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.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Then you're missing out. 4 twin-linked multi-meltas + a Sgt with Combi-melta in a drop pod means a lot of vehicles are going to have a very bad day.

Except for the very important detail about how they must Snap Fire on the turn they arrive, and so probably won't blow up anything. Then they stand there and die. This only works with Logan for Relentless, and even at that, it is a waste of Logan's abilities.

Salamanders w/ Vulcan: 4 twin-linked snap shots means you have a good chance of getting off at least one hit, ignoring the Combi-melta sgt of course. And as we all know, when your melta weapons are in melta range, one shot it all you need.

No, we don't know that, that's just a stigma people like to attach to things. That one hit probably will get a pen. sure, but you are ignoring cover, and the still 50/50 chance only of destroying it. Not at all good odds, and you'd want to taking down something like a Land Raider or Monolith with those shoddy odds to be giving up a squad on a suicide run like that.

DogofWar1 wrote:

See, this is what I don't understand, what's the problem with playing the best list you can?

If it's a legal list, and it's played legally, then what's the problem, other than you don't like it? Again, GW put Heldrakes in the new codex, they knew that some people were going to run tripledrake lists. I won't say that every unit and rule that GW puts in a codex is fit to print, but attacking other players for using what's available to them is not ok. It's basically saying that people should gimp their lists so that they don't offend sentiments, despite the fact that when the models hit the table to goal is to win.

If you want to play more cinematic lists, that's fine, and I would never want anyone to stop playing a fluffy list, and equally I wouldn't ask someone to stop playing the best list they can think up. The game should be about accommodating all types, the painters, the fluff buffs, and the wargamers. Admittedly, the wargamers probably have an edge on the painters and fluff-centric players on the tabletop since they spend more of their 40k energy on trying to win, but that's fine. That's how someone wants to play the game, and so long as it's legal, they shouldn't be attacked for playing that way.

Heck, if anything, players like that are easier to counter than anyone. The meta gets so warped that you pretty much KNOW that someone playing X army is playing Y way, and as such can build in counters. Every CSM player bringing Heldrakes? Alright fine, excuse me while my two squads of IF Tank Hunting Devs, all with Flakk missiles, line up, and have a dude man that ADL. Now excuse me while I chew a HP or two off the moment they arrive with the ADL's interceptor, and finish them off the next turn with twelve S7 flakk shots, all with tank hunter.

Also, I see WAAC used in two completely different ways when discussing players. There are those who use WAAC as you have, discussing players who have legal lists and play legally, but with min maxed units, and then there are those who use the term as a sort of stand-in for "cheater" or someone who bends the rules, rather than operating within them. Those two things shouldn't be mixed together, and we need a standardized definition.

From a competitive stance, min maxed lists create a rock paper scissor meta where the game strategy centers on a few dominant combo's and their counter lists. This can lead to rather predictable games. In a more constrained environment with only relatively balanced TAC lists resource and risk management on the table top will matter more. When you control the local scene for waac/extreme lists, it can enrich game play and prevent flavor of the month arms races.

Puscifer wrote:
Am I the only person who doesn't have a problem vs Heldrake Spam?

I've faced it nine times and won nine times with my Orks and twice with my Deathwing.

If you want to get away from those fire breathing death budgies, get into cc. They can't get you in cc.

Drake spam is not unbeatable, you just have to find a way to play around it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Back on topic..

This codex is looking to be very versatile. Marines have an answer to everything, it seems.

No, you are not alone. Because Marine players seem to be the majority, and Heldrakes are good at killing Marines... que the tears. Also, a lot of players seem to forget that 40k is won or lost in the movement phase. Damage can be mitigated with proper placement of models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Marines have more than enough tools to deal with Heldrakes and other flyers. Certainly more than Chaos gets, hence the need for Heldrakes...

 Mywik wrote:
In my meta we are hitting with meltas. And they still suck. Theres no one (except exactly 1 IG player) using vehicles anymore that arent flyers. Thats my local meta and says nothing about yours though.

The lack of non-flyer vehicles is also true. I tend to be the one most commonly fielding vehicles in our local games, or so it often seems. Usually there's just the token LR on marine / chaos marine armies, or perhaps a Vindicator.

 tvih wrote:
Multi-melta, on infantry? I never see that actually being used. And no wonder, it's not like tanks will just come to you for your to shoot them with one.

So, yesterday, having a Multi-Melta in an infantry squad was bad because nobody would ever put a tank in a position to be hit by one...

 tvih wrote:
No, that's just the icing on the cake, as it were. Can't deny an area with a weapon that the opponents have no "respect" for. And after a ridiculous number of "hey, are you nuts coming so close to my melta?" "hehheh, not really" *rolls a 1 to hit* "right, never mind" scenarios, can't really blame them anymore.

...but today having a Multi-Melta in an infantry squad is bad because everybody will just drive their tanks right up to it.

Got it.

No, they're bad because people in his meta roll 1s with multi-meltas. I thought that was clear.

Puscifer wrote:

I think the IH CT is the exception to the rule where vehicles are effected by CT.
The entries on the vehicles won't mention CTs but the IH rule is a catch all for the IWND rule.

Right, and that's how it appears, with the one perhaps complicating factor that the rumors specifically mention a lack of CT for dreads, while not mentioning it for other vehicles. If the Dreadnoughts didn't have that line, I would agree that the IH rule creates an exception for vehicles, BUT since those lines exist in the DN rumors, I'm wondering if Dreadnoughts don't have their own special rule making them exempt from the exception.

Sure, it's unnecessarily complicated, they could have just included in the IH CT that Dreadnoughts don't count, but they kind of did some "sort of" similar rules hoop jumping with Fenrisian Wolves, where Canis had a rule that made them troops, but instead of mentioning right on Canis' entry that they were troops but not scoring, they put a blurb on the Fenrisian Wolves entry that they weren't scoring. The Dreadnought thing might end up the same way.

 Antario wrote:
From a competitive stance, min maxed lists create a rock paper scissor meta where the game strategy centers on a few dominant combo's and their counter lists. This can lead to rather predictable games. In a more constrained environment with only relatively balanced TAC lists resource and risk management on the table top will matter more. When you control the local scene for waac/extreme lists, it can enrich game play and prevent flavor of the month arms races.

You used the word "control." This is what I'm trying to say should be avoided. Sure, tripdrakes are obnoxious, and have the potential to upset local metagames, as do any number of flavor of the month armies, but I shouldn't be telling people how to play their lists. They bought the models, they made the list, and if they checked the legality of it and it is alright, who are we to go to them and demand they change their list for the sake of "meta?"

Yes, we all want the game to be enriched and fun and require more tactics and strategy than just "aim unit X at unit Y and win," but you've got to balance it with the fact that people have a right to play the game however they wish, within the rules. If you start controlling the scene, you've basically created a regime that infringes upon an individual's freedoms and liberty, in that despite the fact that GW condones their list and tactics (or lack thereof), you've overruled GW and declared they are NOT free to play how they wish. And that is what does not sit well with me.

My fun should not come at the expense of other people's fun.

And yes, I know there is some irony in an Imperial marine player arguing for civil liberties within wargame meta, but the alternative is a majority rule regime that is seeking "the greater good," and that's some Tau manifesto bs and must be purged as heresy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wtwlf123 wrote:
No, they're bad because people in his meta roll 1s with multi-meltas. I thought that was clear.

I assume Lascannons only ever roll 5s and 6s, and MLs only ever roll 6s then.

Man, when the law of averages kicks in it's going to be HILARIOUS. Meltas 6s all the time, while MLs and LCs 1s and 2s. Gonna be funny to see Devastators and Predator Annihilators replaced by Tactical melta drop squads and Loganwing Relentless MM teams.

DogofWar1 wrote:

Puscifer wrote:

Yes, we all want the game to be enriched and fun and require more tactics and strategy than just "aim unit X at unit Y and win," but you've got to balance it with the fact that people have a right to play the game however they wish, within the rules. If you start controlling the scene, you've basically created a regime that infringes upon an individual's freedoms and liberty, in that despite the fact that GW condones their list and tactics (or lack thereof), you've overruled GW and declared they are NOT free to play how they wish. And that is what does not sit well with me.

My fun should not come at the expense of other people's fun.

People should indeed be able to play however they wish. However, I don't know about other people's local meta, but for casual games whilst people are compeltely free to bring things like a triple Drake list, they'll struggle to find anyone to play against. They're free to bring whatever army they want and I'm equally free to refuse to waste an evening's gaming watching three drakes fry my marines when I can find an oppoenent with a more balanced list that I'll enjoy playing against more.

More on topic, from the rumours so far am I right in thinking that the new codex's terminators will still be limited to a minimim 5 man squad? That sucks a bit if the standard Landraider now only has space for 10, so no termies plus special character :(

Dundas wrote:

DogofWar1 wrote:

Puscifer wrote:

Yes, we all want the game to be enriched and fun and require more tactics and strategy than just "aim unit X at unit Y and win," but you've got to balance it with the fact that people have a right to play the game however they wish, within the rules. If you start controlling the scene, you've basically created a regime that infringes upon an individual's freedoms and liberty, in that despite the fact that GW condones their list and tactics (or lack thereof), you've overruled GW and declared they are NOT free to play how they wish. And that is what does not sit well with me.

My fun should not come at the expense of other people's fun.

People should indeed be able to play however they wish. However, I don't know about other people's local meta, but for casual games whilst people are compeltely free to bring things like a triple Drake list, they'll struggle to find anyone to play against. They're free to bring whatever army they want and I'm equally free to refuse to waste an evening's gaming watching three drakes fry my marines when I can find an oppoenent with a more balanced list that I'll enjoy playing against more.

More on topic, from the rumours so far am I right in thinking that the new codex's terminators will still be limited to a minimim 5 man squad? That sucks a bit if the standard Landraider now only has space for 10, so no termies plus special character :(

Landraider Redeemer?

 streamdragon wrote:

Dundas wrote:

DogofWar1 wrote:

Puscifer wrote:

Yes, we all want the game to be enriched and fun and require more tactics and strategy than just "aim unit X at unit Y and win," but you've got to balance it with the fact that people have a right to play the game however they wish, within the rules. If you start controlling the scene, you've basically created a regime that infringes upon an individual's freedoms and liberty, in that despite the fact that GW condones their list and tactics (or lack thereof), you've overruled GW and declared they are NOT free to play how they wish. And that is what does not sit well with me.

My fun should not come at the expense of other people's fun.

People should indeed be able to play however they wish. However, I don't know about other people's local meta, but for casual games whilst people are compeltely free to bring things like a triple Drake list, they'll struggle to find anyone to play against. They're free to bring whatever army they want and I'm equally free to refuse to waste an evening's gaming watching three drakes fry my marines when I can find an oppoenent with a more balanced list that I'll enjoy playing against more.

More on topic, from the rumours so far am I right in thinking that the new codex's terminators will still be limited to a minimim 5 man squad? That sucks a bit if the standard Landraider now only has space for 10, so no termies plus special character :(

Landraider Redeemer?

I've not seen anything to suggest that terminators will be less then 5, or an option for command squads.

I dislike the LRR/LRC personally. I liked the fact that the stock LR had long range guns as well as the transport capacity. With the short range guns on the variants, your only option was to close with your foe and drop off the cargo. I liked sitting back, shooting for a few turns, then committing the assault terminators + HQ to where they were needed. Not really a valid option with the new rules.

I'm not sure which path I'll take. I can stick with the LR/terminators, just dropping the HQ, and hope they work. Swap my beloved godhammers for flamestorm cannons or hurricane bolters, and keep the chaplain. Not something I want to do. The last option is to look at other assault troops. Command squads, honor guard, or vanguard vets could all fit the role. As could normal assault marines or CC scouts, but if I'm springing for the LR, I want something MEAN inside. Once I get the book, I can look at all the pricing and wargear options and see what I'll go with.

It's not a surprise that the stock LR is returning to 10 man, but I need to figure out how to react to the change.

Dundas wrote:

People should indeed be able to play however they wish. However, I don't know about other people's local meta, but for casual games whilst people are compeltely free to bring things like a triple Drake list, they'll struggle to find anyone to play against. They're free to bring whatever army they want and I'm equally free to refuse to waste an evening's gaming watching three drakes fry my marines when I can find an oppoenent with a more balanced list that I'll enjoy playing against more.

More on topic, from the rumours so far am I right in thinking that the new codex's terminators will still be limited to a minimim 5 man squad? That sucks a bit if the standard Landraider now only has space for 10, so no termies plus special character :(

Right, casually you have a right to refuse to play anyone you wish, but Antario was mentioning competition, and I assume he meant local tournaments and local tournament meta. In such a case you have to weigh the goal of keeping lists like that out for fun purposes against the right of people to play whatever list they choose to play competitively.

Also, have not heard anything about terminator squad minimums. The rumors say same base cost, so I assume they mean minimum of 5, which would indeed be limiting in terms of carrying an SC on the godhammer variant.

 Nevelon wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
Landraider Redeemer?

I've not seen anything to suggest that terminators will be less then 5, or an option for command squads.

I dislike the LRR/LRC personally. I liked the fact that the stock LR had long range guns as well as the transport capacity. With the short range guns on the variants, your only option was to close with your foe and drop off the cargo. I liked sitting back, shooting for a few turns, then committing the assault terminators + HQ to where they were needed. Not really a valid option with the new rules.

I'm not sure which path I'll take. I can stick with the LR/terminators, just dropping the HQ, and hope they work. Swap my beloved godhammers for flamestorm cannons or hurricane bolters, and keep the chaplain. Not something I want to do. The last option is to look at other assault troops. Command squads, honor guard, or vanguard vets could all fit the role. As could normal assault marines or CC scouts, but if I'm springing for the LR, I want something MEAN inside. Once I get the book, I can look at all the pricing and wargear options and see what I'll go with.

It's not a surprise that the stock LR is returning to 10 man, but I need to figure out how to react to the change.

Hm, I play Space Wolves so fitting Terminators + Characters into a regular Landraider isn't an issue. (Although cost certainly is!)

I guess only getting 2-3 attacks (plus charge) isn't really enough for Assault Terminators on their own? Who knows, maybe assault Centurions will work?

Regarding the comp discussion; if no one's allowed to tell someone else how to play the game, who are you to say they can't use comp? After all, you're telling them how to play, aren't you?

Disclaimer: I prefer non-comped games but have had just as much fun with comp as without.

DogofWar1 wrote:
You used the word "control." This is what I'm trying to say should be avoided. Sure, tripdrakes are obnoxious, and have the potential to upset local metagames, as do any number of flavor of the month armies, but I shouldn't be telling people how to play their lists. They bought the models, they made the list, and if they checked the legality of it and it is alright, who are we to go to them and demand they change their list for the sake of "meta?"

I'm talking from a perspective as tournament organizer. One playing style is not better than the other, but from my experience it helps to cater to different tastes. In the past I've run hard boys like formats, but also tournaments with house rules that discourage power gaming. At the end of the day people are free to sign up to whatever they like. However when I'm providing space and funds for prize money I'll go along with what the customer wishes, and they will vote with their feet.

Dundas wrote:
More on topic, from the rumours so far am I right in thinking that the new codex's terminators will still be limited to a minimim 5 man squad? That sucks a bit if the standard Landraider now only has space for 10, so no termies plus special character :(

I think it will be the same as for the DA, so a 5 man minimum squad size for termi's.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
Landraider Redeemer?

I've not seen anything to suggest that terminators will be less then 5, or an option for command squads.

I dislike the LRR/LRC personally. I liked the fact that the stock LR had long range guns as well as the transport capacity. With the short range guns on the variants, your only option was to close with your foe and drop off the cargo. I liked sitting back, shooting for a few turns, then committing the assault terminators + HQ to where they were needed. Not really a valid option with the new rules.

I'm not sure which path I'll take. I can stick with the LR/terminators, just dropping the HQ, and hope they work. Swap my beloved godhammers for flamestorm cannons or hurricane bolters, and keep the chaplain. Not something I want to do. The last option is to look at other assault troops. Command squads, honor guard, or vanguard vets could all fit the role. As could normal assault marines or CC scouts, but if I'm springing for the LR, I want something MEAN inside. Once I get the book, I can look at all the pricing and wargear options and see what I'll go with.

It's not a surprise that the stock LR is returning to 10 man, but I need to figure out how to react to the change.

Hm, I play Space Wolves so fitting Terminators + Characters into a regular Landraider isn't an issue. (Although cost certainly is!)

I guess only getting 2-3 attacks (plus charge) isn't really enough for Assault Terminators on their own? Who knows, maybe assault Centurions will work?

To be honest, Centurions probably would work OK. Rumors have them at very bulky IIRC, so a minimum sized squad of 3 will take 9 seats in a LR. Add a PA character to fill the last one, and you are good to go. The assault transport will also help counteract the S&P rule.

Of course, I think they look silly, are expensive, don't fit into the lore, and S&P assault troops are just daft. So that's not an option for me. Other people might get some milage from it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Regarding the comp discussion; if no one's allowed to tell someone else how to play the game, who are you to say they can't use comp? After all, you're telling them how to play, aren't you?

Disclaimer: I prefer non-comped games but have had just as much fun with comp as without.

The difference, I think, is that tournament organizers aren't "playing" the game, they're organizing it. No one's really telling the organizer how to play since, unless they've entered their own tournament, they have no models on the tabletop. Telling organizers how to run their tournament isn't necessarily good either, but it's a balancing act, seeing whose toes get stepped on and how much.

I think there is something to be said for enforcing army balance where a lack of balance exists (obviously, due to GW's updating system, older armies lack many of the newer goodies), but I feel it's a little more fair to try and bring weaker armies into line with stronger armies than to try and nerf stronger armies to be in line with weaker armies.

Let the rumors end, and the discussion of Actual Things begin!

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/549298.page

Or, you know, continue!