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.

Tyel wrote:
I think its fair to say some people (I'd probably number amongst them) would prefer unit's "power" to be rooted in their statline and their weapons statline. And less because they are faction A, in a chapter B detachment, in a pure faction A army, with a nearby warlord C wielding Relic D and Buffbot E while using stratagems E, F and G.

I totally agree, I don't like that type of game. Although I know others do.

Tyel wrote:
I don't think knowing one faction, and retaining a mental list of commonly used stratagems is *that* difficult.

The problem is there isn't really a common list of strategems.
Sure, I can (and have) produced a cheat sheet of all my commonly used strategems. It's a full A4 page and two thirds of that is strategems that I don't often use but need to know because they'll be super helpful when they are helpful.
But beyond a couple, "character fights after dying" type stuff, there's really nothing in common. When I play other armies I very rarely get hit by a strategem that's similar to my own. Even when the strategem does have shades of similiarity, it's often different enough to be completely different in use.

I quite liked strategems at the start of 8th. They were simple, few, and minor but appreciated buffs. Needless to say, it all got out of hand pretty damn quickly, and although GW has slightly toned it down in 9th it's barely taken the edge off and in some ways they've made it worse. Now there's more strategems tied to niche uses or only certain units which just adds to it all.

If someone is really arguing that 40k is not super bloated and heading into the range of megabloat town, I think we are looking at a different game.

You can like the bloat, you can love the bloat like a sultry great unclean one you are ready to lube up for a long hard ride in passions embrace. That doesn't mean it isn't bloated however, as it is.I dread to imagine what it'll feel like when the new psychic awakening starts to drop. We are already getting day 1 DLC rules so by the time they PA us we may be swimming in our rules bloat.

The problem is and has been they cut down way too much on units rules, made them feel suck, then instead of adding it back in they put them all in strats and the boys. At first it wasn't too bad, but they've grown and will continue to grow and grow and grow.

Smoke launchers shouldn't be a strat, Flakk missiles shouldn't be a strat, etc, etc, some things shouldn't be strats. Some units should be buffed with bonuses baked in as opposed to strats pressed to infinity and beyond.

Personally I'd be fine with losing warlord traits and cutting back on relics, ditching most strats but making most units feel intuitive again. ( Hey look we brought enough smoke for everyone again ! ) It's just a little silly to me and I still say before the end of this edition formations are coming back in a big way. They won't be the formations of old though, they'll be these special detachments which will end up as pretty much the same thing.

Saying this is far better than 7th well that is true. However it will most always be true when you take the darkest time/s of 40k and compare it to a mere meh time in 40k. It's easy to look good when comparing yourself to something that sucks.

Like if some random nerd, a zombie and a spider walk into a bar to get a date, all of a sudden even the most unskilled pick up artist will seem like a Don Quan compared to the competition.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I think its fair to say some people (I'd probably number amongst them) would prefer unit's "power" to be rooted in their statline and their weapons statline. And less because they are faction A, in a chapter B detachment, in a pure faction A army, with a nearby warlord C wielding Relic D and Buffbot E while using stratagems E, F and G.

I totally agree, I don't like that type of game. Although I know others do.

Tyel wrote:
I don't think knowing one faction, and retaining a mental list of commonly used stratagems is *that* difficult.

The problem is there isn't really a common list of strategems.
Sure, I can (and have) produced a cheat sheet of all my commonly used strategems. It's a full A4 page and two thirds of that is strategems that I don't often use but need to know because they'll be super helpful when they are helpful.
But beyond a couple, "character fights after dying" type stuff, there's really nothing in common. When I play other armies I very rarely get hit by a strategem that's similar to my own. Even when the strategem does have shades of similiarity, it's often different enough to be completely different in use.

I quite liked strategems at the start of 8th. They were simple, few, and minor but appreciated buffs. Needless to say, it all got out of hand pretty damn quickly, and although GW has slightly toned it down in 9th it's barely taken the edge off and in some ways they've made it worse. Now there's more strategems tied to niche uses or only certain units which just adds to it all.

Sooo... it's a third of a page of commonly used Strategems and the rest of the page filled with nice ones to know if they ever come up?

I'm not being critical, writing out my unit statlines once helped me memorise them after a decade of not playing. But I would argue that having a few generally useful and then a bunch of useful when they are strats is actually an ideal situation.

If it was just that third, and that third was common to all armies rather than just the specific list that I run, I'd agree.
I should also note that I exclusively play Firstborn, using Primaris would practically double that number.

But those are two thirds are something I need to know, otherwise I'll miss out on that opportunity to get those critical rerolls or whatever.

It's also not just my army, I need to know my opponent's army as well.
Even if my opponent had been super helpful and prepared me a cheat sheet as well, my cheatsheet wouldn't held my theoretical opposing self much. He wouldn't know the significance of half of those abilities until it was either explained to me or shown to me on the table. Life's too short to explain everything before hand and it's too much to memorise, so we're down to the latter.

However, back in ~5th edition, my opponent would just say "this unit has Rage, the character confers Infiltrate". Cool, I understand entirely because I too have Rage and Infiltrate in various places.
It applies to that specific unit, always and only.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
If it was just that third, and that third was common to all armies rather than just the specific list that I run, I'd agree.
I should also note that I exclusively play Firstborn, using Primaris would practically double that number.

But those are two thirds are something I need to know, otherwise I'll miss out on that opportunity to get those critical rerolls or whatever.

It's also not just my army, I need to know my opponent's army as well.
Even if my opponent had been super helpful and prepared me a cheat sheet as well, my cheatsheet wouldn't held my theoretical opposing self much. He wouldn't know the significance of half of those abilities until it was either explained to me or shown to me on the table. Life's too short to explain everything before hand and it's too much to memorise, so we're down to the latter.

However, back in ~5th edition, my opponent would just say "this unit has Rage, the character confers Infiltrate". Cool, I understand entirely because I too have Rage and Infiltrate in various places.
It applies to that specific unit, always and only.

Don't try to know and understand everything, it's too much - always has been.

Filter to the important stuff in a useful packet "my Kraken genestealers can cross the board and fight you turn 1" is more useful to the other player than explaining the statline for every unit in the army.

I agree; if you have a good opponent they'll tell you that.

Referencing a recent topic of conversation; are they likely to tell you "my Poxwalkers can throw out a bunch of mortal wounds" at the start?
Probably not, because that ability generally isnt that strong. Until it is. And now they've munched through your Terminator squad and you didn't even see it coming.

So it's not a silver bullet.
I don't even know my army well enough, i still have games where I realise later "oh gak, i had that really niche ability that would have been super useful in that moment!".
If I can't remember all of that how the hell is my opponent, who likely has never played my army before and won't again for at least four months, going to know what's going on?

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I agree; if you have a good opponent they'll tell you that.

Referencing a recent topic of conversation; are they likely to tell you "my Poxwalkers can throw out a bunch of mortal wounds" at the start?
Probably not, because that ability generally isnt that strong. Until it is. And now they've munched through your Terminator squad and you didn't even see it coming.

So it's not a silver bullet.
I don't even know my army well enough, i still have games where I realise later "oh gak, i had that really niche ability that would have been super useful in that moment!".
If I can't remember all of that how the hell is my opponent, who likely has never played my army before and won't again for at least four months, going to know what's going on?

They aren't going to know everything. But that's always going to be true of every game. Random chance is only going to add to that

It's seemed odd to me that we don't consider how much we learn about sub-faction choices. Classic example is BR/VH lists telling people where a unit will/should be going

Voss wrote:

Disagree with basically all of that (except the idea that warlord traits should go away).

They aren't Warhammer at its core. They're bolt on additions on bolt on additions on bolt on additions to a system that at its core is relatively simple. And doesn't need all that crap.
Whatever '40K wanted to be' (and I suspect you'll get 40K answers to that question), it isn't a leaning pile of bloat.

What you find fun and competent just gets a cocked eyebrow from me.

What brings people to Warhammer? What keeps them?

Would 40K be more or less fun if CSM with straight a copy of SM, but with literally just spikes ( as the meme goes )?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Would 40K be more or less fun if CSM with straight a copy of SM, but with literally just spikes ( as the meme goes )?

Given that's what the 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex was, I'd say yes, 40k would be less fun if that were still the case.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
If someone is really arguing that 40k is not super bloated and heading into the range of megabloat town, I think we are looking at a different game.

You can like the bloat, you can love the bloat like a sultry great unclean one you are ready to lube up for a long hard ride in passions embrace. That doesn't mean it isn't bloated however, as it is.I dread to imagine what it'll feel like when the new psychic awakening starts to drop. We are already getting day 1 DLC rules so by the time they PA us we may be swimming in our rules bloat.

The problem is and has been they cut down way too much on units rules, made them feel suck, then instead of adding it back in they put them all in strats and the boys. At first it wasn't too bad, but they've grown and will continue to grow and grow and grow.

Smoke launchers shouldn't be a strat, Flakk missiles shouldn't be a strat, etc, etc, some things shouldn't be strats. Some units should be buffed with bonuses baked in as opposed to strats pressed to infinity and beyond.

Personally I'd be fine with losing warlord traits and cutting back on relics, ditching most strats but making most units feel intuitive again. ( Hey look we brought enough smoke for everyone again ! ) It's just a little silly to me and I still say before the end of this edition formations are coming back in a big way. They won't be the formations of old though, they'll be these special detachments which will end up as pretty much the same thing.

Saying this is far better than 7th well that is true. However it will most always be true when you take the darkest time/s of 40k and compare it to a mere meh time in 40k. It's easy to look good when comparing yourself to something that sucks.

Like if some random nerd, a zombie and a spider walk into a bar to get a date, all of a sudden even the most unskilled pick up artist will seem like a Don Quan compared to the competition.

Bloat is an accurate term, but it also feels loaded. It carries with it the connotation that these rules don't have something to offer the player.

So, I suppose I like bloat. I will enjoy it more if it offers me the opportunity to field an army that is evocative of the mental picture of my dudesmen.

Relics / Wargear has always been crucial to building that personalized feeling. WLTs are just an extension of that.

Totally disagree about Smokescreen. It is an actual strategic choice to make rather than an all or nothing that was almost never worth using. I feel similarly about Flakk. You could make it an upgrade, but then people aren't going to take it on the off chance there is an aircraft to shoot. Now they can still listbuild and reserve the resources needed should the cause arise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Would 40K be more or less fun if CSM with straight a copy of SM, but with literally just spikes ( as the meme goes )?

Given that's what the 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex was, I'd say yet, 40k would be less fun if that were still the case.

There were enough levels of differentiation like DP, cult troops, daemons, oblits, summoning, gifts, and marks.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
...
Totally disagree about Smokescreen. It is an actual strategic choice to make rather than an all or nothing that was almost never worth using. I feel similarly about Flakk. You could make it an upgrade, but then people aren't going to take it on the off chance there is an aircraft to shoot. Now they can still listbuild and reserve the resources needed should the cause arise...

Using Smoke Launchers was still a strategic choice when it was a piece of wargear, though - do I sacrifice a turn of shooting to protect my vehicle, or do I move/shoot normally? Back when the Vehicle Damage Chart was a thing, it was great for protecting vehicles that were repositioning and either moved too fast to fire or couldn't fire effectively (out of range, under a to-hit malus, etc), or for vehicles that had taken some damage but would be fine next turn if nothing worse happened (Shaken/Stunned). Making it a strat just means you have to pay twice for it, once when adding the vehicle to the list and then again to use it (and if you think there was little point using smoke when it was wargear, why would having to pay twice for it now that its a strat make it more attractive?).

I do agree with you re: Flakk, but I think there are more options than "have it as a Strat" or "have it as an upgrade". It could be a standard option a la Frag/Krak, or it could be limited to special weapons systems that get it for free. GW could also take a page out of older editions and lock Super-heavy/Lord of War/Flyer to lists over, say, 1500 or 2000 pts - that wouldn't explicitly solve the "do I buy Flakk on the off-chance I see a flyer or save the points and hope I don't", but it would remove the concerns in smaller lists where the flakk upgrade takes up a bigger chunk of the list.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


What brings people to Warhammer? What keeps them?

Wide ability to find oponnents and places to play. Large community that can do promo work for free. And the investment of both time and money makes people stay for a very long time. In case of people that started at the same time as me, most of the people stayed till the end of 8th ed. They more or less quit, when they were face with the prospect of being forced to buy 6-9 attack bikes, two units of venguard vets as blade guards were impossible to get here, and all their intercessors, centurions, eliminators etc were suddenly something you never want to use in an army. The prospect of having to rebuy the entire army, or having an army that no longer works, like it was in case of IG and Tau players, was the thing that made people quit. Before good or bad balance people played with the 2000pts they had.

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


What brings people to Warhammer? What keeps them?

Wide ability to find oponnents and places to play. Large community that can do promo work for free. And the investment of both time and money makes people stay for a very long time. In case of people that started at the same time as me, most of the people stayed till the end of 8th ed. They more or less quit, when they were face with the prospect of being forced to buy 6-9 attack bikes, two units of venguard vets as blade guards were impossible to get here, and all their intercessors, centurions, eliminators etc were suddenly something you never want to use in an army. The prospect of having to rebuy the entire army, or having an army that no longer works, like it was in case of IG and Tau players, was the thing that made people quit. Before good or bad balance people played with the 2000pts they had.

Ok and what makes someone stay when they haven't been chewing on Dakka cynicism for their whole life? I'll bet you that people can still use Intercessors, Centurions, and Eliminators just fine. Maybe people should stop following the flavor of the month and noodle out how to make their current army work with the least number of changes.

Dark Angels - the king of MM attack bikes is running an under 50% WR most of the time.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


What brings people to Warhammer? What keeps them?

Wide ability to find oponnents and places to play. Large community that can do promo work for free. And the investment of both time and money makes people stay for a very long time. In case of people that started at the same time as me, most of the people stayed till the end of 8th ed. They more or less quit, when they were face with the prospect of being forced to buy 6-9 attack bikes, two units of venguard vets as blade guards were impossible to get here, and all their intercessors, centurions, eliminators etc were suddenly something you never want to use in an army. The prospect of having to rebuy the entire army, or having an army that no longer works, like it was in case of IG and Tau players, was the thing that made people quit. Before good or bad balance people played with the 2000pts they had.

Ok and what makes someone stay when they haven't been chewing on Dakka cynicism for their whole life? I'll bet you that people can still use Intercessors, Centurions, and Eliminators just fine. Maybe people should stop following the flavor of the month and noodle out how to make their current army work with the least number of changes.

Dark Angels - the king of MM attack bikes is running an under 50% WR most of the time.

Nah dude. you will legit lose for taking centurians. The other 2 are good enough to take though.

If you get tabled a few times, there is very little reason to drive the bus to the other town over, to hope to find an opponent, who will beat your army, because his army works better.

And I am talking about people in general here. You don't think, that I with my GK termintor army, was following the flavour of the month.

As attack bikes comment goes, some sort of melta is needed. We didn't get indomitus here. And the MM bikes worked perfectly fine against most armies. Same way venguard vets did, instead of blade guards.

In the end it comes down to this. In places where people can afford 1 army most of the time, and collecting one takes a year or more, the prospect of rebuying an army, just so it gets nerfs or stays bad, is not something that entices people that played an entire edition already. And bit turn over of new players doesn't even seem to be a very my part of the world specific thing. When your 15 you would rather get a PC or a consol, then pay the same money for models and be forced to paint them against, just to not auto lose because of the core rules. I guess it is different when you are late 20s or 30+year old. But I really don't care much about people twice my age, their problems are not my, and my problems aren't theirs.

Karol wrote:
If you get tabled a few times, there is very little reason to drive the bus to the other town over, to hope to find an opponent, who will beat your army, because his army works better.

And I am talking about people in general here. You don't think, that I with my GK termintor army, was following the flavour of the month.

As attack bikes comment goes, some sort of melta is needed. We didn't get indomitus here. And the MM bikes worked perfectly fine against most armies. Same way venguard vets did, instead of blade guards.

In the end it comes down to this. In places where people can afford 1 army most of the time, and collecting one takes a year or more, the prospect of rebuying an army, just so it gets nerfs or stays bad, is not something that entices people that played an entire edition already. And bit turn over of new players doesn't even seem to be a very my part of the world specific thing. When your 15 you would rather get a PC or a consol, then pay the same money for models and be forced to paint them against, just to not auto lose because of the core rules. I guess it is different when you are late 20s or 30+year old. But I really don't care much about people twice my age, their problems are not my, and my problems aren't theirs.

The gap between what is bad and what is good isn't the same as previous editions.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
...The gap between what is bad and what is good isn't the same as previous editions.

It's often much worse now. In older editions I could bring bad models and still play a game (i.e. move models around, throw dice, kill things, and get the general impression I was meaningfully contributing to something), in 8th/9th if you bring bad models you do nothing and then get tabled. The durability gap and the damage gap between bad things and good things is horrendous.

"Everyone used to play with the 2k points they had (except those times that I claimed all my opponents had the perfect fotm meta eldar army) but once space marines went from 65% wr to 50% wr we...we...sniffle...just couldnt PLAY anymore.."

 Daedalus81 wrote:
...Maybe people should stop following the flavor of the month and noodle out how to make their current army work with the least number of changes...

I had five armies at the start of 8th. The "least number of changes" for every one of them was "throw that garbage out and buy a different army of models you don't like."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_scotsman wrote:
"Everyone used to play with the 2k points they had (except those times that I claimed all my opponents had the perfect fotm meta eldar army) but once space marines went from 65% wr to 50% wr we...we...sniffle...just couldnt PLAY anymore.."

Winrate can go feth itself. I'd settle for my Deathwatch army being anything other than a slightly more complicated way to be mathematically equivalent to playing Space Marines with no Chapter Tactics.

 waefre_1 wrote:
Using Smoke Launchers was still a strategic choice when it was a piece of wargear, though - do I sacrifice a turn of shooting to protect my vehicle, or do I move/shoot normally?

That's a tactical choice, not a strategic one. It'd be strategic if you had planned it out ahead of time.

And it doesn't make sense that only one unit can use their smoke launchers at a time.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
...The gap between what is bad and what is good isn't the same as previous editions.

It's often much worse now. In older editions I could bring bad models and still play a game (i.e. move models around, throw dice, kill things, and get the general impression I was meaningfully contributing to something), in 8th/9th if you bring bad models you do nothing and then get tabled. The durability gap and the damage gap between bad things and good things is horrendous.

You mean the same 8th/9th that has a mission format that allows you to win games merely by taking up board space?

Sure it won't be easy, but you can win games without killing a single model.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 waefre_1 wrote:
Using Smoke Launchers was still a strategic choice when it was a piece of wargear, though - do I sacrifice a turn of shooting to protect my vehicle, or do I move/shoot normally?

That's a tactical choice, not a strategic one. It'd be strategic if you had planned it out ahead of time.

 waefre_1 wrote:
...it was great for protecting vehicles that were repositioning and either moved too fast to fire or couldn't fire effectively (out of range, under a to-hit malus, etc)...

I included that portion to cover both "Oh gak, I'm out of targets! Better book it to the other flank!" and stuff like APC rushes or covering for short-range assault vehicles where you plan to use the smoke launchers (eg. suicide Hellhouds/Heavy Flamer Sentinels that you know won't be in range T1). Also, that was the terminology Daedalus used, and I didn't feel like quibbling over that in the response.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And it doesn't make sense that only one unit can use their smoke launchers at a time.

I agree. I think anything that is a piece of kit being used as intended shouldn't be a strat (in general, at least - throwing a single grenade has no business being a strat, but a strat to have a whole squad throw grenades at least has some argument in its favor), and both smoke launchers and flakk missiles fall squarely in that category.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
...The gap between what is bad and what is good isn't the same as previous editions.

It's often much worse now. In older editions I could bring bad models and still play a game (i.e. move models around, throw dice, kill things, and get the general impression I was meaningfully contributing to something), in 8th/9th if you bring bad models you do nothing and then get tabled. The durability gap and the damage gap between bad things and good things is horrendous.

You mean the same 8th/9th that has a mission format that allows you to win games merely by taking up board space?

Sure it won't be easy, but you can win games without killing a single model.

Not if you bring bad models. If you try to take up space with the kind of stuff that's horrendously squishy for its cost that makes up my minis collection you can take up space until you get tabled on or about turn three. Two, if your opponent got the first go and is playing heavy Deep Strike.

I think to a certain extent, I would agree with the opening poster. While some units are more guilty of all the buff stacking than others. But with each 9th edition codex release, we do see more and more rules getting added to each new 9th ed army. And increasingly, it seems like all the news special rules given to the newer armies makes any one unit potentially really scary.

So, if you are the sort that is literally following 40k news and all new releases closely, you sort of know some of the newest combos and hot armies that are coming out. But it would still be a challenge to know the tricks of all the possible 40k armies out there.

A newbie or casual player would just struggle though, especially if facing the newer 9th ed codexes. Like he looks at a 20 man ranger or vanguard blob and thinks, they are toughness 3 troops, they are probably just there for primary objective holding. Then they are shocked when that unit uses one or two strategems and literally shoots his most elite unit off the board. And then turn 2 a 20 man blob teleports to his backlines and again obliterates stuff. They see an admech tank, and two units of ironstriders, and they shoot the tank instead. Then they are shocked when the ironstriders obliterate their anti tank with a few strategems.

Same against other newer 9th ed codexes. Like a newbie wouldn't think Drukhair was scary. Because it just looks like mostly transports on turn 1. Then they are shocked when those transportt darklances kill their anti tank and they are further shocked when all the stuff inside charges out so far on turn 2, and even one single unit of wyches can murder so much stuff on the charge and then they get tabled by turn 3.

The more special rules they add on, the harder newbies and casuals are going to find it play against a seasoned 40k player. They simply have no idea how lethal or how tanky some innocent looking units are, or how some strategems can literally wreck their entire strategy. Like even if you look at Elite units. A 3 man Bladeguard squad is just 3 models. But with Transhuman and backed up by support, I think a newbie could easily underestimate how hard it is to kill even 3 transhuman Bladeguard. Or like against DG, like hey, that's just 3 Deathshroud (3 models), it can't be that scary! Then that 3 Deathshroud murder their unit.

Casuals and newbies are likely to forget the special rules to even their own armies. And they will not know or dare to challenge if the other side is using their special rules wrongly. Like applying buffs to the entire army even if its not all core units, applying buffs to characters, or whatever type those rules are supposed to apply to.

Tyel wrote:
I think its fair to say some people (I'd probably number amongst them) would prefer unit's "power" to be rooted in their statline and their weapons statline.

I get where this is coming from, but such a game would almost exclusively decide the game by listbuilding and dice, with very little player agency.

And less because they are faction A, in a chapter B detachment, in a pure faction A army, with a nearby warlord C wielding Relic D and Buffbot E while using stratagems E, F and G.

For the first part - marines already had chapter traits as long as I can remember. The only difference is that everyone gets them now. It's also worth noting that for the majority of games people aren't mixing factions or sub-factions in 9th.

For the later part it's also very similar - there is a reason why people keep point to two 8th edition codices for an example. The problem has been acknowledged and is being solved by GW with the 9th edition, with a movement speed of d6 and halved advances.
In most games with DG you dedicate a buff character to a unit and they stick with that unit for most of the game unless they get wiped out or the situation makes a jump to another unit necessary - much like ICs operated since 5th, with the exception that not every character that couldn't join units was automatically garbage tier. Of course, there are situations where a chaos lord buffs a helbrute and two units of plague marines for a turn, this is far from the norm.
And while you could pile on tons and tons of stratagems to crank up a unit's damage, most of those stratagems provide very minor buffs or are 2CP now. CP are much better used to react to your opponent's actions than blown on flat damage boosts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eldenfirefly wrote:
Same against other newer 9th ed codexes. Like a newbie wouldn't think Drukhair was scary. Because it just looks like mostly transports on turn 1. Then they are shocked when those transportt darklances kill their anti tank and they are further shocked when all the stuff inside charges out so far on turn 2, and even one single unit of wyches can murder so much stuff on the charge and then they get tabled by turn 3.

The more special rules they add on, the harder newbies and casuals are going to find it play against a seasoned 40k player. They simply have no idea how lethal or how tanky some innocent looking units are, or how some strategems can literally wreck their entire strategy. Like even if you look at Elite units. A 3 man Bladeguard squad is just 3 models. But with Transhuman and backed up by support, I think a newbie could easily underestimate how hard it is to kill even 3 transhuman Bladeguard. Or like against DG, like hey, that's just 3 Deathshroud (3 models), it can't be that scary! Then that 3 Deathshroud murder their unit.

None of those examples have anything to do with stacking buffs, my friend. Raiders, Wyches and Deathshroud get their powers from nothing but their stats blocks, and transhuman is a single stratagem.

To be fair Wyches have a significant amount of stacking buffs that improve their base values: Combat Drug, Power From Pain effect, Blade Artists, Wych Cult Obsession, the eventual upgrade to Bloodbrides and possible auras from some characters or the cronos. Plus some stratagems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eldenfirefly wrote:

Same against other newer 9th ed codexes. Like a newbie wouldn't think Drukhair was scary. Because it just looks like mostly transports on turn 1. Then they are shocked when those transportt darklances kill their anti tank and they are further shocked when all the stuff inside charges out so far on turn 2, and even one single unit of wyches can murder so much stuff on the charge and then they get tabled by turn 3.

A single lance doesn't kill anything valuable, and by this logic a razorback with twin lascannon should be extremely scary. Wyches are a glass cannon unit, don't forget that we're talking about a unit that costs 100-150 points, depending on the upgrades, and has 10W T3 6++ (4++ in combat); it's extremely easy to shoot it off the board or significantly cripple it at least.

 Blackie wrote:
To be fair Wyches have a significant amount of stacking buffs that improve their base values: Combat Drug, Power From Pain effect, Blade Artists, Wych Cult Obsession, the eventual upgrade to Bloodbrides and possible auras from some characters or the cronos. Plus some stratagems.

I've played quite a few games against drukhari recently and not once did any of the units need a stratagem to kill my stuff.

Almost all the other things have been available to them since 5th, only blade artist and obsessions are new.

True, although the effects from both Power From Pain and the Bloodbrides upgrade changed significantly from previous editions. Combat Drugs have almost the same effects as in the past but the mechanics to choose them have changed.

Art of the Kill from Book of Rust is a very powerful stratagem on wyches (re-roll all wound rolls for 2CPs or 3 if the unit is 11+ models), which may have a huge impact if they fight against units with high T, W and saves since wyches typically strike "only" at S4-5 AP-1. Invigorated by Evisceration for 1CP, also from the same supplement, can be nice as well (4++ also vs shooting if the unit destroys something in CC). In the codex there's also a stratagem that doubles the Combat Drug effect.

 Jidmah wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I think its fair to say some people (I'd probably number amongst them) would prefer unit's "power" to be rooted in their statline and their weapons statline.

I get where this is coming from, but such a game would almost exclusively decide the game by listbuilding and dice, with very little player agency.

Why do you reckon?

As I see it these rules put the emphasis on list building. Because there's a major difference in output to compiling all your bonuses together and not doing so. (To a degree you have execution on the table, but that's largely just character buffs.)

For example take your properly buffed up unit of Bloody Rose Repentia (I mean you won't have all the buffs they can get - but you'll have a few).
Then... idk, compare with someone who has a Sacred Rose Sister's army cos they painted them that way, and bought some Repentia because they liked the models.

Points are the same but what they can plausibly be expected to accomplish on the table is massively different.

Now you can argue - not unreasonably - that this listbuilding exercise to maximise synergy is part of 40k (or at least being good at 40k). Its not overly difficult to learn - and some people really enjoy it. For instance I do - I like looking through a codex and looking for combos. I don't want it to be got rid of entirely. Special rules are fun.

But at the same time I think there's a question of *how far* the difference should be. Should you have combos that double or triple the offensive output of a unit? The concern would be that GW seems to be exaggerating these rules. I don't think shrinking this gap would reduce player agency. In theory it would allow for less cookie cutter builds and more varied meta. It should also produce an easier to balance game.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Sure, I can (and have) produced a cheat sheet of all my commonly used strategems. It's a full A4 page and two thirds of that is strategems that I don't often use but need to know because they'll be super helpful when they are helpful.
But beyond a couple, "character fights after dying" type stuff, there's really nothing in common. When I play other armies I very rarely get hit by a strategem that's similar to my own. Even when the strategem does have shades of similiarity, it's often different enough to be completely different in use.

.

Plus those stratagems aren't always the same. Someone tells you that rule X works just like transhuman phisology, but theirs works for both phases, or comes with additional buffs. So the only thing similar is -3 fails to wound part.