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.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

I can play that game too -- look at CSM win rates overall last weekend, they're below average. And one 3rd place placing in a tournament of like 35 people is really nothing to write home about.

Also, I predict CSM lists will be pretty cookie cutter. Abaddon, MoP, Oblits, Termies, Venomcrawlers... and maybe a little bit of variety on top of that. But there's no way it'll be like Nids/Tau/Eldar were where you have a fair bit of choice, it's just not that strong of a book.

I don't think people are going to have to worry about lists. It's the secondaries that are rough.

Of the 3 players that took BL this past weekend --

Abby, MoP, 10 termies, 2 VC, 3 Oblits ( 1-2 )
Abby, MoP, 20 termies, Havocs, Talons ( 2-2-1 )
Abby, Disco, MoP, 10 termies, 10 possessed, 2 Oblits ( 2-3 )

Abaddon certainly isn't an 'I win' button and neither are terminators.

On the other end of that a Night Lord player went 4-1 with:
DP, Disco, MoP, 10 termies, 2 MoE, Raptors, VC, Talons, Havocs

Last week a BL player went 4-1 with ( notably as WWWWL )
Abby, Apostle, Disco, MoP, 10 termies, 2x5 chosen, 3 VC

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

I can play that game too -- look at CSM win rates overall last weekend, they're below average. And one 3rd place placing in a tournament of like 35 people is really nothing to write home about.

Also, I predict CSM lists will be pretty cookie cutter. Abaddon, MoP, Oblits, Termies, Venomcrawlers... and maybe a little bit of variety on top of that. But there's no way it'll be like Nids/Tau/Eldar were where you have a fair bit of choice, it's just not that strong of a book.

I don't think people are going to have to worry about lists. It's the secondaries that are rough.

Of the 3 players that took BL this past weekend --

Abby, MoP, 10 termies, 2 VC, 3 Oblits ( 1-2 )
Abby, MoP, 20 termies, Havocs, Talons ( 2-2-1 )
Abby, Disco, MoP, 10 termies, 10 possessed, 2 Oblits ( 2-3 )

Abaddon certainly isn't an 'I win' button and neither are terminators.

On the other end of that a Night Lord player went 4-1 with:
DP, Disco, MoP, 10 termies, 2 MoE, Raptors, VC, Talons, Havocs

Last week a BL player went 4-1 with ( notably as WWWWL )
Abby, Apostle, Disco, MoP, 10 termies, 2x5 chosen, 3 VC

That's not really a refutation of my post though? I'm not saying anything is an "I Win" button, but I think successful lists will have a lot of commonalities, which this bears out. That said, I still maintain that it's too early to draw any conclusions (I merely put the data/claims out there after Dudeface claimed that single NL placing indicated the book was a strong book.)

Certainly too little data, but I don't think we'll see a consolidation.

Some people might think if they can just kill harder they'll win, but there's a lot more to it.

Of any units the MoP is probably the 'must have'.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It was never a problem before, why is it a problem now?

Answer: It's not. The only reason the limit is there is because of the kit.

Don't pretend that any of these changes are due to balance.

Never once mentioned balance. My point is it’s not a problem now either. The fuss is unnecessary in regards to this change.

So because you say it's not a problem, it's not a problem? This is kindergarten-level rhetoric, anybody can say that about anything.

It’s not a problem because it simply isn’t a problem. The unit is playable with 2 combis as much as it is with 5, and you’ll see terminators being used extensively in lists, so obviously it’s not a combi weapon issue. Lords without JPs is an issue, as are some other glaring omissions and changes. Combi weapons and no duplicate hvy/specials in legion squads isn’t (although the latter is weird, it’s still not a problem)
Chaos players have a label of being a little more whiny than your average 40K faction player, and complaining about combi change on terms isn’t helping.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

That's not really a refutation of my post though? I'm not saying anything is an "I Win" button, but I think successful lists will have a lot of commonalities, which this bears out. That said, I still maintain that it's too early to draw any conclusions (I merely put the data/claims out there after Dudeface claimed that single NL placing indicated the book was a strong book.)

That's really not what I said either, I commented saying that people in this thread complained how useless the nightlords trait was, but if it can land 3rd its a good sign. To mean that in the context of the other half of my post, it's likely to be a book that lands 50%ish with multiple builds.

Dudeface wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

That's not really a refutation of my post though? I'm not saying anything is an "I Win" button, but I think successful lists will have a lot of commonalities, which this bears out. That said, I still maintain that it's too early to draw any conclusions (I merely put the data/claims out there after Dudeface claimed that single NL placing indicated the book was a strong book.)

That's really not what I said either, I commented saying that people in this thread complained how useless the nightlords trait was, but if it can land 3rd its a good sign. To mean that in the context of the other half of my post, it's likely to be a book that lands 50%ish with multiple builds.

The complaint wasn't that the Night Lords trait was "useless", it was that it was practically useless against some factions, while being possibly debilitating against others. Basically making Night Lords a gatekeeper faction.

And [SOMEONE] winning a few games in a tournament [SOMEWHERE] doesn't disprove that. We'll need a lot more data to evaluate that. It will require enough to compare Night Lords win rates against various factions across a lot more games.

 bullyboy wrote:

Never once mentioned balance. My point is it’s not a problem now either. The fuss is unnecessary in regards to this change.

bullyboy wrote:

It’s not a problem because it simply isn’t a problem. The unit is playable with 2 combis as much as it is with 5, and you’ll see terminators being used extensively in lists, so obviously it’s not a combi weapon issue. Lords without JPs is an issue, as are some other glaring omissions and changes. Combi weapons and no duplicate hvy/specials in legion squads isn’t (although the latter is weird, it’s still not a problem)
Chaos players have a label of being a little more whiny than your average 40K faction player, and complaining about combi change on terms isn’t helping.

...so wait, is it about balance, or not? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Never once mentioned balance. My point is it’s not a problem now either. The fuss is unnecessary in regards to this change.

bullyboy wrote:

It’s not a problem because it simply isn’t a problem. The unit is playable with 2 combis as much as it is with 5, and you’ll see terminators being used extensively in lists, so obviously it’s not a combi weapon issue. Lords without JPs is an issue, as are some other glaring omissions and changes. Combi weapons and no duplicate hvy/specials in legion squads isn’t (although the latter is weird, it’s still not a problem)
Chaos players have a label of being a little more whiny than your average 40K faction player, and complaining about combi change on terms isn’t helping.

...so wait, is it about balance, or not? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

You obviously have reading issues. Where am I talking about game balance at all? It’s an arbitrary change to the dataslate. 2 combis, 4 combis, all combis, it just doesn’t matter. Not a balance issue, or anything else. It’s basically a non issue that some people just can’t stop whining about. If you happen to have a squad filled out with all combis, simply inform your opponent that only x amount are actual combis and others are just combi bolters. They’re barely discernible from tabletop distance anyway.

Chaos whinny? Lol you must be joking only whinny players I have seen are loyalist space marines.

You know, I cannot wait for the 10th Edition Chaos Codex.

All models in the book will have only two profiles.

Accursed Weapon (Melee) S5 AP-1 2DMG
Accursed Weapon (Ranged) S8 AP-2 3DMG

There will be no other wargear in the entire book. Each data sheet will have exactly one special rule, and one Legion Trait.

 Togusa wrote:
You know, I cannot wait for the 10th Edition Chaos Codex.

All models in the book will have only two profiles.

Accursed Weapon (Melee) S5 AP-1 2DMG
Accursed Weapon (Ranged) S8 AP-2 3DMG

There will be no other wargear in the entire book. Each data sheet will have exactly one special rule, and one Legion Trait.

I know you're taking the mick but in honesty if they had just said models can have an accursed combiweapon which was bolter + I dunno assault 2 s6 ap-2 d2 or something, that would have actually solved a lot of this.

Ya honestly not against the accursed wepons as it does really open up the modeling side of things.

 Togusa wrote:
You know, I cannot wait for the 10th Edition Chaos Codex.

All models in the book will have only two profiles.

Accursed Weapon (Melee) S5 AP-1 2DMG
Accursed Weapon (Ranged) S8 AP-2 3DMG

There will be no other wargear in the entire book. Each data sheet will have exactly one special rule, and one Legion Trait.

Finally.
Balance.

 bullyboy wrote:


simply inform your opponent that only x amount are actual combis and others are just combi bolters. They’re barely discernible from tabletop distance anyway.

...do I really have to explain why that doesn't work?

IDK, maybe my reading comprehension wasn't good enough and it's a brilliant suggestion, I just read it incorrectly.

Boosykes wrote:
Chaos whinny? Lol you must be joking only whinny players I have seen are loyalist space marines.

Only when they convert their armies to My Little Space Marine Pony.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Like, why shouldn't termies get to spam combi weapons, Bullyboy? They've had that forever, it is not game-breaking (especially when compared to a lot of what has been released lately), and it's emblematic of the flexibility that is available when embracing the ruinous powers.

Oh, and the existence of Primaris (in particular Eradicators) refutes this idea that "special weapons can't/shouldn't be spammed" or whatever.

I think the question should rather be why should they? They're special weapons, except they aren't if everyone carries one. And again, the only reason you want them is for a deep strike wombo combo shot which is exactly what chaos is known for and is old AF. You don't hear imperial players asking for a full unit of cyclone terms etc.
Also, I don't understand why you're comparing terminators to primaris when you actually have an identical Imperial unit to compare to, weird. What are Imperial termi loadouts again? Full of combi-plasmas?
Combi on the leader plus 2 more per squad is perfectly fine.
I do sympathize with the powerfist situation though, but that falls in line with my bizarre choice by GW out take that I mentioned in my post.

Imperial players can do units with loads of cyclone terminators - Deathwatch Terminators (no kit, just a shoulder pad) can take 3 in any squad they appear in.
Imperial players can do units full of combi plasmas - Wolf Guard Terminators can take what they want.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It was never a problem before, why is it a problem now?

Answer: It's not. The only reason the limit is there is because of the kit.

Don't pretend that any of these changes are due to balance.

Never once mentioned balance. My point is it’s not a problem now either. The fuss is unnecessary in regards to this change.

So because you say it's not a problem, it's not a problem? This is kindergarten-level rhetoric, anybody can say that about anything.

It’s not a problem because it simply isn’t a problem. The unit is playable with 2 combis as much as it is with 5, and you’ll see terminators being used extensively in lists, so obviously it’s not a combi weapon issue. Lords without JPs is an issue, as are some other glaring omissions and changes. Combi weapons and no duplicate hvy/specials in legion squads isn’t (although the latter is weird, it’s still not a problem)
Chaos players have a label of being a little more whiny than your average 40K faction player, and complaining about combi change on terms isn’t helping.

The unit is playable with 2, no arguments at all with your opinion, but consider for a moment that all options across the entire codex have been cut back - there isn't a single special weapons squad in this entire codex (unless you count S4 weapons on cult infantry). Every other army in the game has it's equivalent of a special weapons squad. Also consider that there is no access to generic weapons like powerfists, GW as recently as last edition was pushing boxes like Betrayal at Calth and encouraging the models inside as an Imperial vs Chaos faction agnostic set - it's just another in a long line of "sucks to be you" if you have bought their product to use in their game only to be told no.

The "what's in the box/no model no rules" stance is and always has been bizarre, no one builds an army from just one box and it is ridiculous to want to try and get every option into one box in the exact quantities you are permitted to take. If the same idea was simply tweaked to "what's in the range/no model no rules" I bet 99% of players wouldn't care at all (things like Juggernaut Lords which haven't been sold for ages would be in legends, but just about every power/terminator armoured option exists in a current kit).

Boosykes wrote:
Chaos whinny? Lol you must be joking only whinny players I have seen are loyalist space marines.

This long thread proves otherwise, lol.

I think I’ve been clear through this thread that some things are terrible decisions by GW, but others are really minor and many other armies have lost options this edition. Some are more bizarre than others, but it is what it is. When it’s glaring like the chaos lord jump pack, you pressure GW with countless emails (see Eldar autarch as example), but others just need to be let go.
I don’t think the Lord issue will change though due to no plastic kit. GW needs to stop making a 20th version marine character and make several chaos lord options. Huge missed opportunity.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Never once mentioned balance. My point is it’s not a problem now either. The fuss is unnecessary in regards to this change.

bullyboy wrote:

It’s not a problem because it simply isn’t a problem. The unit is playable with 2 combis as much as it is with 5, and you’ll see terminators being used extensively in lists, so obviously it’s not a combi weapon issue. Lords without JPs is an issue, as are some other glaring omissions and changes. Combi weapons and no duplicate hvy/specials in legion squads isn’t (although the latter is weird, it’s still not a problem)
Chaos players have a label of being a little more whiny than your average 40K faction player, and complaining about combi change on terms isn’t helping.

...so wait, is it about balance, or not? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

You obviously have reading issues. Where am I talking about game balance at all? It’s an arbitrary change to the dataslate. 2 combis, 4 combis, all combis, it just doesn’t matter. Not a balance issue, or anything else. It’s basically a non issue that some people just can’t stop whining about. If you happen to have a squad filled out with all combis, simply inform your opponent that only x amount are actual combis and others are just combi bolters. They’re barely discernible from tabletop distance anyway.

Ah yes, brilliant, brilliant! Truly, there's no problem with units being illegal if what they're equipped with visually doesn't matter and anything can be made to count-as anything. Truly a work of genius.

This begs the question of why the hell limit any datasheet to bits that are only in the box, if they're going to have no bearing on what they're equipped with in-game.

Not once did I have an opponent look at my harlequin close combat weapons and say they were modeled wrong. Heck, they didn’t even know the difference between them. It’s not like you are using a missile launcher as a plasma gun. It’s a tiny piece on the end of a twin barrel that you can barely see. But keep making it a massive issue, lol.

My IW terminators all have combi bolters (minus the auto cannon), but I’m going to be running champ with combi melta and 2 combi flamers in the squad.

Dudeface wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
You know, I cannot wait for the 10th Edition Chaos Codex.

All models in the book will have only two profiles.

Accursed Weapon (Melee) S5 AP-1 2DMG
Accursed Weapon (Ranged) S8 AP-2 3DMG

There will be no other wargear in the entire book. Each data sheet will have exactly one special rule, and one Legion Trait.

I know you're taking the mick but in honesty if they had just said models can have an accursed combiweapon which was bolter + I dunno assault 2 s6 ap-2 d2 or something, that would have actually solved a lot of this.

In reality yes. Instead of having unique profiles for everything under the sun, they could just put Fist/Sword/Axe/Hammer under the profile "Power Weapon" and be done with it.

 bullyboy wrote:
Not once did I have an opponent look at my harlequin close combat weapons and say they were modeled wrong. Heck, they didn’t even know the difference between them. It’s not like you are using a missile launcher as a plasma gun. It’s a tiny piece on the end of a twin barrel that you can barely see. But keep making it a massive issue, lol.

My IW terminators all have combi bolters (minus the auto cannon), but I’m going to be running champ with combi melta and 2 combi flamers in the squad.

Welp, agree to disagree, I guess. I'm pretty sure if you dug up any "40k faux pas" thread on dakka, shady inconsistent proxying would be mentioned. I guess if you don't see it as a problem that you're one of those people, we're at an impasse.

ETA: and *obviously*, Harlequin weapons and combi-weapons that have been ubiquitous and well-known for decades are nowhere near comparable lmao, don't even try to trot that one out.

 Togusa wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
You know, I cannot wait for the 10th Edition Chaos Codex.

All models in the book will have only two profiles.

Accursed Weapon (Melee) S5 AP-1 2DMG
Accursed Weapon (Ranged) S8 AP-2 3DMG

There will be no other wargear in the entire book. Each data sheet will have exactly one special rule, and one Legion Trait.

I know you're taking the mick but in honesty if they had just said models can have an accursed combiweapon which was bolter + I dunno assault 2 s6 ap-2 d2 or something, that would have actually solved a lot of this.

In reality yes. Instead of having unique profiles for everything under the sun, they could just put Fist/Sword/Axe/Hammer under the profile "Power Weapon" and be done with it.

I think 2 profiles foe generic power weapons and 2 profiles for heavier power weapons would suffice.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Not once did I have an opponent look at my harlequin close combat weapons and say they were modeled wrong. Heck, they didn’t even know the difference between them. It’s not like you are using a missile launcher as a plasma gun. It’s a tiny piece on the end of a twin barrel that you can barely see. But keep making it a massive issue, lol.

My IW terminators all have combi bolters (minus the auto cannon), but I’m going to be running champ with combi melta and 2 combi flamers in the squad.

Welp, agree to disagree, I guess. I'm pretty sure if you dug up any "40k faux pas" thread on dakka, shady inconsistent proxying would be mentioned. I guess if you don't see it as a problem that you're one of those people, we're at an impasse.

ETA: and *obviously*, Harlequin weapons and combi-weapons that have been ubiquitous and well-known for decades are nowhere near comparable lmao, don't even try to trot that one out.

HQ weapons look far different in comparison to various combis, so point is more than valid. Only one that might be obvious is the plasma due to coil color, flamer, bolter and melta are way too similar to be an issue.

There’s blatant proxying that leads to confusion, and then there’s this scenario which is borderline pedantic.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Not once did I have an opponent look at my harlequin close combat weapons and say they were modeled wrong. Heck, they didn’t even know the difference between them. It’s not like you are using a missile launcher as a plasma gun. It’s a tiny piece on the end of a twin barrel that you can barely see. But keep making it a massive issue, lol.

My IW terminators all have combi bolters (minus the auto cannon), but I’m going to be running champ with combi melta and 2 combi flamers in the squad.

Welp, agree to disagree, I guess. I'm pretty sure if you dug up any "40k faux pas" thread on dakka, shady inconsistent proxying would be mentioned. I guess if you don't see it as a problem that you're one of those people, we're at an impasse.

ETA: and *obviously*, Harlequin weapons and combi-weapons that have been ubiquitous and well-known for decades are nowhere near comparable lmao, don't even try to trot that one out.

HQ weapons look far different in comparison to various combis, so point is more than valid. Only one that might be obvious is the plasma due to coil color, flamer, bolter and melta are way too similar to be an issue.

There’s blatant proxying that leads to confusion, and then there’s this scenario which is borderline pedantic.

I'm pretty sure anyone that isn't an, uh, visually impaired redditor knows how a Plasma, a Bolter and a Melta look like.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Not once did I have an opponent look at my harlequin close combat weapons and say they were modeled wrong. Heck, they didn’t even know the difference between them. It’s not like you are using a missile launcher as a plasma gun. It’s a tiny piece on the end of a twin barrel that you can barely see. But keep making it a massive issue, lol.

My IW terminators all have combi bolters (minus the auto cannon), but I’m going to be running champ with combi melta and 2 combi flamers in the squad.

Welp, agree to disagree, I guess. I'm pretty sure if you dug up any "40k faux pas" thread on dakka, shady inconsistent proxying would be mentioned. I guess if you don't see it as a problem that you're one of those people, we're at an impasse.

ETA: and *obviously*, Harlequin weapons and combi-weapons that have been ubiquitous and well-known for decades are nowhere near comparable lmao, don't even try to trot that one out.

HQ weapons look far different in comparison to various combis, so point is more than valid. Only one that might be obvious is the plasma due to coil color, flamer, bolter and melta are way too similar to be an issue.

There’s blatant proxying that leads to confusion, and then there’s this scenario which is borderline pedantic.

I'm pretty sure anyone that isn't an, uh, visually impaired redditor knows how a Plasma, a Bolter and a Melta look like.

We’re talking a combi weapon where one tiny barrel is different, not the entire weapon. But nice try.

This thread continues to remind me how fortunate I am with my gaming group. Although I’ve been to and watched many tournaments, and some of the travesties presented on table make this conversation on combis laughable.

How is what you're doing with your IW termies NOT blatant proxying? "These guys who look exactly the same have different weapons". That is the epitome of messy proxying that can lead to confusion and disagreements with opponents.

Why don't you define what blatant proxying is for us.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
How is what you're doing with your IW termies NOT blatant proxying? "These guys who look exactly the same have different weapons". That is the epitome of messy proxying that can lead to confusion and disagreements with opponents.

Why don't you define what blatant proxying is for us.

"These guys who look exactly the same have different weapons" and now, thankfully to Accursed Weapons, you can have that AND "These guys who look differently have the exact same weapon" at the same time, in the same squad!

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
How is what you're doing with your IW termies NOT blatant proxying? "These guys who look exactly the same have different weapons". That is the epitome of messy proxying that can lead to confusion and disagreements with opponents.

Why don't you define what blatant proxying is for us.

Yea that level of proxy is a bit too far for me.

If you have two plasma and a flamer and wanted to run them as two melta and a flamer then whatever. As long as I know the model you pulled was distinguishable as that particular special weapon then go for it.

Not difficult. Combi melta on sgt, who is already distinguishable. One term has reaper auto. 3 terms remaining, pretty easy to point out only one who is rocking a combi bolter. Or don’t, either way, I’m really not bothered.. Just no reason to make such a big deal about little differences.
Running a tissue box as a land raider is not something I’m going to approve, lol. I understand that GW makes changes all the time and I don’t expect my buddies to tear apart models they’ve painted. If you want to be a d-bag about wysiwyg to an extreme level, good luck with the fun experience.

I’ve seen many 40K games, and swing by one of the busiest stores in my area. Unpainted grey masses, half built junk, etc, yet some of you gonna scream about a combi weapon. Madness.

 bullyboy wrote:
We’re talking a combi weapon where one tiny barrel is different, not the entire weapon. Nice try.

This argument doesn't work. Plasma, Melta and Flamer weaponry is some of the most iconic in 40k, and combi-weapons are visually distinct from one another. "Just pretend they're regular combi-bolters!" is a truly lousy argument.

And despite just sticking your fingers in your ears and going "This isn't a problem!", it is a problem, because people have entire units of Terminators that have been completely invalidated as a result of these asinine and unnecessary changes. Other units in the game can have all the same combi-weapon, but Chaos Terminators are suddenly restricted and we should just accept that because... pretend they're not combi-weapons?

And now you're even suggesting that you be inconsistent about it on a unit to unit bases (combi- on a champ is fine, but pretend it's something different in a squad).

That ain't gonna work. But hey: Nice try.