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.

5th Ed vehicle skew (see: leafblower) was real and it could hurt you. But I'm not clear on how this fact is an argument in favor of 'take whatever you want' army composition.

If vehicle skew breaks the game, either you bar it entirely through the force organization mechanic (and accept that your game does not support armored companies), or you curate it to come with a set of disadvantages significant enough to balance it.

Other types of skew that aren't game-breaking may not need the same restrictions.

 LunarSol wrote:
The main issue the game has with missions is simply that its movement is kind of all over the place. For the size of the board, things are very slow and really can't reposition effectively in most situations. On top of that, the charge phase makes things situationally blindingly fast? Most movement also needs to be done before combat begins making it all just not really suit the kind of scenarios people want to see play out.

Yeah, that comes from a couple of things- five turn limit, charging giving bonus movement, and weapon ranges drastically exceeding movement rates meaning things tend to die before they can cover much ground.

In Apocalypse or Grimdark Future, you either move + shoot, move twice, or move twice and fight in melee (ie charge). This approach allows units to cover more ground when needed, but moving quickly (or charging into melee) sacrifices shooting, so there's a stronger tradeoff, forcing harder decisions about what your units will be doing on any given turn.

IIRC GF also has greatly reduced weapon ranges, which apparently was a divisive design choice.

It's still generally 12" for pistols and 24" for rifles, but long-range weapons typically max out at 30-36", and very few infantry weapons get > 24". So most units have comparable weapon range to their 40K counterparts, but there are fewer things that can reach across the whole table.

It's weird from a verisimilitude perspective, and I can definitely see how it would be divisive, but in gameplay it does help keep maneuver relevant and make LOS less of the defining factor in whether a unit survives. It also helps that armies are smaller relative to the board size, so you've got more room to breathe.

Epic: Armageddon is a pretty good example of taking that interplay further- most units are 15-45cm range, but have a move of 10-20cm, and can move multiple times in a turn in lieu of fighting. Maneuver is so critical to that game that static gunlines basically don't exist, and the models are so small that elite armies can pack a lot of force into a narrow frontage.

The balance of weapon range, unit movement, board size, army size, and game duration will determine how viable maneuver is and how much of the matchup is determined in deployment. 40K has slowly trended towards longer ranges, bigger armies, smaller boards, and fewer turns- but movement has remained largely unchanged, with the biggest changes being the randomization of charge distances and the expansion of Fleet of Foot from a special rule to game-wide, while retaining the separate-phase weirdness where a unit could potentially move quadruple its normal rate in one turn if it's eligible to charge.

Go figure that movement seems weird.

I'll admit to not being aware of all game systems - but I can't see movement ever being key when you have IGOUGO like 40k.

Its too "I can do this, so I will, but you can do that, so you will, so my options next turn are this." Movement/positioning is I think the key skill in 40k - but there's only so much you can do. You don't have the turns for some lengthy game of cat and mouse.

Shorter range but higher movement feels like changing two sides of the same coin. I can get my unit to shoot what I want - and next turn, I can move so I can shoot what else is optimal to shoot. You can low movement and shooting - but that probably just favour assault armies. Those assault units will also be slow (relatively anyway) - but will eventually connect and then its done. (3rd edition arguably was like that - with certain caveats).

A lot of the older editions were more limiting - but I'm not sure they were more fun.

Which I think is the rub. You could easily have rules such that vehicles and monsters can't score - so any list skewed into them is intrinsically doomed (sorry Knights etc) as opposed to someone with lots of infantry who can max out. But this isn't obviously fun for players who like vehicles/monsters. Its not really fun for the player who gets nuked for 5 turns but wins handily on objectives.

Another option is bringing in something like the GSC 9th edition Crossfire rules to the entire game, so lots of infantry get buffed up by other infantry. If you dive your tanks/monsters into a literal horde of infantry, they are going to shot at from all angles and probably destroyed relatively easily. Which I guess leads into "bring back facings" - but I'm not sure that leads you to where you want to go. And I'm sure people would hate tanks/monsters being blown up by lasguns or bolters from the back.

And it might just provoke weird scenarios when people are running balanced lists, which quickly leads to taking no tanks/monsters. Which isn't the objective.

As I've discussed before, the game has become more of a rules first approach, but I also think another aspect that has made it suffer is the 'please everyone' approach that these conversations are discussing.

This is why I hate 'feels bad' as a justification for changing a rule.

By abstracting the game to rules first and gameplay as key, you lose all the context of what the game is representing.

This concept of freely building any army you want is a nonsense that has conflated personal freedom of choice with a free for all army construction.

There are in universe reasons that restrict what some armies can and can't do and the proportions of what they can use. Your freedom of choice should always be beholden to that limiting framework.


Just because you can conceive of a theoretical means of explaining your ridiculous skew list, doesn't mean in the context of the 40k universe that would ever happen.

This combination of game design philosophies have meant the game is disconnected from the setting it represents and the battles you fight don't reflect what actually happens in 40k.

IMO that disconnect is affecting people more than they realise, because the game has always been tied to the setting in a RPG style way that makes everything interdependent. The totality of that milieu is where the enjoyment comes from.


The current tournament abstraction philosophy that is focusing on abstracting mechanics, internal unit vs unit balancing with bespoke abstract special rules, and giving players no bad feelings about restrictions and play style, is really separating the game play from the setting, and people are losing the feels good intangible aspects that that connection brings.


It CAN feel good to work within restrictions, it just feels good from an immersion setting perspective rather than an abstract rules competitiveness perspective.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
A.) The *advantage* of psychic weapons is that the model has that weapon at all.

And prior to 10th the Farseer could still contribute, but psychic attacks tended to be a bit beyond mundane regular attacks. Now they are actively worse than a standard attack. That Shuiken Pistol you're happy not using doesn't trigger the FNP save your target might have where the psychic power will. That's the problem. A "psychic" weapon just = more protections against it. They are Weapons- rather than Weapons+. And I don't agree that some of them hit harder than regular weapons. So many of them are just bolter with the psychic tag.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
B.) Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the more psychic-focused armies got some benefits that target psychic weaponry. Some Grey Knight detachment rule that powers up weapons with the psychic tag or what have you. Actually, I guess Thousand Sons already have exactly that even if it is a little lacklustre.

I just don't think GW thought it through. I think they got all excited with their newfound love of USRs (which they hardly use, especially compared to the literal 1000 bespoke special rules the game has), added 'psychic' to things now that there's no psychic phase, and completely forgot that the psychic tag doesn't actually do anything.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
C.) Why does the existence of a tag have to have some positive advantage tied to it?

Because otherwise what's the point? All psychic does right now is give your targets extra protection. That's bad.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
D.) I started playing in 5th. From 5th through 7th edition, psychic shooting attacks used normal shooting gun profiles. Powerful guns, but standard guns; usually with some flavorful special rule added on. In some of those editions, they were even resolved in the shooting phase just like guns. It wasn't until 8th edition that psychic powers became tied to Mortal Wounds.

And the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Mortal Wounds, and their overabundance, were a joke (not quite as bad as AoS, but still. Now they've completely flipped it and have taken a very conservative edge with psychic powers (and that's not even factoring in that there's no choice or variety with powers - everything is set in stone with no choice whatsoever).

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Great example. So in 8th edition, the Biel-Tan subfaction bonuses were:
* +1 Ld on aspects
* Reroll 1st to hit with shuriken weapons.

I'm thinking back to 3rd Ed Biel-Tan, back when there was a craftworld book, and Biel-Tan meant "Aspect Warriors as Troops". Since my post and your post, GW has put up a preview for Ravenguard, and Outriders gain Battleline (a type of obvious inclusion that they somehow forgot to do for the first four fething books this edition... what morons they are...). This means that a Wraith army could have Wraithguard as Battleline, and a Biel-Tan (or "Swordwind", as they won't limit it to a Craftworld but rather an Archetype) could make Avengers/Dragons/Scorps/Banshees and even maybe Hawks/Spiders into Battleline.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
(To be clear, I'm not necessarily opposed to something like the detachment system we have now. It's just that the rule of 3 is already prone to targeting some armies more than others, and bringing back the troop tax doesn't automatically help with that.)

Rule of three is stupid, and is a clear example of GW making rules to follow tournament trends and demands without really understanding them (or their own rules, for that matter). It's why they put so much stock in "win rates", and make game-altering changes because some army has 51% rather than 49%. It's why I keep bringing up the Dunning Kruger effect, and how GW are poster children for such a concept. And yes, Rule of 3 hits some armies far harder (Marines are "limited" to 9 Land Raiders, whereas Chaos get 3... wonderful).

Whenever I make suggestions I am always operating from the base of working within the system rather than throwing out the system. I prefer to iterate and improve, only dumping something wholesale when it cannot work. I think 10th can work, and I think that the Detachment system can work, and I think it can (and should, and is about to) be used to change the structure of a list, not just what rule/arbitrarily limited relics/strats you get. GW, in my opinion, aren't using the Detachment system to its fullest potential (and certainly not the potential they advertised it as in the build up to 10th). That's why I make the suggestions I do. If I wanted a better solution of course we could just do something completely different, but I'm not working within those parameters. I want to fix the system from within, not throw the system out and replace it.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
EDIT: Maybe what we need is an anti-FOC. That is, rather than a list of rules saying what you are allowed to bring, maybe each faction should have a set of restrictions that specifically tell you what you can't bring in a list. Or at least, tell you a maximum number that you can bring. So rather than telling eldar players they can only bring 3 squads of banshees, maybe you instead put a cap on how many falcons can begin the game with fire dragons embarked inside them or put a cap on what percentage of my army can be units with more than X wounds per model to cut down on tank skew lists or whatever.

I don't know if I'd limit the combinations of units (ie. specifically Dragons in Falcons), but I do think that lists should impose limitations as well as removing some.

To simply repeat what I wrote in my last post:



None of these really solve the problem. They just move Titanic's deck chairs around a little bit.

If Detachments actually impacted the structure of your army, so that units that obviously shouldn't be part of that army's achetype (ie. obviously non-Vanguard units (like Centurions!) actually being something you couldn't take), this kind of problem wouldn't exist.

 vipoid wrote:
I don't think you're making the point you seem to think you are.

Can is angry because one of his pet armies (Raven Guard) isn't represented as well as he'd like with Vanguard.

"GW didn't do it well" is not the same as "It's a bad idea."

Not sure what you're replying to specifically...

Tyel wrote:
I'll admit to not being aware of all game systems - but I can't see movement ever being key when you have IGOUGO like 40k.

most other games with My Turn-Your Turn Structure have movement as key
the difference to 40k is usually shorter threat range and a single unit not being able to destroy a similar other unit in one phase while in addition adding some sort of rules that provide advantage for flanking (be it something simple like Overwatch is only in a single direction that need to set in your turn)

hence why games in the general style of 40k use alternating activation instead of alternating phases or turns as this works better with the 360° kill a unit per activation

which means for 40k that GW does not really know what the game wants to be but try to be everything at once and this does not work
a platoon level mass-skirmish game with single model mechanics and heroic NPC killing power with grand-tactical turn sequences

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

If Detachments actually impacted the structure of your army, so that units that obviously shouldn't be part of that army's achetype (ie. obviously non-Vanguard units (like Centurions!) actually being something you couldn't take), this kind of problem wouldn't exist.

And that's exactly what Detachments SHOULD have done, IMHO. They should have had restrictions on what you can/can't take within them. Instead, they just give you an army-wide rule, some relics/stratagems, and... that's it?

Wayniac wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

If Detachments actually impacted the structure of your army, so that units that obviously shouldn't be part of that army's achetype (ie. obviously non-Vanguard units (like Centurions!) actually being something you couldn't take), this kind of problem wouldn't exist.

And that's exactly what Detachments SHOULD have done, IMHO. They should have had restrictions on what you can/can't take within them. Instead, they just give you an army-wide rule, some relics/stratagems, and... that's it?

The problem is that the "focused" ones are often really bad. The White Scar detachment buffs unit types, and has rules/stratagems/etc that do not exist in the codex. It is a detachment that can only work, if GW releases a lot of mounted unit for space marines. Which they are not going to do this edition.
Both the space marine 1st company and DW are terrible, and that is comparing to index factions. Especialy the DA codex feels so bizzar, thankfuly point costs in codex, more often then not, get changed post release. But the person who thought DW knights should cost 295pts per 5, is playing a way different game, then everyone outside of the GW studio.

which means for 40k that GW does not really know what the game wants to be but try to be everything at once and this does not work
a platoon level mass-skirmish game with single model mechanics and heroic NPC killing power with grand-tactical turn sequences

I think GW know it very well, they just don't care. Game quality < Avarge cost of an army, for a company that sells models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
"GW didn't do it well" is not the same as "It's a bad idea."

But players have to live with the consequances. People and companies are judged for what they do and what they cause, and not what ever they "worked hard and had good intentions".

If GW can not make something work, then a "not well" stretched over a few editions turns in to a bad idea. And some of their faction choices are always end up bad for the majority of players.

Wayniac wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

If Detachments actually impacted the structure of your army, so that units that obviously shouldn't be part of that army's achetype (ie. obviously non-Vanguard units (like Centurions!) actually being something you couldn't take), this kind of problem wouldn't exist.

And that's exactly what Detachments SHOULD have done, IMHO. They should have had restrictions on what you can/can't take within them. Instead, they just give you an army-wide rule, some relics/stratagems, and... that's it?

I don't know. I'm not usually super concerned about one or two units being thrown into an army that don't quite fit the rest of the theme. They're usually pretty easy to justify. I don't feel the need to ban vanguard tyranid detachments (focused mostly on sneaky/burrowing/flying stuff) from taking exocrines. In fact, that detachment seems very much like it wants you to take some non-Vanguard stuff to back up your various genestealers and raveners and whatnot.

Rather than rules that tell people they're playing their army wrong, I'm more interested in detachment rules that allow/encourage you to play army themes that aren't well-supported by the codex otherwise. So if you create a detachment all about bikes and transports and give it an interesting combat speed mechanic that doesn't particularly help centurions out, I'm not losing much sleep over there being a squad of centurions splashed in. Using the vanguard detachment as an example again, makes your genestealers suddenly much faster and sneakier than they are in other detachments, and you can give them a knack for sniping out characters to add to the general assassin/disruption theme.

Also worth pointing out: the topic of rules for representing subfactions and the topic of having rules in place to avoid skew lists or otherwise problematic lists are potentially related but not necessarily the same thing. It's fair to want rules that make your Raven Guard feel like Raven Guard and to also want rules that address skew.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
A.) The *advantage* of psychic weapons is that the model has that weapon at all.

And prior to 10th the Farseer could still contribute, but psychic attacks tended to be a bit beyond mundane regular attacks. Now they are actively worse than a standard attack. That Shuiken Pistol you're happy not using doesn't trigger the FNP save your target might have where the psychic power will. That's the problem. A "psychic" weapon just = more protections against it. They are Weapons- rather than Weapons+. And I don't agree that some of them hit harder than regular weapons. So many of them are just bolter with the psychic tag.

Are there a lot of psychic powers with a bolter profile?

I think we're both aware of where the other is coming from here. I see witchfire powers as decent weapons that happen to be less effective against some units in the game. What innate property common to all witchfire-style psychic powers do you feel the current rules are failing to represent? They're often dangerous to the caster if he pushes himself. They often hit with more oomph than a common mundane weapon. They can be fluffily debuffed/countered with anti-psychic countermeasures. I do not mean to put words in your mouth, but it seems like you just want an extra psychic test roll (that arguably represents the fluff less well than always-available powers) for the sake of giving them a feeling of gravitas.

Witchfires in 7th edition had gun profiles. Do you feel that witchfires were handled well then? If so, what's the crucial difference for you?

 Wyldhunt wrote:
B.) Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the more psychic-focused armies got some benefits that target psychic weaponry. Some Grey Knight detachment rule that powers up weapons with the psychic tag or what have you. Actually, I guess Thousand Sons already have exactly that even if it is a little lacklustre.

I just don't think GW thought it through. I think they got all excited with their newfound love of USRs (which they hardly use, especially compared to the literal 1000 bespoke special rules the game has), added 'psychic' to things now that there's no psychic phase, and completely forgot that the psychic tag doesn't actually do anything.
It does do something. It lets anti-psychic effects interact with them, and it lets (what few psychic-buffing rules currently exist) buff them. The statlines of the powers themselves describe how they differ from lasguns and bolters.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
C.) Why does the existence of a tag have to have some positive advantage tied to it?

Because otherwise what's the point? All psychic does right now is give your targets extra protection. That's bad.

That's kind of circular reasoning, no? The point of the tag (for now) is (mostly) to let psychic defenses work against it.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
D.) I started playing in 5th. From 5th through 7th edition, psychic shooting attacks used normal shooting gun profiles. Powerful guns, but standard guns; usually with some flavorful special rule added on. In some of those editions, they were even resolved in the shooting phase just like guns. It wasn't until 8th edition that psychic powers became tied to Mortal Wounds.

And the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Mortal Wounds, and their overabundance, were a joke (not quite as bad as AoS, but still. Now they've completely flipped it and have taken a very conservative edge with psychic powers

Right. We agree that all mortal wounds all the time weren't great. So they went back to psychic powers having gun stats. Like they did in 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, and I assume earlier. Did you dislike how witchfires were handled in those editions as well? Or did the inclusion of a psychic test make them more acceptable to you?

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Great example. So in 8th edition, the Biel-Tan subfaction bonuses were:
* +1 Ld on aspects
* Reroll 1st to hit with shuriken weapons.

I'm thinking back to 3rd Ed Biel-Tan, back when there was a craftworld book, and Biel-Tan meant "Aspect Warriors as Troops". Since my post and your post, GW has put up a preview for Ravenguard, and Outriders gain Battleline (a type of obvious inclusion that they somehow forgot to do for the first four fething books this edition... what morons they are...). This means that a Wraith army could have Wraithguard as Battleline, and a Biel-Tan (or "Swordwind", as they won't limit it to a Craftworld but rather an Archetype) could make Avengers/Dragons/Scorps/Banshees and even maybe Hawks/Spiders into Battleline.

Sure. Those possibilities were always on the table. The questions are:
A.) *Will they*, and
B.) What archetypes will they opt not to support or support badly?

Rule of three is stupid... And yes, Rule of 3 hits some armies far harder (Marines are "limited" to 9 Land Raiders, whereas Chaos get 3... wonderful).

Right. And classic FOCs were basically an indirect rule of 3 that also prevented you from taking other units once you hit 3 of something. Ex: If I take 3 squads of windriders, I'm suddenly unable to take their natural fluffy friends the shining spears.

It sounds like you agree that at least some armies should be able to take more than 3 copies of a given unit that is in-line with their theme. One of the downsides of the FOC is that your starting point is that you're making 4+ copies of thematically-similar (FA, HS, Elites) units impossible and thus creating the work of going through and creating a bunch of exceptions for that limitation. Which can work if someone wants to go to that effort, but also framing things through an FOC makes me worry people are going to lose sight of the actual design goals of having army creation rules that help armies be somewhat balanced against one another. Bringing back a troop tax and preventing people from taking 4+ Fast Attack choices doesn't accomplish much if you also let people take an army of nothing but tanks or dreadnaughts or whatever.

Whenever I make suggestions I am always operating from the base of working within the system rather than throwing out the system... I want to fix the system from within, not throw the system out and replace it.

That's fair. I tend to try to keep both options in mind during these discussions. You have your simpler/smaller fixes that are easy to implement, and your bigger, more ideal changes that are fun to talk about if not generally practical to implement.

Yeah, but if transports and bikes are bad, then the entire detachment ends up being very bad too. On the flip side if the units are way above what a unit should be in w40k, giving an index army even more ways to plays and even more rules, is just spreading the negative player expiriance even more. Because now the people, with the factions that got screwed on their rules, are going to ask why they have no valid way to play, while army Y has 3 detachments that can be easily played on top of 1-2 tournament builds.

RG don't work, because the units that would make a "scout" army hit like a wet noodle and have the staying power of a space marine aka not much of a staying power for the points. Venguard works, because , and we can speculate if GW designers thought of it or not, someone thought RG, but the players looked at ultramarines, calgard+bodyguard+a chunky unit, all getting infiltration in an army, with scouts and shoting units marines have.

All non ultra "themes" in the codex work like that. WS don't have units for a detachment that works only with mounted models and nothing else. Marine tanks cost too much and don't have indirect fire to be a real threat. And tanks are somehow Iron Hands. Salamanders are getting punished for that one even when an army with aggressors and flamers did well , but it costs too cheap. The faction marines are similar. Their detachment are so bad, that it is better to play them as X coloured ultramarines, and from playing an ultramarines minus list, is one step to just play ultramarines.

The fun things, and exploring other ways to play, can only work if an army has extremly effcient units and rules to combin with it. Pre nerf custodes had one build like that. But trying to play something else then blocks of 3 units with heroes, always would end bad. And in the upcoming custode codex that is how it is going to go down. The dreadnoughts, jetbikes etc , like all the units in all the other codex, will recive side grades and no real fixes. There technicaly will be X number of detachments, but they are going to be as playable as the WS one is for marines right now.

@Karol:
That sounds more like a combination of datasheets that need a buff and detachments that need a second pass rather than a problem with the core concept.

The main thing I want from detachments is for them to let me play an army in a different-but-similarly-effective way.

The issue with mounted models isn't rules or detachments.

It's models.

Because no model/no rule is such a strong force that impacts every single aspect of GW's output (rules, artwork, fiction), and because Marines are now in a situation they haven't been in in decades - they have gaps in their product line - we end up in situations like the Stormlance Taskforce, a detachment that is clearly geared towards mounted combat when the Codex lacks mounted characters (there's one) and mounted units (Outriders have zero options, as the kit is still the EZ-build kit from last edition).

So you have all these rules that would be great if the army list could support the ambitions of the rules, but it can't because there just aren't the models to do it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The issue with mounted models isn't rules or detachments.

It's models.

Because no model/no rule is such a strong force that impacts every single aspect of GW's output (rules, artwork, fiction), and because Marines are now in a situation they haven't been in in decades - they have gaps in their product line - we end up in situations like the Stormlance Taskforce, a detachment that is clearly geared towards mounted combat when the Codex lacks mounted characters (there's one) and mounted units (Outriders have zero options, as the kit is still the EZ-build kit from last edition).

So you have all these rules that would be great if the army list could support the ambitions of the rules, but it can't because there just aren't the models to do it.

Not to mentioned they *just* legends'd 3 out of the 6 mounted units, Bikes, attack bikes, and Scout, leaving just outrides, the ATV and chaplain. (because for some reason the chaplain on bike exists but the captain hasn't had an official model since the Khan on bike that I'm aware of)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The issue with mounted models isn't rules or detachments.

It's models.

Because no model/no rule is such a strong force that impacts every single aspect of GW's output (rules, artwork, fiction), and because Marines are now in a situation they haven't been in in decades - they have gaps in their product line - we end up in situations like the Stormlance Taskforce, a detachment that is clearly geared towards mounted combat when the Codex lacks mounted characters (there's one) and mounted units (Outriders have zero options, as the kit is still the EZ-build kit from last edition).

So you have all these rules that would be great if the army list could support the ambitions of the rules, but it can't because there just aren't the models to do it.

You do know that you can spend a max of 1215 pts on mounted stuff alone (without ever dipping into Legends), right?
That's 3 bike chaplains, 3 max units of outriders (counting the invaders), and 3 solo Invaders.
And you can only pick 3/4 of the enhancements.
Let's assume those Chaplains are attached to the outriders.
That's SIX mounted units being supported by this detachment.

And for the remaining 700some pts? I'm sure you're able to find something usefull that these enhancements/strats would benefit.
I'd suggest the various primaris speeders as you're going to need some AT.....

And if you don't have an issue using Legends? You're options dramatically increase.

I've also seen a guy in our Escalation League put this detachment to good use with various jump pack units. So far he's not used a single bike model.


But please, keep on about how there's not enough models to make this detachment work. It's amusing.

“Can fill points” is not the same as “Is worth playing” whether you define that by power or fun.

ccs wrote:
But please, keep on about how there's not enough models to make this detachment work. It's amusing.

3 identical characters and 3 identical 6-man units with zero options. Such variety! Such flavour! The fun train just doesn't have any brakes, now does it?

ccs, do us all a favour: Just say you don't understand my posts. It's quicker and saves us all time.

I just miss the vehicle penetration rules.

 ShatteredBlade wrote:
I just miss the vehicle penetration rules.

Yeah, and I miss also separate way of dealing with vehicles distinct from "person" models. "Oh no! My Fire Prism is dead due to too much wounds!" is very strange concept to me lol

Oversimplification is understandable, because GW want this game to be competitive friendly first and foremost & easy way to aid that is streamlining, but it also cause strangeness like wounded tanks and so boring Index for everyone & wait years for a Codex to come out. My theory of the Index being so dull is that GW want people should buy the Codex when it releases - and if you have very quick development schedule this is fine, but GW never does. All that happen for me is I lose interest to play these so boring Index & just play Kill Team instead.

Also why can't Vehicle & Monster leave close combat with small models anymore? This is so silly, my Bloodthirster or Falcon can't allow Guardsman to come too close or he will grab it & my huge monster/ tank can't leave lol

 ShatteredBlade wrote:
I just miss the vehicle penetration rules.

The thing I always hated about the old rules was the effectiveness of single penetrating hits.

Sure, stuff had to pen your armour to hurt you, so no bolter damage or small arms fire.

But as soon as something did pen your armour, it had a 17% to be a one shot kill. And even if it didn't kill, it could render your vehicle ineffective with a single shot.

Which is something that can be remedied with "Hull points" and a proper implementation of what triggers a vehicle to lose one.

 JNAProductions wrote:
“Can fill points” is not the same as “Is worth playing” whether you define that by power or fun.

I think this is sort of the rub. Although I'm probably more on the ccs side of the argument.

I.E. lets say you want to do a Biel-Tan Swordwind formation.
Well... being able to take 6 units rather than 3 banshees is I guess cool if you love Banshees. But I mean you can take 3 units of Banshees, Scorpions, Spiders, Dragons, Hawks... If you want to go "look, all Aspect Warriors" - you can.

In much the same way that sure, you might want to run 6 units of Wraithguard. But you can run 3. And 3 Wraithblades. And 3 Wraithlords. And some Spiritseers. That Wrath flyer thing. Even if kept to a minimum this is most of a 2k points army.

I can see how "I want to run bikes" and there is only one unit of bikes does kind of suck. Much like how having an Ad Mech detachment notionally for robots when you have one unit of robots is limiting. But I think its taking the discussion off at a tangent into issues which I don't see as being a problem. The solution is GW creating new units (or not drafting rules to this effect). I'm not sure "now I can take six units of Outriders/Robots" would serve to make the list more interesting.

PenitentJake wrote:

 ShatteredBlade wrote:
I just miss the vehicle penetration rules.

The thing I always hated about the old rules was the effectiveness of single penetrating hits.

Sure, stuff had to pen your armour to hurt you, so no bolter damage or small arms fire.

But as soon as something did pen your armour, it had a 17% to be a one shot kill. And even if it didn't kill, it could render your vehicle ineffective with a single shot.

I didn't mind that, but for personal preference, I preferred to see lot of infantry in the wargame and not so much vehicles & this rules stopped people to take vehicles for every unit. I don't know if it made the game more balanced or anything, I just didn't like to see 89323 vehicles every game.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Which is something that can be remedied with "Hull points" and a proper implementation of what triggers a vehicle to lose one.

So... wounds and a high toughness? The only remaining gap is "make S less than double T unable to wound" boom, sorted.

Before we get "but shooting guns off!!!!" etc comes up, that's not the armour values, that's the vehicle damage chart and isn't intrinsically tied to it. You could have "roll a d6 every X wounds taken and consult the chart" with results such as "lose Y weapons, lose Z " of move to minimum of 0" etc.

Tyel wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
“Can fill points” is not the same as “Is worth playing” whether you define that by power or fun.

I.E. lets say you want to do a Biel-Tan Swordwind formation.
Well... being able to take 6 units rather than 3 banshees is I guess cool if you love Banshees. But I mean you can take 3 units of Banshees, Scorpions, Spiders, Dragons, Hawks... If you want to go "look, all Aspect Warriors" - you can.

Not only can you run 6 units of a given aspect, they also become more effective at controlling objectives - and, if you're swapping what becomes Battleline, then Guardians become less useful in that role, which shifts the focus within the army.

We need more 'X on Bike' options and a second build/more options for Outriders.

Dudeface wrote:
So... wounds and a high toughness? The only remaining gap is "make S less than double T unable to wound" boom, sorted.

Before we get "but shooting guns off!!!!" etc comes up, that's not the armour values, that's the vehicle damage chart and isn't intrinsically tied to it. You could have "roll a d6 every X wounds taken and consult the chart" with results such as "lose Y weapons, lose Z " of move to minimum of 0" etc.

I wasn't arguing for that in my post, but high toughness alone is not enough to reproduce the feeling of vehicles in older editions. Armor values had to be hit exactly or over. A strength 7 auto cannon was not allowed to roll on the damage chart with just a 5 to wound against a Predator (AV 13, let's assume toughness 13). And if you only hit the value exactly instead of exceeding it, you had less of a chance to do lasting damage.