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.
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!
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
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.
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 THSS 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.
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 THSS 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."
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.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
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 THSS 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."
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.
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 THSS 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."
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.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/06/07 12:43:45
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.
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 message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/06/07 13:33:40
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
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 THSS 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
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".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/06/07 15:50:54
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".
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...
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/06/07 16:07:32
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?
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".
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.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/06/07 17:11:51
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.
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.
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.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
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.
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.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/06/07 18:25:35
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).
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
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.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
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.
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.
