|
Booley posted:At this point I'd rather have not gotten rid of independent characters at all. I agree with this so hard, but mine is just from a being able to survive point. Or at least give more HQ and Character units bodyguard options.
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
TTerrible posted:You are an absolutely terrible poster. As a Tau player, HH can only function the way it does because it doesn't have to balance my bullshit with marines and Eldar and Orks and everything else. That's pretty much the definition of "excluding 90% of models", but keep yelling about how that's wrong I guess. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:They had to do a full new edition to justify saying that all rules prior are being thrown out. Too many old formations and forge world units to try and update any other way. The big things 8th needed to do was better incorporate LoW sized model, get rid of the Independent Character rule, swap out Formations for something that has a cost, and make the rules more accessible to newer players. I think they succeeded in all four. I agree for the most part, I just feel they have kind of backed themselves into a corner on a few things, because some of the glaring problems are there from the onset. I don't know how you fix cover, for example, without basically rewriting the entire section on it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
Its actually really impressive how much mileage you get out of the different legion rules using what's essentially the exact same unit list but also I really want to loving use my Eldar. Also: not be judged because my marines have aquilae on their chests.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
EDIT: Double post. Delete/Ignore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
Oh cool are we relitigating 7th vs 8th again this never gets old
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
Booley posted:At this point I'd rather have not gotten rid of independent characters at all. With how important getting character buffs is to unit effectiveness (particularly melee units), and the pace of the game sped up and shifted a bit more to turn 1/2, having your characters whiff their deep strike charges while the unit makes it in and needing to conga line back to them really sucks. I'd like to see either being able to attach one character to a unit, or have abilities/strategems that let you get a longer charge let you bring a character along. You could maybe fairly simply do it by allowing one character within 2" of a friendly unit use their roll (including all modifiers and additional dice) for advances and charge. That way you still don't have the character in the unit so they fight alone and can get picked out by snipers, but they're able to keep up with the unit. Yeah basically have heroic intervention also let you piggy back in on a charge would be a decent bandaid probably. If it makes something too good just increase the points for it to balance it, it makes the game feel better imo if your leader charges in WITH the squad. EDIT: Even if it was a 1CP stratagem for armies with good assault squad/character combos that would probably be fine. I'd pay 1CP to get my broodlord in with my genestealers or whatever. Salynne fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Apr 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:Oh cool are we relitigating 7th vs 8th again this never gets old Seems fair game since we just got a huge FAQ, a mostly good one, but with some really silly decisions tossed in. The whole "you can't attack models on a upper floor of ruins in assault because you are more than an inch away" is a perfect example of getting it wrong. You can sing 30k's praises all day, but most of us have zero desire to play it. It isn't a setting I find interesting, and you basically negate most of the factions from participating.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:The whole "you can't attack models on a upper floor of ruins in assault because you are more than an inch away" is a perfect example of getting it wrong. What was the rationale for that change anyway?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
Strobe posted:As a Tau player, HH can only function the way it does because it doesn't have to balance my bullshit with marines and Eldar and Orks and everything else. The T'Au literally don't exist in the time period the game is set. I will continue to yell this. Is your carer available? HH is not 7th edition. HH is not 40k. Saying "These races are excluded" is dumb as hell because they're not excluded for some arbitrary balance reason, they're not part of the setting. This is like "Well, I won't play Warmachine because it doesn't have the T'Au and you can keep yelling about how I'm wrong I guess  " Uroboros posted:You can sing 30k's praises all day, but most of us have zero desire to play it. It isn't a setting I find interesting, and you basically negate most of the factions from participating. I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm just correcting stupid poo poo people are saying. EDIT: Stop viewing 30k as "just old 40k" and these issues disappear, because it isn't that and hasn't been for a long rear end time. TTerrible fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Apr 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
Maneck posted:What was the rationale for that change anyway? Is it a change? It’s just a clarification of the existing rules surely? And why infantry are an important thing to have in your list.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
Milotic posted:Is it a change? It’s just a clarification of the existing rules surely? And why infantry are an important thing to have in your list. So the ruins rules say INFANTRY can scale walls uninhibited. The wobbly model syndrome rules say that if it won't go somewhere without falling, you don't have to physically place it there. So if you have a ladder going up to a top floor and you want to say the model is towards the top of the ladder, that seems reasonable. But then you have the ruins rules saying you can scale it anywhere. Okay so the whole terrain is a ladder. Except now if you can't physically place the model there you can't end your charge move there. It's six of one/half dozen of the other on clarification of existing rules/the rules having been vague and bad in the first place and not the way people commonly played.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
Milotic posted:Is it a change? It’s just a clarification of the existing rules surely? And why infantry are an important thing to have in your list. It is a change. Previously the common interpretation of wobbly model was to allow you to place models just toeing onto a floor or climbing up a wall in a ruin. The clarification/change prevents you from doing that, you need to be able to fully place the model. So a squad of guard can spread out across an entire level of a ruin, and until they're shot to the point of opening up enough space around the edges they can never be charged by anything. It can be very problematic for a melee army, especially if an objective is placed on a second floor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
Booley posted:At this point I'd rather have not gotten rid of independent characters at all. With how important getting character buffs is to unit effectiveness (particularly melee units), and the pace of the game sped up and shifted a bit more to turn 1/2, having your characters whiff their deep strike charges while the unit makes it in and needing to conga line back to them really sucks. I'd like to see either being able to attach one character to a unit, or have abilities/strategems that let you get a longer charge let you bring a character along. You could maybe fairly simply do it by allowing one character within 2" of a friendly unit use their roll (including all modifiers and additional dice) for advances and charge. That way you still don't have the character in the unit so they fight alone and can get picked out by snipers, but they're able to keep up with the unit.  The character targeting rules are needlessly complicated and it would've been better if they were just allowed to join units. This would also let them charge and fight at the same time as their pals. Directional allocation is gone and sniper weapons/powers would definitely need to be tweaked, but I still think that would be better than the current system. Personally, I really liked directional allocation, but bringing it back would mean bringing back Look Out, Sir. I'm fine with that, but it did occasionally slow the game down and I know GW has been trying avoid mechanics like that in 8th.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
Safety Factor posted:
Part of the reason they got rid of joining was tracking multi-toughness and multi-saves on top of the allocation rules. (AFAIK, all units that have multiple toughnesses have the different models split off into their own units after deployment) That poo poo always confused me (It's okay if you think I'm dumb, but I hated this part of 7th and I probably never did it right) That said, I think you could make joining be: "CHARACTERs with less than 10 wounds can join a unit, as long as that unit doesn't have the CHARACTER keyword. Joining a unit allows the units to move together in the same movement, using the lesser of the units movement values. Advance and charge rolls are made once for the combined units, with modifiers/rerolls applying based on the unit without the CHARACTER keyword. The CHARACTER is still treated as a separate unit for the purposes of wound allocation. CHARACTERs that have joined a unit cannot be targeted in the Shooting phase unless the CHARACTER model is the closest model in the combined unit to the shooter." I'm not a rules writer so there is probably holes but something along those lines. It would let you screen still, require you to actually screen and not just be a guy floating in the back with tons of space around him but can't be shot, has them move together, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
General Olloth posted:Part of the reason they got rid of joining was tracking multi-toughness and multi-saves on top of the allocation rules. (AFAIK, all units that have multiple toughnesses have the different models split off into their own units after deployment) Deathwatch kill teams can have mixed toughness and mixed save models.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
Giant Isopod posted:Deathwatch kill teams can have mixed toughness and mixed save models. That's obnoxious 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
Joining means you have to start worrying about multi toughness, multi leadership, how does morale work etc. Off the top of my head. There’s a little bit of that now, but it’s limited to only a few units so fewer rules interactions etc. Also makes characters much harder to remove - wounds are allocated by controlling player, so not even close combat is necessarily going to kill them. So you’d have to reintroduce challenges... Also wobbly model syndrome - there’s wobbly model syndrome and hen there’s wile e coyote syndrome balancing on thin air. Just shoot the fuckers first or mind bullets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
General Olloth posted:Part of the reason they got rid of joining was tracking multi-toughness and multi-saves on top of the allocation rules. (AFAIK, all units that have multiple toughnesses have the different models split off into their own units after deployment) I remember around the time I quit The Hobby (5E I think, was that the one with AoBR as the starter kit?) resolving hits and wound allocation on an Ork Nob squad could literally be an hour-plus long process.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Seems fair game since we just got a huge FAQ, a mostly good one, but with some really silly decisions tossed in. I disagree--that's a good change, because it actually makes having the high ground matter, instead of creating a situation where your entrenched mans on a balcony aren't safe as the frothing madmen below jump(?) and swipe at them with chainswords. It's a bad thing in that assualt is worse than shooting and this doesn't help when you're trying to charge up a cliff face or wall, but it didn't sit well with me that there was functionally no advantage to occupying the upper floor of a building when models just had to reach the edge of the floor below and pretend they could balance on non-existent edges while they fought. The silly parts of the FAQ are, to me, the ones that needlessly nerf units like the monolith or warlocks, but I expect we'll get adjustments to those at some point. I always have a hard time buying pro-USR arguments because while on the surface it seems like they should cut down on confusion, the practical result of the change in 8th is that we spend less time looking up rules than we did in 7th, so I don't buy that they actually accomplish what they're supposed to. But I could be convinced that it's a problem with how they're laid out/presented in the rulebook more than the concept. One of the reasons I think the 7th/8th arguments never really go anywhere is because 7th was really bad in a lot of ways that needed more than just a balancing update (Deep Strike, while universally named, was loving terrible, and random psychic powers will always be a dumb loving idea) and most of the changes people like to argue over as good/bad were more of a wash in terms of upside/downside than people are willing to admit. Attaching characters to units caused a fuckload of problems and required rules for how you could target those characters and when and who could be attached to what unit, while the current setup creates rough/confusing rules for targeting and making it too easy to leave the character behind on important moves like charging.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:I remember around the time I quit The Hobby (5E I think, was that the one with AoBR as the starter kit?) resolving hits and wound allocation on an Ork Nob squad could literally be an hour-plus long process. For you? Or for a regular person
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
Hixson posted:For you? Or for a regular person nah IIRC nob units, partiularly bikers, were this case where the wound allocation system pretty much broke.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:I disagree--that's a good change, because it actually makes having the high ground matter, instead of creating a situation where your entrenched mans on a balcony aren't safe as the frothing madmen below jump(?) and swipe at them with chainswords. It's a bad thing in that assualt is worse than shooting and this doesn't help when you're trying to charge up a cliff face or wall, but it didn't sit well with me that there was functionally no advantage to occupying the upper floor of a building when models just had to reach the edge of the floor below and pretend they could balance on non-existent edges while they fought. quote:I always have a hard time buying pro-USR arguments because while on the surface it seems like they should cut down on confusion, the practical result of the change in 8th is that we spend less time looking up rules than we did in 7th, so I don't buy that they actually accomplish what they're supposed to. But I could be convinced that it's a problem with how they're laid out/presented in the rulebook more than the concept. You could do the rules exactly as they are now, only instead of having a million different names for FNP depending on army, you just have a single rule (printed on each datasheet) named "Feel No Pain". Then, when doing revisions later, or figuring out rules interaction, you can call out "Feel No Pain" or "Deepstrike" rather than needing to name one or two of then and then say "or other similar abilities". Particularly egregious on always fights first rules.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
Hixson posted:For you? Or for a regular person What an off-handed remark.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
Booley posted:You could do the rules exactly as they are now, only instead of having a million different names for FNP depending on army, you just have a single rule (printed on each datasheet) named "Feel No Pain". Then, when doing revisions later, or figuring out rules interaction, you can call out "Feel No Pain" or "Deepstrike" rather than needing to name one or two of then and then say "or other similar abilities". Particularly egregious on always fights first rules. It's really weird that when moving to a keyword system they didn't grasp the importance of names. "Explodes" is almost always called "Explodes" (with the exception of fliers) but FNP is all over the board. Eisenhorn's "No Stranger to Pain" is basically renamed for no reason but to sound more fluffy, which is exactly the wrong place to be doing that
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:What an off-handed remark. You've proven yourself mentally challenged so it's worth clarifying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
You could just do what Magic does and reprint the text of the rule wherever possible as a reminder. So units can have feel no pain but you don't have to flip through books to remember how it works. You get the benefit of the consistent rule but keep the ease of datasheets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
Explodes is funny because its the one that's used universally between vehicles but each one has a different range and damage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
The Deleter posted:You could just do what Magic does and reprint the text of the rule wherever possible as a reminder. So units can have feel no pain but you don't have to flip through books to remember how it works. You get the benefit of the consistent rule but keep the ease of datasheets. This is the best solution. There is nothing wrong with USRs and Datasheets working together. Creating a ton of unique rules is the dumbest possible way to proceed. It'll end up being a complete scattered nightmare with multiple definitions across FAQS, indexes, pdfs, etc that was a major criticism of 7th.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Booley posted:I think this depends on objective placement. If you have an objective on the top floor of a ruin, and your unit is immune to assault, and you're something like space marines playing against orks or against an assault heavy genestealer army, it could be really hard for that point to ever get taken. It may end up leading to armies that are more balanced between shooting and assault, but I think it'll just cement the supremacy of a shooting heavy list. Yeah, I can see that being an issue, but it also cements the need for units that can FLY or otherwise maneuver in, or can shoot the units in that position. Booley posted:You could do the rules exactly as they are now, only instead of having a million different names for FNP depending on army, you just have a single rule (printed on each datasheet) named "Feel No Pain". Then, when doing revisions later, or figuring out rules interaction, you can call out "Feel No Pain" or "Deepstrike" rather than needing to name one or two of then and then say "or other similar abilities". Particularly egregious on always fights first rules. Interesting to point that out, since it hasn't come up for me (I think FNP is a much better choice, but FNP had too much baggage in 7th, what with it's dumb parenthetical implementation)... how many of the game's units actually fight first? Aren't most of them daemons? Overall sure, I agree with you--the fluffiness of having custom names for everything is probably not worth the hassle of having to reference them all separately later. Though the actual effect -- every unit has all of its rules printed right there, instead of a list of keywords -- is the important piece that you'd need to keep, even if you make the names uniform. So many of 7th's USRs were just different ways to re-roll poo poo that we're just better off having "you can re-roll wounds with this" in the profile for say, the three weapons in the game that would have had shred.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:Yeah, I can see that being an issue, but it also cements the need for units that can FLY or otherwise maneuver in, or can shoot the units in that position. quote:Interesting to point that out, since it hasn't come up for me (I think FNP is a much better choice, but FNP had too much baggage in 7th, what with it's dumb parenthetical implementation)... how many of the game's units actually fight first? Aren't most of them daemons?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Der Waffle Mous posted:Explodes is funny because its the one that's used universally between vehicles but each one has a different range and damage. I mean, I kind of like that (e.g.) the Valdor blows the gently caress up on a 2+ since it's literally a semi-contained atomantic reactor on treads.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Explodes being variable is fine, the point of standardized names is you could now make a stratagem that is something like "A vehicle that would explode doesn't" (or "explodes on a 2+" for orks, whatever) and reference it by name
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
Booley posted:Units with FLY don't help, since you still can't place them. You can have them jump over the unit at least, if it's not completely covering the higher terrain. But, fair point. quote:The always fight first rules, in every single instance, say "other abilities that have a similar effect." Sure it's not incredibly common for units to have this rule, but you're left to decide what is a similar rule. Ah, yeah I see what you're getting at. Yeah, I agree that generally the identical rules should have had identical names, but still had their text spelled out every time, rather than referred to as USRs or referenced in the core rulebook or some other section. Explodes! is the odd kid out here, because I like that it has different implementations based on the vehicle, but not that the same rules name has different effects.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
TTerrible posted:I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm just correcting stupid poo poo people are saying. It's like responding to "gently caress chess, white getting first move is totally OP!" with "You should just play checkers like I do; it's much more balanced.  " Effectively telling people to "play a different game" may be correct advice, but it's not particularly helpful advice for people who happen to like 40K factions not represented in 30K.In actuality, you fuckers should all be playing Infinity or Chain of Command, because they're both light-years better as games than 40K. So there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
Booley posted:It is a change. Previously the common interpretation of wobbly model was to allow you to place models just toeing onto a floor or climbing up a wall in a ruin. The clarification/change prevents you from doing that, you need to be able to fully place the model. So a squad of guard can spread out across an entire level of a ruin, and until they're shot to the point of opening up enough space around the edges they can never be charged by anything. It can be very problematic for a melee army, especially if an objective is placed on a second floor. It wasn't a change unless you were playing it wrong. Wobbly model is "my model can stand here, but it'll fall off this rock/hill slope/wall if I do and I don't want to break it," not "I get to ignore terrain when it's inconvenient for me." That isn't to speak to whether it's a good thing overall - on balance it's probably not - but it's one of those where people think they should be able to do something so they want to bend the rules even though they're clear. Der Waffle Mous posted:nah IIRC nob units, partiularly bikers, were this case where the wound allocation system pretty much broke. It really didn't take that long, and is one of those things where people who didn't get it blew it out of all proportion. It was annoying to do say, 10 wounds to a 20 wound unit and still have all 10 guys alive, but a) it didn't work as perfectly as that most of the time and b) it was not actually very complex to do. Schadenboner posted:I mean, I kind of like that (e.g.) the Valdor blows the gently caress up on a 2+ since it's literally a semi-contained atomantic reactor on treads. You could easily have the USR be Explodes (dice roll, mortal wounds) so that something like a Hellhound is Explodes (4+, D6) and a Venom is Explodes (6+, 1).
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
Giant Isopod posted:Explodes being variable is fine, the point of standardized names is you could now make a stratagem that is something like "A vehicle that would explode doesn't" (or "explodes on a 2+" for orks, whatever) and reference it by name Yeah, you could then say "Any unit that is placed on the battlefield via Deep Strike during a player's first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player's deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). This does not apply to units using Infiltrate or Cult Ambush" instead of "Any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). This does not apply to a Genestealer Cults unit that is being set up according to the Cult Ambush ability, or to units that are set up after the first battle round has begun, but before the first turn begins (such as those set up via the Forward Operatives or Strike From the Shadows Stratagems)." leaving it very clear whether that applies to things like UWoF or Da Jump (it does, but it's going to be annoying have to explain that to people). Those strategems/psychic powers could just say "this unit is removed from the board and can Deep Strike at the end of the movement phase/immediately" if you want that rule to apply, or could say "this unit is removed from the board and placed on the battlefield further than 9" from enemy models at the end of the movement phase/immediately" if you don't want that rule to apply. Instead we're stuck trying to decide if those units, which started on the board, are now "arriving" since they were removed and replaced.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
Ilor posted:Then why is it anyone gripes about 40K, your response is always "Well, you should just play 30K instead! It's so much better!" The reason it's "better" is because it doesn't have to deal with the vast majority of the imbalance issues that plague 40K. Which is fine, unless you actually want to play one of the factions that 30K doesn't include. I generally deploy the cum play 30k m'lord line when someone is complaining about lack of depth in 8th, complimenting one of Keiths insane paintjobs or missing a mechanic from 7th. It's not a balnket statement fired off at random for no reason. It's better balanced because it's better balanced. It has plenty of factions that need to be balanced against each other. You're ignoring how different the armies are to each other, over and over again. It is not codex space marines vs codex space marines. It is not 7th edition. Ilor posted:It's like responding to "gently caress chess, white getting first move is totally OP!" with "You should just play checkers like I do; it's much more balanced. See above. I haven't said "come play 30k" to anyone complaining about the latest Necron codex or the new FAQ. Ilor posted:In actuality, you fuckers should all be playing Infinity or Chain of Command, because they're both light-years better as games than 40K. So there. I already play Infinity and CoC (and picked up What a Tanker at salute). 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
Corrode posted:It wasn't a change unless you were playing it wrong. Wobbly model is "my model can stand here, but it'll fall off this rock/hill slope/wall if I do and I don't want to break it," not "I get to ignore terrain when it's inconvenient for me."
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
Corrode posted:It wasn't a change unless you were playing it wrong. Wobbly model is "my model can stand here, but it'll fall off this rock/hill slope/wall if I do and I don't want to break it," not "I get to ignore terrain when it's inconvenient for me." This VVV Booley posted:Infantry are allowed to climb the walls of ruins. Given that you're allowed to climb the walls of ruins, it's logical that you should be able to end your move partway up the walls of a ruin - nothing says you can't, and this is supposed to be a permissive ruleset (you can do things unless you're told you can't). You're not ignoring the terrain, you still need to pay your movement amount to move that distance. Like, are you not allowed to end on a ladder midway up a building now given the interpretation of not being allowed to end a charge there? Literally everyone in the last tournament I was in was playing it this way lol EDIT: This interpretation actually makes the first mission I played in that tournament impossible, because it was the Relic and nobody had FLY INFANTRY and the building the center of the map landed on was too tall lmao Salynne fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Apr 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 20:29
|
|