A few things jump out at me:
-Elysians got their unique units, but no Doctrine. I assume this means they can pick their own, following the guidance in the codex?
-Renegades & Heretics are back, they're BS4+ (!), infantry are 6PPM (!!), and vox-casters and Enforcers now just confer Ld bonuses. R&H never aligned directly to Astra Militarum, but I wonder if this shows us what vox-casters and Commissars will be doing in the new codex, and how much basic Guardsmen will cost.
-Corsairs have rules again.
-Tyranid Shrikes aren't in this, nor are they in the new FW book- I take this as confirmation that shrikes will be in the next Tyranid codex.
Honestly this is a lot better than I was expecting.
Edit: Bizarrely, the Centaur has two different entries on the points cost table, with different base costs and upgrades. Wonder what that's about.
Necrosius looks pretty damn good again, he's simply a better plaguecaster and his unique wargear got better. He lost his special Aura that only him and Mammon could use, but that's not really a loss. Oh and he lost the ability to deny 3 psychic powers, but that was honestly a little off, he's now 2 cast/ 1 deny like usual sorcerors.
DG and TS got access to all the legion models except Rapiers again. I still don't know why they decided that Rapiers aren't for them, but it is what it is.
My Demios(Hellforged) predator I just got is Martial Legacy. That sucks. Hellwright is better yet worse at the same time. Zhufor doesn't give rerolls anymore. I'm disappoint.
Ooof. Looks like GW is doubling down on the garbage eldar statline, that's very very unfortunate.
Eldar desperately need some core statline improvement to compare to W2 (effectively) A2 marines with Bolter Discipline and Doctrines.
And yet, with the forgeworld compendium and legends we have the same gak S3 A1 T3 W1 statline on both an aspect warrior unit and a guardian-equivalent unit...uuuugh.
Ugh, this PDF is both a poorly constructed (making each page take forever to load) and didn't bother bookmarking anything. Navigating this thing is a pain. Oh well.
So, looking quickly at stuff that's most immediately relevant to my interests.
Death Korps Grenadiers are reasonably priced, 7ppm, that's a surprise. Albeit they still have their original 3E Stormtrooper weapons limitations of 2 per 10, but at 7ppm I'll deal.
The Quartermaster Cadre doesn't do much, but at a minimum 15pts, doesn't cost much either, for a 3" 6+FNP bubble, if you're running a blob of DKoK infantry units of sorts, where this unit might be within range of five or six units, I could see it having a purpose, but that's about it.
Looks like they made the Storm Chimera just the generic "Autocannon Chimera" option, it's literally just got the autocannon and none of the other old upgrades, which is fine. I can live with that, especially as they were largely hideously overpriced and mandatory previously.
The Centaur indeed has two identically named but differently costed points entries with different upgrade uptions. There used to be two different versions, the assault carrier and the artillery tractor (where the former received the 4E Extra Armour upgrade to downgrade Stunned results to Shaken), but that hasn't been a thing in a while and it's not how the rules are laid out or written.
The Griffon is ok, ironically it's actually a better Marine killer than muppet mower, not that its spectacularly scary, but at 85pts it's hard to complain too much.
My big problem is that basically all of this Legends stuff basically appears to be written to the 9E transition stats, which as we've seen were pretty hamfistedly done, and they're going to remain in that zone forever.
I laughed a little bit at the Tauros Venator Twin Multilaser having only 3 shots, while seemingly still costing 10 points. But at least the Tauros Assault Vehicle Grenade Launcher now costs the same as the Heavy flamer. Still a bit overcosted for what is basically a twin grenade launcher, but I take what I can get.
Also I'm really happy the funny Sentinel variants (drop and powerlifter) are still alive.
BaconCatBug wrote: I see the removal of Shrikes as a complete removal, they won't be in the new Codex methinks.
For me Shrieks have long been in the same van as The Parasite of Mortex and the Doom etc... Ergo really neat ideas that GW had at one time but then never developed - likely because whoever does the Tyranids in the design team doesn't want to make them for some reason or some such. Heck didn't we have 2 whole codex editions with those special characters and yet no model. Annoying as it is at least "no model no rules" means they no longer endlessly tease us with them (we did get a neurothrope though
Covenant of chaos is now a general generic gakky former khorne covenant... yeah S 4 for getting charged or charging or heroic intervention... I guess get fethed any non Khorne R&H players...
Commander: 35 pts for an ignore attriton modifiers aura.. so 5 ppm more for worse?
Malefic lord: You know what people hated? Smite bots, so how bout we make him a only smite bot, that's right NO MORE R&H psy, but now 30 ppm cheaper. feth you GW
Rogue psyker coven: You know what people hated, Smite bots, have this allways smiting bot group for 35 pts, EACH WITH 3 W. ARE YOU STUPID GW?
Renegade cultists: Strictly better then regular CSM cultists: For 5 PPM. on behalf of any CSM player: feth you gw.
Militia Squad: OH Wow GW realised that it overpriced the squad, HOW ABOUT WE DO IT AGAIN. 6 PPM For a worse Guardsmen with worse morale and Armor? Atleast now WS and BS 4 + but still gak and nowhere near IA13 status.
Btw: here comes the Chaos sigil, a shity reroll 1 for charging or charged melee status, FOR 10 PPM on S3(4) bodies...
Renegade mutant rabble: Nerfed in squad size, morale , got better mutations... 7PPM for a worse then Militia unit...
Renegade Command squad: Nerfed morale, nerfed fanatic, banners are bad. SV nerfed. still WSBS 3+ for 6 pts. So why'd people even bother with militia? or Mutants for that matter? Also no more command vox because of course!
Renegade disciple squad: Yay it got a champ, therefore morale is back to ONLY SLIGHTLY UNDER THE AVERAGE OF THE LAST ALLREADY BAD ITERATION. 7ppm?
it's excactly the same as the fething command disciples but it's one ppm more... feth you GW.
Enforcer: No more auto morale on d3 dead, infact he doesn't even execute anymore, got a price drop ? Better morale rule... Hell he might even be worth it now without the blob build but still lost alot of flavour...
Marauders: Now stalkers and murder cultists at the same time, also only unit with an SV4+ in the whole fething army still 9ppm for a disciple body is overpriced even with the tac on rules though. Atleast the brutes now are hitting half decent... also no more mercs so their morale now is conventional.
Ogryn beashandlers are wierd now, the more dogs you use the cheaper .. on average because min 1 ogryn and beast for 15 ppm regardless what you get? WHO THE feth LET THE INTERN WRITE THAT?
Berzerkers got nerfed, in regards to drugs and have no more champion
Chaos Spawn is now 23 ppm...with the covenant.. yeah that is really fething cheap..
Renegade heavy weapons squad: Basically like milita overpriced.... Until you realise that a clown aded a special equipment entry for the heavy weapons squad, yeah, they get a quad launcher for 35 ppm. you get a quad launcher team for 47 ppm....
Conclusion:
you couldn't even bother to give back some flavour of IA 13, instead we got a Index 8th somehow WORSE functionality for a collectors army . You actively achieved to make it simultaniously WORSE to play against, because i am sure somewhere some donkey-cave decides to coven smite spam, and field all the bloody quad launchers he can, whilest also making the regular R&H player basically also worse off with the nonsense that is the equipment and pts cost for the regular actually intersting units of a R&H army.
feth you GW. sincerly , i hope the donkey-cave that wrote this list has a seriously bad day. this is supposed to be a farwell, with no replacement option in sight that is worth that name. I hope the added ressources to develop primaris leutnants is fething worth it.
The Destroyer Tank Hunter got quite a nice boost to it's weapon. It use to be essentially a D3 shot Lascannon, now it's Heavy 2 S12 Ap-4 Damage D3+3.
The S12 is somewhat meaningless, but the extra reliability and Ap are certainly welcome.
It did lose its tank Hunter ability though which is is a shame. I'm just happy to not be wasting my time putting it on a table. It's not so much a tank Hunter, more a scavenger picking off wounded vehicles with a bit of reliability.
I was really hoping for the Leman Russ keyword though, as it's a model that screams out for a tank ace ability.
So maybe I'm a bit out of the loop, as admittedly I've not looked at 8th edition R&H, but I have seen 7th edition rules, and looking at the current legends rules for them, with what (also, admittedly limited) knowledge I have of astra militarum rules, solely due to having a friend who plays guard..
Are the problems with the army really that bad? I see a huge amount of issue with points costs, but didnt AM also get a points hike recently? It seems to me like at least with a brief skim over of their rules to be "guard, but more melee focused, and with their own tricks". Which, is kind of what playing chaos marines feels like in relation to loyalist marines.
I understand they're not going to be competitive, and may not stand toe to toe with the best guard regiments, but it -feels- like they're a different way to play guard, but as the baddies.
How do they stack up as if they were a unique guard regiments? As in, the +1s if charging, charged or HI, plus unique units and such were just regimental adjustments?
BaconCatBug wrote:I see the removal of Shrikes as a complete removal, they won't be in the new Codex methinks.
Overread wrote:For me Shrieks have long been in the same van as The Parasite of Mortex and the Doom etc... Ergo really neat ideas that GW had at one time but then never developed - likely because whoever does the Tyranids in the design team doesn't want to make them for some reason or some such. Heck didn't we have 2 whole codex editions with those special characters and yet no model. Annoying as it is at least "no model no rules" means they no longer endlessly tease us with them (we did get a neurothrope though
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but it would be downright weird for a unit that had Matched Play legal rules (but no model) in 8th to disappear entirely and forever, while a couple of kits that haven't been produced in close to a decade and never got Matched Play rules in 8th, like the Knarlocs, made it into Legends.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordOfWar wrote: How do they stack up as if they were a unique guard regiments? As in, the +1s if charging, charged or HI, plus unique units and such were just regimental adjustments?
Put it this way- Catachans get S4 all the time, get Orders that let them melee in the Shooting Phase, have better armor and Ld, and are a point cheaper.
Apparently GW stealth-updated the legends document so that the FW stuff is available to TS and DG without it being considered as a legends unit.
DG stuff get the <bubonic astartes> keyword and can be part of a plague company
TS stuff gets the <Arcana astartes> and can be part of any cult of magic.
Hmm that's odd it has changed the wording. Doesn't necessarily apply to the actual Imperial armour compendium though so I wouldn't get too excited.
I imagine they have decided it was a little convoluted to put the rule in legends so they will instead FAQIA.
Shrikes did used to have an upgrade kit made by forgeworld. But they were always a codex unit. There's been confusion due to them having rules in Index Xenos 2, but later having point cost updates in the forgeworld section of CA books. They seem to have fallen into a hole where GW can't decide whether they are codex unit or a forgeworld unit, and have settled on neither.
Sororitas Repressors look decent-ish at their points cost. Pity they couldn't just revamp the model and make it, well, not Legends? I have 3 3d-printed ones that are now paperweights unfortunately. I mean, I could fix them up and paint them for casual games where my opponent is okay with legends, but the incentive just isn't there for me.
Lias doesn't have any Deep Strike shenanigans so I'm surprised they kept his cost so high. At least I can still use that model though.
Also FANTASTIC that Anton got Blast on his gun. My shotgun wielding standin is gonna be totally cool. Shame he didn't get more damage on any of his weapons though.
ZergSmasher wrote: Sororitas Repressors look decent-ish at their points cost. Pity they couldn't just revamp the model and make it, well, not Legends? I have 3 3d-printed ones that are now paperweights unfortunately. I mean, I could fix them up and paint them for casual games where my opponent is okay with legends, but the incentive just isn't there for me.
Now is the ideal time to play with them though, before further "corrections and adjustments" occur!
While I'm disappointed to see some units reduced to Legends (mainly Lias and the Stormhammer), I honestly don't get why it's a big deal that R&H, Elysians and the like are in here.
From what I've seen mainly on the Facebook pages, people seem to be treating it as if the sky is falling:
"Well, guess I can't use my Elysian army anymore!"
"That's it!! I'm selling my DKK force!!!"
etc, etc.
What's the big deal? Nothing's stopping you from using them. Hell, if anything this gives you more flexibility to use Doctrines to better represent your army's flavour. Use your R&H as regular Guard, use Elysians as Tempestus, great! That sort of variation is what we should be seeing.
Valkyrie wrote: While I'm disappointed to see some units reduced to Legends (mainly Lias and the Stormhammer), I honestly don't get why it's a big deal that R&H, Elysians and the like are in here.
From what I've seen mainly on the Facebook pages, people seem to be treating it as if the sky is falling:
"Well, guess I can't use my Elysian army anymore!"
"That's it!! I'm selling my DKK force!!!"
etc, etc.
What's the big deal? Nothing's stopping you from using them. Hell, if anything this gives you more flexibility to use Doctrines to better represent your army's flavour. Use your R&H as regular Guard, use Elysians as Tempestus, great! That sort of variation is what we should be seeing.
In many respects, at least regarding the Death Korps, I agree, I'm entirely fine with using the basic IG Infantry Squad entry for DKoK infantry instead of having a separate datasheet. My big issue is that, for any sort of competitive event (or people playing games to those rules), if they're not allowing legends, it does make certain things impossible to run, or at least run in any way that makes sense.
The DKK regimental doctrine is pretty crap, but I can live with that, and if I really care for the most part the Catachan one fits just as well and is miles better
Argive wrote: I think we should all take a moment to appreciate that GW has released these at all in legends for free and without too much fail.
Because you know... rather then put them in the books and then split it into two charging us £40 for two books instead of one..
I know you're being sarcastic, but I find it interesting that these free rules seem to have been subject to the same level of quality control (or lack thereof) as the rules sold by gw.
Valkyrie wrote: While I'm disappointed to see some units reduced to Legends (mainly Lias and the Stormhammer), I honestly don't get why it's a big deal that R&H, Elysians and the like are in here.
From what I've seen mainly on the Facebook pages, people seem to be treating it as if the sky is falling:
"Well, guess I can't use my Elysian army anymore!"
"That's it!! I'm selling my DKK force!!!"
etc, etc.
What's the big deal? Nothing's stopping you from using them. Hell, if anything this gives you more flexibility to use Doctrines to better represent your army's flavour. Use your R&H as regular Guard, use Elysians as Tempestus, great! That sort of variation is what we should be seeing.
Yeah, this is puzzling. You'd think people who are honest in saying they use units because they like the look or want fluffy army would be OK with new, toned down rules...
...but the amount of whining on certain FW dreadnoughts being slightly less broken (and now having small CP fee that doesn't matter one bit unless you spammed like 6-9 of them) leads me to believe they just loved their OP nonsense giving them massive advantage against people who used all-plastic armies and are now throwing hissy fit now it's no longer the case. Go figure
Yeah God-Emperor forbid someone wants to play their DKOK army that costs more than a mid-range card as DKOK and not counts-as flavour of the month guardsmen!
Argive wrote: I think we should all take a moment to appreciate that GW has released these at all in legends for free and without too much fail.
Because you know... rather then put them in the books and then split it into two charging us £40 for two books instead of one..
I know you're being sarcastic, but I find it interesting that these free rules seem to have been subject to the same level of quality control (or lack thereof) as the rules sold by gw.
Ohh now.. No sarcasm.. I think the bar is set so low its generally a moment to appreciate
Valkyrie wrote: While I'm disappointed to see some units reduced to Legends (mainly Lias and the Stormhammer), I honestly don't get why it's a big deal that R&H, Elysians and the like are in here.
From what I've seen mainly on the Facebook pages, people seem to be treating it as if the sky is falling:
"Well, guess I can't use my Elysian army anymore!"
"That's it!! I'm selling my DKK force!!!"
etc, etc.
What's the big deal? Nothing's stopping you from using them. Hell, if anything this gives you more flexibility to use Doctrines to better represent your army's flavour. Use your R&H as regular Guard, use Elysians as Tempestus, great! That sort of variation is what we should be seeing.
Yeah, this is puzzling. You'd think people who are honest in saying they use units because they like the look or want fluffy army would be OK with new, toned down rules...
...but the amount of whining on certain FW dreadnoughts being slightly less broken (and now having small CP fee that doesn't matter one bit unless you spammed like 6-9 of them) leads me to believe they just loved their OP nonsense giving them massive advantage against people who used all-plastic armies and are now throwing hissy fit now it's no longer the case. Go figure
You'd have a point if Relic Contemptors were OP at all. Spoiler Alert: they were literally the only way you could run a melee Dread. In reality people were just mad that there was a way to run Dreads for them to be good instead of the same old garbage VenBox that has two shooting weapons.
Irbis wrote: Yeah, this is puzzling. You'd think people who are honest in saying they use units because they like the look or want fluffy army would be OK with new, toned down rules...
...but the amount of whining on certain FW dreadnoughts being slightly less broken (and now having small CP fee that doesn't matter one bit unless you spammed like 6-9 of them) leads me to believe they just loved their OP nonsense giving them massive advantage against people who used all-plastic armies and are now throwing hissy fit now it's no longer the case. Go figure
Yeah, all those DKoK and Elysian players were sure in it for the broken rules...
Did you not read the post you were replying to, or just looking for an excuse for some axe-grinding?
Argive wrote: I think we should all take a moment to appreciate that GW has released these at all in legends for free and without too much fail.
Because you know... rather then put them in the books and then split it into two charging us £40 a pop for two books instead of just one..
And yet they can't even be bothered to do Legends rules for a huge amount of the Corsairs list (no Prince, no Felarchs, no Voidseer, no Malevolents, no Ghostwalkers, no Balestrike band...) or any of the 30k Mechanicum stuff.
Argive wrote: I think we should all take a moment to appreciate that GW has released these at all in legends for free and without too much fail.
Because you know... rather then put them in the books and then split it into two charging us £40 a pop for two books instead of just one..
And yet they can't even be bothered to do Legends rules for a huge amount of the Corsairs list (no Prince, no Felarchs, no Voidseer, no Malevolents, no Ghostwalkers, no Balestrike band...) or any of the 30k Mechanicum stuff.
Inetersting. Thats wierd I saw corsairs when I skimmed it but didint notice the HQ were missing. Saw the troopers and bikes and then got side tracked. Voidseer, Malevolents, Ghostwalkers, Balestrike were these even in the 8th index ? those names don't ring any bells for me.
In the grand scheme of things though I';m not surprised some things got removed completely. I think by GW standards they did a stellar job !
Argive wrote: I think we should all take a moment to appreciate that GW has released these at all in legends for free and without too much fail.
Because you know... rather then put them in the books and then split it into two charging us £40 a pop for two books instead of just one..
And yet they can't even be bothered to do Legends rules for a huge amount of the Corsairs list (no Prince, no Felarchs, no Voidseer, no Malevolents, no Ghostwalkers, no Balestrike band...) or any of the 30k Mechanicum stuff.
Inetersting. Thats wierd I saw corsairs when I skimmed it but didint notice the HQ were missing. Saw the troopers and bikes and then got side tracked.
Voidseer, Malevolents, Ghostwalkers, Balestrike were these even in the 8th index ? those names don't ring any bells for me.
In the grand scheme of things though I';m not surprised some things got removed completely.
I think by GW standards they did a stellar job !
I'm grousing at the "dude, you're getting it for free, stop complaining" attitude given that GW couldn't be bothered to make enough effort to even do 8e rules for around a third of my Warhammer collection.
Not trying to defend GW. They are garbage when it comes to rules support. I get it.
Doesn't change the fact im surprised they didin't botch the FW/Legends thing biblical..
On a side note, if the models are cool can you not just play them using other flavour of eldar rules? Not ideal but maybe a workaround to avoid "this is my home made legend datasheet" nobody wants to play against?
Yeah at this point who cares about things that didn't make the cut. I'm more worried that the obvious mistakes in this new document won't ever get corrected.
The sky is truly failing actually.
Elysians got ... two units. Lol ? That's...all ? What a joke. Why can't Forge World do a single thing right with a compendium for once ?
Snipers don't even get aerial drop anymore
godardc wrote: The sky is truly failing actually.
Elysians got ... two units. Lol ? That's...all ? What a joke. Why can't Forge World do a single thing right with a compendium for once ?
Snipers don't even get aerial drop anymore
This is GWs work. I think it's important to point out because if Forgeworld would have put a bit of thought into it these rules could be better. I know their Indizes were of a similar quality as this legends document, but rumor has it the FW Team was informed about 8th Edition about the same time as the Community . FWs rules usually aren't that bad, they even made 7th Edition work somehow. And their specialist games rules are usually well rounded, too.
godardc wrote:The sky is truly failing actually.
Elysians got ... two units. Lol ? That's...all ? What a joke. Why can't Forge World do a single thing right with a compendium for once ?
Snipers don't even get aerial drop anymore
This wasn't written by Forge World, it was written by the gw rules team. If you want to see books written by Forge World, look at the old Imperial Armour books, which were always way better written and more balanced than the stuff that the main studio was putting out in 7th.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Yeah at this point who cares about things that didn't make the cut. I'm more worried that the obvious mistakes in this new document won't ever get corrected.
Well, they at least gave the Gorgon back its transport capacity. But like you, I fear most of this is cast in stone.
Irbis wrote:
Spoiler:
Valkyrie wrote: While I'm disappointed to see some units reduced to Legends (mainly Lias and the Stormhammer), I honestly don't get why it's a big deal that R&H, Elysians and the like are in here.
From what I've seen mainly on the Facebook pages, people seem to be treating it as if the sky is falling:
"Well, guess I can't use my Elysian army anymore!"
"That's it!! I'm selling my DKK force!!!"
etc, etc.
What's the big deal? Nothing's stopping you from using them. Hell, if anything this gives you more flexibility to use Doctrines to better represent your army's flavour. Use your R&H as regular Guard, use Elysians as Tempestus, great! That sort of variation is what we should be seeing.
Yeah, this is puzzling. You'd think people who are honest in saying they use units because they like the look or want fluffy army would be OK with new, toned down rules...
...but the amount of whining on certain FW dreadnoughts being slightly less broken (and now having small CP fee that doesn't matter one bit unless you spammed like 6-9 of them) leads me to believe they just loved their OP nonsense giving them massive advantage against people who used all-plastic armies and are now throwing hissy fit now it's no longer the case. Go figure
Ah, the comedic stylings of dakka's funniest poster. I'm sure this is just another drive-by "I hate fw/Xenos/anything I don't play" post, but I'll respond anyway.
Can't speak for everyone, but I'm cool with the Martial Legacy rule on things like Leviathans and Daredeos now: csm and loyalists pay the same price, for the same units, with the same rules. Cool.
What I'm not cool with is Martial Legacy on Contemptors. Loyalists can get a codex Contemptor with a cc weapon and a multi-melta for 150 PPM. Meanwhile, csm can get the exact same unit, with the same loadout and the same rules, for 150 PPM +1CP. That's a "Spike Tax" if I ever saw one. The only thing that the Chaos and "relic" Contemptors have over the codex model is more weapons options, which they pay for in points. So your basically just paying that 1CP to get your rules from a different book. Not cool. The fix is simple: Either remove Martial Legacy from the two fw Contemptors, or add it to the codex Contemptor. Then it's all even stevens.
Same deal with the Legion Super Heavys: The changes to their rules bring them in line with the other LOWs in the game, no more T9. But they cost that extra 1CP, because they're "old". So, again, just an arbitrary cost, no balance involved. Not cool.
Valkyrie wrote: While I'm disappointed to see some units reduced to Legends (mainly Lias and the Stormhammer), I honestly don't get why it's a big deal that R&H, Elysians and the like are in here.
From what I've seen mainly on the Facebook pages, people seem to be treating it as if the sky is falling:
"Well, guess I can't use my Elysian army anymore!"
"That's it!! I'm selling my DKK force!!!"
etc, etc.
What's the big deal? Nothing's stopping you from using them. Hell, if anything this gives you more flexibility to use Doctrines to better represent your army's flavour. Use your R&H as regular Guard, use Elysians as Tempestus, great! That sort of variation is what we should be seeing.
I find the reccomendation of playing the R&H as Guard insulting and it shows a severe lack of understanding the army as to what the list was representing and how it was doing it or respect torwards the players of said.
And not only that indeed there are actually a lot of things from stopping people using them some internal in the list and some external:
Let's see the external first:
There are groups that out of principle disallow Legend rule sets. So these players are now fethed and depending on where you are.Great. A collectors army more or less worthless or "count as guard /GSC"
Then let's see the internal, the issue with the list:
I allready made a list but TLDR: For a regular R&H army the list is so gak that it is a point where you don't even need to bother, whilest that is nothing new comparatively to the 8th index it is this time supposed to be a farwell and GW somehow managed to make it worse then these uninspired rules there. infact they even cut out the last bit of fluff options with differing Covenants, ruined psy by removing it and frankly showed once again why we can't have a balanced ruleset for cheapish infantry with this.
It allready has other issues, as also pointed out, it IS frankly absurdly easy to break appart and make your opponent feel bad with the few choices that are so ridicoulus for pts that this list alone will probably cement legends rulesets alone as prohibitted in a lot of playgroups if they have a THAT GUY, deciding to feth with some people with this list.
So iow they better would've left the list untouched and should've just outright squatted instead of sending whoever the moron was that wrote this list.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
godardc wrote: The sky is truly failing actually.
Elysians got ... two units. Lol ? That's...all ? What a joke. Why can't Forge World do a single thing right with a compendium for once ?
Snipers don't even get aerial drop anymore
was gw rules team only for compendium and it shows in the pts cost for units...
7ppm mutant f.e. compared to a 5ppm superior cultist...
Irbis wrote: ...but the amount of whining on certain FW dreadnoughts being slightly less broken (and now having small CP fee that doesn't matter one bit unless you spammed like 6-9 of them) leads me to believe they just loved their OP nonsense giving them massive advantage against people who used all-plastic armies and are now throwing hissy fit now it's no longer the case. Go figure
Our marine players have been very happy about the leviathan changes because they finally feel in line with similar units like the redemptor or the repulsor executioner.
Yeah, this is puzzling. You'd think people who are honest in saying they use units because they like the look or want fluffy army would be OK with new, toned down rules...
...but the amount of whining on certain FW dreadnoughts being slightly less broken (and now having small CP fee that doesn't matter one bit unless you spammed like 6-9 of them) leads me to believe they just loved their OP nonsense giving them massive advantage against people who used all-plastic armies and are now throwing hissy fit now it's no longer the case. Go figure
A single CP can make all the difference, especially at lower pts level. Chaos space marines as they are designed right now lose all their legion flavor once they run out of CP.
godardc wrote:The sky is truly failing actually.
Elysians got ... two units. Lol ? That's...all ? What a joke. Why can't Forge World do a single thing right with a compendium for once ?
Snipers don't even get aerial drop anymore
This wasn't written by Forge World, it was written by the gw rules team. If you want to see books written by Forge World, look at the old Imperial Armour books, which were always way better written and more balanced than the stuff that the main studio was putting out in 7th.
Except when they weren't. Looking at you Riptide variants.
An important distinction, in my opinion, to make is that the Imperial Armour books were a hugely mixed bag. And they could go for some time without any updating or even FAQing.
The big issue with Legends is that whilst the model rules stay as they are, the core rule changes, and there is no guarantee that the two remains compatible even after a single iteration.
For example, all the Characters like the Bike Librarian for SM that did go into Legends during 8th can't be used anymore (even if 8th codex are theoretically compatible with 9th) because
A) not necessarily the rule can be applied as they are between edition
B) the point increase in the SM range made it overpowered/undercosted (and please note that, if it was the opposite, I would have no issue using overpriced rules because I like the miniature... It is different to handicap yourself, and exploits a bad rules interaction.
If, as announced, 8th would remained sort of a "live" rulebook with small fixing, this idea might have worked (with th caveat that points would had to decrease). With release of 9th, it's clear it won't work.
That be honest, it would have been better if "Legends" would have been related to the last release of a legacy codex (like 8th). Core rules will be fixed, and so will be any Legends datasheet.
The current status is a good example of GW inability to design (I don't mean game design, I mean design in general).
I agree however with the suggestion to proxy rules from other armies: at least this way you will have compatible rules.
Just having a peruse though the Chaos entries, looks like Samus could be pretty decent at getting your enemies to flee if you can get him close enough, but anyone noticed the rather glaring error in his datasheet?
Argive wrote: Not trying to defend GW. They are garbage when it comes to rules support. I get it.
Doesn't change the fact im surprised they didin't botch the FW/Legends thing biblical..
On a side note, if the models are cool can you not just play them using other flavour of eldar rules? Not ideal but maybe a workaround to avoid "this is my home made legend datasheet" nobody wants to play against?
"My Troops are Scourges, my jetbikes have made-up guns you've never heard of, my vehicles are all Craftworlds except there are Venoms..."
Yeah, totally not a munchkin trying to powergame my way into stitching the best things in two books together, here.
Not to mention the degree to which the card game has taken over the minis game means I still can't really play until I go through and figure out how to design playable but non-OP stratagems, which GW doesn't even know how to do and they've been writing stratagems for four years.
Argive wrote: Not trying to defend GW. They are garbage when it comes to rules support. I get it.
Doesn't change the fact im surprised they didin't botch the FW/Legends thing biblical..
On a side note, if the models are cool can you not just play them using other flavour of eldar rules? Not ideal but maybe a workaround to avoid "this is my home made legend datasheet" nobody wants to play against?
"My Troops are Scourges, my jetbikes have made-up guns you've never heard of, my vehicles are all Craftworlds except there are Venoms..."
Yeah, totally not a munchkin trying to powergame my way into stitching the best things in two books together, here.
Not to mention the degree to which the card game has taken over the minis game means I still can't really play until I go through and figure out how to design playable but non-OP stratagems, which GW doesn't even know how to do and they've been writing stratagems for four years.
The problem is Strats is that a lot of them aren't...Strategic. Some of the movement ones can be SUPER good I'll give you that, but at least that's more Strategic than all the ones that are just straight up offensive or defensive buffs with basically no caveats. I'd basically delete a wholesale of those.
Argive wrote: Not trying to defend GW. They are garbage when it comes to rules support. I get it.
Doesn't change the fact im surprised they didin't botch the FW/Legends thing biblical..
On a side note, if the models are cool can you not just play them using other flavour of eldar rules? Not ideal but maybe a workaround to avoid "this is my home made legend datasheet" nobody wants to play against?
"My Troops are Scourges, my jetbikes have made-up guns you've never heard of, my vehicles are all Craftworlds except there are Venoms..."
Yeah, totally not a munchkin trying to powergame my way into stitching the best things in two books together, here.
Not to mention the degree to which the card game has taken over the minis game means I still can't really play until I go through and figure out how to design playable but non-OP stratagems, which GW doesn't even know how to do and they've been writing stratagems for four years.
I guess I meant "count as". If the models are cool does it really matter if they have dire avenger/quin rules (or whatever) for the infantry etc..
Argive wrote: Not trying to defend GW. They are garbage when it comes to rules support. I get it.
Doesn't change the fact im surprised they didin't botch the FW/Legends thing biblical..
On a side note, if the models are cool can you not just play them using other flavour of eldar rules? Not ideal but maybe a workaround to avoid "this is my home made legend datasheet" nobody wants to play against?
"My Troops are Scourges, my jetbikes have made-up guns you've never heard of, my vehicles are all Craftworlds except there are Venoms..."
Yeah, totally not a munchkin trying to powergame my way into stitching the best things in two books together, here.
Not to mention the degree to which the card game has taken over the minis game means I still can't really play until I go through and figure out how to design playable but non-OP stratagems, which GW doesn't even know how to do and they've been writing stratagems for four years.
I guess I meant "count as". If the models are cool does it really matter if they have dire avenger/quin rules (or whatever) for the infantry etc..
What infantry? My Troops are Scourges. The only infantry in the list are the heavy weapon guys. There are no suitable proxies for the foot riflemen you need to have a Troops choice in the Craftworld or DE book.
Argive wrote: Not trying to defend GW. They are garbage when it comes to rules support. I get it.
Doesn't change the fact im surprised they didin't botch the FW/Legends thing biblical..
On a side note, if the models are cool can you not just play them using other flavour of eldar rules? Not ideal but maybe a workaround to avoid "this is my home made legend datasheet" nobody wants to play against?
"My Troops are Scourges, my jetbikes have made-up guns you've never heard of, my vehicles are all Craftworlds except there are Venoms..."
Yeah, totally not a munchkin trying to powergame my way into stitching the best things in two books together, here.
Not to mention the degree to which the card game has taken over the minis game means I still can't really play until I go through and figure out how to design playable but non-OP stratagems, which GW doesn't even know how to do and they've been writing stratagems for four years.
I guess I meant "count as". If the models are cool does it really matter if they have dire avenger/quin rules (or whatever) for the infantry etc..
What infantry? My Troops are Scourges. The only infantry in the list are the heavy weapon guys. There are no suitable proxies for the foot riflemen you need to have a Troops choice in the Craftworld or DE book.
Sorry but I have no idea what models/list you have man... I assumed you were using the OOPFW corsair conversion kits or something.. Did FW sell other stuff apart from that ? I assumed 25mm infantry man with fancy backpack... If they are scourges then play them as DE scourges?
There are people out there with t-rex converted up to be exodite falcon grav tanks... Obviously if what you have doesn't work in any capacity as count as anything else, then that sucks indeed. I think Perhaps I don't fully understand the problem.
Valkyrie wrote: While I'm disappointed to see some units reduced to Legends (mainly Lias and the Stormhammer), I honestly don't get why it's a big deal that R&H, Elysians and the like are in here.
From what I've seen mainly on the Facebook pages, people seem to be treating it as if the sky is falling:
"Well, guess I can't use my Elysian army anymore!"
"That's it!! I'm selling my DKK force!!!"
etc, etc.
What's the big deal? Nothing's stopping you from using them. Hell, if anything this gives you more flexibility to use Doctrines to better represent your army's flavour. Use your R&H as regular Guard, use Elysians as Tempestus, great! That sort of variation is what we should be seeing.
I find the reccomendation of playing the R&H as Guard insulting and it shows a severe lack of understanding the army as to what the list was representing and how it was doing it or respect torwards the players of said.
R&H has the huge gap, even ignoring different playstyle and options, that GI can't be fielded alongside chaos (like the marines, characters, and daemons that are part of their list, not to mention previously able to be allied)
Elysians could, with some effort, have fit, but there are lots of exceptions, not the least of which is their lack of HW options or light vehicles.
GW could, actually, have dome some pretty easy and not very space-consuming lists in which very few modifications would have allowed the armies to function as you suggest. But, they didn't, and without those changes, it does an extremely poor job representing forces
Valkyrie wrote: While I'm disappointed to see some units reduced to Legends (mainly Lias and the Stormhammer), I honestly don't get why it's a big deal that R&H, Elysians and the like are in here.
From what I've seen mainly on the Facebook pages, people seem to be treating it as if the sky is falling:
"Well, guess I can't use my Elysian army anymore!"
"That's it!! I'm selling my DKK force!!!"
etc, etc.
What's the big deal? Nothing's stopping you from using them. Hell, if anything this gives you more flexibility to use Doctrines to better represent your army's flavour. Use your R&H as regular Guard, use Elysians as Tempestus, great! That sort of variation is what we should be seeing.
I find the reccomendation of playing the R&H as Guard insulting and it shows a severe lack of understanding the army as to what the list was representing and how it was doing it or respect torwards the players of said.
This is kind of hypocritical considering what you were a part of advocating for in the consolidating datasheets thread... When people were upset and insulted at the suggestion that their unique playstyle/datasheets get removed or merged into something else... I don't want to rehash anything. I just find it interesting that you are so understanding of how upsetting this recommendation is here but not when it came to other players unique rules identity/datasheets... I thought the argument was that a generic representational datasheet is good enough to represent any unit regardless of paintjob / what the model actually is / and fluff.
I wonder, if they made Gaurd units and datasheets more customizable and have all the options that your R&H could take using generic representational datasheets instead of giving either unique datasheets, would that be an acceptable solution to you ?
I don't mean to be edgy with this post, I am just honestly curious why you feel differently about this army v.s. what the unique SW and Etc units datasheets/lists represent on the battlefield.
yes, R&H could be made to be "guard but with the <chaos> keyword".
I think the only thing that would translate poorly to being a generic guard thing is the malefic lords (the imperium rarely has demon princes lets say)
Also, Guard and R&H are two distinct codexes. It would be like asking CSM and LSM to become one codex.
I'm ok with most of the changes to FW legends except for contemptors. They got crushed pretty hard with the cp tax. CSM do not have analogues like loyalists do if they did they wouldn't lean so heavily on FW to begin with. On that note many armies need to lean on FW to increase the depth of their books.
Locally we don't discriminate against legends outside of tournament play, but that even seems like more a principal than a real issue. From my experience none of the legends units are OP at this point. Maybe in the future some could be, but then maybe we should wait to declare them that until it's actually the case.
I would prefer a more inclusive approach such as if an army has an updated entry of the same type then use that. Example: new updated sm bike character. If not use the legends version.
As it stands space marines legends tend to mean temporary placeholder for a new upcoming unit. Most other armies legends means terminated entry.
yes, R&H could be made to be "guard but with the <chaos> keyword".
I think the only thing that would translate poorly to being a generic guard thing is the malefic lords (the imperium rarely has demon princes lets say)
Also, Guard and R&H are two distinct codexes. It would be like asking CSM and LSM to become one codex.
Actually R&H operate similar to a supplement now. They used to be a codex and now they are clearly somewhere inbetween. They have mostly overlapping datasheets as well as unique ones and some unique rules/abilties/gear (less then SWs mind you).
Kind of like how SWs used to be a distinct codex and are now in a similar state ...
Anyways, I really don't want to re-dive into this. I just wanted to point out that it can feel insulting and it feels like people have a lack of understanding of an army, its tabletop play identity and, what it represents when making arguments for 'counts as', removal, or mergers. I can relate to @Not Online feeling on this and can empathize with why he feels this way.
Anyways, I am not going to push this topic, its been discussed to death and we know each others feelings and stance on it. .
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think telling someone to just use "Counts As" is insulting.
I don't see how trying to help is insulting... Its a crappy situation and one can emphasise, as well as try help the situation in some sort of email writing drive to get the situation amended, However in the meantime "count as" is the next best thing outside of a full fix.. Its that or or shelving an army.
yes, R&H could be made to be "guard but with the <chaos> keyword".
I think the only thing that would translate poorly to being a generic guard thing is the malefic lords (the imperium rarely has demon princes lets say)
Also, Guard and R&H are two distinct codexes. It would be like asking CSM and LSM to become one codex.
Actually R&H operate similar to a supplement now. They used to be a codex now they are clearly somewhere inbetween. They have overlapping datasheets as well as unique ones and some unique rules/abilties/gear (less then SWs mind you).
Kind of like how SWs used to be a distinct codex and are now in a similar state ...
Anyways, I really don't want to re-dive into this. I just wanted to point out that it can feel insulting and it feels like people have a lack of understanding of an army, its tabletop play identity and, what it represents when making arguments for 'counts as', removal, or mergers. I can relate to @Not Online feeling on this and can empathize with why he feels this way.
Anyways, I am not going to push this topic, its been discussed to death and we know each others feelings and stance on it. .
Right, just like you don't understand what made the R&H list in IA 13 great. It was how customizable it was. You could have anything from a bunch of poorly trained renegade militia, to hardened veteran mercenaries, to chaos cults, to a bit of Dark Mechanicus to everything in between, with just a few datasheets. It was the most customizable army list since csm 3.5. Customization is exactly what R&H players miss about them.
I understand why you don't want a generic datasheet that would allow any chapter to have the equivalent of TWC and other SW units. It's because if everyone can have something it isn't special anymore, and sometimes what an army can't have is as important as what it can. But just let it go dude.
H.B.M.C. wrote:I think telling someone to just use "Counts As" is insulting.
yes, R&H could be made to be "guard but with the <chaos> keyword".
I think the only thing that would translate poorly to being a generic guard thing is the malefic lords (the imperium rarely has demon princes lets say)
Also, Guard and R&H are two distinct codexes. It would be like asking CSM and LSM to become one codex.
Actually R&H operate similar to a supplement now. They used to be a codex now they are clearly somewhere inbetween. They have overlapping datasheets as well as unique ones and some unique rules/abilties/gear (less then SWs mind you).
Kind of like how SWs used to be a distinct codex and are now in a similar state ...
Anyways, I really don't want to re-dive into this. I just wanted to point out that it can feel insulting and it feels like people have a lack of understanding of an army, its tabletop play identity and, what it represents when making arguments for 'counts as', removal, or mergers. I can relate to @Not Online feeling on this and can empathize with why he feels this way.
Anyways, I am not going to push this topic, its been discussed to death and we know each others feelings and stance on it. .
Right, just like you don't understand what made the R&H list in IA 13 great. It was how customizable it was. You could have anything from a bunch of poorly trained renegade militia, to hardened veteran mercenaries, to chaos cults, to a bit of Dark Mechanicus to everything in between, with just a few datasheets. It was the most customizable army list since csm 3.5. Customization is exactly what R&H players miss about them.
I understand why you don't want a generic datasheet that would allow any chapter to have the equivalent of TWC and other SW units. It's because if everyone can have something it isn't special anymore, and sometimes what an army can't have is as important as what it can. But just let it go dude.
H.B.M.C. wrote:I think telling someone to just use "Counts As" is insulting.
Argive wrote: However in the meantime "count as" is the next best thing outside of a full fix.. Its that or or shelving an army.
Sorry, my attitudes towards 'counts as' are borne of the transition from the 3.5 Chaos Codex to the 4th Edition 'Chaos' Codex. That was a book that essentially made 'counts as' the official party line, as all my various Chaos Legions were reduced to nothing but a paint-job.
Since then I have been against removing options and strongly against consolidation. I want people to have more options, not fewer options. Anything that takes away from the game takes away from the game, and I cannot stand it.
Argive wrote: However in the meantime "count as" is the next best thing outside of a full fix.. Its that or or shelving an army.
Sorry, my attitudes towards 'counts as' are borne of the transition from the 3.5 Chaos Codex to the 4th Edition 'Chaos' Codex. That was a book that essentially made 'counts as' the official party line, as all my various Chaos Legions were reduced to nothing but a paint-job.
Since then I have been against removing options and strongly against consolidation. I want people to have more options, not fewer options. Anything that takes away from the game takes away from the game, and I cannot stand it.
Yeah tell me about it.
Lost all the autarch options this edition which sucks.
Argive wrote: ...Sorry but I have no idea what models/list you have man... I assumed you were using the OOPFW corsair conversion kits or something.. Did FW sell other stuff apart from that ?
I assumed 25mm infantry man with fancy backpack...
If they are scourges then play them as DE scourges?
There are people out there with t-rex converted up to be exodite falcon grav tanks...
Obviously if what you have doesn't work in any capacity as count as anything else, then that sucks indeed.
I think Perhaps I don't fully understand the problem.
The problem is that while every single model in the list has an eminently suitable proxy there is no way for me to play it as an army without either getting wiped turn one every game because I'm trying to play a squishy force that doesn't interact with any stratagems, or buying a bunch of new stuff. "But all the model configurations still exist in some Eldar book somewhere, right?" doesn't help much in 8e or 9e. Ten years ago I'd be able to go "all right, fine, I'll twist counts-as a bit and figure out how to keep using my models", but GW's decided that the tournament players really want an incredibly lethal card game where you can't use three quarters of the minis and need to netlist to not get wiped on turn one in a casual pick-up game, which means that solution doesn't really work anymore.
Argive wrote: ...Sorry but I have no idea what models/list you have man... I assumed you were using the OOPFW corsair conversion kits or something.. Did FW sell other stuff apart from that ? I assumed 25mm infantry man with fancy backpack... If they are scourges then play them as DE scourges?
There are people out there with t-rex converted up to be exodite falcon grav tanks... Obviously if what you have doesn't work in any capacity as count as anything else, then that sucks indeed. I think Perhaps I don't fully understand the problem.
The problem is that while every single model in the list has an eminently suitable proxy there is no way for me to play it as an army without either getting wiped turn one every game because I'm trying to play a squishy force that doesn't interact with any stratagems, or buying a bunch of new stuff. "But all the model configurations still exist in some Eldar book somewhere, right?" doesn't help much in 8e or 9e. Ten years ago I'd be able to go "all right, fine, I'll twist counts-as a bit and figure out how to keep using my models", but GW's decided that the tournament players really want an incredibly lethal card game where you can't use three quarters of the minis and need to netlist to not get wiped on turn one in a casual pick-up game, which means that solution doesn't really work anymore.
Eh? I'm afraid I don't get what you are trying to say. No army list has ever transitioned from one edition to the next really without changes/nerfs, so its everybody's problem. Thats just the nature of how GW runs things. Its is what it is... No all units and models are equal on the table top..remotely.. that's always been abundantly clear. So I don't see how this change is any different to any of the other shifts.
If you are looking to use just the same models every time for ever, unfortunately it means the army wont be very good outside of the edition/time when it actually worked and was good...
Argive wrote: ...Sorry but I have no idea what models/list you have man... I assumed you were using the OOPFW corsair conversion kits or something.. Did FW sell other stuff apart from that ?
I assumed 25mm infantry man with fancy backpack...
If they are scourges then play them as DE scourges?
There are people out there with t-rex converted up to be exodite falcon grav tanks...
Obviously if what you have doesn't work in any capacity as count as anything else, then that sucks indeed.
I think Perhaps I don't fully understand the problem.
The problem is that while every single model in the list has an eminently suitable proxy there is no way for me to play it as an army without either getting wiped turn one every game because I'm trying to play a squishy force that doesn't interact with any stratagems, or buying a bunch of new stuff. "But all the model configurations still exist in some Eldar book somewhere, right?" doesn't help much in 8e or 9e. Ten years ago I'd be able to go "all right, fine, I'll twist counts-as a bit and figure out how to keep using my models", but GW's decided that the tournament players really want an incredibly lethal card game where you can't use three quarters of the minis and need to netlist to not get wiped on turn one in a casual pick-up game, which means that solution doesn't really work anymore.
Eh? I'm afraid I don't get what you are trying to say.
No army list has ever transitioned from one edition to the next really without changes/nerfs, so its everybody's problem.
Thats just the nature of how GW runs things. Its is what it is... No all units and models are equal on the table top..remotely.. that's always been abundantly clear. So I don't see how this change is any different to any of the other shifts.
If you are looking to use just the same models every time for ever, unfortunately it means the army wont be very good outside of the edition/time when it actually worked and was good...
I had an army book. Now I don't. Saying "but you could make an unplayably s*** army out of other peoples' books!" over and over again isn't going to solve anything for anyone.
Valkyrie wrote: While I'm disappointed to see some units reduced to Legends (mainly Lias and the Stormhammer), I honestly don't get why it's a big deal that R&H, Elysians and the like are in here.
From what I've seen mainly on the Facebook pages, people seem to be treating it as if the sky is falling:
"Well, guess I can't use my Elysian army anymore!"
"That's it!! I'm selling my DKK force!!!"
etc, etc.
What's the big deal? Nothing's stopping you from using them. Hell, if anything this gives you more flexibility to use Doctrines to better represent your army's flavour. Use your R&H as regular Guard, use Elysians as Tempestus, great! That sort of variation is what we should be seeing.
I find the reccomendation of playing the R&H as Guard insulting and it shows a severe lack of understanding the army as to what the list was representing and how it was doing it or respect torwards the players of said.
This is kind of hypocritical considering what you were a part of advocating for in the consolidating datasheets thread... When people were upset and insulted at the suggestion that their unique playstyle/datasheets get removed or merged into something else... I don't want to rehash anything. I just find it interesting that you are so understanding of how upsetting this recommendation is here but not when it came to other players unique rules identity/datasheets... I thought the argument was that a generic representational datasheet is good enough to represent any unit regardless of paintjob / what the model actually is / and fluff.
I wonder, if they made Gaurd units and datasheets more customizable and have all the options that your R&H could take using generic representational datasheets instead of giving either unique datasheets, would that be an acceptable solution to you ?
I don't mean to be edgy with this post, I am just honestly curious why you feel differently about this army v.s. what the unique SW and Etc units datasheets/lists represent on the battlefield.
no, it was not hypocritical if you would have actually bothered to read and understand, it is just you failing again to actually fething get a point i made several times you choose to ignore. Sorry to say this but it had to be said.
The rulessupport to differentiate out a subfaction to allow for a specific playstye should never be completely fethed up, as was done to the R&H list, whilest a consolidation of datasheets with the modifiability of said datasheet would maintain the playstyle. what is NOT necessary is the gak ammount of needlessly differentiated out Leutnants, specific to chapters f.e., if it could be one Leutnant entry with unlockable equipment and rules depending upon subfaction choice. This would minimize RO3 Issues automatically aswell as skew, something the SM codexes as of right now can the most easily circumvent for no reason other than shoddy ruleswriting and unequal standards applied to limitations.
i would be NOT opposed to see R&H consolidated into guard if it was done propperly, e.g. customizability maintained to the degree as posible with very few specific sheets , maybee in form off a supplement. maybee not.
i would be NOT opposed to see R&H consolidated into guard if it was done propperly, e.g. customizability maintained to the degree as posible with very few specific sheets , maybee in form off a supplement. maybee not.
While I only collect guard I would find that really cool. I mean the idea of specific, flavorfull customizability options to reflect a Renegade Regiment (ranging from mere desertes over real rebels to chaos cultists and everything in between) within our Codex. I don't know if I'm alone in that but I always found the thought interesting to have an easily accessible option to let my regiment "turn renegade" and would quite appreciate it to have a flavour- and characterful rulesset for that within the IG Codex.
i would be NOT opposed to see R&H consolidated into guard if it was done propperly, e.g. customizability maintained to the degree as posible with very few specific sheets , maybee in form off a supplement. maybee not.
While I only collect guard I would find that really cool. I mean the idea of specific, flavorfull customizability options to reflect a Renegade Regiment (ranging from mere desertes over real rebels to chaos cultists and everything in between) within our Codex. I don't know if I'm alone in that but I always found the thought interesting to have an easily accessible option to let my regiment "turn renegade" and would quite appreciate it to have a flavour- and characterful rulesset for that within the IG Codex.
i don't think in such a limited way, actually, i think more along the lines of modifications torwards specific units aswell as limitations (no guardsmen, conscripts become militia, separate entry for muties though, etc) if you choose to R&H and THEN go into the meat of R&H as sub doctrine tree..
(it would even be piss easy because GW could just use the IA13 system and apply the corresponding options to the corresponding units but then again that would also require minimal braincells and customer friendlyness aswell as getting their heads out of their primaris leutnants backsides for once, which ain't going to happen. Aswell as getting rid of the chapter house lawsuits fallout, aka no models no rules. or in this case we don't produce it anymore so feck you for having bought them)
@ NotOnline: I understood you that way, I just did a poor job formulating it. But the main point stands: I think that's a pretty cool idea and by far better then the status quo
Minions of Chaos: If your army is Battle-forged and every model in this unit’s Detachment has either the CHAOS AND RENEGADES or UNALIGNED keywords, this unit gains the Objective Secured ability (this ability is described in the Warhammer 40,000 Core Book).
Like, I know the bar of expectation was set low, what with it being the combined incompetence of FW, GW, and the Legends intern, but by the Man-Emperor Himself this bar is somewhere in the lower mantle.
Minions of Chaos: If your army is Battle-forged and every model in this unit’s Detachment has either the CHAOS AND RENEGADES or UNALIGNED keywords, this unit gains the Objective Secured ability (this ability is described in the Warhammer 40,000 Core Book).
Like, I know the bar of expectation was set low, what with it being the combined incompetence of FW, GW, and the Legends intern, but by the Man-Emperor Himself this bar is somewhere in the lower mantle.
i can't quite put my finger on the issue but i assume the detachment stipulation is redudant with the battleforged bit, well beyond the obvious failure to associate the keywords propperly to the corresponding keywords carried by "Renegades and heretics". well beeing "CHAOS", "RENEGADES AND HERETICS" and not beeing "CHAOS AND RENEGADES"...
Valkyrie wrote: While I'm disappointed to see some units reduced to Legends (mainly Lias and the Stormhammer), I honestly don't get why it's a big deal that R&H, Elysians and the like are in here.
From what I've seen mainly on the Facebook pages, people seem to be treating it as if the sky is falling:
"Well, guess I can't use my Elysian army anymore!"
"That's it!! I'm selling my DKK force!!!"
etc, etc.
What's the big deal? Nothing's stopping you from using them. Hell, if anything this gives you more flexibility to use Doctrines to better represent your army's flavour. Use your R&H as regular Guard, use Elysians as Tempestus, great! That sort of variation is what we should be seeing.
I find the reccomendation of playing the R&H as Guard insulting and it shows a severe lack of understanding the army as to what the list was representing and how it was doing it or respect torwards the players of said.
This is kind of hypocritical considering what you were a part of advocating for in the consolidating datasheets thread... When people were upset and insulted at the suggestion that their unique playstyle/datasheets get removed or merged into something else... I don't want to rehash anything. I just find it interesting that you are so understanding of how upsetting this recommendation is here but not when it came to other players unique rules identity/datasheets... I thought the argument was that a generic representational datasheet is good enough to represent any unit regardless of paintjob / what the model actually is / and fluff.
I wonder, if they made Gaurd units and datasheets more customizable and have all the options that your R&H could take using generic representational datasheets instead of giving either unique datasheets, would that be an acceptable solution to you ?
I don't mean to be edgy with this post, I am just honestly curious why you feel differently about this army v.s. what the unique SW and Etc units datasheets/lists represent on the battlefield.
no, it was not hypocritical if you would have actually bothered to read and understand, it is just you failing again to actually fething get a point i made several times you choose to ignore. Sorry to say this but it had to be said.
The rulessupport to differentiate out a subfaction to allow for a specific playstye should never be completely fethed up, as was done to the R&H list, whilest a consolidation of datasheets with the modifiability of said datasheet would maintain the playstyle. what is NOT necessary is the gak ammount of needlessly differentiated out Leutnants, specific to chapters f.e., if it could be one Leutnant entry with unlockable equipment and rules depending upon subfaction choice. This would minimize RO3 Issues automatically aswell as skew, something the SM codexes as of right now can the most easily circumvent for no reason other than shoddy ruleswriting and unequal standards applied to limitations.
i would be NOT opposed to see R&H consolidated into guard if it was done propperly, e.g. customizability maintained to the degree as posible with very few specific sheets , maybee in form off a supplement. maybee not.
No, I got your point every single time you made it. Where I agree that the supplements could have been implemented in a better way. one LT with different unlock-able equipment depending subfaction choice could totally work. I guess that does change the RO3 problem a bit (LTs and Cpts have limitations outside of the RO3 but I see the problem, I just think it would be easier to fix this with another line of text on the existing restrictions). It just doesn't seem like much would change much, in terms of design space, if you go from many datasheets to representing the same amount of restrictions and choices on a single datasheet.
To me it still seems like your drawing an arbitrary line of difference between the state of these two armies, what their current states are, and what should be done about it... but that's ok, lets agree to disagree on this one. Anyways, we arn't changing any minds on this one, so I think we can leave it.
I do 100% agree with you that it is insulting and it shows a severe lack of understanding the army and as to what the list is representing when people advocate that it can just "count as" something else. I think we agree on that and I think you understand that this is the attitude I my self get upset with (and I get this isn't your attitude). So you have my support .
Argive wrote: However in the meantime "count as" is the next best thing outside of a full fix.. Its that or or shelving an army.
Sorry, my attitudes towards 'counts as' are borne of the transition from the 3.5 Chaos Codex to the 4th Edition 'Chaos' Codex. That was a book that essentially made 'counts as' the official party line, as all my various Chaos Legions were reduced to nothing but a paint-job.
Since then I have been against removing options and strongly against consolidation. I want people to have more options, not fewer options. Anything that takes away from the game takes away from the game, and I cannot stand it.
LOL if you take off the rose tinted glasses you'd actually understand that the 3.5 CSM codex was actually garbage as it was written. Consolidation didn't stop the Codex from being garbage on the next iteration.
Argive wrote: However in the meantime "count as" is the next best thing outside of a full fix.. Its that or or shelving an army.
Sorry, my attitudes towards 'counts as' are borne of the transition from the 3.5 Chaos Codex to the 4th Edition 'Chaos' Codex. That was a book that essentially made 'counts as' the official party line, as all my various Chaos Legions were reduced to nothing but a paint-job.
Since then I have been against removing options and strongly against consolidation. I want people to have more options, not fewer options. Anything that takes away from the game takes away from the game, and I cannot stand it.
LOL if you take off the rose tinted glasses you'd actually understand that the 3.5 CSM codex was actually garbage as it was written. Consolidation didn't stop the Codex from being garbage on the next iteration.
I'm morbidly curious, Slayer - what definition of garbage are you using here?
People playing Chaos at the time claim it was the best Chaos 'dex ever.
Of course, those who weren't playing Chaos at the time generally acknowledge that the attempt to theme the Legions was a decent touch, the power level was way out of whack with the rest of the game at the time.
Argive wrote: However in the meantime "count as" is the next best thing outside of a full fix.. Its that or or shelving an army.
Sorry, my attitudes towards 'counts as' are borne of the transition from the 3.5 Chaos Codex to the 4th Edition 'Chaos' Codex. That was a book that essentially made 'counts as' the official party line, as all my various Chaos Legions were reduced to nothing but a paint-job.
Since then I have been against removing options and strongly against consolidation. I want people to have more options, not fewer options. Anything that takes away from the game takes away from the game, and I cannot stand it.
LOL if you take off the rose tinted glasses you'd actually understand that the 3.5 CSM codex was actually garbage as it was written. Consolidation didn't stop the Codex from being garbage on the next iteration.
I'm morbidly curious, Slayer - what definition of garbage are you using here?
People playing Chaos at the time claim it was the best Chaos 'dex ever.
Of course, those who weren't playing Chaos at the time generally acknowledge that the attempt to theme the Legions was a decent touch, the power level was way out of whack with the rest of the game at the time.
The codex is if anything the epitome of GW rules writing:
1. Tons of false options for Characters and various units that won't be taken
2. Extreme power builds with a lot of others being made useless
And GW does this a lot, and is always defended for it. GW hardly ever makes a good codex EVER too to go with their core rules. The audacity to price gouge it as is several years later is an insult to the players.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: LOL if you take off the rose tinted glasses you'd actually understand that the 3.5 CSM codex was actually garbage as it was written.
No rose tinted glasses here, pal.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. Tons of false options for Characters and various units that won't be taken
That doesn't make the Codex garbage. There there will be some options for characters that are worse than others is pretty normal.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 2. Extreme power builds with a lot of others being made useless
That doesn't make the Codex garbage either.
Your criteria for why 3.5 was "garbage" are pretty flimsy.
If you are looking to use just the same models every time for ever, unfortunately it means the army wont be very good outside of the edition/time when it actually worked and was good...
(shrugs) My Space Wolves have been working just fine as is since 2e. Same units, same models. The only reason I added a third min. squad of Grey Hunters in 8th was to have the 3 troops for a battalion. Should I choose to run a Battalion....
Yeah, 3.5 definitely had some power issues, and some dumb options, and I'm not even going to argue that these weren't related to what was experienced positively, but as far as I'm concerned 3.5 and the Lost and the Damned variant was the golden age of chaos gaming, where you really were able to do a ton of different things, most of which seemed designed around allowing unique subfaction identities and modeling options.
I'm not going to say that the last several editions of 40k aren't more sophisticated, nor am I going to say that I prefer old vehicle rules, but that era did manage to let your army feel like yours, and it did so suprisingly succinctly vs. what I feel is an increasingly bloated game/faction design.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 2. Extreme power builds with a lot of others being made useless
That doesn't make the Codex garbage either.
Your criteria for why 3.5 was "garbage" are pretty flimsy.
I don't know the codex, but if external and internal balance was gak, those seem like very valid criteria.
Well, it had quite a bit of internal issues and less but mor devastating external ones, funny thing is though the 4th edition one was even WORSE in both so...
And it didn't allow anymore for customization which still makes 3.5 better then any CSM dex afterwards.
Jidmah wrote: Customization and balance are not mutually exclusive.
I gotta disagree there. Customization will either be garbage or have a meta defining option.
In every game or tabletop where customization exists there's some gak combo that will break the game
Eonfuzz wrote: I gotta disagree there. Customization will either be garbage or have a meta defining option. In every game or tabletop where customization exists there's some gak combo that will break the game
This is not a matter of opinion. Just because the games you are aware of have bad balance doesn't mean that it can't be done.
Even the full customization options of all editions accumulated are a trivial amount of moving parts compared to many decently balanced video games.
And to directly address the first person claiming that this is something different and cannot be compared: No it isn't, yes it can.
Any game can archive balance with a sufficient number of iterations - more options just increase complexity and complexity increases the number of iterations necessary.
Eonfuzz wrote: I gotta disagree there. Customization will either be garbage or have a meta defining option.
In every game or tabletop where customization exists there's some gak combo that will break the game
This is not a matter of opinion. Just because the games you are aware of have bad balance doesn't mean that it can't be done.
Even the full customization options of all editions accumulated are a trivial amount of moving parts compared to many decently balanced video games.
And to directly address the first person claiming that this is something different and cannot be compared: No it isn't, yes it can.
Any game can archive balance with a sufficient number of iterations - more options just increase complexity and complexity increases the number of iterations necessary.
The issue with comparing 40k balance to videogame balance is that there isn't any skull based matchmaking, data collection based on literally every match plated, and even if there were there are fewer 40k games played in a month than many popular games have in a couple of days. GW wishes they could have a tenth the data LOL collects between patches.
Eonfuzz wrote: I gotta disagree there. Customization will either be garbage or have a meta defining option.
In every game or tabletop where customization exists there's some gak combo that will break the game
This is not a matter of opinion. Just because the games you are aware of have bad balance doesn't mean that it can't be done.
Even the full customization options of all editions accumulated are a trivial amount of moving parts compared to many decently balanced video games.
And to directly address the first person claiming that this is something different and cannot be compared: No it isn't, yes it can.
Any game can archive balance with a sufficient number of iterations - more options just increase complexity and complexity increases the number of iterations necessary.
Yet again I have to disagree. Fighting games for example have been trying customization for years now, and there's *always* one or two things that are extremely broken, no matter how many iterations there are.
There comes a point where the concept of a customizable option is too strong, or in order to have perfect balance everything has to be extremely generic.
Even in Starcraft 2, the world's self acclaimed most balanced game has a very large balance problem statistically (afaik it was something like a 10% swing based on matchups).
You must have not read goonhammers recent articles - we already have the data of thousands of games available for 9th alone, despite a pandemic going on any large parts of the world being on lockdown. GW just needs to tap into that data - or just read their articles.
I'd also like to point out that skill based matchmaking is a rather new thing, and companies managed to balance their games way before that became a regular feature. Also the nature of how opponents are matched in tournaments, the primary source of data, kind of is skill-based matchmaking.
Jidmah wrote: Customization and balance are not mutually exclusive.
This is true.
No they definitely are not.
However, the more customization a game has the harder the game is to balance exponentially.
You are totally right, its just important to also acknowledge that one effects the other greatly. Customization inherently creates exponentially increased computation time on the designers when/if they are trying to achieve balance for all attainable combinations.
A super customization game would be great, but, expecting GW to put even more work into balance then the minimal effort they put in as is , i feel, is a bit of a stretch... but we can all hope.
Jidmah wrote: You must have not read goonhammers recent articles - we already have the data of thousands of games available for 9th alone, despite a pandemic going on any large parts of the world being on lockdown. GW just needs to tap into that data - or just read their articles.
I'd also like to point out that skill based matchmaking is a rather new thing, and companies managed to balance their games way before that became a regular feature. Also the nature of how opponents are matched in tournaments, the primary source of data, kind of is skill-based matchmaking.
That's nothing. League has a minimum of 9 million matches per day assuming no player plays more than one match per day. Every one of those matches are skill matched based on MMR with ranked play even more tightly controlled. 40K would take decades to gather the data LoL gathers in several hours and they'd need to sort it and organize it which a game can automate away.
Even without any skill based matching a game like OG Starcraft would have generated datasets that 40k literally never will.
Eonfuzz wrote: I gotta disagree there. Customization will either be garbage or have a meta defining option.
In every game or tabletop where customization exists there's some gak combo that will break the game
This is not a matter of opinion. Just because the games you are aware of have bad balance doesn't mean that it can't be done.
Even the full customization options of all editions accumulated are a trivial amount of moving parts compared to many decently balanced video games.
And to directly address the first person claiming that this is something different and cannot be compared: No it isn't, yes it can.
Any game can archive balance with a sufficient number of iterations - more options just increase complexity and complexity increases the number of iterations necessary.
Yet again I have to disagree. Fighting games for example have been trying customization for years now, and there's *always* one or two things that are extremely broken, no matter how many iterations there are.
There comes a point where the concept of a customizable option is too strong, or in order to have perfect balance everything has to be extremely generic.
Even in Starcraft 2, the world's self acclaimed most balanced game has a very large balance problem statistically (afaik it was something like a 10% swing based on matchups).
I don't think 'generic' is necessarily the right word... I would say the word "static" sums it up better. Less variables doesn't necessarily mean more generic.
Eonfuzz wrote: Even in Starcraft 2, the world's self acclaimed most balanced game has a very large balance problem statistically (afaik it was something like a 10% swing based on matchups).
This shows exactly what I'm talking about - while there are some setbacks, over time their balance continuously got better. It also seems like that the difference actually was 10% (and higher) at some point, so your information might be dated.
Jidmah wrote: You must have not read goonhammers recent articles - we already have the data of thousands of games available for 9th alone, despite a pandemic going on any large parts of the world being on lockdown. GW just needs to tap into that data - or just read their articles.
I'd also like to point out that skill based matchmaking is a rather new thing, and companies managed to balance their games way before that became a regular feature. Also the nature of how opponents are matched in tournaments, the primary source of data, kind of is skill-based matchmaking.
That's nothing. League has a minimum of 9 million matches per day assuming no player plays more than one match per day. Every one of those matches are skill matched based on MMR with ranked play even more tightly controlled. 40K would take decades to gather the data LoL gathers in several hours and they'd need to sort it and organize it which a game can automate away.
Even without any skill based matching a game like OG Starcraft would have generated datasets that 40k literally never will.
What makes you think that you need that much data to balance a 40k? Warhammer 40k is nowhere near as complex as LoL.
Disagree, League of Legends is actually simpler than 40k. Both numbers and mechancis wise.
League is an incredibly simple game, with items that basically only effect 1 of 8 stats and each character only having four abilities. Personal skill and mechanical prowess does come into play, but an MMR system ignores that problem entirely.
40k has more numbers, a "value" of a unit can be distilled into points etc etc. By far a more complex game to balance.
Eonfuzz wrote: Even in Starcraft 2, the world's self acclaimed most balanced game has a very large balance problem statistically (afaik it was something like a 10% swing based on matchups).
This shows exactly what I'm talking about - while there are some setbacks, over time their balance continuously got better. It also seems like that the difference actually was 10% (and higher) at some point, so your information might be dated.
55% vs 45% is a 10% swing.
But basically balancing while things are customizable is essentially pointless. The better goal should be maintaining "fun".
My Kroot army just became possible again, now that Knarlocs (Great and Riders) have point values and 9th ed rules!!
Still sucks that the formerly three difffent Great Knarloc datasheet were compressed into one.
Now I have 9 Great Knarlocs!
I guess I can run them all in Narritive- oh, wait, right, Crusade, so nope, I guess only in Open Play now. Dammit.
What makes you think that you need that much data to balance a 40k? Warhammer 40k is nowhere near as complex as LoL.
I'm not certain that's true.
Ultramarines alone have (27 x 20 = 540) x (6^6 = 46,656) × (41^3 = 68,921) × (13^3 = 2,197) x (27^3 = 19,683) = 7.5e19 possible unit combinations using the ancient FOC which means we aren't accounting for fliers, superheavies, or LoWs. Add in variable unit sizes, points costs, wargear, command traits, relics, psychic powers, detachments, allies, and stratagems and it spirals from there. If they played a codex vs codex mirror match that rises to 5.65e9 possible combos of just units versus other units. Now add dice to the mix because 40k is random and League isn't...
Meanwhile League merely has ~52 billion champon combos (many of which are nearly unplayable) plus masteries, summoner spells, and items. League is about a billion times less complex than a single army list from codex Ultramarines is.
For context there are 1e21 stars in the observable universe. And 1e82 atoms in the observable universe. One codex, if fully factored for all variables may well have more potential combinations than there is stuff in the universe...
Eonfuzz wrote: 55% vs 45% is a 10% swing.
But basically balancing while things are customizable is essentially pointless. The better goal should be maintaining "fun".
According to goonhammer 40k currently sitting at 28.8%. For 40k, in the times before the SM 8.5 disaster we have seen that people tend to enjoy the game when their and their opponents' army are both sitting at 47-53% winrates.
What makes you think that you need that much data to balance a 40k? Warhammer 40k is nowhere near as complex as LoL.
I'm not certain that's true.
Ultramarines alone have (27 x 20 = 540) x (6^6 = 46,656) × (41^3 = 68,921) × (13^3 = 2,197) x (27^3 = 19,683) = 7.5e19 possible unit combinations using the ancient FOC which means we aren't accounting for fliers, superheavies, or LoWs. Add in points costs, wargear, command traits, relics, psychic powers, detachments, allies, and stratagems and it spirals from there. Meanwhile League merely has ~52 billion champon combos (many of which are nearly unplayable) plus masteries, summoner spells, and items. League is about a billing times less complex than codex Ultramarines is.
You are just comparing list building to team composition, ignoring the actual game. All that complexity you calculated above is exactly what you see inside their glorious app when you enter your code, and I think you would agree with me that this beautiful piece of software cannot be considered "complex" in any way. Even if you take battlescribe as an example, most of the complexity in their software is related to transforming a huge blob of badly shaped data into a usable user interface.
40k is played for just 5 turns. Even a "surrender at 10" game is played for thousands of turns. Realtime alone adds so much complexity over turn-based strategy that they are hardly comparable.
In addition, there is no in-game economy, no NPCs like jungle, minions or towers, no spawn timers, no cooldowns, no vision, no status effects, no early, mid or late game, no power spikes and probably more things I forgot. Even the entire map you are playing on might change half way through the game.
Also note that when calculating the complexity of a system (which is what I do for a living), a character with ten different melee weapons wouldn't add much complexity compared to a character with just three options. Linear growth is a lot less important that exponential growth.
The game Warhammer 40k itself, even including all its options, barely matches the complexity of an average mobile game.
Mind you, neither does chess, so don't confuse me saying that 40k is not complex for me saying that it doesn't have depth or is particularly easy to play. It just means that is simple enough to allow you to play it without the help of a machine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: My Kroot army just became possible again, now that Knarlocs (Great and Riders) have point values and 9th ed rules!!
Still sucks that the formerly three difffent Great Knarloc datasheet were compressed into one.
Now I have 9 Great Knarlocs!
I guess I can run them all in Narritive- oh, wait, right, Crusade, so nope, I guess only in Open Play now. Dammit.
Blndmage wrote: My Kroot army just became possible again, now that Knarlocs (Great and Riders) have point values and 9th ed rules!!
Still sucks that the formerly three difffent Great Knarloc datasheet were compressed into one.
Now I have 9 Great Knarlocs!
I guess I can run them all in Narritive- oh, wait, right, Crusade, so nope, I guess only in Open Play now. Dammit.
What's the issue with crusade?
Crusade still has the Ro2/3/4, so I can't use all 9
Blndmage wrote: My Kroot army just became possible again, now that Knarlocs (Great and Riders) have point values and 9th ed rules!!
Still sucks that the formerly three difffent Great Knarloc datasheet were compressed into one. Now I have 9 Great Knarlocs! I guess I can run them all in Narritive- oh, wait, right, Crusade, so nope, I guess only in Open Play now. Dammit.
What's the issue with crusade?
Crusade still has the Ro2/3/4, so I can't use all 9
Crusade has no limit on how often you can bring datasheets besides what you can fit into your crusade rooster. The rule of 3 is part of the matched play and tournament mission pack, but the grey box describing it iss missing from the crusade mission pack. Enjoy!
Jidmah wrote: You are just comparing list building to team composition, ignoring the actual game. All that complexity you calculated above is exactly what you see inside their glorious app when you enter your code, and I think you would agree with me that this beautiful piece of software cannot be considered "complex" in any way. Even if you take battlescribe as an example, most of the complexity in their software is related to transforming a huge blob of badly shaped data into a usable user interface.
40k is played for just 5 turns. Even a "surrender at 10" game is played for thousands of turns. Realtime alone adds so much complexity over turn-based strategy that they are hardly comparable.
In addition, there is no in-game economy, no NPCs like jungle, minions or towers, no spawn timers, no cooldowns, no vision, no status effects, no early, mid or late game, no power spikes and probably more things I forgot. Even the entire map you are playing on might change half way through the game.
If you just want gross faction level balance for 40k you don't even need turn-by-turn data, you can literally just look the VP scores and total turn count for games and adjust from there. However, that isn't what people on Dakka are advocating for, they want each option to be viable and, if possible, unique in some key way and that requires cross-referencing every unit with every other unit and figuring out which metrics are important out of the data you generate. Each of these steps are simple, but the sheer volume of calculations is so vast that the system as a whole ends up being difficult to evaluate beyond the simple Army A win% vs Army B win% method that GW uses.
For League, there's nothing deep to balance so you end up being able to cull most of your possible data. The only points you really need to consider (and not all of these will be relevant for every champion) are jungle clear speed, first blood rate and time, damage dealt to various targets (monsters, minions, champions, structures) and then gold and experience at specific points in the game. A lot of the other data can be discarded because you have skill matched play over a large sample size so excellent plays and dismal ones tend to even out.
So yes, if you wanted to sample a League game and plot every possible outcome at a specific tenth of a second it would be nearly infinitely complex however there's no need to do that if all you want is balanced items and champions. Thus what could be complex is made simple due to smart data collection and elegant game design.
TheBoy wrote: So noticed an obvious copy paste error. But it seems all the Legends commanders lost the Battlesuit keyword and gained infantry. Which could make for some hilarious rule interactions. They gain all buffs from infantry stratagems ( double tap shooting), can ride in devilfish, can't be repaired by technical drones or use Battlesuit stratagems.
Sentineil wrote: The Destroyer Tank Hunter got quite a nice boost to it's weapon. It use to be essentially a D3 shot Lascannon, now it's Heavy 2 S12 Ap-4 Damage D3+3.
The S12 is somewhat meaningless, but the extra reliability and Ap are certainly welcome.
It did lose its tank Hunter ability though which is is a shame. I'm just happy to not be wasting my time putting it on a table. It's not so much a tank Hunter, more a scavenger picking off wounded vehicles with a bit of reliability.
I was really hoping for the Leman Russ keyword though, as it's a model that screams out for a tank ace ability.
I've had a Destroyer tank hunter since 2001. Man, has that thing been banged back and forth every edition with beta rules, download rules, 2nd printings, FAQs, and new books. It's like they never really could give it the right rules. I actually like how this turned out. Wounding carnifexes and daemon princes on a 2+ isn't half bad. I just with Vanquisher cannons would almost this good, god those things suck.
. 
