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.
Arachnofiend wrote: Given that tacs don't see play (in an era where other firstborn infantry like vanguard vets and terminators do, even) bringing CSM up to parity won't make them see play, either. CSM would have to be better than the equivalent Space Marine models, which... is not happening.
Tacs problem is they're completely outclassed by intercessors. CSMs however could with minimal effort be a slightly differant story. I know I keep harping on this, but if they gave CSMs an extra attack instead of DTFE, and are willing to allow for chainswords and boltguns taken together (not likely I know but it'd help) CSMs could be, points depending, a reasonably decent choice. Let's examine a hypothetical CSM vs Intercessor under these rules for a moment.
Intercessor: S4 T4 2W 3+ save boltrifle: S4 -1 AP, rapid rife 1. 2 melee attacks at AP 0
CSM: S4 T4 2W 3+ save. Boltgun S4 AP 0 rapid fire 1. 3 Melee attacks at AP -1.
so you'd have an army with inferior shooting, but superior Melee (heck 3 S4 ap -1 melee attacks would make CSMs a better melee unit then some armies assault units)
(assuming they don't get the chainsword, yeah CSMs are just going to be intercessors without the boltrifle at best.. not great and they'll proably be about 16-17 PPM..)
BTW I'm going to make a guess that the black legion trait in the 9th edition codex will be +1 Leadership and the ability to act as if they ahd remained stationary when moving or advancing. Seems it'd retain the feel of what black legion was attempting to do in their 8th codex, and it'll be a pretty nice boost.
I don't understand how FB are outclassed. For they same cost you can have a guy with a grav cannon or plasma gun and have more utility with the same durability and less melee.
I think we see selection bias, because people like new models with a cohesive theme.
It's the strategems. Intercessors can fight twice, shoot twice, auto-wound on 6s to hit in melee, and most importantly, only be wounded on a 4+ (which kinda means you aren't getting the same durability like you said). And TACs can, uhhhh....get a 66% chance to do 2d3 MWs on a vehicle if they get stuck in melee with one? Did I miss anything?
Gad, if someone's trying to use a strat to let their intercessors fight twice on you, they're cheating, that strat is assault intercessor only.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
Basically SM got more Intercessors to chose from than CSM got troop coiches.
Also similar issue with stratagems like Hellbrute one that disallows the FW hellbrutes because it works with the name i reckon.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/15 09:28:28
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.
Basically SM got more Intercessors to chose from than CSM got troop coiches.
Also similar issue with stratagems like Hellbrute one that disallows the FW hellbrutes because it works with the name i reckon.
You forgot Veteran Intercessors and Death Company Intercessors
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Gadzilla666 wrote: It's the same unit with melee weapons instead of rifles. I didn't realize we were being that specific.
God I hate how gw splits up datasheets now.
To be fair, you would have to include assault marines in the comparison as well.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Gadzilla666 wrote: It's the same unit with melee weapons instead of rifles. I didn't realize we were being that specific.
God I hate how gw splits up datasheets now.
I'd not have brought it up except you said Intercessors can fight twice AND shoot twice. I'd have left it alone if you said "Fight or shoot twice"
Sorry it's just a mild annoyance of mine where people claim mariens can do "X Y and Z" when it's really "X or Y or Z" it confuses the issue.
Well, we were comparing Intercessors and TACs, and TACs can't do either of those things. I didn't realize we were only talking about basic bolt rifle Intercessors.
Gadzilla666 wrote: It's the same unit with melee weapons instead of rifles. I didn't realize we were being that specific.
God I hate how gw splits up datasheets now.
I'd not have brought it up except you said Intercessors can fight twice AND shoot twice. I'd have left it alone if you said "Fight or shoot twice"
Sorry it's just a mild annoyance of mine where people claim mariens can do "X Y and Z" when it's really "X or Y or Z" it confuses the issue.
Well, we were comparing Intercessors and TACs, and TACs can't do either of those things. I didn't realize we were only talking about basic bolt rifle Intercessors.
fair juts it seems unfair to make the comparison, don't get me wrong, intercessors are def a better choice then tac marines for most things, (although Tac Marines can grab a heavy weapon so might have a use as back field objective holders, or even an advance objective holder if they're packing melta)
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
Gadzilla666 wrote: It's the same unit with melee weapons instead of rifles. I didn't realize we were being that specific.
God I hate how gw splits up datasheets now.
They're making things that should be special rules or equipment into strats. It's annoying.
It's profitable and copyrightable... because the Assault Intercessor TM exists in his separate form double as a kit TM and as a specific name unit coordnination of official material.
This is also the same reason why GW has split out all the specific versions of leutnants, chaos lords, etc into separate Entries instead of equipment options... which in hindsight also didn't help them with their band aid balance patch called Ro3
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.
And that's why we don't have just have a single "Primaris Captain in Gravis Armour" with weapon options, but instead "Captain in Gravis Armour" and "Captain with Master-Crafted Heavy Bolt Rifle" as separate options.
I still can't believe something so ultramarines-specific is actually in a Codex. It's almost unbelievable. Who writes rules like that?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/15 13:06:44
H.B.M.C. wrote: They're making things that should be special rules or equipment into strats. It's annoying.
Yeah, that's so only one unit can do it per turn and only at the cost of using some other strat.
If these were data card abilities, they'd just curb stomp everyone else in the game. People may think they want these things as datacard abilities, but geez... we complain endlessly about lethality as it is! Do you really want every unit of Intercessors firing twice every turn?
It's really quite rare for Winters to speak out about something, but he's had it with these books:
PenitentJake wrote: Do you really want every unit of Intercessors firing twice every turn?
Of course not, but I'd rather the game be less reliant on strats fuelling everything, especially when said strats are only for one specific unit in a book.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/15 15:57:51
H.B.M.C. wrote: They're making things that should be special rules or equipment into strats. It's annoying.
Yeah, that's so only one unit can do it per turn and only at the cost of using some other strat.
If these were data card abilities, they'd just curb stomp everyone else in the game. People may think they want these things as datacard abilities, but geez... we complain endlessly about lethality as it is! Do you really want every unit of Intercessors firing twice every turn?
But honestly, why aren't unit-specific stratagems just printed on the datacard? Do they really need to be a separate stratagem?
HONOUR THE CHAPTER (2CP): At the end of the Fight phase, if this unit is within Engagement Range of any enemy units; it can fight again. Only one unit of ASSAULT INTERCESSORS can use this ability each turn.
Doing it like this seems so much cleaner.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Gadzilla666 wrote: It's the strategems. Intercessors can fight twice, shoot twice, auto-wound on 6s to hit in melee, and most importantly, only be wounded on a 4+ (which kinda means you aren't getting the same durability like you said). And TACs can, uhhhh....get a 66% chance to do 2d3 MWs on a vehicle if they get stuck in melee with one? Did I miss anything?
It's pretty rare to see stuff like transhuman on a 5 man. Same with many of those, because few people take the 10 mans to make them worthwhile.
You have flakk, hammer or wrath ( jump of course ), the hb one, and melta.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's really quite rare for Winters to speak out about something, but he's had it with these books:
PenitentJake wrote: Do you really want every unit of Intercessors firing twice every turn?
Of course not, but I'd rather the game be less reliant on strats fuelling everything, especially when said strats are only for one specific unit in a book.
Good on him. The more personalities like him speak up in a professional manner the more GW might pay attention. I'm sure all the Charadon books are set in stone, but let's hope this gak goes away in the future.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/15 17:03:31
Gadzilla666 wrote: It's the same unit with melee weapons instead of rifles. I didn't realize we were being that specific.
God I hate how gw splits up datasheets now.
I'd not have brought it up except you said Intercessors can fight twice AND shoot twice. I'd have left it alone if you said "Fight or shoot twice"
Sorry it's just a mild annoyance of mine where people claim mariens can do "X Y and Z" when it's really "X or Y or Z" it confuses the issue.
Well, we were comparing Intercessors and TACs, and TACs can't do either of those things. I didn't realize we were only talking about basic bolt rifle Intercessors.
fair juts it seems unfair to make the comparison, don't get me wrong, intercessors are def a better choice then tac marines for most things, (although Tac Marines can grab a heavy weapon so might have a use as back field objective holders, or even an advance objective holder if they're packing melta)
But, you were the one who said:
BrianDavion wrote:Tacs problem is they're completely outclassed by intercessors.
I was agreeing with you. Did I do that incorrectly?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's really quite rare for Winters to speak out about something, but he's had it with these books:
Heh. Go get em Winters. Well said.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/16 00:01:17
It's like a minute into the video that he says he'd prefer it was a 100% narrative book... which I'd agree with, as I've said before. Any army rules in these books (if they should exist at all) should be matched play illegal, made specifically for Crusade campaigns done specifically in the narrative campaign the book is about.
yeah, but GW knows it will sell far more books if it contains matched play rules, without question. We hate it, but people who want the competitive edge just keep on buying it...
Arachnofiend wrote: It's like a minute into the video that he says he'd prefer it was a 100% narrative book... which I'd agree with, as I've said before. Any army rules in these books (if they should exist at all) should be matched play illegal, made specifically for Crusade campaigns done specifically in the narrative campaign the book is about.
thing is he says he'd prefer if it was a narrative book but the question is, would he have bought it if it was? Thats the thing everytime one of these books comes out the only conversation is "what are the new matched play allowable options? are the broken that I can use to beat my opponents? are they something my opponent can use against me?" there's no discussion of the story events or the narrative play stuff case in point the end result of the story gets leaked here and it's barely discussed.
So yeah GW's going to put matched play allowable rules out because thats what gets attention.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: yeah, but GW knows it will sell far more books if it contains matched play rules, without question. We hate it, but people who want the competitive edge just keep on buying it...
exactly this, everytime a new book comes out people want it to contain something new and compeitive, if they put out a book that DOESN'T, you see plenty of voices here going "ohh it's a waste it's not compeitive"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/16 03:19:49
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
All I wish is that they'd keep the Crusade rules to the Crusade books only rather than splitting it between two releases.
Or just forgo the separate Crusade book altogether and put all the Crusade stuff in the single book, rather than splitting them up (especially given that the Crusade book is mostly just reprinting the 40k rules).
GW has shown they can do good campaign books on the AoS side; Broken Realms was great for both narrative content and a bunch of small updates spread across different factions to give flagging elements a bump.
40k has been... a bit different.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: All I wish is that they'd keep the Crusade rules to the Crusade books only rather than splitting it between two releases.
Or just forgo the separate Crusade book altogether and put all the Crusade stuff in the single book, rather than splitting them up (especially given that the Crusade book is mostly just reprinting the 40k rules).
Or do a Crusade book along the lines of the one they did for Path to Glory back in 1st edition AoS; providing a basic level of individual content for every army that holds them over until they get a 9th codex. The sheer level of haves/have-nots killed the Crusade experience for me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/16 03:42:48
NinthMusketeer wrote: GW has shown they can do good campaign books on the AoS side; Broken Realms was great for both narrative content and a bunch of small updates spread across different factions to give flagging elements a bump. 40k has been... a bit different.
Yeah I don't understand why there is Warzone Charadon 01 - The Book Of Rust, a book that contains Crusade stuff for Warzone Charadon, and then also Crusade - Plague Purge, a book that contains Crusade stuff for Warzone Charadon.
If I'm missing something here, please let me know, because these seems exceptionally unnecessary.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Or do a Crusade book along the lines of the one they did for Path to Glory back in 1st edition AoS; providing a basic level of individual content for every army that holds them over until they get a 9th codex. The sheer level of haves/have-nots killed the Crusade experience for me.
I agree but also don't agree. I don't think there needs to be a general 'Crusade' book with individual content for every army that hasn't got a Codex yet. Instead this is what they should use Chapter Approved for (more than what it's become, which is just, as Winters says in his video, a patch you have to pay for).
I've mentioned either in this thread or in others how an early 8th Ed Chapter Approved had a page for a lot of factions that had yet to get a Codex. It had a relic, a Warlord trait, a strat or two - something to combine with their Index list as a kind of 'get you by' situation. I think that should be in a 9th Ed CA - something simple for each army that's yet to get a Codex in a book format where the expectation is that it will be replaced a year later anyway (wouldn't feel as bad as buying Warhammer 40,000: Crusade, only to watch it become less and less relevant as time went on - everyone knows Chapter Approved books are annual things).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/16 03:52:07
The cycle of power creep and wack release cycle for books and constant churn of DLC rules kind of destroyed my interest in the game. Get the codices out already, let the game settle, FAQ the stupid crap, and then consider messing with the game.
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut
Assault Intercessors aren't Intercessors?
