Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/01 23:55:17


Post by: Daedalus81


Let's collect all the data here for deep dives, if possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Morty

Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Secondaries
Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Secondaries #2
Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
LoC
Spoiler:


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 00:22:44


Post by: Voss


Glad someone else is suffering through this.
I could really do without without the camera and table shake.
I've gotten too used to youtube battlereports where the folks know what they're doing with a table set up and camera.


The objective markers are actually clever. The marker itself is reasonably sized, its just in the middle of a pre-measured zone that shows where the measurement range is. If you're in the larger area, you're in range for controlling the objective.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 00:33:51


Post by: Daedalus81


I can't help but feel that Plague Marines are...not interesting...forced to 10 man.
Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
PBC
Spoiler:


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 00:40:13


Post by: Voss


I missed that. I muted the 'casters, as they're really boring and keep going off on random tangents. And aren't fully aware of what's going on, as they're currently trying to guess where the fifth objective is.

Plagueburst crawler looks... somewhat interesting. I think? I forget which weapons swap out for which. Is it slugger or rothail and entropy or plaguespitters?


Flamers are blah. Except they can fall back and shoot. That's about all they have going on. Slightly slower, weaker flames.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 00:44:42


Post by: Daedalus81


Entropy for spitter

Flamers:
Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I guess pyrocaster must be a different datasheet?

I have no idea what the daemon player is doing with his models.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 00:48:03


Post by: Voss


Like a lot of 'sergeant' models, I doubt the pyrocaster has any reason to have a separate profile anymore.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 00:51:08


Post by: Daedalus81


Exalted
Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
BT
Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
LoV
Spoiler:


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:03:57


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Plague Marines are locked to 10? That can't be right, they don't even come 10 to a box.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:06:50


Post by: Daedalus81


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Plague Marines are locked to 10? That can't be right, they don't even come 10 to a box.


Yea I didn't snag a screen, but it was 1 sarge and 9 dude and no 4-9 listed.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:07:33


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Plague Marines are locked to 10? That can't be right, they don't even come 10 to a box.

Now kids are gonna buy 3 boxes to make two legal squads. It's legit brilliant.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:07:40


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Voss wrote:
Flamers are blah. Except they can fall back and shoot. That's about all they have going on. Slightly slower, weaker flames.
Well they were powerful in 9th, so they have to be punished in 10th even though the rules are completely different.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:08:09


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Exalted
Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
BT
Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
LoV
Spoiler:

LoV basically mandatory if you're using Crawlers I guess.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:08:42


Post by: Daedalus81


Going with the meh-ness of DG - an enhancement that is meh.
Spoiler:


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:10:25


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea I didn't snag a screen, but it was 1 sarge and 9 dude and no 4-9 listed.
The feth?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:10:54


Post by: Daedalus81


EviscerationPlague wrote:
LoV basically mandatory if you're using Crawlers I guess.


Yea I'm not sure I like that design.

Screamers
Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fleshhounds
Spoiler:


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:13:49


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Happy to see the Bloodthirster didn't get Combi-Weapon'd.

EDIT: Screamers better be cheap. Hitting on a 4+ is pretty gakky.



Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:14:40


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Going with the meh-ness of DG - an enhancement that is meh.
Spoiler:

The real question is what auras really exist BESIDES Nurgles Gift now that HQs only buff the units they're attached to?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:17:50


Post by: Daedalus81


Foul Blightspawn
Spoiler:


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:22:13


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Not even a one-use super-grande ala Demo-Charges?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:22:33


Post by: Daedalus81


PBs locked to 10, too. But W2!

Spoiler:


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:22:58


Post by: EviscerationPlague


LMAO Blightspawn doesn't even get a cute grenade anymore.

Death Guard really are gonna be the losers for another edition, huh?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:23:51


Post by: Voss


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not even a one-use super-grande ala Demo-Charges?


Nope. He makes the unit fight fast. As you'd expect.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:24:31


Post by: Daedalus81


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not even a one-use super-grande ala Demo-Charges?


Maybe an enhancement?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:25:33


Post by: EviscerationPlague


Voss wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not even a one-use super-grande ala Demo-Charges?


Nope. He makes the unit fight fast. As you'd expect.

He did that before though, didn't he? fething bizarre design for a character. Has no pistols and no melee weapons, carries a Flamer (and at a point some grenades) and his ability is regarding fight order.

If that's not dart board design, nothing is.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:26:03


Post by: Daedalus81


Khorne enhancement
Spoiler:


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:26:41


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Secondaries
Spoiler:
I like that Assassinate isn't just a dead card if you draw it late in the game. "Kill all their characters!" "But I've already done that!" "Ha! Sucks to be you, kid!".

Nope, you just insta-score it. I like that. Shows actual forethought.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:26:59


Post by: Daedalus81


EviscerationPlague wrote:
Voss wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not even a one-use super-grande ala Demo-Charges?


Nope. He makes the unit fight fast. As you'd expect.

He did that before though, didn't he? fething bizarre design for a character. Has no pistols and no melee weapons, carries a Flamer (and at a point some grenades) and his ability is regarding fight order.

If that's not dart board design, nothing is.


I will say fights first is now a great defensive ability now, which is fitting for nurgle.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:27:38


Post by: JNAProductions


Thanks for putting in the work to grab this, Daed.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:33:34


Post by: Daedalus81


 JNAProductions wrote:
Thanks for putting in the work to grab this, Daed.


My pleasure. I figure they'll probably post them up later, but w/e. I'll go back later and tally up the lists at present points and see how far off they are.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:35:21


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Daedalus81 wrote:
I will say fights first is now a great defensive ability now, which is fitting for nurgle.
Ok, but throwing a big silly one-shot grenade was kind of that guy's thing. There's no reason he couldn't do both. And we've seen Demo-Charge style rules already, so that could be easily adapted for this.

Chaosistency strikes again!




Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:37:56


Post by: Voss


Sadly, I actually preferred the combat patrol video.

This is a pretty horrible format for half-heartedly covering the battle and presenting information.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:41:20


Post by: H.B.M.C.





Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:44:58


Post by: Daedalus81


Voss wrote:
Sadly, I actually preferred the combat patrol video.

This is a pretty horrible format for half-heartedly covering the battle and presenting information.


Yea for sure. I'm just here for data!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rhino carries 12. Havoc no longer indirect.
Spoiler:


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:49:49


Post by: Voss


I get the prohibition on terminators and poxwalkers, I do.
But cultists can't climb into an APC?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 01:50:46


Post by: Daedalus81


DG enhancement - getting crazy now!

Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoilpox
Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
tzeentch enhancement
Spoiler:


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 02:01:06


Post by: Voss


Why do they keep showing off the same datasheets?
They've done the LoC 3 or 4 times now.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 02:02:17


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Second PM page:
Spoiler:


Plaguecaster:
Spoiler:


Shoutyman:
Spoiler:





Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 02:06:31


Post by: Daedalus81


more secondaries
Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
gambits
Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
defensive ability for thousand sooo...I mean DG! melee only....god damn
Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
advance and charge daemons
Spoiler:


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 02:23:42


Post by: H.B.M.C.


My Red Corsairs/White Scars (or whatever archetype detachment one will use to represent them) aren't keeping their Advance & Charge this edition it seems...

Seems Disgustingly Resilient is a Strat now. Ok. But hey, on the bright side, Death Guard got a rule that makes them tougher, so that's nice.

[EDIT]: So the Tyranid Discord has a sheet floating around that talks about how units are based upon box size, and increase in side ala Reinforcements like AOS. Not reinforcement points, but in set amounts. So not 3-6 Screamers, but 3 or 6 Screamers.

I said this was my fear...

[EDIT 2]: Daed - Full Plague Bearer sheet shows 4-9, so that's good!







Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 02:48:37


Post by: Daedalus81


Weird. Did I imagine seeing it? CP sheet makes sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the mission from earlier
Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
So...

Morty
LoV
Blightspawn
2x5 PM
10 BL
10 Pox
3x PBC
Rhino

Currently ~1800. They showed blightspawn, but I didnt see it on table. So 100 to 200 in points increases.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 03:40:12


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Second PM page:
Spoiler:


Plaguecaster:
Spoiler:


Shoutyman:
Spoiler:




1. Plague Marine datasheet is still a mess
2. You can get 4 Torrent weapons and then 2 Blight Launchers in a 10 man Squad. That's.......okay I guess?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 05:06:31


Post by: ERJAK


Delay and evac are either going to be incredibly easy to score or completely impossible.

Still haven't decided which yet. Delay seems cheese-able, though.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 05:44:24


Post by: Lord Damocles


Plague Marine icon gone?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 07:17:43


Post by: Thariinye


Disgustingly Resilient doesn't contain the limitation from last edition that damage could only be reduced to a minimum of 1. Unless there's something in the basic rules that prevent this (didn't watch the stream so this may be totally off-base) that means that the unit is totally immune to D1 weapons for that fight phase. That would at least make the strat worth 2CP, cause that will totally negate the melee output of a ton of units. Like a unit of Khorne Berserkers will only be able to inflict wounds with their 2 eviscerators against literally any death guard unit, even like poxwalkers. That's actually really nice.

Well death guard need whatever they can get given there's a lot of anti-synergy in their rules so far.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 12:34:22


Post by: Daedalus81


 Thariinye wrote:
Disgustingly Resilient doesn't contain the limitation from last edition that damage could only be reduced to a minimum of 1. Unless there's something in the basic rules that prevent this (didn't watch the stream so this may be totally off-base) that means that the unit is totally immune to D1 weapons for that fight phase. That would at least make the strat worth 2CP, cause that will totally negate the melee output of a ton of units. Like a unit of Khorne Berserkers will only be able to inflict wounds with their 2 eviscerators against literally any death guard unit, even like poxwalkers. That's actually really nice.

Well death guard need whatever they can get given there's a lot of anti-synergy in their rules so far.


Oh...good catch.


The official Daemon list is currently 2150 points so a bit of a decrease there.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alright, so...performance. This is not a dig at the player - new edition and all that. This is addressing the viability of Death Guard.

If you watch Morty winds up charging the flamers and NOT Be'lakor. He had to kill 3 regular flamers and the exalted. For him to do so he would have had to hit and wound with ALL 5 attacks and the flamers would have had to fail ALL their invulns. The risk of him not getting through the flamers was quite high making that choice pretty poor. His sweep wouldn't have even had enough total damage to do the job. That makes this whole outcome a really bad placement.

Let's assume he made it to Bel instead. The -1T is irrelevant for any of Morty's weapons into him. We'll assume he had his RR1s to wound on.

5 * . 833 * .722 * .5 * 4 = 6

Again highlighting that expecting Morty to go in and clean out something useful was unrealistic.

Bel does -- ( 6 * .167 * .5 * 4.5 * .666 ) + ( 6 * .666 * .666 * .5 * 4.5 * .666 ) = 5.5
The Keeper would do -- 6 * .833 * .333 * .5 * 3 * .666 = 1.7

So it would require all the psychic attacks:

Keeper : 9 * .833 * .167 * .666 = 0.8
Keeper ( whip ) : 6 * .833 * .167 * .333 * 2 * .666 = 0.4
Bel : 12 * .833 * .167 * .666 = 1.1
LoC : ( 9 * .167 * .5 * 2 * .666 ) + ( 9 *.666 * .333 * .5 * 2 * .666 ) = 2.3 ( Lethal Hits )

That all comes to 11 or 12 wounds. He ate the overwatch from 6 Flamers as well -- 21 * .167 * .333 * .666 = 0.8.

These results are close enough to Morty's W16 that a moderate edge on the dice towards the Daemon player would have done it. That means it took ( at current points ) about 1200 to kill 450 - likely more since the Exalted probably got some shots in, too.





Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 22:07:26


Post by: xeen


Thank you for posting these data sheets.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/02 23:36:34


Post by: Daedalus81


 xeen wrote:
Thank you for posting these data sheets.


My pleasure. I put a bunch in news & rumors, but I'll start putting the rest back here once the next exhibition game starts.

Here are some of them:

https://imgur.com/a/U5XqdlS
https://imgur.com/a/113RVjc



Automatically Appended Next Post:
strats
Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
enhancements
Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kriegers
Spoiler:






Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mission - home objectives score nothing for primary :
Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
scout sentinels
Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
secondaries

Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
War Walker

Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rangers

Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Basilisk

Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Secondaries

Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wind Riders

Spoiler:


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 01:28:43


Post by: Voss


OK. Rangers just exist to fusillade at characters all game. Just constant volleys of 2+ precision shots.
Well... Not all game. They have nothing at all for survivability.

Warwalkers look good.

Krieg kept the dumb weapon allocation, not surprised, just disappointed.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 01:29:29


Post by: Daedalus81


Warlock Skyrunner

Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote:
OK. Rangers just exist to fusillade at characters all game. Just constant volleys of 2+ precision shots.

Well... Not all game. They have nothing at all for survivability.


The 5++ doesn't hurt ( and stealth ) - I wonder if the units with the extra cover get an invuln instead.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 01:33:31


Post by: Voss


Stealth does help a little. 5++ on t3 infantry, I don't rate very highly. Sheer weight of fire from almost any weapon type will win.

Bike warlock looks nice though. Conceal and destructor is pretty good.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 01:34:13


Post by: Daedalus81


Leontus

Spoiler:


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 01:37:17


Post by: Voss


Wow. He's almost the perfect target for Rangers. Get those 2+ hit rolls, then flip coins twice. Double heads four times and he's gone.

Actually, no, his odds aren't that good, because you roll to wound against the unit, so wound on 3+ if he's with infantry. That's hilarious.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 01:42:42


Post by: Daedalus81


Scorpion Town

Spoiler:


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 01:47:20


Post by: Hellebore


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Leontus

Spoiler:


Well there's an example of what i was talking about.

That's a normal human on a robohorse. But he's tougher than asurmen and has more attacks in combat. He has better abilities.

So apparently only Eldar heroes that are walking infinity circuits of 10,000 years of ghosts and warp power have stay t3 but normal human on a horse can be t4.and lead units....


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 01:48:18


Post by: Voss


Hmmm. Gotta see banshees to compare.

Chainsaws go brrr, but... that's a lot of rolling into 6s.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 01:48:41


Post by: Daedalus81


 Hellebore wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Leontus

Spoiler:


Well there's an example of what i was talking about.

That's a normal human on a robohorse. But he's tougher than asurmen and has more attacks in combat. He has better abilities.

So apparently only Eldar heroes that are walking infinity circuits of 10,000 years of ghosts and warp power have stay t3 but normal human on a horse can be t4.and lead units....


I think Karandras gives him a run for his money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Secondaries

Spoiler:


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 01:58:52


Post by: Kanluwen


 Hellebore wrote:

Well there's an example of what i was talking about.

That's a normal human on a robohorse. But he's tougher than asurmen and has more attacks in combat. He has better abilities.

Yes, and it's the "mounted" bit that gives him T4.

So apparently only Eldar heroes that are walking infinity circuits of 10,000 years of ghosts and warp power have stay t3 but normal human on a horse can be t4.and lead units....

Weren't you telling me to get over it when Skitarii got their armour save dumped down to less than Guardians?

Cyborgs with subdermal plating, bionics, and combat armour is somehow "less protected" than guys wearing mesh armor. Make it make sense.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 02:00:42


Post by: Daedalus81


Ratlings

Spoiler:


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 02:03:46


Post by: Hellebore


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Hellebore wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Leontus

Spoiler:


Well there's an example of what i was talking about.

That's a normal human on a robohorse. But he's tougher than asurmen and has more attacks in combat. He has better abilities.

So apparently only Eldar heroes that are walking infinity circuits of 10,000 years of ghosts and warp power have stay t3 but normal human on a horse can be t4.and lead units....


I think Karandras gives him a run for his money.



Karandras lost 1w, 1t, 1a on fist, 4a on sword. In exchange he got sustained hits 1.

Seth didn't lose any of his melee abilities or stats. And he also gained sustained hits... Can't imagine they decided to boost Seth specifically over other marine characters, so I am pretty confident they will all come out smelling of roses while non imperial characters get smacked for daring to look as good as them. This is marine hammer 40k after all.





Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 02:08:09


Post by: Daedalus81


 Hellebore wrote:

Karandras lost 1w, 1t, 1a on fist, 4a on sword. In exchange he got sustained hits 1.

Seth didn't lose any of his melee abilities or stats. And he also gained sustained hits... Can't imagine they decided to boost Seth specifically over other marine characters, so I am pretty confident they will all come out smelling of roses while non imperial characters get smacked for daring to look as good as them. This is marine hammer 40k after all.

Hard to see if as anything



Karandras explodes on 4s and gets DW. So he used to get 6 hits with the fist -- he'll get 6+ now. It's important to note that lots of stuff is getting nerfed. Leontus lost a couple pips, but he's also written very close to 10th.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Platoon Squads

Spoiler:


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 02:14:06


Post by: Hellebore


 Kanluwen wrote:
 Hellebore wrote:

Well there's an example of what i was talking about.

That's a normal human on a robohorse. But he's tougher than asurmen and has more attacks in combat. He has better abilities.

Yes, and it's the "mounted" bit that gives him T4.

So apparently only Eldar heroes that are walking infinity circuits of 10,000 years of ghosts and warp power have stay t3 but normal human on a horse can be t4.and lead units....

Weren't you telling me to get over it when Skitarii got their armour save dumped down to less than Guardians?

Cyborgs with subdermal plating, bionics, and combat armour is somehow "less protected" than guys wearing mesh armor. Make it make sense.


Eldar armour has always been described as better than imperial armour. Mesh armour was always supposed to be better than flak, but 3rd Ed squashed saves together. Skittari wear the same armour as guard and get a 6++ invuln to reflect their bionic upgrades (something that was a standard bionic rule in previous editions). They also have the opportunity to ignore -1ap from their detachment, further improving their armour.

So that makes sense to me. Your premise that mesh armour is inferior is wrong.

Your line infantry treated as expendable tools and experiments are also not an equivalent example to singular demigod characters that face off against other demigod characters.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Hellebore wrote:

Karandras lost 1w, 1t, 1a on fist, 4a on sword. In exchange he got sustained hits 1.

Seth didn't lose any of his melee abilities or stats. And he also gained sustained hits... Can't imagine they decided to boost Seth specifically over other marine characters, so I am pretty confident they will all come out smelling of roses while non imperial characters get smacked for daring to look as good as them. This is marine hammer 40k after all.

Hard to see if as anything



Karandras explodes on 4s and gets DW. So he used to get 6 hits with the fist -- he'll get 6+ now. It's important to note that lots of stuff is getting nerfed. Leontus lost a couple pips, but he's also written very close to 10th.


He only explodes on 4s on the charge and his mandiblasters used to just do do flat 2 extra mw if you rolled a 6 to wound.

My point is that of the characters we've seen, only the marines and imperials look the least nerfed (or in fact just got flat out better). Orks, nids and Eldar all got their special characters mutilated while marines get to keep their cool charcetes, and put them in units and get cool primarchs as well.



Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 02:30:10


Post by: Kanluwen


 Hellebore wrote:

Eldar armour has always been described as better than imperial armour. Mesh armour was always supposed to be better than flak, but 3rd Ed squashed saves together. Skittari wear the same armour as guard

Skitarii wear carapace equivalent, not "the same armour as Guard".
and get a 6++ invuln to reflect their bionic upgrades (something that was a standard bionic rule in previous editions).

Bionics have been a lot of things. You'll have to be more specific.

For Skitarii? They've been a FNP(6+) and then a rather lackluster invulnerable save.

They also have the opportunity to ignore -1ap from their detachment, further improving their armour.

You have to be in your deployment zone, and it's not that you "ignore it"--it's that you worsen the armour penetration characteristic.

So that makes sense to me. Your premise that mesh armour is inferior is wrong.

My premise was not that "mesh armour is inferior". That was you ascribing a motive to my argument that was not present.

My premise is that it's daft that they dumped the armor save down on Skitarii while buffing it on the Pathfinders for T'au and retaining the 4+ on Guardians.

Your line infantry treated as expendable tools and experiments

Which are also apparently recovered after battles, rebuilt, and brought back to service?

Yeah, that just screams "expendable tools and experiments".

As a reminder, the actual "line infantry"? That's the Servitors. The Skitarii are the militarized grouping while the Electropriests are the Guardian equivalents of citizens trying their best(albeit with LIGHTNING!).
are also not an equivalent example to singular demigod characters that face off against other demigod characters.

Sure they are. It's something you're not happy about.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 02:39:16


Post by: Hellebore


You said:

Cyborgs with subdermal plating, bionics, and combat armour is somehow "less protected" than guys wearing mesh armor. Make it make sense.


That implies you think that mesh armour shouldn't be better, ergo worse or at best equal.

5+, 6++ and at least 1 turn of of reduce ap by 1 while not mechanically identical to sv4+, is certainly not as bad as you make it out to be.

I'm unsure why they ever made pathfinders sv5+ in the first place. They were always wearing tau carapace armour.



Given their unwillingness to provide speed protection to fast armies, 4+ is about as good an abstraction for guardians as you can get these days.

I'd have rather they been -1 to hit, but they refuse that sort of thing.




Sure they are. It's something you're not happy about.


That is a false equivalence fallacy. In the same way that not being happy about genocide and not being happy about pineapple on pizza are not equivalent.



Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 02:50:30


Post by: Kanluwen


 Hellebore wrote:
You said:

Cyborgs with subdermal plating, bionics, and combat armour is somehow "less protected" than guys wearing mesh armor. Make it make sense.


That implies you think that mesh armour shouldn't be better, ergo worse or at best equal.

Or it implies that I think the degradation was arbitrarily random and the result of the absolute lack of knowledge that the studio design team has of their own lore?

5+, 6++ and at least 1 turn of of reduce ap by 1 while not mechanically identical to sv4+, is certainly not as bad as you make it out to be.

And yet, I'm absolutely 100% positive that you wouldn't take it for the Guardians.

I'm unsure why they ever made pathfinders sv5+ in the first place. They were always wearing tau carapace armour.

Negative. They've always been described as wearing "Pathfinder Armour", explicitly called out as being less protective.

Of course, if you want to argue that Pathfinders should be the 'standard' for a 4+ save? I'll take it. That means Cadians should be a 4+ save while Scions and Kasrkin go to a 3+.



Given their unwillingness to provide speed protection to fast armies, 4+ is about as good an abstraction for guardians as you can get these days.

I'd have rather they been -1 to hit, but they refuse that sort of thing.

Nah. 5+ would have been fine, since they're just your "expendable line infantry".


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 02:51:26


Post by: Voss


Ok, if you're going to bring up genocide in reference to toy soldiers, can this back and forth go away and let this thread go back to reveals?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 03:15:52


Post by: Hellebore


 Kanluwen wrote:

And yet, I'm absolutely 100% positive that you wouldn't take it for the Guardians.

Nah. 5+ would have been fine, since they're just your "expendable line infantry".


I used the phrase expendable line infantry in a specific not generic sense. As in, the skitarii are considered expendable line infantry by their own army.

Guardians are the exact opposite - non expendable line infantry. They are a non renewable resource for the Eldar.

I would take rules that reflect that over a 4+ save if there is one. A 5+ sv does not.

Skitarii can be rebuilt, regrown replaced. They are cheap in the logistical faction sense.



@voss I should have said pineapple vs speed limits or something. The point was about false equivalences.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 03:22:22


Post by: H.B.M.C.


So... Karandras has the same rule as Asurmen, but with a different name... who has the same rule as the Tallyman, but with a different name.

Did GW forget about USRs halfway through writing this edition?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 03:40:43


Post by: Daedalus81


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So... Karandras has the same rule as Asurmen, but with a different name... who has the same rule as the Tallyman, but with a different name.

Did GW forget about USRs halfway through writing this edition?


I think their logic is that some of these rules have exceptions. There was an example but I can't recall it atm.

Obviously they could make a usr with a little creativity. A job for the next edition, I guess.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 05:58:52


Post by: EviscerationPlague


Hellbore is definitely proving my point about Eldar players acting more entitled than Marine players LOL


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 06:14:14


Post by: Hellebore


EviscerationPlague wrote:
Hellbore is definitely proving my point about Eldar players acting more entitled than Marine players LOL



Marine players get everything handed to them on a platter.

I haven't had to argue for any space wolf faction issues since 1993 when I started them. It's only when I started playing non marines I found just how biased the game is. No one gets questioned if they expect a chapter master to be cool or a primarch to kickass, that goes without saying. But take the same position for ghazghkull or phoenix Lords and then you're being entitled?

Marines get to hide behind bolter.porn to justify awesomeness but no one else gets the same. Lion is cool and did X y z. So here's his ridiculous statline. Maugan ra defeats a hive fleet by himself but that's just hyperbole and how dare you expect similar cool stats.


Arguing over how a unit protects it's troops is an entirely separate proposition to how your characters are presented.




Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 06:45:55


Post by: Breton


EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Going with the meh-ness of DG - an enhancement that is meh.
Spoiler:

The real question is what auras really exist BESIDES Nurgles Gift now that HQs only buff the units they're attached to?


There were a few here and there - Two of the Lion's three choices are an Aura, Guilliman had one of three, Keeper of Secrets had one, Belakor had 1 plus one of three, Angron had three of three, Makari/Ghaz has one, according to earlier in the thread on here the Lord of Change has one, Morty has the DG one, his own one, and 3 of 3 on his Pick One list. Bloodthirster has one.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 08:12:49


Post by: Charax


Not sure Guilliman and the Bloodthirster having auras is going to aid the effectiveness of a DG enhancement

Increasing the Foot Prince's FnP aura from 6" to 9" might be significant though...


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 09:25:55


Post by: Breton


Charax wrote:
Not sure Guilliman and the Bloodthirster having auras is going to aid the effectiveness of a DG enhancement

Increasing the Foot Prince's FnP aura from 6" to 9" might be significant though...


Oh, I thought the question was generic. Morty has a bunch - I wouldn't be too surprised if the enhancements we haven't seen provide a few here and there.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 09:28:53


Post by: tneva82


Other enchantments wouldn't matter since talk is about enchantment increasing aura range and no multiple enchantment for 1 hero

And epic heroes unlikely to get enchantments.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 10:03:11


Post by: Trickstick


Scout sentinels being able to take orders is interesting. Take cover could help to keep them alive from ap-1 weapons.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 10:19:47


Post by: Spoletta


So, veterans hit on a 4+ as I had suspected when the necron warriors were spoiled.

We have finally killed the concept that 4+ is baseline and 3+ is veteran.

No, 4+ is human, 3+ is superhuman.

Now what I want to know is simply why sisters are 3+, because everything else makes sense.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 10:53:34


Post by: Trickstick


Dkok medi-packs are not in the options list. So, unless the option was cut off, the rule is impossible to use.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 10:59:06


Post by: Charax


Spoletta wrote:
So, veterans hit on a 4+ as I had suspected when the necron warriors were spoiled.

We have finally killed the concept that 4+ is baseline and 3+ is veteran.

No, 4+ is human, 3+ is superhuman.

Now what I want to know is simply why sisters are 3+, because everything else makes sense.


You're projecting your own interpretation of what a 4+ or 3+ means and then wondering why the rules don't conform to your internalised perception

3+ isn't "superhuman" - Leontus hits on 2+, is he superhuman? His horse hits on 4+, is the horse trained to the same level as a Veteran?

When every possible level of skill is reduced to a 5-point scale (because you can't hit on a 1+) there is a hell of a lot of abstraction going on


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 12:10:37


Post by: Spoletta


I was referring to the fact that when I initially assumed that veterans were going to be 4+, I've been told that "4+ is baseline, 3+ is veteran" has been a rule of 40k since forever and that veterans for sure would get a 3+


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 12:24:01


Post by: Daedalus81


Tossing up what I missed:

Warp Spiders
Spoiler:


Vypers
Spoiler:


Guardians
Spoiler:


Wave Serpent
Spoiler:


Support Weapons
Spoiler:


Avengers
Spoiler:


Strats
Spoiler:


Enhancements
Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
IG Strats

Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
IG Enhancements
Spoiler:


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 12:35:36


Post by: vipoid


I've coughed up things more exciting than those enhancements.

Bloody hell this edition is going to be boring.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 12:39:00


Post by: Tyel


I was sort of struggling to follow the scoring last night, but am I right in thinking the IG would have won if they'd made their gambit roll?

As said from the outset - I think people are going to find a game which comes down to some unlikely final roll* to be a bit weird, even if it means things go to end rather than clearly being over much sooner.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 13:25:04


Post by: Spoletta


Is there some place where you can watch the second game?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 13:37:53


Post by: Breton


Ouch, the Wave Serpent got kinda boned on the Twin Linking.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 14:05:49


Post by: Tyel


Spoletta wrote:
Is there some place where you can watch the second game?


www.twitch.tv/warhammer
14ish hour video from yesterday. They start setting up about 9.50~ or so.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 14:22:29


Post by: Daedalus81


 vipoid wrote:
I've coughed up things more exciting than those enhancements.

Bloody hell this edition is going to be boring.


I definitely appreciate that they seem to have stuck with a reasonable approach. We'll see what happens in codexes and creep.

I'd prefer they didn't creep them even if it seems boring by comparison.

A note on sternguard....they have the nerfed combi. So I'm guessing the model was made well before the rules.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 14:35:27


Post by: vipoid


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
I've coughed up things more exciting than those enhancements.

Bloody hell this edition is going to be boring.


I definitely appreciate that they seem to have stuck with a reasonable approach. We'll see what happens in codexes and creep.

I'd prefer they didn't creep them even if it seems boring by comparison.


It's not just that they're weak, it's that they're so dull (sans maybe the Phoenix Stone).

It might not be so bad if GW hadn't also
- Stripped non-weapon wargear options to the bone.
- Consolidated weapons (or removed them outright) so that many characters have little or no choice.
- Removed all choice from psychic powers.
- Limited you to 1 enhancement per character (when previously you could have both a warlord trait and an artefact).


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 14:37:12


Post by: Voss


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
I've coughed up things more exciting than those enhancements.

Bloody hell this edition is going to be boring.


I definitely appreciate that they seem to have stuck with a reasonable approach. We'll see what happens in codexes and creep.

I'd prefer they didn't creep them even if it seems boring by comparison..


Same. I'm more excited these are sane rather than random piles of nonsense.

They honestly could have gone further- I don't think people are grasping the whole package yet and how many moving bits and bobs are still present.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 14:45:46


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 Hellebore wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Hellbore is definitely proving my point about Eldar players acting more entitled than Marine players LOL



Marine players get everything handed to them on a platter.

I haven't had to argue for any space wolf faction issues since 1993 when I started them. It's only when I started playing non marines I found just how biased the game is. No one gets questioned if they expect a chapter master to be cool or a primarch to kickass, that goes without saying. But take the same position for ghazghkull or phoenix Lords and then you're being entitled?

Marines get to hide behind bolter.porn to justify awesomeness but no one else gets the same. Lion is cool and did X y z. So here's his ridiculous statline. Maugan ra defeats a hive fleet by himself but that's just hyperbole and how dare you expect similar cool stats.


Arguing over how a unit protects it's troops is an entirely separate proposition to how your characters are presented.



Yawn, you done?

Phoenix Lords die and are just stones, so they're obviously not that powerful.

Half kidding aside, while the shift to T3 for Phoenix Lords is weird, you seriously need to get over it because Eldar have always broken the game more than Marines. Eldar kept their upgraded Guardians while Necron Warriors, Skitarii, the basic Votaan dudes, etc. lost a LOT of their power.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 14:56:08


Post by: Daedalus81


 vipoid wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
I've coughed up things more exciting than those enhancements.

Bloody hell this edition is going to be boring.


I definitely appreciate that they seem to have stuck with a reasonable approach. We'll see what happens in codexes and creep.

I'd prefer they didn't creep them even if it seems boring by comparison.


It's not just that they're weak, it's that they're so dull (sans maybe the Phoenix Stone).

It might not be so bad if GW hadn't also
- Stripped non-weapon wargear options to the bone.
- Consolidated weapons (or removed them outright) so that many characters have little or no choice.
- Removed all choice from psychic powers.
- Limited you to 1 enhancement per character (when previously you could have both a warlord trait and an artefact).


At the same time rippers are OC0, but halve the OC of enemies. I really enjoy that sort of tactical consideration.



Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 14:56:57


Post by: vipoid


Aside - there are many reasons for me to be envious of Eldar, but it's definitely sad to see what has become of Witchblades.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 15:00:00


Post by: Trickstick


3 units of scout sentinels seems like a must take for Guard now. Throwing out reroll 1s to hit is really nice.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 15:55:30


Post by: Voss


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Tossing up what I missed:

Warp Spiders
Spoiler:


I will say the warp spider datacard looks like a unit waiting for an update. You can still feel the neglect.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 15:56:28


Post by: Daedalus81


Yea I hope an exarch puts a little extra oomph in their step.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 16:02:35


Post by: vipoid


Seems a shame that Exarchs have lost their higher WS/BS.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 16:16:21


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Along with pretty much everything else.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 16:18:11


Post by: vipoid


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Along with pretty much everything else.


Tagline of the edition at this point, I guess.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 16:20:23


Post by: Trickstick


Me, as a Guardsman who didn't play 9th, just looking at all the cool stuff I get....

I don't like the weird options that units get though. Looked at the 9th edition cadian command squad, that is painful.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 16:26:27


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 vipoid wrote:
Tagline of the edition at this point, I guess.
It's the sheer level of inconsistency that gets to me.

All the Exarch weapons (that have miniature representation)? In tact, it seems.
Vet Sergeant weapons? Appear to be mostly there.
Hybrid Squad leaders? Oh they get a "Leader Pistol" because we simply can't make a Web Pistol and a Bolt Pistol distinct.
Dark Eldar? Let's not even use the word Agoniser, something the DE have had since the first showed up at the start of 3rd, and give them a generic weapon profile.
Blightlord Terminators with Flails? Full rules! Go for it!
Plague Marines with Flails? No, no, no! They must be merged with the giant cleaver!

And this squad can have a Meltagun, or a Flamer, or a Plasma Gun, or a Grav-Gun... but if we weld a Bolter onto it, we can't show those different types of weapons. That'd be just too much! And it just gets worse if you're a Deathwatch Veteran... holy gak...

Then you get some real weirdness like "Las Small Arms" on the Heavy Weapon squads. Like, how are we going to show that some of them has Lasguns and some have Laspistols? Should we put the Lasgun and Laspistol profiles - two common as dirt items - on their sheet? Nah dawg, let's give 'em a completely new amalgamated hybrid weapon that's between the two! Sure. That makes sense!


I bet the Tyranid Warrior and Carnifex sheets are going to be amazing...



Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 16:31:11


Post by: vipoid


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
Tagline of the edition at this point, I guess.
It's the sheer level of inconsistency that gets to me.

All the Exarch weapons (that have miniature representation)? In tact, it seems.
Vet Sergeant weapons? Appear to be mostly there.
Hybrid Squad leaders? Oh they get a "Leader Pistol" because we simply can't make a Web Pistol and a Bolt Pistol distinct.
Dark Eldar? Let's not even use the word Agoniser, something the DE have had since the first showed up at the start of 3rd, and give them a generic weapon profile.
Blightlord Terminators with Flails? Full rules! Go for it!
Plague Marines with Flails? No, no, no! They must be merged with the giant cleaver!

And this squad can have a Meltagun, or a Flamer, or a Plasma Gun, or a Grav-Gun... but if we weld a Bolter onto it, we can't show those different types of weapons. That'd be just too much! And it just gets worse if you're a Deathwatch Veteran... holy gak...

Then you get some real weirdness like "Las Small Arms" on the Heavy Weapon squads. Like, how are we going to show that some of them has Lasguns and some have Laspistols? Should we put the Lasgun and Laspistol profiles - two common as dirt items - on their sheet? Nah dawg, let's give 'em a completely new amalgamated hybrid weapon that's between the two! Sure. That makes sense!


I bet the Tyranid Warrior and Carnifex sheets are going to be amazing...


Oh yeah, I know exactly what you mean.

But hey, can't have bad options if there are no options at all.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 16:32:45


Post by: Daedalus81


I think the general distinction may be the basic troops get more basic things ( combi-weapons aside ). It will be interesting to see it all shake out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Avatar

Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Russ - apparently going to be a diff datasheet for each loadout

Spoiler:


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 16:41:52


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think the general distinction may be the basic troops get more basic things ( combi-weapons aside ). It will be interesting to see it all shake out.
There really is nothing you won't excuse, is there?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Russ - apparently going to be a diff datasheet for each loadout
Makes sense, otherwise you'd be limited to three Russ choices in total.

The Toughness is curious in how deliberate it is. It's 11. Lascannons are 12. They want Lascannons wounding Russes on 3's.




Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 16:43:31


Post by: Daedalus81


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There really is nothing you won't excuse, is there?


It's not an excuse. I'm just interpreting the pattern I see.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 16:55:38


Post by: Sasori


I'm going to say from both games, it really shows that you are going to need bring a much more balanced list that has some of everything.

The way 10th missions work is so much diffrent than we saw in 9th, with stuff like moving objectives. You're going to need to put in a real amount of anti-tank in lists now instead of just spamming the same type of unit and weapon that's good with everything.

You'll probably want some deepstriking units or something to deal with things like D-cannons in your opponents backfield.

It's a pretty insane shakeup from the missions we have now, that's for sure.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 17:01:49


Post by: Trickstick


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The Toughness is curious in how deliberate it is. It's 11. Lascannons are 12. They want Lascannons wounding Russes on 3's.


Either they are cheaper, or they are pushing dorn. But there could be some unique rules if each main gun gets a different one. This special rule is quite nice.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 17:09:08


Post by: Daedalus81


Catachans

Spoiler:


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 17:46:40


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I hate NMNR so much...


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 17:48:58


Post by: Trickstick


They make perfect chimera riders, assuming 2 fireports.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 17:53:59


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Speaking of Chimeras, I do hope there's a Mechanised Infantry detachment that lets you take more than 6 of the things...


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 18:01:45


Post by: Trickstick


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Speaking of Chimeras, I do hope there's a Mechanised Infantry detachment that lets you take more than 6 of the things...


GW: We sell these Taurox though...


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 20:50:42


Post by: Daedalus81


Wraithguard

Spoiler:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Drone

Spoiler:


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 22:32:34


Post by: Voss


War Construct is a little insane.

Feel free to blast them from out of range, but firefights and melee are really nasty (yes, they can respond to melee attackers, its why [pistol] is there).

Only go after them up close if you can really go all in.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 22:58:42


Post by: Thariinye


Wraithguard hitting on 4+ is rough with relatively few attacks, but honestly Eldar have the tools already to make them hit. Either Guide or Strands of Fate can make them more reliable, and I assume Spiritseers will also help somehow. And those attacks are still super hard hitting with massive AP. As an Iyanden player, I'm satisfied so far.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 23:08:31


Post by: Daedalus81


Voss wrote:
War Construct is a little insane.

Feel free to blast them from out of range, but firefights and melee are really nasty (yes, they can respond to melee attackers, its why [pistol] is there).

Only go after them up close if you can really go all in.


People want to know what blasters / S8 AP3/4 weapons are for -- here you go.

Wraithguard got shifted around a ton.

+1M +1T +1Sv and their shoot into combat became the reactionary shoot
Lost 1BS, -1D. Cannon kept AP4, but went from D3+3 to D6 and DW. Scythe lost Blast and extra MW. All in all it seems well done.




Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/03 23:24:54


Post by: vipoid


Some random thoughts on the rules seen thus far:

- DKoK seem pretty good. Granted, it will depend on the price, but potentially getting rerolls to hit and to wound seems like it could be pretty good on basic infantry. Shame GW fethed up the rules so that they have no way to actually take a medi-pack, despite the squad having rules for it.

- In contrast, boy have Witchblades fallen. I thought their rules in 9th were entirely reasonable - especially when the models using them are both expensive and generally getting just 2 attacks each. I don't play Eldar but I've always loved the idea of the Seer Council (probably as a result of playing too much Dawn of War), so it's quite sad to see an iconic weapon fall so low.

- Some of the unit abilities seem a little off. For example, I would have expected Sentinels to have to designate one of the units they actually shot for the rest of your army to get a bonus against, but instead it's just any unit within range. Likewise, Wraithguard's War Construct seems like it's meant to be a retaliatory ability, yet there's no requirement for them to fire at the same unit that attacked them. I don't know, both of these just feel a bit weird to me.



Also, some more venting:

Both the Character rules and the Enhancements seem to be turning most characters into glorified sergeants. Really not a fan. Apparently every army has flushed all their relic weapons and relic armour down the toilet, so that basically all that's left is squad-buffs. Can't wait for every single DE character to have the ranged capability of a Brussel Sprout except now they can't even buy a relic pistol to have a worthwhile gun.

Also, while I don't think that the psychic phase was necessary for 40k, I also don't think it was remotely necessary to strip all casting from psychic powers and make almost all of them either guns or always-on bonuses that only affect the psyker's own unit.

Honestly, I have yet to be convinced that the character rules in 10th are in any way an improvement over those in 8th. Yes, auras are now gone, but at an unbelievably high cost. Especially when GW could have just removed auras by removing auras. There were plenty of ways they could have replaced them without stripping so much flavour, options and utility from virtually every character in the game.

/rant


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 00:18:13


Post by: Daedalus81


 vipoid wrote:
Also, some more venting:

Both the Character rules and the Enhancements seem to be turning most characters into glorified sergeants. Really not a fan. Apparently every army has flushed all their relic weapons and relic armour down the toilet, so that basically all that's left is squad-buffs. Can't wait for every single DE character to have the ranged capability of a Brussel Sprout except now they can't even buy a relic pistol to have a worthwhile gun.

Also, while I don't think that the psychic phase was necessary for 40k, I also don't think it was remotely necessary to strip all casting from psychic powers and make almost all of them either guns or always-on bonuses that only affect the psyker's own unit.

Honestly, I have yet to be convinced that the character rules in 10th are in any way an improvement over those in 8th. Yes, auras are now gone, but at an unbelievably high cost. Especially when GW could have just removed auras by removing auras. There were plenty of ways they could have replaced them without stripping so much flavour, options and utility from virtually every character in the game.

/rant


I'm guessing your thoughts are more focused on Warlock Skyrunners rather than other HQs, which I don't think follow the pattern of concern you have here.

The buffs remaining within the unit is pretty crucial. A Farseer can Fortune an Avatar. That's a pretty significant effect and it shows why that particular spell has a 2+ roll on it. If we were to allow a nearby Warlock Skyrunner to also grant the Avatar Stealth he would become even more durable.

Right now it's pretty trivial to hide a Farseer near an Avatar and throw out Doom and Fortune with no further investment. Now that investment becomes a unit to protect the Farseer reducing the total power and making the game less lethal.

I suspect that if the statement of '2000 datasheets' is true that we're going to see multiple sheets for Farseers and Warlocks. Each will have a different spell. So it could be possible to have a foot Farseer with Doom and a foot Farseer with Fortune, but the unit joining restrictions keep you again from focusing this power in one place.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 02:47:31


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 vipoid wrote:

Also, some more venting:

Both the Character rules and the Enhancements seem to be turning most characters into glorified sergeants.

Well that's what happens when a bunch of people don't realize why characters being stuck to squads was always dumb as a mechanic and 8th-9th had it figured out. No longer do you have leaders for your army, just squads!


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 02:50:35


Post by: Gadzilla666


EviscerationPlague wrote:
 vipoid wrote:

Also, some more venting:

Both the Character rules and the Enhancements seem to be turning most characters into glorified sergeants.

Well that's what happens when a bunch of people don't realize why characters being stuck to squads was always dumb as a mechanic and 8th-9th had it figured out. No longer do you have leaders for your army, just squads!

Except, in previous editions, characters were not "stuck to squads". They could leave them and join them as you pleased. This whole "they're stuck there", is something new for 10th edition.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 03:03:54


Post by: Daedalus81


Stuck there and you can't make a harem out of them, either. It's reasonably different from all prior systems.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 03:09:51


Post by: Breton


 Daedalus81 wrote:


At the same time rippers are OC0, but halve the OC of enemies. I really enjoy that sort of tactical consideration.



Rounded up or down? I.e. will OC1 models be OC0 or OC1?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 03:12:39


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Stuck there and you can't make a harem out of them, either. It's reasonably different from all prior systems.

A "harem"? What exactly are you referring to with that term?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 03:13:31


Post by: JNAProductions


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Stuck there and you can't make a harem out of them, either. It's reasonably different from all prior systems.

A "harem"? What exactly are you referring to with that term?
The BarkBarkStar, of course.

The pack leader gets Azrael, St. Celestine, some GK psykers... All to themself!


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 03:15:18


Post by: Gadzilla666


 JNAProductions wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Stuck there and you can't make a harem out of them, either. It's reasonably different from all prior systems.

A "harem"? What exactly are you referring to with that term?
The BarkBarkStar, of course.

The pack leader gets Azrael, St. Celestine, some GK psykers... All to themself!

So, "harem" is the same as "deathstar"? Daed?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 03:16:04


Post by: JNAProductions


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Stuck there and you can't make a harem out of them, either. It's reasonably different from all prior systems.

A "harem"? What exactly are you referring to with that term?
The BarkBarkStar, of course.

The pack leader gets Azrael, St. Celestine, some GK psykers... All to themself!

So, "harem" is the same as "deathstar"? Daed?
I'm pretty sure it's just a joke.
Mine certainly was.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 03:42:27


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Stuck there and you can't make a harem out of them, either. It's reasonably different from all prior systems.
And you could have just said "No more than one character can join a unit at a time" and that "harem" problem, as you put it, vanishes instantly.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 03:43:52


Post by: Gadzilla666


 JNAProductions wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Stuck there and you can't make a harem out of them, either. It's reasonably different from all prior systems.

A "harem"? What exactly are you referring to with that term?
The BarkBarkStar, of course.

The pack leader gets Azrael, St. Celestine, some GK psykers... All to themself!

So, "harem" is the same as "deathstar"? Daed?
I'm pretty sure it's just a joke.
Mine certainly was.

Possibly? But I'd rather Daed explain exactly what they meant.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 03:52:22


Post by: Voss


The sad thing is, we've already got two ways of having multiple leaders. First is the guard way, where the squads allow a second, non-command squad, character to join a unit, and the other is the space marine way, where LTs have a special exemption from the only-one-leader rule (though it only works with captains and chapter masters).
(mentioned way back here:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/11/leaders-now-join-squads-to-personally-deliver-powerful-boons-in-the-new-warhammer-40000/)


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 03:54:17


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
 vipoid wrote:

Also, some more venting:

Both the Character rules and the Enhancements seem to be turning most characters into glorified sergeants.

Well that's what happens when a bunch of people don't realize why characters being stuck to squads was always dumb as a mechanic and 8th-9th had it figured out. No longer do you have leaders for your army, just squads!

Except, in previous editions, characters were not "stuck to squads". They could leave them and join them as you pleased. This whole "they're stuck there", is something new for 10th edition.

You have to realize I'm referring to buffs being stuck to squads.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 04:10:30


Post by: Daedalus81


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Stuck there and you can't make a harem out of them, either. It's reasonably different from all prior systems.

A "harem"? What exactly are you referring to with that term?


Deathstar, yea. Just being silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And you could have just said "No more than one character can join a unit at a time" and that "harem" problem, as you put it, vanishes instantly.


Yea - that's essentially what we have now. It was just a comparison of the systems over time going from deathstars to unattached buffers to attached buffers. Though I'd say 10th is very hybrid in it's options, but seemingly no death stars.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 04:11:46


Post by: Gadzilla666


EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
 vipoid wrote:

Also, some more venting:

Both the Character rules and the Enhancements seem to be turning most characters into glorified sergeants.

Well that's what happens when a bunch of people don't realize why characters being stuck to squads was always dumb as a mechanic and 8th-9th had it figured out. No longer do you have leaders for your army, just squads!

Except, in previous editions, characters were not "stuck to squads". They could leave them and join them as you pleased. This whole "they're stuck there", is something new for 10th edition.

You have to realize I'm referring to buffs being stuck to squads.

Buuuttt ...they aren't, if characters can freely move from squad to squad. I employ that tactic quite often with Heralds in HH. That tactic is missing in 10th. Maybe you're just assuming (again) that everyone plays/played like you and your friends?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 04:12:36


Post by: Daedalus81


Voss wrote:
The sad thing is, we've already got two ways of having multiple leaders. First is the guard way, where the squads allow a second, non-command squad, character to join a unit, and the other is the space marine way, where LTs have a special exemption from the only-one-leader rule (though it only works with captains and chapter masters).
(mentioned way back here:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/04/11/leaders-now-join-squads-to-personally-deliver-powerful-boons-in-the-new-warhammer-40000/)


Yea I don't see this as particularly problematic based on what we've seen so far.

The whole command squad thing is pretty neat, I think.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breton wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


At the same time rippers are OC0, but halve the OC of enemies. I really enjoy that sort of tactical consideration.



Rounded up or down? I.e. will OC1 models be OC0 or OC1?


Unsure as it was only briefly mentioned here:

https://www.goonhammer.com/goonhammer-reviews-warhammer-40000-10th-edition-bonus-leviathan-unit-datasheets/


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 04:58:47


Post by: Breton


Breton wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


At the same time rippers are OC0, but halve the OC of enemies. I really enjoy that sort of tactical consideration.



Rounded up or down? I.e. will OC1 models be OC0 or OC1?


Unsure as it was only briefly mentioned here:

https://www.goonhammer.com/goonhammer-reviews-warhammer-40000-10th-edition-bonus-leviathan-unit-datasheets/


That could swing wildly - Per Model, round Down, OC1 models are now OC0, round up OC1 Models (Think Terminators or other models-not-formerly-known-as-troops don't care) - if you half your total after counting per model it splits the difference.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 09:58:34


Post by: tneva82


 vipoid wrote:

Both the Character rules and the Enhancements seem to be turning most characters into glorified sergeants. Really not a fan. Apparently every army has flushed all their relic weapons and relic armour down the toilet, so that basically all that's left is squad-buffs. Can't wait for every single DE character to have the ranged capability of a Brussel Sprout except now they can't even buy a relic pistol to have a worthwhile gun.


/rant


So character getting +1/2 s and a for his weapon is squad buff...how?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 10:08:12


Post by: vipoid


 Daedalus81 wrote:

I'm guessing your thoughts are more focused on Warlock Skyrunners rather than other HQs, which I don't think follow the pattern of concern you have here.


Not just warlock skyrunners. We've seen this from many other units - e.g. the SM Libratian, the GSC Patriarch, Ahriman (apart from his 1/game ability), etc.

Moreover, even with units like the Farseer, you're still stuck with a very specific combination of powers. What if you wanted to Guide a unit rather than Fortuning it? What if you wanted to Doom and Mind War enemies, rather than only being able to Eldritch Storm them?


 Daedalus81 wrote:

The buffs remaining within the unit is pretty crucial. A Farseer can Fortune an Avatar. That's a pretty significant effect and it shows why that particular spell has a 2+ roll on it. If we were to allow a nearby Warlock Skyrunner to also grant the Avatar Stealth he would become even more durable.


But there are other ways to handle that.

If you are worried about buff-stacking, you could implement a similar rule to Warmachine and say that a unit can only be affected by 1 friendly psychic buff and 1 enemy psychic debuff at any one time. If a new buff/debuff is applied, the oldest one expires. We've even got the [Psychic] keyword to use for this purpose.

(Incidentally, you could actually do the same with non-psychic buffs, thereby dramatically reducing the effectiveness of attaching multiple, different characters to the same unit - potentially killing Death Stars without the need for the much clunkier 'only one character and one lieutenant can join a unit'.)

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Right now it's pretty trivial to hide a Farseer near an Avatar and throw out Doom and Fortune with no further investment. Now that investment becomes a unit to protect the Farseer reducing the total power and making the game less lethal.


Except that you haven't just added a requirement to better protect the Farseer - you've also stripped them of most of their power (and choice) as well.


 Daedalus81 wrote:

I suspect that if the statement of '2000 datasheets' is true that we're going to see multiple sheets for Farseers and Warlocks. Each will have a different spell. So it could be possible to have a foot Farseer with Doom and a foot Farseer with Fortune, but the unit joining restrictions keep you again from focusing this power in one place.


Even if that's true, it's the worst possible way to go about it. It's the same reason people hate having 47 different dataslates for Primaris Lieutenants, rather than just a few with options for different gear.

I will say, too, that a model's spell selection should not be determined by whether or not it is mounted.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 10:10:21


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Multiple sheets for Farseers so they can have different powers? That's like replacing a busted light-bulb by turning the building to unscrew the busted bulb!




Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 10:20:53


Post by: Karol


Just special character seers with different rules. But honestly after seeing all the eldar rules, I had a hearty laugh at the "lowering of re-rolls and kill power in 10th ed". If my dudes are to match that, then I expect a relic/enhamcment that gives everyone in the army a +4 FNP and another one that doubles the strenght of psychic weapons if the bearer has not cast a psychic power that turn.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 10:24:16


Post by: Nevelon


While not buff stacking, we can get more buff spreading now I think.

In 9th, you could only cast each power once, so you could only cast conceal on one squad. Now in 10th, if you wanted you could have 3 warlock skyrunners attached to 3 different windrider squads, and they all could be cloaked with psychic goodness.

So we can return to times where warlocks we basically sergeants in guardian squads, and using their powers on them.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 11:14:39


Post by: vipoid


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Multiple sheets for Farseers so they can have different powers? That's like replacing a busted light-bulb by turning the building to unscrew the busted bulb!





Karol wrote:
Just special character seers with different rules. But honestly after seeing all the eldar rules, I had a hearty laugh at the "lowering of re-rolls and kill power in 10th ed". If my dudes are to match that, then I expect a relic/enhamcment that gives everyone in the army a +4 FNP and another one that doubles the strenght of psychic weapons if the bearer has not cast a psychic power that turn.


There's definitely a lot of weirdness in how Eldar have been handled.

A lot of the nerfs seem to be very random. Was anyone dominating with Witchblades in 9th? Also, were the Phoenix Lords particularly problematic? They're not really my thing either way but it definitely seems like quite a comedown for supposedly the greatest fighters the Eldar have to offer.

But then we have the stuff that has been left virtually unscathed. DE poison was slightly buffed against infantry but massively nerfed against everything else. Even the Splinter Cannon, already a pitiful weapon in 9th, is only marginally better against infantry whilst now having no utility whatsoever against monsters or even bikers.

However, on the Eldar side, Shuriken weapons have lost Rending but have kept the all-important AP-1. Making them far, far more versatile against basically all units. Not only that, but while the Splinter Cannon has been heavily nerfed two editions running (despite never being a good weapon to begin with), the far superior Shuriken Cannon has been buffed still further - keeping all the bonuses it received in 9th while also adding Sustained Hits.

Weirdly, the Scatter Laser (a weapon I would have already considered weaker than the Shuriken Cannon) has actually lost a point of strength.


It just seems like the whole 'reducing lethality' thing has been applied very selectively, even within the same faction. It seems that many strong weapons have stayed the same or even improved, whilst many weak or niche weapons have received the bulk of the nerfs. I really struggle to see any overall pattern to the manner in which weapons have been changed.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 17:17:51


Post by: Daedalus81


Eldrad

Spoiler:


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 17:41:45


Post by: tneva82


Unsurprisingly doom reappeared


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 17:54:17


Post by: Daedalus81


tneva82 wrote:
Unsurprisingly doom reappeared


And Mind War seems like a decent snipe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vipoid wrote:
A lot of the nerfs seem to be very random. Was anyone dominating with Witchblades in 9th? Also, were the Phoenix Lords particularly problematic? They're not really my thing either way but it definitely seems like quite a comedown for supposedly the greatest fighters the Eldar have to offer.

But then we have the stuff that has been left virtually unscathed. DE poison was slightly buffed against infantry but massively nerfed against everything else. Even the Splinter Cannon, already a pitiful weapon in 9th, is only marginally better against infantry whilst now having no utility whatsoever against monsters or even bikers.

However, on the Eldar side, Shuriken weapons have lost Rending but have kept the all-important AP-1. Making them far, far more versatile against basically all units. Not only that, but while the Splinter Cannon has been heavily nerfed two editions running (despite never being a good weapon to begin with), the far superior Shuriken Cannon has been buffed still further - keeping all the bonuses it received in 9th while also adding Sustained Hits.

Weirdly, the Scatter Laser (a weapon I would have already considered weaker than the Shuriken Cannon) has actually lost a point of strength.


It just seems like the whole 'reducing lethality' thing has been applied very selectively, even within the same faction. It seems that many strong weapons have stayed the same or even improved, whilst many weak or niche weapons have received the bulk of the nerfs. I really struggle to see any overall pattern to the manner in which weapons have been changed.


I don't think this really conveys the differences.

Splinter 36" A3 AP1 S3 D2 SH [1] AI [3+]
Shuriken Cannon 24" A3 S6 AP1 D2 SH[1]

DE have more range and trade 3 strength for anti-infantry. The Shuriken tackles mid-range vehicles and the Splinter tackles infantry.

Shuriken does 0.8 to Sentinels and Splinter does 0.4.
Splinter does 1.1 to Custodes and Shuriken does 0.55.

Both those targets are T7.

It seems pretty clear that neither is the superior weapon over the other. They just serve different roles.

A Scatter being S5 differentiates it from Shuriken in a way we can't yet judge, because we don't know of many units sitting in the T6 band. Couple this with 3+ not benefitting from cover against AP0 and the effectiveness of this weapon changes relative to weapons with AP1.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 18:15:57


Post by: Trickstick


Eldrad seems like an auto-take for the fate dice alone.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 18:29:10


Post by: Daedalus81


 Trickstick wrote:
Eldrad seems like an auto-take for the fate dice alone.


Yea though fortunately it's once similar to Ahriman. Eldar will probably be the strongest faction based on what we've seen unless their points go way up. I'm going to go cost the list from the exhibition game and see what it comes up to.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 18:30:59


Post by: vipoid


 Daedalus81 wrote:

I don't think this really conveys the differences.

Splinter 36" A3 AP1 S3 D2 SH [1] AI [3+]
Shuriken Cannon 24" A3 S6 AP1 D2 SH[1]

DE have more range and trade 3 strength for anti-infantry. The Shuriken tackles mid-range vehicles and the Splinter tackles infantry.

Shuriken does 0.8 to Sentinels and Splinter does 0.4.
Splinter does 1.1 to Custodes and Shuriken does 0.55.

Both those targets are T7.

It seems pretty clear that neither is the superior weapon over the other. They just serve different roles.


I don't think your math is showing what you seem to think it is.

Shuriken Cannons are only slightly worse against infantry, whilst Splinter is half as effective even against a vehicle that the Cannon is wounding on 5s.

It's not an exaggeration to say that if DE players could swap out their Splinter Cannons for Shuriken ones, they would do so in a heartbeat.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 18:43:38


Post by: Daedalus81


So I could see --

2 Prisms
Wave Serpent
War Walker
2x Support Weapons
3 Windwiders
Warlock Skyrunner
3 Vypers
5 Scorpions
Karandras
10 Avengers
Asurmen
2x5 Spiders

There may have also been a 5 man and another character, but I couldn't be sure. So at the low end 1650 and high end 1850 best guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vipoid wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

I don't think this really conveys the differences.

Splinter 36" A3 AP1 S3 D2 SH [1] AI [3+]
Shuriken Cannon 24" A3 S6 AP1 D2 SH[1]

DE have more range and trade 3 strength for anti-infantry. The Shuriken tackles mid-range vehicles and the Splinter tackles infantry.

Shuriken does 0.8 to Sentinels and Splinter does 0.4.
Splinter does 1.1 to Custodes and Shuriken does 0.55.

Both those targets are T7.

It seems pretty clear that neither is the superior weapon over the other. They just serve different roles.


I don't think your math is showing what you seem to think it is.

Shuriken Cannons are only slightly worse against infantry, whilst Splinter is half as effective even against a vehicle that the Cannon is wounding on 5s.

It's not an exaggeration to say that if DE players could swap out their Splinter Cannons for Shuriken ones, they would do so in a heartbeat.


You COULD trade for a Shuriken if you were worried about vehicles or GEQ, but I don't think you want to ignore heavy infantry. Add in the additional range of Splinter and the transport options and you have lots to consider about the balance between these two things.

Neither of these are anti-tank so worry about their performance in the medium to heavy vehicles seems arbitrary. Shuriken is for light vehicles. Splinter is for heavy infantry. They otherwise perform very similarly.



Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 19:03:56


Post by: vipoid


 Daedalus81 wrote:

You COULD trade for a Shuriken if you were worried about vehicles or GEQ, but I don't think you want to ignore heavy infantry. Add in the additional range of Splinter and the transport options and you have lots to consider about the balance between these two things.


Remember that bikers and the like are no longer infantry. So far from being superior against such targets, Splinter is now wounding them on 6s.

As to the range, the issue is that DE have virtually way to make use of it without sacrificing their other shooting. Splinter Rifles are 24". Blasters and Shredders are 18". The most you can do is combat-squad Warriors to get a single Dark Lance or extra Splinter Cannon (as if) in a Venom, but even then you're sacrificing the shooting of the rest of the squad if you want to stay at max range.

Put simply, the range is nowhere near the drawback you're making it out to be. If anything, it's an example of how Splinter Cannons have been heavily nerfed. Back in 8th they were Rapid Fire 3 - so they got 6 shots at 18". However, while the Shuriken Cannon got extra AP and damage at no cost whatsoever, the Splinter Cannon was forced to pay through the nose for them.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 19:57:32


Post by: Daedalus81


Yea, but it picked up D2. Having 6 shots in 18" w/ D2 would make it far too good.

I couldn't speak on the effect of bikes running around and such, but I imagine we'll see a strat that lets poison go into other targets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you are worried about buff-stacking, you could implement a similar rule to Warmachine and say that a unit can only be affected by 1 friendly psychic buff and 1 enemy psychic debuff at any one time. If a new buff/debuff is applied, the oldest one expires. We've even got the [Psychic] keyword to use for this purpose.


There are many ways to tackle problems. This one above would require a lot of changes to the system and Warmachine had way more restrictive list building in practice than 40K seems to have in 10th.

The idea of buffs expiring is fine, but either it's a bad decision or it isn't. If it isn't then you didn't change anything. If it is then why not just restrict it to one anyway?



Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 21:56:40


Post by: vipoid


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea, but it picked up D2. Having 6 shots in 18" w/ D2 would make it far too good.


Good point.

Imagine if the anti-infantry cannon on an NPC faction like Dark Eldar was allowed to kill a whole Marine every time it fired. Madness.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 22:13:01


Post by: Kanluwen


 vipoid wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea, but it picked up D2. Having 6 shots in 18" w/ D2 would make it far too good.


Good point.

Imagine if the anti-infantry cannon on an NPC faction like Dark Eldar was allowed to kill a whole Marine every time it fired. Madness.

Oh please. It's not because you're an "NPC faction", it's because they've been changing the way these keyworded things function.

To throw an example out?
Onagers with Icarus Arrays went from being effective against skimmers, aircraft, flying monsters, jetbikes, and jump infantry to...just aircraft.

Poison never should have been able to jank up bikers.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 22:30:36


Post by: dominuschao


 vipoid wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

I don't think this really conveys the differences.

Splinter 36" A3 AP1 S3 D2 SH [1] AI [3+]
Shuriken Cannon 24" A3 S6 AP1 D2 SH[1]

DE have more range and trade 3 strength for anti-infantry. The Shuriken tackles mid-range vehicles and the Splinter tackles infantry.

Shuriken does 0.8 to Sentinels and Splinter does 0.4.
Splinter does 1.1 to Custodes and Shuriken does 0.55.

Both those targets are T7.

It seems pretty clear that neither is the superior weapon over the other. They just serve different roles.


I don't think your math is showing what you seem to think it is.

Shuriken Cannons are only slightly worse against infantry, whilst Splinter is half as effective even against a vehicle that the Cannon is wounding on 5s.

It's not an exaggeration to say that if DE players could swap out their Splinter Cannons for Shuriken ones, they would do so in a heartbeat.

Amen to that. I actually emailed GW months ago as a preemptive suggestion/request, and for whatever that wasn't worth, to ask for that. Or rather for a fething strength of 4. Nothing craycray even just s4 cannons. Thats how gakky splinter weaponry is. But yes I'd trade poison for shuriken in a heartbeat and throw in eldrads mom to sweeten the deal.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 22:32:02


Post by: vipoid


 Kanluwen wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea, but it picked up D2. Having 6 shots in 18" w/ D2 would make it far too good.


Good point.

Imagine if the anti-infantry cannon on an NPC faction like Dark Eldar was allowed to kill a whole Marine every time it fired. Madness.

Oh please. It's not because you're an "NPC faction", it's because they've been changing the way these keyworded things function.

To throw an example out?
Onagers with Icarus Arrays went from being effective against skimmers, aircraft, flying monsters, jetbikes, and jump infantry to...just aircraft.

Poison never should have been able to jank up bikers.


You realise I was talking about 9th, right? When this change was implemented.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 22:44:25


Post by: xerxeskingofking


 Daedalus81 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Unsurprisingly doom reappeared


And Mind War seems like a decent snipe.



so, question here, as i'm checking to see if i understand the literal sequence of an attack as its written:

1)roll to hit
2)roll to wound
3)allocate wound
4)roll to save
5)take damage.

As i understand the LEADER rule as laid out on page 39 of the 10e core rules, you never roll against the character toughness, but his bodyguards, and they are "treated as a single unit for all rules purposes" . The PRECISION rule (pg 26) lets the attacker allocate the wound to the attached character.

so, if the attack isn't against the character until step 3 of the sequence....ANTI CHARACTER wouldn't kick in to grant improved wound ability, would it? the attack is just hitting the unit at step 2, its not an attack against the attached leader until step 3, when the attacker allocates it to the character via PRECISION.

or am i missing something?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 22:48:08


Post by: Daedalus81


 vipoid wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea, but it picked up D2. Having 6 shots in 18" w/ D2 would make it far too good.


Good point.

Imagine if the anti-infantry cannon on an NPC faction like Dark Eldar was allowed to kill a whole Marine every time it fired. Madness.


While I can appreciate the sentiment I don't think it makes for a consistent experience for all players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Onagers with Icarus Arrays went from being effective against skimmers, aircraft, flying monsters, jetbikes, and jump infantry to...just aircraft.



Mmmm...I think they will probably have Anti-Fly so I don't think that's quite right.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 22:51:49


Post by: Trickstick


xerxeskingofking wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Unsurprisingly doom reappeared


And Mind War seems like a decent snipe.



so, question here, as i'm checking to see if i understand the literal sequence of an attack as its written:

1)roll to hit
2)roll to wound
3)allocate wound
4)roll to save
5)take damage.

As i understand the LEADER rule as laid out on page 39 of the 10e core rules, you never roll against the character toughness, but his bodyguards, and they are "treated as a single unit for all rules purposes" . The PRECISION rule (pg 26) lets the attacker allocate the wound to the attached character.

so, if the attack isn't against the character until step 3 of the sequence....ANTI CHARACTER wouldn't kick in to grant improved wound ability, would it? the attack is just hitting the unit at step 2, its not an attack against the attached leader until step 3, when the attacker allocates it to the character via PRECISION.

or am i missing something?


The target is the unit, which has a giant collection of all the keywords of the models in the unit, one of which is character.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 22:52:48


Post by: Daedalus81


xerxeskingofking wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Unsurprisingly doom reappeared


And Mind War seems like a decent snipe.



so, question here, as i'm checking to see if i understand the literal sequence of an attack as its written:

1)roll to hit
2)roll to wound
3)allocate wound
4)roll to save
5)take damage.

As i understand the LEADER rule as laid out on page 39 of the 10e core rules, you never roll against the character toughness, but his bodyguards, and they are "treated as a single unit for all rules purposes" . The PRECISION rule (pg 26) lets the attacker allocate the wound to the attached character.

so, if the attack isn't against the character until step 3 of the sequence....ANTI CHARACTER wouldn't kick in to grant improved wound ability, would it? the attack is just hitting the unit at step 2, its not an attack against the attached leader until step 3, when the attacker allocates it to the character via PRECISION.

or am i missing something?


Yea, that sounds right. Essentially the part anti-character is for big boys like Bobby. Precision activates on a wound - not a critical wound.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 22:54:30


Post by: xerxeskingofking


 Trickstick wrote:

The target is the unit, which has a giant collection of all the keywords of the models in the unit, one of which is character.


see, i can follow that train of thought, but then that leads to things like ANTI PSYKER kicking in on any unit with an attached psyker, so your terminators suddenly start getting wounded on 3s by sisters of silence, because the have a Liberian with them. I'm pretty sure that's not what they intended. .


I've re-posted my question in YMDC, as i realise its might de-rail this thread. given that i've just received two different, contradictory answers, it looks like this might be something that they need to clarify in a FAQ


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 22:58:13


Post by: Daedalus81


 Trickstick wrote:
The target is the unit, which has a giant collection of all the keywords of the models in the unit, one of which is character.


Hmm. I haven't seen anything that distributes keywords like that.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 22:58:38


Post by: Trickstick


xerxeskingofking wrote:
see, i can follow that train of thought, but then that leads to things like ANTI PSYKER kicking in on any unit with an attached psyker...


Yes, yes it does...

*Side glances at Inquisitor Greyfax*

Oh, also, did you know Greyfax adds the anit-psyker to the weapons, and that firing deck transfers the weapon to the vehicle? 27 model antipsyker units inside stormlords sound hilarious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Hmm. I haven't seen anything that distributes keywords like that.


Anti rule:

"Each time an attack is made with such a weapon against a target with the keyword after the word 'Anti-"

The target is the unit. The unit has the keyword in it. If units don't contain the keywords of the members, thing start to break. Like you couldn't order a unit with an inquisitor, or you can't use grenades if one model doesn't have grenades. Or adding solar leontus to a unit stops them being infantry.

(did not fully check examples, may be bad)


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 23:10:23


Post by: Hellebore


It seems weird to me that eldrad has no key word limitation like space marine characters do, so he can be taken by any colour of Eldar.

Surely they should follow the same restrictions?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 23:27:07


Post by: Tyel


 Hellebore wrote:
It seems weird to me that eldrad has no key word limitation like space marine characters do, so he can be taken by any colour of Eldar.

Surely they should follow the same restrictions?


Why? There are no colours of Eldar any more.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 23:40:16


Post by: Daedalus81


One new thing Eldrad exposes - abilities that are granted by another unit on the table.

The regular Farseer says this, which means Eldrad can use that ability as long as another Farseer is on the table.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 23:40:30


Post by: Hellebore


Tyel wrote:
 Hellebore wrote:
It seems weird to me that eldrad has no key word limitation like space marine characters do, so he can be taken by any colour of Eldar.

Surely they should follow the same restrictions?


Why? There are no colours of Eldar any more.


Because the colours of space marine are only mentioned in units that are actually unique to them. Hounds of morkai, death company etc.

That's the only way they were designating separate colours.

So it seems weird that they didn't do the same for eldrad


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/04 23:46:11


Post by: Kanluwen


Those are separate books.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/05 00:10:12


Post by: Hellebore


 Kanluwen wrote:
Those are separate books.


Sure but the mechanic itself takes up no space:

Units can only be taken with matching faction key words. ulthwe with ulthwe etc.


Which is what the marines do.

It just seems weird that they haven't done that and now you can mix different craftworld characters together. Seth and Ragnar can't appear in the same army, so why should eldrad and illic?



Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/05 00:24:05


Post by: Kanluwen


Because Seth and Ragnar aren't from the same army book.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/05 00:39:21


Post by: Hellebore


You're giving a book more power than it has.

A book isn't a mechanic. There is no book rule, only faction rule.



Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/05 00:47:42


Post by: alextroy


To put it simply, GW isn't worried about people taking multiple characters between the different Craftworlds, Septs, or what not. They are concerned about people taking multiple units across the length and depth of the Space Marine Codices. So the didn't bother to give non-Adeptus Astartes Epic Heroes a second Faction keyword. They did so so for those units unique to Black Templars, Blood Angels, Dark Angeles, Deathwatch, and Space Wolves.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/05 02:27:05


Post by: Canadian 5th


 Kanluwen wrote:
Oh please. It's not because you're an "NPC faction", it's because they've been changing the way these keyworded things function.

To throw an example out?
Onagers with Icarus Arrays went from being effective against skimmers, aircraft, flying monsters, jetbikes, and jump infantry to...just aircraft.

Poison never should have been able to jank up bikers.

Why shouldn't poison that kills marines do the same when that same body is on a bike? The marine hasn't changed in any way.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/05 02:32:51


Post by: Daedalus81


 Canadian 5th wrote:
Why shouldn't poison that kills marines do the same when that same body is on a bike? The marine hasn't changed in any way.


The odds that the shot impacts the bike. Surely the additional toughness of the model isn't because the rider drank their ovaltine.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/05 02:33:28


Post by: Hellebore


They gave Eldrad T4, but t3 on phoenix lords?


Maybe if the PLs had feel no pain, or a damage reduction rule it would be ok. They are basically a wraithguard powered by the most powerful souls in eldar history, with a withered corpse of a sacrifice inside...


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/05 03:25:52


Post by: Voss


 Daedalus81 wrote:
One new thing Eldrad exposes - abilities that are granted by another unit on the table.

The regular Farseer says this, which means Eldrad can use that ability as long as another Farseer is on the table.


Well, no. If I'm reading that right, its still the Farseer's use of the ability, it can just be measured from Eldrad.
It doesn't actually give Eldrad the ability, or allow it to happen more than once per turn.

In fact, I'm not sure that you get to use it more than once, even if you have more than one Farseer with that ability.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/05 05:38:05


Post by: Lord Zarkov


 Hellebore wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Those are separate books.


Sure but the mechanic itself takes up no space:

Units can only be taken with matching faction key words. ulthwe with ulthwe etc.


Which is what the marines do.

It just seems weird that they haven't done that and now you can mix different craftworld characters together. Seth and Ragnar can't appear in the same army, so why should eldrad and illic?



It’s the quid pro quo of loyalist marines having 5 extra detachments to choose from - the downside is having sub-faction locked units and characters restricted when no one else does.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/05 13:43:11


Post by: Daedalus81


Voss wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
One new thing Eldrad exposes - abilities that are granted by another unit on the table.

The regular Farseer says this, which means Eldrad can use that ability as long as another Farseer is on the table.


Well, no. If I'm reading that right, its still the Farseer's use of the ability, it can just be measured from Eldrad.
It doesn't actually give Eldrad the ability, or allow it to happen more than once per turn.

In fact, I'm not sure that you get to use it more than once, even if you have more than one Farseer with that ability.



Hmm, ok. Yea you're right. I read it sideways for some reason.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/05 18:50:01


Post by: EightFoldPath


 alextroy wrote:
To put it simply, GW isn't worried about people taking multiple characters between the different Craftworlds, Septs, or what not. They are concerned about people taking multiple units across the length and depth of the Space Marine Codices. So the didn't bother to give non-Adeptus Astartes Epic Heroes a second Faction keyword. They did so so for those units unique to Black Templars, Blood Angels, Dark Angeles, Deathwatch, and Space Wolves.

I can see some very specific restrictions in some factions, Farsight and Shadowsun maybe? Farsight definitely won't work with any ethereals though.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/05 23:14:45


Post by: ERJAK


 vipoid wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea, but it picked up D2. Having 6 shots in 18" w/ D2 would make it far too good.


Good point.

Imagine if the anti-infantry cannon on an NPC faction like Dark Eldar was allowed to kill a whole Marine every time it fired. Madness.

Oh please. It's not because you're an "NPC faction", it's because they've been changing the way these keyworded things function.

To throw an example out?
Onagers with Icarus Arrays went from being effective against skimmers, aircraft, flying monsters, jetbikes, and jump infantry to...just aircraft.

Poison never should have been able to jank up bikers.


You realise I was talking about 9th, right? When this change was implemented.


He said like Drukhari didn't have almost a year of near total dominance very recently.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/05 23:24:59


Post by: vipoid


ERJAK wrote:
He said like Drukhari didn't have almost a year of near total dominance very recently.


Ah yes, and Splinter Cannons were mainstays in those tournament lists.

I guess DE Beasts must also be OP and in need of a nerf, right? Because DE won some tournaments. Doesn't actually matter that tournament players wouldn't touch Khymerae or Clawed Beasts with a barge pole, the fact that some units in the army are strong automatically makes every single unit and weapon equally strong by the powers of osmosis.

/s


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 02:13:51


Post by: Voss


 vipoid wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
He said like Drukhari didn't have almost a year of near total dominance very recently.


Ah yes, and Splinter Cannons were mainstays in those tournament lists.

I guess DE Beasts must also be OP and in need of a nerf, right? Because DE won some tournaments. Doesn't actually matter that tournament players wouldn't touch Khymerae or Clawed Beasts with a barge pole, the fact that some units in the army are strong automatically makes every single unit and weapon equally strong by the powers of osmosis.

/s


Honestly, its going to be a revelation if Khymerae or Beasts even get datasheets, given that they are currently 'on hiatus.'

Since they're doing Tyranids first, I hope that they're smart enough to finish moving the range to plastic, but after that the xenos army that needs more love than anything else in the entire catalog is dark eldar. I'm hoping the kill team snippets point to mandrakes, but there's still so much ground to regain since the Great Revamp and subsequent slide back into oblivion.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 14:32:50


Post by: Jidmah


 Hellebore wrote:
It seems weird to me that eldrad has no key word limitation like space marine characters do, so he can be taken by any colour of Eldar.

Surely they should follow the same restrictions?


The restrictions were added to non-marine armies with 8th, they are merely going back to they way it was before.

Chapter/Legions have always been a marine thing, so having unique, powerful units and characters for different subfactions is simply part of their faction identity, where it is not for eldar or orks.

Lastly, Eldrad is (was?) kind of a supreme commander type character for the eldar anyways, and he was recently banished from Uthwe anyways.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 15:13:22


Post by: Nevelon


I liked it back in 5th when they encouraged you to file the names off the special characters and use them in whatever home-grown chapter you wanted.

You wanted to use Lysander’s rules for cpt. Agemmon of the Ultramarine 1st company? Go for it. Sgt. Cronos counts-as leading an Iron Hands armored column? Roll out.

Especially for armies that don’t have a huge number of special characters, sub-faction locking them seems rough.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 15:22:14


Post by: vipoid


 Nevelon wrote:
I liked it back in 5th when they encouraged you to file the names off the special characters and use them in whatever home-grown chapter you wanted.

You wanted to use Lysander’s rules for cpt. Agemmon of the Ultramarine 1st company? Go for it. Sgt. Cronos counts-as leading an Iron Hands armored column? Roll out.

Especially for armies that don’t have a huge number of special characters, sub-faction locking them seems rough.


I liked it when you were encouraged to build your own characters. Back when codices had wargear sections.

Thank goodness NMNR arrived to save us from all that customisation and fun.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 15:38:34


Post by: Nevelon


Fun is otiose. Just a fad like pokemon.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 15:49:43


Post by: Insectum7


 vipoid wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
I liked it back in 5th when they encouraged you to file the names off the special characters and use them in whatever home-grown chapter you wanted.

You wanted to use Lysander’s rules for cpt. Agemmon of the Ultramarine 1st company? Go for it. Sgt. Cronos counts-as leading an Iron Hands armored column? Roll out.

Especially for armies that don’t have a huge number of special characters, sub-faction locking them seems rough.

I liked it when you were encouraged to build your own characters. Back when codices had wargear sections.

Thank goodness NMNR arrived to save us from all that customisation and fun.

Feels pretty sterile now, don't it?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 15:55:55


Post by: Kanluwen


Feels about the same, to be honest. Chunks of the armouries and wargear were never used.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 16:47:02


Post by: Daedalus81


 Kanluwen wrote:
Feels about the same, to be honest. Chunks of the armouries and wargear were never used.


I'm on both sides, but lean more to this perspective. I liked pondering on the cute little builds - especially with TS I could go bananas with effectively two relics and two traits. Did they do much? Not really.

I could never escape the crystal. It's just too useful. Yes, sure they could charge points, but that just means either it's worth the points or it is not. Picking something like a staff that gives me a heavy flamer was never going to change the outcome of a game. They were always just a curio.

So while I like these things in that context I am ok with not having them, because my choices are filled with more interesting things and in ways that still fit the feeling of the universe.



Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 17:08:49


Post by: ERJAK


 Insectum7 wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
I liked it back in 5th when they encouraged you to file the names off the special characters and use them in whatever home-grown chapter you wanted.

You wanted to use Lysander’s rules for cpt. Agemmon of the Ultramarine 1st company? Go for it. Sgt. Cronos counts-as leading an Iron Hands armored column? Roll out.

Especially for armies that don’t have a huge number of special characters, sub-faction locking them seems rough.

I liked it when you were encouraged to build your own characters. Back when codices had wargear sections.

Thank goodness NMNR arrived to save us from all that customisation and fun.

Feels pretty sterile now, don't it?


I like how romanticized a scam meant to get you to buy multiple boxes so you'd have bits for everything has become over the years. Oh no, it's not an incomplete kit, it's customizable just spend more money!


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 17:18:29


Post by: EviscerationPlague


ERJAK wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
I liked it back in 5th when they encouraged you to file the names off the special characters and use them in whatever home-grown chapter you wanted.

You wanted to use Lysander’s rules for cpt. Agemmon of the Ultramarine 1st company? Go for it. Sgt. Cronos counts-as leading an Iron Hands armored column? Roll out.

Especially for armies that don’t have a huge number of special characters, sub-faction locking them seems rough.

I liked it when you were encouraged to build your own characters. Back when codices had wargear sections.

Thank goodness NMNR arrived to save us from all that customisation and fun.

Feels pretty sterile now, don't it?


I like how romanticized a scam meant to get you to buy multiple boxes so you'd have bits for everything has become over the years. Oh no, it's not an incomplete kit, it's customizable just spend more money!

Or you just traded bitz with someone you know or buy from a Bitz shop or 3rd party modeler. But yeah, continue to defend the brand new Combi-Weapons.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 17:58:11


Post by: catbarf


ERJAK wrote:
I like how romanticized a scam meant to get you to buy multiple boxes so you'd have bits for everything has become over the years. Oh no, it's not an incomplete kit, it's customizable just spend more money!


You seriously think that, say, Company Commanders having a bunch of wargear options (most of which didn't require WYSIWYG representation) was a scam to get you to buy multiple boxes for... some reason? Or are you trying to set a new personal record for worst take?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 18:07:03


Post by: Insectum7


ERJAK wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
I liked it back in 5th when they encouraged you to file the names off the special characters and use them in whatever home-grown chapter you wanted.

You wanted to use Lysander’s rules for cpt. Agemmon of the Ultramarine 1st company? Go for it. Sgt. Cronos counts-as leading an Iron Hands armored column? Roll out.

Especially for armies that don’t have a huge number of special characters, sub-faction locking them seems rough.

I liked it when you were encouraged to build your own characters. Back when codices had wargear sections.

Thank goodness NMNR arrived to save us from all that customisation and fun.

Feels pretty sterile now, don't it?


I like how romanticized a scam meant to get you to buy multiple boxes so you'd have bits for everything has become over the years. Oh no, it's not an incomplete kit, it's customizable just spend more money!

For me it was far more about exploring interesting and characterful build opportunities. But also, if it's meant to be a big galaxy with lots of variety, why don't they actually express that? It adds to the game in terms of options, and it adds to the setting in terms of possibilities.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 18:35:33


Post by: vipoid


 Insectum7 wrote:

For me it was far more about exploring interesting and characterful build opportunities. But also, if it's meant to be a big galaxy with lots of variety, why don't they actually express that? It adds to the game in terms of options, and it adds to the setting in terms of possibilities.


I think what bothers me is that, even if you don't want to go back to the old wargear lists, there are still other ways to give some variety.

For example, I really loved both the Pivotal Role abilities for Harlequins, and the Blessings of the Faithful abilities for SoB. It was only 3 options per character for Harlequins or 6 options overall for SoB, but it was a really nice way to differentiate characters. They also generally made a marked difference to how the character played, so you didn't have the same issue as with a lot of old wargear items having very minor/niche effects.

I'd accept wargear tables being replaced with more focussed stuff like that.

My issue is that, instead, wargear tables are just deleted with nothing added to replace them. Except that the usual GW favouritism shows through - some armies get to keep most of their wargear and/or get abilities like the above to compensate for its loss, whilst others haemorrhage wargear but get no alternative customisation to compensate them.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 18:44:24


Post by: Kanluwen


Yeah...Guard and the Skitarii do have it rough.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 18:45:56


Post by: Daedalus81


 vipoid wrote:
My issue is that, instead, wargear tables are just deleted with nothing added to replace them. Except that the usual GW favouritism shows through - some armies get to keep most of their wargear and/or get abilities like the above to compensate for its loss, whilst others haemorrhage wargear but get no alternative customisation to compensate them.


Which armies are experiencing this favoritism? Is this a 'GW favors Craftworlds' perspective?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 19:06:15


Post by: vict0988


 Nevelon wrote:
I liked it back in 5th when they encouraged you to file the names off the special characters and use them in whatever home-grown chapter you wanted.

You wanted to use Lysander’s rules for cpt. Agemmon of the Ultramarine 1st company? Go for it. Sgt. Cronos counts-as leading an Iron Hands armored column? Roll out.

Especially for armies that don’t have a huge number of special characters, sub-faction locking them seems rough.

If you're going to do this I think it'd be better to go the AoS route and give them generic names. Make them unspammable and give them unique rules, sure, but Iron Hands should not field Lysander, just like Iron Hands shouldn't have the paintjob and markings of the Imperial Fists (IF) just because the IF Chapter Tactics are awful.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 19:36:22


Post by: vipoid


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
My issue is that, instead, wargear tables are just deleted with nothing added to replace them. Except that the usual GW favouritism shows through - some armies get to keep most of their wargear and/or get abilities like the above to compensate for its loss, whilst others haemorrhage wargear but get no alternative customisation to compensate them.


Which armies are experiencing this favoritism? Is this a 'GW favors Craftworlds' perspective?


Marines, for one, being a faction that always seems to either retain or gain wargear even as other factions lose theirs. Granted, said wargear now tends to be spread out over about 50 different dataslates (rather than having just a few with numerous options), but the point still stands.

I already mentioned Harlequins and SoB, which each got far more effort and creativity put into their character upgrades than several other factions combined.

In terms of Craftworld Eldar, I'd say that's more debatable. You can definitely point to the Autarch as being an outlier in terms of the wargear combinations it was able to retain. However, beyond that, CWE don't seem to get a whole lot of wargear for their HQs. I'm pretty sure a lot of the stuff they used to be able to take on Farseers is either gone, baked into the standard profile, or else has been moved to relics. You could maybe make an argument about Exarch powers, but honestly I wouldn't point to Eldar as a faction that has clearly been shown substantial favouritism in the wargear department.

Also, I don't think we've seen the Autarch yet, but their characters certainly aren't looking like bastions of customisation in 10th.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 20:18:23


Post by: Nevelon


 vict0988 wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
I liked it back in 5th when they encouraged you to file the names off the special characters and use them in whatever home-grown chapter you wanted.

You wanted to use Lysander’s rules for cpt. Agemmon of the Ultramarine 1st company? Go for it. Sgt. Cronos counts-as leading an Iron Hands armored column? Roll out.

Especially for armies that don’t have a huge number of special characters, sub-faction locking them seems rough.

If you're going to do this I think it'd be better to go the AoS route and give them generic names. Make them unspammable and give them unique rules, sure, but Iron Hands should not field Lysander, just like Iron Hands shouldn't have the paintjob and markings of the Imperial Fists (IF) just because the IF Chapter Tactics are awful.


At the time there were no chapter specific rules. If you wanted to shift your army wide rules, you needed a special character. Since they actively encouraged you to kitbash and rename the characters, the names and stories (and official mini) were just examples. So if you wanted a captain in TDA armor with a TH/SS that made your army stubborn, you took Lysander. The name/chapter was just flavor text, and could be moved to be yourdude without fuss.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 20:31:23


Post by: Daedalus81


 vipoid wrote:
Marines, for one, being a faction that always seems to either retain or gain wargear even as other factions lose theirs. Granted, said wargear now tends to be spread out over about 50 different dataslates (rather than having just a few with numerous options), but the point still stands.

I already mentioned Harlequins and SoB, which each got far more effort and creativity put into their character upgrades than several other factions combined.

In terms of Craftworld Eldar, I'd say that's more debatable. You can definitely point to the Autarch as being an outlier in terms of the wargear combinations it was able to retain. However, beyond that, CWE don't seem to get a whole lot of wargear for their HQs. I'm pretty sure a lot of the stuff they used to be able to take on Farseers is either gone, baked into the standard profile, or else has been moved to relics. You could maybe make an argument about Exarch powers, but honestly I wouldn't point to Eldar as a faction that has clearly been shown substantial favouritism in the wargear department.

Also, I don't think we've seen the Autarch yet, but their characters certainly aren't looking like bastions of customisation in 10th.


Marines took a pretty big hit with combis, didn't they? You can apparently build a captain that has absolutely no melee attacks whatsoever.

I can't determine any preference from my perspective. It seems like everyone is getting hit in a similar fashion, which is why combis feel like such a weird outlier.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 20:45:45


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 Nevelon wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
I liked it back in 5th when they encouraged you to file the names off the special characters and use them in whatever home-grown chapter you wanted.

You wanted to use Lysander’s rules for cpt. Agemmon of the Ultramarine 1st company? Go for it. Sgt. Cronos counts-as leading an Iron Hands armored column? Roll out.

Especially for armies that don’t have a huge number of special characters, sub-faction locking them seems rough.

If you're going to do this I think it'd be better to go the AoS route and give them generic names. Make them unspammable and give them unique rules, sure, but Iron Hands should not field Lysander, just like Iron Hands shouldn't have the paintjob and markings of the Imperial Fists (IF) just because the IF Chapter Tactics are awful.


At the time there were no chapter specific rules. If you wanted to shift your army wide rules, you needed a special character. Since they actively encouraged you to kitbash and rename the characters, the names and stories (and official mini) were just examples. So if you wanted a captain in TDA armor with a TH/SS that made your army stubborn, you took Lysander. The name/chapter was just flavor text, and could be moved to be yourdude without fuss.

That you had to explain this makes me wonder how many players actually played the 5th Edition Marine codex and didn't actively avoid it because of 4chan hyperbole of "muh Ward"


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 20:49:20


Post by: Nevelon


EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
I liked it back in 5th when they encouraged you to file the names off the special characters and use them in whatever home-grown chapter you wanted.

You wanted to use Lysander’s rules for cpt. Agemmon of the Ultramarine 1st company? Go for it. Sgt. Cronos counts-as leading an Iron Hands armored column? Roll out.

Especially for armies that don’t have a huge number of special characters, sub-faction locking them seems rough.

If you're going to do this I think it'd be better to go the AoS route and give them generic names. Make them unspammable and give them unique rules, sure, but Iron Hands should not field Lysander, just like Iron Hands shouldn't have the paintjob and markings of the Imperial Fists (IF) just because the IF Chapter Tactics are awful.


At the time there were no chapter specific rules. If you wanted to shift your army wide rules, you needed a special character. Since they actively encouraged you to kitbash and rename the characters, the names and stories (and official mini) were just examples. So if you wanted a captain in TDA armor with a TH/SS that made your army stubborn, you took Lysander. The name/chapter was just flavor text, and could be moved to be yourdude without fuss.

That you had to explain this makes me wonder how many players actually played the 5th Edition Marine codex and didn't actively avoid it because of 4chan hyperbole of "muh Ward"


To be fair, it’s a while back at this point. Lots of new blood in the hobby since then, who are going to filter comments with assumptions based on modern rules.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 20:58:09


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Is this a 'GW favors Craftworlds' perspective?
Wait 'til we see the Autarch sheet, or sheets. I fully expect them to reverse the current Autarch entry and give us two different types: Autarch, and Autarch with Swooping Hawk Wings. The former will have a Wargear option for a Warp Jump Pack, giving it Flicker Jump, and wargear options that match the newer kit. The Wings Autarch will just have the weapons that specific kit comes with.



Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 21:07:33


Post by: Nevelon


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Is this a 'GW favors Craftworlds' perspective?
Wait 'til we see the Autarch sheet, or sheets. I fully expect them to reverse the current Autarch entry and give us two different types: Autarch, and Autarch with Swooping Hawk Wings. The former will have a Wargear option for a Warp Jump Pack, giving it Flicker Jump, and wargear options that match the newer kit. The Wings Autarch will just have the weapons that specific kit comes with.



Interesting point about the movement options/datasheets raises some questions

What squads do we think the Autarch will be able to join? Will they be restricted? Will each have it’s own datasheet because of it?

Basic guy on foot: joins guardian squads, maybe support platforms, anything else?
Will the one with the jump pack only be able to join spiders? Wings with hawks? Or leave those jobs for the Phoenix lords and just be a lone operative?
Related, with the bike autarch (assuming we get to keep him with his ancient model) be able to join shining spears? Or windriders? shroudrunners? Or just fly solo.



Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 21:09:48


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I think the Bike Autarch will stick around, but as a Legends sheet.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 21:19:23


Post by: Nevelon


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think the Bike Autarch will stick around, but as a Legends sheet.


That would not surprise me in the slightest.

Of course, it’s casually easy to kitbash one from the shining spears kit, even full WYSWYG. Plenty of options, and you just needs to paint him in something in a non-aspect scheme and there would be no confusion about what he was.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 21:57:30


Post by: Insectum7


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
Marines, for one, being a faction that always seems to either retain or gain wargear even as other factions lose theirs. Granted, said wargear now tends to be spread out over about 50 different dataslates (rather than having just a few with numerous options), but the point still stands.

I already mentioned Harlequins and SoB, which each got far more effort and creativity put into their character upgrades than several other factions combined.

In terms of Craftworld Eldar, I'd say that's more debatable. You can definitely point to the Autarch as being an outlier in terms of the wargear combinations it was able to retain. However, beyond that, CWE don't seem to get a whole lot of wargear for their HQs. I'm pretty sure a lot of the stuff they used to be able to take on Farseers is either gone, baked into the standard profile, or else has been moved to relics. You could maybe make an argument about Exarch powers, but honestly I wouldn't point to Eldar as a faction that has clearly been shown substantial favouritism in the wargear department.

Also, I don't think we've seen the Autarch yet, but their characters certainly aren't looking like bastions of customisation in 10th.


Marines took a pretty big hit with combis, didn't they? You can apparently build a captain that has absolutely no melee attacks whatsoever.

I can't determine any preference from my perspective. It seems like everyone is getting hit in a similar fashion, which is why combis feel like such a weird outlier.

Well we can count up the HQ datasheets once the indexes are out, Marines vs. Eldar, and I wouldn't be surprised if Marines had 4x the datasheets, many of which will be differences in wargear.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 22:14:17


Post by: vipoid


 Daedalus81 wrote:

Marines took a pretty big hit with combis, didn't they?


Not really, no.

To be clear, I don't think it's a good change, but it's a drop in the ocean compared to what other factions have lost over the years.


 Daedalus81 wrote:
You can apparently build a captain that has absolutely no melee attacks whatsoever.


That's quite odd but I don't believe they're the only HQ choice to be in that situation (some I'm aware of, at least in 9th, have no melee attack as standard).


 Daedalus81 wrote:

I can't determine any preference from my perspective. It seems like everyone is getting hit in a similar fashion, which is why combis feel like such a weird outlier.


I'm going to be honest - when you say stuff like this I have to wonder whether you're arguing in good faith.

This is a list of the armour/mobility options available to Marine Captains in 9th:
- Bike
- Jump Pack
- Terminator Armour
- Storm Shield
(This is without even counting Primaris/Phobos stuff.)

This is a list of the armour/mobility options available to Archons in 9th:
-

They have lost the following:
- Skyboards
- Jetbikes
- Ghostplate Armour
- Clone Fields

Not a great start. Marine Captains have retained their entire range of defensive and mobility items, whilst Archons have retained precisely none.


How about weapons?

Marine Captains have access to:
- Chainsword
- Power Sword
- Power Axe
- Power Maul
- Power Fist
- Chainfist
- Thunder Hammer
- Relic Blade
- Xenophase Blade
- Bolt Pistol
- Master Crafted Boltgun
- Storm Bolter
- Combi Bolter
- Wrist-Mounted Grenade Launcher
- Frag Grenades
- Krak Grenades

The ones highlighted in bold are the ones Marines have gained over what they had before.

Meanwhile, Archons get a choice of:
- Power Sword
- Venom Blade
- Agoniser
- Huskblade
- Splinter Pistol
- Blast Pistol

They've lost:
- Electrocorrosive Whip
- Punisher/Klaive
- Blaster
- Haywire Grenades

So Archons, who had less to begin with, have lost their only worthwhile ranged weapon and their only grenades, along with two of their melee weapons. Marines, meanwhile, have gained even more weapons for their Captain.

Can you maybe understand why I think there's a wee bit of favouritism at play?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/06 22:44:52


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Marines didn't take a big hit with the Jervisification of combi-weapons because Marines weren't the only army using combi-weapons. Combi-weapons exist across multiple armies, and all of them have taken an utterly unnecessary hit.

 Nevelon wrote:
Of course, it’s casually easy to kitbash one from the shining spears kit, even full WYSWYG. Plenty of options, and you just needs to paint him in something in a non-aspect scheme and there would be no confusion about what he was.
That's exactly what I plan to do with one my Shining Spears. I have 3 boxes, and 8 of them will be Shining Spears (2 Exarchs), and the 9th will become a bike Autarch. I managed to pick up a couple extra of the new plastic Autarchs very cheap when they came out, so I have tons of bits to use to make him look unique.

 vipoid wrote:
This is a list of the armour/mobility options available to Marine Captains in 9th:
- Bike
- Jump Pack
- Terminator Armour
- Storm Shield
If I'm being honest, outside of Legends, I don't think Bike or even Jump Pack Captains will survive into 10th.



Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 00:18:47


Post by: Daedalus81


Spoiler:
 vipoid wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

Marines took a pretty big hit with combis, didn't they?


Not really, no.

To be clear, I don't think it's a good change, but it's a drop in the ocean compared to what other factions have lost over the years.


 Daedalus81 wrote:
You can apparently build a captain that has absolutely no melee attacks whatsoever.


That's quite odd but I don't believe they're the only HQ choice to be in that situation (some I'm aware of, at least in 9th, have no melee attack as standard).


 Daedalus81 wrote:

I can't determine any preference from my perspective. It seems like everyone is getting hit in a similar fashion, which is why combis feel like such a weird outlier.


I'm going to be honest - when you say stuff like this I have to wonder whether you're arguing in good faith.

This is a list of the armour/mobility options available to Marine Captains in 9th:
- Bike
- Jump Pack
- Terminator Armour
- Storm Shield
(This is without even counting Primaris/Phobos stuff.)

This is a list of the armour/mobility options available to Archons in 9th:
-

They have lost the following:
- Skyboards
- Jetbikes
- Ghostplate Armour
- Clone Fields

Not a great start. Marine Captains have retained their entire range of defensive and mobility items, whilst Archons have retained precisely none.


How about weapons?

Marine Captains have access to:
- Chainsword
- Power Sword
- Power Axe
- Power Maul
- Power Fist
- Chainfist
- Thunder Hammer
- Relic Blade
- Xenophase Blade
- Bolt Pistol
- Master Crafted Boltgun
- Storm Bolter
- Combi Bolter
- Wrist-Mounted Grenade Launcher
- Frag Grenades
- Krak Grenades

The ones highlighted in bold are the ones Marines have gained over what they had before.

Meanwhile, Archons get a choice of:
- Power Sword
- Venom Blade
- Agoniser
- Huskblade
- Splinter Pistol
- Blast Pistol

They've lost:
- Electrocorrosive Whip
- Punisher/Klaive
- Blaster
- Haywire Grenades

So Archons, who had less to begin with, have lost their only worthwhile ranged weapon and their only grenades, along with two of their melee weapons. Marines, meanwhile, have gained even more weapons for their Captain.

Can you maybe understand why I think there's a wee bit of favouritism at play?


Ok, I see what you're driving at though most of that is pre-10th, right? I guess my purview is more focused on what's happening now. Certainly marines get more stuff in general, but not because - as I interpret the statement - that the studio favors the m, but because they're the bread and butter.

This system sort of forces GW to start filling in HQ roles, which seems to be the case with the every codex getting at least one model thing ( for the first year anyway ).


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 00:22:20


Post by: Canadian 5th


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
Why shouldn't poison that kills marines do the same when that same body is on a bike? The marine hasn't changed in any way.


The odds that the shot impacts the bike. Surely the additional toughness of the model isn't because the rider drank their ovaltine.

Bikes and other mounts really shouldn't give extra toughness in the first place. They should give movement, possibly carry their own guns, and models should have the ability to dismount like other transports.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 00:59:07


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 vipoid wrote:

How about weapons?

Marine Captains have access to:
- Chainsword
- Power Sword
- Power Axe
- Power Maul
- Power Fist
- Chainfist
- Thunder Hammer
- Relic Blade
- Xenophase Blade
- Bolt Pistol
- Master Crafted Boltgun
- Storm Bolter
- Combi Bolter
- Wrist-Mounted Grenade Launcher
- Frag Grenades
- Krak Grenades


I do want to say this is disingenuous to a degree, as the armor variant you are affects what you're allowed to equip.
Also you forgot Boltstorm Gauntlet LOL


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 01:25:30


Post by: JNAProductions


Ah yes-Marines only have certain different generic captains that have lots of options. Just like the Kabal HQs, like the Archon. Or the Archon.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 05:40:06


Post by: Breton


 vipoid wrote:


 Daedalus81 wrote:
You can apparently build a captain that has absolutely no melee attacks whatsoever.


That's quite odd but I don't believe they're the only HQ choice to be in that situation (some I'm aware of, at least in 9th, have no melee attack as standard).



I thought 9th still had the generic close combat weapon rule i.e. even if a model doesn't have something listed on their profile, they can still make close combat attacks with the generic close combat weapon (S=model, AP0, D1) representing a combat knife, or a rifle butt, etc - and it worked because A was on the model not the weapon. Now that A is on the weapon, if they don't have a Generic Close Combat Weapon on their profile, you can't make attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Hellebore wrote:
It seems weird to me that eldrad has no key word limitation like space marine characters do, so he can be taken by any colour of Eldar.

Surely they should follow the same restrictions?


The restrictions were added to non-marine armies with 8th, they are merely going back to they way it was before.

Chapter/Legions have always been a marine thing, so having unique, powerful units and characters for different subfactions is simply part of their faction identity, where it is not for eldar or orks.

Lastly, Eldrad is (was?) kind of a supreme commander type character for the eldar anyways, and he was recently banished from Uthwe anyways.



I'd also theorize that the square peg of Chapter Tactics didn't work very well when pounded into the Square Hole that is Ork Clans. And potentially they want to get away from the double "K" of "Klan Kulture" before reintroducing something more uniquely Orky/Aeldarish/etc.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 07:09:25


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Spoiler:
 vipoid wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

Marines took a pretty big hit with combis, didn't they?


Not really, no.

To be clear, I don't think it's a good change, but it's a drop in the ocean compared to what other factions have lost over the years.


 Daedalus81 wrote:
You can apparently build a captain that has absolutely no melee attacks whatsoever.


That's quite odd but I don't believe they're the only HQ choice to be in that situation (some I'm aware of, at least in 9th, have no melee attack as standard).


 Daedalus81 wrote:

I can't determine any preference from my perspective. It seems like everyone is getting hit in a similar fashion, which is why combis feel like such a weird outlier.


I'm going to be honest - when you say stuff like this I have to wonder whether you're arguing in good faith.

This is a list of the armour/mobility options available to Marine Captains in 9th:
- Bike
- Jump Pack
- Terminator Armour
- Storm Shield
(This is without even counting Primaris/Phobos stuff.)

This is a list of the armour/mobility options available to Archons in 9th:
-

They have lost the following:
- Skyboards
- Jetbikes
- Ghostplate Armour
- Clone Fields

Not a great start. Marine Captains have retained their entire range of defensive and mobility items, whilst Archons have retained precisely none.


How about weapons?

Marine Captains have access to:
- Chainsword
- Power Sword
- Power Axe
- Power Maul
- Power Fist
- Chainfist
- Thunder Hammer
- Relic Blade
- Xenophase Blade
- Bolt Pistol
- Master Crafted Boltgun
- Storm Bolter
- Combi Bolter
- Wrist-Mounted Grenade Launcher
- Frag Grenades
- Krak Grenades

The ones highlighted in bold are the ones Marines have gained over what they had before.

Meanwhile, Archons get a choice of:
- Power Sword
- Venom Blade
- Agoniser
- Huskblade
- Splinter Pistol
- Blast Pistol

They've lost:
- Electrocorrosive Whip
- Punisher/Klaive
- Blaster
- Haywire Grenades

So Archons, who had less to begin with, have lost their only worthwhile ranged weapon and their only grenades, along with two of their melee weapons. Marines, meanwhile, have gained even more weapons for their Captain.

Can you maybe understand why I think there's a wee bit of favouritism at play?


Ok, I see what you're driving at though most of that is pre-10th, right? I guess my purview is more focused on what's happening now. Certainly marines get more stuff in general, but not because - as I interpret the statement - that the studio favors them, but because they're the bread and butter.

This system sort of forces GW to start filling in HQ roles, which seems to be the case with the every codex getting at least one model thing ( for the first year anyway ).


Which GW admitted themselves has too many datasheets? So many infact that they decided to legends some of them AND of course CSM (plus flanderised legions) and Ad-Mech. Afterall the formers did have a far too encompassing shooting Daemonengine availability. It isn't like that was basically their whole shooting for some of the legions right?

FFS: Other factions have better representation in HH of all places where you'd expect a bloody marine fest to take place.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 07:20:22


Post by: Jidmah


Breton wrote:
I'd also theorize that the square peg of Chapter Tactics didn't work very well when pounded into the Square Hole that is Ork Clans. And potentially they want to get away from the double "K" of "Klan Kulture" before reintroducing something more uniquely Orky/Aeldarish/etc.


Square pegs fit square holes quite well

But I get what you are trying saying, there is a hard divide between the different flavors marines who hold vastly different and incompatible values and strategies, so they rarely cooperate and even when they do, they never act as one force.
Ork clans (which are never spelled with a 'K' btw) are mixed more often than not, single clan Waaagh!'s are actually unheard of unless you count Bardukk's fleet, which technically is neither a clan nor a Waaagh!


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 08:52:17


Post by: Tyel


I guess unlike Vipoid I'm not so concerned about losing options as "options".

It seems for example a bit pointless for Archons to have Huskblades, Powerswords, Venomblades and Agonizers (plus EC whips, Klaives, the list goes on) if GW is going to make these weapons (+/-) the same in most circumstances. Which they kind of have to do, otherwise everyone just takes the best and avoids the traps.

But the problem is a "naked" Archon with a Huskblade does about as much damage as an Incubi. Which isn't much for a character costing over 3 times as much.

This is where WLT/Relics come in. In 9th you could build "stabby Archon" (say Djin Blade+Hatred Eternal and Splintered Genius). With Black Heart you had "buffbot Archon" (Labyrinthine Cunning+Living Muse in RSR detachment). You could do something in between with other options etc.

If those things are essentially gone (or at least much reduced) - then you end up with a character who is just sort of flat. He's too expensive compared with cheap 40-50 point buffing characters. But he doesn't do anything compared with blinged out SM Captains and up. He feels bad from a Timmy, Johnny and Spike perspective - which is never a good place for a unit to be.

Basically, he could get a jetbike back but if he still hits like a wet noodle, who cares?

I realise some people don't like "fixed" character builds, because it feels like canned strategy - but I think it works.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 10:26:15


Post by: vict0988


 Nevelon wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
I liked it back in 5th when they encouraged you to file the names off the special characters and use them in whatever home-grown chapter you wanted.

You wanted to use Lysander’s rules for cpt. Agemmon of the Ultramarine 1st company? Go for it. Sgt. Cronos counts-as leading an Iron Hands armored column? Roll out.

Especially for armies that don’t have a huge number of special characters, sub-faction locking them seems rough.

If you're going to do this I think it'd be better to go the AoS route and give them generic names. Make them unspammable and give them unique rules, sure, but Iron Hands should not field Lysander, just like Iron Hands shouldn't have the paintjob and markings of the Imperial Fists (IF) just because the IF Chapter Tactics are awful.


At the time there were no chapter specific rules. If you wanted to shift your army wide rules, you needed a special character. Since they actively encouraged you to kitbash and rename the characters, the names and stories (and official mini) were just examples. So if you wanted a captain in TDA armor with a TH/SS that made your army stubborn, you took Lysander. The name/chapter was just flavor text, and could be moved to be yourdude without fuss.

That you had to explain this makes me wonder how many players actually played the 5th Edition Marine codex and didn't actively avoid it because of 4chan hyperbole of "muh Ward"


To be fair, it’s a while back at this point. Lots of new blood in the hobby since then, who are going to filter comments with assumptions based on modern rules.

I don't know why it matters, I read the 5th edition SM codex for research purposes although I don't think I ever played against them on account of there being no SM players in my regular group and me preferring WHFB. I still think players filing names off characters is a bad idea in any edition, because how are you going to explain how you got stubborn and that Terminator TH SS character in your army? You're going to say you have Lysander... In your Iron Hands army and I hate that. If named characters don't belong to the sub-faction you're playing with you shouldn't take them, it ruins the narrative. But if GW decides to never put a name on the model and just call it a 1st Company Captain with a unique rule then I don't have a problem with the model and rules being used for any sub-faction.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 11:13:43


Post by: Jidmah


 vict0988 wrote:
I don't know why it matters, I read the 5th edition SM codex for research purposes although I don't think I ever played against them on account of there being no SM players in my regular group and me preferring WHFB. I still think players filing names off characters is a bad idea in any edition, because how are you going to explain how you got stubborn and that Terminator TH SS character in your army? You're going to say you have Lysander... In your Iron Hands army and I hate that. If named characters don't belong to the sub-faction you're playing with you shouldn't take them, it ruins the narrative. But if GW decides to never put a name on the model and just call it a 1st Company Captain with a unique rule then I don't have a problem with the model and rules being used for any sub-faction.


Well, it usually went like this:
"This is Ishmael Icario, captain of the first company of the Crimson Fists. He uses the rules for Lysander."

 Nevelon wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
That you had to explain this makes me wonder how many players actually played the 5th Edition Marine codex and didn't actively avoid it because of 4chan hyperbole of "muh Ward"


To be fair, it’s a while back at this point. Lots of new blood in the hobby since then, who are going to filter comments with assumptions based on modern rules.

It's also worth noting that back in 5th the hate for any named character was tenfold of what it is today. Especially here on dakka people never got tired of declaring that they would outright refuse games if anyone dared bring a named character. People were more likely to play a game against a baneblade or stompa than against Captain Lysander.
Ward also wasn't viewed to be as much of a problematic writer until he wrote BA and GK.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 11:28:34


Post by: Dudeface


 Jidmah wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
I don't know why it matters, I read the 5th edition SM codex for research purposes although I don't think I ever played against them on account of there being no SM players in my regular group and me preferring WHFB. I still think players filing names off characters is a bad idea in any edition, because how are you going to explain how you got stubborn and that Terminator TH SS character in your army? You're going to say you have Lysander... In your Iron Hands army and I hate that. If named characters don't belong to the sub-faction you're playing with you shouldn't take them, it ruins the narrative. But if GW decides to never put a name on the model and just call it a 1st Company Captain with a unique rule then I don't have a problem with the model and rules being used for any sub-faction.


Well, it usually went like this:
"This is Ishmael Icario, captain of the first company of the Crimson Fists. He uses the rules for Lysander."

 Nevelon wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
That you had to explain this makes me wonder how many players actually played the 5th Edition Marine codex and didn't actively avoid it because of 4chan hyperbole of "muh Ward"


To be fair, it’s a while back at this point. Lots of new blood in the hobby since then, who are going to filter comments with assumptions based on modern rules.

It's also worth noting that back in 5th the hate for any named character was tenfold of what it is today. Especially here on dakka people never got tired of declaring that they would outright refuse games if anyone dared bring a named character. People were more likely to play a game against a baneblade or stompa than against Captain Lysander.
Ward also wasn't viewed to be as much of a problematic writer until he wrote BA and GK.


5th was also firmly in the "No FW here or get out" period, although that was starting to loosen off a little.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 12:35:09


Post by: Jidmah


Dudeface wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
I don't know why it matters, I read the 5th edition SM codex for research purposes although I don't think I ever played against them on account of there being no SM players in my regular group and me preferring WHFB. I still think players filing names off characters is a bad idea in any edition, because how are you going to explain how you got stubborn and that Terminator TH SS character in your army? You're going to say you have Lysander... In your Iron Hands army and I hate that. If named characters don't belong to the sub-faction you're playing with you shouldn't take them, it ruins the narrative. But if GW decides to never put a name on the model and just call it a 1st Company Captain with a unique rule then I don't have a problem with the model and rules being used for any sub-faction.


Well, it usually went like this:
"This is Ishmael Icario, captain of the first company of the Crimson Fists. He uses the rules for Lysander."

 Nevelon wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
That you had to explain this makes me wonder how many players actually played the 5th Edition Marine codex and didn't actively avoid it because of 4chan hyperbole of "muh Ward"


To be fair, it’s a while back at this point. Lots of new blood in the hobby since then, who are going to filter comments with assumptions based on modern rules.

It's also worth noting that back in 5th the hate for any named character was tenfold of what it is today. Especially here on dakka people never got tired of declaring that they would outright refuse games if anyone dared bring a named character. People were more likely to play a game against a baneblade or stompa than against Captain Lysander.
Ward also wasn't viewed to be as much of a problematic writer until he wrote BA and GK.


5th was also firmly in the "No FW here or get out" period, although that was starting to loosen off a little.


Correct, which is is precisely the reason why baneblades or stompas suddenly became OK for some people - they were released as GW plastic models.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 12:43:00


Post by: Voss


 Jidmah wrote:

It's also worth noting that back in 5th the hate for any named character was tenfold of what it is today. Especially here on dakka people never got tired of declaring that they would outright refuse games if anyone dared bring a named character. People were more likely to play a game against a baneblade or stompa than against Captain Lysander.


Well, of course. GW had spent several editions (since their introduction) telling people Special Characters were unbalanced, couldn't be balanced and should only be used in special scenarios and with the opponents consent. And anyone doing otherwise was a terrible person.

I'm honestly surprised (and dismayed) at how quickly people swung around to using them.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 12:52:56


Post by: Daedalus81


Voss wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:

It's also worth noting that back in 5th the hate for any named character was tenfold of what it is today. Especially here on dakka people never got tired of declaring that they would outright refuse games if anyone dared bring a named character. People were more likely to play a game against a baneblade or stompa than against Captain Lysander.


Well, of course. GW had spent several editions (since their introduction) telling people Special Characters were unbalanced, couldn't be balanced and should only be used in special scenarios and with the opponents consent. And anyone doing otherwise was a terrible person.

I'm honestly surprised (and dismayed) at how quickly people swung around to using them.


I mean GW said 'may only be used in a battle where both players have agreed to the use of special characters' and tournaments said 'no special characters'. GW closed the door and we nailed it shut. Eventually codexes proliferated SCs and GW removed that clause so there was nothing stopping their use even though we again could have decided to prevent it. SCs were so crucial to many armies that you couldn't leave home without them.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 13:32:39


Post by: Jidmah


Voss wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:

It's also worth noting that back in 5th the hate for any named character was tenfold of what it is today. Especially here on dakka people never got tired of declaring that they would outright refuse games if anyone dared bring a named character. People were more likely to play a game against a baneblade or stompa than against Captain Lysander.


Well, of course. GW had spent several editions (since their introduction) telling people Special Characters were unbalanced, couldn't be balanced and should only be used in special scenarios and with the opponents consent. And anyone doing otherwise was a terrible person.

I'm honestly surprised (and dismayed) at how quickly people swung around to using them.


Mezzmorki did this "generations of 40k" poll some time ago. A large number of people started during 4th and 5th for multiple reasons, and we know the Dawn of War and Space Marine games were a big factor (I still remember how THQ put a giant space marine into pretty much every electronics store in Germany) as well as social media platforms like facebook and youtube arising and spreading 40k to people with adjacent hobbies like RTS, TTRPG and TCG.

The newcomers who saw named characters as nothing but cool characters with unique stories simply outnumbered those which were indoctrinated by years of white dwarf articles with GW's weird values. Plus the hatred was hard to understand, considering how bad most named characters at that time actually were.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 14:17:45


Post by: EviscerationPlague


 vict0988 wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
 Nevelon wrote:
I liked it back in 5th when they encouraged you to file the names off the special characters and use them in whatever home-grown chapter you wanted.

You wanted to use Lysander’s rules for cpt. Agemmon of the Ultramarine 1st company? Go for it. Sgt. Cronos counts-as leading an Iron Hands armored column? Roll out.

Especially for armies that don’t have a huge number of special characters, sub-faction locking them seems rough.

If you're going to do this I think it'd be better to go the AoS route and give them generic names. Make them unspammable and give them unique rules, sure, but Iron Hands should not field Lysander, just like Iron Hands shouldn't have the paintjob and markings of the Imperial Fists (IF) just because the IF Chapter Tactics are awful.


At the time there were no chapter specific rules. If you wanted to shift your army wide rules, you needed a special character. Since they actively encouraged you to kitbash and rename the characters, the names and stories (and official mini) were just examples. So if you wanted a captain in TDA armor with a TH/SS that made your army stubborn, you took Lysander. The name/chapter was just flavor text, and could be moved to be yourdude without fuss.

That you had to explain this makes me wonder how many players actually played the 5th Edition Marine codex and didn't actively avoid it because of 4chan hyperbole of "muh Ward"


To be fair, it’s a while back at this point. Lots of new blood in the hobby since then, who are going to filter comments with assumptions based on modern rules.

I don't know why it matters, I read the 5th edition SM codex for research purposes although I don't think I ever played against them on account of there being no SM players in my regular group and me preferring WHFB. I still think players filing names off characters is a bad idea in any edition, because how are you going to explain how you got stubborn and that Terminator TH SS character in your army? You're going to say you have Lysander... In your Iron Hands army and I hate that. If named characters don't belong to the sub-faction you're playing with you shouldn't take them, it ruins the narrative. But if GW decides to never put a name on the model and just call it a 1st Company Captain with a unique rule then I don't have a problem with the model and rules being used for any sub-faction.

Once again, the attachment to names y'all have in this forum is ludicrous


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 15:50:12


Post by: Dudeface


EviscerationPlague wrote:

Once again, the attachment to names y'all have in this forum is ludicrous


I mean people buy into the setting, if you pretend all names, schemes and fluff don't exist for the sakes of using whatever models profile with whatever combinations of rules you want, that's no longer really in 40k. This is on the assumptions you have Iron hands marines, painted as iron hands marines with iron hands badges/symbols and then decide you're running Lysander.

As a caveat, I'm fine with someone who has turquoise space marines led by a dude converted with a big hammer using appropriate rules (IF and Lysander) if the owners has their fluff and the like for their force. It becomes a problem when the week after they're then mysteriously really good at charging and lead by someone with a special jetpack and a big sword using blood angles/sanguinor, because they got a points cut and are now "better".


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 15:57:16


Post by: Asmodai


Dudeface wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:

Once again, the attachment to names y'all have in this forum is ludicrous


I mean people buy into the setting, if you pretend all names, schemes and fluff don't exist for the sakes of using whatever models profile with whatever combinations of rules you want, that's no longer really in 40k. This is on the assumptions you have Iron hands marines, painted as iron hands marines with iron hands badges/symbols and then decide you're running Lysander.

As a caveat, I'm fine with someone who has turquoise space marines led by a dude converted with a big hammer using appropriate rules (IF and Lysander) if the owners has their fluff and the like for their force. It becomes a problem when the week after they're then mysteriously really good at charging and lead by someone with a special jetpack and a big sword using blood angles/sanguinor, because they got a points cut and are now "better".


Why is that a problem?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 16:00:12


Post by: Trickstick


The 40k setting is huge, I'm sure there is room for at least two jump pack lightning claw chapter masters. Maybe the Guard has more than a single tactical genius too...


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 16:07:09


Post by: Dudeface


 Asmodai wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:

Once again, the attachment to names y'all have in this forum is ludicrous


I mean people buy into the setting, if you pretend all names, schemes and fluff don't exist for the sakes of using whatever models profile with whatever combinations of rules you want, that's no longer really in 40k. This is on the assumptions you have Iron hands marines, painted as iron hands marines with iron hands badges/symbols and then decide you're running Lysander.

As a caveat, I'm fine with someone who has turquoise space marines led by a dude converted with a big hammer using appropriate rules (IF and Lysander) if the owners has their fluff and the like for their force. It becomes a problem when the week after they're then mysteriously really good at charging and lead by someone with a special jetpack and a big sword using blood angles/sanguinor, because they got a points cut and are now "better".


Why is that a problem?


It depends on the context of the social agreement. To me if you're asking to use special character proxies to represent your lovingly painted and converted force, then that's what they are and that's what they exist as. If you just swap rules to power game because you're not "the right colour marine", that goes against the pretenses made for the first game imo.

YMMV however.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 16:53:45


Post by: vict0988


 Trickstick wrote:
The 40k setting is huge, I'm sure there is room for at least two jump pack lightning claw chapter masters. Maybe the Guard has more than a single tactical genius too...

Why should the datasheet be named Lysander instead of First Company Captain then?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 17:00:21


Post by: Altruizine


 Jidmah wrote:
Voss wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:

It's also worth noting that back in 5th the hate for any named character was tenfold of what it is today. Especially here on dakka people never got tired of declaring that they would outright refuse games if anyone dared bring a named character. People were more likely to play a game against a baneblade or stompa than against Captain Lysander.


Well, of course. GW had spent several editions (since their introduction) telling people Special Characters were unbalanced, couldn't be balanced and should only be used in special scenarios and with the opponents consent. And anyone doing otherwise was a terrible person.

I'm honestly surprised (and dismayed) at how quickly people swung around to using them.


Mezzmorki did this "generations of 40k" poll some time ago. A large number of people started during 4th and 5th for multiple reasons, and we know the Dawn of War and Space Marine games were a big factor (I still remember how THQ put a giant space marine into pretty much every electronics store in Germany) as well as social media platforms like facebook and youtube arising and spreading 40k to people with adjacent hobbies like RTS, TTRPG and TCG.

The newcomers who saw named characters as nothing but cool characters with unique stories simply outnumbered those which were indoctrinated by years of white dwarf articles with GW's weird values. Plus the hatred was hard to understand, considering how bad most named characters at that time actually were.

This is totally inaccurate and revisionist.

People started using SCs because that's where GW started putting the good rules (while excizing the discouraging disclaimer about using them). If those good rules had been on generics, people would have used generics. There was never even a scintilla of an idealistic movement that used SCs because they were "cool characters".


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 17:09:06


Post by: EviscerationPlague


Dudeface wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:

Once again, the attachment to names y'all have in this forum is ludicrous


I mean people buy into the setting, if you pretend all names, schemes and fluff don't exist for the sakes of using whatever models profile with whatever combinations of rules you want, that's no longer really in 40k. This is on the assumptions you have Iron hands marines, painted as iron hands marines with iron hands badges/symbols and then decide you're running Lysander.

As a caveat, I'm fine with someone who has turquoise space marines led by a dude converted with a big hammer using appropriate rules (IF and Lysander) if the owners has their fluff and the like for their force. It becomes a problem when the week after they're then mysteriously really good at charging and lead by someone with a special jetpack and a big sword using blood angles/sanguinor, because they got a points cut and are now "better".

Switching between rules is a problem you created in your head that has little bearing in the real world. If someone wants to use their Iron Hands as Blood Angels, let them. They're Marines.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 17:11:38


Post by: Dudeface


EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:

Once again, the attachment to names y'all have in this forum is ludicrous


I mean people buy into the setting, if you pretend all names, schemes and fluff don't exist for the sakes of using whatever models profile with whatever combinations of rules you want, that's no longer really in 40k. This is on the assumptions you have Iron hands marines, painted as iron hands marines with iron hands badges/symbols and then decide you're running Lysander.

As a caveat, I'm fine with someone who has turquoise space marines led by a dude converted with a big hammer using appropriate rules (IF and Lysander) if the owners has their fluff and the like for their force. It becomes a problem when the week after they're then mysteriously really good at charging and lead by someone with a special jetpack and a big sword using blood angles/sanguinor, because they got a points cut and are now "better".

Switching between rules is a problem you created in your head that has little bearing in the real world. If someone wants to use their Iron Hands as Blood Angels, let them. They're Marines.


There are rules associated with iron hands, if they're not using those rules it's introducing unnecessary confusion and complications. Otherwise me using my chaos marines as eldar is a problem in your head, they're all game pieces for 40k to take it to an extreme conclusion.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 17:21:02


Post by: EviscerationPlague


Dudeface wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:

Once again, the attachment to names y'all have in this forum is ludicrous


I mean people buy into the setting, if you pretend all names, schemes and fluff don't exist for the sakes of using whatever models profile with whatever combinations of rules you want, that's no longer really in 40k. This is on the assumptions you have Iron hands marines, painted as iron hands marines with iron hands badges/symbols and then decide you're running Lysander.

As a caveat, I'm fine with someone who has turquoise space marines led by a dude converted with a big hammer using appropriate rules (IF and Lysander) if the owners has their fluff and the like for their force. It becomes a problem when the week after they're then mysteriously really good at charging and lead by someone with a special jetpack and a big sword using blood angles/sanguinor, because they got a points cut and are now "better".

Switching between rules is a problem you created in your head that has little bearing in the real world. If someone wants to use their Iron Hands as Blood Angels, let them. They're Marines.


There are rules associated with iron hands, if they're not using those rules it's introducing unnecessary confusion and complications. Otherwise me using my chaos marines as eldar is a problem in your head, they're all game pieces for 40k to take it to an extreme conclusion.

If that confuses you, you can't say you're okay with custom armies either using said Lysander stand-in.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 17:25:54


Post by: Dudeface


EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:

Once again, the attachment to names y'all have in this forum is ludicrous


I mean people buy into the setting, if you pretend all names, schemes and fluff don't exist for the sakes of using whatever models profile with whatever combinations of rules you want, that's no longer really in 40k. This is on the assumptions you have Iron hands marines, painted as iron hands marines with iron hands badges/symbols and then decide you're running Lysander.

As a caveat, I'm fine with someone who has turquoise space marines led by a dude converted with a big hammer using appropriate rules (IF and Lysander) if the owners has their fluff and the like for their force. It becomes a problem when the week after they're then mysteriously really good at charging and lead by someone with a special jetpack and a big sword using blood angles/sanguinor, because they got a points cut and are now "better".

Switching between rules is a problem you created in your head that has little bearing in the real world. If someone wants to use their Iron Hands as Blood Angels, let them. They're Marines.


There are rules associated with iron hands, if they're not using those rules it's introducing unnecessary confusion and complications. Otherwise me using my chaos marines as eldar is a problem in your head, they're all game pieces for 40k to take it to an extreme conclusion.

If that confuses you, you can't say you're okay with custom armies either using said Lysander stand-in.


Why? There are no turquoise marine chapters with their own rules and characters last time I checked. These rules and parameters are required for me to know what to expect. If I see an iron hands army why would I assume they're not iron hands?

P.s. this is why the chapter specifc bumph needs to go away.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 17:31:02


Post by: Tyel


Can't believe GW took Lady Malys and made their own stand-in character called "Yvraine".


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 17:31:22


Post by: JNAProductions


If a person shows up with a Marine army that includes no chapter-specific units and is painted as Iron Hands, but tells you right off the bat "I'm using Ultramarines rules for these guys," are you going to be confused about their rules during the game?
It's literally one thing to remember.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 17:35:19


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


Dudeface, we know your opinion here, what's the value of stating it over and over again? Let's get back to the topic of the thread which is exhibition games.



Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 17:36:05


Post by: EviscerationPlague


Dudeface wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:

Once again, the attachment to names y'all have in this forum is ludicrous


I mean people buy into the setting, if you pretend all names, schemes and fluff don't exist for the sakes of using whatever models profile with whatever combinations of rules you want, that's no longer really in 40k. This is on the assumptions you have Iron hands marines, painted as iron hands marines with iron hands badges/symbols and then decide you're running Lysander.

As a caveat, I'm fine with someone who has turquoise space marines led by a dude converted with a big hammer using appropriate rules (IF and Lysander) if the owners has their fluff and the like for their force. It becomes a problem when the week after they're then mysteriously really good at charging and lead by someone with a special jetpack and a big sword using blood angles/sanguinor, because they got a points cut and are now "better".

Switching between rules is a problem you created in your head that has little bearing in the real world. If someone wants to use their Iron Hands as Blood Angels, let them. They're Marines.


There are rules associated with iron hands, if they're not using those rules it's introducing unnecessary confusion and complications. Otherwise me using my chaos marines as eldar is a problem in your head, they're all game pieces for 40k to take it to an extreme conclusion.

If that confuses you, you can't say you're okay with custom armies either using said Lysander stand-in.


Why?

Because it would confuse you if they decided to use Blood Angels rules in a few weeks.

For a forum hellbent on defending bad balance and saying to negotiate the game, asking "hey how are you using your Marines today?" seems to be really difficult.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 17:37:13


Post by: ccs


Tyel wrote:
Can't believe GW took Lady Malys and made their own stand-in character called "Yvraine".


Why can't you? In case you haven't noticed, GWs never been adverse to borrowing stuff from others.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 17:57:18


Post by: Dudeface


 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Dudeface, we know your opinion here, what's the value of stating it over and over again? Let's get back to the topic of the thread which is exhibition games.



Because I'm being repeatedly quizzed on the same point over and over again. Maybe don't just direct your ire at me?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JNAProductions wrote:
If a person shows up with a Marine army that includes no chapter-specific units and is painted as Iron Hands, but tells you right off the bat "I'm using Ultramarines rules for these guys," are you going to be confused about their rules during the game?
It's literally one thing to remember.


No that's a fair point, but the conversation was about the use of named characters outside of the assumed context.

I'm more than happy to facilitate someone doing the above, if they set their stall out as "I'm trying to use the best rules" then fair play but it's not for me.

GW did clamp down on this at their in house events as well don't forget, as they wanted to preserve the integrity of the setting against the visuals. Again, not that I'm personally that draconian or that it should be a standard, I'm more casual/fluff based in my views though.

To loop back round. This is why they likely didn't use marines in the exhibition games, they didn't want to be showing off some iron hands blood angels with death company.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 18:38:24


Post by: vipoid


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Spoiler:
 vipoid wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

Marines took a pretty big hit with combis, didn't they?


Not really, no.

To be clear, I don't think it's a good change, but it's a drop in the ocean compared to what other factions have lost over the years.


 Daedalus81 wrote:
You can apparently build a captain that has absolutely no melee attacks whatsoever.


That's quite odd but I don't believe they're the only HQ choice to be in that situation (some I'm aware of, at least in 9th, have no melee attack as standard).


 Daedalus81 wrote:

I can't determine any preference from my perspective. It seems like everyone is getting hit in a similar fashion, which is why combis feel like such a weird outlier.


I'm going to be honest - when you say stuff like this I have to wonder whether you're arguing in good faith.

This is a list of the armour/mobility options available to Marine Captains in 9th:
- Bike
- Jump Pack
- Terminator Armour
- Storm Shield
(This is without even counting Primaris/Phobos stuff.)

This is a list of the armour/mobility options available to Archons in 9th:
-

They have lost the following:
- Skyboards
- Jetbikes
- Ghostplate Armour
- Clone Fields

Not a great start. Marine Captains have retained their entire range of defensive and mobility items, whilst Archons have retained precisely none.


How about weapons?

Marine Captains have access to:
- Chainsword
- Power Sword
- Power Axe
- Power Maul
- Power Fist
- Chainfist
- Thunder Hammer
- Relic Blade
- Xenophase Blade
- Bolt Pistol
- Master Crafted Boltgun
- Storm Bolter
- Combi Bolter
- Wrist-Mounted Grenade Launcher
- Frag Grenades
- Krak Grenades

The ones highlighted in bold are the ones Marines have gained over what they had before.

Meanwhile, Archons get a choice of:
- Power Sword
- Venom Blade
- Agoniser
- Huskblade
- Splinter Pistol
- Blast Pistol

They've lost:
- Electrocorrosive Whip
- Punisher/Klaive
- Blaster
- Haywire Grenades

So Archons, who had less to begin with, have lost their only worthwhile ranged weapon and their only grenades, along with two of their melee weapons. Marines, meanwhile, have gained even more weapons for their Captain.

Can you maybe understand why I think there's a wee bit of favouritism at play?


Ok, I see what you're driving at though most of that is pre-10th, right? I guess my purview is more focused on what's happening now.


I used 9th because we actually have all the information.

Maybe 10th will change things but somehow I doubt it.


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Certainly marines get more stuff in general, but not because - as I interpret the statement - that the studio favors the m, but because they're the bread and butter.


But who made them the bread and butter? Who made all the SM subfactions into their own armies? Who not only made Marines the poster-boys but kept piling more and more units into their increasingly bloated codex, while other factions were left to starve?

Maybe you think it's justified, but favouritism is still favouritism.


Tyel wrote:
I guess unlike Vipoid I'm not so concerned about losing options as "options".

It seems for example a bit pointless for Archons to have Huskblades, Powerswords, Venomblades and Agonizers (plus EC whips, Klaives, the list goes on) if GW is going to make these weapons (+/-) the same in most circumstances. Which they kind of have to do, otherwise everyone just takes the best and avoids the traps.


I mean, they could do what they do for other, non-NPC factions and give DE weapons different roles. You know, as opposed to just making them different flavours of Power Sword.

Regardless, though, this is why I suggested that something more akin to the Harlequin Pivotal Roles might help differentiate DE characters better than different equipment.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 18:50:42


Post by: Trickstick


Did anyone else find the exhibition game quite dull? I only watched the Guard one and it lasted so long and was so boring to watch at points.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 18:53:11


Post by: Dudeface


 Trickstick wrote:
Did anyone else find the exhibition game quite dull? I only watched the Guard one and it lasted so long and was so boring to watch at points.


I found the presentation a little lacklustre, I suspect it's a combination of hosts being tired, not knowing what they can say, being too professional sometimes.

Those guys are used to talking meta, plays, situational stuff and general banter outside of a GW stream. Having no meta to discuss, no known as or tactics, not being able to reference points or other units/armies and suddenly they're left filling time.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 18:56:56


Post by: Breton


Voss wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:

It's also worth noting that back in 5th the hate for any named character was tenfold of what it is today. Especially here on dakka people never got tired of declaring that they would outright refuse games if anyone dared bring a named character. People were more likely to play a game against a baneblade or stompa than against Captain Lysander.


Well, of course. GW had spent several editions (since their introduction) telling people Special Characters were unbalanced, couldn't be balanced and should only be used in special scenarios and with the opponents consent. And anyone doing otherwise was a terrible person.

I'm honestly surprised (and dismayed) at how quickly people swung around to using them.


I'm not- some armies weren't even possible without them - Belial and Sammael made (all) Deathwing/Ravenwing armies possible even though that was just about all that made them special.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vipoid wrote:


But who made them the bread and butter?

The consumers. Superhuman do-it-all heroes? And you wonder why they're the bread and butter?



Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 19:05:33


Post by: Trickstick


Dudeface wrote:
 Trickstick wrote:
Did anyone else find the exhibition game quite dull? I only watched the Guard one and it lasted so long and was so boring to watch at points.


I found the presentation a little lacklustre, I suspect it's a combination of hosts being tired, not knowing what they can say, being too professional sometimes.

Those guys are used to talking meta, plays, situational stuff and general banter outside of a GW stream. Having no meta to discuss, no known as or tactics, not being able to reference points or other units/armies and suddenly they're left filling time.


The format itself needs work. It was just a single overhead camera for like 99% of the game. Not very interesting.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 19:11:31


Post by: catbarf


Breton wrote:
 vipoid wrote:


But who made them the bread and butter?

The consumers. Superhuman do-it-all heroes? And you wonder why they're the bread and butter?


Weird how AOS manages to not have different colors of Stormcast comprise half the factions.

Shame it can't be helped, as the consumers force helpless GW to put Marines in all the starter sets and on all the marketing and in half of the new release slots.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 19:12:07


Post by: Daedalus81


 Trickstick wrote:
Did anyone else find the exhibition game quite dull? I only watched the Guard one and it lasted so long and was so boring to watch at points.


It would have been better served if they had been able to play with the rules beforehand. Being thrown into a new system all but guarantees really slow play like they had. And on the first one they kept bringing the same datasheets up constantly. The second was a little better with Brandt able to speak to things a little more concisely.

It was hard to judge lethality, too. It seemed similar to most of my 9th games, but those all had a decent amount of stuff on the table near the end. So whether this system cuts out those round 2/3 wins is unclear.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 19:20:11


Post by: Trickstick


They should have had players who knew 10th, proper painted GW miniatures, good terrain, and made it a fun game instead of boring competitive 9th playstyle. Like I get the difficulty that would all be, but it was supposed to be an exhibition! Should have been fun and engaging for the audience, not waiting to bloody turn 2 to end so we can see another datasheet.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 19:28:09


Post by: Daedalus81


Yea as campy as GW's stuff can be they did an excellent job with their first battle report with the combat patrols.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 19:31:52


Post by: Trickstick


I kind of can't believe that a major GW pr stream, full of reveals, had 3rd party miniature bits.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 19:54:16


Post by: Breton


 catbarf wrote:
Breton wrote:
 vipoid wrote:


But who made them the bread and butter?

The consumers. Superhuman do-it-all heroes? And you wonder why they're the bread and butter?


Weird how AOS manages to not have different colors of Stormcast comprise half the factions.

Shame it can't be helped, as the consumers force helpless GW to put Marines in all the starter sets and on all the marketing and in half of the new release slots.


I don't know much about AOS, I wasn't really encouraged to switch. But a quick check of the website tells me Stormcast Eternals have 68 kits, Cities of Sigmar (which appears to be a collection of human Fantasy leftover kits) has 56, finally one of the non-Order factions Slaves to Darkness (left over Chaos Warrior kits) has 50 - most factions appear to have 20-30. And Morathi is a good guy?!? I mean you can blame GW for human psychology all you want, but they neither invented nor had to work at a Mary Sue event here. Superman Worldsaver is not a GW invention, and they didn't "make" the consumer buy into that archetype more often than the others.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 20:58:19


Post by: ccs


Breton wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
Breton wrote:
 vipoid wrote:


But who made them the bread and butter?

The consumers. Superhuman do-it-all heroes? And you wonder why they're the bread and butter?


Weird how AOS manages to not have different colors of Stormcast comprise half the factions.

Shame it can't be helped, as the consumers force helpless GW to put Marines in all the starter sets and on all the marketing and in half of the new release slots.


I don't know much about AOS, I wasn't really encouraged to switch. But a quick check of the website tells me Stormcast Eternals have 68 kits, Cities of Sigmar (which appears to be a collection of human Fantasy leftover kits) has 56, finally one of the non-Order factions Slaves to Darkness (left over Chaos Warrior kits) has 50 - most factions appear to have 20-30. And Morathi is a good guy?!? I mean you can blame GW for human psychology all you want, but they neither invented nor had to work at a Mary Sue event here. Superman Worldsaver is not a GW invention, and they didn't "make" the consumer buy into that archetype more often than the others.


No, Morathi and her witchelves are in the Order faction. Order =/= Good, just order. In their case think of them as the Lawfull Evil alignment from D&D.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/07 22:32:56


Post by: catbarf


Breton wrote:
I don't know much about AOS, I wasn't really encouraged to switch. But a quick check of the website tells me Stormcast Eternals have 68 kits


If the worst you can say about Stormcast is that they get more kits than other factions, you're pretty much making my point for me.

Breton wrote:
Superman Worldsaver is not a GW invention, and they didn't "make" the consumer buy into that archetype more often than the others.


Superman Worldsaver is a popular trope and I have no doubt that the heroic macho man power fantasy (dial down the 'brainwashed castrated child soldiers', dial up the 'heroic selfless Chiselslab McKnightly') has enough intrinsic appeal to make it a popular choice. GW did create the Stormcast to tap into that appeal in fantasy.

However- the decisions to balloon the Marine range with a total redo, to give them new kits every few years such that none of their stuff is truly old (while other factions have models old enough to drink), to shower them in rules support to the point where their subfactions get equal billing to other factions, to pay attention and course-correct whenever they underperform (bolter discipline, armour of contempt, heck they just plain get more codices), to put them in every starter set and on all the marketing and in all the videogames, to create an entire spin-off game that is Marines, Marines, and more Marines- that's not the consumers' doing.

It's silly to act like those factors have absolutely no causal relationship with their popularity on the tabletop, or that Big Man In Big Armor is so intrinsically appealing that it is only natural for it to pull the entire rest of the game into its orbit. AOS gives Stormcast a lot of attention but isn't anywhere near as myopically focused on them as 40K is on Marines, and go figure they're just a more popular faction among many, rather than half or more of the armies on the table in any given shop.

Now in fairness to GW, rolling all the alternative paint schemes into the same army again is a surprisingly egalitarian take, and they've been doing a decent job of updating non-Marine factions to a modern standard after the absolute glut of Primaris that dominated the game for 3-4 years. But as Vipoid was getting at, there's still a distinct sense of haves and have-nots when it comes to wargear options and NMNR, and that's pure design favoritism.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/08 01:53:31


Post by: ProfSrlojohn


 catbarf wrote:
Breton wrote:
I don't know much about AOS, I wasn't really encouraged to switch. But a quick check of the website tells me Stormcast Eternals have 68 kits


If the worst you can say about Stormcast is that they get more kits than other factions, you're pretty much making my point for me.

Breton wrote:
Superman Worldsaver is not a GW invention, and they didn't "make" the consumer buy into that archetype more often than the others.


Superman Worldsaver is a popular trope and I have no doubt that the heroic macho man power fantasy (dial down the 'brainwashed castrated child soldiers', dial up the 'heroic selfless Chiselslab McKnightly') has enough intrinsic appeal to make it a popular choice. GW did create the Stormcast to tap into that appeal in fantasy.

However- the decisions to balloon the Marine range with a total redo, to give them new kits every few years such that none of their stuff is truly old (while other factions have models old enough to drink), to shower them in rules support to the point where their subfactions get equal billing to other factions, to pay attention and course-correct whenever they underperform (bolter discipline, armour of contempt, heck they just plain get more codices), to put them in every starter set and on all the marketing and in all the videogames, to create an entire spin-off game that is Marines, Marines, and more Marines- that's not the consumers' doing.

It's silly to act like those factors have absolutely no causal relationship with their popularity on the tabletop, or that Big Man In Big Armor is so intrinsically appealing that it is only natural for it to pull the entire rest of the game into its orbit. AOS gives Stormcast a lot of attention but isn't anywhere near as myopically focused on them as 40K is on Marines, and go figure they're just a more popular faction among many, rather than half or more of the armies on the table in any given shop.

Now in fairness to GW, rolling all the alternative paint schemes into the same army again is a surprisingly egalitarian take, and they've been doing a decent job of updating non-Marine factions to a modern standard after the absolute glut of Primaris that dominated the game for 3-4 years. But as Vipoid was getting at, there's still a distinct sense of haves and have-nots when it comes to wargear options and NMNR, and that's pure design favoritism.


Firstborn marines do have some kits old enough to drink as well (outside of the US anyway). The command squad sprues are dated 2004, the bike squad is 2002, the land speeder/speder storm is 1999, there's never been a plastic firstborn techmarine, marines need a refresh as much as anyone else, they're just in plastic, and instead of a refresh they got what is functionally a completely different army (rules wise) welded onto them. Bikes are especially showing their age like Gaunts were with their split-body design.

Space marines definitely are favored, but if you don't like primaris at all, or at least, not beyond a few kits you're making do with kits from 3--4th ed and 6th ed barring a couple exceptions like Centurions or Deathwatch vets,


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/08 05:27:23


Post by: Arachnofiend


As much as Space Marines do in fact sell I think we can also say with some confidence that GW massively underestimates the potential popularity of the armies languishing in finecast. The Sisters release was the most profitable egg on their face one could ask for... and one of the neglected armies is the goddamn High Elves. As much as I don't like elves I can tell you that they're one of the most popular factions in basically every story they're in.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/08 05:53:19


Post by: Altima


 Arachnofiend wrote:
As much as Space Marines do in fact sell I think we can also say with some confidence that GW massively underestimates the potential popularity of the armies languishing in finecast. The Sisters release was the most profitable egg on their face one could ask for... and one of the neglected armies is the goddamn High Elves. As much as I don't like elves I can tell you that they're one of the most popular factions in basically every story they're in.


Might be a case of effort to dollars ratio too.

Refreshing an entire range like sisters (or elves) requires a lot of work, from concept art, to building each unique model, to even have someone passionate about the project to keep each model in line with the vision for that army.

Versus something like Space Marines, which has two separate model lines in the mainline game (firstborn and primaris) and their own other entire super special game (Horus Heresy), where they can just take ye olde generic Space Marine, slap on a new gun, or slap a new gun on a new gun, or a new gun on a new gun on a new gun, like the infamous nerf blasters, and they'll sell like hotcakes. Hell, for the most part, GW can fart out a new chapter by slapping a paint scheme and maybe a new pauldron on existing models. Maybe throw in one or two unique kits, and bam.

Doesn't help that GW for some reason has decided that their range refreshes can stop halfway through nowadays. It's like they've decided that as long as there's enough new models for an Imperial faction to look guy fighting beside (but not as good as) Space Marines, or a xeno to get bodied by them, they're fine. Shame too; I was looking forward to starting a 'Guard or Ork army.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/08 07:27:16


Post by: Breton


 ProfSrlojohn wrote:


Firstborn marines do have some kits old enough to drink as well (outside of the US anyway). The command squad sprues are dated 2004, the bike squad is 2002, the land speeder/speder storm is 1999, there's never been a plastic firstborn techmarine, marines need a refresh as much as anyone else, they're just in plastic, and instead of a refresh they got what is functionally a completely different army (rules wise) welded onto them. Bikes are especially showing their age like Gaunts were with their split-body design.

Space marines definitely are favored, but if you don't like primaris at all, or at least, not beyond a few kits you're making do with kits from 3--4th ed and 6th ed barring a couple exceptions like Centurions or Deathwatch vets,


I'm not sure logic matters. We just went from GW made Marines the Poster boy because most of the stuff is for them to Stormcast may have the most stuff but GW didn't make them the poster boy. And the trope that makes Marines and Stormcast popular somehow isn't the point anymore anyway. Its still somehow GW's fault SM are popular and getting stuff because they're popular in some sort of circular logic to justify some hate on SM and/or GW.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/08 10:29:27


Post by: tneva82


Tyel wrote:

If those things are essentially gone (or at least much reduced) - then you end up with a character who is just sort of flat. He's too expensive compared with cheap 40-50 point buffing characters. But he doesn't do anything compared with blinged out SM Captains and up. He feels bad from a Timmy, Johnny and Spike perspective - which is never a good place for a unit to be..


Too expensive? Points been leaked while i was hospitalized?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/08 10:30:35


Post by: Karol


There is a chance that GW wanted to replicate the space marine formula for AoS, but then one of two or both things happened. The AoS players didn't like Stormcast eternals the way w40k players like marines or the formula didn't work.

Plus GW main problem with space marines, is that while they are their big money maker, but how popular there are there is a big secondary market for them. Both of GW and non GW products. There aren't many recasters doing stormcast infantry, there were some doing the dragons, and there are legions of people making marines.

And all of this happens before the whole marines vs primaris split, which enough people actualy do care about.

In the end who knows, GW policies are sometimes so esotheric and 5D, that a mortal man can't get his head around it.
HH for example. Super popular, based on their most popular IP. First choked for a year with releases of big, small and huge tanks and vehciles. Skipped basic infantry or characters. Then after people don't ditch the game anyway, you make the HH tanks no longer playable in w40k. Where a ton of people jumped to HH, because they thought they would have an army for two systems.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/08 10:31:28


Post by: Tyel


tneva82 wrote:
Too expensive? Points been leaked while i was hospitalized?


Yeah they are all over reddit...

Just joking - I was referring to 9th's points. Perhaps naively, I imagine stuff won't deviate massively. But we wait and see.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/08 10:35:54


Post by: tneva82


 Arachnofiend wrote:
As much as Space Marines do in fact sell I think we can also say with some confidence that GW massively underestimates the potential popularity of the armies languishing in finecast. The Sisters release was the most profitable egg on their face one could ask for... and one of the neglected armies is the goddamn High Elves. As much as I don't like elves I can tell you that they're one of the most popular factions in basically every story they're in.


The high elves just got 3 tomes in as many years to degree that whenever gw puts order tome running joke is another elf book


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/08 15:38:54


Post by: catbarf


Breton wrote:
I'm not sure logic matters. We just went from GW made Marines the Poster boy because most of the stuff is for them to Stormcast may have the most stuff but GW didn't make them the poster boy. And the trope that makes Marines and Stormcast popular somehow isn't the point anymore anyway. Its still somehow GW's fault SM are popular and getting stuff because they're popular in some sort of circular logic to justify some hate on SM and/or GW.


You can just say you don't know how AOS compares to 40K without resorting to this mindless 'they must just hate GW!!!' tripe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Arachnofiend wrote:
As much as Space Marines do in fact sell I think we can also say with some confidence that GW massively underestimates the potential popularity of the armies languishing in finecast. The Sisters release was the most profitable egg on their face one could ask for... and one of the neglected armies is the goddamn High Elves. As much as I don't like elves I can tell you that they're one of the most popular factions in basically every story they're in.


GW seems continuously surprised that giving an army decent rules and new models is a massive boon to their popularity. Sisters are the classic case, but I've also seen dramatically increased popularity in xenos factions and Guard as they've gotten updates.

It's pretty much proof positive that the relative popularity of factions does in fact have something to do with how GW handles them, and isn't purely reflective of their intrinsic appeal.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/09 02:25:05


Post by: Breton


 catbarf wrote:
Breton wrote:
I'm not sure logic matters. We just went from GW made Marines the Poster boy because most of the stuff is for them to Stormcast may have the most stuff but GW didn't make them the poster boy. And the trope that makes Marines and Stormcast popular somehow isn't the point anymore anyway. Its still somehow GW's fault SM are popular and getting stuff because they're popular in some sort of circular logic to justify some hate on SM and/or GW.


You can just say you don't know how AOS compares to 40K without resorting to this mindless 'they must just hate GW!!!' tripe.
I did. First thing. You were the one that moved the goal posts so you could hate on GW and/or Space Marines after losing the Trope debate.

GW didn't "make" Marines sell well, basic human nature - especially that of the teenaged male - did. As that's what makes them sell well, that's what makes them earn enough to keep the lights on for the other factions.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/09 13:20:12


Post by: catbarf


Breton wrote:
I did. First thing.


...And then proceeded to argue anyways, about a game you by your own admission know nothing about. And when I said that your cursory analysis of kit count isn't anywhere close to the entire story, you declare that there must be no logic, I'm moving goalposts, and I'm just looking for an excuse to hate GW. Yeah. Sure.

Well, if you really in your heart of hearts believe that GW has never made any decisions that promote Marines, that their popularity is solely a result of human nature, and refuse to accept that some wargames don't orbit around their beefcake supermen- I'll leave you to it.

In the meantime, going back to where this segue started, I'm just glad that Tyranids are getting only a little bit of short shrift in rules this time around. Maybe it has something to do with the community finally recognizing their intrinsic appeal that they've had all along, since it certainly couldn't be new models or center-stage billing contributing to newfound popularity.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/09 16:04:27


Post by: Daedalus81


It's a whole chicken and egg thing that GW stuck with for a long time. I do think they're leaning more away from marines now than they have in the past, but I don't have good data to quantify that.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/09 17:51:17


Post by: vipoid


@Daedalus81 Regarding our earlier conversation, I think we can now say that SM Captains have definitely not been hurt badly in the options department. If anything, it looks like they might actually have more options now than they had in 9th.

Want to take a wager on whether Xeno HQs are treated the same way?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/09 17:52:03


Post by: Breton


 catbarf wrote:

...And then proceeded to argue anyways,
You brought them up, not me. Then bailed on it after we found out that even being a brand new faction they already had more kits than the left over Fantasy factions.

Well, if you really in your heart of hearts believe that GW has never made any decisions that promote Marines,


No I believe you're again lying about what someone else said. I said they didn't have to do anything in order to make Marines popular. I said Marines would have been popular all on their own because they're THAT trope. I said GW saw which way the wind was already blowing and decided to let SM keep the lights on.

If you have to lie about what was said to get some sort of "victory" is it really a win?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/09 17:58:31


Post by: Lord Zarkov


Breton wrote:
 catbarf wrote:

...And then proceeded to argue anyways,
You brought them up, not me. Then bailed on it after we found out that even being a brand new faction they already had more kits than the left over Fantasy factions.

Well, if you really in your heart of hearts believe that GW has never made any decisions that promote Marines,


No I believe you're again lying about what someone else said. I said they didn't have to do anything in order to make Marines popular. I said Marines would have been popular all on their own because they're THAT trope. I said GW saw which way the wind was already blowing and decided to let SM keep the lights on.

If you have to lie about what was said to get some sort of "victory" is it really a win?


There’s very much a vicious circle with marines.

Marines are naturally popular yes.

Because they’re popular GW gives them the lions share of the releases and severely neglects many other factions.

Because they get so many releases, marines become more popular and the neglected factions less popular.

Because if this GW double down on things.

And the whole thing spirals.

And so you end up with current 40k where half the game is marines.

In AoS Stormcast are popular, but there isn’t the same death spiral.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/09 18:06:53


Post by: JNAProductions


Breton wrote:
 catbarf wrote:

...And then proceeded to argue anyways,
You brought them up, not me. Then bailed on it after we found out that even being a brand new faction they already had more kits than the left over Fantasy factions.

Well, if you really in your heart of hearts believe that GW has never made any decisions that promote Marines,


No I believe you're again lying about what someone else said. I said they didn't have to do anything in order to make Marines popular. I said Marines would have been popular all on their own because they're THAT trope. I said GW saw which way the wind was already blowing and decided to let SM keep the lights on.

If you have to lie about what was said to get some sort of "victory" is it really a win?
I see four Grand Alliances in the AoS side of the store.
Stormcast are a subset of Order. They're the LARGEST subset, but not by a ridiculous degress.

I see four supersets in the 40k side of the store.
Imperium, Chaos, Xenos, and Space Marines. Space Marines, generically, have 90 store entries, with some subfactions of this Imperium subfaction reaching over 100.
Second most numerous is Orks, at 59. Third is Guard, at 58. Nothing else breaches 50.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/09 18:18:41


Post by: Daedalus81


 vipoid wrote:
@Daedalus81 Regarding our earlier conversation, I think we can now say that SM Captains have definitely not been hurt badly in the options department. If anything, it looks like they might actually have more options now than they had in 9th.

Want to take a wager on whether Xeno HQs are treated the same way?


- Primaris Captain lost MC ABR, MC SBR, SI Bolt Carbine as per all the recent condensing, but otherwise is mostly the same sheet without the extra faffing about.
- All the Gravis dudes got condensed, but didn't lose anything that I can see.
- Phobos CPT unchanged
- All firstborn lost singular LC, maul, axe, and any true combi.

All Primaris variants lost a wound.

I won't take that bet anyway, because it's anyone's guess at this point.


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/10 04:03:27


Post by: Breton


 JNAProductions wrote:
I see four Grand Alliances in the AoS side of the store.
Stormcast are a subset of Order. They're the LARGEST subset, but not by a ridiculous degress.

I see four supersets in the 40k side of the store.
Imperium, Chaos, Xenos, and Space Marines. Space Marines, generically, have 90 store entries, with some subfactions of this Imperium subfaction reaching over 100.
Second most numerous is Orks, at 59. Third is Guard, at 58. Nothing else breaches 50.


Yeah, that's kind of my point. The new Knight In Shining Armor trope faction went from 0 to the Most in a few short years. They were at what? 60? 70? Most of the other Subset of assorted Orders were at what? 25? 30? Which ones were closest? what used to be Chaos Warriors (Black/Mirror Knights) and Cities of Sigmar which looks like bits and pieces of 3? 4? different Fantasy factions? I see Empire, Wood Elves, Dark Elves, Dwarves, and maybe even some High Elves?

GW doesn't have to "push" the Big Blue Boy Scout factions

The original question was: Who made SM top sellers - my answer was the people who bought them. I'm sure there are plenty of ex hobby shop employees in here who can tell us which models little Timmy most wanted to play with on the Demo board. Does anyone really believe the SM wouldn't still be the top seller - release schedule being equal?


Exhibition Analysis Thread @ 2023/06/10 05:56:16


Post by: tneva82


Stormcast got tons of kits due to gw making tons of kits.

Not showing up as popularity of army though. Sigmarines aren't such a seller as marines despite gw trying to replicate marine effect.