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.
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.
This sure has gone in circles. All that seems to come from it is some people are so hateful of IG they won't really be happy until they are an auto lose in even a casual game. Granted that isn't everything staying that but a vocal few that seem to have more hate in them towards the game than love at this point. To now going back and forth about ITC use and goodness. If you were a new player you'd be forgiven to read most of this and just think the game is an awful mess and only certain lists should ever show up to any game or lose, painfully so.
I'd have to say unless all codex are having all their good units nerfed, just demanding it for guard feels like faction bias. You can say the defenders have it, but I don't see many of the guard defenders saying there aren't issues. However should only good units be struck down, how about the worse ones being brought up ? How about all books get that treatment, obviously some books don't have much of an issue but I'd like this to be a fair thing if it has to happen. Not just being a one faction smack down because some people just " HATE GWARD ! ". I say this because basically it was said earlier, well guard have many OP units, and those listed were pretty substantial.
Oh and just to add to the bullgryn talk, I'd feel awful bad indeed to think that an expensive infantry tough unit is tanky, how dare they be tanky, the fiends. How dare they be the best target of take cover, you could say the only good unit for it aside from maybe expensive set up scions. How. Dare. They.
AngryAngel80 wrote: This sure has gone in circles. All that seems to come from it is some people are so hateful of IG they won't really be happy until they are an auto lose in even a casual game. Granted that isn't everything staying that but a vocal few that seem to have more hate in them towards the game than love at this point. To now going back and forth about ITC use and goodness. If you were a new player you'd be forgiven to read most of this and just think the game is an awful mess and only certain lists should ever show up to any game or lose, painfully so.
I'd have to say unless all codex are having all their good units nerfed, just demanding it for guard feels like faction bias. You can say the defenders have it, but I don't see many of the guard defenders saying there aren't issues. However should only good units be struck down, how about the worse ones being brought up ? How about all books get that treatment, obviously some books don't have much of an issue but I'd like this to be a fair thing if it has to happen. Not just being a one faction smack down because some people just " HATE GWARD ! ". I say this because basically it was said earlier, well guard have many OP units, and those listed were pretty substantial.
Oh and just to add to the bullgryn talk, I'd feel awful bad indeed to think that an expensive infantry tough unit is tanky, how dare they be tanky, the fiends. How dare they be the best target of take cover, you could say the only good unit for it aside from maybe expensive set up scions. How. Dare. They.
I have 2 armies that I have an extensive collection of. Imperial Guard and Necrons. The difference between the 2 armies is enormous in terms of playability. Imperial Guard are certainly too good as it stand compared to other books. It doesn't necessarily mean that it needs nerfs, but considering the amount of power creep already in the game, adding more isn't exactly a good suggestion. If anything, a lot of stuff needs to be reeled back on. This also stands for other units and factions (Ynarri, Eldar, Orks etc). Not all units in an otherwise overpowered book are great or even worth running at all, though (Chimeras come to mind), but to think that the faction doesn't deserve any of the hate it receives would just be ignorant. And this coming from someone who owns a large IG army, and plays it almost exclusively in 8th edition (also my 1st army I started).
The thing I want the most from this April FaQ is for GW to release it already. Halfway through April, 2-3 weeks since Adepticon and not even a "Warhammer Community post" about it since.
p5freak wrote: It can only disappoint, because expectations are huge after almost 3 weeks of waiting.
Considering the insane wishlisting in this thread, after GW said to not expect big changes there was always going to be massive disappointment, regardless of when they release it.
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.
One of the base mechanics of ITC is a system by which a 30-point squad of gretchin is worth one point
and a 600-point castellan is worth....one point.
That's probably the least balanced system for determining who scores what that I have ever heard of.
"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!"
I'd have to say unless all codex are having all their good units nerfed, just demanding it for guard feels like faction bias.
I play Black Templars; I don't have good units.
Your move.
I know this is a minor thing, , but can we please determine at some point whether we want to have our cake or eat it when it comes to subfactions?
Everybody seems fine with nerfing Dark Reapers and now Harlequin Skyweavers because of the existence of Ynnari, or Chaos Cultists because of Abbadon, or Grotesques because of the 4++ trait, or Basilisks and Battle Tanks because of Catachans and Sgt Harker, but when it comes to space marines suddenly the optimal choices for subfaction aren't the only ones that exist.
"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!"
I'd have to say unless all codex are having all their good units nerfed, just demanding it for guard feels like faction bias.
I play Black Templars; I don't have good units.
Your move.
I know this is a minor thing, , but can we please determine at some point whether we want to have our cake or eat it when it comes to subfactions?
Everybody seems fine with nerfing Dark Reapers and now Harlequin Skyweavers because of the existence of Ynnari, or Chaos Cultists because of Abbadon, or Grotesques because of the 4++ trait, or Basilisks and Battle Tanks because of Catachans and Sgt Harker, but when it comes to space marines suddenly the optimal choices for subfaction aren't the only ones that exist.
The problem is the 4++ trait and Catachans improve overall the performance of the units, Marines can be ravenguard with-1 to hit, but they arn't getting Guilliman buffs, or they are Ultramarines and arnt getting-1 to hit. It's just an unfortunate part of GW lauching codex's with out having a fixed set of design rules for the 8th edition codex's.
Just to be clear Guilliman reroll's aura is stupidity incarnate, but GW has just kept doubling down on re-rolls for your rerolls.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/18 11:58:27
p5freak wrote: It can only disappoint, because expectations are huge after almost 3 weeks of waiting.
Considering the insane wishlisting in this thread, after GW said to not expect big changes there was always going to be massive disappointment, regardless of when they release it.
Precisely.
They've been trying to manage expectations, and we should not expect something as major as last Spring's Big FAQ. Maybe ratify the Bolter rule and some adjustments to recent releases (Loota bomb mechanics and perhaps and Mental Onslaught)?
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
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?
That they will delay it as long as possible while avoiding being called out for lying. It should have been out already.
Also on the subject of ITC I really doubt they are playtesting using ITC missions. Why would they playtest the game with house rules? Without devolving this back into the ITC vs. other debate, from what I've heard GW's playtesting is actually incredibly simplistic. They don't let you build your own armies, it's basically here take this 1500 point army we've decided on and test it against this other 1500 point army we've decided on, tell us if anything didn't work.
If they let the playtesters actually build armies, then they'd see where a lot of the problem is. But telling them to use WD style armies with a mishmash of units isn't showing any real issues with the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/18 12:07:33
Ice_can wrote: The problem is the 4++ trait and Catachans improve overall the performance of the units
But that's the point - would it not be more sensible to nerf the subfaction abilities, rather than the units themselves?
If you nerf Grotesques because of the 4++ from Prophets of Flesh, then all you're doing is forcing everyone to use that subfaction in order to make Grotesques actually worth their cost.
Surely it would be better to instead nerf Prophets of Flesh to bring its bonus in line with the bonuses of the other two Coven subfactions?
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Ice_can wrote: The problem is the 4++ trait and Catachans improve overall the performance of the units
But that's the point - would it not be more sensible to nerf the subfaction abilities, rather than the units themselves?
If you nerf Grotesques because of the 4++ from Prophets of Flesh, then all you're doing is forcing everyone to use that subfaction in order to make Grotesques actually worth their cost.
Surely it would be better to instead nerf Prophets of Flesh to bring its bonus in line with the bonuses of the other two Coven subfactions?
Apparently on one of the podcasts (I forget the name, but it's the conpetetive one run by Pablo and is tied to the group that has been doing all of GW's playtesting) the FAQ is apparently quite big, bit that could just mean they tried tonanswer more questions this time.
Ice_can wrote: The problem is the 4++ trait and Catachans improve overall the performance of the units
But that's the point - would it not be more sensible to nerf the subfaction abilities, rather than the units themselves?
If you nerf Grotesques because of the 4++ from Prophets of Flesh, then all you're doing is forcing everyone to use that subfaction in order to make Grotesques actually worth their cost.
Surely it would be better to instead nerf Prophets of Flesh to bring its bonus in line with the bonuses of the other two Coven subfactions?
Or at least one of them. We should probably bring Dark Creed up a bit and Prophets down a bit, to hopefully meet in the middle with Coven of Twelve.
Dark Creed wrote:Distillers of Fear: Models in enemy units must subtract one from their leadership for each unit with this obsession that is within 6" to a max of -3.
Coven of Twelve wrote:Butchers of Flesh: All melee weapons have one better ap. (0 ap becomes -1) Does not apply to relics.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/18 12:11:47
ClockworkZion wrote: Apparently on one of the podcasts (I forget the name, but it's the conpetetive one run by Pablo and is tied to the group that has been doing all of GW's playtesting) the FAQ is apparently quite big, bit that could just mean they tried tonanswer more questions this time.
ClockworkZion wrote: Apparently on one of the podcasts (I forget the name, but it's the conpetetive one run by Pablo and is tied to the group that has been doing all of GW's playtesting) the FAQ is apparently quite big, bit that could just mean they tried tonanswer more questions this time.
Chapter Tactics
Thanks. I took a couple months off to focus on other things to include off of podcasts and seem to have forgotten some things.
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.
One of the base mechanics of ITC is a system by which a 30-point squad of gretchin is worth one point
and a 600-point castellan is worth....one point.
That's probably the least balanced system for determining who scores what that I have ever heard of.
Only f you completely ignore Secondary Victory Conditions. Those are as important to the game as the Primary Victory Conditions.
Ice_can wrote: The problem is the 4++ trait and Catachans improve overall the performance of the units
But that's the point - would it not be more sensible to nerf the subfaction abilities, rather than the units themselves?
If you nerf Grotesques because of the 4++ from Prophets of Flesh, then all you're doing is forcing everyone to use that subfaction in order to make Grotesques actually worth their cost.
Surely it would be better to instead nerf Prophets of Flesh to bring its bonus in line with the bonuses of the other two Coven subfactions?
The point I was trying to make maybe badly was, what is the downside to taking Prophets of Flesh?
Whats the downside to taking the best subfaction traits for a number of armies, usually the loss of charictors or another equally effective trait, some of the codex's has clear winners and loosers, while marines etc seam to only be effective if you actually stack them all ontop of each other, it's just more evidence that GW didn't actually check the impact of some of these beyond oh this is so cool in the codex it goes.
How a 4++ is the same as -1 Ld ship in anyone's mind I don't know.
I know this is a minor thing, , but can we please determine at some point whether we want to have our cake or eat it when it comes to subfactions?
Everybody seems fine with nerfing Dark Reapers and now Harlequin Skyweavers because of the existence of Ynnari, or Chaos Cultists because of Abbadon, or Grotesques because of the 4++ trait, or Basilisks and Battle Tanks because of Catachans and Sgt Harker, but when it comes to space marines suddenly the optimal choices for subfaction aren't the only ones that exist.
Dark Reapers have an "ignore all negative to hit penalties" bit right?
If so, that's what I want to see changed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/18 13:21:14
Ice_can wrote: The problem is the 4++ trait and Catachans improve overall the performance of the units
But that's the point - would it not be more sensible to nerf the subfaction abilities, rather than the units themselves?
If you nerf Grotesques because of the 4++ from Prophets of Flesh, then all you're doing is forcing everyone to use that subfaction in order to make Grotesques actually worth their cost.
Surely it would be better to instead nerf Prophets of Flesh to bring its bonus in line with the bonuses of the other two Coven subfactions?
Or at least one of them. We should probably bring Dark Creed up a bit and Prophets down a bit, to hopefully meet in the middle with Coven of Twelve.
Yeah giving 4++ to everything is way stronger than the rest, but how would you nerf it ? its litterally a 1-point difference, and because the game uses D6's it doesnt offer the granularity required. Only way i could see a nerf to it would be for it to only work in the shooting OR fight phase, or for it to work only from attacks outside x" (kinda like the -1 to hit traits many armies have)
The problem in 40K isn't really stuff dying too slowly.
Probably all Kabal units should have a 4++ and than add their creed on top.
Probably all (Craftworld) Eldar should have a -1 to hit and than add their craftworld trait on top (with Alaitoc possibly being a flat -2).
Etc...
Or just take down the BS/WS of every datasheet in the game up by a point (e.g. BS Custodes go to 3+, Marines/Eldar to 4+, Guard to 5+, Orks to 6+, etc..)
Yeah giving 4++ to everything is way stronger than the rest, but how would you nerf it ? its litterally a 1-point difference, and because the game uses D6's it doesnt offer the granularity required. Only way i could see a nerf to it would be for it to only work in the shooting OR fight phase, or for it to work only from attacks outside x" (kinda like the -1 to hit traits many armies have)
This on it's head is such a ridiculous statement, because there is little reason that a list in ITC can't also work under other formats. And, indeed, if you look at the top 24 who went to Adeption and also to LVO; they used largely the SAME list for both tournaments.
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?
That they will delay it as long as possible while avoiding being called out for lying. It should have been out already.
Also on the subject of ITC I really doubt they are playtesting using ITC missions. Why would they playtest the game with house rules? Without devolving this back into the ITC vs. other debate, from what I've heard GW's playtesting is actually incredibly simplistic. They don't let you build your own armies, it's basically here take this 1500 point army we've decided on and test it against this other 1500 point army we've decided on, tell us if anything didn't work.
If they let the playtesters actually build armies, then they'd see where a lot of the problem is. But telling them to use WD style armies with a mishmash of units isn't showing any real issues with the game.
So, EnTyme DID get it right then?
The rest of your posts is conjecture unless you have a source to back it up?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/18 13:42:55
I'd have to say unless all codex are having all their good units nerfed, just demanding it for guard feels like faction bias.
I play Black Templars; I don't have good units.
Your move.
I know this is a minor thing, , but can we please determine at some point whether we want to have our cake or eat it when it comes to subfactions?
Everybody seems fine with nerfing Dark Reapers and now Harlequin Skyweavers because of the existence of Ynnari, or Chaos Cultists because of Abbadon, or Grotesques because of the 4++ trait, or Basilisks and Battle Tanks because of Catachans and Sgt Harker, but when it comes to space marines suddenly the optimal choices for subfaction aren't the only ones that exist.
The problem is the 4++ trait and Catachans improve overall the performance of the units, Marines can be ravenguard with-1 to hit, but they arn't getting Guilliman buffs, or they are Ultramarines and arnt getting-1 to hit. It's just an unfortunate part of GW lauching codex's with out having a fixed set of design rules for the 8th edition codex's.
Just to be clear Guilliman reroll's aura is stupidity incarnate, but GW has just kept doubling down on re-rolls for your rerolls.
Yeah, it's almost like darts were thrown at a dartboard with zero regard for strength or balance and instead just each section was built around what "Feels" right.
Hey, should we make sure (like with Ultramarines vs Raven Guard/Salamanders) the subfaction bonus with the extra special character doesn't have the strongest army bonus?
Nah, slap in the special character with the head-and-shoulders better trait of "everything gets 1/6 more durable" and leave the alternatives as "hey don't you like Night Lords" and "everything gets a small amount more offense"
Urien Rakarth, the only special character covens have, is in the Raven Guard equivalent for Covens.
Contrast with Guard, where the best traits mechanically are also the best traits for characters/stratagems. overlapping fields of fire, Harker, allllllll the cadian characters are paired up with the mechanically best catachan/cadian traits.
There is no mysterious conspiracy at play here, no semblance of "GW is trying to do one thing, to balance things out". MAYBE once or twice some game designer said "let's give knights/Custodes strong stratagems because they'll have less CPs" but that's definitely not a rule. Guard stratagems were not made bad on purpose because of their big CP pool - that just kind of happened, they were not immune to some of the effects of codex creep despite being on the whole a really strong codex.
This is why I'm in favor of some sort of setting of equality or relative equality in CP access and sorting the rest out later - there's gotta be some consistency. Same with army traits, and which types of models get them. It's stupid that I'm hideously limited in how I can get my Tzeentch daemons their crappy-ass, non-synergistic single trait (Tzeentch is a psychic/shooting focused army primarily and their trait only works in melee) but I can CHOOSE to just have my whole (melee focused) Harlequin army get that trait....and spoiler alert nobody does because it is straight up the worst trait in the whole harlequin book. It's just a terrible fething trait in general.
I criticize blanket, simple fixes a lot as short sighted, because often they are. But the kind of cancerous inconsistency with which GW has developed the rules of 8th have created a much bigger and tougher to fix problem. So I don't really care whether CPs are made uniform via a "you get a bucket of them" solution like some folks here have suggested or if we go to some kind of system like kill team where you get an amount per turn. Either will improve game balance overall.
"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!"
ITC is a different game though. The victory conditions are different. The rules for terrain are different. The thing that bothers me the most is units are artificially inflated by the secondary rules. Some armies have less total points you can score off them (this is really silly).\
I am fairly certain that GW does not play test competitive armies at all. They just talk to a few people and look at a few tournaments results and make slapstick adjustments. They probably had 1 or 2 test games per army with the indexes before that (more than they ever did before) which they made very few changes - convinced they made a perfect edition after those games.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/18 13:56:13
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
Xenomancers wrote: ITC is a different game though. The victory conditions are different. The rules for terrain are different. The thing that bothers me the most is units are artificially inflated by the secondary rules. Some armies have less total points you can score off them (this is really silly).
And how is this any different when playing the missions from CA17 and then the missions from CA18?
Yeah giving 4++ to everything is way stronger than the rest, but how would you nerf it ? its litterally a 1-point difference, and because the game uses D6's it doesnt offer the granularity required. Only way i could see a nerf to it would be for it to only work in the shooting OR fight phase, or for it to work only from attacks outside x" (kinda like the -1 to hit traits many armies have)
Just make it reroll 1s. Still a reasonable bump.
Yeah. There is a weird, pointless moratorium on GW doing anything to balance army traits or unit rules except through release of a codex that just kind of...needs to stop. I don't know. There are like a dozen army traits that just need total reworks at this point.
Too Good:
-Catachan
-All -1 to hit traits
-Cadian
-Tau (again with the best trait also being the one that has the characters!)
-Evil Sunz
-Deffskullz
-Coven of...4++..iness. I can't even remember the subfaction names for Drukhari and they're like my main faction lol. They're such a non-decision.
-The harlequin speedy trait that is an auto-include
To bad:
-Almost too many to list, but the total never-usefuls should probably be looked at, like
-Tzeentch
-Black Templars
-Word bearers
-Valhallan
-All the eldar ones that are not -1 to hit
-all the leadership debuff ones in every faction
-blood axes
-Grey knights
-Space puppers
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/18 13:55:53
"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!"
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
