Jump to content

Big FAQ 2 discussion


USNCenturion

Recommended Posts

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).

And terminators might leave the shelves and see the light of a gaming table when led by a terminator captain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Wolves have access to really good terminators since they are customizable and hit on 3+ with unwieldy weapons the first round of a fresh charge. Custodes also have good terminators too.

Even they're only ok. Allarus that split up are pretty cool, as that means there's a good chance of overkill making some shots go to waste. Wolf Guard Terminators...not sure; probably still a bit on the expensive side (and can quickly get even more so) but at least they can choose budget options (like Storm Bolter/Storm Shield) to keep their more expensive choices alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd care more for more options, uniqueness, and fun stuff over aggressive points dropping.

Then again, I wouldn't be playing the over competitive side anyway so no point chiming in for it.

 

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?

I dunno, RG stuff doesn't seem the ignore forcefields type, flurry and chaff blending seems more their thing. So I'd up attacks a bit more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even they're only ok. Allarus that split up are pretty cool, as that means there's a good chance of overkill making some shots go to waste. Wolf Guard Terminators...not sure; probably still a bit on the expensive side (and can quickly get even more so) but at least they can choose budget options (like Storm Bolter/Storm Shield) to keep their more expensive choices alive.

Ive thought for a while that at 32pts/model, a big squad of deep striking Terminators with just power swords and Storm Bolters would be a decent distraction/PitA unit. Unfortunately vanilla marines can’t do it, but if Wolves can then maybe it’d be worth a shot?

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.

It's been a core rule of 8th since the beginning and I'm fine with it. Don't forget that you can charge the turn you disembark from a vehicles in 8th which you couldn't in 7th unless it was an assault vehicle.

That being said, I wish former assault vehicles would get some special rule back. Being allowed to move and then disembark would be great for Landraider for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only brought it up here wondering if it would or should be looked at for FAQ 3. Seems like it’s an ok rule.

I really dislike having to disembark before movement. For a start it just feels daft, second though is that it now takes two turns to do something that used to take one. Aside from the protection it offers there’s no upside to being in a transport. In two turns you can move the exact same distance to an objective and be set up and firing from it if you walk or take the transport. The only difference is if you walk you can still fire your weapons that first turn. The protection offered by the transport for that one turn is not worth the price of the vehicle and losing a turn firing.

 

The other problem is it just gives yet another way for players to screen against and/or kite assault units who are travelling in one. They now have an extra turn to position screens and move away.

 

I’ve disliked this rule since the start of 8th and it’s one of my top things I would change. Bringing back assault vehicles that could disembark at the end of the movement phase would be a good start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really dislike having to disembark before movement. For a start it just feels daft, second though is that it now takes two turns to do something that used to take one. Aside from the protection it offers there’s no upside to being in a transport. In two turns you can move the exact same distance to an objective and be set up and firing from it if you walk or take the transport. The only difference is if you walk you can still fire your weapons that first turn. The protection offered by the transport for that one turn is not worth the price of the vehicle and losing a turn firing.

 

The other problem is it just gives yet another way for players to screen against and/or kite assault units who are travelling in one. They now have an extra turn to position screens and move away.

 

I’ve disliked this rule since the start of 8th and it’s one of my top things I would change. Bringing back assault vehicles that could disembark at the end of the movement phase would be a good start.

I have a similar problem with the way transport rules work, but from a close combat army perspective. Not allowing you to disembark after moving means the vehicle is left open to being surrounded. A typical scenario goes something like this:

 

- Your Land Raider full of expensive punchy people moves up, taking advantage of its high movement stat (which is one half of the point of a transport), getting as close as possible to where your dudes need to be to start hitting things

- You can’t disembark this turn, so you either shoot something or advance then twiddle your thumbs

- Your opponent’s turn rolls around, sees your expensive Land Raider full of expensive dudes in close, then moves a fast unit closer to it and charges it

- Between charge, pile-in and consolidation moves, the unit surrounds your Land Raider

- One of two things happen: the unit fails to kill the Land Raider, which is then stuck there indefinitely with no way to do anything or disembark your dudes, or the unit succeeds in killing the Land Raider, and your entire expensive unit of punchy dudes evaporate into the ether.

 

My proposed solution is to let units disembark in the Charge Phase. All Stratagems, Psychic Powers and other abilities I know of that let you move extra distance trigger in either the Movement, Psychic or Shooting Phases, so by disembarking in the Charge Phase there’s no shenanigans to pull with people trying to get obscene movement distances in one turn by abusing transports. It also gives ‘normal’ close combat units a little boost which, lets be frank, they sorely need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 The protection offered by the transport for that one turn is not worth the price of the vehicle and losing a turn firing.

 

I want ot heavily disagree on this one. My armies always feel so much more capable when I use transports compared to when I don't. Losing a turn of shooting in trade to get in position and not lose the actual unit is definitely worth it.

Also saying that you can move the same distance with a unit regardless of whether or not it's in a transport is not quite right either. For one there are transports with FLY rule so you can cross terrain and units which you otherwise couldn't, but more importantly for this argument when disembarking you add 3" to the distance the unit moves which you would otherwise only get when you advance which would in return make you hit worse or most of the time not at all. ;) 

 

The argument that it feels unintuitive for an action to take up two turns that used to take up one turn is completely reasonable tho!

 

 

 

I have a similar problem with the way transport rules work, but from a close combat army perspective. Not allowing you to disembark after moving means the vehicle is left open to being surrounded. A typical scenario goes something like this:

 

- Your Land Raider full of expensive punchy people moves up, taking advantage of its high movement stat (which is one half of the point of a transport), getting as close as possible to where your dudes need to be to start hitting things

- You can’t disembark this turn, so you either shoot something or advance then twiddle your thumbs

- Your opponent’s turn rolls around, sees your expensive Land Raider full of expensive dudes in close, then moves a fast unit closer to it and charges it

- Between charge, pile-in and consolidation moves, the unit surrounds your Land Raider

- One of two things happen: the unit fails to kill the Land Raider, which is then stuck there indefinitely with no way to do anything or disembark your dudes, or the unit succeeds in killing the Land Raider, and your entire expensive unit of punchy dudes evaporate into the ether.

 

My proposed solution is to let units disembark in the Charge Phase. All Stratagems, Psychic Powers and other abilities I know of that let you move extra distance trigger in either the Movement, Psychic or Shooting Phases, so by disembarking in the Charge Phase there’s no shenanigans to pull with people trying to get obscene movement distances in one turn by abusing transports. It also gives ‘normal’ close combat units a little boost which, lets be frank, they sorely need.

 

 

Ignoring the fact that the Landraider is simply not good anyway and would greatly benefit from a proper assault vehicle rule as it used to ... that's exactly the reason why you don't put all your eggs in one basket. It's simply too easy to counter for basically every army out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ignoring the fact that the Landraider is simply not good anyway and would greatly benefit from a proper assault vehicle rule as it used to ... that's exactly the reason why you don't put all your eggs in one basket. It's simply too easy to counter for basically every army out there.

I think you’ve managed to miss the woods for the trees here. Replace ‘Land Raider’ with ‘Rhino’ and ‘expensive punchy dudes’ with ‘cheaper punchy dudes’ if that helps. The point is that a transport full of fighty models wants to get as far forward as possible as quickly as possible, but doing so when you can’t disembark after moving closer to the enemy makes you too susceptible to being surrounded. It has nothing to do with the established fact that the Land Raider is a garbage fire and everything to do with the fact that the transport rules in 8th Ed don’t accommodate combat units.

 

If the Landraider had the same special rules as the Spartan it would be a lot better.

That would certainly be a good start. Next would be to drop it to 140pts base for the chassis (so double a Rhino for about double the durability but not double the transport capacity, hell you could probably make it 110 or 120 without making it OP), paying normal prices for weapons on top of that.

 

Unfortunately that still doesn’t solve the structural issue with combat units in transports this edition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marine CC units suck, that's the bigger issues. Terminators have two attacks that hit on 4s. I'd rather shoot a Plasma.

 

I think we have to wait for Chapter Approved. We really don't know what the impact or relevance of things will be until it has been released, as I keep saying. For the time being Eldar are better than ever, Knights are still good and Guard are still taken to add CPs and board control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ignoring the fact that the Landraider is simply not good anyway and would greatly benefit from a proper assault vehicle rule as it used to ... that's exactly the reason why you don't put all your eggs in one basket. It's simply too easy to counter for basically every army out there.

I think you’ve managed to miss the woods for the trees here. Replace ‘Land Raider’ with ‘Rhino’ and ‘expensive punchy dudes’ with ‘cheaper punchy dudes’ if that helps. The point is that a transport full of fighty models wants to get as far forward as possible as quickly as possible, but doing so when you can’t disembark after moving closer to the enemy makes you too susceptible to being surrounded. It has nothing to do with the established fact that the Land Raider is a garbage fire and everything to do with the fact that the transport rules in 8th Ed don’t accommodate combat units.

 

 

 

I didn't miss anything. I don't mind that mechanic with those units, that's all. It's as much a valid mechanic as charging a rhino into a unit to soak up overwatch without the unit having any realistic chance to stop the rhino before charging in the actual melee unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marine CC units suck, that's the bigger issues. Terminators have two attacks that hit on 4s. I'd rather shoot a Plasma.

Oh no doubt. But combat unit transports aren’t a Space Marine-specific problem; it even applies to good units like Berserkers or Ork Boyz in Trukks. Specific unit balance isn’t the problem - it’s an issue in the core design of the rules.

 

I didn't miss anything. I don't mind that mechanic with those units, that's all. It's as much a valid mechanic as charging a rhino into a unit to soak up overwatch without the unit having any realistic chance to stop the rhino before charging in the actual melee unit.

Personally I do consider a mechanic that discourages a large generic army concept (mechanised assault infantry) to be poor design. Especially when it goes against fluff and common sense - a hormagaunt standing in front of a Land Raider’s assault ramp isn’t going to stop it shooting and prevent the Terminators inside getting out; it’s going to get squished like a bug when the hatch opens and the Terminator getting out is at best going to be mildly irritated by the alien blood discolouring his armour. I also don’t like Rhinos charging to absorb Overwatch; it’s a band-aid to get around the daft and immersion-breaking idea of letting units fire Overwatch an unlimited number of times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I didn't miss anything. I don't mind that mechanic with those units, that's all. It's as much a valid mechanic as charging a rhino into a unit to soak up overwatch without the unit having any realistic chance to stop the rhino before charging in the actual melee unit.

Personally I do consider a mechanic that discourages a large generic army concept (mechanised assault infantry) to be poor design. Especially when it goes against fluff and common sense - a hormagaunt standing in front of a Land Raider’s assault ramp isn’t going to stop it shooting and prevent the Terminators inside getting out; it’s going to get squished like a bug when the hatch opens and the Terminator getting out is at best going to be mildly irritated by the alien blood discolouring his armour. I also don’t like Rhinos charging to absorb Overwatch; it’s a band-aid to get around the daft and immersion-breaking idea of letting units fire Overwatch an unlimited number of times.

 

 

Well agree to disagree then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinda off topic, but what would the viability of implementing elements from bolt action and beyond the gates of Antares to replace the igougo system be like? Just the simple actions like move and shoot, double move, move assault and the like. No d10s yet, just something to break up the igougo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinda off topic, but what would the viability of implementing elements from bolt action and beyond the gates of Antares to replace the igougo system be like? Just the simple actions like move and shoot, double move, move assault and the like. No d10s yet, just something to break up the igougo.

 

Kill Team seems to be going in that direction, they have move assault, move+advance and ready for more accurate firepower/overwatch which is I think a much better action sequence since it doesnt make Overwatch into a free bonus and its a lot more intuitive but whether its actually a better system for a larger game is debatable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The transport rule change is simple and just not understood. On one hand, most transports are able to move further than infantry in one move along with being more durable (ha) and it can feel clunky to have to disembark before moving but it prevents a lot of another issue we saw from deep strike but a different coat of paint: Alpha Striking. Yes, Land Raiders should have an aggressive rule for them to be used as ASSAULT vehicle but as it stands they don't do well at it really (and I love my raiders).

 

I will stand by some core things I have stated and I did like what someone mentioned though I can HEAR IT already, I can HEAR the crying, the moaning and complaining from the Dark Angels regarding normal marines being allowed to field a proper terminator army. "But that is OUR thing WAAAAAAAAAAH", no, having funky gear and plasma on anything you see walking around in power armour is your thing (and I am pretty sure you are petitioning for scouts to get plasma guns too!).

Sorry, but I do see a lot of infighting amongst power armour regarding "our stick". Sadly I feel that is because those are the things that make (or made) them viable in the past and thus feel encrouched upon.

 

As it stands, no army really does much to differ itself outside of itself. While the trait system itself in theory is cool, it is far too token and thrown in with little considered for it. I mean, traits really just boil down to one of two things: I am taking this unit and this trait is what makes them good OR this trait is so busted by itself why not take just because. they don't really influence your building and while stratagems are part of the whole thing, I would like to see furthering of the system. Possibly an add-on-Dex where it deals with more indepth rules regarding the different factions within marines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing to bear in mind with transports, is that a unit can move (and possible Advance) before embarking on them, then the transport can still also move (and also Advance) to get a unit quite a long damn way across the table. Assuming a 6" infantry move and a 12" transport move, that unit is 3x further (actually, 3.2x further, since they only needed to get within 3", not base to base) than they got on foot. And then they get another 3" next turn when they disembark.

 

The way transports work is fine (and I'm currently playing a list based around mechanised Marines). Some exceptions, like Land Raiders and their ilk, to emphasise certain things being designed as assault transports - you could say that a unit could possibly disembark after moving, but couldn't do a regular move afterwards. It would give them more movement overall (unless they're a particularly fast unit already, such as Jump Pack Assault Marines in a Land Raider) and would give assault vehicles more of a unique purpose.

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.