Jump to content

Big FAQ 2 discussion


USNCenturion

Recommended Posts

Do female primaris pyskers not exist? And interesting by RAW it’s a detachment including a SoS keyword unit needn’t include an HQ. Not one wholly composed of SoS Keyword. So you could take one SoS and two Astropaths as a funny trivia.

 

Legion of the Damned could do two LoTd squad and any Astartes elite choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's likely because GW doesn't see this as a problem. And it isn't. Allies should be in the game. They shouldn't be inherently weaker because people mischaracterize 'pure' armies as somehow inherently superior. The problem is Guard CP batteries, and to a lesser extent, Ynnari. Solve that first before we start outright killing allies.

It think you’re missing the point here because of a core misunderstanding - which is that allied/Soup armies, completely separately from what those armies are or internal balance issues, simply have the massive advantage of being able to plug structural faction weaknesses. The idea here is not to crush Soup because elitist Pure players want their army to be better. It’s to balance the huge fundamental advantage Soup has with either a downside, or giving Pure armies an equivalent advantage.

 

Us big nasty Pure players aren’t trying to steal your Soup from you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do female primaris pyskers not exist? And interesting by RAW it’s a detachment including a SoS keyword unit needn’t include an HQ. Not one wholly composed of SoS Keyword. So you could take one SoS and two Astropaths as a funny trivia.

 

Legion of the Damned could do two LoTd squad and any Astartes elite choice.

I honestly don't know? I know that the model they sell is an angry bald guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It think you’re missing the point here because of a core misunderstanding - which is that allied/Soup armies, completely separately from what those armies are or internal balance issues, simply have the massive advantage of being able to plug structural faction weaknesses. The idea here is not to crush Soup because elitist Pure players want their army to be better. It’s to balance the huge fundamental advantage Soup has with either a downside, or giving Pure armies an equivalent advantage.

Thing is, "Pure" is a somewhat loosely-defined concept that's a result of the player base, rather than the game. There's no inherent reason for "pure" armies to get a boost to make them competitive. "Pure" isn't an army in the architecture of 8th, it's just a way some players choose to play due to how the game used to work. 8th doesn't recognize Codexes in any way - they're a publishing artifact. 8th only cares about Factions and Keywords.

 

In this sense, "Soup" isn't a problem because it's inherently better than mono-Codex, it's a problem because it elevates a narrow fraction of factions and a single army building strategy above others to a pretty ridiculous degree. It's a fine distinction, but it's one that needs to be embraced if we're going to talk about 8th on its own terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is, "Pure" is a somewhat loosely-defined concept that's a result of the player base, rather than the game. There's no inherent reason for "pure" armies to get a boost to make them competitive. "Pure" isn't an army in the architecture of 8th, it's just a way some players choose to play due to how the game used to work. 8th doesn't recognize Codexes in any way - they're a publishing artifact. 8th only cares about Factions and Keywords.

 

In this sense, "Soup" isn't a problem because it's inherently better than mono-Codex, it's a problem because it elevates a narrow fraction of factions and a single army building strategy above others to a pretty ridiculous degree. It's a fine distinction, but it's one that needs to be embraced if we're going to talk about 8th on its own terms.

While you are right that "pure" army is a concept that does not exist in 8ed, its also something that is wished for by what seems to be a large portion of the PlayerBase.

I see no reason not to trow a bone to single codex armies in the form of a few CP or unique stratagem.

 

But really, unless you play at the highest level of the game, the discrepancies between allies or no allies lists is pretty small. its mostly bad books and unskilled players that makes the games unfair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think that's likely because GW doesn't see this as a problem. And it isn't. Allies should be in the game. They shouldn't be inherently weaker because people mischaracterize 'pure' armies as somehow inherently superior. The problem is Guard CP batteries, and to a lesser extent, Ynnari. Solve that first before we start outright killing allies.

It think you’re missing the point here because of a core misunderstanding - which is that allied/Soup armies, completely separately from what those armies are or internal balance issues, simply have the massive advantage of being able to plug structural faction weaknesses. The idea here is not to crush Soup because elitist Pure players want their army to be better. It’s to balance the huge fundamental advantage Soup has with either a downside, or giving Pure armies an equivalent advantage.

 

And I don't think that's a problem. I also don't think it's a fundamental advantage. It's actually a disadvantage to have to seek answers outside of your army where the bonuses and benefits you've tried to include into your list need to make way for basic things like bubble wrap, board control, and currently CP generation. It isn't a huge issue now because the CP generated gets used by your heavy hitters. Solve that and you all of a sudden need to think about what you're allying in. Solve the troop disparity in Imperium and you'll start seeing a variety different allies, or none at all if the opportunity cost of devoting points to a secondary force's CP pool.

 

I would love to have these options internally for every army, but some weren't designed that way, and that was intentional and acceptable.

 

My concern with all these suggestions for handling allies in such a heavy handed way is that they all disproportionately harm pure armies that do not have valid internal options. Some factions have all the answers internally while other factions are built to seek them via allies. I see absolutely zero problems with that and believe it should be encouraged, not discouraged. I'd rather some units in a book be viable rather than the entire book, in itself, being worthless. I don't want to go back to that. I don't want to see people punishing certain pure armies by imposing additional disadvantages than they already face before we actually tackle the real problem - undercosted units that perform better than a majority of your other options while generating CP for your elite gem munchers. 

 

The problems we have are with outliers and CP generation. I have said it a few times already, but soup is not a problem. Being able to grab allies is not a problem.

 

But I think at this point I'm just rehashing the same position over and over again. I sincerely hope to not see any change that kills ally use by forcing penalties for doing so because I feel that disproportionately harms Knights, Custodes, Sisters of Silence, et al - factions that do not have the ability to supply the kind of troops you need in 8th edition 40k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not a fan of the fly changes at all. If you’re worried about 0 inch charges just set a rule saying 3 inch is the minimum charge distance possible. This new rule stops units charging over screens which is exactly what things like assault marines should be able to do.

Or measure base to base, vertical distance counting.

 

I'm not holding my breath or anything but I'm going to walk away if the next thing coming doesn't do a lot of good for my Greyknights and my crisis suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone here ever been in actual hand to hand combat? I can't imagine anyone thinking they could land via parachute or disembark from a APC, let alone some damn flying motorcycle and be vaguely effective in hand to hand until their momentum was adjusted and got their feet bearings under them. Shooting yes, but a knife fight? Forget it.

I always imagine Jump Pack assault happening like approx 59 seconds in.

 

 

DM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sent this email to the GW faq team:

 

I think that an alternative fly rule could be they are only able to charge over infantry and swarms but take overwatch from what they charge over as well.

Also, a space marine points decrease would be very welcome.

As well, I think that maybe the damage on a plasma decimator and cawl's wrath could be increased by one, especially if the castellan goes up in points.

To be fair, I think that all volcano weapons should have the no invulnerable saves rule to bring them more in line with their background.

Also, considering they were made by a primarch, the raven's talons need a serious buff and I would suggest something along the lines of Strength+2 Ap-4 Damage3 and no invulnerable saves but maybe changing Kayvan Shrike to 200 points.

Please consider my points.

 

Any ideas or improvements?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Here is an example why horde is so good...

Take a maximum squad of Trzangors. Take Dark Matter Crystal. First turn use DMC to reposition them 9” from enemy line. Next use psy powers to make them -1 to hit, +1 invul then warp time them up into the grill. This is mostly psy power and only requires one relic. Even if you can deny warp time they need an 8” charge with a reroll.

Space Marines have nothing close to this level of buffing.

 

That's not a great example to show why hordes are so good. It's a great example of something TSons are capable of. They can (and do) pull the same thing with a huge blob of Rubric Marines as well. I don't think we need yet another example to showcase why hordes are good tho. Nobody is even trying to deny it at this point except for Schlitzaf. ^^

Nobody would use Tsons because they cost a lot more points. You missed the point. A lot of units that lend themselves to horde level size inherently have access to buffs that make them much better than a Space Marine .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Here is an example why horde is so good...

Take a maximum squad of Trzangors. Take Dark Matter Crystal. First turn use DMC to reposition them 9” from enemy line. Next use psy powers to make them -1 to hit, +1 invul then warp time them up into the grill. This is mostly psy power and only requires one relic. Even if you can deny warp time they need an 8” charge with a reroll.

Space Marines have nothing close to this level of buffing.

That's not a great example to show why hordes are so good. It's a great example of something TSons are capable of. They can (and do) pull the same thing with a huge blob of Rubric Marines as well. I don't think we need yet another example to showcase why hordes are good tho. Nobody is even trying to deny it at this point except for Schlitzaf. ^^

Nobody would use Tsons because they cost a lot more points. You missed the point. A lot of units that lend themselves to horde level size inherently have access to buffs that make them much better than a Space Marine .

 

 

You mean nobody except for those who use blobs of 20 Rubrics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the pure/soup/ally debate really is just a way of dancing around the problem that competitive armies don't look fluffy most of the time. Seeing Magnus, Ahriman, and three daemon princes leading a horde of cultists just doesn't feel like the Thousand Sons army I should be seeing. Actually, I don't think I've ever seen a non-character chaos space marine in my (limited) tournament experience, despite seeing lots of chaos space marine armies. Of course that's the tactical choice and one can come up with fluff reasons, but I doubt all those people were trying to make Lost and the Damned style armies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I don't think that's a problem. I also don't think it's a fundamental advantage. It's actually a disadvantage to have to seek answers outside of your army where the bonuses and benefits you've tried to include into your list need to make way for basic things like bubble wrap, board control, and currently CP generation.

 

I would love to have these options internally for every army, but some weren't designed that way, and that was intentional and acceptable.

 

My concern with all these suggestions for handling allies in such a heavy handed way is that they all disproportionately harm pure armies that do not have valid internal options. Some factions have all the answers internally while other factions are built to seek them via allies. I see absolutely zero problems with that and believe it should be encouraged, not discouraged.

The problem I see here is that you’re punishing the many for the problems of the few.

 

Factions that function fine on their own (conceptually, wonky balance aside):

Space Marines

Dark Angels

Blood Angels

Space Wolves

Grey Knights

Deathwatch

Imperial Guard

Adeptus Mechanicus

Sisters of Battle

Adeptus Custodes (sort of at the moment, but once the Imperial Armour Book drops they’ll be a fully fledged army)

Chaos Space Marines

Death Guard

Thousand Sons

Chaos Daemons

Craftworld Eldar

Dark Eldar

Harlequins

Tyranids

Orks

Tau

Necrons

 

Armies that require allying to work:

Inquisition Freakshow (Inquisitors, Assassins, various psykers and characters, basically a pile of one-datasheet microfactions)

Rogue Traders

Nurgle Rogue Trader Nemeses (the name escapes me)

Eldar Corsairs

 

Grey areas:

Genestealer Cults (do they need the Guard units to work or not? There’s a new codex coming soon so they’re a bit of a shifting target)

Knights (GW certainly treats Pure Knight armies as a thing, probably at a detriment to the game, but allying in a single Knight is a common sight)

 

So the vast majority of factions work as Pure and only a few don’t. The solution must therefore be to design the game around the many, and if the few suffer, then that’s what exceptions and special rules are for.

 

Do all armies have all strengths? No. None of them do. Do all armies need all strengths? Definitely not - that’s the whole idea of asymmetrical balance. Tau can outshoot Daemons, but Daemons can outpunch Tau. If every army has a unit for every role and they’re all equally balanced, you end up with symmetrical balance like Chess, or perhaps more accurately Age of Empires II.

 

Not having every option in every faction is a feature, not a bug. It’s an intellectual challenge to overcome, not a broken system that needs to be band-aided. My Custodes do not have a bubble wrap or board control option. That’s a good thing! They do, however, have the ability to overwhelm anything they come across - local stress concentration. It challenges me to play to the strengths of my army rather than just downloading a netlist with no weaknesses and playing against a copycat army with no weaknesses.

 

Pure armies are a valid way of playing the game. Further, I would argue that they are the primary way of playing the game. Don’t make the mistake of looking at tournaments all bringing Soup because Soup is overpowered and thinking that it’s the norm. Most people start an army because they see the art or the display armies and go ‘wow, those guys are sick!’ or ‘I want to try out a fast, hard hitting army next - so Dark Eldar sounds good!’. I did a quick canter through the BRB for Soup armies. I found two pieces of art, and four pictures of models showing Soup armies. Of models, almost all of them were Custodes/SoS/Assassins. Of the art, one was a massive scale with all Imperial factions up to and including Imperator Titans, and the other was from Gathering Storm, which is more of a narrative event than an army. All of the other scores of models and artworks were of Pure armies.

 

TL;DR:

- Pure armies are by far and away the most common depicted by GW

- Almost all factions work conceptually (wonky balance aside) as Pure armies

- Factions are designed around asymmetrical balance which includes structural weaknesses and strengths

- Pure armies lack the ability to plug structural weaknesses for free

- Ergo, Pure armies should be given a small boost to bring them up to the strength level of Soup armies to make the game play like the pictures

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I’m not a fan of the fly changes at all. If you’re worried about 0 inch charges just set a rule saying 3 inch is the minimum charge distance possible. This new rule stops units charging over screens which is exactly what things like assault marines should be able to do.

Or measure base to base, vertical distance counting.

 

I'm not holding my breath or anything but I'm going to walk away if the next thing coming doesn't do a lot of good for my Greyknights and my crisis suits.

I’ll have to take your word about crisis suits as I have no real experience with Tau but I know exactly what you mean about GK. mine haven’t been out of their box since the start of 8th. Played them once, they were terrible, thought the codex would improve them, read it through and just packed them away. Sadly though, I’m with you on the not holding your breath part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want Tau to be good at close combat. I just want crisis suits to A. Have further ranged weapons with more output/damage at bs3+ if they are going to stay static 8" dreds, or get jump shoot jump back, with an output increase but staying at bs4+.

 

By output increase I mean burst cannons being rapid 4 18", missile pods being assault 3, plasma rifles being either rapid 2 24" or rapid 1 24" damage 2

 

I want my mobile, shooting army to be ah..."mobile and shooty" and if I'm paying "elite point costs" I want elite relevant stat lines (bs3+).

 

Grey Knights (all marines, chaos, loyalist, Primaris) could use +1 wound and attack. You wouldn't need a points adjustment-though maybe lower it with grey knights.

 

Gks need psybolt ammo on all shooting. They come down, hit hard and can fight hard. Maybe they could have an exception where their nfws damage spills over to extra guys.

 

Similar to crisis suits, the non grandmaster nemesis dreadknight needs a better bs or to ignore having to drop to -1 bs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crisis don't need that much of adjustments. BS3+ and some points reduction on the Missile Pods and they're good. Or if they stay with BS4+ which I don't doubt then just overall point reductions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bs3+ is the only change they need.

 

Amen. Though maybe a slight reduction in points to 40. They may be good but to be fair they fall over fairly easily without a shield.

 

However, back onto the other matter at hand.

I love how people here are suggesting more CP for marines in various ways...real funny. What will we use those points on? Orbital bombardment? Orbital Cymbal more like, such a joke stratagem. There are few stratagems that are worth anything in marines and to be hones the internal lack of synergy is amazing really. Look at captains, now look at the farseers, now look at the captain, now back to the cadre fireblade, back to your captain. He isn't doing anything cool, just being a stat-stick with incidental bonuses to the guys around him which amounts to him shouting "HIT THEM, DON'T CUDDLE THEM!".

This is true for a lot of things really and is just an issue of re-hashing rules in un-interesting ways. I believe auras should be reserved for actual aura abilities (such as a shield generator or psychic powers) with some exceptions, like imperial guard having the idea of a commander shouting and inspiring by presence. A space marine captain would be a literal army wide buff as he uses his communication unit he has (in his helmet(That he should be wearing(no I don't care it messes with your toupee(yes it is a toupee, no marine has hair that is worth their salt(except you, as you are salty over your bald noggin))))) and even then he would have certain power plays that come from his unique styling of warfare. A biker captain actually gave you access to a bike army, changing how you built your list. Why not the same again? Jump Pack captains allow you to take Assault Marines as troops (and add a 0-1 on captains per detachment).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of being overly cynical, I think we all care about balance and fairness in the game FAR more than GW does. They need the rules to be good enough to sell models, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. But past that point, they’ll never get it “right” IMO. Good on them for bothering to make changes at all, especially in a relatively timely fashion compared to the last 2 editions, and moreso compared to FW.

 

I don’t mean this next bit as an insult, truly, but across the various forums and social media I see players discussing ad nauseum their potential fixes for the perceived flaws of the game, but it seems like a gargantuan exercise of futility. I can see the value in providing feedback to GW or in using house rules, but overall it just doesn’t seem worth the effort. I’ve been guilty of wasting time in many ways, so I won’t pretend not to be a hypocrite, but I dunno what the point is in the end. Just some musings, don’t pay me much mind.

 

I’m not thrilled with the changes, but again, GW and the players have two vastly different perspectives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are people’s general opinion on the transport rule, specifically how you have to embark/disembark before the transport itself moves?

 

Why was this change implemented in the first place, and do we think it’s something GW would change? Is it an issue at all?

 

Although Steel Legion can get some expanded utility out of transports, the rule has really relegated my Cadian chimeras and tauroxs to the display cabinet. Not so much a matter for anything competitive, just an annoyance narratively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are people’s general opinion on the transport rule, specifically how you have to embark/disembark before the transport itself moves?

 

Why was this change implemented in the first place, and do we think it’s something GW would change? Is it an issue at all?

 

Although Steel Legion can get some expanded utility out of transports, the rule has really relegated my Cadian chimeras and tauroxs to the display cabinet. Not so much a matter for anything competitive, just an annoyance narratively.

Wait, I'm pretty sure in 8th you've always had to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.