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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:


umm, okay? Nobody said my opponents were bad, Its just if I'm playing one of the many tourney only players in my local, I play to specifically not win, just to make it as difficult for them to win how they want to. Normally I play relaxed fluffy fun lists and most of my opponents play likewise so I prefer to play with them. but I will not turn down a game due to not liking my opponent/list/style of play. that just screams pussyway out.

You said GW doesn't care about balance. You couched in sentiment against tournament results ("Powergamermeta blows don-key balls" / "most likely due to how they play") and general distaste towards balance in general ("I don't care about balance"), which doesn't make sense the more I read it.

The anecdotes you provide do not represent the wider community. Tournaments provide us a picture into how units perform on the table and results in sound, usable data.

If you want to play relaxed fluffy lists then balance doesn't really matter. Regardless, GW potentially took a step towards being able to build armies without being forced into needing knights or soup. It doesn't matter how you play, because that's good for everyone.

I'd like to add to this with a constructive suggestion. Racerguy, you give a ton of good examples of things people can already do in this game provided they play narrative or open play. You do not have to follow the matched play tournament style rules if you don't want to, and if you'd like to craft a scenario that tests your friend's mettle then you absolutely can!

Question. Can you outfit devastators with heavy flamers?

IMHO the IDEAL is for a fluffy list to be a strong list..

 Argive wrote:
Question. Can you outfit devastators with heavy flamers?

No, but good try.

 Argive wrote:
Question. Can you outfit devastators with heavy flamers?

You can take two heavy flamers in a Sternguard squad, bout it.

BrianDavion wrote:
IMHO the IDEAL is for a fluffy list to be a strong list..

It's a pity that 'fluffy' has become such a subjective concept these days, though.

Lemondish wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:


umm, okay? Nobody said my opponents were bad, Its just if I'm playing one of the many tourney only players in my local, I play to specifically not win, just to make it as difficult for them to win how they want to. Normally I play relaxed fluffy fun lists and most of my opponents play likewise so I prefer to play with them. but I will not turn down a game due to not liking my opponent/list/style of play. that just screams pussyway out.

You said GW doesn't care about balance. You couched in sentiment against tournament results ("Powergamermeta blows don-key balls" / "most likely due to how they play") and general distaste towards balance in general ("I don't care about balance"), which doesn't make sense the more I read it.

The anecdotes you provide do not represent the wider community. Tournaments provide us a picture into how units perform on the table and results in sound, usable data.

If you want to play relaxed fluffy lists then balance doesn't really matter. Regardless, GW potentially took a step towards being able to build armies without being forced into needing knights or soup. It doesn't matter how you play, because that's good for everyone.

I'd like to add to this with a constructive suggestion. Racerguy, you give a ton of good examples of things people can already do in this game provided they play narrative or open play. You do not have to follow the matched play tournament style rules if you don't want to, and if you'd like to craft a scenario that tests your friend's mettle then you absolutely can!

Matched play does not equal tourney. pick up games @ Flgs shouldnt require loyal32, traitor17, or whatever. You should be able to show up, play someone without a prearranged game and not have to worry about requiring the bestest newest hotness op spam.

I've said several times that GW needs to make a dedicated TOURNAMENT ruleset.

Racerguy180 wrote:


Matched play does not equal tourney. pick up games @ Flgs shouldnt require loyal32, traitor17, or whatever. You should be able to show up, play someone without a prearranged game and not have to worry about requiring the bestest newest hotness op spam.

I've said several times that GW needs to make a dedicated TOURNAMENT ruleset.

If your local community is bringing the meta lists for pick up games that's a problem with your local community. However to have good balance in 40k. The meta has to exist. That's how we spot the problems. GW being bad at writing a balanced ruleset and fixing issues with the Meta is not the fault of the Meta, but a fault of GWs.

 Crazyterran wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Question. Can you outfit devastators with heavy flamers?

You can take two heavy flamers in a Sternguard squad, bout it.

Is that 2 per 5 man squad ?

 Argive wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Question. Can you outfit devastators with heavy flamers?

You can take two heavy flamers in a Sternguard squad, bout it.

Is that 2 per 5 man squad ?

Yessir, unless the new book changes it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

balmong7 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:


Matched play does not equal tourney. pick up games @ Flgs shouldnt require loyal32, traitor17, or whatever. You should be able to show up, play someone without a prearranged game and not have to worry about requiring the bestest newest hotness op spam.

I've said several times that GW needs to make a dedicated TOURNAMENT ruleset.

If your local community is bringing the meta lists for pick up games that's a problem with your local community. However to have good balance in 40k. The meta has to exist. That's how we spot the problems. GW being bad at writing a balanced ruleset and fixing issues with the Meta is not the fault of the Meta, but a fault of GWs.

That's not a community problem, that's a communication problem.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Argive wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Question. Can you outfit devastators with heavy flamers?

You can take two heavy flamers in a Sternguard squad, bout it.

Is that 2 per 5 man squad ?

Yessir, unless the new book changes it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

balmong7 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:


Matched play does not equal tourney. pick up games @ Flgs shouldnt require loyal32, traitor17, or whatever. You should be able to show up, play someone without a prearranged game and not have to worry about requiring the bestest newest hotness op spam.

I've said several times that GW needs to make a dedicated TOURNAMENT ruleset.

If your local community is bringing the meta lists for pick up games that's a problem with your local community. However to have good balance in 40k. The meta has to exist. That's how we spot the problems. GW being bad at writing a balanced ruleset and fixing issues with the Meta is not the fault of the Meta, but a fault of GWs.

That's not a community problem, that's a communication problem.

So T1 4 heavy flamers with additional AP (the increased range trait+ doctrine), plus bolters, plus movement blocking model/objective camper to the face of whatever you want. Your opponent cant prevent and which will stand in the way of their movement lanes (because when are you ever not playing with big LOS blocking terrain pieces) and force them to be dealt with instead of removing objective holders etc.

Yeah.. nothing to see here.

^Imo just straight Sternguard might be more cost effective. Personally I'm looking at my Drop Dev Grav Cannons again. Maybe both plus a Chaplain for some litanies.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Imo just straight Sternguard might be more cost effective. Personally I'm looking at my Drop Dev Grav Cannons again. Maybe both plus a Chaplain for some litanies.

Yeah point dropped grav cannon Devs with the new start is pure filth. And that's not to mention the option to do more pods with SG as well or more whatever while hellblasts are sititng inside a 4++ transport for under 100pts.. Ohh joyful lol.

Thunder Hammer Terminators with Litany and Trait for +3 to charge, with Shock Assault and nearby Relic for 4 A per model, and Strat for +1 to hit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Argive wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Imo just straight Sternguard might be more cost effective. Personally I'm looking at my Drop Dev Grav Cannons again. Maybe both plus a Chaplain for some litanies.

Yeah point dropped grav cannon Devs with the new start is pure filth. And that's not to mention the option to do more pods with SG as well or more whatever while hellblasts are sititng inside an 4++ transport. Ohh joyful lol.

Yeah, I'll wait for the codex in my hands but it's starting to feel Gladius/Skyhammer gross.

Skyhammer was pretty easily countered, actually. Gladius, on the other hand...

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Imo just straight Sternguard might be more cost effective. Personally I'm looking at my Drop Dev Grav Cannons again. Maybe both plus a Chaplain for some litanies.

You and I think alike sometimes. It's a very good suicide unit. 8 total members with a throwaway Captain (or 9 if there's a Jumper nearby) plus the Cherub and get ready to use the Grav Strat. That's a Knight killer potentially.

I haven't had a chance to really study the chants the Chaplain can do yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Skyhammer was pretty easily countered, actually. Gladius, on the other hand...

Yeah, Skyhammer was powerful when first released but people started screening correctly at that point. It WAS still pretty powerful though.

Gladius was fething stupid though and needed to die not even a noble death. Just plain die and thrown in a dumpster.

The Chaplain can give a +1 to hit or +1 to wound, are the ones I'm thking about. Sternguard may have lost their native +1 to wound Strat though. But with Tactical Doctrine they'll be at -3 AP. Bonkers.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The Chaplain can give a +1 to hit or +1 to wound, are the ones I'm thking about. Sternguard may have lost their native +1 to wound Strat though. But with Tactical Doctrine they'll be at -3 AP. Bonkers.

I think that Strat is still there.

The Chaplain can't do it out of Deep Strike though, since he has to activate the buff at the start of the round and Deep Strike is end of movement.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The Chaplain can't do it out of Deep Strike though, since he has to activate the buff at the start of the round and Deep Strike is end of movement.

Ahh, good catch, good catch.

+1 to wound on a big squad of agressors or centurians is going to be god mode.

Does he create an aura bubble or nominate a unit?

 Argive wrote:
Does he create an aura bubble or nominate a unit?

Nominate a unit, I think.

And they have to target the nearest enemy unit to get +1 to-wound.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Does he create an aura bubble or nominate a unit?

Nominate a unit, I think.

And they have to target the nearest enemy unit to get +1 to-wound.

toss a chappy and a 5 man squad of hellblasters in one of the new transports

BrianDavion wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Does he create an aura bubble or nominate a unit?

Nominate a unit, I think.

And they have to target the nearest enemy unit to get +1 to-wound.

toss a chappy and a 5 man squad of hellblasters in one of the new transports

Nope. Chaplains, if they're the equivalent to Dark Apostles, are at the start of the round. Can't do that if you're in a transport.

balmong7 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:


Matched play does not equal tourney. pick up games @ Flgs shouldnt require loyal32, traitor17, or whatever. You should be able to show up, play someone without a prearranged game and not have to worry about requiring the bestest newest hotness op spam.

I've said several times that GW needs to make a dedicated TOURNAMENT ruleset.

If your local community is bringing the meta lists for pick up games that's a problem with your local community. However to have good balance in 40k. The meta has to exist. That's how we spot the problems. GW being bad at writing a balanced ruleset and fixing issues with the Meta is not the fault of the Meta, but a fault of GWs.

Small correction, that's not a problem with your local community. They're playing the way that's most desirable for them. If they weren't you'd be seeing people breaking off and forming cliques around narrative/open play games as they got fatigued with competitive play.

The problem is YOURS. You don't enjoy the way the local community(who are completely fine as they are) plays so the onus is on you to come up with a solution. They don't need to drop everything they're doing to accomodate your fluff stuff anymore than you need to bring OP w/e to accomodate them. I could give you a list of suggestions as to alternatives but they're pretty obvious so that seems patronizing.

I will say that generally speaking, people who complain about FLGS games requiring 'the loyal 32' or 'the bestest newest hotness op spam' tend to be either bad players or players who think plunking down literally any combination of models with no thought to synergy or cohesion is going to somehow work out okay. I also find that their opponents very rarely actually play 'the bestest newest hotness op spam' they play 3 units of necron immortals or Grey Knight purifiers that said player's goof troop '3x10 man assault marine squads with a dev squad with 4 different guns on it backed up by two rhinos full of double grav tact marines, a land raider, and Khan on foot with 3 empty drop pods' list just couldn't deal with.

 Eldarain wrote:
Could you drive him up in the new tank? (assuming all the odd transport restrictions would allow it. )

You can't charge after you disembark from the moved tank i.e. you can't Litany at the beginning of the turn, jump in, yell yeehaw as the tank speeds up the board, jump out, charge and assault. And if you're in the tank to begin with, you still couldn't Litany, and the tank still moved before jumping out so you still can't charge. The BEST you could do (Assuming all assumptions about a book not in our hot little hands for exact wording is correct) is Litany, jump in the tank, jump out, deep strike another unit(s) in Chappy's bubble and charge them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fraser1191 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The price drop more than makes up for the 4+ to revive. They're a good pick to support Centurions and Aggressors now for sure.

100% now I just wish the impulsor could hold 3 aggressors and an apothecary. I love my aggressors and I can't wait to jam them in one

Won't life suck when - like the Rhino(Terminators) - the Impulsor(Aggressor) can't transport larger models? Though I agree, I'm already thinking about swapping my list around to get some Aggressors in one Impulsor, Calgar, the LT, and an Apothecary (And some more stuff - maybe Chapter Ancient, Chapter Champion Maybe a pair of Victrix, maybe more apothecaries - the failure of Apothecary A so far doesn't prevent Apothecary B of trying the exact same thing in the same turn) in the other. Just because they can't ride together doesn't mean they can't fight together. And if the points leaks are accurate, you can get 2 4++ Impuslors for cheaper than the one Repulsor you could even potentially get a third gunship Impulsor - the Missile or Dakka versions

The other Aggressor related thing I just realized. UM Aggressors can move and fire twice almost all the time - Turn 1 you may have to Warlord/Stratagem the Tactical Doctrine on them - which feeds their boltstorm AND Fragstorm (Assault not Grenade) shooting. Oh man that gets ugly fast. They may not even need the transport anymore. Not that they wouldn't find it useful.

umm the Impulsor CAN'T carry agressors



although intreastingly eneugh the shield dome, missle rack and orbital comms array are all optional

BrianDavion wrote:
umm the Impulsor CAN'T carry agressors



although intreastingly eneugh the shield dome, missle rack and orbital comms array are all optional

I hadn't seen that yet, but I was a little more than half expecting it. I'm guessing they can't carry Gravis at all. Which means No Calgar either. So they still haven't really fixed the Transport Problem. Limiting the Termies to Land Raiders worked because they still had Teleportation. Cents could ride a Drop Pod. A Foot Slogger melee without a cheap shortcut across the board is severely disadvantaged.

and space marines are one of the few armies without a "1 CP to deep strike a unit, any unit" strat. however, I think Ultramarines agressors will be pretty solid even just walking.