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.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I also only pay a dollar to play Tekken, not pay 10× that amount for sometimes HALF a unit. So no you're not allowed to complain?
Are you a narrative player or a competitive player?
You can't be competitive because you clearly refuse to put the effort to actually chase the meta. The true competitive players don't complain, they move from one faction to the next as the meta shifts. This puts you in a strange category of casual/narrative player who refuses to try to arrange games against opponents and lists that might be a good match.
I have multiple vast armies, I own multiples of every unit in those armies. I prefer narrative play but I enjoy competitive and am willing to chase the meta as/when required. You can be both, like I am, but it required dedications, effort and money.
So, for the second or third time, how would you handicap your Ultramarines against Mono-Slaanesh daemons? Extra points for the Daemons?
Well at least we are back on topic. They are more than sufficient IMO. Literally every competitive combo was nerf and instead of 3-4 turns of dev doctrine you only get 1. If you added up all the lost hit rate and damage rate of IH and IF type dev build armies. Their damage is probably down more than 50% after turn 1.
I think some units definitely need points hikes still. FW dreads and stalker rifles for starters.
Ugh, don't start with your bizarre aversion to resin models again.
Its the rules. I dont care what they are made of.
It was hyperbole, and nothing in fw is any worse than some of the codex units out there. You just hate any unit that's ever been used to beat you.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I also only pay a dollar to play Tekken, not pay 10× that amount for sometimes HALF a unit. So no you're not allowed to complain?
Are you a narrative player or a competitive player?
You can't be competitive because you clearly refuse to put the effort to actually chase the meta. The true competitive players don't complain, they move from one faction to the next as the meta shifts. This puts you in a strange category of casual/narrative player who refuses to try to arrange games against opponents and lists that might be a good match.
I have multiple vast armies, I own multiples of every unit in those armies. I prefer narrative play but I enjoy competitive and am willing to chase the meta as/when required. You can be both, like I am, but it required dedications, effort and money.
So, for the second or third time, how would you handicap your Ultramarines against Mono-Slaanesh daemons? Extra points for the Daemons?
There will always be bad matchups. You are taking an army with basically no guns and a bunch of units that drop like flies to high volume shooting. You are gonna lose that everytime.
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
Well at least we are back on topic. They are more than sufficient IMO. Literally every competitive combo was nerf and instead of 3-4 turns of dev doctrine you only get 1. If you added up all the lost hit rate and damage rate of IH and IF type dev build armies. Their damage is probably down more than 50% after turn 1.
I think some units definitely need points hikes still. FW dreads and stalker rifles for starters.
Ugh, don't start with your bizarre aversion to resin models again.
Its the rules. I dont care what they are made of.
It was hyperbole, and nothing in fw is any worse than some of the codex units out there. You just hate any unit that's ever been used to beat you.
False with respect to the leviathan imo. But think what you like.
Ishagu wrote:X-Wing for sure, at certain points. I've played it for years. The nerfs and buffs that occur regularly in that game would make GW blush.
The other games are vastly less dynamic and far more 2 dimensional than 40k. It really us a unique beast with vast scope and freedom in terms of tabletop expression.
I would say that the two things I would have been also eyeing were custom chapters and thunderfire cannon.
When Eldar, Tau, Tyranids, Guard, etc. take a custom doctrine/tenet/adaptation they lose access to subfaction stratagems, relics, and special abilities. If you take a custom Tau tenet, you lose Focused Fire. This makes a degree of sense, since a lot of the "best stuff" is spread out between the subfactions and picking custom traits will usually result in a more optimized choice than any of the base ones, so picking the best of the relic/stratagem/special ability set and then customizing your doctrine would just be really good. But when Space Marines take a Master Artisans and Stealthy, they also get their Iron Hands stratagems, relics, and super doctrine even though they're as much Iron Hands as a Soldiers in Arms & Hardened Warheads is T'au or Gunnery Experts & Disciplined Shooters is Cadian.
And I don't think the successive hits to the Leviathan make a big difference. It was irritating, but there's 1700 other points of unbalanced in a Space Marines list. And, you can still have character dreadnoughts, so untargetable Vendread with las/missile is definitely still a thing and going to be more of a thing. There aren't any AT sniper weapons.
Same smell on the Raven Guard side. Centurions can't be taken with, so take Aggressors instead. It's basically the same.
Sim-Life wrote: ...You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.
How many other miniatures games have you ever played?
I've played War Machine, X Wing, Star Wars Legion, Wings of Glory, Infinity and Malifaux.
And I like 40k more than all of them by a vast margin.
And in how many of those did you have to negotiate which models you do and don't use to avoid getting turn-one tabled?
How about having an argument about how line of sight works before games?
TwinPoleTheory wrote: This just changes the black tide of IH tournament domination into a fruity fething rainbow of SMbs.
Whoopdee fething doo.
Well now - you will get the opportunity to see I have been right all along now. Ultramarines barely got touched by this. They aren't suddenly going to take Ironhands place. Tau and eldar will take their place. Maybe even some chaos soup.
With these nerfs plus the buffs Tau got in their PA book, I would say Tau have the advantage in that match up again IMO.
Hoenstly this matchup will always be decided by who goes first. Tau needs some nerfs to sheild drones right away though.
I am not so sure. Even if you go first with marines the new Tau should be able to survive the alpha because of drones and their counter punch will be stronger than before. And then marine shooting will be weaker in later turns, especially for IH.
Tau can still probably win even if they go second. The buffs suits got in Tau's PA are pretty strong.
I haven't been able to test this yet since I just got my copy of the book this week.
The competitive build is going to be -1 AP to missles (wow it lasts all game too) with 9" ftgg. (I think that is what I figured out at a glance).
Broadsides/ missle crisis / and riptides (of both flavors) will be very competitive. There is also the tripple storm-surge (yeah these cost less than a repulsor executioner now) build that got a massive buff due to IF not being auto win against it as well. Tau are likely going to be the biggest benefactors from this nerf IMO.
My competitive Ultras army took a small nerf because my contemptor with quad las is way less durable now. I might just replace it with 6 suppressors now.
I don't think custom Tau septs will take off because they won't have Focused Fire.
I also think UM are really good an only held back through virtue of Marines basically being designed to counter other marines and MEQhard. Fall back and shoot, and count as stationary after moving are both traits that are really good, and there are some pretty good stratagems in there.
You can't take a ML on a chaplain dread. Though you really wouldn't want to anyways. The Powerfist is great on him. Most of the time the chappy in CC is what wins me the game.
You can make any dreadnought a character.
Yeah they can still do that to 1 ven dread true. Sorry thought you said chappy dread with ML. I actually saw them doing it with a mortis dread with 4 las and just giving him the +1 to hit ability every turn. It's like a 50 poin savings over contemptor mortis. That will still be strongish..
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: There will always be bad matchups. You are taking an army with basically no guns and a bunch of units that drop like flies to high volume shooting. You are gonna lose that everytime.
So you're saying it's not, in fact, the players' fault for being unable to negotiate, but that it is rather GW's fault for writing rules that permit such an interaction to occur?
Because that's what I agree with. I'm trying to get Ishagu to see it as well, though he stubbornly refuses.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/27 18:19:25
Martel732 wrote: Stalker is fine with -2 ap. The 2 damage is the key feature.
Yeah but 2 1 damage shots is always better than 1 2 damage shot if the AP and str is the same. So turn 1 the stalker will be a little better in some situations - after that BR is better.
Stalker has extra ap and range.
Exactly. Basically it's the regular Bolt Rifle that suffers as most of the time I'd rather get 3 shots at AP0 than 1-2 at AP-1. You'd basically have to plan a 10 man Bolt Rifle getting close enough to make use of the Strat that makes them Rapid Fire 2.
Well I think there is actually a choice now between taking BR or ABR. No one will take stalkers anymore. Even Ironhands are gonna be taking ABR probably. Ultras as always will be taking BR.
Raven Guard can still make use of Stalkers if they need to commit to the Strat for them. I know in my list I was using them in case that 3CP needed to be spent.
3 CP is STEEP. Really steep for that. Though I feel shooting twice with BR for 2 CP is also pretty steep.
Hell I sometimes do it and I'm running MSU. It isn't efficient but if you REALLY just want to plink off a Commander...
Stalker BRs make it into a lot of my lists too, Target Sighted has too much potential. Being able to contribute from that far away is also occasionally helpful when you play a lot of objective-based scenarios.
Xenomancers wrote: There will always be bad matchups. You are taking an army with basically no guns and a bunch of units that drop like flies to high volume shooting. You are gonna lose that everytime.
So you're saying it's not, in fact, the players' fault for being unable to negotiate, but that it is rather GW's fault for writing rules that permit such an interaction to occur?
Because that's what I agree with. I'm trying to get Ishagu to see it as well, though he stubbornly refuses.
No, he's saying every game has bad match ups. Its part of playing a minis based wargame.
Yeah but bad matchups exist in balanced situations. IMO mono slaneesh is just bad and needs some buffs (probably need to be faster or deal more damage) but in general mono slaneesh is going to do better against melle armies than shooting ones. That is just the nature of the beast.
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
Sim-Life wrote: No, he's saying every game has bad match ups. Its part of playing a minis based wargame.
What is a good matchup for mono-Slaanesh daemons?
Furthermore, a bad matchup typically means that your list has a hard time dealing with the enemy list (akin to units equipped with anti-tank rifles only fighting tanks in a World War II game. The player with the anti-tank rifles has to work their way around the flanks, spring ambushes, etc. while the player with the tanks drives forwards).
Slaanesh daemons against ultramarines isn't "a bad matchup" in that way. It's more like "my rifle platoon vs B-52 with ALCMs" bad matchup.
EDIT: And remember, I asked him for what sort of handicap he would give to make it balanced. Since we'll discuss this like adults, lets discuss this like adults. What handicap would make the matchup less bad?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/27 18:24:13
Well speaking of matchups in general. I play a lot of Leauge of legends. The matchups often mater more than the power of the champion.
A champion like master yi is auto win vs a team that can't lock him down but is utterly useless on a team that every champ has that ability.
To some extent 40k is like that. Lets use a better army like orks for the comparison. Orks want to run a melee overrun list. It works great vs some armies but marines and tau over-watch to well and their basic strategy is great vs lots of t4 bodies with no armor.
Orks though at least have the opportunity to run a full shooty list and compete against marines. Slaneesh doesn't have that choice.
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: There will always be bad matchups. You are taking an army with basically no guns and a bunch of units that drop like flies to high volume shooting. You are gonna lose that everytime.
So you're saying it's not, in fact, the players' fault for being unable to negotiate, but that it is rather GW's fault for writing rules that permit such an interaction to occur?
Because that's what I agree with. I'm trying to get Ishagu to see it as well, though he stubbornly refuses.
No, he's saying every game has bad match ups. Its part of playing a minis based wargame.
Should the bad matchups extend to matchups that are so bad you read the lists and then might as well say "All right, you win, good game, let's do something else now"?
Sim-Life wrote: No, he's saying every game has bad match ups. Its part of playing a minis based wargame.
What is a good matchup for mono-Slaanesh daemons?
Furthermore, a bad matchup typically means that your list has a hard time dealing with the enemy list (akin to units equipped with anti-tank rifles only fighting tanks in a World War II game. The player with the anti-tank rifles has to work their way around the flanks, spring ambushes, etc. while the player with the tanks drives forwards).
Slaanesh daemons against ultramarines isn't "a bad matchup" in that way. It's more like "my rifle platoon vs B-52 with ALCMs" bad matchup.
EDIT:
And remember, I asked him for what sort of handicap he would give to make it balanced. Since we'll discuss this like adults, lets discuss this like adults. What handicap would make the matchup less bad?
Lad, I'm not going to sit and argue hypotheticals with you over something so hugely specific just so you can shift the goal posts.
AnomanderRake wrote: Should the bad matchups extend to matchups that are so bad you read the lists and then might as well say "All right, you win, good game, let's do something else now"?
This, basically. The game is going to be so bad one might not even bother. So the question is:
Since we can work this out like adults, according to Ishagu, then let's provide an example to the forum of how to work it out like adults. After all, it's simple, right? Easy to do. "All it takes is a conversation and a bit of arranging." So let's have that conversation: I'd like to play my mono Slaanesh vs his Ultramarines. What's a reasonable way to arrange this game to compensate for the bad matchup?
EDIT:
Sim-Life wrote: Lad, I'm not going to sit and argue hypotheticals with you over something so hugely specific just so you can shift the goal posts.
What? Hypothetical?
I encounter this every day. I have Imperial Guard superheavy tanks and mono-Slaanesh daemons. If I want to bring my Slaanesh daemons to a game, I will oftentimes confront Ultramarines. They're the 40k posterboys and many people in the local area play them. It's not a hypothetical to ask an Ultramarine player's opinion on what an adequate handicap would be in that situation, instead of just "not playing."
After all, it's not GW's rules that are the problem, it's us players not having conversations. Guide me in how to have this conversation with one of my local Ultramarine players. Tell me what I can do. What my opening bid for a handicap should be. What's "reasonable."
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/02/27 18:33:25
These changes are a good start. I feel like I can explore IH, IF, and RG without automatically being "that guy".
In the grander scheme of things though, this doesn't make any difference at all to my typical Ultramarine or White Scar lists. My self-imposed restrictions on playing either codex-only or suppliment-only on strats/traits/powers/relics isn't going anywhere.
Sim-Life wrote: No, he's saying every game has bad match ups. Its part of playing a minis based wargame.
What is a good matchup for mono-Slaanesh daemons?
Furthermore, a bad matchup typically means that your list has a hard time dealing with the enemy list (akin to units equipped with anti-tank rifles only fighting tanks in a World War II game. The player with the anti-tank rifles has to work their way around the flanks, spring ambushes, etc. while the player with the tanks drives forwards).
Slaanesh daemons against ultramarines isn't "a bad matchup" in that way. It's more like "my rifle platoon vs B-52 with ALCMs" bad matchup.
EDIT:
And remember, I asked him for what sort of handicap he would give to make it balanced. Since we'll discuss this like adults, lets discuss this like adults. What handicap would make the matchup less bad?
Lad, I'm not going to sit and argue hypotheticals with you over something so hugely specific just so you can shift the goal posts.
The goals were never shifted. Ishagu never answered the question and quite frankly you're not able to either.
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.
Mono slaneesh is a really specific type of army. Realistically it's not even it's own codex. Daermons are intended to be played combining their gods powers. Kind of like a unit like hellbalsters is intended to be supported by ancients and intercessors.
You chossing to play mono slanesh is about equal to me deciding to run a list with 40 hell-blasters.
40 hellblasters will lost just about every game it plays too because it's hard for it to find a good matchup. In the same sense you could make a competitive daemon army. If you included some nurgle and korne in there.
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: Mono slaneesh is a really specific type of army. Realistically it's not even it's own codex. Daermons are intended to be played combining their gods powers. Kind of like a unit like hellbalsters is intended to be supported by ancients and intercessors.
You chossing to play mono slanesh is about equal to me deciding to run a list with 40 hell-blasters.
40 hellblasters will lost just about every game it plays too because it's hard for it to find a good matchup. In the same sense you could make a competitive daemon army. If you included some nurgle and korne in there.
Then why do you get faction bonuses for running monofaction within a detachment, if they're intended to be mixed?
Slaanesh is akin to "Ultramarines". It is a subfaction. Otherwise, you could claim that "Ultramarines are intended to be supported by Iron Hands" (which is equally false) and be done with it.
How would I handicap my Ultras to play against mono Slaanesh Daemons?
I'm honestly not 100% sure. This could be a very thematic, narrative list. It could involve limiting the army to certain units or via playing an ambush style narrative mission. I think I'd like to take a look at the list and what it can do.
The Daemons aren't quite the same as the chapters as they have no penalties for allying, even though they absolutely should according to the lore!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/27 18:40:19
I think the most interesting thing from all this was the Dev's intent. Basically it shows the design team assumes people will not abuse the best combos (despite being shown otherwise multiple times) and while I applaud their opptimism, maybe they should start building limits properly into the rules.
Ishagu wrote: How would I handicap my Ultras to play against mono Slaanesh Daemons?
I'm honestly not 100% sure. This could be a very thematic, narrative list. It could involve limiting the army to certain units or via playing an ambush style narrative mission. I think I'd like to take a look at the list and what it can do.
Well, I haven't built my list yet, since I was waiting for feedback from you, but I typically run 3 Keepers, 1 Shelaxi (basically 4 keepers), the mirror, and as many daemonettes as I can fit into the remaining points.
I'd like not to play a narrative mission, though, for our game. I was hoping to play one of the default scenarios from Chapter Approved. I don't typically bring enough daemons to summon for a narrative game, where summoning is free (and Daemons are ridiculously OP in that context).
Appreciated for starting the conversation, though, I'm eager to see how much effort it takes to balance the game on GW's behalf.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/27 18:42:17
Xenomancers wrote: Mono slaneesh is a really specific type of army. Realistically it's not even it's own codex. Daermons are intended to be played combining their gods powers. Kind of like a unit like hellbalsters is intended to be supported by ancients and intercessors.
You chossing to play mono slanesh is about equal to me deciding to run a list with 40 hell-blasters.
40 hellblasters will lost just about every game it plays too because it's hard for it to find a good matchup. In the same sense you could make a competitive daemon army. If you included some nurgle and korne in there.
the demon codex as a whole is pretty much broken, if you soup, you lose access to powerful buffs, losing advance + charge for slaanesh makes their units even more useless. Demons are meant to be souped, be it plaguebearers or bloodletter bombs a melee-centric army with very limited access to guns will not thrive in 40k. At the moment the strong units that the codex has is basically : The contorted epitome, Sylleske and demon princes of khorne. Some other units are at least playable and i've had success with them locally but i would never bring them to a big tournament (flamers, exalted flamers, nurgle flies, beasts of nurgle).
I'm really hoping for some good stuff in our PA because we really need it.
How I would balance this matchup would be to run it on a map with a very high concentration of terrain so my units can navigate closer without just being gunned down un no man's land. Something like American Infinity levels of terrain could make for a balanced game, as long as my opponent didnt just spam thunderfires and whirlwinds.
Ishagu wrote: How would I handicap my Ultras to play against mono Slaanesh Daemons?
I'm honestly not 100% sure. This could be a very thematic, narrative list. It could involve limiting the army to certain units or via playing an ambush style narrative mission. I think I'd like to take a look at the list and what it can do.
Well, I haven't built my list yet, since I was waiting for feedback from you, but I typically run 3 Keepers, 1 Shelaxi (basically 4 keepers), the mirror, and as many daemonettes as I can fit into the remaining points.
I'd like not to play a narrative mission, though, for our game. I was hoping to play one of the default scenarios from Chapter Approved. I don't typically bring enough daemons to summon for a narrative game, where summoning is free (and Daemons are ridiculously OP in that context).
Appreciated for starting the conversation, though, I'm eager to see how much effort it takes to balance the game on GW's behalf.
Do fiends still lock units in combat and stop them from falling back and move at light speed?
Ishagu wrote: How would I handicap my Ultras to play against mono Slaanesh Daemons?
I'm honestly not 100% sure. This could be a very thematic, narrative list. It could involve limiting the army to certain units or via playing an ambush style narrative mission. I think I'd like to take a look at the list and what it can do.
Well, I haven't built my list yet, since I was waiting for feedback from you, but I typically run 3 Keepers, 1 Shelaxi (basically 4 keepers), the mirror, and as many daemonettes as I can fit into the remaining points.
I'd like not to play a narrative mission, though, for our game. I was hoping to play one of the default scenarios from Chapter Approved. I don't typically bring enough daemons to summon for a narrative game, where summoning is free (and Daemons are ridiculously OP in that context).
Appreciated for starting the conversation, though, I'm eager to see how much effort it takes to balance the game on GW's behalf.
Do fiends still lock units in combat and stop them from falling back and move at light speed?
yep, but only against units that dont fly, so no locking down them grav-tanks and battlesuits sadly. Theyre still a good unit
Honestly, i feel like slaanesh demons aren't the worse monogod faction to play, basically only their daemonettes are subpar, the rest is 'alright', and some of their HQs are just bonkers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/27 18:53:31
For the actual topic: these are good changes. Not only they nerf the worst offenders, they probably result more interesting armybuilds and games. Now marines really need to think how to construct the army and how to use varying elements, as you cannot just double down on the gunline and stay in devastator.
Relatively Ultramarines are the winners here, as they obviously want to be in tactical and can do so for two turns, and have other doctrine shenanigans on top of that, so their playstyle is not hugely affected. A bit counterintuitive though, as now Ultras are the ones that are best at doubling down on one thing instead of being flexible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: How would I handicap my Ultras to play against mono Slaanesh Daemons?
I'm honestly not 100% sure. This could be a very thematic, narrative list. It could involve limiting the army to certain units or via playing an ambush style narrative mission. I think I'd like to take a look at the list and what it can do.
Just not using the supplement would go a long way.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/27 18:55:51
Ishagu wrote: How would I handicap my Ultras to play against mono Slaanesh Daemons?
I'm honestly not 100% sure. This could be a very thematic, narrative list. It could involve limiting the army to certain units or via playing an ambush style narrative mission. I think I'd like to take a look at the list and what it can do.
Well, I haven't built my list yet, since I was waiting for feedback from you, but I typically run 3 Keepers, 1 Shelaxi (basically 4 keepers), the mirror, and as many daemonettes as I can fit into the remaining points.
I'd like not to play a narrative mission, though, for our game. I was hoping to play one of the default scenarios from Chapter Approved. I don't typically bring enough daemons to summon for a narrative game, where summoning is free (and Daemons are ridiculously OP in that context).
Appreciated for starting the conversation, though, I'm eager to see how much effort it takes to balance the game on GW's behalf.
Do fiends still lock units in combat and stop them from falling back and move at light speed?
They do, though in my experience they get beaten to death by the SM front line. 3 wounds, T4, 5++ isn't very durable for 46 points. Most players just beat the fiends to death and withdraw, unless it's like Imperial Guard in which case they just remove models to be more than 4" away from the fiend, because usually the fiend isn't going in alone and I'll have something that does a bazillionty damage - if I make it.
Furthermore, players are aware of the capabilities of the Fiends and will focus them down, and to emphasize: they're not really tough enough to endure bullets.
Ishagu wrote: How would I handicap my Ultras to play against mono Slaanesh Daemons?
I'm honestly not 100% sure. This could be a very thematic, narrative list. It could involve limiting the army to certain units or via playing an ambush style narrative mission. I think I'd like to take a look at the list and what it can do.
Well, I haven't built my list yet, since I was waiting for feedback from you, but I typically run 3 Keepers, 1 Shelaxi (basically 4 keepers), the mirror, and as many daemonettes as I can fit into the remaining points.
I'd like not to play a narrative mission, though, for our game. I was hoping to play one of the default scenarios from Chapter Approved. I don't typically bring enough daemons to summon for a narrative game, where summoning is free (and Daemons are ridiculously OP in that context).
Appreciated for starting the conversation, though, I'm eager to see how much effort it takes to balance the game on GW's behalf.
Just run a fun sub optimal list for the UM, units you know aren't stellar and don't use often. Failing that play thematically rather than to beat face in, heroic character combats etc.
Dudeface wrote: Just run a fun sub optimal list for the UM, units you know aren't stellar and don't use often. Failing that play thematically rather than to beat face in, heroic character combats etc.
What sort of suboptimal units? As for deliberately playing badly, what degree of "deliberately playing badly" on the UM's part is required? For example, I could argue that it's fluffy for the Intercessors to charge the lone Daemon (such is their rage at the blasphemer!), even if it takes them off the objective, while it is equally fluffy for them to sit tight.
Also, having someone deliberately play badly against you just to give you a chance is really awful, imo, as far as how good the game feels. Like they literally throw the game to you and you might win. :/
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/27 19:07:21
Xenomancers wrote: Mono slaneesh is a really specific type of army. Realistically it's not even it's own codex. Daermons are intended to be played combining their gods powers. Kind of like a unit like hellbalsters is intended to be supported by ancients and intercessors.
You chossing to play mono slanesh is about equal to me deciding to run a list with 40 hell-blasters.
40 hellblasters will lost just about every game it plays too because it's hard for it to find a good matchup. In the same sense you could make a competitive daemon army. If you included some nurgle and korne in there.
Then why do you get faction bonuses for running monofaction within a detachment, if they're intended to be mixed?
Slaanesh is akin to "Ultramarines". It is a subfaction. Otherwise, you could claim that "Ultramarines are intended to be supported by Iron Hands" (which is equally false) and be done with it.
Marines do lose super doctrines for mixing faction. They also lose doctrines all together for including other imperial units that are non astartes. Daemons don't - they can take CSM or TS or whatever they want at no penalty. So it's clear the intent of marines is to be played mono. I would be entirely fine with marines losing all bonus if they include even other chapters (other than their own successors) which for some reason you lose your super-doctrine for.
Xenomancers wrote: Mono slaneesh is a really specific type of army. Realistically it's not even it's own codex. Daermons are intended to be played combining their gods powers. Kind of like a unit like hellbalsters is intended to be supported by ancients and intercessors.
You chossing to play mono slanesh is about equal to me deciding to run a list with 40 hell-blasters.
40 hellblasters will lost just about every game it plays too because it's hard for it to find a good matchup. In the same sense you could make a competitive daemon army. If you included some nurgle and korne in there.
the demon codex as a whole is pretty much broken, if you soup, you lose access to powerful buffs, losing advance + charge for slaanesh makes their units even more useless. Demons are meant to be souped, be it plaguebearers or bloodletter bombs a melee-centric army with very limited access to guns will not thrive in 40k. At the moment the strong units that the codex has is basically : The contorted epitome, Sylleske and demon princes of khorne. Some other units are at least playable and i've had success with them locally but i would never bring them to a big tournament (flamers, exalted flamers, nurgle flies, beasts of nurgle).
I'm really hoping for some good stuff in our PA because we really need it.
How I would balance this matchup would be to run it on a map with a very high concentration of terrain so my units can navigate closer without just being gunned down un no man's land. Something like American Infinity levels of terrain could make for a balanced game, as long as my opponent didnt just spam thunderfires and whirlwinds.
Why are you losing these bonus exactly? I am not suggesting you mix detachments. As far as I know you lose nothing for taking a TS detachments and a slaneesh detachment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/27 19:10:29
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
