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.

Just catching up on the thread and had a thought:

Unit special rules are one of the things that enable small scale games (25-50PL) to still be fun. Lots of folks advocate for fewer special unit rules, and I get that: not here to invalidate anyone's POV. In a 2k or 3k game, I can definitely see the advantage of fewer unit specific special rules.

My 25 PL DW army is twelve infantry models- a Beleaguered Watch Captain and a 5 Man Proteus team, and an Inquisitor who brings him a fresh-faced 5 man Fortis team. What's cool is that playing those 12 models still feels like I'm playing an army; I have options and tactics, and the missions support my small force. Without the complexity, this force would feel trivial, and games of this size would probably be dull.

If that army is successful enough in its Crusade that it escalates to 2k or even 3k? Yeah, it might feel a bit overwhelming. But I play escalation style, so it will take years to get that far, which should give me all the time I need to get a grip on it.

But again, I can totally see the point being made if your preferred style of play is just to play stand-alone 2K matched games that hit the table ready made rather than growing over time.

(Please note my tone and diction: I am not telling anyone who has a bad experience that they are playing wrong. :-) - merely saying that it works for me, and acknowledging that this might be because of the way I choose to play.)

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It doubles their durability against anything Str 6+, even ignoring the save bonus (so battlecannons, multilasers, manticores, etc).

So really it's a buff to Cadians that nerfs Imperial Guard (noice).

I mean, if you are aiming Battlecannons at S3 Cadians then I do believe you are playing yourself.

I do agree though that the stratagem should be sub-faction agnostic.

What else would you aim your battlecannon at in an IG infantry army?

If you NEVER fire your battlecannon-cannon class weapons at T3 infantry on principle, I hope I get to play you sometime in the future. It'll be a unique experience to have my infantry not get hoovered up in droves.

Who knows, maybe one day we'll get a game and don't know it's us.

I just tend to aim high strength weapon at stuff that really requires high strength stuff like tanks and monsters. Infantry Guardsmen usually just get Poxwalkers in their face along with some Blight Lord Stormbolters. To be fair the only Battlecannon equivalent in my army are Plagueburst Crawlers and I really suck when rolling random shot weapons. The big gun is lucky I can do 2 shots per turn.

Remember against most Guard it's 3 shots minimum and against Cadian conscripts it's 6 shots flat.

Furthermore, there aren't tanks or monsters in an all infantry guard army, that's the point. Guard have to lean into Skew to compete currently, given the age of their codex.

PenitentJake wrote:
Just catching up on the thread and had a thought:

Unit special rules are one of the things that enable small scale games (25-50PL) to still be fun. Lots of folks advocate for fewer special unit rules, and I get that: not here to invalidate anyone's POV. In a 2k or 3k game, I can definitely see the advantage of fewer unit specific special rules.

My 25 PL DW army is twelve infantry models- a Beleaguered Watch Captain and a 5 Man Proteus team, and an Inquisitor who brings him a fresh-faced 5 man Fortis team. What's cool is that playing those 12 models still feels like I'm playing an army; I have options and tactics, and the missions support my small force. Without the complexity, this force would feel trivial, and games of this size would probably be dull.

If that army is successful enough in its Crusade that it escalates to 2k or even 3k? Yeah, it might feel a bit overwhelming. But I play escalation style, so it will take years to get that far, which should give me all the time I need to get a grip on it.

But again, I can totally see the point being made if your preferred style of play is just to play stand-alone 2K matched games that hit the table ready made rather than growing over time.

(Please note my tone and diction: I am not telling anyone who has a bad experience that they are playing wrong. :-) - merely saying that it works for me, and acknowledging that this might be because of the way I choose to play.)

I would think the game would be better if the core rules held enough in them to make small-model-count games still be playable and interesting, rather than leaning into special rules. Meaningful grenade rules, suppression, crossfire, overwatch and morale options could give you more tactical choices as a player without relying on special rules to generate interest.

PenitentJake wrote:

Unit special rules are one of the things that enable small scale games (25-50PL) to still be fun.

I disagree. Core rules with more than a mm of depth make the game fun at any (reasonable) size. You don't need special rules to make games engaging, you can do it with just as easily with basic rules that create engaging gameplay.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It doubles their durability against anything Str 6+, even ignoring the save bonus (so battlecannons, multilasers, manticores, etc).

So really it's a buff to Cadians that nerfs Imperial Guard (noice).

It doesn't double anything other than the amount of failed wound rolls you get. Normally you wound 5/6 instead you wound 4/6, to get from 4/6 to 5/6 you need to multiply by 1,25. Cadians are 25% more durable against S6+ weapons when using this Stratagem, the absolute horror.

PenitentJake wrote:
Just catching up on the thread and had a thought:

Unit special rules are one of the things that enable small scale games (25-50PL) to still be fun. Lots of folks advocate for fewer special unit rules, and I get that: not here to invalidate anyone's POV. In a 2k or 3k game, I can definitely see the advantage of fewer unit specific special rules.

My 25 PL DW army is twelve infantry models- a Beleaguered Watch Captain and a 5 Man Proteus team, and an Inquisitor who brings him a fresh-faced 5 man Fortis team. What's cool is that playing those 12 models still feels like I'm playing an army; I have options and tactics, and the missions support my small force. Without the complexity, this force would feel trivial, and games of this size would probably be dull.

If that army is successful enough in its Crusade that it escalates to 2k or even 3k? Yeah, it might feel a bit overwhelming. But I play escalation style, so it will take years to get that far, which should give me all the time I need to get a grip on it.

But again, I can totally see the point being made if your preferred style of play is just to play stand-alone 2K matched games that hit the table ready made rather than growing over time.

(Please note my tone and diction: I am not telling anyone who has a bad experience that they are playing wrong. :-) - merely saying that it works for me, and acknowledging that this might be because of the way I choose to play.)

TBH id be 100% fine with GW actually putting some teeth behind '3 ways to play' and giving us some layer-stripping for different types of play.

narrative play is the PERFECT arena for every unit to have fifteen billion different rules, where players are explicitly not playing to beat each other has hard as possible but instead doing what makes for the most interesting, best story.

then you can have Matched Play rules with a finely honed, trimmed down stratagem and available special rule list for people who want to play Tournaments, and Open Play rules with most of the stuff stripped out so that people who play the game occasionally can actually wrap their head around it without having to get an advanced degree.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It doubles their durability against anything Str 6+, even ignoring the save bonus (so battlecannons, multilasers, manticores, etc).

So really it's a buff to Cadians that nerfs Imperial Guard (noice).

It doesn't double anything other than the amount of failed wound rolls you get. Normally you wound 5/6 instead you wound 4/6, to get from 4/6 to 5/6 you need to multiply by 1,25. Cadians are 25% more durable against S6+ weapons when using this Stratagem, the absolute horror.

Twice as many rolls (which fall within the appropriate S range) will fail, which gives the appearance of being twice as durable.

Equally, only 80% of rolls which previously succeeded will succeed, which is why you have the view they have only improved in durability by 25%.

Neither view is wrong, amusingly.

 Dysartes wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It doubles their durability against anything Str 6+, even ignoring the save bonus (so battlecannons, multilasers, manticores, etc).

So really it's a buff to Cadians that nerfs Imperial Guard (noice).

It doesn't double anything other than the amount of failed wound rolls you get. Normally you wound 5/6 instead you wound 4/6, to get from 4/6 to 5/6 you need to multiply by 1,25. Cadians are 25% more durable against S6+ weapons when using this Stratagem, the absolute horror.

Twice as many rolls (which fall within the appropriate S range) will fail, which gives the appearance of being twice as durable.

Equally, only 80% of rolls which previously succeeded will succeed, which is why you have the view they have only improved in durability by 25%.

Neither view is wrong, amusingly.

I'd say it's more accurate to say they're 25% more durable. It doubles the rate of failure, but to actually double durability, it'd have to halve the rate of success, which it doesn't do.

Black templars dont look good , i mean this box, looks like a cheap army


for this price , i mean isnt it a bit crazy this prices shock me


this is despite, what i think of Black templars, that they Scouts army


in power armour

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
More rules on top of rules on top of rules on top of rules. Now even Guard have Transhuman and All Is Dust:



So, like the OP said: Does this Enhance Your Game Experience?

GW picking a single subfaction and giving it - and only it - a pile of extra artefacts, warlord traits, stratagems etc. most certainly does not enhance my game experience.

And the worst part is they could have done anything with the Guard.

Like I said to a certain persistent and clueless individual in another thread:

They could have done anything with a Guard update, focusing in on Guard army structure, heirarchy, types of commanders, order systems, platoon structure, the attached groups that aid the Guard (Ecclesiarchy, Commissariat, Enginseers, sanctioned Psykers, etc.), and so on.

But no: They just made a strat that makes some Guardsmen magically tougher.

 the_scotsman wrote:


TBH id be 100% fine with GW actually putting some teeth behind '3 ways to play' and giving us some layer-stripping for different types of play.

I feel like layer stripping does exist?

Open play isn't meant to be battle-forged (though it can be if you want). And as I've mentioned numerous times, when you don't battleforge, almost EVERYTHING that folks complain about is gone. You lose all the detachment rules, and your CP is whacked down so far that strat use is virtually non-existent. I'm pretty sure that bespoke strats are for battleforged armies too. I don't have the BRB to hand ATM, so I could be wrong about that, but I think that's the way its written. If so, open play uses only BRB strats, and you're looking at what, 3 CP + 1 per turn?

None of the Crusade upgrades apply to matched or Open games, though GW does provide a simple mechanic that attempts to make a matched play army usable against a Crusade army- the matched player ends up with extra CP to balance (cough, cough) the advantages the Crusade army will have acquired over time. I'm not sure how well that actually works in practice- I suspect it doesn't work well if at all. But it is there.

I suppose it's true that there isn't anything in matched (except secondaries) which is explicitly specific to Matched alone, since battleforging is the norm for Crusade and it can be used in Open at the player's discretion. Certainly, the interminable points updates and the agonizing over every point for every pistol or minor piece of wargear isn't stressed as heavily in Open and Crusade, which are both meant to be used with PL... Though again, many folks who hate the "bloat and complication" of 9th actually like the points minutiae enough that they port it over to the other two ways to play.

Even terrain rules are essentially written as optional add-ons.

 the_scotsman wrote:

narrative play is the PERFECT arena for every unit to have fifteen billion different rules, where players are explicitly not playing to beat each other has hard as possible but instead doing what makes for the most interesting, best story.

Agreed. It's why narrative is my fave. It's why I'm also reluctant to support changes to the game as a whole if they are written in such away that they impact Crusade- which is something that changes to core rules would do.

 the_scotsman wrote:

then you can have Matched Play rules with a finely honed, trimmed down stratagem and available special rule list for people who want to play Tournaments.

I wouldn't object to this, as it wouldn't really affect my experience.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I would think the game would be better if the core rules held enough in them to make small-model-count games still be playable and interesting, rather than leaning into special rules. Meaningful grenade rules, suppression, crossfire, overwatch and morale options could give you more tactical choices as a player without relying on special rules to generate interest.

There was a thread here a while back about games vs. simulations, and people got into all sorts of debate about what types of rules were suitable for board games vs. wargames and simulations. It was a pretty good thread; it helped me to realize that I don't personally like "wargames and simulations" as much as I like big ole sand boxes that contain limitless options and combinations.

I absolutely see the validity of what you are proposing. I get why so many people on Dakka prefer this approach. I just don't prefer it myself.

I hated pinning. I hated facings on vehicles- more for the limitations that they imposed upon my ability to fire than for for my opponent's ability to overcome my armour. I utterly LOATHED move or shoot weapons. I hated scatter. And I think I mentioned how the phenomenon of the one shot kill frustrated me in the old AV rules; many players who preferred that style say their vehicles felt more survivable than under the current rules; for me personally, I felt the opposite- sure there were certain weapons in my opponent's army that couldn't hurt my vehicles, by ANY weapon that could hurt me had a decent chance to wipe me out in a single shot... Which always felt worse to me than being chipped away at by three dozen lasguns or bolters.

I liked the lore and models enough that I played the game pretty faithfully from 1989-2010. I was also comforted by the fact my opponents had to deal with the same bad-feel moments as I did, which made it okay.

And that's really it right there: all armies felt too much alike, because they all used the same generalized rules. Wanna win? Pin your opponent, catch'em in a cross fire, scare 'em til they try to flee and then wipe 'em all out if you run faster. Doesn't matter whether you're a Sister, a Marine, a guardsman or an alien. You're models look different, but they all play exactly the same so it's merely a matter of cosmetics. Like we're playing chess, but your pieces are from a different set that mine so they look different and have a different story, but that's about it.

Again, I understand the point of view of the forum majority who like that style better- you're not wrong. We just want different things.

No need to shout me down; I'm acknowledging in advance that points of view to the contrary are just as valid as mine.

And speaking of 3 ways to play, Winters posted this the other day:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And the worst part is they could have done anything with the Guard.

Like I said to a certain persistent and clueless individual in another thread:

They could have done anything with a Guard update, focusing in on Guard army structure, heirarchy, types of commanders, order systems, platoon structure, the attached groups that aid the Guard (Ecclesiarchy, Commissariat, Enginseers, sanctioned Psykers, etc.), and so on.

But no: They just made a strat that makes some Guardsmen magically tougher.

That's also a good point.

IMO Transhuman Physiology makes little enough sense for Space Marines (if it's based on their physiology then why is it a Stratagem? ), and having the equivalent for basic guardsmen is just absurd.

Also, whilst I liked the idea initially, I'm becoming less and less enamoured with the whole sub faction thing. It initially seemed pretty cool to have different builds with different themes. However, with so many traits locked behind subfaction gates, plus the uneven treatment of different subfactions, its increasingly started to feel like more doors are being closed than opened with this route.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And the worst part is they could have done anything with the Guard.

Like I said to a certain persistent and clueless individual in another thread:

They could have done anything with a Guard update, focusing in on Guard army structure, heirarchy, types of commanders, order systems, platoon structure, the attached groups that aid the Guard (Ecclesiarchy, Commissariat, Enginseers, sanctioned Psykers, etc.), and so on.

But no: They just made a strat that makes some Guardsmen magically tougher.

I suspect the changes were this minimal because they are coming from a campaign book and not a codex.

I suspect that when the dex drops, it probably will contain changes comparable to the ones you are suggesting. Having said that, I concede that it does look like they've made some pretty big changes to Nids... so I suppose they could have gone further than they did with guard despite the fact that this is just a campaign book.

I also don't think they've shown us ALL of the guard content from the book, so there might be more in there than we think... Though of course, there's also a chance that there isn't.

I'd argue that, come the new Guard 'dex, this rule will be in there.

That's not a good thing.

PenitentJake wrote:

I also don't think they've shown us ALL of the guard content from the book, so there might be more in there than we think... Though of course, there's also a chance that there isn't.

There’s plenty more to see in Rising Tide, including a new suite of Crusade rules for Astra Militarum armies, so stay tuned as we take a deeper look into War Zone Octarius later this week.

Yes, there is more.

The long and short of it is that this is the content we would see in a dedicated Cadian supplement...and them sneaking some stuff(the Crusade rules for example) that we would likely see in the codex for people to get to start using it.

PenitentJake wrote:

Spoiler:

 the_scotsman wrote:


TBH id be 100% fine with GW actually putting some teeth behind '3 ways to play' and giving us some layer-stripping for different types of play.

I feel like layer stripping does exist?

Open play isn't meant to be battle-forged (though it can be if you want). And as I've mentioned numerous times, when you don't battleforge, almost EVERYTHING that folks complain about is gone. You lose all the detachment rules, and your CP is whacked down so far that strat use is virtually non-existent. I'm pretty sure that bespoke strats are for battleforged armies too. I don't have the BRB to hand ATM, so I could be wrong about that, but I think that's the way its written. If so, open play uses only BRB strats, and you're looking at what, 3 CP + 1 per turn?

None of the Crusade upgrades apply to matched or Open games, though GW does provide a simple mechanic that attempts to make a matched play army usable against a Crusade army- the matched player ends up with extra CP to balance (cough, cough) the advantages the Crusade army will have acquired over time. I'm not sure how well that actually works in practice- I suspect it doesn't work well if at all. But it is there.

I suppose it's true that there isn't anything in matched (except secondaries) which is explicitly specific to Matched alone, since battleforging is the norm for Crusade and it can be used in Open at the player's discretion. Certainly, the interminable points updates and the agonizing over every point for every pistol or minor piece of wargear isn't stressed as heavily in Open and Crusade, which are both meant to be used with PL... Though again, many folks who hate the "bloat and complication" of 9th actually like the points minutiae enough that they port it over to the other two ways to play.

Even terrain rules are essentially written as optional add-ons.

 the_scotsman wrote:

narrative play is the PERFECT arena for every unit to have fifteen billion different rules, where players are explicitly not playing to beat each other has hard as possible but instead doing what makes for the most interesting, best story.

Agreed. It's why narrative is my fave. It's why I'm also reluctant to support changes to the game as a whole if they are written in such away that they impact Crusade- which is something that changes to core rules would do.

 the_scotsman wrote:

then you can have Matched Play rules with a finely honed, trimmed down stratagem and available special rule list for people who want to play Tournaments.

I wouldn't object to this, as it wouldn't really affect my experience.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I would think the game would be better if the core rules held enough in them to make small-model-count games still be playable and interesting, rather than leaning into special rules. Meaningful grenade rules, suppression, crossfire, overwatch and morale options could give you more tactical choices as a player without relying on special rules to generate interest.

There was a thread here a while back about games vs. simulations, and people got into all sorts of debate about what types of rules were suitable for board games vs. wargames and simulations. It was a pretty good thread; it helped me to realize that I don't personally like "wargames and simulations" as much as I like big ole sand boxes that contain limitless options and combinations.

I absolutely see the validity of what you are proposing. I get why so many people on Dakka prefer this approach. I just don't prefer it myself.

Spoiler:

I hated pinning. I hated facings on vehicles- more for the limitations that they imposed upon my ability to fire than for for my opponent's ability to overcome my armour. I utterly LOATHED move or shoot weapons. I hated scatter. And I think I mentioned how the phenomenon of the one shot kill frustrated me in the old AV rules; many players who preferred that style say their vehicles felt more survivable than under the current rules; for me personally, I felt the opposite- sure there were certain weapons in my opponent's army that couldn't hurt my vehicles, by ANY weapon that could hurt me had a decent chance to wipe me out in a single shot... Which always felt worse to me than being chipped away at by three dozen lasguns or bolters.

I liked the lore and models enough that I played the game pretty faithfully from 1989-2010. I was also comforted by the fact my opponents had to deal with the same bad-feel moments as I did, which made it okay.

And that's really it right there: all armies felt too much alike, because they all used the same generalized rules. Wanna win? Pin your opponent, catch'em in a cross fire, scare 'em til they try to flee and then wipe 'em all out if you run faster. Doesn't matter whether you're a Sister, a Marine, a guardsman or an alien. You're models look different, but they all play exactly the same so it's merely a matter of cosmetics. Like we're playing chess, but your pieces are from a different set that mine so they look different and have a different story, but that's about it.

Again, I understand the point of view of the forum majority who like that style better- you're not wrong. We just want different things.

No need to shout me down; I'm acknowledging in advance that points of view to the contrary are just as valid as mine.

Exalted, Jake. I am WHOLLY with Insectum on this, opinion wise, but I appreciate this post.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I would think the game would be better if the core rules held enough in them to make small-model-count games still be playable and interesting, rather than leaning into special rules. Meaningful grenade rules, suppression, crossfire, overwatch and morale options could give you more tactical choices as a player without relying on special rules to generate interest.

There was a thread here a while back about games vs. simulations, and people got into all sorts of debate about what types of rules were suitable for board games vs. wargames and simulations. It was a pretty good thread; it helped me to realize that I don't personally like "wargames and simulations" as much as I like big ole sand boxes that contain limitless options and combinations.

I absolutely see the validity of what you are proposing. I get why so many people on Dakka prefer this approach. I just don't prefer it myself.

I hated pinning. I hated facings on vehicles- more for the limitations that they imposed upon my ability to fire than for for my opponent's ability to overcome my armour. I utterly LOATHED move or shoot weapons. I hated scatter. And I think I mentioned how the phenomenon of the one shot kill frustrated me in the old AV rules; many players who preferred that style say their vehicles felt more survivable than under the current rules; for me personally, I felt the opposite- sure there were certain weapons in my opponent's army that couldn't hurt my vehicles, by ANY weapon that could hurt me had a decent chance to wipe me out in a single shot... Which always felt worse to me than being chipped away at by three dozen lasguns or bolters.

I liked the lore and models enough that I played the game pretty faithfully from 1989-2010. I was also comforted by the fact my opponents had to deal with the same bad-feel moments as I did, which made it okay.

And that's really it right there: all armies felt too much alike, because they all used the same generalized rules. Wanna win? Pin your opponent, catch'em in a cross fire, scare 'em til they try to flee and then wipe 'em all out if you run faster. Doesn't matter whether you're a Sister, a Marine, a guardsman or an alien. You're models look different, but they all play exactly the same so it's merely a matter of cosmetics. Like we're playing chess, but your pieces are from a different set that mine so they look different and have a different story, but that's about it.

Again, I understand the point of view of the forum majority who like that style better- you're not wrong. We just want different things.

No need to shout me down; I'm acknowledging in advance that points of view to the contrary are just as valid as mine.

Thanks for taking the time!

The thing is, I can understand a lot of the points you raise about pinning, vehicle AV, etc. and I agree that there were parts of those mechanics that were definitely less than ideal. I still would like to believe that there's a game to be made that would satisfy both of our sensibilities.

As for armies feeling "samey". I'm not totally sure I understand that one, but I think that might depend on which armies you played with/against. For example, I played Necrons back then in addition to my SM. Necrons felt wildly different to me with their limited choices, Phase Out rules and teleportation mechanics. Much more different than they are today, imo.