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.

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
History of the game says otherwise.

And for a time Defilers were as skilled in melee as Guardsmen. That was stupid too.

Again, disagree, but to each their own. I just don't like the attitude that 50% of a d6 is worthless to the majority.

I mean, there's two things at play here. Unless you have a decent number of attacks, it's probably not worth it to pay MC-level points for something that hits half the time. That's a game balance thing, but there are knobs you can tweak to make the 50% number feel right.

Then there's the fluff, and that's where WS3 doesn't feel fitting for a Carnifex. Why would hyper-adaptation result in a CQC tank bioform that gets slapped around by any Tom, Dick, and Harry? And I didn't play in 3/4e but IIRC there were tons of adaptations and things you could take to make the Carnifex do a particular job better. I'm not an expert but I'm guessing one of those increased its WS.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
History of the game says otherwise.

And for a time Defilers were as skilled in melee as Guardsmen. That was stupid too.

Again, disagree, but to each their own. I just don't like the attitude that 50% of a d6 is worthless to the majority.

I mean, there's two things at play here. Unless you have a decent number of attacks, it's probably not worth it to pay MC-level points for something that hits half the time. That's a game balance thing, but there are knobs you can tweak to make the 50% number feel right.

Then there's the fluff, and that's where WS3 doesn't feel fitting for a Carnifex. Why would hyper-adaptation result in a CQC tank bioform that gets slapped around by any Tom, Dick, and Harry? And I didn't play in 3/4e but IIRC there were tons of adaptations and things you could take to make the Carnifex do a particular job better. I'm not an expert but I'm guessing one of those increased its WS.

Because the carnifex is meant to batter tanks/doors/walls/large objects into pieces, you don't need to be dexterous or a nimble fighter to be good at that, you just have to be able to whack it a couple of times really hard. Which is what carnifex used to do.

But it definitely is possible to make a monster level creature valuable and worthwhile when it hits 50% of the time. The game and community mentality aren't behind it however, we could push ork BS upto 4+ and switch to a d4 and nothing would change at this point.

People want the game to be less lethal, they want units to live longer. Simply accept you'll do less damage and job accomplished. You really want everything to hit on 3+ then it better cost a lot and have limited attacks.

That aside to bring it back on topic, playing 10th from my limited experience so far has been OK, it's not hard to transition from 9th, USRs largely do the job, terrain is still a bit meehhh to guess the right volumes at this stage. I just wish they'd attacked lethality a little more aggressively (ironically).

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
History of the game says otherwise.

And for a time Defilers were as skilled in melee as Guardsmen. That was stupid too.

Again, disagree, but to each their own. I just don't like the attitude that 50% of a d6 is worthless to the majority.

I mean, there's two things at play here. Unless you have a decent number of attacks, it's probably not worth it to pay MC-level points for something that hits half the time. That's a game balance thing, but there are knobs you can tweak to make the 50% number feel right.

Then there's the fluff, and that's where WS3 doesn't feel fitting for a Carnifex. Why would hyper-adaptation result in a CQC tank bioform that gets slapped around by any Tom, Dick, and Harry? And I didn't play in 3/4e but IIRC there were tons of adaptations and things you could take to make the Carnifex do a particular job better. I'm not an expert but I'm guessing one of those increased its WS.

I would dare to show how any tom, dick and harry survive let alone beat carnifex

tneva82 wrote:Where in ursula it says it overrides once per turn?

Unless he can show exact word he's cheating.

Phase ain't turn.

I mean a phase is in a turn?

"This unit gets 2 CP in the Command Phase" would let it get 2CP, despite not mentioning a turn at all (and the CP generation limit is per turn, not per phase, just like Overwatch).

If I said "ONLY ONE BREAK IS ALLOWED PER HOUR" as corporate policy, and said "Tneva82 can take two breaks every 10 minutes", would you still only take 1 per hour because I didn't specify "and also multiple times per hour"?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
The same way nobody ever took Lootas, Dakka Jets, Shoota Boys or Conscripts? /sarcasm

Basilisks cost as much as Shoota Boyz, do they? Orks have alternative units with lots of BS4+ and BS3+, do they?

If you're going to pick examples, please pick good ones. Choosing most of your examples from an army that damn-near uniformly hits on 5+ isn't a great start to an argument.

Guard players, on the other hand, but their big guns, would have other options that are considerably more reliable than 5+ hitting Basilisks/Manticores. That's what I was getting at. Figured that'd be obvious.

Points can't be changed? It's funny you should note that Orks have BS4+ alternatives, they're called Killa Kans, those were complete garbage for 8th and 9th if I am not mistaken. It all comes back to points efficiency. The idea of a tank with a side benefit of being able to shoot less accurately at things it cannot see will automatically be garbage is far out, you could always just shoot targets in LOS with it.

Come the feth on, what other BS5+ ranged units are there in the game? Conscripts are also a Guard unit if you didn't know, they happened to be super competitive at the start of 8th. There is nothing wrong with the examples I picked, that's like half the BS 5+ ranged units in the game I know of.

If you roll enough dice you'll get some 5s. At worst it might be unsatisfying to have a bad roll once in a while or the damage output might feel too low.

 alextroy wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:
I think you are have just hit the nail. Indirectly, the basilisk should be hitting natively on a 5+. If it's visible it should be 4+. Indirectly with buffs, say a scout sentinel, it should be maxed at 4+, no higher.

If the Basilisk, and its ilk, hit on 5+ most of the time, no one would take them.

The same way nobody ever took Lootas, Dakka Jets, Shoota Boys or Conscripts? /sarcasm

I think we can all agree that nobody in the history of W40K has taken Conscripts for their ability to lay down withering firepower. Given that is the point of the Basilisk, you are comparing Apples to Rocks.

Basilisks have the pinning benefit as well. 150 pts for 40 Conscripts and a Commander firing 150 shots was indeed quite a lot.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean a phase is in a turn?

"This unit gets 2 CP in the Command Phase" would let it get 2CP, despite not mentioning a turn at all (and the CP generation limit is per turn, not per phase, just like Overwatch).

If I said "ONLY ONE BREAK IS ALLOWED PER HOUR" as corporate policy, and said "Tneva82 can take two breaks every 10 minutes", would you still only take 1 per hour because I didn't specify "and also multiple times per hour"?

That's not how it works. Turn > Battle Round > Phase. So for Overwatch, it is used within a Movement or Charge Phase but can only be used once a Turn, so if you used it already you can't use it again.
Creed's ability would take place after you used Overwatch on a previous unit thereby triggering the "Once per turn" stipulation.

 Gert wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean a phase is in a turn?

"This unit gets 2 CP in the Command Phase" would let it get 2CP, despite not mentioning a turn at all (and the CP generation limit is per turn, not per phase, just like Overwatch).

If I said "ONLY ONE BREAK IS ALLOWED PER HOUR" as corporate policy, and said "Tneva82 can take two breaks every 10 minutes", would you still only take 1 per hour because I didn't specify "and also multiple times per hour"?

That's not how it works. Turn > Battle Round > Phase. So for Overwatch, it is used within a Movement or Charge Phase but can only be used once a Turn, so if you used it already you can't use it again.
Creed's ability would take place after you used Overwatch on a previous unit thereby triggering the "Once per turn" stipulation.

Which is subsequently ignored because as long as it is in the same phase, Ursula Creed's more specific rule overrides the main rule book general Overwatch rule and allows it to be used twice. (But only in the same phase). Specific overrides general is how permissive rulesets work.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Which is subsequently ignored because as long as it is in the same phase, Ursula Creed's more specific rule overrides the main rule book general Overwatch rule and allows it to be used twice. (But only in the same phase). Specific overrides general is how permissive rulesets work.

I'll keep this nice and simple for you.
Have you used the Overwatch Stratagem already this turn?
Yes - You cannot use this Stratagem again this turn.
No - You can use this Stratagem.
It is literally as simple as that. The Turn limitation comes before Creed's ability to use a Stratagem twice in a phase.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Which is subsequently ignored because as long as it is in the same phase, Ursula Creed's more specific rule overrides the main rule book general Overwatch rule and allows it to be used twice. (But only in the same phase). Specific overrides general is how permissive rulesets work.

"Specific overrides general" is not relevant in this case because it's not a conflict of specific vs. general, it's two entirely separate rules. There are two restrictions on stratagem use:

1) A "no more than once per phase" limit that applies to all stratagems, including overwatch.

and

2) A "no more than once per turn" limit specific to overwatch.

2 is not a more specific form of 1, it is a separate rule that exists in addition to 1. Creed allows you to ignore 1, it doesn't apply any more to 2 than it does to the rule that tank shock can only be used on a vehicle unit.

Interesting.

My opponent and I both agreed that since a phase was part of a turn, being able to use it twice per phase overrides being able to use it twice per turn.

My recommendation is that you guys look at the phrasing on Asurmen's datasheet. It is identical to Ursula's, mentioning phase without any mention of turn...

....except the Fire Overwatch stratagem is named there. I guess his ability does nothing though - after all, he has no permission to override the twice per turn. Only per phase.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Interesting.

My opponent and I both agreed that since a phase was part of a turn, being able to use it twice per phase overrides being able to use it twice per turn.

My recommendation is that you guys look at the phrasing on Asurmen's datasheet. It is identical to Ursula's, mentioning phase without any mention of turn...

....except the Fire Overwatch stratagem is named there. I guess his ability does nothing though - after all, he has no permission to override the twice per turn. Only per phase.

It clarifies GW's intent... Probably.

GW sucks at technical writing, more at eleven.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Interesting.

My opponent and I both agreed that since a phase was part of a turn, being able to use it twice per phase overrides being able to use it twice per turn.

My recommendation is that you guys look at the phrasing on Asurmen's datasheet. It is identical to Ursula's, mentioning phase without any mention of turn...

....except the Fire Overwatch stratagem is named there. I guess his ability does nothing though - after all, he has no permission to override the twice per turn. Only per phase.

It clarifies GW's intent... Probably.

GW sucks at technical writing, more at eleven.

Now is the intent for Ursula to do the same but with more stratagems on her list? Or to do the same with every OTHER stratagem except overwatch because they very carefully worded her ability to exclude it, and also wanted Asurmen to very carefully secretly do nothing

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Interesting.

My opponent and I both agreed that since a phase was part of a turn, being able to use it twice per phase overrides being able to use it twice per turn.

My recommendation is that you guys look at the phrasing on Asurmen's datasheet. It is identical to Ursula's, mentioning phase without any mention of turn...

....except the Fire Overwatch stratagem is named there. I guess his ability does nothing though - after all, he has no permission to override the twice per turn. Only per phase.

It clarifies GW's intent... Probably.

GW sucks at technical writing, more at eleven.

Now is the intent for Ursula to do the same but with more stratagems on her list? Or to do the same with every OTHER stratagem except overwatch because they very carefully worded her ability to exclude it, and also wanted Asurmen to very carefully secretly do nothing

Assuming GW is consistent across the board (which is a pretty big assumption, truth be told) it'd indicate that the "Extra Strat" abilities can be used with Overwatch.

Or Asurman should say Turn instead of/or in addition to Phase, but GW is still only slowly getting better at technical writing.

 vict0988 wrote:
If you roll enough dice you'll get some 5s.

A Basilisk isn't a unit of 30 Conscripts or 30 Shoota Boyz. Again, pick better examples than BS5+ units that need mass amounts of firepower to have any appreciable effect.

If your big artillery piece misses 2/3rds of the time, it just won't be taken. Guard players will take other big guns that hit more often.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If your big artillery piece misses 2/3rds of the time, it just won't be taken. Guard players will take other big guns that hit more often.

And we saw this very clearly with the 9th edition codex. GW removed the exemption from the indirect fire penalty when the new codex arrived, making Basilisks usually hit on 5s, and Basilisks weren't seen again until 10th fixed their accuracy problem.

The whole "IG artillery should be hitting on 5+"-discussion is hilarious given that IG is sitting at a 32% winrate @ GTs.

Let's lower it even more shall we?

 MinscS2 wrote:
The whole "IG artillery should be hitting on 5+"-discussion is hilarious given that IG is sitting at a 32% winrate @ GTs.

Let's lower it even more shall we?

Thats because most people miss the point.

A basilisk hitting on 5s would never likely occur given that if its stationary and behind cover, it would be hitting on 4s. Guard vehicles shouldn't need to hit on 5's unless bracketed.

Guard artillery needs to be good, not oppressive.

Guard tanks should be cheaper, guard tank commanders should be able to order themselves. Our calvary should be hard hitting like GSC jackals. Our Bullgryn should hit a little harder or be a good choice for most lists.

It shouldn't take that much to improve the guard across the board to make it a fun army to play, and play against.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If your big artillery piece misses 2/3rds of the time, it just won't be taken. Guard players will take other big guns that hit more often.

And we saw this very clearly with the 9th edition codex. GW removed the exemption from the indirect fire penalty when the new codex arrived, making Basilisks usually hit on 5s, and Basilisks weren't seen again until 10th fixed their accuracy problem.

I'm sure I can find several bad Titanic ranged units in 10th, that does not prove that Titanic units are garbage, those specific units could just be overpriced for their performance.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
If you roll enough dice you'll get some 5s.

A Basilisk isn't a unit of 30 Conscripts or 30 Shoota Boyz. Again, pick better examples than BS5+ units that need mass amounts of firepower to have any appreciable effect.

If your big artillery piece misses 2/3rds of the time, it just won't be taken. Guard players will take other big guns that hit more often.

Ah, I must have missed that Basilisks were back to shooting one-shot, I can see why they need to hit Space Marine BS to make up for that /sarcasm. You're going to move the goalposts anyway, so what's the purpose of finding examples? I found BS 5+ shooting units that were good, so BS 5+ shooting units can be good. I deliberately avoided units like Servitors being good because they were just used as action monkeys and units with melee, it is really not fair to expect to find a good Astra Militarum tank with BS 5+ because there are no AM tanks with BS 5+, the only time they've been hitting on 5s is during a short window after their codex was released, but I can point to groups of units being weak in other codexes as well, but it all comes down to points.

If the current 100 pt BS 4+ Basilisk was changed to a 65 pt BS 5+ Basilisk it would be just as tough and have a higher return on investment, it would be a much better unit. Values for easy math, 5+ BS Basilisk ROI would be 2% better and would be more impacted by getting +1 to hit from having LOS.

 Smirrors wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:
The whole "IG artillery should be hitting on 5+"-discussion is hilarious given that IG is sitting at a 32% winrate @ GTs.

Let's lower it even more shall we?

Thats because most people miss the point.

A basilisk hitting on 5s would never likely occur given that if its stationary and behind cover, it would be hitting on 4s. Guard vehicles shouldn't need to hit on 5's unless bracketed.

Guard artillery needs to be good, not oppressive.

Guard tanks should be cheaper, guard tank commanders should be able to order themselves. Our calvary should be hard hitting like GSC jackals. Our Bullgryn should hit a little harder or be a good choice for most lists.

It shouldn't take that much to improve the guard across the board to make it a fun army to play, and play against.

Rules changes should not be made on the basis of win rates, that's how you get stupid gak like lethal wounds on lasguns. Guard artillery should not be super accurate, if you can find a source for it being super accurate at targeting things without spotters or anything I will yield my point. This idea that BS5+ is automatically garbage is completely silly.

 vict0988 wrote:
This idea that BS5+ is automatically garbage is completely silly.

Like it or not it's true. We already did this experiment with the 9th edition codex and the result was that artillery didn't see the table outside of extremely casual kitchen table games until 10th brought it back to an acceptable hit rate.

And no, making artillery cheaper to compensate is not a solution. You aren't actually reducing the effectiveness of indirect fire and addressing the balance issue, you're only making some people feel better because "BS 5+" is emotionally better than seeing "BS 3+" even if the end result is the same models leaving the table each turn. And those people shouldn't be pandered to.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
This idea that BS5+ is automatically garbage is completely silly.

Like it or not it's true. We already did this experiment with the 9th edition codex and the result was that artillery didn't see the table outside of extremely casual kitchen table games until 10th brought it back to an acceptable hit rate.

And no, making artillery cheaper to compensate is not a solution. You aren't actually reducing the effectiveness of indirect fire and addressing the balance issue, you're only making some people feel better because "BS 5+" is emotionally better than seeing "BS 3+" even if the end result is the same models leaving the table each turn. And those people shouldn't be pandered to.

I'm but sorry you're very endemic of the problem here. Over the years and even since the last reboot in 8th there's been the steady trends of:

- More attacks
- Less drawbacks to movement
- More reliability in attacks
- More reliability in wounding
- More ability to bypass saves
- More interactions that improve the above between units

10th has in some places reduced some of those, but I'd wager increased the interactions that improve attacks, but overall maybe hasn't been quite enough.

This creeping increase in constant lethality and the need for "top end efficiency" to be normalised is why 9th ended up having a lethality crisis. There should be fewer models being removed each turn, that's the point. There needs to be a general scale back in some of those areas and 4+ should be considered "good" with 3+ to hit things considered "above average" and yes that would mean comparatively reducing the number of marines on the table to show their elite training.

Where this will hit the usual wall of gnashing is "marines are the baseline". Fine, they're the most commonly seen faction and stat block. What should matter is you ability to combat marines, not how close your units ape their stats.

10th made some efforts in this regards like the BS4+ skitarii, which was met with hostility, lets throw in 4+ on the fex as well. But as long as the bare minimum anyone accepts is a 67% success rate to hit, they then can't complain about overlaps in unit profiles, design space and lack of granularity in interactions when most of the variables aren't considered usable.

Ok, sure, if you re-scale the entire game maybe there's some version of 40k where BS 5+ Basilisks are fine. But that's not what is being proposed here, the suggestion is for a specific indirect fire nerf that effectively removes guard artillery from the game again.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Ok, sure, if you re-scale the entire game maybe there's some version of 40k where BS 5+ Basilisks are fine. But that's not what is being proposed here, the suggestion is for a specific indirect fire nerf that effectively removes guard artillery from the game again.

I have only stated that basilisks should be hitting on 4s. That is the standard guard hit rate. Hitting on 5s should only occur of bracket.

 Smirrors wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Ok, sure, if you re-scale the entire game maybe there's some version of 40k where BS 5+ Basilisks are fine. But that's not what is being proposed here, the suggestion is for a specific indirect fire nerf that effectively removes guard artillery from the game again.

I have only stated that basilisks should be hitting on 4s. That is the standard guard hit rate. Hitting on 5s should only occur of bracket.

5s with the indirect fire penalty. Which is what it was when the 9th edition codex was released and artillery disappeared for the rest of the edition.

And Basilisks do have BS 4+ as is standard for guard. They have a +1 to hit ability similar to how orders give +1 to hit.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Ok, sure, if you re-scale the entire game maybe there's some version of 40k where BS 5+ Basilisks are fine. But that's not what is being proposed here, the suggestion is for a specific indirect fire nerf that effectively removes guard artillery from the game again.

Well you're all for tearing up the games points design manifesto so why not rescale the game at the same time? You're misrepresenting both the original point and your own at the same time. The original post was that they shouldn't be able to be buffed beyond a 4+ to hit with indirect fire, which you refuted because they must hit on a 3+ or cease to be useful in the game. That needs to change and it needs to be something people stop expecting from every single unit.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Ok, sure, if you re-scale the entire game maybe there's some version of 40k where BS 5+ Basilisks are fine. But that's not what is being proposed here, the suggestion is for a specific indirect fire nerf that effectively removes guard artillery from the game again.

I have only stated that basilisks should be hitting on 4s. That is the standard guard hit rate. Hitting on 5s should only occur of bracket.

5s with the indirect fire penalty. Which is what it was when the 9th edition codex was released and artillery disappeared for the rest of the edition.

How long was the duration of this dark age of artillery?

And no, making artillery cheaper to compensate is not a solution. You aren't actually reducing the effectiveness of indirect fire and addressing the balance issue, you're only making some people feel better because "BS 5+" is emotionally better than seeing "BS 3+" even if the end result is the same models leaving the table each turn. And those people shouldn't be pandered to.

Cut Basilisk pts by 20% and reduce BS by 1. Now their ROI against targets in LOS is reduced by 7%, ROI against targets out of LOS is reduced by 17% but the tank is more durable for its pts and it is more efficient at pinning units. Do some calculations to see if the efficiency math checks out against various targets compared to other vehicles in Astra Militarum, playtest an army with a trio of Basilisks 3 times and see if things are obviously broken or release. Now if it gets spammed in tournaments you increase the pts and if it never gets taken you decrease its points until it starts getting taken.

One of the poorer edition launches. I've had 10 games now and whilst I appreciate a refresh of the system mechanics overall its a disappointing experience. Points/power levels are regularly discussed locally as being a major mistake. Overwatch and downgrading of melee as well. Key words are nice and welcomed, marine changes to transports are also good. 9th ed had better response locally and brought more players in than 10th has.

 Sureshot05 wrote:
One of the poorer edition launches. I've had 10 games now and whilst I appreciate a refresh of the system mechanics overall its a disappointing experience. Points/power levels are regularly discussed locally as being a major mistake. Overwatch and downgrading of melee as well. Key words are nice and welcomed, marine changes to transports are also good. 9th ed had better response locally and brought more players in than 10th has.

It's a bit hard to judge because of different world events going on at the time, but it's actually been very hard to find games of 10th locally, especially as time has gone on. There was an initial burst of activity around it and now it's all died down a little because I think people are sort of waiting for fixes.

I've certainly not noticed a huge surge in new players around here either.

I'd argue a lack of a surge compared to the more recent editions is more down to circumstance than the quality of rules.

Compared to 8th, 10th isn't coming off of a widely hated version of the game. Even with its faults 8th was leagues ahead of 7th in terms of rules quality which got a lot of previous players back into the game.

And as for 9th? Well, we aren't in global lockdowns or restrictions anymore. Most people are back to the previous way of life (if altered in many cases with working from home) and the surge we saw with 9th isn't down to good rules but people looking to pick up something that isn't video games or TV in lockdowns.

The cost of living in most countries has risen pretty heavily as well so the chances are people aren't really looking to buy tonnes of luxury goods when some previously stable families are now towing the poverty line.

That isn't to say people's opinions on the new rules aren't valid, just that now more than ever things have gotten in the way of a big boom of new starts.

The four games I've played have involved a turn two concession, two turn three concessions and just a single game went to the end. And these games didn't even involve Towering or much Indirect Fire.

I have not played any new to 40k players or seen any new to 40k players playing.

I did play a relative newbie and they really struggled to remember all their datasheet rules. I often had to go through this scenario with them when they shot or fought:
- What is the special rule on your bodyguard unit's datasheet?
- What is the special rule on your leader's datasheet?
- What is the second special rule on your leader's datasheet?
If I hadn't patiently done this each time they would have missed out on a bunch of rules/power on their attacks.

I tried one of the GW recommended tournament layouts (layout 1) and it was hilariously hard for anything not in the middle of the table to shoot anything that was in the middle of the table.

But, if either of us had had a towering model it would have been extremely simple for that model to shoot everything in the middle of the table (and most things in our deployment zone).

It isn't clear exactly what the solid blue blocks are in the layout, but I think they will have to be magic boxes to prevent issues with towering.