8th Edition Rules, Mechanics and Concepts you don't like

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
Ricordis
Shas'La
Posts: 262

8th Edition Rules, Mechanics and Concepts you don't like

Post#1 » Jun 26 2017 10:02

I'd like to know what rules you are not happy with and why.
Please stay on the rules themselves and don't go over to weapon/model stats or point costs.
Also I don't want a rant only thread but more discussion of how bad the rules really are or maybe they are the best that could happen and we didn't just realized it.
I am waiting for the T'au Codex and I wouldn't bet on GW reverting some of their bigger changes but maybe they will tweak some rules, their wordings or even add/remove some phrases.


I really don't like the whole new drone-concept of them forming their own units and working as external wound batteries.
I always saw them as part of the units and like a single Scout in a Space Marine Scout unit carries a rocket launcher our drones carry special equipment into the field. No reason to exclude them from a unit.
It is also weird as other factions get their "special rules" in form of equipment or as a buff from a character. In both cases you can't focus the buff away but our drones are wildly shouting "Shoot me! I am free!".

If they were parts of the units they even would'nt need their Saviour Protocols (and all unclear rule shenanigans) as the player being shot at chooses to distribute wounds.


On the other hand I like how Firesight Marksmen are unbound but they are not strong/versatile enough to be on their own. Currently I use them as buff for my Sniper Drones to take out enemy characters (as they are meant to be) and throw Markerlights on units where I desperately need one more on. They should have a bigger role for the whole army, they are elites. And that bothers me. They take an elite slot.


I don't like T'aus' redundancy in the rules. Instead of unique support systems or auras we have so many rules overlapping.
Target lock = Markerlight Buff III
Multi-Tracker ~ Markerlight Buff I ~ Command-Link
Stimulant Injector ~ Sense of Stone
And as they have so minimal differences it makes them hilarious complicated. Just let them do the same or something really different.


I like Master of War. They idea is great to have a commander on the field shouting commands rooting back to the T'aus' basic war principles. But only once per battle...and only one of them. Basic T'au war principles and the Firewarriors forget them after a turn and have to be reminded by a commander really near them what they trained their life long?
Would it be too strong if they could activate them as an aura like the Ethereal does?


I am still unhappy with the Markerlight table but I have no idea how to make it better. I don't like I can't decide which buff from the MLs I get.

User avatar
relasine
Shas'La
Posts: 35

Re: 8th Edition Rules, Mechanics and Concepts you don't like

Post#2 » Jun 26 2017 10:51

My issue with the Markerlight table is that counters two and three on a unit often do nothing. The bonus for three Markerl lights is solid, but difficult to rely on, so my response is just to get Target Lock on big suits that would want it. As it is, unless you're running Hammerheads, the effort is consequently not really worth it. I really wish they'd consolidate benefit two into benefit one so that it looked like this:

One Marker Light - Reroll Ones and Seeker/Destroyer Missile fire at natural BS
Two Marker Lights - Move/Shoot Heavy and Advance/Shoot Assault w/out penalty
Three Marker Lights - Ignore Cover
Four Marker Lights - +1 BS

This would make the void that is two/three markerlights less of an issue, and encourage people to skip Target Lock since putting two marker lights is not terribly difficult or costly.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Posts: 2212

Re: 8th Edition Rules, Mechanics and Concepts you don't like

Post#3 » Jun 26 2017 11:10

I actually like that we can simulate a lot of the Markerlight buffs with Support Systems to make some of the Battlesuits mostly Markerlight independent.

So far the only rule/mechanic I don't like are:
1. Basically everything Ghostkeel. It's dumb that one can just snipe his Stealth Drones so easily and it's even more dumb that his stealth field only applies at >12" while Stealth Suits have theirs even in melee.
2. Markerlight table. Now I generally like how it works, I just don't like some of the specific bonuses of the table itself. The pseudo to-hit bonus on 3rd should be a real +1 to-hit bonus and the Missiles getting shot at user BS is a bit underwhelming as 2nd bonus. Let us at least shoot them at characters without restriction if we manage to light a Character up.
3. That brings me to the next thing: Seeker Missiles as one use only weapon that only hits on 6s without Markerlights do only a single Mortal wound....that's just dumb. Sure they are basically for free, but anything you'd want to get some Mortal wounds on doesn't care about losing a single wound from a weapon you can't use more than once. Give it d3 or flat 2 Mortal wounds and I'd be more than happy.
4. Former Blasts having too few shots. Large Blasts should all (for every faction) have d6 shots against up to 5 models and 2d6 shots against more than 5 models. That would also fix the ridiculous weapon profiles of things like the Cyclic Ion Raker who has 6 shots flat without overcharging and only d6 shots when overcharging.
5. Last but not least: Drone Units of just 2 models giving away Victory Points. Like wtf, they are supposed to get killed so why do we get punished if the enemy actually kills them?
Last edited by Panzer on Jun 26 2017 11:25, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
nix0n
Shas'La
Posts: 57

Re: 8th Edition Rules, Mechanics and Concepts you don't like

Post#4 » Jun 26 2017 11:19

In general if I understood it right the idea of rolling a 1 in any throw always is a failed roll no matter the modifiers, is really brutal. Read the FAQ and watched now the latest MWG video about shooting phase and so with my patchy understanding of english language I got the idea that the roll of 1 should be always feared (unless you have rerolls).
That. Really. Blows...

As for the ML benefit list I like what people have come up with but another great buff to add to the list (for example a 4 marker hit bonus) would be to have the ability to re-roll the 1's in "to wound" rolls. I always loved the idea of markerlights highlighting the critical spots of an enemy unit or vehichle and providing that information in real time (aka V.A.T.S. style) to shoot at.
This buff sounds like it would fit the fluff quite well and support our shooty characteristics.

So far haven't had any major games played and only a few friendly skirmishes with a friend to get a hang of the basic rules.
Cheers!
Nix

pilky
Shas'La
Posts: 229

Re: 8th Edition Rules, Mechanics and Concepts you don't like

Post#5 » Jun 26 2017 11:33

I only really have 2 gripes:

1. High intensity markerlights are a bit too hit and miss given the -1 to hit on Heavy weapons. I'd much prefer Heavy 3 vs Heavy 1 and +3 counters
2. Sniper drones: would be nice if they had something akin to rending, giving a -something as their AP when rolling a 6+ to wound (especially as other sniper units have such rules)

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Posts: 2212

Re: 8th Edition Rules, Mechanics and Concepts you don't like

Post#6 » Jun 26 2017 11:39

pilky wrote:2. Sniper drones: would be nice if they had something akin to rending, giving a -something as their AP when rolling a 6+ to wound (especially as other sniper units have such rules)

You know, somewhere deep inside of me I have the hope that they didn't gave them any fancy rule so they can re-introduce Rail Rifle Sniper Drones with fresh models with the Codex...which would obviously give them proper AP and the Mortal wound on 6s rule. A man can dream... :D

User avatar
QimRas
Shas'Saal
Posts: 196

Re: 8th Edition Rules, Mechanics and Concepts you don't like

Post#7 » Jun 26 2017 11:58

Shooting:
I agree with the overall sentiment expressed so far that the Markerlight table needs work. Many of the benefits can be provided by multiple systems, and stacking them does not do anything. While that does lower the reliance on Markerlights as an army, we have way too many overlapping but not stacking buffs.

Seekers need a lot of work. While being able to do mortal wounds is pretty impressive, its not enough to matter is most cases especially because they are one use. If they are as they are now, but not one use they would be more usable. Same goes for Destroyers. Maybe when you hit with a Marker you can choose to apply it to the table, or immediately apply a single seeker or destroyer hit with say... d6 mortal wounds for Seekers and maybe d6 rerollable or 3+d6 for Destroyers.

I would like some additional ways to get a cover save as opposed to just area terrain.

Drones:
Drones need to be Characters. That would neatly solve most of the issues with them, I think. For Kill Points, the ITC method seems to work really well and not overly penalize our Drones. That said, I do like them being a separate unit however, for two reasons. 1) You don't have to worry about non-uniform toughness with the T4 drones not being part of the same unit as the T3 Firewarrriors. 2) With them being their own units, you can have units share drones or you can send more drones in to reinforce a heavily targetted position.

There are some other stat things, but I think those are the only rule things.

User avatar
relasine
Shas'La
Posts: 35

Re: 8th Edition Rules, Mechanics and Concepts you don't like

Post#8 » Jun 26 2017 02:12

QimRas wrote:Drones need to be Characters.

Or you can just insert a rule into specialist Drones that they can't be targeted by ranged fire if they're within X" of their "controller". Giving them the Character label is a simpler way of going about it, but it doesn't "feel" right.

User avatar
QimRas
Shas'Saal
Posts: 196

Re: 8th Edition Rules, Mechanics and Concepts you don't like

Post#9 » Jun 26 2017 02:29

relasine wrote:
QimRas wrote:Drones need to be Characters.

Or you can just insert a rule into specialist Drones that they can't be targeted by ranged fire if they're within X" of their "controller". Giving them the Character label is a simpler way of going about it, but it doesn't "feel" right.


Well, Character keyword isn't really the same thing as a Character is 7th. Basically it just means they can only be targeted if they are the closest unit. That is really all the rule does, which is exactly what we want with the drones. The Ork Big Gunz Grot Krew probably needs the same treatment, as opposed to the hodgpodge of rules they have now.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Posts: 2212

Re: 8th Edition Rules, Mechanics and Concepts you don't like

Post#10 » Jun 26 2017 03:17

Character keyword would be the smoothest way to go about it, but if they'd actually do something like that then expect a huge price hike for Drones.
I mean they are already too cheap anyway, but nobody wants to have a meta with units with 10 Shield Drones or Marker Drones around every unit so they become effectively invincible. Especially because they fully negate weapons with multiple damage.

Imo Drones should cost a bit more already since it seems the points for the Saviour Protocol got included in some of the Battlesuits base cost instead of the Drones resulting in Gun Drones being way too cheap for the amount of shooting they deliver and Battlesuits partly being too expensive. That's something they could change at any time with the 40k version of a Generals Handbook though.
With balanced costs and the Character special rule on top of that I'd actually expect to see Drones costing twice or even three times as much as they do now.

User avatar
Vector Strike
Shas'La
Posts: 881

Re: 8th Edition Rules, Mechanics and Concepts you don't like

Post#11 » Jun 26 2017 05:46

Instead of giving them Character, Drones should have a rule like this: 'drone units that started the game with less than 3 models (as their smallest proper unit are made of 4) don't give out KP, but cannot capture/contest objectives.'

User avatar
Maxwell
Shas'Saal
Posts: 50

Re: 8th Edition Rules, Mechanics and Concepts you don't like

Post#12 » Jun 26 2017 05:53

In terms of general rules, I think strength to toughness should be automatic at x3 or 1/3. (E.g. S9 weapons auto wound T3 and s3 weapons cannot wound T9 or above). I know they designed around this but it's not like a D20 we're using. 1/6 is a lot of chances for crappy weapons to do damage and taking a tank shell in the face and shrugging it off is just weird.

I would like some more varied cover rules besides "slows advances and +1 save). Maybe some concealment (like forests give -1 to hit) but no cover? Some things could do both possibly.

Also can we get some BS 3+ please? :eek:

User avatar
Maxwell
Shas'Saal
Posts: 50

Re: 8th Edition Rules, Mechanics and Concepts you don't like

Post#13 » Jun 26 2017 05:54

Vector Strike wrote:Instead of giving them Character, Drones should have a rule like this: 'drone units that started the game with less than 3 models (as their smallest proper unit are made of 4) don't give out KP, but cannot capture/contest objectives.'


Check out the itc rules, they do a lot to resolve this issue. I also like the first turn roll off.

User avatar
QimRas
Shas'Saal
Posts: 196

Re: 8th Edition Rules, Mechanics and Concepts you don't like

Post#14 » Jun 26 2017 06:45

Maxwell wrote:
Vector Strike wrote:Instead of giving them Character, Drones should have a rule like this: 'drone units that started the game with less than 3 models (as their smallest proper unit are made of 4) don't give out KP, but cannot capture/contest objectives.'


Check out the itc rules, they do a lot to resolve this issue. I also like the first turn roll off.


Yeah, I am a fan of the ITC rule for kill point. The reason for giving them Character has nothing to do with Kill Points and everything to do with them being targeted and shot down, like the Stealth Drones of the Ghostkeel.

That said, maybe just certain specialized drones should get Character, like the above mentioned Stealth Drones, Grav and Accelerator Drones, Command Drones. Not sure Shield, Gun, or Marker need it from a tactical prospective. But being able to pop the Stealth Drones easily kinda kills a major feature of a Ghostkeel.

User avatar
Vector Strike
Shas'La
Posts: 881

Re: 8th Edition Rules, Mechanics and Concepts you don't like

Post#15 » Jun 26 2017 07:32

Maxwell wrote:
Vector Strike wrote:Instead of giving them Character, Drones should have a rule like this: 'drone units that started the game with less than 3 models (as their smallest proper unit are made of 4) don't give out KP, but cannot capture/contest objectives.'


Check out the itc rules, they do a lot to resolve this issue. I also like the first turn roll off.


Do they have for points matches? We don't play with power levels here

QimRas wrote:Yeah, I am a fan of the ITC rule for kill point. The reason for giving them Character has nothing to do with Kill Points and everything to do with them being targeted and shot down, like the Stealth Drones of the Ghostkeel.

That said, maybe just certain specialized drones should get Character, like the above mentioned Stealth Drones, Grav and Accelerator Drones, Command Drones. Not sure Shield, Gun, or Marker need it from a tactical prospective. But being able to pop the Stealth Drones easily kinda kills a major feature of a Ghostkeel.


Erm, but drones being targetable is certainly under the game's proposition and design. The problem is that you can buy very small units that can be killed easily, thus giving out lots of KPs. If KPs are removed from the equation, drones are automatically less interesting for the enemy to kill.

User avatar
Lechai Skull
Shas'Saal
Posts: 357

Re: 8th Edition Rules, Mechanics and Concepts you don't like

Post#16 » Jun 26 2017 07:56

I hate the markerlight list.

So many redundancies that make it pointless, and so much investment in points JUST to get us up to par with EVERY other 'shooting' based army besides guard.

It isn't hard to fix
1. Re-roll to hit rolls of 1. OR launch seeker/destroyer missiles at full BS
2. Ignore the benefits of cover. OR, ignore all movement penalties to BS
3. +1 BS OR Re-roll damage rolls of 1.

I also don't like drones being so vulnerable as a small supporting unit.
maybe -1 to hit if all the drones in the unit are within 3" of a battlesuit.

User avatar
Kakapo42
Shas'Vre
Posts: 881

Re: 8th Edition Rules, Mechanics and Concepts you don't like

Post#17 » Jun 26 2017 08:48

In truth I have been largely unimpressed with almost all of 8th edition's mechanics and concepts. However, for the sake of dialogue and in the interests of this thread, I will focus on just a few that especially stick out to me. As a quick disclaimer, I am largely influenced by (older) background lore and thematic elements over in-game actions, and this does affect a lot of my reasoning.

In terms of Tau specific mechanics, I think at the moment my biggest disappointment is how drones have been handled, in particular their new target selection rules. Since their inception one of the big aspects of Tau technology was that their AI and robotics were always a cut above the rest, second only to the Necrontyr in such areas. Thus, where Imperial AI controlled units like Tarantula sentry guns or the various kinds of Imperial robots had their tabletop actions dictated by strict algorithms, Tau drones were, if enough were networked together, able to operate completely autonomously with the freedom of a living unit, attacking whatever targets they were commanded to. This made sense to me.

Now, they have been saddled with the same 'can only shoot the closest target' rule that Imperial sentry guns had, which given their aforementioned AI sophistication doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps more worrisome than that however, is that I can't help but feel it's somewhat restrictive on their battlefield role. You see, going by background lore, with the exception of Shield Drones taking bullets for living troops has only ever been a secondary function of drones. Remember that in Tau doctrine, NO unit is truly expendable - they try to avoid drone losses as much as any other. Sure, if it comes down to the terrible choice of picking what doesn't return to the base in one piece after the battle, the Tau will prioritise living units over the drones, but they still don't see their main purpose as simply being there to die for others (aside, of course, from Shield Drones, which are specifically built to intercept and absorb incoming fire). Gun drone squadrons, for example, have always been used just as much as mobile strike elements, zooming along a flank to eliminate enemy manoeuvre elements or being dropped behind enemy lines on search and destroy missions or leading an advance into hostile territory (that third battlefield use even comes from the original Designer's Notes for the Tau). With these new rules for them, however, I can't help but feel like these major battlefield roles have been neglected in favour of pigeon-holing Drone Squadrons into the one-dimensional niche of bullet sponges.

Likewise, the new seeker missile rules also don't make a lot of sense to me. While I understand the idea of requiring a markerlight hit to use them at full effect (though I'm not sure why at least two are needed in all circumstances), firing them at the carrier's BS seems odd to me. According to background lore, unless a seeker missile (or one of its ilk) is being used in a dumb-launch, the carrying vehicle never has anything to do with their aiming - once the carrier gives consent to release (and not even that in older background), the seeker missile homes in on the markerlight beam using its own onboard automatic guidance system. The previous seeker missile rules that gave seeker missiles an independent BS of 5 (or had them hit on a flat 2+ in all circumstances, which was largely the same thing) was a good reflection of this. The current system of using the carrier vehicle's BS subject to modifiers, on the other hand... not so much. Again, seeker missiles and their ilk are supposed to be self-guiding towards markerlight returns, why would they be affected by the aiming abilities of the carrier vehicle's crew?

The current paradigm of plasma rifles now being worse in all respects to Imperial plasma guns instead of a lateral shift trading stopping power for reliability and operator safety also bothers me, but that's largely a consequence of making Gets Hot! optional on Imperial plasma weapons.

Pulse weapon stats are a similar bother for me. I understand why their AP characteristic was removed from a game design perspective, but it feels silly to me that a class of weapons that's always been touted as the last word in small arms firepower, described as "Punching through armour like a comet through a dust cloud" in the earliest Tau overviews and going through armour "with contemptuous ease" in the Tau section of the 8th edition rules indexes, has difficulty overcoming even the lightest and weakest infantry armour in the setting.

I also sorely miss JSJ. While the current 'move out of close combat without penalty' setup is a passable effort to emulate it, it ultimately falls flat for me. While the tactical opportunities it provided were considerable, the real brilliance of the Jetpack rule and JSJ ultimately was that it gave Tau players something to do in the Assault Phase (in Warhammer Fantasy the Anvil of Doom and to a lesser extent Runesmiths have a similar importance in giving Dwarf players something to do in the Magic Phase). In later editions Overwatch mitigated this value somewhat, but it only ever activated when charged which meant that it wasn't really an activity for Tau players when it came to their own Assault Phase. The JSJ paradigm, on the other hand, was a stroke of genius in this regard - not only did it make the Assault Phase useful for Tau players, it also allowed them to be proactive in the Assault Phase instead of only reacting to the opposing player's assaults, and in a fantastically subtle but important way; if the Movement Phase was one of the most tactically important, then turning the Assault Phase into a second Movement Phase would give a huge advantage to a Tau player... but only if they were able to make the fullest use of it. While the new system does consolidate all movement into one phase, it also leaves Tau players with very little use for the Assault Phase and, perhaps even more crucially, takes away a means for a Tau player to make some active key moves of their own in the Assault Phase, making the Tau more reactive instead of proactive on the table. Sure, you can deliberately charge a jetpack unit into an enemy and plan for them to get out of it next turn, but not only does that feel like an unnecessary risk to me, it also doesn't make a lot of sense to me from a background perspective - I don't think I've ever heard of Tau outside of the Farsight Enclaves voluntarily entering into close combat with an enemy before.

There are many things I dislike about the core rules (especially the morale system), but I feel like I've vented enough negativity for one day, so I will limit myself to one thing: templates. I deeply miss templates and the scatter die. The newer mechanics may elminate arguments, but it just feels so much more satisfying to drop a template on a big mass of enemy troops. I also like the visual spectacle of it more. You may scoff at such an irrational criticism, but it has had a noticeable effect on how much fun I've been having playing games.

Finally, as a Warhammer Fantasy die-hard I also find the AOS terminology creeping into 40k deeply irritating.
A Shas and a Kor walk into a bar...
Naked Metal

User avatar
Lechai Skull
Shas'Saal
Posts: 357

Re: 8th Edition Rules, Mechanics and Concepts you don't like

Post#18 » Jun 26 2017 09:06

Agree with all of the above, with the exception of templates. I'm still 50/50 on that.

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests