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.

 EnTyme wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
GW said it would be "April" so knowing them, either next week or the 29th, so they can still claim they released it in April.

. . . if GW releases the FAQ on April 29th, they can claim they released the FAQ in April because they released the FAQ in April. They actually would have had a day to spare. What is it with people acting like if GW doesn't release something the first week of the month, they missed the deadline?

Not only did you miss the point in his statement, you also strawmanned his position and took it to the extreme. Well done.

the_scotsman wrote:


This is the kind of pants-on-head kneejerk madness that I'm talking about here.

In what possible fething universe is a bullgryn a "top tier competitive option"??? When have they EVER been a significant part of the competitive meta? Maybe back in the day of allied celestine Imperium detachment right after the codex dropped they got used in one list and everyone lost their minds?

You might want to catch up with the year 2019 - in which some seriously big tournaments have been won by lists containing a big unit of Bullgryn. Tournaments like the LVO and even last weekend the Broadside Bash.

Basically its a given at this stage that they are a top tier unit that appears fairly frequently in tournament winning lists. Sorry you could not keep up.

Chaos legion traits brought in line with almost every other army so they apply to all units, not just infantry, bikes, hellbrutes.

Darsath wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
GW said it would be "April" so knowing them, either next week or the 29th, so they can still claim they released it in April.

. . . if GW releases the FAQ on April 29th, they can claim they released the FAQ in April because they released the FAQ in April. They actually would have had a day to spare. What is it with people acting like if GW doesn't release something the first week of the month, they missed the deadline?

Not only did you miss the point in his statement, you also strawmanned his position and took it to the extreme. Well done.

What exactly IS the point of his statement?

Bullgryns are REALLY, REALLY good, especially in ITC.

Danny slag wrote:
Chaos legion traits brought in line with almost every other army so they apply to all units, not just infantry, bikes, hellbrutes.

I have to add that to Primaris Transport Segregation on the list of things I forgot to complain about.

Danny slag wrote:
Chaos legion traits brought in line with almost every other army so they apply to all units, not just infantry, bikes, hellbrutes.

Well, except marines. And dark angels. And thousand sons. And grey knights. And sisters. and genestealer cult. And custodes.

At this point, 12 codexes follow the "marine pattern" of infantry, bikers, and walkers getting traits.

2 codexes are Daemons and Drukhari, where most units get traits, but the traits available to units are subdivided within the codex and you only gain those traits if you have a detachment entirely composed of one sub-group.

9 codexes have traits that apply to the whole or almost the whole codex.

Now unless my math is wrong, that's not really a consistent pattern that shows every other army getting something and just marines not...And honestly, if I were to pick a codex with the absolute worst implementation of chapter tactics-equivalent, it has got to be Daemons. Subdivided such that only about 6-10 units can possibly get one single fixed trait, AND on top of that instead of applying to all units like everyone else actually gets, they only apply to units within 6" of a character from the detachment.

And what are these amaze-balls chapter tactics you ask? Well, they're, uh...not...that. You know how everyone thinks the black templars trait is so fething strong that you should be limited to only 1/4 of the codex and it should only be a 6" aura that characters get? Like how everyone is up in arms like "wtf GW why you no nerf that black templar trait yet???"

Well the tzeentch trait actually manages to be worse than that, the nurgle trait is half decent and the slaanesh trait is also one of the decent ones from the CSM dex (renegades trait).

But are they amazing enough that you need to

-limit them to character auras
-limit them to detachments made up of 1/4 of the codex

AND

-give players no options of which traits to choose




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Bullgryns are REALLY, REALLY good, especially in ITC.

Alright, fair enough. I have not kept up with the ITC castellanhammer meta the last couple of months, and Bullgryns have come into vogue as an anvil unit. Great gak, let's double their points value based on a particular set of missions and houserules not written by GW and pat ourselves on the back.

the_scotsman wrote:

And what are these amaze-balls chapter tactics you ask? Well, they're, uh...not...that. You know how everyone thinks the black templars trait is so fething strong that you should be limited to only 1/4 of the codex and it should only be a 6" aura that characters get? Like how everyone is up in arms like "wtf GW why you no nerf that black templar trait yet???"

As someone who plays both Black Templars and Khorne Daemons, it's infinitely better on Khorne Daemons. It's still silly design though.

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Bullgryns are REALLY, REALLY good, especially in ITC.

Alright, fair enough. I have not kept up with the ITC castellanhammer meta the last couple of months, and Bullgryns have come into vogue as an anvil unit. Great gak, let's double their points value based on a particular set of missions and houserules not written by GW and pat ourselves on the back.

Just to chime in, I'm pretty no one was actually talking about nerfing bullgryns, you're the first one to bring it up. Rather, some people were initially suggesting that Guard should get more CP than Marines because their individual units are generally weaker and that stratagems are therefore less effective on Guard. People who disagreed used bullgryns as a counterpoint to that claim.

Bullgryn's are really good in normal play too, not just ITC. A unit that can tank everything in key areas for the entire game is always going to be useful

Anyways, one of the guys on chapter tactics podcast said that the FAQ was "big" but didn't go into anymore detail but it's clear they've seen it already.

"Alright, fair enough. I have not kept up with the ITC castellanhammer meta the last couple of months, and Bullgryns have come into vogue as an anvil unit. Great gak, let's double their points value based on a particular set of missions and houserules not written by GW and pat ourselves on the back."

I consider those houserules the real rules. I don't consider GW as legitimate at writing scenarios yet. I never said double. They are just another area where IG dominate marines in my book.

I mean, GW has fully embraced ITC and its missions.......ITC are the people helping to play test and units are playtested with ITC missions.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean, GW has fully embraced ITC and its missions.......ITC are the people helping to play test and units are playtested with ITC missions.

If the bit in bold is true, then a, GW should be firing someone; and b, it probably helps explain at least some of the problems with the game.

You playtest the game with the rules of the game, as close to RAW as written, and provide feedback. You should not be applying house rules, custom scenarios, or other deviations, or you skew the data.

Has anyone confirmed this is the case, btw? As opposed to it just being that FLG are involved in playtesting?

 Dysartes wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean, GW has fully embraced ITC and its missions.......ITC are the people helping to play test and units are playtested with ITC missions.

If the bit in bold is true, then a, GW should be firing someone; and b, it probably helps explain at least some of the problems with the game.

You playtest the game with the rules of the game, as close to RAW as written, and provide feedback. You should not be applying house rules, custom scenarios, or other deviations, or you skew the data.

Has anyone confirmed this is the case, btw? As opposed to it just being that FLG are involved in playtesting?

Some of their feedback comes from big tournaments, but it's when rules are used in ways they didn't intend more than who is winning the most games.

 Dysartes wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean, GW has fully embraced ITC and its missions.......ITC are the people helping to play test and units are playtested with ITC missions.

If the bit in bold is true, then a, GW should be firing someone; and b, it probably helps explain at least some of the problems with the game.

You playtest the game with the rules of the game, as close to RAW as written, and provide feedback. You should not be applying house rules, custom scenarios, or other deviations, or you skew the data.

Has anyone confirmed this is the case, btw? As opposed to it just being that FLG are involved in playtesting?

Functionally, ITC IS the rules of the game in a lot of ways. GW's scenarios are not that useful imo.

Martel732 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean, GW has fully embraced ITC and its missions.......ITC are the people helping to play test and units are playtested with ITC missions.

If the bit in bold is true, then a, GW should be firing someone; and b, it probably helps explain at least some of the problems with the game.

You playtest the game with the rules of the game, as close to RAW as written, and provide feedback. You should not be applying house rules, custom scenarios, or other deviations, or you skew the data.

Has anyone confirmed this is the case, btw? As opposed to it just being that FLG are involved in playtesting?

Functionally, ITC IS the rules of the game in a lot of ways. GW's scenarios are not that useful imo.

In the US, maybe. In the rest of the world? Not so much. I've played maybe 5 ITC games in the last year. And yes I'm a regular tournament player.

Well, that's a problem, then. However, I think it's not quite such a big problem as people think. Opaque 1st floor windows and giving slight benefits to large squads doesn't change the value of most units. Guardsmen and Raven castellans are still broken.

Martel732 wrote:
Well, that's a problem, then. However, I think it's not quite such a big problem as people think. Opaque 1st floor windows and giving slight benefits to large squads doesn't change the value of most units. Guardsmen and Raven castellans are still broken.

Honestly haven't had a problem against guard or castellan since we started playing CA19 regularly. They aren't winning tournaments much anymore either, just a gatekeeper list really.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean, GW has fully embraced ITC and its missions.......ITC are the people helping to play test and units are playtested with ITC missions.

GW have given them a slap on the back and a cheeky wink. They've taken some elements of the ITC rules and discarded others - a full embrace would have CA2018 and ITC in alignment, not to mention their own tournaments!

I mean....doesn't GW also encourage custom missions.........I mean really the only iron clad ruls are those in the small pamphlet and codexes?

the_scotsman wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
Chaos legion traits brought in line with almost every other army so they apply to all units, not just infantry, bikes, hellbrutes.

Well, except marines. And dark angels. And thousand sons. And grey knights. And sisters. and genestealer cult. And custodes.

And orks. And necrons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean....doesn't GW also encourage custom missions.........I mean really the only iron clad ruls are those in the small pamphlet and codexes?

Nor is there consistent set of scenarios for gw with rulebook, ca2017 and ca2018 scenarios.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean....doesn't GW also encourage custom missions.........I mean really the only iron clad ruls are those in the small pamphlet and codexes?

Custom missions for general play are fine - custom missions and house rules when you're meant to be testing how something works against the actual framework of the game so you can provide feedback? Not so much.

Martel732 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean, GW has fully embraced ITC and its missions.......ITC are the people helping to play test and units are playtested with ITC missions.

If the bit in bold is true, then a, GW should be firing someone; and b, it probably helps explain at least some of the problems with the game.

You playtest the game with the rules of the game, as close to RAW as written, and provide feedback. You should not be applying house rules, custom scenarios, or other deviations, or you skew the data.

Has anyone confirmed this is the case, btw? As opposed to it just being that FLG are involved in playtesting?

Functionally, ITC IS the rules of the game in a lot of ways. GW's scenarios are not that useful imo.

Lmao, no.

I lot of the tournaments play ITC, sure, but there are a lot more players don't rarely, if ever go to tournaments and dont use ITC rules.

and they have their own house rules and variable scenarios. There is no universal rule. As it is such idea is functionally impossible. And even GW doesn't have unified set of scenarios having what like 36 missions and more coming all the time. At least ITC has more stability. And are more suited for competive games anyway. The GW scenarios are joke if you are looking at game where skill is biggest factor.

Heafstaag wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean, GW has fully embraced ITC and its missions.......ITC are the people helping to play test and units are playtested with ITC missions.

If the bit in bold is true, then a, GW should be firing someone; and b, it probably helps explain at least some of the problems with the game.

You playtest the game with the rules of the game, as close to RAW as written, and provide feedback. You should not be applying house rules, custom scenarios, or other deviations, or you skew the data.

Has anyone confirmed this is the case, btw? As opposed to it just being that FLG are involved in playtesting?

Functionally, ITC IS the rules of the game in a lot of ways. GW's scenarios are not that useful imo.

Lmao, no.

I lot of the tournaments play ITC, sure, but there are a lot more players don't rarely, if ever go to tournaments and dont use ITC rules.

*Citation needed

Audustum wrote:

Heafstaag wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean, GW has fully embraced ITC and its missions.......ITC are the people helping to play test and units are playtested with ITC missions.

If the bit in bold is true, then a, GW should be firing someone; and b, it probably helps explain at least some of the problems with the game.

You playtest the game with the rules of the game, as close to RAW as written, and provide feedback. You should not be applying house rules, custom scenarios, or other deviations, or you skew the data.

Has anyone confirmed this is the case, btw? As opposed to it just being that FLG are involved in playtesting?

Functionally, ITC IS the rules of the game in a lot of ways. GW's scenarios are not that useful imo.

Lmao, no.

I lot of the tournaments play ITC, sure, but there are a lot more players don't rarely, if ever go to tournaments and dont use ITC rules.

*Citation needed

Who, Martel?
Because as it stands he first threw out a general statement.

 Dysartes wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean....doesn't GW also encourage custom missions.........I mean really the only iron clad ruls are those in the small pamphlet and codexes?

Custom missions for general play are fine - custom missions and house rules when you're meant to be testing how something works against the actual framework of the game so you can provide feedback? Not so much.

Hmmm, What house rules are there.....hmmmm, Oh, you mean the bottom floor? The one made because bao 2017 didnt have the best terrain and they needed a way tu curb shooting and it became standard so tournaments can still have decent games when terrain isnt up to par?

tneva82 wrote:
and they have their own house rules and variable scenarios. There is no universal rule. As it is such idea is functionally impossible. And even GW doesn't have unified set of scenarios having what like 36 missions and more coming all the time. At least ITC has more stability. And are more suited for competive games anyway. The GW scenarios are joke if you are looking at game where skill is biggest factor.

ITC really isn't very skill testing as you only need to be able to play one scenario and have an easy to learn mechanic for covering your weaknesses baked in (picking secondaries). It's not a good format for testing play skill, it's all about list optimisation skill as far as I can tell. I've played it enough (and done well at it) to know it feels like the matchups are more important than the mission and that it feels like a low skill version of a normal tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean....doesn't GW also encourage custom missions.........I mean really the only iron clad ruls are those in the small pamphlet and codexes?

Custom missions for general play are fine - custom missions and house rules when you're meant to be testing how something works against the actual framework of the game so you can provide feedback? Not so much.

Hmmm, What house rules are there.....hmmmm, Oh, you mean the bottom floor? The one made because bao 2017 didnt have the best terrain and they needed a way tu curb shooting and it became standard so tournaments can still have decent games when terrain isnt up to par?

and the magic boxes.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Hmmm, What house rules are there.....hmmmm, Oh, you mean the bottom floor? The one made because bao 2017 didnt have the best terrain and they needed a way tu curb shooting and it became standard so tournaments can still have decent games when terrain isnt up to par?

Bottom Floor is the least of it (though it exaggerates some armies (e.g. Dark Reapers hiding, which isn't so easy in vanilla 40K) and nerfs others (e.g. Tau).

But more fundamental, the very basic win/lose conditions are changed in 40K compared to the win/lose conditions presented in the rules/chapter approved. Doesn't get more fundamental than tinkering with the things that decide who gets to win or lose a given game and how they get to win or lose a given game.

tneva82 wrote:
and they have their own house rules and variable scenarios. There is no universal rule. As it is such idea is functionally impossible. And even GW doesn't have unified set of scenarios having what like 36 missions and more coming all the time. At least ITC has more stability. And are more suited for competive games anyway. The GW scenarios are joke if you are looking at game where skill is biggest factor.

Both sets of CA missions are pretty skill testing. The newest eternal war ones even managed to get the dynamic of maelstrom games without the luck factor of drawing perfect/terrible cards.

Meanwhile, most of the ITC top players tell you that picking the right objectives is the most important thing - something that isn't even part of Warhammer 40k.