Ice_can wrote:

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

Gitdakka wrote:

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

dhallnet wrote:

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).

 Apple Peel wrote:

I’m gonna say, if you are playing a Scion footlist, you are doing Scions wrong, especially with the deep strike rules we have.
I’m currently building what I would call a fluffy Scion force for 2000 points. It will consist of three Valkyries, a Lord Commissar, three Tempestor Primes, three Scion Command squads, three ten-man Scion squads, three five-man Scion squads, three Taurox Primes, and depending exactly, two Astropaths or Primaris Psykers, and depending, a standard Commissar. That’s 60 Scions and their support.

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.

Ice_can wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

I’m gonna say, if you are playing a Scion footlist, you are doing Scions wrong, especially with the deep strike rules we have.
I’m currently building what I would call a fluffy Scion force for 2000 points. It will consist of three Valkyries, a Lord Commissar, three Tempestor Primes, three Scion Command squads, three ten-man Scion squads, three five-man Scion squads, three Taurox Primes, and depending exactly, two Astropaths or Primaris Psykers, and depending, a standard Commissar. That’s 60 Scions and their support.

So you have managed to achieve what wizard was implying the rule of 3 prevents building a scion only list without breaking the rule of 3. Interesting, still don't see what he thought the issue was.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
3. The Artemis isn't broken, it's that other Hellhounds aren't good. That's not difficult to grasp.

 Apple Peel wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

I’m gonna say, if you are playing a Scion footlist, you are doing Scions wrong, especially with the deep strike rules we have.
I’m currently building what I would call a fluffy Scion force for 2000 points. It will consist of three Valkyries, a Lord Commissar, three Tempestor Primes, three Scion Command squads, three ten-man Scion squads, three five-man Scion squads, three Taurox Primes, and depending exactly, two Astropaths or Primaris Psykers, and depending, a standard Commissar. That’s 60 Scions and their support.

So you have managed to achieve what wizard was implying the rule of 3 prevents building a scion only list without breaking the rule of 3. Interesting, still don't see what he thought the issue was.

If you did want to play around with more Scions though, 80-90 or so, that has fluff justifications, you only have three Tempestor Primes, so a lot less orders to go around.

Ice_can wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

I’m gonna say, if you are playing a Scion footlist, you are doing Scions wrong, especially with the deep strike rules we have.
I’m currently building what I would call a fluffy Scion force for 2000 points. It will consist of three Valkyries, a Lord Commissar, three Tempestor Primes, three Scion Command squads, three ten-man Scion squads, three five-man Scion squads, three Taurox Primes, and depending exactly, two Astropaths or Primaris Psykers, and depending, a standard Commissar. That’s 60 Scions and their support.

So you have managed to achieve what wizard was implying the rule of 3 prevents building a scion only list without breaking the rule of 3. Interesting, still don't see what he thought the issue was.

If you did want to play around with more Scions though, 80-90 or so, that has fluff justifications, you only have three Tempestor Primes, so a lot less orders to go around.

Ok they are less efficient maybe but you can still take troops. Like I said I believe you can take 138 scions before actually having to take anything else

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

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

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

This is known. Per GW Facebook, the ability to give an Intercessor Sergeant a Power Fist is in Chapter Approved.

The real question is if only Imperial Fists and their Successors will have that ability.

 Trickstick wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
3. The Artemis isn't broken, it's that other Hellhounds aren't good. That's not difficult to grasp.

The Artemia pattern's gun being free is almost certainly an oversight. They matched the points between them and standard ones but just missed that the Artemia didn't pay for the cannon. Sort of fits with almost every problem FW rules have, which comes down to a rushed production schedule. Didn't the FW indexes get a stupidly short amount of time to be produced? I remember something about that when they came out as such a mess.

gendoikari87 wrote:
And then standard marines get squatted

Zustiur wrote:
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.

gendoikari87 wrote:
Msu and spam are both fluffy if your talking about troops

 Galef wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Msu and spam are both fluffy if your talking about troops

Agreed, which is why TROOPS do not get limited by the Ro3. But everything else should be

-

ERJAK wrote:

 Galef wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Msu and spam are both fluffy if your talking about troops

Agreed, which is why TROOPS do not get limited by the Ro3. But everything else should be

-

I'm not super up on my fluff, but does this conversation come up alot? "Sorry brother Davian, but we already have THREE WHOLE DREADNOUGHTS on the field, so you have to sit this one out. Yeah, no, I know the fate of the planet, of billions of lives, is on our shoulders and literally our only purpose in life is to fight and die for the emperor, but we 3 dreadnoughts is the limit.

The 'it's for fluff' argument is stupid. They would never limit themselves like that and battles in 40k are fought on a much larger scale than the game anyway. Besides, making gameplay decisions based on fluff is how the game gets broken over and over and over again. 7th edition had a huge number of fluff decisions and it was an unplayable nightmare. Need I remind anyone of the 'split' rule horrors had?

The balance argument is pretty much null and void because troops and DTs have been excluded despite a history of spam problems. So what's left? Oh yeah, that it's a stupid rule.

 Galef wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Msu and spam are both fluffy if your talking about troops

Agreed, which is why TROOPS do not get limited by the Ro3. But everything else should be

-

 Galef wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Msu and spam are both fluffy if your talking about troops

Agreed, which is why TROOPS do not get limited by the Ro3. But everything else should be

-

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Msu and spam are both fluffy if your talking about troops

Agreed, which is why TROOPS do not get limited by the Ro3. But everything else should be

-

Then what goes on with units that used to be Troop Choices in some respect (Space Marine Bikers, Windriders, Deathwing), and then some armies get a treatment that lets them avoid that pitfall (the four Cult Legions get their Cult Marines as Troops, but Night Lords NEVER get more than three Raptor squads).

You either need to be consistent or admit the system is flawed.

 Galef wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Msu and spam are both fluffy if your talking about troops

Agreed, which is why TROOPS do not get limited by the Ro3. But everything else should be

-

Then what goes on with units that used to be Troop Choices in some respect (Space Marine Bikers, Windriders, Deathwing), and then some armies get a treatment that lets them avoid that pitfall (the four Cult Legions get their Cult Marines as Troops, but Night Lords NEVER get more than three Raptor squads).

You either need to be consistent or admit the system is flawed.

Oh, I do admit there is a flaw, just not with the Ro3. The flaw is with removing certain units as Troops *cough* Windriders *cough*

I am not saying that a fluffy army WOULDN'T have 80 Dreadnoughts.
I'm saying that it is unrealistic for all 80 to be:
A) the same kind of Dread. There are several different kinds for a reason and
B) unlikely to be on one small corner of a battle at the same time. A 6x4 table only represents a very small section of a battle

Aside from some very, VERY one-off stories, GW never portrays armies as "dozens or more of X non-troop single unit"
There is always a mix of unit types (all the better to advertised their product) in their stories.
The only times I can remember "spam" being part of the fluff is times when you see 8 Bloodthirsters storming Terra. But those stories are very, VERY large battles.
If you wanted to recreate those on the table top, that is what Narrative play is for.

-