|
I would love it if orks were the most powerful codex forever because they're just so trollish and nonserious that they'd be the perfect antidote to all the  players who come up with noble backstories for their space elves or viking furries or rapist nazi soldiers.Of course even as I type this I'm realizing that if they actually were the best, one would quickly grow to hate them as a deluge of neckbeards descended on game tables with unpainted min-maxed ork armies. In any case it will never happen precisely because they're not power-armored mary sues.
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 09:18 |
|
|
BULBASAUR posted:"The first conversation you should have before every game is weather or not you want to play the game. Then you should agree if the game should have any point." Just cut it here, IMO 
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
The good thing is it really does just seem like you can write down the rule changes from the internet and tuck them into your 6E rulebook and be playing 7E for all intents and purposes. Whether this is ethically the same as  is a matter for the philosophers, I suppose.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Your night lords are amazing. As a tribute, here's the only one I've painted to date. The picture is one I had lying around from before I bothered to properly set up my model pics, sorry. My DV librarian is in there as a bonus. I painted both of these about a year and a half ago now.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Make an army, counting them as 30k death guard with chem-munitions or rad grenades or something
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
It's not like namedropping Citadel products is anything new (remember kids, your models will explode if you don't use high-quality Citadel tools and Citadel super glue).
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Wow there are some crazy good deals on Ebay right now. Are you saying there's legitimately a sudden, statistically significant surge of 40k poo poo being sold today? Because I would cackle so hard. e: I don't monitor 40k prices on ebay quite closely enough to know whether the numbers I'm seeing are that outstanding, but one thing my search turned up just now was someone trying to flog off a 6E rulebook for a starting bid of $52.  
JerryLee fucked around with this message at 07:56 on May 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
The wording seems really misleading or at least unhelpfully confusing, since it uses the term 'successfully nullified.' Oh, I successfully nullified something! Awesome. Only that might not actually mean anything in practical terms. 
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
Did they move from situations where the controlling player allocates the wounds (ie the vehicle exploding example) to random allocation in those cases, because holy poo poo I cannot believe they thought that was a better way to implement things.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
BULBASAUR posted:I expect 6.7 edition to be a tad better than 6th, which was pretty cool. I'm excited to play it, but it's a god drat rip off and I'm not buying that paperweight. I'm going to pick up dropzone commander instead. This is exactly it. On their own, the rules aren't a disaster, on average. There are some dumb individual points and it's a huge disappointment because of how many additional things with 6E needed to be addressed, but in aggregate they won't make the gameplay experience worse, really. In some cases they might actually be better or at least new and interesting. One really needs to consider 7E not just as a set of rules for a game, but as a puzzle piece in the horribly hosed up relationship of GW with its customers and its customers' wallets, in order to understand where the pantsshitting comes from.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 09:00
|
|
|
Yeah, poking fun at what a whistly fart it ended up being by calling it '6.5' or w/e is amusing, but saying 7E helps for clarity, I think.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 09:29
|
|
|
I like how they have mighty and avenging twice each to make sure everyone notes the adjectives correctly. Sort of the spiritual ancestor to today's Blood Wolf Fists
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:It does mean that The Emperor's Benediction is completely useless, however Fine example of a properly forged narrative, IMO 
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
ijyt posted:Posts like this overall reassure me about 7th, but my main issue with it is still the price. Guess I'll be waiting for the minibook. And also an easy way to make my own cards.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
I always get a kick out of early-edition stuff that's been retconned to actually be the poo poo that they used way back in the whenever. Corvus armor, jamming assault cannons, the early-patterned Land Raider.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
There's getting to be less and less of a delay between the time when I think, "Oh man, that could be a cool idea!" and when I realize, "Oh, right, Games Workshop.  "e: referring to options for alternate FOCs
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
So it appears that the psychic power card set was straight up lying about what powers certain codices could take? Since the FAQ says that e.g. CSM sorcerors can take Daemonology now, but says nothing about Divination.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
AbusePuppy posted:The availability of most disciplines is unchanged, folks just got access to Daemonology in addition to other stuff. That means that a Lord of Change will have Change, Divination, and Daemonology available to it. Force isn't something you have to "take"- if you have a force weapon you get it, if you don't you don't. Divination and Telekinesis are listed in the CSM column (and Divination in the SM column) because there are ways to get access to them- the Crimson's Laughter relic and Ahriman for CSM, Tigurius for SM.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Dagon posted:It is. You can now only witchfire out of a transport, and only if it has fire points. Well, I guess at least the psyker can now bless after getting out of the transport, so it's not as bad as it could have been.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Guys, GW doesn't call them foundations anymore. 
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
SUPER NEAT TOY posted:hmm yes perhaps an even application of liquid greenstuff coated with cadian fleshtone will hide this pox mark Just be sure to seal it with dullcote afterwards
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:So, just got done playing 3k Space Marines versus 1500 Orks & 1500 Tyranids in a 2 on 1. I think that the objective cards are a great idea in principle but I have zero problem believing that this is the sort of outcome that can result because, y'know, GW. I would love to have some better (amateur) game designers take a stab at making some homebrew cards and/or modifications to the card usage rules. e: maybe while they're at it they can come up with some objective categories that aren't a hair away from being perfect synonyms for each other
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
I'm trying to think of how the intended aim of having the cards forge an awesome narrative could be helped out, because my immediate reaction to Ghost Hand's comment is, well, why WOULD the space marines in an awesome defensive position break out of it to go die like idiots, and why would they be penalized for not doing so? Yeah, if we get all realist, no-win scenarios happen all the time, but the goal should be to minimize feelbads. If I think of it like I'm writing a 40K novel, which I assume is the sort of vibe they were going for, then there are reasons why that might happen--maybe you find out the enemy is transporting a special relic, or an imperial flyer goes down and you have to recover the classified data, etc. The thing is that you know if the heroes are going out to do that, they have an above-average chance of succeeding. If there were some way that the cards could give you a rad bonus to doing the thing, that would be interesting. Something to reflect the sudden swell of heroic plot armor that you get. For objective-based mission cards, maybe a toughness bonus, save bonus, or something else given to any of your units that runs in the direction of the objective until you capture it or the mission is otherwise no longer in effect.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
Lord Twisted posted:Seriously is there some sort of way we could compile a long list of grievances, broken rules and issues over say the last two or three years and just write some sort of open letter to GW? I could go up to loving Nottingham myself and hand deliver the drat thing. Yes I'm sure the problem with GW is that they are blissfully unaware of what people's grievances with them are  I mean I can see where it might feel good and I'd put my name on such a letter just for shits but I'm not sure what you're planning to accomplish.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
Someone add "Banana Peel" to the possibilities for mysterious objectives.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
There are objectively quite a number of other people in the industry who are better at writing/proofreading rules than whoever is currently doing it for 40K, so it's not like it's some rare savant quality.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
While I'll be watching with interest to see what comes out of this, I can't help but be pessimistic as to its chances of actually getting adopted. That's the existing problem with just having houserules, or for that matter switching to a (relatively) less-played game like Kings of War or something: at the end of the day, you want to be able to get a pickup game or quickly play with new people at the club, and having something that nobody's really heard of is a pretty big barrier in the way of that. I think that trying to keep the changes as limited as possible, so that it really is just sort of a playtested, standardized houserule set (oxymoron alert), is a better approach than trying to reinvent the game. If it can get some "brand awareness" on the internet, so to speak, you can get people to try it the same way Magic players tried 5-Color or EDH, and it's a lot easier to sell people on it when it's still the base game they're familiar with, just with different rules for running and assaulting and maybe some non-retarded points costs. Basically this: Tuxedo Jack posted:If its a new game, yes. If we're house ruling 40k, and its free, then we can use their USRs and just say "X is no longer applicable, Unit Y gets Z" And here's another thing: have the goal be to make it usable with a 6E rulebook. This will help immensely in making it a way to play 40K if you're pissed off at GW. If you want to bring in ideas from 7E like fortification hull points or the psychic phase, figure out some way to write them into the house rules that won't get you C&Ded. Also yeah 6E was pretty cool in most regards and 7E seems like it would have been cool too if it were a free update or available as a $10 cheat sheet. Which is basically the idea behind this as I understand it, that you can put a relatively minor patch on 6/7E and have a good game.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:So you can't Focus powers that are Warp Charge 1? I'm guessing they meant equal or lesser. Also, it reads as though you give up all your rolls, even if you have 3 or more rolls, for one focused power. That seems a bit bad or at least a disincentive to take higher mastery levels; I'd prefer a clarification/modification to where you can trade rolls for focus at a 2:1 ratio and then take any rolls you haven't "spent" in this fashion. Just saying, not trying to poo poo on what Moola posted. I think it's a fine experiment! Tuxedo Jack posted:Assuming this House Rule Edition goes somewhere - what are the top priorities for fixing? I think that the mandate w/r/t assault should be broader than that. Basically, just buff assault to where it's an option on par with shooting/artillery. Maybe the way to do that is by reducing randomization; maybe it's by nerfing Overwatch a little, maybe it's by allowing assault from outflank/deepstrike. Also, I can't stress enough that I feel these houserules should explicitly be intended to be playable with 6E as well as 7E. A significant portion of your "target audience," so to speak, will be people who do not want to buy the 7E rulebook, at least in its current form, in the first place. Since 6E and 7E are so similar it should be eminently doable to make this a patch that works with either one.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:If I were going to shake up 6th Edition Psychic Power generation but wanted to prioritize GW's apparent design goal of preventing players from cherry-picking their favorites, I'd consider giving psykers all of the powers in a single discipline, but making all non-Primaris powers one use only. Maybe with some kind of recharge mechanic. I haven't tried this out, though, and I'm sure there are specific characters or relics that would screw with it. Also I'm sure some people really like taking powers from multiple disciplines (maybe for purely fluff reasons) and I wouldn't want to completely shut that down. This could possibly work but you'd also want to rewrite the disciplines so that they all had six good powers (or the same number of good powers, at least). Otherwise you make a discipline with 2-3 good powers really lovely compared to one with 5-6.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:If you make assault easier to get into, you need to make it less deadly/one-sided. For all everyone's bitching, they don't seem to mind when their 200 point lovely assault unit wipes out a 250 point shooting unit in one turn with no casualties. How often does that happen compared to the gunline more or less devastating the assault army before it can get into combat? Are you talking about cases where the assault army actually wins the game, or are you talking about the feelbads from one "lovely" assault unit wiping out one shooting unit whilst the shooting/artillery army still has the overwhelming advantage in controlling the board and executing their strategy? Like, I thought that assault being underpowered in 6E/7E outside of maybe certain very specific situations was something that was generally agreed upon, and the conversation is about how to bring them to parity without overcompensating too much. We don't need to give the shooting army anything in compensation for making assault easier to get into unless we make assault too much easier to get into, and if we do, that's the problem. JerryLee fucked around with this message at 23:49 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Moola posted:Not to be dismissive or anything, but I have literally never seen this happen once in 6th edition. I'm sure it's happened sometimes somewhere. Like I said in my post before, though, the issue is still that systemically assault armies are at a disadvantage, and individual anecdotes don't disprove that. e: Like, it's happened in one of my games. I rolled up a Land Raider filled with assault-inclined Chaos terminators and charged them into a Necron gunblob. That gunblob sure was dead! And the Necron army as a whole sure still won the game on the back of its better shooting! JerryLee fucked around with this message at 23:56 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
This is just a completely asspulled idea, but what if the number of shots you could fire for Overwatch was capped somehow? Because sometimes it feels like the problem with overwatch is that it's balanced for something like a marine combat squad, and thusly falls apart when you have Necron, Tau or IG armies taking a fling-poo poo-at-the-wall approach.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Being able to suppress units to keep them from firing overwatch would be good. I'd say "Pinned units cannot fire Overwatch" (which sounds like it might be a thing in 7E anyway?) but pinning still isn't nearly reliable enough to build a strategy around, in my experience. I'd rather have it be something flat, like "If a unit has taken fire from two or more Heavy or Ordnance weapons in the previous Shooting phase, it cannot fire Overwatch." This would allow you to actually build an army around reliably helping assault squads into, well, assault.Fix posted:You guys should make a thread for this project so as to not confuse people learning 7th. Also, I agree with this.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Von Humboldt posted:The big problem is that Overwatch is not what is prevent units from hitting CC. It can make it more difficult, sure, but Overwatch is not what is keeping Orks/Genestealers/Berserkers from getting into CC. Rather, the problem is that many armies can just sit there and obliterate them before they even reach their positions, and the methods most armies use to compensate suffer mechanically. Cover can be ignored and slows down units heading into assault doubly - both on the move and on the charge. Vehicles need to be assault transports, or else you aren't seeing CC before turn 3 at the very best, and many assault transports are either fragile or expensive. Outflanking and Deep Strike both net you a full turn of standing around with your dick in your hand as every Lasgun in a 24" radius zeroes in on you. Even mobbing up and walking up, saying hell to all that bunk about transports or cover, this is Warboss Pickett's WAAAAAGH across an open field, has models experience a conveyer belt effect where the first rank is cut down and the unit ends up with less movement overall. Yeah, these are all good points. I don't think that considering ways to cap/interact with overwatch can't be part of the puzzle, but it's probably not gonna do it by itself. Can we get approval for a thread and have some one make it?
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Moola posted:Ok but you need a funny thread title. The Game Workshop That Isn't Games Workshop
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
I looked at the 2nd Edition Battle Bible and was pretty  at how complicated it made a lot of the stuff seem. Maybe that's just because I had to scroll through it as a PDF rather than having it as a bound book, but that's one reason I hope this experiment can produce something that's as lightweight as possible and fits on top of the 6E/7E rules, rather than trying reinvent them.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:If Berserkers and Genestealers, iconic assault units, are lovely assault units, it's a sign that the assault rules are fundamentally broken. 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.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted: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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
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". That might work for "running" (though in that case it should be called something else at that point, like "extra move" or "double advance") but not so much for charging into melee combat, really.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 09:18 |
|
|
Hipster Occultist posted:As someone who hasn't been exposed much to the new edition yet, what does everyone not like about it? We've seen about 5 new converts to warmachine at the club and I'm wondering why. Chiefly the fact that it's a cash grab, I think. If the small number of updates from 6 to 7 had been provided as a free or very cheap upgrade, that would be massively better-- there ARE some dumb things about the new edition rules themselves but there are also some improvements, so I think it's a wash in that department. That, plus the fact that GW has pissed in the well for long enough and at a high enough intensity that the onus is on them to give their customers a serious olive branch, so any kick in the teeth is that much more of a kick in the teeth. It can't really be overstated how much anything GW does will be (not unreasonably) viewed through a very toxic lens by anybody but the fanboys.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 07:35
|
|