|
I mean, terrain's an actual fundamental part of the game that players are expected to put down, right? I think that's a bit different of a situation than expecting players to shame others for totally rules-legal methods.
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 07:53 |
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:If it's TLOS, players can model for advantage which is the problem. Yeah, I agree TLOS modeling for advantage can die in a fire. Especially when it gets to ridiculous territory such as "well I have my flag hoisted real high, obviously I can pole vault up that and shoot.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Corrode posted:What kind of pussy puts up with this? As Not a Viking mentioned, we shouldn't have to. The rules should account for this poo poo already. While I'm the type of person who would totally house rule more abstracted line of sight systems to make things less unfair, it shouldn't fall on the players' shoulders to do the rules' jobs for them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Yeah, if I ever made or purchased hill terrain, it would basically be a plateau that I'd pretend is a hill. Hills are nightmares.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Yeah. A differently colored segment of the board, made clear enough to say "okay line of sight for infantry stops here, capiche?" seems perfectly fine to me. Even if people insist on TLOS, I think only the worst sticklers would mind that exception.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
That said, I wish the indices were free releases at the very least. I understand the stopgap rules were the product of hard work and man-hours and should be appreciated, but some of them are being obsoleted (at least in part) in the span of a few months.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
S.J. posted:They should have been, yeah. They were very disingenuous about 'free' rules. Although, again, can't say I'm surprised. "How can I get the rules? We’re going to make it easier than ever to get your hands on the rules and start playing. The core rules for the game will be free, and you’ll have several options on how you get your hands on the full rulebook. Watch this space for more." Not really. The only hazy thing is what counts as core rules, and the only things not really present in the core rules are matched play stuff like detachments and mission objectives. As units come with their data sheets upon order, theoretically you could play the game entirely without rulebooks. That said, this great for people starting 8th, but atrocious for anyone who already has a big standing army. Indices not being free is basically a huge bar to this being a perfect clean slate. Or at least, as perfect as you can get for a game as bloated as 40k. The Bee fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
S.J. posted:so, like, the rules? But they did include all the rules in the core rulebook. The rest of the rulebook is basically just mission types and a few rules for tournament play that were 95% revealed on the official website already. They also clearly said "these will not be the full rules" several times during the edition's launch. Is it more expensive than I'd like? Yeah. But they weren't lying in the slightest. If they did the exact same release, but renamed the rulebook "Setting Info and Missions," would you feel like it was the same gently caress you? Because that's literally what it boils down to. The Bee fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Actually the free rules don't include any of the FoC charts or command point rules, and only the most basic terrain rule, which are pretty big parts of the core rules set in my eyes. Although, granted, they did a pretty good job of making terrain somewhat irrelevant from what I've seen. That's very fair. They revealed enough of the FOC info on the web that I glossed over it, but you're right that it's the most essential omission from the core rules. Between that and the absolutely boneheaded way GW handled points, their treatment of competitive playstyles is something I'm quite unhappy with this edition. As for the terrain rules, I really hope they're either errata'd or changed in general. Everything else depending on model visibility makes wound allocation in this fashion really strange, even if you use the excuse of the battlefield constantly shifting. The advanced rules seem mixed to me too, with some good to know in general like forests, ruins, and obstacles, but others like pipes and battlezones seeming really weirdly specific. It's a good guidance for homebrew in general, at least. I could easily take the Empire shrine and make it the rule for a Great Heap of Mork, for example. So I'll agree that's #2 on the big, glaring omissions list. While I agree on the core rulebook, I still hope codices continue this trend of cheaper books. Core rules being cheaper is nice, but the game getting exponentially more expensive for each army owned is still an irritating trend. This is moreso after many people spent 25 dollars for a stopgap of all things. I'm sure if they allow you to trade your index in for a codex / a discount on a codex, it would go a long way to get some goodwill back over the initial index launches.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
S.J. posted:I want to believe, but I'm not holding my breath. Honestly? Me too. We have probably the best solid core 40k's had in a while, with a few warts here and there and some bland parts from paring down a lot of unique faction aspects. Will they polish it to a shine, or prove they can't help themselves and get GW all over it? Well, we find out this month, I imagine.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Iceclaw posted:Wait, if codices rules overwrite others, aren't they pretty much mandatory? Basically, yeah. Along with being the most up to date rules, they also seem to be where all the interesting stuff hid between editions.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Crossposting my attempt at a cover fix/houserule from the other thread:The Bee posted:Maybe it could be "Models outside of cover get wound allocation priority. Then models with cover, gaining the benefits of a cover save. If this would make attacks miss, then the attacks miss. Finally, models that are not legal targets (whether due to LoS or range) cannot be damaged, unless by Flamer and Explosive weapons." This way, for example, you could cycle a wounded bigmarine into cover and have his battle brothers cover for him. It would also make wound allocation a simple chain of priorities instead of an overly complex system. Finally, it allows unit leaders to actually be picked off if positioned poorly instead of always being the last model standing. What do you guys think? Any glaring flaws in it I didn't notice? Also, completely agreed that physical should cone with digital. I mean, gently caress, it's 2017.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
It currently isn't complex at all, but some people in both threads were annoyed by that not making sense or figuring it made cover less useful. After all, it is a little silly that a marine squad can have four marines behind a building and one sticking out from it, only to have the four hidden ones drop dead of sympathy pains when the exposed marine is shot up. Or how a marine in a forest gets a cover save, and a marine behind a hill gets full LOS blockage, but put the two together and they're both as good as fully exposed. I was trying to brainstorm on how to make cover more useful without making wound allocation too complex as a result, and figured just adapting the same priority rules used for injured models would be easier than giving the whole system an upheaval. The Bee fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
Radish posted:Yeah I totally agree writing actually good solid rules is best since it results in few discrepancies and people go in knowing what their stuff is going to do without having to make a legal argument mid game. I don't agree at all with the people that think a really weak ruleset is more fun because to me it just results in arguments as very few people really don't care at all about winning, especially Games Workshop fans. If GW is going to sell their game as just goofing around with your models and the rules are intended to be a framework to enact your narrative since if you go in knowing that it's on you then it's somewhat more excusable but you can't do that and then also encourage tight competitive play. Agreed. I think the narrative mission types, which are more about evoking a feeling than ensuring cutting-edge competitve play, do this well. The horrorshow that their point system became? Not nearly as effective.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 07:53 |
|
|
S.J. posted:We'll see when their codex comes out The Tyranid codex comes out, reverts Instinctual Behavior to its original form, and includes a pinup of Cruddace laughing in our faces.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2017 07:41
|
|
