Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules

[Forum Explorer]

I don't think it's wierd, it's the same "toe in cover" rule as most other editions have had

Yeah, I'm actually glad that's coming back. The whole 'you don't get a cover save until your entire unit is in cover' is pretty harsh for big squads.

[Blackhawk748]

What do you suggest as an alternative? Surely there’ll always be something last in the cycle: the goal is to reduce that cycle as much as possible.

Really sucks that Necrons (and seemingly Sisters) don’t get much in the way of new rules through Pariah.

Release all the Codexes at once like they did for Indexes. yes some are still gonna suck but I'd rather get my crap Codex at the same time as everyone else gets their's instead of waiting 18 months to get my crappy Codex.

[LeSwordfish]

Release all the Codexes at once like they did for Indexes. yes some are still gonna suck but I'd rather get my crap Codex at the same time as everyone else gets their's instead of waiting 18 months to get my crappy Codex.

You'd still be waiting 18 months: it'll take just as long to write all the rules as it would if they did them individually.

[Avaris]

The circle in the terrain has "dense cover" vs the one right behind it, which to me feels incredibly dumb.

It's really interesting the differing perceptions here, as while I see your point, to me that feels fine, because the unit is in the terrain piece. I see model position as a bit more of an abstraction though: as far as I'm concerned, it represents the model being able to leap into the cover to avoid incoming fire. Though as said, I'd be equally ok with a model having to be fully in the cover in order to get its benefit.

Of course, there is also a question of how many pieces of 'dense cover' are things that are easy to be half in/half out. Ruins and buildings for example have fairly solid walls, so a model is unlikely to be only partially in!

Release all the Codexes at once like they did for Indexes. yes some are still gonna suck but I'd rather get my crap Codex at the same time as everyone else gets their's instead of waiting 18 months to get my crappy Codex.

Sorry, but that's a terrible idea. Firstly, as LeSwordfish says, it means a good long time without any content at all (which people would complain about). You can do it for basic content like the indexes, but nothing complex. Secondly, it means that there is no opportunity to iterate and learn from what has already been released: the late 8th edition codexes tried things that they didn't think of in the early edition codexes.

My personal solution, as ever, is that if GW is going to have a cycle like this, they should be much more upfront about what is coming up in the pipeline. Having to wait is better if you know when your codex is coming, as you know how long your current builds have. I wish GW announced rough timings of stuff coming up, like they have for Necromunda lately.

[Blackhawk748]

You'd still be waiting 18 months: it'll take just as long to write all the rules as it would if they did them individually.

Yes, but everyone is waiting now, not the two or three unlucky factions.

Sorry, but that's a terrible idea. Firstly, as LeSwordfish says, it means a good long time without any content at all (which people would complain about). You can do it for basic content like the indexes, but nothing complex. Secondly, it means that there is no opportunity to iterate and learn from what has already been released: the late 8th edition codexes tried things that they didn't think of in the early edition codexes.

My personal solution, as ever, is that if GW is going to have a cycle like this, they should be much more upfront about what is coming up in the pipeline. Having to wait is better if you know when your codex is coming, as you know how long your current builds have. I wish GW announced rough timings of stuff coming up, like they have for Necromunda lately.

Seems to work fine for most other Wargames. Kings of War has all of the factions in two books and every year they release Clach of Kings which is the same thing as Chapter Approved. No one over there has complained about a lack of stuff coming out.

And how would t be too long without content? Chapter Approved is once a year and since all the Codexes are done they can do other stuff, like Campaigns. And them constantly iterating is how we get Iron Hands that roflstomp half the meta. Hell, their constant Iteration is what made 7th have hard tiers of Codexes.

[snowblizz]

My personal solution, as ever, is that if GW is going to have a cycle like this, they should be much more upfront about what is coming up in the pipeline. Having to wait is better if you know when your codex is coming, as you know how long your current builds have. I wish GW announced rough timings of stuff coming up, like they have for Necromunda lately.

They did once. With a Space Ship Combat Game that years later eventually evolved into Battlefleet Gothic. People moaned at them for it. (*)

GW being GW learned exactly the wrong lessons form it. Ie "keep yer yap shut about new stuff" instead of learning to do stuff faster or give more updates.



(*) According to some of the developer staff way back when, as usual I'd be hardpressed to recall the context, but I think it was a QaA where they were asked "why don't you tell us about coming stuff" and the answer effectively was "we tried once and you yelled at us".

[Avaris]

They did once. With a Space Ship Combat Game that years later eventually evolved into Battlefleet Gothic. People moaned at them for it. (*)

GW being GW learned exactly the wrong lessons form it. Ie "keep yer yap shut about new stuff" instead of learning to do stuff faster or give more updates.



(*) According to some of the developer staff way back when, as usual I'd be hardpressed to recall the context, but I think it was a QaA where they were asked "why don't you tell us about coming stuff" and the answer effectively was "we tried once and you yelled at us".

A good example of GW being ridiculously set in its ways! That would have ben at least 25 years ago... and importantly, pre internet!

[Cheesegear]

What do you suggest as an alternative? Surely there’ll always be something last in the cycle: the goal is to reduce that cycle as much as possible.

As I said. Unearthed Arcana:

1. Updates are added to the game, once or even twice a month, online, for free. No. These things aren't Adventurer's League tournament-legal. But they don't have to be. The rules just have to exist, and you get to playtest them. You get to play with them. They have a huge ****-off 'Beta Rules' stamp on them, just like GW used to do.

2. Longer time for market research. Hell, actual market research:

Surveys. What do you think about our latest rules update? We didn't just have 10 play-testers playing 20 games total. We had the world play-testing for us. What could be improved? What did we miss? Once again, none of this is tournament legal. But it's at least new rules you can use to shake up your games, that have a relatively official backing. Don't let your opponent not let you use these rules. We want you to use the beta rules, and we want you to play games. Your feedback is valuable.

3. Excel Spreadsheets:

Excel Spreadsheets can tell you exactly how much damage a unit does, per point. You want that number to go up or down? Just put in a new number in the 'Points Cost' column. It literally takes less than 3 seconds to evaluate a unit if you've got the tables already set up. Publish those 'fixes', for free. It takes you three seconds to change the number, it takes you four seconds to convert to .pdf. It takes you 10 minutes to upload the .pdf to a website.

4. Remember those Beta rules? Remember your feedback that we took into account? Well, eight months later, we made a book. Those rules - some of them might have even been changed due to feedback - are now tournament legal. However, remember kids, even though they weren't necessarily tournament-legal, you've still been able to play with them at your gaming club or in PUGs for the last eight months. So, we're deleting those free Beta rules from the website, go buy the book for real money, now.

5. We updated points again, it took us five seconds. Download the new points costs for free!

6. It's that time again! Survey time! Which non-Imperial, non-Chaos Faction would you like to see new rules for?

7. It's that time again. Based on what you wanted, we've provided new Beta rules for one of our boxed units that isn't selling very well. New content hype!

Like I said:
Unearthed Arcana is a real thing. I know how this works.

[LansXero]

Also, for some uncomprehensible to me reason, people now buy more physical D&D books than ever despite all the free content, both from WotC and fanmade. So even greed isnt reason enough to not do this. Hell, people are so weird they'd even support stores and buy those books at full price, despite being cheaper than wholesale at amazon. Distributors actually carry very few now after the initial release, since stores keep re-stocking off amazon sales and marking it up for people.

In other news, new rules for reserves are nothing extraordinary, and new morale is stupid and I hate it.

[Avaris]

@Cheesegear sounds like a good approach! I would definitely support GW moving to something similar for at least some of their rules. Though there is the added challenge of lead time on models: a lot of their release schedules are driven by the new models in the pipeline, and that is not something they can really get community feedback on what is wanted next without a massive overhaul of approach, given the model designers work several years ahead of release.

New morale rules are interesting, not the direction I was expecting them to go. Positive in that they make -1 morale effects more meaningful: failing even by 1 carries a greater cost now. Negative in that it takes longer to resolve, and is both quite swingy on luck when it comes to smaller units and much less meaningful on larger units. Overall, I’d say they’re not worse than what was in 8th, but maybe not much better either.

[Forum Explorer]

So new morale is more punishing when you fail but so long as you don't fail it doesn't matter? OK, so it is basically more of the same then. The tests themselves didn't get any more difficult so all the morale mitigation that we already have is still in place. Which is a lot.

[Cheesegear]

Also, for some uncomprehensible to me reason, people now buy more physical D&D books than ever despite all the free content, both from WotC and fanmade....

Carrying five ~100 page rulebooks to a 40K game is hard.
Meanwhile, DND players manage to cart four or five ~300 page books to a game.

@Cheesegear sounds like a good approach! I would definitely support GW moving to something similar for at least some of their rules. Though there is the added challenge of lead time on models: a lot of their release schedules are driven by the new models in the pipeline, and that is not something they can really get community feedback on what is wanted next without a massive overhaul of approach, given the model designers work several years ahead of release.

New models aren't the problem.

The issue is a 2-year cycle where 'somebody has to be last, and your Faction has the short straw'.
The issue is 'No new content'
The issue is six months to a year before GW fixes problematic rules.

The problem isn't lead design on new models. That still happens. GW still has a pipeline.
The problem is GW's need to invalidate what you currently have.

Chapter Approved needs to be a monthly or bi-monthly thing, published for free. Also, why is it still called Chapter Approved when it has nothing to do with creating new Space Marine Chapters?


re; Cover and Morale:
The more things change, the more they suck.

[Fable Wright]

re; Cover and Morale:
The more things change, the more they suck.

You say this a lot. Morale I think has the opportunity to make more interesting situations. If the currently-useless morale debuff bubbles affect the 1d6 to flee, then killing hordes through morale is more doable. Likewise, this is a boost to non-morale-immune hordes to counterbalance (to an extent) the addition of Blast.

Terrain types giving -1 to hit as an option is a bit of a Big Deal for armies like the Tau who have terrible BS and a lot of dice tricks, and helps units with e.g. Demon Saves way more than the default +1 to save (which is a much bigger deal for units with 3+ saves). I'm pretty positive about the changes, really.

[Blackhawk748]

You say this a lot. Morale I think has the opportunity to make more interesting situations. If the currently-useless morale debuff bubbles affect the 1d6 to flee, then killing hordes through morale is more doable. Likewise, this is a boost to non-morale-immune hordes to counterbalance (to an extent) the addition of Blast.

What Hordes are not functionally immune to morale? Orks have arbitrarily high numbers and don't care, Nids have Synapse, and I'm pretty sure Plague Zombies just flat don't care. So we're pretty much still sitting where we always are.

Conversely, we go back to the other version where Ld is too good an now everyone cares about being immune to it and the whole meta just shifts to the immune people. And they've even tried sticking a penalty to it once where if you lost melee and were Fearless, instead of rolling, you just took more wounds equal to the number of wounds you lost by.

It was horrible.

GW is pretty awful at making Leadership/Morale work and frankly, I almost feel like they should just leave it as a thing to use for testing to activate abilities, because either its took good and its all Fearless and Ld Bombs, or its pointless and no one cares.

[Forum Explorer]

What Hordes are not functionally immune to morale? Orks have arbitrarily high numbers and don't care, Nids have Synapse, and I'm pretty sure Plague Zombies just flat don't care. So we're pretty much still sitting where we always are.

Conversely, we go back to the other version where Ld is too good an now everyone cares about being immune to it and the whole meta just shifts to the immune people. And they've even tried sticking a penalty to it once where if you lost melee and were Fearless, instead of rolling, you just took more wounds equal to the number of wounds you lost by.

It was horrible.

GW is pretty awful at making Leadership/Morale work and frankly, I almost feel like they should just leave it as a thing to use for testing to activate abilities, because either its took good and its all Fearless and Ld Bombs, or its pointless and no one cares.

Demons I think are the only one without a good way to ignore it I think.

Also yeah, I didn't mind the morale in 8th, but that's because it was really minor. Occasionally it would kill an extra guy, and that was about it. And I agree, it's very hard to find a spot between having it be more or less pointless, and having it be too overpowered. I think they actually need to go back to the take LD tests on 2D6, and change what happens if you fail.

Maybe something like this? Fail when have above 25%? You take -1 to hit for the turn. Fail when below 50%? You can't shoot the next turn, but can still move. Fail when you are below 75%? The rest of the unit just runs away. And hey, that way you could actually have that work on tanks, just with wounds lost instead of models lost. Then the Leadership value of tanks is actually doing something.

[Cheesegear]

Demons I think are the only one without a good way to ignore it I think.

One of the reasons Nurgle is so strong, is because they roll 2d6 and pick the lowest, and when they roll 1s, their models come back.
Slaanesh Daemons re-roll Morale tests. If they roll a 1, ladies come back to the party.

You say this a lot. Morale I think has the opportunity to make more interesting situations.

No it doesn't. It has the effects of Morale and the consequences of failure, more random.
So, you failed a Morale test...Did you roll no 1s, or did you roll four 1s?

First; Extra steps is bad game design.
Second; More random means less fair.

But, you still have to fail the Leadership test in the first place (the mechanics of which, haven't changed).
And we know for a fact that one of the first buffs to come in the new edition is that some Faction, somewhere, will find a way to re-roll their failures.

Orks are Leadership 30. They can't fail Morale tests unless the horde is already on its last legs anyway (Once you start winning vs. Orks, you start snowballing).
If you go for the lesser-used method...<Snakebite> Gretchin don't take Morale tests at all.
Tyranids don't take Morale tests. That's what Synapse is for.
Cultists don't take Morale tests because Abaddon says that they don't.
Nurgle Daemons roll 2d6 and pick the lowest, and dudes come back.
Slaanesh Daemons don't even know what Morale even is.

The problems in the game, arise from Morale not doing anything, because everyone that actually cares about Morale damage...The only viable way that they run, is by straight up ignoring it.
If Morale tests were effective, hordes wouldn't be a thing in the first place.

The new Morale tests, don't change how Morale tests are taken. They only alter the consequences of failure.
But all the good hordes, don't fail Morale tests in the first place. Morale tests matter. Quite a great deal. The problem is that the reasons the things that are good, are good, is because they ignore it. The methods of passing Morale is so stupidly easy that Morale is irrelavent (one of which is taking 5-man units...By the time you could fail a Morale test, the unit is already dead). And the units that actually have a chance of failing a Morale test...Ignore them altogether.

You know what Morale affects? ...Guardsmen. And that's about it.

Fixing Morale, requires an overhaul of the actual Morale test, itself - which didn't happen. Failing that - it has been failed - fixing Morale requires an overhaul of major mechanics of how certain Factions work...We haven't seen that, and we're unlikely to, because all Codecies are still valid* (except Necrons, and probably Space Marines).

Likewise, this is a boost to non-morale-immune hordes to counterbalance (to an extent) the addition of Blast.

Here's the issue: If Blast is as prevalent as people seem to be believing that it will be, the meta takes a hard shift to Vehicle spam as hordes become non-viable.
Does going back to 5th Ed. count as a win to people?


*Well, via PR-speak's definition, that is.

[Forum Explorer]

Here's the issue: If Blast is as prevalent as people seem to be believing that it will be, the meta takes a hard shift to Vehicle spam as hordes become non-viable.
Does going back to 5th Ed. count as a win to people?

From what we've seen so far, I am expecting a massive amount of vehicles to become really viable.

But unlike 5th, vehicles aren't literally immune to any weapon under a certain threshold of strength. So long as you are S4, you have a good chance of chipping away at a vehicle. I mean, there are the T8 exceptions, but most of those are already good and see play already. If you can't handle the T8 vehicles, you probably didn't have much of a chance in the first place. I think most of these buffs will be big for things like Falcons, Chimeras, and Predators. Also every Tyranid monster unit. I don't think they matter that much for things like Repulsors, because they already had fly and ignored moving and shooting heavy weapons.

I think it's going to be more like the start of 8th, where we had a ton of Razorbacks running around. That was annoying, but it didn't feel like 5th edition where you had units that just couldn't do anything because everything had Armor 12.

[Avaris]

New models aren't the problem.

The issue is a 2-year cycle where 'somebody has to be last, and your Faction has the short straw'.
The issue is 'No new content'
The issue is six months to a year before GW fixes problematic rules.

The problem isn't lead design on new models. That still happens. GW still has a pipeline.
The problem is GW's need to invalidate what you currently have.

Chapter Approved needs to be a monthly or bi-monthly thing, published for free. Also, why is it still called Chapter Approved when it has nothing to do with creating new Space Marine Chapters?

New models absolutely are the problem though. For better or worse, GW is ENTIRELY led by model production, and that is also seen in the fanbase. When people complain about their faction mot having support, it’s almost always along the lines of ‘we haven’t had new models for X amount of time’. Just having a rules update is seen as a distant second best.

And, because it is primarily linked to models, it is generally not possible to avoid a faction having a long wait for a major update. Model releases are done as a range: unless the concept is very well understood (i.e. Space Marines and Stormcast), or very unique and specialist (such as the new Inquisitor) you don’t see a model designed in isolation. You don’t sculpt a single new Necron, you sculpt a whole new wave of Necrons to be released together.

I don’t disagree that regular rules updates through Chapter Approved or similar would be a good thing, and that increased public beta testing would be good, but with GW’s business model and major products it will only ever be a sideline.

This is also linked to why 40k players needing to buy physical books is more of a problem than D&D. In D&D, the books are the main thing taking up your table and storage space, so you can afford to splash out. In 40k, the physical real estate is taken up by the models.

Regarding morale, I feel the problem is that GW feels there has to be a morale system, but isn’t quite sure what it should be doing on the battlefield. Having models flee is simple, but I’m wondering if it would be better to have effects that are more distinct from what you can get through shooting. For example, saying that if you fail a morale check you take penalties to your to hit rolls, or are forced to move the unit in some way.

[Fable Wright]

What Hordes are not functionally immune to morale? Orks have arbitrarily high numbers and don't care, Nids have Synapse, and I'm pretty sure Plague Zombies just flat don't care. So we're pretty much still sitting where we always are.

As mentioned, Guards. Demons. Right now, you can't be a horde because morale is crippling, so you're always MSU. Opening up the option of non-MSU, especially with limits on the number of units you can deploy, seems like a good thing to me.

No it doesn't. It has the effects of Morale and the consequences of failure, more random.

Let me qualify my statement:

It adds granularity to Morale, meaning that other mechanics can now interact with Morale in less meaningless ways, assuming Morale immunity is reworked.

Taken in a vacuum, this is an overly complicated turd of a system that adds extra rolls for no gains.

The new Morale tests, don't change how Morale tests are taken. They only alter the consequences of failure.
But all the good hordes, don't fail Morale tests in the first place. Morale tests matter. Quite a great deal. The problem is that the reasons the things that are good, are good, is because they ignore it. The methods of passing Morale is so stupidly easy that Morale is irrelavent (one of which is taking 5-man units...By the time you could fail a Morale test, the unit is already dead). And the units that actually have a chance of failing a Morale test...Ignore them altogether.

So right now it's very rare to see a unit that's not either minimum size or maximum size. Minimum size because morale tests are a Big Deal. Max size for obsec and strategy maximization. You are pidgeonholed into one of the two.

What if we could imagine, for a moment, a world in which you could be incentivized to take larger squads... even if they weren't immune?

Also we're assuming that the morale-immunity is staying the same and not getting a complete rules overhaul like any special rule related to overwatch.

Here's the issue: If Blast is as prevalent as people seem to be believing that it will be, the meta takes a hard shift to Vehicle spam as hordes become non-viable.
Does going back to 5th Ed. count as a win to people?


*Well, via PR-speak's definition, that is.

Blast is applied to over 150 weapons, from what I recall. Many of which were on guns that people already considered pretty good. (The good money is on most-to-all d6 variable shot weapons, including grenades, as long as they don't auto-hit.)

But—and here's the kicker that separates us from 5e—Mortal Wounds are a thing now. If everyone is spamming vehicles, why use anti-infantry guns? Everything relevant is a tank, so use anti-tank.

If everyone uses anti-tank, you're not killing 200 Termagants with Leviathan FNP and Malanthrope auras, and just losing to ObSec.

If you have a small handful of dedicated anti-infantry weapons in a list dedicated to killing tanks, those anti-infantry weapons can be annihilated—whether through Tyranid Spore Mines and Smites, or by Orks jumping someone in with More Dakka to kill those anti-infantry weapons.

The existence of ways to deal with extremely hard targets without needing vehicles of your own means that the 5e meta is vanishingly unlikely.

[Cheesegear]

I think it's going to be more like the start of 8th, where we had a ton of Razorbacks running around.

Razorbacks - and Stormravens and Stormtalons - were running around not because Vehicles were good.
But because Twin Assault Cannons - and the Vehicles that just so happened to carry them - were woefully undercosted.
Combined with Guilliman, doing his thing.

No-one else could do what Space Marines were doing with Twin Assault Cannons, and Guilliman.
But, all that's changed.

When people complain about their faction mot having support, it’s almost always along the lines of ‘we haven’t had new models for X amount of time’.

Once again, you and I play in very different circles, because no-one I know cares about new models.
They care about what they already have, being terrible. They care about spending money, on garbage.

**** yeah. Grey Knights is the fourth Codex in 8th Ed. New rules hype! (P.S. There were no new models for GKs).
In six months the game moves on, Thousand Sons come out, and do everything that Grey Knights do, better, and more besides.
The rules change, shafting GKs other main schtick (Teleport Strike) unusable.

Great. It's been six months and the Codex is basically useless.
Sure would be nice to have some new rules, and the Codex is barely printed.

Did Space Wolves get new models?
Did T'au?
I can't recall anything in 8th Ed. getting new models, except Space Marine characters right at the very end.

8th Ed. struck me very much as the 'No New Models' edition, until Psychic Awakening happened.

I donÂ’t disagree that regular rules updates through Chapter Approved or similar would be a good thing, and that increased public beta testing would be good, but with GWÂ’s business model and major products it will only ever be a sideline.

Then GW's business model is not consumer-friendly.
Oh wait.
It's designed that way, so it's fine.

Opening up the option of non-MSU, especially with limits on the number of units you can deploy, seems like a good thing to me.

As I see below, you can't play non-MSU because Blast exists. Why pay points for models you don't have to?

What if we could imagine, for a moment, a world in which you could be incentivized to take larger squads... even if they weren't immune?

What would that incentive be? In older editions, unit leaders costed an extra 10 points.
It was better to have one squad of 10, rather than two squads of 5, because the big squad of 10, was actually 10 Points cheaper.

That granularity is gone, meaning that MSU is King, and the Combat Squads rule makes no sense because Space Marines gain no bonuses for more dudes.

I have long said that the way in which you get players to do something, is by making that thing, worth doing.

As you said; Large squads means it's harder for your opponent to get Kill Points, and it's easier for you to hold objectives. Small squads fill out your Battlefield Roles easier, with arguably greater room to add Special or Squad Leader weapons, to increase unit potential.

Taking larger squads, is only ever done for Stratagem reasons. Where the more models you have, make the Stratagem better.
However, that still leads back into the minimum, or maximum, with no middle ground. I simply can't envision a world where taking, say, seven Space Marines in a squad, is good.

Blast is applied to over 150 weapons, from what I recall. Many of which were on guns that people already considered pretty good. (The good money is on most-to-all d6 variable shot weapons, including grenades, as long as they don't auto-hit.)

In which case hordes are dead. MSU and Vehicle-spam, let's go. Welcome to the new meta, the same as the old meta that we were glad to get rid of.

If everyone is spamming vehicles, why use anti-infantry guns? Everything relevant is a tank, so use anti-tank.

Correct. Welcome to 5th Ed.'s meta.

If everyone uses anti-tank, you're not killing 200 Termagants with Leviathan FNP and Malanthrope auras, and just losing to ObSec.

Oh, so we're back to Morale being meaningless, and Blast weapons not existing?

The existence of ways to deal with extremely hard targets without needing vehicles of your own means that the 5e meta is vanishingly unlikely.

Again, I refer you to mid-strength weapons with lots of shots. The ur-example being Twin Assault Cannons.
There are weapons in the game that kill both Vehicles and Infantry just fine, many of them spammable, many of them belong to Space Marines.

[Forum Explorer]

Razorbacks - and Stormravens and Stormtalons - were running around not because Vehicles were good.
But because Twin Assault Cannons - and the Vehicles that just so happened to carry them - were woefully undercosted.
Combined with Guilliman, doing his thing.

No-one else could do what Space Marines were doing with Twin Assault Cannons, and Guilliman.
But, all that's changed.

Not the greatest example then.

What I'm getting at is that all these buffs to vehicles were already seen in the vehicles that are already good. The ability to fall back and shoot (or shoot into melee), and the ability to move and shoot heavy weapons. The things that have that won't really change all that much, and the stuff that doesn't might become relevant. But I feel like the stuff that's good still outcompetes all that other stuff.

Hordes did get nerfed pretty hard, but for MSU, or pretty much anything under 10 models hasn't really been hit. So the small elite units are still going to be good as well. I don't really expect to see any less of them. If anything, I expect to see more because in my experience that is where the best anti-tank weapons are found.

[LeSwordfish]

I can't recall anything in 8th Ed. getting new models, except Space Marine characters right at the very end.

• Genestealer cults got nearly a whole new range.
• Custodes got a whole range.
• Chaos marines got a good old-fashioned refresh (the kind of thing I really miss, and they should do more to avoid scope creep, where mostly they got new shiny models for old units).
• Orks got their buggies.
• I guess you could say that the Primaris and Death Guard stuff doesn't count but it was still there.
• Not counting the first wave of primaris stuff, marines still got all the Vanguard stuff.
• Three new Knight kits, plus the chaos knight.
• Khorne and Slaanesh daemons got the new stuff from the AoS ranges. (In both cases at least partially updated models.)
• And then the new space marine characters and everyone gets stuff for Psychic Awakening.

[Brookshw]

It's really interesting the differing perceptions here, as while I see your point, to me that feels fine, because the unit is in the terrain piece. I see model position as a bit more of an abstraction though: as far as I'm concerned, it represents the model being able to leap into the cover to avoid incoming fire. Though as said, I'd be equally ok with a model having to be fully in the cover in order to get its benefit.

That sounds good until people start daisy chaining units to cover at which point the abstraction starts to get a bit...weird.

[LeSwordfish]

I'm finding that rule pretty hard to parse but I'm pretty sure every model needs to be at least partially in cover: it says, essentially, subtract one UNLESS you can draw lines to every part of at least one model's base.

[LansXero]

I'm finding that rule pretty hard to parse but I'm pretty sure every model needs to be at least partially in cover: it says, essentially, subtract one UNLESS you can draw lines to every part of at least one model's base.

Yeah but it also doesn't state the model has to be on or within to get the -1, just to not be affected by it. Meaning stuff behind the terrain in open ground also have the -1.

I can't recall anything in 8th Ed. getting new models, except Space Marine characters right at the very end.

Sisters got their new stuff as well as everything mentioned previously. But it wasn't always tied to codex releases so that bit is bunk. Eldar got their stuff with PA, which was trash and didnt matter. AdMech got some new stuff from BSF, the Kill Team Box and the boats too.

I dont really get what 'new models' and 'new codices' have to do with one another as they haven't been linked for years, but then I always disagree with Avaris and I guess he should be getting bored of it.

As mentioned, Guards. Demons. Right now, you can't be a horde because morale is crippling, so you're always MSU. Opening up the option of non-MSU, especially with limits on the number of units you can deploy, seems like a good thing to me

.

Guard has 1CP: Take LD on 1d3. EVERYBODY has 2CP: **** morale. Daemons actually respawn on failed morale tests :s. What about the new system opens up the option of MSU? Losing by even 1 opens you up for a total unit wipeout on a bad roll, what about that encourages you to risk the chance of losing in the first place?

[LeSwordfish]

Yeah but it also doesn't state the model has to be on or within to get the -1, just to not be affected by it. Meaning stuff behind the terrain in open ground also have the -1.

Good point. Makes perfect sense though in terms of how cover works.

[Blackhawk748]

• Orks got their buggies.

I think we can forgive him for forgetting about the Buggies, because they're terrible.

As mentioned, Guards. Demons. Right now, you can't be a horde because morale is crippling, so you're always MSU. Opening up the option of non-MSU, especially with limits on the number of units you can deploy, seems like a good thing to me.

Guard stopped Hording because Conscripts got too expensive, otherwise they play how they always have, butt loads of 10 man squads running all over the place. They;re a Horde, just a MSU Horde because it plays to their strengths better.

And everyone has already pointed out how half the Daemons don't care about morale.

New models absolutely are the problem though. For better or worse, GW is ENTIRELY led by model production, and that is also seen in the fanbase. When people complain about their faction mot having support, it’s almost always along the lines of ‘we haven’t had new models for X amount of time’. Just having a rules update is seen as a distant second best.

And, because it is primarily linked to models, it is generally not possible to avoid a faction having a long wait for a major update. Model releases are done as a range: unless the concept is very well understood (i.e. Space Marines and Stormcast), or very unique and specialist (such as the new Inquisitor) you don’t see a model designed in isolation. You don’t sculpt a single new Necron, you sculpt a whole new wave of Necrons to be released together.

Clearly you never talked to most Ork players. All the ones that were around here (and I kid you not over half the player base had an Ork army) didn't care about getting new units, maybe updating mold models but not whole new units, and just wanted a rules update. Cuz playing through all of 6th ed with a 4th ed Codex was complete BS.

[Cheesegear]

But it wasn't always tied to codex releases so that bit is bunk. Eldar got their stuff with PA, which was trash and didnt matter. AdMech got some new stuff from BSF, the Kill Team Box and the boats too.

I dont really get what 'new models' and 'new codices' have to do with one another as they haven't been linked for years...

I've written two posts and backspaced both of them. There's no point in what I was going to say (as opposed to normal ).

But the above is correct. It's not that there were no new rules models. It's that for the most part, new rules models, wasn't necessarily tied to a Codex release, and that's why half the Codex releases fell flat because nobody had anything new to talk about. All the units people talked about, were "Do you remember the Index? It's like that." and because the units had already been gone over several months or even a year before the Codex even came out...Hype fell dead.

Avaris is technically correct, I guess, in that people like new models. But, that being said, every model you ever buy, is a new model if you haven't bought it before. If I were to start Craftworlds this year (Ew. Gross.), every model would be a new model.
But, from my experience, what excites people about new models, is more or less down to new rules, and new things to do. Starting a new army, even if you've been staring at boxes on the shelf for years...Those aren't new-in-production models. But they're new, to you.

As I've said repeatedly and unerringly; Rules sell models. Kind of like Chaos Marine players saying "I don't want a new box of dudes, I already have loads. I just want the Autocannons."

I think we can forgive him for forgetting about the Buggies, because they're terrible.

I legitimately forgot that Buggies existed. LeSwordfish is 100% right. Buggies were released with the Codex...And I forgot.

Guard stopped Hording because Conscripts got too expensive, otherwise they play how they always have...

What? No.
Did you forget that Commissars took a hard nerf making Guard hordes unplayable? Also, Conscripts took a nerf on top of it.
(Kind of like that time when Razorbacks got nerfed, and seperately, Twin Assault Cannons got nerfed, and also Guilliman was nerfed three times, and then suddenly Space Marines dropped out of the meta for no reason at all)

Changes to Commissars (and thus, how Guard interacted with Morale) ****ed the Conscript horde into oblivion.
"Lose a dude, auto-pass Morale" became "Lose a dude, re-roll Morale" which doesn't help at all if your Conscripts just lost 12 models...'Cause they're about to lose 12 more...As opposed to 1.

As I said: Morale is a very important mechanic that screws hordes very badly. It's just that a good horde (read; a problem horde) simply ignores Morale, and a horde that doesn't ignore Morale...Doesn't get played.

[Fable Wright]

As I see below, you can't play non-MSU because Blast exists. Why pay points for models you don't have to?

1. Because Command Points are good, and you can only include so many MSU units before you need to break out the CP for another detachment.
2. Multiply the benefit of unit-targeting stratagems. (e.g. infantry unit shoots twice, or the Veteran Crisis suit stratagem).
3. More bodies for grabbing objectives.

What would that incentive be? In older editions, unit leaders costed an extra 10 points.
It was better to have one squad of 10, rather than two squads of 5, because the big squad of 10, was actually 10 Points cheaper.

4. More chaff bodies keeping your special weapons users (like the GSC units that can only take so many webbers and mining lasers) from dying.
5. Bigger areas to leave a 'tail' to keep part of a unit within a character aura buff, especially for melee units.
6. Better wrapping for melee units.

That granularity is gone, meaning that MSU is King, and the Combat Squads rule makes no sense because Space Marines gain no bonuses for more dudes.

Cool. Space Marines have no reason to not be MSU. What about other armies?

Oh, so we're back to Morale being meaningless, and Blast weapons not existing?

You speak as though middle grounds can't exist.

Blast weapons are really bad against non-Horde lists, since when they're tagged in melee, unlike any other gun, they turn off. There's an incentive, now, for you to not use blast weapons against non-Horde lists.

Even aside from that, hordes can be good, even with Morale and Blast weapons.

Again, I refer you to mid-strength weapons with lots of shots. The ur-example being Twin Assault Cannons.
There are weapons in the game that kill both Vehicles and Infantry just fine, many of them spammable, many of them belong to Space Marines.

If a weapon is extremely effective against every unit in the game and the game centralizes around them, that is a problem with that weapon, not the underlying system.

[Blackhawk748]

Cool. Space Marines have no reason to not be MSU. What about other armies?

Ad Mech already were.
Sisters can do Blobs but why?
Orks do Giant Bricks of Boyz, because to do otherwise is dumb.

Most armies either do MSU or giant bricks of dudes. Very rarely do you get one that can choose (Necrons at various points)

If a weapon is extremely effective against every unit in the game and the game centralizes around them, that is a problem with that weapon, not the underlying system.

I wouldn't call them "extremely" effective, just decent all around. And if a weapon is "good enough" against everything, the specialist weapon needs to be that much better at its job and most of the time they arent. Or its just that certain armies have like 5 guns and you just gotta suck it up.

What? No.
Did you forget that Commissars took a hard nerf making Guard hordes unplayable? Also, Conscripts took a nerf on top of it.
(Kind of like that time when Razorbacks got nerfed, and seperately, Twin Assault Cannons got nerfed, and also Guilliman was nerfed three times, and then suddenly Space Marines dropped out of the meta for no reason at all)

Changes to Commissars (and thus, how Guard interacted with Morale) ****ed the Conscript horde into oblivion.
"Lose a dude, auto-pass Morale" became "Lose a dude, re-roll Morale" which doesn't help at all if your Conscripts just lost 12 models...'Cause they're about to lose 12 more...As opposed to 1.

Oh wait... Commissar got nerfed. I totally forgot about that. I just remembered the Conscript nerf.