mertbl Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 3 units wont even get my characters infiltrated. I wouldn't like that at all. To my mind (and what do I know?), it would have made more sense to have the Raven Guard Stratagem be usable once per game and have a sliding cost like the Relics: 1CP = 1 unit 3 CP = 3 units Keeps the spirit of it alive while also having some balanced drawbacks. <shrug> what do I know. What about it don't you like? That it's not the original form (1CP per unit, unlimited use) or something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLACK BLΠFLY Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 I feel like 99% discussion here is now is just bitching and moaning. It is really pathetic to me and I feel quite saddened to see some our very pillars not only condoning this very behaviour but openly instigating it. IMO this was overall a very good FAQ that was really really needed. Most of the people complaining are grinding an axe. For example Blood Angels are still amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanhgg Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 I choose to look at it this way: im no a tournament guy. Instead of Focusing on winning, im Focusing on the narrative. I rather play an Army which is fluffy and fun to paint and play than have an unfluffy Army and win. I would NEVER bring 3 slamcaptains and 2 Knights and Guilliman. I had a little breakdown with the change of sfts but it doesnt matter, ill still play my fluffy lists and have fun. What do disturb me is tournament people abusing rules with unfluffy combinations of units. If everyone was playing the fluff, these kind of things wouldnt happen. Blame the tournament-dudes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spessmarine Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 I choose to look at it this way: im no a tournament guy. Instead of Focusing on winning, im Focusing on the narrative. I rather play an Army which is fluffy and fun to paint and play than have an unfluffy Army and win. I would NEVER bring 3 slamcaptains and 2 Knights and Guilliman. I had a little breakdown with the change of sfts but it doesnt matter, ill still play my fluffy lists and have fun. What do disturb me is tournament people abusing rules with unfluffy combinations of units. If everyone was playing the fluff, these kind of things wouldnt happen. Blame the tournament-dudes. Same. Annoying to see all the changes due to people who are just trying to break the game as best as they can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracos Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 I wouldn’t be too harsh about tournament players. Let them burn some salt. The good ones will adapt and the bad ones will eventually fade away. The positive thing about those “abuses” you speak of are actually good for the game in my opinion. They give GW insight through actual play not theory on the games weaknesses and even better GW is responding with changes to make the game more balanced as a result in a pretty timely manner. I feel they keep tweaking the rules to better simulate the narrative. At least as much as possible in a competitive environment. Let players play baby ... it’s good for the game ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanhgg Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 But the conspirecylover inside me say: GW introduce, lets say, strike from the shadows. 2 of the best units to use that strat with is aggressors and hellblasters. People go and by alot of said units. GW changes the strategem. Those units is now pretty immobile. What to do? Repulsor can transport these units. People go and by lots of repulsors. Same with droppods. They were a good and fluffy way of delivering marines. People go and buy alot of droppods (i have 8) GW makes them unplayeble. Droppods gather dust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanhgg Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 I wouldn’t be too harsh about tournament players. Let them burn some salt. The good ones will adapt and the bad ones will eventually fade away. The positive thing about those “abuses” you speak of are actually good for the game in my opinion. They give GW insight through actual play not theory on the games weaknesses and even better GW is responding with changes to make the game more balanced as a result in a pretty timely manner. I feel they keep tweaking the rules to better simulate the narrative. At least as much as possible in a competitive environment. Let players play baby ... it’s good for the game ;) I dont think the changes ARE good. I want the different factions and chapters to have their rules that makes them distinctive. When those rules get absused and changed, every change makes the distinction between chapters smaller. I think whats bad is the diffdrence in usefilness between chapter tactics. Some chapters have great strats and tactics, others not so much. So what chapters do you see at tournaments? Not Iron Hands. So why make RG so strong and others weak and When GW gers surprised Raven Guard has a huge precence at tournaments, GW nerfs RG down to a 9” move. How did GW not see this coming? I mean theyre the ones who wrote the rule in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 Blaming tournament player helps nobody. I can assure you for every casual player using super fluffy non-optimal lists there is at least one if not more player who abuse every advantage they can find without being a tournament player. Tournament player just help GW to find those things so GW can try to make it a better game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLACK BLΠFLY Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 SfS was never competitive since no one goes first every game just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 That's mostly because the Codex behind it has little to properly utilise sfts to be fair. If GW theoretically buffed Marines enough to be competetive on their own again then sfts was likely to mutate into a much bigger problem than it currently is. Just to be clear tho, I'm not exactly defending the change. I think it was a great Stratagem the way it worked and the new scout Stratagem you guys got instead is something entirely different. It might have needed some adjustments eventually so specific units couldn't use it or whatever but that's impossible to tell without knowing the future and is more of a "what if" scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLACK BLŒ FLY Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 No it’s because no one ever goes first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 I don't think that makes it a non-competetive Stratagem at all. I heavily disagree with that claim. Something doesn't need to be super strong in every single game to be competetive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanhgg Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 But its not the casual player in the basement abusing the rules that GW notice, its at tournaments. I mean there will always be something one can abuse if the sole goal is to win. Will GW change the rules accordingly until theres no distinction between factions? Only marines in different colours? On the other hand, i read somewhere that the change of sfts happened cause alpha legions forward operatives was the one strat that was abused. Hell, change the chaos-one if that is the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 But its not the casual player in the basement abusing the rules that GW notice, its at tournaments. Exactly! Hence why it's good they pay attention to tournament players. If they'd ignore tournament players then they would miss a lot of rules exploiting going on in "basements". Their goal isn't to make it a better game for tournament players alone. Their goal is to make it a better game overall and that includes fixing such exploits which suck the fun out of games even on a casual level they might wouldn't have noticed without the tournament players in the first place. Tournament players don't create those problems. They just make GW aware of them. Blaming tournament players is blaming the messenger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanhgg Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 But by nerfing an already weak Codex, is that the right way? I dont have any statistics but i doubt Raven Guard was top tier in tournament-enviroment. I think it’s better to nerf the way HOW a rule gets abused. Not destroy the rule. Honestly I don’t know how to fix since it’s a big mess. But what I do know is that the one strat that made me do ok against my friends opted death guard is no more. Maybe I’m a bad player, I don’t know. Reward fluff-lists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanhgg Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 But its not the casual player in the basement abusing the rules that GW notice, its at tournaments. Exactly! Hence why it's good they pay attention to tournament players. If they'd ignore tournament players then they would miss a lot of rules exploiting going on in "basements". Their goal isn't to make it a better game for tournament players alone. Their goal is to make it a better game overall and that includes fixing such exploits which suck the fun out of games even on a casual level they might wouldn't have noticed without the tournament players in the first place. Tournament players don't create those problems. They just make GW aware of them. Blaming tournament players is blaming the messenger. But at least to my experience; basementplayers tend to play lists that are cool, not necessarily to win by all costs. My gaiminggroup stick to fluffy lists and armies. Maybe we are the only exception, but I don’t think so. Gws changes does not make this game better for us since we don’t play competitive games. But we can of course choose to play however we want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Race Bannon Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 I think sfPanzer makes a reasonable point; tournaments are zero-sum for a material prize, so those players are working with the rules to maximize each unit and model's ability. Thus, tournament players are more likely to find the restrictions and capabilities by design, while also discovering exploits leading to unintended consequences. 8th edition was designed with tournament player feedback, so it should not be a surprise when adjustments come from above after a few tournament rounds. Frankly, GW making these adjustments so soon is way better than it has been in the past where we all would have to suffer "casual" games with some shoddy rules ... And players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanhgg Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 I think it’s sad that they move away from any deepstriking turn one. That added a layer of tactical concerns which I felt was good. There was a need of consideration of placement of units which was fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duz_ Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 It would be nice if they countered the removal of 1st turn reserves with reserves in the 4th turn too like last edition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mertbl Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 Agree. I regularly dropped into my zone turn 1 to reinforce a flank or start clearing a landing zone. I've only played a couple games post faq but it's a big change for how I play. I know GW is trying but reserves and the alpha strike are really becoming stumbling blocks for the rules team. They are trying and I appreciate that. It would be nice if they countered the removal of 1st turn reserves with reserves in the 4th turn too like last edition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanhgg Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 @sfPanzer @Race Bannon You’re both right! I’m not even sure anymore what I was trying to say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seriade Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 On the concept of mauling has anyone else heard the rumor that all the -1 to hit factions will be changed to always in cover with chapter approved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mertbl Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 I've heard the rumor but honestly if they are changing that it makes the ork rule of always hitting on 6s super broken. Therefore I dont believe it. On the concept of mauling has anyone else heard the rumor that all the -1 to hit factions will be changed to always in cover with chapter approved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinyRhino Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 How would the Ork rule be broken? Our power armor and Dreadnought units would have a 2+ save against the majority of Ork shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 If anything it would make the new Dakka Dakka special rule less useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.