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.
You mean the abilities that mean you can never take more than a certain number of wounds? GW is way ahead of you
These new abilities are especially ridiculous because GW doesn't use universal special rules anymore (or rather they pretend they don't).
Instead they word the exact same ability in slightly different ways.
So when they want a rule to negate 'Feel No Pain' instead of simply saying "Feel No Pain cannot be used against this weapon" they're tying themselves in all sorts of knots trying to describe 'Feel No Pain' in a generic sense to describe the 101 slight variations of it.
It's not just this either, there's loads of abilities like that. I would describe all of this sort of thing as rules bloat.
1. Core - Agree this is being mishandled. "Oh! You're a marine unit? HAVE SOME CORE BABY!" "Oh - Xenos codex? Hmmmm, well, you see, it just wouldn't "forge the proper narrative" if more than 3 of your units had core...."
That said, so far, I don't think it's turned out to be a huge issue at this point. What vehicles were you using that they seemed bad? Because for me, the stuff that was good before (MBH, Flesh-Mower Drones, and PBC's) has all gotten even better! The PBC may be one of the best tanks in the game atm. If you're talking things like Predators/Land Raiders, well, good news is those still suck for EVERYONE and I don't think core would have helped them all that much. They're products of a by-gone era and just don't work as well in the current system.
2. Deepstrike imo has never been better. Ok - there was that period of time in 8th when it was better, but the fixed that so that it was no longer OP. So outside of THAT, deepstrike is really good right now. Did you play in other editions where you could scatter and die? That was terrible. I don't think I can agree on this point as my Crons LOVE this rule.
3. I wouldn't worry about the book secondaries at all. Most tournaments aren't going to allow them, and you can just ask your friends not to use them if you think they're a problem. Frankly, most of them aren't very good so barring a few, I'd not be too bothered by them.
4. If you're talking about what they did to DG - yeah, that sucks and I'm hoping they roll it back, or, at least, don't pass it on to everyone else. It was a bad call imo.
5.
Simply put having this many models and rules in the game requires that GWfaq things more frequently, and move more towards digital (army builder needs to be better).
Nah - they had the same problems every edition. Imagine how bad it was for us in 2nd when this happened and there was no such thing as the internet. You had to just deal with it for YEARS. The Reavers are clearly a mistake and while I agree that the "Re-Pointing" they did at the start of 9th was a mistake, they are already fixing it so I can't agree here either.
They've even taken great strides to fix the excessive dice rolling IMO.
The real issues with 9th IMO -
1st turn advantage - and hey look! They've already taken steps to fix this!
Repititve Mission structure and smaller board size - Eh - good luck. I don't see this changing ... ever. Sorry Tau
Secondaries - They've taken steps to address these, but they really need to eliminate the "Kill" secondaries, or at least repoint everything so that anything requiring opportunity cost should be worth way more.
Morale - Not only is it even less meaningful, it also takes longer now.
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..."
I can't really agree with how deep strike is framed as too weak.
Being able to drop a unit with pinpoint precision, immediately fire with full efficacy, and then charge into combat with a pretty reasonable chance of making it offers no opportunity for counterplay. It's extremely effective for either suicide units that can recoup their cost with one round of shooting, or units with charge bonuses that can get into combat reliably.
It's exactly the sort of wombo-combo gameplay that the game has been increasingly leaning into, to the detriment of interactivity. You pick the right unit with the right deep strike capabilities, and if your opponent's screening isn't perfect you drop it in exactly where you want and do all your damage before the enemy can respond. You see a 50/50 chance of failing the charge as a problem, I see a 50/50 chance of being able to get a melee unit into melee with no way to prevent it as a problem.
I also play Horus Heresy, and there the combination of scatter, reserve rolls, and restrictions on what you can do when you come in (no charging the turn you arrive) give it a very different flavor. It's a potentially powerful but risky and unpredictable positioning tool rather than a combo-facilitator.
The problem with deep strike in 9th is that on a smaller board, in an edition where everything is fast and nearly everything can shoot at full effectiveness while moving full speed, where there's no crossfire, armor facing, or casualty removal order so positioning largely doesn't matter, and where everything can buy the ability to effectively DS near a board edge, innate deep strike isn't all that special or useful as a movement tool. It's mostly a way to keep things from getting shot on T1.
Salt donkey wrote: 2) Deepstrike isn’t good enough. Outside of a few shooty units, I feel that deepstriking is never a good idea. I have played both custodes and deathguard, and the thing these 2 armies have in common is that I’ve pretty much never deepstrike a terminator unit in either army. The board getting smaller and game length going down was enough to stop a lot of 8th’s deepstrike problems. GW decided to double down on this and make it so very little (aside from SM) can get better than a 9 inch charge. If I deepstrike a combat unit and fail that charge, than I will have effectively not used that unit for 2/5 turns of the game, where one of these turns is the most important turn of the game.
The problem with Deep Strike is that it is too good. You know which of your Reserves will show up, which turn they will show up on, and exactly where they will arrive, with no skifters in the deck.
If you can't maximise the advantage such a mechanic gives, don't blame the mechanic.
kirotheavenger wrote: I would love 40k to have some kind of moral system where you can meaningfully impact a unit without just killing it.
40k's moral system isn't really a moral system IMO, it's just "oh a lot of stuff died? Even more stuff dies", really GW?
How do you plan to test the morals of the opposing force? What about an instinctive army like the Tyranids, who are decidedly amoral?
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...
I hate lethality as the next guy but what people needs to understand is that the reason we have the spam of strats that make your dudes hit harder and make more damage, rerrolls to eliminate those "feel bad" moments when you super unit fails 80% of his rolls, and weapons becoming more and more deadly is because people HATES that.
People wants their stuff to destroy the opponent. Because thats fun!
I remember when in league of legends they heavely nerfed most forms of healing or straight up removed them. Why? Because people HATED to see how the work they had done (the damage they caused to their opponent) was just removed with the hability of healing.
And you can see how when a healing champion becomes too strong it is labeled as extremely toxic.
And thats why in league of legends most fights 1vs1 last at most 4 seconds because the one that shoots first deletes the other hero.
High lethality is a problem of a gaming culture constructed around instant gratification, that avoids moments where things don't go as planned like the plague, and were players can't withstand that some stuff is out of their control.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
I know I'm the broken record Crusade guy, but Crusade will solve your secondary issues, since secondaries don't win games in Crusade- they provide XP to units who achieve them instead.
High lethality is a problem of a gaming culture constructed around instant gratification, that avoids moments where things don't go as planned like the plague, and were players can't withstand that some stuff is out of their control.
I agree.
But that's where a morale system comes into play.
"I didn't kill them, but I suppressed them" isn't a failure then.
Galas wrote: I hate lethality as the next guy but what people needs to understand is that the reason we have the spam of strats that make your dudes hit harder and make more damage, rerrolls to eliminate those "feel bad" moments when you super unit fails 80% of his rolls, and weapons becoming more and more deadly is because people HATES that.
People wants their stuff to destroy the opponent. Because thats fun!
I remember when in league of legends they heavely nerfed most forms of healing or straight up removed them. Why? Because people HATED to see how the work they had done (the damage they caused to their opponent) was just removed with the hability of healing.
And you can see how when a healing champion becomes too strong it is labeled as extremely toxic.
And thats why in league of legends most fights 1vs1 last at most 4 seconds because the one that shoots first deletes the other hero.
High lethality is a problem of a gaming culture constructed around instant gratification, that avoids moments where things don't go as planned like the plague, and were players can't withstand that some stuff is out of their control.
If the game was designed around instantly deleting everything we wouldn't be seeing the constant attempts to try and make a unit survive for a turn by piling on more and more defences.
Its fun to destroy the enemy, but super unfun when it happens to you and that unit you spend all month painting gets taken off the board before they do anything.
Its a completely self destructive path that doesn't have a winner.
And yes healing is 'unfun' which is why the varias 'get back up' Necron rules are often complained about, because you shoot stuff and it dies, and then its not dead.
But I think that is a very different thing from simply killing slightly less.
Less lethality isn't about not killing things, its about removing 3 marines instead of 10. Your still killing, you still get that good feeling of having done something but units actually get to stay around and do stuff instead of being blown up constantly.
Inner Circle Deathwing don't come to be because GW wants to kill kill kill, but because they see units instantly get removed before doing anything, and instead of using 9th edition to reduce lethality of weapons they are just piling on more and more special rules. And FU if your not an army known for being tough because then your only option is 'more models' and taking them off by buckets at a time.
Sure aint 'fun' there either.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/01 15:23:18
It's funny how Morale, that they basically scraped for (I suppose?) some hero-centric narrative of never-faltering model is the literal answer to almost all of their design problems.
They dug their own hole
I can't condone a place where abusers and abused are threated the same: it's destined to doom, so there is no reason to participate in it.
Too many Stratagems. I could get behind it if it was specialist detachments, you have up to three, but probably just one and going over the Stratagems within the Specialist Detachment doesn't take too long. Having a unique Stratagem for 10 different units is silly, just bake more strength and higher points cost into the units. Making some options which previously cost CP cost points instead is nice, even if they are not perfectly balanced it is way easier for GW to come back and balance later.
Lack of USR makes everything more confusing than it needs to be, people still use old terms because they are useful enough that people don't care GW has stopped using them. Deep Strike and Feel No Pain would be the minimum of things that need to be reverted back to USRs. Universal Stratagems and abilities would massively simplify the game without causing any real harm. Making it clear which abilities are Auras is really nice though and generally, 9th is well written technically.
I liked the ITC secondary objectives in 8th but points need to be adjusted for it. Secondary objectives can help nerf an overpowered unit, but it will usually hit every other unit that is similar to that unit. GW's secondaries were also designed less well than ITC's were, but they are working on it which is nice.
Different objectives for different armies is unfair, staggering the release of the objectives is just pure BS. If you have a 5d chess brain you might be able to engineer objectives to help out in situations that are otherwise unfair, GW does not have any 5d chess brains designing the codex objectives. They should have been part of the crusade content, alternatively, each faction objective should replace one of the main book objectives. But for the most part the objectives have as balanced as one could hope for with GW.
There was a rhyme to the points adjustments made at the start of the edition but no reason, just following a random algorithm to change points and then a pitiful amount of exceptions to the algorithm. The recent points adjustments were far too few to fix the ridiculous amount of errors from last time. At this rate, 9th will never have balanced points. But the new points format is very nice.
Salt donkey wrote: With 9th being out for more than a half a year, I’d thought it be interesting to go over what I like least
About. Overall I think the edition is pretty solid, but these are the major issues I’ve seen with it so far.
1) Core, as it is being handled, is a mistake. While I get GW’s desire to stop captain equivalents babysitting vehicles in the backfield, their solution has been worse than the disease. I was skeptical of core the moment it was announced, and that skepticism has only increased as we see more and more books come out. The reason we saw captain equivalents with tanks so much, is because the tanks needed the extra efficiency to be competitive. It was also at least somewhat interesting being able to find and use combos with
vehicles. Having played deathguard with their new rules, I think a lot of our vehicles aren’t good enough because they aren’t core, and even the ones that are feel less interesting to play because they have no added synergy beyond maybe use a strat with them, or play poxmongers to buff up a an inv. Based on what I’m seeing with necrons and marines, I don’t think this is just a Deathguard problem.
2) Deepstrike isn’t good enough. Outside of a few shooty units, I feel that deepstriking is never a good idea. I have played both custodes and deathguard, and the thing these 2 armies have in common is that I’ve pretty much never deepstrike a terminator unit in either army. The board getting smaller and game length going down was enough to stop a lot of 8th’s deepstrike problems. GW decided to double down on this and make it so very little (aside from SM) can get better than a 9 inch charge. If I deepstrike a combat unit and fail that charge, than I will have effectively not used that unit for 2/5 turns of the game, where one of these turns is the most important turn of the game.
3) Book secondaries are being mishandled, Why do marine armies get 2 sets of 3 choices to make for secondaries. Why are some of these book ones much better than others? Why does GW think competitive players like this?
4) Restrictions have gotten to be too much. I get that GW wants to make this game more casual appealing, but restrictions add more problems then they solve in a lot of places, Already plenty of units of been invalidated because of equipment choices they had in previous editions, and army construction is becoming more and more difficult/ samey between armies. In essence, GW is hurting the flavor of the game with these level of restrictions.
5) GW’s rules writing structure is getting to become more and more of a problem. Right now we are living in age of 10 point revears and 275 kill tanks (yes they are OP, try them if you aren’t sure). Why did this happen, because GW releases things piecemeal and adresses
problems only after something else bad shows up, Simply put having this many models and rules in the game requires that GWfaq things more frequently, and move more towards digital (army builder needs to be better).
CORE
CORE is great in terms of squelching some of the sillier things. People seem to forget how abusive Levis were with rerolls or haven't seen the dip in reliability a Smash Cap took. Is it applied a little too liberally to marines? Maybe, but it is quite hard to stretch auras on the board these days.
DEEPSTRIKE
Stop dropping all your deepstrikers on turn 2. If you're going to put them up there you need to make sure they make an impact and sometimes that requires waiting while you thin them out a bit more.
SECONDARIES
GW needs to add more to the core set. Hopefully we see a new GT set this summer. Most of the codex secondaries aren't all that save one or two.
FREQUENCY OF FAQS
Certainly better, but I don't know why they have chosen not to address Reavers or some of the other oddities when they could easily have done so. Have people communicated the issue enough? It would be nice to get a "seal of approval" from GW on this stuff. Relying on dubious documents is aggravating.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/01 17:00:38
High lethality is a problem of a gaming culture constructed around instant gratification, that avoids moments where things don't go as planned like the plague, and were players can't withstand that some stuff is out of their control.
Which is a very bad thing.
If you never face adversity, how can you learn to overcome?
High lethality is a problem of a gaming culture constructed around instant gratification, that avoids moments where things don't go as planned like the plague, and were players can't withstand that some stuff is out of their control.
I agree.
But that's where a morale system comes into play.
"I didn't kill them, but I suppressed them" isn't a failure then.
A more impactful morale phase would be nice as long as overall lethality isn't too high. It would be awful to have too many units that can't do anything because of morale in addition to casualties.
"I didn't kill them but I suppressed them" in addition to "I have killed (lots of) other stuff" seems too rewarding for the player who strikes first.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/01 17:12:55
Galas wrote: I hate lethality as the next guy but what people needs to understand is that the reason we have the spam of strats that make your dudes hit harder and make more damage, rerrolls to eliminate those "feel bad" moments when you super unit fails 80% of his rolls, and weapons becoming more and more deadly is because people HATES that.
People wants their stuff to destroy the opponent. Because thats fun!
I remember when in league of legends they heavely nerfed most forms of healing or straight up removed them. Why? Because people HATED to see how the work they had done (the damage they caused to their opponent) was just removed with the hability of healing.
And you can see how when a healing champion becomes too strong it is labeled as extremely toxic.
And thats why in league of legends most fights 1vs1 last at most 4 seconds because the one that shoots first deletes the other hero.
High lethality is a problem of a gaming culture constructed around instant gratification, that avoids moments where things don't go as planned like the plague, and were players can't withstand that some stuff is out of their control.
If the game was designed around instantly deleting everything we wouldn't be seeing the constant attempts to try and make a unit survive for a turn by piling on more and more defences.
Its fun to destroy the enemy, but super unfun when it happens to you and that unit you spend all month painting gets taken off the board before they do anything.
Its a completely self destructive path that doesn't have a winner.
And yes healing is 'unfun' which is why the varias 'get back up' Necron rules are often complained about, because you shoot stuff and it dies, and then its not dead.
But I think that is a very different thing from simply killing slightly less.
Less lethality isn't about not killing things, its about removing 3 marines instead of 10. Your still killing, you still get that good feeling of having done something but units actually get to stay around and do stuff instead of being blown up constantly.
Inner Circle Deathwing don't come to be because GW wants to kill kill kill, but because they see units instantly get removed before doing anything, and instead of using 9th edition to reduce lethality of weapons they are just piling on more and more special rules. And FU if your not an army known for being tough because then your only option is 'more models' and taking them off by buckets at a time.
Sure aint 'fun' there either.
Or more realistically, the same number of models, and you just get deleted harder and harder by the armies that were already smashing your face in but now you can't kill them back.
"oh cool, so your Death Guard and Deathwing and Ravenwing got way more durable and also got way more damage, guess I'll....wait for my army to get a codex, then."
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Core is a very bad rule. For space marines for example - though almost everything is core - the things that aren't are auto not include. Core for crons is like a bonus rule that only a few units have. I feel like the implementation for core with crons is how it should have been. Only a few units being core....kinda balances the game. Marines implementation is terrible. Way too much has core but without core marine units are not worth taking.
Its not fair though that marines and crons have such different use of the keyword. For marines it really only affects vehicles that aren't dreads (it doesnt really limit you). For crons (it is hugely limiting).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/01 17:41:33
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: Core is a very bad rule. For space marines for example - though almost everything is core - the things that aren't are auto not include. Core for crons is like a bonus rule that only a few units have. I feel like the implementation for core with crons is how it should have been. Only a few units being core....kinda balances the game. Marines implementation is terrible. Way too much has core but without core marine units are not worth taking.
Its not fair though that marines and crons have such different use of the keyword. For marines it really only affects vehicles that aren't dreads (it doesnt really limit you). For crons (it is hugely limiting).
CORE is applied based on a logic of "models that can be inspired". Cryptek and Destruction cults fall into the uninspirable. We hoped that CORE would have been more of a scalpel for marines, but you'd probably see a lot of units get dropped. In no way is lack of CORE causing people to drop models. Lack of an effective role against other options does that. Still - we will see the new speeders make their way to tables with DA. Other units will find more purpose as the meta gets weirder.
Today I learned that tank crews cannot be inspired.
Indeed, your will, your very vitality drains you as soon as you sit in the seat in a tank... Even the most inspiring speeches bounce off of your gathering emotional armor, and cries for support or orders to engage roll harmlessly across you like rain. Fighting harder in the presence of your captain only applies to others, for you, you are the Tank Man, and you shall know no inspiration!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/01 17:50:26
An intercessor with a bolt rifle is most likely exactly as effective shooting at a target that is 30" away as he is shooting at a target that is 2" away.
30" is nearly 3/4 the width of the board. What this tends to mean is, functionally, basically nothing is ever 'out of range' in 40k. And if you're fully in effective range, then there's no reason to move to a different location on the board. In an average 40k game, it is the correct decision to sit still and pump out damage for about 1/3 of your units to 1/2 of your units, depending on the army you're playing.
It definitely seems like this slow escalation of ranges has been ongoing since you were no longer forced to field the comparatively lower-ranged troop models in 7th, and lists like "oops all Riptides" became the norm, where everything could just have 30-40" range guns. Adding in Bolter Disipline/BadLer Eevilscipline (or whatever dumbfuck thing they named the CSM version) was just another step in the ongoing escalation. Basically just passing to marines what had been the norm for any shooting focused army for about an edition.
3rd edition: space marines have the unique ability with their troops to shoot 1 shot at 24" if they stand still with their basic gun
5th edition: Rapid Fire is a USR on most basic guns, allowing troops to shoot 1 shot at 24" if they stand still
7th edition: Rapid Fire still a USR, can now shoot 1 shot at 24" even if on the move
8th edition: Space Marines now have the unique ability on their troops to shoot both shots at 24 - or 30" - if they stand still
You can have weapons that have super long ranges while ensuring that there's a trade-off present to trying to sit back and use the long range - just build in modifiers for trying to shoot something far away.
I haven't played 9th but the range thing has really been bothering me recently. Not just as percentage-of-board but also as percentage-of-heavy weapons and ratio-compared to other units.
In 3rd, squad bolters was barely capable at effective engagement beyond 12", while the Lascannon could one-shot a tank at 48". Currently the (Intercessor) bolter fires at full effect at 60ish% of the Lascannon range, and the power of the Lascannon has diminished.
And the poor Shuriken Catapult is still firing at the 12" range.
Indeed, your will, your very vitality drains you as soon as you sit in the seat in a tank... Even the most inspiring speeches bounce off of your gathering emotional armor, and cries for support or orders to engage roll harmlessly across you like rain. Fighting harder in the presence of your captain only applies to others, for you, you are the Tank Man, and you shall know no inspiration!
Busier looking at targeting systems than to check if the captain is saying something cool.
Core/Non-Core has actually been pretty well-done in the Necron book.
Hear me out, okay?
Basically, non-Core units in that book still have ways to get amplified and buffed, it's just a lot more limited and specific, but crucially they've almost all been given very generous points values to account for their lack of Core. If Core is all-important and the only thing that matters, then why do Scarabs, Cryptothralls, Spyders, Wraiths, Ghost Arks, Skorpekhs, Lokhust Heavies, Doomstalkers, Flayed Ones (!!!), Triarch Praetorians, Triarch Stalkers and C'tan either show up in competitive lists or are considered decent enough to be taken in regular games without issue? Well, one because many of them provide interesting and strong utility roles, but it's also because they get a points discount for not being Core. And the non-Core units that don't show up? That's mainly because they're just being overpriced, not because the lack of a keyword is crippling them. Put many of them down an appropriate amount and you'd start to see them pop up more and more.
Where the Marine book(s) fall down is of course over-bloat and Core/non-Core not really having this points differential. In fact, they seem to have gone the opposite direction where Core units are weirdly cheap (BGV), but non-Core are taxed heavily (the Gladiator tanks). If those tanks went down to like 170 points then suddenly they're looking pretty spicy but as-is they seem to have been priced assuming they're capable of receiving the absurd amount of buffs that Marines get.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/01 18:08:23
Valkyrie wrote: My main issue with 9th is that overall it does seem rather boring at the competitive level as you just see the same strategies and units used in the majority of lists:
- Obliterators w. MoS and Endless Cacophany.
- Tau Commanders with Command and Control node.
- Guilliman w. Hellblasters and Leviathan Dreads.
- 5x Dark Eldar w. Blaster in a Venom (spammed)
These are just the examples I can think of on the go. Obviously some are more competitive than others, my issue is just how boring they seem. I would just prefer some levelling out within the Codex so they aren't autopicks.
It also would be good to have a single LoW option in the Battalion detachment. Probably the idea of a Knight Castellan terrified GW enough to put a +3CP tax on every single LoW unit, but it'd be nice to run a Valdor or Malcador, admittedly crappy LoW units, without having to give up 1/4 of my CP to do so, then another CP just for the regiment bonuses.
all these examples are 8th edition armies that don't work in 9th.
Yes! put a goddamned LoW slot in battalions please GW!!!
Indeed, your will, your very vitality drains you as soon as you sit in the seat in a tank... Even the most inspiring speeches bounce off of your gathering emotional armor, and cries for support or orders to engage roll harmlessly across you like rain. Fighting harder in the presence of your captain only applies to others, for you, you are the Tank Man, and you shall know no inspiration!
Busier looking at targeting systems than to check if the captain is saying something cool.
Tanks probably a lot easier to hear your commander shout something awesome, then say an infanteriest beeing shelled to hell and back whilest bullets whizz past him...
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Valkyrie wrote: My main issue with 9th is that overall it does seem rather boring at the competitive level as you just see the same strategies and units used in the majority of lists:
- Obliterators w. MoS and Endless Cacophany.
- Tau Commanders with Command and Control node.
- Guilliman w. Hellblasters and Leviathan Dreads.
- 5x Dark Eldar w. Blaster in a Venom (spammed)
And the poor Shuriken Catapult is still firing at the 12" range.
Don't discount 12" guns this edition.
I run 12" Gauss Reapers all day and they're awesome. Now that Dire Avengers are Necron Warrior cost they're pretty similar. Warriors are still better overall even if Dire Avengers can run and shoot w/o penalty. Defenders are probably closer at 8 points - still not as good, but the gap won't be hard to bridge when they get their book.
Indeed, your will, your very vitality drains you as soon as you sit in the seat in a tank... Even the most inspiring speeches bounce off of your gathering emotional armor, and cries for support or orders to engage roll harmlessly across you like rain. Fighting harder in the presence of your captain only applies to others, for you, you are the Tank Man, and you shall know no inspiration!
Busier looking at targeting systems than to check if the captain is saying something cool.
And all those targeting systems make you less accurate with the same weapons than a dude on foot who is busy listening to see if the Captain is saying something cool.
AnomanderRake wrote: And all those targeting systems make you less accurate with the same weapons than a dude on foot who is busy listening to see if the Captain is saying something cool.
Valkyrie wrote: My main issue with 9th is that overall it does seem rather boring at the competitive level as you just see the same strategies and units used in the majority of lists:
- Obliterators w. MoS and Endless Cacophany.
- Tau Commanders with Command and Control node.
- Guilliman w. Hellblasters and Leviathan Dreads.
- 5x Dark Eldar w. Blaster in a Venom (spammed)
Is this a joke post? Seriously.
No. Perhaps a couple of the examples are a bit outdated but I think the point is relatively clear. Some variety would be better than just cookie-cutter lists.
Valkyrie wrote: My main issue with 9th is that overall it does seem rather boring at the competitive level as you just see the same strategies and units used in the majority of lists:
- Obliterators w. MoS and Endless Cacophany.
- Tau Commanders with Command and Control node.
- Guilliman w. Hellblasters and Leviathan Dreads.
- 5x Dark Eldar w. Blaster in a Venom (spammed)
Is this a joke post? Seriously.
No. Perhaps a couple of the examples are a bit outdated but I think the point is relatively clear. Some variety would be better than just cookie-cutter lists.
All of those examples are completely outdated. Not only that, there's an incredible amount of variety amongst lists and factions in competitive play right now.
Valkyrie wrote: No. Perhaps a couple of the examples are a bit outdated but I think the point is relatively clear. Some variety would be better than just cookie-cutter lists.
We only have Australian tournaments for the most part, but the lists have been incredibly varied. Even the occasional games outside Murder Bug Island have been pretty distinct.
That might change when COVID is over, but it will take a long time since we'll have so many other codexes by then.
Xenomancers wrote: Core is a very bad rule. For space marines for example - though almost everything is core - the things that aren't are auto not include. Core for crons is like a bonus rule that only a few units have. I feel like the implementation for core with crons is how it should have been. Only a few units being core....kinda balances the game. Marines implementation is terrible. Way too much has core but without core marine units are not worth taking.
Its not fair though that marines and crons have such different use of the keyword. For marines it really only affects vehicles that aren't dreads (it doesnt really limit you). For crons (it is hugely limiting).
CORE is applied based on a logic of "models that can be inspired". Cryptek and Destruction cults fall into the uninspirable. We hoped that CORE would have been more of a scalpel for marines, but you'd probably see a lot of units get dropped. In no way is lack of CORE causing people to drop models. Lack of an effective role against other options does that. Still - we will see the new speeders make their way to tables with DA. Other units will find more purpose as the meta gets weirder.
Not based on competitive rules or anything. There is literally no vehicle worth including that is not a dread and the speeders are on the lower end of both durability and damage per point even compared to other vehicles which are already low end based on the fact they aren't core.
There also is nothing along the lines of a noticeable cost for "core" keyword. Even though it has immense value. This is another serious problem with it.
Indeed, your will, your very vitality drains you as soon as you sit in the seat in a tank... Even the most inspiring speeches bounce off of your gathering emotional armor, and cries for support or orders to engage roll harmlessly across you like rain. Fighting harder in the presence of your captain only applies to others, for you, you are the Tank Man, and you shall know no inspiration!
If realism is seriously going to be a factor. vehicles have advanced targeting systems...They hit essentially 100% of the time. So they don't need to be inspired. Also inspiring doesn't make you hit better ether. Going prone does...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/01 18:41:50
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
