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: One thing I just noticed too - when I make an AOO Det the CP for Battle Size is halved. If I make a list using the AOO Det, I get 6CP for Battle Size, and end up with 5ish after pre-battle spending for Chapter Command and Relics. The Same list with Bat + Supreme Command has 11 CP.
yhea, GW changed that like 6 months ago at the start of neliplhim. they were concerned about people loading up with pre game strats and then going for a 1st turn alpha strike, so they cut the starting CP but you gain a CP on BOTH command phases (Ie, you gain in CP in your opponents as well).
also, you now no longer get a free WLT and Relic, you need to a pay a CP for each.
That's all kinds of weird because none of the pre-game strats I spend on are really Alpha Strike enabling. Must have been a different faction or a different playstyle. And another obvious reason these changes should be a downloadable PDF not a charged for rules change. I was too buried to keep up with things and never would have known this.
Breton wrote: One thing I just noticed too - when I make an AOO Det the CP for Battle Size is halved. If I make a list using the AOO Det, I get 6CP for Battle Size, and end up with 5ish after pre-battle spending for Chapter Command and Relics. The Same list with Bat + Supreme Command has 11 CP.
yhea, GW changed that like 6 months ago at the start of neliplhim. they were concerned about people loading up with pre game strats and then going for a 1st turn alpha strike, so they cut the starting CP but you gain a CP on BOTH command phases (Ie, you gain in CP in your opponents as well).
also, you now no longer get a free WLT and Relic, you need to a pay a CP for each.
That's all kinds of weird because none of the pre-game strats I spend on are really Alpha Strike enabling. Must have been a different faction or a different playstyle. And another obvious reason these changes should be a downloadable PDF not a charged for rules change. I was too buried to keep up with things and never would have known this.
SO, the rules change was linked, specifically, to the GT packs of neliplhim and arks of omen, in the "Muster armies" step, its not a core rules change per se. So, if your playing a different GT set (ie Nachmund, Octarius, or the matched play rules in the core book), or not playing matched play, it doesn't actually affect you.
Im not sure if it was pre-game or 1st turn starts, to be honest, but my understanding was that some competitive players were spending most of the CP either on extra relics or detachments, or on wombo-combos on the first turn that basically decided the game before the other player even had a chance to act. GW decided this was bad, and change the CP rules to limit their ability to do this. Arks of omen has, arguably, walked back on this slightly as the new detachment mostly reduces the need to buy extra specialist detachments which frees up CP for other uses.
but yhea, it was as well publicised as possible, i've never purchased a GT pack and i knew about it.
To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginable. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be relearned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods.
Coven of XVth 2000pts
The Blades of Ruin 2,000pts Watch Company Rho 1650pts
Breton wrote: One thing I just noticed too - when I make an AOO Det the CP for Battle Size is halved. If I make a list using the AOO Det, I get 6CP for Battle Size, and end up with 5ish after pre-battle spending for Chapter Command and Relics. The Same list with Bat + Supreme Command has 11 CP.
yhea, GW changed that like 6 months ago at the start of neliplhim. they were concerned about people loading up with pre game strats and then going for a 1st turn alpha strike, so they cut the starting CP but you gain a CP on BOTH command phases (Ie, you gain in CP in your opponents as well).
also, you now no longer get a free WLT and Relic, you need to a pay a CP for each.
That's all kinds of weird because none of the pre-game strats I spend on are really Alpha Strike enabling. Must have been a different faction or a different playstyle. And another obvious reason these changes should be a downloadable PDF not a charged for rules change. I was too buried to keep up with things and never would have known this.
SO, the rules change was linked, specifically, to the GT packs of neliplhim and arks of omen, in the "Muster armies" step, its not a core rules change per se. So, if your playing a different GT set (ie Nachmund, Octarius, or the matched play rules in the core book), or not playing matched play, it doesn't actually affect you.
Im not sure if it was pre-game or 1st turn starts, to be honest, but my understanding was that some competitive players were spending most of the CP either on extra relics or detachments, or on wombo-combos on the first turn that basically decided the game before the other player even had a chance to act. GW decided this was bad, and change the CP rules to limit their ability to do this. Arks of omen has, arguably, walked back on this slightly as the new detachment mostly reduces the need to buy extra specialist detachments which frees up CP for other uses.
but yhea, it was as well publicised as possible, i've never purchased a GT pack and i knew about it.
Oh I was way too buried for any publicization. Looks like it's carried over to AOO though. Maybe it was for my style, I do load up on some pregame "strats", but I don't have any idea how that leads to some sort of first turn Alpha Strike. 3CP in Chapter Command, 2 CP in Extra Relics. I didn't even pay for the extra Det because it was "free" as a Supreme Command Det. And ironically I think the list where I DID pay for extra Dets still does better one AOO Det because I can't do it in one AOO Det, AND they'll still have more CP with the old way. (Double Wing Dark Angels with a Vanguard and Outrider Det)
It wasn't the pregame strats that were leading to alpha strikes. It was the fact you could spend 3-4CP pregame to get all the WLT and relics you wanted and still have 7+ CP on turn one. You then spend most or all of those CPs on the various "make me better" strats every army has to leave you with around 0-1 CP at the end of turn one. You don't really care about the lack of CP because you spent them all to kill stupid amounts of the opponent's army. By reducing the starting CP and charging for the first WLT/relic, GW effectively kept the total CP per game the same but gave you more to spend it on and reduced the total amount available early on.
Speaking of problems with battlescribe- I built an Arks detachment and it comes up with the error "must have 1 more selection of Arks of Omen Compulsory Type..." . My question is where do I fill in that info? For completeness sake I made an Emp's Children army so it would probably fall under CSM.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Speaking of problems with battlescribe- I built an Arks detachment and it comes up with the error "must have 1 more selection of Arks of Omen Compulsory Type..." . My question is where do I fill in that info? For completeness sake I made an Emp's Children army so it would probably fall under CSM.
If you click on the error itself it should take you to the right screen. It's somewhere in the detachment set-up screen normally, but really easy to miss.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Speaking of problems with battlescribe- I built an Arks detachment and it comes up with the error "must have 1 more selection of Arks of Omen Compulsory Type..." . My question is where do I fill in that info? For completeness sake I made an Emp's Children army so it would probably fall under CSM.
Its on the left hand column top where you see the Battle Size, Chapter choice, Game Type etc choices that are Detachment level instead of unit level - its called Configuration above HQ and (If you have any) No Force Org Slot.
I think it further showcases that the 'rules writers' are not truly interested in balancing the game. Their focus is solely on placating whining tournament players.
Whine: Tournament players whined that there were too many starting Command Points, that this allowed alpha strikes, etc.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' lowered the starting Command Points to 6.
Whine: Tournament players whined that they do not have enough starting Command Points. That they are being punished by having to spend resources on pointless detachments.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' create the AoO detachment.
Whine : Tournament players will whine that the new AoO detachment allows for skew-lists. That there needs to be more resource related checks & balances. Change: TBD
Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
I think it further showcases that the 'rules writers' are not truly interested in balancing the game. Their focus is solely on placating whining tournament players.
Whine: Tournament players whined that there were too many starting Command Points, that this allowed alpha strikes, etc.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' lowered the starting Command Points to 6.
Whine: Tournament players whined that they do not have enough starting Command Points. That they are being punished by having to spend resources on pointless detachments.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' create the AoO detachment.
Whine : Tournament players will whine that the new AoO detachment allows for skew-lists. That there needs to be more resource related checks & balances. Change: TBD
Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
Horribly punished seems a little extreme, it forces you to lean into your mandatory slots heavily in comparison but I can't think of anyone it punishes beyond the 2 of each slot fluffy list type situation.
I think it further showcases that the 'rules writers' are not truly interested in balancing the game. Their focus is solely on placating whining tournament players.
Whine: Tournament players whined that there were too many starting Command Points, that this allowed alpha strikes, etc.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' lowered the starting Command Points to 6.
Whine: Tournament players whined that they do not have enough starting Command Points. That they are being punished by having to spend resources on pointless detachments.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' create the AoO detachment.
Whine : Tournament players will whine that the new AoO detachment allows for skew-lists. That there needs to be more resource related checks & balances. Change: TBD
Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
You're so tone deaf on this ridiculous crusade that you missed it when most people on this forum complained about paying for relics or that stratagems were too prominent.
I think it further showcases that the 'rules writers' are not truly interested in balancing the game. Their focus is solely on placating whining tournament players.
Whine: Tournament players whined that there were too many starting Command Points, that this allowed alpha strikes, etc.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' lowered the starting Command Points to 6.
Whine: Tournament players whined that they do not have enough starting Command Points. That they are being punished by having to spend resources on pointless detachments.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' create the AoO detachment.
Whine : Tournament players will whine that the new AoO detachment allows for skew-lists. That there needs to be more resource related checks & balances. Change: TBD
Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
You're so tone deaf on this ridiculous crusade that you missed it when most people on this forum complained about paying for relics or that stratagems were too prominent.
Something something TOURNAMENT PLAYERS!
Tone def... Not at all... I am just able to see the problem. I have been playing this game longer than most, longer than most players have been alive. I know it's history and can see when the mistakes of the past are being repeated, by both GW and the community.
Crusade... Absolutely... As long as I'm throwing dice, I will never stop trying to preserve the heart and soul of this game.
The problem with w40k is that in order to fix problems, GW creates, they make wide all faction affecting changes instead of addressing the problem . The same happens with the fix. GW removes AoC, but buffs doctrines by a lot and drops point costs. Somehow forgets that there are marine factions that don't have doctrines and who didn't get point drops, and some even got points hikes like csm. Somehow expects that the players of those armies will be okey with them.
There are too many single army or single faction players for such a way of game design to work. On top of that GW changes the design paradigma half in to every edition, making the , tone down from the crazy, books of early edition practicaly unplayable vs the stuff that comes out in the second half of the edition. And the fact that there can be 2+ years spread between rules updates of two people playing the same game is just mind blowing. I hope that IG players will have fun in the next 4-5 months, because with GW you never know if your fun army translates in to the next edition at all.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Karol wrote: The problem with w40k is that in order to fix problems, GW creates, they make wide all faction affecting changes instead of addressing the problem . The same happens with the fix. GW removes AoC, but buffs doctrines by a lot and drops point costs. Somehow forgets that there are marine factions that don't have doctrines and who didn't get point drops, and some even got points hikes like csm. Somehow expects that the players of those armies will be okey with them.
There are too many single army or single faction players for such a way of game design to work. On top of that GW changes the design paradigma half in to every edition, making the , tone down from the crazy, books of early edition practicaly unplayable vs the stuff that comes out in the second half of the edition. And the fact that there can be 2+ years spread between rules updates of two people playing the same game is just mind blowing. I hope that IG players will have fun in the next 4-5 months, because with GW you never know if your fun army translates in to the next edition at all.
most sensible players are fine with the idea of overperforming units in their armies getting hit with nerfs....
Sure, i would have prefered if terminators werent able to take the rune instead of getting a points hike, but as it is, its still fine. Same with Abaddon
I think it further showcases that the 'rules writers' are not truly interested in balancing the game. Their focus is solely on placating whining tournament players.
Whine: Tournament players whined that there were too many starting Command Points, that this allowed alpha strikes, etc.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' lowered the starting Command Points to 6.
Whine: Tournament players whined that they do not have enough starting Command Points. That they are being punished by having to spend resources on pointless detachments.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' create the AoO detachment.
Whine : Tournament players will whine that the new AoO detachment allows for skew-lists. That there needs to be more resource related checks & balances. Change: TBD
Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
You're so tone deaf on this ridiculous crusade that you missed it when most people on this forum complained about paying for relics or that stratagems were too prominent.
Something something TOURNAMENT PLAYERS!
I know it's history and can see when the mistakes of the past are being repeated, by both GW and the community.
I didn't realize it was the community's fault that the unit entry for Scatterbikes was created in 7th, or it was the community's fault that Iron Hands had that first iteration of their supplement.
How does it feel to just be blatantly wrong and simping for GW "rules writers" that are obviously incapable of doing even a mediocre job?
most sensible players are fine with the idea of overperforming units in their armies getting hit with nerfs....
Sure, i would have prefered if terminators werent able to take the rune instead of getting a points hike, but as it is, its still fine. Same with Abaddon
Aha. Okey so, I guess Paladins getting worse with the change and strikes being better then terminators still, combined with a nerf to both power psychic secondaries and the removal of AoC , the rule that was suppose to help GK according to GW, is just to nerf those over performing units. No wait. GK players run paladins only because of AoC, terminators are still point by point worse then strikes and interceptors, and the only thing that stops GK players from wanting to run 6 units of them, is the fact that the rule of 3 exist. Yeah over performing units get nerfed, for a faction that wa already under 50% win rate.
But to not be monothematic, I wonder if you could explain the changes to a DG player. Wonder they what they think about the Omen changes. Guess their 8th ed GK style nerfs that hit them for like a 7th or 8th time, is because the army was too overperforming.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
most sensible players are fine with the idea of overperforming units in their armies getting hit with nerfs....
Sure, i would have prefered if terminators werent able to take the rune instead of getting a points hike, but as it is, its still fine. Same with Abaddon
Aha. Okey so, I guess Paladins getting worse with the change and strikes being better then terminators still, combined with a nerf to both power psychic secondaries and the removal of AoC , the rule that was suppose to help GK according to GW, is just to nerf those over performing units. No wait. GK players run paladins only because of AoC, terminators are still point by point worse then strikes and interceptors, and the only thing that stops GK players from wanting to run 6 units of them, is the fact that the rule of 3 exist. Yeah over performing units get nerfed, for a faction that wa already under 50% win rate.
But to not be monothematic, I wonder if you could explain the changes to a DG player. Wonder they what they think about the Omen changes. Guess their 8th ed GK style nerfs that hit them for like a 7th or 8th time, is because the army was too overperforming.
Sorry, i legitimately forgot about GK. And i play DG, i welcome the changes, plague marines are gonna be super good now (and blight hauler dropping points is also very nice)
I think it further showcases that the 'rules writers' are not truly interested in balancing the game. Their focus is solely on placating whining tournament players.
Whine: Tournament players whined that there were too many starting Command Points, that this allowed alpha strikes, etc.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' lowered the starting Command Points to 6.
Whine: Tournament players whined that they do not have enough starting Command Points. That they are being punished by having to spend resources on pointless detachments.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' create the AoO detachment.
Whine : Tournament players will whine that the new AoO detachment allows for skew-lists. That there needs to be more resource related checks & balances. Change: TBD
Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
You're so tone deaf on this ridiculous crusade that you missed it when most people on this forum complained about paying for relics or that stratagems were too prominent.
Something something TOURNAMENT PLAYERS!
I know it's history and can see when the mistakes of the past are being repeated, by both GW and the community.
I didn't realize it was the community's fault that the unit entry for Scatterbikes was created in 7th, or it was the community's fault that Iron Hands had that first iteration of their supplement.
How does it feel to just be blatantly wrong and simping for GW "rules writers" that are obviously incapable of doing even a mediocre job?
...how does it feel to be so far off the mark, you're on a different stage entirely?
Nothing oni has said in either of the posts in this quote chain is "simping for GW "rules writers"", my dude.
oni wrote: I have been playing this game longer than most, longer than most players have been alive. I know it's history and can see when the mistakes of the past are being repeated, by both GW and the community.
Crusade... Absolutely... As long as I'm throwing dice, I will never stop trying to preserve the heart and soul of this game.
I've been in this since second edition.
What it really comes down to is if you want GW to try and balance the game or not. From second edition to eighth GW never really made a concerted attempt to do so -- that's 24 years. For exceptionally brief points they managed to make things "ok", but that was ONLY with extreme effort from the community to shore up FAQs, missions, and even points. Remember comp?
And I would say GW only started getting better ( certainly not perfect ) at balancing in the past year. Obviously a bunch of what changed recently won't stick, but these are the changes they can make until a new codex can be released. It's a terrible release model, but it's the same one that's existed for three decades so surely that isn't the bone to pick?
You don't need to preserve the game. It's more vibrant than it's ever been in it's history and there are tons of super high quality channels that cover all aspects of the hobby.
Despite all the calls of incompetence and what not -- I find the following to be true, in my opinion :
- The balance has never been better ( jury is out for the new slate still )
- The missions have never been more engaging ( not everyone likes this style, I know )
- The models have never been better ( some people are stressed about monopose )
- The communication has never been better ( some people say it's just marketing )
- The rules have never been as clear ( some people just want old rules back)
Sometimes that isn't saying much when the bar was at zero, but progress is progress. And certainly we can disagree about matters of taste and pedantry, but at the same time they released narrative only books without forcing more army rules in a cool environment with interesting restrictions to make other ways to play enjoyable. You don't have to play matched play games if you don't like that part of the system, but you ( not "you" you ) can't also come and complain about balance.
I think it further showcases that the 'rules writers' are not truly interested in balancing the game. Their focus is solely on placating whining tournament players.
Whine: Tournament players whined that there were too many starting Command Points, that this allowed alpha strikes, etc.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' lowered the starting Command Points to 6.
Whine: Tournament players whined that they do not have enough starting Command Points. That they are being punished by having to spend resources on pointless detachments.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' create the AoO detachment.
Whine : Tournament players will whine that the new AoO detachment allows for skew-lists. That there needs to be more resource related checks & balances. Change: TBD
Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
You're so tone deaf on this ridiculous crusade that you missed it when most people on this forum complained about paying for relics or that stratagems were too prominent.
Something something TOURNAMENT PLAYERS!
I know it's history and can see when the mistakes of the past are being repeated, by both GW and the community.
I didn't realize it was the community's fault that the unit entry for Scatterbikes was created in 7th, or it was the community's fault that Iron Hands had that first iteration of their supplement.
How does it feel to just be blatantly wrong and simping for GW "rules writers" that are obviously incapable of doing even a mediocre job?
...how does it feel to be so far off the mark, you're on a different stage entirely?
Nothing oni has said in either of the posts in this quote chain is "simping for GW "rules writers"", my dude.
Yes it is the moment you attempt to blame the players for somehow playing the game wrong
I think it further showcases that the 'rules writers' are not truly interested in balancing the game. Their focus is solely on placating whining tournament players.
Whine: Tournament players whined that there were too many starting Command Points, that this allowed alpha strikes, etc.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' lowered the starting Command Points to 6.
Whine: Tournament players whined that they do not have enough starting Command Points. That they are being punished by having to spend resources on pointless detachments.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' create the AoO detachment.
Whine : Tournament players will whine that the new AoO detachment allows for skew-lists. That there needs to be more resource related checks & balances. Change: TBD
Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
You're so tone deaf on this ridiculous crusade that you missed it when most people on this forum complained about paying for relics or that stratagems were too prominent.
Something something TOURNAMENT PLAYERS!
I know it's history and can see when the mistakes of the past are being repeated, by both GW and the community.
I didn't realize it was the community's fault that the unit entry for Scatterbikes was created in 7th, or it was the community's fault that Iron Hands had that first iteration of their supplement.
How does it feel to just be blatantly wrong and simping for GW "rules writers" that are obviously incapable of doing even a mediocre job?
...how does it feel to be so far off the mark, you're on a different stage entirely?
Nothing oni has said in either of the posts in this quote chain is "simping for GW "rules writers"", my dude.
Yes it is the moment you attempt to blame the players for somehow playing the game wrong
Interesting choice of wording. Cheating is also playing the game wrong, is it suddenly not the players fault if they cheat?
before you get your little black knight panties in a twist, no I'm not "defending" GW or absolving anyone of their stance but feeling the rules team pander to competitive players or a minority vocal group too much is a perfectly fine opinion to have even if you disagree. That's not "simping".
I think it further showcases that the 'rules writers' are not truly interested in balancing the game. Their focus is solely on placating whining tournament players.
Whine: Tournament players whined that there were too many starting Command Points, that this allowed alpha strikes, etc.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' lowered the starting Command Points to 6.
Whine: Tournament players whined that they do not have enough starting Command Points. That they are being punished by having to spend resources on pointless detachments.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' create the AoO detachment.
Whine : Tournament players will whine that the new AoO detachment allows for skew-lists. That there needs to be more resource related checks & balances. Change: TBD
Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
You're so tone deaf on this ridiculous crusade that you missed it when most people on this forum complained about paying for relics or that stratagems were too prominent.
Something something TOURNAMENT PLAYERS!
I know it's history and can see when the mistakes of the past are being repeated, by both GW and the community.
I didn't realize it was the community's fault that the unit entry for Scatterbikes was created in 7th, or it was the community's fault that Iron Hands had that first iteration of their supplement.
How does it feel to just be blatantly wrong and simping for GW "rules writers" that are obviously incapable of doing even a mediocre job?
...how does it feel to be so far off the mark, you're on a different stage entirely?
Nothing oni has said in either of the posts in this quote chain is "simping for GW "rules writers"", my dude.
Yes it is the moment you attempt to blame the players for somehow playing the game wrong
...re-read the spoilered text again - what oni is complaining about is that, in his opinion, the GW rules team are caving to complaints too quickly, rather than defining how they believe the game should be played/structured. That's not blaming players for "playing the game wrong" - that's blaming the rules team for not having a backbone between them.
oni wrote: Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
In what way does the AoO detachment punish Incursion armies? Unless you are playing a single Patrol, AoO has the same or lessor requirements than any other detachment configuration.
oni wrote: Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
In what way does the AoO detachment punish Incursion armies? Unless you are playing a single Patrol, AoO has the same or lessor requirements than any other detachment configuration.
We're struggling with Custodes, as the high ppm is forcing us to use minimum sized squads. You can't actually use things.
Combining the AoO detachment with the Rule of 2 can really mess up list building.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/17 23:59:45
oni wrote: Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
In what way does the AoO detachment punish Incursion armies? Unless you are playing a single Patrol, AoO has the same or lessor requirements than any other detachment configuration.
We're struggling with Custodes, as the high ppm is forcing us to use minimum sized squads. You can't actually use things.
Combining the AoO detachment with the Rule of 2 can really mess up list building.
as custodes you should probably run some sisters at such a low pts level
oni wrote: Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
In what way does the AoO detachment punish Incursion armies? Unless you are playing a single Patrol, AoO has the same or lessor requirements than any other detachment configuration.
We're struggling with Custodes, as the high ppm is forcing us to use minimum sized squads. You can't actually use things.
Combining the AoO detachment with the Rule of 2 can really mess up list building.
That is the one wrinkle with the AoO detachment. If your army was a Patrol, you have to mix it up to get into the AoO detachment with a third of something (Troops, Elites, Fast Attack, or Heavy Support).
I think it further showcases that the 'rules writers' are not truly interested in balancing the game. Their focus is solely on placating whining tournament players.
Whine: Tournament players whined that there were too many starting Command Points, that this allowed alpha strikes, etc.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' lowered the starting Command Points to 6.
Whine: Tournament players whined that they do not have enough starting Command Points. That they are being punished by having to spend resources on pointless detachments.
Change: GW's 'rules writers' create the AoO detachment.
Whine : Tournament players will whine that the new AoO detachment allows for skew-lists. That there needs to be more resource related checks & balances. Change: TBD
Also, the AoO detachment makes 2000 point Strike Force armies the only playable game size. Would be 1000 point Incursion armies are horribly punished by the AoO detachment. Since tournament play is only ever 2000 points, this largely went unnoticed.
You're so tone deaf on this ridiculous crusade that you missed it when most people on this forum complained about paying for relics or that stratagems were too prominent.
Something something TOURNAMENT PLAYERS!
I know it's history and can see when the mistakes of the past are being repeated, by both GW and the community.
I didn't realize it was the community's fault that the unit entry for Scatterbikes was created in 7th, or it was the community's fault that Iron Hands had that first iteration of their supplement.
How does it feel to just be blatantly wrong and simping for GW "rules writers" that are obviously incapable of doing even a mediocre job?
...how does it feel to be so far off the mark, you're on a different stage entirely?
Nothing oni has said in either of the posts in this quote chain is "simping for GW "rules writers"", my dude.
Yes it is the moment you attempt to blame the players for somehow playing the game wrong
Interesting choice of wording. Cheating is also playing the game wrong, is it suddenly not the players fault if they cheat?
before you get your little black knight panties in a twist, no I'm not "defending" GW or absolving anyone of their stance but feeling the rules team pander to competitive players or a minority vocal group too much is a perfectly fine opinion to have even if you disagree. That's not "simping".
You don't need to cheat when the rules are quite frankly easy to break as is thanks to no effort put into them.
Coven of XVth 2000pts
The Blades of Ruin 2,000pts 
Watch Company Rho 1650pts
