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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/04/26 06:43:50
Subject: 40k Dataslates: Who isn't on board?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Red Corsair wrote: Leth wrote:I like the two source rule because it cuts down on allied in inquisitors.
For a lot of the death stars that is their hard counter is scouting units getting in their grill, maybe rune priests cutting down psychic powers even if they go first, etc.
By having that extra inquisitor slot it prevents them from having to adapt.
Same for other things. I think the two source limit would work pretty well, but we shall see.
See this annoys me a bit though. Its just so biased. Everyone is crying over the ubiquity of inquisitors in armies that can take them yet nobody is addressing the WHOLE ALLIES MATRIX. Some armies like tau and SM can ally with half or more of the chart, yet other armies like orks, necrons and tyranids are up shat creek. So why apply a bandaid to a sucking chest wound. All two source does is narrow the current diversity to the 2-3 best codices that use battle brothers the most efficiently. Kill BB AND use a limited source format and suddenly you will see much more diversity.
It's because the matrix is designed upon the lore of the setting. Bad guys never get the same advantages.
I'm a tyranid, ork, chaos marine player.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/04/26 07:23:49
Subject: 40k Dataslates: Who isn't on board?
|
 |
Disguised Speculo
|
Plenty of people addressed the WHOLE ALLIES MATRIX, now we've just settled down into grim despair at the whole thing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/04/26 08:44:43
Subject: Re:40k Dataslates: Who isn't on board?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Remember when 40k armies weren’t polyamorous harlots?
|
Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/04/26 13:29:25
Subject: 40k Dataslates: Who isn't on board?
|
 |
Haemonculi Flesh Apprentice
|
Plenty of people bitch about the matrix but no one has tried to fix it you'll notice.
I am well aware the fluff is intended to support the matrix but the sad thing is, it doesn't really.
Why the feth are SM battle bros with tau yet IG are AoC with chaos?
Suddenly xenos hating astartes will bro fist blue commy midgets yet traitor guard conscripts can't be inspired by a Dark Apostle?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/04/26 15:23:32
Subject: 40k Dataslates: Who isn't on board?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Only people complaining are following along. The only thing I see is the ally matrix needs to be tightened up... Too many silly BB combos like dark eldar-eldar.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/04/26 18:14:44
Subject: Re:40k Dataslates: Who isn't on board?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
The allies matrix says yes more than no, apparently the 41st millenium is both grim and dark as well as incredibly accepting, open and some might say a little slutty.
Without even using new books or supplement, just the matrix in the brb, it says yes 155 times and no 70 times. The 41st millenium, grim, dark and somehow incredibly optimistic about working together as team.
"What'd the comissar just say? Death to xenos?" "no, he was asking to see if they wanted a moustache ride".
|
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/04/26 21:34:25
Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/04/26 20:27:30
Subject: Re:40k Dataslates: Who isn't on board?
|
 |
Haemonculi Flesh Apprentice
|
Crablezworth wrote:The allies matrix says yes more than no, apparently the 41st millenium is both grim and dark as well as incredibly accepting, open and some might say a little slutty.
Without even using new books or supplement, just the matrix in the brb, it says yes 155 times nd no 70 times. The 41st millenium, grim, dark and somehow incredibly optimistic about working together as team.
"What'd the comissar just say? Death to xenos?" "no, he was asking to see if they wanted a moustache ride".
LOL +1
That is pretty much the ticket. I am wondering why there is as much opposition as there is toward eliminating BB. Cool themed armies are still viable with AoC, you just can't share all your books best abilities with the other army.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/04/30 05:46:47
Subject: 40k Dataslates: Who isn't on board?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Indiana
|
Honestly BB doesnt need to be bumped down to AOC it just needs to be like it is in Choas/Daemons. You cant join units from someone elses book. Problem solved
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/04/30 07:14:20
Subject: 40k Dataslates: Who isn't on board?
|
 |
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant
|
I'd like it if they released cards with new rules on them like privateer press. Even if it was the same price of these dataslates I'd much rather buy it. There is something to be said about physical material.
|
Tyler
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/04/30 07:22:53
Subject: 40k Dataslates: Who isn't on board?
|
 |
Tunneling Trygon
Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland
|
RiTides wrote:@MVBrandt- Really, so you and Reecius have switched places a bit? 3-source would still allow silliness like Tau-Eldar-Inquisition. Reecius made this post after AdeptiCon which seems to be more 2-source inclined:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/04/40k-meta-watch-post-adepticon.html
Reecius wrote:
1. Only two detachments in a list. What that means is you can take a primary and secondary detachments, but no more. Space Marines+Inquisition. Space Marines+Imperial Guard. But not all three. You can take add-ons that fit in your primary detachment such as Be'Lakor that won't count towards your limit. This cuts back on the cherry picked Inquisitor that sits around throwing magical grenades and adding Servo Skulls randomly into lists as well as less of the ubiquitous Coteaz. You can still take Inquisition if you want, just not all of it at once. You have to make choices instead of just taking the best of everything. Too many Inquisitorial allies cuts down on variety as if you go to an event knowing 70% of the field will be able to totally shut down your Scouts/Infiltrators/Deep Strikers/Etc. people will choose not to bring those types of units. Plus, it is stupid to see an all Xenos army led by a Coteaz against Imperial armies...also led by a Coteaz. Yeah.
2. Formations are in, but count as a detachment. This means you can take Skyblight or the Tau formation but at the cost of an ally. We find this to be quite fair and it makes Nids a top tier build who bring anti-Deathstar ability to the game to help balance the meta. Plus, it opens up some cool, fun lists.
3. Imperial Knights are in. We would have done this anyway as Knights are super fun, but Imperial Knights can do sufficient damage to Deathstars with support to crack them and make them not so ludicrously durable. It will force players to think twice about taking a Star if Knights are on the prowl.
4. Missions. Missions fundamentally change the game. By using the right missions in the right ratio, you can make units like Deathstars less viable by altering win conditions.
I approve of this a lot. I'm especially glad to see that Knights aren't just flat banned. I agree with Corsair that Battle Brothers should be removed, though.
Vaktathi wrote: Crablezworth wrote:I think the debate needs to be framed in a different way. Drop the slates and make it two issues: formations and characters.
I really don't want to play formations outside of apoc, especially with them now having no additional cost for additonal benefits or abilities, that's horsegak and we all know it, (it all kinda falls into the camp of keep apoc in apoc).
Belakor or cypher don't seem to be the end of the world. I don't like allies, but I'm not opposed to a chaos army or daemons army with belakor. I don't mind cypher either, again provided the context of his use isn't silly.
These are my feelings exactly, new characters/units are one (usually good) thing, formations that give special rules for free are another (bad) thing.
I feel for Nid players (my own Nid army has remained half on-sprue for years because Nids have been consistently borked), but I really cannot state enough how opposed I am to the idea of Formations being used essentially as "patches".
First, it says to GW that they can bork a release and sell the fixes later and that we'll accept that, which I don't think is where anyone wants to take things.
Second, the perception that such slates can make an army more functional makes banning others (where such assistance is certainly not needed) more difficult, it's inconsistent.
And, third, ultimately it's still "free special abilities for taking X combination of units", and besides being bad on its own that's just an extremely lazy way to try and hamfist a fix to an army.
Underlined for agreement. Like most Tyranid players, I am extremely disappointed with the latest Codex, and this "patching" is practically insulting. I hate the idea of the dataslates. First off, let's recall that they're £9 each. That's 30% of the cost of the Codex! Just for the grand opportunity to buy more models so that you can just maybe have a shot at actually winning a game occasionally. It's stupid. Furthermore, the Tau Firebase Support Cadre is stupid as well. They're all stupid.
I like double Force Organisation. I like the idea of Allies. I don't like any of this nonsense at all.
EDIT: Also, my Tyranids are still mostly on-sprue. I moved to Chaos so long ago, so I'm just watching from the outside as my dear beloved Tyranids sink ever deeper.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/30 07:26:11
|
|
 |
 |
|