Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Waaaghpower

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 70
1
General 40k and Expansions / Re: Fall of Konor - Who's in?
« on: August 03, 2017, 07:41:57 PM »
My LGS is playing through. I won a victory for the Imperials last Tuesday, and next week I'm playing a massive 3,000 point game next week to finish off the last of the stragglers trying to stay they executions on Konor.

Playing mostly Marines/Sisters, since I want the Imperials to win. I'm fine with Grimdark, but I don't want the setting to be too excessively bleak - Since GW would have to pull some kind of writing asspull in order to explain why the entire universe doesn't just fall apart if the Imperium loses, and that'd annoy me to no end.

2
This is... Not gonna go well for the Guard player, unless they can tank it out and hold objectives. I predict tha only one Knight will die - Barely - On the bottom of turn 2 or top of 3. Without knowing mission type I can't predict a victor.

3
In response to all the people worried about Da Jump...
You can stop worrying. It's not NEARLY as broken against all armies as it seems, you just have to be prepared for it. 8th edition isn't about Hordes and Auras, it's about Hordes, Auras, and Screening.

If your army list lacks a couple screening units, you're going to be in a tight spot, but if you throw in a couple MSU that can deploy out and prevent deep strikers of all flavors from hitting your vulnerable, tender bits, you'll be a lot better off. A 9" Radius is pretty big, and a horde of Ork Boyz is also pretty big.

However, I've discovered new cheese you can do with two Weirdboys and Orks, if you're playing against Tau or Sisters of Battle or Guard - Basically any army that's T3.

'Eadbanger.

I've killed a fully-healed, 2++ protected Autarch in one shot, as well as a Celestine, because 'Eadbanger is really broken as long as you can get it into the right position against a T3 army. I'm sure this will be less effective as time goes on, but for now, opponents seem to be leaving their characters semi-vulnerable in the back if those characters are tanky, because they assume that any Deep Striker will be too large to fit or won't be able to cause enough damage to kill them. Weirdboys are just a single model that can squeeze in tiny gaps, though, and as long as you've got a Command Point lying around their power has about a 75% chance of instapopping any T3 character. (If your opponent lacks a tanky T3 character, just take Warpath instead.)


As for killing fliers, that one is easy: Stormboyz. Just assault the flier and rip it to pieces. The only fliers that are T8+ are Forge World (At least that I've found,) and none that I've seen have better than a 3+ save. Fifteen charging Stormboys will put 6 wounds on a flier with a 3+ save, 8 wounds on a 4+ save, and 9 wounds on a 5+ save. 

Or just ignore them? Also a possibility, depending on the volume of them and the mission type.


If you don't mind a bit of Cheese, (Or a lot of cheese, actually,) Zhardsnark Da Rippa, from the Forgeworld Index, is much better than an equivalent (*On a Bike, with a Power Klaw and Attack Squig) Ork Warboss for about ten points. In fact, given completely average dice, he can solo two Warbosses.
Math:
[spoiler]
Due to the range of Zhardsnark's guns, he can shoot them while remaining out of charge range, but if the Warbosses want to shoot, they will have to Advance - Giving them a -1 to hit - And will also have to move into Zhardsnark's charge range. (He has a 15" move, 6" advance, and re-rollable charge, but Warbosses need to be within 18" to shoot. Zhardsnark is strong enough to one-shot a Warboss, killing him before the Warboss can strike back - With average dice he causes 7 wounds that the Warboss can't save, plus 1 Mortal Wound. The other Warboss can charge in and strike back, but will only get 5 wounds on average after saves. Even with all of the preceding shooting, that'll only get one more wound. Zhardsnark then has two rounds of fighting to attack the second Warboss before he can strike back again.
(Yes, I realize that this fight is in an unrealistic vacuum, but it's still a fun thought experiment.) [/spoiler]


Basically, Zhardsnark is absolutely worth the ten extra points, as he's universally better in all contexts with zero downsides unless you plan on running another named Ork character and want their clan benefits.

4
Yeah... Saw that coming. I've used the exact same tactic a couple times, and it absolutely demolishes tightly-packed deployments. Looks like 8th is all gonna be about buff bubbles and area denial.

Fun to read, though!

5
Based off of the half-dozen or so games I've played in 8th so far...

This ain't gonna go so well for the Space Marines. Unless I'm way off the mark here, that's simply not enough firepower to deal with that volume of Boyz. Gravcannons aren't suited to kill Tanks anymore with S5, and lack volume of fire to kill Ork Boyz...
I dunno. Maybe if he has a really good first turn and you manage to whiff Da Jump or your post-jump Charge...


I guess I'll just wait and see. But my teef are on the Orks.

6
So, I'm going to start by acknowledging that, while I'm generally not a fan of 8th edition in a whole bunch of ways, some of that is just personal taste. I was a big fan of the way that 7th edition worked, and losing a lot of elements that were problematic but fun (Like blast templates) seems like a big step in the wrong direction to me.
For many players, those kinds of changes aren't going to be a problem, though. That's just me, not being catered to, because GW has decided that their target audience is elsewhere. I can't really fault them for that, even if it's personally frustrating.

Anyways...


As of yesterday, I got my hands on the Forge World indexes, and they're an absolute... Well, I would like to use a lot of creative vulgarity to describe how bad they are, but it'd all a bunch of squiggles, asterisks, and ampersands. It's bad. It's REALLY bad. Broken rules, bad typos, unplayable models, special rules that have no function, huge imbalance between itself and the GW books, missing wargear choices. On top of this, there are units missing - Mega dreads come to mind, but there are several others. The book reads like a first draft. The Imperial Armor: Astartes book is the only one I got for myself, but I've seen friends' copies of the other three, and they're all just as bad.
(As an aside, the books also feel cheap - The cover art is recycled and uses white Arial text for its title, and unlike the GW indexes, they couldn't even spring for a splash page or a page of flavor text here or there to break up the endless pages of rules - The Astartes book is half the length of any of the GW indexes, too, so it's not like they were just out of room.)

There are some broken GW rules as well, though nothing so egregious as this. Still, I'm going to mention them here - Missing wargear options, weird imbalances in point cost for some things, various nerfs and buffs that seem unfair in various directions, and lots of various army comp choices and tactical options that are missing. (Oh, and as a minor point, the Chaos Vindicator is identical in stats to a regular Vindicator, but has a Power Level of 11 instead of 8. For some reason.)


And whenever I bring this up to apologists, the response I almost invariably get is that "They'll fix it later", either in an FAQ, or in a Chapter Approved, or when Codices come out, or when they do an update. And I'm getting *sick* of hearing that.

Games Workshop is asking money for their products right now, which means that they think that their products are in a state that is worthy of being sold. I understand that they cannot possibly do the amount of playtesting necessary to perfectly balance a game of this scale on their own, which is why I'm not upset about certain questionable balance decisions, but that's no excuse for some of the simply obvious mistakes that have been made in many, many cases. I, a random customer with no background in game design, should not be able to look at a book and see obvious, major imbalances in the effectiveness of some units (Cough*Acts of Faith*Cough). I should especially not be able to look at a rule and immediately see that it doesn't function when there are at least theoretically supposed to be teams of people who are paid to do this for a living. (I can't say for sure, though, because FW stopped accrediting writers.)

Not to mention that GW's fixes of late haven't... really... Been very good. Every broken thing about 7th edition hasn't been rebalanced, it's had a baseball bat taken to its kneecaps so that it'll never walk again. It gives the sense that GW is less concerned with balance and more concerned with showing off that they are trying to fix things. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe they'll stop doing this, but right now I'm under the impression that when it comes time to Start Fixing Things, they'll give a nominal effort to correcting all of the literally broken rules, then take anything that was still overpowered and triple its point cost so that it'll never see the light of a competitive game again.


Games Workshop should fix their products *before* shipping out print copies of books, not after, and I'm honestly surprised that this seems like a radical opinion to some people.

7
Quote
I've not had anything that I've ever fielded rendered unusable by a rule change since third edition.  The change from second to third edition was so significant that it was bound to invalidate some options, but otherwise I've fielded more or less the same units with the same weapons since third edition.  I don't optimise my wargear/units for particular editions, I pretty much use them as is.  If that means some weapons are less effective from one edition to the next, that's just the way it is.  This is why I prefer all round lists which are not excessively tailored or optimised.
I don't optimize my armies for maximum competitive power either, but I do generally like to have my units optimized, or at least not intentionally crap, since I hate feeling like I'm intentionally wasting points. For example, with the new Inquisitorial Acolytes, I will not be using any of them with Laspistols. Bolt Pistols are the same cost, and unambiguously better for zero downside. Also, I haven't been playing since 3rd, I've been playing since 5th, and I tend to get new models and units regularly - I played only Orks in 5th, added Space Wolves, then Space Marines, then Inquisition, then Sisters of Battle in 6th, then added Grey Knights, Deathwatch, and a few other minor bits here and there in 7th. (Assassins, Astra Telepathica, etc.) I built those with whatever seemed coolest at the time.

However, most of my invalidated units are simply combinations that I think were cool: I took an Inquisitor with two Daemonblades, because the idea of him carrying around the souls of Daemons in order to achieve the maximum human potential of power is really cool to me. On the board, it was a crapshoot - Sometimes incredibly powerful, sometimes worthless - But it was always fun to play.
All of my models that I built to have WYSIWYG with relics (Most pertinently, my Wolf Lord who I gave a bonesword, so that he could really weild the Krakenbone Sword, and my Librarian who I gave a Thunder Hammer from the Iron Hands upgrade pack so that he could have the Mindforge Stage), are not really useable. My Wolf Lord can, I guess, have a Relic Blade? But that Librarian can't be a Librarian anymore. My Cataphractii Captain with a Storm Shield is bust. Sororitas Command Squads don't exist anymore, Psycollum doesn't exist anymore, and Condemner Boltguns barely do anything anymore, so I have nothing to do with the five Condemner Boltguns that I have five Sisters all armed with. Most of my Deathwatch are bust (Though incidentally, they randomly and suddenly allow Deathwatch Veterans to take Bolt Pistols, which they don't have parts for and require kitbashing because that didn't exist in 7th).

Usually, my list building involved a sort of reverse optimization: I would pick a list or army style that I want to try, then retroactively figure out how to make that list good. I've played melee-centric Adepta Sororitas, Space Marine Parking Lots, pure Inquisition, pretty much anything I could think of that sounded fun. Sometimes that would lead me to stumble upon something genuinely OP, but OP lists are incredibly boring to play, so those lists usually get shelved after a single use.


Quote
GW has always taken this approach with their rules, as you alluded to above.  The only difference this time is that any changes will probably be made more quickly.  If there are combinations that you are convinced that they may change, hold off constructing the models until there has been a review.  I doubt that you would have to wait that long.
My Inquisition models were legal since the beginning of 6th edition. Are you saying that I should have held off for that long? Sometimes those changes can be predicted (For example, it's not too surprising that they changed Deathwatch a few months after the codex came out,) but other ones are a complete, unfair crapshoot. (How in the heck am I supposed to predict that an entire unit is going to be axed from the SoB codex?)

Also: I shouldn't have to wait six months or a year to find out if GW is going to pull out the rug on me before I start building my kits.  If they can't decide what they want to allow before they release it, they shouldn't punish players for that.

Quote
Randomisation is tedious, I agree and I also prefer heterogeneity to homogeneity, however, I would have to be persuaded that this edition involved too much homogenisation.  This is not to say that I think that eighth is somehow a silver bullet to all the problems with GW's rules.  I do not believe this for one minute, but I do think that, in a number of respects, it is a step in the right direction.
I don't have exact data on it, but I think that a lot of weapon profiles across armies definitely are a lot similar. If you look for the number of weapons that used to have different rules, and are now S8 AP-4 Bonus Damage at Half Range, or S9 AP-3 D6 damage, I think you'll find that a lot more weapons have a lot in common. Also, the loss of AP5 and AP6 equivalents means that most anti-infantry weapons are a lot more similar in effect, as is the fact that all weapons are useable on all things - Since S3 can now hurt tanks just as well as S4, instead of S3 being useless against tanks, but S4 being sometimes capable of glancing tanks from the rear.

Why should I take a Vindicator over a Predator now? Or visa versa? You get +1 Strength and D3/D6 shots instead of 4. They do the same battlefield role. What's to get excited about? A slightly different type of rolling that does the same thing? I may as well just go with whichever gives the slightly better cost/damage ratio and call it good.

Combi-Weapons are just regular Special Weapons plus Bolter Shots. Flamers fill almost the exact same niche as Storm Bolters, getting almost the same number of average hits and doing the same damage since it no longer ignores cover. Plasma Cannons actually do the same amount of average damage as Plasma Guns when within 12", since D3 shots means 2 shots and that's what you get from a Rapid Fire weapon anyways. The Command Land Raider now just gives the same benefits as a Space Marine Captain.
Captains give re-rolls on 1s to hit. Chaplains give re-rolls on hits in Close Combat.
A regular Captain is as accurate as Cypher now, because 2+ with Rerolls on 1s can't get any better than it is. 
Ork Deep Strike is equally as accurate as Space Marine Deep Strike and Eldar Deep Strike.
Chapter Tactics and Marks of Chaos have been axed. (And no, 'Just wait for codices' is not a good counter-argument. There's no reason why they couldn't have included them in half a page in their respective books, and having to wait months or more to get content back to the point it was pre-update is crappy.) A unit of Chaos Space Marines now plays identically to a unit of Space Marines in almost all circumstances.

Acts of Faith give the same buffs to every unit, and one of those buffs - Recovering wounds - Is actually the same as an ability provided by other units. (Actually, Hospitallers are just less versatile versions of Imagifiers, since they do the same thing as an act of faith: On a 4+, recover wounds for a nearby unit.)

Also, this is a minor point, but Ministorum Priests only give one buff, and it's only useful to a tiny number of units that could potentially take it, and Astra Telepathica really only help IG.

I could keep going, too. For a really, really long time. But I think this helps make the point.

Quote
The comments pertaining to overpowered combinations are issues that I find unpersuasive.  Having played Rogue Trader and second edition, most of the balance issues since then have been far less serious.  There are likely to be balance issues, but this has been true for all editions.  I think that it's far too early to complain about balance in eighth when there's so little data to analyse at this juncture.
I don't mind imbalance, but I do mind imbalance in this particular context: If the whole point of 8th edition was to flatten out the balance, and that's why they had to sacrifice the unique abilities, weapons, and rules that all the different armies and units have, that's fine. But when they remove all of those things, and the game is still increadibly breakable at a glance, that's a major problem. (And from all of the data I have: The deployment rules are crap, and first turn leads to an almost guaranteed win. I've played four games, and this has been true from all four games, plus all of the games I've heard about from other players, with one exception: A killpoints game between pure Imperial Knights and Orks, in which first turn did not matter.) This will require more time to confirm for certain, but it seems pretty clear already that the rules for deployment and first turn are incredibly imbalanced and unfair.

It feels like, instead of trying to balance the game, they just tried to remove all of the things people were complaining about instead, without realizing that their new fixes caused new breaks.


Quote
I get the impression that you play a lot on a highly competitive tournament scene.  That has never been my cup of tea.  I'm a casual player.  I suspect that this is the main reason why we have a number of divergent views, although we do agree on some points.
Not really. I play with one CSM friend at his house, and then a group of friends at an LGS, and another group of friends on different days at the same LGS. If I were a WAAC player, I'd be happy about how cheesy the new edition appears to be: More tournaments for me to break, after all!
I'm disappointed because I like playing with all my different toys. I like putting down my big models and smashing them together while making dinosaur noises. (Proverbially*.) It's a game, I enjoy playing with it, and by stripping out a ton of options and ways to play (While ironically adding two game modes that are unplayable if you want a remotely fair game,) GW has removed many of my favorite things.

8
I'm just going to respond to one specific thing, Irisado:
That 'Living ruleset' thing scares me.

GW has a recent track record of  scratching out previously legal sets of wargear, if not axing them entirely. I've mostly only talked about rules complaints here, but this is actually a modeling complaint:
I like my army to be WYSIWYG. I like my army to look cool and be painted. Painting up units that I enjoy playing with was one of the most satisfying things about the game for me.

And I don't want do that anymore, because I'm freakin' sick of Games Workshop pulling out the rug from under me about what wargear choices are legal. This isn't even including the gearsets that remain legal, but become deoptimized to the point of only belonging in 'Haha this is a sillyfun list', like 6th Edition Flash Gitz.

The first example that comes to mind is my Wolf Guard. On bikes, I can give them their built in Twin Boltguns and add Storm Bolters, and they still have a Chainsword/Pistol. They're so far not particularly overwhelming, but putting out 8 shots per model is really heckin' satisfying and fun.

And I don't want to risk assembling these guys up and investing time and energy getting them WYSIWYG and legal, because I just *know* that the moment I get them done, some designer is going to look at them and decide, "Huh, we should probably disalow this", and... I dunno, make it illegal, or give Storm Bolters a -1 to hit, or quadruple their points cost or something.

(If you're not convinced, I can provide a full ledger of models in my collection that I can't use, or at least can't use viably, because they were at some point decided to be either cheesy (regardless of if they are,) unrealistic, or just plain I-don't-know-why.


Also I lied, I'll briefly respond to your other points:
Abstraction and streamlining are fine. It's randomization and homogenization that I find boring.
List Building ceases to be an issue with third party apps, but needing someone else to come fix your game is never good.

The buffs (and, as it turns out, measurig to see who the closest unit is for Consolidation and shooting at characters) absolutely is tedious. I played two games last night, both of them revolved heavily about staying in or outof bubbles, drivibg around to get close to characters, and exploiting the deployment rules for better positioning and first turn.

I played 40k for its diversity and color. Stripping that out for balance would impress me more, but I'm four games deep and am not hugely impressed by that balance. Cheese abounds already.

9
After playing two more games:
The mechanics of going first are immensely, incredibly broken and unfair. Winning the roll-off and getting to pick deployment zone is an immense advantage for shooting armies (who can effectively give themselves an extra 12" of buffer space), and I predict with complete that tournament lists will be built around having as minimal deployment as is possible while maximizing CPs.
Or, y'know, Tournies will houserule this mechanic away.

10
So...
A couple things.
Firstly, Storm Bolters are now far, far better at short-range. Combi-Bolters are better at long range and short. Twin-linked Boltguns are better at all ranges as well.
Secondly, you can now fire ALL of your weapons in the shooting phase, regardless of how many shots you have - No Pistol/Regular Gun combos, but if you have multiple regular guns, all is fair game.
Thirdly, Flamers now cost more for most armies, and have an average number of hits on par with before, but a far greater reliance on luck, and have a much lower cap on hits. (With good positioning taken into account, you're dropping from 6+ hits reliably to 3.5 unreliably.) Also they don't ignore cover anymore.

So, basically, Boltguns are now the best weapon, point-for-point, that most imperials have for killing Infantry en-masse.
Basic Tactical Marines and such are about the same, but things like Sisters of Battle squads, (Who are already 3ppm cheaper,) can now get a whopping 16 Bolter shots for only 57 points, by spamming out Storm Bolters. A Command Squa- Sorry, that is a squad of Company Veterans on bikes can also take Storm Bolters, getting 8 shots each for only 38ppm. That's 40 shots for only 190 points, which is equivalent to what you'd get from 260 points of new marines.
(By the way: Regular Space Marine Bikers are only 5ppm cheaper than Company Veteran bikers, but lose out on access to this cheese since they only get Bolt Pistols, not Boltguns. I do not expect to see regular SM bikers very often.)

11
After reading this, I was not all that surprised by the good and bad takeaways that you presented...however, what did surprise me was that you did not mention instead of playing just by points, there is now the option for power level armies. Unless, by narrative play, you meant this. I am not sure how you feel about that, as it seems to be one of the biggest changes, at least in my opinion. Barring all that, vehicles are now a truly viable option, and actually act like vehicles (sweet). I also agree that drop pod themed armies will be difficult to manage (sucks for me, as I love my drop pods).
I do not consider the 'power level' thing to be a real, viable option. Trusting players to self-police and self-balance is not remotely realistic. It's okay for introductory games, where you're teaching new players and want to put together an army without scaring them, and its fine for estimating unit value for various abilities (Like Daemon's Summoning), but it is not a real way to build an army for a balanced list. It favors min/maxing and optimization waaaay too much, and punishes players for bringing lighter, inexpensive gear. (For an obvious example, in Power Level play, there is literally no reason to ever bring a Heavy Bolter, Grav-Cannons are superior in every way.)


Also, as a friend pointed out, to-hit modifiers apparently come AFTER rerolls, which is possibly the dumbest change I could ever have even concieved.

12
Enemies of the Imperium / Re: 8th Edition TelepOrks
« on: June 10, 2017, 09:45:57 PM »
Well... it helps the game go quickly, and changes the tilt from shooty armies doing everything to making assaults viable. Yes, it's a spot of cheese, but it's more... game-making than game-breaking.
The 8th edition rules already make assaults more viable, by increasing the speed on a lot of melee units, allowing for assault out of vehicles, and increasing all charge ranges by 1". (You just need to be within 1", not in B2B, so what used to be an 8" charge is now a 7" charge and so on.)
Having units that can instantly teleport into Close Combat is not fun.

13
@Deraj
Fair enough, though I think we're coming from a somewhat different direction. I generally enjoyed the rules of 40k. There were definitely some pretty big imbalances (I played through 5th edition with just Orks, and watched the rise and fall of many-a-army while I was learning how to play,) and I'm not going to cry about all of them being gone. 6th edition Psychic Phases were overpowered to the point of absurdity, and 7th edition Psychic Phases were a tedious slog.

Even though I like the 7th edition rules, I'm glad that they're fixing a lot of the imbalances. I think it's great that they're trying to make the playing field more level for everyone. I'm just upset that they chose to do this by stripping out tons of mechanics and simplifying the game in almost every single way.


I don't necessarily mind them watching players and using that for feedback, either, but releasing the game with tons of missing features is what gave me the 'Beta test' feel.


I'll agree that codices are currently garbage. I played an Apoc game a few weeks ago and had to bring a foot and a half of books. I wouldn't mind a couple more books (Or slightly thicker books) in order to get Chapter Tactics, Relics, and unique detachments back, though. Most of those things could fit on a pamphlet for every army.


For templates causing arguments... My problem with the 'It caused arguments, so we're going to remove it' thing is that mechanics like those are still in the game. You're not going to have people arguing over how many models are under a template or which armor facing you're in, but you ARE going to have people arguing about whether the Character is closer or the Squad, and who they can fire at, and whether my psychic power that hits everyone under a line hits 5 models or 6, and whether my 6" radius effect from my Character is wide enough to hit both of my squads, and whether you're within 18" of me for me to cast Deny the Witch, or if you're just outside of that, and whether you placed your Drop Pod 9" away or if it's 8.9", and whether that 7" charge is enough to make it or not.

My point is, those arguments are kind of inherent in any game that uses measuring tapes. Scatter dice were definitely not a good mechanic since they could be extra fuzzy, but they could have kept in Flamer Templates and Blast Templates while removing scatter dice. Just for an example off the top of my head: Maybe instead of a scatter die, you could mark the template with six or eight cardinal directions, and roll a D6 or D8, then check the relevant arrow and move the template in that direction. No more ambiguity about direction, you're moving in one of a small preset list of options for direction. Flavor is maintained, you keep all the strategic elements that blasts provide, and about half the arguments are gone. (This doesn't fix the 'How many models are under the template?' argument, but I don't think that this would be impossible to fix either.)


In regards to your closing comments:
1: Fair enough. I haven't actually played AoS, I just know that every time people were discussing rumors about 8th, someone would pipe up and say, "Well THIS is how they do it in Age of Sigmar", and every single time that guy would turn out to be correct.
2: Also fair, but this only addresses issues of game imbalance and the litany of problems that need to be FAQd and the clearly unfinished content. It's not going to bring back weapons and armor that have been removed from the game, it's not going to bring back special issue wargear, it's not going to bring back the weapons which still exist but have been changed to the point of being unrecognizable. (Grav weapons have gone from being MC killers to being... Decent against Terminators, I guess?)
3: I'm of the personal opinion that the community is full of people who don't know what they want. Maybe I spent too much time hanging out in the 'House rules' section on DakkaDakka, and maybe I'm in the minority since I actually like the rules that we already had, but I really think that just giving players exactly what they ask for is almost never a good idea.



@Irisado
As Deraj commented, those were two different complaints. I have no problem with a couple of weapons using random dice rolls, and in the case of the Shokk Attack Gun those rolls both added a trade-off - It was a very powerful gun, (Large blast, usually high strength, AP2,) but had the potential to blow up in your face - and they added a ton of flavor, since it made sense that Orky weaponry of that caliber would never be reliable.
My problem is not with one weapon having an ability like this, it's that I don't want EVERY weapon to function like this. One weapon being randomized adds flavor and intrigue, every weapon (Or at least every blast, template, or high-damage weapon) being randomized regardless of fluff or army is just frustrating to play. (For the same reason, I don't mind the randomized rolls on a Loota's Deffguns, but I think it's idiotic to have the exact same randomized rolls for Predator Autocannons.)

As for your comments of streamlining: The game seems to be streamlined in all the wrong ways:
Building your army takes twice as long as it used to, firing large weapons requires two extra rolls, and moving characters around with infantry squads now requires tons of precise, careful measuring to ensure that all of your AoE buffs are hitting everyone they need to, since you can't just say 'He's attached to that squad, therefore they get his buffs' anymore.
All of the streamlining is in unit variety and weapon variety. Even though adding armor save modifiers and damage dice seems like the perfect opportunity to make weapons feel more diverse, I can't help but look at the massive sheets of different weapon options and feel like everything looks like exactly the same thing. Guardian Spears and Sentinel Blades feel like almost the exact same weapon. Power Lances and Power Mauls literally do the exact same thing. Every kind of Deep Strike feels exactly the same. Heck, the Exorcist Missile Launcher now just feels like any other explosive blast weapon, since every single weapon now shares the same gimmick. They didn't cut down on clutter, they cut down on variety.

I wasn't around for the 2nd/3rd edition Transition, so I can't comment on that, but what I CAN say is that I... Don't think that it's a good thing to be compared to? From what I've heard, there was tons of cheese and broken rules in 3rd edition, with players completely destroying the game with various broken lists. That doesn't make me feel better, it makes me feel more concerned for the future of the edition.


And knowing that it's going to be a living body of rules doesn't help, either. The core rules themselves are fine. I like the new Psychic Phase. I like the new Command Points system. My problem is that GW seems to want to prevent imbalance by removing any weapon, unit, or ability that is interesting.

14
So... I'm salty. I don't like this edition. I'm going to try and start with the things that I think are good, but... That's not going to take very long.

So! Armor save modifiers and really high wound values. Both seem like really, really good ideas to me. It allows tanks and vehicles to take a consistent, reliable amount of damage, instead of having to cross your fingers and hope you come out the other side of a shooting phase unscathed. Instead of an all-or-nothing scenario, where even the heaviest of tanks could only take four hits, there is now a lot more room for things to be relied on. I know that my Battlewagon can't be one-shotted by a Meltagun, and so I can feel safer rolling it forward and relying on it to take shots that I need it to take.
Armor save modifiers are also pretty good. They allow light armor to be used once in a while (My Ork Boyz and their T-shirt armor are finally going to get to see some use, since AP5 and AP6 weapons no longer exist,) and make it so that heavy armor can be weakened without being completely taken away. Power Swords now actually fill an important role, instead of being a niche weapon that was wedged between the much more versatile Power Maul and the far stronger Power Axe.

Movement values are another good way to distinguish units that are otherwise similar. Letting one unit be an inch or two faster is a better way to distinguish them than giving out Fleet or other similar buffs. The unit is faster, so let it actually be just straight-up faster.

The changes to cover are also a net positive, in my opinion. It's no longer mandatory for lighter units to hug cover at all times, since the benefit for say, Orks, has been significantly lowered, and is more consistent - You can't have a shrouded unit of Guardsmen taking 2+ saves anymore. However, there's actually a reason to stick Power Armor in cover now.

There's a couple little things I like, too. Running being part of the movement phase is nice. Twin-linked being replaced with straight-up more shots removes some complications, and allows other things that give bonuses to hit to be more useful on more weapons. A few other tweaks seem nice. Command Points seem neat.





All these changes would be great, but they come at what in my mind is a massive, massive cost: By my estimation, about half of the game is just flat-out gone.
This might be a slight exaggeration, but it really doesn't feel like it. The design team at GW seems to have followed the philosophy of 'If it's broken, just remove it wholesale if we can and leave something pointless in its place if we can't.' Vehicles were too fragile, so they removed armor values entirely - And with it, they removed specialized anti-tank weaponry, the dichotomy of different weapon types needed for a TAC list, the strategy of flanking enemy armies to get better shots on tanks, the careful placement you had to make when planning how to fire, and of course the vehicle damage table. Meltaguns are actually bad at killing tanks now, since they wound most heavy tanks on 4s, making them unreliable at best compared to Lascannons or other S9 weaponry.
You can't bring large psychic armies anymore. All powers except Smite are limited to one use per turn, so bringing more than 3 Psykers (Since only 3 powers exist per army) is heavily discouraged.

Blast Templates and scatter dice were sometimes unclear and caused arguments, so they were stripped out and replaced with randomized rolling. Worse, flamer templates - Which didn't have any of those problems - Got stripped out too and are also now just a random, completely unreliable roll. Armies which used to rely on blasts to compensate for a low Ballistic Skill, like Orks and Guardsmen, have had some of their best weapons turned into absolute crapshoots. Even accurate armies like Space Marines now have to rely entirely on luck to get the damage they need - Firing a Vindicator into a large squad can now cause anywhere between 1 and 36 wounds, even if the hit, wound, and save dice all go perfectly. Templates are now just as good against lone soldiers as they are against massive hordes - Where there used to be strategy and careful placement and using ramming or other tricks to set up your opponent for tons of hits and massive damage, you now get random dice.

A bunch of cool weapons have been stripped from the game. The Shokk Attack Gun still exists, but is a shell of its former self that does practically nothing since it never hits, and lacks any of the charm of its old version. (The random chart is gone.) You can't take Artificer Armor for space marines or Power Armor for Inquisitors, you don't have a choice but to get 'eavy armor on Warbosses, most special issue wargear (Auspexes, Attack Squigs, and everything in between) is gone. What special gear still exists has been toned down to be nowhere near as cool or interesting as it used to be - For example, Psycollum used to be available to all Ordo Hereticus Inquisitors, and gave the inquisitor and their unit BS10 when firing against Psykers. It's now only available to Greyfax, and gives her and only her (No unit) the ability to target enemy Psykers even if they aren't the closest unit. That's it.
I could probably compile several posts just listing what gear options have been removed or rendered invalid, but that would take a really long time and I don't feel like investing that much effort, so I'm not going to.

Most vehicle squadrons are gone, for no real reason that I can discern.

Formations are gone. I'm not sad about the removal of some of the more broken formations (Free razorback spam wasn't fun for anyone involved,) but formations as a concept were a lot of fun and some of the better ones made the game far more interesting as a result.

Characters attaching to squads is gone. This is apparently a bid to get rid of Deathstars, but... Death stars were fun. Not the really cheesy ones, sure - Screamerstar was just frustrating - But having a Thunderwolf Lord and his trusted Rune Priest advisor riding in with a pack of wolves was a fun thing to do, and now it's not really an option in the same way. The replacement feels half baked and designed to discourage players from actually bringing characters.

Drop pods still exist, but now inexplicably cost more than 100 points, which makes running a real Drop Pod assault list effectively impossible. (Not to mention that you can no longer transport Terminators or Dreadnoughts inside the pods, for some reason.)

Wolf Guard Terminators are now literally the same as regular Terminators, except that their captian has 1 less Leadership and they don't get a Teleport homer. So they're the same cost with less benefits.


These are just the armies I play, and this is just a small sample of the things that have been either removed or just been broken to the point of unusability. It's also not getting into the fact that 8th edition is clearly launching in an unfinished beta - Things like Chapter Tactics and Ork Clans are clearly supposed to be here, but just don't exist yet, making some chapters play at an explicit disadvantage for no reason whatsoever. (Why am I playing Iron Hands again, when all it does is lock me out of Special Character access with zero benefits?) A lot of armies feel like they really, really need to have all their toys back - Unique detachments, relics, chapter/clan/hive fleet/whatever benefits, unique Warlord Traits - And they just don't. If Games Workshop didn't have time to finish their game, they shouldn't have released it, they should have pushed back a couple more months so that they could release a polished, complete experience that wasn't missing giant chunks of gameplay with tons of stripped out content.


This isn't a balance issue, but the indexes are hot garbage to read and build lists from, just by the way. The units are listed in one section of the book, the optional gear they can take is listed in another nearby section, and then their points cost is in the back of the book and the points cost for their gear is on ANOTHER page in the back of the book. And everything is done in weird integers now. It took me 45 minutes to assemble one list, using a prearranged collection of models - I wasn't building anything with comp, I was literally just adding up points. And it took me 3/4ths of an hour.


I'm glad that Games Workshop are trying to balance their game, but the way they did it - By homogenizing and stripping down to barebones - Seems like the worst possible way to do it. (Also, if I wanted to play Age of Sigmar, I would go play Age of Sigmar. I don't like how the two rulesets seem really, really similar, as though GW isn't capable of running two different types of games and thinks that if they only sell two reskinned versions of the same game they'll be more popular.)


Two last things - 'Wait for the codices' and 'Just play narrative' are not real answers. I've heard both of them, mostly from the manager at my LGS.
Waiting for the codices doesn't work, because the thing I mention above - GW shouldn't release their games in an unfinished state and expect players to pay for the indexes. I don't want to play a broken, unfinished game for however long it takes them to make new codices for all the armies that everyone plays at my LGS.
'Just play narrative' doesn't work, because that relies on players to self-police for balance and effectively house-rule their games into being fun.


So... Those are my opinions. What are yours?

15
Enemies of the Imperium / Re: 8th Edition TelepOrks
« on: June 10, 2017, 08:38:56 AM »
I should add:
Apparently, this is only legal in Narrative play, because in Matched play, you can only cast each power once per turn. Not once per turn per psyker, once per turn period. (With exceptions made for Smite, and... Well, just for Smite.)

Honestly, while this cuts down on the spam cheese I proposed here, it seems... Bad... To impose that kind of limitation.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 70
anything