I can shoot you in the back because I spent 3 turns patiently luring you into an ambush" and "I can shoot you in the back because I can pin-point DS anywhere on the board, so I set up right behind you".

Tyel wrote:
I'm sure people will have examples from other games - but I think its hard to make movement/positioning feel key in a turn-based game.

Actually, it's dead easy. Make everything extremely deadly but remove kill points entirely. At the same time make positioning extremely effective in keeping your important dudes alive, and then force players to move out and clear the area to score. You know, like in chess

Jokes aside, exactly same trick works with wargames. Move the gravity of damage output calculations from innate units' abilities towards situational bonuses like cover, flanking, crossfire etc; create win conditions that require area control instead of mindless slaughter, and suddenly you have a... classic wargame, instead of this weird mashup of CCG, deckbuilder and dice game with miniatures sprinkled on top that 40k is.

I also suggest trying M.A.X, an old computer strategy game, which is IGOUGO with reactions (it can also be played in simultaneous moves mode), and is extremely focussed on movement and positioning.

It can most certainly be done.

Tyel wrote:
I'm sure people will have examples from other games - but I think its hard to make movement/positioning feel key in a turn-based game.

It always ends up boiling down to:
"Do you know the trick? No? Then learn the trick."
"Can you do the trick? If yes, do the trick. If no, possibly because your opponent is aware of this functionality, then you are out of luck."

This is a bit reductive - and its the sort of logic that goes "40k is easy, its always obvious exactly what the right decision is" (which in turn produces: "okay then, go win the LVO if its that straightforward.") But it holds up a bit I think. Like Tri-pointing was essential to make assault work in 8th edition. But it wasn't really "skillful" or feel good/fluffy.

Basically if you buff marines so they can melta-bomb Knight legs, don't you then need to buff Knights so they can do something without being insta-melta'ed?

Its the difference between say "I can shoot you in the back because I spent 3 turns patiently luring you into an ambush" and "I can shoot you in the back because I can pin-point DS anywhere on the board, so I set up right behind you".

It's a valid concern.

Nou summed it up pretty well- making the effectiveness of your units dependent on board state makes your decision-making more relevant, particularly if they don't manifest as automatic best-practice tricks like tripointing. I think Epic is a good example because the C&C and morale elements create a more complex experience than just parking your units at optimal range and unloading. You need to manage your limited activations and prioritize, flank when appropriate without over-committing, decide when it's the right time to push into firefight range to break the enemy.

IGOUGO is a factor but it's only part of it. 40K actively de-emphasizes range and positioning; there's no incentive to manage distance if you shoot equally well at 30" (literally from one deployment zone to the other) as you do at point-blank range. No reason to flank the enemy if it doesn't do anything and only GSC have a crossfire mechanic. Minimal effect of cover, with blocking LOS being far more impactful in practice. Perfect information and perfect C&C, so it's pretty difficult to catch an enemy out of position without them being able to respond. These are all things you need to tweak if you want maneuver to outweigh spreadsheet math.

The reason you find 'tricks' is because they're optimal strategies with no tradeoff or downside. Shooting the Knight with your bolters is a no-brainer, regardless of how little damage it does, because there's nothing else to shoot at. But if running up to a Knight to meltabomb it means getting off the objective, there's a trade-off. If doing that on open terrain is suicide (even with multiple squads), and you're better off hugging terrain to close the distance without being exposed to fire, then there's layers to that decision and risk management beyond 'do the trick'. And maybe you shouldn't be able to circumvent that risk with a rock-solid 100% reliable deep strike mechanic that lets you drop right next to and instakill the Knight before it can respond, gg.

Infinity's an example of a game that does all this well, I find. It's harder to write a bad list because most units can be effective in the right context. Bad positioning and coordination can result in your team getting wiped out by reactions when you try to attack, or vulnerable to a single unit dancing through your lines and taking you out. You need to do a lot more than just stack capabilities.

 catbarf wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I'm sure people will have examples from other games - but I think its hard to make movement/positioning feel key in a turn-based game.

It always ends up boiling down to:
"Do you know the trick? No? Then learn the trick."
"Can you do the trick? If yes, do the trick. If no, possibly because your opponent is aware of this functionality, then you are out of luck."

This is a bit reductive - and its the sort of logic that goes "40k is easy, its always obvious exactly what the right decision is" (which in turn produces: "okay then, go win the LVO if its that straightforward.") But it holds up a bit I think. Like Tri-pointing was essential to make assault work in 8th edition. But it wasn't really "skillful" or feel good/fluffy.

Basically if you buff marines so they can melta-bomb Knight legs, don't you then need to buff Knights so they can do something without being insta-melta'ed?

Its the difference between say "I can shoot you in the back because I spent 3 turns patiently luring you into an ambush" and "I can shoot you in the back because I can pin-point DS anywhere on the board, so I set up right behind you".

It's a valid concern.

Nou summed it up pretty well- making the effectiveness of your units dependent on board state makes your decision-making more relevant, particularly if they don't manifest as automatic best-practice tricks like tripointing. I think Epic is a good example because the C&C and morale elements create a more complex experience than just parking your units at optimal range and unloading. You need to manage your limited activations and prioritize, flank when appropriate without over-committing, decide when it's the right time to push into firefight range to break the enemy.

IGOUGO is a factor but it's only part of it. 40K actively de-emphasizes range and positioning; there's no incentive to manage distance if you shoot equally well at 30" (literally from one deployment zone to the other) as you do at point-blank range. No reason to flank the enemy if it doesn't do anything and only GSC have a crossfire mechanic. Minimal effect of cover, with blocking LOS being far more impactful in practice. Perfect information and perfect C&C, so it's pretty difficult to catch an enemy out of position without them being able to respond. These are all things you need to tweak if you want maneuver to outweigh spreadsheet math.

The reason you find 'tricks' is because they're optimal strategies with no tradeoff or downside. Shooting the Knight with your bolters is a no-brainer, regardless of how little damage it does, because there's nothing else to shoot at. But if running up to a Knight to meltabomb it means getting off the objective, there's a trade-off. If doing that on open terrain is suicide (even with multiple squads), and you're better off hugging terrain to close the distance without being exposed to fire, then there's layers to that decision and risk management beyond 'do the trick'. And maybe you shouldn't be able to circumvent that risk with a rock-solid 100% reliable deep strike mechanic that lets you drop right next to and instakill the Knight before it can respond, gg.

Infinity's an example of a game that does all this well, I find. It's harder to write a bad list because most units can be effective in the right context. Bad positioning and coordination can result in your team getting wiped out by reactions when you try to attack, or vulnerable to a single unit dancing through your lines and taking you out. You need to do a lot more than just stack capabilities.

There is one more way to shift even the IGOUGO game towards manouver and positioning - simultaneous damage resolution. In 40k, if you go out into the open ground against a strong enemy unit, but manage to wipe it out, you're safe from any retaliation. Even if you fail, provided you didn't fail completely, the retaliation is weak(er) so the game focuses on pure mathhammer attrition. In SDR game, you're wiped out as well, unless you can somehow manipulate the odds in your favour. But to make it work you have to have more board state skew sources than cover (which will not even be applicable for the most popular faction, against the most popular weapons anymore) and the newly introduced higher ground advantage.

Basically, to make a good wargame out of 40k, you must start by making it a wargame in the first place.

 vict0988 wrote:
Having both Wraithlords and Wraithknights available as single-entity units that are optional to include in a list makes the game imbalanced, points minimize this imbalance.

Nah, this statement is not accurate.

nou wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I'm sure people will have examples from other games - but I think its hard to make movement/positioning feel key in a turn-based game.

Actually, it's dead easy. Make everything extremely deadly but remove kill points entirely. At the same time make positioning extremely effective in keeping your important dudes alive, and then force players to move out and clear the area to score. You know, like in chess

Jokes aside, exactly same trick works with wargames. Move the gravity of damage output calculations from innate units' abilities towards situational bonuses like cover, flanking, crossfire etc; create win conditions that require area control instead of mindless slaughter, and suddenly you have a... classic wargame, instead of this weird mashup of CCG, deckbuilder and dice game with miniatures sprinkled on top that 40k is.

I also suggest trying M.A.X, an old computer strategy game, which is IGOUGO with reactions (it can also be played in simultaneous moves mode), and is extremely focussed on movement and positioning.

It can most certainly be done.

That might make an effective wargame but I'm not sure it fits with the ethos of 40k where the fantasy is Marines tanking bolter shots and tanks driving closer to hit people with melee weapons.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Snark aside I would say they have empirically demonstrated understanding with several of the changes so far.

Again, show me the final product at launch. For 20 years I've watched the "THIS time we will make it the best one ever!" promos.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
Basically, to make a good wargame out of 40k, you must start by making it a wargame in the first place.

This is the core problem. It isn't a very good wargame, so it doesn't matter how you put points, they won't work.

No actual wargame would include the oddball scale-breaking items that 40k uses. Yes, squad/platoon games will have airstrikes, but it's just a blast effect or a strafing zone; they don't have fighters fly in circles over the itty-bitty battlefield.

Having Knights in the game is like having a destroyer anchor in lake in the middle of the battlefield. These are problems beyond mere points to solve.

Knights can work fine in 40k, there's no inherent problem with the scale there. Flyers are harder, but they make more sense if you understand the battlespace as nonlinear, and flyer behavior isn't that of a modern air force.

It's also an issue of just recognizing what 40k is for, which is that of using your cool models. Imo it's a core design pillar, even if incorperating these units feels awkward.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Knights can work fine in 40k, there's no inherent problem with the scale there.

To an extent they can work, but the problem comes from then being their own army rather than something you can tack 1-3 of in an army.

Well, at least for the battle scale that GW kinda promotes 40k at. That said, the hate Knights get is silly. The models are just fantastic.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Knights can work fine in 40k, there's no inherent problem with the scale there.

To an extent they can work, but the problem comes from then being their own army rather than something you can tack 1-3 of in an army.

Except you CAN tack 1-3 onto armies....

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
10th is iterative of 8th and 9th. The choices made now are precisely a result of lessons over the past 6 years.

Awesome! I'm looking forward to the glowing reviews of each and every codex.

Snark aside I would say they have empirically demonstrated understanding with several of the changes so far.

And completely missing the point on others. Consolidating all combi-weapons into one single profile......

Keep cheerleading and drinking that Kool-aid, Daed.......

Do you people lack any sort of introspection or pragmatism?

Did I say ALL of the change? No, I didn't.
Would you say the reaction to most of the changes have been positive or negative? I think you'd be lying to yourself if you said negative.

If you're unable to process new information it's not me that's "drinking the koolaid". And what an absolutely pathetic statement from someone who lords a different game from the same company.

The GW hate train is so deep you forgot to stop and think.

Ok, the "cheerleading and kool-aid" remarks were completely out of line, and I fully apologize for those, Daed. I'm sorry.

But you can't both point out that I "lord" another gw game and claim that I'm on the "GW hate train". I like some of the things that gw does, and dislike others.

And that gw game that I "lord"? I actively play it. I'm not just reacting to gw "hype" articles (read: advertisements). Every edition is the "best edition", and fixes everything wrong with the previous edition. It's marketing.

And how am I "you people"? Are you counting the voices in my head? Or just venting on me for everyone else that you've argued with about this? If it's the former, then stay away from them, they're MINE! If it's the latter? Then I hope you feel better.