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.

Karol wrote:
Well then the new CA missions are not better then the old ones, and the only suprise one can get is one that is not good.

"All favour cheap armies, ton of bodies, and being able to run more then 3 characters in an army. "

Cheap armies = many wounds per per points
tons of bodies = board control
more than 3 characters = multiple detachments for more CP

Congratulation, you have figured out what makes an army good in 8th edition, completely independent from what mission you are playing. And the very reason why GK suck while other elite armies like Custodes or Death Guard don't.
No mission will ever favor GK over another army as anything that would benefit them would benefit at least one other army twice as much.

GK suck no matter what until they get a rework. Even if they do get a rework there is no guarantee that the army you own is going to be great. If you can't get over that, sell them and get another army.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well then the new CA missions are not better then the old ones, and the only suprise one can get is one that is not good.

that wasn't the complaint about the old missions. God, do you even read or are you just too busy trying to turn every. Single. Thread. Into a GK whine fest?

Based on the user's posting trends? At least one of his personalities is in favour of the latter.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well then the new CA missions are not better then the old ones, and the only suprise one can get is one that is not good.

that wasn't the complaint about the old missions. God, do you even read or are you just too busy trying to turn every. Single. Thread. Into a GK whine fest?

But but GK suck and unless they're units/rules/etc...I can use they obviously are worthless.

We all get the fact that GK suck & you feel like they kicked you in the nuts, but consistently complaining about it on Dakka will accomplish ZERO.

But the same could be said about other marine armies like DA or BAs. It doesn't have to be just GK. I of course care only about Grey Knights, but it is not like the same problem isn't effecting marine armies.. Right now, if am not wrong the best way to play marines is to either play them as ultramarines with Gulliman. And gulliman is kind of the corner stone of it, and the lists don't have many marines to begin with just a lot of vehicles. Or you play a marine army that consists of multiple BA catpins, scouts, IG and some knights or custodes. This is hardly a Grey Knight only problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well then the new CA missions are not better then the old ones, and the only suprise one can get is one that is not good.

that wasn't the complaint about the old missions. God, do you even read or are you just too busy trying to turn every. Single. Thread. Into a GK whine fest?

Based on the user's posting trends? At least one of his personalities is in favour of the latter.

I dont have multiple personalities. I have autism.

BA statistically worse than gk now.

 Jidmah wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
I feel the same way about eternal war mission. 'Do nothing for 5 turns then whoever has faster units left wins'.

I suggest trying the eternal war missions from the most recent CA at least once. You might be surprised in a good way.

Having recently played a bunch of them, I have to say I've not been as impressed as some with the Eternal War 2018 missions. At least 2 of them amount to "jump on the middle objective" which often ends up with a runaway leader because the victory conditions are so one-dimensional. Most would probably improve with the simple addition of 1-2 extra objectives in no-man's land. What I'd love to see more of from missions is more disruptive deployment. Anything that potentially forces armies out of their standard deployment with all their auras neatly overlapping would be good for the game, I think.

Squats.