Switch Theme:

Game too lethal for infantry? Make them tougher (Cadians)!  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

So if you are concerned GEV troops are blown off the table in seconds, what's the solution... Well obviously more special exceptions and CPs

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/10/12/the-whiteshields-are-back-and-codex-supplement-cadia-makes-them-hard-enough-to-shrug-off-lascannons/

Spoiler:




Spoiler:


Plus everyone gets to be Creed.

Spoiler:
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

What's the problem? Sounds like a fuss over nothing.

   
Made in fi
5th God of Chaos (O'rly?)





Bloat for the bloat god. That's the issue.

The more combos and silly stuff you add to rules the less tactical game becomes and the less it's about being good player and more about building army list with silly combos.

Also game gets more and more expensive. And with what's good and what's bad this just keeps encouraging pay to win mentality.

Guess if you are rich guy who wants to win without being good player you have no issue with this

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/13 10:26:12


2021 painted/bought: 857/1043 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

 Valkyrie wrote:
What's the problem? Sounds like a fuss over nothing.
Dakka in a nutshell

Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





Just wondering what t-shirt saves of Catachans might look like in that system. Or they will implement stunt doubles for each Catachan soldier. Extra points for doing it with a straight face.
   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

Seems like a way to sell tricksy infantry models with patchy whombocombo mechanics rather than fix the game.

I mean, next guardians will get some special dispensation, then termagants, then ... a new edition for another round of nonsense.

   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 jeff white wrote:
Seems like a way to sell tricksy infantry models with patchy whombocombo mechanics rather than fix the game.

I mean, next guardians will get some special dispensation, then termagants, then ... a new edition for another round of nonsense.


It is wild to me that GW as a company is so wacky and disjointed that they have on one hand Age of Sigmar, where they periodically go

"Say, you know what's a bit out of date? Monster datasheets. We ought to release a campaign book, and at the back of it, put in some new updated datasheets for a whole bunch of monsters for a whole bunch of factions. Oh, also, we've been meaning to implement that little incentive thing where we want people to bring 1 monster in their army, but not necessarily skew their list into just only monsters all the time, so let's go ahead and release that little bonus rule you get for 1 of your monsters along with all the new datasheets! We'll release it for every faction in the game simultaneously, so nobody's left out."

And then you have 40k, a game by the same company, which is supposedly the 'cash cow' and presumably treated with...I mean at a normal company I'd say "more care", where its like

"NEIN, YOU CANNOT JUST UPDATE ZE STATS OF A UNIT ZAT IS VERBOTEN!!!!!!!!!!! Guardsmen feel too weak, you say? FINE, here is ze stratagem, only for cadians, allowing zem to have three plus save and never wound on ze one or two, but ONLY ON TUESDAYS and ONLY IF YOU SPEND ZE SPECIAL POINTY-POINTS LIKE WE SAID YOU HAVE TO. And you have to say to your opponent "Cadia Stands" every time and ZEN and ONLY ZEN you get your extra point of armor save!!!!

WHAT??? Guardians? termagants? Fire warriors? Neophytes? Cultists? Grots? VAT DO VE LOOK LIKE ZE RULES SANTA CLAUS???? PAY ZE SIXTY DOLLARS AND YOU GET ZE LIGHT INFANTRY BOOST FOR CADIANS ONLY AND ONLY STRATAGEM, NO SOUP FOR YOU!"

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/13 11:32:13


"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




New Jersey, State of Perfection

 the_scotsman wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
Seems like a way to sell tricksy infantry models with patchy whombocombo mechanics rather than fix the game.

I mean, next guardians will get some special dispensation, then termagants, then ... a new edition for another round of nonsense.


It is wild to me that GW as a company is so wacky and disjointed that they have on one hand Age of Sigmar, where they periodically go



Games aren't designed by "the company', they are designed by "design teams" or "studios" within it. The people doing Age of Sigmar are different from the people doing 40k are different from the people doing War Cry and Kill Team are different from the people doing Necromunda, Aeronautica, Blood Bowl, and Titianicus. Different people mean different approaches and design philosophies. Theres nothing really wacky about this, this is the norm for larger publishers with multiple product lines in both the video game and tabletop game worlds.


This ain't no pansy GW Armor, son - Digital Sculpting Plog, Now with Heavy Weapon Platforms!
Sympathy for the Devil, or: The Project Log from Hell

Ma55ter_fett wrote:It reads like the ramblings of a Nigerian lobotomized Shakespeare typed into a cellphone with a very aggressive autocomplete function.
 
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

a_typical_hero wrote:
 Valkyrie wrote:
What's the problem? Sounds like a fuss over nothing.
Dakka in a nutshell


I don't get it. People are bitching and moaning about this. It's one announced rule that now appears to set the precedent for every comparable unit out there. We have no idea about any other interactions or even if the Guardsmen stats will change at all. Let's wait until the book is out first.

   
Made in us
[MOD]
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

This is the kind of thing that I really kills modern 40k for me.

When you're making differentiated sub-faction distinct rules for *conscripts* of all things, and then applying them via Stratagems, something has gone overboard.

Trying to deal with an d keep track of this sort of hamfisted forced differentiation, particularly applied in this manner, is just list building gimmickry. It's not really adding flavor, it's not making the army more interesting, it's just added more rules for their own sake.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





tneva82 wrote:


The more combos and silly stuff you add to rules the less tactical game becomes and the less it's about being good player and more about building army list with silly combos.

Also game gets more and more expensive. And with what's good and what's bad this just keeps encouraging pay to win mentality.

Guess if you are rich guy who wants to win without being good player you have no issue with this


It is true that the redesign of the game in 8th to create a system of stacking buffs from auras and strats significantly changed the way to be a good player. It's also clear from Dakka that a lot of people preferred the game when the skills needed were things like clever use of suppression fire to pin powerful units, use morale to nullify enemy units, etc.

But make no mistake about it, doing either thing well IS a skill. It may not be a skill YOU enjoy employing as much as you enjoyed applying other skills. Auras are not common and can be mitigated; strats require resource management, timing and a keen sense of target priority to be used effectively. And again, if those kinds of skills don't appeal to you, yeah, you aren't going to enjoy this edition as much as you enjoyed previous editions.

I like the approach, because it can be faction or even subfaction specific, which makes playing one army different from playing another. The tactical skill of using suppression fire to pin priority targets mentioned above was something that could be done by every subfaction of every faction, which meant that while it was a key tactic, it was the same for everyone so it didn't feel special to anyone. Some people like that, and even I understand the appeal- it's just not my personal preference.

I like that each of my armies tries to win by doing things that only it can do, and that my opponent is trying to beat me by doing things only it can do. That way I get a different feel when I play my Death Watch than I do when I play my Sisters, or my DE. It incentivizes me to explore other armies, and game size mechanics that allow me to play meaningful games with as few as twelve infantry models and still have mission support make that less financially painful.

In this new system, it's more interesting and fun for me personally to have a 25 PL Crusade force for six factions than it is to have a 2k army for one faction.

In older versions of the game, it didn't matter which army you used- you won by doing exactly the same things as every other army: use suppression fire, break morale so you could wipe a unit out with a sweeping advance, position yourself so that enemy units were impeded by difficult terrain. Who needs or wants multiple factions when that's the case? Better to pick one faction and grow it to a ridiculous size. And if you couldn't decide which faction's models and fluff appealed to you the most, you had to make a hard call because the amount of models you needed for a game would prevent you from dipping your toes into the pool to explore an alternative faction. This is even MORE true of sub-factions: because they all feel so different, I know want to paint 25PL of Order of Our Martyred Lady, 25 PL of Bloody Rose, 25 PL of Valorous Heart and 25 PL of Sacred Rose, rather than painting 100 PL of whichever Order's paint scheme appealed to me most.

I know that these things don't appeal to everyone, and that's cool- I'm not saying that you're playing wrong if you prefer a single, big 2k army, or even a small handful of them to dozens of small 25pl forces. I'm just pointing out to you that they new version of the game works really well for people who do, because on the off chance that you've never experimented with this style of collecting and playing, you might not be aware of just how well suited the current ruleset supports that style of play.

Your preferences are always going to be your preferences, just as mine are always going to be mine; both are valid ways to play. Old rules probably do support your preferences more than current rules, and I can see how that feels bad for you. But current rules support my preferences better than old rules, so I frequently object to the attitude that they are objectively bad.

 the_scotsman wrote:


"Say, you know what's a bit out of date? Monster datasheets. We ought to release a campaign book, and at the back of it, put in some new updated datasheets for a whole bunch of monsters for a whole bunch of factions. Oh, also, we've been meaning to implement that little incentive thing where we want people to bring 1 monster in their army, but not necessarily skew their list into just only monsters all the time, so let's go ahead and release that little bonus rule you get for 1 of your monsters along with all the new datasheets! We'll release it for every faction in the game simultaneously, so nobody's left out."


Wow, I don't play AoS, so I didn't know this is how they do it. Question: Are there 60 page threads bitching about how it's DLC because in order to get the new data sheet for monsters and it how all of that stuff should have been in the battle tome, and all battle tomes should have been released at the exact same time. I suspect that's what would happen if the same thing was done for 40k.

I used to think it was a design feature that BIG army-wide updates weren't included in campaign books. I've been saying for a while that 40k campaign books don't really feel like DLC since the stuff in them was "Must have" for all armies, or even all subfactions of armies who get content in campaign books. Seeing it written out short and sweet like this though, it does sound good. Maybe GW should just go all in and not try to keep the material in campaign books optional.

Not sure which approach is better. I get the feeling that some people would bitch either way, but only if it's 40k we're talking about. Could be wrong about that, but that's how it feels after reading as many threads as I have on 40k General. The opposite is also true, cuz detractors will say that they feel like there are some people who would defend it no matter what... and they aren't necessarily wrong.

 the_scotsman wrote:

"NEIN, YOU CANNOT JUST UPDATE ZE STATS OF A UNIT ZAT IS VERBOTEN!!!!!!!!!!! Guardsmen feel too weak, you say? FINE, here is ze stratagem, only for cadians, allowing zem to have three plus save and never wound on ze one or two, but ONLY ON TUESDAYS and ONLY IF YOU SPEND ZE SPECIAL POINTY-POINTS LIKE WE SAID YOU HAVE TO. And you have to say to your opponent "Cadia Stands" every time and ZEN and ONLY ZEN you get your extra point of armor save!!!!


Okay, the accent helps me understand that there is humour here, and I'm gonna seem like an obtuse jackhole for responding to the underlying point you're making.

But I know that if this was in fact a stat update to conscripts for all subfactions of the guard:

a) there would be a thread bitching about how guardsmen are GAK now because conscripts are the new hotness, and GW did it exclusively to sell more models since conscript units have a higher model count than basic guardsman units

b) there would be multitudes of people who changed their armies overnight so that all they brought was conscripts, and anyone who got their ass handed to them by an all conscript army would blame GW rather than the guy who went out and but six more boxes of Cadians to chase the meta

The way it was done here was:

a) it's a strat, so only one unit can do it per turn which discourages people from making every unit in their army conscripts (kinda like the incentives for bringing ONE monster as opposed to monster skew that were a praiseworthy design feature in a game that isn't 40K, but for some reason are a terrible idea when the game IS 40k)

b) it's only Cadians, because after the fall of Cadia and the battles that led to it, there is some background that supports the rule- only the strong survived. It does also help to keep the content optional, though I must concede it does have the effect of making Cadians a stronger subfaction of guard and thus skews internal balance. Hopefully, it's balanced by also including an Army of Renown that can be used by any regiment... But then again, if it is, I predict a 60 page thread bitching about DLC in 5, 4, 3....

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/13 15:05:11


 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Snip- accidental repost

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/13 15:04:00


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






chaos0xomega wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
Seems like a way to sell tricksy infantry models with patchy whombocombo mechanics rather than fix the game.

I mean, next guardians will get some special dispensation, then termagants, then ... a new edition for another round of nonsense.


It is wild to me that GW as a company is so wacky and disjointed that they have on one hand Age of Sigmar, where they periodically go



Games aren't designed by "the company', they are designed by "design teams" or "studios" within it. The people doing Age of Sigmar are different from the people doing 40k are different from the people doing War Cry and Kill Team are different from the people doing Necromunda, Aeronautica, Blood Bowl, and Titianicus. Different people mean different approaches and design philosophies. Theres nothing really wacky about this, this is the norm for larger publishers with multiple product lines in both the video game and tabletop game worlds.
"the company" is what dermines how disjointed and un-unified those design teams and philosophies are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Vaktathi wrote:
This is the kind of thing that I really kills modern 40k for me.

When you're making differentiated sub-faction distinct rules for *conscripts* of all things, and then applying them via Stratagems, something has gone overboard.

Trying to deal with an d keep track of this sort of hamfisted forced differentiation, particularly applied in this manner, is just list building gimmickry. It's not really adding flavor, it's not making the army more interesting, it's just added more rules for their own sake.
Agree.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/13 15:04:59


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Unless I'm missing some wombo combo it just looks like a stratagem no one will ever use.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Tyel wrote:
Unless I'm missing some wombo combo it just looks like a stratagem no one will ever use.


Put them in cover, play this, play Take Cover, guardsmen with a 2+
   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Gathering the Informations.

 Vaktathi wrote:
This is the kind of thing that I really kills modern 40k for me.

When you're making differentiated sub-faction distinct rules for *conscripts* of all things, and then applying them via Stratagems, something has gone overboard.

If they made Whiteshields(a literal hallmark unit of Cadians in that the subfaction army list introduced in C: Eye of Terror made sure to include them as Youth Army Platoons) an actual unit, we wouldn't hear the bloody end of it as "bloat" though. GW really can't win no matter what, and stratagems is the Best Option.

It doesn't hamfist out Conscripts entirely but it does make for the option of doing the more lore friendly Cadian equivalent.

Trying to deal with an d keep track of this sort of hamfisted forced differentiation, particularly applied in this manner, is just list building gimmickry. It's not really adding flavor, it's not making the army more interesting, it's just added more rules for their own sake.

If someone can't be bothered to WYSIWYG Whiteshields of all frigging things, then they are not someone worth playing with.

Since their inclusion as the Youth Army Platoons in C: Eye of Terror, they were differentiated from mainline Infantry Squads by the vertical white stripe running down their helmets. It then got rewritten to be all Conscripts do it because reasons.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






 the_scotsman wrote:
"NEIN, YOU CANNOT JUST UPDATE ZE STATS OF A UNIT ZAT IS VERBOTEN!!!!!!!!!!!"


Well that was the easiest post exaltation ever!

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Kanluwen wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
This is the kind of thing that I really kills modern 40k for me.

When you're making differentiated sub-faction distinct rules for *conscripts* of all things, and then applying them via Stratagems, something has gone overboard.

If they made Whiteshields(a literal hallmark unit of Cadians in that the subfaction army list introduced in C: Eye of Terror made sure to include them as Youth Army Platoons) an actual unit, we wouldn't hear the bloody end of it as "bloat" though. GW really can't win no matter what, and stratagems is the Best Option.


But... but they did make Whiteshields an extra unit, in so many words.

They're conscripts that lose a (debuff) special rule, gain better LD, and have different keywords.

The difference between those changes (that cost cp) and making them an actual datasheet (that costs points) is largely academic/semantic.

There's no more or less bloat doing it one way rather than the other. I still have to remember what is a Whiteshield unit and what is a Conscript unit (as they can still exist in the same army) and remember what being a Whiteshield unit does differently than what Conscripts do.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/13 15:27:39


 
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





 the_scotsman wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
Seems like a way to sell tricksy infantry models with patchy whombocombo mechanics rather than fix the game.

I mean, next guardians will get some special dispensation, then termagants, then ... a new edition for another round of nonsense.


It is wild to me that GW as a company is so wacky and disjointed that they have on one hand Age of Sigmar, where they periodically go
This really drove home for me with the mini rulebooks in 8th. It really showed there that while both AoS and 40k were tasked with creating a mini rulebook from on high they were then designed by basically 2 entirely different companies.

The 40k version was a literal copy of the 40k rules pages complete with obsolete rules that had been changed by faq's.
The AoS version included all the changes from the Generals Handbook and was entirely up to date with what AoS was at the point the book was released.

It was clear that at no point did the 2 studio's talk to eachother about what they were doing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/13 15:28:11


 
   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Gathering the Informations.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

But... but they did make Whiteshields an extra unit, in so many words.

They're conscripts that lose a (debuff) special rule, gain better LD, and have different keywords.

The difference between those changes (that cost cp) and making them an actual datasheet (that costs points) is largely academic/semantic.

No, they're really not.
Veteran Intercessors are a datasheet. They're a thing that has a physical cost now. They take up an army slot.
When they were a Stratagem? They didn't.

If someone is picking the stratagems, then it means there's a choice being made...but not every choice needs to be mathhammered to hell and back again or done in such a way that it's "OMG! this unit is X ppm better!".

There's no more or less bloat doing it one way rather than the other. I still have to remember what is a Whiteshield unit and what is a Conscript unit (as they can still exist in the same army) and remember what being a Whiteshield unit does differently than what Conscripts do.

Enough with this "remembering" nonsense. It's disingenuous, and you know better--or at least you should.

If you're so worried about your opponent not having things marked? Get better opponents, or get on their butts to do so.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/13 15:38:44


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Unless I'm missing some wombo combo it just looks like a stratagem no one will ever use.


Put them in cover, play this, play Take Cover, guardsmen with a 2+


I guess in a perfect world if you can somehow be in cover and on an objective (kind of unusual) your opponent will feel they have to clear the squad and theoretically takes 3 times as many shots as it should.

But in most situations surely you'd just brush some shooting into a squad, see if they play the combo, if they do switch to murdering the other infantry.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




To be honest, this is a really good way to make squads with HWTs really good. I see this as a plus.

On the flip side, can you play this in any phase, regardless of sequence? Because this might get ugly with the sequencing if I declare a charge, and he pops this after I declare my charge.

Worst offender here is the person who hired the rules writer. This is gonna be a 15 pager on YMDC.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
On the flip side, can you play this in any phase, regardless of sequence? Because this might get ugly with the sequencing if I declare a charge, and he pops this after I declare my charge.

Worst offender here is the person who hired the rules writer. This is gonna be a 15 pager on YMDC.
Why? You use the strat when your unit is chosen as the target of an attack.

Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







a_typical_hero wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
On the flip side, can you play this in any phase, regardless of sequence? Because this might get ugly with the sequencing if I declare a charge, and he pops this after I declare my charge.

Worst offender here is the person who hired the rules writer. This is gonna be a 15 pager on YMDC.
Why? You use the strat when your unit is chosen as the target of an attack.


Agreed; the rule is pretty clear. It wouldn't be popped during the charge phase but rather the Fight Phase.
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

 Kanluwen wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
This is the kind of thing that I really kills modern 40k for me.

When you're making differentiated sub-faction distinct rules for *conscripts* of all things, and then applying them via Stratagems, something has gone overboard.

If they made Whiteshields(a literal hallmark unit of Cadians in that the subfaction army list introduced in C: Eye of Terror made sure to include them as Youth Army Platoons) an actual unit, we wouldn't hear the bloody end of it as "bloat" though. GW really can't win no matter what, and stratagems is the Best Option.

It doesn't hamfist out Conscripts entirely but it does make for the option of doing the more lore friendly Cadian equivalent.

Trying to deal with an d keep track of this sort of hamfisted forced differentiation, particularly applied in this manner, is just list building gimmickry. It's not really adding flavor, it's not making the army more interesting, it's just added more rules for their own sake.

If someone can't be bothered to WYSIWYG Whiteshields of all frigging things, then they are not someone worth playing with.

Since their inclusion as the Youth Army Platoons in C: Eye of Terror, they were differentiated from mainline Infantry Squads by the vertical white stripe running down their helmets. It then got rewritten to be all Conscripts do it because reasons.
I don't think that Cadia just giving a name to their conscripts other than "Conscript" really makes them an iconic hallmark unit, as noted, it was just a way to use fluff to visually mark conscripts vs normal guardsmen with white markings. If they're too competent to merit the Conscript unit entry, they should just be used as regulard Guardsmen.

That doesn't need special rules, some slight FoC shifting in a book 2 decades old doesn't really need a distinct unit entry or Stratagem manipulation. I would consider all of that to be bloat. Same thing for Scions vs Kasrkin or Krieg Grenadiers (just allow them to take a Regiment keyword basically, doesnt need a stratagem or new unit entry).

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in ca
Hacking Interventor





 Kanluwen wrote:
GW really can't win no matter what


Well, yeah. They can't win. As in they have a seemingly unsolvable problem on their hands with 9th; a game that's crippled because it's too flabby, when the only levers they have pour more fat onto the rules.

9th has lots and lots of problems, but some of these could be solved by, say, a complete shift in the business model or hiring playtesters or paying rules writers living wages; what ultimately killed any hope I had for 9th being any good whatsoever was the realization that they created a game that's not fun because of bloat and artificial complexity, but they can't realistically just strip rules from the game and invalidate major chunks of 9th edition supplements, campaign books or codexes without an edition nuke or a player revolt. All they can do is shuffle numbers... or add more bloat and hope everyone comes out balanced with equal amounts of mechanical lard.

"All you 40k people out there have managed to more or less do something that I did some time ago, and some of my friends did before me, and some of their friends did before them: When you saw the water getting gakky, you decided to, well, get out of the pool, rather than say 'I guess this is water now.'"

-Tex Talks Battletech on GW 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Vaktathi wrote:
This is the kind of thing that I really kills modern 40k for me.

When you're making differentiated sub-faction distinct rules for *conscripts* of all things, and then applying them via Stratagems, something has gone overboard.

Trying to deal with an d keep track of this sort of hamfisted forced differentiation, particularly applied in this manner, is just list building gimmickry. It's not really adding flavor, it's not making the army more interesting, it's just added more rules for their own sake.


I don't agree.

IG are still a capable army in the killing arena. Their problem is holding objectives. So how exactly do you get "basic humans" to survive at holding objectives?

For most of 40K IS were whipping boys to bolters barring the option for carapace. They've never been "good". Also for most of 40K the goal was usually just kill everything. The best you could get from them was MMM onto some distant objective.

They aren't Sisters with power armor and faith. They're just basic dudes. And you can't make the default soldier really good at that job since they'd otherwise drown the game in bodies. So you need an occasional boost. Enter stratagems.

Why not carapace? That can also be a thing, but conscripts don't get carapace and this is more beneficial.


   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Stratagems have always been used as stopgap measures to fix models. Did you miss PA? It was full of that. Stratagems fixing underpowered models.

Since the IG and nid dexes are far far in the future, they are putting in a stopgap measure. Nothing more to see here.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

Tyel wrote:


But in most situations surely you'd just brush some shooting into a squad, see if they play the combo, if they do switch to murdering the other infantry.


My guard infantry die shortly after exposing themselves, so they tend to get used like one shot weapons.
This is a way of having a resilient blob of infantry, as you say on an objective. Now due to blast some armies wouldn't be that worried, but still, the fact I can have (5+ save, cover, take cover!, Cadia Stands!, Psychic Barrier) 1+ saves shooting and 3+ for CC for a guard infantry unit, while handy for holding an objective, doesn't strike me as very fluffy and revolves around my use of abilities and stratagems, not on table tactics.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/13 16:08:02


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
This is the kind of thing that I really kills modern 40k for me.

When you're making differentiated sub-faction distinct rules for *conscripts* of all things, and then applying them via Stratagems, something has gone overboard.

Trying to deal with an d keep track of this sort of hamfisted forced differentiation, particularly applied in this manner, is just list building gimmickry. It's not really adding flavor, it's not making the army more interesting, it's just added more rules for their own sake.


I don't agree.

IG are still a capable army in the killing arena. Their problem is holding objectives. So how exactly do you get "basic humans" to survive at holding objectives?

For most of 40K IS were whipping boys to bolters barring the option for carapace. They've never been "good". Also for most of 40K the goal was usually just kill everything. The best you could get from them was MMM onto some distant objective.

They aren't Sisters with power armor and faith. They're just basic dudes. And you can't make the default soldier really good at that job since they'd otherwise drown the game in bodies. So you need an occasional boost. Enter stratagems.

Why not carapace? That can also be a thing, but conscripts don't get carapace and this is more beneficial.



You could reduce the lethality of the bolter boys, instead of increasing the durability of Guardsmen.

In 4th, a Bolter couldn't fire 24", but could fire twice at 12" if it moved. This means that the Marines had to either move within 12", or take 1 shot at 24". The latter option only kills 5 guardsmen in the open from 10 marines, not a concerning trade for the guard player at all.

The former option is devastating, but also requires the Marines to somehow get within 12" of the Guardsmen. As this makes maneuver and force concentration more important for the Marines, it also makes counterplay options exist for the IG player (such as setting sightlines with AP3 weapons to deter the Marines from cover-hopping or movement blocking with something more durable to bolters like Ogryn or a tank, etc).

In 4th, the IG player could take objectives with his troops by covering them with fire, maneuvering other assets to protect them, or even simply hunkering down in cover with them to wait for reinforcement from something that could deter, suppress, or destroy the Marines.

they could only do this because the lowered lethality of the Marines themselves meant that IGOUGO didn't immediately result in the Guard squad getting vaporized like a moth in a blowtorch all the way from the enemy's DZ, giving the Guard player time to react.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/13 16:15:17


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: