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.

Actually salamanders with witch hunter allies aren't a good combo. The twin linking replaces chapter tactics, which is the marine ability to chose to fail a leadership check and fall back. Sisters do no get to do this so they don't get the twin linking.

And it is a drawback not to be able to voluntarily fall back from a carnifex/dreadnaut/anything else that you have no chance of hurting.

Not hero-hammer, "UBER-SUPER-KILLY-UNIT" hammer. how many kill pts is a 10 strong flashlight toting guard squad worth?
1. And how many killpoints is the 10 strong Grey Knight Marine squad worth? Better yet, how many of your opponent's armies use more than 2 troop choices? (the ones that start out as troops w/out taking FOC changing HQ) For what? So that your HQ choice mods the FOC of your army so you can be more fluffy like the armies in WM and AT-43. If you like those games sooo much then go play those games and leave my game alone.




Dear GW game designer:
Rock is overpowered, but paper is okay.

-Scissors

Alphus, have you tried Warseer? You might fit in a bit better there. Otherwise, perhaps my charity can help you. Speak to Ozymandis. He our spokesperson.

BYE

ShumaGorath wrote:Actually salamanders with witch hunter allies aren't a good combo. The twin linking replaces chapter tactics, which is the marine ability to chose to fail a leadership check and fall back. Sisters do no get to do this so they don't get the twin linking.

That would be true if his rules were worded the same way as Shrike's or Khan's, but Vulkan's rules are worded slightly differently. It pretty much says: 1. Your army loses chapter tactics on everyone who has it. 2. All flamers and meltas are twin-linked, all thunder hammers are master-crafted.
The intention of this wording was probably to allow vehicles to benefit from it, but instead people take sisters, and argue that as part of their army their weapons are also twin-linked.

And it is a drawback not to be able to voluntarily fall back from a carnifex/dreadnaut/anything else that you have no chance of hurting.

It is, but it's not a drawback that makes up for outflank on everything.

Besides, chapter traits didn't give stuff out for free. They gave some good options, and took away some less useful options (the crux of the problem), but you still had to pay points to get furious charge or true grit on everyone. Same with doctrines, barring close order drill (which is hardly a huge benefit).

I don't see how that was a worse system.

That would be true if his rules were worded the same way as Shrike's or Khan's, but Vulkan's rules are worded slightly differently.

You're right. I never even noticed. Scary. I doubt that will be around after they rewright the *hunters books. Though that'l be a while.

It is, but it's not a drawback that makes up for outflank on everything.

No, but the previous chapter trait system had about the same level of give and take. It allowed options and extra force org benefits and gave restrictions that given the options it enables were never going to be a problem anyway. Besides, the Kahn army isn't exactly top tier, it's low model count hurts it badly and it's too easy to stop with a smart deployment. No marine army is as of yet tier 1, and none is even close to as good as daemons, lash, Dark Killdar, or ork horde. The IC chapter tactics system doesn't create overpowered armies, because all of the non generic chapter traits are difficult to use effectively (including vulkan).

I don't see how that was a worse system

It was worse because there was no on table indication of what was being done. For an opponent to understand it they had to either own your book or would need to borrow it from you for a bit to make sure you weren't just cheating. With the current system you can just point to a dude, say he lets me do X, and if required just show him the page that says it. It creates a tabletop link between the army as deployed and the army as it is legally meant to be.

ShumaGorath wrote:It was worse because there was no on table indication of what was being done. For an opponent to understand it they had to either own your book or would need to borrow it from you for a bit to make sure you weren't just cheating.

You are 100% correct. It's much easier when everything looks the way it should and the rules are consistent. That way when I look at Kantor, I know it's Kantor, or when I look at a Thunder Hammer, I know it's... oh wait... no bad example... I mean when I look at a Cyclone.... ok... not that either. Fine, fine, when I look at a Land Raider... no that doesn't work either...

Hmm...

Found a flaw in your theory Shummy.

As for the Vulkan vs Sisters Flamers, that's a topic for YMDC, not here.

BYE

Pfft, it makes sense. Just make armies out of the maine marine book. It all makes sense within the codex, it's a "marine" army not a dark angels army. They are separate forces due to the fact that they are separate books with no crossover. The problem is the poorly written DA and BA books, not the character trait system.

ShumaGorath wrote:
You're right. I never even noticed. Scary. I doubt that will be around after they rewright the *hunters books. Though that'l be a while.

Yeah, I'm hoping they errata it or something.
I think the =I= books are a long ways off.

No, but the previous chapter trait system had about the same level of give and take. It allowed options and extra force org benefits and gave restrictions that given the options it enables were never going to be a problem anyway. Besides, the Kahn army isn't exactly top tier, it's low model count hurts it badly and it's too easy to stop with a smart deployment. No marine army is as of yet tier 1, and none is even close to as good as daemons, lash, Dark Killdar, or ork horde. The IC chapter tactics system doesn't create overpowered armies, because all of the non generic chapter traits are difficult to use effectively (including vulkan).

I'll admit the trait system had some good options available at the expense of some options that weren't very useful at all (no allies! oh no!).

That could have been rectified, however. It was more of a problem with the specifics of the advantages and disadvantages than the system itself.

Plus, I don't recall the old space marine codex being better than new orks or eldar either.
They did well, but it's not like chapter traits were allowing them to dominate everything.

It was worse because there was no on table indication of what was being done. For an opponent to understand it they had to either own your book or would need to borrow it from you for a bit to make sure you weren't just cheating. With the current system you can just point to a dude, say he lets me do X, and if required just show him the page that says it. It creates a tabletop link between the army as deployed and the army as it is legally meant to be.

All I see is the difference between "I can do this because my codex says so" and "I can do this because my codex says so under this guy's profile."
Besides, half the time the special character is going to be in a transport, in reserve, or being 'counted-as' another model entirely.

One thing I didn't like about the chapter traits were the names. "Cleanse and Purify" does what now? "Take the Fight to Them?" You have no idea what most of them do without knowing the codex. (On the other hand, what does a "Vulkan" or "Shrike" impart on your army? You still have to know the codex, the only benefit is less to remember due to there being less options.)

Regardless, the problems with the chapter traits weren't intrinsic to the system, they simply handled (somewhat) poorly. Scraping them entirely was a bad move, and their solution isn't as good as I'd expect from the experience they gained with the codex before it.

One thing I didn't like about the chapter traits were the names. "Cleanse and Purify" does what now? "Take the Fight to Them?" You have no idea what most of them do without knowing the codex. (On the other hand, what does a "Vulkan" or "Shrike" impart on your army? You still have to know the codex, the only benefit is less to remember due to there being less options.)

You may not know what shrike does the first time, but see him in an army once and you will forever go "Oh, I see the guy with the bird on his face. Fleeting marines." You don't need to check the codex, or even speak to the opponent. All you need to is see the model on the table to know whats up. To this day I still have no idea what my friends IG army doctrines are, and what they do. I just know that he ignores leadership modifiers and wears tanks like they came 30 to a pack. Whenever I see an ork or space marine army I know whats going on, because it's a simple correlation between model and effect. It makes armies WYSYG. Also there really aren't less options, you can do virtually every force that was previously possible, and a few new kinds of forces. You're just replacing a word with a model.

Plus, I don't recall the old space marine codex being better than new orks or eldar either.

It's not. Its a second tier army and has been for years. I was attempting to debate the correlation between the IC traits and the armies relative power level.

they simply handled (somewhat) poorly.

It's my belief that it's just a bad system. When you have a system of traits with no visual representation then you basically have tyranid acid blood and imperial guard medal upgrades. Shadowy pieces of wargear that don't need to be modeled, are difficult to track, and go against the concept of a what you see is what you get army. I started this game with tyranids, then orks, then tyranids, then space marines. In the interim I played warmachine, LOT5R, Warlord, and Magic the gathering. No other game system I've encountered that doesn't have some sort of game master allows for unrepresented effects. They are just hard to keep track of and troubling to people unfamiliar with them. Whenever I played an army that used something like them I felt like I was somehow at a disadvantage because the flow of the game was being reshaped by something I had no experience with and couldn't see or touch. 40k isn't a pen and paper game master fight game any more, and the traits are going out the window to represent its streamlining.

ShumaGorath wrote:

One thing I didn't like about the chapter traits were the names. "Cleanse and Purify" does what now? "Take the Fight to Them?" You have no idea what most of them do without knowing the codex. (On the other hand, what does a "Vulkan" or "Shrike" impart on your army? You still have to know the codex, the only benefit is less to remember due to there being less options.)

You may not know what shrike does the first time, but see him in an army once and you will forever go "Oh, I see the guy with the bird on his face. Fleeting marines." You don't need to check the codex, or even speak to the opponent. All you need to is see the model on the table to know whats up. To this day I still have no idea what my friends IG army doctrines are, and what they do. I just know that he ignores leadership modifiers and wears tanks like they came 30 to a pack. Whenever I see an ork or space marine army I know whats going on, because it's a simple correlation between model and effect. It makes armies WYSYG. Also there really aren't less options, you can do virtually every force that was previously possible, and a few new kinds of forces. You're just replacing a word with a model.

That's still implying that Shrike is an unconverted (significantly) model that starts in plain view on the field. If someone has to tell you their commander counts as Shrike it's no better than them telling you they have furious charge thanks to their chapter traits. If he doesn't start on the field, it depends on whether or not you see him taken from the case.

Also, there are less options; you can't take two special weapons in a tactical squad, you can't take true grit, you can't take a close combat weapon and bolt pistol on your tactical marines.
If you have an army with two special weapons in your tactical squads you have to stick with one (rather weak firepower) or buy a heavy weapon to (static). If you have true grit modeled you either have to say they just have bolters modeled coolly or play with another codex (chaos, SWs). If you have nothing but marines with close combat weapons and bolt pistols you have to proxy the army as blood angels or chaos.

Plus, I don't recall the old space marine codex being better than new orks or eldar either.

It's not. Its a second tier army and has been for years. I was attempting to debate the correlation between the IC traits and the armies relative power level.

That makes sense then.

they simply handled (somewhat) poorly.

It's my belief that it's just a bad system. When you have a system of traits with no visual representation then you basically have tyranid acid blood and imperial guard medal upgrades. Shadowy pieces of wargear that don't need to be modeled, are difficult to track, and go against the concept of a what you see is what you get army. I started this game with tyranids, then orks, then tyranids, then space marines. In the interim I played warmachine, LOT5R, Warlord, and Magic the gathering. No other game system I've encountered that doesn't have some sort of game master allows for unrepresented effects. They are just hard to keep track of and troubling to people unfamiliar with them. Whenever I played an army that used something like them I felt like I was somehow at a disadvantage because the flow of the game was being reshaped by something I had no experience with and couldn't see or touch. 40k isn't a pen and paper game master fight game any more, and the traits are going out the window to represent its streamlining.

Most of the chapter traits could have their effects seen prefectly through wysiwyg. The Cleanse and Purify trait doesn't need to be represented, because having two special weapons represents it. Same with true grit, squads with two close combat weapons, armies with extra dreadnoughts, etc.

You can't see the limit of raptors only taking two meltaguns on the field, but why does that matter if you can see the number of meltaguns they do have?

The traits that weren't wysiwyg were usually veteran skills, which are rarely represented on anything due to their being unrelated to equipment. It's not as though you can see the infiltrate ability on chosen.

Part of the point of 40K is the immense number of special rules, items and characters contained in a wide variety of rulebooks.

The amount of minor detail is the attraction of the system to a lot of players.

If you want to keep up on all this stuff you buy all the codexes. If you don't want to splash the cash, you learn by experience.

Putting extra possibilities into each codex by a variety of units, leaders providing special rules or traits, tactical doctrines or whatever you like to call it, it all comes to the same thing. You either buy the codex or you expect to be surprised sometimes by stuff you didn't know.

The main reason I don't like the importance of special characters is because I want a unique army. For example, I don't want to play Calgar and Ultramarines vs. Calgar and Ultramarines. I don't like GW basically forcing players to use the same special characters to make a competitive list. When it comes to special characters I make my own from scratch and make my own army. It's the least I can do to give it a unique feel.

I actually really liked the 4th edition Space Marine codex (and IG codex). I like the idea of taking traits/doctrines and creating my own army.

~Logic

Orkeosaurus wrote:There's no reason for the penalties of traits and doctrines to not matter. That was purely a result of GW not doing enough in that regard, and it has nothing to do with the system itself.

There's just as much abuse possible with the special character system as there is with the trait system.

One day I decided to take up piano. But I couldn't hit any of the right notes and it sounded really bad. So I switched to violin. But it sounded really bad too! So then I tried the clarinet. But it sounded even worse! Why don't any of these instruments work???

(Also I never practice.)

GW will not fix the Vulkan/allies 'issue'. They'll just say that you're a no-good beardy tourney player if you are willing to exploit that 'loophole' and that everyone should understand that it wasn't meant to benefit models that weren't from the SM codex.

What happens if you take Vulkan in APOC?

I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question with

"Because it's AWESOME."

Does no one really love it? There's always someone who loves a change (as
opposed to those who simply say they're okay with it).

I quite like the theory, though since I don't play 40k at the moment, I can't say I love it or have any real tangible experience.

What I like is stuff like Pedro Kantor. If you take him, then you are encouraged to field lots of Sternguard, to the degree it will start to feel like a gathering of the 1st Company to really kick a little ass. Equally, Kantor can be used to represent other mostly knackered Chapters, like Scythes of the Emperor which consist mainly of grizzled old Veterans and Scouts.

If they continue this in other Marine books, ala Dark Angels, then the character kind of suggests which Company you are fielding (Master of Ravenwing means it's 2nd Company mainly) and so on.

Of course, you still run into the problem of number crunching wasters purely interested in kicking out the hardest list they can, regardless of any other consideration like theme, but I must say to me that is an occasional price worth paying to inject more variety into your games.

I seem to remember in earlier editions that special characters weren't allowed in tournament play. Yes... I know "Warhammer isn't designed for tournament play." I do question whether they may go back to that and ban them again. 'Cause seriously... who doesn't like ticking off a loyal fan base?!

Difference being that when Special Characters were dreaded, it was 2nd Edition and if used cunningly could stomp anything and everything into dust.

But now they have a different angle. Some people will buy a Marine Army based entirely around a given 'special' character. Take that away, and their army will flounder. This isn't fair, and would piss off more people than allowing them.

H.B.M.C. wrote:The only bright spark in all of this is the Captain entry in the Marine Codex that allows you to bring Bikes as Troops if you take a Bike for your Commander. That is the only flavourful thing GW has done in a recent Codex to date.

Do you think that is the reasonable way to go for small changes in army lists?

terminator commander=terminators as troops
bike commander=bikes as troops
jump pack commander=assault squads as troops

dietrich wrote:GW will not fix the Vulkan/allies 'issue'. They'll just say that you're a no-good beardy tourney player if you are willing to exploit that 'loophole' and that everyone should understand that it wasn't meant to benefit models that weren't from the SM codex.

And that explains 70% of why I don't play 40K much anymore.

dietrich wrote:GW will not fix the Vulkan/allies 'issue'. They'll just say that you're a no-good beardy tourney player if you are willing to exploit that 'loophole' and that everyone should understand that it wasn't meant to benefit models that weren't from the SM codex.

What happens if you take Vulkan in APOC?

1) its "units use wargear from THEIR codex", not transfer per SC from one to another here in Germany.

2) if followed the US - forums we get : 1x vulkan = any model of the player fielding vulkan gets the benefits.Thus even CSM would be
"upgraded" with TL-flamers and such. It may look OK with SM or IG or Inq but really CSM??

malfred wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question with

"Because it's AWESOME."

Does no one really love it? There's always someone who loves a change (as opposed to those who simply say they're okay with it).

Dakka's for tourney gamers who hate Warhammer but continue to play it anyway. The community actively ostracizes people who enjoy something just because they think it's cool. Why is the lack of "Because it's AWESOME," surprising? For the past five years anyone who replied that way would have been told to go to Warseer.

(It is awesome, though.)

H.B.M.C. wrote:Alphus, have you tried Warseer? You might fit in a bit better there. Otherwise, perhaps my charity can help you. Speak to Ozymandis. He our spokesperson.

BYE

I'm sorry if I hit a soft spot, but really. I'm outies.

And HBMC drives out another one..

Salvation122 wrote:
Dakka's for tourney gamers who hate Warhammer but continue to play it anyway. The community actively ostracizes people who enjoy something just because they think it's cool. Why is the lack of "Because it's AWESOME," surprising? For the past five years anyone who replied that way would have been told to go to Warseer.

(It is awesome, though.)

The competitive streaks are generally well contained in the Army Lists, Tactics and YMDC
forums. This thread is in Discussions where someone like me (who hasn't played 40k in years
but still collects and paints the models) has access to the discussion.

What seems ridiculous in "Special Hero Required Hammer" is the inclusion of high costed
commanders such as the Ravenwing or Deathwing ones.

malfred wrote:I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question with

"Because it's AWESOME."

Does no one really love it? There's always someone who loves a change (as
opposed to those who simply say they're okay with it).

Because it's AWSOME.

As for the upcoming IG codex, which will probably be IC based. I will not be worried if they are generic commanders (which is what it is shaping up to be), *and* if you do take a commander that he is a replacement for your normal HQ (not in addition). Also, it is important that he does not increase point cost of your army overall.

Doctrines do allow for a variety of armies, but at a high cost. True, you are "building the army you want" but if you "want" to build anything other than an army that uses Iron Discipline, Close Order Drill, Drop Troop, Veterans and something else, then you are usually just hurting yourself.

If the IC based army allows for a variety of forces, and does not increase the cost of those forces, then we have something to work with!

ShumaGorath wrote:And HBMC drives out another one..

The other one I'm trying to get rid of can't see my posts, so I have to take whatever chances I can get.

BYE

As an interesting aside, as many of you know my gaming group has been writing and testing our own set of 40K rules for the better part of 5-6 years. We started before 4th Ed came out (mainly to do our own Eldar Codex) and it spiralled from there. At our last playtesting event, we were trying out some of the new FOC's we'd put together, mostly for Orks and Eldar. One of the Eldar forces was an army that had 3 Fire Prisms and 9 Falcons. OMG you're thinking, that's insane. Well... it wasn't. He got whooped in the first game and then in the big multi-player game he was a useful ally, but did not dominate.

But that's not the point I'm making. The point was his 12 Falcon hull list was missing something - a hero to command it. There was no Farseer, no Autarch and no Warlock Master (something from our rules). It was a leaderless tank army, and we all agreed afterwards that while it wasn't overpowered, it was very sterile. It lacked character. It was just a bunch of tanks. One of my fav scenes in Lord of the Rings, the first one, is where Aragorn faces down the horde of Uruk's running towards him. He gives a salute with his sword, and then just starts carving them up. It's a very heroic moment. I remember many of those moments from 2nd Ed, where, due to the failings of 2nd Ed's character system, you could have single characters stand before a wave of oncoming attackers and have the character come out first best most of the time.

I don't really want to head back into 2nd Ed territory with 40K's characters, but I feel that they should really be heroic and the centre of one's army because it just feels better that way. The narrative scope of having a glorious and valiant (or evil and dangerous) character is far better than a leaderless army of tanks. Heroes in 40K should play an important role, and I think forces should be allowed to centre around them. It's more fun - to me at least - to do it that way.

Where I draw the line is mandatory characters. Dark Angels are the biggest offenders here, as I find it absurd that Belial has to lead every Deathwing force into battle always, or that Sammael must always mount his one-of-a-kind Jetbike for any minor skirmish.

One of my fav BatReps from WD was a very old one in which a Howling Griffon army took on an Ork horde - this was back in 2nd Ed - and a Howling Griffon Chaplain was holding the Marine right flank. He had a combat squad or two with him, and they faced down a bunch of Blood Axe Kommandoz and other things. By the end it was only the Chaplain left, and I think he even died at the end, but he held that flank. It was wonderfully heroric, and I've always loved the idea of a Chaplain leading Marines into combat. And I love the idea of a Bike or Terminator force being led by a Chaplain even more. My Crusading Marine army which I will get around to eventually will be led by a Chaplain on a Bike. But I can't do that with Ravenwing. Oh no. I can bring a Chaplain, but Sammael's always got to ride shotgun on every single mission the Ravenwing go on, and I hate that. I like that characters can shape a force, but I hate that characters are becoming the only way to shape a force.

If I wanted to play Salamanders, I should be able to just play Salamanders. I give up my Combat Tactics and get whatever bonuses Sallies get intead of that. I shouldn't have to tack on a Special Character for the privilage. The Guard, with their Generic Special Characters (something DD is sure to be overjoyed about, much like Generic Daemons), will be no different. It won't be someone playing an Elysian Army or a Tanith Army because they want to, it will be something having to take a special character first before they can take the army they already had before they were required to take a character.

BYE

it's a fine line between a herohammer special character and special character who feels vital to the force.

I think the new marine characters are a good balance in terms of individual power and army synergy, though I do get tired of the whole "marine playstyle a always contains hero a, marine playstyle b always contains hero b" syndrome. Giving them all names was a mistake imo, now everyone gives me the 'I'm tired of watching Eldrad/Gazkull/etc. participate in every little skirmish that takes place' speech, I don't want to hear it every time someone fields marines now.


Oh, and every time I hear the cry of 'herohammer!' I think about the most anti-herohammer army of them all, Tau. Case in point, their ONLY HQ selection is the XV8 Commander, and he's as bland and mediocre as they come. And don't say ethereals are HQ too. Even if they weren't 17 varieties of useless, could I field Tau with just an ethereal leading? no? there you go. Someone tell GW to make the Kroot shaper an actual HQ selection, and a CC beast, instead of the 20 point +1Ld upgrade he really is. Frankly, I think they can do better than "+1BS +25pt or +2BS +50 pt XV8 SERGE!" for the leader of a Tau force.