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.

Karol wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
The complaint other than the rest of the book needing a look is that its was such a quick response to beat it back after so long of dark eldar and admech supremacy. meanwhile we have Custodes needing some nerfs but can't have an imperium army see quick nerfs.

GK got nerfed in 3 months, comparing the DE who stayed the same for almost a year, and then nerfs to other stuff made them awesome again. Harlis were great for months in early 9th ed, and now they are great again. On the other hand a ton of marines have been bad since the 8th post 2.0 nerfs and recived no fixs. GK waited more then half of 9th to get +1W. IG have been bad since soup died, and are slotted in for the last 2-3 books of the 9th ed. That is possible entire edition of being bad.

I agree on guard, i in my head actually never think of them as a main faction more in the NPC catagory with orks and Tyrranids. While greyknights were nerfed (which was needed) much like orks they did it in a way that did not invalidate themand rather left with a few middle of the road builds. GK areunfortunately lacking the tools to deal with some matchups though, so like orks, who they are about on par with power wise, they run into some hard counters and even share one in custodes.

Harlies are the new boogie man, the meta will adapt but they and craftworlds are just to good for the points and have to many tools in their box to deal with for most armies.

I disagree with in 8th marines ever being truly bad though, they were lower mid tier sure and some of the specialty marine chapters liek Gk have had it worse, but plain codex space marines has in the 5 editions i have been playing never truly been the worst book bottom 1/3, absolutely, but they are never allowed into 7th edition orks or current imperial guard/chaos demon levels of useless.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Gorgeous. Is that your stuff?

No, they're from that YouTube channel. He's been posting to 40k terrain groups on Facebook for a while, but has just set up the YT channel to show off BatReps and terrain and other things.

Having gone from last playing in 5th edition (with terrain made from random things from our college dorm room) to trying to figure out 9th edition, I can confirm terrain has been a nightmare to understand and remember. I'm still trying to figure out when I want to put my guys in the big ruins building and when I want to put them behind it. I feel like a well designed terrain ruleset would encourage you to hide dudes inside buildings pretty much every time because they're good defensive positions.

I went back and looked at the 5th edition rules for terrain and line of sight and they are so much simpler.

I'm a vehicle heavy guard player and I always found myself wishing the old tables were larger (I wanted to flex my 240" earthshaker range so badly), but I understood why that wouldn't really work. The smaller tables are a bit of a disappointment, although it certainly make the demolisher take a much more viable option (especially as I run spotting detail, giving it 30" range). Circling back to the topic of the thread though, I feel the smaller table size has limited the battlefield layout. For what it's worth, we used to design out dorm room battlefield to have a covered approach for troops and a more open approach for vehicles iirc. I don't think that's really as viable with the lethality these days though (and almost certainly not with the current guard codex). That said, I used to only count on my tanks to be effective for one turn because my friend played eldar and he could just keep causing crew shaken (or worse) once he got ahold of them...so I guess not much has changed there haha.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Awful awful homogenisation that the usual crowd are going to toss themselves off over, just like with the "standard" board sizes for 40k.

I'll continue to ignore both.

I like the new board sizes. Games are quicker and melee armies are more of a threat. On the old 6x4, especially on short edges deployment, a melee army got shot off the table before doing anything unless they all came in from DS. The only issue is it feels like weapon ranges were made for the old, larger table size. My melee guys with bolt pistols shouldn't be in firing range of the entire enemy army by turn 2.

Toofast wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Awful awful homogenisation that the usual crowd are going to toss themselves off over, just like with the "standard" board sizes for 40k.

I'll continue to ignore both.

a melee army got shot off the table before doing anything

Just use more terrain bro something something planet bowling ball