tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post6114132859922576471..comments2024-02-16T18:32:38.635-05:00Comments on The Back 40K: 8th Edition Impressions: Core RulesFarmpunkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09622091234212120598noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-77995330508679430172017-11-29T13:16:26.219-05:002017-11-29T13:16:26.219-05:00That's a really bad way to play Maelstrom. The...That's a really bad way to play Maelstrom. There's two better ways to play Maelstrom: (1) Build your army to cover objectives. You need both units to smash the other army, and units to hang around near objectives, and of those you need objective holders and objective takers. (2) Build your army to re-deploy. You need units that move fast, fly, or both, and a big distraction like a Knight or a Super-heavy Tank. <br /><br />Essentially you're not at the mercy of the draw in Maelstrom unless you're stupid enough to ignore how the scoring works when you build your army. I personally prefer a mix of Maelstrom and Eternal War because how it hybridizes ongoing and final scoring. Nurglitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03333941626425462180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-56227701652404419742017-07-17T09:48:26.289-04:002017-07-17T09:48:26.289-04:00Yeah, the tactical objectives bring a "new dy...Yeah, the tactical objectives bring a "new dynamic" to the game, but that's only perceived as a good thing because the base rules aren't complex/interesting enough to maintain long-term interest without another random-LOLsie layer thrown on top. It's a lazy solution to a deeper design problem, and it hobbles real competitive play.<br /><br />Imagine, if you will, that objectives could only be placed in your deployment zone, and that capturing ANY of the other player's objectives automatically won you the game. The game then becomes an interesting contest. You have to keep him away from your objectives, while trying to get to his. There's a back-and-forth to the game as you attempt to execute the strategy you chose, and see whether you can pull it off. Which involves having to actually move around and thing about what you're doing.<br /><br />But not in 8th. Because the "tactical objectives" are constantly moving the goal posts around, you can't really plan ahead. So you grab the objectives closest to you and hope that you draw the card that give you points for them. If the other guy gets a better draw? Sorry about your luck. Even all-but tabling them can still leave you a few points down with a loss.<br /><br />This is the kind of BS that will keep me playing casual-only for the foreseeable future. In casual play you can just make up any rule you want to fix the stupid. Like area terrain blocking LoS so that moving around is required during the game.SandWyrmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334440208172563850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-40917976408951866172017-07-17T07:41:07.367-04:002017-07-17T07:41:07.367-04:00Tactical Objectives have been a thing since 7th ed...Tactical Objectives have been a thing since 7th ed, I believe. The NOVA and ITC missions are actually mutations of GW's system called Maelstrom of War. They're quite fun, bringing a new dynamic to the game where new mission objectives (capture objective X, kill 3 units etc) pop up as the game rolls on. Lord Mantonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04803648285830846199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-87478459769497645352017-06-27T17:15:19.508-04:002017-06-27T17:15:19.508-04:00Interesting. Well, I hope they pull out of this an...Interesting. Well, I hope they pull out of this and fix Flames, however long it takes. Thanks for letting me pick your brains like this!Pcm979https://www.blogger.com/profile/00641595121349208069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-85104394078852421592017-06-25T18:51:16.982-04:002017-06-25T18:51:16.982-04:00How much real trouble are they in? Who knows. They...How much real trouble are they in? Who knows. They're a private company. <br /><br />They are getting more diversified over time. Besides Flames, TANKS!, Team Yankee, and their other miniatures games, they've been putting out some good licensed board games like Firefly and Sons of Anarchy. I'll make a guess that the board games are their real cash cow right now, based on how they've focused exclusively on them for years now at GenCon. In that respect, they're in a healthier product position than GW, which pretty much depends on 40K for the vast majority of its sales.<br /><br />But buying Dust was also a part of that push to diversify, and it exploded in their face because they didn't do their due-diligence prior to the acquisition. I assume that they're carrying a debt load right now because of that, and that's probably what's hobbling their ability to expand and mature their supply chain. Which isn't a death sentence, but then they went and designed a version of Flames that depends on new stuff being delivered through that supply chain, instead of making it work out of the box with their existing product lines. <br /><br />Why? Because Team Yankee sold far better than expected. So they made Flames more like Team Yankee, without considering their logistical constraints first. If you order something from GW, you get it in a few days. But orders from Battlefront will routinely take 3-6 months to get to you from Indonesia. Our FLGS has back-orders for Flames stuff that hasn't been delivered for most of a year. And that was before 4th Edition hit.SandWyrmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334440208172563850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-75052060501344143152017-06-25T05:55:16.103-04:002017-06-25T05:55:16.103-04:00Yikes. So, they have bad rules designed to justify...Yikes. So, they have bad rules designed to justify the existence of products that they can't even make or ship, and they don't have enough money to fix their production line, and they can't earn money from things they can't produce... That's one heck of a vicious cycle.<br /><br />How much trouble are they in? It sounds like even a great set of rules would only bandage that flesh wound. On a business level, are they diversified enough to lean on their other products while they sort this out?Pcm979https://www.blogger.com/profile/00641595121349208069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-25169482636827652332017-06-24T01:07:19.456-04:002017-06-24T01:07:19.456-04:00I don't think there's any chance of Battle...I don't think there's any chance of Battlefront salvaging Flames short of an immediate admission of their error, and an announcement of a "4.5" or 5th edition that will fix most of the current problems. <br /><br />As far as points, their old system used 5-point increments on everything, so 1000 points in the old system could easily reduced to 200 with zero effect on granularity. A 1500 point game under the old system would thus be 300 points. Instead of trying to cram similar-sized forces into an X-Wing like 75-100 point range.<br /><br />I do like the new detachment system, to a degree. But it needs more polish.<br /><br />As far as gameplay, they need to restore the old movement phase rules (keeping the new American Tank Destroyer fixes). There are some positives in 5th as far as how artillery now works. But the random movement BS is only there to sell cards that Battlefront can't reasonably deliver to us because of their gimpy logistics situation. <br /><br />The company is simply stretched too tight, and I think that they blew a lot of money on the Dust Kickstarter debacle, and the sentimental purchase of Wargames Illustrated, that they really needed to instead invest in a faster shift to plastics (so they wouldn't be 3-4 years behind competitors), and a more robust worldwide logistics system. <br /><br />Making everything in Indonesia simply isn't working. Even before TANKS!, Team Yankee, and the new cards, they were FAR behind on their shipments of existing Flames of War items. It's time for BF to start investing in US/UK production plants, but I don't think they have the cash to do that.<br /><br />If you can't deliver what people need to play your game in the first week, then don't bother. Right now, game system problems aside, I have every reason NOT to play Mid-War, my favorite period, because they haven't delivered all of the cards and plastic sets needed to play it. It's frustrating instead of exciting. Why they would set themselves up for failure like that bewilders me, and I can only assume that they did it out of a desperate need for new players and new sales. Because 3rd Edition, in terms of player growth, was flat. Though much of that can be attributed to a few GW-like moves such as trying (and failing) to force tournament players to buy only BF models. SandWyrmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334440208172563850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-63224023692256559502017-06-23T18:27:05.899-04:002017-06-23T18:27:05.899-04:00Thanks, that's exactly the sort of thing I was...Thanks, that's exactly the sort of thing I was hoping for!<br /><br />Do you think there's any chance of them salvaging this edition, or is it done for until they make a 5th? Meanwhile, I hope 40k 8th avoids falling into the same 'card rules creep' trap you mentioned...Pcm979https://www.blogger.com/profile/00641595121349208069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-66440267623838820422017-06-22T22:12:40.694-04:002017-06-22T22:12:40.694-04:00Yeah... I've been avoiding that one because it...Yeah... I've been avoiding that one because it's complex, and I didn't want to be posting only negative stuff when there was nothing else encouraging to talk about. Maybe I'll get around to it eventually (my next 40K piece has been held up by my basement having flooded on Father's Day). But basically Flames has the following major problems:<br /><br />1) Battlefront wants to shift to a card-based rules system, like GW has with 8th Edition. Presumably because model sales are down and they want to sell us cards now. So Mid-War has moved to cards-only. While late-war is now a mess of old and new rules that need proper updating with new books. There is literally one rulebook for early/late war, and a another rulebook for mid-war with lots of small annoying differences.<br /><br />2) Because of the desire to sell cards, they moved a lot of rules to the cards and out of the book. The first problem with this is that they added needless random complexity and multiple stats to the movement phase (to justify the cards). <br /><br />3) All fast units (Jeeps, Motorcycles, Pumas) got nerfed hard. So bye-bye to the kind of fast-moving lists that I prefer to run. A scout car is only 2" faster than a tank, and with the random rolling for movement orders, the tank could actually move faster in a given turn. Infantry now moves 8" to a tank's 10", and a scout car or jeep's 12". Add in the rolls for an additional 4" of movement, and Infantry can easily run down vehicles. <br /><br />4) Since the 4th Edition version of Stormtrooper requires a German unit to first pass an order in the movement phase, you only have a 44% chance of success instead of the old 66% chance. This is just one example of how national differences are less distinct than they were. The game is less "bad" than just plain boring to me. It's Candyland with tanks now.<br /><br />5) Their new mid-war points system is similar to 8th Edition 40K's casual "power levels", but without a detailed points system for competitive play. Play-testers have been coming out and saying that they screamed to Battlefront that the new points system sucked, but were ignored.<br /><br />6) For all of the game's dependence on the new cards, Battlefront has failed to ship their promised card-packs (typical logistics failure for them). When some card packs did arrive at the local store, we honestly couldn't figure out what they were for, as they were a mix of what looked like strategems, X-Wing style upgrades, and a few cards here and there that listed stats, or point costs for units, but not both. That's when I officially bailed and started watching the 8th Edition 40K games instead.<br /><br />7) The missions, and the competitive scoring system, still suck.<br /><br />8) The Flames players I know all admit that 4th sucks, and isn't that fun, but are still playing because they like the community. I understand that feeling, but we all know how that worked out for 6th Edition 40K in the long-term. The short of it is that Flames, the game, is no longer worth my time and money.<br /><br />8th Edition 40K though? It's fun. Flawed, but fun.<br /><br />SandWyrmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334440208172563850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-18064942642318619852017-06-21T15:17:03.381-04:002017-06-21T15:17:03.381-04:00I love reading your rules analyses, they're al...I love reading your rules analyses, they're always very instructive. Is there any chance you could post something about how Flames of War went wrong?Pcm979https://www.blogger.com/profile/00641595121349208069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-7809694090042827742017-06-20T14:12:04.545-04:002017-06-20T14:12:04.545-04:00Noted.Noted.SandWyrmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334440208172563850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-65243119547229059102017-06-20T14:11:29.902-04:002017-06-20T14:11:29.902-04:00Ah, fair enough. It's on page 179 under "...Ah, fair enough. It's on page 179 under "Choose Targets". I missed it on my first read-though.SandWyrmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334440208172563850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-23554271288070372072017-06-20T14:08:24.815-04:002017-06-20T14:08:24.815-04:00What I'm hearing from those who've played ...What I'm hearing from those who've played 8th more than me is that unit choice isn't as critical as it used to be, and that very few units are useless anymore.<br /><br />I'll weigh-in on that properly once I've played some more games.SandWyrmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334440208172563850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-61701858014895748992017-06-20T14:06:50.086-04:002017-06-20T14:06:50.086-04:00You're irked over an apostrophe? Have you seen...You're irked over an apostrophe? Have you seen what they did to the Guard and Eldar names? :PSandWyrmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334440208172563850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-20354625414034919542017-06-19T18:20:10.330-04:002017-06-19T18:20:10.330-04:00When they realised calling a race after one of the...When they realised calling a race after one of the world's oldest religions wasn't a good (i.e. copyrightable) idea...Koronahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250234754318025124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-47556378561410629682017-06-18T20:42:55.711-04:002017-06-18T20:42:55.711-04:00I just want to know when the hell Tau became T'...I just want to know when the hell Tau became T'au. Was there a Goa'uld infestation at GW?<br /><br />Anyway. Biting the bullet and doing a reset was a good call. I think they didn't go far enough though. To much trash in the game. Units needed to be paired down and consolidated. Vanilla Space Marines have 14 HQ choices, not counting special characters. That's a lot of entries for an angry bald dude with a bolt pistol and a sword.<br /><br />There's potential here. I'm willing to pay some games. The real test is what happens when they start releasing new codexes.CaulynDarrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14556761303500891267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-44067376065710913722017-06-18T09:04:12.948-04:002017-06-18T09:04:12.948-04:00Overall from reading just the free core rules down...Overall from reading just the free core rules download, to me it looks just like old 40K with some marginal changes. Certainly not an adult game. 40K has long be a game about Strategics and not Tactics. Find the optimally priced units and spam your way to victory. Probably not fair to the really talented players but you could be it in the way people talked about the game spending almost all the time talking about units selection and very little about table top choices. eriochromehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10377904099582258296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-33737771681543508672017-06-18T08:38:20.145-04:002017-06-18T08:38:20.145-04:00For shooting it says to get down at the table leve...For shooting it says to get down at the table level and look to see if you see any part of the target so that is TLOS to anything (weapons, wings, flags).eriochromehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10377904099582258296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-5651606294425052442017-06-18T08:34:42.284-04:002017-06-18T08:34:42.284-04:00Units that fallback cannot shoot according to the ...Units that fallback cannot shoot according to the fallback rules unless they are a flyer.eriochromehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10377904099582258296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-68735392901522606232017-06-18T00:52:28.325-04:002017-06-18T00:52:28.325-04:00To add more... There is nothing in the rules that ...To add more... There is nothing in the rules that says that I unit I can't see, from the model's view, with my eye or a laser pointer, can't be shot at. If a Guard infantry unit is completely behind a 4" high hill or building, can I shoot at them? Strictly speaking, the rules don't say. It's a gaping hole in what is otherwise a fairly well thought-out system.SandWyrmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334440208172563850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-48571679132060093642017-06-18T00:48:31.302-04:002017-06-18T00:48:31.302-04:00You're correct, but that only applies to units...You're correct, but that only applies to units in regards to whether or not they are completely within terrain features (they have to be completely within for cover). There are no rules that I can see for determining cover for a unit that is... say... behind a terrain feature instead of in front of it.<br /><br />A good example would be a unit that is behind a wood or area of rubble. Are they in cover? I would say so, but there is no actual rule that covers that situation. Just as there is no rule for determining if a model peaking over a hill is in cover or not.SandWyrmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334440208172563850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4519319818452068646.post-51394791310409010362017-06-17T23:39:51.428-04:002017-06-17T23:39:51.428-04:00Cover is mentioned on a sidebar (of page 7 in the ...Cover is mentioned on a sidebar (of page 7 in the PDF) of the core rules - its the page that starts with resolving attacks.Corvakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16086364709321464287noreply@blogger.com