|
I think the biggest problem GW has had with rules writing is their refusal to stick with the concept of Universal Special Rules. Every unit in every faction NEEDS its own special rules, rather than sticking to what's solely in the BRB in their eyes. Age of Sigmar had the absolute worst example of this, with a bajillion different names for shields that gave +1 to your armour save. It might end up being more limiting but at least everyone would know what their rules were, without needing to look at the other person's codex or, to feel compelled to own every codex, just to keep that poo poo straight. Edit: Why am I top of the page? I got nothing 40k at the moment so, have a Bob. 
Irate Tree fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Nov 26, 2017 |
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
Irate Tree posted:I think the biggest problem GW has had with rules writing is their refusal to stick with the concept of Universal Special Rules. Every unit in every faction NEEDS its own special rules, rather than sticking to what's solely in the BRB in their eyes. Age of Sigmar had the absolute worst example of this, with a bajillion different names for shields that gave +1 to your armour save. I do agree that GW really should just make absolutely universal special rules, but AoS isn't a great example of why that's needed, given that the warscroll format means you don't have to flip around in books to find out what those special rules mean. Like, yeah, there are dozens of "This rule means your shield gives you +1 to your armour", but it's on the same page as all of the rest of that unit's special rules, it's not a huge deal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Pretty early in the process, but this helm looks great on this model!
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:I don’t think all those negative comments are spot on but honestly at this point the amount of changes that have been needed to fix 8th is quickly approaching what was needed to fix 7th. There was a level of detail that I really enjoyed about 7th and with its own chapter approved you could’ve largely accomplished the same thing they are doing here. It does feel like a lot of the claims were overblown especially in terms of game simplification, turns out Less rules can make things worse. So far there's been three broad kinds of changes to 8E matched play:
Two of those were intended to tweaked from day 1, which is why they're listed separately from the core rules & datasheets. The intention was always to 'patch over' them based on player feedback. The latter was recently acknowledged as a mistake by the lead designer, who said they're not going to rush into changes like that again. Instead they're implementing a more predictable schedule for updates without fundamentally changing codexes straight after release. It's heartening to see that GW are capable of listening not just to feedback on the rules themselves, but also willing to adjust the whole feedback process when needed. Corrode posted:This is good stuff. The salt on Dakka is unreal right now; after years of complaining that GW releases broken stuff and never fixes anything, they've now pivoted hard to the opposite angle because everything is changing too much and they can't cope. Yeah it's pretty clear many of these folks are showing the stereotypical nerd trait of having little to no real-world experience. It was never, ever realistic for a game with 30 years of baggage and a requirement for more future content to have perfect rules on day 1 (or even ever) and still be a fun product. But they're unwilling to even acknowledge the progress made and still want to keep spewing toxic comments because they didn't get every single one of their pet suggestions. What other possible course of action can you take for not getting your own way than to stamp your feet and toss out insults to everyone involved?!? PierreTheMime posted:That’s a great model you don’t see much of any more. Very menacing and a great Swarmlord choice. That's cool, I love that you did the double tail from the original artwork.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
xtothez posted:So far there's been three broad kinds of changes to 8E matched play: It would be really nice to move to some sort of living rule system instead of just mountains of books though. As long as it wasn't locked to one single platform.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Maximum copyright my dude. Man I hate what copyright law does to language. So many brand names are intentionally misspelled so they can be original enough for copyright. Its so weird. English in 100 years is going to look like player names in an MMO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Man I hate what copyright law does to language. So many brand names are intentionally misspelled so they can be original enough for copyright. Its so weird. I can't wait to name my firstborn xXx_sEpHaRoTh_xXx.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
xtothez posted:Also, WIP on my latest project - a Swarmlord conversion that looks suitably unique compared to my other Hive Tyrants. I think despite it's age, this sculpt still stands up pretty well and it's certainly a lot more dynamic than the current HT model. All this looks fantastic. The Red/Blue contrast is just so great, those dudes in the back all look amaaaazing. I'm still trying to decide how to build my Tyrant. I actually have the Forge World twin-linked brainleech worm devourers and I was always intending to build it as a flyrant gunner as was the way in 7th, but I never got around to him, and now that seems to have fallen out of fashion. Tempted to go with a Swarmlord. Always thought he looked cool. I'm planning on fielding these guys as Jormun and so I kinda wanna embrace no flying units from a fluff / build restriction standpoint.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
xtothez posted:Yeah it's pretty clear many of these folks are showing the stereotypical nerd trait of having little to no real-world experience. It was never, ever realistic for a game with 30 years of baggage and a requirement for more future content to have perfect rules on day 1 (or even ever) and still be a fun product. Let's put this another way: when a new Codex drops or a new update gets made, almost every goon reading this thread (with the obvious exception of goose willis) can probably tell you exactly what's wrong with it - which units are poorly costed, which synergies are just too good, which units are likely to become auto-includes because of other rules interactions - and that analysis is usually pretty loving on-point. So if a bunch of mouth-breathing nerds on the dead comedy internet forum somethingawful dot com can do it, why does it consistently seem to escape "professional" game designers?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
SteelMentor posted:I can't wait to name my firstborn xXx_sEpHaRoTh_xXx. Fools, just become a freeman on the land and your name can never truly be invoked without a long sequence of hand motions and chicken noises!
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
How would "Tau" even result in any copyright disputes when it's a loving letter in the Greek alphabet
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
goose willis posted:How would "Tau" even result in any copyright disputes when it's a loving letter in the Greek alphabet It being a letter of the alphabet kind of stops you copyrighting it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
goose willis posted:How would "Tau" even result in any copyright disputes when it's a loving letter in the Greek alphabet Doesn't that mean that GW wouldn't have been able to copyright it themselves?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
goose willis posted:How would "Tau" even result in any copyright disputes when it's a loving letter in the Greek alphabet That’s the point. GW couldn’t really defend the name is court because its use is considered a generic term. Anyone could sell alien models and label them Tau and it would be tough to defend. T’au is distinctive enough to work. Basically Chapter House made them really wary of using anything that could be interpreted as generic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
PierreTheMime posted:That’s the point. GW couldn’t really defend the name is court because its use is considered a generic term. Anyone could sell alien models and label them Tau and it would be tough to defend. T’au is distinctive enough to work. On a related note them not calling the space marine book Codex: Astartes is a loving travesty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
So if a desige er has stated that the whole commissar rules change was a bit hasty, is there any chance it might get reversed? I mean, now that conscripts are 4 pts would it be that bad to have old-style commissars? I hope they update it in some way. Currently commissars are a liability for my guardsmen as often as a help - that might actually be a good commentary on battle discipline enforced by field executions, but I just painted all these loving commissars!
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Genghis Cohen posted:So if a desige er has stated that the whole commissar rules change was a bit hasty, is there any chance it might get reversed? I mean, now that conscripts are 4 pts would it be that bad to have old-style commissars? I hope they update it in some way. Currently commissars are a liability for my guardsmen as often as a help - that might actually be a good commentary on battle discipline enforced by field executions, but I just painted all these loving commissars! Not really, as if they cost the same as guardsmen there's not really any good reason to use them when you can combine squads instead and have 14 bodies between a special weapon and danger.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Ilor posted:Let's put this another way: when a new Codex drops or a new update gets made, almost every goon reading this thread (with the obvious exception of goose willis) can probably tell you exactly what's wrong with it - which units are poorly costed, which synergies are just too good, which units are likely to become auto-includes because of other rules interactions - and that analysis is usually pretty loving on-point. So if a bunch of mouth-breathing nerds on the dead comedy internet forum somethingawful dot com can do it, why does it consistently seem to escape "professional" game designers? I don't think this is totally fair. Most people aren't taking a surgical knife to the books and finding all the issues within minutes of release. Instead they're echoing what shakes out of it later, when people who are genuinely good at identifying those kind of synergies have already done the work. Realistically there's probably a handful of people, probably in the low hundreds at an absolute maximum, who actually identify most issues and exploit them before they're common knowledge, and understand what they're doing. Meanwhile the striking characteristic of most balance discussion on Dakka et. al is that the majority of the people involved can't even conjure up cogent explanations for the points they're making, and they constantly misidentify the issues or propose things which are completely insane as if they were the only reasonable option. Even when there's clear problems (Conscripts are showing up en masse to the exclusion of all else, Guilliman is in every list, people are taking 10 Primaris Psykers because Smite is so good), they often don't understand the core issue or an approach to fixing it, never mind that many of them can't separate "game balance issues" from "game as reflection of narrative" issues. People ITT are better, and even the more casual players here generally have a better grasp of the game than your bog-standard Internet 40k fan, but there's only a very short list of people I'd trust to be able to give coherent explanations of what's unbalanced, why that is and what would make it work better. GW's particular problem is that they don't actually have that strong of a grasp on the issues themselves. We talked about this upthread with the special weapons thing, but it's applicable more generally. A lot of this is historic, from when the company's attitude was actively against the idea of competitive play, but fundamentally their designers don't have the mindset that it takes to wring out the optimal stuff from a book, never mind the depth of knowledge of what other people are doing with all the other possible options and then applying that. Even now that they're engaging with independent events, promoting "matched play" as a distinct thing which deserves attention, working to make regular balance updates, etc. etc. they still don't have that fundamental starting point. It's going to take longer than 18 months or however long "New GW" has been a thing for that to change. There's the additional factor that the playtesting which happens isn't necessarily between high-tier competitive players, and given the project timelines in place it's very likely that the internal meta of GW is very different from what's out there in the real world, plus the obvious point that the best studio in the world would still play a hundredth of a percent of the number of games the wider fanbase is going to play within a week of release. e: Also, remember that their main source of feedback is probably going to be the exact people I talked about above who can barely string a sentence together. Let's say you're GW and you release the Guard codex, which is met with absolute fury online. You'd need a strong understanding and commitment to your vision to sort the wheat from the chaff, and although they have more of both than they have for several years, they're still prone to overreacting, as the changes Guard have experienced neatly demonstrate. Living Image fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
TKIY posted:It's the no-win situation. They issue FAQs and adjustments and people get angry about outdating codexes. Other devs have said that books aren't really money makers anyway. Drop the price to $19.99 so players aren't so mad when their stuff immediately changes. Or make it all free and have the rules sell the models.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
muggins posted:Other devs have said that books aren't really money makers anyway. Drop the price to $19.99 so players aren't so mad when their stuff immediately changes. Or make it all free and have the rules sell the models. I suspect their accountants would disagree. They're not as good as models for obvious reasons, but they're a revenue stream that a company would be insane to give up unless it had very clear forecasting which showed dropping the price or making them free would give a better return than the current set-up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Corrode posted:I don't think this is totally fair. Most people aren't taking a surgical knife to the books and finding all the issues within minutes of release. Instead they're echoing what shakes out of it later, when people who are genuinely good at identifying those kind of synergies have already done the work. Realistically there's probably a handful of people, probably in the low hundreds at an absolute maximum, who actually identify most issues and exploit them before they're common knowledge, and understand what they're doing. Meanwhile the striking characteristic of most balance discussion on Dakka et. al is that the majority of the people involved can't even conjure up cogent explanations for the points they're making, and they constantly misidentify the issues or propose things which are completely insane as if they were the only reasonable option. Even when there's clear problems (Conscripts are showing up en masse to the exclusion of all else, Guilliman is in every list, people are taking 10 Primaris Psykers because Smite is so good), they often don't understand the core issue or an approach to fixing it, never mind that many of them can't separate "game balance issues" from "game as reflection of narrative" issues. Coming from MTG I will say that even when the designers have a good grasp on their game, to the point that making and designing cards is practically down to a science, they will STILL gently caress it up horribly on occasion (Energy, JTMS, Skullclamp). Realistically something that would help is outright hiring people who have done game design for competitive systems but even then it will NEVER be perfect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Corrode posted:I suspect their accountants would disagree. They're not as good as models for obvious reasons, but they're a revenue stream that a company would be insane to give up unless it had very clear forecasting which showed dropping the price or making them free would give a better return than the current set-up. It's definitely a shift for someone like GW, but it's working great for other companies. "free rules" is a great selling point especially when someone gets the sticker shock from walking by the line of huge $$$ boxes. Whether or not gw has business analysts to forecast that stuff I dunno. Otiose in a niche
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Anyone have experience with Tau Stealth Cadre armies? Some Commanders, a couple Ghostkeels, stealth suits, perhaps some crisis suits? I have a huge tau army from like 15 years ago, but they are all painted poorly and all my crisis suit ankles broke off. Just thinking about buying that new army box for them (or two). The Rapid Insertion  Cadre box.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Artum posted:Not really, as if they cost the same as guardsmen there's not really any good reason to use them when you can combine squads instead and have 14 bodies between a special weapon and danger. I must have expressed that badly - I'm fine with conscripts being generally worse (in a vacuum) than Infantry Squads, I think that if Commissars were the index/print codex rules, it would balance them nicely - Conscripts would be better at strictly meatshielding work, and the big units could take heavy casualties and keep trucking, while Infantry Squads would be the go-to choice for anything else. I just want to know if it's likely they will change the Commissar rules back. Cause currently, yeah, I agree with you, Conscripts are 100% pointless. I agree with Corrode's points, really. There was some talk they were having the playtesting done externally by some tournament players though? Surprised such things still get through the cracks - it would be so easy for them to identify a few dozen experienced TOs or competitive players, NDA them, and distribute a list of suggested points changes before going to print. Even such a minor process would root out a lot of these random changes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Genghis Cohen posted:I must have expressed that badly Ditto, my point was that as long as they cost the same as guardsmen, guardsmen are better at meat shielding and reversing the comissar buff wouldn't help conscripts appreciably.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Ilor posted:I agree that they're way overreacting, but I think this is a bit of a cop-out too. Think about it in reverse - GW has been doing this for 30 years, so presumably they have a lot of experience with game design. That being the case, why the gently caress can't they seem to get it right? If you look at the pattern of new edition releases for the last 20+ years, it's always huge enthusiasm followed quickly by bitter disappointment as they prove once again that they just can't help themselves and consistently gently caress it up. I agree with whoever said that a strict adherence to USRs would help tremendously. There are moments of brilliance out of GW (I think command points and stratagems are really cool), but stuff like keywords have huge potential that have really been squandered through lackluster execution and inattention to detail. Rebalancing is great, but not until you have a framework to support it (free, downloadable, digital rules and a fully supported on-line army-building tool). This is a really good post and I think it's worth of a thoughtful response because it's something I've thought a lot about myself. I think there's two interrelated causes that GW is still attempting to cope with. The first piece here is institutional knowledge, or more accurately the lack thereof. It's possible that some other reading I'm doing is influencing how I read this but I think the crux of what has happened is that when GW chose to withdraw entirely from the community and be a "models first" company they lost a lot of knowledge about writing a competitive ruleset. 8th is their first real attempt at making a good, balanced game in something like a decade and I think that time hurt them very badly. In that context I feel like what we've seen so far is fairly reasonable- but only as long as it's clear that they are trying to improve and are actually responsive to fixing issues with the ruleset in a timely manner. The other side of this is that I'm fairly sure a lot of their rules writers still have a tendency to think of the game from a narrative perspective first and foremost. Back during 7th it was clear that they released a lot of rules that were super cool from a narrative perspective (Shifting Worldscape anyone?) but would completely break the game competitively. These days the problems are(were) things like Conscripts with Commissars with are fluffy as hell and probably seemed like a no-brainer to add from a narrative perspective but again, sort of broke the game. Unlike a year or two ago they're at least fixing the huge problems but I won't deny it feels a bit messy in the meantime. I overall remain very hopeful about 8th. I get why some people are a bit unhappy but I personally have enjoyed it a ton even if it does have a few warts. When I look back 7th, which is when I started playing, seems like such a slog and the shorter games mean that I've probably already played more games of 40k in 8th than I did during the entire duration of 7th. Pendent fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
dexefiend posted:Anyone have experience with Tau Stealth Cadre armies? It's good - the ghostkeel is very tanky, the stealth suits are surprisingly durable and can drop your manta strikes where you need them, and commanders are very good at blasting things. Main problem with that box is that crisis suits can't shoot for poo poo, but you can solve that by using them as extra commanders, or in a pinch taking them as bodyguards with flamers for abative wounds for your commander.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
muggins posted:It's definitely a shift for someone like GW, but it's working great for other companies. "free rules" is a great selling point especially when someone gets the sticker shock from walking by the line of huge $$$ boxes. Whether or not gw has business analysts to forecast that stuff I dunno. Otiose in a niche It's a no-selling point because you don't make any sales. There's nothing wrong with it as a strategy - putting out free rules to entice people to try them in the hope that they then buy into the game is an effective way to break in - but it's not the only strategy like nerds seem to think it is. GW has giant market power and brand recognition, and in many areas it's 40k or nothing. They have no reason to give away for free what they can get people to pay £20-50 for, unless analysis shows that cutting out £x million of book sales would be rewarded with £>x million of miniature purchases by people who wanted to get involved but didn't because they didn't want to buy the books. Agree that there's every chance they have no idea whether that's true or not and they're winging it, because nothing would surprise me with them, but I'd hope they've at least attempted it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
I think a better change would have been to make it a +5 for the commissar's old rule to work on a conscript squad. They're not disciplined soldiers having a commanding officer shoot what's basically a civilian with a gun isn't likely to restore order.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Pendent posted:This is a really good post and I think it's worth of a thoughtful response because it's something I've thought a lot about myself. Corrode posted:It's a no-selling point because you don't make any sales. There's nothing wrong with it as a strategy - putting out free rules to entice people to try them in the hope that they then buy into the game is an effective way to break in - but it's not the only strategy like nerds seem to think it is. GW has giant market power and brand recognition, and in many areas it's 40k or nothing. They have no reason to give away for free what they can get people to pay £20-50 for, unless analysis shows that cutting out £x million of book sales would be rewarded with £>x million of miniature purchases by people who wanted to get involved but didn't because they didn't want to buy the books. These are good posts. I remember making multiple posts about this, but for decades GW was a company with no marketing expertise. In addition to their game design and studio investments, it appears that the recent management shake-ups have also resulted in a renewed focus on marketing. They're a company who, by sheer inertia and huge startup barriers, maintained a leadership position in an industry while being terribly managed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Blood Angels codex pre-preview plus some other stuff.quote:You’ll now be able to clad the Archangels – the legendary, Terminator-armoured first company of the Blood Angels – in Cataphractii and Tartaros armour, diversifying the range of tactical options available to you. If you prefer aerial warfare, this codex sees the Blood Angels gain access to the popular Stormhawk Interceptor and well as the Stormtalon Gunship. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Strobe posted:Blood Angels codex pre-preview plus some other stuff. Not unexpected but definitely welcome news. I've been longing for a Cataphractii Captain for a little while now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Flavivirus posted:It's good - the ghostkeel is very tanky, the stealth suits are surprisingly durable and can drop your manta strikes where you need them, and commanders are very good at blasting things. Main problem with that box is that crisis suits can't shoot for poo poo, but you can solve that by using them as extra commanders, or in a pinch taking them as bodyguards with flamers for abative wounds for your commander. I've had great success just running commanders, stealth suits, and a unit of 9 crisis body guards (double flamer + burst cannon) accompanied by 18 drones. I've been pairing them with a couple devilfish full of breachers, but ghostkeels are probably just as good if not better. It's kind of hilarious watching people's reactions to danger close tau.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Pendent posted:Not unexpected but definitely welcome news. I've been longing for a Cataphractii Captain for a little while now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
So I guess those rumours of new models (40k, not Necromunda) being shown at this event were just that, rumours? Shame, I got my hopes up for new Eldar stuff a bit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
You know, on second look at that Blood Angels upgrade sprue I can't help but notice a distinct lack of nipple armor, likewise for that unique Lieutenant. This is bordering on unacceptable 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Ilor posted:I agree that they're way overreacting, but I think this is a bit of a cop-out too. Think about it in reverse - GW has been doing this for 30 years, so presumably they have a lot of experience with game design. That being the case, why the gently caress can't they seem to get it right? If you look at the pattern of new edition releases for the last 20+ years, it's always huge enthusiasm followed quickly by bitter disappointment as they prove once again that they just can't help themselves and consistently gently caress it up. I agree with whoever said that a strict adherence to USRs would help tremendously. There are moments of brilliance out of GW (I think command points and stratagems are really cool), but stuff like keywords have huge potential that have really been squandered through lackluster execution and inattention to detail. Rebalancing is great, but not until you have a framework to support it (free, downloadable, digital rules and a fully supported on-line army-building tool). As Pendent said, GW are just finding their feet at this. They haven't spent 30 years doing this at all; it was nearly 3 decades of beerhammer and forging the narrative, then only the past year or so has been about designing games actually intended for balanced, competitive play. That's like a company deciding it now wants to make racing cars alongside family saloons; totally different design goals. What's more, they have a bigger problem in learning which feedback to listen to. Sure, several people here can provide constructive arguments backed up by experience. But how do GW know to look here? Many more online 40k communities are more like Dakka, full of anti-GW vitriol, bias or both. I've legit seen people argue that Taudar at the height of 6E/7E were underpowered and Nids were OP. Filtering out comments like that takes a huge amount of experience, or a very large sample size. It's gonna take a while for them to get that process right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Corrode posted:It's a no-selling point because you don't make any sales. There's nothing wrong with it as a strategy - putting out free rules to entice people to try them in the hope that they then buy into the game is an effective way to break in - but it's not the only strategy like nerds seem to think it is. GW has giant market power and brand recognition, and in many areas it's 40k or nothing. They have no reason to give away for free what they can get people to pay £20-50 for, unless analysis shows that cutting out £x million of book sales would be rewarded with £>x million of miniature purchases by people who wanted to get involved but didn't because they didn't want to buy the books. Yea I didn't say it's the only strategy, but certainly if you did that analysis and it showed positive is what I was talking about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Pendent posted:You know, on second look at that Blood Angels upgrade sprue I can't help but notice a distinct lack of nipple armor, likewise for that unique Lieutenant. This is bordering on unacceptable You may have to greenstuff up some nipples. Or call the Kingdom Death guys, I hear they have spares.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
SpikeMcclane posted:I've had great success just running commanders, stealth suits, and a unit of 9 crisis body guards (double flamer + burst cannon) accompanied by 18 drones. I've been pairing them with a couple devilfish full of breachers, but ghostkeels are probably just as good if not better. It's kind of hilarious watching people's reactions to danger close tau. If you charge a unit with 18 flamers... that's 18d6 overwatch shots that always hit, right? That is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:56
|
|