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.
PS:
Combat Roster is free from GW. Just because it doesn't give you stats and the stuff from Battlescribe does not mean it is "bad".
It doesn't have points costs, it doesn't have unit options, there are no detachments. I mean if someone plays with combat roster, they may as well play open or narrative, same level of "good".
No reason DE couldn't be an exception to the rule, they're purpose built to be a tri-codex in a single codex. Make BCB's rule the rule, and then exclude DE from having to use it. Problem solved, and the DE faction stays unique!
that is true,GW could make DE an exeption. But at the same time GW destroyed or removed unique stuff in the past. Also just because at some point GW thought that DE should be played in a certain way is no argument for them to stay so. GK for example were designed with turn 1 deep strike of most of the army in mind, that is no longer possible, yet GW had no inclination to make GK an exeption.
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.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: At this point, I suspect GW know their FAQs and Books are a mess but don't think they can pry people away from Battlescribe and "Sources" with better books, because why should I pay money for a product I have no confidence in?
If GW offered something even half as reliable for quick and easy review of stats, RAW, effects, and other information as Battlescribe it would be a miracle. But they don't, because they know people won't pay for something half as good as something that is already FREE.
AoS' app is free with most of that information. There's very little that requires you to pay that isn't related to stuff that is intended for full Allegiances(read: "pure" Detachments).
All the non-Battlescribe purists out there can eat my shorts if you think that just because BS has minor flaws, it somehow justifies the spending of hundreds of dollars just to be able to get the codexes. Battlesribe has done more to train and entice new players than GW has for all of 8th edition.
Yeah, train them into having incorrect lists or just copy/pasting lists they've seen elsewhere.
PS:
Combat Roster is free from GW. Just because it doesn't give you stats and the stuff from Battlescribe does not mean it is "bad".
And let's be clear here:
Battlescribe doesn't have "minor flaws". At times, it has allowed for entirely illegal lists to be written. Gonna point back to when the Guard book dropped and people kept running a Cadian Spearhead of a Primaris Psyker with Relic of Lost Cadia.
PS:
Combat Roster is free from GW. Just because it doesn't give you stats and the stuff from Battlescribe does not mean it is "bad".
It doesn't have points costs, it doesn't have unit options, there are no detachments. I mean if someone plays with combat roster, they may as well play open or narrative, same level of "good".
It's a list building tool, not a substitute for a Codex.
So basically it's Battlescribe for all intents and purposes.
No reason DE couldn't be an exception to the rule, they're purpose built to be a tri-codex in a single codex. Make BCB's rule the rule, and then exclude DE from having to use it. Problem solved, and the DE faction stays unique!
that is true,GW could make DE an exeption. But at the same time GW destroyed or removed unique stuff in the past. Also just because at some point GW thought that DE should be played in a certain way is no argument for them to stay so. GK for example were designed with turn 1 deep strike of most of the army in mind, that is no longer possible, yet GW had no inclination to make GK an exeption.
Or, alternatively, you don't have to always play the game as a tournament would and you can take advantage of the bonuses that the Drukhari book has with regards to Patrols.
PS:
Combat Roster is free from GW. Just because it doesn't give you stats and the stuff from Battlescribe does not mean it is "bad".
It doesn't have points costs, it doesn't have unit options, there are no detachments. I mean if someone plays with combat roster, they may as well play open or narrative, same level of "good".
It's a list building tool, not a substitute for a Codex.
So basically it's Battlescribe for all intents and purposes.
No reason DE couldn't be an exception to the rule, they're purpose built to be a tri-codex in a single codex. Make BCB's rule the rule, and then exclude DE from having to use it. Problem solved, and the DE faction stays unique!
that is true,GW could make DE an exeption. But at the same time GW destroyed or removed unique stuff in the past. Also just because at some point GW thought that DE should be played in a certain way is no argument for them to stay so. GK for example were designed with turn 1 deep strike of most of the army in mind, that is no longer possible, yet GW had no inclination to make GK an exeption.
Or, alternatively, you don't have to always play the game as a tournament would and you can take advantage of the bonuses that the Drukhari book has with regards to Patrols.
Actually post your counterargument or don't post. Linking to 1d4chan isn't anything.
Sometimes I want to look up the statline for Havocs. I don't have the book. Not using BS where can I go to freely get that information in under 30 seconds?
If I want to see how many Tzangonors I can fit in a squad, same question?
If I want to read the writing of the abilities granted to a Castellan?
Here is the dumb side of your argument. You expect people to know all of this. You refuse to allow for a privately created data source for all the information so that you don't have to flip through 30 different books.
Now, as to my link, its a break down of every one of their logical breaks in the game. Multiple Cellestines in a single list. Remember that one? Remember the kerfuffle over ATSKNF and rolling die to determine losses? Remember when they tried to roll out the new character targeting rules? My point is, GW makes ridiculous mistakes constantly, and they get paid millions. So lay off the condescension of battlescribe, because a group of unpaid hobbyists decided to do what GW didn't want to..
Sometimes I want to look up the statline for Havocs. I don't have the book. Not using BS where can I go to freely get that information in under 30 seconds?
If I want to read the writing of the abilities granted to a Castellan?
Ask someone to read them to you.
Here is the dumb side of your argument. You expect people to know all of this. You refuse to allow for a privately created data source for all the information so that you don't have to flip through 30 different books.
No, I expect people to either:
a) Own the codex in question if they're wanting to play with something.
b) Ask their opponent if they can see the book when something comes up.
Now, as to my link, its a break down of every one of their logical breaks in the game. Multiple Cellestines in a single list. Remember that one?
Yeah, it's the same garbage that existed with regards to the "people are gonna spam Archaon/Nagash/whatever!" at the start of AoS.
ApparentlyGW did have to actually tell people that yes, named characters are unique.
Remember the kerfuffle over ATSKNF and rolling die to determine losses?
No I don't, because I don't pay as much attention to the nitwittery as I should I guess.
Remember when they tried to roll out the new character targeting rules? My point is, GW makes ridiculous mistakes constantly, and they get paid millions. So lay off the condescension of battlescribe, because a group of unpaid hobbyists decided to do what GW didn't want to..
Do you seriously think that ruleswriters are "getting paid millions"?
And let's not pretend for a single second that what Battlescribe is doing is difficult outside of maintaining the app itself. It's transcription.
The Cadian Primaris Psyker nonsense is an example that I have loaded because simply put? It was a Battlescribe error. It's emblematic of the culture that has grown up around "I'll look it up on Battlescribe!" nonsense. Anyone who actually read the book should have picked up on the error, but since it didn't get flagged by Battlescribe nobody batted a frigging eye.
I would be ok with this, however, I don't think it would help the abuse of it. Farseers can reroll 1 or both dice for 1 test per turn, so a WC8 power to them is roughly like a WC5-6 power for others.
I think a better fix would be to change the wording on Doom to only affect wounds caused by Asuryani units. That stops Dark Eldar from benefiting from Doom.
-
Yeah this is a pretty great idea. In team games it currently affects all friendly units. So it could potentially buff slaanesh units...Give me a break. My phobos Librarians can't even cast their spells on dudes in their own chapter unless they have the right armor on.
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
I hope they fix Mental Onslaught, change CP to be game size based, and give you a negative to CP for each detachment past the first, and each other faction beyond the first.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If you change the CP, it will be in something other than a FAQ. Maybe a CA, but it would be game altering, and FAQs generally aren't game altering...
Meh. Game altering is a matter of perspective. Most of GW's tinkering with CP and Stratagems have been in FAQIIRC, so it wouldn't be out of line for them to make these changes.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If you change the CP, it will be in something other than a FAQ. Maybe a CA, but it would be game altering, and FAQs generally aren't game altering...
Meh. Game altering is a matter of perspective. Most of GW's tinkering with CP and Stratagems have been in FAQIIRC, so it wouldn't be out of line for them to make these changes.
You may be right, I cede to your memory. But if you alter the way CP are factored into a built list, not generated but started with, it will obviously shake the meta tree. I mean, Knights will likely go bye bye if this rule were to go up, and you'd see only mono-dex armies. Say goodbye to Custodes, Deathwatch, Greyknights, Daemons, and any other elite armies that rely on small expensive units.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If you change the CP, it will be in something other than a FAQ. Maybe a CA, but it would be game altering, and FAQs generally aren't game altering...
Meh. Game altering is a matter of perspective. Most of GW's tinkering with CP and Stratagems have been in FAQIIRC, so it wouldn't be out of line for them to make these changes.
You may be right, I cede to your memory. But if you alter the way CP are factored into a built list, not generated but started with, it will obviously shake the meta tree. I mean, Knights will likely go bye bye if this rule were to go up, and you'd see only mono-dex armies. Say goodbye to Custodes, Deathwatch, Greyknights, Daemons, and any other elite armies that rely on small expensive units.
I feel this depends on the CP level. If you gave 15 CP at 2K.. I feel my Pure knights of 3x Crusaders, 3x Armigers is very playable. Also, that much CP in a all Grey knight force has some implications I'd have to think more about. I'm not sure its going to be great, but I think competently played, it would surprise people.
If Marines got a decent re-write on stratagems in the Codex, I feel they would also be something pretty good with 15 CP to burn through.
And it would depend on what the limitations are for bringing extra detachments and extra factions. If its -1 per, so a person with 3 faction soup, was at 11 CP. its still a interesting fight right? 4 extra CP for being pure...
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If you change the CP, it will be in something other than a FAQ. Maybe a CA, but it would be game altering, and FAQs generally aren't game altering...
Meh. Game altering is a matter of perspective. Most of GW's tinkering with CP and Stratagems have been in FAQIIRC, so it wouldn't be out of line for them to make these changes.
You may be right, I cede to your memory. But if you alter the way CP are factored into a built list, not generated but started with, it will obviously shake the meta tree. I mean, Knights will likely go bye bye if this rule were to go up, and you'd see only mono-dex armies. Say goodbye to Custodes, Deathwatch, Greyknights, Daemons, and any other elite armies that rely on small expensive units.
I feel this depends on the CP level. If you gave 15 CP at 2K.. I feel my Pure knights of 3x Crusaders, 3x Armigers is very playable. Also, that much CP in a all Grey knight force has some implications I'd have to think more about. I'm not sure its going to be great, but I think competently played, it would surprise people.
If Marines got a decent re-write on stratagems in the Codex, I feel they would also be something pretty good with 15 CP to burn through.
And it would depend on what the limitations are for bringing extra detachments and extra factions. If its -1 per, so a person with 3 faction soup, was at 11 CP. its still a interesting fight right? 4 extra CP for being pure...
Even if they do something that makes certain factions unplayable overcosted trash post nerf, it might be the only way to get GW to realistically admit that current codex's have some very fundamental issues caused by the ability to power game the ally system.
Lanlaorn wrote: Valkyries absolutely do not mess up the Stormtrooper trait, I can't understand how people continue to argue that after they literally wrote a specialist detachment in Vigilus Ablaze where you take Scions and Valkyries together, with special rules for the Scions dropping out of the Valkyrie.
RAW they do. Just because you dislike it doesn't make it any less true. GW also made it possible for Chaos to use Assassins and for units to be immune to being charged, and for flamers to be the best anti-aircraft weapons in the game. What GW "intends" is meaningless.
read it and weep, go up a post.
I hate to be the one to say this but:
Vigilus Ablaze Designer's Commentary wrote:Q: For the purposes of the Tempestus Drop Force Specialist Detachment, what is a Militarum Tempestus Detachment?
A: A Militarum Tempestus Detachment is an Astra Militarum Detachment that has the Storm Troopers Regimental Doctrine.
RAI? Yes, it's absolutely 100% clear that Valkyries are not meant to detract from you getting the Storm Troopers Regimental Doctrine.
RAW? The argument can be made that yes, they do.
It's circular nonsense but it's what feeds some of the trolls in threads like these. The Vigilus Ablaze bit was effectively a RAI vs RAW perception filter.
So this leads me to another question: Who the hell cares if a paper thin army of 18" shooters gets a rarely if ever goes off ability? Oh my, you're 22 shots of S3 weaponry got an extra 3 shots! Look out for this Las weaponry, three more rounds of this and you might actually kill a single unit! That being said, that squad of Scions will be dead or fleeing by the end of your opponents turn.
RAI, RAW, doesn't matter. Give everyone the rule. Hell, give it to the Commissar: If you are building a master plan to SOMEHOW get all those squads inside Hotshot RF range and then pray that you roll straight 6's, go ahead. Go. NUTS. Because you will lose every time. And that's not the math talking, that's the experience. You build a list upon a prayer, you built a list to lose.
Yeah S3 AP -2. Making SM have guardsmen armor.
I’ve only been talking about being able to get the army into effective range.
Can you say “+1 to hit, Rerolling ones, Rerolling failed wounds against monster/vehicles safe overcharge plasma.
Can you say most of those points burg with melta in melta range?
Scions aren’t about their lasguns. They are about the two plasma in 5 man squads and 4 plasma (likewise with melta and volleyguns) in 10 man squads.
This is all on BS 3, by the way. Scions are thin yes, but Scions are a thin dagger, thrusting into the heart of an army for a deadly alpha strike.
Then you add the various armor improvement psychic powers and get down and you’ve got better armor on your lynchpins.
You MURDER chaff with all the shot Valks put out, as well as being safe from charges because lots of people don’t want to eat overwatch on BS 4 from a Valkyrie.
Scions fold quick, but if the IG is the hammer, the SM the sword, Scions are the plunging dagger.
If the truth can destroy it, then it deserves to be destroyed.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If you change the CP, it will be in something other than a FAQ. Maybe a CA, but it would be game altering, and FAQs generally aren't game altering...
Meh. Game altering is a matter of perspective. Most of GW's tinkering with CP and Stratagems have been in FAQIIRC, so it wouldn't be out of line for them to make these changes.
You may be right, I cede to your memory. But if you alter the way CP are factored into a built list, not generated but started with, it will obviously shake the meta tree. I mean, Knights will likely go bye bye if this rule were to go up, and you'd see only mono-dex armies. Say goodbye to Custodes, Deathwatch, Greyknights, Daemons, and any other elite armies that rely on small expensive units.
I feel this depends on the CP level. If you gave 15 CP at 2K.. I feel my Pure knights of 3x Crusaders, 3x Armigers is very playable. Also, that much CP in a all Grey knight force has some implications I'd have to think more about. I'm not sure its going to be great, but I think competently played, it would surprise people.
If Marines got a decent re-write on stratagems in the Codex, I feel they would also be something pretty good with 15 CP to burn through.
And it would depend on what the limitations are for bringing extra detachments and extra factions. If its -1 per, so a person with 3 faction soup, was at 11 CP. its still a interesting fight right? 4 extra CP for being pure...
Even if they do something that makes certain factions unplayable overcosted trash post nerf, it might be the only way to get GW to realistically admit that current codex's have some very fundamental issues caused by the ability to power game the ally system.
The main issue with going to a base CP is that some factions are going to feel the heat. But with GW moving into Codex2.0 releases, its a good time to make the change, and then rebalance through releases and FAQ's to make the Stratagems worth it, and remove some of the dog stratagems.
I think GW would have been better to move several more stratagems to the universal list. I think the marine shoot something coming in from reinforcement should move to the universal list, and the one that lets a vehicle operate as undamaged, even when damaged, for example.
Bharring wrote: Wait, a Phobos Librarian's Null Zone doesn't affect enemies unless the attackers are wearing a certain kind of armor? How did they write that rule?
Basically, Phobos Libs get a whole other table to look at. All things considered it's actually a pretty cool table until you see all the requirements being for only the dudes inside that particular box.
Hell, not even all of them. The Autocannon dudes don't count!
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Bharring wrote: Wait, a Phobos Librarian's Null Zone doesn't affect enemies unless the attackers are wearing a certain kind of armor? How did they write that rule?
Basically, Phobos Libs get a whole other table to look at. All things considered it's actually a pretty cool table until you see all the requirements being for only the dudes inside that particular box.
As much as I'm sure I will get pounced on for this, I actually don't mind that. The buffs are tagged to the "Phobos" keyword while the debuffs are some stuff that still make bringing a Phobos Librarian an interesting endeavor without the Phobos stuff to back it up.
Hell, not even all of them. The Autocannon dudes don't count!
Suppressors aren't wearing Phobos gear. They're wearing a modified Tacitus(the Intercessor) armor suit per what Goodwin said in his interview while the Inceptors are wearing modified Gravis armor.
An adjusted armour save system ignoring ap instead of so many invulnerable saves.
Like a 2+/2++/6+++
2+ regular save. Ignore the first two ap from weapons firing at it. Regular 6+ invulnerable save.
Keeps the high ap weapons relevant against tough targets and spreads out the field a bit. Probably better for a beta rule for a few superheavies first. From the games I play I feel massed light fire and ineffective high ap, low shot weapons are a concern.
Also maybe CP generation per turn like Kill Team.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/08 23:50:07
Sometimes I want to look up the statline for Havocs. I don't have the book. Not using BS where can I go to freely get that information in under 30 seconds?
If I want to read the writing of the abilities granted to a Castellan?
Ask someone to read them to you.
Here is the dumb side of your argument. You expect people to know all of this. You refuse to allow for a privately created data source for all the information so that you don't have to flip through 30 different books.
No, I expect people to either:
a) Own the codex in question if they're wanting to play with something.
b) Ask their opponent if they can see the book when something comes up.
Now, as to my link, its a break down of every one of their logical breaks in the game. Multiple Cellestines in a single list. Remember that one?
Yeah, it's the same garbage that existed with regards to the "people are gonna spam Archaon/Nagash/whatever!" at the start of AoS.
ApparentlyGW did have to actually tell people that yes, named characters are unique.
Remember the kerfuffle over ATSKNF and rolling die to determine losses?
No I don't, because I don't pay as much attention to the nitwittery as I should I guess.
Remember when they tried to roll out the new character targeting rules? My point is, GW makes ridiculous mistakes constantly, and they get paid millions. So lay off the condescension of battlescribe, because a group of unpaid hobbyists decided to do what GW didn't want to..
Do you seriously think that ruleswriters are "getting paid millions"?
And let's not pretend for a single second that what Battlescribe is doing is difficult outside of maintaining the app itself. It's transcription.
The Cadian Primaris Psyker nonsense is an example that I have loaded because simply put? It was a Battlescribe error. It's emblematic of the culture that has grown up around "I'll look it up on Battlescribe!" nonsense. Anyone who actually read the book should have picked up on the error, but since it didn't get flagged by Battlescribe nobody batted a frigging eye.
There is a reason the frontline guys try to implement tools for uplauding and checking the lists.
Battlescribe is not perfect, but currently its`s the best tool for list building and first list creations.
For instance in Adepticon there was list with brigade with mixed CWE, DE and harlequins and the guy played all his 4 games. Joshua Death also make list building mistake and the error was found from the online gaming community.
With or without battlescribe there will be list building errors, but using the tool will make the percentage much lower.
And yes when i test building list i don`t wanna watch 2-3 books, just to see the points and their changes. Ofcourse it will be smart to check if everything is fine afterward.
phobos librarians can only get null zone by taking the tome of malcador relic (which gives them one libriarius discipline power).
Pretty fun to advance, temporal corridor and advance again, then null zone right up in your opponents grill before shooting the heck out of them. 20-30" threat range makes null zone actually decent.
JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG
Eihnlazer wrote: phobos librarians can only get null zone by taking the tome of malcador relic (which gives them one libriarius discipline power).
Pretty fun to advance, temporal corridor and advance again, then null zone right up in your opponents grill before shooting the heck out of them. 20-30" threat range makes null zone actually decent.
Yeah though that should and probably will be FAQ's to be 1 additional power from the appropriate librarious discipline. No more temporal corridor nullzone RAW abuse.
Eihnlazer wrote: phobos librarians can only get null zone by taking the tome of malcador relic (which gives them one libriarius discipline power).
Pretty fun to advance, temporal corridor and advance again, then null zone right up in your opponents grill before shooting the heck out of them. 20-30" threat range makes null zone actually decent.
Yeah though that should and probably will be FAQ's to be 1 additional power from the appropriate librarious discipline. No more temporal corridor nullzone RAW abuse.
In the land of Castellan Knights, Mental Onslaught, and other broke-ass gak, I think a Phobos Librarian burning a relic and then needing to cast two psychic powers (one of which is Warp Charge 8) to function is hardly a concern. Honestly, with how difficult it actually is to get off, I would be inclined to say it is actually intentional, not a rules-as-written hiccup.
Eihnlazer wrote: phobos librarians can only get null zone by taking the tome of malcador relic (which gives them one libriarius discipline power).
Pretty fun to advance, temporal corridor and advance again, then null zone right up in your opponents grill before shooting the heck out of them. 20-30" threat range makes null zone actually decent.
Yeah though that should and probably will be FAQ's to be 1 additional power from the appropriate librarious discipline. No more temporal corridor nullzone RAW abuse.
In the land of Castellan Knights, Mental Onslaught, and other broke-ass gak, I think a Phobos Librarian burning a relic and then needing to cast two psychic powers (one of which is Warp Charge 8) to function is hardly a concern. Honestly, with how difficult it actually is to get off, I would be inclined to say it is actually intentional, not a rules-as-written hiccup.
I keep forgetting that GW un FAQ'd the FAQ for mental onslaught that took it from what were you smoking to just OP to leave it at what were you smoking.
Again the castellen issue is a CP system and ally system design issue, complain about the castellen when choas player's actually play them as without the strategums stack they are rather meh not bad but not must take either
Matora wrote: An adjusted armour save system ignoring ap instead of so many invulnerable saves.
Like a 2+/2++/6+++
2+ regular save. Ignore the first two ap from weapons firing at it. Regular 6+ invulnerable save.
Keeps the high ap weapons relevant against tough targets and spreads out the field a bit. Probably better for a beta rule for a few superheavies first. From the games I play I feel massed light fire and ineffective high ap, low shot weapons are a concern.
Also maybe CP generation per turn like Kill Team.
The idea is good. I do have a suspicion as of late, that GW is making the game take longer as in use more points, more models, do more rolls etc, to make it feel as if there is more to the game, then there actually is to it. Its like games having artificial road blocks, so you don't finish the whole thing under 20 hours.
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.
CP being reworked to be like Kill Team would make me absurdly happy. Something like:
1CP per turn base.
1CP per turn each turn your Warlord is alive.
1CP per turn for each non-auxiliary detachment you have that shares all faction keywords with your Warlord, 2CP if that detachment is a Brigade.
Current rules for CP generation/regeneration - so once per battle round.
You still get access to all stratagems for your allied detachments - they just don't generate CP.
I'd like that a lot more than a super-draconian "no soup for you" fix.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Well that is kind of a good for armies like IG with their castellans as they don't take the castellan as a warlord or as a method to generate CP, they take it to fuel it with the CP they generate, and to get more out of them then if they took lets say some sort of baneblade for example.
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.
the_scotsman wrote: CP being reworked to be like Kill Team would make me absurdly happy. Something like:
1CP per turn base.
1CP per turn each turn your Warlord is alive.
1CP per turn for each non-auxiliary detachment you have that shares all faction keywords with your Warlord, 2CP if that detachment is a Brigade.
Current rules for CP generation/regeneration - so once per battle round.
You still get access to all stratagems for your allied detachments - they just don't generate CP.
I'd like that a lot more than a super-draconian "no soup for you" fix.
So let's see. As long as I have warlord alive I get 6 CP per turn. Considering I blow through them in 2.5 turns or so with pre-game cp(how would you handle those anyway?) after 3 turns I would have same CP and still go strong.
2 turns if pre-game you get another set so in this example 6.
Some armies will really, really, REALLY get help from this.
What do I want to see in the big FAQ, some of the following would be nice:
Points changes, whilst unlikely on mass I do hope for a few for codexs released after CA2018 went to the printers. Things like the Castellan up a little, some dark eldar units/options need a little tweek (dissy cannons and some flesh cult units up a smidge, perhaps some of the troop options are a little cheap whilst various underused units need to come down a bit), Ork buggies need a little drop, some genecult options like kelermorph could go up a few points.
Command Point Changes to help balance soup - A Beta rule for matched play, It will need to be simple and to still fit in with all the other printed rules without needing lots of erratra. Perhaps something like: "Each detachment that doesn't share all faction keywords with you warlords detachment reduces your command points by 2."
This makes it cost 2 CP to bring in allies, still very worth it to mitigate your armies weakness but it at least has a cost and will reduce the desire of just bringing cheap detachment for CP generation.
I would like a rework of some of the faction bonuses but I think that is unlikely.
Rework/recosting of Stratagems - This I expect, altering some of the big offenders like Rotate Ion shields to a max 4+, perhaps up the cost of all the shoot twice strats and various other outliers.
Flyers - I hope they make it so the bases of flyers do not block enemy movement,
I'd like the cover rules from cities of death to be added as a beta rule.
And lastly the thing I would most like to see is the FAQ to be released as one big complete document that is bookmarked into the appropriate sections for individual books and fully searchable containing all the rule change documents in one place.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If you change the CP, it will be in something other than a FAQ. Maybe a CA, but it would be game altering, and FAQs generally aren't game altering...
Beta Rules have been - didn't they alter CPs for stuff like Battalions in a big faq?
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
5250 pts
3850 pts
2500 pts 
40,000pts
8,000pts
3,000pts
3,000pts
6,000pts
2,000pts
1,000pts
