10296
Post by: Casper
Ok this idea came to me a few days ago and its started to bother me.
GW seems to be streamlining all the armies with new HQ choices that greatly change the FOC.
SM, Orks, and now IG and Necrons (potentailly) will all have armies whose HQ's can change the FOC.
Armies like Deamons, Eldar and CSM have powerful HQ's with tons of options (bikes, insane psychic powers, etc. that make up for this)
Deamon Hunters and Witch hunters can be added as allies so I dont worry too much about them.
However Tau and Nids seem to not be able to fit in this mold (not sure about DE). Nids and DE seem to be able to either evolve or potentailly fit into one of the molds if they can be done correctly. (dont know enough about nids either honestly). Tau I seem to feel are either getting abandoned or something. I just cant seem them adding more special characters to tau due to fuff and i can't see FOC changes occuring either.
So Why is GW seeming to favor all of these new FOC changing characters? Is it that they are ultimatly trying to expand the customability of each army? OR is it something else? (such as who's HQ can do the most outrageous stuff/have best stats will win the day for you?)
(sorry if this makes little since or is really confusing)
3936
Post by: Pariah Press
What you describe is not Herohammer. Herohammer is when the rules are arranged in such a way that a single character can tromp multiple units all by himself. See: 40K 2nd ed and WHFB 5th ed for examples.
131
Post by: malfred
They're seeing the advantages that games like AT-43 and Warmachine both use. In place
of trying to balance complete customizability and the horror of non-viable options, they
have archetypes based on characters and army types.
I see it as their way of rewarding players for a thematic army, or trying to at least, without
unbalancing the game. So instead of every Imperial Guard /Space Marine army taking
specific doctrines, you're going to have spend x number of points on character y. In
compensation you get to change rule z.
Players have to just let it go that a special character is that character all the time
and only one exists in their universe. It's not like people didn't kit out their HQs in similar
fashions throughout armies anyway (how many heroic Junior officers can there possibly
be out there?).
9454
Post by: Mattlov
malfred wrote:...how many heroic Junior officers can there possibly be out there?
Considering the amount of Guardsmen in 40K, there could be millions of them...
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
Tau I seem to feel are either getting abandoned or something.
They better not. After all the money I wasted on this game...people would die.
131
Post by: malfred
Mattlov wrote:malfred wrote:...how many heroic Junior officers can there possibly be out there?
Considering the amount of Guardsmen in 40K, there could be millions of them...
But it's like that's all there is!
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Modifying an army by addition of special HQ characters is a great way of making different style builds from the same basic codex.
I see no reason why Tau can't have special characters -- they already have Space Pope, Shadowsun and Farsight -- but the next Tau codex is probably two years off. The current codex was written before GW had the idea of characters modifying army status.
Nids can easily be varified through different evolutionary paths or swarm queens or something. It won't be name characters but it will give the same kind of benefits.
7531
Post by: groz
Good discussion.
Pariah Press wrote:Herohammer is when the rules are arranged in such a way that a single character can tromp multiple units all by himself.
Agreed.
Casper wrote:Is it that they are ultimatly trying to expand the customability of each army?
I think GW is trying to enhance customization, specifically because we've seen GW abandon one-man-army heroes in Warhammer Fantasy Battle.
Casper wrote:Armies like Deamons, Eldar and CSM have powerful HQ's with tons of options (bikes, insane psychic powers, etc. that make up for this)
Eldar Phoenix Lords are, in my opinion, the nascent incarnation of this style of HQ choice, but CSM HQ's are still just old-fashioned tough guys, with the exception of Fabius Bile's ability to grant Enhanced Warrior.
Casper wrote:Tau and Nids seem to not be able to fit in this mold
This will change when the codexes are updated, unless GW totally changes their course. (always a possibility)
malfred wrote:They're seeing the advantages that games like AT-43 and Warmachine both use.
I haven't played AT-43, and I agree that the army-altering hero is a direct inheritance (politely worded) from Warmachine. And it's a concept that I love. I can't wait to see Tyranid HQ's who grant Rending to all troops, Imperial Guard HQ's who grant Sharpshooter, or Tau commanders who grant Vulkan-like twin-linked for all guns...
131
Post by: malfred
Each army book in AT-43 offers three army platoon patterns. Each pattern has its own
costs for various units in the army plus some ability for using that platoon. Apparently the
Frostbite expansion offered two new platoon patterns for the various armies, but I
haven't seen it yet.
Still have yet to play a game, though 
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Tau already fit the bill, the farsight enclave only exists with farsight altering your army composition. The tyranids and necrons should really be the only forces that are not based on special character derivations. Firstly, because they don't have special characters that are members of their army (the tyranids have none at all as it should be and the C'Tan aren't necrons. They are the necrons gods.), and secondly because their leader units are not generals in a typical sense. The hive tyrant directs troops within his segment of the hive mind, but his entire force is bred for a very specific task, and he himself has no say in what that task is or how it is accomplished. Necrons lords are questionably sentient and basically just wake up and use what they have. They don't alter the makeup of their force to fulfill a purpose, they just use what they've got. Hence necrons not being customizable at all and nearly every tyranid being very customizable.
Every other army could well have its force org based on its commanding character (I think the orks best accomplished this, though a boss on a bike should have just allowed you to take bike troops, rather than forcing wazdakka). The specialities of the general make the force what it is, and the previous doctrine style of accomplishing this was very difficult to track and understand for people that didn't own your codex.
It just works better.
161
Post by: syr8766
Agree with Malfred. I think it's a direct result of looking at games like Warmachine; changing one character alters the entire play style for the army. Likewise, a special character gives the army a real theme that has an in-game effect and isn't just, say, an over-priced Captain with a power fist, or exarch, or whatever. You saw a little of this in the last ed. SM codex, especially with Tiberius, Shrike and the Imperial Fists character who's name is escaping me. Schaeffer in the IG codex was probably the next closest thing.
While on a certain level it's irritating to see that Eldrad has gotten a lot busier since he died, it does give a purpose to ind. characters who before were just overpriced HQs that didn't do a whole lot for you (C'tan and similar excluded), and armies were tending toward 'cookie cutter'. I don't think 40k will EVER get away from cookie cutter until they completely redo the game design from the ground up, but this is a pretty effective 'patch' on that issue.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
I don't know about special rules, but the Grey Knight Grand Master packs enough brute force to take on 20+ enemies at once on a good day. Everything else in my GKs just feels like extra.
466
Post by: skkipper
i can make you some labels to put on the special charater names.
like
"generic super cool leader that lets you do things that you couldn't normally do due to his cunning. he isn't one of a kind just special in a special way."
8311
Post by: Target
Eldar phoenix lords may have the original idea or concept for this, but they sure don't accomplish it.
Each only affects their own aspect, and only the one squad of their aspect they're bought for. In addition, the only thing they do for said aspect is: make it fearless.
Not much of an army customizing there. None of the eldar Hq's do this. The first army to really do this (IMO) was CSM (just a little bit) and then Orks ran with it hardcore.
5245
Post by: Buzzsaw
ShumaGorath wrote:Tau already fit the bill, the farsight enclave only exists with farsight altering your army composition. The tyranids and necrons should really be the only forces that are not based on special character derivations. Firstly, because they don't have special characters that are members of their army (the tyranids have none at all as it should be and the C'Tan aren't necrons. They are the necrons gods.), and secondly because their leader units are not generals in a typical sense. The hive tyrant directs troops within his segment of the hive mind, but his entire force is bred for a very specific task, and he himself has no say in what that task is or how it is accomplished. Necrons lords are questionably sentient and basically just wake up and use what they have. They don't alter the makeup of their force to fulfill a purpose, they just use what they've got. Hence necrons not being customizable at all and nearly every tyranid being very customizable.
Every other army could well have its force org based on its commanding character (I think the orks best accomplished this, though a boss on a bike should have just allowed you to take bike troops, rather than forcing wazdakka). The specialities of the general make the force what it is, and the previous doctrine style of accomplishing this was very difficult to track and understand for people that didn't own your codex.
It just works better.
I dunno about your objection to Tyranids and Necrons: you have to get away from the idea that the commander on the ground is the ultimate commander. A tyranid force could easily be conceptualized as a specialized detachment dispatched by the hive mind; a "hunter-killer" focused force could involve taking a specific type of tyrant, which, say, gave the rest of the force leaping, or made raveners cheaper or able to take objectives or whatnot. Oooh, just imagine being able to take a genestealer cult army, with the ability to field magi and other abandoned archetypes...
Similarly, it's easy to imagine Necron Lords purpose tasked for their duties: a fabricator lord deep in the tombs making sure everything is properly maintained (gotta have some pretty good QC to keep sufficiently advanced tech working over countless eons...), Genocide Lords tasked with overseeing culls of unarmed sentients, Military Lords designed for destroying armed targets, Lords tasked with monitoring and analyzing data (they have a galaxy-wide empire, presumably the C'tan don't crunch all the numbers themselves... actually, given the fluff, it's doubtfull the C'tan crunch anything but victims) and so on.
Mmmm, Platinum-tier Genocide Lord. Now that's a special character name...
734
Post by: Dal'yth Dude
The only thing Farsight does in "customizing" an army is throw restrictions on it and allow a larger retinue. It isn't like it allows Fire Warriors to take heavy gun drones in their squads, give units fleet, allow rerolls for shooting or whatever else you can think of. With the rule changes in 5th a Farsight list is arguably harder to play than any time since 3rd edition.
I've never seen Space Pope on the board and Shadowsun's special rules are tied to her wargear, which prevent her from joining a unit.
I'd be curious to see how special characters will change Tau given the strict conformity the army units in the list in general are. Besides in 2 years, GW will probably have something else to take from Rackham or PP and abandon the current practice.
Edit: removed redundant word
4921
Post by: Kallbrand
If by herohammer you mean a single HQ will run crazy and wreck everything I think not but it has moved very much to having single units dominating the whole battle field.
The dual ork nob biker army is pretty much what hero hammer was except the unit isnt a hero nowday but a super powerful unit that takes up half of your army. Seer council is abit of the same and so are some of the SM configurations.
Unfortunently there are many armies that dont have the possibilty to do this or even have very much to put up any effective defence against it without specialising its army so bad it will be close to useless against other builds.
So all in all I would say its herohammer all over.
10296
Post by: Casper
@ Pariah Press thank you for clearing up my wrong definition.
I agree with Dal'yth Dude - tau really can't be put into this mold due to their strict army structure. I have never seen anyone play a tau special character because they either dont work well (shadowsun), are too restricting/difficult (farseight - unless apoc), and no idea on the space pope (perhaps not as useful as he should be)?
Thanks guys on how Nids and Necrons could be updated. I'm still trying to rap my head around the new idea of changeable FOC.
I always thought phoenix lords should have been squad upgrades with better stats (but lower than current ones who needs BS 7 anyway?).
Keep up the good discussion.
581
Post by: Grimaldi
I think I'd agree that the game is certainly drifting to more use of special characters, and those characters are significantly more powerful than regular HQ leaders you can purchase/construct yourself, and I hate it.
I feel like I'm playing magic the gathering or something, where people pick a few powerful cards (Marneus Calgar, Pedro) and supporting stuff to make a deck. I want to fight against space marines, not marines with infinitely mutable rule types and weird ability enhancing bubbles.
As far as "Herohammer" itself, try to rumble with the aforementioned Calgar and let me know how it goes.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
(IMHO)It seems the Defining HQs are a part of (dumbing down) making the game more playable for the kids. By not expecting them to try to learn and exploit every rule in order to build an effective theme. It is hoped this streamlining will bring in more new players. I've got no prob with a little streamilining(eventually more available games) as long as it doesn't go to far.
As to how they would do this with the Tau. I think there are already hints in the rulebook and in the apoc book. The crisis suit configuration patterns; FireKnife, Helios, Deathrain, Ect.... they are showing will probalby get bonuses with a themed commander. There will probably be improvement with a corresponding restriction in flexibility(wargear options). Maybe the Tau will finally get effective special characters, Something as potent as Eldrad, Yriel, Gazkull, or any of a dozen other special characters that actually increase the offensive capability of their respective armies.
As to the existing Special Characters only one has a purpose beyond Giving the Tau better leadership and thats Farsight. And even then he's good but doesn't give tangible army wide improvement in any useful way.
IMHO Shadowsun is for stabilizing a gun line which is ok if you run a static army. Shes pretty good at taking out space marines once thay get close to your lines but if you run her out front the stealth field is worthless. Some one will see her and shoot her up or charge her.
I have the Space pope because its a cool model for an eventual Diarama, and from a collection point of view, nothing more. Maybe someday I will become such an awsome player that I can throw away 205 pts on an leader that has no offensive capability but I'm not that good now.
Good thread Casper
Edited for spelling and clarification
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Casper wrote:@ Pariah Press thank you for clearing up my wrong definition.
I agree with Dal'yth Dude - tau really can't be put into this mold due to their strict army structure. I have never seen anyone play a tau special character because they either dont work well (shadowsun), are too restricting/difficult (farseight - unless apoc), and no idea on the space pope (perhaps not as useful as he should be)?
Thanks guys on how Nids and Necrons could be updated. I'm still trying to rap my head around the new idea of changeable FOC.
I always thought phoenix lords should have been squad upgrades with better stats (but lower than current ones who needs BS 7 anyway?).
Keep up the good discussion.
Didn't Torgoch play Farsight Gundam Wing Tau at a UK GT heat?
I agree that the Tau characters don't fit the current specification of 'special'. That's because they were written three years ago.
734
Post by: Dal'yth Dude
I believe he did in the first or second heat. I went to look to see where he placed and couldn't find anything but product on the GW site.
As of Oct 31, Torgoch says he hasn't played Farsight in 5th Edition.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Well, no, as others have amply illustrated, this is not in fact Herohammer.
And I do like the approach. Now players are choosing their armies based less on pure hitting power. For example, a Big Mek has always been a useful addition to an Orky Horde, but now he allows you to take a Deff Dred as a Troops Choice, he's a real contender. Yet to offset this, particular in 5th Edition, the Warboss allows a unit of Nobs to become a scoring unit...tasty or what?
Same with Marines. They are at once encouragement, and reward, for taking a themed army, whereas before the themeing of a force wasn't terribly reccomended apart for nutcases like myself (never, ever won with my Saim Hann force, but I loved fielding it!)
Fantasy, thankfully, has less of a problem here due to the different Organisation, and a typically wider selection of possible troops combined with how combats are resolved etc, means it's very very difficult for a theme to force a duff army.
But 40k really needs this. And when you really look at the big picture, none of them are exactly game breaking.
2700
Post by: dietrich
It's a change in design philosophy. GW tried Doctrines with IG and Traits with SM. They were very popular, but not well balanced. Some Doctrines and Traits are 'no-brainers' and most of the penalites - you could build your SM list so the disadvantage didn't matter.
They're using special characters more because:
1) They like the models and want to sell the models.
2) It's a way to provide limited customization. If you fielding a special HQ, you can only have one other HQ, and their wargear is limited, which helps to limit the abusiveness.
I think it's better than the other options: 1) No customization (third edition) or 2) Penalties that didn't matter.
9811
Post by: ultramarine1
i also think the changing the foc fits in with the back story. i mean just look at the deathwing. i could see a part of the fluff where the entire company goes on a campaing, and only that company, so of corse it would only be terminators and various support units, same with white scars and big meks, a s the big mek would make more kans and have more avalible, thus them being able to be used as troops, while the entire chapter of white scars is adept at biking, so they could feild more bikes.
edited for spelling.
131
Post by: malfred
dietrich wrote:It's a change in design philosophy. GW tried Doctrines with IG and Traits with SM. They were very popular, but not well balanced. Some Doctrines and Traits are 'no-brainers' and most of the penalites - you could build your SM list so the disadvantage didn't matter.
They're using special characters more because:
1) They like the models and want to sell the models.
2) It's a way to provide limited customization. If you fielding a special HQ, you can only have one other HQ, and their wargear is limited, which helps to limit the abusiveness.
I think it's better than the other options: 1) No customization (third edition) or 2) Penalties that didn't matter.
Army level Customization in 3rd edition took the form of sub-lists. While I miss some of
them, I understand why GW didn't like their proliferation.
10424
Post by: somecallmeJack
focusedfire wrote:(IMHO)It seems the Defining HQs are a part of (dumbing down) making the game more playable for the kids. By not expecting them to try to learn and exploit every rule in order to build an effective theme. It is hoped this streamlining will bring in more new players. I've got no prob with a little streamilining(eventually more available games) as long as it doesn't go to far.
Edited for spelling and clarification
my thoughts exactly, focusedfire. I remember when I was younger, & Id just gotten into 40k, Special character models were a must have. I remember fantasising about my poorly painted blood angels army being led by all 6 of their special characters in the third edition codex. A little thing like 'this character can only lead an army of at least 2000 points' went straight over my head. & The younger kids at my gaming club were the same, it was all too common to see a young, new gamer just not understand why such a trivial matter as a force organisation chart didnt allow him to legally field three land raiders, dante, lemartes & a squad of scouts.
It was only after Id been playing for a few years & had matured in my attitude to the hobby that I found building my own HQs a more desirable option.
This would also fit with GW's new direction of making the game attractive to younger players in order to sell more & more models. Special characters that have too big of an impact to ignore having in your army are right up there with boxed armies & plastic superheavies in GW's quest to make more & more dollar. Theyve changed their targer audience.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
And it's absolutely not an attempt to sell more models, and more evenly across each range is it? OH no.
It's always about the little kiddies.
Their target audience hasn't changed in over 12 years!
2263
Post by: ZamboniKnight
I remember when I started special characters used to have a certain taboo about them. People I played against didn't like them mostly for fluff reasons. Seriously? I have to fight Ragnar AGAIN?! How many places can this guy be?! Though, at the time, chances were you could build a more powerful character of your own (HeroHammer).
What I miss most was being able to ally armies fairly freely. If I remember correctly, in the Black Codex, one could potentially ally IG, SM and Guard together with an Inquisitor Commander. THAT was fantastic for building new armies, as you could take your existing one, and then throw a unit from a similarly aligned (good/evil) force.
8471
Post by: olympia
Pariah Press wrote: What you describe is not Herohammer. Herohammer is when the rules are arranged in such a way that a single character can tromp multiple units all by himself. See: 40K 2nd ed and WHFB 5th ed for examples.
e.g., Abaddon
246
Post by: Lemartes
Warmachine and Hordes nuff said.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And it's absolutely not an attempt to sell more models, and more evenly across each range is it? OH no.
It's always about the little kiddies.
Their target audience hasn't changed in over 12 years!
Actually, its just due to decreased expectations on our children. Most of them could've understood the more complicated set ups. We just don't expect it anymore. Thus the thought their kids, so give them pablum. Not the kids fault just a society that increasingly coddles their children and business models that say mainstreaming=dumbing down to get more people in buying their product.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Nonsense.
Any Wargame stil requires an awful lot of reading in order to play it properly, plus various other skills which develop from playing them.
What GW has done, is to streamline the rules so games can be played within a more convenient timescale. I rarely have 3-4 hours for a game (well, maybe not anymore now I have my own board) but 2 hours? That I can often spare.
Sure, you could do the same in earlier editions, but the scale of the battle was smaller. To sell more models, you take away some of the more finnickity details, and produce a slicker system. This is *not* dumbing down.
284
Post by: Augustus
Why is it heading toward hero hammer?
Because no one is at the helm.
GW clearly has no Editor with authority, and no production team with consistency in mind. I use to think there were plans, machiavellan or otherwise, but nowadays, I think there is just no single editorial element that controls the design during publication cycles. Which is essentially random and left up to whoever is publishing at the moment. Each publication being a snapshot of the staff and the thinking at the time with little to no thought of future or past work, thematicly or in practice.
I suspect that later 40k releases will not be done in the same design paradigm as the marine codex (with regards to changing FOC and heros) and we will get some other mechanisms.
I don't think GW has been able to remain consistent in any edition of any of it's rules and there is no reason to expect the current pattern to be definitive either.
Things like "Universal Special Rules" are an amusing irony every time they get published. The core rule book rules integrity lasting about as long as it takes to get the next book out.
Time will tell.
284
Post by: Augustus
At least it is dramatic to find out!
4670
Post by: Wehrkind
I gotta agree with Augustus.
Re: Special Characters allowing FoC changes, I kind of wish they let you just purchase the changes when building an HQ. Maybe do it like the 'nid version of "Pick up to 2 from List A, and 3 from List B." Especially for IG I think that would really allow for some flexible and interesting characters that are player created.
For Tau, I can definitely see "Commander T'Ank Shu'Ta" who makes all tank weapons master crafted, or "Sni'Kei" who lets stealth suits be troops or something.
Less tongue in cheek, it would be neat to see two choices of Mont'Ka or ... the other one, where it gets you additional force org choices, sort of like in DoW. One gets you an extra heavy slot for a price, the other more elites or fast attack. Something like that.
Still, Tau would probably benefit most by having something other than firewarriors and kroot as troops choices. Even one deep striking suit unit being scoring would be huge.
9892
Post by: Flashman
I find the specials in Space Marines a little restricting fluffwise (unless you're fielding Smurfs). Maybe you want to play Salamanders but not have Vulkan as your HQ? You can't anymore, unless you're just playing them as green Smurfs (which is no fun at all).
Chapter Traits/Doctrines and the like made more sense to me and they didn't really dominate the game either.
270
Post by: winterman
I think GW saw the financial's between special characters that really benefit an army versus those that are "Generic HQ + some nifty weapon". I am sure the difference between sales is signficant enough to quantify.
Although I agree this is similar to warmachine, it is not like GW hasn't had characters affect an FOC or an army prior to PP. I just think this hero focused paradigm resulted from financial considerations and a desire to streamline the rules away from the Pete Haines style of codexes.
8471
Post by: olympia
winterman wrote:I think GW saw the financial's between special characters that really benefit an army versus those that are "Generic HQ + some nifty weapon". I am sure the difference between sales is signficant enough to quantify.
Exactly! Metal Ghazghkull Thraka: $35.
131
Post by: malfred
Flashman wrote:I find the specials in Space Marines a little restricting fluffwise (unless you're fielding Smurfs). Maybe you want to play Salamanders but not have Vulkan as your HQ? You can't anymore, unless you're just playing them as green Smurfs (which is no fun at all).
Chapter Traits/Doctrines and the like made more sense to me and they didn't really dominate the game either.
I think we're getting to the point where we just have to say, "Counts as Vulkan, but
his name is Commander Worf."
2263
Post by: ZamboniKnight
malfred wrote:I think we're getting to the point where we just have to say, "Counts as Vulkan, but
his name is Commander Worf."
But Worf was a Klingon, not a vulcan... 
PS-You misspelled "Vulkan."  
131
Post by: malfred
ZamboniKnight wrote:malfred wrote:I think we're getting to the point where we just have to say, "Counts as Vulkan, but
his name is Commander Worf."
But Worf was a Klingon, not a vulcan...
PS-You misspelled "Vulkan."
That was part of my joke :(
284
Post by: Augustus
Ha ha ha
2700
Post by: dietrich
If you play Iron Hands, you have to call him Data.......
9180
Post by: Zip Napalm
Augustus wrote:I don't think GW has been able to remain consistent in any edition of any of it's rules and there is no reason to expect the current pattern to be definitive either.
I would disagree with the "any" part as the 2nd edition Black Codex was consistent. Albeit a "complete snapshot", which is ironic in a way.
284
Post by: Augustus
Ah yes, when they included ALL the army lists in the core release in the little black appended attachment you mean?
I forgot about that!
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
Hasn't 40k always been all about hero hammer to some degree? Look at Chaos Space Marine daemon princes and Space Marine Librarians from 4e as an example. It's not as easy now since you cannot consolidate into a fresh assault.
G
2263
Post by: ZamboniKnight
Does anybody know if the stats/points from the Black 'dex are available somewhere? I've got the Rulebook/Wargear/Codex Imperialis books, but for some reason I must have discarded the Black Codex  I know the cardboard ork dread is long gone!
9180
Post by: Zip Napalm
Augustus wrote:Ah yes, when they included ALL the army lists in the core release in the little black appended attachment you mean?
I forgot about that!
Just Johnson and Chambers, no staff.
10424
Post by: somecallmeJack
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And it's absolutely not an attempt to sell more models, and more evenly across each range is it? OH no.
It's always about the little kiddies.
Their target audience hasn't changed in over 12 years!
I think the kiddies thing ties into trying to sell more models.
I stand by what I said. If they were that concerned about selling models evenly across ranges they would have updated Dark Eldar long ago.
9180
Post by: Zip Napalm
ZamboniKnight wrote:Does anybody know if the stats/points from the Black 'dex are available somewhere? I've got the Rulebook/Wargear/Codex Imperialis books, but for some reason I must have discarded the Black Codex I know the cardboard ork dread is long gone!
There's this to start
http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/RETRO%20REVIEW%20-%20The%20Black%20Codex%20(2nd%20Edition)
I've found a couple of sites that you could download it from, but I find their front page rather dubious due to the porn on the side bar.
9811
Post by: ultramarine1
Also, 40k is not hero hammer,as i haved killed several of these heros, with the prime example being kantor, who, inless he sits in a rhino, never survives a game in my flgs.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
It's certainly not HeroHammer in the way it was in 2nd Ed. I have fond memories of fighitng off a unit of 12 Berzerker Terminators using nothing but my Inquisitor Terminator Lord and a pair of Commissars, or the titanic struggles between Calgar and Yarrick. Those were fun.
What's not fun is GW's current trend of making Special Characters more important with their army altering effects. This is only made worse when something you could do previously without a special character is changed so that you have to bring the special character. This is made even worse when said special character rides the last Jetbike EVER in the WHOLE IMPERIUM and he rides it to every battle, no matter how minor the skirmish - getting spare parts for that thing must be a bitch.
I don't think I've seen a Blood Angel army in recent times that doesn't start:
Dante
Corbulo (or whatever his name is)
How many Marine armies start with Shrike/Lysander/Vulkan/Cantor? How many Daemon armies come to the table with Fateweaver or the Blue Scribes or the Changelling - if not all 3. Snikrot sure shows up a lot in Ork armies these days. And there's always the ever-present (everywhere, at once, all the time) Eldrad.
The only army that doesn't use special characters is Chaos because their Codex is a load of total boring BS and Lash Princes are soooooo much better.
GW will continue this trend in the new Guard Codex, except they won't be named special characters, they'll just be unique 0-1 characters that you'll need to alter your army. As I said in that thread, 'a rose by any other name' is still a damned special character. Just because he's called "Fleet Commander" rather than "Major Grav McChute of the 2888th Gravvy Grav Chuters" doesn't change the fact that it's a special character being required to do something that we did before without them.
Anyway, 40K isn't turning into HeroHammer with its reliance on Special Characters. It's turning into Warmachine.
The only bright spark in all of this is the Captain entry in the Marine Codex that allows you to bring Bikes as Troops if you take a Bike for your Commander. That is the only flavourful thing GW has done in a recent Codex to date.
BYE
284
Post by: Augustus
Indeed!
10424
Post by: somecallmeJack
All hail HBMC, with his well timed & always accurate posts. cutting straight to the heart of the debate like a powersword through so much useless flak armour!
131
Post by: malfred
H.B.M.C. wrote:
GW will continue this trend in the new Guard Codex, except they won't be named special characters, they'll just be unique 0-1 characters that you'll need to alter your army. As I said in that thread, 'a rose by any other name' is still a damned special character. Just because he's called "Fleet Commander" rather than "Major Grav McChute of the 2888th Gravvy Grav Chuters" doesn't change the fact that it's a special character being required to do something that we did before without them.
And what I want to know is, how is this different from the fact that you're probably going to
use the same options for your commander from game to game anyway, and other people are
going to do the same thing?
"Lt. Worf, of the Imperial Guard Regiment Enterprise, is a heroic junior officer."
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
The difference is what and who my commander was makes no difference to my current force. The Doctrines I choose determine my force, not the guy giving the orders. This May, when Doctrines go the way of the Chaos Legions and get thrown out in favour of IC-driven doctrines, then it's different. I am no longer driving the army's choices, the IC is.
It's no longer "What sort of army do I want to take". In stead it is "What sort of special character do I have to take to bring the army I want to take". And, as I just said, whether he is 'Generic Fleet Command' or 'Fleetus Von Commanderus of the Segmentum Blandus Fleet Command Commander's Academy of Fleet Command Fleet Commanders' makes no difference. It's still tying the army list to special characters.
BUE
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
I don't think I've seen a Blood Angel army in recent times that doesn't start:
Dante
Corbulo (or whatever his name is)
How many Marine armies start with Shrike/Lysander/Vulkan/Cantor? How many Daemon armies come to the table with Fateweaver or the Blue Scribes or the Changelling - if not all 3. Snikrot sure shows up a lot in Ork armies these days. And there's always the ever-present (everywhere, at once, all the time) Eldrad.
To be fair, if its a dark angels army it's in all likelihood going to have one of the special characters. Its a thousand dudes, the special characters lead those thousand dudes. If you are playing a fluff chapter with a special codex like the dark angels or blood angels it's actually pretty part in parcel for the special characters that give that army flavor to be there.
That said, the special character inclusions in the marine codex could have probably been better served as nameless generics (like in the ork codex). I like the character differentiation system, it's better than traits because its a physical thing. It exists on the table. I don't need to look at a marine player in puzzlement wondering how get gets to break the army comp rules any more like I still do with imperial guard.
Should they all have been lumped into special characters? Questionable, since counts as conversions defeats the point of there being a visible link in the chain that at a glance can tell you what the army is about without requiring you to delve your opponents codex.
Eldrad isn't indicative of this, he's just too cost effective. The ork codex has done it best so far in my mind. A mekboy and warboss are easy to diferentiate, and each has an army comp effect without forcing a special character. I just wish that you weren't forced into wazdakka to get a bike force (The boss can be on a bike, I don't see why it would be so hard to make that the impetus for force org like it is in the marine book).
I am no longer driving the army's choices, the IC is.
But it's your independent character to (hopefully) convert and equip as you will with. A tank commander in the imperial guard is going to be the guy in charge of the tanks, just as a warboss on a bike is the guy thats going to lead the speed freaks. It does somewhat constrain possibilities, but by the same token it makes forces more thematic (and more sensible) and doesn't force codex diving every time you don't understand what doctrine is being used.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Nonsense.
Any Wargame stil requires an awful lot of reading in order to play it properly, plus various other skills which develop from playing them.
What GW has done, is to streamline the rules so games can be played within a more convenient timescale. I rarely have 3-4 hours for a game (well, maybe not anymore now I have my own board) but 2 hours? That I can often spare.
Sure, you could do the same in earlier editions, but the scale of the battle was smaller. To sell more models, you take away some of the more finnickity details, and produce a slicker system. This is *not* dumbing down.
I, absolutely, agree that they streamlined the system and it is now much slicker in game play.
I, also agree that the overall reason and mission is to sell more models(Never disagreed on that, It's what my last sentencce stated).
But, I disagree as to the dumbing down. The Green movement/damage/wound counters set they sell says it all for me. Yes they're making money off of it. But your not expected to pay attention any more. I need a marker to tell me how far I moved? I need a marker to tell me how far my opponent moved?
It may not occur in your country but over here we're battling a sliding baseline in almost every aspect of our society. And it is showing up at the FLGS. I saw this at the local GW when playing in a tournament. On the one free pick up table. A lego WarHound Titan and A non-painted, non-modeled, plain cardbord box as a "counts as" for a Baneblade. It was only a few years ago that you didn't get to play if your army was unpainted. I'm not a stickler about this myself(the lego warhound was kinda cool) but the change in GW stance says something about the companies expectation of its perspective customers.
In that tournament was a young man who's had enough time to collect, paint, and customize a sizable Tau army. This young gent didn't know that (unles your a SM, or something with special rule/character allowing such) you can't regroup when within 6" of the enemy. He actually demanded to see it in the rulebook. A lot of the kids don't read the rulebooks. They learn the game mechanics through gameplay and lightly read their own codexs'.
But if we disagree on this 2 outta 3 things agreed upon isn't bad.
catch ya later 
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
dietrich wrote:It's a change in design philosophy. GW tried Doctrines with IG and Traits with SM. They were very popular, but not well balanced. Some Doctrines and Traits are 'no-brainers' and most of the penalties - you could build your SM list so the disadvantage didn't matter.
They're using special characters more because:
1) They like the models and want to sell the models.
2) It's a way to provide limited customization. If you fielding a special HQ, you can only have one other HQ, and their wargear is limited, which helps to limit the abusiveness.
I think it's better than the other options: 1) No customization (third edition) or 2) Penalties that didn't matter.
I hear this said a lot, but I don't believe it.
There's no reason for the penalties of traits and doctrines to not matter. That was purely a result of GW not doing enough in that regard, and it has nothing to do with the system itself.
Also, how does it limit abusiveness by taking up an HQ slot and disallowing customization of their weapons, when half the time Special Characters are better than any comparable HQ choice?
How many new Space Marine lists are there that are every bit as 'no-brainer' as the ones made with chapter traits? White Scars armies that outflank everything. Salamander armies with sisters as allies.
There's just as much abuse possible with the special character system as there is with the trait system. The only difference is saddling armies with the same tired characters, and telling people to 'counts-as' when people want to play any chapter that's different but not one of the 10 or so chapters GW recognizes.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Actually salamanders with witch hunter allies aren't a good combo. The twin linking replaces chapter tactics, which is the marine ability to chose to fail a leadership check and fall back. Sisters do no get to do this so they don't get the twin linking.
And it is a drawback not to be able to voluntarily fall back from a carnifex/dreadnaut/anything else that you have no chance of hurting.
8478
Post by: Alphus
Not hero-hammer, " UBER-SUPER-KILLY-UNIT" hammer. how many kill pts is a 10 strong flashlight toting guard squad worth?
1. And how many killpoints is the 10 strong Grey Knight Marine squad worth? Better yet, how many of your opponent's armies use more than 2 troop choices? (the ones that start out as troops w/out taking FOC changing HQ) For what? So that your HQ choice mods the FOC of your army so you can be more fluffy like the armies in WM and AT-43. If you like those games sooo  much then go play those games and leave my game alone.  
Dear GW game designer:
Rock is overpowered, but paper is okay.
- Scissors
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Alphus, have you tried Warseer? You might fit in a bit better there. Otherwise, perhaps my charity can help you. Speak to Ozymandis. He our spokesperson.
BYE
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
ShumaGorath wrote:Actually salamanders with witch hunter allies aren't a good combo. The twin linking replaces chapter tactics, which is the marine ability to chose to fail a leadership check and fall back. Sisters do no get to do this so they don't get the twin linking.
That would be true if his rules were worded the same way as Shrike's or Khan's, but Vulkan's rules are worded slightly differently. It pretty much says: 1. Your army loses chapter tactics on everyone who has it. 2. All flamers and meltas are twin-linked, all thunder hammers are master-crafted. The intention of this wording was probably to allow vehicles to benefit from it, but instead people take sisters, and argue that as part of their army their weapons are also twin-linked. And it is a drawback not to be able to voluntarily fall back from a carnifex/dreadnaut/anything else that you have no chance of hurting.
It is, but it's not a drawback that makes up for outflank on everything. Besides, chapter traits didn't give stuff out for free. They gave some good options, and took away some less useful options (the crux of the problem), but you still had to pay points to get furious charge or true grit on everyone. Same with doctrines, barring close order drill (which is hardly a huge benefit). I don't see how that was a worse system.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
That would be true if his rules were worded the same way as Shrike's or Khan's, but Vulkan's rules are worded slightly differently.
You're right. I never even noticed. Scary. I doubt that will be around after they rewright the *hunters books. Though that'l be a while.
It is, but it's not a drawback that makes up for outflank on everything.
No, but the previous chapter trait system had about the same level of give and take. It allowed options and extra force org benefits and gave restrictions that given the options it enables were never going to be a problem anyway. Besides, the Kahn army isn't exactly top tier, it's low model count hurts it badly and it's too easy to stop with a smart deployment. No marine army is as of yet tier 1, and none is even close to as good as daemons, lash, Dark Killdar, or ork horde. The IC chapter tactics system doesn't create overpowered armies, because all of the non generic chapter traits are difficult to use effectively (including vulkan).
I don't see how that was a worse system
It was worse because there was no on table indication of what was being done. For an opponent to understand it they had to either own your book or would need to borrow it from you for a bit to make sure you weren't just cheating. With the current system you can just point to a dude, say he lets me do X, and if required just show him the page that says it. It creates a tabletop link between the army as deployed and the army as it is legally meant to be.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
ShumaGorath wrote:It was worse because there was no on table indication of what was being done. For an opponent to understand it they had to either own your book or would need to borrow it from you for a bit to make sure you weren't just cheating.
You are 100% correct. It's much easier when everything looks the way it should and the rules are consistent. That way when I look at Kantor, I know it's Kantor, or when I look at a Thunder Hammer, I know it's... oh wait... no bad example... I mean when I look at a Cyclone.... ok... not that either. Fine, fine, when I look at a Land Raider... no that doesn't work either...
Hmm...
Found a flaw in your theory Shummy.
As for the Vulkan vs Sisters Flamers, that's a topic for YMDC, not here.
BYE
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Pfft, it makes sense. Just make armies out of the maine marine book. It all makes sense within the codex, it's a "marine" army not a dark angels army. They are separate forces due to the fact that they are separate books with no crossover. The problem is the poorly written DA and BA books, not the character trait system.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
ShumaGorath wrote:
You're right. I never even noticed. Scary. I doubt that will be around after they rewright the *hunters books. Though that'l be a while.
Yeah, I'm hoping they errata it or something.
I think the =I= books are a long ways off.
No, but the previous chapter trait system had about the same level of give and take. It allowed options and extra force org benefits and gave restrictions that given the options it enables were never going to be a problem anyway. Besides, the Kahn army isn't exactly top tier, it's low model count hurts it badly and it's too easy to stop with a smart deployment. No marine army is as of yet tier 1, and none is even close to as good as daemons, lash, Dark Killdar, or ork horde. The IC chapter tactics system doesn't create overpowered armies, because all of the non generic chapter traits are difficult to use effectively (including vulkan).
I'll admit the trait system had some good options available at the expense of some options that weren't very useful at all (no allies! oh no!).
That could have been rectified, however. It was more of a problem with the specifics of the advantages and disadvantages than the system itself.
Plus, I don't recall the old space marine codex being better than new orks or eldar either.
They did well, but it's not like chapter traits were allowing them to dominate everything.
It was worse because there was no on table indication of what was being done. For an opponent to understand it they had to either own your book or would need to borrow it from you for a bit to make sure you weren't just cheating. With the current system you can just point to a dude, say he lets me do X, and if required just show him the page that says it. It creates a tabletop link between the army as deployed and the army as it is legally meant to be.
All I see is the difference between "I can do this because my codex says so" and "I can do this because my codex says so under this guy's profile."
Besides, half the time the special character is going to be in a transport, in reserve, or being 'counted-as' another model entirely.
One thing I didn't like about the chapter traits were the names. "Cleanse and Purify" does what now? "Take the Fight to Them?" You have no idea what most of them do without knowing the codex. (On the other hand, what does a "Vulkan" or "Shrike" impart on your army? You still have to know the codex, the only benefit is less to remember due to there being less options.)
Regardless, the problems with the chapter traits weren't intrinsic to the system, they simply handled (somewhat) poorly. Scraping them entirely was a bad move, and their solution isn't as good as I'd expect from the experience they gained with the codex before it.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
One thing I didn't like about the chapter traits were the names. "Cleanse and Purify" does what now? "Take the Fight to Them?" You have no idea what most of them do without knowing the codex. (On the other hand, what does a "Vulkan" or "Shrike" impart on your army? You still have to know the codex, the only benefit is less to remember due to there being less options.)
You may not know what shrike does the first time, but see him in an army once and you will forever go "Oh, I see the guy with the bird on his face. Fleeting marines." You don't need to check the codex, or even speak to the opponent. All you need to is see the model on the table to know whats up. To this day I still have no idea what my friends IG army doctrines are, and what they do. I just know that he ignores leadership modifiers and wears tanks like they came 30 to a pack. Whenever I see an ork or space marine army I know whats going on, because it's a simple correlation between model and effect. It makes armies WYSYG. Also there really aren't less options, you can do virtually every force that was previously possible, and a few new kinds of forces. You're just replacing a word with a model.
Plus, I don't recall the old space marine codex being better than new orks or eldar either.
It's not. Its a second tier army and has been for years. I was attempting to debate the correlation between the IC traits and the armies relative power level.
they simply handled (somewhat) poorly.
It's my belief that it's just a bad system. When you have a system of traits with no visual representation then you basically have tyranid acid blood and imperial guard medal upgrades. Shadowy pieces of wargear that don't need to be modeled, are difficult to track, and go against the concept of a what you see is what you get army. I started this game with tyranids, then orks, then tyranids, then space marines. In the interim I played warmachine, LOT5R, Warlord, and Magic the gathering. No other game system I've encountered that doesn't have some sort of game master allows for unrepresented effects. They are just hard to keep track of and troubling to people unfamiliar with them. Whenever I played an army that used something like them I felt like I was somehow at a disadvantage because the flow of the game was being reshaped by something I had no experience with and couldn't see or touch. 40k isn't a pen and paper game master fight game any more, and the traits are going out the window to represent its streamlining.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
ShumaGorath wrote:
One thing I didn't like about the chapter traits were the names. "Cleanse and Purify" does what now? "Take the Fight to Them?" You have no idea what most of them do without knowing the codex. (On the other hand, what does a "Vulkan" or "Shrike" impart on your army? You still have to know the codex, the only benefit is less to remember due to there being less options.)
You may not know what shrike does the first time, but see him in an army once and you will forever go "Oh, I see the guy with the bird on his face. Fleeting marines." You don't need to check the codex, or even speak to the opponent. All you need to is see the model on the table to know whats up. To this day I still have no idea what my friends IG army doctrines are, and what they do. I just know that he ignores leadership modifiers and wears tanks like they came 30 to a pack. Whenever I see an ork or space marine army I know whats going on, because it's a simple correlation between model and effect. It makes armies WYSYG. Also there really aren't less options, you can do virtually every force that was previously possible, and a few new kinds of forces. You're just replacing a word with a model.
That's still implying that Shrike is an unconverted (significantly) model that starts in plain view on the field. If someone has to tell you their commander counts as Shrike it's no better than them telling you they have furious charge thanks to their chapter traits. If he doesn't start on the field, it depends on whether or not you see him taken from the case.
Also, there are less options; you can't take two special weapons in a tactical squad, you can't take true grit, you can't take a close combat weapon and bolt pistol on your tactical marines.
If you have an army with two special weapons in your tactical squads you have to stick with one (rather weak firepower) or buy a heavy weapon to (static). If you have true grit modeled you either have to say they just have bolters modeled coolly or play with another codex (chaos, SWs). If you have nothing but marines with close combat weapons and bolt pistols you have to proxy the army as blood angels or chaos.
Plus, I don't recall the old space marine codex being better than new orks or eldar either.
It's not. Its a second tier army and has been for years. I was attempting to debate the correlation between the IC traits and the armies relative power level.
That makes sense then.
they simply handled (somewhat) poorly.
It's my belief that it's just a bad system. When you have a system of traits with no visual representation then you basically have tyranid acid blood and imperial guard medal upgrades. Shadowy pieces of wargear that don't need to be modeled, are difficult to track, and go against the concept of a what you see is what you get army. I started this game with tyranids, then orks, then tyranids, then space marines. In the interim I played warmachine, LOT5R, Warlord, and Magic the gathering. No other game system I've encountered that doesn't have some sort of game master allows for unrepresented effects. They are just hard to keep track of and troubling to people unfamiliar with them. Whenever I played an army that used something like them I felt like I was somehow at a disadvantage because the flow of the game was being reshaped by something I had no experience with and couldn't see or touch. 40k isn't a pen and paper game master fight game any more, and the traits are going out the window to represent its streamlining.
Most of the chapter traits could have their effects seen prefectly through wysiwyg. The Cleanse and Purify trait doesn't need to be represented, because having two special weapons represents it. Same with true grit, squads with two close combat weapons, armies with extra dreadnoughts, etc.
You can't see the limit of raptors only taking two meltaguns on the field, but why does that matter if you can see the number of meltaguns they do have?
The traits that weren't wysiwyg were usually veteran skills, which are rarely represented on anything due to their being unrelated to equipment. It's not as though you can see the infiltrate ability on chosen.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Part of the point of 40K is the immense number of special rules, items and characters contained in a wide variety of rulebooks.
The amount of minor detail is the attraction of the system to a lot of players.
If you want to keep up on all this stuff you buy all the codexes. If you don't want to splash the cash, you learn by experience.
Putting extra possibilities into each codex by a variety of units, leaders providing special rules or traits, tactical doctrines or whatever you like to call it, it all comes to the same thing. You either buy the codex or you expect to be surprised sometimes by stuff you didn't know.
4895
Post by: Logic
The main reason I don't like the importance of special characters is because I want a unique army. For example, I don't want to play Calgar and Ultramarines vs. Calgar and Ultramarines. I don't like GW basically forcing players to use the same special characters to make a competitive list. When it comes to special characters I make my own from scratch and make my own army. It's the least I can do to give it a unique feel.
I actually really liked the 4th edition Space Marine codex (and IG codex). I like the idea of taking traits/doctrines and creating my own army.
~Logic
365
Post by: Abadabadoobaddon
Orkeosaurus wrote:There's no reason for the penalties of traits and doctrines to not matter. That was purely a result of GW not doing enough in that regard, and it has nothing to do with the system itself.
There's just as much abuse possible with the special character system as there is with the trait system.
One day I decided to take up piano. But I couldn't hit any of the right notes and it sounded really bad. So I switched to violin. But it sounded really bad too! So then I tried the clarinet. But it sounded even worse! Why don't any of these instruments work???
(Also I never practice.)
2700
Post by: dietrich
GW will not fix the Vulkan/allies 'issue'. They'll just say that you're a no-good beardy tourney player if you are willing to exploit that 'loophole' and that everyone should understand that it wasn't meant to benefit models that weren't from the SM codex.
What happens if you take Vulkan in APOC?
131
Post by: malfred
I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question with
"Because it's AWESOME."
Does no one really love it? There's always someone who loves a change (as
opposed to those who simply say they're okay with it).
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
I quite like the theory, though since I don't play 40k at the moment, I can't say I love it or have any real tangible experience.
What I like is stuff like Pedro Kantor. If you take him, then you are encouraged to field lots of Sternguard, to the degree it will start to feel like a gathering of the 1st Company to really kick a little ass. Equally, Kantor can be used to represent other mostly knackered Chapters, like Scythes of the Emperor which consist mainly of grizzled old Veterans and Scouts.
If they continue this in other Marine books, ala Dark Angels, then the character kind of suggests which Company you are fielding (Master of Ravenwing means it's 2nd Company mainly) and so on.
Of course, you still run into the problem of number crunching wasters purely interested in kicking out the hardest list they can, regardless of any other consideration like theme, but I must say to me that is an occasional price worth paying to inject more variety into your games.
2263
Post by: ZamboniKnight
I seem to remember in earlier editions that special characters weren't allowed in tournament play. Yes... I know "Warhammer isn't designed for tournament play." I do question whether they may go back to that and ban them again. 'Cause seriously... who doesn't like ticking off a loyal fan base?!
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Difference being that when Special Characters were dreaded, it was 2nd Edition and if used cunningly could stomp anything and everything into dust.
But now they have a different angle. Some people will buy a Marine Army based entirely around a given 'special' character. Take that away, and their army will flounder. This isn't fair, and would piss off more people than allowing them.
6404
Post by: BillTheManiac
H.B.M.C. wrote:The only bright spark in all of this is the Captain entry in the Marine Codex that allows you to bring Bikes as Troops if you take a Bike for your Commander. That is the only flavourful thing GW has done in a recent Codex to date.
Do you think that is the reasonable way to go for small changes in army lists?
terminator commander=terminators as troops
bike commander=bikes as troops
jump pack commander=assault squads as troops
734
Post by: Dal'yth Dude
dietrich wrote:GW will not fix the Vulkan/allies 'issue'. They'll just say that you're a no-good beardy tourney player if you are willing to exploit that 'loophole' and that everyone should understand that it wasn't meant to benefit models that weren't from the SM codex.
And that explains 70% of why I don't play 40K much anymore.
6838
Post by: 1hadhq
dietrich wrote:GW will not fix the Vulkan/allies 'issue'. They'll just say that you're a no-good beardy tourney player if you are willing to exploit that 'loophole' and that everyone should understand that it wasn't meant to benefit models that weren't from the SM codex.
What happens if you take Vulkan in APOC?
1) its "units use wargear from THEIR codex", not transfer per SC from one to another here in Germany. 
2) if followed the US - forums we get : 1x vulkan = any model of the player fielding vulkan gets the benefits.Thus even CSM would be
"upgraded" with TL-flamers and such. It may look OK with SM or IG or Inq but really CSM??
689
Post by: Salvation122
malfred wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question with
"Because it's AWESOME."
Does no one really love it? There's always someone who loves a change (as opposed to those who simply say they're okay with it).
Dakka's for tourney gamers who hate Warhammer but continue to play it anyway. The community actively ostracizes people who enjoy something just because they think it's cool. Why is the lack of "Because it's AWESOME," surprising? For the past five years anyone who replied that way would have been told to go to Warseer.
(It is awesome, though.)
8478
Post by: Alphus
H.B.M.C. wrote:Alphus, have you tried Warseer? You might fit in a bit better there. Otherwise, perhaps my charity can help you. Speak to Ozymandis. He our spokesperson.
BYE
I'm sorry if I hit a soft spot, but really. I'm outies.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
And HBMC drives out another one..
131
Post by: malfred
Salvation122 wrote:
Dakka's for tourney gamers who hate Warhammer but continue to play it anyway. The community actively ostracizes people who enjoy something just because they think it's cool. Why is the lack of "Because it's AWESOME," surprising? For the past five years anyone who replied that way would have been told to go to Warseer.
(It is awesome, though.)
The competitive streaks are generally well contained in the Army Lists, Tactics and YMDC
forums. This thread is in Discussions where someone like me (who hasn't played 40k in years
but still collects and paints the models) has access to the discussion.
What seems ridiculous in "Special Hero Required Hammer" is the inclusion of high costed
commanders such as the Ravenwing or Deathwing ones.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
malfred wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question with
"Because it's AWESOME."
Does no one really love it? There's always someone who loves a change (as
opposed to those who simply say they're okay with it).
Because it's AWSOME.
10123
Post by: BoxANT
As for the upcoming IG codex, which will probably be IC based. I will not be worried if they are generic commanders (which is what it is shaping up to be), *and* if you do take a commander that he is a replacement for your normal HQ (not in addition). Also, it is important that he does not increase point cost of your army overall.
Doctrines do allow for a variety of armies, but at a high cost. True, you are "building the army you want" but if you "want" to build anything other than an army that uses Iron Discipline, Close Order Drill, Drop Troop, Veterans and something else, then you are usually just hurting yourself.
If the IC based army allows for a variety of forces, and does not increase the cost of those forces, then we have something to work with!
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
ShumaGorath wrote:And HBMC drives out another one..
The other one I'm trying to get rid of can't see my posts, so I have to take whatever chances I can get.
BYE
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
As an interesting aside, as many of you know my gaming group has been writing and testing our own set of 40K rules for the better part of 5-6 years. We started before 4th Ed came out (mainly to do our own Eldar Codex) and it spiralled from there. At our last playtesting event, we were trying out some of the new FOC's we'd put together, mostly for Orks and Eldar. One of the Eldar forces was an army that had 3 Fire Prisms and 9 Falcons. OMG you're thinking, that's insane. Well... it wasn't. He got whooped in the first game and then in the big multi-player game he was a useful ally, but did not dominate.
But that's not the point I'm making. The point was his 12 Falcon hull list was missing something - a hero to command it. There was no Farseer, no Autarch and no Warlock Master (something from our rules). It was a leaderless tank army, and we all agreed afterwards that while it wasn't overpowered, it was very sterile. It lacked character. It was just a bunch of tanks. One of my fav scenes in Lord of the Rings, the first one, is where Aragorn faces down the horde of Uruk's running towards him. He gives a salute with his sword, and then just starts carving them up. It's a very heroic moment. I remember many of those moments from 2nd Ed, where, due to the failings of 2nd Ed's character system, you could have single characters stand before a wave of oncoming attackers and have the character come out first best most of the time.
I don't really want to head back into 2nd Ed territory with 40K's characters, but I feel that they should really be heroic and the centre of one's army because it just feels better that way. The narrative scope of having a glorious and valiant (or evil and dangerous) character is far better than a leaderless army of tanks. Heroes in 40K should play an important role, and I think forces should be allowed to centre around them. It's more fun - to me at least - to do it that way.
Where I draw the line is mandatory characters. Dark Angels are the biggest offenders here, as I find it absurd that Belial has to lead every Deathwing force into battle always, or that Sammael must always mount his one-of-a-kind Jetbike for any minor skirmish.
One of my fav BatReps from WD was a very old one in which a Howling Griffon army took on an Ork horde - this was back in 2nd Ed - and a Howling Griffon Chaplain was holding the Marine right flank. He had a combat squad or two with him, and they faced down a bunch of Blood Axe Kommandoz and other things. By the end it was only the Chaplain left, and I think he even died at the end, but he held that flank. It was wonderfully heroric, and I've always loved the idea of a Chaplain leading Marines into combat. And I love the idea of a Bike or Terminator force being led by a Chaplain even more. My Crusading Marine army which I will get around to eventually will be led by a Chaplain on a Bike. But I can't do that with Ravenwing. Oh no. I can bring a Chaplain, but Sammael's always got to ride shotgun on every single mission the Ravenwing go on, and I hate that. I like that characters can shape a force, but I hate that characters are becoming the only way to shape a force.
If I wanted to play Salamanders, I should be able to just play Salamanders. I give up my Combat Tactics and get whatever bonuses Sallies get intead of that. I shouldn't have to tack on a Special Character for the privilage. The Guard, with their Generic Special Characters (something DD is sure to be overjoyed about, much like Generic Daemons), will be no different. It won't be someone playing an Elysian Army or a Tanith Army because they want to, it will be something having to take a special character first before they can take the army they already had before they were required to take a character.
BYE
8152
Post by: The Defenestrator
it's a fine line between a herohammer special character and special character who feels vital to the force.
I think the new marine characters are a good balance in terms of individual power and army synergy, though I do get tired of the whole "marine playstyle a always contains hero a, marine playstyle b always contains hero b" syndrome. Giving them all names was a mistake imo, now everyone gives me the 'I'm tired of watching Eldrad/Gazkull/etc. participate in every little skirmish that takes place' speech, I don't want to hear it every time someone fields marines now.
Oh, and every time I hear the cry of 'herohammer!' I think about the most anti-herohammer army of them all, Tau. Case in point, their ONLY HQ selection is the XV8 Commander, and he's as bland and mediocre as they come. And don't say ethereals are HQ too. Even if they weren't 17 varieties of useless, could I field Tau with just an ethereal leading? no? there you go. Someone tell GW to make the Kroot shaper an actual HQ selection, and a CC beast, instead of the 20 point +1Ld upgrade he really is. Frankly, I think they can do better than "+1BS +25pt or +2BS +50 pt XV8 SERGE!" for the leader of a Tau force.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
You forgot about Aun'Va.
He's a beast.
5604
Post by: Reaver83
BillTheManiac wrote:
Do you think that is the reasonable way to go for small changes in army lists?
terminator commander=terminators as troops
bike commander=bikes as troops
jump pack commander=assault squads as troops
This is what we all think would be a great way to combine the DA/ BA/ SM Codecies, there really is no need to have so many when this will do!
I do like how the SM and rumoured IG commanders affect the way their army plays. These armies are not about individual characters so much as the army working together, unlike the CSM's for example who are all about individual brutality (albeit unpredictable!) Whilst the Eldar are about reliability.
Is it really that different to take verteran captain to make vet's scoring (Kantor) or terminator captain for terminators as troops (belial) just because they have a name?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Aun'Va's gone from the 4e codex I think.
Anyway, the point about Tau is their codex was written three years ago so obviously it won't conform to the latest direction of the game as shown in the new SM codex.
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Orkeosaurus wrote:You forgot about Aun'Va.
He's a beast.
You have a really twisted since of humor. I can appreciate that. But seriously, 205pts for a command squad that has no offensive capability. 205pts for what is essentially a company standard, now thats funny. 205pts for a squad designed to die and the bonuses given make the tau have preffered enemy and furious charge. I think the rules for Aun'va were written on April 1st. If 5th ed is going to hero hammer then I hope he gets to call in air strikes.
9877
Post by: WaaaaghLord
for a definition of herohammer see Vampire Counts army book.
anyway, 40k isnt getting anywhere near as bad as that, at least for the time being...
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
That's very true actually.
And it's sad.
4139
Post by: wuestenfux
However Tau and Nids seem to not be able to fit in this mold (not sure about DE).
DE does: Take an Archon and you get Warriors as troops, take an Archite and you get Wyches as troops.
4455
Post by: Envy89
tau just need a 5th ed codex and they should be ok, they got one shortly after 4th and were a decent army (not powergamer material, but fun to play) for that eddition.
how about a crisis suit commander that allows crisis suits to be taken as scoring troops 
then ill have an actual use for all those blasted things i got.
10673
Post by: ridon
i see tau getting some sort of commander that would let you take suits as an option (think of that farsight with max retinue and xv8 troop choices plus elites and broadsides that would be like 47 battle suits
ow that would leave a mark
10673
Post by: ridon
sweet how many suit you got
i got 10
10279
Post by: focusedfire
Off-topic) 27 suits not counting stealthsuits.
I see farsight staying pretty close to how he is now with the army getting ws and intiative improvements and when facing the orc getting furious charge and preffered enemy. They're just going to get more expensive.
Now shadowsun letting you take stealth as troops, this I can see.
On-topic) Even though my beloved Tau are more difficult to win with in this edition, I still vastly prefer it over the 4th edition.
Call it what you want Hero Hammer or not, I still enjoy the game.
The only thing that should have been different is that instead of naming the SM characters, they should have said it was a title, like Chronos the tank vet. It's just a term for a long-timer vet that know what he's doing.
6750
Post by: 99MDeery
Going towards hero hammer? Did no-one play second edition now that was hero hammer 5th ed is nothing as bad.
I can see the arguement with the new marine codex, and such, but in regards to the fluff and the way the book is designed it allows you to represent all the 'codex' chapters without the need for seperate books for each of them, also most of the characters aren't that useful in themselves.
i use Shrike and from what i can see he is a character designed to get a 1st turn charge with a squad, they cause as much havoc as possible before getting killed, 5 KPs to Shrike and 10 Assault Marines is so far my record its only really the powers the give to the entire army, which is not in a sense hero hammer, look at Warriors of Chaos or Daemons for WFB if you want to see 'current' versions of hero hammer, compared to the older eds this is nothing at all.
118
Post by: Schepp himself
Imo, heroic moments that H.B.M.C. described and we all love don't necessarily happen if you have "generic" special characters. They also won't happen if you just have countless numbers of "captain xyz with a power fist" or painfully weak characters that don't live long enough to have a heroic moment.
Give the HQ's a load of different, balanced options. It's doesn't matter if they are game breaking or not, if they are at least dirt cheap and are hard to abuse. The most heroic moment in my years of gaming was in a game of mordheim. My skaven master assassin (named and custom-modelled) dueled a Dwarf thane. Poor bastard went down with a shattered leg and reduced movement from this battle on.
Question is, how do we get these moments in 40k and fantasy? Not with special characters you have to take to every battle, imo.
Greets
Schepp himself
10123
Post by: BoxANT
While it seems a little silly that a chapter *needs* to take the SC to get the modified Combat Tactics, they would have to rework the different Combat Tactics if you could just take them w/out the SC. I mean just look at Calgar's and Sicarius's Combat Tactics, they have no downside (other than the increased price of the SC).
I do not see the purposed IG changes to HQ as being bad *if* they replace the normal HQ. I mean IG already has a *mandatory* "generic" character (officer), so if the new ones simply replace him, then there really isn't much of a change.
|
|
