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.

Bluflash wrote:
One of the biggest gaps from ITC to 9th GT is the lack of any Gangbusters equivalent. We have secondaries for scoring max points against Vehicle lists, and horde lists, but literally nothing for scoring against small Elite units and Bikes. That's definitely going to shape list-building under the current rules. Especially when you can take Elite Bikes (See Custodes and Harlies)

IMO we're in a Bike meta.

Tough, fast, fighty units that aren't tagged Vehicle or Monster, saw minimal points changes generally and no points changes regarding how much the game framework has shifted in their favor. (Small board, LOS blocking cover, need to take and hold objectives for a full turn)

I agree. After my first few games I think I am changing my army build entirely for 9th. I was taking tons of primaris marines but now I think I'm going fully mobile. 2x intercessors with stalker bolters for the back line. Several units of bladegaurd and characters mounted in impuslors. Several units of prime bikes. Stromtalons or storm hawks and likely the new predators.

I think GW need to decide whether getting secondaries should be easy or hard.

Right now if someone foolishly turns up with say 5 vehicles/monsters with 10 wounds, and a bunch of MSU units and 3 psykers, you can just waltz to 45 points just by attacking them a lot. (Bring it Down, Attrition, Abhor the Witch.)

They then look at your elite infantry list and go "okay, 2-3 characters, 0-2 vehicles, tougher units so attrition is doubtful, no hope on thin their ranks.... uh... how on earth am I going to max out here?"

IMO ITC type missions were only better than GW missions because in GW mission you can literally ignore the objectives and just blow your opponent away. score in the remaining turns with no opposition. So ITC type missions were objective relevant...but the system for picking secondaries affects list construction too much. Stupid examples like taking 19 men in a unit instead of 20 for some kind of benefit (very stupid) and building lists that are impossible to score against (dumber than very stupid).

Call me old fashion but I enjoy simple table quarters type missions with "old school" objectives. Add a bonus objective to change every game. That would be a better game IMO.

But the irony is that ITC had pretty much ironed out their secondary problems, only for GW to throw them out the window and come up with their own secondaries that repeat and in fact amplify all the problems with early ITC secondaries.

But the irony is that ITC had pretty much ironed out their secondary problems, only for GW to throw them out the window and come up with their own secondaries that repeat and in fact amplify all the problems with early ITC secondaries.

Exactly. You see this in the BRB missions as well - they use a method of scoring Adepticon moved away from many years ago due to the issues it creates. This is why I was less than excited when GW was saying "Most play tested edition ever!". The fact that it was play tested has not prevented them from making mistakes that I'm sure many(if not all) of the play testers pointed out.

I mean, you can't tell me, at the very least, the Frontline guys didn't say something ... lol

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
I think you guys should probably cool down about FW rules. There's a lot coming regarding them. I predict many people will be surprised

Source? Or is this just speculation? Or information from a guy who knows a guy, who knows a guy, who mops the floors at your local gw every Thursday?

Also: agreed with Tyel on issues regarding secondaries.

I'll hold him down. You punch him until he squawks!

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
I think you guys should probably cool down about FW rules. There's a lot coming regarding them. I predict many people will be surprised

Source? Or is this just speculation? Or information from a guy who knows a guy, who knows a guy, who mops the floors at your local gw every Thursday?

Also: agreed with Tyel on issues regarding secondaries.

I'll hold him down. You punch him until he squawks!

Who? Lemondish or the guy who mops the floor at his local gw?

I'm not sure if I want to see the new fw books anyway, they'll probably just use them to "kick models into the stratosphere that should probably be kept in Apocalypse".

Tyel wrote:
I think GW need to decide whether getting secondaries should be easy or hard.

Right now if someone foolishly turns up with say 5 vehicles/monsters with 10 wounds, and a bunch of MSU units and 3 psykers, you can just waltz to 45 points just by attacking them a lot. (Bring it Down, Attrition, Abhor the Witch.)

They then look at your elite infantry list and go "okay, 2-3 characters, 0-2 vehicles, tougher units so attrition is doubtful, no hope on thin their ranks.... uh... how on earth am I going to max out here?"

That's what you get with secondaries though. Game turns to minimize secondaries opponent can score. One reason I have never liked ITC. Units gets relegated to trash because they give up secondaries. Geminia are cool units but weren't taken because they donate assassinate scores. Ork trukks bled secondaries too fast etc etc etc.

It's less what unit does to you than how it bleeds secondaries.

Ork trukk are pretty fine actually since they have 10 wounds. Koptas or kanz, on the other hand...

 Daedalus81 wrote:


I'll hold him down. You punch him until he squawks!

That makes no sense, no one who is on the ground talks. If you want someone to talk, you either push them against a wall and beat them there, because they have no where to run and can't curl up. Or you hold them and beat their brother or sister, then they general talk very fast, unless they are total donkey-caves. And then you can just ground and pound them, because there is no talking with people that are like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 790591 10887266 wrote:

That's what you get with secondaries though. Game turns to minimize secondaries opponent can score. One reason I have never liked ITC. Units gets relegated to trash because they give up secondaries. Geminia are cool units but weren't taken because they donate assassinate scores. Ork trukks bled secondaries too fast etc etc etc.

It's less what unit does to you than how it bleeds secondaries.

Like or not, they are part of the game. And some armies can't just decide to not have multiple psykers, msus and 2-3 vehicles. And they don't really get much any buffs for being forced in to playing that way. But maybe the codex for armies will change it or some errata/faq, that only HQ characters count for abhore the witch or attrition will be based on unit point cost too, as in won't work if your 5 man squad costs 3xtimes what other peoples troops cost.

 Jidmah wrote:
How many FW units have seen tournament play that weren't op though? I'd wager the number is rather low.

Both the terrible and OP units are a clear sign of low quality rules writing - even compared to the GW stuff. IMHO it wouldn't be too bad if FW disappeared completely for 40k.

Custodes would immediately drop out of the meta of course, since GW hasn't bothered to give them more then half an army.

They are hardly the only ones.

I also think it's questionable to assume that custodes are fine just because FW released a bunch of "codex unit +1" things.
If GW does a R&H on you because they axed some of the models for profit reasons, your army would be ruined just the same.

 Jidmah wrote:
They are hardly the only ones.

I also think it's questionable to assume that custodes are fine just because FW released a bunch of "codex unit +1" things.
If GW does a R&H on you because they axed some of the models for profit reasons, your army would be ruined just the same.

They really are the only one.

The only army with as small a range is Harlies, and they don't get the forge world support.

Custodes need a larger plastic release. But lacking that, the answer isn't to get rid of all forgeworld. GW isn't going to suddenly make more units for custodes. You'd just be screwing the army for no benefit.

Half or more of my infantry based Custodes is FW, because it unlocks more variety in units.

What have you guys done to change your competitive armies for either the new meta or 9th in general?

I'm not changing much, if anything in my Knights armies. Just using extra points for summoning daemons to help with secondary missions instead of buying upgrades or carapace weapons.

stratigo wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
They are hardly the only ones.

I also think it's questionable to assume that custodes are fine just because FW released a bunch of "codex unit +1" things.
If GW does a R&H on you because they axed some of the models for profit reasons, your army would be ruined just the same.

They really are the only one.

The only army with as small a range is Harlies, and they don't get the forge world support.

Custodes need a larger plastic release. But lacking that, the answer isn't to get rid of all forgeworld. GW isn't going to suddenly make more units for custodes. You'd just be screwing the army for no benefit.

They could just make the regular guardians, dread and landraider better than the corresponding FW units and instantly no one would give a damn about FW going away.

 Jidmah wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
They are hardly the only ones.

I also think it's questionable to assume that custodes are fine just because FW released a bunch of "codex unit +1" things.
If GW does a R&H on you because they axed some of the models for profit reasons, your army would be ruined just the same.

They really are the only one.

The only army with as small a range is Harlies, and they don't get the forge world support.

Custodes need a larger plastic release. But lacking that, the answer isn't to get rid of all forgeworld. GW isn't going to suddenly make more units for custodes. You'd just be screwing the army for no benefit.

They could just make the regular guardians, dread and landraider better than the corresponding FW units and instantly no one would give a damn about FW going away.

Thats just not true. I mean, bikers and terminators ok, they are more ugly and have worse rules (The terminators not that much) but FW dreadnoughts and things like Venatari have never been competitive and are wildly used because they are very cool units and models. Thats like saying "If you make the buggies better no one would use ork truks and battlewagongs". Thats true but that doesnt mean they don't have a reason to exist.

I mean, I would love for all custodes FW units to be made plastic ones on the normal codex, that way no one would tell me to not play my Achillus and mi Saggitarum.

So far Most winning lists in GT's have included more Units of eradicators than FW models, but keep complaining it's FW models that are the problem not GW and certainly not Marines.

If 3 models is enough justification to ban FW then Eradicators alone are enough justification to Ban Codex Marines 2.0 and 3.0 wholesale.

 Galas wrote:
Thats just not true. I mean, bikers and terminators ok, they are more ugly and have worse rules (The terminators not that much) but FW dreadnoughts and things like Venatari have never been competitive and are wildly used because they are very cool units and models. Thats like saying "If you make the buggies better no one would use ork truks and battlewagongs". Thats true but that doesnt mean they don't have a reason to exist.

I mean, I would love for all custodes FW units to be made plastic ones on the normal codex, that way no one would tell me to not play my Achillus and mi Saggitarum.

His argument literally was that custodes would no longer be *competitive* without FW, not that he didn't like the models.

And it's not like anything prevents you from using 30k models for your 40k datasheets, yet you somehow never see that happening, so beautiful models clearly aren't the primary drive for investing into FW.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Thats just not true. I mean, bikers and terminators ok, they are more ugly and have worse rules (The terminators not that much) but FW dreadnoughts and things like Venatari have never been competitive and are wildly used because they are very cool units and models. Thats like saying "If you make the buggies better no one would use ork truks and battlewagongs". Thats true but that doesnt mean they don't have a reason to exist.

I mean, I would love for all custodes FW units to be made plastic ones on the normal codex, that way no one would tell me to not play my Achillus and mi Saggitarum.

His argument literally was that custodes would no longer be *competitive* without FW, not that he didn't like the models.

And it's not like anything prevents you from using 30k models for your 40k datasheets, yet you somehow never see that happening, so beautiful models clearly aren't the primary drive for investing into FW.

Why is that argument about proxying used in this instance and not others? No, I don't like to proxy my DA vindicators as Impulsors, I like for my units to have proper rules that reflect what they are. It just feels wrong to proxy them. If theres literally no rules for the model then ok, but if the model has rules I would like to use those rules. I have been using my Achillus and Venatari since I bought them, not because of the rules, but I like my models to have rules that let me use them in ways that feel right for them.

 Jidmah wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
They are hardly the only ones.

I also think it's questionable to assume that custodes are fine just because FW released a bunch of "codex unit +1" things.
If GW does a R&H on you because they axed some of the models for profit reasons, your army would be ruined just the same.

They really are the only one.

The only army with as small a range is Harlies, and they don't get the forge world support.

Custodes need a larger plastic release. But lacking that, the answer isn't to get rid of all forgeworld. GW isn't going to suddenly make more units for custodes. You'd just be screwing the army for no benefit.

They could just make the regular guardians, dread and landraider better than the corresponding FW units and instantly no one would give a damn about FW going away.

I'd give a damn. If I'm a fan of a model, I couldn't care less if there's a "better" standard GW unit. As a casual player who prefers the fluff over crunch, I enjoy the diversity and fluff depth the FW stuff adds.

 Jidmah wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
They are hardly the only ones.

I also think it's questionable to assume that custodes are fine just because FW released a bunch of "codex unit +1" things.
If GW does a R&H on you because they axed some of the models for profit reasons, your army would be ruined just the same.

They really are the only one.

The only army with as small a range is Harlies, and they don't get the forge world support.

Custodes need a larger plastic release. But lacking that, the answer isn't to get rid of all forgeworld. GW isn't going to suddenly make more units for custodes. You'd just be screwing the army for no benefit.

They could just make the regular guardians, dread and landraider better than the corresponding FW units and instantly no one would give a damn about FW going away.

Ascetically, neither of those space marine handmedowns fit custodes. And the land raider kit especially is old, gross, and should be on its way out. I'd rather have models that work for the army I'm playing than models that do not.