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.

We have discussed all those things before. I'm not good with names so I couldn't tell you what each poster thinks but I could probably tell you all the different arguments for how those problems should or shouldn't be fixed. The arguments for and against the FOC are way more novel to me and lets me think and develop my own position on the issue through arguing.

 vict0988 wrote:
Remove Core, AoC, HotE, Chapter Tactics, Combat Doctrines, Super Doctrines, faction-Stratagems, faction-secondaries and faction WL traits. Expand universal Stratagems and make selecting which ones you take into battle part of list building. Expand universal WL traits. Rework Relics to never just be +1 dagger as a replacement for the thematic rules Combat Doctrines and Super Doctrines currently provide. Remove the current armies of renown, none of them need to exist.

Rename abilities to universal names. Reduce lethality by going back to 8th edition profiles or some kind of middle ground and remove stacking offensive HQ buffs, making a unit 20% harder to kill, 20% faster, 20% killier is fine but the multiplicative effect of several buffs is an unfixable balance problem.

Debate me on these positions if you want to discuss those issues. The only time you should tell people to stop posting is when they are posting off-topic things. The core rules dictate army construction, therefore army construction rules are on topic for a new edition ruleset.

 Jidmah wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Vilgeir wrote:
Imagine discussing what a full reset of the rules might mean by spending days obsessed with the process of list building.

Like, that's all the FoC does. It happens entirely outside a match. It's absurd.

Lists affect the match, a lot. List building is also all everybody talks about on the tactics forum so it being a topic of discussion isn't weird.

I guess the point he is trying to make is that the FOC doesn't affect the actual gameplay. Sure, it does affect balance and what units you see on the table, but that isn't really a big problem nephilim, tempest of war or crusade have, right?

The problems are stratagems, layers upon layers of rules, codex creep and dysfunctional codices at the same time, an overabundance of AP invalidating armor, vehicles not being durable at all, counter-counter-counter rules like AoC and daemonic invuls, worthless transports, mediocre terrain rules and probably another few that I missed.

And that is not even touching all the issues with company policies which are ruining people's fun and collections, like legacy, the treatment of FW units and everything related to cutting down unit options.

Complaining about the FOC in that context is pretty much like complaining about bad weather while your house is infested with pests, you have a burst pipe flooding your living room, your dog just dragged in the the carcass of the neighbor's cat and your lunch on the stove just caught fire.

You are right, if the rules bloat and number of stratagems was significantly cut down, then retaining the current flexible FoC rules wouldn't be too bad.

We had close to no real usable stratagems in 8th ed for most armies, often stuff which was gear or rules that units had before. Also armies, aside for eldar, had one or even two fewer over all army rules then they have now. We had detachments and the game was not better then it is right now. Specificaly if you were a majority of the player base marine player. You had to play a tournament list, most units were dead options till 2.0 came out at the end of the edition, and marine win rates were in the dump. Change for sake of change doesn't help anyone. It hurts the armies that come out first, which always is marines. And it gives huge priority to armies GW overloads with multiple valid options both unit wise and faction wise. And then the players get to sit out for 1-3 years waiting for their codex to be updated to the new game. It is one of the reasons a lot of people don't make it to play more then one edition. When you enter a new one and know that in order to have fun, you now have to wait anywhere from a few months to 3 years, and then the new product can be something bad anyway, there is very little entice to stay and play.

Mangoblin wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I'd be pleased as pie if they eliminated strategems, or at the very least made strategems 80% generic with like, no more than a page worth of strats per faction, or maybe one strat per unit (as in on their datasheet).

The whole concept of "heres a mishmash of 3-4 pages worth of randomly organized situationally useful additional rules that work on some of the models in your army under certain specific circumstances" doesn't work well, IMO. My memory is good enough to remember that most strategems exist, but not what they are called or their specific wording and application. Huge gameplay slowdown when I'm flipping through the book trying to find the thing that I vaguely remember existing but don't know how to use.

Totally agree. The most frustrating thing about 9th is all the rules bloat, and strategems are the worst offender. Each faction having 20-30 is actual insanity; there's no way an average player will remember all the ones from even their own codex, let alone any from their opponent's. Bring it down to 5-6 generic ones and then maybe 3-4 per faction, or even just eliminate them entirely IMO.

Really overall my only hope is that they reduce rules bloat; make it so that I can look at unit's datasheet and get a good idea of how strong they are. As it stands, to even understand the power level of like, a basic squad of intercessors, I have to take in to account so many things not listed on the datasheet; doctrines, subfaction abilities, auras, psychic powers, strategems, all these noodley little ways to buff and change the unit. Just curb that kind of stuff down and honestly I'd be pretty happy.

That is basically how AoS does it, your army might have 1 and maybe another one for a subfaction, characters has them, and then you have the core 8, you are looking at an average of 12-15 per army with the 8 core ones.

Jidmah wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Vilgeir wrote:
Imagine discussing what a full reset of the rules might mean by spending days obsessed with the process of list building.

Like, that's all the FoC does. It happens entirely outside a match. It's absurd.

Lists affect the match, a lot. List building is also all everybody talks about on the tactics forum so it being a topic of discussion isn't weird.

I guess the point he is trying to make is that the FOC doesn't affect the actual gameplay. Sure, it does affect balance and what units you see on the table, but that isn't really a big problem nephilim, tempest of war or crusade have, right?

The problems are stratagems, layers upon layers of rules, codex creep and dysfunctional codices at the same time, an overabundance of AP invalidating armor, vehicles not being durable at all, counter-counter-counter rules like AoC and daemonic invuls, worthless transports, mediocre terrain rules and probably another few that I missed.

And that is not even touching all the issues with company policies which are ruining people's fun and collections, like legacy, the treatment of FW units and everything related to cutting down unit options.

Complaining about the FOC in that context is pretty much like complaining about bad weather while your house is infested with pests, you have a burst pipe flooding your living room, your dog just dragged in the the carcass of the neighbor's cat and your lunch on the stove just caught fire.

Yeah this, FoC honestly doesn't matter for balance as much as codex strength and number of viable units. Example right now if IG took 7 Vends does it matter at all? no, they will lose the game, but you can make a Nids army with only 1 of each unit following a basic FoC and still completely destroy some other armies.

But that is because nids on top of good rules and synergies got the DE treatment with ton of units being anywhere between 5 to 15% undercosted. Which then still doesn't account for stuff like, what happens if a big multi wound monster get superhuman physiology build in.

Armies that require 3+ elite or heavy or FA options to function, and who have no stand ins in other slots, would be devasted if suddenly they got cut to 3 slots of an option.

Karol wrote:
We had close to no real usable stratagems in 8th ed for most armies

What? 8th had a ton of wombo combo stratagems in every factions.

Karol wrote:
often stuff which was gear or rules that units had before.

You mean like Smokescreen or melta bombs, yeah , these strats came with 9th

Karol wrote:

Also armies, aside for eldar, had one or even two fewer over all army rules then they have now.

You mean other than marines, right? Eldar had the same amout of rules as every non marine army ( Psychic, relics, traits, chapter tactics)

You mean like Smokescreen or melta bombs, yeah , these strats came with 9th

GK special rules from prior editions were either removed or made in to stratagems, Which at some time in 8th felt really bad, when DW for example had special ammo on all bolters as a rule, while GK had a high cost stratagem that did less for one unit per turn.

What? 8th had a ton of wombo combo stratagems in every factions.

At the start of 8th ed? Only for the eldar soup. Unless by "wombo combo" we understand someone taking relics and traits on your BA cpt and paying even more cp to make him a chapter master. Eldar had combos, yeah, crazy stuff with double dipping with Inari while playing two detachments. But that is how every edition seems to be.

You mean other than marines, right? Eldar had the same amout of rules as every non marine army ( Psychic, relics, traits, chapter tactics)

The difference is that marine stuff what it came out, it was not worth taking. Primaris units till 2.0 came out, were considered worse then classic marine stuff, not that tacticals or Assault Squads were considered good. But it wasn't just a marine thing. GK had no army. Orks had to play green wave, and that is when their codex came out. Tau codex could as well be called codex shield drones. No one knows what GW was thinking when they dropped the csm codex. But any codex that makes you not want to run chaos marines in your csm army, is bad. By the way marines themselfs degenerated to that state too. the 8th ed space marine army, glorious 2 characters, 15 scouts and then everything but space marines in it.

Again not everyone is playing eldar and can be 100% that by the time their book gets updated, at worse, their army will be fun to play. And any changes to core rule sets for books who are both not designed with them in mind, and who then have to wait years to be updated is not worth the effort. The chance that they won't fix anything is huge, while the chance that they will limit the number of options, make the game less fun etc does not.

Karol wrote:

You mean like Smokescreen or melta bombs, yeah , these strats came with 9th

GK special rules from prior editions were either removed or made in to stratagems, Which at some time in 8th felt really bad, when DW for example had special ammo on all bolters as a rule, while GK had a high cost stratagem that did less for one unit per turn.

What? 8th had a ton of wombo combo stratagems in every factions.

At the start of 8th ed? Only for the eldar soup. Unless by "wombo combo" we understand someone taking relics and traits on your BA cpt and paying even more cp to make him a chapter master. Eldar had combos, yeah, crazy stuff with double dipping with Inari while playing two detachments. But that is how every edition seems to be.

You mean other than marines, right? Eldar had the same amout of rules as every non marine army ( Psychic, relics, traits, chapter tactics)

The difference is that marine stuff what it came out, it was not worth taking. Primaris units till 2.0 came out, were considered worse then classic marine stuff, not that tacticals or Assault Squads were considered good. But it wasn't just a marine thing. GK had no army. Orks had to play green wave, and that is when their codex came out. Tau codex could as well be called codex shield drones. No one knows what GW was thinking when they dropped the csm codex. But any codex that makes you not want to run chaos marines in your csm army, is bad. By the way marines themselfs degenerated to that state too. the 8th ed space marine army, glorious 2 characters, 15 scouts and then everything but space marines in it.

Again not everyone is playing eldar and can be 100% that by the time their book gets updated, at worse, their army will be fun to play. And any changes to core rule sets for books who are both not designed with them in mind, and who then have to wait years to be updated is not worth the effort. The chance that they won't fix anything is huge, while the chance that they will limit the number of options, make the game less fun etc does not.

yeah , Admech Ryza kataphrons deleting two knights per shooting phase, endless cacophony + votlw, the grenade bomb from deathguard and all the other ones that did similar things certainly werent "wombo combos".

Oh so the amount of rules only matter if the army is doing good (like SM were) so wtf is your argument here?

What I'd want from 10th hard reset :

- More tactics, less dice rolling : cut dice rolling tenfold. Rolling 90 dice and not even killing 1 basic Space Marine is ridiculous. One model, one die max (except for characters). Most people I tried getting into the hobby for the last 10 years never understood why I liked this crappy dice rolling fest.

- Designed for 1h30-2h games at 2k points without having to play like you're on cocaïne.

 Nym wrote:
What I'd want from 10th hard reset :

- More tactics, less dice rolling : cut dice rolling tenfold. Rolling 90 dice and not even killing 1 basic Space Marine is ridiculous. One model, one die max (except for characters). Most people I tried getting into the hobby for the last 10 years never understood why I liked this crappy dice rolling fest.

- Designed for 1h30-2h games at 2k points without having to play like you're on cocaïne.

yeah, those two are part of the reason why i find OnePageRules more enjoyable, on average multi-model units will roll 1-2 dice per model

Karol wrote:

You mean like Smokescreen or melta bombs, yeah , these strats came with 9th

GK special rules from prior editions were either removed or made in to stratagems, Which at some time in 8th felt really bad, when DW for example had special ammo on all bolters as a rule, while GK had a high cost stratagem that did less for one unit per turn.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


yeah , Admech Ryza kataphrons deleting two knights per shooting phase, endless cacophony + votlw, the grenade bomb from deathguard and all the other ones that did similar things certainly werent "wombo combos".

Oh so the amount of rules only matter if the army is doing good (like SM were) so wtf is your argument here?

Marines are the biggest army, with the largest number of players. Their sales make it possible for GW to make other projects of course the quality of play time for marine players matters more, then lets say someone who plays inquisition. Why do you think HH exists ? Of course the expiriance of the biggest GW earner matters the most.

But as always we probably have a different definition of wombo combos. To me parking 6 razorbacks inside a G-man bubble is not a wombo combo. But having 5 flyers all at -2 or less to hit with their bases blocking the ability to get on to objectives is. Pink horrors dieing, spliting in to 2 blue horrors and also by the magic of rules also spawning a pox walker is a wombo combo. Inari shining spears using wild ridder stratagems, because the eldar player souped in an eldar detachment that is a wombo combo. Having a dude on a jet pack with a buffed up thunder hammer isn't. There is a difference between army rules, even if they are over done, like lets say liquifires were for some time. And stuff like I park 10 GK paladins in to a building with no walls, and then I cast astral aim on them and start shoting at at the opposing army without an ability to be shot back. One thing is an army rule, the other is the result of either the design team not carring or , I think this is hard to translate in to english, the design team really not carring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Karol wrote:

You mean like Smokescreen or melta bombs, yeah , these strats came with 9th

GK special rules from prior editions were either removed or made in to stratagems, Which at some time in 8th felt really bad, when DW for example had special ammo on all bolters as a rule, while GK had a high cost stratagem that did less for one unit per turn.

Thats almost every army.

Karol wrote:

Marines are the biggest army, with the largest number of players. Their sales make it possible for GW to make other projects of course the quality of play time for marine players matters more, then lets say someone who plays inquisition. Why do you think HH exists ? Of course the expiriance of the biggest GW earner matters the most.

But as always we probably have a different definition of wombo combos. To me parking 6 razorbacks inside a G-man bubble is not a wombo combo. But having 5 flyers all at -2 or less to hit with their bases blocking the ability to get on to objectives is. Pink horrors dieing, spliting in to 2 blue horrors and also by the magic of rules also spawning a pox walker is a wombo combo. Inari shining spears using wild ridder stratagems, because the eldar player souped in an eldar detachment that is a wombo combo. Having a dude on a jet pack with a buffed up thunder hammer isn't. There is a difference between army rules, even if they are over done, like lets say liquifires were for some time. And stuff like I park 10 GK paladins in to a building with no walls, and then I cast astral aim on them and start shoting at at the opposing army without an ability to be shot back. One thing is an army rule, the other is the result of either the design team not carring or , I think this is hard to translate in to english, the design team really not carring.

oh got, it, if Marines/GK do it its fine, if any other faction does it, its a wombo combo.

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


yeah , Admech Ryza kataphrons deleting two knights per shooting phase, endless cacophony + votlw, the grenade bomb from deathguard and all the other ones that did similar things certainly werent "wombo combos".

Oh so the amount of rules only matter if the army is doing good (like SM were) so wtf is your argument here?

Marines are the biggest army, with the largest number of players. Their sales make it possible for GW to make other projects of course the quality of play time for marine players matters more, then lets say someone who plays inquisition. Why do you think HH exists ? Of course the expiriance of the biggest GW earner matters the most.

But as always we probably have a different definition of wombo combos. To me parking 6 razorbacks inside a G-man bubble is not a wombo combo. But having 5 flyers all at -2 or less to hit with their bases blocking the ability to get on to objectives is. Pink horrors dieing, spliting in to 2 blue horrors and also by the magic of rules also spawning a pox walker is a wombo combo. Inari shining spears using wild ridder stratagems, because the eldar player souped in an eldar detachment that is a wombo combo. Having a dude on a jet pack with a buffed up thunder hammer isn't. There is a difference between army rules, even if they are over done, like lets say liquifires were for some time. And stuff like I park 10 GK paladins in to a building with no walls, and then I cast astral aim on them and start shoting at at the opposing army without an ability to be shot back. One thing is an army rule, the other is the result of either the design team not carring or , I think this is hard to translate in to english, the design team really not carring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Karol wrote:

You mean like Smokescreen or melta bombs, yeah , these strats came with 9th

GK special rules from prior editions were either removed or made in to stratagems, Which at some time in 8th felt really bad, when DW for example had special ammo on all bolters as a rule, while GK had a high cost stratagem that did less for one unit per turn.

Thats almost every army.

Yes, but some armies got new stuff in return or other stuff. For example eldar did lose their 33% undercosted wright knights , but instead got soul burst which was a scourg on the game for almost an entire editon. And when 9th book came out, GW even updated their rules to fit all the options for an autarch an eldar player may want to take. While no such thing was made for csm and their jump pack lords, or the orks and their mounted warbosses.

DE got things taken away, and abilities that made certain units fun to play or niche gear as stratagems taking away even more options we used to have.

I feel the essence of a wombo combo is... you know, a combo? I.E. take unit. Give it a buff (or three). Then say use a stratagem so it can shoot twice.

Nothing stops you buffing one unit and then having another unit shoot twice - but its obviously less efficient, because that way you are only benefiting from those buffs once rather than twice.

In much the same way that yes, a BA captain with a jump pack and thunder hammer could be made a Knight-killing wombo combo through stacking rules. An Ultramarines Captain, to my knowledge, couldn't get the same combination.

There are units that can just double their shoting without stratagems. If that is a combo then it is a really bad one. Again I will go back to Death Watch and GK. One got special ammo, on every bolter in the army, there is not much of a wombo or combo in GK paying CP to get buffed ammo on one unit.

What combo is there to to, pre codex csm use double shot stratagem on some obliterators?
Even annoying stuff like tau drones in 8th, wasn't much of a combo. It was like having extra inv saves.

To use a MtG example, a draw 2 cards effect is not the same as I draw my entire deck, generate infinite mana, cast stuff, then shuffle my hand in to my deck and then start the whole thing again because I gave myself extra turns. The strenght of the effect and the possibility of counter is very important. The main difference between regular combos and the wombo version, is what the opponet can do with it. If your opponent starts playing soliter, there is a problem, because the thing being played stops being a 2 player game.

Karol wrote:
There are units that can just double their shoting without stratagems. If that is a combo then it is a really bad one. Again I will go back to Death Watch and GK. One got special ammo, on every bolter in the army, there is not much of a wombo or combo in GK paying CP to get buffed ammo on one unit.

What combo is there to to, pre codex csm use double shot stratagem on some obliterators?
Even annoying stuff like tau drones in 8th, wasn't much of a combo. It was like having extra inv saves.

To use a MtG example, a draw 2 cards effect is not the same as I draw my entire deck, generate infinite mana, cast stuff, then shuffle my hand in to my deck and then start the whole thing again because I gave myself extra turns. The strenght of the effect and the possibility of counter is very important. The main difference between regular combos and the wombo version, is what the opponet can do with it. If your opponent starts playing soliter, there is a problem, because the thing being played stops being a 2 player game.

Are you saying that Prescience + Veterans of the long War + Endless cacophony + lord reroll on litterally any shooting unit in the codex was not a wombo combo?

a wombo combo is basically anything that uses more than 1 or 2 additionnal rules than what the basic datasheet provides.

Karol just said the experience of Marine players matters more than the experience of other players, and his game knowledge apparently amounts to 'Grey Knights got everything bad, Eldar got everything good'.

I don't know why you guys are still taking him seriously. We're about three posts away from hearing how the best wombo combo is to beat up your opponents in the parking lot before the game, because that's how you do it in wrestling school.

Because its funny to hear about fantasy mad max Poland.

That sort of dry humour hyperbole has some inherent charm.

Vatsetis wrote:
Because its funny to hear about fantasy mad max Poland.

That sort of dry humour hyperbole has some inherent charm.

It's more hilarious if you think of all the people in Karol's tales as orks while Karol is a kunnin' grot trying to get by in burtal ork Poland.

Everybody loves the cunning underdog

 catbarf wrote:
Karol just said the experience of Marine players matters more than the experience of other players, and his game knowledge apparently amounts to 'Grey Knights got everything bad, Eldar got everything good'.

I don't know why you guys are still taking him seriously. We're about three posts away from hearing how the best wombo combo is to beat up your opponents in the parking lot before the game, because that's how you do it in wrestling school.

Karol is a valuable example of a player who is stuck in a toxic meta and has no other options when it comes to playing the game ( whivh he has also sunk a lot of his small amount of money into). When people bring up changing your group as a way to solution to a problem with 40k (which happens in almost every thread) we can point to Karol and go "what about him?".

Well if what Karol says is real in any meaningfull sense he should either migrate, have their hobby only online or look for different gamming hobby in his area with a less toxic community.

He can sell his armies online and get back some cash rather than continuing in his sunken cost falacy hobby.

There have been offers from this very community to buy his GK army for what he paid to get him out of the sunk cost fallacy.

At this point we must assume that posting about being miserable about his army is part of the hobby for him.

Tyel wrote:I feel the essence of a wombo combo is... you know, a combo? I.E. take unit. Give it a buff (or three). Then say use a stratagem so it can shoot twice.

Nothing stops you buffing one unit and then having another unit shoot twice - but its obviously less efficient, because that way you are only benefiting from those buffs once rather than twice.

In much the same way that yes, a BA captain with a jump pack and thunder hammer could be made a Knight-killing wombo combo through stacking rules. An Ultramarines Captain, to my knowledge, couldn't get the same combination.

Most SM could do some version of the Smash Captain. BA were the best at it, but I think SW and Salamanders could also produce excellent versions. The problem you mention of efficiency and stacking buffs is one I think GW could address without much difficulty. If units could only benefit from one buff per phase that would instantly rein in a huge amount of the lethality in the game and put the emphasis back on a unit's datasheet rather than stacking rules from as many sources as possible.

You'd have to properly define buffs and ideally debuffs too, which would follow the same restrictions. Then maybe get rid if auras so they're all targeted buffs and make them apply in the Command phase rather than whenever you want and you'd instantly get a more nuanced game. It's not the best solution but I think it may be a practical one in the short term.

Karol wrote: There are units that can just double their shoting without stratagems. If that is a combo then it is a really bad one. Again I will go back to Death Watch and GK. One got special ammo, on every bolter in the army, there is not much of a wombo or combo in GK paying CP to get buffed ammo on one unit.

You keep bringing up this DW versus GK comparison, so I feel compelled to point out the two are not the same at all. For DW, Special Issue Ammunition was part of their army special rules, just like GK all being psykers. Psibolt Ammunition was an optional, paid-for upgrade on various GK units, just like meltabombs, flakk missiles or smoke launchers used to be. I would have preferred keeping those wargear items as paid upgrades but it's not really analogous to DW SIA.

Special ammunition was part off GK rules in the past. All units that could take them from the lists in the past were taking them. Saying they were optional, is like saying a chapter master with a jump pack in 8th ed or a farseer for eldar is an optional rule, and there for could be just removed.

But sure I can show inside 8th ed examples. In the write up for the 8th GK codex , mr Navati , I hope I am getting his name right, went on how durning testing GK were super powerful, how they psychic powers had to reign in and there for baby smite was created. And later on he just said that GK players don't get ther results, because they don't know how to play the army and all its options.
Not a fun explanation why your army gets nerfed, but it is what it is. But what did my new in to w40k eyes saw next, army after army, FW units spaming full smite psykers, powerful psychic powers. Almost as if someone wrote the GK codex to be done with it ASAP and then decided to make cool and fluffy things for other amries.

Karol wrote:
Special ammunition was part off GK rules in the past. All units that could take them from the lists in the past were taking them. Saying they were optional, is like saying a chapter master with a jump pack in 8th ed or a farseer for eldar is an optional rule, and there for could be just removed.

That's just not true. Psibolt ammunition was very popular on vehicles, yes, because it often gave just the right bonus in Strength to hit a common breakpoint. It was much less common on the basic infantry because the cost rapidly got prohibitive.

You've still missed the point as usual though. There's a fundamental difference between something that is an optional upgrade and something that is just a part of an army's rules.

Vatsetis wrote:
Well if what Karol says is real in any meaningfull sense he should either migrate, have their hobby only online or look for different gamming hobby in his area with a less toxic community.

He's like 17 or something and has no money also what the hell who goes straight to "just leave your country bro". Also did you miss the part where I said there are no other communities in his area and thats why he's a great example for when people say exactly what you just said.

I will be 18 in 13 days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace 806314 11418727 wrote:
That's just not true. Psibolt ammunition was very popular on vehicles, yes, because it often gave just the right bonus in Strength to hit a common breakpoint. It was much less common on the basic infantry because the cost rapidly got prohibitive.

You've still missed the point as usual though. There's a fundamental difference between something that is an optional upgrade and something that is just a part of an army's rules.

yeah well if you want it this way, then yes. GK with actual GK in them wear rather rare. From the lists I have seen the most popular one were 3-6 dreadnoughts, swarm of razorbacks, and 3 man squads of inquisitorial henchmen. with GK being often represented by Draigo or GK techmarine. But in lists that actualy did run GK in their GK army, the psi bolt ammo was not only taken on the dreadnoughts, but also on paladins.

If I see multiple lists, and something is being done with all of them then the option is not an option. It is like saying you can reach olympic levels of sports without a dedicated med staff, because one to two three times every decade you get a mutant who naturaly has the blood cell count of other peoples being doped up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Are you saying that Prescience + Veterans of the long War + Endless cacophony + lord reroll on litterally any shooting unit in the codex was not a wombo combo?

a wombo combo is basically anything that uses more than 1 or 2 additionnal rules than what the basic datasheet provides.

Yes it is GW playing with numbers. Historicaly you can find examples of stuff doing similar style of damage, aka deleting stuff, where GW were less interested in making people roll a lot. A sun canon armed WK was deleting stuff too. Just there was less rolling. Just because GW has the idea, which maybe is true I ain't no scientists that checked it, that more times spend doing stuff equals fun. It doesn't mean something is mechanicaly a combo.
Having a +3 sv, followed by a +4 sv, followed by another +4 negation of wound could as well be a +2 immunity, it just involved more rolling.

Karol just said the experience of Marine players matters more than the experience of other players, and his game knowledge apparently amounts to 'Grey Knights got everything bad, Eldar got everything good'.

Well I do play that army. But you can't say that marines in 8th ed were in a good state till 2.0 came out. Or that eldar, especialy Inari didn't warp how 8th ed went. SM 2.0 codex, the upping of both damage and marine resiliance was a litteral anwser to what was going on to the factions in 8th. And the eldar get everything good ain't my idea. There was not a single time eldar codex didn't hugely impact an edition of w40k, and the only edition where they weren't the best army for the majority of an edition was the edition where they didn't get a book. And even then they were okey as long as you didn't play against the top of the top books. No army in history of w40k like that. Marines for example, who always get an update, sometimes even two have huge drop off in how playable they are. Even looking at 2.0 marines, they were good for a few months, and then came 9th and only white scar were left. And that was post indomitus, melta changes etc. From what I have seen AoC, doctrines, DeathWatch termintors with SP always on were not game breakers, they often didn't even bring marines to 50% win rates. Other factions had huge drop offs too. Orks, Ad Mecha although here it is also a huge skill level celling . But when eldar come out, you can be sure they will be 60%+ win rates for months. And what is funny, if the stories on prior editions are true. 8th and 9th eldar weren't that bad comparing what they did in prior editions

It's more hilarious if you think of all the people in Karol's tales as orks while Karol is a kunnin' grot trying to get by in burtal ork Poland

Orks live to the north and east of me.

Slipspace wrote:
Most SM could do some version of the Smash Captain. BA were the best at it, but I think SW and Salamanders could also produce excellent versions. The problem you mention of efficiency and stacking buffs is one I think GW could address without much difficulty. If units could only benefit from one buff per phase that would instantly rein in a huge amount of the lethality in the game and put the emphasis back on a unit's datasheet rather than stacking rules from as many sources as possible.

You'd have to properly define buffs and ideally debuffs too, which would follow the same restrictions. Then maybe get rid if auras so they're all targeted buffs and make them apply in the Command phase rather than whenever you want and you'd instantly get a more nuanced game. It's not the best solution but I think it may be a practical one in the short term.

Yeah I think so. 9th arguably did reduce the number of stratagem-stacking wombo combos in 8th. But the potential buff stack remains very high - partly due to the addition of purity bonuses and generally improved chapter tactics/characters. And "Its fine, I get armour of contempt, hide in dense terrain and pop transhuman etc every turn" is not a well designed solution to resolving this upgrade in probable damage output.

I think the fear though is that 40k would potentially become quite dull if you did take a torch to all that synergy. I think buff characters for instance makes sense - otherwise every character has to be a beatstick. (Which tends to result in "my beatstick is better than yours, so yours is useless.") Impactful chapter tactics feels better than useless ones.

Which is probably why I'm minded to go back towards 8th edition. Have a proper balance patch, get rid of the purity bonuses, roll back the unnecessary upgrades to weapon stats and maybe moderate the number/impact of stratagems. I think having a pool of options isn't a bad mechanic - but it just never seems to have worked out that way. I don't know if AoS does it better or if that turns into "I just always use this ability, because its the best". Having say 6 impactful abilities, that theoretically you'd want to use all the time, but only being able to use say 2 a turn, would seem like a better system. Although equally it feels like something that would become set in stone quite quickly.