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.

...You do know what a joke is, don't you?

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
...You do know what a joke is, don't you?

Yes, one based in an imaginary world were Ward is apparently Snidley Whiplash.

ClockworkZion wrote:

Besides, these restrictions are actually good for the codex. They keep it from being the "OP" mess that some people were claiming it'd turn into.

And that's where you'll find a lot of people will disagree; restrictions limit creativity. You can cast it as WAAC or powergaming or whatever you like, but in my experience outside of one or two specific netlist-combos, the people I met who were using counts-as SCs were fluff gamers looking for ways to field units and characters outside the norm, not because they were better, but because they were different, and let you compose your armies in different ways.

 Yodhrin wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

Besides, these restrictions are actually good for the codex. They keep it from being the "OP" mess that some people were claiming it'd turn into.

And that's where you'll find a lot of people will disagree; restrictions limit creativity. You can cast it as WAAC or powergaming or whatever you like, but in my experience outside of one or two specific netlist-combos, the people I met who were using counts-as SCs were fluff gamers looking for ways to field units and characters outside the norm, not because they were better, but because they were different, and let you compose your armies in different ways.

I didn't say every use of something was WAAC or powerming or whatever. I said that these restrictions were good because they kept the book from becoming OP. This is a reference to balance, a strange concept people forget exists, and yes it does even exist in 40k, at least to some extent.

To bring up a very popular book, the 3.5 Ed CSM book that gets brought up a lot in these topics, it too worked under restrictions. To play this Legion you got these bonuses, but couldn't do X, Y or Z. Yet very few people complain about that book at all. This is the same principle, but done in a much milder manner.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
...You do know what a joke is, don't you?

I wouldn't bet money on it.


In other news:
This book sounds really great so far. Not getting my hopes up but it does sound all very cool.

Chapter Masters are suitably badass with 4 Wounds and 4 Attacks.
Much more flexible tactical squads. (As if that was even possible. Tactical squads have always been very useful to me)
Awesome new plastic Sternguard and Vanguard kits

Oh and let's not forget CHAPTER TACTICS.

And for what it's worth, Mat Ward -was- the one who wrote the Battle Focus rule for the Eldar. Aka one of the coolest things that the Eldar have.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I think from the rumors the Devastator box isn't getting recut, so will the Tac box be the only source of heavy grav weapons?

The only heavy Grav Weapons are the Grav Cannons which are restricted to the Devastator Centurions. The Grav Gun is a Special Weapon.

Thanks for that clarification, I missed that...

 Vladsimpaler wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
...You do know what a joke is, don't you?

I wouldn't bet money on it.


In other news:
This book sounds really great so far. Not getting my hopes up but it does sound all very cool.

Chapter Masters are suitably badass with 4 Wounds and 4 Attacks.
Much more flexible tactical squads. (As if that was even possible. Tactical squads have always been very useful to me)
Awesome new plastic Sternguard and Vanguard kits

Oh and let's not forget CHAPTER TACTICS.

And for what it's worth, Mat Ward -was- the one who wrote the Battle Focus rule for the Eldar. Aka one of the coolest things that the Eldar have.

This one I just don't understand. How can every space marine Chapter Master be W4 A4, yet the Dark Angels Chapter Master's are only W3 A3? Things like this should be consistent from chapter to chapter, no?

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Slinky wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
*snip*

Codex writing doesn't work that way.

No stick men involved?

It's a collective studio effort headed primarily one person. I'm willing to bet they collectively brainstorm ideas but one person does the writing to actually implement those ideas. For example, Kelly wrote the Eldar book, but the idea for Battle Focus actually came from Ward.

EDIT: Oh, and I'm pretty sure it's next to impossible to "sneak" anything in like that.

Ward admits in an WD interview that in the 5e SM codex he changed the drop pod load-out from 10 to 12 to see if he could get away with it. He did, so you don't know what you are talking about.

Locrian wrote:

This one I just don't understand. How can every space marine Chapter Master be W4 A4, yet the Dark Angels Chapter Master's are only W3 A3? Things like this should be consistent from chapter to chapter, no?

Erm... Azrael has four wounds and attacks...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ClockworkZion wrote:

I didn't say every use of something was WAAC or powerming or whatever. I said that these restrictions were good because they kept the book from becoming OP. This is a reference to balance, a strange concept people forget exists, and yes it does even exist in 40k, at least to some extent.

How is it balance that one Chapter gets as many special characters as other Chapters combined and choice of three Chapter Traits, one of which is clearly the best one in the book?

 Vladsimpaler wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
...You do know what a joke is, don't you?

I wouldn't bet money on it.


In other news:
This book sounds really great so far. Not getting my hopes up but it does sound all very cool.

Chapter Masters are suitably badass with 4 Wounds and 4 Attacks.
Much more flexible tactical squads. (As if that was even possible. Tactical squads have always been very useful to me)
Awesome new plastic Sternguard and Vanguard kits

Oh and let's not forget CHAPTER TACTICS.

And for what it's worth, Mat Ward -was- the one who wrote the Battle Focus rule for the Eldar. Aka one of the coolest things that the Eldar have.

I agree CM looks awesome, especially fully kitted out. I really wish they would release a generic Chapter Master model, or at the very least update the Captain model there just isn't enough detail on it, especially compared to the new veteran model's coming soon.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

Besides, these restrictions are actually good for the codex. They keep it from being the "OP" mess that some people were claiming it'd turn into.

And that's where you'll find a lot of people will disagree; restrictions limit creativity. You can cast it as WAAC or powergaming or whatever you like, but in my experience outside of one or two specific netlist-combos, the people I met who were using counts-as SCs were fluff gamers looking for ways to field units and characters outside the norm, not because they were better, but because they were different, and let you compose your armies in different ways.

I didn't say every use of something was WAAC or powerming or whatever. I said that these restrictions were good because they kept the book from becoming OP. This is a reference to balance, a strange concept people forget exists, and yes it does even exist in 40k, at least to some extent.

To bring up a very popular book, the 3.5 Ed CSM book that gets brought up a lot in these topics, it too worked under restrictions. To play this Legion you got these bonuses, but couldn't do X, Y or Z. Yet very few people complain about that book at all. This is the same principle, but done in a much milder manner.

You spend most of the rest of that post and the one after associating using counts-as SC with powergaming, talking about how much you don't like powergaming and so forth, don't try and wriggle out of it now.

As for balance - GW choose the abilities they give to chapters, and to characters. If the design the Chapter Tactics and Characters so that combining the two would be OP, that is their fault, they could easily have designed them so that combing the two was as balanced as any other rules they release, and not limited access.

And yes, lets discuss the 3.5Ed CSM book. First, lets discuss the idea that very few people complained about it - you must have missed the near-constant complaints that the Iron Warriors rules were clearly superior to several of the other legions, and that some legions weren't worth taking at all by comparison. Hmm, sort of like how anyone with half a brain has noticed that the Ultramarines not only get 3 to 6 times more SCs than the various other chapters, but have Tactics which overshadow everyone else, and which even have a built-in method of list-tailoring(something you claim to hate) without actually having to tailor your list. Lets also discuss the 3.5 Ed 'dex in the context of how it compares to more recent CSM books, and how often people bring up how restrictive the more recent books are by comparison as a negative thing. Almost as if people prefer to have more options than less, and especially don't like having options they had before being taken away from them...

Iron hands all the way, sign me up for IWND vindicators and rhinos, and super cyborg marines.

Locrian wrote:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
...You do know what a joke is, don't you?

I wouldn't bet money on it.


In other news:
This book sounds really great so far. Not getting my hopes up but it does sound all very cool.

Chapter Masters are suitably badass with 4 Wounds and 4 Attacks.
Much more flexible tactical squads. (As if that was even possible. Tactical squads have always been very useful to me)
Awesome new plastic Sternguard and Vanguard kits

Oh and let's not forget CHAPTER TACTICS.

And for what it's worth, Mat Ward -was- the one who wrote the Battle Focus rule for the Eldar. Aka one of the coolest things that the Eldar have.

This one I just don't understand. How can every space marine Chapter Master be W4 A4, yet the Dark Angels Chapter Master's are only W3 A3? Things like this should be consistent from chapter to chapter, no?

Those are Company Masters for the DA (Captains for other chapters). The DA Chapter Master (Supreme Grand Master Azrael) is in fact W4 and A4.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Ward admits in an WD interview that in the 5e SM codex he changed the drop pod load-out from 10 to 12 to see if he could get away with it. He did, so you don't know what you are talking about.

This would be the first time I've ever heard of this claim. That just proves that he was able to put something in the book he was writing that someone else who should have been proofing (I'm looking at you Jervis) should have noticed, not that he can run about and slip rules into other people's codexes.

 Crimson wrote:

How is it balance that one Chapter gets as many special characters as other Chapters combined and choice of three Chapter Traits, one of which is clearly the best one in the book?

1. I said some that SOME balance exists. I never claimed GW was perfect.
2. When you consider the fluff behind it the UM chapter tactics rule makes a good bit of sense in it being three rules you choose from.
3. I've talked about this to death already so I'm going to stop flogging this horse.

 Yodhrin wrote:

You spend most of the rest of that post and the one after associating using counts-as SC with powergaming, talking about how much you don't like powergaming and so forth, don't try and wriggle out of it now.

As for balance - GW choose the abilities they give to chapters, and to characters. If the design the Chapter Tactics and Characters so that combining the two would be OP, that is their fault, they could easily have designed them so that combing the two was as balanced as any other rules they release, and not limited access.

And yes, lets discuss the 3.5Ed CSM book. First, lets discuss the idea that very few people complained about it - you must have missed the near-constant complaints that the Iron Warriors rules were clearly superior to several of the other legions, and that some legions weren't worth taking at all by comparison. Hmm, sort of like how anyone with half a brain has noticed that the Ultramarines not only get 3 to 6 times more SCs than the various other chapters, but have Tactics which overshadow everyone else, and which even have a built-in method of list-tailoring(something you claim to hate) without actually having to tailor your list. Lets also discuss the 3.5 Ed 'dex in the context of how it compares to more recent CSM books, and how often people bring up how restrictive the more recent books are by comparison as a negative thing. Almost as if people prefer to have more options than less, and especially don't like having options they had before being taken away from them...

I didn't associate SC use with powergaming for everyone, so stop claiming stuff that never happened. You think I'm against all semblance of creativity or freedom or that I think all players who do X are WAAC power gamers. I'm not. I've explictly stated that I don't play against certain players because I don't find it fun. That's it. Hell, I didn't even label anyone as WAAC or a powergamer, I just said the kind of player I don't enjoy playing against.

I've been following this thread rather closely actually, so no I didn't miss those complaints about Iron Warriors. I also saw the pages and pages of posts of people who like the idea, or were jealous of it (CSM players).

Yes, we're stuck with more UM characters than everyone else. So bloody what? This is nothing new. Getting upset with me about it is pointless.

I'm just going to stop talking about this whole chapter tactics nonsense. People are putting far too much stock in that being the BEST CHOICE EVER in the book and are failing to recognize anything else as valid. Just because it's a cupcake with icing AND a cherry doesn't make other cupcakes who only got icing less delicious.

And unlike the 3.5 book the only TRUE restrictions in this book are on taking SCs outside of your Chapter Tactics and taking Librarians if you're a Black Templar army. That's FAR less restrictive than people are acting like it is.

Now I'm going to stop debating on how valid my version of "fun" is with everyone. I'll still discuss rumors, but my opinions are not maleable to the will of others just because they see the game differently than I do. I play the game casually, and socially. I play the best that I can, and I do make an effort to win, but I'm not into trying to squeeze out the highest mathematical power in my book. That's just me. That's the way I choose to approach the game and that's it. If you don't like it, tough. I'm not changing my opinion just because people want to start accusing me of statements I didn't make, or choose to have their fun differently. You have your fun, I'll have mine and we can all enjoy the game in our own ways. And that's the last I'm saying about that.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Slinky wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
*snip*

Codex writing doesn't work that way.

No stick men involved?

It's a collective studio effort headed primarily one person. I'm willing to bet they collectively brainstorm ideas but one person does the writing to actually implement those ideas. For example, Kelly wrote the Eldar book, but the idea for Battle Focus actually came from Ward.

EDIT: Oh, and I'm pretty sure it's next to impossible to "sneak" anything in like that.

Actually the way codex writing works for 6th edition has been substationally changed and streamlined from previous editions,

Now they have 3 teams, rules writes, fluff writers and artists. Before they still had these 3 teams, but they would all work semi independently so you'd have each team coming up with ideas etc and you end up with rules and fluff with no model (tervigon) or models with no written work. Now it works as such, the artists come up with a concept pictures, then a basic sculpt, if that gets approved by the project manager, it is moved over to the fluff and rules writers who work together to bring it to life. The project manager who oversees the 3 teams, is the person who's name goes on e codex, Kelly, cruddance, ward etc...

But this is all going a bit far from rumours.

Am I correct in thinking that the IH will play just like a regular Marine army, just with FnP on all infantry and IWND on all their multiple wound stuff and vehicles?

Doesn't seem all that good... Please correct me if I am wrong.

Puscifer wrote:
Am I correct in thinking that the IH will play just like a regular Marine army, just with FnP on all infantry and IWND on all their multiple wound stuff and vehicles?

Doesn't seem all that good... Please correct me if I am wrong.

i think a 1 in 6 chance of surviving a kill is pretty decent...given that people are up in arms over a ((1/6) * (4/6) increase in firepower of ultramrines id say it was okay. Imagine getting an extra 300 points in an 1800 point battle.

So the wound creep continues. It used to be base Hq got W3 and the odd non mc got w4. Now every man and his dog are getting them? Will be interesting to see how they deal with big charecters like Ghaz and Canis.

How much is everything gonna cost in AUS???

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Ward admits in an WD interview that in the 5e SM codex he changed the drop pod load-out from 10 to 12 to see if he could get away with it. He did, so you don't know what you are talking about.

And he got away with it, even better: People loved it!
It makes sense to have a full Tactical Squad in a droppod with an additional IC leading them.
With only 10 you either skip the IC or the Heavy Weapon, which I would hate.

Kangodo wrote:
It makes sense to have a full Tactical Squad in a droppod with an additional IC leading them..

It makes sense when they have a drop pod designed to hold more than 10 guys...

When the current model only has places for 10, it was a little peculiar to through in extra transport capacity in the rules. This was an issue that the studio created by limiting heavy weapons to 10-man squads to try to 'encourage' people not to min-max.

 insaniak wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
It makes sense to have a full Tactical Squad in a droppod with an additional IC leading them..

It makes sense when they have a drop pod designed to hold more than 10 guys...

When the current model only has places for 10, it was a little peculiar to through in extra transport capacity in the rules. This was an issue that the studio created by limiting heavy weapons to 10-man squads to try to 'encourage' people not to min-max.

Extra space to the seats ratio is odd in a game where 10 power armour guys can fit into a rhino just fine?

 insaniak wrote:
It makes sense when they have a drop pod designed to hold more than 10 guys...
When the current model only has places for 10, it was a little peculiar to through in extra transport capacity in the rules. This was an issue that the studio created by limiting heavy weapons to 10-man squads to try to 'encourage' people not to min-max.

But characters are awesome, they don't need to sit down.
They are walking around, checking everyone's gear while explaining the tactics of the mission!

Am I missing something or would Null Zone be gone now since it was a codex power?

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
...You do know what a joke is, don't you?

Yeah. Peoples' obsession with blaming Mat Ward for everything used to be one, but now it's overused and cliche. "Why did Mat Ward cross the road? To dupe and betray CSM players! Spiritual Leige! Hur Hur Hur"

They have a 2+ not-funny-save...

This thread is getting waaaay off track...

 Vaerros wrote:
Am I missing something or would Null Zone be gone now since it was a codex power?

Its gone, SM can only take powers from the rule book.

Vaerros wrote:Am I missing something or would Null Zone be gone now since it was a codex power?

Yup! Gone. That should make people happy since that was the big way C:SM was invalidating invulnerable saves. Well, make non-C:SM players happy.

MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
...You do know what a joke is, don't you?

Yeah. Peoples' obsession with blaming Mat Ward for everything used to be one, but now it's overused and cliche. "Why did Mat Ward cross the road? To dupe and betray CSM players! Spiritual Leige! Hur Hur Hur"

That's my feeling too. It wasn't paticularly funny when it started and it's only gotten worse and worse and worse.

 Hedgehog wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
So, did anyone else notice the rumors for the stalker at slightly cheaper than the price of a current Hydra with twice the number of shots and better side armor+ split fire?

However the Hydra is twin-linked, which means it actually causes more hits against flyers even with a lower BS.

Not when the SM tank has twice as many shots (2 guns remember, each with 4 shots), the SM tank will average 5.33 hits, or 4 if split-firing at BS3, to the Hydra's 3

This also has the effect of practically doubling its chance of hitting non-flying targets compared to the Stalker.

With 8 shots hitting on 6's the Stalker with hit with 1.33 shots, the TL Hydra will hit with 1.22.

It also has a longer range

largely irrelevant in most instances, but yes.

and comes in squadrons, taking fewer HS slots up for more AA firepower.

If you're going to bring lots sure, but you're also paying more per tank, with less marginal value per tank added due to the Squadron rules.