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.
2020/08/10 15:08:20
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
The problem is 8th was designed without the cap in mind, but it just got shoe-horned into 9th with no changes. So anything that was based around a greater than a +1/-1 suddenly got nerfed into uselessness with no compensation.
The other problem is that rerolls remained, meaning that the +1/-1 is even more irrelevant. Space marines with full rerolls now hit 75% of the time no matter what. That's just stupid.
2020/08/10 15:10:43
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
You might want to go look that up...because Cameleoline is used by the Imperium as well. The Tanith's cloaks are made of the stuff, and it's been in the fluff forever as what Marine Scouts have too.
Again, when stuff like full rerolls are in the game, getting -2 to hit on a key unit seems fair, especially when the second -1 to hit comes from the attacker moving with heavy weapons
Remind me again who has full rerolls?
Oh, right...Chapter Masters.
2020/08/10 15:30:52
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
If full reroll were limited to only a specific extremely expensive named character, like guilliman or abbadon, then maybe it wouldn't be so bad. You can just ban named characters, like used to be the norm in the old days. But chapter masters are generic.
2020/08/10 15:36:05
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
You might want to go look that up...because Cameleoline is used by the Imperium as well. The Tanith's cloaks are made of the stuff, and it's been in the fluff forever as what Marine Scouts have too.
Again, when stuff like full rerolls are in the game, getting -2 to hit on a key unit seems fair, especially when the second -1 to hit comes from the attacker moving with heavy weapons
Remind me again who has full rerolls?
Oh, right...Chapter Masters.
85pts + 2cp to get full rerolls for the whole game VS 2cp to give -1 to hit for 1 phase....
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/08/10 15:37:39
2020/08/10 15:39:14
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
If full reroll were limited to only a specific extremely expensive named character, like guilliman or abbadon, then maybe it wouldn't be so bad. You can just ban named characters, like used to be the norm in the old days. But chapter masters are generic.
Because stacking negatives to hit hurt huge numbers of armies.
To which the cry goes up "we needed it tho, cos Space Marines, and even a stacking -2 to hit still results in 5/9 hits, which is fine".
Sure - for Space Marines - but for everyone else you just had an obnoxious, toxic gameplay.
Sure things should be balanced. But Alaitoc (and its sister doctrines across the codexes) should not have lasted past CA18.
I wouldn't mind if lightning fast reactions was a special once per phase -1 that can stack. But you shouldn't be able to get -2 easily all over the shop. And in a world *hopefully* chock full of terrain (tbh I don't see it - but tournaments etc might manage), that's what you would get.
2020/08/10 15:58:44
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
You can also refer to the 7E Space Marine Codex, "Special Issue Wargear" section.
Camo Cloak wrote:
Space Marine Scouts often wear camo cloaks--loose garments woven from a light-reactive material known as cameleoline, which imitates the appearance of nearby terrain. So garbed, Scouts are almost impossible to see at long distances.
85pts + 2cp to get full rerolls for the whole game VS 2cp to give -1 to hit for 1 phase....
Remind me again how many Chapter Masters you can have in an army?
We know that Captains are getting a "per Detachment" limitation added to them.
Also, let's stop saying "full rerolls" and instead say "full rerolls within 6 inches"...because it's not an armywide thing. It's an aura.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/08/10 16:03:35
2020/08/10 16:24:33
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
[snip]
The unable to miss is already in the game with the full rerolls of space marines.
I know this is a bugbear for a lot of people, but you do remember that Marines had full to-hit rerolls for most of 8th and they were still garbage right?
I feel like that characterizes a lot the reaction to Codex 2.0. "The rerolls are too much." We had the rerolls to begin with. "Rapid fire at full range is too much." We had that for months before the codex dropped and it wasn't enough. "Marines didn't need all that extra Ap." Marines were already had lots of Ap in an edition when anything past Ap 2 was usually wasted, although adding it to Boltguns finally made them worth firing. The real problem is super-doctines and any given chapter having six pages of strats and three pages of relics. I play several factions, including some low-tier forces like Mono-god Slannesh Daemons and Tryanids; the percentage of good strats and relics for Marines isn't really all that much higher (or higher at all in some cases) but it gets amplified by the sheer volume of them available.
I know this is a bugbear for a lot of people, but you do remember that Marines had full to-hit rerolls for most of 8th and they were still garbage right?
I feel like that characterizes a lot the reaction to Codex 2.0. "The rerolls are too much." We had the rerolls to begin with. "Rapid fire at full range is too much." We had that for months before the codex dropped and it wasn't enough. "Marines didn't need all that extra Ap." Marines were already had lots of Ap in an edition when anything past Ap 2 was usually wasted, although adding it to Boltguns finally made them worth firing. The real problem is super-doctines and any given chapter having six pages of strats and three pages of relics. I play several factions, including some low-tier forces like Mono-god Slannesh Daemons and Tryanids; the percentage of good strats and relics for Marines isn't really all that much higher (or higher at all in some cases) but it gets amplified by the sheer volume of them available.
There were a lot of people (myself included) saying the rerolls were too much even before Marines were good. It was one of the early signs that games of 8th were not going to be the uber quick affair we had been promised. The designers used them in a lazy fashion that only made them worse when all the buffs started getting tossed at them. Marines didn't need the extra AP (Like you I play many factions and lack of AP is not something I ever worried about w/my marines), nor do they need most of the stuff they have continued to get.
The issue is, when 2.0 came out, it took the underlying cracks in the foundation and made them into canyons. Also, while I agree that Marines have plenty of bad strats, they also essentially have one strat for every rule that would hurt them, that let's them ignore that rule. No other army has this on that level with the strats. So now, you take those, combine them with the Super Doctrines, and all the other things they had pre-2.0 and you have .... a monstrosity.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/10 16:45:25
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..."
2020/08/10 16:51:32
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
We know that Captains are getting a "per Detachment" limitation added to them. Also, let's stop saying "full rerolls" and instead say "full rerolls within 6 inches"...because it's not an armywide thing. It's an aura.
It's because they're often huddled by at least a plurality of the army and a lieutenant - which I appreciate are significant caveats.
If we compare it to the Tau rule: Kauyon that can be used once per game with the cheapest commander being 93pts baseline IIRC and those effected units have to have remained stationary.
"Once per battle, at the beginning of your turn, a single COMMANDER from your army can declare either Kauyon or Mont’ka: Kauyon: Until the end of the turn, you can re-roll failed hit rolls for friendly <SEPT> units within 6" of the COMMANDER, but these units cannot move for any reason."
It's objectively better, it can be used in 100% of turns as opposed to 20% and does not suffer from the prerequisite that the effected units couldn't move, so you can continue to move forward, towards objectives and opponents. So instead of having to hope that your targets come into range/visibility to gain the reroll with the Chapter Master you can go to them and still get the buff from the aura.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/10 16:52:19
2020/08/10 16:54:36
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
85pts + 2cp to get full rerolls for the whole game VS 2cp to give -1 to hit for 1 phase....
Remind me again how many Chapter Masters you can have in an army?
We know that Captains are getting a "per Detachment" limitation added to them.
Also, let's stop saying "full rerolls" and instead say "full rerolls within 6 inches"...because it's not an armywide thing. It's an aura.
Yes, but a smart loyalist player isn't going to let the important stuff stray to far from that chapter master. You're going to keep those executioners, twin lascannon contemptors, hellblasters, and aggressors within 6. And it's danged annoying on that last example, that's a ridiculous amount of dice rolling, takes forever. That's why I pay 2CP a turn to turn the little buggers off by filling their vox with scrapcode and the screams of a hundred dying worlds. Most factions can't do that though.
2020/08/10 16:58:39
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
Also, it's about time that Eldar Camocloaks did the same thing as Imperial ones. Imperial ones have been an armor save while in cover modifier rather than the negative to hit that the Eldar ones have been.
Nah, maybe from a gameplay perspective that could be used as a balancing tool but since we're whipping out the lore links; Aeldari tech is millions of years old steeped in galactic warfare thousands of times longer than a bunch of apes who just got it relatively "yesterday" in the timelines. It makes sense that an advanced race that's been around that many times longer might be able to eek out a couple improvements/mods/quality out of a similar piece of equipment that has a few materials in common. I can make a "ceramic" vase, that doesn't mean I know ho to get a piece of "ceramic" certified to NIJ standards to be worn as body armor. Like how how anti-grav tech used to before.
Then they could have been called something different.
Well, they are called something different. Camo and Cameleoline are similar words in that they both have the same first three letters, but at the end of the day they're not called the same thing. Even if you just hand wave that fact away, we all know just because something has exactly the same name does not mean it has the same quality, especially if you change manufacturers.
It's all opinion at the end of the day, but let's not act like Aeldari having something a bit better called something vaguely similar that's said to have a common material in the background is some kind of huge logical disconnect just because you didn't like a particular aspect of a defunct game's modifier system.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/10 17:15:30
2020/08/10 16:59:08
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
Karol wrote: I am all for eldar getting a GK level of fun for 2-3 editions. After then they can go back to being super powerful. Yeah, eldar being back to good, when I hit 21 sounds nice.
That's a childishly spiteful position to take, and doesn't make you seem like a very sportsmanlike opponent.
Don't mention the s word around Karol - you'll get some anecdote about it being sportsmanlike to destroy someone's joint in inter-school wrestling...
Just put him on ignore where he deserves to be until he gets banned.
"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.
Freelance Ontologist
When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life.
2020/08/10 17:00:34
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
Vaktathi wrote: With a D6 design space largely built around the median values, there is always going to be weirdness, there just isn't enough to work with. 40k isn't the only game to get stung by that problem, and it should be clear that anything capable of a -3 modifier or more in a D6 design space that has little or no "+" modifiers is going present problems and should be avoided in the first place as a result and a different mechanic used if necessary.
Capping at 6's can run into issues at the opposite end, where you get Guard or Ork units that can zip around all they want and not care too much, while the elite units eat the full impact of -3 to hit.
A 2d6 design space (where say an Ork may hit on an 8, a Guardsmen would hit on a 7, a Guardian on a 6, a Space Marine on a 5, and a Custodes on a 4) would allow for dramatically more flexibility and differentiation, but doesn't work in a game where you may be rolling 40 attacks at once.
The words you're looking for are "switch to D8 or D10".
And yeah the change is fething stupid. Now you don't even need to make a choice to move with a Heavy Weapon against any -1 to hit unit because you don't need to care.
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.
2020/08/10 17:02:50
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
Niiru wrote: This came up in a conversation today, where the basic premise was that currently in 9th edition Eldar (a race that designs all its technology and training around being as evasive as possible, to the point where they no longer wear 'protective' armour) are easier to kill than an ork in a tshirt.
So as a caveat - I personally did not like the 8th edition shenanigans of stacking up -4 / -6 etc to-hit modifiers, making units impossible to hit. It was too much, and it made things boring. Blame GW for leaving so many obvious loopholes and stacking opportunities open.
(Lets forget for a moment this recently got partly fixed by making 6s always hit. )
However... capping it at +1/-1... has issues.
An example:
Alaitoc Ranger unit, hiding in a forest. Should be -3 to hit, under the old rules. They're sneaky dudes, from a sneaky race, wearing camouflage. Makes sense.
However it gets capped at -1...
So now we throw in a Custodes unit. Big hulking dude.
He wants to fire his gun... it's a -1 to hit.
Well then he decides to advance first. -2 to hit still -1 to hit
Decides to fire both his weapon profiles. -3 to hit still -1 to hit
So a custodes can now run around the map, jumping and firing his weapons wildly in the air (any Halo fans out there?), and is exactly as accurate as a trained assassin firing his rifle from his snipers nest.
I think a change needed to be made... but I'm not sure this was the right change. Perhaps it can be fixed with a tweak, maybe +2/-2 being the cap instead... it would certainly be more reasonable.
Alternatively, they could change the army's that use this from -1 to hit modifiers, to something else. Maybe "enemy weapons range is reduced by 6inches", or a change to the armour save maybe. Alternatively, a bunch of units need to go down in price by a significant amount (but the best place to read recommendations on this is the Goonhammer site).
But I'd guess GW won't be making any changes like this for a year or so. The imperium just got another huge buff, and they're selling their speshmareens.
The irony is that when the 8th edition Tyranids codex came out, they went to great lengths to make it so that -1 to hit modifiers did not stack. The best you could do in that codex was -2 for ONE unit, your hive tyrant based off a relic that did stack with the aura from Venomthropes. It kept them pretty well leashed, but then the eldar codex came out and all caution was thrown to the wind.
Some people will know that I fething hate Custodes as an army. Half the time they shouldn't even roll, because they've stacked their hit and wound to the point that they have a 1/36 chance of failing. What they can do to their dreadnoughts right now because of that one space marine strat that was nerfed for everyone but them (Why? GW why do you do this crap?) is insane. Literally everything 9th edition did benefited Custodes and gave them zero weakness. It's actually funny to me, they've managed to make the army play as they do in the fluff.
2020/08/10 17:11:20
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
Also, it's about time that Eldar Camocloaks did the same thing as Imperial ones. Imperial ones have been an armor save while in cover modifier rather than the negative to hit that the Eldar ones have been.
Nah, maybe from a gameplay perspective that could be used as a balancing tool but since we're whipping out the lore links; Aeldari tech is millions of years old steeped in galactic warfare thousands of times longer than a bunch of apes who just got it relatively "yesterday" in the timelines. It makes sense that an advanced race that's been around that many times longer might be able to eek out a couple improvements/mods/quality out of a similar piece of equipment that has a few materials in common. I can make a "ceramic" vase, that doesn't mean I know ho to get a piece of "ceramic" certified to NIJ standards to be worn as body armor. Like how how anti-grav tech used to before.
It literally goes back to "different rules for the same thing". Craftworlds got Stealth on Rangers to represent their camo cloaks while Marines and Guard got "+1 to Cover Save, even while in the open".
Then they could have been called something different.
Well, they are called something different. It's similar, but at the end of the day they're not called the same thing. Even if you just hand wave that fact away, we all know just because something has exactly the same name does not mean it has the same quality, especially if you change manufacturers.
It's all opinion at the end of the day, but let's not act like Aeldari having something a bit better called something vaguely similar that's said to have a common material in the background is some kind of huge logical disconnect just because you didn't like a particular aspect of a defunct game's modifier system.
This was literally the issue that existed with previous editions where things like Storm Shields would have different stats across two different codices.
The irony is that when the 8th edition Tyranids codex came out, they went to great lengths to make it so that -1 to hit modifiers did not stack. The best you could do in that codex was -2 for ONE unit, your hive tyrant based off a relic that did stack with the aura from Venomthropes. It kept them pretty well leashed, but then the eldar codex came out and all caution was thrown to the wind.
Tyranids was November 2017, Eldar was October.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/10 17:13:40
2020/08/10 17:11:48
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
85pts + 2cp to get full rerolls for the whole game VS 2cp to give -1 to hit for 1 phase....
Remind me again how many Chapter Masters you can have in an army?
We know that Captains are getting a "per Detachment" limitation added to them.
Also, let's stop saying "full rerolls" and instead say "full rerolls within 6 inches"...because it's not an armywide thing. It's an aura.
Yes, but a smart loyalist player isn't going to let the important stuff stray to far from that chapter master. You're going to keep those executioners, twin lascannon contemptors, hellblasters, and aggressors within 6. And it's danged annoying on that last example, that's a ridiculous amount of dice rolling, takes forever. That's why I pay 2CP a turn to turn the little buggers off by filling their vox with scrapcode and the screams of a hundred dying worlds. Most factions can't do that though.
And then never win a game again because you hold all of 1 objective.
No one castling around a character is going to win anything but the most casual of games. The objectives all reward spreading out.
2020/08/10 17:23:40
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
Ginjitzu wrote: Would a to hit table that compares "accuracy" vs "evasiveness" in the same vein as the to wound table be a terrible idea?
This shouldn't be buried because I think it's a really good idea. In a nutshell, just exporting the current SvT calculation to apply to BS vs E (Evasion) increases the number of defensive buffs needed to hit 6+, and simultaneously ensures that you always hit on a 6.
For example, if I'm BS4 (current BS3+), you see no direct benefit from going from E5 (current -2) to E6 (current -3), I hit on 5+ either way; but if I choose to advance and fire (dropping me to BS3), now I'm be hitting E5 on a 5+ and E6 on a 6+. It still has some slight weirdness where at certain levels, minor penalties have no effect, but it'd certainly be better than what the current hard cap does.
It also increases the granularity of stats available, since if we assume an Evasion of 3 is standard, that would mean current BS3+ would become BS4, while current BS2+ would become BS6. That offers an intermediate step (BS5) where you still hit on 3s against normal targets, but are impacted less by penalties.
To take OP's example- A Custode would be BS6, -1 for Advancing, -1 for firing both profiles, for a result of BS4. The Eldar would be E4 base (E3 standard +1 because Alaitoc), then get +2 for being obscured and having camo-cloaks, for E6.
BS4 vs E6 = 5+ to hit. If the Custode either Advances or fires both profiles, it's still a 5+ (BS5 vs E6). But if the Custode does neither, then it hits on 4+ (BS6 vs E6).
There are then lots of ways to turn re-rolls into modifiers using the new system, and have varying Evasion (maybe have Eldar start at 4 across the board, while superheavies/Knights start at 2) to mix things up.
Of course now that we're in 9th, that ship has already sailed, but maybe it's worth home-brewing.
The Newman wrote: I feel like that characterizes a lot the reaction to Codex 2.0. "The rerolls are too much." We had the rerolls to begin with. "Rapid fire at full range is too much." We had that for months before the codex dropped and it wasn't enough. "Marines didn't need all that extra Ap." Marines were already had lots of Ap in an edition when anything past Ap 2 was usually wasted, although adding it to Boltguns finally made them worth firing.
I would suggest that people are pointing to those things as distinct elements of Marine power, which combine (along with under-costing on a number of problematic units) to make them punch above their weight. It doesn't have to be any one particular smoking gun, and it can be true that those things weren't individually enough to save Marines earlier in the edition, but now could be removed as a balancing factor. I've said before, and will stand behind it, that Primaris were in a good place with just Bolter Discipline and the points drops in CA18, before Doctrines and Super-Doctrines. Maybe they weren't sweeping top competitive tables, but they weren't dominating casual play like they do now.
And besides, the reason full rerolls was brought up is because it impacts game design even if Marines were nerfed. The availability of full re-rolls would still devalue negative modifiers as a defensive mechanism, the high AP across the board + extra AP through Doctrines would still devalue armor as a defensive mechanism, and we'd still be in the current state of needing invulns, FNPs, and/or raw wound (or model) overload to provide meaningful defense.
stratigo wrote: Iunno, this does really come off as a lot of whinging that eldar aren't as good as before.
All xenos armies are terrible compared to the imperium right now. Tau are also about as bad as they've ever been.
No, no they aren't.
Tau still do the stupid triptide and it remains awful to play against. Tau need a new book with a new set of rules. The current book is unsalvagable. You can't make it work in a way that's healthy for the game.
But CE/harley eldar lists? They'll be sitting pretty in the top 8 of many a tourney to come.
2020/08/10 17:34:21
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
Tau still do the stupid triptide and it remains awful to play against. Tau need a new book with a new set of rules. The current book is unsalvagable. You can't make it work in a way that's healthy for the game.
But CE/harley eldar lists? They'll be sitting pretty in the top 8 of many a tourney to come.
I am curious as to how you expect to see CE run now. Alaitoc flyer spam was their primary competitive build in 8th. I can't see players diving into Aspect Warriors, let alone Guardians.
Worth pointing out that in the sole GT so far, xenos were nowhere near the top, which was dominated by Marines, Custodes, and Sisters.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/10 17:34:42
Kanluwen wrote:
This was literally the issue that existed with previous editions where things like Storm Shields would have different stats across two different codices.
Its not the same issue, the names ARE DIFFERENT. Camo cloak != Cameleoline cloak.
And then never win a game again because you hold all of 1 objective.
No one castling around a character is going to win anything but the most casual of games. The objectives all reward spreading out.
Thats what you have intercessors for, to move up the board and hold objective. Having your chapter master + lieutenant babysit your most important source of firepower is trivial in most games.
No, no they aren't.
Tau still do the stupid triptide and it remains awful to play against. Tau need a new book with a new set of rules. The current book is unsalvagable. You can't make it work in a way that's healthy for the game.
But CE/harley eldar lists? They'll be sitting pretty in the top 8 of many a tourney to come.
Triptide got destroyed with the nerf on drones. Its still playable but it loses on objectives hard. And now that the game is all about objective, triptide sucks.
And its not about the codex having representation at the top tables or not. Its about the codex having playable units. 9th is gonna be about staying power, which eldar don't have with the exception of wraiths, wave serpents and shining spears. The rest dies to bolter fire
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/10 17:36:36
2020/08/10 17:40:51
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
2005/11/12 12:08:07
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
Tau still do the stupid triptide and it remains awful to play against. Tau need a new book with a new set of rules. The current book is unsalvagable. You can't make it work in a way that's healthy for the game.
But CE/harley eldar lists? They'll be sitting pretty in the top 8 of many a tourney to come.
I am curious as to how you expect to see CE run now. Alaitoc flyer spam was their primary competitive build in 8th. I can't see players diving into Aspect Warriors, let alone Guardians.
Worth pointing out that in the sole GT so far, xenos were nowhere near the top, which was dominated by Marines, Custodes, and Sisters.
Except for the harley list that got near the top you mean? At 4th? At the vanguard GT? Or Aidelaide where Drukhari of all things made 3rd. And, like, orks were number 1. The actual tourneys going on aren't so one sided as far as their actual results. What one GT are you talking about, cause that's two where eldar made it to the top 4
CE provide an extremely effective firebase while harleys do your ob capping and charge assassinations. Warwalkers, actually good now. As are falcons. And, like, all the good firebase units that were good in the last edition. They didn't suddenly get bad. Crimson hunter exarchs are still a good unit.
2020/08/10 17:48:02
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
85pts + 2cp to get full rerolls for the whole game VS 2cp to give -1 to hit for 1 phase....
Remind me again how many Chapter Masters you can have in an army?
We know that Captains are getting a "per Detachment" limitation added to them.
Also, let's stop saying "full rerolls" and instead say "full rerolls within 6 inches"...because it's not an armywide thing. It's an aura.
Yes, but a smart loyalist player isn't going to let the important stuff stray to far from that chapter master. You're going to keep those executioners, twin lascannon contemptors, hellblasters, and aggressors within 6. And it's danged annoying on that last example, that's a ridiculous amount of dice rolling, takes forever. That's why I pay 2CP a turn to turn the little buggers off by filling their vox with scrapcode and the screams of a hundred dying worlds. Most factions can't do that though.
And then never win a game again because you hold all of 1 objective.
No one castling around a character is going to win anything but the most casual of games. The objectives all reward spreading out.
Read what I said. You keep the nasty shooty stuff in the chapter master's aura for max killing efficiency while everything else goes for those objectives. You don't need to keep your entire army in the reroll zone, just the big guns. Those Intercessors in Impulsors and bikes can clear and hold those objectives while your mobile firebase takes care of anything nasty enough to clear them.
And like I said, it's not a problem for me. I just spend 2CP and turn them into paperweights. But most factions can't do that.
2020/08/10 17:50:20
Subject: Re:Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
I know this is a bugbear for a lot of people, but you do remember that Marines had full to-hit rerolls for most of 8th and they were still garbage right?
I feel like that characterizes a lot the reaction to Codex 2.0. "The rerolls are too much." We had the rerolls to begin with. "Rapid fire at full range is too much." We had that for months before the codex dropped and it wasn't enough. "Marines didn't need all that extra Ap." Marines were already had lots of Ap in an edition when anything past Ap 2 was usually wasted, although adding it to Boltguns finally made them worth firing. The real problem is super-doctines and any given chapter having six pages of strats and three pages of relics. I play several factions, including some low-tier forces like Mono-god Slannesh Daemons and Tryanids; the percentage of good strats and relics for Marines isn't really all that much higher (or higher at all in some cases) but it gets amplified by the sheer volume of them available.
There were a lot of people (myself included) saying the rerolls were too much even before Marines were good. It was one of the early signs that games of 8th were not going to be the uber quick affair we had been promised. The designers used them in a lazy fashion that only made them worse when all the buffs started getting tossed at them. Marines didn't need the extra AP (Like you I play many factions and lack of AP is not something I ever worried about w/my marines), nor do they need most of the stuff they have continued to get.
The issue is, when 2.0 came out, it took the underlying cracks in the foundation and made them into canyons. Also, while I agree that Marines have plenty of bad strats, they also essentially have one strat for every rule that would hurt them, that let's them ignore that rule. No other army has this on that level with the strats. So now, you take those, combine them with the Super Doctrines, and all the other things they had pre-2.0 and you have .... a monstrosity.
I'm chuckling a little bit because you basically pulled the opposite of a tautology there, "thing A is false because thing A is true" rather than "thing A is true because thing A is true".
Although we're talking about entirely different things when it comes to rerolls being "too much"; you care that is slows the game down and I don't care about that at all because a game where multiple units in multiple forces can require 90+ dice to resolve an attack was never going to be fast.
85pts + 2cp to get full rerolls for the whole game VS 2cp to give -1 to hit for 1 phase....
Remind me again how many Chapter Masters you can have in an army?
We know that Captains are getting a "per Detachment" limitation added to them.
Also, let's stop saying "full rerolls" and instead say "full rerolls within 6 inches"...because it's not an armywide thing. It's an aura.
Yes, but a smart loyalist player isn't going to let the important stuff stray to far from that chapter master. You're going to keep those executioners, twin lascannon contemptors, hellblasters, and aggressors within 6. And it's danged annoying on that last example, that's a ridiculous amount of dice rolling, takes forever. That's why I pay 2CP a turn to turn the little buggers off by filling their vox with scrapcode and the screams of a hundred dying worlds. Most factions can't do that though.
And then never win a game again because you hold all of 1 objective.
No one castling around a character is going to win anything but the most casual of games. The objectives all reward spreading out.
Read what I said. You keep the nasty shooty stuff in the chapter master's aura for max killing efficiency while everything else goes for those objectives. You don't need to keep your entire army in the reroll zone, just the big guns. Those Intercessors in Impulsors and bikes can clear and hold those objectives while your mobile firebase takes care of anything nasty enough to clear them.
And like I said, it's not a problem for me. I just spend 2CP and turn them into paperweights. But most factions can't do that.
I think you don't have a great grasp on the points cost of a space marine roster and the survivability of space marines firesupport. There's a reason eradicators are all teleporting in from the board edge, and forgoing all those glorious rerolls. Winning space marine lists aren't playing like you're describing. The way they are dominating the field in 9th is not through aura stacked firebases. It's through aggressively costed models that excel at midrange combat.
2020/08/10 18:04:55
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
stratigo wrote: Iunno, this does really come off as a lot of whinging that eldar aren't as good as before.
All xenos armies are terrible compared to the imperium right now. Tau are also about as bad as they've ever been.
No, no they aren't.
Tau still do the stupid triptide and it remains awful to play against. Tau need a new book with a new set of rules. The current book is unsalvagable. You can't make it work in a way that's healthy for the game.
But CE/harley eldar lists? They'll be sitting pretty in the top 8 of many a tourney to come.
CWE lists largely also have the same issue as Tau, as in they have to run a certain few units in order to be in any way competitive. They may have a couple more viable units, but a huge amount of the book is useless.
Harlequins used to have skyweavers, but they're now more expensive and significantly easier to kill. But then voidweavers are better now, so it might even out. Harlequins have the advantage of being able to grab objectives fast, so its possible they'll win games on objectives while simultaneously getting wiped off the board every game. Which is a weirdly ironic tactic for Eldar, who are the one army that's meant to avoid dying at all costs.
Harlequins did get a decent result recently, 4th or 5th I think, but every other army in that top 8 were imperials. Dark Eldar also got a top 5 recently, but again every other army in the top 5 were wearing power armour.
2020/08/10 18:06:10
Subject: Are the modifier caps too restrictive? Or "The Custodes 360 no scope edition"
Kanluwen wrote: [This was literally the issue that existed with previous editions where things like Storm Shields would have different stats across two different codices.
Can you clarify the actual issue here for me, then? The fact they both use "cameleoline" in "camo cloaks" and "cameoline cloaks" means practically nothing when you take into the context of the extensive lore difference between the two factions. Are you talking about "Storm Shields" and "Storm Shields"? Because I can see a problem with that from a game play perspective. However, uniquely named Wargear, like "Camo Cloaks" and "Cameleoline Cloaks" simply do not have that problem, for obvious reasons. Are you talking about stuff like rules affecting "bolter" weapons before the keyword system? Because that's not really a problem anymore because of, well, the keyword system. If this is the case, are "relics" with similar names, models, and stats also an issue, and if so, why or why not?
