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.
2017/03/24 03:59:02
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
I hope the next edition is a major reboot and not just one where you use the same codex books (or data slates or whatever) from previous editions but everyone gets new army lists to start fresh with.
Part of me wants this because the idea of some of the more detestable locals having their armies invalidated would bring me some measure of mirth. I don't know how it happened, but all the good natured and friendly opponents switched to Age of Sigmar (and Flames of War, Infinity and Bolt Action) while all the rules lawyers and rude people stuck with 40k.(and WM/H).
If Age of the Emperor can do for 40k around here what AoS did for fantasy, I'll give it a serious look. The general positivity of people who actually play AoS would be a nice thing to see in 40k, both in person and online.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 04:09:53
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
2017/03/24 04:19:59
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
JSF wrote:... this is really quite an audacious move by GW, throwing out any pretext that this is a game and that its customers exist to do anything other than buy their overpriced products for the sake of it. The naked arrogance, greed and contempt for their audience is shocking.
= Epic First Post.
2017/03/24 04:27:52
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
-Loki- wrote: As someone who has been hanging on to his Tyranids in the hope GW did something to fix 40k, and seeing nearly 20 pages of bickering and not wanting to dig through it and reading 'sigmarising of 40k', can someone explain what GW announced?
A list of things they are considering for new rules going foreword.
Wow, some of that sounds awful for armies like Tyranids with large numbers of low stat infantry that need to get into enemy gun range to actually do their job, and not much of it sounds like it will benefit armies like that.
At least my Tyranids are comfy in their drawer of shame.
Actually it's quite good for swarm and horde armies. For the sake of the argument let's say GW decides bravery works just like AOS, units with larger numbers get bonuses and some ( clan rats ) have higher bravery due to taking more than 10-20 in a unit. Honestly you can't really judge this if you don't play much AOS because it's very different than anything WHFB and 40K have had in the past
Not if its like Old Fearless from 5th ed, where 7 Gants die in a combat, a Carnifex and 10 gants, now your Carnifex (Its a LD 7 model) has a 1D6 - 7 to take wounds.
This is the reason I hated playing Hoard nids in 5th and why I stopped playing Hoards, you couldnt multi combat without losing your MC's.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 05:47:01
-Loki- wrote: As someone who has been hanging on to his Tyranids in the hope GW did something to fix 40k, and seeing nearly 20 pages of bickering and not wanting to dig through it and reading 'sigmarising of 40k', can someone explain what GW announced?
A list of things they are considering for new rules going foreword.
Wow, some of that sounds awful for armies like Tyranids with large numbers of low stat infantry that need to get into enemy gun range to actually do their job, and not much of it sounds like it will benefit armies like that.
At least my Tyranids are comfy in their drawer of shame.
Actually it's quite good for swarm and horde armies. For the sake of the argument let's say GW decides bravery works just like AOS, units with larger numbers get bonuses and some ( clan rats ) have higher bravery due to taking more than 10-20 in a unit. Honestly you can't really judge this if you don't play much AOS because it's very different than anything WHFB and 40K have had in the past
Not if its like Old Fearless from 5th ed, where 7 Gants die in a combat, a Carnifex and 10 gants, now your Carnifex (Its a LD 7 model) has a 1D6 - 7 to take wounds.
This is the reason I hated playing Hoard nids in 5th and why I stopped playing Hoards, you couldnt multi combat without losing your MC's.
Single models don't take morale tests in AoS.. and it's based on units losing models (not necessarily wounds), and not winning / losing combat. Presumably, even if you won combat, but lost models that turn, you might have to take a morale test.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 05:54:05
Amishprn86 wrote: Not if its like Old Fearless from 5th ed, where 7 Gants die in a combat, a Carnifex and 10 gants, now your Carnifex (Its a LD 7 model) has a 1D6 - 7 to take wounds.
This is the reason I hated playing Hoard nids in 5th and why I stopped playing Hoards, you couldnt multi combat without losing your MC's.
That is NOT how Bravery works in Age of Sigmar, it is absolutely nothing like you describe. This is how it actually works;
If a unit suffered any casualties during a turn, roll a D6 at the end of the turn for that specific unit; you then add that D6 roll to the number of casualties that unit suffered in that turn. You then compare the total score to the units' Bravery characteristic, and for each point the total result exceeds the units' Bravery characteristic, one model in the unit dies/flees.
Ergo....SOLO MODELS CAN NEVER TAKE BATTLESHOCK TESTS as a solo model would be dead before it would have to test for Battleshock. Regardless of how many units you have fighting next to each other, the losses of one unit do not in any way affect the losses of another unit when it comes time to take Battleshock tests. You could have two Hormagaunt units fighting a single Terminator squad; one Hormagaunt unit suffered 10 casualties and so would have to take a Battleshock test of D6+10, but the other Hormagaunt unit only suffered 2 casualties and so would instead take a Battleshock test of D6+2. Capiche?
Besides, for those complaining that it will screw over horde armies, here's the thing; Age of Sigmar has a core rule that gives units +1 Bravery for every 10 models in the unit, and there are abilities and equipment that increase units' Bravery. On top of that, characters often confer abilities that either ignore or mitigate Battleshock losses, with every General/Warlord having a Command Ability/Warlord Trait that lets them freely make any single unit within 12" completely immune to Battleshock for a turn. Properly designed horde armies are absolutely terrifying in Age of Sigmar, so if anything, Tyranid players should be *excited* that the core rules may actually favour them for the first time since...how many editions ago? Tyranid units having their own (probably high) movement values instead of conforming to core-rule standards that other armies follow, Tyranid units striking first on the turn they charge into combat (who needs assault grenades now?), armour save modifiers potentially making weapons like Rupture Cannons actually useful against enemies like Dreadknights, and the overall rules revamp will probably give every army some new strategies and tactics to try out which, given how long it has been since Tyranids got an update, should be very exciting.
I'm so glad the AP system is gone, that might be the biggest thing for me. Rubric Marines cutting right through Power Armour like butter but being nigh on useless against Terminator Armour made little sense, actual armour save modifiers will represent proper armour degradation rather than "AP1/2 or nothing at all".
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/24 06:11:54
2017/03/24 06:06:14
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
Amishprn86 wrote: Not if its like Old Fearless from 5th ed, where 7 Gants die in a combat, a Carnifex and 10 gants, now your Carnifex (Its a LD 7 model) has a 1D6 - 7 to take wounds.
This is the reason I hated playing Hoard nids in 5th and why I stopped playing Hoards, you couldnt multi combat without losing your MC's.
That is NOT how Bravery works in Age of Sigmar, it is absolutely nothing like you describe. This is how it actually works;
If a unit suffered any casualties during a turn, roll a D6 at the end of the turn for that specific unit; you then add that D6 roll to the number of casualties that unit suffered in that turn. You then compare the total score to the units' Bravery characteristic, and for each point the total result exceeds the units' Bravery characteristic, one model in the unit dies/flees.
Ergo....SOLO MODELS CAN NEVER TAKE BATTLESHOCK TESTS as a solo model would be dead before it would have to test for Battleshock. Regardless of how many units you have fighting next to each other, the losses of one unit do not in any way affect the losses of another unit when it comes time to take Battleshock tests. You could have two Hormagaunt units fighting a single Terminator squad; one Hormagaunt unit suffered 10 casualties and so would have to take a Battleshock test of D6+10, but the other Hormagaunt unit only suffered 2 casualties and so would instead take a Battleshock test of D6+2. Capiche?
Besides, for those complaining that it will screw over horde armies, here's the thing; Age of Sigmar has a core rule that gives units +1 Bravery for every 10 models in the unit, and there are abilities and equipment that increase units' Bravery. On top of that, characters often confer abilities that either ignore or mitigate Battleshock losses, with every General/Warlord having a Command Ability/Warlord Trait that lets them freely make any single unit within 12" completely immune to Battleshock for a turn.
How do we know? I say "IF" it is like.... I didnt see any GW posts that said it worked like Bravery
Edit: I understant we are assuming it is working like AoS, but again I was just saying "I hope it wont work like 5ed th fearless' Remember this is GW, they can f' it up easily.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/24 06:12:48
How do we know? I say "IF" it is like.... I didnt see any GW posts that said it worked like Bravery
"Morale works like Battleshock from AoS"
What does that tell you?
The GW post I saw didnt have this wording.
It says
Morale
Its no longer all or nothing, and it affects everyone. We’re thinking of replacing break tests with a simple mechanic. Roll a D6, add that to the number of models your unit has lost this turn, subtract your Leadership and take that many additional casualties.
Morale
Its no longer all or nothing, and it affects everyone. We’re thinking of replacing break tests with a simple mechanic. Roll a D6, add that to the number of models your unit has lost this turn, subtract your Leadership and take that many additional casualties.
Which spells out exactly that single models can never fail the test...
It is literally the *exact* same rule as in Age of Sigmar. AoS is; roll a D6 if the unit has suffered casualties this turn, and add the number of casualties suffered to that roll. Subtract your Bravery and take that many additional casualties.
Literally. The. Exact. Same. Thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 06:17:53
2017/03/24 06:22:32
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
Morale
Its no longer all or nothing, and it affects everyone. We’re thinking of replacing break tests with a simple mechanic. Roll a D6, add that to the number of models your unit has lost this turn, subtract your Leadership and take that many additional casualties.
Which spells out exactly that single models can never fail the test...
It is literally the *exact* same rule as in Age of Sigmar. AoS is; roll a D6 if the unit has suffered casualties this turn, and add the number of casualties suffered to that roll. Subtract your Bravery and take that many additional casualties.
Literally. The. Exact. Same. Thing.
It doesnt matter if it is worded the same if we dont know the other 99% of the rules tho. They didnt say it works like AoS, they just had the same wording.
There is nothing wrong is saying "Given we dont know the other 90%+ rules for 8th ed, I would like to remind GW and say that I hope it wont work like 5th ed Fearless"
Why are you so argumentative about me making that statement? And we DONT know if it will stay like they are sainyg b.c they quote
We’re thinking of replacing break tests
means it is still in testing anyways.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 06:22:47
It doesnt matter if it is worded the same if we dont know the other 99% of the rules tho. They didnt say it works like AoS, they just had the same wording.
There is nothing wrong is saying "Given we dont know the other 90%+ rules for 8th ed, I would like to remind GW and say that I hope it wont work like 5th ed Fearless"
Why are you so argumentative about me making that statement? And we DONT know if it will stay like they are sainyg b.c they quote
We’re thinking of replacing break tests
means it is still in testing anyways.
If the rule has the exact same wording, the rule works like Age of Sigmar. That's fairly self explanatory.
Nothing we have seen indicates it will function in any way like 5th Edition Fearless per the example you provided.
5th Ed Fearless was the WORST, it literally was the worst rules in 40k, it made me HATE 40k until I stopped playing Hoard Nids.
Now everyone gets that rule :(
I'm merely pointing out that you're jumping to conclusions. I also explained how Bravery works in AoS and what that, based on the identical tentative rule they want to use for 40K, means for 40K armies such as Tyranids.
Sorry if I come off as brash but I'm getting really tired of people (not specifically you) crapping on the (AoS) system when they either a) haven't played it or b) are skipping logic in favour of sweeping statements.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/24 06:29:56
2017/03/24 06:44:13
Subject: Re:GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
As this seems to be the thread for the discussion of the new 8th ed leaked rumours, I thought I would just perhaps leave this here. This is one of my good friends opinions and I wanted to see what you thought of it as I think he makes some very valid points:
"1. t looks like they want to have their cake AND eat it. Going more simple BUT more complex. I mean you want me to take it on faith that that model does that? At least with classification of troops I can broadly estimate that somebody is cheating. With EVERY unit having a separate warscr... I mean dataslate I will have to put complete trust and faith into my opponent
2. They can stick the morale concept. Are you seriously going to tell me bog standard infantry will take additional casualties because they're not astartes?! Grow up. So I have lost 4 boys to shooting (on a good day) I roll a 6, minus my ldr 7 and I get 3 more casualties?! Marines will take 0 in the same scenario! By that logic Nids never take any additional because fearless...
3. Charging units strike first. So you're expensive aspect warriors are going to get butchered by terminators with power fists?
4. Armour modifiers. Well nobody is getting an armour save in the current meta then
5. So you're rewarding me for being fluffy? I mean I respect the intent, but formations haven't balanced the game have they? NO, they made it worse.
Basically i'm dubious at best. Sound like armies are going to get WAAAY more complex at the cost of the game getting more simple.
No need for 3 levels of play. Just have Sandpit, an actual game and APOC,(APOC is just a bigger version of sandpit)
Actually the '3 ways to play' just sounds more insane the more I think about it. You need a single mode of play with slight alterations. I mean if you want to play magic then you follow the rules. Could you imagine being able to pick your hand from your entire deck turn after turn? No. Who says I have to play games on my xbox 1, personally I'd like use it as a chalk board. How about that monopoly board? I've got an idea, instead of playing monopoly i'm going to buy a copy and flip the board and print scrabble on the back instead of buying scrabble. If people want to do something badly enough they will do it, they don't need to be told to."
In case you didn't pick it up, he's an ork player!
Personally, I have very mixed feelings, I have played Age of Sigmar and I think they made it worse, so I'm worried about 40k. Anyone thought about what might happen to the imperial armour books and forgeworld rules with this ruling? Does the 'three ways to play' mean they're removing the FOC?
Someone reassure me
DaemonColin wrote: As this seems to be the thread for the discussion of the new 8th ed leaked rumours, I thought I would just perhaps leave this here. This is one of my good friends opinions and I wanted to see what you thought of it as I think he makes some very valid points:
"1. t looks like they want to have their cake AND eat it. Going more simple BUT more complex. I mean you want me to take it on faith that that model does that? At least with classification of troops I can broadly estimate that somebody is cheating. With EVERY unit having a separate warscr... I mean dataslate I will have to put complete trust and faith into my opponent
2. They can stick the morale concept. Are you seriously going to tell me bog standard infantry will take additional casualties because they're not astartes?! Grow up. So I have lost 4 boys to shooting (on a good day) I roll a 6, minus my ldr 7 and I get 3 more casualties?! Marines will take 0 in the same scenario! By that logic Nids never take any additional because fearless...
3. Charging units strike first. So you're expensive aspect warriors are going to get butchered by terminators with power fists?
4. Armour modifiers. Well nobody is getting an armour save in the current meta then
5. So you're rewarding me for being fluffy? I mean I respect the intent, but formations haven't balanced the game have they? NO, they made it worse.
Basically i'm dubious at best. Sound like armies are going to get WAAAY more complex at the cost of the game getting more simple.
No need for 3 levels of play. Just have Sandpit, an actual game and APOC,(APOC is just a bigger version of sandpit)
Actually the '3 ways to play' just sounds more insane the more I think about it. You need a single mode of play with slight alterations. I mean if you want to play magic then you follow the rules. Could you imagine being able to pick your hand from your entire deck turn after turn? No. Who says I have to play games on my xbox 1, personally I'd like use it as a chalk board. How about that monopoly board? I've got an idea, instead of playing monopoly i'm going to buy a copy and flip the board and print scrabble on the back instead of buying scrabble. If people want to do something badly enough they will do it, they don't need to be told to."
1. No worse than it is currently with formation and army wide special rules...
2. You don't know the buffs that might be in play and i already proved 2 or 3 pages ago in a mathhammer example 10 orks v10 marines would be better off with this rule in assault
3. Terminators which cost more than those aspect warriors and if you let foot slogging termintors (who will now prob be moving slower than eldar) into HTH before you then ye a pretty poor eldar player
4. Who does already? + for armies like orks this is a huge benefit they already get little in the way of armour saves but are likely to gain armour mods to THEIR weapons... good times if you ask me for orks
5. Most formations are not necessarily fluffy to a faction as a whole they represent subsets of special types of army
6. There are already two ways to play unbound and battleforged. If they split this out to unbound, set armies on a narrative and competitive where they actually add useful guidelines for tournaments etc then it might be a very good thing
2017/03/24 07:11:21
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
Anyone gotten an better look at Shadow War yet. Is it as much of Necromunda as originally thought?
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
2017/03/24 07:24:50
Subject: Re:GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
DaemonColin wrote:As this seems to be the thread for the discussion of the new 8th ed leaked rumours, I thought I would just perhaps leave this here. This is one of my good friends opinions and I wanted to see what you thought of it as I think he makes some very valid points:
"1. t looks like they want to have their cake AND eat it. Going more simple BUT more complex. I mean you want me to take it on faith that that model does that? At least with classification of troops I can broadly estimate that somebody is cheating. With EVERY unit having a separate warscr... I mean dataslate I will have to put complete trust and faith into my opponent
2. They can stick the morale concept. Are you seriously going to tell me bog standard infantry will take additional casualties because they're not astartes?! Grow up. So I have lost 4 boys to shooting (on a good day) I roll a 6, minus my ldr 7 and I get 3 more casualties?! Marines will take 0 in the same scenario! By that logic Nids never take any additional because fearless...
3. Charging units strike first. So you're expensive aspect warriors are going to get butchered by terminators with power fists?
4. Armour modifiers. Well nobody is getting an armour save in the current meta then
5. So you're rewarding me for being fluffy? I mean I respect the intent, but formations haven't balanced the game have they? NO, they made it worse.
Basically i'm dubious at best. Sound like armies are going to get WAAAY more complex at the cost of the game getting more simple.
No need for 3 levels of play. Just have Sandpit, an actual game and APOC,(APOC is just a bigger version of sandpit)
Actually the '3 ways to play' just sounds more insane the more I think about it. You need a single mode of play with slight alterations. I mean if you want to play magic then you follow the rules. Could you imagine being able to pick your hand from your entire deck turn after turn? No. Who says I have to play games on my xbox 1, personally I'd like use it as a chalk board. How about that monopoly board? I've got an idea, instead of playing monopoly i'm going to buy a copy and flip the board and print scrabble on the back instead of buying scrabble. If people want to do something badly enough they will do it, they don't need to be told to."
In case you didn't pick it up, he's an ork player!
Personally, I have very mixed feelings, I have played Age of Sigmar and I think they made it worse, so I'm worried about 40k. Anyone thought about what might happen to the imperial armour books and forgeworld rules with this ruling? Does the 'three ways to play' mean they're removing the FOC?
Someone reassure me
1: just ask to glance over the dataslates if you dont trust your opponent, snd if something seems fishy just ask.
2: actually, an average marine unit with that rolled a 6 in that situation would lose 2 models. Of course, for all we know, ATSKNF could change to effect 40k battleshock somehow, but we dont know anything so far.
3: Terminators are hot garbage, but they will already demolish any aspect warriors they charge. You know, since Aspect Warriors dont have any AP2, for the most part.
4: except the modifiers wont be like fantasy, it will most likely be like rend. So there will be more armour saves then before.
5: the three ways of play re already in AoS, and in 40k would be unbound, narrative (where army lists/what units in each army would be provided and you recreate a battle) and what we have now. Typically, that means you play the matched/points games with pick ups and in tournaments, so nothing would change.
Formations are already the way they reward 'fluffy lists', so if they removed formation bonuses and gave you command points for taking formations instead to use to build your bonuses, it would provide more depth than formations do now.
warboss wrote: Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
2017/03/24 07:44:48
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
Why are you telling us? We aren't developing the next 40k edition.
Give your feedback to GW.
But we are buying it, they dont want to bring out rules that will burn many bridges. This is a good thing they are showing us up front. You think walmart and Krogers makes a need product out of the top of there heads? No they do loads of research and testing with consumers first.
I keep seeing people applying 7th edition logic to 8th edition proposed changes. Just because marines have ATSKNF in its current form now, when marines are totally redesigned from the ground up for the new edition (same as everyone else), it will likely do something else.
Stop knee jerking using a 7th edition scenario.
2017/03/24 09:14:21
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
Amishprn86 wrote: Not if its like Old Fearless from 5th ed, where 7 Gants die in a combat, a Carnifex and 10 gants, now your Carnifex (Its a LD 7 model) has a 1D6 - 7 to take wounds.
This is the reason I hated playing Hoard nids in 5th and why I stopped playing Hoards, you couldnt multi combat without losing your MC's.
That is NOT how Bravery works in Age of Sigmar, it is absolutely nothing like you describe. This is how it actually works;
If a unit suffered any casualties during a turn, roll a D6 at the end of the turn for that specific unit; you then add that D6 roll to the number of casualties that unit suffered in that turn. You then compare the total score to the units' Bravery characteristic, and for each point the total result exceeds the units' Bravery characteristic, one model in the unit dies/flees.
Ergo....SOLO MODELS CAN NEVER TAKE BATTLESHOCK TESTS as a solo model would be dead before it would have to test for Battleshock. Regardless of how many units you have fighting next to each other, the losses of one unit do not in any way affect the losses of another unit when it comes time to take Battleshock tests. You could have two Hormagaunt units fighting a single Terminator squad; one Hormagaunt unit suffered 10 casualties and so would have to take a Battleshock test of D6+10, but the other Hormagaunt unit only suffered 2 casualties and so would instead take a Battleshock test of D6+2. Capiche?
Besides, for those complaining that it will screw over horde armies, here's the thing; Age of Sigmar has a core rule that gives units +1 Bravery for every 10 models in the unit, and there are abilities and equipment that increase units' Bravery. On top of that, characters often confer abilities that either ignore or mitigate Battleshock losses, with every General/Warlord having a Command Ability/Warlord Trait that lets them freely make any single unit within 12" completely immune to Battleshock for a turn. Properly designed horde armies are absolutely terrifying in Age of Sigmar, so if anything, Tyranid players should be *excited* that the core rules may actually favour them for the first time since...how many editions ago? Tyranid units having their own (probably high) movement values instead of conforming to core-rule standards that other armies follow, Tyranid units striking first on the turn they charge into combat (who needs assault grenades now?), armour save modifiers potentially making weapons like Rupture Cannons actually useful against enemies like Dreadknights, and the overall rules revamp will probably give every army some new strategies and tactics to try out which, given how long it has been since Tyranids got an update, should be very exciting.
I'm so glad the AP system is gone, that might be the biggest thing for me. Rubric Marines cutting right through Power Armour like butter but being nigh on useless against Terminator Armour made little sense, actual armour save modifiers will represent proper armour degradation rather than "AP1/2 or nothing at all".
Re: Nids, you make valid points, but all are contingent on the Nids actually getting some decent rules. And for the past several years, it has seemed that noone on GW staff really cares for them - the current dex is exceedingly bland. So whilst there is the possibility that Nids get some awesome new flavourful rules, I am not holding my breath and won't believe it until I see them :p
2017/03/24 09:15:35
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
angelofvengeance wrote: How are all-bike White Scars un-fluffy? :/. Fast attack is their thing.
You know what's the REAL core of white scars?
Tactical marines. In rhino's or drop pods. Not bikes.
You can have fast attack without all bikes you know. And fluffwise tactical marines would be the most common white scar you see.
But seen much tactical marines in white scar armies lately? Nope. Cause GW doesn't reward fluffy armies.
And problem with formations is same. They aren't there for fluff. They are there to sell you more models. Buy 3 riptides for big balance! Or take this formation and get lots of free stuff so you need to buy 10 30€ models!
Tactical Marines are literally all you see because of Gladius. Did you even think before you posted?
Tactical Marines are literally all you see because of Gladius.
Implying this only happens because of a specific formation and hinting that the real core of a White Scar "fluffy" army isn't tactical marines.
We aren't talking about stereotypes, we are talking about the CORE of a chapter's strength in the fluff - you know, what you need to take into consideration if you want truly want to build a thematic army.
If you're going to push stereotypes as the core of a Chapter, then the Unforgiven don't use tactical squads, right? I mean all they use is Ravenwing and Deathwing - because that's the stereotype of the DA army right?
And regarding the little attempt at devaluing of the info I just gave you to look at and learn about just because "ahmagad lexi is soooo much better", please find the sources of the info that wikia page uses:
Spoiler:
Codex: Armageddon (3rd Edition), pg. 32
Codex: Blood Angels (5th Edition), pg. 15
Codex: Necrons (5th Edition), pg. 25
Codex: Chaos Space Marines (3rd Edition, 2nd Codex), pg. 7
Codex: Space Marines (6th Edition), pp. 8, 19, 34-39, 64, 73, 77, 111, 142-143
Codex: Space Marines (5th Edition), pp. 8, 28, 30, 42-43, 47, 49, 94
Codex: Space Marines (4th Edition)
Codex: Space Marines (3rd Edition)
Deathwatch: First Founding (RPG), pp. 27-34
Flames of Damnation (Comic Anthology), "The Pilgrim" by James Peaty & artwork by Shaun Thomas
Horus Heresy: Collected Visions (Artbook Series), pp. 344-345
Imperial Armour Volume Two - Forces of the Inquisition & the Space Marines
Imperial Armour Volume Two, Second Edition - War Machines of the Adeptus Astartes, pg. 51
Imperial Armour Volume Nine - The Badab War - Part One, pp. 17, 108
Imperial Armour Volume Ten - The Badab War - Part Two, pg. 64
Index Astartes I, "Lightning Attack - The White Scars Space Marines Chapter," pp. 40-47
Rogue Trader Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook (1st Edition), pp. 156, 168
The Sabbat Worlds Crusade (Background Book)
Warhammer 40,000 Compendium (1st Edition), pp. 31, 79
White Scars 390 (US), "Army Project: White Scars vs. Orks", Steve Bowman and Duncan Rhodes, pg. 52-57
White Dwarf 312 (US), "Silent Menace: Space Marine Scouts"
White Dwarf 311 (US), "Index Astartes: Silent Menace" & "Behind Enemy Lines", pp. 84-88
White Dwarf 300 (US), "Legends of the Space Marines", p. 118
White Dwarf 286 (US), "The Eye of the Storm: Space Marine Chapters fighting in the Eye of Terror"
White Dwarf 283 (US), "Eye of Terror Campaign"
White Dwarf 257 (UK), "Index Astartes I: Index Astartes - Lightning Attack - The White Scars Space Marine Chapter"
White Dwarf 256 (US), "Index Astartes I: Index Astartes - Lightning Attack - The White Scars Space Marine Chapter"
White Dwarf 251 (US), "The Final Days of Armageddon", pp. 6-27
White Dwarf 249 (US), "Emperor's Shield: Space Marine Chapters of the Armageddon War"
White Dwarf 248 (US), "The Third War for Armageddon"
White Dwarf 93 (UK), "Warhammer 40,000: Rogue Trader Edition Preview", pp. 33-44
Fulgrim (Novel) by Graham McNeill
Age of Darkness (Anthology) edited by Christian Dunn, "Little Horus" by Dan Abnett
Brotherhood of the Storm (Audio Drama) by Chris Wraight
Descent of Angels (Novel) by Mitchel Scanlon
Scars (Collector's Edition Novel) by Chris Wraight
The Path of Heaven (Novel) by Chris Wraight
Brotherhood of the Moon (Novella) by Chris Wraight
Grey Hunt (Audio) by Chris Wraight
Hunt for Voldorius (Novel) by Andy Hoare
Legends of the Space Marines (Anthology), "Cover of Darkness" by Mitchel Scanlon pg. 77
Let the Galaxy Burn (Compilation), "Into the Maelstrom" by Chris Pramas
Rogue Star (Rogue Trader Novel Series) by Andy Hoare
Salvation's Reach (Novel) by Dan Abnett
Savage Scars (Novel) by Andy Hoare
Star of Damocles (Rogue Trader Novel Series) by Andy Hoare
The Saint (Omnibus) by Dan Abnett
Warriors of Ultramar (Ultramarines Novel Series) by Graham McNeill
Epic Armageddon Resources, "Epic White Scars", Games Workshop Website
Third War for Armageddon Worldwide Campaign - Forces Disposition, Imperial Forces: White Scars
Nice try, but no cigar.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/24 09:24:35
"Let them that are happy talk of piety; we that would work our adversary must take no account of laws."http://back2basing.blogspot.pt/
2017/03/24 11:30:20
Subject: GW Adepticon 2017 Studio Preview - March 22 - Presentation info starts pg 5
gungo wrote: "I hope all the rules stay almost exactly the same because 6th/7th ed is awesome"- said no one ever
White scars aren't the most played chapter that's ultramarines with thier 100 free character upgrades and free rules.
Me, 7th is the most fun I've had, 5th was terrible IMO.
The problem to me ISNT the 7th ed BRB its the power creep. if codex's and formations were ore balanced I feel more would like it. With that said i still highly enjoy the insane combinations we can do i just wish some wasone OPAF.
gungo wrote: "I hope all the rules stay almost exactly the same because 6th/7th ed is awesome"- said no one ever
White scars aren't the most played chapter that's ultramarines with thier 100 free character upgrades and free rules.
Me, 7th is the most fun I've had, 5th was terrible IMO.
The problem to me ISNT the 7th ed BRB its the power creep. if codex's and formations were ore balanced I feel more would like it. With that said i still highly enjoy the insane combinations we can do i just wish some wasone OPAF.
Even the base rules are responsible of the unbalance.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/24 11:44:31
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
