New Warhammer 40,000 Edition announced!

[Tawnis]

12 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

So in guard you get 2 special weapons and 2 lasguns that benefit…because yeah that’ll do a whole lot to the unit of berserkers or 8bound or death company that just popped out from behind terrain 12” inches away or less… be lucky to kill 2/5 and they’ll still likely chew through my whole squad once they charge 

Based on terrain currently being used, I've rarely had any issue getting my 12 Farstalkers in 28mm (and 1 32mm) bases elevated in terrain. With guard at 25mm, you should be able to fit most of a blob. With a command squad pushing it up to 25, yeah a few might miss out, but you'll still get most of them in there. 

[Tawnis]

2 hours ago, brother_b said:

Plunging fire feels like it was made for city scape battlefield, kind of like what we see on all board set ups currently. Ok maybe not all but vast majority?

 

Unless people have super tall trees or outcrop terrain…

Yeah, forests ground will certainly favour melee in that regard. I made some of my forested terrain atop hills for variety, so it should work out fine if you're able to do something like that. 

[Tawnis]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Still not likely to do much. 
 

sure set them up 24” away, there will almost guaranteed be terrain between your unit and their unit, and since they only have pistols their units likely haven’t shot yet, and thus cannot be shot at.

 

the tables I play on are fairly open compared to what I’ve seen at tournament bartreps and various other online batreps and even my tables have terrain every 18-20” from each other.

 

Not really. 2-3 special weapons hitting on a 3+ isn’t likely to do all that much to MEQs let alone TEQs.

 

Okay, but compare them to how they would have done previously. How much were they really going to do on turn 1 against that target anyway? If they answer is not much, then it's not the rules fault, you're using the wrong unit for the wrong job. And if it was a large amount, then future turns at +1 to hit will average out if you can keep them screened. 

[Karhedron]

1 hour ago, Moonstalker said:

1. Suicide Melta edition?  With 8.1 inch range for deep strike/ingress, is everyone going to buy a box of 2 drop pods for a squad of eradicators and a castraferrum with multimelta?  That landspeeder in the trailer looked like it had a melta, too.

 

Melta + Deep Strike certainly looks strong and I would not be surprised to see units with access to it get a bump in price. But some people think 11th is shaping up to be an infantry melee edition so maybe they will be in a target-poor environment. Maybe flamer squads in Pods will be the way to go?

  

1 hour ago, Moonstalker said:

2. What's going to happen to flamers?  If the benefit of cover is now -1 BS to units that target you, and Ignores Cover and Torrent keep the same wording they have now, then Torrent is simply better Ignores Cover.  Why ignore the modifier to your ballistic skill when you're just going to auto-hit?  Will Flamers simply carry a superfluous second rule?

 

I suspect they will indeed carry a superfluous rule until the codices get revised. 

 

1 hour ago, Moonstalker said:

3. Artillery edition?  The Hidden rule says that a unit that has not fired in the current or previous player turn and is in terrain is not visibile except to units that are within 15 inches of it.  Indirect Fire allows weapons to be fired at targets that you do not have visibility to.  So while you can't shoot regular weapons at that squad sitting 16 inches away on an objective, I don't think a Whirlwind cares.

 

This is a good question and one we can't answer at the moment until we see more detail. If your scenario is correct the artillery will indeed become more desirable. However it is also possible that Hidden will be a blanket rule that applies to all shooting, even Indirect. Indirect ignores normal visibility rules but at the moment we have not seen anything to say that it overrides Hidden.

 

A more interesting question is how Ignores Cover will interact with Hidden. Will a unit lose it's Hidden status or will it only negate the to-Hit modifier?

[Antarius]

2 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Assuming they can all be in base to base contact with each other, assuming the sq inchage is actually available rather than being 4x4” with a ruined floor that only actually extends an inch or two from the wall. As is common with the upper floors of ruins

Okay, so your problem with this rule is is that the terrain guidelines are bad, because you assume they won't be followed? I'm not even trying to be snarky, I just really don't get this line of argument.

But yes, assuming people don't want to utilise this particular rule, it probably won't come into play. But it seems to me that this is the case with all rules, so I can't see why this would be any worse. At any rate, I don't see how it's a mark against the rule that you assume people won't use it.
Again, I'm not trying to be snarky, it's just that you honestly seem to be reaching for reasons that this rule might be bad and I just don't see why.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Tawnis said:

 

Okay, but compare them to how they would have done previously. How much were they really going to do on turn 1 against that target anyway? If they answer is not much, then it's not the rules fault, you're using the wrong unit for the wrong job. And if it was a large amount, then future turns at +1 to hit will average out if you can keep them screened. 

How much would they do T1? How much would they do T2?

as it stands very unlikely to be able to shoot and do any damage before a melee unit gets within charge range.

 

as it stands now I have no problem shooting every turn of the game.

[Moonstalker]

58 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

Melta + Deep Strike certainly looks strong and I would not be surprised to see units with access to it get a bump in price. But some people think 11th is shaping up to be an infantry melee edition so maybe they will be in a target-poor environment. Maybe flamer squads in Pods will be the way to go?

  

 

I suspect they will indeed carry a superfluous rule until the codices get revised. 

 

 

This is a good question and one we can't answer at the moment until we see more detail. If your scenario is correct the artillery will indeed become more desirable. However it is also possible that Hidden will be a blanket rule that applies to all shooting, even Indirect. Indirect ignores normal visibility rules but at the moment we have not seen anything to say that it overrides Hidden.

 

A more interesting question is how Ignores Cover will interact with Hidden. Will a unit lose it's Hidden status or will it only negate the to-Hit modifier?

 

As they worded it in the article (it's WarCom, we can only trust their rules reveals so far) then Hidden simply controls visibility.  A Hidden unit is only visible to units that are within 15 inches of it (and so you can't use one unit of infiltrators to remove Hidden for the rest of your army to shoot a target).  With how Indirect works - ignoring visibility - then it would check out.  But this is all speculation based on what we know of 11th and what we know of 10th.

 

What doesn't check out is drop pods.  I had a look at them for the first time in a while, and I hadn't realized how badly they massacred my boy.  They can't carry Gravis, Terminators, or Dreadnoughts.  So no drop-pod Eradicators (or Brutalis, who is probably better than a box-nought).

[Karhedron]

3 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Not really. 2-3 special weapons hitting on a 3+ isn’t likely to do all that much to MEQs let alone TEQs.

 

That is also true when they are on the ground. Guard tend to rely on quantity of shooting rather than quality (apart from their tanks) so Plunging Fire may not be a rule that benefits IG that much. Even so a Kreig Heavy Weapon squad with lascannons will appreciate the +1 to hit when shooting at monsters/vehicles.

[Mogger351]

As a segway someone managed to create a unit that cant be charged by their opponent using the terrain layouts and "using what they have to hand", to which people are telling them to get the right ruins:

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/s/QwOg6Ur6L5

 

[Tawnis]

2 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

How much would they do T1? How much would they do T2?

as it stands very unlikely to be able to shoot and do any damage before a melee unit gets within charge range.

 

as it stands now I have no problem shooting every turn of the game.

 

T1: If you're going first and your opponent knows how to deploy, you're not shooting anything relevant anyway.  

The turn after they move (either bottom of round one or top of round two depending on when you go, that's your chance to do big ranged damage before they start crashing into you. 

If they are close enough to charge you next turn, the only NEW rule that's going to give them more survivability is being in cover, if that's the case, your ranged units being elevated will negate that benefit. If they are not in cover, then your ranged units will have a stronger attack then they would have in the current edition. 

Yes it will still mean things like your tanks that can't climb up will be a little less effective against infantry, and that positioning will be even more important, but while i do think it will be a bit of a buff to melee and a bit of a nerf to range, it's nowhere near the disaster some people think it is. 

(Also charge range from the get go is effectively 1" longer, so a minor nerf to those blitz across the board immediately melee armies as well).

We also don't yet know how being on higher levels in terrain is going to effect charges, so that could be another way of making ranged units safer against melee, we'll have to wait and see. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

That is also true when they are on the ground. Guard tend to rely on quantity of shooting rather than quality (apart from their tanks) so Plunging Fire may not be a rule that benefits IG that much. Even so a Kreig Heavy Weapon squad with lascannons will appreciate the +1 to hit when shooting at monsters/vehicles.

I never said they’d do good on the ground, my point is that the new plunging fire rule doesn’t remotely offset the advantages melee armies are getting like some are claiming.

 

like sure maybe if I can get an entire squad and command squad on the second floor, of a building I have a good chance at seriously blunting a charge.

Edited April 16 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[DemonGSides]

3 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

As a segway someone managed to create a unit that cant be charged by their opponent using the terrain layouts and "using what they have to hand", to which people are telling them to get the right ruins:

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/s/QwOg6Ur6L5

 

 

"I made terrain that angle shots into being bad for walkers" isn't all that interesting. That ruin isn't following GWs suggestions, either, so that's just the OP making bad terrain and also lying about it being GW suggested set up. You could do that in every edition, nothing special here. 

 

The responses seem pretty even keeled, in contrast to what you claim they said. 

Edited April 16 by DemonGSides

[Mogger351]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

 

"I made terrain that angle shots into being bad for walkers" isn't all that interesting. That ruin isn't following GWs suggestions, either, so that's just the OP making bad terrain and also lying about it being GW suggested set up. You could do that in every edition, nothing special here. 

 

The responses seem pretty even keeled, in contrast to what you claim they said. 

 

During the discourse, you've stated and aped GWs tag line of "use the terrain you have", "use your imagination", "they're only guidelines".

 

Someone followed the suggested guideline of 2 big ruin corners and 2 low ruin corners, using the terrain they have and it broke the game in that instance.

 

Do you legitimately not see the issue here? 

 

"That ruin isn't following GWs suggestion" - it is, it's just the ruins are different dimensions to the ones on the GW guidelines.

 

So what youre saying (hypocritically) is that they're playing wrong for not having the exact GW ruin dimensions in the exact layout. "You can use the terrain you have" but you just said they made bad terrain.

 

What you seem unwilling to acknowledge is that this will happen a lot, to a lot of people. Because these are being touted as guidelines that you're expected to ape 100% or you're doing it wrong with bad terrain.

 

Poorly designed guidance and instructions aren't good enough when the expectations are malleable.

[Tastyfish]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I never said they’d do good on the ground, my point is that the new plunging fire rule doesn’t remotely offset the advantages melee armies are getting like some are claiming.

 

like sure maybe if I can get an entire squad and command squad on the second floor, of a building I have a good chance at seriously blunting a charge.

 

I think you also need to take into account the stricter cover rules.

 

Hidden seemingly only applies to models and not units (and only infantry/beasts/swarms), so they would all need to be in or behind terrain to benefit.

The -1 to hit infantry/beasts/swarms only applies to those units rather than everything like ruins used to, they also have to be fully within the terrain feature to get the -1BS. You can't just run up the middle of the map, holding fire.

 

So one of the buffs to shooting armies is that vehicles can no longer claim cover (just the same LOS protection ruins give them now) and infantry etc have to be garrisoning a terrain feature to benefit from the new rules - which seems a huge benefit to a bunch of the midrange guns against lighter targets like transports, AP1 is now genuinely AP1.

 

There's also fewer large area terrain pieces and more open terrain for tanks and vehicles. Plus the new plunging fire rules, melta can be fired from deepstrike at full effect and charges have universally all got 1" shorter compared to 10th ed.

 

[DemonGSides]

34 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

 

During the discourse, you've stated and aped GWs tag line of "use the terrain you have", "use your imagination", "they're only guidelines".

 

Sure; use your imagination.  If your imagination is "Make it so that this building can't be charged into by things" then your imagination is dastardly, but it's technically fine.  The problem doesn't come from being able to make bad terrain set-ups; that's always been possible, there's quite literally nothing stopping you from doing it.  The problem comes from both you and the OP of that reddit post asserting that they're "following GW's suggestions" when they emphatically are not.

 

34 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

 

Someone followed the suggested guideline of 2 big ruin corners and 2 low ruin corners, using the terrain they have and it broke the game in that instance.

 

They didn't, and all the comments in the reddit thread that you just dismissed explained it both better and quicker than I can/am willing to with someone who's acting disingenuously.

 

34 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

 

Do you legitimately not see the issue here?

 

Honestly not sure what your issue is, considering your initial post has already been debunked before you even posted it.

 

34 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

 

"That ruin isn't following GWs suggestion" - it is, it's just the ruins are different dimensions to the ones on the GW guidelines.

It isn't, and there's lots of evidence for why it's not, including the OP of that reddit post admitting they screwed up.

 

34 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

So what youre saying (hypocritically) is that they're playing wrong for not having the exact GW ruin dimensions in the exact layout. "You can use the terrain you have" but you just said they made bad terrain.

 

You can be big mad about this all you want, but I haven't said a hypocritical things; if you played the terrain as suggested, this doesn't happen.  If you do whatever you want with terrain, weird will come up.  Sometimes that's cool!  Bad terrain can be fun to fight over (And frankly, that armiger has lots of options on how to handle this situation, even with the botched terrain); we have a board that we put together that's got two buildings that are bridged by another building.  It's objectively bad terrain in that it's hard to use and takes up way too much space, but sometimes it's fun to have weird games.

 

34 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

 

What you seem unwilling to acknowledge is that this will happen a lot, to a lot of people. Because these are being touted as guidelines that you're expected to ape 100% or you're doing it wrong with bad terrain.

I don't think it will, at all, and if it does, good?  Knights shouldn't be in the game and they're a bigger problem for the health of the game than any of the various rulesets of the past 15 years.  Sorry, this is flippant, but the real answer is; both players approve the terrain before a game is played, just measure it quick during set up and be like "We've gotta fix this."  Because this isn't happening in a Competitive environment, as they'd be following the actual guidelines exactly, as opposed to lying on the internet for outrage points.

 

I don't think anyone's expecting people to ape them 100% of the time; if you want to use the proscribed terrain, you should try to make it the way they describe, otherwise you aren't following the proscribed terrain.  Then you're just vibing, and you shouldn't be mad that terrain that you built to keep out units... keeps out units.  I'm still not 100% sure what you're upset about.

 

34 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

 

Poorly designed guidance and instructions aren't good enough when the expectations are malleable.

 

Between the OP not following the instructions and then getting mad about it, to you slurping down the outrage to then spew that same outrage elsewhere is such an indication of the nightmare that the internet has turned into.  It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Edited April 16 by DemonGSides

[Indy Techwisp]

14 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

 

During the discourse, you've stated and aped GWs tag line of "use the terrain you have", "use your imagination", "they're only guidelines".

 

Someone followed the suggested guideline of 2 big ruin corners and 2 low ruin corners, using the terrain they have and it broke the game in that instance.

 

Do you legitimately not see the issue here? 

 

"That ruin isn't following GWs suggestion" - it is, it's just the ruins are different dimensions to the ones on the GW guidelines.

 

So what youre saying (hypocritically) is that they're playing wrong for not having the exact GW ruin dimensions in the exact layout. "You can use the terrain you have" but you just said they made bad terrain.

 

What you seem unwilling to acknowledge is that this will happen a lot, to a lot of people. Because these are being touted as guidelines that you're expected to ape 100% or you're doing it wrong with bad terrain.

 

Poorly designed guidance and instructions aren't good enough when the expectations are malleable.

 

Besides the obvious issue that the poster in question is saying this is an issue for competitive specifically (where it is expected that the GW recommended Terrain layouts will likley be followed), the poster has set up said Terrain incorrectly despite their claims that they have set that up how the GW article showed it.

 

The issue in question is that the center Terrain feature they are replicating is made out of 2 larger triangles where as the poster has used the dimensions of one of the single rectangular terrain features, resulting in the center terrain feature being too small and thus not enterable. On the GW recommended layout the single  rectangular terrain feature is shown with only 2 bits of terrain on it leaving space for larger units to enter and exit.

 

To put it simply, the presumably competitive minded poster is complaining that the GW recommended Terrain layout that tourneys should be using makes it impossible to charge a unit in the middle building while having not accurately replicated the terrain they intended to test.

[jaxom]

GW: "You’ll need the following sizes for the standard mission layouts" standard mission layouts which "have been designed with this specific battle in mind, to help ensure a balanced match whilst reinforcing the story told by the mission" but "Of course, if you are playing a casual game with friends, you are welcome to set up your terrain in any way you like."

 

So here's the eternal question (to me at least): when setting up a casual or non-standard game does setting up terrain in an obviously unfair manner serve the narrative of the game; or has it been set up that way because WAAC?

 

 

[Mogger351]

10 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Sure; use your imagination.  If your imagination is "Make it so that this building can't be charged into by things" then your imagination is dastardly, but it's technically fine.  The problem doesn't come from being able to make bad terrain set-ups; that's always been possible, there's quite literally nothing stopping you from doing it.  The problem comes from both you and the OP of that reddit post asserting that they're "following GW's suggestions" when they emphatically are not.

 

 

They didn't, and all the comments in the reddit thread that you just dismissed explained it both better and quicker than I can/am willing to with someone who's acting disingenuously.

 

 

Honestly not sure what your issue is, considering your initial post has already been debunked before you even posted it.

 

It isn't, and there's lots of evidence for why it's not, including the OP of that reddit post admitting they screwed up.

 

 

You can be big mad about this all you want, but I haven't said a hypocritical things; if you played the terrain as suggested, this doesn't happen.  If you do whatever you want with terrain, weird will come up.  Sometimes that's cool!  Bad terrain can be fun to fight over (And frankly, that armiger has lots of options on how to handle this situation, even with the botched terrain); we have a board that we put together that's got two buildings that are bridged by another building.  It's objectively bad terrain in that it's hard to use and takes up way too much space, but sometimes it's fun to have weird games.

 

I don't think it will, at all, and if it does, good?  Knights shouldn't be in the game and they're a bigger problem for the health of the game than any of the various rulesets of the past 15 years.

 

I don't think anyone's expecting people to ape them 100% of the time; if you want to use the proscribed terrain, you should try to make it the way they describe, otherwise you aren't following the proscribed terrain.  Then you're just vibing, and you shouldn't be mad that terrain that you built to keep out units... keeps out units.  I'm still not 100% sure what you're upset about.

 

 

Between the OP not following the instructions and then getting mad about it, to you slurping down the outrage to then spew that same outrage elsewhere is such an indication of the nightmare that the internet has turned into.  It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

 

Right, got it, use the exact gw dimension terrain the way they suggest it as a guideline aka. As verbatim instructions or acknowledge that your games will be wonky. Excellent.

 

It's not a case of outrage, it's a case of seeing obvious problems and having to see a lot of people just chugging down the koolaid because, well its new and GW.

 

6 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

Besides the obvious issue that the poster in question is saying this is an issue for competitive specifically (where it is expected that the GW recommended Terrain layouts will likley be followed), the poster has set up said Terrain incorrectly despite their claims that they have set that up how the GW article showed it.

 

The issue in question is that the center Terrain feature they are replicating is made out of 2 larger triangles where as the poster has used the dimensions of one of the single rectangular terrain features, resulting in the center terrain feature being too small and thus not enterable. On the GW recommended layout the single  rectangular terrain feature is shown with only 2 bits of terrain on it leaving space for larger units to enter and exit.

 

To put it simply, the presumably competitive minded poster is complaining that the GW recommended Terrain layout that tourneys should be using makes it impossible to charge a unit in the middle building while having not accurately replicated the terrain they intended to test.

 

Thank you for a well articulated response. When I saw it earlier the OP hadn't come to that realisation yet and was assuming their choice of ruins were too large. In this instance then lifting off the corner pieces would enable access, agreed.

 

My concern still stands that what happens if they simply don't have something that fits that profile. I'm sure events will magic up exact dimension mdf terrain to match the suggested layouts, but it's not to say they always will. It's also the core rules again, so these layouts are, in theory, for everyone all the time.

 

There's a lot of cool stuff out there, there's a lot of really basic stuff out there like good old styrene rock towers, none of which really work in 11th without just kinda having to make notable compromises on how the game is intended to be laid out and played.

 

Whether people think knights should exist or otherwise, it kinda sucks that some games for some people will have objectives that are not possible for all units to interact with.

 

Maybe my fears about it being a more common problem are less grounded in the world of tournamenthammer being standard with L shaped ruins existing for everyone anyway.

14 minutes ago, jaxom said:

GW: "You’ll need the following sizes for the standard mission layouts" standard mission layouts which "have been designed with this specific battle in mind, to help ensure a balanced match whilst reinforcing the story told by the mission" but "Of course, if you are playing a casual game with friends, you are welcome to set up your terrain in any way you like."

 

So here's the eternal question (to me at least): when setting up a casual or non-standard game does setting up terrain in an obviously unfair manner serve the narrative of the game; or has it been set up that way because WAAC?

 

 

Maybe it's been set up that way because it's all they have and as such you're destined to not "ensure a balanced match whilst reinforcing the story told by the mission".

[jaxom]

56 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

Maybe it's been set up that way because it's all they have and as such you're destined to not "ensure a balanced match whilst reinforcing the story told by the mission".

It may very well be exactly as you say. It takes a degree of experience to recognize when and how to deviate from standard terrain set up from a standard mission in order to compensate for differences between what the standard mission assumes is available and what is actually in one's collection.

[DemonGSides]

Edit: I changed my mind, it's not worth engaging with it.

Suffice it to say, always make sure you fully read something before going elsewhere to claim it's something it isn't.  A good lesson for everyone.

Edited April 16 by DemonGSides

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Tastyfish said:

 

I think you also need to take into account the stricter cover rules.

 

Hidden seemingly only applies to models and not units (and only infantry/beasts/swarms), so they would all need to be in or behind terrain to benefit.

The -1 to hit infantry/beasts/swarms only applies to those units rather than everything like ruins used to, they also have to be fully within the terrain feature to get the -1BS. You can't just run up the middle of the map, holding fire.

 

So one of the buffs to shooting armies is that vehicles can no longer claim cover (just the same LOS protection ruins give them now) and infantry etc have to be garrisoning a terrain feature to benefit from the new rules - which seems a huge benefit to a bunch of the midrange guns against lighter targets like transports, AP1 is now genuinely AP1.

 

There's also fewer large area terrain pieces and more open terrain for tanks and vehicles. Plus the new plunging fire rules, melta can be fired from deepstrike at full effect and charges have universally all got 1" shorter compared to 10th ed.

 

If they’re behind terrain I can’t even shoot them. 

[Valkyrion]

Have you guys read this thread back?  You should probably find the thread from 3 years ago and re-read that too because most of the comments with regards to the rules will be similar. 

Something has happened (the internet, mainly) that has made tabletop wargaming the same as playing computer games - there's a correct way to do it, and if you don't follow it correctly then you aren't correctly playing, so you're playing for fun and not to be taken seriously because this has now become a job or lifestyle for people and you can't have people having fun if there's money to be made. The feeling has changed,  it's all about winning. It used to be about being part of something.  

 

 

[chapter master 454]

hmmm...seems like fraters like the smell of melta if this is the attitude. 11th edition isn't even out and we already go at each others throats, complaining over theory and no practice. We so far have 2 layouts out of...I don't know if they said how many...but considering I would think each deployment map will likely have 3 or so layouts each (which means, 18 maps and for 15 mission combinations that seems to check out) so non-starter there.
We also don't know how missions work...for all we know, in that scenario that is exactly where you DON'T want to be with those marines as that might be free VP you just handed the enemy.
We don't know fully how the melee changes will function as theory is one thing but since we don't have all the pieces to go with it we can only speculate. And missing pieces are plentiful.

-sigh- I suppose the more things change the more things stay the same.
But at least be polite, and civil to each other. The world is full of enough gloom and doom as it is...can we not just enjoy the hobby?

Silly question...ofcourse not...plastic soldiers are super serious business...clearly worth the headache :P

[Antarius]

Yeah, I think it would be nice if people took their Emperor-approved chillaxium pills and climbed out of the trenches for a bit.

 

The game isn't out yet, nor do we have a whole lot of information and we certainly have zero experience with these new rules.

 

I'm not saying I know it'll be great - it might suck for all I know - I'm just saying it's a bit early to be certain that the game is ruined forever and there's certainly no reason to get annoyed at each other over it. There'll be plenty of time for that once we've tried a few games and figured out exactly how and why everybody else are Wrong On The Internet 

 

Also, anecdotally, if I were playing that game with the Armiger and the unchargeable unit, I'd just move the corner to accommodate the base, then move it back once the Armiger moved (assuming we both agreed that a walker should be able to walk into a building, if not I guess it'd come down to a 4+). IME these things are mostly impossible when you want them to be.

[Mogger351]

It's fine I'll leave the topic alone. I just think there was much yay-ing at moving away from flat mdf identical terrain constantly and it's simply already accepted that will continue and be the correct way to do things.

 

It's built in me to try and get an understanding for when a product or solution has potential negatives or unintentional impact, if people genuinely ar happy with it that's cool, I'll keep it to myself.