|
I'm thinking of getting a Stormlord to complement my IG army that's been getting overrun by my friend's chittering horde of 'nids off and on since 3rd edition. He has a certain penchant for throwing an impossible number of gaunts against my poor dogfaces and while the Stormlord may not be the most cost effective way of dishing out damage, it does have a certain allure. I'm confused about one of the rules, though. You can take 2 or 4 sponsons with lascannons and either twin heavy flamers or twin heavy bolters. The Steel Behemoth rule states among other things that the Stormlord can fire on units within 1", but only with the twin heavy bolter or twin heavy flamer. Does this mean that if I get swamped with gaunts, that only my hull mounted twin heavy bolter or twin heavy flamer can fire on them, or can my sponson mounted flamers/bolters also torch them? I want to take flamers on all the sponsons, but if they can't fire into close combat they're not going to get many opportunities to contribute to the battle.
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:03 |
|
|
PierreTheMime posted:Chiming in to say that Malanthropes are good, if not great. Back when they were 110pts they were an auto-take, now they're merely a solid choice. The Sex Cannon posted:Malanthropes are extremely good. I'm sure a nid player can better explain why, but they're a target priority when I play against nids. They're a cheap HQ, and a huge force multiplier. 30 termagants with one guy within 3" of a Malanthrope is very hard to shift, and since they're a 9-wound character, they can't be picked out like your other big bugs. I've seen one in every list when I play against nids. I'd say definitely get one. Broken Record Talk posted:Use them to babysit backfield Exocrines. xtothez posted:They're good for fairly static / monster-heavy lists if you need backfield synapse. If you consider that you're getting an untargetable Synapse unit that would otherwise cost 70 to 170pts, 140 for the shooting buff is OK. Thanks. Guess I'll pick one up then and see how it goes. I usually double up on Neurothropes but with enough strong bubble wrap (+1 save Jormungandr/6+ FNP Leviathan) and the -1 to hit I guess you might not need the extra psychic powers in the back line.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
ImAGeek 750827 9834021 cb9ee141f16b682adad10fb2c3079de3.jpeg posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:The Dreadspear Achillus looks identical to the Space Marine Contemptor’s melee weapon except for the mortal wound proc and potential bonus damage. Yeah, that's a good point. Maybe i'm just being reactionary. But jesus christ, I wouldn't want to face that thing. MasterSlowPoke posted:Someone who co-founded League of Legends was watching, and they were impressed with his sportsmanship and gave him a $5000 sportsmanship prize. He donated it to charity and it was matched by his employer and now GW. [/quote] I don't think it's that he carried on in itself, it's that he carried on in face of an opponent that took advantage of a technicality when it really was just an honest mistake.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:I'm not having a go at people giving money for whatever reason (as stated). I I'm just trying to figure out why him carrying on with a game he spent an hour setting up is apparently such a noteworthy and praiseworthy example of over the top sportsmanship that people are motivated by it. Because it seems like a run of the mill everyday gaming scenario to me. It feels a bit like if loads of people donated £20,000 to the RSPCA because he gave his opponent a swig from his canteen or let them reroll a D6, y'know? The issue, to me at least, is that the guy seemed to move his opponent's pieces fully intending to gently caress the guy over and declare it the end of the movement phase. A reasonable person would have said "Are you sure you want me to move these pieces?" before doing it. It was bad sportsmanship.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
it's a dakkaquote duders
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Dakka is best.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:it's a dakkaquote duders Well now I'm embarrassed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
No surprise as Dakka posters immediately find the most miserable possible take on anything, by making sure to fundamentally misunderstand what they're discussing in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
Going back to Soup discussion earlier. I am not a fan of it outside of Narrative play, because it makes the game much harder to balance. It also massively favors certain factions. In some ways it makes it even worse than the old allied rules from the previous edition, because it basically says if you are playing an army that came up short in the codex lottery, you're totally hosed in terms of filling in weaknesses. The competitive end of the game needs to strictly limit armies to a single codex, and stratagems from one codex should not have any bleed over effects into armies from other codices. This is just my strongly held opinion from a game balance stand point. Custodes release is a perfect example of this...now we have Custodes jet-bikes, the power of which in a competitive setting has yet to be demonstrated, but they basically are more useful to more competitive forces like AM(than their own actual army), who have absolutely nothing like that in their book, and drastically changes the style of play for them. The way I look at it is this...if Marines and Guard are meant to be in the same army, then put them in the same loving book.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
I like soup rules because they open up more variety in army composition and makes sense fluffwise. I do agree that it's harder to balance (see: kurov's aquila), but it could be limited without harming variety by limiting relics/stratagems from one faction only, and maybe not granting CP from detachments with other faction units in them. If need be there's other ways to balance it as well; points tax for allied units, one allied faction only, turn delay on allied units deploying, etc., this mostly just seems like growing pains from figuring out how to move allies into matched play.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
Riatsala posted:I'm thinking of getting a Stormlord to complement my IG army that's been getting overrun by my friend's chittering horde of 'nids off and on since 3rd edition. He has a certain penchant for throwing an impossible number of gaunts against my poor dogfaces and while the Stormlord may not be the most cost effective way of dishing out damage, it does have a certain allure. That's a weird way to spell Shadowsword. What Steel Behemoth means is that even if there are enemy units within 1", you may still fire all of your weapons. However, only your sponsons may fire at the enemy units within 1". And of course, if you're not surrounded, you may fall back as needed and still fire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
My limited impression of 8th edition (based entirely on 4 RTTs) is that CP reclamation is this editions free drop pods/razorbacks. I like the mixed armies, but the sheer synergies potential far outstrips other races and that needs to be actively balanced. We have to understand a couple of things a bout this: - CP and stratagems are a great mechanic - CP has an intrinsic points value (or PL), because the system is built on points, units are valued on points (or PL) and thus anything interacting in this system has a value in points whether stated or not - These are hard to balance and probably best done so by the 'market' feedback. That said, CP reclamation abilities need to be restricted. Imperial.soup armies are able to get multiple 5+ retain rolls for a single CP and may even retain opponents CP. Some armies are able to effectively double their CP which notably impacts play. I think GW should look at restricting CP reclamation to a single roll per, a blanket 6+, or X number per game turn to address this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Going back to Soup discussion earlier. One of the most baffling decisions GW has made recently from a balance perspective was the announcement that cross faction strategems are a thing- EG strategems from the main CSM book being able to affect Death Guard as long as the unit type was correct. It's just this insane rats nets of potential unintended rules interactions and I just do not understand what the benefit is. I broadly agree with you on your overall point- limiting armies to a single codex would enormously simplify game balance. I feel like in some ways it would make for more interesting decisions when it comes to list building as well because there wouldn't be an easy way to shore up weaknesses in a given codex. It might also mean that we just flat out don't see some armies because they don't have a broad model range and their weaknesses mean they just can't compete. Custodes might be an example of this, or Halequins, or Deathwatch, or Inquisition... the list can go on. Clearly the answer here is for GW to flesh out those model ranges more but we all know how long it takes them to produce more stuff. Edit: CP regeneration is certainly an issue but I really feel like the bigger problem is the ability to make lists that don't have any real weaknesses. It's just so easy to splash a Guard Battalion in to a marine army or whatever to give really cost effective screening units or access to heavy tanks. Pendent fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Feb 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
I like the Tyranid form of CP reclamation, things that eat brains let you spend a CP to gain D3 when they kill a character. So you actually have to do something to get it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
Even limiting Aquila to only when an enemy stratagem is within X" of the model would help a lot. It's pretty silly how punished cheap stratagems are against the Imperium.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
On one hand I broadly agree that we should really go back to the old way of 40k where you only got what was in your codex, but on the other hand I really want the ability to rope some Nurgle Daemon detachments into my Death Guard lists, and feel that Chaos not having access to Daemons and CSM together is really dumb. I'm conflicted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
Pendent posted:One of the most baffling decisions GW has made recently from a balance perspective was the announcement that cross faction strategems are a thing- EG strategems from the main CSM book being able to affect Death Guard as long as the unit type was correct. It's just this insane rats nets of potential unintended rules interactions and I just do not understand what the benefit is. They've actually managed this fairly well. There was an initial wtf when they announced it, but if you look at the Death Guard book it's very short on stratagems compared to a more normal codex. It seems like they completely intended for cross-faction stuff to work to expand that, and there's fairly important caveats in that it only works on things which are the same in both books (e.g. Cultists). Where there's been real and unintended problems, like with the Daemons stratagems affecting Morty/Magnus when they weren't supposed to, they've quickly worked to fix it. They're getting better and better at thinking these things through ahead of time, or recognising there's an issue and resolving it as soon as possible. I think one good fix for "soup" stuff is the rule implemented at London GT and which I'm thinking of including for Peaceful Negotiations (the event I'm going to run in August), which is that you can only have one detachment of each type. That way, you can't do double battalions with cheap troops to get tons of CP and also a bunch of killer stuff, and you're naturally limited in how much you can soup different faction's stuff together unless you want to give up faction bonuses. It limits stuff like the list that was posted before with the Sisters/Blangels etc. since you can't get the screening Scouts and cheap objective Sittersters and 14 CP and whatever else, you have to pick which of those things you want most.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
I put together some thoughts on GSC as I prep for Adepticon - starting an index review. If you're interested, check it out here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
Command points regen is a problem that GW will have to fix. I have played plenty of games now where a player has been continously able to get most of his points back every turn. It seems there are some armies which can continously just spam strong synergies with no cost.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Going back to Soup discussion earlier. There's two things fighting each other here. The first is that certain combinations are inherently superior, and flexibility enables players to maximize efficiency. The second is that combating that imbalance forces players or tournament organizers to impose artificial constraints that fractures the game and makes the end result something other than the 40K that the designers originally intended. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the designers never intended for 40K to be a purely competitive game; the latest Warhammer Community article practically etches that in stone. In your example, Marines and Guard are clearly meant to be in the same army. It's appropriate from a narrative perspective, it's appropriate from a historical perspective (such as other media like video games), and it's appropriate from a rules perspective. I imagine that in an appropriate narrative setting Adeptus Custodes, Saint Celestine, Blood Angels, Guard, and an Inquisitor are also meant to be in the same army. The issue is whether or not that best meets the needs of a competitive 40K environment, what happens when that attitude transitions to a competitive to a "friendly" gaming environment, and what can be done to ensure that everyone has a good time. So what can be done? Personally I think GW should accept that they can't have their cake and eat it too and create a new style of gameplay that is inherently competitive. Call it "tournament" or "competitive" play and emphasize that this style of play eliminates the narrative element of the game and focuses purely on winning. Then they should take a step back and solicit customer feedback. Offer some tentative rules and have the community answer three questions: 1. What does a purely competitive style of play look like? 2. What level of flexibility should players have in terms of army composition? 3. How does a purely competitive style of play differentiate from a casual style of play? Then solicit the feedback, wrap it up in a Chapter Approved, and then update it every year for a new tournament season.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
Foul Ole Ron posted:Command points regen is a problem that GW will have to fix. I have played plenty of games now where a player has been continously able to get most of his points back every turn. New Rule: "Armies may only use stratagems associated with the faction of their Warlord."
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
The whole cross faction stratagem thing along with relics is kind of confusing when it comes to genestealer cult for sure
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
Why not just restrict people to using the stratagems of the book their warlord is from? E: Beer4TheBeerGod posted:New Rule: "Armies may only use stratagems associated with the faction of their Warlord." 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 22:43
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:
It is only appropriate from a narrative perspective, and nothing else. There is a reason all the Space Marine Stratagems only work on Adeptus Astartes units, and Guilliman is the only thing in the entire codex that can buff non-Marine units, and even then it is clearly an after thought as in "oh man I suppose the Lord Commander of the Imperium should be able to buff something other than Ultramarines, right?" If Marines were meant to have hordes of weak screening dudes, then that would be a codex option, full stop. The ability to selectively pick "that which is best" from every army is certainly not fluffy from any standpoint no matter how much fanfic you write about how 3 Shield-Captains from the Emperor's personal guard found themselves leading a rag-tag bunch of Catachans. At the end of the day the game is only made worse by Soup. Not better. Saying "well what about Narrative play?" is dumb in of itself because Narrative play is by definition, NOT competitive. Beer4TheBeerGod posted:So what can be done? Personally I think GW should accept that they can't have their cake and eat it too and create a new style of gameplay that is inherently competitive. Call it "tournament" or "competitive" play and emphasize that this style of play eliminates the narrative element of the game and focuses purely on winning. Then they should take a step back and solicit customer feedback. Offer some tentative rules and have the community answer three questions: I've already brain dumped on Sex Cannon a long screed on what needs changed, but electronic rules is the most important. We need real time updates, and clear thought put into each rule written, and the associated cost that comes with playing it. Stratagems are perfect example of a good idea executed terribly. For example: 2 CP - You can intercept a deepstriking unit as long as it lands within 12 inches, and even then at -1 to hit, and it has to be an infantry unit, cause gently caress yourself. 3 CP - Shoot your obliterators twice and kill two separate units!! Stratagem power level is so all over the place that it really once again proves that they really didn't playtest it on a serious level. Your number 2 question is the easiest to answer. Armies have different play styles for a reason, SOUP basically makes army distinction between Chaos and Imperial forces 100% meaningless since keeping them in separate detachments is all that need to be done to gain the full swath of benefits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:It is only appropriate from a narrative perspective, and nothing else. There is a reason all the Space Marine Stratagems only work on Adeptus Astartes units, and Guilliman is the only thing in the entire codex that can buff non-Marine units, and even then it is clearly an after thought as in "oh man I suppose the Lord Commander of the Imperium should be able to buff something other than Ultramarines, right?" In fairness to obliterators, chaos can't regen command points like other armies so your not going to get it working more than once usually. Or if you do, it's a solid chuck of points used.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
Without the fun of scouring codexes for cross faction synergies, the game would be much simpler and boring. Hunting for and finding interactions between units is fun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
Hot take: competitive play is bad and it unravels the moral fabric of a civilized society. Funhavers rule, competitors drool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
Two Beans posted:Hot take: competitive play is bad and it unravels the moral fabric of a civilized society. Funhavers rule, competitors drool. No its the damned painters that awful. Bloody splitters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 23:33
|
|
|
The Sex Cannon posted:That's a weird way to spell Shadowsword. We actually had something come up in a game recently, and I couldn't find a consensus on other forums. How does Steel Behemoth interact with firing Overwatch while engaged by other units? We rolled off for it, since it basically decided the game (whether the Shadowsword got to shoot my friend's Flyrant and my Ghaz, while it was engaged by 2 dozens boyz and gaunts).
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
Milotic posted:Without the fun of scouring codexes for cross faction synergies, the game would be much simpler and boring. Hunting for and finding interactions between units is fun. When you play a faction that is not Chaos or Imperium and do not have the option of hunting for and finding interactions between units, and your opponent is playing such a faction, it is not fun. Cool interactions and combos are only good for the game if everyone has access to them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
Foul Ole Ron posted:Command points regen is a problem that GW will have to fix. I have played plenty of games now where a player has been continously able to get most of his points back every turn. I'm inclined to stop taking adept of the codex but its less out of fairness and more because I'm so loving tired of a single assault terminator getting to swing at my captain, hitting twice, wounding twice, and me failing both 3++s. t5 7 wounds 3+3++6+++ bring it motherfuckers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
Master Twig posted:When you play a faction that is not Chaos or Imperium and do not have the option of hunting for and finding interactions between units, and your opponent is playing such a faction, it is not fun. Cool interactions and combos are only good for the game if everyone has access to them. Very much this... Hot marine on marine action is fun (if you're into that sort of thing), but confining all balanced play to imperium matchups is really cutting the setting off at the knees. Looking at xenos, they end up needing utterly bonkers rules from their one brief moment in the sun. Generally they're not going to get a lot of time or attention from then on, and it looks like attention generally translates into power creep where GW design work is involved. Gorkspeed, all you wonderful Ork players.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
Behold: Still needs a second coat of red on the gems on the weapons, and some drybrushing on the weapon gold, but with the arms removable and many of the weapon parts push-fit for later swappability I’m happy to assemble him so he can go on the table, in all his massively overcosted glory. Edit: whoops, immediately realised I’d missed the shoulder pads and knees, picture updated. One_Wing fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Feb 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 00:02
|
|
|
To be fair, at this point the only faction without multiple armies to pull from are the orks, Necron, and (ironically) the Tau. Eldar/Deldar/Harlequin, Tyranids/Genestealer Cults, Imperium/Mechanicum/Marines, Chaos daemons/Chaos marines/Death Guard/Thousand Sons. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Feb 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:To be fair, at this point the only faction without multiple armies to pull from are the orks, Necron, and (ironically) the Tau. I certainly would not be upset to see allied armies for Orks, Necrons and Tau Vespid and Kroot for Tau Night Goblin style grots for Orks and a full Flayed One faction for Necrons similar to Flesh-eater Courts from AoS
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
AnEdgelord posted:I certainly would not be upset to see allied armies for Orks, Necrons and Tau Orks should be able to ally in 'umies as Digganobs. Also commie revolutionist grots. Gorkamorka knew what was up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
Expanding Xenos out into factions is certainly one way to go, I just somewhat doubt that they can actually spare the time and effort that could be making another exciting subfaction of the Imperium. Obviously I would personally like 40k a lot more if they did, but it's very contrary to their usual efforts. It may not even be up to them, if they have trouble selling enough Kroot and Orks to justify the development costs. I think a more realistic way to solve this might be on the rules end. Better organization, the ability to centrally update everyone's rules, and those updates coming pretty regularly... Even this seems like a bit of a stretch, but I'd beleive free online rules with a more active design team before I would a massive ammount of model and rulebook support for Xenos.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 01:31
|
|
|
I'm not sure I understand how people are getting multiple CP reclamation items into one list. Since they are relics can't you only take the one from the faction your warlord belongs to?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:03 |
|
|
muggins posted:I put together some thoughts on GSC as I prep for Adepticon - starting an index review. If you're interested, check it out here. This is awesome btw, looking forward to the next installments.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2018 01:39
|
|