Panzer Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 This thread brings a question to mind. Has GW ever produced an edition of 40k that everyone was equally satisfied with? Has anybody ever produced anything that was equally satisfying for everyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chapter master 454 Posted March 30, 2019 Author Share Posted March 30, 2019 Quick Snipe: No. Every thread that questions a rule in the rulebook will always bring that question to bear and most will agree that every edition has had issues. Remember folks, we can only move forward with a discussion if we don't get bogged down too much in personal opinion and stances and get into trench warfare regarding certain issues. Certainly the concept of returning the attachment rule is an interesting concept but it wouldn't fix problems for things like dreadnought librarians and gulliman being a bit silly. Suppose the big issue is the complete backwards way warhammer does military in game by romanticising the concept of the bold leader. In reality no captain would lead the amount of battles we do the way we do it, most would likely not even take part with few operations ever having the captain near the main battle-line but instead issuing commands from a safer location (only stepping in when he needs to personally oversee the operation due to critical details). The same with guardsmen, most commanders would likely just stay in a command tank miles from combat and just order "platoons 1 through 600, march on the enemy". The only one that seems to make sense would be tyranids who require a network of their "leaders" to maintain the hive-mind control. Necrons similarly as well though to a lesser extent. I mean, the truest to this is the chaos gods really, they don't ever send themselves but instead champions and the like who are expendable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 It's fantasy in space after all and what kind of fantasy would it be without mighty heroes duking it out man to monster on the battlefield. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interrogator Stobz Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 Yeah, Dukin' It Out! But to help the OP with his topic; if the joining option was ever reinstated, GMan being much more nimble than a dread (him not being a VEHICLE) would allow him to join a unit but all dreads would not (no crawling in cover for them). Removing the arbitrary 10 wound step would make them all even. The weakness of vehicles could be mitigated with an armour value or buff to resilience or something that non-vehicles don't. Something between the older iterations of the rules and 8th. Making Guard order bubbles a bit bigger through strategy or otherwise might help them if they ended up needing it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claws and Effect Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 Quick Snipe: No. Every thread that questions a rule in the rulebook will always bring that question to bear and most will agree that every edition has had issues. Remember folks, we can only move forward with a discussion if we don't get bogged down too much in personal opinion and stances and get into trench warfare regarding certain issues. Certainly the concept of returning the attachment rule is an interesting concept but it wouldn't fix problems for things like dreadnought librarians and gulliman being a bit silly. Suppose the big issue is the complete backwards way warhammer does military in game by romanticising the concept of the bold leader. In reality no captain would lead the amount of battles we do the way we do it, most would likely not even take part with few operations ever having the captain near the main battle-line but instead issuing commands from a safer location (only stepping in when he needs to personally oversee the operation due to critical details). The same with guardsmen, most commanders would likely just stay in a command tank miles from combat and just order "platoons 1 through 600, march on the enemy". The only one that seems to make sense would be tyranids who require a network of their "leaders" to maintain the hive-mind control. Necrons similarly as well though to a lesser extent. I mean, the truest to this is the chaos gods really, they don't ever send themselves but instead champions and the like who are expendable. I suppose some of it could be chalked up to the old adage "Never order someone to do something you wouldn't do yourself." In the case of Space Marine Captains, they lead from the front because they are quite literally built to do so. I'm relatively okay with the character rules as they are. Mostly because I don't want to see the game's outcome pretty much decided by who wins the roll off for first turn. If you can freely target characters a large percentage of players will build their lists to be able to eliminate their opponents officers first turn, and almost every army loses a significant amount of effectiveness when the officers are all dead. Is there some wonkiness where certain characters are concerned? Absolutely. But my problem with changing it based on those characters is there are really only a few that fall into that weird spot: Guilliman and a handful of dreadnought characters. It's not fair to the Apothecary to make him targetable because the rules are weird with Guilliman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halfpint100 Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 Sounds like the biggest issues are the vehicle characters and roboat girlyman. Maybe just change the character rule for vehicle characters? Not sure what to do with roboat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Lord Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 Sounds like the biggest issues are the vehicle characters and roboat girlyman. Maybe just change the character rule for vehicle characters? Not sure what to do with roboat Maybe tie it to the Monster keyword. Something like: "Monsters are an exception to the general rule that a character with less than 10 wounds may not be targeted unless it is the closest target". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sairence Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 Honestly...I'm generally okay with characters being a bit more survivable. I don't really need more armies being able to do what Knights do with their sniper missiles. It's not fun having your special guy removed before doing a single thing with him/her. Embedding him in a unit won't help, because pretty much any single unit can be shot off. On a side note, I don't really get why Guard characters are being singled out by some people here. I'm sorry it breaks your immersion that a normal guy can't be swept away immediately on our battlefields. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxichobbit Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 Sounds like the biggest issues are the vehicle characters and roboat girlyman. Maybe just change the character rule for vehicle characters? Not sure what to do with roboat Start by using his actual name, not just repeating a 4chan meme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finkmilkana Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 I mean, with Guilliman specifically, it’s pretty apparent that GW specifically intends for him to not be targetable. Otherwise they could easily have given him 10 or more wounds and instead nerfed his resurrection. The only characters where it’s up for debate are vehicle characters, but even there, if I remember correctly, the necron command barge for example specifically got an errata that reduced the wounds below 10 to make it untargetable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknife Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 Sounds like the biggest issues are the vehicle characters and roboat girlyman. Maybe just change the character rule for vehicle characters? Not sure what to do with roboat Maybe tie it to the Monster keyword. Something like: "Monsters are an exception to the general rule that a character with less than 10 wounds may not be targeted unless it is the closest target". No way. He is 400 points with 9 wounds. It would be ridiculous for him to be targeted. By GW only giving him 9 wounds it is evident that he is not meant to be targeted unless he is nearest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beams Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 Sounds like the biggest issues are the vehicle characters and roboat girlyman. Maybe just change the character rule for vehicle characters? Not sure what to do with roboat Maybe tie it to the Monster keyword. Something like: "Monsters are an exception to the general rule that a character with less than 10 wounds may not be targeted unless it is the closest target".No way. He is 400 points with 9 wounds. It would be ridiculous for him to be targeted. By GW only giving him 9 wounds it is evident that he is not meant to be targeted unless he is nearest. It definitely breaks my immersion more that a Custodes can't shoot the 15ft tall giant with a flaming sword because a single scout is in the way then a Custodes not being able to shoot one individual Guardsmen in a sea of Guardsmen that all look vaguely the same... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknife Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 Sounds like the biggest issues are the vehicle characters and roboat girlyman. Maybe just change the character rule for vehicle characters? Not sure what to do with roboat Maybe tie it to the Monster keyword. Something like: "Monsters are an exception to the general rule that a character with less than 10 wounds may not be targeted unless it is the closest target".No way. He is 400 points with 9 wounds. It would be ridiculous for him to be targeted. By GW only giving him 9 wounds it is evident that he is not meant to be targeted unless he is nearest.It definitely breaks my immersion more that a Custodes can't shoot the 15ft tall giant with a flaming sword because a single scout is in the way then a Custodes not being able to shoot one individual Guardsmen in a sea of Guardsmen that all look vaguely the same... If the game was based on immersion the rule set would be entirely different. The character rule isn't there for immersion but game balance. What you are suggesting would require a complete rebalance of the games rules, it doesn't work this edition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beams Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 Sounds like the biggest issues are the vehicle characters and roboat girlyman. Maybe just change the character rule for vehicle characters? Not sure what to do with roboat Maybe tie it to the Monster keyword. Something like: "Monsters are an exception to the general rule that a character with less than 10 wounds may not be targeted unless it is the closest target".No way. He is 400 points with 9 wounds. It would be ridiculous for him to be targeted. By GW only giving him 9 wounds it is evident that he is not meant to be targeted unless he is nearest.It definitely breaks my immersion more that a Custodes can't shoot the 15ft tall giant with a flaming sword because a single scout is in the way then a Custodes not being able to shoot one individual Guardsmen in a sea of Guardsmen that all look vaguely the same...If the game was based on immersion the rule set would be entirely different. The character rule isn't there for immersion but game balance. What you are suggesting would require a complete rebalance of the games rules, it doesn't work this edition Woah, I am not suggesting, nor have I suggested anything? All I was saying is that if guilliman isnt targetable, than Guard commander shouldn't be targetable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknife Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 Oh get you. Then I agree if guillaman isn't able to be shot then a GC shouldn't be targeted either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MegaVolt87 Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 Seems like characters over 10+ wounds are mostly a lot of points anyway. Why not have them take half dmg from shooting, keeping them targetable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sairence Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 Seems like characters over 10+ wounds are mostly a lot of points anyway. Why not have them take half dmg from shooting, keeping them targetable? Knights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishagu Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 Guard Commnder in a tank? lol Stop complaining about Guilliman, guys. He is a very expensive character, costed accordingly (actually a bit over-priced). Abandon is similar. They represent thematic commanders who lead forces, not disposable assets like a no name vehicle commander or a war-engine. It works well in the game and allows expensive characters to function without joining units. It's also not really a big deal. Guilliman isn't a problem, Abaddon isn't a problem (he's more competitive than Guilliman anyways, the casual complainers just don't know the game well enough). You could argue that 10 Daemon Princes are more obnoxious. There aren't actually that many characters with 10+ wounds and typically they are much larger. 10 Wounds is a balancing factor and cut off point for larger units - I'm not saying it has been done correctly in all units as the costs might not be correct but that's another issue entirely. For the people saying it breaks immersion, you are literally not understanding how the gaming pieces in the game work. The Guilliman model merely represents Guilliman in the game. In real life he wouldn't be standing still, waving his sword in the air unless directly engaged. Assume that he is out of sight, surrounded by his warriors. Or do you actually think that he drags around two braziers and the broken head of the Imperium eagle for him to stand atop? Do you think Abaddon is shuffling around the corpse of that Primaris Lieutenant? Some people don't like hero hammer. I completely understand that, however if you don't this hobby is not for you. 40k is all about grand heroes of myth and legend leading armies directly, cutting down their foes. Either play an army with less emphasis on heroes or change your hobby from 40k to something else! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midlight Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 Or do you actually think that he drags around two braziers and the broken head of the Imperium eagle for him to stand atop? Why not Cawl has a servitor to put a book under his foot everywhere he walks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishagu Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 I imagine Cawl is just a holographic projection lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 And out of nowhere Ishagu comes to whiteknight Guilliman even when the talk wasn't really about Guilliman right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishagu Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 And out of nowhere Ishagu comes to whiteknight Guilliman even when the talk wasn't really about Guilliman right now. It was litereally 3/4 messages above mine. I suggest you get back on topic :-P Edit: To add, yes, if two units are exactly the same then 10 wounds are worse than 9 wounds. Generally speaking, the units with more wounds have higher offensive capabilities, movement or some other advantage however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 And out of nowhere Ishagu comes to whiteknight Guilliman even when the talk wasn't really about Guilliman right now. It was litereally 3/4 messages above mine. I suggest you get back on topic :-P Edit: To add, yes, if two units are exactly the same then 10 wounds are worse than 9 wounds. Generally speaking, the units with more wounds have higher offensive capabilities, movement or some other advantage however. It was just a side remark from a single person two weeks ago. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknife Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 Lol I have an image of Guilliman picking up his eagle and braziers every time he moves then searching for a suitably epic spot to dump them down and then resume pose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MegaVolt87 Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 I would pay many $$$ for an alt sculpt of Guilliman T posing for HH or 40K, Abaddon is also pretty good in comparison. GW will bring back more primarchs at some point, they are popular and sell. What about at 10+ wounds rolling both armour save and invuln while taking half dmg for wounds or is "knights" still going to trump the idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.