|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:I get that part of the "skill of the game" is winning it before you even put down a model, and that at the highest tiers of competitive 40K you're essentially spending hours upon hours finding the most abusive combinations that maximize efficiency and synergistic effects. The idea that using lists like that isn't necessarily always the best way to play is neither weird nor recent. For me I would like to see something a bit different. I'm not suggesting it's the best way to play (it's not), nor am I suggesting it should supplant regular competitive 40K (it shouldn't). Just that, in my personal opinion, it would be interesting to see what happens if you strip away the meta and instead run a tournament where the players have the same list. The same players would still win. No question imo. You'd have more churn in the mid table, where mediocre players are more reliant on chump bashing through list power, but the top end would be much the same as it is now. Syncopated posted:Is there a difference between saying 'this terrain blocks LoS' and having terrain that actually blocks LoS? Seems like the problem is with the rules on shooting at characters, in this particular case. Read my post above.
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:39 |
|
|
Syncopated posted:Is there a difference between saying 'this terrain blocks LoS' and having terrain that actually blocks LoS? Seems like the problem is with the rules on shooting at characters, in this particular case. It's kind of both. The character rules is what allowed the list to just avoid half of my shots, but there frankly shouldn't be anything in the game that is a big invulnerable box that you can deploy into, especially not the size of a Skyshield where you can fit a whole army.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
moths posted:Fixed armies is also a pretty big thing in history-focused historical games. If you're playing a 1939 scenario, a Polish platoon looks like this while a German platoon looks like that. Yeah, I wish there were a bit more in-universe force construction rules. Like how IG platoons (used to be, not sure if they still are) were made up of at least one command squad and 2 infantry squads. I suppose the problem then would be "Imperials would automatically have more rules than, say, Orks".
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
Corrode posted:The same players would still win. No question imo. You'd have more churn in the mid table, where mediocre players are more reliant on chump bashing through list power, but the top end would be much the same as it is now. Only one way to find out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
I am glad I have only ever played with and against mono-faction armies. It cuts down on a lot of bullshit. Even the people in here writing lists with OPTIMAL chapter tactics for specific units is a step too far for me. I am well aware that such forces could exist and are justified by the fluff, but not for me. I think a mixed force loses narrative cohesion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
Boon posted:It leads to some really bad abuse because the only models that are visible are characters but they cannot be shot because they are not the closest (the models that cannot be shot because they are not visible are closest). When it happens dead center of the table it essentially makes any shooting beyond 12" impossible against an army with 9+ characters... who will proceed to assault you because they all have bikes or jump packs. Forgive me but, according to the rules on page 179 wouldn't that make the character the closest visible enemy unit and thus a viable target?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
I'm building a space wolves / dark angels force at the momen because I find the narrative for it hilarious and like the models. I don't really think that's a problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
Jimmysip posted:Forgive me but, according to the rules on page 179 wouldn't that make the character the closest visible enemy unit and thus a viable target? Chapter Approved update. It has to be closest and visible, not just closest visible. People were "Rhino-sniping" before by driving their own models into position where they blocked LoS then firing at the character. Personally I think that was good use of game mechanics and not an abuse that needed fixing, but apparently I'm in the minority.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
Corrode posted:It's a quick fix for not having sufficient LoS blocking terrain on a table. In my opinion it doesn't really account for enough factors for how widely it's applied, particularly in that I suspect people building LoS blockers from scratch wouldn't make them with the same profiles as the ruins they currently have - i.e. a box big enough to hide a squad (or multiple squads in) from all sides. There's also no trade-off made from the rest of the ruins rules - it depends on exactly how they're worded, but on multiple occasions it's been described as "treat the entire lower floor as solid walls" which makes bikes, monsters etc. completely unable to enter the building. Solving a lack of LoS blockers by giving infantry units deployed in the terrain functional invulnerability to significant chunks of an opposing army is not a good result. Its only a quick fix if they wouldn't have had LoS blocking terrain with the same characteristics. I don't see why terrain would be designed differently if it blocked LoS as there is no uniform footprint or design for ruins. Where ruins block LoS ,they do it for both players' infantry and deny both players. The ability of a player to hide units behind a building is determined before deployment, it is an issue to be taken into account when you deploy. The issue I have with cover in 8th is that it is stupid there is no issue caused by shooting through a building. Still, forcing a unit to be entirely within cover speeds up the game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
Raphus C posted:Its only a quick fix if they wouldn't have had LoS blocking terrain with the same characteristics. I don't see why terrain would be designed differently if it blocked LoS as there is no uniform footprint or design for ruins. Where ruins block LoS ,they do it for both players' infantry and deny both players. The ability of a player to hide units behind a building is determined before deployment, it is an issue to be taken into account when you deploy. I very strongly suspect that people would not build LoS blocking terrain which was a box with a significant table footprint, which units could deploy in, which is 100% LoS blocking to the things inside from all directions, and which gives cover to the unit inside against things not needing line of sight, and which also completely blocks non-infantry models from entering it at all (basically rendering the unit inside immune to both shooting and assault from non-infantry models). I even more strongly suspect they wouldn't use 2, 3 or 4 of them, and yet that TOs are doing so at the moment thanks to the nature of what's in their collections. You're missing two things - 1) players aren't hiding units behind a ruin, they're hiding them in a ruin, which creates other issues besides LoS/no LoS and 2) it is entirely possible that being deprived of shooting out is not equivalent to being deprived of shooting in - say if you're using one of the 5-Sister units in the list posted before, which has very little threat potential in terms of its damage output but is fantastic being sat on an objective, even more so if they become immune to large parts of an opposing army. "Deployment" also isn't an answer - how do you counter-deploy "my unit is in the ruin and you can't see it from anywhere on the board?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
I dont have any issue with that kind of list in competitive play, but it is a little lame if a completely flavorless blob of Everything Good were say, your main/first army.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend any sites/stores to get terrain similar to the Necromunda Bulkhead set? Like same style/industrial doors and shutters/etc. Cheaper the better, gonna need a lot of these :P . Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
Corrode posted:Chapter Approved update. It has to be closest and visible, not just closest visible. People were "Rhino-sniping" before by driving their own models into position where they blocked LoS then firing at the character. Personally I think that was good use of game mechanics and not an abuse that needed fixing, but apparently I'm in the minority. I was wondering why it was changed before I realized this. It's too bad the game rules don't have a way to differentiate "hidden" units. Something blocked from being seen because it's hidden by/in terrain vs. something blocked from LoS by clever positioning of a Rhino, for example.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
LifeLynx posted:I was wondering why it was changed before I realized this. It's too bad the game rules don't have a way to differentiate "hidden" units. Something blocked from being seen because it's hidden by/in terrain vs. something blocked from LoS by clever positioning of a Rhino, for example. The 3rd edition rules included a note that your own units didn't block LoS for your shooting, which would have been the more elegant solution for this but then causes other shenanigans with setting up Rhinos as LoS blockers and then firing through them with your own stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Corrode posted:I very strongly suspect that people would not build LoS blocking terrain which was a box with a significant table footprint, which units could deploy in, which is 100% LoS blocking to the things inside from all directions, and which gives cover to the unit inside against things not needing line of sight, and which also completely blocks non-infantry models from entering it at all (basically rendering the unit inside immune to both shooting and assault from non-infantry models). I even more strongly suspect they wouldn't use 2, 3 or 4 of them, and yet that TOs are doing so at the moment thanks to the nature of what's in their collections. Your issue is that non-infantry units cannot enter the ruins. Most armies should have an infantry unit capable of clearing out a small squad of 5 sisters. Whether you chose to take such an infantry unit is a choice in list building. As for the footprint issue, an objective can be hidden inside a small building if you only need to drop 5 bodies on it. If it is a large unit, that is large commitment of points which is not doing much (besides potentially scoring objectives). The solution to this problem is already in the game. If you cannot deal with it, you are unlucky or have a problem with list design.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
LifeLynx posted:I was wondering why it was changed before I realized this. It's too bad the game rules don't have a way to differentiate "hidden" units. Something blocked from being seen because it's hidden by/in terrain vs. something blocked from LoS by clever positioning of a Rhino, for example. It's because tau players taking two devilfish (tanky transports), parking them in a chevron pattern, then disembarking fragile ranged units that arent meant to get so close became A Thing that people hated in a prior edition. If they ever got threatened by melee they would just embark and drive away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
Got my Captain Lysander on the table for the first time today, goddamn, does he melt people in melee
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
Gyro Zeppeli posted:Yeah, I wish there were a bit more in-universe force construction rules. Like how IG platoons (used to be, not sure if they still are) were made up of at least one command squad and 2 infantry squads. I like the idea of encouraging forced construction through some kind of external, but still fun, gameplay element. For example a map-based campaign where multiple players come together and deploy forces to either perform a mission or counter the movements of the opposition. Obviously that goes far beyond the scope of a traditional tournament, but it's something that appeals to me. Neurolimal posted:I dont have any issue with that kind of list in competitive play, but it is a little lame if a completely flavorless blob of Everything Good were say, your main/first army. That's a good way to look at it. I paint so slowly that I have to really think about what list I put together, so I will likely never be in a position to keep up with the meta. Liquid Communism posted:I'm building a space wolves / dark angels force at the momen because I find the narrative for it hilarious and like the models. I don't really think that's a problem. No that's Cool and Good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:I like the idea of encouraging forced construction through some kind of external, but still fun, gameplay element. For example a map-based campaign where multiple players come together and deploy forces to either perform a mission or counter the movements of the opposition. Obviously that goes far beyond the scope of a traditional tournament, but it's something that appeals to me. That's totally a thing people do but isn't really suitable for the hyper-competetive types you see at GTs. The Independent Characters did an episode a few months ago about running a multi-game system campaign that you might enjoy checking out. Narrative stuff like that is really my preferred way to play the game, it just requires actually knowing the people you're playing with for the most part
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Pendent posted:That's totally a thing people do but isn't really suitable for the hyper-competetive types you see at GTs. The Independent Characters did an episode a few months ago about running a multi-game system campaign that you might enjoy checking out. Are IC still around? It's been forever since I listened to them. How are they? I completely agree that campaign-style play isn't suitable for a hyper-competitive GT.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
My Fanfiction Challenge entry has been sent in. No mention of Principal emperor, but inspiration struck in a slightly more serious way, and it is still 40k highschool related.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Are IC still around? It's been forever since I listened to them. How are they? They took a break for a year or two but they're back to doing podcasts, just as good as they've ever been. They do seem to be updating a bit more slowly for the past month or two though. Carl doesn't really post here anymore unfortunately. I don't remember the details but there were some hard feelings relating to Alan Bligh's death- somebody was basically being a gigantic rear end in a top hat. Edit: I definitely like the Badcast better. Just a lot more fun to listen to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Are IC still around? It's been forever since I listened to them. How are they? My second favorite 40k podcast behind the Badcast, and it's a big jump from those two to the third.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
Corrode posted:Chapter Approved update. It has to be closest and visible, not just closest visible. People were "Rhino-sniping" before by driving their own models into position where they blocked LoS then firing at the character. Personally I think that was good use of game mechanics and not an abuse that needed fixing, but apparently I'm in the minority. Wait, so they made it favour the character lists more instead?!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
Shockeh posted:Wait, so they made it favour the character lists more instead?! I wouldn't say they made it favor character lists more since they also changed it so that characters can't screen other characters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
Corrode posted:It's a quick fix for not having sufficient LoS blocking terrain on a table. In my opinion it doesn't really account for enough factors for how widely it's applied, particularly in that I suspect people building LoS blockers from scratch wouldn't make them with the same profiles as the ruins they currently have - i.e. a box big enough to hide a squad (or multiple squads in) from all sides. There's also no trade-off made from the rest of the ruins rules - it depends on exactly how they're worded, but on multiple occasions it's been described as "treat the entire lower floor as solid walls" which makes bikes, monsters etc. completely unable to enter the building. Solving a lack of LoS blockers by giving infantry units deployed in the terrain functional invulnerability to significant chunks of an opposing army is not a good result. Little late to the discussion, but in playgroup we ended up with a house-rule of "you can see in or out of ruins, but not through". Main reason is that a lot of the terrain was made by a guy with Bolt Action in mind, so pretty much all the ruined building have windows and such at ground level. In terms of "just make new terrain", it's mostly college students playing around here. Getting them to paint their models is hard enough, let alone build terrain. Personally I have a fair bit of LOS blocking terrain, but I'm not leaving it at the store.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
bonds0097 posted:I wouldn't say they made it favor character lists more since they also changed it so that characters can't screen other characters. I dunno, if you have LOS to some of the enemy army, but the rules prohibit you from targeting anything, that seems pretty drat broken. Under that list described above, you can create a situation where you can see the majority of the points and models in the army, but are not permitted to shoot ANY of it? I mean, that's not '40k dumb' that's just bad design in general - You on principle never want rules to prohibit play, you want rules to encourage play.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
Floppychop posted:Little late to the discussion, but in playgroup we ended up with a house-rule of "you can see in or out of ruins, but not through". Main reason is that a lot of the terrain was made by a guy with Bolt Action in mind, so pretty much all the ruined building have windows and such at ground level. This is similar to what 3rd edition did and it makes sense. It's probably more abstract than GW currently favour, but it's a system that can work. I appreciate the struggle in getting stores to get more terrain in since there's plenty of them which are a) not exactly bastions of success and b) not inclined to add more terrain just because a couple of customers say so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 23:40
|
|
|
Can a detachment belong to more than one faction thing? For example, if I create a heavy support detachment and fill it with a Deamon Prince and three units of Obliterators (or warptalons or possessed or whatever), then it qualifies as both a 'Chaos Space Marine' detachment and a 'Chaos Daemons' detachment. Is that a correct reading? Do I gain both the legion trait and the daemonic loci?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
Shockeh posted:I dunno, if you have LOS to some of the enemy army, but the rules prohibit you from targeting anything, that seems pretty drat broken. Under that list described above, you can create a situation where you can see the majority of the points and models in the army, but are not permitted to shoot ANY of it? That's fair, though I've personally never encountered this type of situation. Keep in mind this discussion is stemming from a game where someone took a giant piece of terrain that you can fit tons of models in and deemed the whole thing to block LoS. This is not typical. Even when I play that ruins block LoS on first floor (which I don't normally since my ruins have window inserts so I can block stuff up and use true LoS), you're not gonna fit more than a single 5-man squad on the footprint. We do play with some buildings that are LoS blocking but you can't go inside them (they're really just boxes) so if someone is hiding, you just have to get a vantage point that provides LoS vs. having some magical giant bubble that hides units. I would argue that if you're going to house rule that ruins block LoS entirely and you can fit stuff inside of them , then you should also house rule that objectives can't be placed inside of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 00:15
|
|
|
OMG sriracha pudding! posted:Can a detachment belong to more than one faction thing? For example, if I create a heavy support detachment and fill it with a Deamon Prince and three units of Obliterators (or warptalons or possessed or whatever), then it qualifies as both a 'Chaos Space Marine' detachment and a 'Chaos Daemons' detachment. Is that a correct reading? Do I gain both the legion trait and the daemonic loci? If they all share the keyword, and there's nothing prohibiting it (like Dark Angels having Adeptus Astartes but not benefitting from Space Marine relics or stratagems) then yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
Oblits don't have the Demons faction anymore, so that won't work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 01:31
|
|
|
Corrode posted:This is similar to what 3rd edition did and it makes sense. It's probably more abstract than GW currently favour, but it's a system that can work. We've just been playing it as though windows and doors of the first level of ruins are "blocked" for LOS, so you can't shoot through them. It's not the insanity of having units be invisible, but you can't pull of weirdo shots through a few open windows, so it works well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
So are vindi tanks really poo poo in 8th?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 04:20
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:So are vindi tanks really poo poo in 8th? Normal one, yes. Forge world laser vindicator is a lot of fun though
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 04:25
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I'm building a space wolves / dark angels force at the momen because I find the narrative for it hilarious and like the models. I don't really think that's a problem. I have a single Space Wolf model in my cabinet right now, that TheChirurgeon gave me to give to ShadowDaesh, and I'm legit considering stealing him and calling him a Wolf Guard Battle Leader so I can throw him in an Auxiliary detachment and use that Strategem. Eifert Posting posted:So are vindi tanks really poo poo in 8th? I haven't seen one on the table since very, very, early in 8th. The gun getting D3 (D6 if it's more than 5 models) shots really hosed them over. They probably needed a little bit of a nerf, since they were pretty good at deleting squads before, but they're butt now and everyone seems to bring Predators instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 04:33
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:So are vindi tanks really poo poo in 8th? Yeah they're complete garbo. They can put a few wounds on a vehicle and they're nice and durable, but they're just not that good at what they do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 04:57
|
|
|
I think I might play with this at 1000 points. Leaning towards Dark Angels but who cares I can swap it out however I want:pre:Primaris Marines - 1000 Points - 6 CP HQ: Master in Gravis Armour HQ: Primaris Lieutenant T: 5x Intercessor w/ GL, Power Sword T: 5x Intercessor w/ GL, Power Sword T: 5x Intercessor w/ GL, Power Sword FA: 3x Inceptor w/ Plasma Exterminator HS: 10x Hellblaster w/ Plasma Incinerator
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 06:24
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:I think I might play with this at 1000 points. Leaning towards Dark Angels but who cares I can swap it out however I want: It's going to be a race to see if you can kill your opponent before your units all kill themselves. I like it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 06:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:39 |
|
|
SRM posted:Yeah they're complete garbo. They can put a few wounds on a vehicle and they're nice and durable, but they're just not that good at what they do. They should have done something crazy for it, like just have it be Damage 6 straight up. Basically a ranged Reaper Chainsword.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 07:07
|
|