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.

But even then doesn't Get's Hot/Hazardus does the same thing without having to create an entire new phase?

EDIT: Mind you my problem with psychic is that it has no flexibility whatsoever and psykers should have a list(s) of powers they have access. No need for an entire phase for such powers, they can be passive powers, some auras and some shooting powers, but it would be nice to have some of the old flexibility back.

tneva82 wrote:
So psychic sucks because gw made it completely reliable.,.

No, it sucks because it is completely uninteresting.

Every. Single. Librararian. Has EXACTLY the same power as every other Librarian. There is no way for this not to be the case.
Every. Single. Inquisitor. Has EXACTLY the same power as every other Inquisitor. There is no way for this not to be the case.

Ditto on every Farseer, Weirdboy etc.

Now, personally, I believe that Perils rules were fluffy AF, and cool. But I wouldn't be complaining about the travesty that is 10th ed Psychic powers if it was possible to psychically differentiate one unit from another that uses the same datacard. But it isn't, so I do.

GW could always do the 8th edition Harlequins thing with 3 psychic options per datasheet in an expansion, hurry up and write GW to suggest it if it is something you would like to see.

 alextroy wrote:

Toofast wrote:

I can't tweak my list down to the individual model level for maximum optimization.

Yeah. I'll have to disagree with you on almost every point.

I can only imagine that you're saying this to be deliberately argumentative.

Oh it's certainly cooler but funny how it suddenly sucks because they became more reliable.

But if he really thinks it's better when can fail i'm sure opponents are happy to allow him to take test to use his psychic power

PenitentJake wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
So psychic sucks because gw made it completely reliable.,.

No, it sucks because it is completely uninteresting.

Every. Single. Librararian. Has EXACTLY the same power as every other Librarian. There is no way for this not to be the case.
Every. Single. Inquisitor. Has EXACTLY the same power as every other Inquisitor. There is no way for this not to be the case.

Ditto on every Farseer, Weirdboy etc.

Now, personally, I believe that Perils rules were fluffy AF, and cool. But I wouldn't be complaining about the travesty that is 10th ed Psychic powers if it was possible to psychically differentiate one unit from another that uses the same datacard. But it isn't, so I do.

+1. And even if you aren't considering the mechanics of the rules, the actual effects are underwhelming like 85% of the time. Like somebody else said, there's just not much of a market out there for weird pistols.

I can often see the logic that shows up with some of the rules changes that GW makes (even if I don't agree with them.) For the changes to the psychic phase, I just think they completely missed the mark. The only time it sort of feels like they got it right is either when the shooting rules are actually pretty strong (like the Nids psykers; Zoanthrope warp blasts are scary to tanks again and that's fun) or GW invents a completely new system that's an above-and-beyond psychic phase replacement (a la Thousand Sons).

 Tyran wrote:
But even then doesn't Get's Hot/Hazardus does the same thing without having to create an entire new phase?

EDIT: Mind you my problem with psychic is that it has no flexibility whatsoever and psykers should have a list(s) of powers they have access. No need for an entire phase for such powers, they can be passive powers, some auras and some shooting powers, but it would be nice to have some of the old flexibility back.

I think psychic powers deserve a full phase if they re really diverse because remembering what power is to be used in what phase is sometimes tedious. Easier sorted with a phase of its own. However, on the contrary, if powers are just glorified boomsticks, then I will agree that it may be superfluous.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
The fight phase is already the hardest to do stuff in since you need to reach the other unit, letting the player get free movement from it wasn't gamebreaking and certainly isnt now that most units hit like soft noodles.

The problem with the fight phase movement was design, not balance. Even if it wasn't overpowered it still involved a bunch of tedious micromanaging of exact positions so you could turn "your models can push forward to fill in space as casualties are removed" into a bunch of extra movement distance. It was bad design and needed to go.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
The fight phase is already the hardest to do stuff in since you need to reach the other unit, letting the player get free movement from it wasn't gamebreaking and certainly isnt now that most units hit like soft noodles.

The problem with the fight phase movement was design, not balance. Even if it wasn't overpowered it still involved a bunch of tedious micromanaging of exact positions so you could turn "your models can push forward to fill in space as casualties are removed" into a bunch of extra movement distance. It was bad design and needed to go.

i'm not saying it wasnt, honestly at the scale of battle that 40k takes place, i could see a more "rank and file" approach to coherency fit pretty well. Yes, i know it wouldn't pass and people would complain because micromanaging the position of one your dudes one by one is something that is core to the game.

But i feel like GW is trying super hard with overly complex rules for coherency (in and out of combat) and creating this lawyer-speech way to define it, when it would be much simpler to just force units to be in ranks.

Having played only two games of 10th I found the terrain rules pretty straightforward and okay. What do people dislike about them? 9th were too complicated and I found it often pretty tough to actually get a cover bonus. 8th terrain rules were a joke outside of cities of death.
What 10th lacks is "difficult terrain" outside of woods. But other than that?
Walking through walls feels strange, but considering the size 40K has become it's an abstraction I can accept.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Having played only two games of 10th I found the terrain rules pretty straightforward and okay. What do people dislike about them? 9th were too complicated and I found it often pretty tough to actually get a cover bonus. 8th terrain rules were a joke outside of cities of death.
What 10th lacks is "difficult terrain" outside of woods. But other than that?
Walking through walls feels strange, but considering the size 40K has become it's an abstraction I can accept.

Mostly that there's no more terrain diversity. All terrain is +1 save if any part of the model is blocked by it, no LOS if models are on opposite sides of its footprint. And if you aren't using a whole table full of L-shaped ruins with the bottom floor house ruled to block LOS entirely even to models within the footprint of the ruin you're going to have a bad game.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Having played only two games of 10th I found the terrain rules pretty straightforward and okay. What do people dislike about them? 9th were too complicated and I found it often pretty tough to actually get a cover bonus. 8th terrain rules were a joke outside of cities of death.
What 10th lacks is "difficult terrain" outside of woods. But other than that?
Walking through walls feels strange, but considering the size 40K has become it's an abstraction I can accept.

Right now, you have to TRY to not benefit from cover, and terrain is only ever gonna give you +1 to your saves. No difficult terrain, no terrain thats hard to shoot through (-1 to hit). If you're not playing with basic ruins spammed in a symmetrical way, the game kinda falls apart. Heck, now terrain even comes with bases that are much bigger than the pieces themselves because the game NEEEDS you to benefit from obscuring to function.

It's an "all or nothing" kinda deal

I feel the Psychic Phase is a bit like a lot of stuff.

On paper, yes, you could take a load of different abilities. Which is good for making "your dudes". In practice however I feel 80-90% of people (approaching 100% in serious tournament lists) took the best powers and that was that.

It was the same for subfactions, stratagems, relics etc. I still think this was more fun than just having a small pool of optimal choices or nothing - but still.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Having played only two games of 10th I found the terrain rules pretty straightforward and okay. What do people dislike about them? 9th were too complicated and I found it often pretty tough to actually get a cover bonus. 8th terrain rules were a joke outside of cities of death.
What 10th lacks is "difficult terrain" outside of woods. But other than that?
Walking through walls feels strange, but considering the size 40K has become it's an abstraction I can accept.

Mostly that there's no more terrain diversity. All terrain is +1 save if any part of the model is blocked by it, no LOS if models are on opposite sides of its footprint. And if you aren't using a whole table full of L-shaped ruins with the bottom floor house ruled to block LOS entirely even to models within the footprint of the ruin you're going to have a bad game.

This is not really accurate. There are essential 3 types of terrain (technically 6): LOS blocking (Ruins), Cover when within/behind (Craters, Barricades), and Cover when Obscuring (Battlefield Debris, Hills, Woods). Each of the 6 have their own unique spin on when and/or additional rules but they are simple.

As for the loss of Dense Terrains -1 Hit, that is because it was an unbalanced rule that severely affected some armies while have a marginal effect on others. +1 AP is universally applicable with an expected result.

 alextroy wrote:
As for the loss of Dense Terrains -1 Hit, that is because it was an unbalanced rule that severely affected some armies while have a marginal effect on others. +1 AP is universally applicable with an expected result.

The effect of Custodian Guard ignoring the AP on my 20 Necron Warrior brick is reducing damage 50%, saving 2,8 wounds. The effect of an Infantry Squad having cover against the same thing is reducing damage 20%, saving 3,3 wounds. A unit of tesla Immortals ignore cover because they have no AP to lose. The range of impacts is just as huge as -1 to hit.

Tyel wrote:
I feel the Psychic Phase is a bit like a lot of stuff.

On paper, yes, you could take a load of different abilities. Which is good for making "your dudes". In practice however I feel 80-90% of people (approaching 100% in serious tournament lists) took the best powers and that was that.

It was the same for subfactions, stratagems, relics etc. I still think this was more fun than just having a small pool of optimal choices or nothing - but still.

That is a problem with GW not being able to balance the different options worth a gak.

There is no reason that 90% of powers should be obviously sub-par.

look at what you want a psi power to do in game and its generally one of the following

- hurt an enemy
- help something else hurt an enemy
- heal a friend
- move yourself
- move something else
- scare something

you can have a bit of variation, e.g. for hurting and healing do you have a focus on one target or a lesser effect across a larger number but thats basically it

the issue seems to be at present its virtually all "hurt something" presented as just another weapon profile

leopard wrote:
look at what you want a psi power to do in game and its generally one of the following

- hurt an enemy
- help something else hurt an enemy
- heal a friend
- move yourself
- move something else
- scare something

you can have a bit of variation, e.g. for hurting and healing do you have a focus on one target or a lesser effect across a larger number but thats basically it

the issue seems to be at present its virtually all "hurt something" presented as just another weapon profile

There's some psykers that provide plenty of the others but because they're often the "leader bonus" for the model it doesn't feel like an extra as such. Like the librarian providing a 4+ invuln and 4+ fnp against psychics. As a leader model you can attach you'd expect them to have some sort of rule to pass on irrespective if they were a psyker or not, so the "psychic power" being the 4++ doesn't feel like one as it's filled an existing role on the datacard.

The reason you don't likely notice them as well is because the shooty ones are a weapon profile you're interacting with and check USR's, whereas the rest there's no need to discuss beyond what they do really.

PenitentJake wrote:
Every. Single. Librararian. Has EXACTLY the same power as every other Librarian. There is no way for this not to be the case.

Hey now, that's not entirely true.
They get different powers based on the kind of armour they are wearing

Dudeface wrote:

leopard wrote:
look at what you want a psi power to do in game and its generally one of the following

- hurt an enemy
- help something else hurt an enemy
- heal a friend
- move yourself
- move something else
- scare something

you can have a bit of variation, e.g. for hurting and healing do you have a focus on one target or a lesser effect across a larger number but thats basically it

the issue seems to be at present its virtually all "hurt something" presented as just another weapon profile

There's some psykers that provide plenty of the others but because they're often the "leader bonus" for the model it doesn't feel like an extra as such. Like the librarian providing a 4+ invuln and 4+ fnp against psychics. As a leader model you can attach you'd expect them to have some sort of rule to pass on irrespective if they were a psyker or not, so the "psychic power" being the 4++ doesn't feel like one as it's filled an existing role on the datacard.

The reason you don't likely notice them as well is because the shooty ones are a weapon profile you're interacting with and check USR's, whereas the rest there's no need to discuss beyond what they do really.

In a game of such lore as 40k, it is actually a big deal in my opinion that things feel in a distinctive way.

Because in the end, psychic powers, equipment and weapon can absolutely play one another's role as at the end of the day they are simply rules to interpret your dice rolls. But when said rules have your psyker risk being possessed or die in the attempt, when you can deny the witch) hated mechanic but I like it as your guardsmen somehow pulling enough willpower to overcome it great to me), etc, then it doesn't feel like just another dice roll. It feels "alive" in a way, it feels different, and these vibes are important in enjoying a miniature game.

You models don't actually shoot or run or fight. You have got no blue lasers shooting out from their eyes or pinkish warp tears at the center of you table. You live the combat through the rules and the dice rolls. So they need to help you imagine stuff, to feel alive.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

leopard wrote:
look at what you want a psi power to do in game and its generally one of the following

- hurt an enemy
- help something else hurt an enemy
- heal a friend
- move yourself
- move something else
- scare something

you can have a bit of variation, e.g. for hurting and healing do you have a focus on one target or a lesser effect across a larger number but thats basically it

the issue seems to be at present its virtually all "hurt something" presented as just another weapon profile

There's some psykers that provide plenty of the others but because they're often the "leader bonus" for the model it doesn't feel like an extra as such. Like the librarian providing a 4+ invuln and 4+ fnp against psychics. As a leader model you can attach you'd expect them to have some sort of rule to pass on irrespective if they were a psyker or not, so the "psychic power" being the 4++ doesn't feel like one as it's filled an existing role on the datacard.

The reason you don't likely notice them as well is because the shooty ones are a weapon profile you're interacting with and check USR's, whereas the rest there's no need to discuss beyond what they do really.

In a game of such lore as 40k, it is actually a big deal in my opinion that things feel in a distinctive way.

Because in the end, psychic powers, equipment and weapon can absolutely play one another's role as at the end of the day they are simply rules to interpret your dice rolls. But when said rules have your psyker risk being possessed or die in the attempt, when you can deny the witch) hated mechanic but I like it as your guardsmen somehow pulling enough willpower to overcome it great to me), etc, then it doesn't feel like just another dice roll. It feels "alive" in a way, it feels different, and these vibes are important in enjoying a miniature game.

You models don't actually shoot or run or fight. You have got no blue lasers shooting out from their eyes or pinkish warp tears at the center of you table. You live the combat through the rules and the dice rolls. So they need to help you imagine stuff, to feel alive.

Narrative vs Mechanics, the narrative for so many things are being lost in the churn.

I actually think one of the worst examples of this was the challenge rules, ok on a surface level but leading to the opposite effect almost entirely as so many leaders where not built with any thought to the duals. So you were often just presented with a choice of die or take negatives.
Or sacrifice a Sargent that couldn’t win.

Psychic powers are a huge narrative and important part of the setting, and yet they have been in constant flux of no real direction of what to do with them.
Other games do manage interesting magic systems, even rather simple ones.

I think the strat system is someone’s baby and takes up a lot of the design space there myself, but who knows.

yes forgot the ones

- helps protect you
- helps protect others

pre-emptive healing largely

my point is you don't need a lot of psi powers to cover these, and could easily do what HH does with each and have a "safe" low level and a more risky, but more powerful level of each (or as with SAGA three levels)

no need as such to dress them up as weapons but equally no need for a lot of different names or just very slightly tweaked versions, can be simple and get the same effects

Duals should have been introduced in an appendix, as in Bolt Action second edition which has a batch of option Al rules for fun separated from the main rules.

Duals are fun in some instances, but it should be an offering made that the opposite player can turn down at no cost just to have fun.

The worst is how certain characters, or all characters in case of poor CSM at the time, where forced to dual.

This exemplifies the need for a balance between giving player lore friendly, fun possibilities, but stick to a game where it is reasonable enough for the rules to be efficient.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
If you're not playing with basic ruins spammed in a symmetrical way, the game kinda falls apart. Heck, now terrain even comes with bases that are much bigger than the pieces themselves because the game NEEEDS you to benefit from obscuring to function.

It's an "all or nothing" kinda deal

Well if you are bad it falls apart.

Symetrical used by bad players and those who love to pretend playing competitively when they aren't.

tneva82 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
If you're not playing with basic ruins spammed in a symmetrical way, the game kinda falls apart. Heck, now terrain even comes with bases that are much bigger than the pieces themselves because the game NEEEDS you to benefit from obscuring to function.

It's an "all or nothing" kinda deal

Well if you are bad it falls apart.

Symetrical used by bad players and those who love to pretend playing competitively when they aren't.

ok, go win big events then? Yeah i'm a bad player, i don't even play in real tournaments, i fully admit it. But when players that consistently win tournaments agree with the sentiment, how can you argue against it in good faith?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
If you're not playing with basic ruins spammed in a symmetrical way, the game kinda falls apart. Heck, now terrain even comes with bases that are much bigger than the pieces themselves because the game NEEEDS you to benefit from obscuring to function.

It's an "all or nothing" kinda deal

Well if you are bad it falls apart.

Symetrical used by bad players and those who love to pretend playing competitively when they aren't.

ok, go win big events then? Yeah i'm a bad player, i don't even play in real tournaments, i fully admit it. But when players that consistently win tournaments agree with the sentiment, how can you argue against it in good faith?

Don't bother, tneva82 has a completely nonsense opinion. Those players that consistently win tournaments? They're also bad, and also just pretending the game is competitive. And then that will be it, that's all they give.

the duel stuff needed what LotR has, character "levels" and allowing characters to ignore challenges from "lesser" mortals

avoids Sergeant McSergeantface being able to tie up Lord ReallyQuiteImportantHero for the entire game as the clones go in one at a time

LotR also having a way when a hero is tagged by a common pleb for said hero to actually benefit (Heroic combat, kill the pleb then get to move, and potentially fight, again)

result: you tag heros a bit more carefully if they can fight

leopard wrote:
the duel stuff needed what LotR has, character "levels" and allowing characters to ignore challenges from "lesser" mortals

avoids Sergeant McSergeantface being able to tie up Lord ReallyQuiteImportantHero for the entire game as the clones go in one at a time

LotR also having a way when a hero is tagged by a common pleb for said hero to actually benefit (Heroic combat, kill the pleb then get to move, and potentially fight, again)

result: you tag heros a bit more carefully if they can fight

I don't see how you're tieing up characters in combat? Just fall back?

When duels were a thing in 6th/7th, you could only force falling back from combat if you couldn't hurt the ennemy model as per the damage charts. In any other case, you had to commit to the fight as long as you don't fail a moral test (and probably get wiped out) or win. Which could actually lead to characters too poorly equipped too have an unending duel for the rest of the game or most commonly end with silly situation where a single character stackwiped people by killing their random sergeants.

Anyway, the thread's not about duels, but really, it is a typical rule that sounds great on paper and fluffy but wasn't thought out that well.

I bring back the appendix idea, where I don't see why GW couldn't make very simple competitive rules and then stuff the back of the BRB with optionnal ones designed for narrative play to spice things up at your leisure without overcommitting to designing rules.

It would also mean that by letting aside dodgy rules or elements of the game, streamlining/balancing it could get easier.

This needs developping but I guess it's a starting point.

Well on thursday dataslate coming. Let's see what marketing department wants to sell next