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.
2018/11/08 18:18:00
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
Reemule wrote: I kind of liked BOLS idea that all adeptus astarts gain reroll Armor save rolls of 1.
I agree, this game has not enough rerolls.
Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis!
2018/11/08 18:44:54
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
Hordes being too durable is an old dakka meme who has been proven mathematically false times and times again.
Take guardsmen at 4 points out of the picture, and you magically discover that no one has issues killing hormagaunts in an efficent way.
A bolter is more efficent against an hormagaunt than against a tac marine, and we are talking about a model that is commonly considered overpriced for it's durability.
If you consider S3 weapons then the comparison becomes ludicrous.
Cultist fair a bit better, but are butchered by morale.
No one really has trouble killing models.
The issue is that the units don't flee. Cultists have terrible morale, but are almost always pinned up by Abaddon.
People can take weapons that chew through them quickly, but then those weapons go through marines even faster than that.
So, what then is the incentive for using marines?
Note that I'm not taking a stance here, but just clarifying the points.
Yes - exactly my point.
I dont think we will see a fix for this in in CA2018. I see a lot of people say that tac's need to be cheaper, but SM isn't supposed to be a horde army.
The idea of making some weapons getting more shots against larger groups (like the demolisher cannon) would be an interesting approach if that mechanic was pushed out to more weapons.... but would that balance out or just nuke horde armies into oblivion?
No Pity! No Remorse! No fear!
2018/11/08 19:50:06
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
Hordes being too durable is an old dakka meme who has been proven mathematically false times and times again.
Take guardsmen at 4 points out of the picture, and you magically discover that no one has issues killing hormagaunts in an efficent way.
A bolter is more efficent against an hormagaunt than against a tac marine, and we are talking about a model that is commonly considered overpriced for it's durability.
If you consider S3 weapons then the comparison becomes ludicrous.
Cultist fair a bit better, but are butchered by morale.
No one really has trouble killing models.
The issue is that the units don't flee. Cultists have terrible morale, but are almost always pinned up by Abaddon.
People can take weapons that chew through them quickly, but then those weapons go through marines even faster than that.
So, what then is the incentive for using marines?
Note that I'm not taking a stance here, but just clarifying the points.
Yes - exactly my point.
Except that this is simply not true.
Those weapons kill more points of hordes than of marines, that's the common misconception that you see around. Hordes are more durable than marines only when you go full dakkadakka and say that hordes=guardsmen, because only guardsmen suffer from a bolter less than a marine.
Seriously, run the math against the common cheap infantries like kabalites, guardians, hormagaunts, boyz, fire warriors and so on. They all suffer from the bolter more than a tac marine, and tac marines suck!
Also, saying "Cultists are immune to morale because there is always Abaddon", is like saying "Tac marines are fine because there is always GMan".
2018/11/08 20:08:06
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
khabs and gardians are glass. They an an infantry that costs a lot more. Fire warriors are different.
10 bolters kills a little over 1 marine
or 3 GEQ or about 2 4+GEQ
The points lost are almost equivalent.
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
2018/11/08 20:21:15
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
I dunno.
1 13ppm model vs 3 8ppm models isn't close.
1 13ppm model vs 2 12ppm models isn't close.
1 13ppm model vs 3 4ppm models *is* close - but that's the worst it gets: guardsmen.
2018/11/08 20:44:26
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
Those weapons kill more points of hordes than of marines, that's the common misconception that you see around. Hordes are more durable than marines only when you go full dakkadakka and say that hordes=guardsmen, because only guardsmen suffer from a bolter less than a marine.
Seriously, run the math against the common cheap infantries like kabalites, guardians, hormagaunts, boyz, fire warriors and so on. They all suffer from the bolter more than a tac marine, and tac marines suck!
Also, saying "Cultists are immune to morale because there is always Abaddon", is like saying "Tac marines are fine because there is always GMan".
You're materially correct about bolters. Also, doing this exercise makes me thing IS should be 6 points ( )
I think it comes down to the density of weapons.
5 point IS bring 26 lasguns and kill 19 points of tacs -- doubled in half -- doubled again for FRFSRF.
10 tacs bring 10 bolters and kill 15 points of 5 point IS -- doubled in half.
6 point IS bring 22 lasguns and kill 16 points of tacs.
10 tacs kill 18 points of 6 point IS -- doubled in half.
18 shootas kill 30 points of marines.
10 tacs kill 19 points of boyz.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/08 20:46:39
2018/11/08 20:50:51
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
That's a horrible idea because the 40k playerbase consists of just too many crybabies who are either never ever happy, or completely blind to any actual balance (see point where I argued people all through 6th and 7th that the riptide wasn't nearly as broken as they thought at the only issue was specifically the ion accelerator blast profile, and later the riptide wing-backed by mathematical proof that the HBC variant, or the IA without the non-NOVA blast was actually a pretty bad dakka platform)
And GW knows it. they know that any "beta" they could do will be muddied by people who just CANNOT BE PLEASED. they will whine about things in their favorite faction being under-powered even when its mathematically just fine or even slightly above curve, and will whine about things being outright OP even when math proves they are in the lower end of the curve if they come from a faction they dislike.
Its impossible to please everyone and trying to do so only makes things worse.
NOW, back to the question of GK-yes, they are having a serious issue.
But the issue is NOT in power level, or point costs, or unit variety or any of these. these are the symptoms and not the actual issue.
The issue-the real issue-is that they have an identity crisis.
On one hand, its supposed to be an anti-daemon specialist taskforce.
On the other, they are trying to make it a TAC "standard" army (because people demand it)
And the two just CANNOT co-exist. they can be either anti-daemon specialists, or a "TAC magic marine" army. any attempt to do both will result in disaster, either its just WAY too good against daemons and fine against all else, or fine (with a decent yet not overwhelming advantage) against daemons yet utterly underpowered anywhere else.
TAC wants to be "fair against everyone", but then you threw the flavor of anti-daemon specialists out the window.
Specialists wants to be the best at one thing and not good at others.
Both is impossible.
On my opinion? the only way GK are getting "fixed", is if they decide to either throw away the fluff and make them generic "magic marines", or embrace the long-standing age of IoM being the army rather than individual codex and give them true specialist abilities-GREAT against daemons, but weak otherwise. let them be the specialists they are meant to be.
No IoM "codex" has to be stand-alone viable these days. it just needs a reason to exist by having teamups that makes it viable. even if GK are only viable as a secondary force to a bigger IoM army-they are still a thing. a tool in the IoM toolbox.
As for the rest of the rant.
Yes, there IS a lot of unreasonable hate.
GW are not gods, and making a perfectly balanced game is not hard, its outright impossible.
CA2018 fixed a LOT, and improved MUCH. claiming it fixed nothing is being dishoest.
And yes, it didn't fix everything. heck it barely changed anything from the codcies and was mostly index changes-BECUASE IT WAS PRINTED LONG BEFORE MOST CODCIES WERE RELEASED.
If anyone thought, for a second, that CA17 is going to fix GK, he was a fool. there was barely any time, if any, from the release of the GK codex to the printing of CA. and the GK codex-when standing alone in front of the "first four", was totally fine-its the later codcies that showed just how troubled the GK codex was, and by THAT point, it was FAR too late. and CA17 had a lot of ground to cover anyway.
And no, they wont FAQ fix it. you don't do sweeping changes in an FAQ unless something is inherently broken. being weak is not breaking the game. even on the strong scale of things they only made small adjustments because doing otherwise is insane.
The general FAQ did not "nerf" the GK. they were adversely effected by changes that were overall very healthy to the game. the fact they got weaker from it was an unintended side effect of fixing glaring issues that GK happened to be using, but heck other armies made FAR more use of these anyway. comparatively speaking, GK got improved by others taking bigger blows.
Now, will CA18 "fix" GK?
I doubt it. its just not the place to make sweeping changes, and as said point costs CANNOT fix the inherit problem of GK. there simply isn't a point level that could make them fair.
The next iritation of their codex, who I expect to hit at least a year away from now if not two, THAT could fix. because by that point GW had a lot of time to learn how 8th works in the actual field, and experiment with other marine variants to have a better idea what sticks, what doesn't and how to work the numbers and playstyles. at that point GW might be able to give GK a new outlook that might work.
But they are probably afraid to do so, because if you shift towards TAC, you anger the fluff faction that like their GK to be anti-daemon, and if you go the specialists route you anger the "everything must TAC!" crowd. there is just no way to please everyone and they WILL be faced with backlash either way they go, quite possibly more backlash than simply doing nothing (and doing nothing is CHEAP
Points and rules aren't the problem, but identity is Really that is the GK problem. Give me NDKS that are costed like a castellan with support stratagems, and no GK player will any identity problems.
General FAQ didn't nerf GK? Are you serious. look up all the articles or what the testers for GK said about the codex durning review. The thing that comes back over and over again is the ability to deep strike turn 1, shunt turn one etc. The razorback and storm raven nerfs were put there to kill the guillman list right? well GK didn't have anything like him, they were not winning any tournaments. And saying that other armies got hit harder, is a bogus argument to make. A BA army can still build a gunline, it will be worse then a loyalist or DA gunline. But it will work, it won't win huge tournaments, but it will work. A GK army does not work. I don't know what GW were thinking when they worked on weapon costs for GK gear. The nemezi weapons on models with so few A, and no real way to buff speed should be 0pts. The psycannons are describe as super powerful weapons that blast demon princes, and they are d1 with few shots and are -1to hit if you move lol.
And the argument that they can't make a faction powerful or good, because it will break game balance is laughable considering they are doing nothing with eldar. They don't even nerf their OP units, they just change them a bit, but they still get used. The rule of 3 was put there to stop reaper spam, only when it went live, eldar players were already running 2-3 such units.
Ah and about the supposed super influencial GK fluff faction of people, that want their GK bad, have you ever actually seen one of those people, even online? Or are they like the iluminati?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Earth127 wrote: I think most GK players would be fine with them being "TS loyalists" gameplay Wise. Lean into the psychics.
I think they would not care what the army does as long as it doesn't require two things 3000$ and FW models to run them, AND the army is good. It could be a spam list based around 15 NDKs of different types, and if it worked people would be happier then what there is now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/08 20:57:12
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2018/11/08 21:11:28
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
Please give Lukas access to a Jump Pack!
Lukas only ever kills one thing then gets left behind with his 6” movement. I’d be delighted to cough up the extra to have Lukas mobile.
Speaking of options, options for Primaris units would be cool.
I don't break the rules but I'll bend them as far as they'll go.
2018/11/08 21:49:49
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
Reemule wrote: That goes back to where the game needed to have weapons that scale that don't hurt marines as much.
Like if Flamers were 1d6 shots per 5 models in the target unit.
+1 to wound mechanics exist in this game, is there any reason why power armor couldn't apply a -1 to wound rolls if the weapon is say S4 or lower? Thus more accurately representing the marines of the fluff.
Wounding marines on a 6+
Lasguns
Autoguns
All S3 Melee attacks
And reducing S4 Chainswords and combat blades, as well as other bolters to a 5+ to wound, rather than a 4+?
2018/11/08 22:03:40
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
Reemule wrote: That goes back to where the game needed to have weapons that scale that don't hurt marines as much.
Like if Flamers were 1d6 shots per 5 models in the target unit.
+1 to wound mechanics exist in this game, is there any reason why power armor couldn't apply a -1 to wound rolls if the weapon is say S4 or lower? Thus more accurately representing the marines of the fluff.
Wounding marines on a 6+
Lasguns
Autoguns
All S3 Melee attacks
And reducing S4 Chainswords and combat blades, as well as other bolters to a 5+ to wound, rather than a 4+?
Alright, so what about hot-shot lasguns? Those are supposed to be armour killers. But that make this much harder.
If the truth can destroy it, then it deserves to be destroyed.
2018/11/08 22:06:39
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
Reemule wrote: That goes back to where the game needed to have weapons that scale that don't hurt marines as much.
Like if Flamers were 1d6 shots per 5 models in the target unit.
+1 to wound mechanics exist in this game, is there any reason why power armor couldn't apply a -1 to wound rolls if the weapon is say S4 or lower? Thus more accurately representing the marines of the fluff.
Wounding marines on a 6+
Lasguns
Autoguns
All S3 Melee attacks
And reducing S4 Chainswords and combat blades, as well as other bolters to a 5+ to wound, rather than a 4+?
Alright, so what about hot-shot lasguns? Those are supposed to be armour killers. But that make this much harder.
Not at all, they're still AP-3, ignoring armor, which is what they're supposed to do.
2018/11/08 22:10:11
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
I don't think Space Marine tacticals need to be harder to wound.
They just need to be cheaper. 1 or 2 points would improve their firepower/toughness density to acceptable levels [or more precisely, save 5-10 points on a 5-wound Lascannon].
Really, I don't feel that the tacticals need a lot of change. I'd like to see buffs to the support assets, like Predators, Vindicators, and Whirlwinds so that they can do the heavy lifting they should.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/08 22:11:45
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
2018/11/08 22:12:25
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
The basic Marine in power armour is okay defensively (I think it should be 12 points but ymmv) - but he has the shooting of a unit which costs half as much. So he is crap. The more marines with bolters in your army, the worse it is.
A marine carrying a plasma gun or something similar actually has okay (still not great due to codex creep, but okay) damage - but now he is 25-40 points per wound in a game where there are countless things that will mow him down with ease. You get the GK issue. A strike marine's offensive output is probably worth 21 points - but he has the defensive abilities of a 12 point unit. Consequently they are far too fragile.
Boosting power armour may help the above - but it will not make basic tacticals/CSM/assault marines etc who have crap offensive abilities any more viable.
2018/11/08 22:35:32
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
I recently realized that the ork codex 'gets hot' equivalent weapons only ever cause mortal wounds on a UNMODIFIED roll of 1.
So, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that gets incorporated into all weapons game-wide. Because it's frankly silly that your plasma guns get more unreliable if its dark out of if your opponent is fast.
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment." Words to live by.
2018/11/08 22:37:59
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
Kap'n Krump wrote: I recently realized that the ork codex 'gets hot' equivalent weapons only ever cause mortal wounds on a UNMODIFIED roll of 1.
So, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that gets incorporated into all weapons game-wide. Because it's frankly silly that your plasma guns get more unreliable if its dark out of if your opponent is fast.
Kap'n Krump wrote: I recently realized that the ork codex 'gets hot' equivalent weapons only ever cause mortal wounds on a UNMODIFIED roll of 1.
So, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that gets incorporated into all weapons game-wide. Because it's frankly silly that your plasma guns get more unreliable if its dark out of if your opponent is fast.
That's an interesting find, and would certainly shake things up. Dark Angels 3 & 4 damage plasma would suddenly become pretty solid.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2018/11/08 23:24:19
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
Those weapons kill more points of hordes than of marines, that's the common misconception that you see around. Hordes are more durable than marines only when you go full dakkadakka and say that hordes=guardsmen, because only guardsmen suffer from a bolter less than a marine.
Seriously, run the math against the common cheap infantries like kabalites, guardians, hormagaunts, boyz, fire warriors and so on. They all suffer from the bolter more than a tac marine, and tac marines suck!
Also, saying "Cultists are immune to morale because there is always Abaddon", is like saying "Tac marines are fine because there is always GMan".
You're materially correct about bolters. Also, doing this exercise makes me thing IS should be 6 points ( )
I think it comes down to the density of weapons.
5 point IS bring 26 lasguns and kill 19 points of tacs -- doubled in half -- doubled again for FRFSRF.
10 tacs bring 10 bolters and kill 15 points of 5 point IS -- doubled in half.
6 point IS bring 22 lasguns and kill 16 points of tacs.
10 tacs kill 18 points of 6 point IS -- doubled in half.
18 shootas kill 30 points of marines.
10 tacs kill 19 points of boyz.
I've been saying for a long time that 6 ppm guardsmen is not crazy.
2018/11/08 23:32:41
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
Kap'n Krump wrote: I recently realized that the ork codex 'gets hot' equivalent weapons only ever cause mortal wounds on a UNMODIFIED roll of 1.
So, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that gets incorporated into all weapons game-wide. Because it's frankly silly that your plasma guns get more unreliable if its dark out of if your opponent is fast.
That's an interesting find, and would certainly shake things up. Dark Angels 3 & 4 damage plasma would suddenly become pretty solid.
Indeed. My Redemptor Dreadnought would be happy as well to be able to move and fire his plasma without burning himself. And yes most importantly my Hellblasters would be way more dangerous against those -1 or more to hit units.
40K: Adeptus Mechanicus
AoS: Nighthaunts
2018/11/08 23:40:55
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
That's a horrible idea because the 40k playerbase consists of just too many crybabies who are either never ever happy, or completely blind to any actual balance (see point where I argued people all through 6th and 7th that the riptide wasn't nearly as broken as they thought at the only issue was specifically the ion accelerator blast profile, and later the riptide wing-backed by mathematical proof that the HBC variant, or the IA without the non-NOVA blast was actually a pretty bad dakka platform)
And GW knows it. they know that any "beta" they could do will be muddied by people who just CANNOT BE PLEASED. they will whine about things in their favorite faction being under-powered even when its mathematically just fine or even slightly above curve, and will whine about things being outright OP even when math proves they are in the lower end of the curve if they come from a faction they dislike.
Its impossible to please everyone and trying to do so only makes things worse.
NOW, back to the question of GK-yes, they are having a serious issue.
But the issue is NOT in power level, or point costs, or unit variety or any of these. these are the symptoms and not the actual issue.
The issue-the real issue-is that they have an identity crisis.
On one hand, its supposed to be an anti-daemon specialist taskforce.
On the other, they are trying to make it a TAC "standard" army (because people demand it)
And the two just CANNOT co-exist. they can be either anti-daemon specialists, or a "TAC magic marine" army. any attempt to do both will result in disaster, either its just WAY too good against daemons and fine against all else, or fine (with a decent yet not overwhelming advantage) against daemons yet utterly underpowered anywhere else.
TAC wants to be "fair against everyone", but then you threw the flavor of anti-daemon specialists out the window.
Specialists wants to be the best at one thing and not good at others.
Both is impossible.
On my opinion? the only way GK are getting "fixed", is if they decide to either throw away the fluff and make them generic "magic marines", or embrace the long-standing age of IoM being the army rather than individual codex and give them true specialist abilities-GREAT against daemons, but weak otherwise. let them be the specialists they are meant to be.
No IoM "codex" has to be stand-alone viable these days. it just needs a reason to exist by having teamups that makes it viable. even if GK are only viable as a secondary force to a bigger IoM army-they are still a thing. a tool in the IoM toolbox.
As for the rest of the rant.
Yes, there IS a lot of unreasonable hate.
GW are not gods, and making a perfectly balanced game is not hard, its outright impossible.
CA2018 fixed a LOT, and improved MUCH. claiming it fixed nothing is being dishoest.
And yes, it didn't fix everything. heck it barely changed anything from the codcies and was mostly index changes-BECUASE IT WAS PRINTED LONG BEFORE MOST CODCIES WERE RELEASED.
If anyone thought, for a second, that CA17 is going to fix GK, he was a fool. there was barely any time, if any, from the release of the GK codex to the printing of CA. and the GK codex-when standing alone in front of the "first four", was totally fine-its the later codcies that showed just how troubled the GK codex was, and by THAT point, it was FAR too late. and CA17 had a lot of ground to cover anyway.
And no, they wont FAQ fix it. you don't do sweeping changes in an FAQ unless something is inherently broken. being weak is not breaking the game. even on the strong scale of things they only made small adjustments because doing otherwise is insane.
The general FAQ did not "nerf" the GK. they were adversely effected by changes that were overall very healthy to the game. the fact they got weaker from it was an unintended side effect of fixing glaring issues that GK happened to be using, but heck other armies made FAR more use of these anyway. comparatively speaking, GK got improved by others taking bigger blows.
Now, will CA18 "fix" GK?
I doubt it. its just not the place to make sweeping changes, and as said point costs CANNOT fix the inherit problem of GK. there simply isn't a point level that could make them fair.
The next iritation of their codex, who I expect to hit at least a year away from now if not two, THAT could fix. because by that point GW had a lot of time to learn how 8th works in the actual field, and experiment with other marine variants to have a better idea what sticks, what doesn't and how to work the numbers and playstyles. at that point GW might be able to give GK a new outlook that might work.
But they are probably afraid to do so, because if you shift towards TAC, you anger the fluff faction that like their GK to be anti-daemon, and if you go the specialists route you anger the "everything must TAC!" crowd. there is just no way to please everyone and they WILL be faced with backlash either way they go, quite possibly more backlash than simply doing nothing (and doing nothing is CHEAP
Points and rules aren't the problem, but identity is Really that is the GK problem. Give me NDKS that are costed like a castellan with support stratagems, and no GK player will any identity problems.
General FAQ didn't nerf GK? Are you serious. look up all the articles or what the testers for GK said about the codex durning review. The thing that comes back over and over again is the ability to deep strike turn 1, shunt turn one etc. The razorback and storm raven nerfs were put there to kill the guillman list right? well GK didn't have anything like him, they were not winning any tournaments. And saying that other armies got hit harder, is a bogus argument to make. A BA army can still build a gunline, it will be worse then a loyalist or DA gunline. But it will work, it won't win huge tournaments, but it will work. A GK army does not work. I don't know what GW were thinking when they worked on weapon costs for GK gear. The nemezi weapons on models with so few A, and no real way to buff speed should be 0pts. The psycannons are describe as super powerful weapons that blast demon princes, and they are d1 with few shots and are -1to hit if you move lol.
And the argument that they can't make a faction powerful or good, because it will break game balance is laughable considering they are doing nothing with eldar. They don't even nerf their OP units, they just change them a bit, but they still get used. The rule of 3 was put there to stop reaper spam, only when it went live, eldar players were already running 2-3 such units.
Ah and about the supposed super influencial GK fluff faction of people, that want their GK bad, have you ever actually seen one of those people, even online? Or are they like the iluminati?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Earth127 wrote: I think most GK players would be fine with them being "TS loyalists" gameplay Wise. Lean into the psychics.
I think they would not care what the army does as long as it doesn't require two things 3000$ and FW models to run them, AND the army is good. It could be a spam list based around 15 NDKs of different types, and if it worked people would be happier then what there is now.
*sigh*
Quote from the Daemonhunters Codex, p 21."Note that it is entirely possible to form an army base purely around Grey Knights, if you so wish, by sticking to the Grey Knights units available to the army. This will make for a characterful but rather challenging force to play. With such dedication you'll certainly have the Emperor watching over you!"
That's a really important quote that explains a lot about Grey Knights players. There are a lot of people angry that their army just doesn't work well stand alone. The way to understand their complaints is: "I'm very angry that Matt Ward no longer works for GW and this is no longer 5th edition."
It's very unlikely those complaints will ever be dealt with via a rules change. What I hope CA does to fix this class of problem is:
1) Include that same disclaimer, in large bold letters, on the first page of the book.
2) Add a pre-game phase for games of Warhammer 40k to confirm both players have read and understand that statement before placing units on the table.
There's another class of Grey Knights player, someone a little more reasonable and less prone to anger over nostalgia. That player looks at the mechanics of the army to see what can be improved. That person would probably be satisfied if CA did the following:
1) Gave GK full smite instead of baby smite.
2) Made the heavy weapons more powerful, because right now they are not worth taking.
3) Restored Parry and other rules for Nemesis Force Weapons.
4) Made Terminator invulnerable saves rerollable.
5) Made Vortex of Doom able to target any model in 18 inches.
6) Made that Daemon stratagem that allows a Daemon to return from the warp once per game.
I'd be very happy if Chapter Approved gave us that.
GK need more than that. They'd still get run over with those changes. Although targeted Vortex would make Voldus an include in the typical supreme command librarian force.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2018/11/08 23:59:11
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
iGuy91 wrote: You love the T-Rex. Its both a hero and a Villain in the first two movies. It is the "king" of dinosaurs. Its the best. You love your T-rex.
Then comes along the frakking Spinosaurus who kills the T-rex, and the movie says "LOVE THIS NOW! HE IS BETTER" But...in your heart, you love the T-rex, who shouldn't have lost to no stupid Spinosaurus. So you hate the movie. And refuse to love the Spinosaurus because it is a hamfisted attempt at taking what you loved, making it TREX +++ and trying to sell you it.
Elbows wrote: You know what's better than a psychic phase? A psychic phase which asks customers to buy more miniatures...
the_scotsman wrote: Dae think the company behind such names as deathwatch death guard deathskullz death marks death korps deathleaper death jester might be bad at naming?
2018/11/09 00:12:54
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
Karol you have completely and utterly missed the point in my post.
ALL of them.
And inserted a few points that are not there.
techsoldaten you are also missing a vital point there, and are trying to handle the sympoms rather than the issue.
GK, as they are, are not fixable.
They CANT have a fair point cost, they are either overcosted, or the erase daemons (and much of CSM/TS/DG) off the game by virtue of being just as good as marines, except bitch-slapping any daemon units.
If they are fair against eldar (or orks, or nids, whatever-its a random example), they are outright broken against chaos factions because of how they are designed.
The only way to fix THAT is to make them not any better against daemons than against anything else-but at that point they shouldn't EXIST, as their entire shtick is supposed to be counter-daemon specialist taskforce.
The entire codex needs to be written up from the ground up, and a desicion HAS to be made-are they specialist or not. you cant manage a Schrodinger scenario.
can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now.
2018/11/09 00:25:47
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
Grey Knights should never have been a stand alone codex. That was a mistake. They should have stayed as Daemonhunters. That way you could have your super-specialized demon killers supported by more generalist elements. Grey Knights becoming stand alone is an example of why you shouldn't always listen to fans, along with Super Heavy Vehicles in normal games and aircraft. I'm sure some group of players along the line thought how cool it would be to have common access to those units. I remember people from my old FLGS saying stuff like that, years before 6th showed up.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/09 00:27:57
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
2018/11/09 00:27:38
Subject: Chapter Approved 2018, What do we expect?
)
Really that is the 
can neither confirm nor deny I lost track of what I've got right now. 
~4100
~1660
