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.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
So far, Phil Kelly is the only person to actually write any sort of ork rules that are both strong and fun to play.

To an extent. He is well known to heavily invest in his pet project armies more so than others. (Eldar in 6th/7th)

If he had gotten his hands (or claws?) on Nids back then they would have been power houses as well (they are decent in 8th now though)

I was thinking about this earlier though. Is it bad if fans writes rules? So this guy wrote some really "good" rules for Eldar(People have differing opinions blah blah). I wish someone as passionate as that wrote the rules for marines or Ad-mech

Previously a lot of it came down to the lottery draw of which writer picked up your codex. If they had a real passion for the faction you would end up with a very good Codex (Space Wolves 5th Ed, GK 5th Ed etc)

if the writer wasn't really into it, you ended up with a dud for the next 5 years (Cruddance and his IG for example)

Now, it's not so much an issue as the books are more of a collaborative effort rather than being tied to one writer.

 fraser1191 wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
So far, Phil Kelly is the only person to actually write any sort of ork rules that are both strong and fun to play.

To an extent. He is well known to heavily invest in his pet project armies more so than others. (Eldar in 6th/7th)

If he had gotten his hands (or claws?) on Nids back then they would have been power houses as well (they are decent in 8th now though)

I was thinking about this earlier though. Is it bad if fans writes rules? So this guy wrote some really "good" rules for Eldar(People have differing opinions blah blah). I wish someone as passionate as that wrote the rules for marines or Ad-mech

It's only a problem when some Codices have that kind of person and some don't. See 8E Grey Knights Vs. Astra Militarum.

Man if I got my hands on a codex I know what I would do to bring GK up to snuff.

Baseline WS2+
Flat 2 mortal wound smite against anything
All GK detachment can cast a spell twice
Some other things

Would fluff out the Brotherhoods, especially the 5th Brotherhood Dreadnoughts.

I'd really like to see them bring back Landraider Assault ramps. I have no idea why they were ever removed. At first I thought it was consistent with the new deepstrike and other similar rules and that they didn't want turn 1 charges to be possible. Buuuut then they went and made a ton of ways to get turn 1 charges.

 darkcloak wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I expect the nerf bat to swong at some things (negative to hit) and then the units that benefitted from it, after being brought in line by the nerf, to get a price hike on CA2018

Dark Reaperz gon get swongged!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 darkcloak wrote:
What changes do I expect will come with the FAQ?

A price tag!

Badum-tiss!

No idea what it does, but have an Exalt good sir

Exalt button turns a regular broken marine into a swell new Primaris Marine.

: that's why there is so many.

I would blame my phone, but getting Swongged sounds hilarious.

 fraser1191 wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
So far, Phil Kelly is the only person to actually write any sort of ork rules that are both strong and fun to play.

To an extent. He is well known to heavily invest in his pet project armies more so than others. (Eldar in 6th/7th)

If he had gotten his hands (or claws?) on Nids back then they would have been power houses as well (they are decent in 8th now though)

I was thinking about this earlier though. Is it bad if fans writes rules? So this guy wrote some really "good" rules for Eldar(People have differing opinions blah blah). I wish someone as passionate as that wrote the rules for marines or Ad-mech

It's not bad that he writes the rules. The problem is (was?) that there was no other guy doing QA on the codex and then telling him that he should tone them down a notch.

MtG pretty much has two groups of people involved when creating new cards: designers, who think up new awesome cards, and developers that tone those cards up or down or axe them completely to prevent them from breaking the game or ending up garbage. They are also in charge of making the rules for the idea the designer had work.
Basically one creative element and one that understands the game. People that can do both well are rare, so I think splitting that task is a very good idea.

Wayniac wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I hope they restrict souping. It shouldn't be infeasible, but there should at least be some kind of trade off here.

There's a tournament I saw recently (Broadside Bash, I think it was) that had an addendum that Chaos/Imperium does not count as a faction keyword for Battleforged. I wonder if that's based on insider knowledge, or just something to try and fix it independently.

I hope, then, that they also made the same restriction on “Aeldari”?

I can’t see GW preventing “Imperium” or “Chaos” from denying Battleforged benefits at an army wide level, but, there is an outside chance that they introduce it at detachment level to prevent soup detachments but still allow mixed armies.

Kdash wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I hope they restrict souping. It shouldn't be infeasible, but there should at least be some kind of trade off here.

There's a tournament I saw recently (Broadside Bash, I think it was) that had an addendum that Chaos/Imperium does not count as a faction keyword for Battleforged. I wonder if that's based on insider knowledge, or just something to try and fix it independently.

I hope, then, that they also made the same restriction on “Aeldari”?

They did not.

 Quickjager wrote:
Man if I got my hands on a codex I know what I would do to bring GK up to snuff.

Baseline WS2+
Flat 2 mortal wound smite against anything
All GK detachment can cast a spell twice
Some other things

Would fluff out the Brotherhoods, especially the 5th Brotherhood Dreadnoughts.

2 and 3 are broken man

Cheeslord wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

They are compensated; the two armies that are intended to spam out psykers get 18 spells in their list. They just need to expand the Grey Knights list to be as big as the Eldar and Thousand Sons lists and the smite change is totally fine.

I don't own either of those armies; can their basic squads now cast spells other than Smite? (as at one time that was all they could cast)?

Also: Horrors totally don't work if it is -1 per ATTEMPT, and they definitely only know Smite.

Mark.

Plus it's bad game design to make rule as unscalable as this is. Psychics weren't all that scalable in 7th edition and 8th edition it went even worse which I didn't think would even be possible.

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Man if I got my hands on a codex I know what I would do to bring GK up to snuff.

Baseline WS2+
Flat 2 mortal wound smite against anything
All GK detachment can cast a spell twice
Some other things

Would fluff out the Brotherhoods, especially the 5th Brotherhood Dreadnoughts.

2 and 3 are broken man

And this is why I can't take people seriously, how is 3 broken do you even know the GK spells?

2 is not broken considering they will never do D6 damage and they have a 12 inch range and they're 105 points MINIMUM for a single smite. Or are you terrified of Purifiers with their D6 smite?

Honestly, I would very much like GK going back to their 5th edition style where all the units were casting some minor psychic buffs like hammerhand and fortitude on themselves. For that they would need an exception to the "one spell per turn" rule, which I frankly don't see a problem with as long as the powers can only be used on the casting unit itself.

2 MW smites are bogus though. "Bring back smite spam" said no one ever.

Spamming GK, my sides are in pain from the laughter.

You might get 6-7 units on the field that can cast spells. 3 of those will be casting other spells. If you let them cast the same spell twice, i.e. sanctuary, hammerhand, all of a sudden there are only 3 units casting smite. That's even assuming no vehicles or allies that can't cast spells in the first place.

Increase the MW from 1 to 2 and people lose their minds, knee jerk reactions much.

If you improve smite to flat two MW no one would be casting spells, but smiting instead. Even malific lord lists would not have more than 5-7 smites.

I think you are undervaluinging flat two MW smites by a lot. Imagine being on the receiving end - some army just deleting two squads of power armed grey knights every psychik phase, before any shots are fired.
Sounds like fun? Didn't think so.

How many units are in a typical 2k GK list?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How many units are in a typical 2k GK list?

Doesn't matter, you'd be spamming 5-man Strike squads to abuse the 2W Smite and double cast

 Jidmah wrote:
If you improve smite to flat two MW no one would be casting spells, but smiting instead. Even malific lord lists would not have more than 5-7 smites.

I think you are undervaluinging flat two MW smites by a lot. Imagine being on the receiving end - some army just deleting two squads of power armed grey knights every psychik phase, before any shots are fired.
Sounds like fun? Didn't think so.

Lol 2 squads of tac marines gone each turn? That is already reality for SM players my friend, doubly so for GK who pay extra for that privilege because those GKSS are quite seriously a contender for the 3rd best unit in our codex behind GMDK and Stormraven. It like you aren't even considering the Beta nerf GW is likely to implement in March for increasing difficulty of each cast or the fact it is a 12 inch range meaning a good opponent will just remove the models closest to GK squad after deepstrike to make the charge impossible negating the melee focus. It isn't even like GK have many units, you mention 5-7 malefic D3 (D6 if lucky) smite lords, that ALSO have an army backing them up? A GK army at best if you maximized smite spam would have @2000 14 units: 4 HQ, 10 5-man strike squads. Which would be suicide and really badly optimized as 6 of those units would not be in smite range for likely 2 turns of the game, also these squads would be extremely easy to wipe efficiently with splitfire of 8th ed. The second you include vehicles to transport the GK you lose smite as vehicles outside of DK and Dreadnoughts cannot smite.

The realistic GK list would most likely consist of closer to 10 or less units that are close to max squad size in order to benefit from their stratagems which are ridiculously expensive for the 6 cp you would get total without dabbling into allies, if you wanted to push 9 cp (totally doable and a pretty good list still) you would be taking 4 GMDK and 6 troops (for 2 battalions) which would bite into your remaining points. At that point you have so few units on the field you don't care about smite, because you can wipe each individual squad out easily; rather the GMDK are the threat at that point.

So I ask, is going from 6-9 mortal wounds a turn, to 12-18 a turn really insane for LITERALLY the weakest codex?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How many units are in a typical 2k GK list?

Doesn't matter, you'd be spamming 5-man Strike squads to abuse the 2W Smite and double cast

No you wouldn't it would be gak because of the Beta Smite rules I already addressed that, think ahead a bit next time. Also GKSS can only cast one power, when I say double cast I mean one can squad cast Hammerhand and OHMYGOD another squad can also cast that spell on themselves because the fething spell isn't some mathbook you only got one copy of to share among 10 people.

It was confirmed by a GW rule-writter that if Wraithknights where so OP in 7th was not because the writers of the Codex but because marketing and the guys in the suit said them that. He also said that Codex were never written by just one guy, every single of them was written by a group of people.
So probably we should cut some slack for single-name boogeymans. Even I, after saying that Matt Ward killed fantasy. I'm sure that was a mix of Matt Ward believe that Daemons should be unbeatable and marketing.

 Galas wrote:
It was confirmed by a GW rule-writter that if Wraithknights where so OP in 7th was not because the writers of the Codex but because marketing and the guys in the suit said them that. He also said that Codex were never written by just one guy, every single of them was written by a group of people.
So probably we should cut some slack for single-name boogeymans. Even I, after saying that Matt Ward killed fantasy. I'm sure that was a mix of Matt Ward believe that Daemons should be unbeatable and marketing.

It could also be a factor of the in-house only play testing (some of which the writers even did in their off time just to try and get a feel for the rules). RAI will always feel more balanced than RAW just because the writer intends for things to work a certain way and will even impose limits on themselves without thinking about it to fit the narrative they're seeking while RAW may be a lot more grey and easily abused.

The problem with the theory that OP units were intentionally OP to sell is that the Tyranids has plenty of new expensive models with crap rules. Exocrines, Haruspexes, Maleceptors, Pyrovores, Toxicrenes, Harpies, Tervigons and Tyrannofexes were poor units with excellent new models that I doubt had good sales because poor rules. Some of those are still quite bad.

Which I guess is a testament to the incompetence of GW.

 Formosa wrote:
The same result as the last round, incompetent points adjustments that are barely thought out, FAQ's for questions not asked, no FAQ for things needed

This is also what I expect.

Grey Knights need a total redesign. And it should start with the psychic powers. In addition to having more to choose from, each power should have a diminished effect that can be used on a non-GK Space Marines unit. For example, you can cast Gate of Infinity on a GK unit and it deep strikes anywhere. Or, on an Adeptus Astartes unit and it deep strikes within 12" of the caster.

Tyran wrote:
The problem with the theory that OP units were intentionally OP to sell is that the Tyranids has plenty of new expensive models with crap rules. Exocrines, Haruspexes, Maleceptors, Pyrovores, Toxicrenes, Harpies, Tervigons and Tyrannofexes were poor units with excellent new models that I doubt had good sales because poor rules. Some of those are still quite bad.

Which I guess is a testament to the incompetence of GW.

I'm pretty sure the power level of Primaris disproves the notion that GW only writes rules to sell models.

But it's not like Primaris needed to be powerful to sell. GW management might now have their fingers in every pot, but they probably do every once in a while, especially for those big centrepiece kits.

Then there's the element of GW's rules writing staffs' incompetence. If management tells them to make something overpowered, they likely mess that up just as often as they mess up everything else (which is a lot). I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of units that were intended on being powerful (such as those new Tyranid kits at the time) ended up being crap because the rules staff had such a poor ability at developing their own rules.

I don't really expect much.

What I expect is not much more than the usual FAQ do

What I want is something so you draw LoS from a weapon, not any part of the model, and for non-turret or sponson weapons to get a fixed fire arc.

Would also love to see "rotate the model or turret to face its target", with stuff splitting fire having to face what a "primary weapon" aims at.

I just don't expect to see it

leopard wrote:
What I expect is not much more than the usual FAQ do

What I want is something so you draw LoS from a weapon, not any part of the model, and for non-turret or sponson weapons to get a fixed fire arc.

Would also love to see "rotate the model or turret to face its target", with stuff splitting fire having to face what a "primary weapon" aims at.

I just don't expect to see it

Firing arcs No, but facings yeah.
We already use this, barring flyers. I know it's not in the rules but we still pivot and point our cannons in the direction of what we shoot. The only reason I say no to firing arcs is because the land raider can't shoot things too close to it's front lol

Ugh god no... just house rule that for your games. No need to make it a formal rule, it causes way too many disagreements. If it works without disagreement for your group, great - just house rule it - it doesn't work for most.

Fire arcs also don't really make sense for 40k's current scale.

1) Nothing else uses it (even though there are non-vehicle units with obvious fixed forward-firing guns, etc).
2) It's a company scale game, and no tank company commander is going to micromanage every single individual tank's disposition - that will be left up to individual tank commanders or platoon/squadron commanders.
3) It's clunky and difficult, especially if people actually try to do it "realistically" which is completely not how 40k has ever done it in the past.