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 - Irisado

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.)

It's a trade-off.  Some people will like it others will not.  The fact of the matter is though that more abstraction was always going to be more likely for this edition, owing to the fact that seventh had become far too detailed and had far too many unit and weapon specific rules.  The approach is, therefore, one of standardisation.  Yes, this results in some character being lost for certain units and weapons, but it does help to streamline the game.  I'm neither saying that it's a good thing nor a bad thing at this stage, but I will say that I think that it's less of an issue than you're suggesting.

I remember when second edition was streamlined into third edition and there were a lot of complaints about the loss of diversity and specialisation, many of which are similar to the points that you're making in this topic.  The vast majority of players got used to it though, and as third edition progressed and then moved into subsequent editions, those complaints disappeared for the most part.  I've thus seen it all before and I think that it is wise to let the changes sink in before getting too worked up about them :).

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.

I read contradictory opinions about army list building, so I think that the jury is still out on that one.  I agree that there is still too much dice rolling though.  As for buffs, I don't think that this is that big a deal.  It just takes some getting used to.

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.

This is similar to the transition between second and third edition.  It will seem strange to start with.  I recommend giving it some time to settle down.  GW had to reduce diversity to make the game more user friendly in my opinion.  It was impossible to return the amount of diversity between units and weapons as had been the case in seventh edition without also retaining the complexity in the rules which had, in my view, reached absurd levels.

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.

There have been numerous overpowered units and broken rules in all editions of 40K.  Every edition of 40K has, eventually, fallen into the broken list trap, so trying to single out one edition over another in this respect is an exercise in futility.  Third edition had its problems, notably the Rhino Rush, and the fact that it was the first edition using a completely different approach to the rules.  However, the difference compared to eighth is that because eighth is meant to be a living rulebook, updates and improvements can be made more quickly than was the case under the old rulebook and codex system.  I really don't understand, therefore, why you're claiming that it won't help.

I do agree with you that it's not a good idea to give players exactly what they want.  Direct democracy is a flawed concept in both Politics and wargaming, however, seventh edition had broken the previous model for rules beyond repair, so GW had to make radical changes.

General 40k and Expansions / Re: My army is too good, what do I do?
« on: June 10, 2017, 05:06:02 PM »
Up until seventh edition, which ended my previously unbroken run of playing every edition since Rogue Trader, I stuck to playing my Eldar.  There were some periods in which they were incredibly powerful, notably second edition, and others where they were less so, but because I played a well balanced army, which rarely included any of the most overpowered combinations, I rarely encountered any problems with others.  Essentially, so long as you are not deliberately constructing a power list, I think that most people are fairly relaxed, even when fighting against a powerful army.

Waaaghpower, there are a few problems with some of your arguments in my opinion.

Your complaint about the removal of the random chart for the Shokk Attack Gun contradicts your complaint about random dice rolls being introduced for the old template and blast weapons.  Note that I agree with you that adding more randomisation is a bad idea, however, your argument seems contradictory to me, unless there is something that I've misunderstood.

Regarding incomplete rules, consider the transition from second to third edition.  There were no codices initially back then and the armies were all listed in one black and white book which came with the third edition starter set if memory serves me correctly.  It is, therefore, unsurprising that such a major rule change is being carried out in this manner.

The complexity of the rules had reached such ridiculous levels that something had to be done.  There was a similar outcry when second edition was changed streamlined heavily in order to create third edition.  Major change is always going to cause a shock.  I think that the removal of a lot of the complicated weaponry, rules, and other concepts is a massive benefit to the game.  It needs to move at a faster pace and to be more dynamic.

I share your concern about a number of the weapons, such as melta, no longer being as effective and I am also less than thrilled with all this dice rolling to determine damage.  That said, the general direction of the rules in most respects is much more positive than I've seen for a while, at least in my opinion.

I do not follow the point you're making about it being a new idea that the two sets of rules (40K and Age of Sigmar) are similar.  40K and Fantasy were similar in many ways for a very long time.  Yes, there were differences, notably concerning the AP/save modifier and movement systems, but essentially they were very similar.  It's true that the rules are probably more similar now, but there is precedent for that from the Rogue Trader and second edition eras.  Interestingly, the 40K rule set was far more suited to the Age of Sigmar rules concept than Fantasy.  I think that it would have been better to keep Fantasy more akin to how it was and to make 40K the different set of rules.

All in all, I'm more optimistic about eighth edition than you seem to be.  The idea of living rules which can be updated and revised more quickly should mean that the game is more responsive to the needs of the players.  Whether GW has embraced the full concept of free rules remains my only major concern, as I would like to see the datasheets published online, as is the case for Age of Sigmar, but, so far at least, there has been no confirmation that this will happen.

News, Rumours and Trading / Re: 8th Edition Announced: It's FREE??
« on: April 29, 2017, 11:22:21 AM »
I'm confused about the situation regarding the rules.  It's my understanding that, like Age of Sigmar, the core rules are free, and it's only if, like Age of Sigmar, players want all the narrative elements or certain expansions, paid rules are going to be needed.  Has it been explicitly clarified anywhere?  I've only seen GW say that the rules will be free.

I think that the new edition is looking a lot better than the awful seventh edition which made me give up playing the game.  I like the streamlining and simplification, but I do have concerns about the weapon profiles and excessive dice rolling and random damage rolls.  Is it really going to be necessary to roll damage dice for every specialist weapon and heavy weapon to see how much damage it's going to do?  I hope not.  Also, random hits were disposed of years ago when they ditched the concept for the Eldar Scatter Laser.  I do not understand why they want to bring that concept back with Flamers.

News, Rumours and Trading / Re: Upcoming changes to 40k core rules
« on: March 25, 2017, 10:57:24 AM »
It's a mixed bag in my opinion.  Variable movement rates and armour save modifiers returning could be good, but it depends on how other rules are changed in relation to them.  Hopefully, the changes would be more like those made to Warhammer when it was converted into Age of Sigmar, as reverting to second edition save modifiers would be a very bad idea in my opinion.

I am not convinced by the proposed changes to the morale system and charges.  Depending on how certain other rules, notably movement, actually work in practice, they have the potential to mess the game up in my view.  I'm also not a fan of homogenising morale in 40K.  Some units really ought to be immune to its effects.

Indeed, this is the problem.  It was one thing to ask for greater mission diversity, but the extent to which army composition has been changed, the different types of army design out there, the addition of so many new unit types, and the increased complexity in the rules went way beyond what many people were asking for.  The other issue was the quick turnover between sixth and seventh edition, that was the final straw for me.

It is such a shame.  I really do love these Thousand Sons models, and if I were a good painter, I'd save up just to buy them for that reason.  I'm not though and my finances are so tight that I'll just have to hope that others buy them and post pictures of them in action in their battle reports on forums.

The new Thousand Sons (apart from those awful Tzaangors) look incredible.  I would love to make my long delayed Thousand Sons army, but it's still not going to happen.  I cannot afford to buy the models, and I still dislike the current 40K rules intensely.  I am still excited by the models though.

Comments, Suggestions and Troubleshooting / Re: Spoiler tags are broken
« on: October 04, 2016, 10:28:18 PM »

Indeed it would seem that they are.  I've never used them myself, but I know others do like them, so it would be useful if they could be restored.

General 40k and Expansions / Re: Kill Team (2016) Review
« on: September 19, 2016, 09:42:26 AM »
I've never played Kill Team, but I quite like the sound of this.  A simplified version of 40K without all the layers of different Force Organisation Charts, and a reduction in special rules and their impact sounds like my kind of game.

Also, reading some battle reports would be a very good way to showcase the latest version of the rules ;).

I was in a similar situation.  I wanted to try out some of the roleplaying games, especially Black Crusade, but there was nobody around here who was interested.  Still, at least I have the book, so I may get to put it to use at some stage in the future.


This is disappointing news in my opinion.  I rather liked some of their role-playing collaborations, and even though the standard of editing and proof reading of some of the books was a bit of a let down, the concepts and narrative were well executed.

If anyone wants to pick anything up, I'd recommend making it a priority before the year is out, as it doesn't seem as though they will retain any of the collaborative works in stock come 2017.

News, Rumours and Trading / Re: White Dwarf going back to Monthly
« on: August 31, 2016, 12:55:48 PM »
Who wants to bet that is what most people are gonna buy the Mag for now? :P

I'm not someone who bets.  That said, I agree with you.  It's not an original piece of marketing by GW, but it's an astute move to encourage people to buy the magazine, which is likely to pay off.

News, Rumours and Trading / Re: White Dwarf going back to Monthly
« on: August 30, 2016, 10:19:05 PM »
Thanks for the run down of the contents.  That definitely looks to be a significant improvement on the later issues of the old monthly magazine.  I am more tempted to buy it than I expected, but I'm so cash strapped that I will have to resist.  It is good to see GW trying to make the magazine more appealing again though.

As for free characters, I ended up with quite a few of those over the years, including some of those mentioned above.  That first metal Necron, in particular sticks in my memory, even though I never used it for anything.  Including a free model is definitely a welcome blast from the past.

News, Rumours and Trading / Re: White Dwarf going back to Monthly
« on: August 30, 2016, 07:28:24 PM »
That sounds more promising than I was expecting.  Which armies were featured in the battle report?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12