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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

ERJAK wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^I think he means the Daemon Lord of Change, named KJFHAJKFHSDK?JSDH

Oh yeah. That's probably the best nickname for it.

Yeah the Greater Daemons weren't done terribly well I'll admit that.

The FW indexes were done so abysmally that it started an entire new wave of 'ban all forgeworld forever' because several of their units were the most woefully busted things in 8th, several more just straight up didn't function ROW, and the rest were terrible crap. Turns out when they have to write rules for a game that has more than one army in it, they're actually worse than GW prime.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

meleti wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^I think he means the Daemon Lord of Change, named KJFHAJKFHSDK?JSDH

Also lovingly known as Big Bird.

I thought it was 'super chicken'

Outside Malefic Lords (where the problem is actually how Smite was implemented and what it did), what else was busted?

The big bird as they said, then you have the artemia hellhounds which are 100% busted and still not fixed.
Elysian forces were broken.

I mean just look at the tyranids:

Meiotic spores were 100% better than index spores.
Malanthrope before nerf was ultra OP.
Stonecrusher fex was 100% better than index fexes.

Pretty much every non LoW in there was out of reality with the rest of the faction, and i can't speak for the LoWs just because tyranids don't have those outside of FW so i can't make comparisons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Regarding D&D comparison, i don't think that it is a good one.
40K is a competitive game, D&D is a collaboration game. I don't care if the fighter in my group fights better than my rogue, he is in my team and the DM will provide the group with enough situations where my thief is important.
In D&D having a character that is fun to play is the only thing that matters, nothing else.
After all having a broken pg is completely useless, i can have a godlike char rules wise, but if the char is still a lvl 7 figher, the DM will have it behave as a lvl 7 fighter by acting here and there in the background.
In 40K there are rules, in D&D there are guidelines.The first rule of D&D is "The DM can't cheat" he is a super partes moderator whose sole objective is to make the game more fun for everyone, so whatever he does supercedes the rules by definition.

In 40K you have no DM at the table and there are winning conditions, so the rules have to be tight and balanced.

Disclaimer: 40K is a competitive game in its literal meaning, in that you have 2 opponents facing, not that it is tournament oriented.

 Peregrine wrote:
(And TBH, your hypothetical army of mass scions isn't fluffy anyway. At a game size where RO3 matters at all you should have a small scions force fighting alongside other units, not a horde of them with nothing else.)

Please, tell me of how a scion regiment is unfluffy considering that GW has named scion regiments in the fluff, and that they were designed as a standalone army within an army, with their own doctrines.

 Peregrine wrote:

Yes, I mean an infantry heavy weapons battalion/support battallion led by officers, with only a couple of IS for screens. Super fragile, not remotely OP, and yet a pretty fluffy army made impossible by the rule of 3.

That isn't how IG armies work fluff-wise. Heavy weapons are allocated within infantry companies, you don't have an entire force of nothing but heavy weapon squads. And infantry companies fight alongside tanks/aircraft/etc, you should rarely, if ever, have a force of nothing but infantry. And TBH I'm glad this nonsense is excluded from the game, it would be an incredibly boring army to play with or against. You set up your gunline of spammed heavy weapons and roll dice each turn until someone loses. At no point would anything interesting happen in this "game", it would be a pure exercise in dice rolling.

Heavy weapons are allocated within infantry companies in combined arms regiments or light infantry regiments. There are however, heavy weapons formations that are company/battalion sized, they are usually parceled out peicemeal to other infantry formations, but not always. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_company

Spoletta wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

ERJAK wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^I think he means the Daemon Lord of Change, named KJFHAJKFHSDK?JSDH

Oh yeah. That's probably the best nickname for it.

Yeah the Greater Daemons weren't done terribly well I'll admit that.

The FW indexes were done so abysmally that it started an entire new wave of 'ban all forgeworld forever' because several of their units were the most woefully busted things in 8th, several more just straight up didn't function ROW, and the rest were terrible crap. Turns out when they have to write rules for a game that has more than one army in it, they're actually worse than GW prime.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

meleti wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^I think he means the Daemon Lord of Change, named KJFHAJKFHSDK?JSDH

Also lovingly known as Big Bird.

I thought it was 'super chicken'

Outside Malefic Lords (where the problem is actually how Smite was implemented and what it did), what else was busted?

The big bird as they said, then you have the artemia hellhounds which are 100% busted and still not fixed.
Elysian forces were broken.

I mean just look at the tyranids:

Meiotic spores were 100% better than index spores.
Malanthrope before nerf was ultra OP.
Stonecrusher fex was 100% better than index fexes.

Pretty much every non LoW in there was out of reality with the rest of the faction, and i can't speak for the LoWs just because tyranids don't have those outside of FW so i can't make comparisons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Regarding D&D comparison, i don't think that it is a good one.
40K is a competitive game, D&D is a collaboration game. I don't care if the fighter in my group fights better than my rogue, he is in my team and the DM will provide the group with enough situations where my thief is important.
In D&D having a character that is fun to play is the only thing that matters, nothing else.
After all having a broken pg is completely useless, i can have a godlike char rules wise, but if the char is still a lvl 7 figher, the DM will have it behave as a lvl 7 fighter by acting here and there in the background.
In 40K there are rules, in D&D there are guidelines.The first rule of D&D is "The DM can't cheat" he is a super partes moderator whose sole objective is to make the game more fun for everyone, so whatever he does supercedes the rules by definition.

In 40K you have no DM at the table and there are winning conditions, so the rules have to be tight and balanced.

Disclaimer: 40K is a competitive game in its literal meaning, in that you have 2 opponents facing, not that it is tournament oriented.

I'm curious as to why the Elysians were broken? They were more expensive than normal guard? So paid for there regiment doctrines rather than having them free. They are also pretty fragile, a glass hammer really. And while deep striking plasma is good, no denying that, they loose out on options. They also lost an entire army list which is no longer playable, the D99. Which invalidated the whole you'll be able to play your armies in 8th. Prior to the various rule changes like one commander per command squad and rule of 3. You could get something close with normal Elysians, but not anymore.

Also normal Elysians have been nerfed a few times with the general guard nerfs and the crazy point increases to forgeworld flyers that aren't the vulture, basically the antitank ones. Also with limited unit choices the rule of 3 impacts them a fair amount.

We can, and forever will be able to, argue whether FW or GW is worse at rules writing this edition, but, it’s completely pointless and will keep going around in circles. At the end of the day, at least we can say that they are fixing things, albeit slowly via CA.

I do agree that banning FW though is pretty pointless and is mainly based off historical feelings rather than anything else. Yes, some units are “more efficient” than others, just like how it is with GW. But, until we see a majority FW list start winning multiple majors, it really is nothing more than prejudice.

I’m personally interested in the potentially implications of the 3rd Vigilus short story released yesterday. It essentially revolves around a squad of Reivers assaulting from a Valkyrie and then re-embarking on them, along with something about the “Vox Terribilis” detailing how the line between what is a Guard/Navy/Marine transport becoming blurred.
Now, this could just become a thing via the Vigilus campaign books, or it could potentially be in CA. However, there remains a good chance it is nothing more than fluff and won’t make it to the tabletop.

w1zard wrote:
Please, tell me of how a scion regiment is unfluffy considering that GW has named scion regiments in the fluff, and that they were designed as a standalone army within an army, with their own doctrines.

An all-scion army at the point where RO3 becomes relevant is un-fluffy. All-scion army at 500 points? Great, it's an elite unit attacking a vital objective. 200 scions and nothing else? Dumb as hell, they don't fight as a human wave assault with no support against an enemy that is bringing tanks/artillery/etc. At that point you should have a force of them next to conventional IG units so they can continue to be the elite strike force within the army.

Heavy weapons are allocated within infantry companies in combined arms regiments or light infantry regiments. There are however, heavy weapons formations that are company/battalion sized, they are usually parceled out peicemeal to other infantry formations, but not always. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_company

Real life is not 40k. In the 40k fluff IG heavy weapon platoons are part of infantry companies, providing support to the core of infantry squads. You don't have a whole company of heavy weapons deployed with a token force of screening infantry. Maybe you'd have a whole company of heavy weapons in an Apocalypse-scale game where that 2000 points of heavy weapons is next to 3000 points of infantry, 5000 points of Baneblades, an artillery company or three, etc. But 1800 points of HWS in a 2000 point game? No.

(And, as I said, this army would be boring as hell to play with or against. Even if you can find a rare example of it existing somewhere in the fluff it's such a stupid thing from a gameplay point of view that it shouldn't be legal.)

This thread has been a hilarious read. So many people need one or more of the following reality checks:
* Themed and Fluffy are not the same thing.
* Fluffy and balanced are not the same thing
* Themed and balanced are not the same thing
* MSU is not fluffy
* Spam is not fluffy
* Equally balanced armies on both sides of an engagement is not fluffy
* Matched Play and Organised Play are not the same thing
* 'Rule of 3' scales on game size
* Rule of 3 is for Organised Play, not for all Matched Play
* For a number of editions it was impossible to take more than 3 of a unit outside of troops. Rule of 3 is not a new concept even if it's been implemented in a new way.
* Matched Play is not the only way to play
* Matched Play is intended to increase balance as compared with Open or Narrative play. It is impossible to increase balance without SOME sacrifices.
* You cannot allow every possible combination of every possible unit and attain tight balance.
* Highly themed lists and fluff outlier lists do not make for good balanced play
* This game started out (Rogue Trader/1st ed) as a narrative game, with a game master. Competition and balance were never part of the intended design.
* If you're playing the game a way that does not meet the designer's intention or expectation, that doesn't make it a bad game
* It is not easy to balance a game, even checkers favours one player based on who goes first. It is extremely difficult to balance a game with this many variables
* Editing a ~180 page book for typos, grammatical errors and phrases that can be misinterpreted is a very demanding job. Doing that monthly, sometimes multiple books in a month is extraordinary. Errors, errata and FAQs are a fact of publishing products like this.
* Playtesting literal millions of combinations of unit options etc can only be done to a very limited degree without encountering exorbitant costs and development time.
* Your play group/meta is not the same as my play group/meta
* Ultra-competitive top-tier is not the only way to play. In fact I'd argue it's one of the least fun ways to play.
* Staying in the business of publishing games for decades is not the hallmark of someone incompetent.
* Jervis is not the sole designer of every game or edition GW has published
* Game designers have limited timeframes to work out. You may have come up with a 'better rule' in 5 seconds than the designers did, but they didn't have that luxury of an extra 5 seconds to rethink the rule they'd already come up with.
* Most of your 'better rules' are terrible. Seriously, if you're so good, bring it to Proposed Rules and let us tear it down.
* ForgeWorld products are primarily designed for collectors. They're not generally intended as a balanced expansion to the main game.
* Changing your mind (or business plan) after several years is not the same thing as lying several years ago.

ERJAK wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^I think he means the Daemon Lord of Change, named KJFHAJKFHSDK?JSDH

Oh yeah. That's probably the best nickname for it.

Yeah the Greater Daemons weren't done terribly well I'll admit that.

The FW indexes were done so abysmally that it started an entire new wave of 'ban all forgeworld forever' because several of their units were the most woefully busted things in 8th, several more just straight up didn't function ROW, and the rest were terrible crap. Turns out when they have to write rules for a game that has more than one army in it, they're actually worse than GW prime.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

meleti wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^I think he means the Daemon Lord of Change, named KJFHAJKFHSDK?JSDH

Also lovingly known as Big Bird.

I thought it was 'super chicken'

To be honest, my Lord of change is being painted as a Moonkin from World of Warcraft since, y'know its my INDOMITABLE LAZER TURKEY!

I did once see someone paint the Exalted Greater Daemon of Tzeentch as a parrot. It was spectacular but required an eye test or sunglasses after extended viewing in anything other than a totally black room.

Spoletta wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

ERJAK wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^I think he means the Daemon Lord of Change, named KJFHAJKFHSDK?JSDH

Oh yeah. That's probably the best nickname for it.

Yeah the Greater Daemons weren't done terribly well I'll admit that.

The FW indexes were done so abysmally that it started an entire new wave of 'ban all forgeworld forever' because several of their units were the most woefully busted things in 8th, several more just straight up didn't function ROW, and the rest were terrible crap. Turns out when they have to write rules for a game that has more than one army in it, they're actually worse than GW prime.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

meleti wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^I think he means the Daemon Lord of Change, named KJFHAJKFHSDK?JSDH

Also lovingly known as Big Bird.

I thought it was 'super chicken'

Outside Malefic Lords (where the problem is actually how Smite was implemented and what it did), what else was busted?

The big bird as they said, then you have the artemia hellhounds which are 100% busted and still not fixed.
Elysian forces were broken.

I mean just look at the tyranids:

Meiotic spores were 100% better than index spores.
Malanthrope before nerf was ultra OP.
Stonecrusher fex was 100% better than index fexes.

Pretty much every non LoW in there was out of reality with the rest of the faction, and i can't speak for the LoWs just because tyranids don't have those outside of FW so i can't make comparisons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Regarding D&D comparison, i don't think that it is a good one.
40K is a competitive game, D&D is a collaboration game. I don't care if the fighter in my group fights better than my rogue, he is in my team and the DM will provide the group with enough situations where my thief is important.
In D&D having a character that is fun to play is the only thing that matters, nothing else.
After all having a broken pg is completely useless, i can have a godlike char rules wise, but if the char is still a lvl 7 figher, the DM will have it behave as a lvl 7 fighter by acting here and there in the background.
In 40K there are rules, in D&D there are guidelines.The first rule of D&D is "The DM can't cheat" he is a super partes moderator whose sole objective is to make the game more fun for everyone, so whatever he does supercedes the rules by definition.

In 40K you have no DM at the table and there are winning conditions, so the rules have to be tight and balanced.

Disclaimer: 40K is a competitive game in its literal meaning, in that you have 2 opponents facing, not that it is tournament oriented.

RE: Superchicken, I always saw him called "Alphabet Soup" since that name is just a bunch of random letters and apostrophes.

Also, I think the comparisons between D&D and 40k is wrong. As stated here, D&D is a collaborative game. Sure you COULD be that jackass who plays a Druid that can do everything solo and makes the rest of the party little more than henchmen, but why would you except to be a jerk to everyone else at the table? Also, there's a GM who can reel in and balance things if you have a disparity between players to make it so everyone still has fun. You don't need to optimize everything to the nines in D&D. You don't need to in 40k either (despite what people like Peregrine constantly spout out about there not being any reason to not do so) but 40k at least can justify it more than D&D can because it's technically by definition a competitive game as it has two players playing against each other.

However I do think something can be said about a GM'd 40k game (let's not forget that's how Rogue Trader was originally intended) in some situations.

I think what bugs me the most is this notion that Matched = Balanced, everything else = Not Balanced when that's not the case. Nothing stops you using points in Open and Narrative Play, you would just be either coming up with your own custom scenario (which can be fun) or an attacker/defender style mission where each force has different objectives instead of each trying to achieve the same goal. That's not something you may want for a random game with someone who also decided to show up to the game store looking for a game, but I see more people who never want to consider anything besides that; they never consider doing a campaign or something that isn't Matched Play. That's the problem to me. It ignores 2/3 of the game to focus on one tiny piece.

Wait, people are saying GW balance is just as bad as FW balance?

Looks at entire RnH book



That's about the farthest thing from balanced ever.

 Peregrine wrote:
An all-scion army at the point where RO3 becomes relevant is un-fluffy. All-scion army at 500 points? Great, it's an elite unit attacking a vital objective. 200 scions and nothing else? Dumb as hell, they don't fight as a human wave assault with no support against an enemy that is bringing tanks/artillery/etc. At that point you should have a force of them next to conventional IG units so they can continue to be the elite strike force within the army.

You do realize that I can make the rule of three a relevant limiting factor for a scion army at 1K points right? Foot scions are a real thing considering they get deepstrike for free, and despite what you say, just because there are a lot of them doesn't mean that you are intending to play them as a "mass human wave" style. With their special weapons loadouts, a scion only army is fully capable of handling all kinds of threats, from hormagaunts to baneblades.

The fact that you think an all scion army is "dumb as hell" and "unfluffy" is a laughable example of gatekeeping. Stay classy.

 Peregrine wrote:

Heavy weapons are allocated within infantry companies in combined arms regiments or light infantry regiments. There are however, heavy weapons formations that are company/battalion sized, they are usually parceled out peicemeal to other infantry formations, but not always. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_company

Real life is not 40k. In the 40k fluff IG heavy weapon platoons are part of infantry companies, providing support to the core of infantry squads. You don't have a whole company of heavy weapons deployed with a token force of screening infantry. Maybe you'd have a whole company of heavy weapons in an Apocalypse-scale game where that 2000 points of heavy weapons is next to 3000 points of infantry, 5000 points of Baneblades, an artillery company or three, etc. But 1800 points of HWS in a 2000 point game? No.

(And, as I said, this army would be boring as hell to play with or against. Even if you can find a rare example of it existing somewhere in the fluff it's such a stupid thing from a gameplay point of view that it shouldn't be legal.)

But IG armies are based off of real life armies, and I can probably pull up numerous examples of fluff where IG heavy weapons formations the size of companies or battalions are mentioned or shown. The idea that a regiment isn't going to have a heavy weapons company at all is pretty absurd unless it is a light infantry regiment or something. Granted, the heavy weapons company usually doesn't fight all in one place, but it is not outside the realm of possibility.

Zustiur wrote:
* Spam is not fluffy

Unless the spam is fluffy. Lol IG tank company or Ravenwing bikers.

Zustiur wrote:
* Rule of 3 is for Organised Play, not for all Matched Play

Tell that to the manager at my local GW where it is an enforced rule at matched play tables. It may as well be for matched play. Inb4 "beta rule" lol.

Zustiur wrote:
* For a number of editions it was impossible to take more than 3 of a unit outside of troops. Rule of 3 is not a new concept even if it's been implemented in a new way.

Then that kind of limitation should be implemented through the detachment system like it used to be, and not slapped on top like a band-aid.

Zustiur wrote:
* You cannot allow every possible combination of every possible unit and attain tight balance.

So then what are points for then? Are you arguing that they are meaningless?

Zustiur wrote:
* Staying in the business of publishing games for decades is not the hallmark of someone incompetent.

Adam Sandler is still making movies and making a crap-ton of money off of them, that doesn't mean he wasn't awful in everything he has been in with the possible exception of Anger Management, where he was only decent by playing off the much more talented Jack Nicholson.

 Peregrine wrote:

w1zard wrote:
Please, tell me of how a scion regiment is unfluffy considering that GW has named scion regiments in the fluff, and that they were designed as a standalone army within an army, with their own doctrines.

An all-scion army at the point where RO3 becomes relevant is un-fluffy. All-scion army at 500 points? Great, it's an elite unit attacking a vital objective. 200 scions and nothing else? Dumb as hell, they don't fight as a human wave assault with no support against an enemy that is bringing tanks/artillery/etc. At that point you should have a force of them next to conventional IG units so they can continue to be the elite strike force within the army.

Heavy weapons are allocated within infantry companies in combined arms regiments or light infantry regiments. There are however, heavy weapons formations that are company/battalion sized, they are usually parceled out peicemeal to other infantry formations, but not always. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_company

Real life is not 40k. In the 40k fluff IG heavy weapon platoons are part of infantry companies, providing support to the core of infantry squads. You don't have a whole company of heavy weapons deployed with a token force of screening infantry. Maybe you'd have a whole company of heavy weapons in an Apocalypse-scale game where that 2000 points of heavy weapons is next to 3000 points of infantry, 5000 points of Baneblades, an artillery company or three, etc. But 1800 points of HWS in a 2000 point game? No.

(And, as I said, this army would be boring as hell to play with or against. Even if you can find a rare example of it existing somewhere in the fluff it's such a stupid thing from a gameplay point of view that it shouldn't be legal.)

Who in the heck used 200 Scions? Most people limit guardsmen to 100 unless they are going infantry dependent, right? A fluffy Scion army this edition would look like 1-2 Commissars (probably one lord at least), between 50-70 Scions, 3-4 Taurox Primes, and 1-3 Valkyries. Also, some minor psyker support as a stretch. And the list can skew for vehicles in different ways, depending on whether one is playing Aircav and limiting Taurox Primes, or eschewing Valkyries because you only want to buy Start Collecting boxes.

The beauty of IG, and 40k in general, is that you can explain away almost anything with a bit of fluff. Massive 5k scion armies could be deployed in defence of a scholar progenium. You could have a game with 9 of each artillery type and have it as a raid against a back line artillery regiment. A pure infantry regiment could be deployed because the armour transport was shot down, or rerouted to a different warzone because of misfiled paperwork.

I almost view someone saying something as unfluffy as a challenge, at least with Guard.

Interestingly enough, the Rule of 3 is actually 3 only for 2000 points. If you check the chart it's only 2 for 1000 points, and I think 4 for 2500+. Yet it always gets incorrectly remembered as "three" at all levels, just like the fact it's specifically recommended for events gets ignored and it's assumed to be a global rule (again this goes back to my issue that Matched Play rules meant for events are incorrectly lumped into ALL games so become the norm)

 Trickstick wrote:
The beauty of IG, and 40k in general, is that you can explain away almost anything with a bit of fluff. Massive 5k scion armies could be deployed in defence of a scholar progenium. You could have a game with 9 of each artillery type and have it as a raid against a back line artillery regiment. A pure infantry regiment could be deployed because the armour transport was shot down, or rerouted to a different warzone because of misfiled paperwork.

I almost view someone saying something as unfluffy as a challenge, at least with Guard.

I like to agree with most of this, but 5k of Scions would probably not be sent to secure a Schola, more like when the Imperium sent six whole Scion regiments as a scouting party into the Eye of Terror.

When you talk about Organized play the smaller the subset of factors the better the balance is going to be.

I'd recommend for a Organized play from GW

CP be based on point size.
Only Stratagems are warlord faction.
No FW. No fortifications.
Only detachments allowed are Patrol, Battalion,Brigade, Super Heavy Aux, and Super Heavy Detachment.
Rule of Three.
Chess Clocks.

 Apple Peel wrote:
I like to agree with most of this, but 5k of Scions would probably not be sent to secure a Schola, more like when the Imperium sent six whole Scion regiments as a scouting party into the Eye of Terror.

I was more thinking that it was their own schola, and they were just defending it.

Wayniac wrote:
Interestingly enough, the Rule of 3 is actually 3 only for 2000 points. If you check the chart it's only 2 for 1000 points, and I think 4 for 2500+. Yet it always gets incorrectly remembered as "three" at all levels, just like the fact it's specifically recommended for events gets ignored and it's assumed to be a global rule (again this goes back to my issue that Matched Play rules meant for events are incorrectly lumped into ALL games so become the norm)

its 2,001-3,000 for 4 datasheets

Its 0,-1,000 = 2 datasheets
1,001-2,000 = 3 datasheets
2,001-3,000 = 4 datasheets

The general consensus is every 1K its +1 Datasheet

 Trickstick wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:
I like to agree with most of this, but 5k of Scions would probably not be sent to secure a Schola, more like when the Imperium sent six whole Scion regiments as a scouting party into the Eye of Terror.

I was more thinking that it was their own schola, and they were just defending it.

I’m under the impression that if a regiment has around 200 Scions or more, it is on the large size. Aren’t most regiments around 100 people or so?

level9red wrote:

I'm curious as to why the Elysians were broken? They were more expensive than normal guard? So paid for there regiment doctrines rather than having them free. They are also pretty fragile, a glass hammer really. And while deep striking plasma is good, no denying that, they loose out on options. They also lost an entire army list which is no longer playable, the D99. Which invalidated the whole you'll be able to play your armies in 8th. Prior to the various rule changes like one commander per command squad and rule of 3. You could get something close with normal Elysians, but not anymore.

Also normal Elysians have been nerfed a few times with the general guard nerfs and the crazy point increases to forgeworld flyers that aren't the vulture, basically the antitank ones. Also with limited unit choices the rule of 3 impacts them a fair amount.

They had beneficial typos on datasheets that didn't match normal guard ones. Their plasma did 3 damage each . Move and Fire! enabled (I think it still does) the squad to fire every weapon they had as assault weapons including grenades, pistols(usually the 3 damage plasma one), and their normal lasguns. Not sure exactly why they stopped being run in competitive.

Only legendary regiments like the 55th Kappic Eagles could possibly pull something like that off, maybe, and we don’t have solid numbers on them, as I’m aware.

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:
I like to agree with most of this, but 5k of Scions would probably not be sent to secure a Schola, more like when the Imperium sent six whole Scion regiments as a scouting party into the Eye of Terror.

I was more thinking that it was their own schola, and they were just defending it.

I’m under the impression that if a regiment has around 200 Scions or more, it is on the large size. Aren’t most regiments around 100 people or so?

I don't know about Scions specifically, but more generally for Guard regiments can be anything from hundreds to tens of thousands each.

w1zard wrote:
Unless the spam is fluffy. Lol IG tank company or Ravenwing bikers.

Well, having a lot of bikes doesn't mean it's fluffy and doesn't mean you aren't spamming.
IIRC, a ravenwing standard "group" is 6 bikes, 1 attack bike and a landspeeder (that's what you could take as a single troop slot before).
If your army has a lot of mini sized units of bikers, you're rather on the spamy side than the fluffy one. You could perfectly find a "fluff" justification for it though (which is the case for almost anything).

w1zard wrote:

Zustiur wrote:
* Spam is not fluffy

Unless the spam is fluffy. Lol IG tank company or Ravenwing bikers.

You can have like a dozen IG tanks for a tank company WITHOUT having to repeat the same datasheet more than 3x (or at all for that matter).
You can have RW bikes, attack bikes, Black Knight bikes and various Landspeeders in a fluffy RW list. You don't have to, nor should you be encouraged to fill you list with JUST RW bikes
And RW and DW can take full units and Combat Squad them for more units if desired.

Why you seem to not grasp this is beyond me. Spam (of the same single unit) is not, nor has it EVER been, fluffy

Even in prior editions in which far fewer units existed, fluffy lists like RW, DW and Eldar Wraithhost or Saim-hann bike lists SPECIFICALLY had their "main" unit as Troops so you could have more. But even then, you were never meant to just fill you list with JUST those units. Usually 3-4 units did the trick.
Now the fluff has expanded and new units exist to flesh out those armies, removing the need to spam 1 type of unit as Troops to field a fluffy list.

-

 Stux wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:
I like to agree with most of this, but 5k of Scions would probably not be sent to secure a Schola, more like when the Imperium sent six whole Scion regiments as a scouting party into the Eye of Terror.

I was more thinking that it was their own schola, and they were just defending it.

I’m under the impression that if a regiment has around 200 Scions or more, it is on the large size. Aren’t most regiments around 100 people or so?

I don't know about Scions specifically, but more generally for Guard regiments can be anything from hundreds to tens of thousands each.

Scions are not guardsmen. The are a separate organization that work for the same people. Scions are made up of the orphans of noble Imperial blood and the orphans of heroic guard officers. As well as kidnapped children of nobility if the Commissariat thinks that the child will go to waste if they stay where they are.
They train in the Schola Progenium and then are trained by the Schola Tempestus.

And why exactly do we care if other people find our lists fluffy or not? I guess if they refuse to play against a list they deem "unfluffy" that's a real enough consequence, but beyond that, who cares?

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
And why exactly do we care if other people find our lists fluffy or not? I guess if they refuse to play against a list they deem "unfluffy" that's a real enough consequence, but beyond that, who cares?

My position is that some people were saying that the Rule of 3 prevents fluffy lists.
Not only is this not true, but many who claim this aren't actually taking a fluffy list, but are trying to spam 1-2 good units under the guise of a fluffy list

Regardless of how you define a list and its contents, Ro3 is good for overall balance of the game AND creates lists that are more fun to play against
No one wants to face a list with a dozen of the exact same unit

-

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
An all-scion army at the point where RO3 becomes relevant is un-fluffy. All-scion army at 500 points? Great, it's an elite unit attacking a vital objective. 200 scions and nothing else? Dumb as hell, they don't fight as a human wave assault with no support against an enemy that is bringing tanks/artillery/etc. At that point you should have a force of them next to conventional IG units so they can continue to be the elite strike force within the army.

You do realize that I can make the rule of three a relevant limiting factor for a scion army at 1K points right? Foot scions are a real thing considering they get deepstrike for free, and despite what you say, just because there are a lot of them doesn't mean that you are intending to play them as a "mass human wave" style. With their special weapons loadouts, a scion only army is fully capable of handling all kinds of threats, from hormagaunts to baneblades.

The fact that you think an all scion army is "dumb as hell" and "unfluffy" is a laughable example of gatekeeping. Stay classy.

 Peregrine wrote:

Heavy weapons are allocated within infantry companies in combined arms regiments or light infantry regiments. There are however, heavy weapons formations that are company/battalion sized, they are usually parceled out peicemeal to other infantry formations, but not always. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_company

Real life is not 40k. In the 40k fluff IG heavy weapon platoons are part of infantry companies, providing support to the core of infantry squads. You don't have a whole company of heavy weapons deployed with a token force of screening infantry. Maybe you'd have a whole company of heavy weapons in an Apocalypse-scale game where that 2000 points of heavy weapons is next to 3000 points of infantry, 5000 points of Baneblades, an artillery company or three, etc. But 1800 points of HWS in a 2000 point game? No.

(And, as I said, this army would be boring as hell to play with or against. Even if you can find a rare example of it existing somewhere in the fluff it's such a stupid thing from a gameplay point of view that it shouldn't be legal.)

But IG armies are based off of real life armies, and I can probably pull up numerous examples of fluff where IG heavy weapons formations the size of companies or battalions are mentioned or shown. The idea that a regiment isn't going to have a heavy weapons company at all is pretty absurd unless it is a light infantry regiment or something. Granted, the heavy weapons company usually doesn't fight all in one place, but it is not outside the realm of possibility.

Zustiur wrote:
* Spam is not fluffy

Unless the spam is fluffy. Lol IG tank company or Ravenwing bikers.

Zustiur wrote:
* Rule of 3 is for Organised Play, not for all Matched Play

Tell that to the manager at my local GW where it is an enforced rule at matched play tables. It may as well be for matched play. Inb4 "beta rule" lol.

Zustiur wrote:
* For a number of editions it was impossible to take more than 3 of a unit outside of troops. Rule of 3 is not a new concept even if it's been implemented in a new way.

Then that kind of limitation should be implemented through the detachment system like it used to be, and not slapped on top like a band-aid.

Zustiur wrote:
* You cannot allow every possible combination of every possible unit and attain tight balance.

So then what are points for then? Are you arguing that they are meaningless?

Zustiur wrote:
* Staying in the business of publishing games for decades is not the hallmark of someone incompetent.

Adam Sandler is still making movies and making a crap-ton of money off of them, that doesn't mean he wasn't awful in everything he has been in with the possible exception of Anger Management, where he was only decent by playing off the much more talented Jack Nicholson.

I'm genuinely intrigued as to how you have made the rule of 3 a problem for a scion foot list given i can get past 1000 points without Breaking the rule of 2 they can bring an almost 2k points of pure infantry in 2 battalions without breaking rule of 3. Add in some valks or vultures or vendettas and your rappidly at 3k for your arial spec opps strike force

 Galef wrote:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
And why exactly do we care if other people find our lists fluffy or not? I guess if they refuse to play against a list they deem "unfluffy" that's a real enough consequence, but beyond that, who cares?

My position is that some people were saying that the Rule of 3 prevents fluffy lists.
Not only is this not true, but many who claim this aren't actually taking a fluffy list, but are trying to spam 1-2 good units under the guise of a fluffy list

Regardless of how you define a list and its contents, Ro3 is good for overall balance of the game AND creates lists that are more fun to play against
No one wants to face a list with a dozen of the exact same unit

-

That's fair, from that perspective I can totally see how that would matter in a game beyond simply not jiving with one's narrative preferences.

So rumor engine now saying primaris get a power fist.... but they dont have the option.... question is does that change with Vigilus, chapter approved or next year with a primaris codex

gendoikari87 wrote:
So rumor engine now saying primaris get a power fist.... but they dont have the option.... question is does that change with Vigilus, chapter approved or next year with a primaris codex

They will pribably make the power fist leuitenant/sergeant a imperial fist unique unit, since it has the chapter insignia engraved. Just like the chainswird option is unique to blood angels