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.
2020/06/25 05:36:18
Subject: How quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates new rules?
Sim-Life wrote: So every change we get for 9th is anyone else thinking "how quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates that?"
Like limited CP for everyone is great, till an army gets undercosted characters that add CP to their pool. Or weapons that ignore Dense cover or reroll Combat Attrition dice etc.
Am I alone? And before anyone says anything anyone familiar with my posting history knows I verge on the positive side when discussing 40k but I also know GW gonna GW.
Most games that have any sort of individualized components ala TCGs, mobas, wargames, etc, have abilities that break the rules in specific ways. It's simple game design. Take Stealth for example. Most games have a fundamental rule, gak in your Line of Sight, you can see. Stealth breaks that rule. How about Infiltration breaking 'units start on your side of the board' or deepstrike breaking 'units start on the table' or all the units that break 'you must have line of sight on your target'. Rules in these kind of games are instituted as extra design space to break them as often as they are to actually accomplish something in and of themselves. It's just more switches to flip. This hatred of stuff that breaks rules is mostly down to people not actually being able to figure out what they don't like about the game and pointing to something that sounds like it could be a thing.
Also, I like how you throw in 'undercosted' like it's a foregone conclusion. Most of the characters that give CP haven't seen significant play in some time for one reason or another; with the main one being points.
PenitentJake wrote: I'm getting stoked for 9th. I don't necessarily know that I have liked everything I've seen so far, but it all feels interesting and full of potential.
I find it difficult for anyone to not be excited. GW is literally explaining how they understand the flaws we've experienced on stream, addressing them directly, and making rules that seem to do a great job of solving problems.
We don't have the full picture. Nothing will be perfect, but this is a marked improvement for them.
I love 8th(except for strats & rerolls) & am looking forward to the changes to the game(except for more CP, I had hoped everyone would only get 5 or less, actually ZERO).
The previewed rules have intrigued me and can only hope for more positive changes.
More detailed cover & interactions are a plus for me.
Somebody's bad at using their stratagems correctly.
no, strats are lame gamey bs, the dice rolled should be the actual determination of the events on the battlefield, not o I pulled this one special thing out my ass. rerolls suck, if you cant live with actual chance...dont know what to say to you. It kinda sounds like you should go play a card game. I hear Magic is good for that. I'm ok with them reigning in on rerolls, but doubling down on wombocombo is something I'm gonna stay far, far away from. cool part of the game is you dont have to use them and I play with like minded players so, we'll be fine.
2020/06/25 05:57:43
Subject: How quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates new rules?
Sim-Life wrote: So every change we get for 9th is anyone else thinking "how quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates that?"
Like limited CP for everyone is great, till an army gets undercosted characters that add CP to their pool. Or weapons that ignore Dense cover or reroll Combat Attrition dice etc.
Am I alone? And before anyone says anything anyone familiar with my posting history knows I verge on the positive side when discussing 40k but I also know GW gonna GW.
Most games that have any sort of individualized components ala TCGs, mobas, wargames, etc, have abilities that break the rules in specific ways. It's simple game design. Take Stealth for example. Most games have a fundamental rule, gak in your Line of Sight, you can see. Stealth breaks that rule. How about Infiltration breaking 'units start on your side of the board' or deepstrike breaking 'units start on the table' or all the units that break 'you must have line of sight on your target'. Rules in these kind of games are instituted as extra design space to break them as often as they are to actually accomplish something in and of themselves. It's just more switches to flip. This hatred of stuff that breaks rules is mostly down to people not actually being able to figure out what they don't like about the game and pointing to something that sounds like it could be a thing.
Also, I like how you throw in 'undercosted' like it's a foregone conclusion. Most of the characters that give CP haven't seen significant play in some time for one reason or another; with the main one being points.
PenitentJake wrote: I'm getting stoked for 9th. I don't necessarily know that I have liked everything I've seen so far, but it all feels interesting and full of potential.
I find it difficult for anyone to not be excited. GW is literally explaining how they understand the flaws we've experienced on stream, addressing them directly, and making rules that seem to do a great job of solving problems.
We don't have the full picture. Nothing will be perfect, but this is a marked improvement for them.
I love 8th(except for strats & rerolls) & am looking forward to the changes to the game(except for more CP, I had hoped everyone would only get 5 or less, actually ZERO).
The previewed rules have intrigued me and can only hope for more positive changes.
More detailed cover & interactions are a plus for me.
Somebody's bad at using their stratagems correctly.
no, strats are lame gamey bs, the dice rolled should be the actual determination of the events on the battlefield, not o I pulled this one special thing out my ass. rerolls suck, if you cant live with actual chance...dont know what to say to you. It kinda sounds like you should go play a card game. I hear Magic is good for that. I'm ok with them reigning in on rerolls, but doubling down on wombocombo is something I'm gonna stay far, far away from. cool part of the game is you dont have to use them and I play with like minded players so, we'll be fine.
There is nothing inherently wrong with rerolls or stratagems. Reroll all hits is just another way to say "+1 to hit" and i'm sure that all games have that. Reroll 1's is a way to give a bonus which is less powerful than a +1, which in a D6 game is a big bonus
As always, it's not a problem of the mechanic per se, but how wide spread you make it... which isn't a lot at the moment, if you were to change the CM stratagem you would see most of it gone.
2020/06/25 06:34:28
Subject: How quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates new rules?
then just bake that in, it's like wanting take backs or mulligans. deal with what happened, you cant reroll ones in combat.
D6 is the problem, D10 allows a larger difference in how you can make units interact with one another. you wouldnt need to resort to rerolls and strats. D6 is fine for to hit rolls, D10 for strength/toughness/AP on wounding and saving rolls gives you the design space to account for grots & superheavies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/25 06:41:58
2020/06/25 06:39:48
Subject: How quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates new rules?
I really like 8th. I also really like the sound of some of the decisions they've made for 9th. It seems to me that any ruleset can have it's benefits: 8th is simple, streamlined and easy to learn; 9th sounds relatively more complex, yet deals with corner cases more comprehensively. I think when all is said an done, no edition is really any much better than any other. 8th started out well because it had a very fun ruleset, then the codices came along and with each iteration, eroded the fundamental benefits of the ruleset. 9th interesting new mechanics, or variations on old classics will probably be pretty great too, but then new iterations of each army's rules will come along, and they'll erode these benefits too. 10th will be the same, and there really isn't anything realistic that can be done about it, because each iteration drives sales and increases profit, because we buy into it. Every edition will start out well, then bloat, then reset. That's the cycle, and our buying habits are the root cause.
yukishiro1 wrote: GW follows a common pattern in every edition. The ruleset starts out compact with few exceptions, and by the end of the edition there are more exceptions than things that follow the base rules.
When's the last edition they were on Twitch explaining their rationale for the rules changes? Which editions made you go, "Yep, GW is reading the forums"?
There's an interconnectedness that has never been exhibited by GW before. So even if they get some things wrong there's still an avenue for change unlike the agonizing slog of yore.
the Problem is not that they try to solve things, but how they do it
to already listend to poeple in 7th as we complained about bloat and entry Level, their solution was to change the core rules to a minimum but keep codex bloat and the high amount of models needed to play
the Core was never the big problem, but the arms race and bloat of the codex were and there is nothing indicating that GW has learned that yet
So no matter how much better the Core will be, the game won't benefit from it as finding a Workaround to those rules with each new Codex is a given thing
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2020/06/25 10:01:17
Subject: Re:How quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates new rules?
If i was guessing it'll be either an overcooked Deathwatch codex updating them for 9th and some gimmick or other nudging them past current marines or Eldar, not on purpose but some unintended combo
"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED."
2020/06/25 10:23:01
Subject: How quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates new rules?
Ginjitzu wrote: I really like 8th. I also really like the sound of some of the decisions they've made for 9th. It seems to me that any ruleset can have it's benefits: 8th is simple, streamlined and easy to learn; 9th sounds relatively more complex, yet deals with corner cases more comprehensively. I think when all is said an done, no edition is really any much better than any other. 8th started out well because it had a very fun ruleset, then the codices came along and with each iteration, eroded the fundamental benefits of the ruleset. 9th interesting new mechanics, or variations on old classics will probably be pretty great too, but then new iterations of each army's rules will come along, and they'll erode these benefits too. 10th will be the same, and there really isn't anything realistic that can be done about it, because each iteration drives sales and increases profit, because we buy into it. Every edition will start out well, then bloat, then reset. That's the cycle, and our buying habits are the root cause.
Every edition serves a purpose.
7th edition was a really milking driven edition, led by a management which was focused on short term gains. This has bleed them a lot of players.
8th edition was an edition aimed at regaining the playerbase. It was simple to learn and (relatively) cheap to buy into. It also saw the launch of primaris, which gave them a strong icon for the "new game". It's not a coincidence that 8th also saw an enormous reshape of the PR strategy of GW and the launch of a lot of new factions. The edition was built to attract new players, and the numbers tell us that it was a big success.
9th edition is (IMO) a retain edition. GW got a lot of new players in 8th, now they need to retain them. To retain them you need to beat the competition of other wargames, and you do that by offering a game that is perceived as "better". For this, you bring the competitive community on the boat and design it together with them, because today the "perception" of a game's quality is more based on international events and streams than on personal experience. 9th edition can afford to lose the "Easy" aspects of 8th, because it is not aimed toward new players, but the main target are the players acquired with 8th.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/25 10:24:32
2020/06/25 10:33:18
Subject: How quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates new rules?
Sim-Life wrote: So every change we get for 9th is anyone else thinking "how quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates that?"
Like limited CP for everyone is great, till an army gets undercosted characters that add CP to their pool. Or weapons that ignore Dense cover or reroll Combat Attrition dice etc.
Am I alone? And before anyone says anything anyone familiar with my posting history knows I verge on the positive side when discussing 40k but I also know GW gonna GW.
Most games that have any sort of individualized components ala TCGs, mobas, wargames, etc, have abilities that break the rules in specific ways. It's simple game design. Take Stealth for example. Most games have a fundamental rule, gak in your Line of Sight, you can see. Stealth breaks that rule. How about Infiltration breaking 'units start on your side of the board' or deepstrike breaking 'units start on the table' or all the units that break 'you must have line of sight on your target'. Rules in these kind of games are instituted as extra design space to break them as often as they are to actually accomplish something in and of themselves. It's just more switches to flip. This hatred of stuff that breaks rules is mostly down to people not actually being able to figure out what they don't like about the game and pointing to something that sounds like it could be a thing.
Also, I like how you throw in 'undercosted' like it's a foregone conclusion. Most of the characters that give CP haven't seen significant play in some time for one reason or another; with the main one being points.
PenitentJake wrote: I'm getting stoked for 9th. I don't necessarily know that I have liked everything I've seen so far, but it all feels interesting and full of potential.
I find it difficult for anyone to not be excited. GW is literally explaining how they understand the flaws we've experienced on stream, addressing them directly, and making rules that seem to do a great job of solving problems.
We don't have the full picture. Nothing will be perfect, but this is a marked improvement for them.
I love 8th(except for strats & rerolls) & am looking forward to the changes to the game(except for more CP, I had hoped everyone would only get 5 or less, actually ZERO).
The previewed rules have intrigued me and can only hope for more positive changes.
More detailed cover & interactions are a plus for me.
Somebody's bad at using their stratagems correctly.
no, strats are lame gamey bs, the dice rolled should be the actual determination of the events on the battlefield, not o I pulled this one special thing out my ass. rerolls suck, if you cant live with actual chance...dont know what to say to you. It kinda sounds like you should go play a card game. I hear Magic is good for that. I'm ok with them reigning in on rerolls, but doubling down on wombocombo is something I'm gonna stay far, far away from. cool part of the game is you dont have to use them and I play with like minded players so, we'll be fine.
There is nothing inherently wrong with rerolls or stratagems. Reroll all hits is just another way to say "+1 to hit" and i'm sure that all games have that. Reroll 1's is a way to give a bonus which is less powerful than a +1, which in a D6 game is a big bonus
As always, it's not a problem of the mechanic per se, but how wide spread you make it... which isn't a lot at the moment, if you were to change the CM stratagem you would see most of it gone.
Reroll all hits isnt another way to say +1 to hit its actually far more powerful a flat +1 to hit would actually make Marines weaker
Reroll 1's is slightly weaker.
While i dont think strategums are the issue driving rerolls for days, I can get that rerolls for days are a pain.
2020/06/25 13:32:35
Subject: How quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates new rules?
For me, the Space Marine 2019 Codex and Supplements cast a long dark shadow over 8th and will for 9th until we see proof that the rules writers understand the mistakes they made with them.
I think a good example is the anti psyker strats.
One sub faction of Adeptus Mechanicus has a stop spells strategem. The penalty is that AdMech can't take psykers. Same for sisters of battle/silence.
One sub faction of Chaos Space Marines has a stop spells strategem. The penalty is that sub-faction can't take psykers. Same for Black Templars/assassins. I don't think the penalty is enough to be honest for World Eaters, too easy to take a single WE model and get it.
Iron Hands had a stop spells strategem, it was better than the other stop spells strategems (until nerfed in FAQ 1 for Iron Hands). The penalty is nothing, Iron Hands get psykers and access to three psychic disciplines.
There are loads of these littered throughout SM2019+Supplements. Raven Guard get the best suite of infiltration strategems in the entire game while getting all the generic SM support.
I'm also waiting to see what they do with the mess that is Chaos soup. In 8th the designers made the choice to allow Codex Daemons to give out aura buffs to CSM Daemons and to allow CSM spells/strategems to work on TSons and DGuard. This is why no one Chaos codex is particularly functional on its own because if they were then Chaos soup would be unstoppable.
This is then also why tournament Chaos lists are usually complicated abominations. I don't want to take a mixed Nurgle detachment made up of codex nurgle daemons, codex death guard tanks and codex chaos space marine characters, but maybe if my chapter tactics weren't nearly all useless on those models I would feel more penalised for mixing them all together.
yukishiro1 wrote: GW follows a common pattern in every edition. The ruleset starts out compact with few exceptions, and by the end of the edition there are more exceptions than things that follow the base rules.
When's the last edition they were on Twitch explaining their rationale for the rules changes? Which editions made you go, "Yep, GW is reading the forums"?
There's an interconnectedness that has never been exhibited by GW before. So even if they get some things wrong there's still an avenue for change unlike the agonizing slog of yore.
the Problem is not that they try to solve things, but how they do it
to already listend to poeple in 7th as we complained about bloat and entry Level, their solution was to change the core rules to a minimum but keep codex bloat and the high amount of models needed to play
the Core was never the big problem, but the arms race and bloat of the codex were and there is nothing indicating that GW has learned that yet
So no matter how much better the Core will be, the game won't benefit from it as finding a Workaround to those rules with each new Codex is a given thing
Those are different eras. The arms race is real. The difference is in the past it took 3 to 6 months for GW to move the needle. In the post-Kirby era they're still finding their footing on what they want the game to be. They pumped books out at a pace never seen before, which led to limited play-testing and proofing. The arms race will begin anew, but hopefully the effects are less painful.
2020/06/25 15:04:00
Subject: Re:How quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates new rules?
Sim-Life wrote: So every change we get for 9th is anyone else thinking "how quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates that?"
Like limited CP for everyone is great, till an army gets undercosted characters that add CP to their pool. Or weapons that ignore Dense cover or reroll Combat Attrition dice etc.
Am I alone? And before anyone says anything anyone familiar with my posting history knows I verge on the positive side when discussing 40k but I also know GW gonna GW.
Most games that have any sort of individualized components ala TCGs, mobas, wargames, etc, have abilities that break the rules in specific ways. It's simple game design. Take Stealth for example. Most games have a fundamental rule, gak in your Line of Sight, you can see. Stealth breaks that rule. How about Infiltration breaking 'units start on your side of the board' or deepstrike breaking 'units start on the table' or all the units that break 'you must have line of sight on your target'. Rules in these kind of games are instituted as extra design space to break them as often as they are to actually accomplish something in and of themselves. It's just more switches to flip. This hatred of stuff that breaks rules is mostly down to people not actually being able to figure out what they don't like about the game and pointing to something that sounds like it could be a thing.
Also, I like how you throw in 'undercosted' like it's a foregone conclusion. Most of the characters that give CP haven't seen significant play in some time for one reason or another; with the main one being points.
PenitentJake wrote: I'm getting stoked for 9th. I don't necessarily know that I have liked everything I've seen so far, but it all feels interesting and full of potential.
I find it difficult for anyone to not be excited. GW is literally explaining how they understand the flaws we've experienced on stream, addressing them directly, and making rules that seem to do a great job of solving problems.
We don't have the full picture. Nothing will be perfect, but this is a marked improvement for them.
I love 8th(except for strats & rerolls) & am looking forward to the changes to the game(except for more CP, I had hoped everyone would only get 5 or less, actually ZERO).
The previewed rules have intrigued me and can only hope for more positive changes.
More detailed cover & interactions are a plus for me.
Somebody's bad at using their stratagems correctly.
no, strats are lame gamey bs, the dice rolled should be the actual determination of the events on the battlefield, not o I pulled this one special thing out my ass. rerolls suck, if you cant live with actual chance...dont know what to say to you. It kinda sounds like you should go play a card game. I hear Magic is good for that. I'm ok with them reigning in on rerolls, but doubling down on wombocombo is something I'm gonna stay far, far away from. cool part of the game is you dont have to use them and I play with like minded players so, we'll be fine.
Truth. Wombocombos are low hanging fruit. They exist to make you “feel smart”.
How do you “shoot twice/fight twice” incorrectly?
2020/06/25 15:21:24
Subject: Re:How quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates new rules?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Apparently it starts right now. Tau continue to overwatch exactly as they did in 8th, no strategem required. Shocking, isn't it?
But also, as I understand it, almost necessary in order for them to not become the worst army in the game?
I don't play Tau, and haven't fought against them in a long, long time.
Also, they don't play exactly like they used to, because a unit who uses GG to cover for an allied unit can't overwatch again that phase. I know, smaller OW nerf than everyone else gets, to be sure, but a somewhat limiting factor that is very pertinent to the discussion.
2020/06/25 15:37:32
Subject: Re:How quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates new rules?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Apparently it starts right now. Tau continue to overwatch exactly as they did in 8th, no strategem required. Shocking, isn't it?
Likely only fair. I wasn't entirely sure how they were going to get through some of the challenges that presented, but I'm not a T'au expert.
Of course it is. I'm definitely not a fan of tau, but good overwatch is what they do. The same strategies that work against them now will continue to work, with new ones possibly being developed using some of the new rules. If you play against tau, expect efficient overwatch, just like always. It won't stop my warp talons from turning them into puree any more in 9th than in 8th.
2020/06/25 15:41:31
Subject: How quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates new rules?
Sim-Life wrote: So every change we get for 9th is anyone else thinking "how quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates that?"
Like limited CP for everyone is great, till an army gets undercosted characters that add CP to their pool. Or weapons that ignore Dense cover or reroll Combat Attrition dice etc.
Am I alone? And before anyone says anything anyone familiar with my posting history knows I verge on the positive side when discussing 40k but I also know GW gonna GW.
Most games that have any sort of individualized components ala TCGs, mobas, wargames, etc, have abilities that break the rules in specific ways. It's simple game design. Take Stealth for example. Most games have a fundamental rule, gak in your Line of Sight, you can see. Stealth breaks that rule. How about Infiltration breaking 'units start on your side of the board' or deepstrike breaking 'units start on the table' or all the units that break 'you must have line of sight on your target'. Rules in these kind of games are instituted as extra design space to break them as often as they are to actually accomplish something in and of themselves. It's just more switches to flip. This hatred of stuff that breaks rules is mostly down to people not actually being able to figure out what they don't like about the game and pointing to something that sounds like it could be a thing.
Also, I like how you throw in 'undercosted' like it's a foregone conclusion. Most of the characters that give CP haven't seen significant play in some time for one reason or another; with the main one being points.
PenitentJake wrote: I'm getting stoked for 9th. I don't necessarily know that I have liked everything I've seen so far, but it all feels interesting and full of potential.
I find it difficult for anyone to not be excited. GW is literally explaining how they understand the flaws we've experienced on stream, addressing them directly, and making rules that seem to do a great job of solving problems.
We don't have the full picture. Nothing will be perfect, but this is a marked improvement for them.
I love 8th(except for strats & rerolls) & am looking forward to the changes to the game(except for more CP, I had hoped everyone would only get 5 or less, actually ZERO).
The previewed rules have intrigued me and can only hope for more positive changes.
More detailed cover & interactions are a plus for me.
Somebody's bad at using their stratagems correctly.
no, strats are lame gamey bs, the dice rolled should be the actual determination of the events on the battlefield, not o I pulled this one special thing out my ass. rerolls suck, if you cant live with actual chance...dont know what to say to you. It kinda sounds like you should go play a card game. I hear Magic is good for that. I'm ok with them reigning in on rerolls, but doubling down on wombocombo is something I'm gonna stay far, far away from. cool part of the game is you dont have to use them and I play with like minded players so, we'll be fine.
Truth. Wombocombos are low hanging fruit. They exist to make you “feel smart”.
How do you “shoot twice/fight twice” incorrectly?
yup, but I guess feeling superior is better than actually being the better general/commander these days.
2020/06/25 15:46:51
Subject: Re:How quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates new rules?
Nitro Zeus wrote: they would still have the most powerful overwatch in the game even if they had to pay 2CP for it.
This is just one more change proving melee is still gonna suck ass in 9th.
Maybe jumping the gun there? Most powerful overwatch =/= functional army if they were only able do it once. They don't melee much at all and psychic is non-existent. Owerwatch is their melee.
2020/06/25 15:52:25
Subject: Re:How quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates new rules?
It's almost as if some of the 9th edition is being designed to force diversity rather than specialist lists.
Unit A counters Unit B which counters Unit C.
I've played every edition. 9th is looking to be one of those editions where "Unit A" never sees the table because it's already effectively countered by the core rules themselves.
After that, who wins between "Units B and C" it will just be a case of which unit ignores the rules more.
Unfortunately, that's kind of the paradigm 8th set up. Keep in mind I really liked most of 8th. But 9th is building on it's flaws in an attempt to fix the "problems". One of the flaws was that a units general strength has less to do with how it's pointed for its statline, and more to do with how well it ignores the standard rule set.
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
2020/06/25 16:03:46
Subject: How quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates new rules?
EightFoldPath wrote: For me, the Space Marine 2019 Codex and Supplements cast a long dark shadow over 8th and will for 9th until we see proof that the rules writers understand the mistakes they made with them.
I think a good example is the anti psyker strats.
One sub faction of Adeptus Mechanicus has a stop spells strategem. The penalty is that AdMech can't take psykers. Same for sisters of battle/silence.
One sub faction of Chaos Space Marines has a stop spells strategem. The penalty is that sub-faction can't take psykers. Same for Black Templars/assassins. I don't think the penalty is enough to be honest for World Eaters, too easy to take a single WE model and get it.
Iron Hands had a stop spells strategem, it was better than the other stop spells strategems (until nerfed in FAQ 1 for Iron Hands). The penalty is nothing, Iron Hands get psykers and access to three psychic disciplines.
There are loads of these littered throughout SM2019+Supplements. Raven Guard get the best suite of infiltration strategems in the entire game while getting all the generic SM support.
I'm also waiting to see what they do with the mess that is Chaos soup. In 8th the designers made the choice to allow Codex Daemons to give out aura buffs to CSM Daemons and to allow CSM spells/strategems to work on TSons and DGuard. This is why no one Chaos codex is particularly functional on its own because if they were then Chaos soup would be unstoppable.
This is then also why tournament Chaos lists are usually complicated abominations. I don't want to take a mixed Nurgle detachment made up of codex nurgle daemons, codex death guard tanks and codex chaos space marine characters, but maybe if my chapter tactics weren't nearly all useless on those models I would feel more penalised for mixing them all together.
Except all those Factions have access to Psykers via Inquisition, which are an add-on to any army.
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.
2020/06/25 16:04:05
Subject: Re:How quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates new rules?
Okey, if tau keep their special overwatch, then I kind of don't get the sense of the whole overwatch change. It is like saying overlaping auras and re-rolls are too good, and removing them from, orcs or GK
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2020/06/25 16:07:49
Subject: How quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates new rules?
Quickly.... and they should introduce these quickly.
This is how you make units interesting/ stick out. Every game is based on this concept Warhammer and otherwise. Take for example
> all units must start in the deployment zone....... except reserves, infiltrate, ect
> all units must walk around this wall...... except fly, phase, ect
> all units in this cover get +1 to their save...... except if being shot by mortal wounds, imperial fists, ect
The way you create tactical depth in a game is by having units do different things like ignoring/ modifying different rules.
2020/06/25 16:18:00
Subject: Re:How quickly will GW introduce a unit that ignores/invalidates new rules?
Okey, if tau keep their special overwatch, then I kind of don't get the sense of the whole overwatch change. It is like saying overlaping auras and re-rolls are too good, and removing them from, orcs or GK
Yep. There went most of the point of the overwatch changes, before the edition even starts.
Why did they originally say that T'au got "two for one" overwatch when in fact they get the old 8th edition overwatch and FTGG totally unmodified while everyone else got nerfed overwatch?
