Sgt. Rock

After reading the leaked Crusade rules, I noticed something interesting. Your Order of Battle just needs to have one faction keyword in common. It doesn't say anything about only being drawn from one codex or whatever. So realistically, I could have, say, a small detachment of Rynnsguard on my OoB to accompany my Crimson Fists, and it would still be legit. Army might not count as Battle Forged, and I wouldn't get my chapter bonuses, but I could do it.

I've been searching, but I haven't found any files. I'm probably going to have to custom order some, or buy some small toy dogs and saw their heads off.

So I have a project where I will need 4 or 8 dog heads scaled that they would fit a classic Space Marine's torso (like a tactical marine.) I cannot, for the life of me, find such a conversion bit anywhere on the wide web. Anyone have suggestions?

Right? That venerable dread I have in the cabinet is going to be on the board a lot more.

@Lyraeus Honestly? At times it's been hit and miss. I've had games that were great, and I've had games that were less so. I do most of my 40k gaming at Fate & Fury, because while a lot of the players are toxic as human beings, there are two separate leagues, one for hardcore ITC players, and one for casual fluffy bunnies. The players that play in both leagues know what to expect from each league, and they act accordingly. Ordo has been awesome for Infinity, but like I said, I find there's a lot more consistency among Infinity players than 40k. But 40k at the clubhouse has been a bit of a gamble for me in the past, which is why I usually don't show up on Tuesdays much.

No, not you. Mostly games with other people at other places, often in the distant past of previous editions. The games we've played have been pretty one-sided, but I think that's just because you're a better player than I am.

Doom and gloom is what I do best! Also, I've had multiple instances where "the talk" has resulted in the other guy saying "Oh, yeah, I'm totally a casual player, this list isn't optimized at all." And then getting smeared like a grot under a Baneblade's treads, not because I'm a bad player, but because I didn't tune my list like a formula 1 care.

I get that, and it's fine and good, but like I said, it only takes one or two guys to come in and dominate a league/campaign and sour fun for other people. If a game is balanced, that happens less, and unfortunately, GW games have always been, and probably always will be, imbalanced to one degree or another. The army book system shoulders a lot of blame for that. Games between competitive and casual players can be very one-sided in the fun department. If I bring a fluffy bunny list expecting to just goof off and toss some dice, and my opponent trots out his ITC winning netlist of doom and wipes me off the table in two turns, he may have enjoyed himself, but I sure didn't. And I feel like PL opens itself up to way too much opportunity for that kind of abuse. As you said, people should play the game the way they want to play it, but they also need to be prepared for their opponent to not have fun if they stomp their dick into the dirt because they were expecting a different type of game.

That's a perfectly valid point, and I would agree whole-heartedly... except that if I'm being perfectly honest, 40k players can't be trusted. No matter how much emphasis a club or LGS might place on casual, narrative fun for a league, there's always going to be one or two players who are going to take that as an opportunity to bust out their WAAC list. There is a LOT of variation in the seriousness with which players take this game. Other games you have a better idea of what to expect; WarmaHordes players are cutthroat WAAC hardasses, Infinity players tend to be very friendly, sportsmanlike, and professional, etc. 40k is the old box of chocolates; you never know what you're going to get. I'm a very beer and pretzels player, and I would totally go for it that way. But I know a lot of players who would simply kit out all their stuff for optimal performance every single time, narrative be damned, just for the sake of winning. That's how a lot of players have fun, and that's fine. If that's your game, and that's all you know how to play, then go for it. But it doesn't jive with the narrative power level system. If you have enough control over your player base to weed people like that out, it's one thing, but it's otherwise impossible to police that, and 40k players are so inconsistent in what you get out of them that you just never know what to expect. At least with matched play, the granularity of the points makes it semi-balanced.

As a marine player, I can tell you all about how busted PL is. Maybe it will work better with the battle roster thingy, but I know that in a straight up game, the differences in what you can get for PL vs. points is very, very stark. It removes the consideration of opportunity cost from list building. Perfect example, take a tactical squad. A basic 10 man tac squad with bolters is 7 PL and 120 points. Now, let's add some upgrades. We won't go too nutty, let's say we give the sarge a plasma pistol and power sword, and then add a plasma gun and a missile launcher. Not too out of hand at all, right? In matched play, that brings the cost up to 151 points from 120. But it's still 7 PL for an objectively better unit. That extra 31 points in matched play is something you have to add up and consider. In narrative using power level, you don't. For some armies where most of their stuff doesn't have a lot of upgrade options, it's fine, but when you throw in factions like Marines or Guard or even Orks where there are a million ways to tinker with your units, it becomes pretty unbalanced very quickly.

Looking forward to it, but I have one main concern: Power Level. Power Level is fine and dandy if you just want to throw down a quick game with a buddy, but unless they change it completely in 9th and offer a lot more granularity (at which point why not just use the points system?) then it remains hopelessly unbalanced. With PL, there is literally no reason not to take the best upgrades and wargear on every single unit you take, because it doesn't cost you anything extra. If they're adding the granularity to change that, that's fine, but like I said, why not just use the matched play points system that they've been using for, what, 25+ years now? I don't really get it. PL is fine for super friendly casual stuff, but all it takes is one try-hard in the league to ruin it for everyone.

Also, Ish, your artistic talent is without peer. GW needs to hire you to design such informative diagrams tootsuite. 😛

My point exactly. This is one of those BS things that will probably get abused until GW FAQ's it into oblivion. At least, I hope so.

I'm saying that anyone who tries to draw LOS from the tip of a sideways gun barrel is cheesing the rules. Lack of facing is fine, I don't necessarily always agree with it, but it's one thing to draw LOS from a vehicle's hull in a reasonable position. It's something entirely different to take a corner case like that and abuse the rules to do something utterly ridiculous and stupid. This is why I've become so selective about who I play 40k with. People who tout RAW over any semblance of reasonable thought and sensibility are people I don't want to play with.

I don't understand. Are you saying you could rotate the turret so that you're drawing LOS sideways from the end of the barrel, as though you're firing a magic bullet out of the muzzle break? Because the first person that tries that [big bad swear word] with me is getting dreadsocked. Or at the very least permanently losing an opponent. That's pure cheesedickery.

Considering that there are no fire arcs for vehicle weapons, this is all a bit of a meaningless discussion. You don't need to rotate the turret or sponsons or whatever unless you just think it looks better, and anyone who's going to nitpick against you for trying to bring in a tiny bit of "rule of cool" by rotating your weapons to face what you're shooting at is probably a dickbag not worth playing against. Movement is the same; measure from point A on the vehicle at the start of the move to point A on the vehicle at the end of the move.

I miss you guys, but with a recovering cancer patient in my house, I'm taking no risks. It sucks, and I desperately want to game with everyone. I'll see you once we're vaccinated.

I like it. Makes you think twice about throwing that valuable character into the fray right out of the gate.

That model is one of the worst cases of function following form that I have ever seen in a game piece.

Of course. They're synonyms for "mandatory" right?

But it is! Gee Dubs sez so! And their word is law, don'tcha know!

No more conga line bullcrap for capping multiple objectives and spreading out auras! I love it!

Not to pick at knits, but the bolt carbine they carry is already assault 2. It was actually pretty damn good until they made Intercessor auto bolt rifles assault 3.

I'm super stoked for Combat Patrol sized games. Tactical Squads shine at low levels like this where the Primaris boys are too expensive. Also, my new Guard army I've been eyeballing will love it.

Keep in mind that Reivers do have more mobility and deployment options than the Intercessors do. Deep strike and the grapnel hooks are really nice, and they can get to where they need to be faster, and for far fewer points, than trying to shove the Intercessors into a transport of some sort.