|
Lord Of Texas posted:This is another problem with the design of cover saves - having cover from enemy fire often literally doesn't help at all unless you are able to completely obscure LOS, which sucks from both a mechanical AND a fluff standpoint. Cover would actually be great if they changed it to be something like a negative modifier to the opponent's to hit roll, but then we're getting into "complete rules system overhaul territory", something I would not be opposed to, but that they will never do with their current release schedule - they are hamstrung by the fact that they have to maintain backwards compatibility with out-of-date codices. As for backwards compatibility, I don't think that's as much of an issue now as it used to be. GW has really gone for universal special rules and most of the basic wargear is in the main rulebook. This can end up with some wonky changes like with how Rage went from being a negative to a positive effect and codexes would still need FAQs to tide them over. SRM posted:If I recall, the reason stated was that Space Marines, Terminators, tough things in general spent too much time hanging out in cover instead of valiantly charging up the field. Sometimes I wish it was a hit modifier, but  I'll grant that terminators don't really care either way, but that's how it should be.
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:36 |
|
|
Doesn't Infinity have cover improve your Armour save? Tangentially related, I'd love to see a 40k skirmish game using the Dark Heresy rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Groetgaffel posted:Doesn't Infinity have cover improve your Armour save? It does, but it'd be too complicated for a game of 40K scale. Honestly they should just use the Fantasy system. Armor Save/Invulnerable save is the first save, then Cover as a second save.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Groetgaffel posted:Tangentially related, I'd love to see a 40k skirmish game using the Dark Heresy rules. My acolyte throws his grenade with attached flamer-addon, dealing 3d10+4 damage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
SRM posted:If I recall, the reason stated was that Space Marines, Terminators, tough things in general spent too much time hanging out in cover instead of valiantly charging up the field. Sometimes I wish it was a hit modifier, but Yeah, these are fair points, especially 2, but there are ways around it (like what was posted about Fantasy). For issue 1, if units not wanting to charge up the field was a problem, I'm pretty sure they didn't fix it, or broke it again with 6th. A different way of solving the issue would be: Instead of reducing the incentive to stay in cover, increase the incentive to leave cover and charge! Make close combat attacks truly devastating instead of generally worse than shooting from 24-36" away. Even if units end up barricading themselves in cover, what is more cinematic than Marines trying to hold a bastion against a horde of assaulting xenos? This is what Warmahordes has done - for most factions, getting in the opponent's backfield somehow is the best way to win the game, because the rewards for breaching your enemy's front line are huge. When shooting is as powerful as it is in 40k, why would anyone charge up the field unless they are one of the armies with no other option?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:It does, but it'd be too complicated for a game of 40K scale. Honestly they should just use the Fantasy system. Armor Save/Invulnerable save is the first save, then Cover as a second save. FWIW this is how I thought it worked when I first started 40k, because that way of doing things is a lot more intuitive from a flavor/mechanical sense. Why would my force field stop working if I put armor on as well?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Groetgaffel posted:Doesn't Infinity have cover improve your Armour save?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Lord Of Texas posted:Basically they didn't fix any of the most glaring problems with the last codex, while not introducing anything awesome and exciting into this codex like Battle Focus or Chapter Tactics. It really just feels lazy when they've had 4 years to develop something new and exciting. I think you're half right here. They did actually fix the glaring problems with the last book: overpriced MCs, rules that didn't work or had no use, and units without models. The other problems people see aren't really codex problems, they're edition problems, and thinking they'd be addressed by special snowflake rules in one codex was asking to be disappointed. Frankly, nid players are a little entitled thinking that they should get to uniquely ignore assault restrictions and grounding tests. Then again, they're the one xenos faction that gets updated every edition, so GW maybe encourages that feeling. That said, you're kinda right that they didn't get something like battle focus or the new chapter tactics. The problem isn't that they didn't get a unique army-wide special rule; they have the seminal unique rule: synapse. The problem is they didn't get something that feels really new and game-changing. The Eldar and Marine codices make about the same number of changes as this one, but BF changes the way you use Eldar infantry, and CT lets you finally play your favorite chapter without always using the same HQ. There doesn't seem to be anything in this book that has that same feeling of being new.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Groetgaffel posted:Tangentially related, I'd love to see a 40k skirmish game using the Dark Heresy rules. That was basically Inquisitor. Which didn't pan out very well at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
The only reason that works for Fantasy is because of the Str reducing armor saves part of the game. Without that, nothing dies. Watching a bunch of mooks bounce off a 1+/3++ save character in Fantasy is one thing, it wouldn't work for 40k so well. Also, characters can easily be broken by simply losing combat and run down, something that half the armies in 40k are immune to. Also, shooting from infantry that uses your ballistic skill to hit is generally very weak in Fantasy. Most gunlines rely on war machines heavily, which suffer fewer penalties thanks to unique rules or simply don't roll to hit at all. The only armies that really have significant shooting are Elves, and even then it's usually just as filler for Core (Troops) units or on mobile harassment units. The penalty system basically makes shooting arrows at anything besides small chaff units, or trying to drown monsters (typically easy to hit with poor saves) in arrows, useless. Lists with lots of BS shooting tend to do poorly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:I think you're half right here. They did actually fix the glaring problems with the last book: overpriced MCs, rules that didn't work or had no use, and units without models. The other problems people see aren't really codex problems, they're edition problems, and thinking they'd be addressed by special snowflake rules in one codex was asking to be disappointed. Frankly, nid players are a little entitled thinking that they should get to uniquely ignore assault restrictions and grounding tests. Then again, they're the one xenos faction that gets updated every edition, so GW maybe encourages that feeling. I agree with you here. Synapse is and always been Tyranids' thing. I actually like that they changed it from something that's nice to have to an essential part of the army. But then I played my Tyranids that way anyway. That said, I do not like the idea of my hormagaunts having a 50% chance to kill each other just because they're not being baby-sat. The other Instinctive Behavior charts seem fine, but Feed is a little messed up. I think most of the anger from Tyranid players comes from the fact that GW iterated on a codex that was already poorly-received while cutting out some units because they aren't getting a model. I never went to the trouble of converting spores or a Doom so it's not impacting me, but I can see why people are upset. I am still genuinely interested in getting my copy of the codex and I look forward to playing with my Tyranids again. I just need to get around to painting the drat things; I stripped them all a few years back for a new color scheme I never got around to doing.  I'm a very casual player though and don't plan on getting into tournaments any time soon so my opinions could be wrong and dumb. Hell, I even think genestealers are fine the way they are. Safety Factor fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Jan 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
I mean I'm glad there are no units that don't have models, but I feel like maybe fixing the problem by removing those units was not the ideal solution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
I kind of like the removal of mycetic spores as a giant middle finger to all those 3rd party model makers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I kind of like the removal of mycetic spores as a giant middle finger to all those 3rd party model makers. And to Tyranid players kitbashing their own out of existing 40k kits as well I imagine. I don't have any, but I can imagine I wouldn't be very glad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Soulfucker posted:And to Tyranid players kitbashing their own out of existing 40k kits as well I imagine. Im pretty sure the majority of people that used mycetic spores never ever had a model for it and instead just proxied something to be it. Or they bought one from chapterhouse. The other things, well you end up with a blinged up Zoanthrope and a cool looking Shrike. And whos to say they wont be back when a supplement hits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Battle focus and chapter tactics are good things that make an army unique. Synapse is a bad thing that makes the army unique. Tyranids are the only army in the game where if your opponent kills certain units, you can lose control over the rest of your army. It controls your movement and placement, requiring that certain units be near other certain units, and changes how you build your list, making units with the synapse rule non-optional. The only upside is fearless. Now I'm not saying tyranids are bad because of synapse. My tyranids are a lot of fun to play and I'm going to keep using them because they're my favorite army. But synapse is a restriction, not a benefit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Also, some of the stuff got nerfed for no real reason. Like, Tervigons with 3 powers, and free buffs for Termagants, was too good. It was a no brainer to take two of them as troops, every game. So, sure, some changes wouldn't have gone awry. But taking away Biomany, 2 power selections, doubling the gently caress you radius, and also removing it's shared adrenals/toxin was way too much. Any one, or even two, of those things would have been fine, stacking all of them was dumb. Same thing they did to Carnifexes last edition. Tervigons are at least still somewhat useful, it just sucks to watch something drop that far. Genestealers, already unused, didn't really change at all. Why? I mean, clearly the looked and saw that some things were too good, so why not the opposite. Why nerf Rippers, which were terrible already? Lots of the changes seem random, it's just strange.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Back to assault from reserve chat, isn't the problem with assault that after the first assault phase you're kinda stuck there? My first 40k game in 6e was vs blood angels, and a vanguard vet deep strike and assault tied up my HQ and a combat squad from turn 2 until end of game in the most boring close combat ever. I think by the end of the game there were still 3 vets, my HQ and 3 bolter marines left from that combat squad. With a deep strike shooting squad, they get one turn to shoot then you get a turn to respond. Maybe units assaulted from reserve can get hit and run and a chance to disengage? I have much less of a problem with a high priority target getting shot by deep strikers than I do having to sit there and watch him be useless for the remainder of the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:That said, you're kinda right that they didn't get something like battle focus or the new chapter tactics. The problem isn't that they didn't get a unique army-wide special rule; they have the seminal unique rule: synapse. The problem is they didn't get something that feels really new and game-changing. The Eldar and Marine codices make about the same number of changes as this one, but BF changes the way you use Eldar infantry, and CT lets you finally play your favorite chapter without always using the same HQ. There doesn't seem to be anything in this book that has that same feeling of being new. It's not just being new, it's being positive. Most other codexes got army-wide buffs in 6E (Battle Focus, Supporting Fire, variations on Chapter Tactics). Opponents of these players have to work to shut down these benefits by whatever means, be it positioning, carefully planned assaults, etc. Tyranids and Daemon players instead get army-wide randomised bullshit that they have to deal with in addition to what their opponent does. They can't plan for the benefits from these, and have to deal with potential self-inflicted losses. If an Eldar player loses a Farseer, his punishment is to do without the benefits that Farseer gave out. If a Tyranid player loses a Tervigon or Tyrant, his punishment is for half his army to run away or simply kill itself. I could stomach Instinctive Behaviour a lot more if they'd made the presence of Synapse more beneficial than it used to be, such as DtW/FNP buffs or linked it to SitW. But instead it's the opposite, it's a special rule that makes your army nigh-unusable if it's lost. How do they justify that if Eldar players don't lose Battle Focus when their HQ's die, and when Marines don't lose Chapter Tactics alongside their Captain?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Fluff. I don't mean to be flippant, but that's the answer. Master Twig posted:Battle focus and chapter tactics are good things that make an army unique. Synapse is a bad thing that makes the army unique. Tyranids are the only army in the game where if your opponent kills certain units, you can lose control over the rest of your army. It controls your movement and placement, requiring that certain units be near other certain units, and changes how you build your list, making units with the synapse rule non-optional. The only upside is fearless. Now wait a minute. Synapse turns 4 and 5 point trash models into an unbreakable swarm that can tarpit or overrun just about anything. It has a lot of drawbacks, but handing fearless out like condoms at Planned Parenthood is a powerful benefit. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Jan 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Speaking of modifiers, modifiers to BS based on distance would be nice. You'd think a scatter laser parked so that the barrel literally touches the arse of a devilfish wouldn't miss all its shots. Then again, I understand the need to keep things relatively simple, especially given the power creep putting more and more stuff on the board.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:I think you're half right here. They did actually fix the glaring problems with the last book: overpriced MCs, rules that didn't work or had no use, and units without models. The other problems people see aren't really codex problems, they're edition problems, and thinking they'd be addressed by special snowflake rules in one codex was asking to be disappointed. Frankly, nid players are a little entitled thinking that they should get to uniquely ignore assault restrictions and grounding tests. Then again, they're the one xenos faction that gets updated every edition, so GW maybe encourages that feeling. Your idea of "fixing" units with no models is them getting outright removed from the game? I don't understand why you think "Genestealers may assault the turn they come in from reserves" is any more a unique snowflake rule than any other rule. Could you explain the metric you are using to determine whether a rule is acceptable or not? Isn't the entire purpose of a Codex to provide an army with unique snowflake rules? serious gaylord posted:I kind of like the removal of mycetic spores as a giant middle finger to all those 3rd party model makers. It's a much bigger middle finger to all the players that were forced to buy from those 3rd party sellers because GW never bothered to make a model.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Ojetor posted:Your idea of "fixing" units with no models is them getting outright removed from the game? I'm not happy to see those units go, but it was a solution to it and other associated problems, the very solution GW has employed in the past. What is uniquely special about genestealers that would allow them to do so when other models can't? That's my metric: is there a reason for the special rule beyond "I don't like this restriction"? E: to develop, why should your genestealers get to assault from reserve when my wyches and my buddy's kommandos can't? I agree that it's a lame restriction, but it's one that needs to be addressed in the main rules. I feel the same way about grounding checks. No one was forced to purchase a single thing from anyone. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Jan 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Because assaulting from outflank would make them acceptable again? Because it is a thing that was a common tactic for Tyranids, moreso than other codexes? Because sneaky bugs popping up and murdering poor IG troopers is like 70% of Tyranid fluff? I mean, if fluff is your reasoning for special abilities, then outflanking assaults should be like, rule number one of Tyranids, more than Synapse even.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
The Gate posted:Because assaulting from WWPs would make them acceptable again? Because it is a thing that was a common tactic for Dark Eldar, moreso than other codexes? Because crazy elves rushing up and murdering poor IG troopers is like 70% of DE fluff? I mean, if fluff is your reasoning for special abilities, then WWP assaults should be like, rule number one of DE, more than PfP even. See my point?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:What is uniquely special about genestealers that would allow them to do so when other models can't? That's my metric: is there a reason for the special rule beyond "I don't like this restriction"? I don't even know what to say to this. The reason for the rule is to make the unit better. That's the reason for most rules. Or is it fluff justification you want? I guess the million stories of 'stealers ambushing dudes and killing most of them before they can react by jumping out of sewers or from the jungle or whatever aren't enough to justify it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
The thing, fluff-wise, that annoys me most about not being able to assault from reserves is the board you're playing on is very often thought to be an extension of a much bigger battle going on. It's not like they've just popped up on the edge of a fight with no idea what's going on. They'd be able to see the things they're about to run into, and equally the things they're assaulting would also have an idea. It's reasons like this that make me think it'd be much better if say a unit could assault after coming on from reserves, but the unit they're assaulting gets to fire Overwatch twice as they're slightly more prepared for the incoming charge or something. Ultimately, a unit being able to come in from reserves and shoot without penalty is bullshit if the same can't be said for things that rely entirely on close combat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
I think the synapse table would be fine if the 1-3 effect was just on a 1, 2-5 the middle effect, and 6 stays the same, then while if you lose synapse, you still lose control, but your army doesnt actively try to get itself killed half the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Ojetor posted:I don't even know what to say to this. The reason for the rule is to make the unit better. That's the reason for most rules. You don't know what to say because you just want them to be better. Why are they better at assaulting out of reserves than any other unit that used that tactic. My wyches got screwed too. What makes your genestealers more special? This fluff justifies them getting infiltrate in the first place. It doesn't justify them being better at attacking from infiltration than a unit like mandrakes who can literally step out of their targets' shadows. My point isn't that genestealers shouldn't be able to assault from reserve/infiltration; it's that every unit should be able to. It is a rulebook level problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:What is uniquely special about genestealers that would allow them to do so when other models can't? That's my metric: is there a reason for the special rule beyond "I don't like this restriction"? E: to develop, why should your genestealers get to assault from reserve when my wyches and my buddy's kommandos can't? I agree that it's a lame restriction, but it's one that needs to be addressed in the main rules. I feel the same way about grounding checks. If such a rule existed, that made Genestealers (and probably Lictors) able to assault on arrival, I think the "uniquely special" term they'd probably want to use is Vanguard Organism. They're described as ambush predators that assault you before you ever knew they were around, put in place weeks or even decades before the swarm arrives. Sure you could come up with similar fluff for Assault Kommandos (Sneaky Gitz), or Dark Eldar (Webway Masters) or whatever, but it's not like the rationale didn't exist. They just chose when writing the book not to utilize that particular bit of fluff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:See my point? It really is a shame they nerfed the WWP so hard. I mean it was my favorite way to play ever since that eye of terror supplement made it legit,
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Can't that same question be asked of any unit that has a special rule, though? What makes Tau fire warriors able to fire at a unit that isn't charging them, when my tactical squads can't?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:See my point? So your argument is, "If I can't have it, nobody can."? I mean, I actually agree with you, there shouldn't be a gamewide ban on reserve assaulting. Or there should be more things like WWP's that allow you to ignore the restriction, the former option being the better of the two. But arguing that another army shouldn't have the rule because yours doesn't isn't very strong reasoning. I think fluff is a terrible reason to decide that sort of stuff in the first place for exactly the reason you demonstrated, but you brought it up in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
I don't know much about Tyranids but I don't think losing one synapse creature should send half your army into chaos. Google 'artosis pylon' and you'll see why. Maybe it's because I'm not reading about it in real-time but was there this many complaints about stuff like the Warp Storm table?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/New_Stuff/WORLD_EATERS_LEGION_RED_BUTCHERS.html Well, this has certainly made me feel better about my choice of 30K army. I can't wait for these to come out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Honestly, we're just arguing about GWS laziness again. Quite honestly, if were WotC every different assault unit would have different situational bonuses on what kind of assault their making, and restrictions to balance out potential those bonuses. Instead GWS gives them slightly different statlines, the same restrictions, and calls it a day. It's not fluff or crunch that regulates these decisions but sheer laziness. The same laziness that has them include units in every book, but better/worse than another unit in the same redundant role.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
This is unrelated by I am really annoyed by Jet Infantry. Why do they get to be so loving special? Why can't I overwatch them? gently caress you Tau.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
The Gate posted:So your argument is, "If I can't have it, nobody can."? I mean, I actually agree with you, there shouldn't be a gamewide ban on reserve assaulting. Or there should be more things like WWP's that allow you to ignore the restriction, the former option being the better of the two. But arguing that another army shouldn't have the rule because yours doesn't isn't very strong reasoning. I think fluff is a terrible reason to decide that sort of stuff in the first place for exactly the reason you demonstrated, but you brought it up in the first place. I agree. Especially when talking about Nids, who don't get FOC manipulation, Allies, or the ability to fire weapons (although, that is technically lifted). If the argument is, why should Tyranids be the only army to be able to assault from reserves then that person needs to be able to justify why Tyranids are the only army who can't have Allies, ally themselves (looking at you C:SM), can't have vehicles, can't have transports, or the ability to fire weapon emplacements. GW should have given Tyranids something to compensate for the, at least, 50% of 6e that Tyranids are specifically banned from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
This would be less of an annoyance if they had given Genestealers flesh hooks/assault grenades; failing that, dropping them in points would've at least let people spam them. As it stands they are 14pt assault units that can't get into assault and do their job, which makes them garbage.
Slimnoid fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Jan 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:36 |
|
|
Looking through the Horus Heresy book, I'm strongly inclined to build an Orbital Strike army with Horus and lots of Terminators and Dreadnoughts. Anybody have experience running this army? Is it any good? Deep striking is so cool and this seems like it fits the whole tip of the spear fluff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 20:16
|
|
