What could Chapter Approved do?

[Morticon]

Well, damn.  Missed that in the rules. 

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

The line of sight rules are fine. The terrain rules is what sucks.

I’m not so sure, you shouldn’t be able to draw line of sight on banner poles, helmet plumes, trailing cloaks etc. Should be body to body like it used to be.

 

Wait- is this a thing?!

Yeah sadly. In previous editions they always said it had to be drawn from the body (including arms, legs and heads) to the body of the other model. They even used to explain that it was to avoid penalising people for using banners or plumes etc.

 

Now it’s just from any part of a model to any other part of a model, so two guys on opposite sides of a wall whose helmet plumes went slightly above the wall could shoot at each other. Now abstract terrain rules would help with that but it just shouldn’t be a thing in the first place :(

[Ishagu]

I actually prefer the current rule because it leads to less arguments. If any part of the model is visible it can be a target. It's more elegant despite making less sense, in a give and take kind of way.

 

One thing I never agreed with was not bring able to target a model if the wings were visable. The wings should be a target, imo, if things like banners aren't.

[Tamiel]

That's so dumb. The game is basically saying "Don't put standards on your Sergeant marines if you want to be able to hide them behind cover or vehicles". From a hobbying perspective, this is terrible.


The whole "I can see your flag so I can shoot at you" mentality (and frankly, anyone that agrees with it) needs to GO.

[STTAB]

I do a lot of driving so I listen to a lot of podcasts.

 

Some playtesters have indirectly hinted that Grey Knights are getting some improvements as well as marines and the SOB beta codex rumour has been floating around too.

 

No specifics on how it would be handled but I'd like to see the basic marine and terminator profile be a bit more survivable to represent that they are giant super humans in full armour.

[MARK0SIAN]

I actually prefer the current rule because it leads to less arguments. If any part of the model is visible it can be a target. It's more elegant despite making less sense, in a give and take kind of way.

 

One thing I never agreed with was not bring able to target a model if the wings were visable. The wings should be a target, imo, if things like banners aren't.

I agree with you about wings but not the current system. It leads to some absolutely absurd shots being allowed, actively discourages hobbyists from adding cool details like banners, cloaks or anything else purely aesthetic and makes it very difficult to hide models.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

That's so dumb. The game is basically saying "Don't put standards on your Sergeant marines if you want to be able to hide them behind cover or vehicles". From a hobbying perspective, this is terrible.

 

 

The whole "I can see your flag so I can shoot at you" mentality (and frankly, anyone that agrees with it) needs to GO.

I bet someone, somewhere, has argued that *not* putting a backpack banner on your sergeant is modelling for advantage.

[Prot]

 

We’re all anxious

 

I know Robbin Cruddace was a table judge at Nova. I also know he got a bit of an education on RAW vs RAI. I know they made judgements on the fly that had to be explained to the group as a whole so everyone was on the same page. ( I saw this on the feed and post game interviews with players).

Prot- can you tell me a bit more about this? I'm quite curious- especially the RAW vs RAI "education" ! Thanks!

 

 

 

Well there were a few instances that needed "clarification" on intent. But again I got this from player interviews and stuff said during matches.

 

So one example of this is a game where a guy was playing against a Knight list. He took a shooty squad and said "I'm going to target Knight "A" and Knight "B" with this squad".

 

The targeting player awaited a response via Rotate Ion Shields Strategem before -dedicating weapons- on those targets.

RAW: You can do this. You can wait for your opponent to respond and say "Knight A" is going to rotate Ion shields.

RAW: You can now say: "Okay my shooty squad will now fire lascannons at "Knight B" and a bolter will fire at "Knight A" (with the Ion Shields up).

 

My understanding (and I could have this wrong, I wasn't there) is RAW this is legal.

 

RAI: Robbin called the player on it. The player disagreed. Robin looked it up, and had to agree with the player doing the targeting.

RAI: Robbin (I think) explained the intent of the rule, and made a ruling (more than once) that changed the rule from RAW to RAI. This was explained to people so they understood it.

 

The funny thing is these are debates we've had in some of my groups for a very long time and we went with RAI. On a personal note I have no idea how they don't trip on this stuff at all in playtesting over such a long time. But I don't know what "Playtesting" means nowadays with GW.

 

A very long time ago when I was involved with a local playtest team the "Playtesting" was more along the lines of: "Just tell us if this makes sense. We don't care if you agree with it or not". But it was a different era. I guess what I'm saying is I don't want to blame playtesters. You can give anyone all the feedback they want if they don't act on it, that isn't the playtest groups' fault.

 

I don't know how "beta rules" for deep strike are playing out but it was also apparently said at  Nova that GW understands "marines" are not in a good spot right now and more than one employee hinted at improvements to help them out.

 

I literally dumped my entire Grey Knight collection because I'm not a big soup player (I don't care how popular it is) and I finally caved to the idea that they (GW) have moved on and it would never change. (How many months ago have some codexes been stuck in purgatory? IE: Mechanicus/GK, etc.)

 

I do realize that there's a lot on GW's plate though. I'm trying to be patient. (I apologize if my post comes off as a rant or anti-GW. It's not my intent. We all LOVE this game and love talking about it.)

[Triszin]

I skipped on the first CA, but I'll grab this one

[Lexington]

Yep. LOS is from any part of the firing model to any part of the target model. So, if you can draw a bead from the tip of a sword to the corner of a vehicle, they can shoot eachother.

Another fun fact is that you can technically draw LoS through, say, the empty gaps in a Rhino's treads to shoot at units on the other side.

 

The LoS rules need a couple more sentences of tweaking, methinks.

[Panzer]

I'm all for abstract LoS rules like they used to exist.

Every unit has a size (easily doable by adding different keywords) and then units blocking LoS for every unit of the same size and smaller that's behind them. Then we'd just have to figure out how to adjust it with terrain. Hills and ruins increasing the height. Bridges and similar? No clue tbh lol

So much for the theory. In reality however that's not going to happen I fear. If GW would've wanted something like that then they would've done it with release of 8th since it's a rather big change from how things work currently.

[Tyriks]

That's so dumb. The game is basically saying "Don't put standards on your Sergeant marines if you want to be able to hide them behind cover or vehicles". From a hobbying perspective, this is terrible.

The whole "I can see your flag so I can shoot at you" mentality (and frankly, anyone that agrees with it) needs to GO.

I have to disagree. It makes shooting go much quicker in my group. I would hate going back to the old system because it caused tons of delays and arguments.

[Ishagu]

Be careful what we wish for. Making LOS blocking easier might simply push factions like Eldar even higher. If rules are amended factions need to be looked at also as it will have an impact on them.

 

I don't want to see cover saves changed as the current horde meta will become even more empowered. Imagine 60 Cultists that have a 4+ save, and 30 of them will come back.

 

I don't mind models heaving to be gully obscured. Imagine the unit's position as an abstract representation - The models firing only roughly represent where the actual soldiers would be. I picture them as moving around, looking for the optimum shot. I think vehicles and monsters might benefit from a sightly different rule as they are harder to hide.

 

Honestly I feel most people simply don't play with enough LOS blocking. GW's terrain is no good for this without modification. FLG do some building that whilst not to everyone's taste visually, perform very well in the game.

 

Also, as mentioned above, the shooting phase is quickly resolved now and without argument. We're playing with armies sometimes comprised of almost two hundred models. I have no interest in discussing what can and can't be shot at in such instances. This brings up really bad memories of 6th and 7th editions.

In the banner example, can't the sgt also nominate the banner as a point to shoot from? It's give and take.

[Panzer]

In the banner example, can't the sgt also nominate the banner as a point to shoot from? It's give and take.

Yeah the Sergeant can shoot, not the rest of the squad but whoever shoots at the Sergeant can wipe out the whole unit. It's not that fair.

I could see a compromise working and GW saying banner and antenna don't count but extended weapons and wings and such counts. That shouldn't slow things down at all but make it a lot fairer.

[BlackTriton]

I overheard someone who claimed to be privie on some knowledge of the changes to marine in CA.

I cannot vouch for this info and probably not worth sharing, but with so little info to go around might as well post it here.

 

It would take the form a a minor point ajustment (mostly down, some unit goes up) and all the units now benefit from the "chapter tactics".

Additionally, some stratagems get reworks to be "less restrictive" whathever that means.

 

The guys went on discussing what that meant for the game. I have no idea where that comes from, but the guy sold it as real info and not wishlist.

Probably was some wishlist though.

[Lexington]

I don't mind models heaving to be gully obscured. Imagine the unit's position as an abstract representation - The models firing only roughly represent where the actual soldiers would be. I picture them as moving around, looking for the optimum shot.

I mean, I'm all about the idea of abstract representation, but it kinda breaks the immersion if Sgt. Bannerpole is constantly bouncing on a trampoline, yelling "shoot me, heretics!"

 

LoS is already kind of tricky at times - I have yet to play a game of 8th that didn't require breaking out one of those LoS laser thingies. Something like ignoring banner poles, weapons, wings and other fiddly bits that extend beyond a model's base or above its head would hardly add any complication by comparison.

[Panzer]

I overheard someone who claimed to be privie on some knowledge of the changes to marine in CA.

I cannot vouch for this info and probably not worth sharing, but with so little info to go around might as well post it here.

 

It would take the form a a minor point ajustment (mostly down, some unit goes up) and all the units now benefit from the "chapter tactics".

Additionally, some stratagems get reworks to be "less restrictive" whathever that means.

 

The guys went on discussing what that meant for the game. I have no idea where that comes from, but the guy sold it as real info and not wishlist.

Probably was some wishlist though.

 

 

Sounds plausible. Points adjustments downwards are to be expected and Chapter tactics working on everything is how it works for everyone that is not a Marine or Custodes.

The Stratagem reworks is the only really interesting bit there but WAY too vague to be useful. Maybe Primaris get a little bit support in that regard now since they feel oddly left out currently.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

 

We’re all anxious

 

I know Robbin Cruddace was a table judge at Nova. I also know he got a bit of an education on RAW vs RAI. I know they made judgements on the fly that had to be explained to the group as a whole so everyone was on the same page. ( I saw this on the feed and post game interviews with players).

Prot- can you tell me a bit more about this? I'm quite curious- especially the RAW vs RAI "education" ! Thanks!

 

Well there were a few instances that needed "clarification" on intent. But again I got this from player interviews and stuff said during matches.

The thing I find most baffling and most frustrating is that these are some quite veteran game designers & rules writers who seem to be constantly caught off guard by how their own games works at a practical level and how the loosely worded rules are exploited.

 

Whenever some quite obvious problems are presented to them they always seem totally surprised by it. Even though it is either really obvious or people have been complaining about it for a while.

[Ishagu]

I overheard someone who claimed to be privie on some knowledge of the changes to marine in CA.

I cannot vouch for this info and probably not worth sharing, but with so little info to go around might as well post it here.

 

It would take the form a a minor point ajustment (mostly down, some unit goes up) and all the units now benefit from the "chapter tactics".

 

Additionally, some stratagems get reworks to be "less restrictive" whathever that means.

 

The guys went on discussing what that meant for the game. I have no idea where that comes from, but the guy sold it as real info and not wishlist.

Probably was some wishlist though.

 

Lol which unit would go up? That's outrageous.

 

I guess Captain's jump pack might get a small hike?

[Panzer]

 

I overheard someone who claimed to be privie on some knowledge of the changes to marine in CA.

I cannot vouch for this info and probably not worth sharing, but with so little info to go around might as well post it here.

It would take the form a a minor point ajustment (mostly down, some unit goes up) and all the units now benefit from the "chapter tactics".

Additionally, some stratagems get reworks to be "less restrictive" whathever that means.

The guys went on discussing what that meant for the game. I have no idea where that comes from, but the guy sold it as real info and not wishlist.

Probably was some wishlist though.

Lol which unit would go up? That's outrageous.

I guess Captain's jump pack might get a small hike?

Guilliman by 100p of course! :P

[Ishagu]

I hope the Redemptors get a big point drop. I love the models but they cost too much! Need to be around 130 points imo.

[Beams]

 

I overheard someone who claimed to be privie on some knowledge of the changes to marine in CA.

I cannot vouch for this info and probably not worth sharing, but with so little info to go around might as well post it here.

 

It would take the form a a minor point ajustment (mostly down, some unit goes up) and all the units now benefit from the "chapter tactics".

 

Additionally, some stratagems get reworks to be "less restrictive" whathever that means.

 

The guys went on discussing what that meant for the game. I have no idea where that comes from, but the guy sold it as real info and not wishlist.

Probably was some wishlist though.

Lol which unit would go up? That's outrageous.

 

I guess Captain's jump pack might get a small hike?

Blood angels smash facer Captain who kills everything and anyone?

[BlackTriton]

My understanding (and personal wishlist) is to see some situational stratagem such as killshot ans datalink telemetry be freed of their restriction.

 

Maybe if we give chapter tactics to everything some option should go up?

[Lexington]

Wouldn't be too surprised to see Marines get a revised Codex next year at some point, paralleling the way Stormcast got a second one in AoS a while back - this is probably where you'll see a lot of these changes. Probably have another wave of Primaris minis to go along with it.

[Panzer]

 

 

I overheard someone who claimed to be privie on some knowledge of the changes to marine in CA.

I cannot vouch for this info and probably not worth sharing, but with so little info to go around might as well post it here.

It would take the form a a minor point ajustment (mostly down, some unit goes up) and all the units now benefit from the "chapter tactics".

Additionally, some stratagems get reworks to be "less restrictive" whathever that means.

The guys went on discussing what that meant for the game. I have no idea where that comes from, but the guy sold it as real info and not wishlist.

Probably was some wishlist though.

Lol which unit would go up? That's outrageous.

I guess Captain's jump pack might get a small hike?

Blood angels smash facer Captain who kills everything and anyone?

It's mostly the stacking of Stratagems that makes him so strong tho. Without those he's just a generic Captain. So the points aren't the problem. Fix the AM CP battery abuse and he's fine.