|
TheChirurgeon posted:Oh sure, let's take all the variants, but then I can only take 3 land raiders, 3 Crusaders, and 3 Redeemers to transport them! WHAT THEN, rear end in a top hat You take the fw Achilles, prometheus, helios and relic proteus
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Maybe, it's been awhile since I looked at it. What's interesting is if you can make them all Troops. Regular Kill Teams and Primaris Kill Teams will probably be the only troop options. Reivers/Aggressors/Whatevers will be available as dedicated units. No need for an Intercessor datasheet.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:No see I can only take 3 10-man squads of DW terminators and 3 10-man squads of DW Knights and sure that's 2,130 points of stuff with no upgrades but I assure you MY ARMY IS IMPOSSIBLE, SIR Deathwing isn't mechanically good, so the armies I'm thinking of are the 40+ DW terminator armies that are sitting in people's closets since 4th edition. Sure they can shell out for knights or cataphractii or whatever, but that isn't actually good and it doesn't help people play with the models they already have.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
Booley posted:You take the fw Achilles, prometheus, helios and relic proteus 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
I'd like to see a Vanguard where all models have the Deathwing keyword get +5 CP or something like that. Deathwing are super CP thirsty.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:Regular Kill Teams and Primaris Kill Teams will probably be the only troop options. Reivers/Aggressors/Whatevers will be available as dedicated units. No need for an Intercessor datasheet. Deathwatch can take Intercessors as troops already I thought?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:Deathwing isn't mechanically good, so the armies I'm thinking of are the 40+ DW terminator armies that are sitting in people's closets since 4th edition. Sure they can shell out for knights or cataphractii or whatever, but that isn't actually good and it doesn't help people play with the models they already have. You can still take 30 regular-rear end combat-squaddable DW terminators without having to worry about datasheet restrictions, which gives you 780 points worth of models with no upgrades. You figure those armies also include some characters and dreadnoughts and land raiders and I don't see how this is a big issue, even if we're taking seriously the notion that 8th edition matched play balancing fixes need to cater to armies built for an edition that was released 15 years ago. e: and it's an easy jump for them to proxy their TH+SS DW as DW Knights with Power Mauls if they need to fit in another 10 models TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 20:01 on May 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:Deathwatch can take Intercessors as troops already I thought? I mean if you want to be a pedant sure they can take it from the Index, but they don't have SIA or any special rules. There's no reason to have a separate Intercessor sheet when the Primaris Kill Team will already be 5-10 Intercessors.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:You can still take 30 regular-rear end combat-squaddable DW terminators without having to worry about datasheet restrictions, which gives you 780 points worth of models with no upgrades. You figure those armies also include some characters and dreadnoughts and land raiders and I don't see how this is a big issue, even if we're taking seriously the notion that 8th edition matched play balancing fixes need to cater to armies built for an edition that was released 15 years ago. I don't actually give a poo poo about Deathwing. I don't play it, it was just an example I gave along with 120 points of kroot hounds being a max. I just know people that have armies were tournament legal a month ago, are absolutely terrible, are fluffy and are now illegal. Nobody's crying because the list was bad enough that it was for friendly games, but one of the advantages of 8th was that you could naturally do that sort of fluffy stuff without the system getting in your way too much and they got rid of that to attack something that they didn't really solve.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
Two Beans posted:Aren't there also veterans in power armor in the DA 1st company? The Dark Angels have power armored veterans, but they're in the standard companies rather than the first. They were added in 4th edition so GW could make a kit of robed marines. They've never been good because they lack the special issue ammo or jump packs that make sternguard and vanguard worth taking. Now they're equivalent to the command squad veterans from the standard marine book.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:Regular Kill Teams and Primaris Kill Teams will probably be the only troop options. Reivers/Aggressors/Whatevers will be available as dedicated units. No need for an Intercessor datasheet. You can make a Primaris Kill Team with Reivers/Aggressors/etc. From here: quote:What’s more, you’ll be able to assemble your Primaris Space Marines into Fortis Kill Teams – mixed formations that allow you to combine the strengths of Intercessors, Reivers, Aggressors and Inceptors into a cohesive and powerful whole. We’re very excited about this codex, and we’ll be running some in-depth previews next week to help you prepare!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
Corrode posted:The LGT have published everyone's lists today. Find them here to see some filth. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QuVR2KdfKO08bBLYw9vobghM_xwhejofmtyXQ7LgQU8/edit Stuff like this just makes me want to hit him with a rolled up newspaper. Also death to supreme command detachment.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
Artum posted:Stuff like this just makes me want to hit him with a rolled up newspaper. Exactly. PierreTheMime posted:Limit of 3 is a solid start, but they should still drop SC from matched options. Death to the Supreme Command detachment. Agreed that limit of 3 is a good start. It shows that GW is listening to players and is willing to act on feedback. Still some rough edges to hammer out though, and getting rid of the Supreme Command detachments seems like a decent way to move forward. Would any fluffy army be effectively destroyed by the removal of SC detachments from tourney play?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:Would any fluffy army be effectively destroyed by the removal of SC detachments from tourney play? Not that I can immediately think of. Not to mention that tournament play does not typically cater to fluff and the large majority of Supreme Command detachment users are looking to exploit the best possible HQ units with little downside. If they want to keep it for whatever reason, fine, but at a minimum it should have a significant CP hit. Better to destroy it, though.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:Exactly. It means my idea for a Pentagram of Primaris Psykers had to become a Triangle. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
The genestealer cult with their allied in stormlord and trojan is at least funny.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:Would any fluffy army be effectively destroyed by the removal of SC detachments from tourney play? I think the issue is less that and more that GW is making HQs too efficient. If any option is too good, people will find a way to abuse it. They'll be abusing it a bit less if they're forced to take outrider detachments or Patrols instead of Supreme Command, but they'll still abuse it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:I think the issue is less that and more that GW is making HQs too efficient. If any option is too good, people will find a way to abuse it. They'll be abusing it a bit less if they're forced to take outrider detachments or Patrols instead of Supreme Command, but they'll still abuse it. There's only so far you can go until the system of control makes everything else cumbersome enough to be a hindrance to the game. For the multiple Daemon Prince list you could opt to start controlling the limit of three using unit-specific keywords instead of literal unit entry names.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:I don't actually give a poo poo about Deathwing. I don't play it, it was just an example I gave along with 120 points of kroot hounds being a max. I just know people that have armies were tournament legal a month ago, are absolutely terrible, are fluffy and are now illegal. Nobody's crying because the list was bad enough that it was for friendly games, but one of the advantages of 8th was that you could naturally do that sort of fluffy stuff without the system getting in your way too much and they got rid of that to attack something that they didn't really solve. I'm confused about what your actual gripe is... is it that you can't take 40+ kroot hounds in your army anymore? You mention these fluffy armies that relied on 4+ copies of the same exact unit and I'm just not sure that's a real enough problem--do you have any specifi examples besides the easy-to-solve deathwing one? Like even my "super-fluffy" night lords army built several editions ago only had 3 units of Raptors and that's primarily because in prior editions when you weren't restricted on a per-datasheet basis, you were usually restricted on a force org chart basis, being able to fit only 3 FA or 3 HS or 3 Elite choices into a standard force org army without some kind of exemption.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
is it a rule of matched play that each army can only have three detachments total, or is that just something people are imposing for tournaments?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:You can make a Primaris Kill Team with Reivers/Aggressors/etc. From here: Yeah, that's the Primaris Kill Team I was talking about in that post. You'll still be able to take a squad of just Reivers or whatever, just like you can take a squad of just Vanguard Vets or Bikers.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
zeal posted:is it a rule of matched play that each army can only have three detachments total, or is that just something people are imposing for tournaments? A suggestion for competitive play by GW and also imposed by most standard tournament formats, but not an actual rule.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
General Olloth posted:A suggestion for competitive play by GW and also imposed by most standard tournament formats, but not an actual rule. thx
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
According to the LGT organisers on facebook they only have lists in for about 300 out of 440 players. I know geeks and “doing things to schedule” don’t always go together but my mind is boggling at the idea that nearly a third of people couldn’t get their armies in on time.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:I'm confused about what your actual gripe is... is it that you can't take 40+ kroot hounds in your army anymore? The gripe is more about band-aid rules that don't fix the core problems than anything else.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:The gripe is more about band-aid rules that don't fix the core problems than anything else. To your mind, what is/are the core problem(s) and how would fix it/them?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:56
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:The gripe is more about band-aid rules that don't fix the core problems than anything else. It absolutely does help fix the core problem, which is that in a game with as many units and possibilities as 40k getting point costs right on every unit is drat near impossible. Rule of three puts a safety valve on how badly a point mistake can skew list building and helps to reduce the number of incredibly polarised armies that are actually good, which is healthy for the game because such armies tend to give very boring play outcomes.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
zeal posted:is it a rule of matched play that each army can only have three detachments total, or is that just something people are imposing for tournaments? One of the 'suggestions' by GW; such suggestions are treated as hard rules in tourneys, but if your local store has a jerk you probably want to establish it beforehand since it's not Rules-As-Written.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
One_Wing posted:It absolutely does help fix the core problem, which is that in a game with as many units and possibilities as 40k getting point costs right on every unit is drat near impossible. Rule of three puts a safety valve on how badly a point mistake can skew list building and helps to reduce the number of incredibly polarised armies that are actually good, which is healthy for the game because such armies tend to give very boring play outcomes. The rule of 3 failed real hard when it comes to DE though. Like holy poo poo can you make a super competitive army out of nothing but copy + paste troops and transports. I get the feeling that Warriors, Ravagers, and Venoms are all going to get a point increase. In an upcoming tournament, mobility and objective control is going to be the key factor in every game because the primary, secondary, and tertiary's all include objective control. To be a DE army I'm going to need to get first turn or blast every single model off the board. Since I'm CWE, I assume that means getting first turn regardless. Boon fucked around with this message at 21:29 on May 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:To your mind, what is/are the core problem(s) and how would fix it/them? The core problem right now is that they're under costing high mobility HQ characters. Slamguinius, Daemon Prince with Wings, Flyrants, Tau Commanders, Jetbike Shield-Captains. There's a few other consistent issues (taking multiple phases, adding more models to the table than you started with) but these would be the big ones.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:The core problem right now is that they're under costing high mobility HQ characters. Slamguinius, Daemon Prince with Wings, Flyrants, Tau Commanders, Jetbike Shield-Captains. There's a few other consistent issues (taking multiple phases, adding more models to the table than you started with) but these would be the big ones. I don't agree. As of the FAQ, I find none of those things to be overly difficult as to be unfair. For a number of reasons, but mostly the: 1) Rule of three 2) Deep strike changes 3) Keyword changes
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
Boon posted:The rule of 3 failed real hard when it comes to DE though. Like holy poo poo can you make a super competitive army out of nothing but copy + paste troops and transports. I get the feeling that Warriors, Ravagers, and Venoms are all going to get a point increase. We'll see if dark eldar turn out to be some horror upon the tourney scene. I doubt it. But even if that's true, "this army is built around it's actual troop choices" seems fluffy and good. Especially compared to an army of 9 demon princes and basically no troops.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:We'll see if dark eldar turn out to be some horror upon the tourney scene. I doubt it. Yeah I agree - though I'm not sure what army effectively combats DE who get first turn - Tau? I haven't faced them yet - just theory hammer so I'm lacking critical experience. That said, you make a good point - but people spamming a unit aren't doing it for fluff reasons - it means there is a fundamental power advantage. So even if it makes more fluff sense it's still damaging to the game. Boon fucked around with this message at 21:38 on May 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
A deamon prince feels like one of those things that you should not see more than one of in an army or at least detachment. One is fine an easy to focus. Six or more is a bit ridiculous. Fluff wise I think there is rarely a time two or more princes are in the same sector and are not killing the poo poo out of the other for just existing. More stuff needs 0-1 restrictions like the T''''au commander. Edit: Death to supreme command too honestly. For_Great_Justice fucked around with this message at 21:46 on May 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
Boon posted:Yeah I agree - though I'm not sure what army effectively combats DE who get first turn - Tau? I haven't faced them yet - just theory hammer so I'm lacking critical experience. There are always going to be some units that are more valuable than other units, in a given tournament meta. Thus I agree, some units have fundamental power advantages. But that's just how it's going to be in reality. The goal isn't to remove power advantages, because that's impossible. IMO, the two goals are: 1. Make the difference in power advantages as small as possible to intra-army units (Ex/ Dreadnaughts vs Terminators, wyches vs wracks). 2. Make the power advantageous units the troop choices (or severely regulate so armies are NOT dumb poo poo like 9 plagueburst tanks or 9 demon princes). e: For_Great_Justice posted:A deamon prince feels like one of those things that you should not see more than one of in an army or at least detachment. One is fine an easy to focus. Six or more is a bit ridiculous. Yeah. Drukhari should have a 0-1 restriction on archons and then the other kabal hq is a drachon. JIZZ DENOUEMENT fucked around with this message at 22:14 on May 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
If everyone is taking X over the other choices then the points cost of X needs another look.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
Death to supreme command and a serious enough bonus to mono-faction armies that it gets evaluated as a credible alternative. Nothing rigidly outlawing other options, just make it so the act of including other stuff isn't a MathHammer exercise in plugging gaps as efficiently as possible with no cost for doing so.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
Back in the early days of 3rd edition you could reliably kill HQs by drowning them in roughly the equivalent of troops. If people are taking HQs over all else they're simply under costed.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
DancingShade posted:If everyone is taking X over the other choices then the points cost of X needs another look. There's always going to be an "X" though. The design structure of the game is such that, for a given tournament meta, something will be the most efficient. At which point people will take as much of "X' as they can. When that allotment is full, the they will then take "Xii". It doesn't matter if "X" is 1pt more efficient or 1000 pts more efficient, because the observable behavior in list building is ordinal preferences.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
Boon posted:The rule of 3 failed real hard when it comes to DE though. Like holy poo poo can you make a super competitive army out of nothing but copy + paste troops and transports. I get the feeling that Warriors, Ravagers, and Venoms are all going to get a point increase. My position on the Dark Eldar codex remains “this was probably a mistake”, and the above is why. In less than a month we’ll have a tonne of data from the LGT to see if that’s borne out.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 22:31
|
|