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.

This thread has had far too much hate and bashing of USA cheese!....

You all slander it in public but when you make a cheese steak sandwich we all no whos cheese you turn to for that creamy filling!

The locally produced sort of course..

 Red Corsair wrote:
This thread has had far too much hate and bashing of USA cheese!....

You all slander it in public but when you make a cheese steak sandwich we all no whos cheese you turn to for that creamy filling!

Oka.

 Red Corsair wrote:
This thread has had far too much hate and bashing of USA cheese!....

You all slander it in public but when you make a cheese steak sandwich we all no whos cheese you turn to for that creamy filling!

Some good extra mature or vintage cheddar from the West Country?

While you are filling up on your us and British cheeses I'm gonna be eating up some grey knight nemesis dreadnaught cheese I've already warned my group. Dreadnaught a and penitent engines all day with inquisitor spam. I'm sure there's something that lets me build that

I feel like this book is going to start spreading that "house rule" were you need to agree on both points AND number of detachments.

If I'm playing agiest a imperial army and he says he is running 6+ detachments will be a red flag. The number of detachments should really be in proportion to the point level your playing.

Versatilebeats wrote:
While you are filling up on your us and British cheeses I'm gonna be eating up some grey knight nemesis dreadnaught cheese I've already warned my group. Dreadnaught a and penitent engines all day with inquisitor spam. I'm sure there's something that lets me build that

There's a new formation for GK that makes you take 1 troop choice or fast attack choice and optionally take 1 heavy support choice. There's nothing at all for penitent engines, but why bother with those? They're really terrible.

Who doesn't love s&m sisters and hopefully the ndk cheese can make up for the suck of the engine?

The episode went up Tuesday night and though we discussed implications and usage we don't read rules or stats so if you go for the pics leaked by someone you may be better served depending on your question. Ep 175 of combat phase on iTunes or direct link. I'm traveling so probably can't go through messages on boards much until next week.

Happy almost-holidays, all!
Hmm..no Santa Ork emoticon.

I can only see episode 173 on that site?

 Lockark wrote:
I feel like this book is going to start spreading that "house rule" were you need to agree on both points AND number of detachments.

If I'm playing agiest a imperial army and he says he is running 6+ detachments will be a red flag. The number of detachments should really be in proportion to the point level your playing.

Why would that be a problem? Most of those 'Detachments' are going to be tiny. (I mean, the Sisters or Inquisition detachments can be as small as one model.) That's kind of backwards thinking, and really just makes most of the IA book unusable.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
I feel like this book is going to start spreading that "house rule" were you need to agree on both points AND number of detachments.

If I'm playing agiest a imperial army and he says he is running 6+ detachments will be a red flag. The number of detachments should really be in proportion to the point level your playing.

Why would that be a problem? Most of those 'Detachments' are going to be tiny. (I mean, the Sisters or Inquisition detachments can be as small as one model.) That's kind of backwards thinking, and really just makes most of the IA book unusable.

I agree. Even if the book was intended to add small imperial cohorts to a larger army, there shouldn't be too much animosity toward people who want to build a fluffy imperial grab bag army. Plus, it's not like there's a decurion you can craft out of this stuff. I feel like 1850 of pure imperial agents will be underpowered in the meta.

 MacPhail wrote:
I feel like 1850 of pure imperial agents will be underpowered in the meta.

I have a feeling that GW doesn't give a flying grot about something like that.

I for one like the book. not because i want it to be a game breaking spam army but because it lets me play with all the cool models that i have.

 MacPhail wrote:
I agree. Even if the book was intended to add small imperial cohorts to a larger army, there shouldn't be too much animosity toward people who want to build a fluffy imperial grab bag army. Plus, it's not like there's a decurion you can craft out of this stuff. I feel like 1850 of pure imperial agents will be underpowered in the meta.

That may be true, but for many Min / Max armies we are going to see 37 points spent as many times as possible to add warlord traits. Maybe add 5 or 10 points to give the models some upgrades, but mainly it is about more rolls on the strategic warlord trait table.

From page 118 of the main rulebook:

There is no limit to the number of Detachments a Battle-forged army can include.

Seems GW has absolutely no problems with the number of Detachments a player uses to make his army.

 Lockark wrote:
I feel like this book is going to start spreading that "house rule" were you need to agree on both points AND number of detachments.

If I'm playing agiest a imperial army and he says he is running 6+ detachments will be a red flag. The number of detachments should really be in proportion to the point level your playing.

Good tournaments limit to two or three detachments for good reasons, chiefly Space Marine superfriends deathstars. I don't know if new Imperial Agents helps those much or not.

 Ghaz wrote:
From page 118 of the main rulebook:

There is no limit to the number of Detachments a Battle-forged army can include.

Seems GW has absolutely no problems with the number of Detachments a player uses to make his army.

Of Course they don't. Right now GW is all about picking winners and losers and catering towards Min/Maxers. One of the best ways to do that is to encourage convoluted armies with the best parts of every Codex. Here is a list that took 2nd place at a big tourney the other day:

When I saw that list all I could think is "This guy gets it. He understands 7th edition, and is totally on board with what GW is trying to do." GW wishes we all played that way, except without the points. When we try to build cohesive forces with limited sources and few detachments, GW is shaking their head thinking we are playing their game wrong.

Brett is a friend of mine, and he plays to win, and GW is 100% on board with that.

Um, that army list is illegal. The zombies are limited to a single unit.

So his list was too resilient for what the game allows with far more board control than what is in a single list and still only got second place.

You can't make the statement of whether or not someone "gets it" when the tournament in question doesn't know what the rulez for the game are...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: nevermind. Misread something

I am excited they seem to have fixed the armor point totals for the basic dudesmen (also, glad I repriced the armor upgrade for corsair eldar the same way. Makes me more confident I did it appropriately)

People, this is another step toward AoSification. Next iteration of the game will be built in a way that it will be impossible put limits to 1-3 detachments.

Mark my words, the integrity of the CAD fill get the final blow, it will be all cherry-picking. No flavour.

Very convenient for those hack frauds of the designers, because I suppose design a single codex with a structure (and with weak and strong points), and balance it toward other factions is harder

Is this the first time we have ever had 'Sister' and 'cheese' in the same thread?

UltraPrime wrote:
Is this the first time we have ever had 'Sister' and 'cheese' in the same thread?

Hmmm maybe I seem to recall some expressions when the revised Dominion rules came out - "how many Scouting meltas with ignore cover!!"

Some Marine players were quite envious of the two special weapons in a 5 woman squad as well - course now the Marines have been massively cheesed up with formations and the like to compensate but it was fun whilst it lasted.

I think you are slightly off the mark in terms of what GW wants.

GW wants people to be able to build armies out of what they think is cool. So if you want to have a really pious imperial guard regiment which has a priest in every squad, and like a space marine Chaplin and friends in a Razorback that drive around with them, and an Inquisitor with a bunch of crusaders.

I think they have realized, that they can't make the game flexible enough for the creative gamer who loves the background and stop the power gamer from cherry picking.

With this in mind, the message is, and has always been, play people who play the game the same way you play it.

Got my copy last night. I love it. I can finally run the inquisition how I wanted to like a joint task force mission of all 3 with supporting military branches. (Currently I only have deathwatch/inquisition)

The jakeros got better. What the monkeys got better? Yes they did. On a roll of 6 or more you get to choose 2 options instead of rolling. That's right last night my laser cannons were shooting 60" and my acolytes were saving on 2+
I need more monkeys.

While underpowered compared to all your vehicles are free last night I was able form a force like I wanted to.

Sadly my store didn't get its copies and the Canoness models today (unless it's a really, really late delivery!), so I won't be able to pick mine up until the new year.

tag8833 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
From page 118 of the main rulebook:

There is no limit to the number of Detachments a Battle-forged army can include.

Seems GW has absolutely no problems with the number of Detachments a player uses to make his army.

Of Course they don't. Right now GW is all about picking winners and losers and catering towards Min/Maxers. One of the best ways to do that is to encourage convoluted armies with the best parts of every Codex. Here is a list that took 2nd place at a big tourney the other day:

Spoiler:

Brett Perkins - Various Factions
Tau CAD
fireblade
2x5 strike team
Ta'unar supremacy suit (triaxis ion cannonx2, pulse ordnance multidriver)
imperial bunker with (escape hatch, 1 x barricade)

CAD Renegades of Vraks
Command squad covenant of nurgle warlord carapace armor
20 plague zombies
19 plague zombies
29 plague zombies
2xwyvern

Assassin detachment:
Cullexus

Inquisition detachment:
Coteaz
2x(2 x acolyte; 1 psyker)

Daemon CAD:
Fateweaver
2x3 Nurglings

When I saw that list all I could think is "This guy gets it. He understands 7th edition, and is totally on board with what GW is trying to do." GW wishes we all played that way, except without the points. When we try to build cohesive forces with limited sources and few detachments, GW is shaking their head thinking we are playing their game wrong.

Brett is a friend of mine, and he plays to win, and GW is 100% on board with that.

Zero part of this list looks "fun" to play against, which I would argue is an exact COUNTER to what GW wants. You don't get to decide how "fun" is defined, so things need to be reeled back a bit.

 Cephalobeard wrote:

tag8833 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
From page 118 of the main rulebook:

There is no limit to the number of Detachments a Battle-forged army can include.

Seems GW has absolutely no problems with the number of Detachments a player uses to make his army.

Of Course they don't. Right now GW is all about picking winners and losers and catering towards Min/Maxers. One of the best ways to do that is to encourage convoluted armies with the best parts of every Codex. Here is a list that took 2nd place at a big tourney the other day:

Spoiler:

Brett Perkins - Various Factions
Tau CAD
fireblade
2x5 strike team
Ta'unar supremacy suit (triaxis ion cannonx2, pulse ordnance multidriver)
imperial bunker with (escape hatch, 1 x barricade)

CAD Renegades of Vraks
Command squad covenant of nurgle warlord carapace armor
20 plague zombies
19 plague zombies
29 plague zombies
2xwyvern

Assassin detachment:
Cullexus

Inquisition detachment:
Coteaz
2x(2 x acolyte; 1 psyker)

Daemon CAD:
Fateweaver
2x3 Nurglings

When I saw that list all I could think is "This guy gets it. He understands 7th edition, and is totally on board with what GW is trying to do." GW wishes we all played that way, except without the points. When we try to build cohesive forces with limited sources and few detachments, GW is shaking their head thinking we are playing their game wrong.

Brett is a friend of mine, and he plays to win, and GW is 100% on board with that.

Zero part of this list looks "fun" to play against, which I would argue is an exact COUNTER to what GW wants. You don't get to decide how "fun" is defined, so things need to be reeled back a bit.

Looks fun to me. We play nasty stuff all of the time. I still have loads of fun, even playing my "noncompetitive" sisters. Perhaps you shouldn't be attempting to define fun by asking them to reel things back

 Cephalobeard wrote:

tag8833 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
From page 118 of the main rulebook:

There is no limit to the number of Detachments a Battle-forged army can include.

Seems GW has absolutely no problems with the number of Detachments a player uses to make his army.

Of Course they don't. Right now GW is all about picking winners and losers and catering towards Min/Maxers. One of the best ways to do that is to encourage convoluted armies with the best parts of every Codex. Here is a list that took 2nd place at a big tourney the other day:

Spoiler:

Brett Perkins - Various Factions
Tau CAD
fireblade
2x5 strike team
Ta'unar supremacy suit (triaxis ion cannonx2, pulse ordnance multidriver)
imperial bunker with (escape hatch, 1 x barricade)

CAD Renegades of Vraks
Command squad covenant of nurgle warlord carapace armor
20 plague zombies
19 plague zombies
29 plague zombies
2xwyvern

Assassin detachment:
Cullexus

Inquisition detachment:
Coteaz
2x(2 x acolyte; 1 psyker)

Daemon CAD:
Fateweaver
2x3 Nurglings

When I saw that list all I could think is "This guy gets it. He understands 7th edition, and is totally on board with what GW is trying to do." GW wishes we all played that way, except without the points. When we try to build cohesive forces with limited sources and few detachments, GW is shaking their head thinking we are playing their game wrong.

Brett is a friend of mine, and he plays to win, and GW is 100% on board with that.

Zero part of this list looks "fun" to play against, which I would argue is an exact COUNTER to what GW wants. You don't get to decide how "fun" is defined, so things need to be reeled back a bit.

That list looks fine to play against, because you can interact with everything in it.

2 or more Wraithknights are not fun to play against and you don't need to even cheese detachments to achieve it. Deathstars only require minimal detachment shenanigans depending on your faction and they are unfun as hell. The things that are unfun are the things that remove interaction from one side or another - a GC or Deathstar that you can't kill is unfun, because you're just trying to move your models around ineffectually while your opponent murders you. Tau and Eldar feel unfun for many people because they shoot you from beyond your range, so you do nothing but move and get shot.

You'll note that most complaints of unfun or OP come from a lack of interaction or reaction from the side of one player or the other, but of course that's also the best way to win games. Unlimited Detachments doesn't in and of itself remove interactivity, but it does open up doorways for more armies to create non-interactive armies.

Versatilebeats wrote:
Got my copy last night. I love it. I can finally run the inquisition how I wanted to like a joint task force mission of all 3 with supporting military branches. (Currently I only have deathwatch/inquisition)

The jakeros got better. What the monkeys got better? Yes they did. On a roll of 6 or more you get to choose 2 options instead of rolling. That's right last night my laser cannons were shooting 60" and my acolytes were saving on 2+
I need more monkeys.

While underpowered compared to all your vehicles are free last night I was able form a force like I wanted to.

can you still attach the monkeys to the acolytes without having to play the henchmen formation

 Mr Morden wrote:
I can only see episode 173 on that site?

accursed cohost/page manager. Sorry. I'll flog him.
http://traffic.libsyn.com/combatphase/Ep_175_-_Codex_Imperial_Agents__KoW_Masters.mp3

We talk news, hobby and games played. We discuss and initial review (as revealing as we can be at this early stage) then Kris Kapsner joins us for KoW