Chapter Approved

Despite all the insistence that ObSec was a gamechanger, I don't recall a single game in the entirety of 7th edition that was won because of Objective Secured.

I remember seeing a couple where the existence of the rule changed peoples' strategies, (I had one in particular that I almost lost because my grotbomb was forced to spread out and objective camp with their massive footprint) but I don't remember even one game where ObSec gave someone the victory.

Kantalla wrote:

Pile in is optional for each model, so can maintain the conga-line and pile in where practical to get maximum attacks back.

Does unit coherence have to be maintained while piling in?

Jimsolo wrote:

Despite all the insistence that ObSec was a gamechanger, I don't recall a single game in the entirety of 7th edition that was won because of Objective Secured.

Because pretty much everybody had troops, and for good reasons. In 7th edition, if you didn't bring any troops (if you managed to do that), you had to play without objectives, pretty much. And it's gonna be the same in 8th : you can field an army entirely made of FA/HS/elites, but you have to say "bye bye" to those sweet objectives.

krayd wrote:

Does unit coherence have to be maintained while piling in?

It does, but nothing stopping a Commissar bravely hiding behind the corner of a building, a conscript at maximum aura range, then a chain of at maximum coherency distance conscripts leading to the main blob almost on the other side of the table.

A rule to discourage that kind of arrangement would be excellent in my view.

Personally I won a tournament where the final game was a relic based mission and my opponent had a formation based army without obsec and I was able to pile my troops on the objective.

I like all these changes, but I do have one complaint: why does Seize the Initiative still exist?

It's a rule I've never liked but at least it used to serve a purpose.
- In 7th, you'd roll to see who went first before deployment. Then, once both players had deployed, you'd roll to seize the initiative - which could give a huge advantage to the player who deployed second.
- In 8th (before this change), you usually know who'll be going first based on the number of drops your respective armies have. However, since deployment became IGOUGO, it made less difference. However, it still served a purpose of a sort (as one or both players might still have deployed with the assumption that the person with fewer drops would go first).
- After this change, you roll to see who goes first and then roll again to see who really goes first. Why? What's the point? Could we not just have the single roll and go with that?

I thought seize still happened after deployment.

Jimsolo wrote:

I thought seize still happened after deployment.

Yeah, but after this change so does the roll to see who goes first.

Huh. Yeah, that doesn't make a ton of sense.

Completely agree that Seize is pointless with the new mechanic, and in fact dilutes the impact of the +1 to the roll (from a 16% advantage to 11%)!

People in this thread saying that ObSec didn't matter in 7th leave me scratching my head.

I don't think I've ever seen a game of 7th where Objectives mattered, let alone ObSec.

In fact, I don't believe I ever saw a game get to the tail end of turn 5 before one side or the other was utterly wiped out - except for the ones where both sides just stood around with 2++ rerollables and wailed uselessly on each other/glared at each other from across the table.
For all of 8th's lead-up talk of making things killier, I actually see games reach the tail end of turns 6/7 now. It's really very refreshing.

As for what ObSec will do for 8th... It'll probably make Conscripts even more powerful until they get around to nerfing them. (Hey, they've done it to flier-spam, birb-spam, and are gonna do it to brimstone-spam, with any luck conscript-spam is next)
After that it'll make the various marines more powerful, and make melee elements to uproot them necessary for most armies. Disintegrator cannons, great as they are, aren't exactly optimized for handling a bunch of dirt-cheap Raven Guard scouts with 2+ saves cover-camping an objective.

Oh, and the first-turn change is a pity. It removes some of the utility of being able to field a bunch of separate units inside a transport for us, and it makes the all-important Turn 1 more of a crapshoot. Deploying offensively or defensively depending on whether you're going first or second has always mattered more to us than to most other armies, and that's harder under the new rules.

Perhaps a good way to tone down conscripts would be to prevent them from capturing objectives altogether?

@ shredder Love that idea. They are just a bunch of conscripts, no experience, no idea what they are doing. I love it. And would I think put them right where they should be, a massive roadblock, with some damage if orders are well used. But not good enough to win games by themselves.

@ mynameislegend I really like the new mechanic. It means it is not predetermined who is first. I think the problems stem more that right now some armies rely on dealing so much damage turn 1 that you fight an uphill battle. Which is what should be adressed which means the game is determined on who gets the first turn. This is what's the problem not that it is unsure who has that first hit.

The Shredder wrote:

Perhaps a good way to tone down conscripts would be to prevent them from capturing objectives altogether?

IMO this would go against the spirit of the IG : holding the line while losing hundreds of thousands of worthless lives.
Conscripts should be able to hold an objective. That's the only thing they shoot be able to do : putting their sorry bums on an objective until they die. The problem is that they can kill things...

I would nerf the conscripts with this tiny twist : Conscripts don't block you from shooting a nearby Character.

Mppqlmd wrote:

The Shredder wrote:

Perhaps a good way to tone down conscripts would be to prevent them from capturing objectives altogether?

IMO this would go against the spirit of the IG : holding the line while losing hundreds of thousands of worthless lives.
Conscripts should be able to hold an objective. That's the only thing they shoot be able to do : putting their sorry bums on an objective until they die. The problem is that they can kill things...

I would nerf the conscripts with this tiny twist : Conscripts don't block you from shooting a nearby Character.

I agree with your premise but not with your solution. If Scarabs can hide a Catacomb Command Barge then there's no reason why conscripts shouldn't be able to hide a Company Commander or Commissar.

What if you instead made them unable to receive Orders (to represent their lack of training/discipline)?

The Shredder wrote:

I agree with your premise but not with your solution. If Scarabs can hide a Catacomb Command Barge then there's no reason why conscripts shouldn't be able to hide a Company Commander or Commissar.

What if you instead made them unable to receive Orders (to represent their lack of training/discipline)?

Well, Scarabs shouldn't be able to hide a Command Barge (that should have at least 10 HP. Look at that thing...).

Preventing them from receiving orders could work as well.

But i prefer my solution. Yours is a nerf to their efficiency, while mine is instead creating more windows for counterplay (remove the HQ, and thus increase their vulnerability to moral checks). In game design, i think emphathizing counterplay is better than downright nerfing.

Mppqlmd wrote:

Well, Scarabs shouldn't be able to hide a Command Barge (that should have at least 10 HP. Look at that thing...).

Oh, I agree. Same with Girlyman being hidden by normal marines. Or a daemon prince being hidden by cultists.

Mppqlmd wrote:

But i prefer my solution. Yours is a nerf to their efficiency, while mine is instead creating more windows for counterplay (remove the HQ, and thus increase their vulnerability to moral checks). In game design, i think emphathizing counterplay is better than downright nerfing.

I have two counterpoints:

1) This seems to lack verisimilitude. There's no logical reason why guardsmen can conceal an HQ but Conscripts can't. The two are basically identical in appearance. It also flies in the face of the rules for characters set out by the game. What is it about this one specific unit that makes them unable to hide characters?

2) This doesn't create windows for counterplay - it just makes the unit nonfunctional. Conscripts need a Commissar nearby to stop them getting obliterated by morale. Most also want a Commander of some description for FRFSRK and also Get Back in the Fight! to prevent them for being locked down by combat for the rest of the game. If your opponent can freely shoot these characters (unlike every other character in the game), then it just makes the unit pointless.

I get what you're trying to do but if you're aiming to create windows for counterplay than there has to be some tactical depth to them on the opponent's side as well. Simply giving them free reign to shoot at the most fragile support characters in game doesn't do this - it just gives every opponent a perfect counter to the unit that requires no thought or tactics.

I know. And the question rises : can there be a balanced state for such a unit, or will they always be either lackluster or overpowered ?

I think the best thing GW can do to counter the brimstone/conscript meta is rehabilitate blasts, or make them shoot an amount of attacks depending on the target's numbers.

They could, for example, create a "Horde" keyword, that doubles the amount of shots the unit receives from weapons that deal a random amount of shots.

Mppqlmd wrote:

I know. And the question rises : can there be a balanced state for such a unit, or will they always be either lackluster or overpowered ?

That's an interesting point.

I think part of the issue is when you have such low prices. At 3pts per model, even a 1pt increase is adding 33% to their cost.

Mppqlmd wrote:

I think the best thing GW can do to counter the brimstone/conscript meta is rehabilitate blasts, or make them shoot an amount of attacks depending on the target's numbers.

They could, for example, create a "Horde" keyword, that doubles the amount of shots the unit receives from weapons that deal a random amount of shots.

Alternatively, Blasts and Flamers could have a fixed number of shots that increases with squad size. e.g.:
Small Blasts: 1 shot +1 additional shot per 5 models (to a maximum of +2)
Flamers: 2 hits + 1 additional hit per 5 models (to a maximum of +3)
Large Blasts: 2 shots +2 additional shots per 5 models (to a maximum of +8 )

I don't know, something like that.


Regarding Conscripts, another possibility would be to reduce the effectiveness of Commissars with them - e.g. they could reduce Ld casualties to d6 instead of 1.

Quote :

I think part of the issue is when you have such low prices. At 3pts per model, even a 1pt increase is adding 33% to their cost.

Absolutly. It's always a problem with low-value entries, and even more now that you wound everything on a 6.

The Shredder wrote:

Mppqlmd wrote:

I know. And the question rises : can there be a balanced state for such a unit, or will they always be either lackluster or overpowered ?

That's an interesting point.

I think part of the issue is when you have such low prices. At 3pts per model, even a 1pt increase is adding 33% to their cost.

Mppqlmd wrote:

I think the best thing GW can do to counter the brimstone/conscript meta is rehabilitate blasts, or make them shoot an amount of attacks depending on the target's numbers.

They could, for example, create a "Horde" keyword, that doubles the amount of shots the unit receives from weapons that deal a random amount of shots.

Alternatively, Blasts and Flamers could have a fixed number of shots that increases with squad size. e.g.:
Small Blasts: 1 shot +1 additional shot per 5 models (to a maximum of +2)
Flamers: 2 hits + 1 additional hit per 5 models (to a maximum of +3)
Large Blasts: 2 shots +2 additional shots per 5 models (to a maximum of +8 )

I don't know, something like that.


Regarding Conscripts, another possibility would be to reduce the effectiveness of Commissars with them - e.g. they could reduce Ld casualties to d6 instead of 1.

The problem with creating individual weapon rules is you are adding another level of complex rules to an already complex game. I think adding a point is a good option is making all shooting attacks hit on 6+. Conscripts have no formal training whatsoever, with this in mind they should not be able to hit anything except by random chance which I think this rule would show. Maybe even not allowing Overwatch with the unit.

Lord Nakariial wrote:

The problem with creating individual weapon rules is you are adding another level of complex rules to an already complex game. I think adding a point is a good option is making all shooting attacks hit on 6+. Conscripts have no formal training whatsoever, with this in mind they should not be able to hit anything except by random chance which I think this rule would show. Maybe even not allowing Overwatch with the unit.

How about something like:

Untrained and Unruly - Conscripts lack the discipline of their more experienced brethren, and are more difficult for their commanding officers to control. Only half of the models in a unit of Conscripts (rounding down) may fire overwatch. Also, Conscripts cannot be targeted by Voice of Command.

Quote :

The problem with creating individual weapon rules is you are adding another level of complex rules to an already complex game. I think adding a point is a good option is making all shooting attacks hit on 6+. Conscripts have no formal training whatsoever, with this in mind they should not be able to hit anything except by random chance which I think this rule would show. Maybe even not allowing Overwatch with the unit.

But then, you're only nerfing conscripts.
Currently it's not conscripts that are a problem, it's the fact that the game doesn't punish armies that field 350 models in a 1750pts game.
I would be a big fan of a new blast/template system, that would give a number of shots/hits depending on the size of the enemy army.
It wouldn't be inividual weapons rules, it would become weapon archetypes (like pistols), and would be very simple. The suggestion made by Shredder is very balanced, and would create a weakness for conscripts, brimstone, even orks.

Remember : creating counterplay is always better than nerfing. Right now hordes lack counterplay.

Lord Nakariial wrote:

The problem with creating individual weapon rules is you are adding another level of complex rules to an already complex game.

I don't think you can call 8th edition 40k 'complex' with a straight face.

Regardless, would it really complicate things that much?

Lord Nakariial wrote:

I think adding a point is a good option is making all shooting attacks hit on 6+.

I have no clue what you're trying to say here.

Lord Nakariial wrote:

Maybe even not allowing Overwatch with the unit.

Well, that would at least save some time.

@Shredder, all shooting attacks from the unit only hit on a 6.

And fair call Mppqlmd, it was late and I presumed that each individual weapon would need to be assessed and given a varient of the rule to match its overall strength. But basing it on the actual keyword makes a lot more sense

Lord Nakariial wrote:

@Shredder, all shooting attacks from the unit only hit on a 6.

Ah.

It might be a weird if Conscripts were actually worse at shooting than Orks.


That said, I'm now trying to come up with a rule wherein conscripts 'accidentally' shoot themselves in the foot.