Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Wibe wrote:
Strength from death, only when "Aeldari" units are destroyed.

Ynnari change:

Ynnari Dark Reapers just get 'Grinding Advance'.

Ynnari characters can give orders like Move! Move! Move!, Fix Bayonets, etc.. to Ynnari Infantry/Bikes.

As with Guard, craftworld traits/free relics, etc.. aren't lost anymore for getting access to double-activations.

All done and in line with other double-activation rules.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Wibe wrote:
Strength from death, only when "Aeldari" units are destroyed.

Ynnari change:

Ynnari Dark Reapers just get 'Grinding Advance'.

Ynnari characters can give orders like Move! Move! Move!, Fix Bayonets, etc.. to Ynnari Infantry/Bikes.

As with Guard, craftworld traits/free relics, etc.. aren't lost anymore for getting access to double-activations.

All done and in line with other double-activation rules.

You forgot also profiting from auras like Guilliman.

 Carnikang wrote:

 WisdomLS wrote:


- Hopefully we wont have to wait this long but they need to clean up the mess that was the GSC FAQ they released yesterday, created more problems than it fixed :-)

What problems were those? Everything seemed in order, besides everyone's bone to pick with MO.

Well, they left in deep striking 20 man guardsman squads with access to FRFSRF. So there's that, for one thing.

They also left in the fact that there is a character with a Bespoke Rule TM that is for all intents and purposes 6" heroic intervention (But not named Heroic Intervention in any way) and they didn't carry over the FAQ to HI to make it not usable in your turn.

So that character can use the stratagem to pop up 3" away from your stuff and "Cultroic Genetervene" into you for free on his own turn.

They also left the Sanctus sniper causing a super duper chain reaction when he shoots any PSYKER keyword unit that GW forgot to put Perils protection on. His sniper rifle kills an average of 3.8 rubrics per shot, with an average of 7 dead any time he causes an unsaved wound (Each one killed by the D3 mortal wounds from Perils causes a D3 MW explosion within 6")

They removed exactly one of the ridonkulous probably unintended rules interactions, which was orderable bullgryns/triple actions in a turn crusaders. They left everything else.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:

 WisdomLS wrote:


- Hopefully we wont have to wait this long but they need to clean up the mess that was the GSC FAQ they released yesterday, created more problems than it fixed :-)

What problems were those? Everything seemed in order, besides everyone's bone to pick with MO.

Well, they left in deep striking 20 man guardsman squads with access to FRFSRF. So there's that, for one thing.

They also left in the fact that there is a character with a Bespoke Rule TM that is for all intents and purposes 6" heroic intervention (But not named Heroic Intervention in any way) and they didn't carry over the FAQ to HI to make it not usable in your turn.

So that character can use the stratagem to pop up 3" away from your stuff and "Cultroic Genetervene" into you for free on his own turn.

They also left the Sanctus sniper causing a super duper chain reaction when he shoots any PSYKER keyword unit that GW forgot to put Perils protection on. His sniper rifle kills an average of 3.8 rubrics per shot, with an average of 7 dead any time he causes an unsaved wound (Each one killed by the D3 mortal wounds from Perils causes a D3 MW explosion within 6")

They removed exactly one of the ridonkulous probably unintended rules interactions, which was orderable bullgryns/triple actions in a turn crusaders. They left everything else.

I do think that the GSC codex is going to be the gift that keeps oon giving us rules issues for 2019.
I also worry it's the start of the next wave of codex power creep

Ice_can wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:

 WisdomLS wrote:


- Hopefully we wont have to wait this long but they need to clean up the mess that was the GSC FAQ they released yesterday, created more problems than it fixed :-)

What problems were those? Everything seemed in order, besides everyone's bone to pick with MO.

Well, they left in deep striking 20 man guardsman squads with access to FRFSRF. So there's that, for one thing.

They also left in the fact that there is a character with a Bespoke Rule TM that is for all intents and purposes 6" heroic intervention (But not named Heroic Intervention in any way) and they didn't carry over the FAQ to HI to make it not usable in your turn.

So that character can use the stratagem to pop up 3" away from your stuff and "Cultroic Genetervene" into you for free on his own turn.

They also left the Sanctus sniper causing a super duper chain reaction when he shoots any PSYKER keyword unit that GW forgot to put Perils protection on. His sniper rifle kills an average of 3.8 rubrics per shot, with an average of 7 dead any time he causes an unsaved wound (Each one killed by the D3 mortal wounds from Perils causes a D3 MW explosion within 6")

They removed exactly one of the ridonkulous probably unintended rules interactions, which was orderable bullgryns/triple actions in a turn crusaders. They left everything else.

I do think that the GSC codex is going to be the gift that keeps oon giving us rules issues for 2019.
I also worry it's the start of the next wave of codex power creep

I would be worried about that if it felt at all like any of this gak was working as intended. The rules for the new kits (which you'd expect them to want to hock) are nothing particularly amazing, or even anything you want to include in your list. Outside of the Kelermorph and the Nexos, none of the new characters are amazing, and the only new unit box worth buying is aberrants, who don't use any real goodies from the new kit to do it - everyone's exsiting aberrant models do all the new stuff.

The sanctus is broken against literally 3 units in the entire game. against any other unit he's aggressively average. The locus is broken because gw forgot they could just say "this model can heroically intervene 6" " like they did with the space wolves.

It all just feels sloppy, and I'm sure if any of this gak was done in front of the rules designers, they'd go "wait, what, you can't do that!"

the_scotsman wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:

 WisdomLS wrote:


- Hopefully we wont have to wait this long but they need to clean up the mess that was the GSC FAQ they released yesterday, created more problems than it fixed :-)

What problems were those? Everything seemed in order, besides everyone's bone to pick with MO.

Well, they left in deep striking 20 man guardsman squads with access to FRFSRF. So there's that, for one thing.

They also left in the fact that there is a character with a Bespoke Rule TM that is for all intents and purposes 6" heroic intervention (But not named Heroic Intervention in any way) and they didn't carry over the FAQ to HI to make it not usable in your turn.

So that character can use the stratagem to pop up 3" away from your stuff and "Cultroic Genetervene" into you for free on his own turn.

They also left the Sanctus sniper causing a super duper chain reaction when he shoots any PSYKER keyword unit that GW forgot to put Perils protection on. His sniper rifle kills an average of 3.8 rubrics per shot, with an average of 7 dead any time he causes an unsaved wound (Each one killed by the D3 mortal wounds from Perils causes a D3 MW explosion within 6")

They removed exactly one of the ridonkulous probably unintended rules interactions, which was orderable bullgryns/triple actions in a turn crusaders. They left everything else.

I think the FRF,SRF/Ordering Cult Ambushing BB is intended. Though I wonder to myself at times about it. 60 BB are already in a list I made with two CC to give them orders being brought in. They will make a good first wave at least.

The Locus ability does say it "May perform a Heroic Intervention..." With a preface that it may be done in the Charge Phase, after the opponent has made all their charge moves. As well as a note after saying it may move towards the nearest enemy character etc. It just needs a little clarification. I assume it means he can HI 6", towards whomever you like in your opponent's Charge phase....like normal?

As for the Sanctus, that seems like a problem with Rubrics, not the Sanctus.

I haven't really seen GW doing crazy wild eye'ed nerfs in the previous faqs. Not sure why people expect this one to be that way?

Reemule wrote:
I haven't really seen GW doing crazy wild eye'ed nerfs in the previous faqs. Not sure why people expect this one to be that way?

I think a lot of people are tired of the Guard + Ynnari meta.

 Marmatag wrote:

Reemule wrote:
I haven't really seen GW doing crazy wild eye'ed nerfs in the previous faqs. Not sure why people expect this one to be that way?

I think a lot of people are tired of the Guard + Ynnari meta.

A lot of people are playing ITC missions and that is what they are seeing. Killy armies with super-units do well in a kill points mission set, those kill points (especially secondaries) just tilt the table towards units like CP-buffed Castellans and psyker-buffed Shining Spears.

No Castellans or Ynnari on the podium in the latest GW GT heat. The CA18 missions are *very* objective focussed and that tends towards a different meta.

So GW might listen to the feedback on Castellan and Ynnari problems but I doubt if they will swing the nerf bat half as hard as some people want or expect. Only part of the issue there lies with the units/rules themselves.

However GK are in a horrible place in every mission set and GW appear to be aware of it so I really hope they throw them a bone. Also drop-pods, really has anyone seen one? Fixing drop pods will do a lot for Astartes armies in general and I think if anything should get a special pass for turn 1 deep strike it is the drop pod.

GW is much more competent in balancing that what dakka gives it credit for, but if you expects to balance around ITC results, you are in for a big disappointment.

The 40k meta is much different that ITC, and what is good in one place can be bad in the other.

Take Intercessors for example, in ITC they are considered a bad troop, while in 40k people are starting to realize that they are on the OP side of things.

GW will balance for 40K, not for ITC, and they will not do much, because the game is fairly balanced right now.
Castellan though is an issue in both metas, so i do expect it to be hit.

I hope they do something about CP sharing. I personally would prefer codex specific CPs.
Then nerf Doom, Jinx, and Soulburst.
Here I would like to see the range on the spells being seriously nerfed. And if it's not enough, nerf it in some other way in a later FAQ.
Soulburst/strength from death should only work when Aeldari units die. It is seriously broken atm.

And I would like a maximum on negative hit modifiers you can give a unit. But that's never going to happen, so at least give us natural 6s always hit.

I'd tend to agree. Ynnari are good, but not nearly as bad as people make them out to be.


Play with GW terrain and terrain rules on a table that looks like something you'd see in a White Dwarf battle report, and you shouldn't have a problem getting some shots at those Reapers or evasive Shining Spears.


ITC (Nova, etc..) terrain (rules) are just idiotic. Of course it's gonna cause problems if you don't change points costs of units and CP costs of stratagems, etc.. to match changes in terrain rules (e.g. no LoS on the bottom floor, etc..).


It just doesn't make sense to me. If ITC makes such changes, they need to publish new points to go with these changes IMO. In the example, Fire & Fade should probably be 2-3 CP, Tau stuff should probably get a 10%-20% or so point drop in ITC, because of their difference in terrain, etc.. . etc..

You can't houserule elements of the game like terrain and expect to not throw balance out of whack like ITC does.

If only more people realized that the ITC missions and terrain rules are what's skewing the game and used the CA18 missions we'd be better off. But look at every discussion about it here. A lot of folks think the ITC missions are better despite them drastically changing the game and *causing* the meta that people are complaining about.

You can't change the game drastically to cause X to be too good and then say X is too good it needs to be changed. But that's what's happening. The playtesters are using ITC to give feedback, not the "real" game. Their data is skewed. Basically, they are #FakeNews

I tried playing the new CA missions, they don't fix anything, just as bad as the rule book ones. Also we do play with GW terrain here it also helps little. All GW terrain is not tall enough to block LoS from knights, have windows or door every where, or they are of the it looks cool, but doesn't even give cover kind.

And ploping down huge LoS blockers only means that armies with jetbikes, flyers or that move as fast as catachan get buffed, and normal infantry now need 3 turns to walk around too an objective. And by that time the opposing army sits on 10+ VP.

Wayniac wrote:
If only more people realized that the ITC missions and terrain rules are what's skewing the game and used the CA18 missions we'd be better off. But look at every discussion about it here. A lot of folks think the ITC missions are better despite them drastically changing the game and *causing* the meta that people are complaining about.

You can't change the game drastically to cause X to be too good and then say X is too good it needs to be changed. But that's what's happening. The playtesters are using ITC to give feedback, not the "real" game. Their data is skewed. Basically, they are #FakeNews

We do not know exactly what the playtesters are doing - it is under NDA - but I would be surprised if the actual playtest sessions use anything other than book-standard missions and rules. Stuff performs differently in the CA18 missions and should be balanced to that (the latest GW mission set) not to anything else.

Those playtesters may also be deeply immersed in the ITC ruleset and that may colour their feedback handling the different perceptions of different playtesters should not be beyond the wit of a games designer. If we suddenly see a huge knee-jerk response to Castellans or Ynnari then I guess I will just have to eat my words.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
I tried playing the new CA missions, they don't fix anything, just as bad as the rule book ones. Also we do play with GW terrain here it also helps little. All GW terrain is not tall enough to block LoS from knights, have windows or door every where, or they are of the it looks cool, but doesn't even give cover kind.

And ploping down huge LoS blockers only means that armies with jetbikes, flyers or that move as fast as catachan get buffed, and normal infantry now need 3 turns to walk around too an objective. And by that time the opposing army sits on 10+ VP.

I am left not quite knowing whether you like or dislike LOS blocking terrain.

My personal view on that is that the basic book terrain rules are a rather lacking and that the City Fight rules from CA18 are a decent fix for their problems that work well with the GW terrain. Massive LOS blocking is incredibly binary and often rather non-interactive - it also skews balance and tilts it in favour of units like Dark Reapers doing their jump-shoot-twice-jump thing.

I do not really expect any big FAQ changes to terrain rules, GW probably think they have given us the rules we need and it is up to us to try using them.

I can maybe - maybe - see them making a "pick your main faction, detachments outside of this faction generate half CP".

Probably not though.

RE: Terrain they should just make the Cities of Death terrain for matched play; right now they don't get seen because they have the stigma of "Narrative Play", which automatically means "unsuitable for matched play" and therefore not something you will see being adopted. But then again even if they did, it seems like it would be beholden to what ITC wants to do as they seem to dictate the way tournaments (at least in the US) go. If the community feels it's not worth it, they won't use it. Case in point, GW went on record as saying that for AOS the crazy realm rules are part of the game's balance, units are pointed as though they are being used and they intend that they're used in all games, and the community roundly rejected them for Matched Play anyway despite GW saying that it's part of the game's balance, while at the same time complaining about how certain things are unbalanced.

RE: Missions, I'll spare the full ITC rant as I do that way too often but if the playtesters are using big event results to give feedback to GW, I hope that they or GW are realizing that it is NOT indicative of the game as a whole but the game under ITC champions missions and ITC terrain adjustments. They can use it for what it is but they can't kneejerk react to it because a large part of what you see being OP is due to the way those events are run and not necessarily the rules for the models themselves.

RE: CP/Soup I stand by what I said before. You should have to declare a primary detachment and then have an allied detachment rule that any detachments which don't share 2 keywords with your primary detachment fall under. These detachments don't get their subfaction traits or relics, don't unlock stratagems if they are of a different faction, and give half CP to a minimum of 1. Simple and effective. No more taking a Castellan with Loyal 32 and getting a ton of CP to power the unlocked Knight stratagems, no more running multiple subfactions and getting both traits, etc.

Wayniac wrote:
RE: Terrain they should just make the Cities of Death terrain for matched play; right now they don't get seen because they have the stigma of "Narrative Play", which automatically means "unsuitable for matched play" and therefore not something you will see being adopted. But then again even if they did, it seems like it would be beholden to what ITC wants to do as they seem to dictate the way tournaments (at least in the US) go. If the community feels it's not worth it, they won't use it. Case in point, GW went on record as saying that for AOS the crazy realm rules are part of the game's balance, units are pointed as though they are being used and they intend that they're used in all games, and the community roundly rejected them for Matched Play anyway despite GW saying that it's part of the game's balance, while at the same time complaining about how certain things are unbalanced.

RE: Missions, I'll spare the full ITC rant as I do that way too often but if the playtesters are using big event results to give feedback to GW, I hope that they or GW are realizing that it is NOT indicative of the game as a whole but the game under ITC champions missions and ITC terrain adjustments. They can use it for what it is but they can't kneejerk react to it because a large part of what you see being OP is due to the way those events are run and not necessarily the rules for the models themselves.

RE: CP/Soup I stand by what I said before. You should have to declare a primary detachment and then have an allied detachment rule that any detachments which don't share 2 keywords with your primary detachment fall under. These detachments don't get their subfaction traits or relics, don't unlock stratagems if they are of a different faction, and give half CP to a minimum of 1. Simple and effective. No more taking a Castellan with Loyal 32 and getting a ton of CP to power the unlocked Knight stratagems, no more running multiple subfactions and getting both traits, etc.

Cities of death is good but really REALLY extra super needs a fix for the "you might as well give up, I have the high ground" problem caused by all those disastrous FAQ rulings.

A heavy weapon unit in hard cover with the high ground is absolutely invincible in cities of death. When we play, we added a special rule where you can declare your charging unit is assaulting a unit above them, and they don't count as having charged (don't fight first) but they count as engaged with units up to 5" directly above them, and during their pile in move they may optionally move up to 5" directly up instead of the usual 3".

the_scotsman wrote:

A heavy weapon unit in hard cover with the high ground is absolutely invincible in cities of death. When we play, we added a special rule where you can declare your charging unit is assaulting a unit above them, and they don't count as having charged (don't fight first) but they count as engaged with units up to 5" directly above them, and during their pile in move they may optionally move up to 5" directly up instead of the usual 3".

Really like that house rule, handles the problem while still providing a small advantage for having the higher ground.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
I'd tend to agree. Ynnari are good, but not nearly as bad as people make them out to be.


Play with GW terrain and terrain rules on a table that looks like something you'd see in a White Dwarf battle report, and you shouldn't have a problem getting some shots at those Reapers or evasive Shining Spears.


ITC (Nova, etc..) terrain (rules) are just idiotic. Of course it's gonna cause problems if you don't change points costs of units and CP costs of stratagems, etc.. to match changes in terrain rules (e.g. no LoS on the bottom floor, etc..).


It just doesn't make sense to me. If ITC makes such changes, they need to publish new points to go with these changes IMO. In the example, Fire & Fade should probably be 2-3 CP, Tau stuff should probably get a 10%-20% or so point drop in ITC, because of their difference in terrain, etc.. . etc..

You can't houserule elements of the game like terrain and expect to not throw balance out of whack like ITC does.

Hey, learn your tournament formats.

NOVA uses different terrain rules (much closer to pure BRB) and has noticeable differences in scoring compared to ITC.

Spoletta wrote:
GW is much more competent in balancing that what dakka gives it credit for, but if you expects to balance around ITC results, you are in for a big disappointment.

The 40k meta is much different that ITC, and what is good in one place can be bad in the other.

Take Intercessors for example, in ITC they are considered a bad troop, while in 40k people are starting to realize that they are on the OP side of things.

GW will balance for 40K, not for ITC, and they will not do much, because the game is fairly balanced right now.
Castellan though is an issue in both metas, so i do expect it to be hit.

Fairly balanced right now...Thanks for the laugh. Balance and 40k don't fit in same sentence except how NOT balanced it is.

the_scotsman wrote:


Cities of death is good but really REALLY extra super needs a fix for the "you might as well give up, I have the high ground" problem caused by all those disastrous FAQ rulings.

A heavy weapon unit in hard cover with the high ground is absolutely invincible in cities of death. When we play, we added a special rule where you can declare your charging unit is assaulting a unit above them, and they don't count as having charged (don't fight first) but they count as engaged with units up to 5" directly above them, and during their pile in move they may optionally move up to 5" directly up instead of the usual 3".

Progressive scoring and objectives on ground level seem to have kept that issue in check locally to me but I can see how the city fight rules could skew things towards a certain sort of stationary shooty infantry. Parking an expensive unit like that is a bit high risk high reward so far in my games, if anyone can put so much as a single base-size hole in that parked unit it can be charged from directly below where it gets no overwatch and it has nowhere that it can possibly fall back to - that unit is now functionally dead even it if takes all game to actually finish it off.

I find that it is only some very limited assault armies that lack tools to remove even a single model from that target unit to be able to pull off the charge - the issue in my opinion is with the very limited list choice rather than with the city fight rules. Happy to discuss further but I rather think that needs a different thread. A FAQ to the fly rules in the assault phase is possible, a FAQ to the city fight terrain rules very unlikely IMO.

Spoletta wrote:
GW is much more competent in balancing that what dakka gives it credit for, but if you expects to balance around ITC results, you are in for a big disappointment.

The 40k meta is much different that ITC, and what is good in one place can be bad in the other.

Take Intercessors for example, in ITC they are considered a bad troop, while in 40k people are starting to realize that they are on the OP side of things.

GW will balance for 40K, not for ITC, and they will not do much, because the game is fairly balanced right now.
Castellan though is an issue in both metas, so i do expect it to be hit.

Yeah. Prove any of this.

Hard reality for you is that GW does watch the ITC results and games. And they do make decisions based of those results. That isn't to say that is the only standard for them, or the only things they look at, but it is a factor based of some of the decisions they made in the past.

GW is doing a pretty good job finally. I doubt they have a formula on what they look at, Like 2 things from ETC, and 1 thing for ITC, and 3 things from Filthy Casuals. Chances are its like "We see this in the game and we want to make a small move to try to move back towards the center. How do we do that with the least verbiage possible?".

happy_inquisitor wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


Cities of death is good but really REALLY extra super needs a fix for the "you might as well give up, I have the high ground" problem caused by all those disastrous FAQ rulings.

A heavy weapon unit in hard cover with the high ground is absolutely invincible in cities of death. When we play, we added a special rule where you can declare your charging unit is assaulting a unit above them, and they don't count as having charged (don't fight first) but they count as engaged with units up to 5" directly above them, and during their pile in move they may optionally move up to 5" directly up instead of the usual 3".

Progressive scoring and objectives on ground level seem to have kept that issue in check locally to me but I can see how the city fight rules could skew things towards a certain sort of stationary shooty infantry. Parking an expensive unit like that is a bit high risk high reward so far in my games, if anyone can put so much as a single base-size hole in that parked unit it can be charged from directly below where it gets no overwatch and it has nowhere that it can possibly fall back to - that unit is now functionally dead even it if takes all game to actually finish it off.

I find that it is only some very limited assault armies that lack tools to remove even a single model from that target unit to be able to pull off the charge - the issue in my opinion is with the very limited list choice rather than with the city fight rules. Happy to discuss further but I rather think that needs a different thread. A FAQ to the fly rules in the assault phase is possible, a FAQ to the city fight terrain rules very unlikely IMO.

I made a thread in proposed rules discussing this a couple days ago.

It seems that in this instance you just used a different house rule to fix the problem - that being objectives on the ground. In my area, if an army has any kind of stationary gunline element they very frequently place the objectives that they get to place on those high perches, which allows them to hold onto them extremely easily.

And it doesn't need to be an expensive unit to do this. The examples I saw of this performing the best was someone running Admech, where he took the top floors of each ruin in his deployment zone and placed 5-man skitarii squads with 2 arquebi in each on top of them, and he had 2 objectives in those top floor perches. Those units of skitarii were sitting at a 2+ save in hard cover, targeted characters up to 72" away, and ignored 1 layer of cover. Thanks to the enormous bases of the arquebi, they could very easily prevent chargers from getting up to them, and even if they had been permalocked as you describe, the units are only like 70pts. If they're permalocked in combat with 1 enemy model and the rest of the enemy unit is stuck below them, they still hold the objective with obsec and are most likely tying up a more expensive enemy melee unit. They're still very much providing value.

All this reminds me of the various tricks you could pull to get around Invisibility in 7th edition, when that solidly became part of the meta. You could do all kinds of stuff to sneak around the 6+ to hit, block their movement, use blasts in tricky ways to hit them, etc...it still didn't make Invisibility a strong enough power to be basically autoinclude for every faction, and it deserved to be removed from the game.

Cities of Death adds enough power to the Unassailable Platform O' Doom tactic to warp the meta around it, and if the next big FAQ pulls some of those much improved cover rules into the game, something will need to be done to address that tactic or it will allow relatively small, cheap shooting units to punch way above their weight class.

Wayniac wrote:
RE: CP/Soup I stand by what I said before. You should have to declare a primary detachment and then have an allied detachment rule that any detachments which don't share 2 keywords with your primary detachment fall under. These detachments don't get their subfaction traits or relics, don't unlock stratagems if they are of a different faction, and give half CP to a minimum of 1. Simple and effective. No more taking a Castellan with Loyal 32 and getting a ton of CP to power the unlocked Knight stratagems, no more running multiple subfactions and getting both traits, etc.

I like part of this but not all of this. I think the CP penalty and no strats are a good idea. However, the no chapter tactics is not, IMHO, a good idea. Without chapter tactics then it makes no difference if you take Salamanders or Ultras or whichever they are all now the same thing barring special units. It is the special rules that make a lot of codices a codex. For instance there is no difference between a Blood Angel tac squad and a Dark Angel tac squad except for their chapter tactics. Even though I'm using SM terms the same thing holds true for CWE, DE, Tau and, Necrons. My point being that sometimes the reason you use a second or even third detachment is because you are looking for some special ability from that specific subfaction. I think the no CP being generated and no strats being available is enough of a penalty.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
RE: CP/Soup I stand by what I said before. You should have to declare a primary detachment and then have an allied detachment rule that any detachments which don't share 2 keywords with your primary detachment fall under. These detachments don't get their subfaction traits or relics, don't unlock stratagems if they are of a different faction, and give half CP to a minimum of 1. Simple and effective. No more taking a Castellan with Loyal 32 and getting a ton of CP to power the unlocked Knight stratagems, no more running multiple subfactions and getting both traits, etc.

I like part of this but not all of this. I think the CP penalty and no strats are a good idea. However, the no chapter tactics is not, IMHO, a good idea. Without chapter tactics then it makes no difference if you take Salamanders or Ultras or whichever they are all now the same thing barring special units. It is the special rules that make a lot of codices a codex. For instance there is no difference between a Blood Angel tac squad and a Dark Angel tac squad except for their chapter tactics. Even though I'm using SM terms the same thing holds true for CWE, DE, Tau and, Necrons. My point being that sometimes the reason you use a second or even third detachment is because you are looking for some special ability from that specific subfaction. I think the no CP being generated and no strats being available is enough of a penalty.

I agreed at first, but the reason for the no tactics is so you can't min/max detachments with the "best" choice for each. Like for example, you can't take a <RYZA> (that's the one that buffs plasma right?) with Kataphrons and Kstelans and then also take a <STYGIES VIII> Outrider with Dragoon spam for an extra -1 to hit. The intent is to have a penalty for wanting to take multiple subfactions in the same army in Matched Play to prevent just cherry-picking units and putting them in a different subfaction to milk the bonus.

That's one of the main reasons for allowing multiple detachments. If I take 3 detachments all from the same codex most people wouldn't call it soup and wouldn't object to the army. So what difference does it make if all 3 of my detachments have different special rules (except for keeping up with which unit has which rule)?

I would guess the bigger issue is the CP generation and the availability of stratagems. In fact I would limit strats to your Warlord's codex regardless of any other factors.

Wayniac wrote:


I agreed at first, but the reason for the no tactics is so you can't min/max detachments with the "best" choice for each. Like for example, you can't take a <RYZA> (that's the one that buffs plasma right?) with Kataphrons and Kstelans and then also take a <STYGIES VIII> Outrider with Dragoon spam for an extra -1 to hit. The intent is to have a penalty for wanting to take multiple subfactions in the same army in Matched Play to prevent just cherry-picking units and putting them in a different subfaction to milk the bonus.

Why is milking bonuses a problem for matched play?

This seems more like a personal preference rather than a problem.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:


I agreed at first, but the reason for the no tactics is so you can't min/max detachments with the "best" choice for each. Like for example, you can't take a <RYZA> (that's the one that buffs plasma right?) with Kataphrons and Kstelans and then also take a <STYGIES VIII> Outrider with Dragoon spam for an extra -1 to hit. The intent is to have a penalty for wanting to take multiple subfactions in the same army in Matched Play to prevent just cherry-picking units and putting them in a different subfaction to milk the bonus.

Why is milking bonuses a problem for matched play?

This seems more like a personal preference rather than a problem.

Perhaps, but it's an effort to limit cherry-picking for purely min/maxing purposes. It's not a "problem" per se but a part of the greater "'I'm going to min/max all my options" that leads to soup in the first place.

It's the least of the concerns compared to the other ones, and I absolutely admit was added as an afterthought. Also, the precedent is in the Brood Brothers rule that GSC has with Guard; the Guard unit doesn't get any of its traits, although that could easily just apply to different factions

In which case we would change the proposed Allied rule from 2 keywords to 1, so if you had two different chapters you'd be fine, but BA + guard + Knights only one of them is getting traits and stratagems.

Wayniac wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:


I agreed at first, but the reason for the no tactics is so you can't min/max detachments with the "best" choice for each. Like for example, you can't take a <RYZA> (that's the one that buffs plasma right?) with Kataphrons and Kstelans and then also take a <STYGIES VIII> Outrider with Dragoon spam for an extra -1 to hit. The intent is to have a penalty for wanting to take multiple subfactions in the same army in Matched Play to prevent just cherry-picking units and putting them in a different subfaction to milk the bonus.

Why is milking bonuses a problem for matched play?

This seems more like a personal preference rather than a problem.

Perhaps, but it's an effort to limit cherry-picking for purely min/maxing purposes. It's not a "problem" per se but a part of the greater "'I'm going to min/max all my options" that leads to soup in the first place.

It's the least of the concerns compared to the other ones, and I absolutely admit was added as an afterthought. Also, the precedent is in the Brood Brothers rule that GSC has with Guard; the Guard unit doesn't get any of its traits, although that could easily just apply to different factions

In which case we would change the proposed Allied rule from 2 keywords to 1, so if you had two different chapters you'd be fine, but BA + guard + Knights only one of them is getting traits and stratagems.

Isn't the Brood Brothers rule something entirely different, since it's not an interaction within a main faction [ <Tyranid> ] but an interaction between two main factions? There needed to be a restriction there, otherwise you would be treading in Imperium toes too much, and possibly allow some odd additions to the army, like making a Guard Character your general and getting access to the Assassin strategems.
It was written specifically to allow one Codex/army to be uprooted and added to the toolkit of another.

If there was a more general rule, which would have to differ somewhat, I could see it. Maybe a Human Helper rule for Tau, a Digganob rule for Orks, a Traitor Guardsman rule for Chaos in general....

But for interactions within a Main faction, reducing CP or providing a penalty for souping multiple codexes/a strong enough buff for mono-Codex, should be the way to go.