Switch Theme:

Have necrons just stopped winning?  [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 de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Xenomancers wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
cody.d. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


Mmm 7th? Some of the detachment books swung wildly in power. And GW got a bit silly by the end of things as I recall. I certainly remember taking a break as my orks became almost worthless.

7.5 is widely regarded as "fun rules" at this point. Anyone who took them competitively serious was trolling. It was OP cheese and everyone knew it - what is funny though - some of the most fun 40k games I've ever had. Once everyone had their gladius formation (ect) - the games were actually...kinda balanced (excluding Ynnari - which was utterly bonkers and unable to be played against). It's not like that in this edition. If you have an infantry list vs admech - you are just gonna lose 100% of the time. It is a simple factor of dice pips. Stratagems are a lot worse than formations ever were.


Since you are so well-versed in ork rules... do you remember what the ork variant of the gladius formation did?

Is that the only army you play? None of your armies got updates at that time?

Yes? That's how the game works for most people. Until the mid of 8th I owned "just" roughly 8k points of orks


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Decurion level formations were limited to very few factions in 7th. If you were one of the lucky ones, then good for you, but most of the faction didn't have one.

Even if you had one, you had very few choices in list building.

No, it wasn't a good era for the game.

Most armies got formations actually. Including orks. Just looked it up.


Oh, please do quote the benefits of the ork decurion.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/16 06:36:58


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




 Jidmah wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
cody.d. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


Mmm 7th? Some of the detachment books swung wildly in power. And GW got a bit silly by the end of things as I recall. I certainly remember taking a break as my orks became almost worthless.

7.5 is widely regarded as "fun rules" at this point. Anyone who took them competitively serious was trolling. It was OP cheese and everyone knew it - what is funny though - some of the most fun 40k games I've ever had. Once everyone had their gladius formation (ect) - the games were actually...kinda balanced (excluding Ynnari - which was utterly bonkers and unable to be played against). It's not like that in this edition. If you have an infantry list vs admech - you are just gonna lose 100% of the time. It is a simple factor of dice pips. Stratagems are a lot worse than formations ever were.


Since you are so well-versed in ork rules... do you remember what the ork variant of the gladius formation did?

Is that the only army you play? None of your armies got updates at that time?

Yes? That's how the game works for most people. Until the mid of 8th I owned "just" roughly 8k points of orks


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Decurion level formations were limited to very few factions in 7th. If you were one of the lucky ones, then good for you, but most of the faction didn't have one.

Even if you had one, you had very few choices in list building.

No, it wasn't a good era for the game.

Most armies got formations actually. Including orks. Just looked it up.


Oh, please do quote the benefits of the ork decurion.



I mean, he didn't say they got a BENEFICIAL decurion ....

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/16 15:50:56


Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 Jidmah wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
cody.d. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


Mmm 7th? Some of the detachment books swung wildly in power. And GW got a bit silly by the end of things as I recall. I certainly remember taking a break as my orks became almost worthless.

7.5 is widely regarded as "fun rules" at this point. Anyone who took them competitively serious was trolling. It was OP cheese and everyone knew it - what is funny though - some of the most fun 40k games I've ever had. Once everyone had their gladius formation (ect) - the games were actually...kinda balanced (excluding Ynnari - which was utterly bonkers and unable to be played against). It's not like that in this edition. If you have an infantry list vs admech - you are just gonna lose 100% of the time. It is a simple factor of dice pips. Stratagems are a lot worse than formations ever were.


Since you are so well-versed in ork rules... do you remember what the ork variant of the gladius formation did?

Is that the only army you play? None of your armies got updates at that time?

Yes? That's how the game works for most people. Until the mid of 8th I owned "just" roughly 8k points of orks


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Decurion level formations were limited to very few factions in 7th. If you were one of the lucky ones, then good for you, but most of the faction didn't have one.

Even if you had one, you had very few choices in list building.

No, it wasn't a good era for the game.

Most armies got formations actually. Including orks. Just looked it up.


Oh, please do quote the benefits of the ork decurion.

People who own only 1 army are actually in the minority. The average number of armies is 3.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
On a Canoptek Spyder's Waiting List




 Xenomancers wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Most armies got formations actually. Including orks. Just looked it up.


Oh, please do quote the benefits of the ork decurion.

People who own only 1 army are actually in the minority. The average number of armies is 3.


Cool.

So what are the benefits of the Ork decurion?
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




pothocboots wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Most armies got formations actually. Including orks. Just looked it up.


Oh, please do quote the benefits of the ork decurion.

People who own only 1 army are actually in the minority. The average number of armies is 3.


Cool.

So what are the benefits of the Ork decurion?

Blood of Kittens still has the data available. The Great Waaagh! Band Detachment had the following:

Blood of Kittens wrote:Da Big Boss: If this Detachment is chosen as your Primary Detachment, you can choose to re-roll the result on the Warlord Traits table.

Da Great Waaagh!: If this Detachment contains your Warlord and he has the Waaagh! special rule, he can call a Waaagh! each and every turn, including the first turn.

Da Green Horde: Every unit with 10 or more models in this Detachment gains the Hammer of Wrath special rule in any Assault phase in which it successfully charges an enemy unit. This doesn’t matter if reduced to below 10 models as a result of Overwatch, Dangerous Terrain tests. etc.


The source book is Supplement: Waaagh! Ghazghkull
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

It was a retorical question. Of course ork decurion gave some bonuses but the tax units were so high in points invested that a standard CAD was soooooo much better than using the decurion.

Waaaghing every turn and getting hammer of wrath on infantries is good when you play some sort of green tide which was a terrible list archetype back in 7th.


 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoiler:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
cody.d. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


Mmm 7th? Some of the detachment books swung wildly in power. And GW got a bit silly by the end of things as I recall. I certainly remember taking a break as my orks became almost worthless.

7.5 is widely regarded as "fun rules" at this point. Anyone who took them competitively serious was trolling. It was OP cheese and everyone knew it - what is funny though - some of the most fun 40k games I've ever had. Once everyone had their gladius formation (ect) - the games were actually...kinda balanced (excluding Ynnari - which was utterly bonkers and unable to be played against). It's not like that in this edition. If you have an infantry list vs admech - you are just gonna lose 100% of the time. It is a simple factor of dice pips. Stratagems are a lot worse than formations ever were.


Since you are so well-versed in ork rules... do you remember what the ork variant of the gladius formation did?

Is that the only army you play? None of your armies got updates at that time?

Yes? That's how the game works for most people. Until the mid of 8th I owned "just" roughly 8k points of orks


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Decurion level formations were limited to very few factions in 7th. If you were one of the lucky ones, then good for you, but most of the faction didn't have one.

Even if you had one, you had very few choices in list building.

No, it wasn't a good era for the game.

Most armies got formations actually. Including orks. Just looked it up.


Oh, please do quote the benefits of the ork decurion.

People who own only 1 army are actually in the minority. The average number of armies is 3.


And according to Abraham Lincoln, 82.7% of statistics quoted on the internet are made up on the spot.

In other words, [* Citation required]...

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






JakeSiren wrote:
Blood of Kittens still has the data available. The Great Waaagh! Band Detachment had the following:

Blood of Kittens wrote:Da Big Boss: If this Detachment is chosen as your Primary Detachment, you can choose to re-roll the result on the Warlord Traits table.

Da Great Waaagh!: If this Detachment contains your Warlord and he has the Waaagh! special rule, he can call a Waaagh! each and every turn, including the first turn.

Da Green Horde: Every unit with 10 or more models in this Detachment gains the Hammer of Wrath special rule in any Assault phase in which it successfully charges an enemy unit. This doesn’t matter if reduced to below 10 models as a result of Overwatch, Dangerous Terrain tests. etc.


The source book is Supplement: Waaagh! Ghazghkull


Thank you for posting, but as Blackie pointed out, I knew the answer. I have the ebook v2 (the "orkurion" was only available from the digital version) still on my hard-drive and my avatar is actually a picture from that book that is color-realigned to be more nurgly. The only reason why I haven't deleted that dumpster fire of horrible rules is because it actually has some cool fluff and art inside.

There are also some hidden "benefits" that came with that decurion, which was being forced to run a Da Great Waaagh! detachment, which gave your entire army Biggest an’ da Best and Da Boss iz Watchin’.
The first one forced your warlord to automatically accept challenges, meaning he died instantly against any combatant that knew how to fight, rendering that entire "call a Waaagh! every turn" thing worthless.
The second one made mob rule worthless on all units with less than 10 models, which tends to be everything but boyz. If you happend to pass mob rule anyways, it also did more damage to your unit.

In addition to that, "re-rolling warlord traits" is rather hilarious, as the core formation (which you could run all by itself) already allowed you to do that, but it fits in well with the theme of the author of that book not giving a feth about whether the rules actually work.
Hammer of wrath once again is mostly a boyz only thing that only triggers for models actually connecting with the enemy (good luck with that) and causes S4 AP0 hits when it does.

It's also worth noting that the orkurion had extremely expensive core formations which ate up most of your points and forced you to take tons of useless units. All formations in the orkurion could already be taken without it or provided no command benefit on their own whatsoever. Most formations in that book required you to invest heavily into new models, as almost all of them required to field multiple max sized units and provided either minimal or worthless command benefits. My favorite one was the 91 storm boy formation that was forced to deep strike as one unit, closely followed by the formation that forced you to roll the shots of 20 flash gits one model at a time.
Shout out to Bully Boyz, as being one of the few good formations in that book - assuming you bought 5 boxes of brand new plastic MANz kit to field it.

The update of the ebook also deleted the one competitive formation orks had up till that point, the green tide. It's benefits were *drum roll* providing hammer of wrath to all boyz in that formation and calling the Waaagh! every turn.

TL;DR:
- The orkurion made your army worse, not better as a reward for following all the insane restrictions.
- There were no benefits in the formations that couldn't be gained without the orkurion.
- Almost all the formations were horribly bad, not just from a competitive point of view
- The green tide formation was better than the orkurion in every way, but got removed when the orkurion was added

Writing "feth you, you don't get a decurion" in a PDF and making it available for download would have objectively been better for orks and more honest.

The release of the ork decurion after having experienced what eldar and necrons got actually was the last straw that made me quit the game at that time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
People who own only 1 army are actually in the minority. The average number of armies is 3.


Assuming you didn't pull that number out of your ass, and that people actually have invested into three different factions to a point where they can field competitive armies from each of them...

... am I now allowed to tell you to just pick one of your other two armies each time you whine about marines? This is going to be awesome

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/06/17 10:08:00


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in de
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator






Hamburg

People who own only 1 army are actually in the minority. The average number of armies is 3.

We should have a poll here.
Only armies ready for game play at the 2000 pt level or so should be counted.
Would be interesting to see the outcome.

Former moderator 40kOnline

Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!

Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."

Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 wuestenfux wrote:
People who own only 1 army are actually in the minority. The average number of armies is 3.

We should have a poll here.
Only armies ready for game play at the 2000 pt level or so should be counted.
Would be interesting to see the outcome.


I'm curious about that as well. Please post a link when you have created it.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Cabin Zombie






How long can an army sit in a box on a closet shelf before it stops counting? I don’t think my ‘Nids have seen a table in the last decade.

 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 AduroT wrote:
How long can an army sit in a box on a closet shelf before it stops counting? I don’t think my ‘Nids have seen a table in the last decade.


Well, if you can throw a battalion full of stuff together that actually has a shot at winning a game, I guess that counts.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Cabin Zombie






Do ‘Gaunt swarms still have a shot at winning?

 
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





 wuestenfux wrote:
People who own only 1 army are actually in the minority. The average number of armies is 3.

We should have a poll here.
Only armies ready for game play at the 2000 pt level or so should be counted.
Would be interesting to see the outcome.
Interesting yes, but I would also expect a dedicated forum community to differ from the actual world average.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AduroT wrote:
Do ‘Gaunt swarms still have a shot at winning?
I don't know and haven't checked any data since the DE codex came out but my gut tells me its not good.

How many gaunts does a squad of witches delete on the charge?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/17 11:03:36


 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 AduroT wrote:
Do ‘Gaunt swarms still have a shot at winning?


If you have some big bugs that can flatten some stuff from a distance, probably? I don't know a thing about 9th edition's nids though, I have not played a single game against any tyranids so far.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ordana wrote:
 AduroT wrote:
Do ‘Gaunt swarms still have a shot at winning?
I don't know and haven't checked any data since the DE codex came out but my gut tells me its not good.

How many gaunts does a squad of witches delete on the charge?


Rumor has it that most games actually aren't played against drukhari.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/17 12:11:45


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




 Jidmah wrote:
 wuestenfux wrote:
People who own only 1 army are actually in the minority. The average number of armies is 3.

We should have a poll here.
Only armies ready for game play at the 2000 pt level or so should be counted.
Would be interesting to see the outcome.


I'm curious about that as well. Please post a link when you have created it.


I'd be curious as well. Outside of a few brand new players, I honestly don't know a single person with less than 2 armies.

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 Dysartes wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoiler:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
cody.d. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


Mmm 7th? Some of the detachment books swung wildly in power. And GW got a bit silly by the end of things as I recall. I certainly remember taking a break as my orks became almost worthless.

7.5 is widely regarded as "fun rules" at this point. Anyone who took them competitively serious was trolling. It was OP cheese and everyone knew it - what is funny though - some of the most fun 40k games I've ever had. Once everyone had their gladius formation (ect) - the games were actually...kinda balanced (excluding Ynnari - which was utterly bonkers and unable to be played against). It's not like that in this edition. If you have an infantry list vs admech - you are just gonna lose 100% of the time. It is a simple factor of dice pips. Stratagems are a lot worse than formations ever were.


Since you are so well-versed in ork rules... do you remember what the ork variant of the gladius formation did?

Is that the only army you play? None of your armies got updates at that time?

Yes? That's how the game works for most people. Until the mid of 8th I owned "just" roughly 8k points of orks


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Decurion level formations were limited to very few factions in 7th. If you were one of the lucky ones, then good for you, but most of the faction didn't have one.

Even if you had one, you had very few choices in list building.

No, it wasn't a good era for the game.

Most armies got formations actually. Including orks. Just looked it up.


Oh, please do quote the benefits of the ork decurion.

People who own only 1 army are actually in the minority. The average number of armies is 3.


And according to Abraham Lincoln, 82.7% of statistics quoted on the internet are made up on the spot.

In other words, [* Citation required]...
This was from results of a dakka poll.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 Xenomancers wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoiler:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
cody.d. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


Mmm 7th? Some of the detachment books swung wildly in power. And GW got a bit silly by the end of things as I recall. I certainly remember taking a break as my orks became almost worthless.

7.5 is widely regarded as "fun rules" at this point. Anyone who took them competitively serious was trolling. It was OP cheese and everyone knew it - what is funny though - some of the most fun 40k games I've ever had. Once everyone had their gladius formation (ect) - the games were actually...kinda balanced (excluding Ynnari - which was utterly bonkers and unable to be played against). It's not like that in this edition. If you have an infantry list vs admech - you are just gonna lose 100% of the time. It is a simple factor of dice pips. Stratagems are a lot worse than formations ever were.


Since you are so well-versed in ork rules... do you remember what the ork variant of the gladius formation did?

Is that the only army you play? None of your armies got updates at that time?

Yes? That's how the game works for most people. Until the mid of 8th I owned "just" roughly 8k points of orks


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Decurion level formations were limited to very few factions in 7th. If you were one of the lucky ones, then good for you, but most of the faction didn't have one.

Even if you had one, you had very few choices in list building.

No, it wasn't a good era for the game.

Most armies got formations actually. Including orks. Just looked it up.


Oh, please do quote the benefits of the ork decurion.

People who own only 1 army are actually in the minority. The average number of armies is 3.


And according to Abraham Lincoln, 82.7% of statistics quoted on the internet are made up on the spot.

In other words, [* Citation required]...
This was from results of a dakka poll.
Which is entirely self-reported, and at best, only representative of those who use this forum.

It's an interesting tidbit, but by no means something solid enough to present as hard facts.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

Spoletta wrote:
CORE is a half baked concept.
It works well for faction with a very straightforward image, and less well for those factions that are a big soup of freak shows.

Marines really fit well with CORE.
Necrons too.
DG too.

DE, Admech and sisters don't, because they are composed by small mini factions. They already have inbuilt limitations on interactions. Sisters have CORE on everything and yet have a big part of the codex which is unaffected by most of interactions because they lack Order or Adepta Sororitas keywords.

I expect GK and TS to follow the CORE design more linearly.


Eh, tbh I don't think any army really fits CORE because CORE has no actual meaning.

What are the most fundamental units of any army? HQ and Troops.

So they're both CORE, right? Nope, only the troops. This is especially hilarious for a setting with such a massive scale and yet such an intense focus on a tiny handful of characters who appear to be involved in absolutely everything... and yet are in no way integral to anything, according to this rule. Nor, for that matter, are any of the 'generic' characters that can lead armies instead.

SO what other possibilities do we have for CORE? Are they supposed to be units that typically form the CORE of every army in the fluff? No, once again the rule trips and falls at the first hurdle. Leaving aside for a moment that characters are pretty damn integral even in the fluff, there are numerous examples of other units for which this rule makes no sense. Dark Eldar Raiders, for example, are something you can expect to see in basically any DE raiding force. They are (and always have been) a staple of the army - both in the fluff and on the table. So obvious they... aren't CORE units.

Then there's the fact that the Court of the Archon is CORE but Mandrakes are not. Both are mercenaries, yet the Court is CORE in spite of the fact that 3/4 of them aren't even the same species as the rest of the book.

The reason this bugs me is twofold: for one, we seem to be accumulating ever more keywords in 40k, as the designers seem to think that every problem necessitates a new keyword, rather than better use of the ones that already exist. In the case of auras, it seems like a lot of existing problems could have been solved by stipulating that auras don't affect the model emitting them (unless specifically specified otherwise) and by making use of the Infantry, Biker, Monster and Vehicle keywords. For two, it seems like an awful lot of models are adversely affected by this change as the designers allocate CORE almost at random, and ignore the fact that many models are left out in the cold as a result.

It also creates some unbelievably awkward interactions. As an example, DE Mandrakes are not CORE units (because heaven forbid I be allowed to have any fun) and because they're Blades for Hire, they also don't benefit from Kabal/Cult/Coven traits. Okay. However, if you put them in a RSR detachment that's specifically Black Heart, then they treat PfP as being 1 turn higher but still can't benefit from the Archon's aura (because it now affects all CORE units but not Mandrakes, which lack CORE). Right. But now if you give the Archon the Writ of the Living Muse, he'll have a reroll 1s to wound aura that actually does affect Mandrakes (because it affects Blades for Hire - not just CORE ones). So now the Archon has two reroll 1s auras, only one of which affects the Mandrakes.

Surely I can't be the only one who looks at this and sees an absolute mess of rules and exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions?

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






CORE is just shorthand for "non-character infantry or biker. Oh and dreads, because those are cool, but feth centurions"

Essentially they are trying to prevent stratagems and auras from super-charging expensive and durable models, no fluff attached to that whatsoever.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/17 15:34:35


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




 Jidmah wrote:
CORE is just shorthand for "non-character infantry or biker. Oh and dreads, because those are cool, but feth centurions"

Essentially they are trying to prevent stratagems and auras from super-charging expensive and durable models, no fluff attached to that whatsoever.


Tell that to the Necrons. By your definition, they have PLENTY of units that SHOULD be core and are not.

Honestly, they blew it with core the very instant they gave it to almost everything in the marine book.

I don't necessarily like the way core works in the Necron book, but there's at least an obvious and understandable thought process. It makes sense. Had it been handled the same way in all books, it would be fine. But that's not quite what happened. lol

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/17 15:55:58


Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






Tycho wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
CORE is just shorthand for "non-character infantry or biker. Oh and dreads, because those are cool, but feth centurions"

Essentially they are trying to prevent stratagems and auras from super-charging expensive and durable models, no fluff attached to that whatsoever.


Tell that to the Necrons. By your definition, they have PLENTY of units that SHOULD be core and are not.

Honestly, they blew it with core the very instant they gave it to almost everything in the marine book.

I don't necessarily like the way core works in the Necron book, but there's at least an obvious and understandable thought process. It makes sense. Had it been handled the same way in all books, it would be fine. But that's not quite what happened. lol

Yep. Whats weird is Crons and Marines came out at the same time...with an entirely different core philosophy. It made no sense from the start.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

TBH Necrons don't have that much core but like drukhari they are divided in three """"subfactions"""" each one with their own support HQ's. Canoptek, "Core", and Destroyer.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Tycho wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
CORE is just shorthand for "non-character infantry or biker. Oh and dreads, because those are cool, but feth centurions"

Essentially they are trying to prevent stratagems and auras from super-charging expensive and durable models, no fluff attached to that whatsoever.


Tell that to the Necrons. By your definition, they have PLENTY of units that SHOULD be core and are not.

Honestly, they blew it with core the very instant they gave it to almost everything in the marine book.

I don't necessarily like the way core works in the Necron book, but there's at least an obvious and understandable thought process. It makes sense. Had it been handled the same way in all books, it would be fine. But that's not quite what happened. lol


I was mostly joking, but I think in this necrons are suffering from the "first implementation" syndrome.
They essentially wanted a keyword that was just regular T-2000 looking guys and used core for that. Without knowing a lot about the new codex, I just opened all the datasheets of units that are essentially a warrior or eternal with extra wargear, and with one exception, all of them have the CORE keyword. The one exception are the Triarch Praetorians - how aren't they CORE while lychguard are?

Anyways, my point is that for Death Guard they introduced the BUBONIC ASTARTES keyword to have a catch-all for "regular plague marine dude" and had all sorts of buffs to required BUBONIC ASTARTES INFANTRY instead of CORE, which in turn allowed them to slap core on poxwalkers and cultists.
So, if Necrons were done today, I doubt that the interaction between models would change a lot, as Flayed Ones or Destroyers not giving a damn about what the Overlord wants seems pretty intentional. But I expect that they would solve the keyword issue more elegantly by adding a UNDYING LEGION keyword or something and actually putting CORE on all "regular dudes".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 09:05:24


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

To take the Necron example, though, in addition to keywords like INFANTRY, CHARACTER, VEHICLE, BIKER, MONSTER, TITANIC, FLY, NECRON, <DYNASTY> we've also got:
CORE
DESTROYER CULT
OVERLORD
PHAERON
NOBLE
CHRONOMANCER
DYNASTIC AGENT
CRYPTEK
TECHNOMANCER
QUANTUM SHIELDING
HYPERSPACE HUNTER
C'TAN SHARD
ORIKAN THE DIVINER
ANRAKYR THE TRAVELLER
VARGARD OBYRON
IMHOTEKH THE STORMLORD
ILLUMINATOR SZERAS
NEMESSOR ZAHNDREKH
TRAZYN THE INFINITE
ROYAL WARDEN
SKORPHEK LORD
LOKHUST LORD
(etc.)

Are we seriously going to pretend that this is good design?

Do we really need about 12 different commander ranks? Why are there keywords for rules possessed by 1-2 units in the entire codex?

I'd make a joke about keywords going the way of USRs, with every unit having its own keyword and yet that's exactly what GW have done. Why does every unit in the codex need a keyword that just reprints its own name? If a rule refers to Trazyn the Infinite or Imhotekh the Stormlord, are people really not going to know which units that rule refers to unless you also give those units their own names as keywords?

Sorry to harp on this point but we're in the 9th bloody edition of this game and the rules are more expensive than ever, so why does it still look like a first draft by people who've never designed a single game before?

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker





 Jidmah wrote:
Tycho wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
CORE is just shorthand for "non-character infantry or biker. Oh and dreads, because those are cool, but feth centurions"

Essentially they are trying to prevent stratagems and auras from super-charging expensive and durable models, no fluff attached to that whatsoever.


Tell that to the Necrons. By your definition, they have PLENTY of units that SHOULD be core and are not.

Honestly, they blew it with core the very instant they gave it to almost everything in the marine book.

I don't necessarily like the way core works in the Necron book, but there's at least an obvious and understandable thought process. It makes sense. Had it been handled the same way in all books, it would be fine. But that's not quite what happened. lol


I was mostly joking, but I think in this necrons are suffering from the "first implementation" syndrome.
They essentially wanted a keyword that was just regular T-2000 looking guys and used core for that. Without knowing a lot about the new codex, I just opened all the datasheets of units that are essentially a warrior or eternal with extra wargear, and with one exception, all of them have the CORE keyword. The one exception are the Triarch Praetorians - how aren't they CORE while lychguard are?

Praetorians aren't core because they're triarch units; they don't get the <dynasty> keyword either, they operate outside the typical hierarchy and answer only to the Silent King. Praets and Stalkers not being core despite being our jump pack and walker units is an example of valuing lore over mechanics, for better or worse.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 vipoid wrote:
Are we seriously going to pretend that this is good design?

Uhm, yes? What else are you going to identify units by? Exhaustive lists of names? GW tried those and failed countless times. Apply common sense? Good one, try reading through YMDC for a couple of hours to cure yourself from that idea.

In software, this type of solution would be called the "open-closed principle", one of five things held in highest regard when it comes to writing good code. Simplified, it says that you should design your code(rule) in a way that you can change what your code(rule) affects without having to change the code(rule) itself.

Do we really need about 12 different commander ranks? Why are there keywords for rules possessed by 1-2 units in the entire codex?

Keywords are the only future-proof way to control which units can be affected by which buffs. And yes, that includes adding a keyword for a single unit - this serves two purposes.
One, you can add variants of that unit or units that work in a very similar way and have full power over whether the are affected by the same stratagems, buffs, relics, etc or not. Any other solution requires you to errata rules that aren't actually affected by your change whenever new rules are added, and we know GW will forget to update some parts of the rules each time you do.
The second is marking unique units as unique. There aren't many instances of this in the game, but we do occasionally have two datasheets used to represent the same thing that only exists once. A keyword is an easy way to make sure that Samael on Sableclaw and Samael on Corvex don't have to fight over who of them is the clone. It also helps to explain to Makari that it doesn't matter whether he follows the Thrakka from SotB or the one from Legends.

I'd make a joke about keywords going the way of USRs, with every unit having its own keyword and yet that's exactly what GW have done.

The huge and important difference to USR is that the keywords do not do anything on their own, and thus do not require you to reference anything but the rule you are currently trying to resolve. Keywords do not add complexity to the datasheet, so while there probably are some that are and never will be used, there is little harm done beside waste ink.
Of course, FLY, AIRCRAFT, CHARACTER and few others are notable exceptions of this rule, but those aren't the ones you are complaining about.

Why does every unit in the codex need a keyword that just reprints its own name? If a rule refers to Trazyn the Infinite or Imhotekh the Stormlord, are people really not going to know which units that rule refers to unless you also give those units their own names as keywords?

The second GW will release a model of Imotekh mounted on his personal command barge, people will argue that the datasheet's name isn't actually "Imotekh the Stormlord" and claim that some rule will not work. The helbrute FAQ for the current CSM book is proof of names being a bad way to identify units.
Adding keywords as identifiable attributes is the right way to go about it.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/18 11:36:53


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Keywords can work great, when gw implements them correctly. Leaving that same HELLBRUTE keyword off of the CSM fw dreadnoughts datasheets means they don't get Legion traits, while their loyalist counterparts do get Chapter tactics. Likewise, a whole slew of loyalist fw vehicles have the MACHINE SPIRIT keyword, and can therefore make use of the corresponding strategem, while none of their Chaos counterparts have it, so the Death Guard MACHINE SPIRIT strategem does nothing for them. It's a good system, but they need to keep it straight.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Keywords can work great, when gw implements them correctly. Leaving that same HELLBRUTE keyword off of the CSM fw dreadnoughts datasheets means they don't get Legion traits, while their loyalist counterparts do get Chapter tactics. Likewise, a whole slew of loyalist fw vehicles have the MACHINE SPIRIT keyword, and can therefore make use of the corresponding strategem, while none of their Chaos counterparts have it, so the Death Guard MACHINE SPIRIT strategem does nothing for them. It's a good system, but they need to keep it straight.


Keywords aren't a silver bullet that makes all problems go away. The big difference is that it is much easier to fix problems.

Previous solutions would have required them to update the CSM legion rule (and probably some additional ones) with a dozen names of dreads. Most likely, they would have missed a couple of rules, causing conflicts while also forgetting one or two Dreads. And even then the next new FW dread release would still not be allowed in the Death Guard until the next codex update.

Now they just need to fix the rules of the units not properly affected by CSM legion traits or the machine spirit stratagem.

Used properly, they design a new model, slap the correct keywords on, profit. Later they find out that dread with doomsday cannons for eyes, arms and legs should not have the CORE keyword, they can just errata it out.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/18 11:48:28


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Exactly, they just need to errata the rules. But two FAQs later and it doesn't look like they're in any kind of a hurry to do it. They have an easily errated system, they just need to use it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/18 12:02:49


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: