Jump to content

Welcome to The Bolter and Chainsword
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Get Ready For Chapter Approved


  • Please log in to reply
758 replies to this topic

#701
Tamiel

Tamiel

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 54 posts

@Tamiel

The codex is indeed lacking in some areas, but Guilliman is by no means the only effective way to play. As missions become more objective and mobility focused his impact will be lessened. You need to adjust. Are you using Inceptors for example?

Also, were you expecting rule changes and new datasheets for existing units? They never promised this in truth.

I've tried quite a few different lists. In all of them, the ones with Guilliman (all games were objective based) has done much better than the ones without Guilliman. Whether I include Inceptors or not, Guilliman is always doing so well that the lists he's not in do not feel or perform as good. 

I believe that in tournament play, too, Guilliman is present in pretty much every Ultramarine list. The only way to play? Of course not. The way to play that is the most effective? Tournament data, my own personal testing data, community agreement, and math seems to think so. All of these things could be wrong, and even if they're right I can't source all of them, but I'll take my stake on that side.

I don't want Guilliman to be nerfed, as even with him at our side, we are not an OP army. And I think our codex is definitely starting to show its age.

And no, I wasn't expecting rule changes, but point changes to named characters like Cato Sicarius, or better point reductions on drop pods (and landspeeders) would have been great. A re-working of Smite would have also been great.

It may sadden you to hear that I am not happy with CA, but I'm not saying all of this to be negative. It's on us as consumers to voice our concerns so that GW can have valid feed back. Hopefully they take that feedback and do better with it next year.

I'm simply disappointed with CA, and I'm hoping GW does better next time.


Edited by Tamiel, 05 December 2017 - 10:59 AM.

  • D3L likes this

#702
Pentharian

Pentharian

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 279 posts
  • Gender:Male
I know that I'm in the odd camp, but I am actually glad that vehicle facing and firing arcs are a thing of the past. It is far more realistic without these constraints to the pacing of a battle. These rules, along with initiative, are useful when you are playing a battle blow-by-blow - Dungeons & Dragons Style. It does not translate very well when you are focusing on the entire battle rather than one move within it.

I completely understand preferring that slow punch by punch style of game, and from time to time I do as well, I am simply glad that 40K is not that game.

The game is far more tactical without them. They are a crutch, with the rules dictating tactics to you, rather than rewarding players for controlling the battlefield. Tactics should never be baked in. You don't have to reward good tactics in the system, because the battlefield will adjust to your smart moves. You don't need lower armor in the rear of the vehicle, because if you show up behind the vehicle I guarantee you the opponent's strategy will shift dramatically as soon as you do. Armor facing does not change that. Firing arcs do not change that.

I will, however, agree on the Oddity of flame weapons and their interaction with Flyers.

I also I'm a fan of the everything can wound everything. Not just from a game balance point of view, where it is a clearly Superior mechanic, but also from a war point of view. Many types of Special Forces and other high-risk military outfits stress to their soldiers that there is no such thing as a useless situation. Your last pistol may do nothing more than take out the tyranids eye (1 hp), enraging it perhaps, but slowing it ever so slightly enough that the comrades who survive you have a better chance. That there are three to four difficult dice rolls required to achieve that result properly represents that unlikelihood.

Babble babble, I have opinions on the internet.
  • Jack of the Pelt, Kisada, Bryan Blaire and 4 others like this

eclipse.png


#703
DuskRaider

DuskRaider

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 3,577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Albany, NY
  • Chapter Name: Death Guard, 3rd Grand Company

Actually I think if anything, firing arcs, armour value variations, the ability to wound and initiative lent itself MORE to tactics than anything else. You had to be two steps ahead in the thought process; be it ensuring your vehicle has a view of the intended target and it was protected from any kind of ambush or if the unit you have on hand is a hard counter to whatever you're about to encounter or even if it's a wise move to assault that opposing squad since they have a higher initiative and could potentially wipe you out before you even swung. Now all you need is a bunch of flashlights to down a tank or disable it. You don't need to have a plan of attack to ensure your shots will penetrate armour, they simply can. It doesn't matter if you're assaulting Khorne Berserkers with Grots because you'll strike first anything regardless of initiative. If anything, 8th has taken the thought of tactics out and made it easier for the younger players.


  • Damo1701, Athrawes, Marshal Loss and 2 others like this

Check out my Photobucket Here

 DuskRaider's 40K Death Guard: A Return to the Past

 

 DuskRaider's Word Bearers Shadow War Kill Team & INQ28 Chaos Coven

 

 DuskRaider's 30K Word Bearers Force

 

 DuskRaider's 3rd Grand Company Death Guard Legion Force

 

To view my older threads, please go to the link HERE and download the add-on to view Photobucket linked images.


#704
chapter master 454

chapter master 454

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,228 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fife
  • Chapter Name: Angels of Justice

Personally mixed about the change to facing, firing arcs and such. There are two points here:

 

AV made flanking tanks a worthwhile tactic. It meant making your opponent have to shoot at the front was a real value thing however there is the flip side: Tanks back then were bad because they couldn't take a hit well anyway. The only difference flanking made was it just made it easier than it already was. Most anti-tank weapons would laugh at most AVs and the famous anti-tank gun (the melta family) laughed at all AVs no matter what side you showed because they all looked like the rear end of a sentinels freshly made child! To this respect the value of AV was more a formality than anything. While it could add depth it never did because in the end what army had weapons that needed to flank? Go on. List them. If you were using lascannons you never needed to flank nor could you realistically flank with them unless they were mounted on tanks themselves as lascannons having str9 meant they could brute force their way past AV13 with ease and even AV14 could be managed. Meanwhile Meltaguns as mentioned that WOULD flank are only doing so because it was the best route to the tank, not because they needed to. There were no rules for "Front armour damage negation" where the tanks armour on the front could negate damage, no, just higher AV that we can all agree were easily beat. (because tanks sucked and always have remember?)

 

In terms of firing arcs these again COULD add depth but never did. More often they lead to arguements over what the weapon could and couldn't see and since there was no split fire, the tank would often have 1 gun at all times hanging around doing nothing which feels bad. Maybe if we had split fire back then it wouldn't of been such an issue but this method allows for hard and fast reads on what can be shot along with no more arguments over where to measure from and to with ascine mechanics being considered when you build a land raider (Like putting the Multi-Melta on the front mount so you get an extra inch or putting the sponsons on the front so you get an extra 2 inchs or so).

 

Those mechanics were just inflated and really just needless fluff. It is reasonable to assume the tanks can position as needed for the scenario and react as such. While we are playing it turn about, it doesn't mean the units in reality would be sitting still. I could imagine tanks trying to keep angles but it is something I could see but unless tanks get buffed why nerf them? Why add rules that only served to give them weakness when MCs never did? Why do MCs not have a "Face, torso, leg, arms" hit box like out of war machine? Why can we disable their weapons?

It is a case of if one exists, then many more rules need to exist to keep balance or are we arguing against old timers who thought MC spam was fine? (like Stormsurges and Riptides).

 

The biggest problem 8th edition has is that it is new. It is a new Era. It's a new Monarch, a new Government. Something new and we aren't familiar with it yet like we were with all the other editions and their transitions. This is evident in how do we compare formats.

 

4th to 5th we ditched size based line of sight (remember that? Where a rhino could block line of sigh to an infantry squad on top of a 6"inch high terrain piece because tanks and builds were size 3 and thus blocked line of sight to each other?) but we kept a lot of fundamentals. We only got a minor update really. To be honest, I am quite baffled actually let me ask:

 

How come the minor changes of past editions never got lampooned for not doing enough, not fixing the game or changing it in any meaningful way but NOW we get a rulebook that does do that, major changes everywhere, every army is currently still finding it's feet and we are getting small changes here and there to help not break anything majorly and now we whine?

 

Sorry. Just a little frustrated is all. I just want to know what people are really complaining about because it's nothing new.

 

"X is too cheap"

"Y is too expensive"

"Z rule is just silly and makes no sense in regards to edition V"

 

This really is just us doing the same dance to a different beat. We complained about 7th and called it horrible but now 8th is worse and 7th was better and 5 was better and so on just like how people treated Dark Souls 2 when 3 came out, "Dark Souls 3 is bad. Dark Souls 2 is the best" when on release and a majority of its life Dark Souls 2 was considered bad. I am just hoping we can see we are just whining for sake of whining and that's fine and fun but I do feel some people here actively try and just berate something just because it has negatives with it just like everything in life.

 

Yes, marines are struggling to do anything but let me ask: when haven't we? Isn't that your grimdark for you? Where the emperor's finest struggle against the odds and win but more often have to fight tooth and nail? Marines have never been competitive and only through select things did we ever get things done (prior to Gulliman in 7th we just spammed Grav-turions because they just didn't die and EVERYTHING fell over to grav weapons).


  • Dragonlover likes this

http://www.bolterand...rk-in-progress/ my own chapter, still working on it
"The objective of playing a game is to win. The point of playing a game is to have fun. Never confuse the two"

What do you call an Imperial Guardsman with a laser sight? Twin-Linked!

 

 


#705
Pentharian

Pentharian

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 279 posts
  • Gender:Male

I do not mean to suggest that the granular rules of 7th were without tactics. Merely that those tactics were dictated for you, in the same sense that the Magic The Gathering 'Stack' is a tactic that is dictated for you. 454 touches on some of the why of that and the larger detriments it can bring to a wargame as a whole. Do I blame anyone for enjoying that? Not one bit. The Stack is a wonderful structure for Magic, after all.
 
However, with the freedom from dictated tactic design, the more creative and tactical minds are now better able to take advantage of the battlefield at hand and not immediately broadcast their intent to their opponent. Flanking is still very advantageous - merely for a practical and more realistic reason than a game mechanic reason. My tougher tank is still a tougher tank and I can still mow over lasguns with mostly impunity - but censored.gif does happen and lucky shots occur. If my opponent is looking for a tactical advantage on paper alone, I'm on a short path to victory.
 
I feel that the game design logic behind the changes are sound. Some they've done well, some not so well - but better overall. The argument against some of the things from a fluff perspective is... Flawed. Firstly, we're talking about a world where there are no bullets but miniature warheads, lasers, and supersonic shurikens. Nothing from our world is an apt comparison. Secondly, for one to say that a (thing) shouldn't harm a (thing), to say that it is impossible, to demand it, is to claim to know the world better than its creators. They say it can. Imagine the Imperial Guard got better lasers, or something. Blame Cawl. That's popular, these days.


eclipse.png


#706
Damo1701

Damo1701

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,653 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ipswich Suffolk UK
  • Chapter Name: Ravenguard
1) my Raven Guard have never used Centurions. Please, as I was told, don't make sweeping statements.

2) you think my concerns for my game are whining for the sake of whining? I was asked what, specifically, I didn't like about 8th edition, and expanded to how Chapter Approved could have fixed the problems I saw.

3) 8th edition is kind of a misnomer. There is significant change, leaving the game unrecognizable, apart from the factions present. If anything, it's Age of the Primarchs 1st edition. Which then means there is nothing comparable, and you may have a point.

Chapter Approved could have fixed the morale issue. Marines don't flee or die when things get tough. They fall back, regroup, and try again.

Chapter Approved could also have permitted Marines, and Chaos, to benefit from their doctrines with the vehicles. It makes more sense that they would benefit than to be the only factions without. (That's any and all Marines, not just vanilla).

Chapter Approved could have easily returned facing and fire arcs, could have removed the anything hurts anything.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are things that should have been in the book, yet, it doesn't have anything remotely like fixes for the main system.
  • D3L likes this
Talons_Reach_MC.jpgOsHHotE.jpgDamo_RG_Tag.pngHHot_H_Damo1701.jpg

#707
Ishagu

Ishagu

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 10,274 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Britannia, Holy Terra
  • Chapter Name: Ultramarines
The game is far from unrecognisable. In fact units perform in a way more true to the lore.

Leman Russ tanks aren't made of paper. Knorn Berserkers are actually great in combat, Nids actually affect psykers etc etc.

I don't know where this fondness for 7th comes from. It was such a flawed game it was basically unplayable in a pick up situation. Games, as mentioned before, could be won by a single dice roll, Invincible, Invisible units were zooming about, and Eldar were armed with D weapons that ignored all common sense. 6th and 7th were awful. 5th became a one faction show at the end and was equally junky with rules that made no thematic sense.
  • Schlitzaf likes this

-~Ishagu~-


#708
battle captain corpus

battle captain corpus

    ++ CENTURIO COHORS ++

  • ++ MODERATI CEDO ++
  • 4,004 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southampton
  • Chapter Name: Valhallan 95th company

whistlingW.gif I'm not a MOD anymore...but I would say we've floated away from general talk about the original topic... whistlingW.gif

 

BCC


  • Azekai, Bryan Blaire and Silas7 like this
"As inexorable as the winter cold, as ruthless as the bitter frost, as certain as death - the Valhallans fight only for victory and the Emperor. All else is a prelude." - Colonel Kasteen, 597th Company
Valhallan Ice Warriors Regiment

#709
Pentharian

Pentharian

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 279 posts
  • Gender:Male

...

2) you think my concerns for my game are whining for the sake of whining? I was asked what, specifically, I didn't like about 8th edition, and expanded to how Chapter Approved could have fixed the problems I saw.

...

The point I'm trying to make is that there are things that should have been in the book, yet, it doesn't have anything remotely like fixes for the main system.


We've had threads where we agree nearly 100%, and threads where we disagree nearly 100%. I've nothing on you personally. Debate is cool. Just wanted to be sure #2 here wasn't to think I was tossing anything on the pile. While I responded to some points you brought up I had been pointing the ideas at the thread as a whole in regards to Chapter Approved.

In this case, it's the sense of 'should' that I am arguing against. It's hazardous.

eclipse.png


#710
Bryan Blaire

Bryan Blaire

    ++ EXPLORATOR BIOLOGIS ++

  • ++ MODERATI CEDO ++
  • 5,278 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Chapter Name: Stoneburners
The argument that “Chapter Approved should have changed...” or “Chapter Approved could have changed...” are meaningless in the face of GW not feeling like the rules of this edition are really the issue. They made specific design choices for the rules, it’s almost ludicrous to think that they were going to do a total face-heel turn on a sizable portion of those newly revised mechanics.

That’s really not what Chapter Approved was going to be for. They might make minor alterations to mechanics, but sweeping changes that would result in effectively a new Edition - that wasn’t going to happen, and certainly not six months in.

Regarding the popularity of 8th Edition and Chapter Approved: anecdotally, I’ve seen a total split - one FLGS has a regular weekly league, but doesn’t really run consistent tournaments (maybe twice a year), their league membership has doubled since 8th came out (from a modest six regulars to 12, which is pretty good sized for regulars considering the store size) and they sold out of all 28 copies of Chapter Approved they ordered. The other FLGS in the area still has a stable 40K night around 16-20 folks, but they only sold about 15 of the 50 copies of Chapter Approved they ordered, and they usually sell out of every book they get in the first weekend, even though the folks buying them aren’t regular store players. That store does more regular tournaments, at least six a year, and several of them are pretty big events and they still have good attendance, so those players haven’t been slipping, if there has been loss, it’s been replaced by new players.
  • Schlitzaf likes this
My DA Successor Chapter DIY - Stoneburners: Index Astartes Stoneburners
Posted Here: Stoneburners WiP - DA Forum
Completed Squads: Stoneburners - Hall of Honor Forum
Other Material Here (Angels on both sides of the War and Wolves): PCA WiP Forum
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#711
Schlitzaf

Schlitzaf

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 482 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hazeorth Subsector
  • Chapter Name: Black Templar: Dalthus Crusade

Comparison between editions:
8th Morale is awful. There is no real explanation for the reasoning, other than punitive. Every edition previous to 8th got morale right.
Vehicles - are no longer the armoured behemoths that they are supposed to be. Facing and positioning doesn't matter. 2nd edition had vehicles that behaved correctly. Remove Hull Points for 3-7 and you still had a better vehicle system.
Short-range Auto-hit. This is regardless of unit type or weapon type. Flame weapons are not going to touch, let alone damage a supersonic flyer.
Wounds - everything does not damage/wound everything. Go ahead, fire your pistol at an armoured tank. Show me where you manage to really do anything that "degrades" it. Same with your random creature that is twice your height, 10x your weight, and your pocket knife.
Combat - there is no way that if you are better than your opponent, they are going to hit you as easily as somebody they are better than. Flat rolls make no sense. Was the previous system perfect? No. It needed some 2+ and some Impossible. Just like the wound table. It averaged things out nicely.
I'm not entirely sure where to start with the Marine codex, other than to say that it looks, once again, as the baseline codex that the others are designed to be able to defeat. No Chapter Tactics on Marine vehicles (Dreadnoughts excluded), unless you are an Ultramarine, you are fairly screwed for Command Points, and the fact our vehicles are expensive and suffer -1 for the move/fire heavy weapons is another kick.
Any of those things could have been addressed in Chapter Approved, and none of them were, unless you count the fact many Marine vehicles got priced upwards, to the point where casual gamers who didn't spam were penalised.
I'll add in the fact that Chapter Approved early release didn't help the situation where players already felt taken for mugs, for needing to try and constantly justify Index requirements, because the Codexes were either too light on the options available, or, removed units completely. So much so that HE had yo release their flow-chart... rather than including everything in the codex.


1) Morale. It Matters. It actually matters. That is a significant improvement over previous editions where Morale was basically non-existent factor
2) Less time spent angling my Models for advantage or arguing my hurricane bolsters can shoot something. More time spent rolling dice and playing the game. Maybe change it so something can only shoot in its front arc but otherwise good bye ‘my back sponsons cannot shoot anything’
3) Real Life does not equal game balance. Gone are the games of three Baneblade murdering an infantry army because they don’t have the proper guns. Or more specifically the proper were alpha murdered
4) “What your WS? Is it 4 or 5?” Now you have your own character sheet. The WS also hurt Melee more than shooting anyways. And shooting is already strong. This is a direct melee buff. It also makes having low WS matter because previously you almost always hit on universally 4+
5) Combined Arms Combined Arms. If you take a single Codex you are hamstringing yourself. You never see the army go in alone. Why would Marines? If you do take a purist army your disadvantages are hightened but your strengths magnified. As I said in the SM Chapter Approved, if you refuse to take allies, then you’ll find yourself lacking in other areas. If one faction does everything perfectly that is bad for game design. Instead every faction has innate weakness and advantages.
PEbafT7.png?1http://www.bolterand...althus-crusade/
Wish List:
BT Crusader Biker- http://www.bolterand...igensian-squad/
BT Primaris Crusaders - (WIP)
"Proper Tool for the Proper Job"

#712
Damo1701

Damo1701

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,653 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ipswich Suffolk UK
  • Chapter Name: Ravenguard
If you say so.

It feels like you are working extremely hard to justify what GW has done to 40k.

I'm not going "soup" because that is disingenuous. It's netlisting. Which means it's boring. I don't want the models required to "fill the gaps" I would rather have the balanced product we were sold in the run up to 8th than the mess we have now.

If real life example don't work for you, don't try and use them in your justification.

If you have low weapon skill, you will suck in combat. That's the idea. Just like if you had low ballistic skill, you sucked at shooting. The 4+ hit band was far too large. There was not 6+ band, or not "not a chance" band. Without those, the previous combat system was flawed. I still don't see a basic human hitting a Primaech on even odds...

Less time angling? Or less time thinking about tactics?
Talons_Reach_MC.jpgOsHHotE.jpgDamo_RG_Tag.pngHHot_H_Damo1701.jpg

#713
Lexington

Lexington

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,886 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
  • Chapter Name: The Aurora Chapter

Short-range Auto-hit. This is regardless of unit type or weapon type. Flame weapons are not going to touch, let alone damage a supersonic flyer.

I think this is a problem with flyers more than anything else. I like a lot of 8th Ed, but the way it treats air support as a bunch of low-flying, weaponized weather balloons leaves a lot to be desired.


Edited by Lexington, 05 December 2017 - 06:36 PM.

  • Damo1701 and Bryan Blaire like this
gallery_23421_8142_1088.png

#714
Pentharian

Pentharian

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 279 posts
  • Gender:Male

5) Combined Arms Combined Arms. If you take a single Codex you are hamstringing yourself. You never see the army go in alone. Why would Marines? If you do take a purist army your disadvantages are hightened but your strengths magnified. As I said in the SM Chapter Approved, if you refuse to take allies, then you’ll find yourself lacking in other areas. If one faction does everything perfectly that is bad for game design. Instead every faction has innate weakness and advantages.


There are a few statements you make here in which I agree with the words... but not your intent. This suggests that the intended game design is "Soup Or Go Home", which several of the GW folks (and some of their Community material) specifically speak against.
  • Damo1701 and Lexington like this

eclipse.png


#715
the jeske

the jeske

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 19,517 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hamburg

Am rather sure that the DT more then once pointed out that they want each player to buy as many models as possible, including GW materials showing armies which have illegal set ups of units, and with their use being explained by "I like it, so I use it".

 

what GW does is to say that if something is "unfun" or complained about in the rule set/game, it is not their foult. Which is more avoiding the responsibility, then anything else.


"Felix wondered how Calgar might feel about the primach's unilateral altering of the Codex Astartes. The captain could not help but feel that, in his drive for victory and efficiency, Guilliman had been careless with the feelings of his existing sons. Increasingly, Guilliman looked to the Primaris Space Marines as his first solution. He made no attempt to hide the fact that the days of the older space marines were numbered."


#716
Schlitzaf

Schlitzaf

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 482 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hazeorth Subsector
  • Chapter Name: Black Templar: Dalthus Crusade

5) Combined Arms Combined Arms. If you take a single Codex you are hamstringing yourself. You never see the army go in alone. Why would Marines? If you do take a purist army your disadvantages are hightened but your strengths magnified. As I said in the SM Chapter Approved, if you refuse to take allies, then you’ll find yourself lacking in other areas. If one faction does everything perfectly that is bad for game design. Instead every faction has innate weakness and advantages.

There are a few statements you make here in which I agree with the words... but not your intent. This suggests that the intended game design is "Soup Or Go Home", which several of the GW folks (and some of their Community material) specifically speak against.

That isn’t what I said what I said; what I said is every army natural strengths and weaknesses. You can ‘patch’ natural weaknesses by adding allies. If you are spending 500 Points on Gaurd those are 500 Points not spent on Marines.

At 2000 Point Space Marine Black Templar will have more mid-field/melee staying power but might find itself lacking elsewhere. Chaff or backfield fire potential most notably.

However a 1250 Points Templar + 750 Gaurd List. Will lack the hard hitters or push units. (Marine have weak pushers in general (comparatively to Chaos Marines and other Loyalists) but going on). A classic push unit is Assault Terminators with triple hammer and double claw. They come out to give or 230ish Points. Two squads as is normal would could cost 460-480 Points. Leaving you 320-360 Points either for a third squads or auxiliary elements.

My personal BT Army, I run a Marshall/Castallen. Had I not spend around 700-800 Points on Gaurdsman I could easily have found 100 Points Grimaldus and an Emperor’s Champion.

However because I lack those units, my Crusaders can hold but weaker and have difficulty dislodging entrenched enemies. Quickly. Instead I have to attrition them out and use a variety of reserve and counter assault elements.

But using allies to patch your various weakness, your main force own innate strength is dulled. Is a risk v reward. Do you value the Jack of All Trade Master of None (and as such agree with the second half of phrase, ‘Better than the Master of One) or do you believe in Bruce Lee tenet of “I fear the man who was practiced one kick a thousand times, then the man practice a thousand kicks one time.”

I am not saying allies should be considered mandatory or otherwise. Buts if you don’t take allies your army own innate strengths will be highlights and strengthened while your own weakness will become even more salient. It’s a trade off.

As my quote on my sig implies, I believe in the “Jack of All Trades” concept over forcing myself into one angle or force construction. Finally if you believe allies are netlisting? You can take a look at my list (Templars and IG Soup). No Gulliman, no Primaris, and no Celestine. If their is an Astropath I removed after I decided the 30 Point deny was not worth.
  • Damo1701 likes this
PEbafT7.png?1http://www.bolterand...althus-crusade/
Wish List:
BT Crusader Biker- http://www.bolterand...igensian-squad/
BT Primaris Crusaders - (WIP)
"Proper Tool for the Proper Job"

#717
Damo1701

Damo1701

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,653 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ipswich Suffolk UK
  • Chapter Name: Ravenguard
What I have valued, long before Chapter tactics were created, was the fact that, on level ground, with decent rules, Marines could go face to face with almost any other army and expect a decent game.

Since 3rd edition, Marines have been seen as the baseline. The codex that everything else is written to negate.

8th appears very much like Anakin Skywalker. It was supposed to bring balance to 40k. It has, so far, failed.

Yes, every army should have weaknesses. Some should be more obvious than others.

It's poor game design, but great marketing, to attempt to enforce allies upon armies at low levels.

Chapter Approved never really addressed that though.
  • Brother Cristopher, Tamiel and D3L like this
Talons_Reach_MC.jpgOsHHotE.jpgDamo_RG_Tag.pngHHot_H_Damo1701.jpg

#718
Sonoftherubric21

Sonoftherubric21

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,103 posts

I dont get the attitude honestly; across codexs all of them appear to be at face value in the same range of power. 

Astra mili----*cough* Imperial Guard look a bit harder to deal with on the face of it but frankly is  a minor issue in all but the highest of tier meta. 

 

IF you are including index then of course things look lop-sided and they say "hey might wanna get allies for the time being" 

 

I am not entirely sure what you are getting at; marines are still the "baseline" as Str4 / T4 and 3+ will always be the most prevalent stat line in the game 

 

I have had issues with my index-army against codex armies. No lie, but when I use my black legion or my White scars they tend to perform just fine in a semi-competetive meta, my thousand sons are fighting an uphill battle for the next few months till our dex drops in early 2018.

 

If you are hyper-top-tier-meta obsessed maybe this game just isnt for you? there will always be top-tier to mid/low tier inconsistencies. Its basically true in every game, even online ones.  there will always be people that obsess over "points efficiency" and "tourney tactics" in every game. 40k is no different. and most companies have issue controlling that at one point or another, so instead GW is actively changing the meta AS things evolve in 8th.. To be entirely honest I am *very* confused about what exactly it is that you "want" from GW in that regard.  In 8th so far they have changed several major issues that were damaging the meta, they havent gotten around to all of it but they literally opened a community survey to do just that.  

And with the recent addition of better balanced missions from chapter approved and the points overhaul for several units and the helping of bringing up non-codex factions to decent levels......I just dont get it. dry.png


  • Schlitzaf, Silentz and Shockmaster like this

#719
chapter master 454

chapter master 454

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,228 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fife
  • Chapter Name: Angels of Justice

I dont get the attitude honestly; across codexs all of them appear to be at face value in the same range of power. 

Astra mili----*cough* Imperial Guard look a bit harder to deal with on the face of it but frankly is  a minor issue in all but the highest of tier meta. 

 

IF you are including index then of course things look lop-sided and they say "hey might wanna get allies for the time being" 

 

I am not entirely sure what you are getting at; marines are still the "baseline" as Str4 / T4 and 3+ will always be the most prevalent stat line in the game 

 

I have had issues with my index-army against codex armies. No lie, but when I use my black legion or my White scars they tend to perform just fine in a semi-competetive meta, my thousand sons are fighting an uphill battle for the next few months till our dex drops in early 2018.

 

If you are hyper-top-tier-meta obsessed maybe this game just isnt for you? there will always be top-tier to mid/low tier inconsistencies. Its basically true in every game, even online ones.  there will always be people that obsess over "points efficiency" and "tourney tactics" in every game. 40k is no different. and most companies have issue controlling that at one point or another, so instead GW is actively changing the meta AS things evolve in 8th.. To be entirely honest I am *very* confused about what exactly it is that you "want" from GW in that regard.  In 8th so far they have changed several major issues that were damaging the meta, they havent gotten around to all of it but they literally opened a community survey to do just that.  

And with the recent addition of better balanced missions from chapter approved and the points overhaul for several units and the helping of bringing up non-codex factions to decent levels......I just dont get it. dry.png

 

This comes down to what is balanced. The one thing in 40k that is a huge issue is any unit that can do everything, which is an oddity as it may seem to contradict some things.

 

First, if one was to run a biker army of marines you are an inherently strong force. High Toughness, decent saves, high mobility and because of their weapon choices can take all comers on all fronts. In melee you are tougher and have access and allowance along with good reasoning to take power swords or suchlike melee weapons. At range you have your boltguns and various special weapons which because of your mobility have insane effective range. What army can take this army on reasonably? Not a lot as this is an army that can make every squad virtually their own self contained problem solver. Coupled with their high mobility and improved durability you have what would could be considered a tournament army and in fact is, having faced ravenwing before those guys can run you down and over with overwhelming speed, firepower and ability to take a licking.

This is one list we could build and for the sake of it, let's say it's a white scar list.

 

Now, let's go down a specialist road. Lets say we want to go heavy duty with infantry. We will run heavy units like Centurions, terminators and gravis armour based units. These units are incredibly tough, hard hitting but lack mobility. Certainly their march is implacable and they walk across the board and open fire. Sadly however these units are murdered by their inherent weakness: Speed. While it may be unfair to put one list against the other, this list will for the sake of argument put against the biker list. We will consider this list as an Iron Hands list to further the theme of it. These guys are various multi-wound monsters with withering gunfire be it from boltstorm gauntlets, hurricane bolters, lascannons, gravcannons or even the melee of assault terminators. Even if given some transport of land raiders to carry them.

 

What happens? The biker army can sit back and relax because no matter what the heavy list does, it can't win. If it balls up to create a death ball and attempt to march across the board it will just be harried from bikers picking at outlying units while the rest of the bikes secure objectives. If the Heavy army spreads out in a bid to claim objectives the units are just picked apart with no ability to get support as each unit is unable to move quickly.

 

While it may be possible for the heavy list to win certain missions, it will be hard to do. Their firepower and durability while not matched by the bike list, they certainly get close and they have overwhelming speed advantage. I mean, while run lascannons when you can have a meltagun with the effective range of what? 22" or there abouts (don't play bikes and can't remember their 8th edition statline) and yet you only pay 17 points vs. 25 AND you can still move and shoot with full effectiveness along with the benefits of extending the range further at the expense of a -1 penalty.

 

The only mission the heavy would win in is kill points and maybe base objectives (1 each side). Meanwhile, every mission for the bikers I would give them good chances of being able to pull off and even in kill point matchs I would still favour the bikes.

 

For context: I am an avid lover of tanks. I love the heavy duty units. I love putting out that withering gunfire that melts units to dust and ashe. I have often fielded lists with 3 land raiders as my core. However they have NEVER been able to keep up with other units. Even when I go lighter and attempt to bring in infantry that aim to be a strong gun army, they still fall under these lists that can just do everything. The ironic twist of this tale is sad:

 

Marines are the Jack of all Trade army but since all their units share this, they are thus a master of none as their fastest units lack one attribute to bring the lowest into parity.

Armies like Eldar however are the Masters of Fast Hard Hits. This thus allows them have an army that can deal with all comers and thus gain the best armour: the one never needed. Don't need armour saves if your opponent can't make you take them because you already killed their threats.

 

To be honest, I am a pessimist of the game in these moments but sadly having been on the receiving end of many lists, with my victories only coming from those who really know not what they are doing it can often feel like many games aren't even close. Not sure what to call myself really.

Am I a WAAC player? Don't feel like it, don't want to bend rules or just win.

Certainly not casual. Don't just want to throw units around randomly.

I want to go all out, no screwing around and have a game where both players fight with all their ability. No "fun" games when a point limit is set, I get fun when the game was hard fought and could be called a game and not just a one sided slaughter for one side. I want to play Chess, not solitaire with my opponents army.


http://www.bolterand...rk-in-progress/ my own chapter, still working on it
"The objective of playing a game is to win. The point of playing a game is to have fun. Never confuse the two"

What do you call an Imperial Guardsman with a laser sight? Twin-Linked!

 

 


#720
Sonoftherubric21

Sonoftherubric21

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,103 posts

Its somewhat ironic you bring up bikes in this scenario, and more specifically White Scars.  

I actually own a White Scars army and find that bikes are very "mediocre" in 8th edition.  They are not very durable in my local meta, theres tons that will wound them on 3's and do 2 wounds. and "poof" 20 some odd points.  My Scars do fine overall as I dont just spam bikes, i use rhinos filled with sterns/company vets, splash primaris, among other things.

 

I usually feature 15 some odd bikes in a given list including characters, but I really don't think scars are as good as you seem to think. at least in MY meta as an example; plenty of auto cannons, tons of multi-damage guns, D2 weaponry and plasma wreck a bike squad mighty fast. 

 

Though this is just one example; a super specific build vs a super specific build may have a skewed game. 



#721
Ishagu

Ishagu

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 10,274 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Britannia, Holy Terra
  • Chapter Name: Ultramarines
Eldar, Nids and Guard are the best single codex books.

Marines lack model mass and board control to truly compete in anything outside of kill points. Blood Angels are better in this regard than the regular codex due to their ability to assault from reserves.

-~Ishagu~-


#722
kombatwombat

kombatwombat

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 23 posts

But using allies to patch your various weakness, your main force own innate strength is dulled. Is a risk v reward. Do you value the Jack of All Trade Master of None (and as such agree with the second half of phrase, ‘Better than the Master of One) or do you believe in Bruce Lee tenet of “I fear the man who was practiced one kick a thousand times, then the man practice a thousand kicks one time.”

I am not saying allies should be considered mandatory or otherwise. Buts if you don’t take allies your army own innate strengths will be highlights and strengthened while your own weakness will become even more salient. It’s a trade off.


The general theory of what you’re saying is fine, that having a more focused army should highlight both your strengths and weaknesses. The problem is that at the moment the tradeoff is not a zero sum. Every time you take some advantage you should trade off an equal advantage, and at the moment this is simply not the case. Taking options from other armies gains you far more than you lose in your main force.

My preferred solution to this issue is pretty simple. All Codex books have a section about how you only gain access to Codex Stratagems, Warlord Traits, Relics and subfaction traits if the whole Detachment has certain keywords in common. The solution is simply to change the restriction from ‘Detachment must have <Keywords>’ to ‘Army must have <Keywords>’. Suddenly cherry picking the most powerful combination units from a bevy of Soup factions has a disadvantage. A Soup army has the advantage of being able to plug any gap and pick from a broad range of super-powerful units, but the pure army has the advantage of a range of powerful special rules. It’s even thematic - the more familiar your teammates are, the more complex tactics you’ll be able to pull off.

It’d need a couple of caveats - the first being that Auxiliary Detachments are treated completely separately in that they neither get access to the Pure special rules nor prevent an army from getting access to Pure rules. This would let you put a single Assassin or Inquisitor or something in your army without messing up your army’s purity. The other would be Soup-only armies (Inquisition and Ynnari), but those are definitely the exception and not the rule, so they could get their own special snowflake way of handling the situation.
  • Beams likes this

#723
Schlitzaf

Schlitzaf

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 482 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hazeorth Subsector
  • Chapter Name: Black Templar: Dalthus Crusade
I don’t agree. That will make the detachment system pointless. Like I have a mixed Vostroyan-Black Templar Force. Right now I am using three detachments. Black Templar Battlelion, Vostroyan Battlelion and a Soup Vangaurd (Rattling, Cenos and Deathriders). If the moment I include a Vostroyan Unit, even if it’s in a second detachment, results in me losing access to my BT Chapter Tactics. I’m gonna just make a brigade. Or without even changing my current list, I could add an Outrider Detachment. (Well I can’t sense I am limited to three detachments at 2000).

Tying army traits to the army level is bad solution. Furthermore saying “25% can only be spent on allies” is another poor solution. 40K is not Sigmar. The same solutions won’t work. Because including allies in 40K have a far larger minimum investment. Bar the auxillary and Patrol Detachments, their is 3-5 Unit minimum.

Celestine or Gulliman will still be taken, by every army in a competitive Imperial List. While you made it so every army beside Marines or Sisters, can’t take the lovers. Marines will still just slot Celestine and Gaurd will still take Gulliman for his rerolls and counter charge.

Forcing purity on an army level not detachment level, will just enable more souping. Completely destroy having the detachment system in the first place.
PEbafT7.png?1http://www.bolterand...althus-crusade/
Wish List:
BT Crusader Biker- http://www.bolterand...igensian-squad/
BT Primaris Crusaders - (WIP)
"Proper Tool for the Proper Job"

#724
Withershadow

Withershadow

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,117 posts
7th was a simulation. 8th is a tabletop board game. Both have their charm.

#725
Toxichobbit

Toxichobbit

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,913 posts
  • Gender:Male

 

To be honest, I am a pessimist of the game in these moments but sadly having been on the receiving end of many lists, with my victories only coming from those who really know not what they are doing it can often feel like many games aren't even close. Not sure what to call myself really.


Certainly not casual. Don't just want to throw units around randomly.

 

The reason you don't know what you are is because you are prescribing to the internet definition of casual. Casual doesn't just mean throwing random units around. Casual definitely doesn't mean not caring if you win or loose.

 

Casual will, of course, be slightly different to different people, but over 25 years of playing this game to most people it means having fun, not being a jerk to your opponent and not taking the desire to win too far (aka WAAC). There is absolutely no reason that you can't be casual and still play a competitive game.

 

The guys in my gaming group always play to win. None of us ever throw games (unless we're teaching new players), we never just put random stuff on the table for a laugh and we always consider a game plan when building lists. We play by the rules, no fudging mistakes or house ruling things we feel are unfair or unbalanced. We almost always have discussions on tactics after games, both regarding list selection and our decisions on the tabletop, with the aim of improving our skills. Yet while we're trying to win, we're also having fun experimenting with new builds that we think might have promise and not stretching or bending the rules to gain advantages. We don't tend to spam or run the top tier most powerful lists (e.g. in my case it'd be Guilliman & chums) because for us, it makes the game boring, predictable and less fun. Sometimes the only reason we need to try a unit out is because we like it's background and/or model, even if it isn't the best unit we could take. Yet we're still trying to get all we can out of that unit and use it to the best of our ability in order to win the game.

 

So what exactly are we? We're certainly not WAAC, if we were I'd run Guilliman every game and my opponents would be spamming whatever is best for their factions. Guilliman hasn't hit the table yet in 8th and my opponents rarely take more than one of a unit, occasionally two for stuff like Transports or Troops. Yet we're not just herp a derping random stuff on the table with no thought or desire to win, which is, according to internet "wisdom" how casuals play.

 

Well, we consider ourselves casuals. We play the game casually - at home, with mates, mainly to have fun and enjoy the challenge. Not to dominate and be the best. We play competitive games, because otherwise there is no challenge, yet we're not competitive players. We aren't taking the most efficient lists nor are we looking for the most efficient paths to victory. And we certainly aren't engaged in the tournament scene.

 

What I'm saying is that casual is an attitude, not a play style. It's about priorities. A competitive player might prioritise winning above theme, aesthetics, story or experimentation. A casual player might prioritise one of the latter over winning. Yet competitive players can still enjoy the theme, aesthetics, story and generally have fun without compromising their primary goal of winning. Likewise, a casual player can still play with a desire to win while emphasising other aspects of the hobby. Casual and competitive are not mutually exclusive. They're two ends of a spectrum, with lots of overlap and lots of granularity inbetween.


  • Lexington likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    klisof