|
MasterSlowPoke posted:What power doesn't do anything? Dominion, because it goes after the movement phase now? Yeah. It could be fixed easily by making it last until the next friendly psychic phase, but I don't think many would be satisfied with that.
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
PierreTheMime posted:It would be nice if they buffed the powers to match the buffs to all BRB powers. They could resell all the Nid cards to players again, thus making more cash-grab money. Yeah, I'd like to see such treatment extended to all the existing codex powers (well, the 6E ones at least), and I'd happily buy card sets for them if they did, but there will probably just be some tweaks in a FAQ. From what I've read and seen, 7E is shaping up as a missed opportunity to fix the problems in 6E. Each edition of the game has generally improved on what has come before, but this one seems to have gone against that trend and instead of tweaking and improving the rules, it has just added more. That doesn't make it a bad edition, but it doesn't get me excited like prior new editions have. I'm surprising myself with how meh I am about the whole thing. It's not a step backwards like 5E D&D is shaping up to be, but neither is it a step forward.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Someone has compared the new book to the old one. There are 6 new pages of rules content. 6. You guys know me, so think of how bad it really is when I call this bullshit. This is bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
ghetto wormhole posted:There are 4 pages on super heavy vehicles alone so that 6 pages thing is definitely bullshit. I guess maybe you wouldn't call that all new rules but still it's new to the BRB. Oh, that's cool. I thought super heavy rules should have been in the main book back in 5E.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
xutech posted:I hope they bring back Tinboys and kickass Bloodaxes with Imperial advisors. (maybe Khorneboys?) I hope they bring back mad boys for cool random table shenanigans and cyboars for being loving cyborg boars. I also hope model count or mob size has an impact on how they generate power dice in the psychic phase. As meh I am about the new edition, I am very excited for a new Ork book.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
haakman posted:What the gently caress - that basically removes one of the combat drugs rolls for DE. DE being S3 and all. I don't get why you're upset. Only a handful of HQs and squad leaders can get both combat drugs and poisoned CCWs. +1S is still a good boost for all the models without poisoned CCWs like wyches, hellions and huskblade archons.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
I have a feeling the jink changes were a response to how all around awesome scatter serpents were.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:I think I'll prefer to grab some Guardians to lurk back home near an objective and let some Trueborn ride arund in their Wave Serpent. All n all, Scorpions are still better than banshees on most situations due to having grenades and an Exarch that can hit at S7 Ap2 at initiative, plus better armor. What's your thinking behind the trueborn in serpents? It strikes me as though you'd be sacrificing their best asset because the serpent has no firing ports.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
CC units are the one place DE aren't outshined by their cousins. I'd rather put incubi or wyches in those raiders or venoms even if banshees didn't require some deployment shenanigans. Scorpions don't really need a transport, and I think just throwing them into the enemy is a waste. They're better used as a disruption unit your enemy has to divert resources to deal with before they roll up something squishy. Don't get me wrong. I support any effort to get more out of (Dark) Eldar assault units, but it's a lot of effort for little return, especially when both factions are so drat good at just shooting poo poo off the table. Sadly, assault is still in the gutter, and we'll have to wait until next year for the possibility of systemic changes that will make it better. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 02:45 on May 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
That thing is rad. Look at how many barrels that gun has!
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Their walkers got Hammer of Wrath, that's all I got. A lot of people, including me, started DE armies when they got a new book and gorgeous models. A lot of people, excluding me, shelved them when 6E nerfed the hell out of assault lists. I still field them regularly, aside from my current regular Eldar run, but I focus on their excellent shooting and leave the assault units on the shelf. They make for pretty good fights against my buddy's Necrons. If I don't get the most out of my speed and range advantages, he corners and crushes me with his regenerating horde. Also, dueling hover boats looks loving rad.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
My favorite forgeworld call-back to RT is the Eldar corsair jet-pack. They take one of the doofy but signature images from that book and make it work with the modern aesthetics.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Slimnoid posted:I see people sticking 6 burnaz in the Morkanaut, 3 of which are meks, as well as take the KFF and grot riggers so it's sporting a 5+ invuln, IWND, and repairs immobilized/weapon destroyed on a 4+ up to 3 times. It's not necessarily GOOD, mind you. Yeah, I see it carrying either a small burna squad or a small tankbusta squad. The transport capacity is just gravy on top of a big pile of guns in a fairly tough chassis. It's not great, but it is cool, and it looks the centerpiece part even if it doesn't necessarily play it. My ork playing buddy is pretty psyched about it. I think the IA9 Mek list lets you take meks as regular squad leaders IIRC.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
I only touch my precious spacemen with freshly manicured fingers.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
Lord Of Texas posted:Don't get me wrong, randomness should still absolutely be part of the game - picking up 20 dice and rolling to hit is just fun, and when you boxcar your opponent out it creates memories. Rolling a d6 to run, for example, does not and adds needless randomness. This is too a false dichotomy, though one that has been enshrined by game design trends. I understand why people don't like random movement, because it makes units and plans for those units less reliable, but fundamentally that's no different than the effects of random accuracy. And it's just as fitting. Wars have been won and lost by units not getting where their commander wants them to be when he or she wants them to be there.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Crossing a few tiles of desert can include a ton of factors outside the player or models' control, though. You got sinkholes, slippery sand, sprained ankles, dropped kit, dudes crouching and scuttling because of random fire, and all the other nasty things that cross and live on those few tiles of desert. In fact, the more I think about it, a wargame about future combat with ridiculously powerful weapons would make a lot of sense if randomness didn't affect how effective those weapons were, but did affect one's ability to get those weapons in proper position. It's not a question of whether or not your mega-cannon can destroy a bunker, it's a question of whether or not your troops can maneuver that mega-cannon into position to fire on that bunker. E: Chirugeon, I understand that he's not being black and white "randomness is bad." My point is simply that random movement, conceptually, is no better or worse than any other form of random resolution. Clearly the game needs some randomness so that it doesn't devolve into a simple math exercise, but not too much so that the players' choices lack any meaning or consequence. E2: in regards to tracking points, I really suggest getting a cheap whiteboard to use as a scoreboard. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 18:54 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
My point is simply that random movement is not inherently bad. To be clear: I am not defending 40K's particular use of random movement (though I don't have any particular problems with it). I am simply arguing against the idea that random movement is inherently a bad thing while random combat resolution isn't. And you could come up with a ton of reasons why units can't cross a street at a fixed rate. People trip on nothing, and the streets of a war torn city aren't going to be as clean and open as mainstreet on Sunday morning. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 19:05 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Oh come on, dude. One guy trips or sprains his ankle, so another guy helps him along, slowing the entire unit down. You invited examples of things outside the player's or models' concerns, and I gave you some.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
For the umpteenth loving time: I am not defending 40K's particular implementation of random movement, just attacking the idea that random movement is inherently wrong or illogical, while random combat resolution is not. Look at modern warfare: it's not a question of whether or not an Apache can blow up a truck, it's a question of whether or not that Apache can get in position to blow up a truck. A game with random movement and fixed combat resolution is no more random and out of player control than the opposite. It just refocuses where that randomness occurs. Would players like it? I'm not sure. We've been well conditioned to accept fixed movement and random combat resolution as the way wargames work.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:But no one is saying that random movement is wrong or illogical, we're saying that it's a poor design choice. We are talking about the design of the game, which is wholly independent from whatever fluff justification you want to come up with. There is an inherent tradeoff between randomness and skill, and we're arguing for a game that is more demanding (and rewarding) skill-wise. Lord of Texas established a false dichotomy between random combat res and random movement, so I adressed that point and that point only. It's a point tangential but related to the discussion about 40K's level of randomness v skill, and I have been very clear about that. And game design is not wholly independent of fluff. Game desing codifies and implements the fluff. It, of course, should not be wholly beholden to the fluff because ultimately it is a game and needs to strike a balance between randomness and agency, but it still needs to be influenced by the fluff or it becomes completely disconnected and renders the fluff utterly meaningless.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Esser-Z posted:Bad game design, however, is bad regardless of the fluff! Random movement just doesn't have a place in the game, as it prevents you from attempting your tactics, while random accuracy determines how effective your tactics are! Random movement is problematic in 40K, and it really should be changed to fixed distances with modifiers for terrain and special rules, but your edit about tactics is wrong. Movement is tactics. Random movement doesn't nullify your tactics, it just forces in another point where your tactics can fail. The problem for many people is that another point of failure is another point too many. It's not even really a skill v randomness thing. Skill in a random game inherently involves factoring for that randomness. It's an agency v randomness problem. People want, for many self evident reasons, to have a great deal of control over their army, and random movement removes yet another point of control. koreban posted:In the grim darkness of the 41st millennium there is only 21st century skirmish warfare problems. Ha. But seriously, maneuver and positioning are how battles have been won throughout time. That's part of the reason why random movement irks so many. But a game where your units' combat effectiveness is a set value, but their ability to get into combat is dependent on a number of factors in and out of your control could be really neat. It'd be like Hams meets worker placement meets Backgammon.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
ThNextGreenLantern posted:It's not like we roll for Wargear. We used to  And I agree with you about historicals. It's why I can't get into FoW despite being a total nerd for WW2 stuff. Esser-Z posted:I think I can agree with you here. I was just trying to explain the emotional perception, mind. Saying "Nope you don't get to go as far as you need because dice" makes me feel like I'm not allowed to actually decide what I'm doing. Yeah, I generally feel the same way. I am used to it in 40K, but I agree fixed distances would be better. And thanks!
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Yeah, a lot of 40K's problems stem from it being an ancient system with a bunch of poo poo bolted on to it. It's basically late 2E AD&D at this point, so to really fix it, you'd need to rebuild it from the ground up. Thankfully, just changing random movement to fixed values wouldn't require that. Stick with 6" base move. Have run be a 3" base move. Make assault a 6" base move. Difficult terrain would halve that distance. MTC would ignore that penalty. Make Fleet work like 5E: you can run and assault in the same turn. Horms and Banshees would still get their bonus to Fleet. E: or make Fleet a flat +1 modifier that follows the normal order of operation for modifiers, so you halve for difficult terrain then add +1 for fleet. This would shrink the threat radius for stuff like Horms (who would get a nasty 18" threat radius based on the other idea) and make fleet more useful for non-assault troops. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 20:43 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Lungboy posted:Have an actual move stat, so different races are intrinsically faster or slower, without the need to bolt on extra rules. Turn fleet back to assault after running, and take it off most stuff. etc. Ironically, adding a move stat would be bolting on extra rules. Difficult terrain and MTC are gonna be things with or without a move stat, and you'd keep fleet.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:You would have to keep something core, otherwise GW gets you for competition even though the rules are free. It must "require" the 40k books for some stuff. Period. Otherwise you're setting yourself up for failure. My understanding is that you can't copyright rules, just presentation. So we just gotta change names, like Fleet to Swift and Weapon Skill to Melee Ability, and avoid fluff and use generic names like Evil Space Elf Monster Trainer, and we'd be untouchable.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Dump_Stat posted:My non-forums member buddy hasn't piked up the 7e books yet and was asking about ways to defend against psykers as Dark Eldar. I told him that I didn't know much about DE, besides some of their basic builds, so I'd ask the forums. There's not much, but Lady Malys and her unit are immune to psychic powers, and I suppose shadowseers are ML1, so they should add to his DtW dice. Rapey Joe Stalin posted:Yeah I feel the same. Apart from assault being wonky, it was by far and away the best edition they've released. This is how I felt as well.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:When I say "lovely assault units," I mean stuff like Berserkers and Genestealers. If Berserkers and Genestealers, iconic assault units, are lovely assault units, it's a sign that the assault rules are fundamentally broken.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:He does have sort of a point in that a few assault-centric units (bikes, for a prominent example) are regarded as being less putrid. An assault revamp might have to pay attention to particular units, lest it simply make e.g. Chapter Master Fuckhammer even more retardedly powerful. But that's the sort of stuff that will shake out in any dedicated playtesting attempt, hopefully. That's true. There are a handful of units that are p solid assaulters. But assault is fundamentally broken if stuff like zerks and GS are bad at their job, the problems are nearly universal and rooted in the core rules, and it would be easier to write and test an assault overhaul and then address the handful of units who would then be too powerful than write and test rules for each of the many poorly performing assault troops, and the latter would require a lot of repeated effort.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:Oh, yeah, I take your point that it might be easier to do a broad power buff and errata the specific units that then get too powerful, rather than vice versa (that is your point, right?). That makes good sense. Yeah, and depending on how you tweak things, you might not even have to worry about those units. They might not be so improved that they need a nerf.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
LordAba posted:I thought the whole difficult terrain thing was justified by "let's be cautious in these woods because enemies might be near" and not "let's not sprain anything". Alright, alright, so it was a lame example.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Fix posted:How about : You can take a mulligan on your hand of maelstrom cards, but your Warlord cannot take any voluntary actions that turn. "This represents your warlord arguing against his incompetent superiors. Note, choosing this option with an Imperial Guard warlord allows your opponent to immediately score the warlord VP as your warlord will be summarily executed once the battle is complete."
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:While your explanation is cute, I don't need a fluffy reason poo poo happens, I need good rules that work. (I'm not trying to poo poo on you, more GW for it's busted rules that need to be explained away). I get you, but I do think there should be a fluffy reason why stuff happens. As I have said, the mechanics codify and model the fluff. But that said, fluff shouldn't be an excuse for poor rules, and fluff should be compromised when it gets in the way of good and fun rules. A good example of the latter is how poor marines are in the rules compared to how they are portrayed in the fluff because if they were up to fluff snuff, they would simply roll over everything else. TheChirurgeon posted:For once I actually like your bullshit fluff reason for something The one time I'm not serious. 
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
What were those old scifi toys with all the magnets called? They also had a ton of poo poo that would fold up and pack away inside other poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Yeah, being able to take on ten guard is pretty lowball for how crazy they are in the fluff. "Realistic" marines should be worth something like 100 guardsmen and also spit acid. The Tyranid thing is another example where fluff is compromised to make a better game. "Realistic" gaunts would cost .25 points and have the old without number rule. E: thanks RJS. Also, to be clear, I am in no way saying that the rules should be more "realistic."
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:That being said, how are Marines poor at all? Only relative to their depiction in the fluff. Rulebook Heavily posted:It's also easy to think of marines surviving horrific injuries and returning to battle after recuperation where other units would simply be killed off entirely, just like how catching a unit in an assault doesn't have to mean every single person is slaughtered. You lost twenty marines in your last 1850 battle? A good number of them got up again later. Yeah, this is how I tend to think of it. The guys who lose their last wound didn't necessarily die. They were just rendered ineffective for the remainder of the engagement. It's like the Necromunda injury table, except 30 out of the 36 possible results are "back in action with a cool scar or bionic bit."
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
They've started rolling out the new releases over the course of a few weeks instead of all at once. That's how they handled the new Fantasy Dwarf and WE releases. Note that the codex itself isn't up yet.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Yeah, let's be fair here about how professional the GW designers are. GW doesn't hire experienced professionals. They promote from within. Allesio Cavatore, widely (and I think incorrectly) considered the best designer to come out of GW, got his gig by translating the rules and becoming buddies with JJ. Compare that to companies like WotC or Paizo or Fantasy Flight who bring in established design talents and other professionals whose skills can be helpful. So yeah, they're professional game designers because they make a living designing a game, but the necessary qualifications for their positions seem to have little to do with prior game designs. E: But I totally agree about excessive kneejerk house ruling.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
krushgroove posted:So, tactics question: what do people think is the viability of Dark Eldar Raider/Venom use? Since they can rush around turbo-boosting and even Deep Strike with the Baron, are they something to consider? I know they're paper-thin but with enough of them they could overwhelm objectives, potentially. They are marginally less flimsy in 7E because of the new damage table and flicker fields let them sidestep the jink nerf. Hiding and then scoring with them is now an option. Otherwise, they're the same as they have always been. Unless you take the baron (the duke is the deepstrike guy) and spam hellions, they are your only route to mobile troops, and boats full of warriors and trueborn are still your basic sources of massed firepower.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Not painted Red Yeah, like Evil Sunz can afford all that flash new stuff.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2014 17:52
|
|
.
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
AndyElusive posted:My favorite part about those Nazi Astartes is that they're White Scars. Which are basically a bunch of speed freak space mongols. This comes full circle because Mongolian nationalist groups have adopted Nazi aesthetics. It really is brilliant commentary.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 00:21
|
|