Seabass wrote: Well, if there ever was a case for damned if you do, and damned if you don't, I think this shows it.
I am surprised at the response to the way auras work now. It was unanimously appreciated and loved by everyone locally. It seems like nothing but a solid change and reigns in space marines quite a bit, something that I think needed to happen.
But we don't know if it will 'nerf' space marines. Terminators getting Core doesn't make it a big leap to think stuff like Aggressors will also get it.
It would only 'fix' Dreadnought lists and while that is a good thing it may well not help the equally problematic Aggressor/Eradicator lists
Yeah I already made this point. If aggressors are core...which are competitively some of the most popular and powerful units marines are bringing to the table - if they are core - they aren't doing it for purposes of balance (unless we see radical points changes in the codex).
The assignment of core is likely going to be arbitrarily assigned to codex units (this/not this...why) and you can sure but that 0/to near 0 forge world units are going to be core - because they are the rarer versions of the army. In my mind it's likely the originator of the change. "forge world units don't interact with codex units rules as intended" lets make and arbitrary keyword assignment on units to keep them from interacting with units we don't want. It is not a terrible idea. Without proper points adjustments for not having the core keyword it's just going to put a bunch of units on the side line.
It was suggested above that maybe there will be special buffing units for non core units. Ehh Maybe. I have 0 faith in GW's ability to balance a more complicated system as they are pretty bad at balancing a less complex system. I am of the camp that the way you fix auras was just to make them single target or CP activation or something like a command ability in sigmar.
Why did GW ever think people would take a chaplain?
Because it buffs close combat? I don't know about SM but the SW equivalent is very good, one of the best HQs in the codex and also the cheapest one. I take it everytime.
Now also SM should have good melee dedicated units and if the player can't spam captains the chaplain could be viable maybe.
Xenomancers wrote: Ehh Maybe. I have 0 faith in GW's ability to balance a more complicated system as they are pretty bad at balancing a less complex system.
As with anything encountering this much fundamental change there is always the chance for it to go wrong, but GW has demonstrated pretty clear-eyed awareness of the issues surrounding 8th and has produced what appears to be acceptable fixes.
These changes do offer more complexity for internal balancing. Do infantry with rerolls outshine tanks? They kind of were already. If point changes aren't handled delicately it could shake out other issues.
Dudeface wrote: I don't mind standard box dreads/helbrutes/equivalents getting core, just don't roll it out to contemptors etc.
Why? Why should a WS2 BS2 venerable dreadnought be a CORE unit but not a WS2 BS2 Contemptor? Keep in mind I'm not sure it's a good idea for either, but I don't see any reason why one should have that distinction over the other beyond "Forge World bad! Nerf it! Nerf it now!".
It was suggested above that maybe there will be special buffing units for non core units. Ehh Maybe. I have 0 faith in GW's ability to balance a more complicated system as they are pretty bad at balancing a less complex system. I am of the camp that the way you fix auras was just to make them single target or CP activation or something like a command ability in sigmar.
The thing is, GW have shown that this is possible. Look at T'au, There are 3 different models with rules like this. The Fireblade with Volley fire, Darkstrider with Fighting retreat and Longstrike with his bonus for hammerheads. It can be done, but there should be consideration on where it is done and not just spew out several HQ's for every army just to cater to this.
Dudeface wrote: I don't mind standard box dreads/helbrutes/equivalents getting core, just don't roll it out to contemptors etc.
Why? Why should a WS2 BS2 venerable dreadnought be a CORE unit but not a WS2 BS2 Contemptor? Keep in mind I'm not sure it's a good idea for either, but I don't see any reason why one should have that distinction over the other beyond "Forge World bad! Nerf it! Nerf it now!".
Because if it's a relic unit, it's hardly something you build a core of an army from given they're incredibly rare.
Moreover, because they can.
Also I own a few forgeworld units, so its not like I'm crying for forgeworld bias.
Dudeface wrote: I don't mind standard box dreads/helbrutes/equivalents getting core, just don't roll it out to contemptors etc.
Why? Why should a WS2 BS2 venerable dreadnought be a CORE unit but not a WS2 BS2 Contemptor? Keep in mind I'm not sure it's a good idea for either, but I don't see any reason why one should have that distinction over the other beyond "Forge World bad! Nerf it! Nerf it now!".
Because if it's a relic unit, it's hardly something you build a core of an army from given they're incredibly rare.
The codex one isn't a relic so what about that one?
Dudeface wrote: I don't mind standard box dreads/helbrutes/equivalents getting core, just don't roll it out to contemptors etc.
Why? Why should a WS2 BS2 venerable dreadnought be a CORE unit but not a WS2 BS2 Contemptor? Keep in mind I'm not sure it's a good idea for either, but I don't see any reason why one should have that distinction over the other beyond "Forge World bad! Nerf it! Nerf it now!".
Because if it's a relic unit, it's hardly something you build a core of an army from given they're incredibly rare.
The codex one isn't a relic so what about that one?
Sadly looking at the culling of datasheets from the new Imperial Armour and the fact that the main studio have no excuse for forgetting the rules they wrote for units (though I am sure they will)
I wouldn't be surprised to see alot of consolidation in the FW 30k range given all the contemptors have been given 1 points cost, I suspect they will just be merged into 1 datasheet with the difference being ignored for rules purposes.
It was suggested above that maybe there will be special buffing units for non core units. Ehh Maybe. I have 0 faith in GW's ability to balance a more complicated system as they are pretty bad at balancing a less complex system. I am of the camp that the way you fix auras was just to make them single target or CP activation or something like a command ability in sigmar.
The thing is, GW have shown that this is possible. Look at T'au, There are 3 different models with rules like this. The Fireblade with Volley fire, Darkstrider with Fighting retreat and Longstrike with his bonus for hammerheads. It can be done, but there should be consideration on where it is done and not just spew out several HQ's for every army just to cater to this.
Good points there. Pure speculation as this point beyond what we know though.
Dudeface wrote: I don't mind standard box dreads/helbrutes/equivalents getting core, just don't roll it out to contemptors etc.
Why? Why should a WS2 BS2 venerable dreadnought be a CORE unit but not a WS2 BS2 Contemptor? Keep in mind I'm not sure it's a good idea for either, but I don't see any reason why one should have that distinction over the other beyond "Forge World bad! Nerf it! Nerf it now!".
Because if it's a relic unit, it's hardly something you build a core of an army from given they're incredibly rare.
Moreover, because they can.
Also I own a few forgeworld units, so its not like I'm crying for forgeworld bias.
And ven dreds are plentiful? Honestly, should anything that hits on 2s have access to rerolls? It seems a bit excessive.
Some characters might might sense to buff non-CORE things, eg Lord Discordant or Techmarines. Interesting new design space!
I'm certain of this.
The new nurgle character that was in the codex preview was said to buff Daemon engines. Daemon engines will not be core. Of course his stuff could be pick a unit instead of aura.
Why did GW ever think people would take a chaplain?
Because it buffs close combat? I don't know about SM but the SW equivalent is very good, one of the best HQs in the codex and also the cheapest one. I take it everytime. .
Remember originally he only had the one Litany. The was duplicated and exceeded by the captain reroll.
Dudeface wrote: I don't mind standard box dreads/helbrutes/equivalents getting core, just don't roll it out to contemptors etc.
Why? Why should a WS2 BS2 venerable dreadnought be a CORE unit but not a WS2 BS2 Contemptor? Keep in mind I'm not sure it's a good idea for either, but I don't see any reason why one should have that distinction over the other beyond "Forge World bad! Nerf it! Nerf it now!".
Because if it's a relic unit, it's hardly something you build a core of an army from given they're incredibly rare.
Moreover, because they can.
Also I own a few forgeworld units, so its not like I'm crying for forgeworld bias.
And ven dreds are plentiful? Honestly, should anything that hits on 2s have access to rerolls? It seems a bit excessive.
Spoletta wrote: Leman russes will be core, and I think that's it.
I don't see many more vehicles being core.
Maybe venoms.
doubt it. Tank Commander abilities already specify LEMAN RUSS keyword.so no need for them to be core.
It makes sense actually. I can easily imagine that Tank commanders commanding themselves is on the list of things that GW doesn't like. Tank commanders will probably only command CORE vehicles.
Eh, if they want to rein that in, all they need to do is change the Order target from "<REGIMENT> LEMAN RUSS" to "non-character <REGIMENT> LEMAN RUSS", and Bob's your mother's brother.
Seabass wrote: Well, if there ever was a case for damned if you do, and damned if you don't, I think this shows it.
I am surprised at the response to the way auras work now. It was unanimously appreciated and loved by everyone locally. It seems like nothing but a solid change and reigns in space marines quite a bit, something that I think needed to happen.
But we don't know if it will 'nerf' space marines. Terminators getting Core doesn't make it a big leap to think stuff like Aggressors will also get it.
It would only 'fix' Dreadnought lists and while that is a good thing it may well not help the equally problematic Aggressor/Eradicator lists
That or GW will finally take their dumb double shoot rules of the datasheet and over to a strategum where it always should have been.
I disagree. They never should have existed at all and the game would be better if they all just disappeared.
Seabass wrote: Well, if there ever was a case for damned if you do, and damned if you don't, I think this shows it.
I am surprised at the response to the way auras work now. It was unanimously appreciated and loved by everyone locally. It seems like nothing but a solid change and reigns in space marines quite a bit, something that I think needed to happen.
But we don't know if it will 'nerf' space marines. Terminators getting Core doesn't make it a big leap to think stuff like Aggressors will also get it.
It would only 'fix' Dreadnought lists and while that is a good thing it may well not help the equally problematic Aggressor/Eradicator lists
That or GW will finally take their dumb double shoot rules of the datasheet and over to a strategum where it always should have been.
I disagree. They never should have existed at all and the game would be better if they all just disappeared.
Decent melta units existing is fine. Broken undercosted melta units existing is not.
Eradicators as a concept is fine, but remove double shoot and you can probably still justify increasing their point cost.
Seabass wrote: Well, if there ever was a case for damned if you do, and damned if you don't, I think this shows it.
I am surprised at the response to the way auras work now. It was unanimously appreciated and loved by everyone locally. It seems like nothing but a solid change and reigns in space marines quite a bit, something that I think needed to happen.
But we don't know if it will 'nerf' space marines. Terminators getting Core doesn't make it a big leap to think stuff like Aggressors will also get it.
It would only 'fix' Dreadnought lists and while that is a good thing it may well not help the equally problematic Aggressor/Eradicator lists
That or GW will finally take their dumb double shoot rules of the datasheet and over to a strategum where it always should have been.
I disagree. They never should have existed at all and the game would be better if they all just disappeared.
Seabass wrote: Well, if there ever was a case for damned if you do, and damned if you don't, I think this shows it.
I am surprised at the response to the way auras work now. It was unanimously appreciated and loved by everyone locally. It seems like nothing but a solid change and reigns in space marines quite a bit, something that I think needed to happen.
But we don't know if it will 'nerf' space marines. Terminators getting Core doesn't make it a big leap to think stuff like Aggressors will also get it.
It would only 'fix' Dreadnought lists and while that is a good thing it may well not help the equally problematic Aggressor/Eradicator lists
That or GW will finally take their dumb double shoot rules of the datasheet and over to a strategum where it always should have been.
I disagree. They never should have existed at all and the game would be better if they all just disappeared.
Decent melta units existing is fine. Broken undercosted melta units existing is not.
Eradicators as a concept is fine, but remove double shoot and you can probably still justify increasing their point cost.
So you want to make them 1 shot and increase their cost? They are pretty bad with one shot. Even worst than hell blasters.
It is by the lore. That the FW guys idiotically decided to make even relicier version doesn't change that. (I am eagerly waiting for them to come up with a new venerable relic-relic contemptor dreadnought.)
Given your flip flopping I'm sure you'd defend a double shooting repulsor that cost 100 points while complaining about the balance of the game at this point.
Eradicators with 1 shot still cost 10 points less than a BS 4 Crisis Suit with a Fusion gun and an ATS which is the doctorines marines get for free.
It is by the lore. That the FW guys idiotically decided to make even relicier version doesn't change that. (I am eagerly waiting for them to come up with a new venerable relic-relic contemptor dreadnought.)
You realise that the FW relic contemptor model is older than the plastic contemptor?
You realise that the FW relic contemptor model is older than the plastic contemptor?
Yes, the FW introduced the contemptors and the rule difference for the normal version and relic one. There should just be one version in the rules, as the normal ones are already relics. They of course can produce different models with varying amount of bling to represent them. I hope that in the new FW unit book the relic contemptor datasheet has been removed.
You realise that the FW relic contemptor model is older than the plastic contemptor?
Yes, the FW introduced the contemptors and the rule difference for the normal version and relic one. There should just be one version in the rules, as the normal ones are already relics. They of course can produce different models with varying amount of bling to represent them. I hope that in the new FW unit book the relic contemptor datasheet has been removed.
Why? The codex one sucks. It has literally two options for range weapons AND degrading movement for a melee walker.
You realise that the FW relic contemptor model is older than the plastic contemptor?
Yes, the FW introduced the contemptors and the rule difference for the normal version and relic one. There should just be one version in the rules, as the normal ones are already relics. They of course can produce different models with varying amount of bling to represent them. I hope that in the new FW unit book the relic contemptor datasheet has been removed.
The Relic Contemptor datasheet feels more like a Dreadnaught should to me than any of the dozen other Dreadnaught datasheets. If they pull the Relic Contemptor datasheet and leave everything else at 6"/8W/3+ I will be very disappointed.
You realise that the FW relic contemptor model is older than the plastic contemptor?
Yes, the FW introduced the contemptors and the rule difference for the normal version and relic one. There should just be one version in the rules, as the normal ones are already relics. They of course can produce different models with varying amount of bling to represent them. I hope that in the new FW unit book the relic contemptor datasheet has been removed.
No the Normal Contemptro Dreadnaughts are not relics never have been.
FW built the both of the Contemptors and then a Plastic nockoff for one of the 30k Box sets. But GW main studio in their infinite wisdom (totally not Office Politics BS honest) decieded that the plastic 30k model must have rules in the 40k Codex.
No the Normal Contemptro Dreadnaughts are not relics never have been.
FW built the both of the Contemptors and then a Plastic nockoff for one of the 30k Box sets. But GW main studio in their infinite wisdom (totally not Office Politics BS honest) decieded that the plastic 30k model must have rules in the 40k Codex.
Yes, we all know the model history. And I'm not talking about FW's 'relic' keyword. All Contemptors are relics in the fluff, ancient machines from the HH era, thus it is bizarre to have a better, even relicier version of them.
First, I believe that this is a really good change. SM captains allowing full re-rolls to hit for entire armies was a bit much. Assuming the don't pass out "Core" like candy at Halloween, this makes sense and also tones down some units like Leviathan Dreadnoughts (who with re-roll basically hit with all shots most times) etc.
This will also help with the "alpha strike" problem making the first round less deadly because now a whole army, or most of an army, is not getting all kinds of re-rolls. On top of the Terrain changes I think they are really making first turn less problematic.
It will be interesting to see how they apply this. I am wondering if there will be rules like :"if your warlord has the mark of Khrone, Beserkers gain CORE" type stuff to make it so you get rewarded for making a thematic army. I hope they do that so there is an incentive to taking thematic armies.
No the Normal Contemptro Dreadnaughts are not relics never have been.
FW built the both of the Contemptors and then a Plastic nockoff for one of the 30k Box sets. But GW main studio in their infinite wisdom (totally not Office Politics BS honest) decieded that the plastic 30k model must have rules in the 40k Codex.
Yes, we all know the model history. And I'm not talking about FW's 'relic' keyword. All Contemptors are relics in the fluff, ancient machines from the HH era, thus it is bizarre to have a better, even relicier version of them.
The Relic versions are the oldest of the old, they were relics even at the time of the heresy, they are from the time of the crusade, some are even crewed by founding legioneries. The have different rules in the heresy why wouldn't FW make a similar distinction in 40k.
If anything needs squatting it's the codex contemptor.
Xenomancers wrote: Ehh Maybe. I have 0 faith in GW's ability to balance a more complicated system as they are pretty bad at balancing a less complex system.
As with anything encountering this much fundamental change there is always the chance for it to go wrong, but GW has demonstrated pretty clear-eyed awareness of the issues surrounding 8th and has produced what appears to be acceptable fixes.
These changes do offer more complexity for internal balancing. Do infantry with rerolls outshine tanks? They kind of were already. If point changes aren't handled delicately it could shake out other issues.
Sisters are the army this issue is easiest to illustrate with. Exorcists and a full compliment of retributors are both approximately the same points
As it stands, with the new multi-melta rules, Retributors put out significantly more damage than the exorcist(8 shots vs 6 shot average for the exorcist, armorium cherubs, access to a simulacrum for double miracle dice, melta) at the expense of shorter range and being more resource hungry. The exorcist is relatively tough for a baseline tank, but retributors are generally going to be 2+4++6+++ immune to AP-2 with 6 ablative wounds so retributors in practice are slightly more durable than exorcists.
Retributors are much more likely to recieve core than Exorcists are, which means that Exorcists will likely be losing both the immunity to AP-2 AND canoness rerolls compared to retributors. Unless massive amounts of S4 AP-1 bolters become the be all end all of the competitive scene, there'd be no meaningful reason to run exorcists over retributors(given all else stays the same).
If BOTH lose CORE then neither unit is likely to be a worthwhile pick anymore, without some kind of compensatory changes.
Xenomancers wrote: Ehh Maybe. I have 0 faith in GW's ability to balance a more complicated system as they are pretty bad at balancing a less complex system.
As with anything encountering this much fundamental change there is always the chance for it to go wrong, but GW has demonstrated pretty clear-eyed awareness of the issues surrounding 8th and has produced what appears to be acceptable fixes.
These changes do offer more complexity for internal balancing. Do infantry with rerolls outshine tanks? They kind of were already. If point changes aren't handled delicately it could shake out other issues.
Sisters are the army this issue is easiest to illustrate with. Exorcists and a full compliment of retributors are both approximately the same points
As it stands, with the new multi-melta rules, Retributors put out significantly more damage than the exorcist(8 shots vs 6 shot average for the exorcist, armorium cherubs, access to a simulacrum for double miracle dice, melta) at the expense of shorter range and being more resource hungry. The exorcist is relatively tough for a baseline tank, but retributors are generally going to be 2+4++6+++ immune to AP-2 with 6 ablative wounds so retributors in practice are slightly more durable than exorcists.
Retributors are much more likely to recieve core than Exorcists are, which means that Exorcists will likely be losing both the immunity to AP-2 AND canoness rerolls compared to retributors. Unless massive amounts of S4 AP-1 bolters become the be all end all of the competitive scene, there'd be no meaningful reason to run exorcists over retributors(given all else stays the same).
If BOTH lose CORE then neither unit is likely to be a worthwhile pick anymore, without some kind of compensatory changes.
I think both units will still work just fine like they always have, even without re rolls. I think your exaggerating, since when did a unit require re rolls to be considered a good unit? They can still perform amazing.
Why do people assume that Core units will be added without points adjustments? I expect them to be added in with new codexes (ASWE ARE SEEING!) where rules and points are adjusted anyway.
Also, expect points changes when the weapon/wound changes come in...
No the Normal Contemptro Dreadnaughts are not relics never have been.
FW built the both of the Contemptors and then a Plastic nockoff for one of the 30k Box sets. But GW main studio in their infinite wisdom (totally not Office Politics BS honest) decieded that the plastic 30k model must have rules in the 40k Codex.
Yes, we all know the model history. And I'm not talking about FW's 'relic' keyword. All Contemptors are relics in the fluff, ancient machines from the HH era, thus it is bizarre to have a better, even relicier version of them.
Xenomancers wrote: Ehh Maybe. I have 0 faith in GW's ability to balance a more complicated system as they are pretty bad at balancing a less complex system.
As with anything encountering this much fundamental change there is always the chance for it to go wrong, but GW has demonstrated pretty clear-eyed awareness of the issues surrounding 8th and has produced what appears to be acceptable fixes.
These changes do offer more complexity for internal balancing. Do infantry with rerolls outshine tanks? They kind of were already. If point changes aren't handled delicately it could shake out other issues.
Sisters are the army this issue is easiest to illustrate with. Exorcists and a full compliment of retributors are both approximately the same points
As it stands, with the new multi-melta rules, Retributors put out significantly more damage than the exorcist(8 shots vs 6 shot average for the exorcist, armorium cherubs, access to a simulacrum for double miracle dice, melta) at the expense of shorter range and being more resource hungry. The exorcist is relatively tough for a baseline tank, but retributors are generally going to be 2+4++6+++ immune to AP-2 with 6 ablative wounds so retributors in practice are slightly more durable than exorcists.
Retributors are much more likely to recieve core than Exorcists are, which means that Exorcists will likely be losing both the immunity to AP-2 AND canoness rerolls compared to retributors. Unless massive amounts of S4 AP-1 bolters become the be all end all of the competitive scene, there'd be no meaningful reason to run exorcists over retributors(given all else stays the same).
If BOTH lose CORE then neither unit is likely to be a worthwhile pick anymore, without some kind of compensatory changes.
I think both units will still work just fine like they always have, even without re rolls. I think your exaggerating, since when did a unit require re rolls to be considered a good unit? They can still perform amazing.
Retributors already don't work how they always have (because they don't suck now!). And the answer to your question is "Literally always." A unit that 'CAN' perform AMAZING is generally nowhere near as good as a unit that DOES perform WELL. That's why the beta codex Exorcist was such a PoS.
It's not about them being a good unit or not, it's about them being better than your alternatives. With units like Mortifiers and repentia(neither of which requiring much in the way of buffs) kicking around being pretty goddam good already, seeing exorcists suddenly being about 8% worse offensively and significantly more fragile, it's competitors suddenly look much better by comparison.
Stand and shoot retributors would be DOA for sure though. You'd have them played as a unit you SR like marines do with eradicators or cheap transport unit with 2 MM and cherubs, but without the immune to -2 and not getting the 4++ they die to harsh language. You'd never see a full 10 girl, 4MM squad again.
Crimson wrote: That the FW guys idiotically decided to make even relicier version doesn't change that. (I am eagerly waiting for them to come up with a new venerable relic-relic contemptor dreadnought.)
There was nothing idiotic about it. The rules are defined by the miniature kits. There are two kits - an extremely limited plastic one that has all of two gun options, and the resin one with far more guns. The Codex gets the limited one, and FW had to make rules for their original version.
It's got nothing to do with lore or any of that. There are two Contemptor dreads simply because GW won't make a unified entry that includes all the weapons in the Codex as the kit does not have those weapons.
Same reason there's no Flamestorm Cannon or Autocannon options for Dreadnoughts in the main Codex.
I suspect you already know this, and despite agreeing with you that there should just be one entry for the Contemptor, this is the reason why there are two.
Crimson wrote: That the FW guys idiotically decided to make even relicier version doesn't change that. (I am eagerly waiting for them to come up with a new venerable relic-relic contemptor dreadnought.)
There was nothing idiotic about it. The rules are defined by the miniature kits. There are two kits - an extremely limited plastic one that has all of two gun options, and the resin one with far more guns. The Codex gets the limited one, and FW had to make rules for their original version.
It's got nothing to do with lore or any of that. There are two Contemptor dreads simply because GW won't make a unified entry that includes all the weapons in the Codex as the kit does not have those weapons.
Same reason there's no Flamestorm Cannon or Autocannon options for Dreadnoughts in the main Codex.
I suspect you already know this, and despite agreeing with you that there should just be one entry for the Contemptor, this is the reason why there are two.
Also the FW one existed as an entry long before the gakky plastic kit came to existence.
Stand and shoot retributors would be DOA for sure though. You'd have them played as a unit you SR like marines do with eradicators or cheap transport unit with 2 MM and cherubs, but without the immune to -2 and not getting the 4++ they die to harsh language. You'd never see a full 10 girl, 4MM squad again.
On the other end of that a 2MM squad is now going to get you 8/4 shots where the old squad was 6/4.
Crimson wrote: That the FW guys idiotically decided to make even relicier version doesn't change that. (I am eagerly waiting for them to come up with a new venerable relic-relic contemptor dreadnought.)
There was nothing idiotic about it. The rules are defined by the miniature kits. There are two kits - an extremely limited plastic one that has all of two gun options, and the resin one with far more guns. The Codex gets the limited one, and FW had to make rules for their original version.
It's got nothing to do with lore or any of that. There are two Contemptor dreads simply because GW won't make a unified entry that includes all the weapons in the Codex as the kit does not have those weapons.
Same reason there's no Flamestorm Cannon or Autocannon options for Dreadnoughts in the main Codex.
I suspect you already know this, and despite agreeing with you that there should just be one entry for the Contemptor, this is the reason why there are two.
Nope, not talking about the weapon options, I'm talking about the profile. There is 'normal' Contemptor profile (some FW Contemptors use this too) and then souped up super relic version. As all Contemptors are already ancient super tech, the even superer and ancienter version doesn't make sense.
Obviously done to make the FW one slightly more special and explain why it had more weapon options.
Again, it comes down the miniatures, not the rules. The miniatures are what define the rules. It always starts with the miniatures:
"If any new miniatures are being released alongside the project, we spend a long time first gawping at how cool they are, then get down to working out how they’ll fit into that particular army and what profiles and abilities they should have." - Robin Cruddace, WD 455, Jul/Aug 2020.
JohnnyHell wrote: Regardless, there’s absolutely nothing to stop you using the FW rules for the GW plastic model. They’re straight-up better.
Until they don't exist anymore, or get rewritten into something different.
Remember we have a new "Compendium" coming up that is going to significantly cut the amount of FW units available in the game. I can see a lot of options that people either really like or have relied on going bye bye with that book.
But none of the unplayable units become playable either.
Giving them re-rolls is not the way to go. An HQ that babysits tanks to make them more accurate is a stupid thing and I'm glad it's going to disappear.
My point is if we're all about making everyone else's stuff worse, we're all going to be playing with nerf chainswords.
I don't care if the captain is sitting back with the (pick your tank) . I care that the "best" army was two captains, one with the front line, one with the whirlwinds (pick your tank) I'm far more interested in pushing more and more units into playable. I'd rather go back to some sort of table wide bonus like Rites of Battle (but more useful) that you can't double up on to push people into Libbys and Chappies. And for the love of God, please make the Chappie aura not a second rate Captain aura. You can reroll all 1's, or you can reroll only the close combat 1's. Why did GW ever think people would take a chaplain?
which is proably why they changed chappies into, effectively, casters
Stand and shoot retributors would be DOA for sure though. You'd have them played as a unit you SR like marines do with eradicators or cheap transport unit with 2 MM and cherubs, but without the immune to -2 and not getting the 4++ they die to harsh language. You'd never see a full 10 girl, 4MM squad again.
On the other end of that a 2MM squad is now going to get you 8/4 shots where the old squad was 6/4.
That's the reason you would take retributors at all now. Literally that entire discussion from the very first post hinged entirely on retributors new profile finally making them reasonable competition to the exorcist. I wish I had the will to pull up that internet explorer heading to area 51 meme here.
which is proably why they changed chappies into, effectively, casters
Oh yeah, they had to fix it, but the point is they didn't even think about it when they released. GW just doesn't spend anywhere near enough time on multiple good options.
There are a lot of complaints about bloat, and how many data sheets are in a codex etc, but Realistically how often do you see more than a handful of them because the rest are junk? Would you rather see the same army over and over, or would you rather see a codex with those 90 some datasheets make 20 different armies because all the datasheets can work?
Of course I see a lot of people wondering if Terminators/Aggressors will be CORE when Terminators were one of the examples of units they were making CORE
I hope its a relatively small list that are core. So in marine armies, just terminators, standard bikes and standard troops. I am not even sure if Dreadnaughts should get it.
Start with a smaller list and see how it goes. Terminators were not that popular, so I think rerolls can stay on them. Because if its mostly infantry, then given how marines can have infantry for just about every slot, it wouldnt seem to make any difference.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Obviously done to make the FW one slightly more special and explain why it had more weapon options.
Again, it comes down the miniatures, not the rules. The miniatures are what define the rules. It always starts with the miniatures:
"If any new miniatures are being released alongside the project, we spend a long time first gawping at how cool they are, then get down to working out how they’ll fit into that particular army and what profiles and abilities they should have." - Robin Cruddace, WD 455, Jul/Aug 2020.
JohnnyHell wrote: Regardless, there’s absolutely nothing to stop you using the FW rules for the GW plastic model. They’re straight-up better.
Until they don't exist anymore, or get rewritten into something different.
Remember we have a new "Compendium" coming up that is going to significantly cut the amount of FW units available in the game. I can see a lot of options that people either really like or have relied on going bye bye with that book.
I’m aware of the upcoming FW book. There will still be a Contemptor in it, because the Codex rules don’t cover FW options and GW are most unlikely to suddenly start providing FW rules in Codexes. So there will be a FW Contemptor option, and if it’s “better” or more fun for you you can still use those rules with the plastic chap. My whole point still stands regardless of the new FW Compendium.
I think both units will still work just fine like they always have, even without re rolls. I think your exaggerating, since when did a unit require re rolls to be considered a good unit? They can still perform amazing.
every +4 to hit unit, that doesn't cost 5-6pts per model ? It is not a question of potentialy being amazing, it is a question of being to give them same results game after game after game. It is like sports, if you are great for one bout, but lose every one after, then it doesn't matter how amazing you are in that one fight you win, because you are expected to have multiple per day. Same with armies and models, no one buys them to have one or two good games with them.
I’m aware of the upcoming FW book. There will still be a Contemptor in it, because the Codex rules don’t cover FW options and GW are most unlikely to suddenly start providing FW rules in Codexes. So there will be a FW Contemptor option, and if it’s “better” or more fun for you you can still use those rules with the plastic chap. My whole point still stands regardless of the new FW Compendium.
I think both units will still work just fine like they always have, even without re rolls. I think your exaggerating, since when did a unit require re rolls to be considered a good unit? They can still perform amazing.
every +4 to hit unit, that doesn't cost 5-6pts per model ? It is not a question of potentialy being amazing, it is a question of being to give them same results game after game after game. It is like sports, if you are great for one bout, but lose every one after, then it doesn't matter how amazing you are in that one fight you win, because you are expected to have multiple per day. Same with armies and models, no one buys them to have one or two good games with them.
I can think of an awfully high amount of models that hit on 4+ and have no rerolls which are considered plenty competitive.
ERJAK wrote: Retributors are much more likely to recieve core than Exorcists are, which means
If Retributor receive CORE, it means that there was a new codex release for the Sisters. Which means that everything you wrote above is possibly no longer true. Maybe the Retributors are now much much more expensive than the Exorcist, so your point comparison? Moot. Maybe they changed the faction rules AND the Imagifier rule and none of those provide any kind of AP protection. Same thing for the SoF improvements. Your points are all moot now!
harlokin wrote: That's really interesting....sounds good at first blush.
I kinda dig it.
It's seeming to me like certain Characters will buff Core units, but there will also be other dudes that buff specific other units. For example, maybe Techmarines would be the guys that buff your tanks/war machines and things of that nature.
It never made sense to me that some guy standing in the dirt outside the tank would be waving his sword around so the gunner shoots better. Or more comically, making the aircraft that flies over his head more accurate because he pointed sternly at a bad guy.
I’m aware of the upcoming FW book. There will still be a Contemptor in it, because the Codex rules don’t cover FW options and GW are most unlikely to suddenly start providing FW rules in Codexes. So there will be a FW Contemptor option, and if it’s “better” or more fun for you you can still use those rules with the plastic chap. My whole point still stands regardless of the new FW Compendium.
Unless the FW options/sheet goes Legends.
Pretty unlikely. FW like selling models. But we’re speculating and no-one can “win” here, just know I don’t think it’s likely they’ll sack off selling models they’re currently casting.
It never made sense to me that some guy standing in the dirt outside the tank would be waving his sword around so the gunner shoots better. Or more comically, making the aircraft that flies over his head more accurate because he pointed sternly at a bad guy.
It never made sense to me that some guy standing in the dirt outside the tank would be waving his sword around so the gunner shoots better. Or more comically, making the aircraft that flies over his head more accurate because he pointed sternly at a bad guy.
More like giving the pilot coordinates etc.
That sounds like something a dedicated spotter should to, like infiltrators, incursors or eliminators.
Jidmah wrote: Anything that allows a unit of your choice to move, shoot or fight twice going away would probably be a good thing for the entire game.
If a unit is supposed to do something twice, it should be a bespoke rule like on khorne berzerkers or flash gits which is limited to that one unit.
End of phase fight twice isn't so bad. It seems like Magnus Warp Time could still be in with lots of spells being CHARACTER & CORE.
Shoot twice can take a good slap for all I care though. I don't like running Slaanesh anyway (not that it hurt me to do so). Seeing Obliterators take on other marks can only be good.
Jidmah wrote: Anything that allows a unit of your choice to move, shoot or fight twice going away would probably be a good thing for the entire game.
If a unit is supposed to do something twice, it should be a bespoke rule like on khorne berzerkers or flash gits which is limited to that one unit.
End of phase fight twice isn't so bad. It seems like Magnus Warp Time could still be in with lots of spells being CHARACTER & CORE.
Shoot twice can take a good slap for all I care though. I don't like running Slaanesh anyway (not that it hurt me to do so). Seeing Obliterators take on other marks can only be good.
True, but I feel like there is a gulf between a unit of MANz fighting twice and a unit of kommandoz fighting twice. Just like there is a huge difference between a unit of rubrics or scarabs moving twice and Mortarion moving twice.
GW has to balance all their units around these stratagems, abilities and powers, which is then in turn forces you to use them, limiting your options of what you actually can do during the game. I'm fairly sure GW hit lootas with the nerfhammer because of all the bad moons shooting them twice. Now they are a dead codex entry unless you are running bad moons for fluff purposes.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: It never made sense to me that some guy standing in the dirt outside the tank would be waving his sword around so the gunner shoots better. Or more comically, making the aircraft that flies over his head more accurate because he pointed sternly at a bad guy.
bUt It'S aN aBsTrAcTiOn!
What? Everyone else gets to use that cop-out argument when I point out how the LOS rules don't make any sense, so why shouldn't I?
Adeptus Doritos wrote: It never made sense to me that some guy standing in the dirt outside the tank would be waving his sword around so the gunner shoots better. Or more comically, making the aircraft that flies over his head more accurate because he pointed sternly at a bad guy.
bUt It'S aN aBsTrAcTiOn!
What? Everyone else gets to use that cop-out argument when I point out how the LOS rules don't make any sense, so why shouldn't I?
You forgot to include the wounding chart and IGOUGO
Daedalus81 wrote: Hmm yea so much stuff we do today that could go away fast. So many points to change.
MANZ will probably maybe be CORE...maybe? Lootas though...yea. Every damn tease generates 1,000 more questions than it answers.
They've already sort of fixed it for sisters of battle and could do the same for other codexes. Most of the stratagems that have broad impact on how units perform are limited to either specific models or a specific conviction. +1 to wound is limited to bloody rose, auto 6 shots for flamers is limited to ebon chalice, fight twice is limited to pengines morties and repentia, double range +1 damage is limited to mulimelta retributors, full rerolls to hit and wound are limited to Celestians, etc.
Daedalus81 wrote: Another passing thought...this is a damn good buff to -1 to hit.
Not exactly. Units that need the reroll auras that are losing them simply will not be played. It's not like they were necessary anyways. An army filled with troops and elite troops is already the best space marine build. Likely all with be core if HI and Terms are core. It's really just a nerf to things that didn't need to be nerfed like...redemptors dreads/repulsors/predators...
It's also bad business sense. Guess what I am not buying if it's not core. Gladiator tanks/or Speeders. Unless ofc non core units get like a 15-20% discount in points. Even then I am not sure you could ever balance units from getting really powerful buffs vs ones that do can't. Unless certain unit types were needed to win - the units that are excluded from getting these buffs already have a host of other downsides - like...no melee ability - can't go into buildings - can't obtain cover....There is literally no reason to take tanks anymore if they are not core (they at least used to be efficient aura users.)
Daedalus81 wrote: Another passing thought...this is a damn good buff to -1 to hit.
Not exactly. Units that need the reroll auras that are losing them simply will not be played. It's not like they were necessary anyways. An army filled with troops and elite troops is already the best space marine build. Likely all with be core if HI and Terms are core. It's really just a nerf to things that didn't need to be nerfed like...redemptors dreads/repulsors/predators...
It's also bad business sense. Guess what I am not buying if it's not core. Gladiator tanks/or Speeders. Unless ofc non core units get like a 15-20% discount in points. Even then I am not sure you could ever balance units from getting really powerful buffs vs ones that do can't. Unless certain unit types were needed to win - the units that are excluded from getting these buffs already have a host of other downsides - like...no melee ability - can't go into buildings - can't obtain cover....There is literally no reason to take tanks anymore if they are not core (they at least used to be efficient aura users.)
Plus with no stacking means you can just freely move whatever would've had a -1 to hit originally from Heavy/Assault weapons and be less in need OF rerolls, which already means positioning matters less.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: It never made sense to me that some guy standing in the dirt outside the tank would be waving his sword around so the gunner shoots better. Or more comically, making the aircraft that flies over his head more accurate because he pointed sternly at a bad guy.
bUt It'S aN aBsTrAcTiOn!
What? Everyone else gets to use that cop-out argument when I point out how the LOS rules don't make any sense, so why shouldn't I?
I wish I was lucky enough to get that response instead of
bUt tHERe aRe MoNSTerS and WIZarDS! FOURTEEKAY isN'T REaLIStic! ThE RoOLZ cAn maKE as LitTLE SENsE aS tHeY WaNT!
Jidmah wrote: Anything that allows a unit of your choice to move, shoot or fight twice going away would probably be a good thing for the entire game.
If a unit is supposed to do something twice, it should be a bespoke rule like on khorne berzerkers or flash gits which is limited to that one unit.
End of phase fight twice isn't so bad. It seems like Magnus Warp Time could still be in with lots of spells being CHARACTER & CORE.
Shoot twice can take a good slap for all I care though. I don't like running Slaanesh anyway (not that it hurt me to do so). Seeing Obliterators take on other marks can only be good.
Fight/shoot twice strategems, psychic powers, etc that aren't on a unit's datasheet are a big balance problem because you're literally doubling something's offensive output without paying for it, or the unit is priced as if you're always using the strategem meaning it's overpriced if you don't. Such effects are just pure boosts to killing power and should be abilities represented on a unit's datasheet so they can be priced accordingly.
Move twice is a bit different as it can at least be used more strategically, getting something where you want it faster than your opponent expected can really mess with their gameplan. They are also limited by all the rules for movement, eg terrain and other models. They're just not the "no brainers" that fight/shoot twice abilities are.
Plus I just always loved the idea of a Sorcerer tearing a hole in reality to fling a 300 ton ceramite leviathan into the enemy's lines, with warp energy and witch fire playing across its hull. *sigh* But it's possible such things must go for the benefit of the game as a whole.
Jidmah wrote: Anything that allows a unit of your choice to move, shoot or fight twice going away would probably be a good thing for the entire game.
If a unit is supposed to do something twice, it should be a bespoke rule like on khorne berzerkers or flash gits which is limited to that one unit.
End of phase fight twice isn't so bad. It seems like Magnus Warp Time could still be in with lots of spells being CHARACTER & CORE.
Shoot twice can take a good slap for all I care though. I don't like running Slaanesh anyway (not that it hurt me to do so). Seeing Obliterators take on other marks can only be good.
Fight/shoot twice strategems, psychic powers, etc that aren't on a unit's datasheet are a big balance problem because you're literally doubling something's offensive output without paying for it, or the unit is priced as if you're always using the strategem meaning it's overpriced if you don't. Such effects are just pure boosts to killing power and should be abilities represented on a unit's datasheet so they can be priced accordingly.
Move twice is a bit different as it can at least be used more strategically, getting something where you want it faster than your opponent expected can really mess with their gameplan. They are also limited by all the rules for movement, eg terrain and other models. They're just not the "no brainers" that fight/shoot twice abilities are.
Plus I just always loved the idea of a Sorcerer tearing a hole in reality to fling a 300 ton ceramite leviathan into the enemy's lines, with warp energy and witch fire playing across its hull. *sigh* But it's possible such things must go for the benefit of the game as a whole.
Teleport abilities are great but not nearly as problematic as move twice abilities. Move twice abilities make things that should be difficult - like assaulting turn one or flying over a battle line to attack squishies...they make them automatic.
It's like trying to fight jets with prop planes...nope...
Teleport abilties that let you deep strike are still really good - they come with the special rules of must be 9" away from units so it's still a long shot to charge - plus intercept type abilties. Moves twice should simply not exist - especially with how it scales with higher move speed. An ability that say added 6" to your movement would be a lot more reasonable.
Daedalus81 wrote: Another passing thought...this is a damn good buff to -1 to hit.
Not exactly. Units that need the reroll auras that are losing them simply will not be played. It's not like they were necessary anyways. An army filled with troops and elite troops is already the best space marine build. Likely all with be core if HI and Terms are core. It's really just a nerf to things that didn't need to be nerfed like...redemptors dreads/repulsors/predators...
It's also bad business sense. Guess what I am not buying if it's not core. Gladiator tanks/or Speeders. Unless ofc non core units get like a 15-20% discount in points. Even then I am not sure you could ever balance units from getting really powerful buffs vs ones that do can't. Unless certain unit types were needed to win - the units that are excluded from getting these buffs already have a host of other downsides - like...no melee ability - can't go into buildings - can't obtain cover....There is literally no reason to take tanks anymore if they are not core (they at least used to be efficient aura users.)
Plus with no stacking means you can just freely move whatever would've had a -1 to hit originally from Heavy/Assault weapons and be less in need OF rerolls, which already means positioning matters less.
It's true with less units having a reroll all hits aura -1 to hit would be more effective. Sadly - if the aura remains the same and there are units that can abuse it - people will just take ONLY those units. It is not a fix to the issue of auras - it just again limits your army selection. I would have supported a smart fix like...limit the # of units that could benefit from the aura at once / just make all auras into single target abilties. Would have been fine with that. This "fix" is so clearly the wrong way to fix the issue.
I've seen the arguement for design space for units that buff non core units...I wonder...will one of them have a really powerful aura that people can abuse? Like...seriously? Are we back to step one? It would just make the army stronger at that point....you can only take 1 chapter master. If I can take a chapter master buffing core units over here and a techmarine buffing tanks over here....I mean heck...I can already do that.
Whats funny is most people in this thread actually know it's a bad change. They just see it as a space marine nerf and youre wrong...It is not even going to affect marines. It is just going to hurt casual gamers who want to play with their non net list with them being unable to buff units netlisters wont even be able to consider.
Jidmah wrote: Anything that allows a unit of your choice to move, shoot or fight twice going away would probably be a good thing for the entire game.
If a unit is supposed to do something twice, it should be a bespoke rule like on khorne berzerkers or flash gits which is limited to that one unit.
End of phase fight twice isn't so bad. It seems like Magnus Warp Time could still be in with lots of spells being CHARACTER & CORE.
Shoot twice can take a good slap for all I care though. I don't like running Slaanesh anyway (not that it hurt me to do so). Seeing Obliterators take on other marks can only be good.
Fight/shoot twice strategems, psychic powers, etc that aren't on a unit's datasheet are a big balance problem because you're literally doubling something's offensive output without paying for it, or the unit is priced as if you're always using the strategem meaning it's overpriced if you don't. Such effects are just pure boosts to killing power and should be abilities represented on a unit's datasheet so they can be priced accordingly.
Move twice is a bit different as it can at least be used more strategically, getting something where you want it faster than your opponent expected can really mess with their gameplan. They are also limited by all the rules for movement, eg terrain and other models. They're just not the "no brainers" that fight/shoot twice abilities are.
Plus I just always loved the idea of a Sorcerer tearing a hole in reality to fling a 300 ton ceramite leviathan into the enemy's lines, with warp energy and witch fire playing across its hull. *sigh* But it's possible such things must go for the benefit of the game as a whole.
Teleport abilities are great but not nearly as problematic as move twice abilities. Move twice abilities make things that should be difficult - like assaulting turn one or flying over a battle line to attack squishies...they make them automatic.
It's like trying to fight jets with prop planes...nope...
Teleport abilties that let you deep strike are still really good - they come with the special rules of must be 9" away from units so it's still a long shot to charge - plus intercept type abilties. Moves twice should simply not exist - especially with how it scales with higher move speed. An ability that say added 6" to your movement would be a lot more reasonable.
As I said, such abilities may need to go away for the benefit of the game. The same can be said for anything that grants scout/infiltrator type abilities to units that weren't designed or priced with such abilities in mind. We've already seen what that can do with Centurions. The problem is giving additional rules to units that weren't designed/priced for them. Hopefully this will curtail that somewhat.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: It never made sense to me that some guy standing in the dirt outside the tank would be waving his sword around so the gunner shoots better. Or more comically, making the aircraft that flies over his head more accurate because he pointed sternly at a bad guy.
bUt It'S aN aBsTrAcTiOn!
What? Everyone else gets to use that cop-out argument when I point out how the LOS rules don't make any sense, so why shouldn't I?
I wish I was lucky enough to get that response instead of
bUt tHERe aRe MoNSTerS and WIZarDS! FOURTEEKAY isN'T REaLIStic! ThE RoOLZ cAn maKE as LitTLE SENsE aS tHeY WaNT!
Yeah just stick with 'WhY wOULdn'T FoUrteeKay FolLoW dA saMe RoOLZ aS WorLd WaR TwO?!?? ConText oNlY hAs to MaKe SenS3 when I SAYZ SO!'
Xenomancers wrote: Teleport abilities are great but not nearly as problematic as move twice abilities. Move twice abilities make things that should be difficult - like assaulting turn one or flying over a battle line to attack squishies...they make them automatic.
It's like trying to fight jets with prop planes...nope...
Teleport abilties that let you deep strike are still really good - they come with the special rules of must be 9" away from units so it's still a long shot to charge - plus intercept type abilties. Moves twice should simply not exist - especially with how it scales with higher move speed. An ability that say added 6" to your movement would be a lot more reasonable.
Yeah, sure Move twice abilities have more OP potential than teleport abilities.
He wasn't saying the contrary. He was pointing out that out of all the common "Act twice" abiltities, the ones that let you move twice are less straightforward than the others.
Fight twice barely requires thinking, shoot twice a bit more since you have to decide what your optimal target is. Move twice at least can be used offensively or defensively and actually requires decision making, especially in the later turns of the game.
Still, i think teleport abilities are more useful in general than move twice abilities. Warptime is still one of the better powers CSM have but after playing with Da'Jump with my thousand sons, they both have unique roles. Warptime goes on the fast models, Da'jump goes on the slow ones.
Basically, i agree with you. Act twice abilities that aren't on the unit datasheet have to go away. Ynnari was the prime example of why its a balancing nightmare.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Which is once again a problem with a lot of Strats: they're straight offensive or defensive buffs without any thought behind them.
The most interesting stratagems to me are things like Vox Scream or Supreme Creation. Things that are fluffy and show how the army is supposed to play but aren't basic damage dealing bonuses.
The most annoying type of strats are things like Infernal fusilade or Flames of mutation : straight up damage buffs that target a specific unit. If these were a once-per game ability baked in the datasheet,which you paid points for, it would be a lot better. As it stands, its nothing more than a cheap patch for underperforming units. I hate that i basically HAVE to use it everytime i play these units.
Daedalus81 wrote: Another passing thought...this is a damn good buff to -1 to hit.
Not exactly. Units that need the reroll auras that are losing them simply will not be played. It's not like they were necessary anyways. An army filled with troops and elite troops is already the best space marine build. Likely all with be core if HI and Terms are core. It's really just a nerf to things that didn't need to be nerfed like...redemptors dreads/repulsors/predators...
It's also bad business sense. Guess what I am not buying if it's not core. Gladiator tanks/or Speeders. Unless ofc non core units get like a 15-20% discount in points. Even then I am not sure you could ever balance units from getting really powerful buffs vs ones that do can't. Unless certain unit types were needed to win - the units that are excluded from getting these buffs already have a host of other downsides - like...no melee ability - can't go into buildings - can't obtain cover....There is literally no reason to take tanks anymore if they are not core (they at least used to be efficient aura users.)
It is a lot harder to play missions and keep all the CORE buffed.
IF Devs are core - 5 LCDevs (@ 18 points) and half a Captain (CM) will be 185, 10 wounds, and 51 points per hit when not moving and 59 when moving. Predator is currently 170 or 63 points per hit.
Predator is marginally worse when you consider it is more flexible, doesn't require the captain to also be buffing other units, and that a CM might cost points now.
Warptime isn't free, you pay for the psyker (and you pay a lot), and it isn't automatic either. Comparing it to double shoot or double fight stratagems is pretty silly.
More fundamentally, I don't want chaos to just be a slightly different, likely inferior kind of marines. All the jank in the chaos faction is what makes it interesting and rewarding and different to play. I wouldn't want to see the janky identity of the superfaction go away in favor of generic buffs that just make them Spikey Space Marines.
That doesn't mean all the particular choices GW has made are smart, mind you. But the last thing I want to see is stuff like warptime removed in "return" for doctrines or some junk like that.
Plus with no stacking means you can just freely move whatever would've had a -1 to hit originally from Heavy/Assault weapons and be less in need OF rerolls, which already means positioning matters less.
And yet it still matters, because lots of things won't have a -1 to hit so forcing it upon yourself weakens your capabilities and forces you to keep a captain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: Warptime isn't free, you pay for the psyker (and you pay a lot), and it isn't automatic either. Comparing it to double shoot or double fight stratagems is pretty silly.
More fundamentally, I don't want chaos to just be a slightly different, likely inferior kind of marines. All the jank in the chaos faction is what makes it interesting and rewarding and different to play. I wouldn't want to see the janky identity of the superfaction go away in favor of generic buffs that just make them Spikey Space Marines.
That doesn't mean all the particular choices GW has made are smart, mind you. But the last thing I want to see is stuff like warptime removed in "return" for doctrines or some junk like that.
There's probably no chance Warp Time goes away. It will just become CHARACTER and CORE only. It could potentially exclude Magnus. So no more Defiler / Magnus surge seems likely.
yukishiro1 wrote: Warptime isn't free, you pay for the psyker (and you pay a lot), and it isn't automatic either. Comparing it to double shoot or double fight stratagems is pretty silly.
More fundamentally, I don't want chaos to just be a slightly different, likely inferior kind of marines. All the jank in the chaos faction is what makes it interesting and rewarding and different to play. I wouldn't want to see the janky identity of the superfaction go away in favor of generic buffs that just make them Spikey Space Marines.
That doesn't mean all the particular choices GW has made are smart, mind you. But the last thing I want to see is stuff like warptime removed in "return" for doctrines or some junk like that.
Sure, you pay for warptime and its not a guarantee that you'll pull it off but its still the most powerful spell CSM have access to.
In my eyes, CSMs fit in two category :
-Renegades
These guys are either fresh converts, marines that decided to go against the imperium but. These are the "spiky loyalists" since they don't overuse chaos so they have some similarities to the loyalists.
-Chaos-ed marines
These are the ones that fully embrace chaos (DG, EC,TS,WE) and make extensive use of demon stuff.
the problem is that these two are very different at their core. Now lets say GW mostly sees CSM as the second option (so theres a bigger gap between loyalists and them).
The core of these would be the inter-faction buffs (Demonic loci mainly). In my eyes, these marines should lose the Khorne "fight twice" and slaanesh "shoot twice" stratagem. By losing these, you can make Chaos marks something more than just a stratagem unlocker.
Make marks give you stats (+1 T for nurgle, +2M for slaanesh, +1S for khorne, +1 save? for Tzeentch) on top of the keyword and change loci to affect any <Mark of Chaos> unit instead of specifically demons. Having a khorne berzerker besides a herald of khorne should buff their strength for example.
There's probably no chance Warp Time goes away. It will just become CHARACTER and CORE only. It could potentially exclude Magnus. So no more Defiler / Magnus surge seems likely.
agreed its not going away, but isnt the Disco lord the biggest offender for warptime usage? Or mortarion? Magnus seems pretty far down the list of "optimal warptime targets"
yukishiro1 wrote: Warptime isn't free, you pay for the psyker (and you pay a lot), and it isn't automatic either. Comparing it to double shoot or double fight stratagems is pretty silly.
More fundamentally, I don't want chaos to just be a slightly different, likely inferior kind of marines. All the jank in the chaos faction is what makes it interesting and rewarding and different to play. I wouldn't want to see the janky identity of the superfaction go away in favor of generic buffs that just make them Spikey Space Marines.
That doesn't mean all the particular choices GW has made are smart, mind you. But the last thing I want to see is stuff like warptime removed in "return" for doctrines or some junk like that.
Sure, you pay for warptime and its not a guarantee that you'll pull it off but its still the most powerful spell CSM have access to.
In my eyes, CSMs fit in two category :
-Renegades
These guys are either fresh converts, marines that decided to go against the imperium but. These are the "spiky loyalists" since they don't overuse chaos so they have some similarities to the loyalists.
-Chaos-ed marines
These are the ones that fully embrace chaos (DG, EC,TS,WE) and make extensive use of demon stuff.
the problem is that these two are very different at their core. Now lets say GW mostly sees CSM as the second option (so theres a bigger gap between loyalists and them).
The core of these would be the inter-faction buffs (Demonic loci mainly). In my eyes, these marines should lose the Khorne "fight twice" and slaanesh "shoot twice" stratagem. By losing these, you can make Chaos marks something more than just a stratagem unlocker.
Make marks give you stats (+1 T for nurgle, +2M for slaanesh, +1S for khorne, +1 save? for Tzeentch) on top of the keyword and change loci to affect any <Mark of Chaos> unit instead of specifically demons. Having a khorne berzerker besides a herald of khorne should buff their strength for example.
Um, aren't you forgetting some legions? Like Black Legion, Alpha Legion, Iron Warriors, Word Bearers, and Night Lords? I don't think they fit into either of those categories.
And I'd like for Yukishiro to define "janky". If it means csm remaining team WOMBO COMBO, then no thanks.
I don't think that phrase has much meaning, honestly. It seems to be just defined as whatever people don't like.
I'm not a big fan of stacking buffs on a single death star unit, if that's what you mean. It wouldn't really bother me to see double shoot and double fight go away, though if they do, obviously all the other double fights (especially the ones with fewer conditions that normal marines get) should go away too.
Warptime is the ultimate jank, but it also includes stuff like most of the alpha legion stratagem list, vox scream, the anti-fall back strat night lords get, daemon summoning, etc etc. Stuff that allows you to punch above your weight through clever use.
It never made sense to me that some guy standing in the dirt outside the tank would be waving his sword around so the gunner shoots better. Or more comically, making the aircraft that flies over his head more accurate because he pointed sternly at a bad guy.
More like giving the pilot coordinates etc.
That sounds like something a dedicated spotter should to, like infiltrators, incursors or eliminators.
Or the radioman who follows the company commander around? Regardless its a more accurate fluff-splaination for why a ground commander would make aircraft or tanks more accurate than "waving a sword" or "pointing sternly"?
It never made sense to me that some guy standing in the dirt outside the tank would be waving his sword around so the gunner shoots better. Or more comically, making the aircraft that flies over his head more accurate because he pointed sternly at a bad guy.
More like giving the pilot coordinates etc.
That sounds like something a dedicated spotter should to, like infiltrators, incursors or eliminators.
Like maybe a unit that carries a type of light, (lasers perhaps) that mark targets?
ohh we could call them...
Marker lights!
I joke but I'd not mind seeing other armies with support things like that, not marines as it doesn't really fit them, but a new guard unit called "recon squad" with 18 inch assault 1 "Lascarbines" and "marker grenades" that allows them to throw smoke for more accurate artillery.
Um, aren't you forgetting some legions? Like Black Legion, Alpha Legion, Iron Warriors, Word Bearers, and Night Lords? I don't think they fit into either of those categories.
And I'd like for Yukishiro to define "janky". If it means csm remaining team WOMBO COMBO, then no thanks.
Well yeah, night lords are basically renegades with low chaos usage, they just arent "fresh converts"
It never made sense to me that some guy standing in the dirt outside the tank would be waving his sword around so the gunner shoots better. Or more comically, making the aircraft that flies over his head more accurate because he pointed sternly at a bad guy.
More like giving the pilot coordinates etc.
That sounds like something a dedicated spotter should to, like infiltrators, incursors or eliminators.
Like maybe a unit that carries a type of light, (lasers perhaps) that mark targets?
ohh we could call them...
Marker lights!
I joke but I'd not mind seeing other armies with support things like that, not marines as it doesn't really fit them, but a new guard unit called "recon squad" with 18 inch assault 1 "Lascarbines" and "marker grenades" that allows them to throw smoke for more accurate artillery.
I don't mind either, heck I'd make it the Vox Caster model for guard - anyone who's seen We Were Soldiers can imagine a Colonel barking orders to a radioman giving drop coordinates after that. I was just pointing out the SM Captain probably wasn't waving a sword or pointing sternly for the aircraft but doing other Commander In The Field things.
Dunno if restricting rerolls to Core units is a good thing. Universal Auras added something to the game, sad to see them being nerfed.
Here's why. I ran a Black Legion gunline most of 8th edition, 22+ lascannons on a variety of units. With Abaddon's reroll aura, they wounded about 66% of the time against most things. Sometimes I swapped in Scorpius Whirlwinds, the reroll aura made them lethal to units like Intercessors.
The trade off was board control. My army stayed on my edge of the table most of the time, relying on distance and firepower to win games. This meant I was not going to claim too many objectives before the 4th or 5th turn and things could go catastrophically wrong if opponents optimized around distance themselves.
That felt fair, there was always risk involved. If you really wanted to ranged shooting for Chaos, the only way to make it worth it was rerolls. Let's say CSM are now the only Core unit that can bring lascannons. Chaos loses a playstyle, the BS and range on Daemon Engines is poor and Predators / Land Raiders are inefficient points-wise compared to their Imperial counterparts.
A traditional Chaos army is geared for mid-range melee. The mechanics of 9th edition make this a little harder to run these kinds of lists, the new multicharge rules in particular. Still haven't played a game of 9th but I really don't know what kind of army I would even want to bring.
the problem is, at least from a design POV, that's not entirely what GW wants. Abaddon standing back behind the battlefield and watching his people shoot isn't quite what they want, they want him moving forward with your troops etc
BrianDavion wrote: the problem is, at least from a design POV, that's not entirely what GW wants. Abaddon standing back behind the battlefield and watching his people shoot isn't quite what they want, they want him moving forward with your troops etc
Even moreso they don't want your troops standing back and shooting. They just really aren't very good at making the players move around the board when the players don't want to.
BrianDavion wrote: the problem is, at least from a design POV, that's not entirely what GW wants. Abaddon standing back behind the battlefield and watching his people shoot isn't quite what they want, they want him moving forward with your troops etc
Even moreso they don't want your troops standing back and shooting. They just really aren't very good at making the players move around the board when the players don't want to.
give CSMs the ability to take chainswords AND boltguns back and I think you'd see CSM players being more agressive.
BrianDavion wrote: the problem is, at least from a design POV, that's not entirely what GW wants. Abaddon standing back behind the battlefield and watching his people shoot isn't quite what they want, they want him moving forward with your troops etc
Even moreso they don't want your troops standing back and shooting. They just really aren't very good at making the players move around the board when the players don't want to.
give CSMs the ability to take chainswords AND boltguns back and I think you'd see CSM players being more agressive.
erm, no.
It would make CSM more generalistic, but it certainly wouldn't make CSM players more aggresive, especially considering that CSM are still comparatively Overpriced, Not capable of outright wiping an enemy out or tieing an enemy successfully down.
BrianDavion wrote: the problem is, at least from a design POV, that's not entirely what GW wants. Abaddon standing back behind the battlefield and watching his people shoot isn't quite what they want, they want him moving forward with your troops etc
Even moreso they don't want your troops standing back and shooting. They just really aren't very good at making the players move around the board when the players don't want to.
give CSMs the ability to take chainswords AND boltguns back and I think you'd see CSM players being more agressive.
erm, no.
It would make CSM more generalistic, but it certainly wouldn't make CSM players more aggresive, especially considering that CSM are still comparatively Overpriced, Not capable of outright wiping an enemy out or tieing an enemy successfully down.
Well, always giving CSM players worse rules than loyalist SM made them pretty aggressive, so that worked at least.
BrianDavion wrote: the problem is, at least from a design POV, that's not entirely what GW wants. Abaddon standing back behind the battlefield and watching his people shoot isn't quite what they want, they want him moving forward with your troops etc
Even moreso they don't want your troops standing back and shooting. They just really aren't very good at making the players move around the board when the players don't want to.
give CSMs the ability to take chainswords AND boltguns back and I think you'd see CSM players being more agressive.
erm, no.
It would make CSM more generalistic, but it certainly wouldn't make CSM players more aggresive, especially considering that CSM are still comparatively Overpriced, Not capable of outright wiping an enemy out or tieing an enemy successfully down.
Combined with 2 Wounds it will actually help quite a bit, as long as the price doesn't change or doesn't change much. Giving up the Pistol with the changes to assault rules and a pistol shot into engagement is a moderate to large hit though. Being able to mob up to 20 isn't bad, but it gets expensive and they have to miss out on a couple special or heavy if I'm reading this right and it's accurate.
They should get rid of the Preferred Enemy-esque Death To the False Emperor though, and channel whatever value it has into something more universal. Once they hit 2 wounds, the problem isn't the CSM, its whatever is supporting them.
BrianDavion wrote: the problem is, at least from a design POV, that's not entirely what GW wants. Abaddon standing back behind the battlefield and watching his people shoot isn't quite what they want, they want him moving forward with your troops etc
Even moreso they don't want your troops standing back and shooting. They just really aren't very good at making the players move around the board when the players don't want to.
Guess someone hasn’t tried playing a stationary castle in 9th... you lose, hard.
BrianDavion wrote: the problem is, at least from a design POV, that's not entirely what GW wants. Abaddon standing back behind the battlefield and watching his people shoot isn't quite what they want, they want him moving forward with your troops etc
Even moreso they don't want your troops standing back and shooting. They just really aren't very good at making the players move around the board when the players don't want to.
give CSMs the ability to take chainswords AND boltguns back and I think you'd see CSM players being more agressive.
erm, no.
It would make CSM more generalistic, but it certainly wouldn't make CSM players more aggresive, especially considering that CSM are still comparatively Overpriced, Not capable of outright wiping an enemy out or tieing an enemy successfully down.
Well, always giving CSM players worse rules than loyalist SM made them pretty aggressive, so that worked at least.
Höhö.
No, they just turn into Iron warriors, bitter, and cold..
Combined with 2 Wounds it will actually help quite a bit, as long as the price doesn't change or doesn't change much. Giving up the Pistol with the changes to assault rules and a pistol shot into engagement is a moderate to large hit though. Being able to mob up to 20 isn't bad, but it gets expensive and they have to miss out on a couple special or heavy if I'm reading this right and it's accurate.
They should get rid of the Preferred Enemy-esque Death To the False Emperor though, and channel whatever value it has into something more universal. Once they hit 2 wounds, the problem isn't the CSM, its whatever is supporting them.
Considering , that Tacs hiked, to a degree which is pretty ludicrous, with ALOT more buffs to their name though, i am heavily sceptical.
And morale / blast rules will make anything over 10 man allready a bit iffy, not to mention that reserve stratagems to minimize this probably won't survive.
Granted, the fact that AP-1 chainswords will be a thing Might compensate somewhat the lackluster melee capability, but considering that tripointing is also pretty much dead, leaving only wipe out as a valid melee option (unless you can force a unit to not be able to fall back like night lords) , i seriously doubt that chainsword Bolter happens to be good enough.
Not to mention that the CSM box would contradict that anyways.
BrianDavion wrote: the problem is, at least from a design POV, that's not entirely what GW wants. Abaddon standing back behind the battlefield and watching his people shoot isn't quite what they want, they want him moving forward with your troops etc
Even moreso they don't want your troops standing back and shooting. They just really aren't very good at making the players move around the board when the players don't want to.
Guess someone hasn’t tried playing a stationary castle in 9th... you lose, hard.
In the "tournament" Matched Play missions. Not Open Play, not necessarily Crusade.
And it still doesn't make people who dont want to move move. People frequently hyper focus on model removal. Until/unless movement results in more model removal a lot of people are going to focus on killing more than missions.
Considering , that Tacs hiked, to a degree which is pretty ludicrous, with ALOT more buffs to their name though, i am heavily sceptical.
Isn't the only difference DTTFE vs ATSKNF for 1 point?
And morale / blast rules will make anything over 10 man allready a bit iffy, not to mention that reserve stratagems to minimize this probably won't survive.
Giving up the free Sgt, and extra Special/HEavy combo is potentially an even bigger issue with going to 20 instead of 10.
Granted, the fact that AP-1 chainswords will be a thing Might compensate somewhat the lackluster melee capability, but considering that tripointing is also pretty much dead, leaving only wipe out as a valid melee option (unless you can force a unit to not be able to fall back like night lords) , i seriously doubt that chainsword Bolter happens to be good enough.
Not to mention that the CSM box would contradict that anyways.
I agree giving up the pistol will hurt. The Chainsword +1A is to offset BP+CCW lost rule, but when they're closer to Assault Intercessor or Intercessor value especially if they're cheaper than Intercessor cost it's hard to say they're not very good.
Jidmah wrote: Breton, are you aware that you are arguing that point costs in crusade and open play missions aren't balanced for competitive play?
If you switch your arguments around enough who knows what you’ll end up arguing against!
And Breton, you still have it wrong. It’s not just the Tournament pack that rewards mobility. If you just focus on killing you’d better be damn good at it as otherwise you can get outscored. I don’t think you’re grasping how the missions play out. You gotta go get stuff in Matched Play. Other modes, sure, bets are off, that’s the whole point... you can construct games how you want to. You know as well as I that most on here play and refer to Matched Play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bosskelot wrote: Static gunline play is still a really bad way to play in Crusade anyway as the missions follow the same template as matched play ones.
And there you have it. Even in that mode mobility is key.
Jidmah wrote: Breton, are you aware that you are arguing that point costs in crusade and open play missions aren't balanced for competitive play?
No, I'm arguing their rules to make/encourage people move don't work all that well for open play and Crusade where they don't necessarily have the Matched Play missions that involve more movement for objective secured - And that even when Matched Play missions are involved some people still won't play the mission because of "Buck Fever" all as part of the "GW isn't very good at encouraging the type of games they think they want us to play"
And Breton, you still have it wrong. It’s not just the Tournament pack that rewards mobility. If you just focus on killing you’d better be damn good at it as otherwise you can get outscored. I don’t think you’re grasping how the missions play out. You gotta go get stuff in Matched Play. Other modes, sure, bets are off, that’s the whole point...
JohnnyHell wrote:If you switch your arguments around enough who knows what you’ll end up arguing against!
Especially if you switch it around in the very next sentence.
Breton wrote:In the "tournament" Matched Play missions. Not Open Play, not necessarily Crusade.
I added the underlines to help you read a little better. You seem to have skipped a few words of what I said.
Not Online!!! wrote: Considering , that Tacs hiked, to a degree which is pretty ludicrous, with ALOT (sic) more buffs to their name though, i am heavily sceptical.
Isn't the only difference DTTFE vs ATSKNF for 1 point?
Last I checked there are currently these little things called Doctrines, and even some mono-faction Super Doctrines - in capes - as well.
Bosskelot wrote: Static gunline play is still a really bad way to play in Crusade anyway as the missions follow the same template as matched play ones.
SOME of the missions follow the same template. Some of them are strictly kill based. Some of them start out on that template, but don't maintain it.
Sweep and Clear starts out that way, but doesn't require camping on it, so one unit can go claim anohter
Supply Drop is even nastier than Matched Play
Assasinate not so much.
Jidmah wrote: Breton, are you aware that you are arguing that point costs in crusade and open play missions aren't balanced for competitive play?
No, I'm arguing their rules to make/encourage people move don't work all that well for open play and Crusade where they don't necessarily have the Matched Play missions that involve more movement for objective secured - And that even when Matched Play missions are involved some people still won't play the mission because of "Buck Fever" all as part of the "GW isn't very good at encouraging the type of games they think they want us to play"
What makes crusade missions so different from matched play missions in your opinion?
Jidmah wrote: Breton, are you aware that you are arguing that point costs in crusade and open play missions aren't balanced for competitive play?
No, I'm arguing their rules to make/encourage people move don't work all that well for open play and Crusade where they don't necessarily have the Matched Play missions that involve more movement for objective secured - And that even when Matched Play missions are involved some people still won't play the mission because of "Buck Fever" all as part of the "GW isn't very good at encouraging the type of games they think they want us to play"
What makes crusade missions so different from matched play missions in your opinion?
They're frequently not nearly as focused on VP based on Objective Securing
Unit XP can provide an alternative primary goal other than necessarily "winning" the match
Even the ones that ARE objective Secured style missions, frequently allow more forgiving objective placement - i.e. in you get to put them in your own deployment zone at the feet of your gun line. At that point they're just the same old missions they've always been.
What makes crusade missions so different from matched play missions in your opinion?
They're (currently at least, we'll see how the ones in the new book shake out) mostly re-hashes of 8th edition missions, which stand in pretty stark contrast to the 9th edition paradigm of "hold X, hold X+1, hold more, plus Secondaries". Victory conditions are a lot narrower, much more army dependent, and far less concerned about every army composition being viable to complete them. The decision to replace Secondaries with Agendas (which for the record I goddamn adore in a narrative setting because it allows players to genuinely focus on narrative force development over short term victory) makes a very big difference when it comes to how Crusade games play mechanically.
What makes crusade missions so different from matched play missions in your opinion?
They're (currently at least, we'll see how the ones in the new book shake out) mostly re-hashes of 8th edition missions, which stand in pretty stark contrast to the 9th edition paradigm of "hold X, hold X+1, hold more, plus Secondaries". Victory conditions are a lot narrower, much more army dependent, and far less concerned about every army composition being viable to complete them. The decision to replace Secondaries with Agendas (which for the record I goddamn adore in a narrative setting because it allows players to genuinely focus on narrative force development over short term victory) makes a very big difference when it comes to how Crusade games play mechanically.
Even more so - 9th Matched Play dictate where the objectives are placed, and rarely are any, let alone all of them, in anybody's/split into everybody's deployment zone - without Infiltrate/Scout/Whatever-the-hell-they-change-the-name-of-the-same-basic-concept-to-this-edition, you have to move onto them, and even with it, you still have to move more units onto them for saturation.
Um, aren't you forgetting some legions? Like Black Legion, Alpha Legion, Iron Warriors, Word Bearers, and Night Lords? I don't think they fit into either of those categories.
And I'd like for Yukishiro to define "janky". If it means csm remaining team WOMBO COMBO, then no thanks.
Well yeah, night lords are basically renegades with low chaos usage, they just arent "fresh converts"
Yes, but they don't fight like loyalists. Loyalists are primarily a "special forces" type of army. They specialize in fast, hard hitting targeted attacks in support of conventional forces. Night Lords, and the other legions I mentioned, fight as Legionnaires: they fight as they did in the Crusade and Heresy, as an actual standing army, with a combined arms approach using their own forces, with or without the support of other factions. Loyalists would shy away from things like heavy armour, artillery, and super heavys, while the Legions would make full use of them to varying degrees depending on the Legions preferred methods of war. The Legions, even those that don't fully embrace Chaos, wouldn't behave like common renegades.
Breton wrote:
Granted, the fact that AP-1 chainswords will be a thing Might compensate somewhat the lackluster melee capability, but considering that tripointing is also pretty much dead, leaving only wipe out as a valid melee option (unless you can force a unit to not be able to fall back like night lords) , i seriously doubt that chainsword Bolter happens to be good enough.
Not to mention that the CSM box would contradict that anyways.
I agree giving up the pistol will hurt. The Chainsword +1A is to offset BP+CCW lost rule, but when they're closer to Assault Intercessor or Intercessor value especially if they're cheaper than Intercessor cost it's hard to say they're not very good.
You're missing his point about the new csm models themselves. The new models do not support bolters + chainswords. All the bolters in the kit have both hands molded onto them, thus forcing a two handed grip. All the chainswords are molded onto hands/arms, with none being scabbarded. I doubt gw will be producing another csm kit anytime soon. If we get a csm infantry kit anytime soon that incorporates long arms and melee weapons into the same loadout it will most likely have to be an actual kit for Chosen. Which I would personally love.
You're missing his point about the new csm models themselves. The new models do not support bolters + chainswords. All the bolters in the kit have both hands molded onto them, thus forcing a two handed grip. All the chainswords are molded onto hands/arms, with none being scabbarded. I doubt gw will be producing another csm kit anytime soon. If we get a csm infantry kit anytime soon that incorporates long arms and melee weapons into the same loadout it will most likely have to be an actual kit for Chosen. Which I would personally love.
I was going to say I wouldn't be shocked to see a BP/Chainsword kit for CSM in Assault Intercessor style. Especially with the current ruleset pushing Fight Phase. Not like they wouldn't sell.
You're missing his point about the new csm models themselves. The new models do not support bolters + chainswords. All the bolters in the kit have both hands molded onto them, thus forcing a two handed grip. All the chainswords are molded onto hands/arms, with none being scabbarded. I doubt gw will be producing another csm kit anytime soon. If we get a csm infantry kit anytime soon that incorporates long arms and melee weapons into the same loadout it will most likely have to be an actual kit for Chosen. Which I would personally love.
I was going to say I wouldn't be shocked to see a BP/Chainsword kit for CSM in Assault Intercessor style. Especially with the current ruleset pushing Fight Phase. Not like they wouldn't sell.
The current kit does support bolt pistols + chainswords (though it doesn't include enough of either for the full squad). I still think an actual Chosen kit would be excellent. Long arms + melee weapons would be different from what loyalists have. We don't want csm to just be "spiky loyalists" now do we?
You're missing his point about the new csm models themselves. The new models do not support bolters + chainswords. All the bolters in the kit have both hands molded onto them, thus forcing a two handed grip. All the chainswords are molded onto hands/arms, with none being scabbarded. I doubt gw will be producing another csm kit anytime soon. If we get a csm infantry kit anytime soon that incorporates long arms and melee weapons into the same loadout it will most likely have to be an actual kit for Chosen. Which I would personally love.
I was going to say I wouldn't be shocked to see a BP/Chainsword kit for CSM in Assault Intercessor style. Especially with the current ruleset pushing Fight Phase. Not like they wouldn't sell.
The current kit does support bolt pistols + chainswords (though it doesn't include enough of either for the full squad). I still think an actual Chosen kit would be excellent. Long arms + melee weapons would be different from what loyalists have. We don't want csm to just be "spiky loyalists" now do we?
Tell that to GW who can't better differentiate armies and the white Knights that be all "ThEy Should Be A mIrRoR".
The current kit does support bolt pistols + chainswords (though it doesn't include enough of either for the full squad). I still think an actual Chosen kit would be excellent. Long arms + melee weapons would be different from what loyalists have. We don't want csm to just be "spiky loyalists" now do we?
At a certain level they're all comparable. Storm Guardians, BP/CSCSM, Assault Intercessors, Grey Hunters, Sword Brothers, Choppa Boys, etc. and they're going to make kits for the meta that sells. So far they've worked pretty hard at keeping (rifle type) + pistol + CCW off of troops. Bolter + CS is just a spiky shoota boy at that basic level.
The current kit does support bolt pistols + chainswords (though it doesn't include enough of either for the full squad). I still think an actual Chosen kit would be excellent. Long arms + melee weapons would be different from what loyalists have. We don't want csm to just be "spiky loyalists" now do we?
At a certain level they're all comparable. Storm Guardians, BP/CSCSM, Assault Intercessors, Grey Hunters, Sword Brothers, Choppa Boys, etc. and they're going to make kits for the meta that sells. So far they've worked pretty hard at keeping (rifle type) + pistol + CCW off of troops. Bolter + CS is just a spiky shoota boy at that basic level.
Yes, but we don't need a new kit when the one we already have supports the loadout you're talking about. We do, however, need a kit for Chosen, as one doesn't currently exist.
Chosen, BTW, aren't troops. Though they should be, for the Legions, but that's another conversation....
The current kit does support bolt pistols + chainswords (though it doesn't include enough of either for the full squad). I still think an actual Chosen kit would be excellent. Long arms + melee weapons would be different from what loyalists have. We don't want csm to just be "spiky loyalists" now do we?
At a certain level they're all comparable. Storm Guardians, BP/CSCSM, Assault Intercessors, Grey Hunters, Sword Brothers, Choppa Boys, etc. and they're going to make kits for the meta that sells. So far they've worked pretty hard at keeping (rifle type) + pistol + CCW off of troops. Bolter + CS is just a spiky shoota boy at that basic level.
Yes, but we don't need a new kit when the one we already have supports the loadout you're talking about. We do, however, need a kit for Chosen, as one doesn't currently exist.
Chosen, BTW, aren't troops. Though they should be, for the Legions, but that's another conversation....
The current kit does support bolt pistols + chainswords (though it doesn't include enough of either for the full squad). I still think an actual Chosen kit would be excellent. Long arms + melee weapons would be different from what loyalists have. We don't want csm to just be "spiky loyalists" now do we?
At a certain level they're all comparable. Storm Guardians, BP/CSCSM, Assault Intercessors, Grey Hunters, Sword Brothers, Choppa Boys, etc. and they're going to make kits for the meta that sells. So far they've worked pretty hard at keeping (rifle type) + pistol + CCW off of troops. Bolter + CS is just a spiky shoota boy at that basic level.
Yes, but we don't need a new kit when the one we already have supports the loadout you're talking about. We do, however, need a kit for Chosen, as one doesn't currently exist.
Chosen, BTW, aren't troops. Though they should be, for the Legions, but that's another conversation....
Doesn’t include enough of either...
It also only contains eight bolters for ten Chaos Space Marines, so no all bolter squad either. If you would like to discuss gw's bizarre sprue decisions, especially for the new csm kits (don't get me started on the new havocs and terminators) then that might be a good idea for another thread. However, I see no reason to create what would be a redundant kit when csm have ancient kits for things like bezerkers and units with no kits at all such as Chosen.
Not to mention allocating resources to making such a redundant kit for an already fairly well supported faction while some Xenos factions have kits that have existed since grunge was all the rage.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The current kit does support bolt pistols + chainswords (though it doesn't include enough of either for the full squad). I still think an actual Chosen kit would be excellent. Long arms + melee weapons would be different from what loyalists have. We don't want csm to just be "spiky loyalists" now do we?
Currently, I make my Alpha Legion Chosen from Havoc bodies (just cut/file down the toe claws), Mark 3 backpacks, and the Legion Upgrade helmets with some extra bits & gubbins like pouches and the like. Sadly they've changed the rules for Astartes chainswords, but I'm pretty sure my 'nasty knives' that the Chosen have will 'count as' well enough for most sane players.
However, I do wish there was a kit for Chosen- maybe a 5-man box full of beefy baroque badasses with lots of options like the Deathwatch Veteran kits.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The current kit does support bolt pistols + chainswords (though it doesn't include enough of either for the full squad). I still think an actual Chosen kit would be excellent. Long arms + melee weapons would be different from what loyalists have. We don't want csm to just be "spiky loyalists" now do we?
Currently, I make my Alpha Legion Chosen from Havoc bodies (just cut/file down the toe claws), Mark 3 backpacks, and the Legion Upgrade helmets with some extra bits & gubbins like pouches and the like. Sadly they've changed the rules for Astartes chainswords, but I'm pretty sure my 'nasty knives' that the Chosen have will 'count as' well enough for most sane players.
However, I do wish there was a kit for Chosen- maybe a 5-man box full of beefy baroque badasses with lots of options like the Deathwatch Veteran kits.
yes, that would fit in nicely alongside a new possessed kit, maybe even dare i say...a dual kit.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The current kit does support bolt pistols + chainswords (though it doesn't include enough of either for the full squad). I still think an actual Chosen kit would be excellent. Long arms + melee weapons would be different from what loyalists have. We don't want csm to just be "spiky loyalists" now do we?
Currently, I make my Alpha Legion Chosen from Havoc bodies (just cut/file down the toe claws), Mark 3 backpacks, and the Legion Upgrade helmets with some extra bits & gubbins like pouches and the like. Sadly they've changed the rules for Astartes chainswords, but I'm pretty sure my 'nasty knives' that the Chosen have will 'count as' well enough for most sane players.
However, I do wish there was a kit for Chosen- maybe a 5-man box full of beefy baroque badasses with lots of options like the Deathwatch Veteran kits.
Sounds good. I use the current csm kit mixed with Marks III and IV bits with combi-weapons from various sources and Terror Squad heads.
Agreed a Chosen kit with lots of options like Deathwatch Veterans would be killer, preferably in Heresy pattern armour marks and not looking like renegades that just got accepted into the Black Legion last week. There are other Legions gw.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Agreed a Chosen kit with lots of options like Deathwatch Veterans would be killer, preferably in Heresy pattern armour marks and not looking like renegades that just got accepted into the Black Legion last week. There arebetter Legions gw.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Agreed a Chosen kit with lots of options like Deathwatch Veterans would be killer, preferably in Heresy pattern armour marks and not looking like renegades that just got accepted into the Black Legion last week. There arebetter Legions gw.
BrianDavion wrote: the problem is, at least from a design POV, that's not entirely what GW wants. Abaddon standing back behind the battlefield and watching his people shoot isn't quite what they want, they want him moving forward with your troops etc
Yeah, GW is projecting pretty clearly right now, they want gunlines gone and mid-range combat to be the norm.
A better way to state my concern is: this change causes armies to lose certain playstyles.
Maybe someone wants to correct me, but I don't see new playstyles emerging from this change.
Probably a little more sensitive about this because I play Chaos and our armies are especially dependent on buffs to make sub-par units decent.
BrianDavion wrote: the problem is, at least from a design POV, that's not entirely what GW wants. Abaddon standing back behind the battlefield and watching his people shoot isn't quite what they want, they want him moving forward with your troops etc
Yeah, GW is projecting pretty clearly right now, they want gunlines gone and mid-range combat to be the norm.
A better way to state my concern is: this change causes armies to lose certain playstyles.
Maybe someone wants to correct me, but I don't see new playstyles emerging from this change.
Probably a little more sensitive about this because I play Chaos and our armies are especially dependent on buffs to make sub-par units decent.
New play styles will definitely emerge. Well new compared to last edition. They will mostly have been tried in previous ones.
Leveling up in Crusade and the new pre-placed matched play objective missions alone pretty much guarantee it. I’m worried not all armies will have a path to those play styles. CSM probably come out ok. Tau are probably in a world of hurt.
BrianDavion wrote: the problem is, at least from a design POV, that's not entirely what GW wants. Abaddon standing back behind the battlefield and watching his people shoot isn't quite what they want, they want him moving forward with your troops etc
Yeah, GW is projecting pretty clearly right now, they want gunlines gone and mid-range combat to be the norm.
A better way to state my concern is: this change causes armies to lose certain playstyles.
Maybe someone wants to correct me, but I don't see new playstyles emerging from this change.
Probably a little more sensitive about this because I play Chaos and our armies are especially dependent on buffs to make sub-par units decent.
Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll get rid of that design paradigm for csm in our new codex and give our units rules that let them work without stacking buffs to the moon on them. Remember when loyalists needed their leaders for that extra boost in leadership for stuff like morale checks and target priority but we didn't because almost everything in our codex was leadership 9 or 10? I always liked that difference, made our guys feel like real veterans that didn't need someone shouting in their ears all the time to know what to do.
Nah, we don't like that one. It doesn't roll off the tongue. We should know, we're in your ranks too.
Yes, we know. We've found them. And they no longer have tongues for words to roll off of. So next come the eyes, then the hands, then the feet.....
But not the ears.
"Your ears you keep, so that every shriek of every child shall be yours to cherish—every babe that weeps in fear at your approach, every woman that cries 'Dear God, what is that thing?' will reverberate forever with your perfect ears.”
Breton wrote:New play styles will definitely emerge. Well new compared to last edition. They will mostly have been tried in previous ones.
Leveling up in Crusade and the new pre-placed matched play objective missions alone pretty much guarantee it. I’m worried not all armies will have a path to those play styles. CSM probably come out ok. Tau are probably in a world of hurt.
Sure, and I recognize this is a first step. The meta will adapt.
One possible path is that all lists, even non-Chaos ones, become mid-range focused. There's some units (like shooty Daemon Engines) I wouldn't want to take without reroll auras, their BS is just so bad.
The thing about auras, they were non-specific. Everything in range gets the benefit, unlike psychic powers which are mostly limited to a specific unit. Core unit restrictions take the crutch away from the ones that needed them most.
Gadzilla666 wrote:Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll get rid of that design paradigm for csm in our new codex and give our units rules that let them work without stacking buffs to the moon on them. Remember when loyalists needed their leaders for that extra boost in leadership for stuff like morale checks and target priority but we didn't because almost everything in our codex was leadership 9 or 10? I always liked that difference, made our guys feel like real veterans that didn't need someone shouting in their ears all the time to know what to do.
Will never happen. GW doesn't buff older units unless they are getting new models. 2W on PA Marines is the exception that proves the rule.
Variety of playstyles for each faction is good for the game. When I wasn't running gunlines, it was Bloodletter Bombs, Daemon Primarch lists, KAC drops, and specialist detachments. All of these have been invalidated / heavily nerfed in 9th.
While I like to believe it's possible GW could someday break this mould and "make every unit useful," the reality is value is relative to the latest Codex / FAQ / CA. As long as mechanics keep changing, unit value is a moving target.
Will never happen. GW doesn't buff older units unless they are getting new models. 2W on PA Marines is the exception that proves the rule.
That's gibberish. Even if you can swallow the particular expression, that 'exception' is (or will be) widespread, buffing units in several books (Marines and all supplements, chaos marines, death guard, thousand sons).
You're also completely overlooking the weapons buff, which will heavily buff a huge swath of old models across half the factions (general Imperium, Space Marines, Chaos and even some Xenos- even if its only flamers and powerswords for the latter).
Will never happen. GW doesn't buff older units unless they are getting new models. 2W on PA Marines is the exception that proves the rule.
Centurions?
TFCs?
Drop Pods?
Grav?
Astartes Chainswords?
Power Weapons?
Heavy Bolters?
Lot of exceptions...
Yes, I think it may be possible gw has finally figured out that old unit and weapon stat lines don't work very well with the new rules, and are changing them. I'm hoping this will also mean some fundamental changes for how some factions work as well. Guess we'll just have to "wait and see"....
Nah, we don't like that one. It doesn't roll off the tongue. We should know, we're in your ranks too.
Yes, we know. We've found them. And they no longer have tongues for words to roll off of. So next come the eyes, then the hands, then the feet.....
But not the ears.
"Your ears you keep, so that every shriek of every child shall be yours to cherish—every babe that weeps in fear at your approach, every woman that cries 'Dear God, what is that thing?' will reverberate forever with your perfect ears.”
I see what you did there, and it's INCONCEIVABLE! (Sorry, had to say it).
Nah, we don't like that one. It doesn't roll off the tongue. We should know, we're in your ranks too.
Yes, we know. We've found them. And they no longer have tongues for words to roll off of. So next come the eyes, then the hands, then the feet.....
But not the ears.
"Your ears you keep, so that every shriek of every child shall be yours to cherish—every babe that weeps in fear at your approach, every woman that cries 'Dear God, what is that thing?' will reverberate forever with your perfect ears.”
I see what you did there, and it's INCONCEIVABLE! (Sorry, had to say it).
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Will never happen. GW doesn't buff older units unless they are getting new models. 2W on PA Marines is the exception that proves the rule.
Centurions?
TFCs?
Drop Pods?
Grav?
Astartes Chainswords?
Power Weapons?
Heavy Bolters?
Lot of exceptions...
Sure, you can say that. GW is overhauling PA troops across the board, it's more than adding 2W.
Let's make sure we're not missing the point. Traditionally, GW does not buff legacy units.
Thinking about CSM, Possessed, Chosen, Noise Marines, Rubrics, Plague Marines, Terminators from 5th edition until 8th, these were not the units you built your competitive lists around. They were overcosted (Rubrics especially,) rules made them awkward (salvo on sonic weapons,) and models that had been released more recently had more favorable rules (6th edition Triple Heldrake / Cultist spam lists dominated for a while.) The ones that did become useful - Thousand Sons, Plague Marines - only really did so once they go their own Codexes.
You can say something similar about most armies.
We're going to see where the current overhaul lands, how points are assigned and whether or not legacy units actually become useful in the current meta. I'm looking forward to playing with 2W CSM but not taking anything for granted. There's always been a thumb on the scale when it comes to older units and I haven't seen much to make me think otherwise.
Sure, you can say that. GW is overhauling PA troops across the board, it's more than adding 2W.
Let's make sure we're not missing the point. Traditionally, GW does not buff legacy units.
Thinking about CSM, Possessed, Chosen, Noise Marines, Rubrics, Plague Marines, Terminators from 5th edition until 8th,
Termies were bad in 3rd Edition until... some point that may yet be in the future. If you thought they were bad in 5th, 3rd would blow your mind.
these were not the units you built your competitive lists around. They were overcosted (Rubrics especially,) rules made them awkward (salvo on sonic weapons,) and models that had been released more recently had more favorable rules (6th edition Triple Heldrake / Cultist spam lists dominated for a while.) The ones that did become useful - Thousand Sons, Plague Marines - only really did so once they go their own Codexes.
You can say something similar about most armies.
We're going to see where the current overhaul lands, how points are assigned and whether or not legacy units actually become useful in the current meta. I'm looking forward to playing with 2W CSM but not taking anything for granted. There's always been a thumb on the scale when it comes to older units and I haven't seen much to make me think otherwise.
We're still a long ways away from getting a well tuned edition. They revamped everything in 8th. It's going to take another pass or two of Codex to iron it all out as they figure out what they broke. And that's before 9th added more balls to juggle like Crusade. Crusade could develop into a league system, as well as a narrative/summer campaign system.
Breton wrote: We're still a long ways away from getting a well tuned edition. They revamped everything in 8th. It's going to take another pass or two of Codex to iron it all out as they figure out what they broke. And that's before 9th added more balls to juggle like Crusade. Crusade could develop into a league system, as well as a narrative/summer campaign system.
Would have been nice if they put that tuning in there ahead of time. I don't know why you insist on rewarding GW for their poor balancing.
Breton wrote: We're still a long ways away from getting a well tuned edition. They revamped everything in 8th. It's going to take another pass or two of Codex to iron it all out as they figure out what they broke. And that's before 9th added more balls to juggle like Crusade. Crusade could develop into a league system, as well as a narrative/summer campaign system.
Would have been nice if they put that tuning in there ahead of time. I don't know why you insist on rewarding GW for their poor balancing.
Yeah, in fact, it seems like they pointed a bunch of stuff based on codex books that just...aren't coming out for ages.
10pt powerfists = 10pt chainfists now makes sense for marines, but they've left (for example) the GSC and Ork heavy melee weapon costs equal and are planning to just...leave them broken until the codex!
Neat!
Wonder how much more of THAT there is kicking around in the game? Massively overcosted eldar infantry? Maybe they're getting statlines that will make that make sense, you know, eventually. I'm sure waiting until nearly the next time around GW is supposed to rebalance point costs for them to get stats that are anywhere near what they bring to the table will be fine.
Will never happen. GW doesn't buff older units unless they are getting new models. 2W on PA Marines is the exception that proves the rule.
Centurions?
TFCs?
Drop Pods?
Grav?
Astartes Chainswords?
Power Weapons?
Heavy Bolters?
Lot of exceptions...
Sure, you can say that. GW is overhauling PA troops across the board, it's more than adding 2W.
Let's make sure we're not missing the point. Traditionally, GW does not buff legacy units.
Thinking about CSM, Possessed, Chosen, Noise Marines, Rubrics, Plague Marines, Terminators from 5th edition until 8th, these were not the units you built your competitive lists around. They were overcosted (Rubrics especially,) rules made them awkward (salvo on sonic weapons,) and models that had been released more recently had more favorable rules (6th edition Triple Heldrake / Cultist spam lists dominated for a while.) The ones that did become useful - Thousand Sons, Plague Marines - only really did so once they go their own Codexes.
You can say something similar about most armies.
We're going to see where the current overhaul lands, how points are assigned and whether or not legacy units actually become useful in the current meta. I'm looking forward to playing with 2W CSM but not taking anything for granted. There's always been a thumb on the scale when it comes to older units and I haven't seen much to make me think otherwise.
You're just moving goal posts.
AM is getting the bolters/melta/etc, Banshees are getting the power swords. A number of older Necron kits are seeing weapon buffs.
Centurions were buffed a long time ago as were Possessed.
Would have been nice if they put that tuning in there ahead of time. I don't know why you insist on rewarding GW for their poor balancing.
You seem to think there's limitless time and no schedules to adhere to.
I feel the need to note that GW's shooting themselves in the foot in terms of time/schedules. Infinity has had four editions in 15 years. Warmachine has had three in 17 years. 40k has gone through six over the same span.
(I know, I know, "GW makes more money than CB/PP and therefore the winning strategy must be to rewrite the rules more often!")
Would have been nice if they put that tuning in there ahead of time. I don't know why you insist on rewarding GW for their poor balancing.
You seem to think there's limitless time and no schedules to adhere to.
I feel the need to note that GW's shooting themselves in the foot in terms of time/schedules. Infinity has had four editions in 15 years. Warmachine has had three in 17 years. 40k has gone through six over the same span.
(I know, I know, "GW makes more money than CB/PP and therefore the winning strategy must be to rewrite the rules more often!")
Yeah we just got the last PA books and were in a middle of a pandemic when 9th dropped. They coulda given us a little more time to play with what just came out and used that time to gather data and write tighter rules
Billagio wrote: Yeah we just got the last PA books and were in a middle of a pandemic when 9th dropped. They coulda given us a little more time to play with what just came out and used that time to gather data and write tighter rules
The community is its own worst enemy.
"GW should take more time" and "GW should release all the rules day 1 so that everyone is on the same page" stand at opposite interaction.
While they were writing the marine book they were also -- writing PA books, updating the FAQs to try and balance what was there, and were in the midst of producing this "edition".
Now we're in "9th", which is really 8.5. The changes are close enough that some heavy errata could have done them. But if you asked people if they would enjoy carting around all that extra paperwork what would their response be? You likely know as well as I that keeping track of growing changes on top of GW goofs gets really difficult.
So re-condense them into a new BRB. A BRB that was an improvement over all previous BRBs in terms of clarity and errors (there are still some issues and oddities). Yes, I'm sure everyone would love free online rules, but GW isn't going to suddenly drop a revenue stream.
Now we're faced with an expanded design space and people both want everything now, but also want it to be perfect. But then so much has changed - do they keep balancing us while they wait to get all the books ready or just let us linger and waiting impatiently?
While they were writing the marine book they were also -- writing PA books, updating the FAQs to try and balance what was there, and were in the midst of producing this "edition".
And that was their mistake. It has zero to do with the 'community,' GW shouldn't have been trying to juggle a new edition and a pointless update to the old edition on an absurdly short sales cycle.
8th was rushed from beginning to end, and because they were still rushing out 8th edition updates they didn't do 9th edition updates properly.
While they were writing the marine book they were also -- writing PA books, updating the FAQs to try and balance what was there, and were in the midst of producing this "edition".
And that was their mistake. It has zero to do with the 'community,' GW shouldn't have been trying to juggle a new edition and a pointless update to the old edition on an absurdly short sales cycle.
8th was rushed from beginning to end, and because they were still rushing out 8th edition updates they didn't do 9th edition updates properly.
All. On. Them.
Have some sympathy for our corporate overlords, thanks.
ALSO it's far too early to assume they haven't done the 9th ed updates properly, just wait and see.
"GW should take more time" and "GW should release all the rules day 1 so that everyone is on the same page" stand at opposite interaction.
They really don't, unless you actively choose to construe it that way. I don't recall players champing at the bit for GW to release a new edition, especially when CA2019 actually got things to a pretty good state. They easily could have delayed the launch of 9th so as to have all the rules ready day 1 in a playtested and holistic state.
Apparently this release schedule is more profitable than doing it right once and for all, though, so here we are.
Breton wrote: We're still a long ways away from getting a well tuned edition. They revamped everything in 8th. It's going to take another pass or two of Codex to iron it all out as they figure out what they broke. And that's before 9th added more balls to juggle like Crusade. Crusade could develop into a league system, as well as a narrative/summer campaign system.
Would have been nice if they put that tuning in there ahead of time. I don't know why you insist on rewarding GW for their poor balancing.
ok let's imagine a world where GW does just that, as a result GW doesn't release ANYTHING, nto a single fething thing at all for over a year.
I feel so sorry for GW, the way they were strong-armed by the community into releasing 9th edition even though they really wanted to take 3 more years on 8th was shameful bullying of the worst sort.
Breton wrote: We're still a long ways away from getting a well tuned edition. They revamped everything in 8th. It's going to take another pass or two of Codex to iron it all out as they figure out what they broke. And that's before 9th added more balls to juggle like Crusade. Crusade could develop into a league system, as well as a narrative/summer campaign system.
Would have been nice if they put that tuning in there ahead of time. I don't know why you insist on rewarding GW for their poor balancing.
ok let's imagine a world where GW does just that, as a result GW doesn't release ANYTHING, nto a single fething thing at all for over a year.
how would that work out?
Why would they have to release nothing for over a year to plan their releases/test the game properly in advance?
yukishiro1 wrote: I feel so sorry for GW, the way they were strong-armed by the community into releasing 9th edition even though they really wanted to take 3 more years on 8th was shameful bullying of the worst sort.
Oh wait.
^Lol. That's great.
Yeah, there's definitely other ways they could have handled the past year.
They really don't, unless you actively choose to construe it that way. I don't recall players champing at the bit for GW to release a new edition, especially when CA2019 actually got things to a pretty good state. They easily could have delayed the launch of 9th so as to have all the rules ready day 1 in a playtested and holistic state.
Apparently this release schedule is more profitable than doing it right once and for all, though, so here we are.
So you're saying marines were fine after CA19? And that no one wanted a lid put on CP and soup? And that marine rerolls weren't a prime target?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: I feel so sorry for GW, the way they were strong-armed by the community into releasing 9th edition even though they really wanted to take 3 more years on 8th was shameful bullying of the worst sort.
Oh wait.
Do you...do you remember what happened with the Big FAQ was late? Call it what you want, but it seems clear to me that this isn't an edition - it's an update. A distinction without a difference to some, I suppose.
Obviously a distinction with a difference for GW, since they decided to charge everyone full price for a new edition even though it isn't according to you.
Nobody was clamoring for a new edition. GW's decision to push out 9th even though it wasn't ready and there was no need to do so isn't on anyone but them. It's absurd to be making excuses for a company worth billions, as if it was forced to put out a new edition and had no choice in the matter.
yukishiro1 wrote: Obviously a distinction with a difference for GW, since they decided to charge everyone full price for a new edition even though it isn't according to you.
Nobody was clamoring for a new edition. GW's decision to push out 9th even though it wasn't ready and there was no need to do so isn't on anyone but them. It's absurd to be making excuses for a company worth billions, as if it was forced to put out a new edition and had no choice in the matter.
I didn't say they were forced to. I'm saying the community is so manic as to not know what it actually wants, because it wants everything and nothing all at the same time.
Because you know...the price people apparently were so upset to pay that they absolutely went nuts about GW not making enough boxes. But, yea, apparently no one clamored.
yukishiro1 wrote: Obviously a distinction with a difference for GW, since they decided to charge everyone full price for a new edition even though it isn't according to you.
Nobody was clamoring for a new edition. GW's decision to push out 9th even though it wasn't ready and there was no need to do so isn't on anyone but them. It's absurd to be making excuses for a company worth billions, as if it was forced to put out a new edition and had no choice in the matter.
I disagree, if you consider what people spent a lot of time combining about by the end of 8th:
- core rules vastly different from the original printed version (reserves etc)
- disjointed rules packets
- assault being useless
- too many faqs and books to track
- lack of meaningful terrain rules
- problems with cp farming and soup
Those things form the basis of 9th edition. GW had no way of releasing all those changes without making 8th more of a mess.
Did people ask for a specific new edition? Not really, but they asked for so many things that addressing issues necessitated a new rulebook.
While they were writing the marine book they were also -- writing PA books, updating the FAQs to try and balance what was there, and were in the midst of producing this "edition".
And that was their mistake. It has zero to do with the 'community,' GW shouldn't have been trying to juggle a new edition and a pointless update to the old edition on an absurdly short sales cycle.
8th was rushed from beginning to end, and because they were still rushing out 8th edition updates they didn't do 9th edition updates properly.
All. On. Them.
Aren't they a traded company, and have to rise earnings early or no bonus and investors get mad?
yukishiro1 wrote: Obviously a distinction with a difference for GW, since they decided to charge everyone full price for a new edition even though it isn't according to you.
Nobody was clamoring for a new edition. GW's decision to push out 9th even though it wasn't ready and there was no need to do so isn't on anyone but them. It's absurd to be making excuses for a company worth billions, as if it was forced to put out a new edition and had no choice in the matter.
I didn't say they were forced to. I'm saying the community is so manic as to not know what it actually wants, because it wants everything and nothing all at the same time.
Because you know...the price people apparently were so upset to pay that they absolutely went nuts about GW not making enough boxes. But, yea, apparently no one clamored.
Actually, the community demands for what it pays premium on, firstly and secondly, what the community really would like to see is an rules release for all factions at the same time. Aka all codices show up on the same time.
The assumption that GW put the noose on their neck because of the community is just asinine for a publicly traded multi million company.
Breton wrote: We're still a long ways away from getting a well tuned edition. They revamped everything in 8th. It's going to take another pass or two of Codex to iron it all out as they figure out what they broke. And that's before 9th added more balls to juggle like Crusade. Crusade could develop into a league system, as well as a narrative/summer campaign system.
Would have been nice if they put that tuning in there ahead of time. I don't know why you insist on rewarding GW for their poor balancing.
ok let's imagine a world where GW does just that, as a result GW doesn't release ANYTHING, nto a single fething thing at all for over a year.
how would that work out?
Beyond the sarcastic troll responses of "it always has been" for faction X. Lets give this a proper thought exercise:
- All books come out day 1, they contain rules for models that, due to GW's release schedule, won't see the light of day for 14 months
- People complain the models won't be coming out (evil GW)
- 3d printers (as in people who do) and 3rd parties will slowly fill the gaps
- People will buy stand in products of the new hotness to be hyper competitive
- People attend big events, Nova, Vegas etc.
- Peoples lists aren't allowed due to 3rd party models thanks to streams and GW support (evil GW)
- GW release kit at last, people aren't bothered because they already made knock-offs, or if they are bothered they're already salty about tournament situation (evil GW)
- New model doesn't sell as well because of this
- GW decide that range isn't monetarily viable and reduce support (self inflicted by the community evil GW)
I love when my armies don't get new releases for a long period actually, in my ideal world I'd only have to buy the rules, even for decades. Possibly one book per edition, not codex+supplement. As others said new releases also means squatted models.
That's exactly what the new buggies and ghaz did, even mek gunz shelved old big gunz forever. I actually fear new ork releases and the leaked image of that ork infantry model terryfies me.
I wish GW's politic was to push and encourage players to switch factions rather than invalidating older kits with updated ones. I really don't see any point in re-doing an army I already own; in fact primaris had (and still have) no appeal to me who already owned a SW army and I haven't bought a single SW model since the end of 7th edition.
I'd rather start an Adepta Sororitas army (or any other faction I like) than re-buying a new primarized SW one or a new ork army if also the greenskins get a complete new line of models. And I'm into orks since late 90s.
Breton wrote: We're still a long ways away from getting a well tuned edition. They revamped everything in 8th. It's going to take another pass or two of Codex to iron it all out as they figure out what they broke. And that's before 9th added more balls to juggle like Crusade. Crusade could develop into a league system, as well as a narrative/summer campaign system.
Would have been nice if they put that tuning in there ahead of time. I don't know why you insist on rewarding GW for their poor balancing.
ok let's imagine a world where GW does just that, as a result GW doesn't release ANYTHING, nto a single fething thing at all for over a year.
how would that work out?
Beyond the sarcastic troll responses of "it always has been" for faction X. Lets give this a proper thought exercise:
- All books come out day 1, they contain rules for models that, due to GW's release schedule, won't see the light of day for 14 months
- People complain the models won't be coming out (evil GW)
- 3d printers (as in people who do) and 3rd parties will slowly fill the gaps
- People will buy stand in products of the new hotness to be hyper competitive
- People attend big events, Nova, Vegas etc.
- Peoples lists aren't allowed due to 3rd party models thanks to streams and GW support (evil GW)
- GW release kit at last, people aren't bothered because they already made knock-offs, or if they are bothered they're already salty about tournament situation (evil GW)
- New model doesn't sell as well because of this
- GW decide that range isn't monetarily viable and reduce support (self inflicted by the community evil GW)
you forgot "due to everything comoing out at once everyone buys one codex and models for their primary army, and no one impulse buys the other armies new release and decides it's time to start a second (or third or forth) army. also sales are stagnant for the year or so with no releases, which means during the annual shareholder meetings the CEO needs to deal with unhappy investors
Beyond the sarcastic troll responses of "it always has been" for faction X. Lets give this a proper thought exercise:
- All books come out day 1, they contain rules for models that, due to GW's release schedule, won't see the light of day for 14 months
- People complain the models won't be coming out (evil GW)
- 3d printers (as in people who do) and 3rd parties will slowly fill the gaps
- People will buy stand in products of the new hotness to be hyper competitive
Yep. Because no one ever converted models using parts from other GW models, thus providing GW with income and also ensuring that their models are tournament-legal.
Beyond the sarcastic troll responses of "it always has been" for faction X. Lets give this a proper thought exercise:
- All books come out day 1, they contain rules for models that, due to GW's release schedule, won't see the light of day for 14 months
- People complain the models won't be coming out (evil GW)
- 3d printers (as in people who do) and 3rd parties will slowly fill the gaps
- People will buy stand in products of the new hotness to be hyper competitive
Yep. Because no one ever converted models using parts from other GW models, thus providing GW with income and also ensuring that their models are tournament-legal.
Sure some will, most won't. It costs more to do that and takes both time and skill in conjunction. You're missing where people have been banned from using cheap kids crocodiles with green plastic army men riding them for rough riders the year before last. Tournament players (which Dakka seems to be 95% either made up of or obsessed with) will want an army together in the quickest time possible, not a labour of love.
Sure some will, most won't. It costs more to do that and takes both time and skill in conjunction.
It takes more times for sure but typically is cheaper, otherwise why bother with conversions? I made 5 talos and 8 grotesques with ogre and stormfiends parts, same dimensions of the original ones, IMHO looking way better than the original models, full 100% GW plastic and some greenstuff (not GW but no one could tell the difference) for the same cost of 2 official talos models, probably even something less.
My flash gitz are all nobz on 40mm bases with modified kombiweapons, all made with spared bitz I had, I only bought the bases. 30-40% cheaper than buying official flash gitz models which are more expensive than nobz, and IMHO way better looking as I never like the pirate theme flash gitz have. I made tons of other conversions by using only plastic GW, all quite cheaper than buying the official model.
Sure some will, most won't. It costs more to do that and takes both time and skill in conjunction.
It takes more times for sure but typically is cheaper, otherwise why bother with conversions? I made 5 talos and 8 grotesques with ogre and stormfiends parts, same dimensions of the original ones, IMHO looking way better than the original models, full 100% GW plastic and some greenstuff (not GW but no one could tell the difference) for the same cost of 2 official talos models, probably even something less.
My flash gitz are all nobz on 40mm bases with modified kombiweapons, all made with spared bitz I had, I only bought the bases. 30-40% cheaper than buying official flash gitz models which are more expensive than nobz, and IMHO way better looking as I never like the pirate theme flash gitz have. I made tons of other conversions by using only plastic GW, all quite cheaper than buying the official model.
Ok but how would you kitbash a land raider if the model never existed? it's that sort of thing, it's not small infantry arm swaps necessarily.
Why wonder that , when the griffon existed?
I know alot of people that , due to the lack of the upgrade set, did build them out of basilisks, or other similar vehicles.
Not Online!!! wrote: Why wonder that , when the griffon existed?
I know alot of people that , due to the lack of the upgrade set, did build them out of basilisks, or other similar vehicles.
Because I'm asking how you would kitbash a new unit that you have no visual frame of reference for cheaply.
They really don't, unless you actively choose to construe it that way. I don't recall players champing at the bit for GW to release a new edition, especially when CA2019 actually got things to a pretty good state. They easily could have delayed the launch of 9th so as to have all the rules ready day 1 in a playtested and holistic state.
Apparently this release schedule is more profitable than doing it right once and for all, though, so here we are.
So you're saying marines were fine after CA19? And that no one wanted a lid put on CP and soup? And that marine rerolls weren't a prime target?
No, but 9th hasn't fixed Marines or re-rolls yet, and in some ways has made them more oppressive (terrain rules that disproportionately benefit high-accuracy, high-save armies with re-rolls, easier access to CP, Blast, reduced melee engagement range). I know for a fact people were saying 'fix Marines, fix CP, fix soup, and fix rerolls' much more than 'please launch another edition that immediately throws the points balance completely out of whack with weird decisions that we can only assume are based on rules yet to come'.
Anyways, we're just about at October and the Marine codex still isn't out, which supposedly will be the panacea to fix all our ills. At the same time, given the constraints of print scheduling, all the codices due to be released through July must already be done, and I would be genuinely shocked if the rules portion of the remainder aren't done as well. Remember, rumor has it that the 9th Ed playtesters were working with 9th Ed codices.
So if we're talking hypotheticals, in a perfect world GW could have targeted a Christmas release for 9th Ed alongside a full spread of rules-only digital codices for free, with the print codices containing all the lore and art for each faction to be released over the course of 2021.
If you want to talk about Marines as the boogeyman, then that would put the fix for them only a month or two further out than is actually happening, and allow that fix to be properly assessed in the context of 9th Ed rules for all the other factions.
Jidmah wrote: Well, in 5th people build them according to the pictures next to the codex entry.
common example was the carnifex tervigon, which in hindsight was too small, often people put them on a 60mm.
But they still did it, expecting the same to not happen again would be , quite frankly contradictory to human, or in this case warhammer players, nature.
Ok but how would you kitbash a land raider if the model never existed? it's that sort of thing, it's not small infantry arm swaps necessarily.
Not everything can be kitbashed, cheaper than the original model and be 100% GW plastic. I give you that.
But if an original land raider never existed some people would find a solution, maybe merging two rhinos chassis into a bigger tank and then adding the required weapons from spared kits like devastators' heavy bolters, lascannons, etc...
When some models didn't exist, like the ork battlewagon during 3rd edition, it was absolutely fine to scratch build our own versions of those models. 3rd edition ork codex even encouraged players to do so, with lots of pictures about scratch built models, all with just a few bitz from GW plastic or metal. WD also had several battle reports involving orks with multiple units that were full conversions, in GW plastic or not.
Now it's different, sadly. But lots of stuff can be kitbashed with little effort. Maybe not the land raider, but basically the entire primaris roster can be, starting with the cheapest intercessors available and then just converting their weapons.
Not Online!!! wrote: Why wonder that , when the griffon existed?
I know alot of people that , due to the lack of the upgrade set, did build them out of basilisks, or other similar vehicles.
Because I'm asking how you would kitbash a new unit that you have no visual frame of reference for cheaply.
In that case every conversion works since there isn't an official model and WYSIWYG is always guaranteed then.
Sure some will, most won't. It costs more to do that and takes both time and skill in conjunction.
It takes more times for sure but typically is cheaper, otherwise why bother with conversions? I made 5 talos and 8 grotesques with ogre and stormfiends parts, same dimensions of the original ones, IMHO looking way better than the original models, full 100% GW plastic and some greenstuff (not GW but no one could tell the difference) for the same cost of 2 official talos models, probably even something less.
My flash gitz are all nobz on 40mm bases with modified kombiweapons, all made with spared bitz I had, I only bought the bases. 30-40% cheaper than buying official flash gitz models which are more expensive than nobz, and IMHO way better looking as I never like the pirate theme flash gitz have. I made tons of other conversions by using only plastic GW, all quite cheaper than buying the official model.
Ok but how would you kitbash a land raider if the model never existed? it's that sort of thing, it's not small infantry arm swaps necessarily.
True story, I built Land Raiders out of plasticard on commission during the time when the model wasnt available in 3rd Ed. I used the Epic Armageddon LR as reference.
Breton wrote: We're still a long ways away from getting a well tuned edition. They revamped everything in 8th. It's going to take another pass or two of Codex to iron it all out as they figure out what they broke. And that's before 9th added more balls to juggle like Crusade. Crusade could develop into a league system, as well as a narrative/summer campaign system.
Would have been nice if they put that tuning in there ahead of time. I don't know why you insist on rewarding GW for their poor balancing.
ok let's imagine a world where GW does just that, as a result GW doesn't release ANYTHING, nto a single fething thing at all for over a year.
how would that work out?
Beyond the sarcastic troll responses of "it always has been" for faction X. Lets give this a proper thought exercise:
- All books come out day 1, they contain rules for models that, due to GW's release schedule, won't see the light of day for 14 months
- People complain the models won't be coming out (evil GW)
- 3d printers (as in people who do) and 3rd parties will slowly fill the gaps
- People will buy stand in products of the new hotness to be hyper competitive
- People attend big events, Nova, Vegas etc.
- Peoples lists aren't allowed due to 3rd party models thanks to streams and GW support (evil GW)
- GW release kit at last, people aren't bothered because they already made knock-offs, or if they are bothered they're already salty about tournament situation (evil GW)
- New model doesn't sell as well because of this
- GW decide that range isn't monetarily viable and reduce support (self inflicted by the community evil GW)
That whole scenario is predicated on the idea that the books are released with units without model support, which GW doesn't have to do.
Instead, they could release all the codexes, then add new units/models throughout the year/s using WD and then periodically compile them in CAs. There's more than one alternative to their release schedule.
Ok but how would you kitbash a land raider if the model never existed? it's that sort of thing, it's not small infantry arm swaps necessarily.
Not everything can be kitbashed, cheaper than the original model and be 100% GW plastic. I give you that.
But if an original land raider never existed some people would find a solution, maybe merging two rhinos chassis into a bigger tank and then adding the required weapons from spared kits like devastators' heavy bolters, lascannons, etc...
When some models didn't exist, like the ork battlewagon during 3rd edition, it was absolutely fine to scratch build our own versions of those models. 3rd edition ork codex even encouraged players to do so, with lots of pictures about scratch built models, all with just a few bitz from GW plastic or metal. WD also had several battle reports involving orks with multiple units that were full conversions, in GW plastic or not.
Now it's different, sadly. But lots of stuff can be kitbashed with little effort. Maybe not the land raider, but basically the entire primaris roster can be, starting with the cheapest intercessors available and then just converting their weapons.
Not Online!!! wrote: Why wonder that , when the griffon existed?
I know alot of people that , due to the lack of the upgrade set, did build them out of basilisks, or other similar vehicles.
Because I'm asking how you would kitbash a new unit that you have no visual frame of reference for cheaply.
In that case every conversion works since there isn't an official model and WYSIWYG is always guaranteed then.
What happens if you get to the LVO finals and player A has the same unit as player B, using an unreleased unit and player A's unit is distinctly larger, on a bigger base etc. than player B's. How do you rule that?
Beyond the sarcastic troll responses of "it always has been" for faction X. Lets give this a proper thought exercise:
- All books come out day 1, they contain rules for models that, due to GW's release schedule, won't see the light of day for 14 months
- People complain the models won't be coming out (evil GW)
- 3d printers (as in people who do) and 3rd parties will slowly fill the gaps
- People will buy stand in products of the new hotness to be hyper competitive
Yep. Because no one ever converted models using parts from other GW models, thus providing GW with income and also ensuring that their models are tournament-legal.
The majority of people possess rudimentary kit-bash skills. Kit bashing also often costs more. People will take the path of least resistance, which is a 3rd party model that they don't need to do anything to and which will cost less.
Additionally, conversions are typically approved by a tournament. What guidelines is the tournament going to use to say a model is good to go or not.
Ok but how would you kitbash a land raider if the model never existed? it's that sort of thing, it's not small infantry arm swaps necessarily.
Not everything can be kitbashed, cheaper than the original model and be 100% GW plastic. I give you that.
But if an original land raider never existed some people would find a solution, maybe merging two rhinos chassis into a bigger tank and then adding the required weapons from spared kits like devastators' heavy bolters, lascannons, etc...
When some models didn't exist, like the ork battlewagon during 3rd edition, it was absolutely fine to scratch build our own versions of those models. 3rd edition ork codex even encouraged players to do so, with lots of pictures about scratch built models, all with just a few bitz from GW plastic or metal. WD also had several battle reports involving orks with multiple units that were full conversions, in GW plastic or not.
Now it's different, sadly. But lots of stuff can be kitbashed with little effort. Maybe not the land raider, but basically the entire primaris roster can be, starting with the cheapest intercessors available and then just converting their weapons.
Not Online!!! wrote: Why wonder that , when the griffon existed?
I know alot of people that , due to the lack of the upgrade set, did build them out of basilisks, or other similar vehicles.
Because I'm asking how you would kitbash a new unit that you have no visual frame of reference for cheaply.
In that case every conversion works since there isn't an official model and WYSIWYG is always guaranteed then.
What happens if you get to the LVO finals and player A has the same unit as player B, using an unreleased unit and player A's unit is distinctly larger, on a bigger base etc. than player B's. How do you rule that?
Either A: Accept some slop and roll with the punches.
Or B: Povide a size guideline as part of the datasheets.
Dudeface wrote: Beyond the sarcastic troll responses of "it always has been" for faction X. Lets give this a proper thought exercise:
- All books come out day 1, they contain rules for models that, due to GW's release schedule, won't see the light of day for 14 months
- People complain the models won't be coming out (evil GW)
- 3d printers (as in people who do) and 3rd parties will slowly fill the gaps
- People will buy stand in products of the new hotness to be hyper competitive
- People attend big events, Nova, Vegas etc.
- Peoples lists aren't allowed due to 3rd party models thanks to streams and GW support (evil GW)
- GW release kit at last, people aren't bothered because they already made knock-offs, or if they are bothered they're already salty about tournament situation (evil GW)
- New model doesn't sell as well because of this
- GW decide that range isn't monetarily viable and reduce support (self inflicted by the community evil GW)
That whole scenario is predicated on the idea that the books are released with units without model support, which GW doesn't have to do.
Instead, they could release all the codexes, then add new units/models throughout the year/s using WD and then periodically compile them in CAs. There's more than one alternative to their release schedule.
It's not just that they don't have to do it, GW outright doesn't do that anymore. The first Marine codex in 8th didn't have rules for unreleased Vanguard units, even though based on the timeline of events they had to already be well along in development.
GW has shown no opposition to releasing rules for units as they come out, and in our hypothetical with all digital rules releases it'd be even easier to add them in as they go, so there is no reason to think an initial release codex couldn't just have all the already-existing units and leave out ones still in development.
...Unless you're actively trying to frame a sane release model as a bad thing.
I am confused. Why are people talking about GW releasing a codex with rules for models that don't exist? Did I travel back in time to before the Chapterhouse lawsuit?
Releasing everyones codex at the same time (or doing it via a set of indexes) doesn't mean GW can no longer release new units. Christ how many Primaris releases have we gotten between Marine codex 1.0 and 2.0? how many new units have they released since, all with rules.
Why are you talking about hypothetical that don't happen when there is plenty of actual real events to base theories upon?
Ok but how would you kitbash a land raider if the model never existed? it's that sort of thing, it's not small infantry arm swaps necessarily.
Not everything can be kitbashed, cheaper than the original model and be 100% GW plastic. I give you that.
But if an original land raider never existed some people would find a solution, maybe merging two rhinos chassis into a bigger tank and then adding the required weapons from spared kits like devastators' heavy bolters, lascannons, etc...
When some models didn't exist, like the ork battlewagon during 3rd edition, it was absolutely fine to scratch build our own versions of those models. 3rd edition ork codex even encouraged players to do so, with lots of pictures about scratch built models, all with just a few bitz from GW plastic or metal. WD also had several battle reports involving orks with multiple units that were full conversions, in GW plastic or not.
Now it's different, sadly. But lots of stuff can be kitbashed with little effort. Maybe not the land raider, but basically the entire primaris roster can be, starting with the cheapest intercessors available and then just converting their weapons.
Not Online!!! wrote: Why wonder that , when the griffon existed?
I know alot of people that , due to the lack of the upgrade set, did build them out of basilisks, or other similar vehicles.
Because I'm asking how you would kitbash a new unit that you have no visual frame of reference for cheaply.
In that case every conversion works since there isn't an official model and WYSIWYG is always guaranteed then.
What happens if you get to the LVO finals and player A has the same unit as player B, using an unreleased unit and player A's unit is distinctly larger, on a bigger base etc. than player B's. How do you rule that?
Either A: Accept some slop and roll with the punches.
Or B: Povide a size guideline as part of the datasheets.
It's a solveable problem.
GW's current solution, as you know, is Option C: release a model for the rules they sell. They won't be doing either of your options. Why provide guidelines that could be used for buying third party models? That's unthinkable to modern GW.
So much thrashing around over stuff in this thread. To summarise, the through line seems to be "GW should release every Faction Codex on Day One electronically, for free, with perfect rules requiring no errata, did I mention for free. Anything is is predatory and harmful to the customer." Riiiiiight. You don't have to be a white knight to see this is wishful thinking at its finest.
Also let's not forget that even if they were compelled to include all the rules for everything coming out in the next two years for som reason, releasing codices containing rules for things that had yet to receive a model used to be a pretty common occurrence. It didn't break the game.
If tournament play has gotten so srs business that proxying for unreleased units is a serious problem, they could just ban units that don't have models yet and leave it to casual play.
But all of this is a non-issue because there is no reason for a free digital rules update to include things that don't exist yet.
Ordana wrote: I am confused. Why are people talking about GW releasing a codex with rules for models that don't exist? Did I travel back in time to before the Chapterhouse lawsuit?
Releasing everyones codex at the same time (or doing it via a set of indexes) doesn't mean GW can no longer release new units. Christ how many Primaris releases have we gotten between Marine codex 1.0 and 2.0? how many new units have they released since, all with rules.
Why are you talking about hypothetical that don't happen when there is plenty of actual real events to base theories upon?
Or all the new admech stuff...or all the stuff that's come out in box sets...or all the sisters stuff that was in the codex even before the models dropped, you know that thing that doesn't happen...
Ordana wrote: I am confused. Why are people talking about GW releasing a codex with rules for models that don't exist? Did I travel back in time to before the Chapterhouse lawsuit?
Releasing everyones codex at the same time (or doing it via a set of indexes) doesn't mean GW can no longer release new units. Christ how many Primaris releases have we gotten between Marine codex 1.0 and 2.0? how many new units have they released since, all with rules.
Why are you talking about hypothetical that don't happen when there is plenty of actual real events to base theories upon?
They released 1 unit over a year after the first codex via the Executioner. There were the units in shadowspear that ultimately formed the codex 2.0 release, the issue here is if you think they were a separate none codex release, you have to acknowledge that all those photos units and suppressors weren't part of the 2.0 release which makes it... small.
Moreover, how many of the people here whine about rules being spread out too far, about having to buy campaign books, about needing "paid for balance patches", limited time availability rules via white dwarf.
If people want a codex to exist as is forever and have models trickled out, it'll just spawn other complaints.
JohnnyHell wrote: To summarise, the through line seems to be "GW should release every Faction Codex on Day One electronically, for free, with perfect rules requiring no errata, did I mention for free. Anything is is predatory and harmful to the customer." Riiiiiight. You don't have to be a white knight to see this is wishful thinking at its finest.
Well, nothing says white knight quite like taking a common practice other companies do, then exaggerating it to make it sound unreasonable. Did anyone in this thread actually demand perfect rules requiring no errata or say that anything less than that is predatory, or is that just stuffing for the straw man?
I can go to Corvus Belli's website right now and download both the core rules and faction rules for Infinity. I can go to Warlord Games' website and buy a PDF of the Bolt Action rulebook for twenty bucks, and that includes all the faction-specific rules for the current edition of the game.
Splitting out a game's rules into dozens of expensive supplements, incrementally updating portions of the game piecemeal, is hardly the only viable way to handle a miniatures game.
Ok but how would you kitbash a land raider if the model never existed? it's that sort of thing, it's not small infantry arm swaps necessarily.
Not everything can be kitbashed, cheaper than the original model and be 100% GW plastic. I give you that.
But if an original land raider never existed some people would find a solution, maybe merging two rhinos chassis into a bigger tank and then adding the required weapons from spared kits like devastators' heavy bolters, lascannons, etc...
When some models didn't exist, like the ork battlewagon during 3rd edition, it was absolutely fine to scratch build our own versions of those models. 3rd edition ork codex even encouraged players to do so, with lots of pictures about scratch built models, all with just a few bitz from GW plastic or metal. WD also had several battle reports involving orks with multiple units that were full conversions, in GW plastic or not.
Now it's different, sadly. But lots of stuff can be kitbashed with little effort. Maybe not the land raider, but basically the entire primaris roster can be, starting with the cheapest intercessors available and then just converting their weapons.
Not Online!!! wrote: Why wonder that , when the griffon existed?
I know alot of people that , due to the lack of the upgrade set, did build them out of basilisks, or other similar vehicles.
Because I'm asking how you would kitbash a new unit that you have no visual frame of reference for cheaply.
In that case every conversion works since there isn't an official model and WYSIWYG is always guaranteed then.
What happens if you get to the LVO finals and player A has the same unit as player B, using an unreleased unit and player A's unit is distinctly larger, on a bigger base etc. than player B's. How do you rule that?
Either A: Accept some slop and roll with the punches.
Or B: Povide a size guideline as part of the datasheets.
It's a solveable problem.
GW's current solution, as you know, is Option C: release a model for the rules they sell. They won't be doing either of your options. Why provide guidelines that could be used for buying third party models? That's unthinkable to modern GW.
So much thrashing around over stuff in this thread. To summarise, the through line seems to be "GW should release every Faction Codex on Day One electronically, for free, with perfect rules requiring no errata, did I mention for free. Anything is is predatory and harmful to the customer." Riiiiiight. You don't have to be a white knight to see this is wishful thinking at its finest.
JohnnyHell wrote: To summarise, the through line seems to be "GW should release every Faction Codex on Day One electronically, for free, with perfect rules requiring no errata, did I mention for free. Anything is is predatory and harmful to the customer." Riiiiiight. You don't have to be a white knight to see this is wishful thinking at its finest.
Well, nothing says white knight quite like taking a common practice other companies do, then exaggerating it to make it sound unreasonable. Did anyone in this thread actually demand perfect rules requiring no errata or say that anything less than that is predatory, or is that just stuffing for the straw man?
I can go to Corvus Belli's website right now and download both the core rules and faction rules for Infinity. I can go to Warlord Games' website and buy a PDF of the Bolt Action rulebook for twenty bucks, and that includes all the faction-specific rules for the current edition of the game.
Splitting out a game's rules into dozens of expensive supplements, incrementally updating portions of the game piecemeal, is hardly the only viable way to handle a miniatures game.
C'mon, like I'm the first to be hyperbolic in this thread/this site. Nothing says "just here to whine" like not taking my point that GW simply isn't going to change and trying to convince me of something to do with some games I don't care about. I haven't defended any of GW's practices, just pragmatically pointed out they simply will not change them so save the hot air.
Ok but how would you kitbash a land raider if the model never existed? it's that sort of thing, it's not small infantry arm swaps necessarily.
Not everything can be kitbashed, cheaper than the original model and be 100% GW plastic. I give you that.
But if an original land raider never existed some people would find a solution, maybe merging two rhinos chassis into a bigger tank and then adding the required weapons from spared kits like devastators' heavy bolters, lascannons, etc...
When some models didn't exist, like the ork battlewagon during 3rd edition, it was absolutely fine to scratch build our own versions of those models. 3rd edition ork codex even encouraged players to do so, with lots of pictures about scratch built models, all with just a few bitz from GW plastic or metal. WD also had several battle reports involving orks with multiple units that were full conversions, in GW plastic or not.
Now it's different, sadly. But lots of stuff can be kitbashed with little effort. Maybe not the land raider, but basically the entire primaris roster can be, starting with the cheapest intercessors available and then just converting their weapons.
Not Online!!! wrote: Why wonder that , when the griffon existed?
I know alot of people that , due to the lack of the upgrade set, did build them out of basilisks, or other similar vehicles.
Because I'm asking how you would kitbash a new unit that you have no visual frame of reference for cheaply.
In that case every conversion works since there isn't an official model and WYSIWYG is always guaranteed then.
What happens if you get to the LVO finals and player A has the same unit as player B, using an unreleased unit and player A's unit is distinctly larger, on a bigger base etc. than player B's. How do you rule that?
Either A: Accept some slop and roll with the punches.
Or B: Povide a size guideline as part of the datasheets.
It's a solveable problem.
GW's current solution, as you know, is Option C: release a model for the rules they sell. They won't be doing either of your options. Why provide guidelines that could be used for buying third party models? That's unthinkable to modern GW.
So much thrashing around over stuff in this thread. To summarise, the through line seems to be "GW should release every Faction Codex on Day One electronically, for free, with perfect rules requiring no errata, did I mention for free. Anything is is predatory and harmful to the customer." Riiiiiight. You don't have to be a white knight to see this is wishful thinking at its finest.
Excuse me? Did I ever say any of that?
It's entirely possible for part of that post to be a direct reply and part of it to not. I think you can figure out which is which, come on...
Ordana wrote: I am confused. Why are people talking about GW releasing a codex with rules for models that don't exist? Did I travel back in time to before the Chapterhouse lawsuit?
Releasing everyones codex at the same time (or doing it via a set of indexes) doesn't mean GW can no longer release new units. Christ how many Primaris releases have we gotten between Marine codex 1.0 and 2.0? how many new units have they released since, all with rules.
Why are you talking about hypothetical that don't happen when there is plenty of actual real events to base theories upon?
They released 1 unit over a year after the first codex via the Executioner. There were the units in shadowspear that ultimately formed the codex 2.0 release, the issue here is if you think they were a separate none codex release, you have to acknowledge that all those photos units and suppressors weren't part of the 2.0 release which makes it... small.
Moreover, how many of the people here whine about rules being spread out too far, about having to buy campaign books, about needing "paid for balance patches", limited time availability rules via white dwarf.
If people want a codex to exist as is forever and have models trickled out, it'll just spawn other complaints.
The people who make those complains are usually people who look at GW's competition and see them release their rules online for free so they don't need to be spread out to far, don't have to buy campaign books for unit entries and don't need to pay for updated points in Chapter approved.
I'm a fan of that myself aswell, release the rules online for free including point costs ect and still sell a physical codex that gets all the background and pretty artwork ect. Free rules to play with and paid niceness for the collectors or those who simply like having a physical book in their hand.
JohnnyHell wrote: C'mon, like I'm the first to be hyperbolic in this thread/this site. Nothing says "just here to whine" like not taking my point that GW simply isn't going to change and trying to convince me of something to do with some games I don't care about. I haven't defended any of GW's practices, just pragmatically pointed out they simply will not change them so save the hot air.
If you don't want to participate, feel free to stop posting at any time. Nothing says 'just here to whine' like whining about people discussing things.
And are you telling me we're not actually talking with GW corporate's Time Travel Division over how they can redo the launch of 9th? I'm shocked.
Anyways, I think there's plenty of opportunity for GW to change their policies. It sure seems a lot more likely when analyzed objectively (they already release AoS warscrolls for free, boxes come with limited datasheets, the core rules are free, lots of companies already do it and GW actively takes cues from competitors), rather than through the lens of your bs strawman.
JohnnyHell wrote: C'mon, like I'm the first to be hyperbolic in this thread/this site. Nothing says "just here to whine" like not taking my point that GW simply isn't going to change and trying to convince me of something to do with some games I don't care about. I haven't defended any of GW's practices, just pragmatically pointed out they simply will not change them so save the hot air.
If you don't want to participate, feel free to stop posting at any time. Nothing says 'just here to whine' like whining about people discussing things.
And are you telling me we're not actually talking with GW corporate's Time Travel Division over how they can redo the launch of 9th? I'm shocked.
Anyways, I think there's plenty of opportunity for GW to change their policies. It sure seems a lot more likely when analyzed objectively (they already release AoS warscrolls for free, boxes come with limited datasheets, the core rules are free, lots of companies already do it and GW actively takes cues from competitors), rather than through the lens of your bs strawman.
I just get bored of every. damn. thread. descending into “GW needs to change its business model!” This thread was about rerolls and a fairly cool rules change. As usual it’s descended into inane whining. You’re right, I shall stop participating because the actual discussion ceased pages ago and this is just all off topic whingery now.
Mr Morden wrote: Don't worry same time as they are reducing re-rolls - they are making terrain that....gives re-rolls
I've seen that just now and I thought about this very thread
I hope this terrain thing doesn't become a necessity to play the game, if so it's going to be the same problem.
I think rerolls are pretty problematic for the pace of the game too, I would prefer not to have them. I'm not an experienced player and the games with my friends (also newbies) are reaaaally long.
Ok but how would you kitbash a land raider if the model never existed? it's that sort of thing, it's not small infantry arm swaps necessarily.
Not everything can be kitbashed, cheaper than the original model and be 100% GW plastic. I give you that.
But if an original land raider never existed some people would find a solution, maybe merging two rhinos chassis into a bigger tank and then adding the required weapons from spared kits like devastators' heavy bolters, lascannons, etc...
When some models didn't exist, like the ork battlewagon during 3rd edition, it was absolutely fine to scratch build our own versions of those models. 3rd edition ork codex even encouraged players to do so, with lots of pictures about scratch built models, all with just a few bitz from GW plastic or metal. WD also had several battle reports involving orks with multiple units that were full conversions, in GW plastic or not.
Now it's different, sadly. But lots of stuff can be kitbashed with little effort. Maybe not the land raider, but basically the entire primaris roster can be, starting with the cheapest intercessors available and then just converting their weapons.
Not Online!!! wrote: Why wonder that , when the griffon existed?
I know alot of people that , due to the lack of the upgrade set, did build them out of basilisks, or other similar vehicles.
Because I'm asking how you would kitbash a new unit that you have no visual frame of reference for cheaply.
In that case every conversion works since there isn't an official model and WYSIWYG is always guaranteed then.
What happens if you get to the LVO finals and player A has the same unit as player B, using an unreleased unit and player A's unit is distinctly larger, on a bigger base etc. than player B's. How do you rule that?
Either A: Accept some slop and roll with the punches.
Or B: Povide a size guideline as part of the datasheets.
It's a solveable problem.
GW's current solution, as you know, is Option C: release a model for the rules they sell. They won't be doing either of your options. Why provide guidelines that could be used for buying third party models? That's unthinkable to modern GW.
So much thrashing around over stuff in this thread. To summarise, the through line seems to be "GW should release every Faction Codex on Day One electronically, for free, with perfect rules requiring no errata, did I mention for free. Anything is is predatory and harmful to the customer." Riiiiiight. You don't have to be a white knight to see this is wishful thinking at its finest.
Excuse me? Did I ever say any of that?
It's entirely possible for part of that post to be a direct reply and part of it to not. I think you can figure out which is which, come on...
Oh, you mean you recognize that some people are actually not making those claims but you feel free to paint the thread in hyperbolic broad strokes because . . . ? That's some strong contribution right there.
bfdhud wrote: So much negativity in this thread and this forum as a whole.
I think it might improve depending how the marine release is handled, as long as it's not stretched over 3 months again, because apparently the time span matters more than the volume, people might calm down for a bit when other factions get a chance next year.
And before all the "durrr hurrr hurrrr GW make marine release every 3 monfs" comments slide in, let that be it.
bfdhud wrote: So much negativity in this thread and this forum as a whole.
I think it might improve depending how the marine release is handled, as long as it's not stretched over 3 months again, because apparently the time span matters more than the volume, people might calm down for a bit when other factions get a chance next year.
And before all the "durrr hurrr hurrrr GW make marine release every 3 monfs" comments slide in, let that be it.
The time span matters because time is how you measure the number of imbalanced games you have to play while waiting for your update.
How many times you have to hear "awww yeah, sure does stink how bad these rules are mismatched - but hey, you'll get yours soon I'm sure!!!"
bfdhud wrote: So much negativity in this thread and this forum as a whole.
I think it might improve depending how the marine release is handled
I will guarantee the forum will be a gak show when it pops out. There's too much emotional investment for it not to be. People will rush to judgement (because taking your time is so passé) and get their jabs in and unless it is a massive dumpster fire the people outside the forum will shrug and keep playing.
bfdhud wrote: So much negativity in this thread and this forum as a whole.
I think it might improve depending how the marine release is handled
I will guarantee the forum will be a gak show when it pops out. There's too much emotional investment for it not to be. People will rush to judgement (because taking your time is so passé) and get their jabs in and unless it is a massive dumpster fire the people outside the forum will shrug and keep playing.
And the usual people will run to it's defence, saying we need to wait until the next Chapter Approved/FAQ, that it just released and we need to "Wait and see" for what codexes release next and magically balance it.
Oh and more complaints about people complaining than there are complaints.
bfdhud wrote: So much negativity in this thread and this forum as a whole.
I think it might improve depending how the marine release is handled
I will guarantee the forum will be a gak show when it pops out. There's too much emotional investment for it not to be. People will rush to judgement (because taking your time is so passé) and get their jabs in and unless it is a massive dumpster fire the people outside the forum will shrug and keep playing.
And the usual people will run to it's defence, saying we need to wait until the next Chapter Approved/FAQ, that it just released and we need to "Wait and see" for what codexes release next and magically balance it.
Oh and more complaints about people complaining than there are complaints.
And the usual people will run to it's defence, saying we need to wait until the next Chapter Approved/FAQ, that it just released and we need to "Wait and see" for what codexes release next and magically balance it.
Oh and more complaints about people complaining than there are complaints.
If it sucks what do we do?
1) tell GW 2) wait for a response within the 2 week (sometimes more sometimes less) FAQ window
If no response we are left to our own devices until big FAQ or CA or arms race codexes.
The problem is how broken various people deem it to be. And how do we resolve that? By playing games.
And the usual people will run to it's defence, saying we need to wait until the next Chapter Approved/FAQ, that it just released and we need to "Wait and see" for what codexes release next and magically balance it.
Oh and more complaints about people complaining than there are complaints.
If it sucks what do we do?
1) tell GW 2) wait for a response within the 2 week (sometimes more sometimes less) FAQ window
If no response we are left to our own devices until big FAQ or CA or arms race codexes.
The problem is how broken various people deem it to be. And how do we resolve that? By playing games.
Historically the broken stuff is pretty obvious... Remember the glaring OP-ness not that long ago? I twas obvious.. Anyone playing 40k for a week could tell how stupidly OP the 2.0 + supplaments were out the gate.. And yet there were many people handwaving it away as nothing wrong/ marines still garbage.. which causes the facepalming and the bickering..
The same people are still handwaving all those months later. Guess its good we waited and saw new edition and new codex arrive? Am I right! or am I wright>!?
The 'same people are still handwaving all those months later', probably because most of us haven't gotten a chance to play any frigging games since March or April.
And for the record? Quite a few of the people who were so dismissive of the Marine+2.0 supplements being 'OP' were doing so because it was clearly a problem with specific supplements and units. not the whole thing.
Funny how we're not supposed to talk about how broken Eldar were without clarifying Ynnari but painting the Marine stuff with one broad brush is a-ok.
Kanluwen wrote: The 'same people are still handwaving all those months later', probably because most of us haven't gotten a chance to play any frigging games since March or April.
And for the record? Quite a few of the people who were so dismissive of the Marine+2.0 supplements being 'OP' were doing so because it was clearly a problem with specific supplements and units. not the whole thing.
Funny how we're not supposed to talk about how broken Eldar were without clarifying Ynnari but painting the Marine stuff with one broad brush is a-ok.
Here is the thing.. I dont think I have seen anybody on this forum try and hand-wave ynnari..away.. Or any eldar players not commenting that alitoic CHE spam is an auto take and it sucks for everyone and needs to be nerfed. Only GW didint seem to know what to do as it was the only way to play eldar.. so they just let it go on..
I think we both know you are not making a good faith comment here. Everybody saw Ynnari was just silly and nobody defended it.. (Apart from that one guy who was like "L2P biach, I will kick your ass even without soulburst" and then sold his army on swap shop soon as WD dropped and switched to tau. True story..). So yeah.. Ynanri broken double activation, and CHE alitoic flier being a -2/-3 to hit causing obvious issues for a lot of armies and detrimental to the game... (Point of note - CM rerolls didint even care abotu that with a BS3... so... yeah... go figure...). So thats specifically TWO instances of one rule and one unit being an issue one fixed with WD/FAQ and one with core rules change (could easily have been FAQ as well..)
That horse is buried out back after being pumped full of high caliber rounds and set on fire.. with a single FAQ/WD.
But of course with SM "ohh it was only specific units, strategmes, warlord traits & supplements" SM & co. Took how many faqs to sort out? How many issues were there? Has it been sorted out.. really ?? We are about to get a new codex.. with new issues.. requiring new FAQs... And 2.0 dropped in April 2020 did it? man my memory must be falling apart.
By all means though keep hand-waving away. You are right of course. Nothing to see.. nothing happened..
The final batch of stuff for the codex and supplements was in October/November of 2019.
If you really want to pretend that there were big events in the winter/spring? That's cool. The spring was basically cancellation after cancellation. I, personally, never got more than two games with my Raven Guard using Infiltrators+Incursors(which weren't even the broken units for that iteration! it was Aggressors, who saw a nerf within two weeks!) under the 2.0 book thanks to a mixture of crap winter weather and COVID.
But keep on tooting that horn. Nobody said anything about Alaitoc(which was a whole separate kettle of fish, and anyone who didn't see major changes coming for them is delusional). I specifically mentioned Ynnari because there were people who insisted that Ynnari weren't broken because with anything but Dark Reapers they were fine--which is what you're effectively arguing wasn't the case with Marines.
Quite a few Marine players actively said "suchandsuch is broken when played with X/Y/Z". Because that's how these things continually shake out.
Historically the broken stuff is pretty obvious... Remember the glaring OP-ness not that long ago? I twas obvious..
Anyone playing 40k for a week could tell how stupidly OP the 2.0 + supplaments were out the gate.. And yet there were many people handwaving it away as nothing wrong/ marines still garbage.. which causes the facepalming and the bickering..
The same people are still handwaving all those months later. Guess its good we waited and saw new edition and new codex arrive? Am I right! or am I wright>!?
Remember how everyone was freaking out about Outriders and they're barely seen? Some units constitute concern like Eradicators, but others get piled on simply for being primaris.
I have yet to see someone call marines garbage though.
OPness that lasted 6 months until a decent nerf - and then no one hot to play. Marines are nowhere near where they were previously.
If GW makes the same magnitude of a mistake then go wild.
Are marines (of some flavour or another) hands down the top tier army since 2.0+ supplements into 9th ed? Its s simple yes or no question..
And yes eradicators and heavy intercessor are just the next thing.. Yeh yeah.. we will wait and see blah blah.. We've been through this before so whatever
And the usual people will run to it's defence, saying we need to wait until the next Chapter Approved/FAQ, that it just released and we need to "Wait and see" for what codexes release next and magically balance it.
Oh and more complaints about people complaining than there are complaints.
If it sucks what do we do?
1) tell GW 2) wait for a response within the 2 week (sometimes more sometimes less) FAQ window
If no response we are left to our own devices until big FAQ or CA or arms race codexes.
The problem is how broken various people deem it to be. And how do we resolve that? By playing games.
I don't think anybody's asking you to personally fix it. It's just frustrating when we have to argue over whether there's a problem to begin with, rather than how to address it before GW fixes it.
I don't think anybody's asking you to personally fix it. It's just frustrating when we have to argue over whether there's a problem to begin with, rather than how to address it before GW fixes it.
Not me personally, but as a community.
I don't think we argue that there is a problem. We argue about the degree of the problem and the reactionary nature of some posts.
9 Eradicators is aggravating to play against, but a lot of armies are making strong showings. We have this new brutal unit, but the top 10s are nothing like they were in October '19. Marine participation in August was 26% of all games. September it was 24.5%, but marines are taking a smaller share of top tables. Is it because not enough people are playing Salamander Eradicators?
Maybe the pandemic has a lot to do with that. Impossible to say at this point.
Also, the concept of a mirror match is so horribly abused (less so last year when marine lists were often similar). It works in Starcraft, because my army isn't fixed and I can respond in-kind. In Warhammer a Black Templars Land Raider list plays nothing like a White Scars Outriders list which plays nothing like a Sally Eradicator list. Forcing people to act like all marine on marine battles only serve to boost their respective placings completely ignores the flexibility of marine lists.
bfdhud wrote: So much negativity in this thread and this forum as a whole.
I think it might improve depending how the marine release is handled
I will guarantee the forum will be a gak show when it pops out. There's too much emotional investment for it not to be. People will rush to judgement (because taking your time is so passé) and get their jabs in and unless it is a massive dumpster fire the people outside the forum will shrug and keep playing.
And the usual people will run to it's defence, saying we need to wait until the next Chapter Approved/FAQ, that it just released and we need to "Wait and see" for what codexes release next and magically balance it.
Oh and more complaints about people complaining than there are complaints.
Oh arbitrator, you give yourself too little credit. As long as you're around, the complaints will always have the edge.
I don't think anybody's asking you to personally fix it. It's just frustrating when we have to argue over whether there's a problem to begin with, rather than how to address it before GW fixes it.
Not me personally, but as a community.
I don't think we argue that there is a problem. We argue about the degree of the problem and the reactionary nature of some posts.
9 Eradicators is aggravating to play against, but a lot of armies are making strong showings. We have this new brutal unit, but the top 10s are nothing like they were in October '19. Marine participation in August was 26% of all games. September it was 24.5%, but marines are taking a smaller share of top tables. Is it because not enough people are playing Salamander Eradicators?
Maybe the pandemic has a lot to do with that. Impossible to say at this point.
Also, the concept of a mirror match is so horribly abused (less so last year when marine lists were often similar). It works in Starcraft, because my army isn't fixed and I can respond in-kind. In Warhammer a Black Templars Land Raider list plays nothing like a White Scars Outriders list which plays nothing like a Sally Eradicator list. Forcing people to act like all marine on marine battles only serve to boost their respective placings completely ignores the flexibility of marine lists.
Also, not for nothing but tournament results, especially in the united states, are almost completely worthless at the moment. Huge chunks of the field are staying away, some by choice some by simple fact of not having any events going on within 200 miles of them. People are whining about the meta but 90% of everyone in the US at the very least haven't even managed to PARTICIPATE in the meta yet.
Argive wrote: Behave... Id maybe wrap yo wrists up lads..
Ok honest question.
Are marines (of some flavour or another) hands down the top tier army since 2.0+ supplements into 9th ed? Its s simple yes or no question..
And yes eradicators and heavy intercessor are just the next thing.. Yeh yeah.. we will wait and see blah blah.. We've been through this before so whatever
So marines, who make a half of or more , of the people playing should have have a top tier list? So only less popular armies are okey to have top tier lists, but not marines?
Argive wrote: Behave... Id maybe wrap yo wrists up lads..
Ok honest question.
Are marines (of some flavour or another) hands down the top tier army since 2.0+ supplements into 9th ed? Its s simple yes or no question..
And yes eradicators and heavy intercessor are just the next thing.. Yeh yeah.. we will wait and see blah blah.. We've been through this before so whatever
So marines, who make a half of or more , of the people playing should have have a top tier list? So only less popular armies are okey to have top tier lists, but not marines?
It is a loaded question to ask, as it simplifies the matter too much.
You can make strong tournament lists with Marines 2.0. More than with other armies? Not sure. Marines seem to revolve around a strong infantry core with some added vehicles.
You can make strong tournament lists with Orks as well. At least with them I know of two distinct lists that placed well. One was Boys galore one was a car park.
You can make strong tournament lists with Daemons. Apart from the obvious Nurgle list, we saw mono Slaanesh place top as well.
You can make strong tournament lists with Marines 2.0. More than with other armies? Not sure. Marines seem to revolve around a strong infantry core with some added vehicles.
That's not that relevant. Tournament lists are mostly skew lists that most of the players can't or don't want to play. However SM tournament lists are pretty close to average casual SM lists though, that's what makes them overpowered.
Daedalus81 wrote: 9 Eradicators is aggravating to play against, but a lot of armies are making strong showings. We have this new brutal unit, but the top 10s are nothing like they were in October '19. Marine participation in August was 26% of all games. September it was 24.5%, but marines are taking a smaller share of top tables. Is it because not enough people are playing Salamander Eradicators?
Maybe the pandemic has a lot to do with that. Impossible to say at this point.
I suspect its just that most tournament lists are being skewed more and more to be anti-marine. Because Marines are top tier.
Its not like Eldar in 7th (at least pre Ynnari) won every single tournament and dominated all the placings. But when 25-30% or something of lists going to a tournament were Eldar, the lists that survived had to be the ones that had a reasonable shot at beating them, because they were bound to run into them.
I think this is better then the situation in December last year - because you are seeing a *meta* response. But that doesn't necessarily impact Marines stomping all over casual tables across the world.
Kanluwen wrote: The 'same people are still handwaving all those months later', probably because most of us haven't gotten a chance to play any frigging games since March or April.
And for the record? Quite a few of the people who were so dismissive of the Marine+2.0 supplements being 'OP' were doing so because it was clearly a problem with specific supplements and units. not the whole thing.
Funny how we're not supposed to talk about how broken Eldar were without clarifying Ynnari but painting the Marine stuff with one broad brush is a-ok.
Oh come on. This is how this discussion always always goes.
There's a whole conversation about how some aspect of something is crazy, like say, how dumb it is that every other army in the game has to give up all their other benefits to take powergamed custom chapter tactics but marines don't, which is evidently and obviously leading to tons of """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""successor chapters""""""""""""""""""""""""" who just happen to be painted exactly like the core chapter but take the best two traits, or how obnoxious eradicators are.
And then one galaxybrained idiot goes "ahurr yup marines so op you can take random units n its autowin vs anyone"
and then that one guy is the ONLY thing anyone defending space marines will respond to, because it's easier to characterize all the complaints as that, and not 95% complaints about specific units, rules, supplements, etc.
Are there some things I'd like to see changed that are not just focused into one supplement?
Yes. I think the ability to mix successor chapters with ALL the core chapter rules is always going to be a problem. I think the ability to stack 2 warlord traits on 1 guy is always going to be a problem. I think Bolter Discipline by nature encourages the worst possible playstyle that exists in 40k.
If any other army had those rules, I'd be saying they needed to be removed. If fire warriors could stand still and shoot rapid fire at 30" range, I'd be calling it the exact same cancer that it is when an army of intercessors do it.
But at the same time, i recognize that marines DID need SOMETHING at the time 2.0 came out, and I would want the removal of all those things to be compensated with by buffs to help out underperforming units. Like, I don't know, maybe making all firstborn models +1W, improving all the core marine heavy and special weapons, buffing the chainswords everyone gets for free, etc.
And yes. this abso-freaking-lutely happens with other factions when they are OP. Do you really, really really need me to find the threads from 7th ed where people were arguing that you could take random eldar units and beat a tournament army? arguing that everything in the entire codex including storm guardians and avatars and dire avengers were all broken, it all needed to be nerfed into the ground, it's so fundamentally unfair waaaaah?
And the usual people will run to it's defence, saying we need to wait until the next Chapter Approved/FAQ, that it just released and we need to "Wait and see" for what codexes release next and magically balance it.
Oh and more complaints about people complaining than there are complaints.
If it sucks what do we do?
1) tell GW 2) wait for a response within the 2 week (sometimes more sometimes less) FAQ window
If no response we are left to our own devices until big FAQ or CA or arms race codexes.
The problem is how broken various people deem it to be. And how do we resolve that? By playing games.
The broken stuff will be found out before codex is even in stores with very good chance. And if not...It will take about 6h top once first players get it in their hand to crack it.
40k isn't game where broken stuff is hard to find. It's simple game with no depth. Just bloat. Makes it very easy to find out broken stuff. That's why players have found out broken combo's even months before release with incomplete information at that. GW games aren't complex subtle games.
tneva82 wrote: The broken stuff will be found out before codex is even in stores with very good chance. And if not...It will take about 6h top once first players get it in their hand to crack it.
40k isn't game where broken stuff is hard to find. It's simple game with no depth. Just bloat. Makes it very easy to find out broken stuff. That's why players have found out broken combo's even months before release with incomplete information at that. GW games aren't complex subtle games.
And yet, (assumingly) locating what is overperforming does not relate directly to predict who is going to dominate in a tournament environment. Point in case: Goonhammer's last article about expectations and reality.
Maybe it is not as shallow as you think.
Bad news, pretty much everything not a tank or a character is core in the SM codex.
This is quite worrying as this adds another level for GW to, essentially, utterly screw with other armies by limiting what is and is not core more dramatically than they did with marines, which is pretty much all core.
stratigo wrote: Bad news, pretty much everything not a tank or a character is core in the SM codex.
This is quite worrying as this adds another level for GW to, essentially, utterly screw with other armies by limiting what is and is not core more dramatically than they did with marines, which is pretty much all core.
For much of 8th, Marines (and several other armies) did not have Chapter/Order etc Tactics for much of their army whilst many did - took long time to sort out and I think some are still waiting.
stratigo wrote: Bad news, pretty much everything not a tank or a character is core in the SM codex.
This is quite worrying as this adds another level for GW to, essentially, utterly screw with other armies by limiting what is and is not core more dramatically than they did with marines, which is pretty much all core.
For much of 8th, Marines (and several other armies) did not have Chapter/Order etc Tactics for much of their army whilst many did - took long time to sort out and I think some are still waiting.
For much of 8th marines were bad.
But everyone certainly want their new codex, marine weapons have seen an uptick in weapon damage and, more important to me and I suspect most others, weapon damage so a lot of averaging out to be consistent. As a custodes player, I am almost salivating at the idea of my weapons just doing 2 (or 3 in my dreams) damage.
stratigo wrote: Bad news, pretty much everything not a tank or a character is core in the SM codex.
This is quite worrying as this adds another level for GW to, essentially, utterly screw with other armies by limiting what is and is not core more dramatically than they did with marines, which is pretty much all core.
Exactly what I predicted. And I largely think that the same will be done for literally every faction, I'd expect. I could be wrong, but I think the only real exceptions to this might be Gretchin, Cultists, and Conscripts, and suchlike.
You can make strong tournament lists with Marines 2.0. More than with other armies? Not sure. Marines seem to revolve around a strong infantry core with some added vehicles.
That's not that relevant. Tournament lists are mostly skew lists that most of the players can't or don't want to play.
I think the core part of the sentance is the most.
Because I can't imagine a GK player who doesn't want to play some sort of a tournament version of the army list. It could be like that for other factions too, and then most can suddenly become 51% of armies played.
stratigo wrote: Bad news, pretty much everything not a tank or a character is core in the SM codex.
This is quite worrying as this adds another level for GW to, essentially, utterly screw with other armies by limiting what is and is not core more dramatically than they did with marines, which is pretty much all core.
Exactly what I predicted. And I largely think that the same will be done for literally every faction, I'd expect. I could be wrong, but I think the only real exceptions to this might be Gretchin, Cultists, and Conscripts, and suchlike.
Necrons didn't get the same amount of core as marines. I think all of 4 necron units get to be core.
stratigo wrote: Bad news, pretty much everything not a tank or a character is core in the SM codex.
This is quite worrying as this adds another level for GW to, essentially, utterly screw with other armies by limiting what is and is not core more dramatically than they did with marines, which is pretty much all core.
Exactly what I predicted. And I largely think that the same will be done for literally every faction, I'd expect. I could be wrong, but I think the only real exceptions to this might be Gretchin, Cultists, and Conscripts, and suchlike.
Necrons didn't get the same amount of core as marines. I think all of 4 necron units get to be core.
For Necrons, Warriors, Immortals, Deathmarks, Tomb Blades, and Lychguard are Core. What is not Core is all characters, all vehicles, all Canoptek units, all Destroyer Cult units, all Dynastic Agent units, all C’tan Shard units, and Flayed Ones. So other than Flayed Ones, we are dealing with the same limitations as space marines (Characters and vehicles) or a bunch of discreet groups of units that generally have additional rules associated with them via a different keyword. Looks bad at first, but it makes sense for thematic and gameplay reasons.
stratigo wrote: Bad news, pretty much everything not a tank or a character is core in the SM codex.
This is quite worrying as this adds another level for GW to, essentially, utterly screw with other armies by limiting what is and is not core more dramatically than they did with marines, which is pretty much all core.
For much of 8th, Marines (and several other armies) did not have Chapter/Order etc Tactics for much of their army whilst many did - took long time to sort out and I think some are still waiting.
some are still waiting, Armies whose CTs impact only a handfull of their units:
Chaos Space Marines
1k Sons
Death Guard
Grey Knights
GSCs
granted 1K sona dna dGKs chapter tactic is irrelevant on vehicles
who needs anything else.
