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.

Black is not a colour?

That's rediculous in this context and really depends on how you define colour. Does the bone or brown on the base count?

I guess you can lump brown and bone together as one is the shade of the other. Then discount either as they are on the base.

The gold and silver should count, but I suppose those are materials not colours.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Double post; I also guarantee you that 'black' is not 'black' in terms of the complete absence of colour. The pigment will still reflect some light.

It will not be colourless either through the light, pigment nor perception models of colour.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Err, what? That's at least three colors: body, gun, and the hose thing on the gun. Plus more colors on the base, and any highlighting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
That does fit. it's not slopped together.

And again, I feel comp scores are great. They reign in extreme builds WHICH IS THE ENTIRE fething POINT BECAUSE THIS IS A HOBBY NOT A SPORT.

Again, why is being bad at winning an essential part of the hobby? Why do "extreme builds" need to be penalized?

Black isn't under the definition of a color.

That is the most nitpicky thing I've seen on Dakka yet, which is saying something.

Also, Black in this context is a color, as it's a category type of paint used and in this context it's not really "colors" but paints used.

Nothing like seeing a battle between the Uncolored Templars and the Uncolored Legion to determine the fate of the Uncolored Crusade.

Martel732 wrote:
Undercosted models are a big deal. Especially large numbers of them.

Moving away from the other circular topic, what do you think is undercosted? And why do you feel the GW missions don't affect them but ITC does?

I may have asked this before, I don't remember but you seem to always bring up hordes and undercosted models so I'm curious what you actually think is undercosted and what you feel an appropriate cost is for those.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Peregrine wrote:
Err, what? That's at least three colors: body, gun, and the hose thing on the gun. Plus more colors on the base, and any highlighting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
That does fit. it's not slopped together.

And again, I feel comp scores are great. They reign in extreme builds WHICH IS THE ENTIRE fething POINT BECAUSE THIS IS A HOBBY NOT A SPORT.

Again, why is being bad at winning an essential part of the hobby? Why do "extreme builds" need to be penalized?

Black isn't under the definition of a color.

I'd never heard that ITC had a formal definition of what constitutes a 'color'.

Or are you trying to be techical? Because, while Black is not a color, pigminting (such as painting) something to be black actually requires pigminting with *every color* such that none reflect. So, an area painted Black is certainly painted different colors than the non-black areas.

Further, even ignoring black for random reasons, there's still way more than 3 colors on that model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Serious question: do most events with modelling rules (WYSIWYG, 3-color, etc) have verbage for Rule of Cool? Like, don't they allow you to clear variances from the letter of the rule with the TO - so that Rule of Cool wins out?

GW doesn't value a model's actual existence, imo. They block deep strike, block movement (since movement is before shooting), and can numerically overwhelm objectives. I personally would use guardsmen at 4 ppm even if they had no weapons at all, because I can't get such cheap board control any other way. With T3 and 5+, killing them is a chore at their price point.

Most units in the 4-7 point range I would consider to be undercosted the way 8th edition plays. Especially guardsmen, kabalites, and plaguebearers.

GW had their chance to cheapen marines and other elite troops. They largely declined. This means the dominance of cheapos will continue.

Giving me access to butcher's bill and reaper as a way to recoup some of the value I'm losing by playing a marine-heavy list is simply not available in CA 2018 missions.

Having a huge model count of models you don't care about because you weren't forced to invest the appropriate amount points in them in the first place is a great way to overcome each wrinkle that CA 2018 throws out.

I also find that ITC terrain does help me about 60% of the time, which is better than getting my expensive BA shot to death through windows.

Update:

To avoid the GSC biker fiasco, I just re-read all the CA 2018 missions. Hordes provide a huge advantage in most of the missions. The wrinkles are cute, but don't trump the pure brute force of cost efficiency.

Okay, so basically the usual issue that bodies win, so cheaper troops = flood the board with bodies.

With added bonuses like kabalites ignore toughness for *6* points.

"Quantity has a Quality All Its Own "
- Allied Interdependence Newsletter No. 13, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 21 June 1979 - Thomas A. Callaghan Jr. (No, not Stalin)

The uptick for IG/AM armies and Orks does seem to support the flooding of bodies is a viable tactic.

The trick is just getting enough effective wounds out to thin the hordes which works equally well on units of quality.
The mass of Ork melee attacks is testament enough: I rarely see anything survive melee with them (30-man squad) for more than a turn

Anything approximating an assault cannon seems to pay for itself by typically being at least +1 of the toughness of the target and an AP -1 at least which makes all the difference BUT 24" range always places it in the "you get one shot at this" zone except of course, bubble-wrap helps.
Thinking of the Leman Russ "Punisher" gun that fires twice and of course the "Stormlord" as the kings of throwing out a wall of lead.

Too many times I see the IG/AM "1st rank fire! 2nd rank fire" (gets eaten), "Second squad, 1st rank fire! 2nd rank fire!".

Too many other weapons tend to have the 2D6 or the more impressive 3D6 hits which is rather limited.
Auto-hits are nice but start falling into the 8" to 16" range which is a one-shot wonder.

Wow lots to read :0
I just throw some of my current thoughts in

I think good place is kinda just BS, good in that it’s at bare minimum.

But I think they have 3 issues. Balance still seems to suck. Both internal and external to a lot of codex and the army’s you can build.

But I think more of an issue is that from a narrative and game view it still sucks. They have factions and groups of army’s that do not even seem to built to play the same game.
Knights and hordes with no real thought to the way they interact than trying to make them all act the same.
Low effort, but lots of words come to mind for a lot of there stuff. They need to get there game design into the design for what minis get produced more I would think.

I also think the game is in a bit of a Narrative mess, things like The +marines should have been a upgrade in narrative only. Having the same rules as normal space marines, maybe some new units. But pulling them in as the same under the rules.
Still plenty of sales I am sure, and a better way to support the line from a design point I think.

Martel732 wrote:
With added bonuses like kabalites ignore toughness for *6* points.

I actually struggled so hard vs DE kabalites because of this as a Nidzilla player, he would just drown my Trygon in splinter fire. (My Tyrannofex doesn't mind with its 2+ so much, since its normally wounded on 4's and 3's by anti tank anyway).

Next games night I brought in Hydra swarm to give it a try, he drew against me again (random matches, tries to keep your list All Comers and helps prevent tailoring, you just sometimes draw the short straw where both players are free to discuss themselves "Will this be fair/enjoyable") he brought same warrior heavy list vs my frankly stupid number of terms, hormas and a smattering of Devilgaunts.

He literally couldn't kill enough and it was the first time in... well ages my gaunts were wounded on a 4+. hormagaunts actually made it to CC for once! (I mean, they died horribly because Lilith heroic'd into them and was a blender) but they did it!

Other hand, oh god yes double everything's point values and adjust from there, we NEED granularity in this game, we're so hyper cramped at the bottom scale it corrupts the view the whole way up!

Martel732 wrote:


To avoid the GSC biker fiasco, I just re-read all the CA 2018 missions. Hordes provide a huge advantage in most of the missions. The wrinkles are cute, but don't trump the pure brute force of cost efficiency.

Hordes are viable in CA18 missions but do not dominate. The winning list at the largest CA18 format tournament (the GT finals) had I think less than 50 models on the table. It got there by beating out the Eldar Flyer spam list which is resolutely not a horde list.

I don't have a problem with hordes being viable in the game, they are just one of many viable approaches with the CA18 missions. The risk with hordes is slow play, so long as tournaments keep on top of the slow play issue hordes are fine and fit into the normal power range or tournament armies. If your games go to 5 or 6 turns you should be able to beat a horde list if you brought the tools to do so. I find that most horde lists have a certain critical mass below which they are vulnerable to being taken apart quite quickly; it is slow work but it can be done.

Martel732 wrote:
With added bonuses like kabalites ignore toughness for *6* points.

It's a good thing and a bad thing, really. You may "ignore Toughness" but it only works on non-vehicle models, so while splinter fire is really good against Tyranids and Daemons it's no better than S4 against Marines and no better than S3 against anyone with T3 chaff.

Threads like these make me feel like I am missing something. If the game is not in a better place (I guess we're talking balance wise) what was the reason for "streamlining" the game?

 ik0ner wrote:
Threads like these make me feel like I am missing something. If the game is not in a better place (I guess we're talking balance wise) what was the reason for "streamlining" the game?

To try to make the game better (and ultimately sell more books and models). Note the word try. Some people will see it as a success, many do in fact, but you can't please everyone. Just because some people don't think the game is better it doesn't mean they failed. It just means some people don't like it.

 ik0ner wrote:
Threads like these make me feel like I am missing something. If the game is not in a better place (I guess we're talking balance wise) what was the reason for "streamlining" the game?

Frankly it is better balanced.
BUT alas also a lot more exploitable due to shared CP and stratagems.

It also does not help that you often need multiple documents to get all the rules (In case of chaos Space marines 2 books now... atleast.)

There are also other issues, like morale again not really working on units that were intended to have morale as a drawback. (basically msu spam makes nearly all units immune to morale), this leads especially in the case of IG squads and Neophyts to a lot of annoyment.

Also balancing atm seems to go torwards the outliers, take a look at the new oblits and you realise that the unit now needs more support then ever to do it's job, support it may well never get ue to the supporting charachter in the best case beein a footslogging sorcerer... and it still eats CP like a anthill food in general.

THere are also some lists that neeed to be looked at, GK and a lot of FW index lists and units that just plain simply might aswell not exist anymore.

Stratagems and Auras are also an issue. Half the SM and CSM equipment is constantly costet as if Abbadon or Rowboat babysits them for the full rerolls. Any other subfaction there pays the price. Armies like BA basically pay the bill for the abuse of the auras, other then that BA could abuse a lot of shenanigans themselves mostly centered around smashcaptains.

There is also an issue with granularity, the design space is atm jut too cramped. It would go a long way if pts prices would double and then stuff would get balanced. because as it stands esecially in the lower point bracket you can't move units around accordingly without moving alot of other units around. Consequently i feel that has also to do with the race to bigger things fielded in regular matches which made a lot of the staples of lists before going down a race to the bottom pts wise in order to be even considerable.

The new wounding chart also has a lot of issues, and is easily exploitable, cue Votwl.

The new wounding chart wouldn't have been so bad if they had trippled Strength and Toughness values.

It also really would benefit from the introduction of a D12 system for improved granularity.

Ice_can wrote:
The new wounding chart wouldn't have been so bad if they had trippled Strength and Toughness values.

It also really would benefit from the introduction of a D12 system for improved granularity.

I understand the benefits of using a d8/10/12, but honestly it is never ever going to happen. The d6 is as iconic to Warhammer as Power Armour is, and they know it.

 Stux wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The new wounding chart wouldn't have been so bad if they had trippled Strength and Toughness values.

It also really would benefit from the introduction of a D12 system for improved granularity.

I understand the benefits of using a d8/10/12, but honestly it is never ever going to happen. The d6 is as iconic to Warhammer as Power Armour is, and they know it.

I honestly think d6 is allright, but for granularity sake atleast double the points and then rebalance.

But i sometimes feel like they think we are unable to count past 2000.

 Stux wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The new wounding chart wouldn't have been so bad if they had trippled Strength and Toughness values.

It also really would benefit from the introduction of a D12 system for improved granularity.

I understand the benefits of using a d8/10/12, but honestly it is never ever going to happen. The d6 is as iconic to Warhammer as Power Armour is, and they know it.

This is why I'm hopeful that 40k Apoc is a good game and we can just let 8th edition be the introduction or casual play 40k as it has some very fundamental issues caused by the insistence that it use exclusively D6's.

 ik0ner wrote:
Threads like these make me feel like I am missing something. If the game is not in a better place (I guess we're talking balance wise) what was the reason for "streamlining" the game?

Because your reading DakkaDakka, an inexhaustible mine of salt.

Player participation, and as a result sales, are up a lot in 8th compared to 7th so the game being in a better place is pretty undeniable.
Also, look outside of ITC and you will see very diverse rankings, yet the people playing a non-GW format that significantly warps the meta keep complaining that GW is doing it wrong.

 Ordana wrote:

 ik0ner wrote:
Threads like these make me feel like I am missing something. If the game is not in a better place (I guess we're talking balance wise) what was the reason for "streamlining" the game?

Because your reading DakkaDakka, an inexhaustible mine of salt.

Player participation, and as a result sales, are up a lot in 8th compared to 7th so the game being in a better place is pretty undeniable.
Also, look outside of ITC and you will see very diverse rankings, yet the people playing a non-GW format that significantly warps the meta keep complaining that GW is doing it wrong.

Internal balance is kind of terrible in most codexes though.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 ik0ner wrote:
Threads like these make me feel like I am missing something. If the game is not in a better place (I guess we're talking balance wise) what was the reason for "streamlining" the game?

Because your reading DakkaDakka, an inexhaustible mine of salt.

Player participation, and as a result sales, are up a lot in 8th compared to 7th so the game being in a better place is pretty undeniable.
Also, look outside of ITC and you will see very diverse rankings, yet the people playing a non-GW format that significantly warps the meta keep complaining that GW is doing it wrong.

Internal balance is kind of terrible in most codexes though.

In most cases yes and external balance is even worse. I'm getting a very strong WOTC D&D 3.5 vibe from GW. Let me explain, time for a story: Back in D&D 3.5, there were a lot (and I do mean a lot) of extra books. These books had additional rules and additional prestige classes that were available for use. It was long suspected and later confirmed that WOTC was only balancing these books under the assumption you were using that book and the Player's Handbook/DMG/MM. Not that you were using the dozen+ splatbooks. As a result, you saw "Character Optimization" that was borderline ridiculous, combining several books together in tiny pieces in order to, in theory, make some insane character that could do hundreds of damage in one attack, was immortal, could use Wish at will and the like. Now this being D&D, all of this was theory and was often stated to be theory only, never intended for play (because the DM could just deny it).

GW seems to be doing the same thing in a way. They seem to be balancing codexes without considering soup codexes. Guard on their own, for example, is a very strong codex but not completely broken. When you throw in minimal squads of Guard (i.e. Loyal 32) alongside a Knight Castellan and 3 Smash Captains, it becomes one of those ridiculous combos that shouldn't even be intended to work the way it works, but because GW isn't seeming to notice that if you give one codex very strong stratagems on the assumption that they will have limited CP (this seems to be the case with Knights for all intents and purposes) then allowing them a way to get lots of CP is going to "break" it.

And marines are still mostly miserable.

Wayniac wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 ik0ner wrote:
Threads like these make me feel like I am missing something. If the game is not in a better place (I guess we're talking balance wise) what was the reason for "streamlining" the game?

Because your reading DakkaDakka, an inexhaustible mine of salt.

Player participation, and as a result sales, are up a lot in 8th compared to 7th so the game being in a better place is pretty undeniable.
Also, look outside of ITC and you will see very diverse rankings, yet the people playing a non-GW format that significantly warps the meta keep complaining that GW is doing it wrong.

Internal balance is kind of terrible in most codexes though.

In most cases yes and external balance is even worse. I'm getting a very strong WOTC D&D 3.5 vibe from GW. Let me explain, time for a story: Back in D&D 3.5, there were a lot (and I do mean a lot) of extra books. These books had additional rules and additional prestige classes that were available for use. It was long suspected and later confirmed that WOTC was only balancing these books under the assumption you were using that book and the Player's Handbook/DMG/MM. Not that you were using the dozen+ splatbooks. As a result, you saw "Character Optimization" that was borderline ridiculous, combining several books together in tiny pieces in order to, in theory, make some insane character that could do hundreds of damage in one attack, was immortal, could use Wish at will and the like. Now this being D&D, all of this was theory and was often stated to be theory only, never intended for play (because the DM could just deny it).

GW seems to be doing the same thing in a way. They seem to be balancing codexes without considering soup codexes. Guard on their own, for example, is a very strong codex but not completely broken. When you throw in minimal squads of Guard (i.e. Loyal 32) alongside a Knight Castellan and 3 Smash Captains, it becomes one of those ridiculous combos that shouldn't even be intended to work the way it works, but because GW isn't seeming to notice that if you give one codex very strong stratagems on the assumption that they will have limited CP (this seems to be the case with Knights for all intents and purposes) then allowing them a way to get lots of CP is going to "break" it.

Hey leave my frenzied berserker / tempest kobold fighter with improved critical, keen weapons and dual scimitars alone ok? Guy was just dealing criticals on a roll dice of 11+, adding +16 damage for every attack point he cut off from using power attack. He was definitely fair!

Martel732 wrote:
With added bonuses like kabalites ignore toughness for *6* points.

I am curious why we haven't seen a whole lot of the Kabalite spam style lists in any of the recent events. On paper, as you say - kabalites seem like a steal. But besides the occasional list that brings 3 for a CP battery it doesn't seem like people are taking them in any numbers. The preferred Aeldari spam troop seems to be Guardians, where they deep strike out of the sky in 20 man blobs and shred something. Or Wyches, which surprises me even more.

I don't know that I've ever seen a drukhari list that spams 6ppm troop bodies to swamp objectives do particularly well, at least not like Guard, Chaos Pre-nerfs cultists or Tau lists spam troops. Mostly if Kabalites are brought in they are used as venom-borne anti-infantry damage units.

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
With added bonuses like kabalites ignore toughness for *6* points.

I am curious why we haven't seen a whole lot of the Kabalite spam style lists in any of the recent events. On paper, as you say - kabalites seem like a steal. But besides the occasional list that brings 3 for a CP battery it doesn't seem like people are taking them in any numbers. The preferred Aeldari spam troop seems to be Guardians, where they deep strike out of the sky in 20 man blobs and shred something. Or Wyches, which surprises me even more.

I don't know that I've ever seen a drukhari list that spams 6ppm troop bodies to swamp objectives do particularly well, at least not like Guard, Chaos Pre-nerfs cultists or Tau lists spam troops. Mostly if Kabalites are brought in they are used as venom-borne anti-infantry damage units.

Because splinter rifles are hilariously bad against guardsmen stock, nearly any other armies basic infantry gun will wound on 3's (excluding guard vs guard match ups) and I am not aware of any real buffs you can make to Splinter Rifles to help in that role. Splinter rifles kill high toughness relying models (non vehicle of course) fairly well but struggle to recoup their cost as quickly on expendable low T guys (and the wielder is himself a low toughness glass cannon, DE wouldn't have it any other way!), in fact the ONLY time I've seen grots/rippers not be wounded on 4's are directly from these weapons!

Plus it's not really just the Kabalites, they really do seem to operate in the DE way best with Raiders and wyches suit Venoms a lot more.

Unpopular opinion:

I think painting and modeling should be separate complitely from battling, it shouldnt interfere with peoples final scores in certain events. ( By no means would I allow unpainted armies tough)

It is no doubt part of the hobby, and should be part of any major event, but a persons final score shouldnt be determined by one.

Scoring sportsmanship should not be the opponents opinion, as it is in most of the cases BIASED, You can t take out the human factor, no matter how objective you think you are.


As the hobby grows, I really think the gaming aspect of warhammer 40000 should be even focused more. I got into the hobby because I played the dawn of war games, I loved them all, except the 3. part, because I felt like it was
over simplyfied. Because of this, I was looking into the table game for more in depth and fun gameplay. I look at assembling and painting as a necessity, but I m by no mean an artist, and its by no mean the reason for me to stay in the hobby.

Looking at everything from a gaming standpoint, I would be most pleased if GW actually switched from written rules and codexes to actual electrical formats, that they could update on a monthly basis. This way there wouldnt be such a fuss about balance, and peple wouldnt need to wait ages for changes. Just think of video games, where a bad balance can ruin everyones gameplay. I belive same goes for 40k even if you play at a not SUUUUUPER competitive environment. You want to play, but it would be nice to win sometimes aswell, and not just by sheer luck, but by skill.

In order to get to this point I feel GW really needs to work on those rules, to get a mostly balanced, developing game, that GW can update regularly, without making their codexes obsolete. I know a lot of people like hard copy which is fine, and it should be done for narrative and such.

I would even go as far as saying, GW could still do hard copies for those, who would like to have them, but should have an online datasheet and rules page where they would update regardless.

This way everyone could have what they need, and the community wouldnt need to alter the rules themselves.

Talking about what I d love to see:

- CP farming addressed
- Balance offending and too stronKKK factions nerfed ( looking at you IG)
- Certain abuse, like - to hit stacking addressed
- Certain datasheets updated ( vanilla SM, if you make it cheaper it will be auto take, if you leave it like that its just NYEH, neeeds overhaul)
- Giving factions, ESPECIALLY early factions more ways to play ( SM, Admech) to make them more in depth
- Overperforming units and stratgems addressed ( Castellan is very hard to balance because of what it brings to the table if fed cp, but in a pure knight list its just OK)

Thoughts?

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
With added bonuses like kabalites ignore toughness for *6* points.

I am curious why we haven't seen a whole lot of the Kabalite spam style lists in any of the recent events. On paper, as you say - kabalites seem like a steal. But besides the occasional list that brings 3 for a CP battery it doesn't seem like people are taking them in any numbers. The preferred Aeldari spam troop seems to be Guardians, where they deep strike out of the sky in 20 man blobs and shred something. Or Wyches, which surprises me even more.

I don't know that I've ever seen a drukhari list that spams 6ppm troop bodies to swamp objectives do particularly well, at least not like Guard, Chaos Pre-nerfs cultists or Tau lists spam troops. Mostly if Kabalites are brought in they are used as venom-borne anti-infantry damage units.

Their transports are so dope there's no reason to do this.

Martel732 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
With added bonuses like kabalites ignore toughness for *6* points.

I am curious why we haven't seen a whole lot of the Kabalite spam style lists in any of the recent events. On paper, as you say - kabalites seem like a steal. But besides the occasional list that brings 3 for a CP battery it doesn't seem like people are taking them in any numbers. The preferred Aeldari spam troop seems to be Guardians, where they deep strike out of the sky in 20 man blobs and shred something. Or Wyches, which surprises me even more.

I don't know that I've ever seen a drukhari list that spams 6ppm troop bodies to swamp objectives do particularly well, at least not like Guard, Chaos Pre-nerfs cultists or Tau lists spam troops. Mostly if Kabalites are brought in they are used as venom-borne anti-infantry damage units.

Their transports are so dope there's no reason to do this.

This is part of it, yeah. Kabalites on foot are good and complaints about poison weaponry always seem overblown to me, but the biggest force multiplier you can give to a Kabalite squad is throwing it in a transport instead of just adding more bodies.

I think the bigger issue is that if you want to spam infantry, you're probably going to be playing another army like Guard or Orks.