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.

Dudeface wrote:
whilst justified, it's almost as justified to get rid of everyone's as well which is the tact they've taken.

Whenever everyone's super, no-one is and all that.

Yeah, that's what I've come around to myself- I still prefer strong subfaction identities- always have and always will.

But I've also always been able to see the other point of view, which is why I've decided to actually give 10th an honest try with the free stuff at my disposal.

 morganfreeman wrote:

The issue with kroot was a mixture of lack of damage and their awful save.

Their lack of power weapons (this is back prior to melee weapons having AP) meant that a shocking amount of their attacks were ineffective. 6+ meant that if they got to melee they suffered serious casualties on the counter swing. They were basically guardsmen damage output but in melee with worse armor.

Sure you could make them a bit better with shapers and krootox, but that was about as useful as pouring points into guard squads to up their damage.

This reminds of a post on Tau Online (RIP) from back in the day where a player couldn't understand how his 20-man pack of Kroot only managed to kill one marine in melee. He reasoned that 40 attacks should do something more than that. Others tried to explain the math to him.

Which is a problem with having to play marines so often as much as anything? WS 4 S 4 A 2 stats would do decent damage against most troops infantry in the game but you just relatively rarely got to see it.

It's always been a bit of a problem. Something can be pretty good but if it isn't against marine stats and armour it'll often as not be useless.

Dai wrote:
Which is a problem with having to play marines so often as much as anything? WS 4 S 4 A 2 stats would do decent damage against most troops infantry in the game but you just relatively rarely got to see it.

Maybe if the small, elite, super-rare, barely-seen, practically-a-myth faction didn't make up about 80% of armies, we wouldn't have this problem.

 vipoid wrote:

Dai wrote:
Which is a problem with having to play marines so often as much as anything? WS 4 S 4 A 2 stats would do decent damage against most troops infantry in the game but you just relatively rarely got to see it.

Maybe if the small, elite, super-rare, barely-seen, practically-a-myth faction didn't make up about 80% of armies, we wouldn't have this problem.

The whole reason game launches are messy is because what is the game average doesn't end up being the on table average creating what we like to call the meta. When everyone has ways to deal with average models, the first response is to find above average statlines that are harder to deal with. When everyone is taking above average.... that's the new average and what was designed as average is sub par.

I have seen several people mention 7th now favorably. Forgive my ignorance, but I thought 7th was one of the worst editions, both from player satisfaction, and GW sales? Everything I read was that 7th was this totally off the rails edition that ruined a lot of people's idea of 40k, and basically tanked stocks.

That’s the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia mixed with the marmite nature of 7th Edition. It rocked if you liked certain powerful things. It sucked if you didn’t like those things.

7th had some decent ideas that were all horribly executed. In concept, formationis are interesting, in execution, they were awful with some piling on more and more special bonuses on units you were already going to take or just giving free wargear/transports. The edition fixed some of the problems 6th had from what I understand (cannot fully comment as I never actually played 6th), and playing the lower tier codexes against each other was actually fairly fun. Orks vs Guard? That could be a fun battle still. It was also when GW started launching and relaunching factions like Admech and Genestealer Cults, so there is that going for it at least.

The problem was unfun mechanics like Challenges, scatbikes just zooming across the entire map and being able to take out most anything, vehicles being made of cardboard thanks to hull points, and unkillable riptides that were somehow monstrous creatures and not walkers. Then you'd get giant monstrous creatures that can just stomp units to death and so on.

Also grav weapons, god grav was annoying. I forget if they originated in 6th or 7th, but using the opponents armor save as your to wound, having ap2, and wargear that let you reroll wounds, combined with the fact that the marine's baseline weapon was ap5, meant that you could just ignore the armor game a lot. Plus you could just destroy vehicles with them by stripping hull points.

On the whole, it was worse than what came before and what came after.

The unfun mechanics were things like playing with people who acted like there was money on the line, every single game.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:I have seen several people mention 7th now favorably. Forgive my ignorance, but I thought 7th was one of the worst editions, both from player satisfaction, and GW sales? Everything I read was that 7th was this totally off the rails edition that ruined a lot of people's idea of 40k, and basically tanked stocks.

alextroy wrote:That’s the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia mixed with the marmite nature of 7th Edition. It rocked if you liked certain powerful things. It sucked if you didn’t like those things.

kurhanik wrote:7th had some decent ideas that were all horribly executed.The edition fixed some of the problems 6th had from what I understand (cannot fully comment as I never actually played 6th)

The problem was unfun mechanics like Challenges, scatbikes just zooming across the entire map and being able to take out most anything, vehicles being made of cardboard thanks to hull points, and unkillable riptides that were somehow monstrous creatures and not walkers. Then you'd get giant monstrous creatures that can just stomp units to death and so on.

Also grav weapons, god grav was annoying.

Grav started in 6th (Centurions) and was just as bad as it was in 7th.
6th also heavily nerfed CC by removing charging from vehicles and adding Overwatch while also allowing certain armies (Tau) to overwatch with multiple units. This was not fixed in 7th but other problems would over shadow it.

You would get shot running across the table to only make an attempt to charge with maybe 35-40% of your unit to have the Tau player fire over 200 shots during Overwatch. This was possible as all Tau units within 6" could contribute to overwatch. The Tau player made sure all his units in his army where within 6".

Flyers where also a major problem in 6th which was only partially fixed in 7th. Many armies had no Anti-Flyer weapons unless you also took flyers. $$$
GW pretended this was OK because there was something called "Mysterious Terrain" that provided Anti-Flyer weapon upgrades. Only problem was that the community largely refused to use the Mysterious Terrain rules and I never saw tournaments use them either.

7th also introduced an expansion of Psychic Powers which included a power that let you move terrain, including all the miniatures inside it. You could load up your assault troops, and literally throw a building across the table with them in it.

7th also had the newly buffed Invisibilty spell and D weapons......Oh boy the D weapons....

Edit ** And yes, I think 7th edition was easily the worst myself having played since 3rd. Our local tournaments during that time dropped from an average of 20-25 players to less than 10 showing up counting 4 different stores .

Yea 7th was a quick update to 6th. Those editions are closely linked.

Dudeface wrote:

In addition, you are mistaken or lying about being able to pick two alternate Chapter Tactics instead. The list of Successor Chapter Tactics specifically says "If your Chapter does not have an associated Chapter tactic on Page 175..." - the Raven Guard are neither a successor chapter nor missing from Page 175 - as evidenced by your flawed inclusion of their assigned Chapter tactic

No but my chapter of Overly Verbose Nitpickers who have a choice of 2 traits from the build-a-chapter can opt to be Raven Guard Successors, so please, keep reaching.

They can, but then they're not Ravenwing. Your Chapter of Overly Verbose Liars by Omission are their own entity and also lose out on a ton of Relics - which you didn't point out in a fit of intellectual dishonesty. So they can have the Pick-Two Traits and one Relic with one Strat, or they have a bunch of Chapter Relics

You are also dishonestly portraying psychic powers. Every Subfaction had access to EITHER the armor based Psychic list (Phobos for Obscuration, or Librarius for everyone else) or their Chapter specific (subfaction) Discipline. You are trying to imply that a Ravenguard librarian had simultaneous access to 18 different powers. That is not the case for multiple reasons. They don't get all 18 at once, and even beyond that each individual Librarian only had access to this 6 or that 6 - two optional sets of 6 is only 12 in total. In other words a Phobos Librarian could not choose Librarius, a Librarian in Terminator could not choose Obfuscation and so none of them had "18" or even the more accurate 3 sets of 6 to choose 1 set from.

That was FAQ'd in later because shockingly giving them the option to mix the powers together was too much, as they had.... too many options. But again you're obscuring the fact that as a marine player, I can choose from 18 psychic powers. They're in 3 sets of 6. But again you're nitpicking with the minutae of army building to ignore the fact that 2 sets of 6 base powers, is more than the 1 set of 6 tyranids get. The subfactions adding 1 more set of 6 powers, is more than the 1 power the tyranid subfaction adds.

I don't think so. I have the codex here in front of me, and Armor type allowed all of one or all of the other. I also have two of the printed supplements (UM from 8th, and DA from 9th) and they both say All - Instead Of.

This is a similar tactic to choosing some portion but not even the entirety of Grey Knights for the comparison. Grey Knights are one of the poorer factions that desperately need expansion. They have roughly 10 distinctly different datasheets for "units" - by which I don't mean a Dread vs a Venerable Dread but a Dread vs a Purifier Squad, and not counting the one-off elite character addons like apothecaries and standard bearers. The things you build an army with. Life is even tougher for the Adeptus Custodes but that may have been even more obvious in the cherry picking. The Aeldari at least 9 different Aspect Warrior units alone.

And what has that got to do with anything? Are you postulating marine chapters should get more rules because they have more models? Tell you what, lets wrap it all up with Eldar since you note they have lots of units:

Marine subfaction:
Base book/supplement
- A chapter tactic (fixed or choice of 2 from list)
- *additional* affect on tactical doctrine
- 6(5) additional warlord traits for a choice of 18 (or 3 sets of 6)
- another psychic discipline for a total of 18 powers (or 3 sets of 6)
- another 6 relics
- 8 "special issue" relics for squad leaders
- 2 more pages of strats

Faith and fury:
- an additional litany

Eldar subfaction:
Base codex:
- a chapter tactic equivalent
- 1 warlord trait
- 1 relic
- 1 strat

Phoenix Rising:
- option to build a chapter tactic (exists as a base thing in marines)

Are these equal? Can you still honestly say that subfactions across armies were equally represented?

Maybe subfaction stuff should exist but be categorically worse in every way so if you want to do it for fluff then it's largely meaningless - for all armies and have parity (I say this with a marine army in a cabinet to my left).

No, in fact I have repeatedly pointed out they should have been - as best as is able based on some hard blockages by faction design - but weren't. But you knew that, and decided to imply otherwise. Even in replies directly to you I've pointed out some factions need a drastic/massive update/expansion. Like the Grey Knights when I pointed out why you dishonestly chose them - because they're one of the factions that needs expanding, same with Custodes, Drukhari, Votann and Sort-Of-GSC. The fact that some factions - not just subfactions - got screwed is not proof the game should be made even more vanilla, its just proof some factions got screwed despite your attempt to confuse and conflate the issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arschbombe wrote:

Breton wrote:

I think JSJ was what drove the general hostility.

Maybe later. I think the original hostility came from the distinctly non-grimdark, anime-inspired style.

It took forever for the Space Communists meme to cycle through, if you didn't buy the codex you didn't know about it. The unilateral breaking of IGO-UGO is almost definitely the cause of the hate. There are a number of things to object to - they had the strongest and longest "trooper" guns, even over Loyalist and Chaos SM who have been fighitng the long war for 10,000 years against power armored foes but those were fairly minor things - JSJ is going to be one of the first things people who played in that era will point to.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:
Sure you can. Movement is just one aspect involved here. The threat it provides to a balanced game is not that movement trumps all, its that there are few/no scenarios that "punish" movement. Dense Fog causing dangerous terrain tests for any (non-aircraft etc) move over 4" will really punish anyone who gambled on a 20" move army. Its a problem with battle design that didn't encourage diversity not movement itself.

Missions that punish a particular dynamic are only useful if they appear regularly and actively discourage use of that army. If it truly discourages use of that army then what is the point of allowing that army ( sure, narrative, I suppose )? If it doesn't discourage that army then what is the point of the mission?

They don't have to appear regularly, they have to have a CHANCE to appear regularly Lets say they implement my idea. Mission Rules are changed to alter how the mission is played, and each player gets a random one, and a Stick-it-to-them one. You play knights (And this is where it breaks down because Knights are by nature skew), I give you Dense Fog mission rule and now all your knights have MV4 and 12" guns. So that card probably shouldn't apply to TITANIC as well as AIRCRAFT - but something that does affect AIRCRAFT and TITANIC/TOWERING so Knights don't skew away from their Armigers and Dark Angels don't quintuple Dip on AIRCRAFT. These "Mission Rule" cards should simulate the pre-battle preparations like in the Invasion of Calth The Mission Rules should do similar things that a player can pick to either boost the army they built, or deboost their opponent's army. If someone rolls the dice on a skew list of 100 Broadside Battle Suits, they rolled the dice on getting hurt even harder than a balanced list. Likewise a Swampy Groung Mission rule might pull the teeth of the 100 Jump Pack Fighty Marine Blood Angels List. And again with the standard disclaimer: These are seat-of-the-pants thematic examples and not finished product ready for implementation.

I wouldn't say its a Primaris thing. Termagant options are pretty meh with little difference between them. At first glance on the Tyrannid Warriors, the Devourer is too close to the Deathspitter - making the Devourer not enough better than the Deathspitter to have a (relatively) significant different threat profile. Carnifex Ranged weapons are terrible, and lack a lascannon equivalent for Nids to handle Land Raiders at range without the big bugs. To some extent a lot of this is the new S/T ranges for the new design not being carefully checked on the S availability for the new T's, but again that's not Primaris specific let alone Marine specific. Its really going to suck when the later Codex releases adjust for that if its not FAQ'ed to the early ones.

I think people worry more about the visible math and the feels bad of wounding on a 5+. Sisters have pulled in tournament wins despite their lack of 'proper' anti-tank. That isn't to say Nids are fine as they are.

Meh, Hitting on 5+ or wounding on 5+ isn't really a/the problem. Good Ork players figure that out quickly. There may be some surface/visceral reaction, but eventually if hitting/wounding/saving on 5+ is really looked at (and its balanced right) people will figure it out. Sisters don't have lousy anti-tank because they don't have 6+A of S12 lascannon that wound on 4's. They have lousy Anti-Tank because they don't have 20+A of S9 Wound on 5's MELTA for a balanced vs that cost. Sisters need less of an expansion as some other factions, but (I like to call them the elements: Grav, Flame, Las, Plas, Melta) they do need to be expanded into all the elemental options through new units or new unit options. Before it was because each edition pretty much always had its Elemental Flavor of the Month. 8th was probably Plas, 9th was probably Melta. Now with each Element being somewhat Rock-Paper-Keyword that's why they need the expansion. Others just need a flat out expansion - one could argue Grey Knights were just meant to be an Allied Faction in a soup army as you theme out a book army Think :

Devourer vs Deathspitter is a little more complex as well, but I won't try and dive into that here since it'd bore people to death. Maybe in a future post when I finish my tools.

this time around, almost everything was in the datacards and if someone printed out each set as they released they should have most of the bespoke rules at their finger tips. Next edition, you're back to not knowing who has what unless you buy every codex- so it has been true more often than it hasn't.. On the other hand, as long as we have to pay for each army rule book even if they're just pointers and collectors of USRs you're still going to have to trust the guy who bought the book that Stomping Feet is just a collection of the Big Guns Never Tire and Tank Hunters USRs so making all the faction rules into collections of USRs (which most of them already are in many editions) doesn't really tell everyone what the special rule does unless they own the book - or they release those PDFs and keep them available for everyone in such a way that you have to buy the BRB to know what the USRs are, but you can be told which USRs apply by the free datasheets.

Everything is on the datacard or in the detachment. A player is "supposed" to bring their supporting materials so the opponent can look. I know there's probably people who only use 39k.

And there are people who don't want the conflict of asking "Is that REALLY what your codex says? Plus the "Gotcha" problems of finding out it really is what the codex says afterwards. This is really neither here nor there, any process like this will have some sort of drawback - if all the armies are in one book so you have your own "codex" to look stuff up and prepare, everyone is paying more than they really "need" to. Meh, six of one half a dozen of the other.

Was there an edit here? I'm not following Characters switching squads with searchlights on vehicles? I think in the long run - as far as characters go - the solution is to go back to auras and Look Out Sir but crunch the auras way down and improve sniping.

I think joining units works far better for table dynamics. Characters actually see combat often rather than being behind all the shooty stuff buffing it. Some auras still exist where it makes sense ( Magnus ).

I like the Joining and Leaving Squads best because I like the idea of Calgar and two Invictrix charging out of a squad of BGV who have been ordered to charge a different unit just before Calgar leaves from a story standpoint, but if Aura is crunched down the right way there would be little difference between leading/leaving and Lone Operative within Aura Range.

The missions themselves don't usually have enough variety/adaptation of the mission itself. Because the missions have to be so generic (You can't count on your opponent bring 20 psykers for Abhor the Witch stuff) - which is because competitive and most casaul gamers want to pull out whatever their version of a Take-All-Comers list is instead of building a list under the restrictions of the mission - the missions have to have a square peg rounded enough to go in the round hole. i.e. Kill HQ's, especially psykers if there are any, while siting on more of 6 nickels than the other guy. It could be that the "best" but still not great solution is the expand the "Mission Rules" cards to negatively impact a generic strategy.instead of yet more fiddling with objective tokens. Something like the Dense Fog up above that screws a MV skew army. Change Vox Static such that every strat is +1CP to use. Chilling Rain reduces gives a -1 to all Invulns. Standard "those are just thematic examples not thought out balanced finished products. At that point I'd do a couple of things - if the mission rules affect everyone, give it a double whammy - Dense Fog makes movement faster than X painful, but also provides the benefits of Shrouding (basically Lone Operative + Steatlh) for everyone. The fast assault forces have to go slow, but are much harder to shoot up so those 30 Blood Angels Jump Packers are slow, but the 30 Dark Angels Hellblasters can't see them to shoot them until they're close.

As noted above - I used to think these were good ideas. I don't anymore. It just simply punishes in a way that is not conducive to a fair competitive environment. Especially when some just kick Daemons in the nuts. They're fine for more casual games, but not when people want a contest of skill instead of a contest of list building. Note that competent list building is still required so that you have the tools to fight and to score.

And that's a problem with Daemon/Knight/etc armies that are forced into skew. I think it makes a better game if skew is a gamble not the Meta. The problem with that again is GW needs to get off their duffs and finish armies with generalist-able datasheets.

I'd add because people THINK that's the only way for them to be fast - because flanderisation (probably assisted by vehicles being the red headed stepchild of 40K for a while) makes people forget about mechanized infantry i.e.5 guys in an Impulsor Outflanking onto your opponent's back table edge.

To be fair it's really GW's fault for setting up White Scars for failure. It's part of why people were incredulous that Kor'sarro wasn't on a bike.

Its GW's game, its almost always their fault. I don't mind Khan not on a bike, he was always available before as either or, and Outriders weren't really out yet. The fact that they haven't since released a Khan on bike option since Outrider release is the problem. Another problem was the way GW treated vehicles so poorly for so long Mechanized Infantry has ceased somewhat being a thing so White Scars lost both of their iconic looks. But those are both trees in the Forest of GW failure as it relates to the Underway Replacement they're trying to do with Space Marines. I've mentioned my idea before, but whatever plan they use, there should be basic (i.e. not Ravenwing only bikers, or BA only Jumpers) HQ choices (Cap/Chap/Lib/Lieutenant + "Company Command" stuff for every basic "armor" (Bike, Terminator, Gravis, Jump, Phobos) That's the main failure for the Primaris Replacement Project, but there have been scattered failures elsewhere - the new Jump Fighting Intercessors are lacking the Eviscerator/Auxiliary Grenade Launcher parallel they should have - probably a 1 per 5 Thunderhammer or power fist. The 10th Dark Angels Supplement - being new and as yet un-FAQ'ed is loaded down with issues:
Librarians are no longer DEATHWING - So only the Terminator Librarian can get an Enhancement - and they're the best option after Azrael to join and lead one of the new bespoke units the Inner Circle Companions.
Captains and Lieutenants with Shields (the BGV Load out) - also don't get Deathwing, and can't get enhancements.
Lion El'Johnson does not have the DEATHWING keyword either - and while he can't get Enhancements, does anyone doubt he'd be surrounded by a large number of Deathwing in an Inner Circle Task Force?
This pretty much boils down to ripping the guts out of a Primaris (Power Armor) based Dark Angel first company and making the Lion even dumber.

Core book Storm Speeders and Outriders from the Ravenwing don't get the same 5++ the bespoke Ravenwing bikes and speeders get - maybe its on purpose, but I wouldn't say it's wise.

"Troop-ish" Terminators and Stern/Blade/Van- -guard Veterans don't get +1 OC in an Inner Circle Task Force.

They're all symptoms of the same problem.

 Noir Eternal wrote:

Also grav weapons, god grav was annoying.

Grav started in 6th (Centurions) and was just as bad as it was in 7th.

As a Marine player, Grav was an irritating mechanic but it's purpose was exceedingly clear. It was the answer to how out of control MCs had become. When the Lascannon is bouncing off MCs with 3++ invulns and 2++ cover saves, and only doing a single wound to an MC IF it gets through, the a multi-shot weapon that wounds easily and punched through armor is a solution you hop on board for.

It may have been irritating as a weapon, but it wasn't half as irritating as what it was responding to.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
[

Something like that could work. I've pitched getting rid of strats and marking some rules as "command" abilities that are susceptible to command disruption rules before. That said, I'm not sure whether it would make sense for JSJ to be one of them. Shooting on the move seems to be the default for crisis suits. It would feel a bit weird for someone scrambling your coms or sabotaging your battle plans to suddenly make your suits incapable of moving to new cover while they shoot.

Absolutely. So should Sticky Capping for Intercessors, etc.

I'd say the problem with JSJ isn't forcing opponent maneuver. Its the way it unilaterally invalidated IGO-UGO. There are a bunch of units out there that have something similar to Captain Sicariu's Knight of Macragge thing.. Yadda yadda enemy unit ends movement phase within 9". this unit can move 6" yadda yadda. Its a far more toned down JSJ. I cant unilaterally do it. You have to move within 9, but not within engagement. Now there are absolutely units that would be "mean" to do it to - say someone with a gun range of 6", but its far less so than JSJ of the past.

I don't know. That seems situationally *more* powerful if the enemy gets close enough to trigger it because you'd have more information about where the enemy units will be positioned when you get to make your move. And on the flip side, it would make JSJ useless for avoiding long-ranged attacks which seem like the attacks evasive actions should be most effective against.

In a lot of threads, people talk about wanting maneuvering to be more important. Needing to position units to line up shots against enemies that have JSJ'd back behind cover seems like a good example of that. You could probably impose a -1 to-hit penalty on units using JSJ to represent the relative difficulty of shooting on the move and to create a trade-off (other than points) to using JSJ, but I think the basic mechanics of ye olde jetpackers were pretty sound.

Pretty sure Eldar got JSJ before Tau did.

Plus the main counter is surely indirect fire artillery or mobility of your own?

Dudeface wrote:


Where the assertion was made that other armies had parity in 8th/9th and that has now been lost. Very simply they didn't, as the sheer breadth of options given over to the marines dwarfed the other armies, led to rules hopping and made internal balance impossible - hence why we now have "generic force type 1-6" that in theory all chapters benefit from regardless of build.

I see you're lying about my assertion as easily as you lie about how many options Marines have. I can't assert other armies had parity that was lost while also claiming multiple armies didn't have enough basic datasheets and needed expanding. Well not if I want to be honest. And I didn't. I pointed out there was SOME parity. I pointed out SOME factions suffered under the single template being used for these builds - the Chapter Tactics thing doesn't work for Orks. (again). Likewise trying to claim RG had massive numbers of options because UM, DA, and BA also had some options (that weren't available to RG) by lumping them all into "Marines" isn't all that honest. Ultramarines had something like 7 Relics. Which equated to a whopping zero options for Raven Guard. The core Aeldari book listed 14 relics. This does not mean Space Marines get access to 14 more options because I lump them both into "The Good Guys"

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I have seen several people mention 7th now favorably. Forgive my ignorance, but I thought 7th was one of the worst editions, both from player satisfaction, and GW sales? Everything I read was that 7th was this totally off the rails edition that ruined a lot of people's idea of 40k, and basically tanked stocks.

Well i can say it was better than 6th at first...but then at the time 6th was the worst thing GW had made at that point. in fact 6th got me into playing warmachine and infinity as well as leaning back heavy into my original TT game-classic battle tech. what really killed 7th was about halfway through they introduced formation bloat that basically broke everything about the game. want to totally ignore the core mechanics of the game rules? just take a free formation of models X and Y and do crazy stuff. they still also kept the bad from 6th even if some of it was toned down. then they really added some stupid mechanics in the form of psyker powers and super D weapons (in normal games instead of apocalypse). 6th was actually worse but it was around for such a short time because GW even realized how bad it was that players tend to forget about it. there were only 3 really great things that came from (or should i say came back in) those editions-snap fire, overwatch and grenade throwing. the flyer rules to a lesser extend but only if you combine them with the original forge world flyer rules like our group has done.

The original HH rules basically tried to fix it and made the best incarnation of 7th ed rules. starting with tossing out the formations. of course GW not to be outdone repeated themselves about halfway through 8th (anybody remember the second SM codex or the later iron hands supplement among others?) and solidified the strat spam in 9th.

Of course i am not one to contend that GW could not screw things up worse with each new edition. they have not proven me wrong yet......the high point/high water mark is still 5th with a little bit of 4th for some mechanics (looking at you wound allocation shenanigans) and that's why i went back to playing and supporting it.

 alextroy wrote:
That’s the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia mixed with the marmite nature of 7th Edition. It rocked if you liked certain powerful things. It sucked if you didn’t like those things.

I've had way more fun (or at least had potential for fun) getting beat playing Orks vs bloody Eldar in 7th than playing Orks in 8th/9th where it was just SOOO BORING. The 3rd to 7th style of core gameplay mechanics made the game fun to play as it had a lot more mechanical depth to how things worked. The new set of bare bones core rules suck for having an actually interesting game as it now feels very bland and uninteresting. At least for me, it very much isn't rose tinted glasses as the few times I got to play a game of 7th years after a year plus of 8th where still a ton of fun.

I really hate the argument that people only like 7th because of power gaming when completely overlooks all the gameplay potential the edition had at tables where it wasn't cutthroat WAAC games every match. Formations are a good example of how a good flavorful concept gets dumped on because of the 10% of OP formations that dominated the meta while a lot of the "not good" formations did a decent job of letting themed armies play out differently or at the very least plugging some holes in the viability of some underpowered units.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I have seen several people mention 7th now favorably. Forgive my ignorance, but I thought 7th was one of the worst editions, both from player satisfaction, and GW sales? Everything I read was that 7th was this totally off the rails edition that ruined a lot of people's idea of 40k, and basically tanked stocks.

I think it's worth mentioning the split between the core rule book and the codexes. 7th mechanically was mostly 6th edition with the fortification and super heavy rules rolls into the base edition. It changed psychic powers (good rough draft of an idea but way to easy to abuse mechanics and terrible spell power balance) as well as doing a few tweaks to the vehicle damage table, jinking, the alliance system, D weapons from Apoc, and a few other things.

The codexes introduced formations and faction specific force orgs into the army building process and things started off toned down with Orks, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels being rather tame (Orks and D Eldar got nerfed essentially) while Space Wolves had a few quite strong things (Thunder cav, Wulfen, Iron Priests on Thunder Wolves, the smaller wolves, etc) that made them a step or two above the rest but it was still somewhat reasonable. Then came Necrons which basically introduced the Decurion super formation that layered powerful bonuses on top of already decent formation bonuses that made the Necrons super powerful. Then almost every faction after that has their own super formation and it seemed like the rules writers completely abandoned balance restraints. Eldar was the most OP faction in 6th and basically their 7th edition codex was buffs across the board with the tiny exception that the OP busted unit of 6th was nerfed a bit. Tau was also incredibly strong in 6th (but struggled in 7th vs the super formation and psychic powers) got only buffs via the powerful formations and added war gear options but all the unit stat lines/point costs basically remained the same from 6th. The icing on the overpowered cake was Ynnari which was basically stacking the brokenly OP Eldar rules (including their OP formations) with a faction ruleset that was basically the strongest win more mechanic in the game. Also this is when Imperial Knights showed up which could field an entire army of super heavy walkers to be the end all be all skew list due to how vehicle rules worked.

7th was peak incompetence from GW as they lost the plot a 3rd of the way through the edition and the end result was a steaming pile of garbage. All that said, the key to making the edition fun was understand some basic concepts of game balance and making sure both players are fielding lists that where relatively on par with each other. If you could do that simple bit of sportsmanship then you could very easily have some fun games. If you expected to just slap down any army list blindly in a pick up game then your very likely to have some bad mismatches irregardless of player skill differences. Tournament play was a dumpster fire due to the horrible top end game balance but to be frank, 40k is a terrible tournament game regardless of the edition being played.

PenitentJake wrote:
Yeah- I'm one of the folks who praised 9th's parity... And you're right, it wasn't 100% parity. No one in edition ever will have parity with marines.

That's mostly because you're lumping them together as "Marines" rather than keeping them seperate as UM/DA/BA/SW/etc

But what I meant was it was the first (and to my knowledge, only) edition where ALL factions had at least the bare minimum to distinguish their subfactions, that being:

- Chapter tactic equivalent
- 1 Bespoke Warlord Trait
- 1 Bespoke Relic
- 1 Bespoke strat

Two of those are arguably huge for subfaction differentiation, two of them are pretty minor. The Warlord Trait and the Relic will rarely be involved in that, they're more often than not just super-wargear to give the DIY player a chance to make their "special character". I'm somewhat ambivalent on the Bespoke Strat but I can see it being a thing. Far and away the biggest flavor rule for most if not all was the Chapter Tactic. Sadly they needed at least a couple different ways of generating the "Chapter Tactic" for factions that were just fluffed too differently from Space Marines.

While not parity when looking at subfactions that got supplements, this is still the closest we've come to parity.

In some ways. I'd say the biggest block to parity itself are the red-headed-stepchildren factions. The ones that are either new, re-new, or were not originally expected to be a stand alone faction - especially at current point-per-model levels, and Knights.

Before we even talk about "Chapter Tactic" Parity a number of factions need to be addressed:

Drukhari need a few more datahsheets and more/better synergy/options between the ones they already have.
Grey Knights need a moderate number of Datasheets.
Custodes need a LOT of appreciably different datasheets.
Votann need a LOT of appreciably different datasheets.
Sisters need branches into the other elements - grav, las. etc.
Guard need better rules? Something?
Daemons need datasheets providing generalism for mono-faction lists. Ranges Khorne for example.
GSC need more datasheets or better Brood Brother Guard integration or both.
Orks probably need a little better rules - and to NOT be forced into the Purity template for Chapter Tactics
Nids need better rules/stats especially towards anti-tank without taking the Bigger Than Big Bugs - Gun-ifexs, or Tyranid Warriors with Heavy Weapons... something.
Tau: I dunno enough about em.

That would do far more for parity than worrying about which Chapter Tactic is better than which Craftworld Attribute.

Custodes have something like 18 Data sheets with a quick look/count. 8 are HQ/Leaders including Epic Hero Nameds. 3 are Vehicles (Land Raider, Rhino, Dread) 3 are minor variations on the same girls with guns squad (of dubious value given the Second Class Citizen nature of the Anathema Psykana units) . Leaving 2 fairly similar Power Armor Custodes Squads, 1 Terminator Squad and a Jet Bike Squad. Just off the top of my head I'd:

1) End the Second Class Citizen thing. They've been a team for 10,000 years or whatever. This is forced and something, but I don't know what beyond it makes my brain "itch".
2) Get a lighter armored look for them with a couple of roles, including snipers (The Secret Service does more than stand next to the guy we all wish hadn't won no matter who the guy is). This would have been a great place for Eliminators (with better guns). 3 Custodes in "Discretion" Armor popping off 6-9 infiltrated Sniper/Las Fusil shots would have been well in keeping with their Secret Service Role and the fluff of them sending out little Influencer (or whatever you want to call it) teams that had a mission but wanted to remain anonymous.
3) The other option for that kit box could/should be a Reiver type unit (Sneaky, Terror Troop, infiltrating/scouting etc) that isn't Reivers painted Gold.
4) Characters beyond the Shield Captain in regular armor, Shield Captain in Terminator Armor, Shield Captain on Jet Bike, and the Almost A Shield Captain in regular armor.

Rinse and Repeat for the other factions. The lack of attention to the factions as a whole is much bigger obstacle to parity than Chapter Tactics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:


The whole reason game launches are messy is because what is the game average doesn't end up being the on table average creating what we like to call the meta. When everyone has ways to deal with average models, the first response is to find above average statlines that are harder to deal with. When everyone is taking above average.... that's the new average and what was designed as average is sub par.

Not the whole reason, not even the main reason. The main reason is GW doesn't finish - they get to some mid point they think is good enough, and release. For example, they rebuilt the phases in 8th, especially the Fight Phase. But they didn't finish it. They didn't look at the cost of opportunity for fight phase units (Fight Phase Units are much less likelly to participate in a given turn over a shoot phase unit simply because of range), they didn't look at the escalators for that opportunity (+1A for two weapons, +1A for charging etc that were included for edition after edition because they'd figured out in the past that fight phase units need to fight more on the turns they get to but then failed to include again). So they had to turn around and slap a bandaid on it with +1A for chainswords, and Hateful/Shock Assault, etc. And even then, it wasn't finished because it didn't touch on things like hormugaunts, Infantry Squad Sergeants, and so on. I've already detailed it with the Dark Angels book, but even a subfaction launch will have these issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kurhanik wrote:
had some decent ideas that were all horribly executed.

Someone just wrote the epitaph on GW's tombstone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Noir Eternal wrote:

7th also had the newly buffed Invisibilty spell and D weapons......Oh boy the D weapons....

Edit ** And yes, I think 7th edition was easily the worst myself having played since 3rd. Our local tournaments during that time dropped from an average of 20-25 players to less than 10 showing up counting 4 different stores .

I disliked third - probably based on how much of a shift it was from 2nd like Terminators going from 3+ on 2D6 to flat 2+ no Invuln. - the other one I hated but I can't remember which one it was the origin of the S=2xT = Instant Death.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Noir Eternal wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Also grav weapons, god grav was annoying.

Grav started in 6th (Centurions) and was just as bad as it was in 7th.

As a Marine player, Grav was an irritating mechanic but it's purpose was exceedingly clear. It was the answer to how out of control MCs had become. When the Lascannon is bouncing off MCs with 3++ invulns and 2++ cover saves, and only doing a single wound to an MC IF it gets through, the a multi-shot weapon that wounds easily and punched through armor is a solution you hop on board for.

It may have been irritating as a weapon, but it wasn't half as irritating as what it was responding to.

I liked Grav even though it screwed me as a Marine player. I think it needs to get rolled out to the other factions now that we're tying "element" to Anti-X. I'd even like to see them find a way to immunize Monstrous Characters, and give Flamers Anti-Monster (Which is more cinematic than scientific, but Flamers need to be thrown a bone too), leave Grav as Anti-Vehicle - tweak Plasma, Melta, and Las for generic different threat bands.

Breton wrote:They can, but then they're not Ravenwing. Your Chapter of Overly Verbose Liars by Omission are their own entity and also lose out on a ton of Relics - which you didn't point out in a fit of intellectual dishonesty. So they can have the Pick-Two Traits and one Relic with one Strat, or they have a bunch of Chapter Relics

I am not lying Breton, my successors on a Thursday if I choose to be ultras got a enhanced doctrine, psychic powers, strats, and access to the relics, even if by a strat. I still have access to all of their stuff bar characters, irrelevant of how I get to it.

You are also dishonestly portraying psychic powers. Every Subfaction had access to EITHER the armor based Psychic list (Phobos for Obscuration, or Librarius for everyone else) or their Chapter specific (subfaction) Discipline. You are trying to imply that a Ravenguard librarian had simultaneous access to 18 different powers. That is not the case for multiple reasons. They don't get all 18 at once, and even beyond that each individual Librarian only had access to this 6 or that 6 - two optional sets of 6 is only 12 in total. In other words a Phobos Librarian could not choose Librarius, a Librarian in Terminator could not choose Obfuscation and so none of them had "18" or even the more accurate 3 sets of 6 to choose 1 set from.

I haven't contradicted that fact at all, but when I build my army, there are 18 powers I can opt to include then pick the relevant minis to include them. How is that dishonest?

I don't think so. I have the codex here in front of me, and Armor type allowed all of one or all of the other. I also have two of the printed supplements (UM from 8th, and DA from 9th) and they both say All - Instead Of.

I think there's some quantum tunnelling going on, there was a FAQ about it but it might have been 8th, never the less, nice to have so many to pick from you need a limitation right?

No, in fact I have repeatedly pointed out they should have been - as best as is able based on some hard blockages by faction design - but weren't. But you knew that, and decided to imply otherwise. Even in replies directly to you I've pointed out some factions need a drastic/massive update/expansion. Like the Grey Knights when I pointed out why you dishonestly chose them - because they're one of the factions that needs expanding, same with Custodes, Drukhari, Votann and Sort-Of-GSC. The fact that some factions - not just subfactions - got screwed is not proof the game should be made even more vanilla, its just proof some factions got screwed despite your attempt to confuse and conflate the issue.

Need I remind you that you're in here arguing for more rules to make things "your guys" such as IF bolter discipline? You're actively saying that doesn't matter for some armies based on range size? Yu do know that adding 20 types of custodes units doesn't suddenly allow the player to feel like they're representing shadowkeepers right? They need some rules for that, such as a detachment or a chapter tactic.

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


Where the assertion was made that other armies had parity in 8th/9th and that has now been lost. Very simply they didn't, as the sheer breadth of options given over to the marines dwarfed the other armies, led to rules hopping and made internal balance impossible - hence why we now have "generic force type 1-6" that in theory all chapters benefit from regardless of build.

I see you're lying about my assertion as easily as you lie about how many options Marines have. I can't assert other armies had parity that was lost while also claiming multiple armies didn't have enough basic datasheets and needed expanding. Well not if I want to be honest. And I didn't. I pointed out there was SOME parity. I pointed out SOME factions suffered under the single template being used for these builds - the Chapter Tactics thing doesn't work for Orks. (again). Likewise trying to claim RG had massive numbers of options because UM, DA, and BA also had some options (that weren't available to RG) by lumping them all into "Marines" isn't all that honest. Ultramarines had something like 7 Relics. Which equated to a whopping zero options for Raven Guard. The core Aeldari book listed 14 relics. This does not mean Space Marines get access to 14 more options because I lump them both into "The Good Guys"

Sorry cupcake but they are all "codex: space marines", don't care what chapter you are, you're not a unique faction now.

This whole thing came around because I pointed out why chapter tactics going away is a good idea, apparently you've lost that and seemingly almost 180'd at tis point, but you are blind to the amount of balance issues that came from Marines in 9th:

An intercessor had to be balanced around 12 variations of doctrines, several dozen combinations of chapter tactic, access to being affected by an army with access to a total of 72 psychic powers, dozens of litanies, dozens of auras, hundreds of strats and relics.

No other army had this problem, becuase Marines had too much stuff.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Noir Eternal wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Also grav weapons, god grav was annoying.

Grav started in 6th (Centurions) and was just as bad as it was in 7th.

As a Marine player, Grav was an irritating mechanic but it's purpose was exceedingly clear. It was the answer to how out of control MCs had become. When the Lascannon is bouncing off MCs with 3++ invulns and 2++ cover saves, and only doing a single wound to an MC IF it gets through, the a multi-shot weapon that wounds easily and punched through armor is a solution you hop on board for.

It may have been irritating as a weapon, but it wasn't half as irritating as what it was responding to.

Misquote, I never wrote that. I also never played before 7th, so I have no idea what grav was like....

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:They can, but then they're not Ravenwing. Your Chapter of Overly Verbose Liars by Omission are their own entity and also lose out on a ton of Relics - which you didn't point out in a fit of intellectual dishonesty. So they can have the Pick-Two Traits and one Relic with one Strat, or they have a bunch of Chapter Relics

I am not lying Breton, my successors on a Thursday if I choose to be ultras got a enhanced doctrine, psychic powers, strats, and access to the relics, even if by a strat. I still have access to all of their stuff bar characters, irrelevant of how I get to it.

You had access to ONE relic by a One-Use Strat. They're not Ultramarines.They're XYZ Successor Chapter. GSC can take a Leman Russ, that doesn't make them Cadians. If you want to sit there and say your Yellow Marines counts as Ultramarines, sure. If you want to say your successor Chapter that picked two and had two spend 2 pregame CP (1 for the relic, 1 for the Chapter access) to give one guy a Chapter relic is Ultramarines, you're lying. Ultramarines have a discrete set of rules. Successor Chapter XYZ has a different discrete set of rules. That's what makes one Ultramarines, and one Successor Chapter XYZ.

You are also dishonestly portraying psychic powers. Every Subfaction had access to EITHER the armor based Psychic list (Phobos for Obscuration, or Librarius for everyone else) or their Chapter specific (subfaction) Discipline. You are trying to imply that a Ravenguard librarian had simultaneous access to 18 different powers. That is not the case for multiple reasons. They don't get all 18 at once, and even beyond that each individual Librarian only had access to this 6 or that 6 - two optional sets of 6 is only 12 in total. In other words a Phobos Librarian could not choose Librarius, a Librarian in Terminator could not choose Obfuscation and so none of them had "18" or even the more accurate 3 sets of 6 to choose 1 set from.

I haven't contradicted that fact at all, but when I build my army, there are 18 powers I can opt to include then pick the relevant minis to include them. How is that dishonest?

Its in the way you presented it. My librarians have access to 18 powers is not the same as my librarians have access to 3 powers which may come from either of two lists of 6. Its "figures don't lie but liars can figure".

I don't think so. I have the codex here in front of me, and Armor type allowed all of one or all of the other. I also have two of the printed supplements (UM from 8th, and DA from 9th) and they both say All - Instead Of.

I think there's some quantum tunnelling going on, there was a FAQ about it but it might have been 8th, never the less, nice to have so many to pick from you need a limitation right?

"I was wrong, but look at how it proves I was right!". As an extension of figures don't lie, but liars can figure let me again point out the limitation was generally Smite+2. I wouldn't say my farseer has access to 30 powers. But we've been over that difference already.

No, in fact I have repeatedly pointed out they should have been - as best as is able based on some hard blockages by faction design - but weren't. But you knew that, and decided to imply otherwise. Even in replies directly to you I've pointed out some factions need a drastic/massive update/expansion. Like the Grey Knights when I pointed out why you dishonestly chose them - because they're one of the factions that needs expanding, same with Custodes, Drukhari, Votann and Sort-Of-GSC. The fact that some factions - not just subfactions - got screwed is not proof the game should be made even more vanilla, its just proof some factions got screwed despite your attempt to confuse and conflate the issue.

Need I remind you that you're in here arguing for more rules to make things "your guys" such as IF bolter discipline? You're actively saying that doesn't matter for some armies based on range size? Yu do know that adding 20 types of custodes units doesn't suddenly allow the player to feel like they're representing shadowkeepers right? They need some rules for that, such as a detachment or a chapter tactic.

You can't remind me of something you're making up. My guys are not IF with Bolter Discipline. I'm not making a case for "my guys" at all. I'm making a case for EVERYBODY's guys.

And Holy Jesus you lie a lot. The fact that I counted out the datasheets strongly suggests that when adding units it would also add datasheets. Are you really stupid enough to lie about someone suggesting we add more units to a faction, but not the datasheets so they can paint the pretty models, but not actually use them? Especially in a discussion about game rules?

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


Where the assertion was made that other armies had parity in 8th/9th and that has now been lost. Very simply they didn't, as the sheer breadth of options given over to the marines dwarfed the other armies, led to rules hopping and made internal balance impossible - hence why we now have "generic force type 1-6" that in theory all chapters benefit from regardless of build.

I see you're lying about my assertion as easily as you lie about how many options Marines have. I can't assert other armies had parity that was lost while also claiming multiple armies didn't have enough basic datasheets and needed expanding. Well not if I want to be honest. And I didn't. I pointed out there was SOME parity. I pointed out SOME factions suffered under the single template being used for these builds - the Chapter Tactics thing doesn't work for Orks. (again). Likewise trying to claim RG had massive numbers of options because UM, DA, and BA also had some options (that weren't available to RG) by lumping them all into "Marines" isn't all that honest. Ultramarines had something like 7 Relics. Which equated to a whopping zero options for Raven Guard. The core Aeldari book listed 14 relics. This does not mean Space Marines get access to 14 more options because I lump them both into "The Good Guys"

Sorry cupcake but they are all "codex: space marines", don't care what chapter you are, you're not a unique faction now.

I'm not sure who wrote this but I'd like to point out a couple things: Calling someone "cupcake" in some sort of homophobic or sexually harassing insult isn't cool.
Second, yeah Marines still are a unique faction. Some of them are even a unique Subfaction. I'm arguing they (all subfactions of all factions) should be.

This whole thing came around because I pointed out why chapter tactics going away is a good idea, apparently you've lost that and seemingly almost 180'd at tis point, but you are blind to the amount of balance issues that came from Marines in 9th:

I'm not even sure who "you" are - I assume Dudeface based on the dishonesty and inaccuracy. I haven't 180'ed anything. I believe Chapter Tactics are a good thing. Variety is better than uniformity. Always have. Trying to lie about that is fairly transparent. We could just divide the tabletop in a 10 by 10 grid, with half the grid spaces unpassable terrain, get rid of all shooting and dice turning close combat into a victory for the winner, but only possible if the target model isn't directly supported by a model behind it with a forced consolidation one diagonal grid space behind the target model, but that's a little too uniform and "un-bloated" for my taste in 40K.

An intercessor had to be balanced around 12 variations of doctrines, several dozen combinations of chapter tactic, access to being affected by an army with access to a total of 72 psychic powers, dozens of litanies, dozens of auras, hundreds of strats and relics.

No other army had this problem, becuase Marines had too much stuff.

No it doesn't. The Chapter Tactics have to be balanced against themselves. If every RG model gets -1 to be hit, and every Imperial Fist gets -1 to be wounded, and every Iron Hand gets +1 to their Save - those are roughly balanced. There's a minor twitch here and there but they're all roughly equivalent. There is no need or purpose in caring if it's an Intercessor, or an Aggressor, or a Dire Avenger that's been subverted by a Genestealer Cult.. They make no difference to the balance. This Whatchamacallit is (roughly) 16% less likely to get hit, that one is 16% less likely to be wounded, and yet a third one is 16% more likely to ignore that wound because of an armor save. It gets a little more difficult to figure out how much faster a Jumping Flying Blood Angel or an advancing Assault gunning ground pounding Space Wolf has to get across the board and punch something vs 16% less likely to get hit/wounded/dead but that can be roughly balanced and still has nothing to do with Intercessor vs Aggressor vs Vanguard Vet vs Blood Claw.

I think at this point the two of you should restate your actual positions and stop the mess of broken-up quote trains that are increasingly nonsensical to read.

 Haighus wrote:
I think at this point the two of you should restate your actual positions and stop the mess of broken-up quote trains that are increasingly nonsensical to read.

Seconded!

 Haighus wrote:
I think at this point the two of you should restate your actual positions and stop the mess of broken-up quote trains that are increasingly nonsensical to read.

Variety is better than monotony. In all (sub)factions. Put another way its better to have no Meta than everyone in the Meta faction able to play the Meta List.

The template for Chapter Tactics doesn't work for every faction, so something similar but different should be whipped up when the faction doesn't fluff in a way that make Chapter Tactics Work - tho this is less important with the changes to enforcing "purity":

Top Level Faction apathy by GW has been far more detrimental to balance than Chapter/Hive/Craftword etc.

Adding the 6 Detachments was a step forward. Removing Chapter Tactics was two steps back.

Using both would make far more interesting games as each Chapter can take any of the 6 Dets then modify how it plays with their Chapter Tactic.

The only reason Chapter Tactics return should be first is because its quick.

The only reason expanding the "Oliver Twist" factions should be second is because it will take far longer to design, mold, produce, etc more kits and units, but it should be a priority put into high gear.

Breton wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
I think at this point the two of you should restate your actual positions and stop the mess of broken-up quote trains that are increasingly nonsensical to read.

Variety is better than monotony. In all (sub)factions. Put another way its better to have no Meta than everyone in the Meta faction able to play the Meta List.

The template for Chapter Tactics doesn't work for every faction, so something similar but different should be whipped up when the faction doesn't fluff in a way that make Chapter Tactics Work - tho this is less important with the changes to enforcing "purity":

Top Level Faction apathy by GW has been far more detrimental to balance than Chapter/Hive/Craftword etc.

Adding the 6 Detachments was a step forward. Removing Chapter Tactics was two steps back.

Using both would make far more interesting games as each Chapter can take any of the 6 Dets then modify how it plays with their Chapter Tactic.

The only reason Chapter Tactics return should be first is because its quick.

The only reason expanding the "Oliver Twist" factions should be second is because it will take far longer to design, mold, produce, etc more kits and units, but it should be a priority put into high gear.

Conversely I'm stating the new method is notably better as it doesn't punish people for paint jobs and doesn't hinder internal balance as much because there are fewer moving parts impacting the efficacy of units that are simply inaccessible to large chunks of that faction.

Chapter tactics flanderise based on paint job, restrict peoples ability for their army to perform on arbitrary means.

Unlike Breton I don't consider adding units to armies a solution or necessary for the player to have the army flavoured to their choice of subfaction or play style, although the new detachment system will be easier with bigger ranges.

Other than that I'm apparently a chronic liar about the fact space marines over the last 2 editions were one singular faction with too many layers of junk that made it impossible to balance correctly.

Breton wrote:

It took forever for the Space Communists meme to cycle through, if you didn't buy the codex you didn't know about it. The unilateral breaking of IGO-UGO is almost definitely the cause of the hate. There are a number of things to object to - they had the strongest and longest "trooper" guns, even over Loyalist and Chaos SM who have been fighitng the long war for 10,000 years against power armored foes but those were fairly minor things - JSJ is going to be one of the first things people who played in that era will point to.

You keep saying unilateral breaking of IGO-UGO? Why? The Tau could not move outside of their own turns. They, like Eldar jetbikes and warp spiders, could make a non-charge move in the assault phase. That is not breaking IGO-UGO any more than any unit running in the shooting phase. There were two types of units in the Tau 3rd and 4th ed book who could JSJ. Those in Stealth suits and those in Crisis suits. That's the exact same number as Eldar (jetbikes and warp spiders).

I'm not sure why you say their guns were "even" over loyalist and chaos space marines. When has it ever been said, outside of Imperium propaganda, that Space Marines have the best equipment in the galaxy? They have the best basic gear the Imperium can make, but that's the notably technologically stagnant and regressive Imperium.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Breton wrote:

It took forever for the Space Communists meme to cycle through, if you didn't buy the codex you didn't know about it. The unilateral breaking of IGO-UGO is almost definitely the cause of the hate. There are a number of things to object to - they had the strongest and longest "trooper" guns, even over Loyalist and Chaos SM who have been fighitng the long war for 10,000 years against power armored foes but those were fairly minor things - JSJ is going to be one of the first things people who played in that era will point to.

You keep saying unilateral breaking of IGO-UGO? Why? The Tau could not move outside of their own turns. They, like Eldar jetbikes and warp spiders, could make a non-charge move in the assault phase. That is not breaking IGO-UGO any more than any unit running in the shooting phase. There were two types of units in the Tau 3rd and 4th ed book who could JSJ. Those in Stealth suits (1 unit) and those in Crisis suits. That's the exact same number as Eldar (jetbikes and warp spiders).

I'm not sure why you say their guns were "even" over loyalist and chaos space marines. When has it ever been said, outside of Imperium propaganda, that Space Marines have the best equipment in the galaxy? They have the best basic gear the Imperium can make, but that's the notably technologically stagnant and regressive Imperium.

Also, it is the best basic equipment for their specific role as close range shock troops. Being sturdy enough to clobber an armoured foe over the head with it isn't a typical design consideration for Tau weaponry.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Breton wrote:

It took forever for the Space Communists meme to cycle through, if you didn't buy the codex you didn't know about it. The unilateral breaking of IGO-UGO is almost definitely the cause of the hate. There are a number of things to object to - they had the strongest and longest "trooper" guns, even over Loyalist and Chaos SM who have been fighitng the long war for 10,000 years against power armored foes but those were fairly minor things - JSJ is going to be one of the first things people who played in that era will point to.

You keep saying unilateral breaking of IGO-UGO? Why? The Tau could not move outside of their own turns. They, like Eldar jetbikes and warp spiders, could make a non-charge move in the assault phase. That is not breaking IGO-UGO any more than any unit running in the shooting phase. There were two types of units in the Tau 3rd and 4th ed book who could JSJ. Those in Stealth suits (1 unit) and those in Crisis suits. That's the exact same number as Eldar (jetbikes and warp spiders).

I'm not sure why you say their guns were "even" over loyalist and chaos space marines. When has it ever been said, outside of Imperium propaganda, that Space Marines have the best equipment in the galaxy? They have the best basic gear the Imperium can make, but that's the notably technologically stagnant and regressive Imperium.

It "breaks" IGO-UGO in that they get to move a second time before getting return fire. Everyone else has to march out, shoot, take any return fire, then they can move back out of LOS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
I think at this point the two of you should restate your actual positions and stop the mess of broken-up quote trains that are increasingly nonsensical to read.

Variety is better than monotony. In all (sub)factions. Put another way its better to have no Meta than everyone in the Meta faction able to play the Meta List.

The template for Chapter Tactics doesn't work for every faction, so something similar but different should be whipped up when the faction doesn't fluff in a way that make Chapter Tactics Work - tho this is less important with the changes to enforcing "purity":

Top Level Faction apathy by GW has been far more detrimental to balance than Chapter/Hive/Craftword etc.

Adding the 6 Detachments was a step forward. Removing Chapter Tactics was two steps back.

Using both would make far more interesting games as each Chapter can take any of the 6 Dets then modify how it plays with their Chapter Tactic.

The only reason Chapter Tactics return should be first is because its quick.

The only reason expanding the "Oliver Twist" factions should be second is because it will take far longer to design, mold, produce, etc more kits and units, but it should be a priority put into high gear.

Conversely I'm stating the new method is notably better as it doesn't punish people for paint jobs and doesn't hinder internal balance as much because there are fewer moving parts impacting the efficacy of units that are simply inaccessible to large chunks of that faction.

Chapter tactics flanderise based on paint job, restrict peoples ability for their army to perform on arbitrary means.

Unlike Breton I don't consider adding units to armies a solution or necessary for the player to have the army flavoured to their choice of subfaction or play style, although the new detachment system will be easier with bigger ranges.

Other than that I'm apparently a chronic liar about the fact space marines over the last 2 editions were one singular faction with too many layers of junk that made it impossible to balance correctly.

Again as I just made clear right before you lied about it, I don't think adding units is to make factions more flavored, I think some just plain need more units/rules period.

Chapter Tactics doesn't at all flanderise paint jobs because Chapter Tactics have little to nothing to do with paint jobs. Yellow Ultramarines are still Ultramarines. What matters are the rules not the paint job.

And as I pointed out if Everybody gets SOMETHING and each of those SOMETHINGs are roughly equal in value it doesn't affect internal balance.