What are you looking forward to most in the RG supplement?

[Dracos]

I agree, but for now we are going to have to wait and try to adjust how we picture the rules emulating the fluff.  I do't like it because it feels off like you say, but I just have to picture that armor save I made as dodging in the shadows as a "miss". Meh, yeah blows there we are. :(

[Dracos]

I don't think they'll work that way, but if it's a pick and choose then us DIY color schemers are gonna be eating at the hog trough (thus why I doubt it lol) good catch on the Overwatch. Yeah thats nasty. Again situation plasma Inceptors and Hellblasters will eat through them, but yeah Nasty. Good for the IH though.

[Biscuittzz]

 

Serious amount of whining in here which I've never seen in the RG sub before.

We've never had our Chapter Tactic go from middle of the pack to the worst one in the book before.

 

Seriously, go look at the Tactics the other Chapters got and compare them to ours.

 

I mean, the Imperial Fists Tactic flat out shuts ours off. Any time you have one faction that can just straight up turn off another's ability just by existing, that's bad design.

 

 

Are you serious? Our CT was top of the pack beforehand never mind middle, and now went from great to good. Severe amount of revisionism on your part. Worst in the book? You're having a laugh.

 

I have compared them and you can see my comment from the other thread on it:

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/357535-space-marine-new-releases-codex-20/page-27

 

Our vehicles are flat out better now and are affected nearly 100% of the time if they keep range, that's why I've put our CT up there with IF and IH. Salamanders new CT will barely come into affect on their vehicles just like UM, WS and BT. 

 

And bad design? Bad design is a -1 to hit that takes no intuitive game play whatsoever other than measuring a distance. The entire argument about us losing our -1 to hit stinks of " Eldar still have theirs, why are we getting nerfed?!". Pure childish whataboutism. GW are changing design aspects of the overall game and I'd bet my life on Eldar losing theirs in the next pass at them.

 

Your anger at IF 'shutting' off our tactics is based on your playing environment. There's just as many and probably more who will never face IF or IW. You can shut down CF tactics be effectively taking msu or salamanders tactics by not using AP-1 weapons yet I see nothing from their players about being 'shut down'.

[Nusquam]

It is most definitely a nerf, the fact that a common scenario exists that negates part of our CT exists is proof of that. There should be no scenario where you have no recourse and lose out on your armies main rule. Hard rock/paper/scissor scenarios should not exist; and I'm not talking counter play like lascannons for AT or assault cannons for hordes. It's bad game design. You can take a lascannon to shoot a tank, but taking IF or IW and negating another armies tactic is awful. This is a hard counter, it means you don't get to play RG if you're lucky enough to face one of those factions. I cannot underscore enough that this scenario should not exist.

 

You can bet that any other chapter thread would be in an uproar if a new codex came out with a faction trait rule that negated one of their bonuses. Imagine a Necron Dynasty that had grav tech whos rule was "You cannot advance while within 24" of a model with this rule" or a Hive Fleet that has adapted  where "6's to hit do not trigger any bonuses that increase the number of hits on this unit". And so on. You can see why these are niche to most armies but straight invalid other ones.

 

It also doesn't make sense, partly because cover in this edition is awful. Why do we get tougher? I understand it is an abstraction, but it's too much of one. -1 that can't stack would have been fine for non Flyers, and Flyers getting something else like a scout move or -1 to hit in hover instead of just supersonic.

 

Fingers crossed I can make Raptors from the successor traits. Or I'm painting their left arms silver and inducting them into my Deathwatch, which is an army that can use their CT against every other army.

[Dracos]

Please ease off the peddle a tad their Biscuittzz. There's nothing "childish" about expecting "fairplay". History shows us Eldar never get hit with the nerf bat in the same way (if ever) that other factions do (especially Astartes). Given precedent, its perfectly acceptable to not expect Eldar to get hit like we have. Hoping for it on your part is positive, and I for one am going to follow your lead in hoping for this, but experience prevents me from expecting it.

 

I try not to compare my army to non-Astartes. Too many variables to incorporate to make a viable equation. Comparing to other Astartes loyal and Hereticus though. Yeah I'll do that .... So I'm keeping an eye on Alpha Legion. I've seen a bit of whining from Chaos players already. Let's see how GW treats out mirror Chapter before proclaiming RG losing the -1 to be fairplay or not.

[CaptainMarsh]

This scenario already exists and is worse in two cases. IF/IW ignore 100% of the Tau Sept Tenet of Dal'yth and Hive Fleet Jormungandr's Adaptation.

50% of Blood Axes, and now Raven Guard, can also be ignored by IF/IW. I'd put blood down on the prospect of Stygies, Alpha Legion, and Alaitoc being changed in a similar fashion in time.

[Dracos]

Blood? You definitely have had a different GW experience over the decades than I have I hope to follow your optimism :)

[Claws and Effect]

Yes. When one factions ability completely negates another's without them having to do anything special, it is indeed bad design.

 

Our -1 to be hit had a simple counter that anyone could do: move closer. It could be circumvented, but you had to play tactically to do it.

 

An Imperial Fists army negates fully half of our Chapter Tactic just by being what it is. No strategy needed. It is the rock to our scissors, and we don't have any paper available to us.

 

In fact, anything that ignores cover negates our Tactic, and every faction in the game has something that does it.

 

If you enjoy tournament play at all, you're in for a rough time of it. I'm already seeing tournament tryhards talking about starting Fists because of the extra hits on 6s. So running into our new hard counter is going to be a LOT more common than you think.

[duz_]

=][= Let's keep it civil all.

 

The CT will be a change from what we're used to. However, without the full rules and play testing we won't know for sure and mileage may vary depending on local environment.

 

Until then let's keep the discussion constructive. =][=

[Dracos]

I would never build an army based on something that triggered 16% of the time. It’ll happen sure but I wouldn’t count on it unless maybe I had an army of all Centurions and Aggressors. All the other stuff yeah sucks but I bet I find a way to make it work I need Astartes aircraft with horde clearing weapons to fly with my Xiphons for an air wing. Time to hit the books.

[thewarriorhunter]

Great points all around. I'm on mobile and quoting sucks but to Shake Captain Vyper and you quoting me: that was a typo, I didn't mean to say you were wrong, just me.

 

Also did for thought: perhaps the new codex is released on the cusp of 9th and there will be significant rules/terrain changes that mean our CT is more viable in that new system?

[CaptainMarsh]

In fact, anything that ignores cover negates our Tactic, and every faction in the game has something that does it.

Negates the first half of the Tactic, yes. Not the second element. Infantry/Bikers in/on terrain and more than 12 inches away will still have -1 to hit. They do not require the benefit of cover to benefit from that part of the Tactic.

[Claws and Effect]

 

 

In fact, anything that ignores cover negates our Tactic, and every faction in the game has something that does it.

Negates the first half of the Tactic, yes. Not the second element. Infantry/Bikers in/on terrain and more than 12 inches away will still have -1 to hit. They do not require the benefit of cover to benefit from that part of the Tactic.

True, but that's a pretty narrow set of circumstances for something to be useful, is it not?

 

I can't recall a single game where I was able to keep more than a couple units on a terrain feature for any length of time. At least not any games I came close to winning anyway. And keeping them in a place where they consistently have the -1 makes it really easy for your opponent to simply move closer and nullify it.

 

A +1 to save is inferior to a -1 to be hit 100% of the time. For the +1 to save to kick in your unit has to have already been hit and wounded. Not getting hit makes a save unnecessary.

 

The save roll you don't make will never fail.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Claws and Effect

[sal of manders]

Something to think about here, if the previewed supplements are any indication of what is to come for the rest of us, I suspect RG and the other books may be getting their own psychic disciplines, which is something GW would have to balance for.  We also don't know what changes in stratagems and wargear there will or won't be.  There's a prospect for synergies that we can't see because we've only seen part of the picture, and the change in chapter tactics may be adjusting for that which we haven't seen yet.

[Panzer]

Something to think about here, if the previewed supplements are any indication of what is to come for the rest of us, I suspect RG and the other books may be getting their own psychic disciplines, which is something GW would have to balance for.  We also don't know what changes in stratagems and wargear there will or won't be.  There's a prospect for synergies that we can't see because we've only seen part of the picture, and the change in chapter tactics may be adjusting for that which we haven't seen yet.

 

Might also be that there's a particulaly stealthy unit for Raven Guard down the line that already gets a -1 hit modifier by default like the T'au Stealth Suits do.

Really, there's a lot to consider for the future we simply don't know yet. Even with the nerf the RG chapter tactic is still good and as long as you properly use the terrain it's not even nerfed anyway. At least you now get vehicles with a 2+ save (1+ in case for stuff like Landraiders) which is the same as having a 5++ against anti-tank stuff with AP-3. Just be happy that you are allowed to move to receive the benefit of cover unlike the Dal'yth Sept for T'au (I REALLY hate all the T'au stuff that forces me to be stationary  ).

[spessmarine]

-1 as a trait was a bad idea from the start as far as I'm concerned

hopefully the other offenders get whacked too

[MajorNese]

Any to-hit modifiers hit different armies to a clearly different degree. As soon as these start to stack, entire armies become unplayable.

BS4+ armies (tau/guard) facing a -1 to hit lose 1/3 of their firepower, or 2/3 on a -2. For BS3+ it's just 1/4 (or 1/2 with -2) of what originally would have hit.

 

I'd be fine with it being limited to -1, or every army wide -1 gets changed so the units with -1 (stealth suits, flyers, smoke launchers) offer something unique.

 

In our case, getting cover before the -1 at least gives us a bonus either way, and not exactly a bad one - an army of 3+ saves on pretty much anything will tank absurd amounts of AP0 shots, and it will be a bonus against all but AP-5.

[Biscuittzz]

I'll bow out of this thread so. I've never disputed the fact that it is a straight nerf to our original CTs - it definitely is but the hyperbole in here that we've gone from top tier to thrash overnight is astounding. Everyone is falling in love with salamanders tactic of AP-1 changing to AP0, yet our CT practically gives us a -1 to AP from AP0 to AP-4 as MajorNese has shown, yet it's completely overlooked.

 

Having another CT negate ours is indeed bad design but our original -1 to hit was also bad design in the first place. Not much of a peep about design when it benefitted us was there? 

 

Using anecdotal stories of people already eyeing up IF armies to play tournaments to support an argument is just as useful as me saying that I see no IF/IW players so the CT negation means nothing. 

[Brother Quixote]

Getting back to the OP's quetion what am I looking forward to?

 

Seeing what they do with stratagems - It'd be nice to have a themed Raven Guard one back rather than the watered down one we have now.

Hopefully they'll have some goodies for my jump infantry too.

 

My jump pack librarian is keenly awaiting the new psychic powers too.

 

All the chapter specific lore updates - seriously, we finally get to find out what other chapters are doing, other than Ultras (and being forced to take Primaris at gunpoint or be declared a traitor, apparently).

 

As for the Chapter tactics reveal, they seem pretty balanced actually. I get the frustration my Raven Guard brothers have at the moment though, it feels like our rules have been messed around with a lot compared to other factions.

 

My scouts with camo cloaks are looking forward to their +2 save even in the open and -1 to hit in cover. Objective camping has never been so frustrating for an opponent!

[MajorNese]

Having another CT negate ours is indeed bad design but our original -1 to hit was also bad design in the first place.

To be honest, our CT negated entire armies to a considerable degree, as I've seen when facing Tau with an infantry-based list - they just couldn't hit anything at range, but it's the single thing that army is supposed to be good at. That was an uphill upmountain battle purely by matchup.

 

IF were situational and not considered worth it before. Now calling them the newest hotness because they counter a part of one popular chapter's tactic is really short-sighted IMO. Otherwise, they would have been the famous hard counter to the always-in-cover tyranid/tau CT and Shroudpsalm'ed AdMech. Locally we have some IW players, but IF are so hard to paint that few people are actually able to field them. Against armies that don't rely on cover, most of their CT is negated in turn, so it's nowhere near a universally useful CT like ours.

 

Actually, the whole cover thing enables us to do ridiculous stuff, when you consider AP-3 to be the usual AP limit - 3+ armour with cover turns into an army wide 5++. And the usual counter for the 5++ is lower AP weaponry, which gets blunted to the same degree in our case. Eliminators running around with 1+ saves in the open, LandRaiders and Centurions having essentially a 4++, and even the bog standard Intercessors become better at bluntly marching across the open lead-filled field than IH. Our Inceptors are up to gravis terminator flyer armour, with 2W/T5/2+/5++ (again, considering AP-3). Seriously, we get Ironclad LandSpeeders, not even the Custodes ones have such a good armour....

 

As always, the complaints about falling skies are loudest before the codex even drops. Just give it a few weeks, and you'll see that yellow is still damn hard to paint...

 

 

€dit:

Come to think of it, modifying the to-save roll instead of the to-hit roll is not that different in enabling quite a few solid results/matchups.

With to-hit modifier, anyone not sporting BS3+ was royally shafted losing 1/3 of their firepower, and losing 1/4 with BS3+.

With to-save modifier, anyone not sporting AP-1 actually loses an entire half of their firepower, as just the roll result of a 1 is failed, not 1 and 2. With AP-1, they still lose 1/3.

 

Which is better for us IMO, as army-wide BS3+ is a lot more common than army-wide AP-1/Ignores Cover. Your mileage may vary against certain armies, but it always does.

Contrary to this, the IH FnP is working linear - it's always fixed at losing 1/6 of the firepower. Without the restrictions of >12" and Ignores Cover, but all in all a weaker resilience buff for a ranged army.

Edited August 6, 2019 by MajorNese

[Claws and Effect]

For the record: The people I see talking about running Fists now are talking about it for the extra bolt weapon hits on 6s. Negating our Chapter Tactic is just a bonus, and it's really negating MY Chapter Tactic because I'm the only RG player in the area.

 

#byeravenguard is now a hashtag in other social media discussions.......

[MajorNese]

#byeravenguard is now a hashtag in other social media discussions.......

Really?

Used by the AstartesOfTheMonth crowd or those who hated facing RG?

 

And yeah, that AstartesOfTheMonth stuff was always the case. I still remember when my beloved IH were overrun by powergamers in 7th for their biker captain, just to be dropped for RG in 8th. While I started Raptors in 7th, and IH successor a few months ago. All quite confusing if you actually play what you like, not what's good for a few weeks...

[ShinyRhino]

I'm not bothered at all by the CT change. I actually like it because of the things I see in my local meta.

 

The bonus to save is more valuable to me when I face things like massed Deathwatch with Shields and Stormbolters firing Hellfire. Every unit becomes a Terminator, whereas before I was losing several Primaris models per unit fired.

 

Basically, my meta latched on to the "throw more dice, win more games" idea.

 

The big winners IMO are the T5+ infantry and vehicles, though I can agree that that doesn't feel super fluffy. But my Dakkaboat speeder squads love it, as do my Assault Centurions.

 

My plan going forward, since I'm in full switch over mode from Firstborn units to Primaris, is to create a layered infantry formation. Stalker Intercessors/Eliminators in the back, Bolt Rifles in the front, Hellblasters/Suppressors as fire support, and Infiltrators/Reivers as a skirmish line and harassing elements.

[MajorNese]

Yeah, primaris are the big winners of this change. Previously they suffered from not having access to 2+ armour, now they all get it but keep their 2W and T5 buffs compared to oldmarines. As before - our CT is versatile, it will help make more units viable across the board (unlike the more shoehorned CTs).

[Lord Raven 19]

Everything, basically.

I am soon to be buying a 3D printer hopefully so staying on terrain shouldn't be a problem, I hope