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.

It's really silly to talk down to someone when you're being a total fool. Daemon engines are more reliable than skimmers? That's the difference between SM and CSM.

Apple fox wrote:
Tau already have units that could be used for melee, they just tend to suck and not work for synergy in there forces.

Kroot Hounds were meta in index 8th, it's just a question of pts. Having melee units to go and grab objectives or to block enemy melee units from engaging your shooty units is synergistic.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Thats basically how I view CSM, they value reliability/repeatedly.

That's why it shows up all the time in CSM codexes right? /sarcasm. Which faction do you think actually uses those words to explain its hardware choices?

Aecus Decimus wrote:


That's exactly what shouldn't happen. It's the end result that matters, not the exact sequence of dice math that gets there, so if the end result is the same that means an ork army would be able to set up a gunline across from a guard/tau gunline and expect a 50/50 chance to win. That's absurd and completely against their fluff.

How is it against their fluff? Orks culturally value firepower ("dakka") they have entire cultural groups that exult in it (Bad Moonz etc), they have lots of unique tech that exists in ranged weapons (shokk attack guns, etc)...

Now, I could see the argument for overall favoring a mobile firepower basis for them (like when all their weapons were assault) as opposed a gunline, but the idea that ork shooting should be bad or an inefficient option is just incorrect if you're arguing from a fluff basis.

If you want units to be rarer, have them take up things that are actually in short supply in list construction - heavy support slots, for example.

 vict0988 wrote:
This is basic faction design in pretty much every game, if everyone is special then no one is.

GW could have made the FW flyers into GW kits and produced a larger selection of different flyers and skimmers, like a stealthed Hammerhead instead of the Ghostkeel.

Do you want a Drukhari Land Raider?

The Tantalus already exists.

Are SM, CSM, Eldar, Orks, Tyranids, Necrons not special because they have units for just about every position? I'm afraid I don't see it.

Units that aren't typical for an army like anything melee for Tau or Guard are fine to exist. It is even fine to be good at what they do and they should be worth their points.
The easiest way to make sure those units don't warp the intented looks of a regular army composition is to limit the availability (for example by slots) and/or synergy and available buffs for them.

You should never be discouraged from taking them as their points or rules are lackluster on purpose because "yes, they are there but I really don't want you to take even one unit of them".

Tyel wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
This is basic faction design in pretty much every game, if everyone is special then no one is.

GW could have made the FW flyers into GW kits and produced a larger selection of different flyers and skimmers, like a stealthed Hammerhead instead of the Ghostkeel.

Do you want a Drukhari Land Raider?

The Tantalus already exists.

Are SM, CSM, Eldar, Orks, Tyranids, Necrons not special because they have units for just about every position? I'm afraid I don't see it.

When did the Tantalus lose fly? Get a 2+ Sv and T8? SM are not special, they are just a conflicted mishmash of every other army in the game because SM gotta have it all. Tyranids are special because they don't get vehicles or transports that move across the table. Squighog Riders made Orks a lot less special, all they need now is power-armoured Nobz with powah shields (4++). Necrons would certainly be less special if Destroyers were changed to range 36" and they would be more special if Flyers, Monoliths and Immortals had their ranges lowered again and if Necrons had to rely on teleportation instead of regular transports.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What’s a Tankbusta?
Or a Loota?
Squigbuggy?
Any of the fliers?

They’re not melee units. They’re shooting units.

And the fluff dictates that they should be a minor part of ork armies that you're discouraged from investing heavily in.

(Except tankbustas. Orks running into melee to blow up tanks with suicide bomb hammers is very fluffy.)

Which only newbies or lol bad game designers would translate to artificially bad for point units.

But hey you are claiming marines are average. You have proven beyond shadow of doubt a) you are bad at game designing b) you haven't even read gw's fluff.

tneva82 wrote:
Which only newbies or lol bad game designers would translate to artificially bad for point units.

Then how exactly do you discourage those units if they are equally point efficient compared to the units the army should be taking? Do you think that people who care about winning will somehow refuse to use them because of the fluff?

But hey you are claiming marines are average. You have proven beyond shadow of doubt a) you are bad at game designing b) you haven't even read gw's fluff.

Marines are indisputably average in game design terms. They are by far the most common army in the game which makes them by definition average. They are the reference point by which everything else is judged. And because of stat creep they're even pretty average in relative terms, with entire armies being more elite than marines.

Marines are pretty clearly average in the fluff as well. They're elite relative to normal humans but normal humans don't exist in tabletop 40k. Even guard, the closest thing to normal humans, are badass special forces units selected from the elite of the elite in an entire planet's military. Tau troops have better guns and better tech. Eldar have basic troops that have hundreds of years of training. Necrons consider the laws of physics to be a mere annoyance that can be freely ignored and don't bother with such stupid ideas as "actually dying when shot". The only thing marines are better than everyone else at is being the protagonists and feeding the power fantasies of rabid marine fanboys.

 vict0988 wrote:
When did the Tantalus lose fly? Get a 2+ Sv and T8? SM are not special, they are just a conflicted mishmash of every other army in the game because SM gotta have it all. Tyranids are special because they don't get vehicles or transports that move across the table. Squighog Riders made Orks a lot less special, all they need now is power-armoured Nobz with powah shields (4++). Necrons would certainly be less special if Destroyers were changed to range 36" and they would be more special if Flyers, Monoliths and Immortals had their ranges lowered again and if Necrons had to rely on teleportation instead of regular transports.

I guess it depends whether you think a Land Raider is a square box that moves along the ground - or a large capacity transport with some guns costing around 250-300 points. To my mind a Ravager and a Predator are much the same thing - a vehicle with guns. I guess you could say "aha, don't Land Speeders - and now super Primaris Speeders - make your Ravager's less special?" Well... not really?

And this idea that what make's Necron's special is Destroyers having 24" range really feels like a reach.

Tyel wrote:
I guess it depends whether you think a Land Raider is a square box that moves along the ground - or a large capacity transport with some guns costing around 250-300 points.

That's not what defines a Land Raider though. The core of the concept is the Land Raider's durability. It's a giant brick of armor that is supposed to be nearly impossible to kill before it gets into range and disembarks a terminator squad to wreck your army. It's not particularly subtle or elegant but it gets the job done. The Tantalus doesn't follow that concept at all. It's a fragile unit for its point cost, its typical cargo is entirely different because of the open topped rule, and its flying ability opens up a lot of options that normal tanks can't match.

(And yes, I know Land Raiders suck at doing those things. We're talking about concepts, not competitive balance.)

To my mind a Ravager and a Predator are much the same thing - a vehicle with guns. I guess you could say "aha, don't Land Speeders - and now super Primaris Speeders - make your Ravager's less special?" Well... not really?

And now you're broadening the concept well into uselessness. "A vehicle with guns" covers half the game, you're never going to get a useful analysis of unit concepts if you look at them in such general terms. And when you narrow it down enough to actually split units into different categories you see that the Predator is a straightforward efficient gun platform while the Ravager is a fast glass cannon. The Ravager has far more in common with the primaris speeders than a Predator, and TBH those primaris speeders are not a great design concept for that reason.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Which only newbies or lol bad game designers would translate to artificially bad for point units.

Then how exactly do you discourage those units if they are equally point efficient compared to the units the army should be taking? Do you think that people who care about winning will somehow refuse to use them because of the fluff?

Availability, opportunity cost and synergy, really. If your "okay for the points, not more not less" melee unit has to compete with 1 of your 3 slots for a Leman Russ in a Guard army, you might want to think twice about spamming it.
There is btw nothing wrong with a "you might only take 1 of these units for every x" rule. Works just fine already with command squads for example. Last time I checked Guard wasn't as good as beefing up a unit or character for close combat like other factions could, either.

Instead of just talking about it in theory though, I can actually tell you what happens if every unit is roughly worth the points it costs without artificial buffs or nerfs: People will play around with different unit and wargear combinations and stick with whatever they like to play the most. Which is... not at all a problem for the fluff, as Guard (to stay with it as an example) still needs big guns or infantry (with big guns) to work well, as not every slot can be filled with a melee unit who could take on different targets like hordes, Terminators or tanks.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Availability, opportunity cost and synergy, really. If your "okay for the points, not more not less" melee unit has to compete with 1 of your 3 slots for a Leman Russ in a Guard army, you might want to think twice about spamming it.

Then it isn't equally efficient. If the melee unit is equally efficient, including the effects of stratagem buffs and unit synergies, then I don't lose anything by sacrificing LRBTs to take it. That argument only works if the LRBT beats it in efficiency and is the only viable option of the two.

There is btw nothing wrong with a "you might only take 1 of these units for every x" rule.

In theory, yes. In practice people inevitably hate those limits and complain endlessly about them, which is why GW mostly stopped including them. It generates a lot fewer complaints if you soft ban an option by making it only desirable in niche situations.

Instead of just talking about it in theory though, I can actually tell you what happens if every unit is roughly worth the points it costs without artificial buffs or nerfs: People will play around with different unit and wargear combinations and stick with whatever they like to play the most. Which is... not at all a problem for the fluff, as Guard (to stay with it as an example) still needs big guns or infantry (with big guns) to work well, as not every slot can be filled with a melee unit who could take on different targets like hordes, Terminators or tanks.

It absolutely is a problem because you're creating armies that don't match the fluff. A Tau army should not have effective melee, period. It's against the explicit fluff that they hate the entire concept of melee and refuse to engage in it. The absolute most they should have is auxiliary units (like Kroot) but they should never be top-tier options that you'd want to invest heavily in, otherwise you end up with "Tau" armies that are a melee core with token ranged support being a viable option.

Aecus Decimus wrote:


Then it isn't equally efficient. If the melee unit is equally efficient, including the effects of stratagem buffs and unit synergies, then I don't lose anything by sacrificing LRBTs to take it. That argument only works if the LRBT beats it in efficiency and is the only viable option of the two.

We don't have endless amounts of unit slots nor units have endless amounts of models.

If the hypothetical melee option maxes out at 150 points, you are losing heavy support slot efficiency because you could fit 600 points of Leman Russ in the same slot.

Moreover points efficiency depends on the situation. Kroot may be efficient at meleeing light infantry, but they lack melee anti-tank and thus will never be efficient at fighting harder targets. You can also trade points efficiency for synergy or stratagem support, meaning you can have extremely point efficient units that also are pretty much completely inflexible beyond their niche.

In theory, yes. In practice people inevitably hate those limits and complain endlessly about them, which is why GW mostly stopped including them. It generates a lot fewer complaints if you soft ban an option by making it only desirable in niche situations.

The rule of 3 is a thing, most heavy leader units are limited at 1 per detachment and chaos in particular has a lot of no more x than y limitations.

 vict0988 wrote:
It's really silly to talk down to someone when you're being a total fool. Daemon engines are more reliable than skimmers? That's the difference between SM and CSM.

IKR, so annoying to talk to someone that doesn't actually read what we say and make gak up by thinking we said demon engines were more reliable..... Gad mentionned Rhino chassis tanks, not demon engines.

 vict0988 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Thats basically how I view CSM, they value reliability/repeatedly.

That's why it shows up all the time in CSM codexes right? /sarcasm. Which faction do you think actually uses those words to explain its hardware choices?

the feth do you mean? It's all in the fluff lol. It DOES show up in codexes since CSM has reaper autocannons instead of assault cannon and all the other examples Gad listed....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:


When did the Tantalus lose fly? Get a 2+ Sv and T8?

oh i see, you're just trolling or dumb enough to think that a unit can only be represented by its stats, not just by its general role, gotcha.

A "land raider" is a transport with big guns thats tougher than the other options in the codex, its that simple. Having T7/8/9 doesnt change that.

Tantalus gets +1T, +1S over other drukhari options, therefore, its a "land raider" that was designed in the context of the army (it's even got the same playability as the land raider, they really stayed true to it)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Then how exactly do you discourage those units if they are equally point efficient compared to the units the army should be taking? Do you think that people who care about winning will somehow refuse to use them because of the fluff?

you don't. fluff shouldn't matter in the powerlevel of rules.

The ruleset would (in a perfect world) have every unit be as good as each other. Then you're free as a player to decide if you want to follow the fluff or make up your own. And then you're not shooting yourself in the foot by bringing something fluffy like you are right now.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Availability, opportunity cost and synergy, really. If your "okay for the points, not more not less" melee unit has to compete with 1 of your 3 slots for a Leman Russ in a Guard army, you might want to think twice about spamming it.

Then it isn't equally efficient. If the melee unit is equally efficient, including the effects of stratagem buffs and unit synergies, then I don't lose anything by sacrificing LRBTs to take it. That argument only works if the LRBT beats it in efficiency and is the only viable option of the two.

The melee unit is efficient against the intented target. Ogryns might be good against light infantry for example, but they can't scratch a tank. A Leman Russ - while being able to be kitted for anti infantry - is the place where you can bring a big gun against vehicles. Your army won't be able to fight heavy armored targets with just Ogryns as it would be with some Ogryns and some LR.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Instead of just talking about it in theory though, I can actually tell you what happens if every unit is roughly worth the points it costs without artificial buffs or nerfs: People will play around with different unit and wargear combinations and stick with whatever they like to play the most. Which is... not at all a problem for the fluff, as Guard (to stay with it as an example) still needs big guns or infantry (with big guns) to work well, as not every slot can be filled with a melee unit who could take on different targets like hordes, Terminators or tanks.

It absolutely is a problem because you're creating armies that don't match the fluff. A Tau army should not have effective melee, period. It's against the explicit fluff that they hate the entire concept of melee and refuse to engage in it. The absolute most they should have is auxiliary units (like Kroot) but they should never be top-tier options that you'd want to invest heavily in, otherwise you end up with "Tau" armies that are a melee core with token ranged support being a viable option.

I soft disagree. Tau should imho not have a melee unit for every slot to cover all bases you need to cover to win a "melee units only" game. The melee units they do have, however, should be efficient according to the points. If a Kroot costs 10 points, he should bring that to the table without any "your faction should not use melee"-tax baked into those 10p. Imho Tau fluff would already allow for melee centric forces via their auxiliaries. If you want to go that route, you can introduce new species with melee troops without having to resort to Gundams with power weapons. Actual Tau would stay true to their doctrine this way.

Tyel wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
When did the Tantalus lose fly? Get a 2+ Sv and T8? SM are not special, they are just a conflicted mishmash of every other army in the game because SM gotta have it all. Tyranids are special because they don't get vehicles or transports that move across the table. Squighog Riders made Orks a lot less special, all they need now is power-armoured Nobz with powah shields (4++). Necrons would certainly be less special if Destroyers were changed to range 36" and they would be more special if Flyers, Monoliths and Immortals had their ranges lowered again and if Necrons had to rely on teleportation instead of regular transports.

I guess it depends whether you think a Land Raider is a square box that moves along the ground - or a large capacity transport with some guns costing around 250-300 points. To my mind a Ravager and a Predator are much the same thing - a vehicle with guns. I guess you could say "aha, don't Land Speeders - and now super Primaris Speeders - make your Ravager's less special?" Well... not really?

And this idea that what make's Necron's special is Destroyers having 24" range really feels like a reach.

I said what I consider a Land Raider to be, a non-flying transport with T8 and 2+ Sv. Standard Land Raiders have a transport capacity of 10 and costs 245 pts, my definition fits the actual Land Raider and is therefore objectively better, your strawman was silly since that definition would include Rhinos and Predators. My definition does not include the non-transport variants of the Land Raider, but I think that's fair enough because the difference between a transport and a non-transport is rather huge. It'd be like a Honda Civic with the backseat replaced with a rocket engine, it's different enough that I am comfortable with not calling it the same thing. How can Ravagers be a special Drukhari unit if every faction in the game has one? You don't care whether every army has the same 300 datasheets if they all have different fluff and models, of course, you're not going to care if SM get copies of all your datasheets as long as they have new models and some kind of fluff to justify their Mandrakes for existing as long as you are getting back the models and datasheets you lost over time and more.

It's not just Destroyers as I said, it's also Immortals, Flyers and Monoliths. Players can notice if Necrons have a pattern like "no long-ranged anti-infantry" and "durable", such patterns deliver narrative through game mechanics.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
There is btw nothing wrong with a "you might only take 1 of these units for every x" rule.

In theory, yes. In practice people inevitably hate those limits and complain endlessly about them, which is why GW mostly stopped including them. It generates a lot fewer complaints if you soft ban an option by making it only desirable in niche situations.

Have you read the 9th ed Chaos codexes? They're riddled with this gak. GW couldn't balance their game if someone told them how to do it, which is why Rough Riders and Bullgryn were some of the best Astra Militarum units in 9th and why Orks strongest choices were shooting units in 8th.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
It's really silly to talk down to someone when you're being a total fool. Daemon engines are more reliable than skimmers? That's the difference between SM and CSM.

IKR, so annoying to talk to someone that doesn't actually read what we say and make gak up by thinking we said demon engines were more reliable..... Gad mentionned Rhino chassis tanks, not demon engines.

Try reading harder buddy. I said the difference between SM and CSM is skimmers vs Daemon engines, because news flash, SM used Rhinos for 10k years just like CSM.

 vict0988 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Thats basically how I view CSM, they value reliability/repeatedly.

That's why it shows up all the time in CSM codexes right? /sarcasm. Which faction do you think actually uses those words to explain its hardware choices?

the feth do you mean? It's all in the fluff lol. It DOES show up in codexes since CSM has reaper autocannons instead of assault cannon and all the other examples Gad listed....

It's not important enough to the CSM to be included in their most recent codices. The use of autocannons over assault cannons is not in fact evidence of a preference for reliability any more than their use of Daemon engines shows how Daemon engines are more reliable than skimmers because the always reliable (and never crazy BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD) CSM prefer Daemon engines. Assault cannons were developed after the heresy, that sounds like a good reason for them not being standard CSM gear. But if you think CSM's identity should be reliable weapons and tanks that's fine, I don't have any control over GW's decisions when writing rules or designing new CSM units, no reason to get mad at me because my off the cuff attempt at encapsulating CSM doesn't align with your own, long-held and carefully considered view of the faction's identity. I literally told you all that went into my thinking before I suggested CSM be known for having unreliable vehicles or ranged weapons, they're crazy. To some extent you can apply crazy to Space Marines as well with their belief in machine spirits and rituals to repair machines.

 vict0988 wrote:


When did the Tantalus lose fly? Get a 2+ Sv and T8?

oh i see, you're just trolling or dumb enough to think that a unit can only be represented by its stats, not just by its general role, gotcha.

A "land raider" is a transport with big guns thats tougher than the other options in the codex, its that simple. Having T7/8/9 doesnt change that.

Tantalus gets +1T, +1S over other drukhari options, therefore, its a "land raider" that was designed in the context of the army (it's even got the same playability as the land raider, they really stayed true to it)

In the context of the army is the magical word, in the same vein the assault centurions of Tau should be relatively lightly armoured Kroot and I wouldn't have a problem with it. M5 2+ Sv melee units do not belong in the Tau codex.

The past 2 pages are all semantics and nuance about specific codex design... nothing to do with 10th edition core rules.

I hope for full reset and invalidate all the 9th codex's so we can have a small window of reprieve from codex complaints (other than lack-there-of)

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
The past 2 pages are all semantics and nuance about specific codex design... nothing to do with 10th edition core rules.

I hope for full reset and invalidate all the 9th codex's so we can have a small window of reprieve from codex complaints (other than lack-there-of)

And would you expect all the codexes to be released at once or over 3 years? GW essential maintaining 2 editions in parallel until all 10th Ed codexes are released?

mrFickle wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
The past 2 pages are all semantics and nuance about specific codex design... nothing to do with 10th edition core rules.

I hope for full reset and invalidate all the 9th codex's so we can have a small window of reprieve from codex complaints (other than lack-there-of)

And would you expect all the codexes to be released at once or over 3 years? GW essential maintaining 2 editions in parallel until all 10th Ed codexes are released?

I think every single person on here would expect a get-you-by index and then codex over 3 years. It wouldn't be well received unless the temporary rules were functionally close to a full codex though. I.e. not missing stratagems and being forced to be, by default, less capable than a full book.

vict0988 wrote:Autocannons were developed after the heresy, that sounds like a good reason for them not being standard CSM gear.

Ummm, what?????

Tell me you don't know 30k without telling me you don't know 30k....

So that support weapon box that includes autocannons I just bought was developed after the heresy...man I've got some back to the future gak goin on for my 3rd & 18th legions. Must be warp trickery

Dudeface wrote:

mrFickle wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
The past 2 pages are all semantics and nuance about specific codex design... nothing to do with 10th edition core rules.

I hope for full reset and invalidate all the 9th codex's so we can have a small window of reprieve from codex complaints (other than lack-there-of)

And would you expect all the codexes to be released at once or over 3 years? GW essential maintaining 2 editions in parallel until all 10th Ed codexes are released?

I think every single person on here would expect a get-you-by index and then codex over 3 years. It wouldn't be well received unless the temporary rules were functionally close to a full codex though. I.e. not missing stratagems and being forced to be, by default, less capable than a full book.

And even if it were close to a full codex, it likely wouldn't be well received by all the people that bought their codex in the last year or so.

 vict0988 wrote:
I said what I consider a Land Raider to be, a non-flying transport with T8 and 2+ Sv. Standard Land Raiders have a transport capacity of 10 and costs 245 pts, my definition fits the actual Land Raider and is therefore objectively better, your strawman was silly since that definition would include Rhinos and Predators. My definition does not include the non-transport variants of the Land Raider, but I think that's fair enough because the difference between a transport and a non-transport is rather huge. It'd be like a Honda Civic with the backseat replaced with a rocket engine, it's different enough that I am comfortable with not calling it the same thing. How can Ravagers be a special Drukhari unit if every faction in the game has one? You don't care whether every army has the same 300 datasheets if they all have different fluff and models, of course, you're not going to care if SM get copies of all your datasheets as long as they have new models and some kind of fluff to justify their Mandrakes for existing as long as you are getting back the models and datasheets you lost over time and more.

It's not just Destroyers as I said, it's also Immortals, Flyers and Monoliths. Players can notice if Necrons have a pattern like "no long-ranged anti-infantry" and "durable", such patterns deliver narrative through game mechanics.

For me at least its pretty obvious the Land Raider is a beefed up Rhino. More armour and wounds, more guns. Much like a Battlewagon is the step up from a Trukk. Or the new Squat space-box is a step up from the littler Squat space-box. As others have said, the Tantalus is effectively the DE equivalent to the Raider. The fact the DE one isn't T8 2+ but in exchange can fly instead is kind of that faction identity you've talked about.

In much the same way Rhinos, Chimeras, Raiders, Wave Serpents, Trukks, Devilfish, Duneriders, GSC trucks etc are all comparable. Some of them fly, some of them don't. Some of them are quite well armed, some of them barely carry weapons. Some of them are currently worth thinking about for the points, and others are not. But they are all transports. They are the various factions unit in that role.

Sure if every army had exactly the same units that would be a bit boring. But they don't. Any more than Howling Banshees, Ruststalkers, Possessed, Genestealers, Flayed Ones etc are all somehow the same unit, because they want to stab stuff. And I don't think having a "Tau" equivalent to this list (or another equivalent if you want to rope in Kroot Hounds) would somehow mess with the game or make anything less special.

Who would want to wait 3 years for their army to receive the thing that GW introduces in the new edition?

Stratagems in 8th.
Crusade and purity bonus in 9th.

Three years is way too long.

Racerguy180 wrote:

vict0988 wrote:Autocannons were developed after the heresy, that sounds like a good reason for them not being standard CSM gear.

Ummm, what?????

Tell me you don't know 30k without telling me you don't know 30k....

So that support weapon box that includes autocannons I just bought was developed after the heresy...man I've got some back to the future gak goin on for my 3rd & 18th legions. Must be warp trickery

Assault cannon is what I meant. I'm sure that was tough to figure out even though I was responding to someone talking about CSM not using assault cannons because they are too unreliable. Derp.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Then how exactly do you discourage those units if they are equally point efficient compared to the units the army should be taking? Do you think that people who care about winning will somehow refuse to use them because of the fluff?

Make them take up more restricted slots in the FoC.

Okey, but then you create a situation where armies which have the fewest restriction do not get impacted, but the change. While others who more or less had to take a specific unit max times, get punished double. Because both their opponents don't get worse, but they do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Who would want to wait 3 years for their army to receive the thing that GW introduces in the new edition?

Stratagems in 8th.
Crusade and purity bonus in 9th.

Three years is way too long.

I waited over 3 years for GK codex that was good. And then I had to wait a bit more for AoC actualy make stuff like termintors and paladins, not totaly bad. The fist players were bad all 8th, then they were okey under 2.0 and then they went to being very bad, and are still bad the entire 9th ed. And few people still do play them for some reason.

vict0988 wrote:It's really silly to talk down to someone when you're being a total fool. Daemon engines are more reliable than skimmers? That's the difference between SM and CSM.

Depends what you mean by reliable I guess.

Sure daemon engines require a bit of sacrifice to run and might eat your troops now and then, but they need minimal mechanical maintenance and the chassis can be fairly run down before you put the daemon in but when it’s up an running.

A skimmer by comparison requires lots of fiddly maintenance to keep running plus fancy components to service it.

Tbh ‘Maintainability’ may be the better word than ‘reliability’, but there’s definitely a focus on it.

vict0988 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

vict0988 wrote:Autocannons were developed after the heresy, that sounds like a good reason for them not being standard CSM gear.

Ummm, what?????

Tell me you don't know 30k without telling me you don't know 30k....

So that support weapon box that includes autocannons I just bought was developed after the heresy...man I've got some back to the future gak goin on for my 3rd & 18th legions. Must be warp trickery

Assault cannon is what I meant. I'm sure that was tough to figure out even though I was responding to someone talking about CSM not using assault cannons because they are too unreliable. Derp.

Even in editions like 5th where the CSM book largely covered modern renegades (who would have originally had assault cannons and not autocannons), they’re all using the latter…

And 30k era Astartes had all sorts of proto-autocannons they no longer use and copious skimmers that were too fiddly for even the loyalists to keep running.

Lord Zarkov wrote:

Even in editions like 5th where the CSM book largely covered modern renegades (who would have originally had assault cannons and not autocannons), they’re all using the latter…

Sure, but the motivation for the 5e CSM codex focusing on renegades seems to be making the faction less cool; they thought the 3.5e Chaos Codex was too fun and too many people were playing them compared to loyalist Astartes. So it was more like "cool off this faction, make them loyalist space marines with less options and less power."

I hope in vain that 10th will be an appropriate edition to decimlise. Not the dice - although i'd like more than just d6's used - but dropping the inches and going to just centimetres.

 PaddyMick wrote:
I hope in vain that 10th will be an appropriate edition to decimlise. Not the dice - although i'd like more than just d6's used - but dropping the inches and going to just centimetres.

I don't mean to be condescending when I type this, I mean it very earnestly and literally. I imagine a chunk of the American audience would strongly dislike this and likely cause enough impact to bother GWs bottom line.

Dudeface wrote:

 PaddyMick wrote:
I hope in vain that 10th will be an appropriate edition to decimlise. Not the dice - although i'd like more than just d6's used - but dropping the inches and going to just centimetres.

I don't mean to be condescending when I type this, I mean it very earnestly and literally. I imagine a chunk of the American audience would strongly dislike this and likely cause enough impact to bother GWs bottom line.

Perhaps, but they are already using centimetres for model base and battlefield sizes. I just assumed that america uses both systems like we do in the uk? and our inches just happen to be the same as theirs (their pints are a bit short measured, the poor buggers!).
Reckon everyone would swallow it after some gripes; but as I said it's a vain hope, much like my hope that we'll stop using both systems IRL.