New 40k edition

[spagunk]

1 hour ago, happycamper said:

Your not really though, berserkers are the only thing you have compared anything of note too. You have stated you believe BA are weak,  yet basically haven't compared them to anything but DC to Berzerkers. That is fair point, though I personally see that as a point adjustment later on.

But the rest of argument is weak as of right now the way to deliver it.  They don't have AA? Then take a vanilla AA, detachments work that way now.  Comparing a Razorback and Baal is silly, they serve completely different rolls.

for the record, friendly argument ??

Well I am not speaking specifically about berzerkers with regards to effectiveness. I am speaking about things like Thunderwolf calvary, Vanguard Vets (with gear, mind you), Wolfin, Howling banshees, Eldar anything etc. Basically any assault unit besides regular assault marines.

I initially wrote a big long hypothetical example where I showed how DC approach nearly 50points per marine to get close to effective (without weapons) but deleted it. People mathhammered that to death already.

[happycamper]

31 minutes ago, spagunk said:

Well I am not speaking specifically about berzerkers with regards to effectiveness. I am speaking about things like Thunderwolf calvary, Vanguard Vets (with gear, mind you), Wolfin, Howling banshees, Eldar anything etc. Basically any assault unit besides regular assault marines.

I initially wrote a big long hypothetical example where I showed how DC approach nearly 50points per marine to get close to effective (without weapons) but deleted it. People mathhammered that to death already.

Can you link some of this mathhammer? Curious

[Lyraeus]

55 minutes ago, Lord Hanaur said:

 

That's kind of off the subject.  whether or not games are going more or less quickly for some, i am curious if anyone is doing some things to mitigate time in the general sense.

 

 

Know your rules, pre measure often, and assist your opponent 

[Threejacks]

51 minutes ago, Lord Hanaur said:

There was a claim made in one of their pre-release announcements that 2K could be played in 2 hours.  I see in the book that it says 2-3 (a hedge) but it was announced at one point that this could happen before the book came out and I've seen no game go only 2 hours as they say it "could".  We're not even close to that it seems like.  I dont know too many that were regularly playing it at 1500 although obviously that isnt to say it shouldn't or cant be.  1850 was the ITC standard.  2K was the "fun standard around here when we weren't at tournaments.

That's kind of off the subject.  whether or not games are going more or less quickly for some, i am curious if anyone is doing some things to mitigate time in the general sense.

 

 

  2k is likely still going to be in the 2.5 hr round time frame,,of course some matchups and scenario combos will go faster,others will be even longer.

   What suprises me a bit about this issue is that GW seemed to keep the general outline for scenarios that they have been using for 7th and even part of 6th,,thus some of them even have the variable turn effect,possibly even going 7 turns.AoS has gone to a 5 round competative game across the board...this as a rule has made events manageble but still, at 2k points we really need to allocate 2.5 hrs per round.

  I rem about 18mos ago my oldest and I tried using a 7 th edition 40k scenario with tac objective cards with our 2k AoS lists(scrollbuilder points).He was using Bretonnian/SCE vs my Chaos mixed army..the game took like 5 hrs to complete lol.We ground down to just a few models each and Chaos squeaked out a win,if I rem correctly.Either way I can see why it may be taking longer now with the new AoSified system.Players will learn the system and it will speed up im sure.

 

[scottshoemaker]

For AoS I made cheat sheet cards of my units to have on the table for quick reference.  As the unit's weapons and abilities are right on the card this saves page flipping.  Folks who are complaining about "watered down" rules are overlooking the fact that most of the extra rules have been migrated to the units themselves.  This provides greater flexibility in unit uniqueness without burdening a BRB with scads of USR.  I've played since Rogue Trader, and this is the most excited I've been about a new edition since 3rd (which in hindsight was disappointing)  

[WestRider]

A great blog post with some good tips and insights on 8th.

[Lord Hanaur]

2 hours ago, scottshoemaker said:

For AoS I made cheat sheet cards of my units to have on the table for quick reference.  As the unit's weapons and abilities are right on the card this saves page flipping.  Folks who are complaining about "watered down" rules are overlooking the fact that most of the extra rules have been migrated to the units themselves.  This provides greater flexibility in unit uniqueness without burdening a BRB with scads of USR.  I've played since Rogue Trader, and this is the most excited I've been about a new edition since 3rd (which in hindsight was disappointing)  

did you laminate them or...  just print them?  Or do you mean kind of like just a list?

[fluger]

10 hours ago, spagunk said:

Responses in red.

I'll just say that a good friend of mine who has played BA for years and has been a top player in South Africa for years (he's won or gotten second in their champions tournament for the last 5 years IIRC) has stated that BA are losers too.  He's gotten several games in and is kinda frustrated with them.  

I don't play marines enough to know what's what, but I trust his take.  

 

[Dusldorf]

49 minutes ago, fluger said:

I'll just say that a good friend of mine who has played BA for years and has been a top player in South Africa for years (he's won or gotten second in their champions tournament for the last 5 years IIRC) has stated that BA are losers too.  He's gotten several games in and is kinda frustrated with them.  

I don't play marines enough to know what's what, but I trust his take.  

 

morticon? i would trust his opinion as well. shame. although it's still possible that people haven't yet found the right strat(s)/combo(s).

[fluger]

Yeah, Mort is talking of allying in Sisters to add punch to his force.

[VonVilkee]

Sisters are so amazing now!

[spagunk]

9 hours ago, happycamper said:

Can you link some of this mathhammer? Curious

"Citation needed" ....sure.

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/334575-death-company-8th-edition-and-power-mauls/?p=4782398

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/334575-death-company-8th-edition-and-power-mauls/?p=4782405

For a quick couple of examples.

[Munkie]

A small counter-point:

While the insight of high profile competitive players certainly holds weight when deciding the high level competitive value of an army, highly competitive players tend to exaggerate the flaws of an army too.

"X is great, X-1 is unplayable."

While slight differences become huge at top tables and lead to that sort of binary thinking, it has little value for casual to semi-competitive gamers, IMO.

I was told for years that 4th edition tau were "unplayable" and I loved them in 4th and 5th. I won more than I lost too. Then they got their 6th edition book and god I hated it. Sooooo boring. Competitive, sure, but if you wanted your opponent to have fun too, then Tau are not the army for you.

It's just weird to me when people flip out that their army isn't high end competitive. I know the difference between me winning a big tournament and not has waaay more to do with my skills than it does my army's relative competitive value. 

Play what you like, and play the hell out of it. The rest will sort itself out. 

[spagunk]

2 hours ago, Munkie said:

...

It's just weird to me when people flip out that their army isn't high end competitive. I know the difference between me winning a big tournament and not has waaay more to do with my skills than it does my army's relative competitive value.

...

First off, I am not flipping out because I am not "high end". Not even. I've been on the lower end for over a decade and a half. 3rd edition was a weird time with rhino rushes but I had maybe 20 tac marines, and 3 independent characters back then so I did not access this myself. But 8th edition was touted as fixing this. It was the attempt to make things right. The first shot of their fix completely missed the point with my army however.

I've never wanted to be high end. I just want my army to work properly. I want a reasonable expectation that if I bring my army to the table top, I have at least a chance to do something. Having to put units on the board and then take them off turn one REALLY FRIGGIN SUCKS! I want blood, close games, near misses, excitement and fun. I don't want to have to just stand there and be an NPC for other armies that are just better or more effective at what my army was supposed to do. But so far, it looks like my only recourse is to dump huge points into special characters to keep even keel at this time. I've been in here long enough to have many characters at my disposal but I know not everyone has that luxury.

[Munkie]

Did you skip 5th? If so, that's unfortunate. BA were top tier for several years then. Poor guys dropped to tier 2 when necrons and grey knights came out. 

I know "flip out" might have been hyperbole, but then so is:

3 hours ago, spagunk said:

I want a reasonable expectation that if I bring my army to the table top, I have at least a chance to do something. 

Or do you actually believe BA are so bad that you don't have a chance to do anything?

3 hours ago, spagunk said:

Having to put units on the board and then take them off turn one REALLY FRIGGIN SUCKS!

8th Edition might not be the one for you then. Everything I've read and heard indicates that will be commonplace, BA or no. 

3 hours ago, spagunk said:

I don't want to have to just stand there and be an NPC for other armies that are just better or more effective at what my army was supposed to do.

And more hyperbole. I'll withdraw my "flip out" comment if you lay off the flippy outty type comments. 

I get that you had expectations that haven't been met. Sure that's frustrating. Am I annoyed that every army gained the advantage of my WWP (no scatter deep strike), while I lost almost all of my deep strike capabilities? Sure. 

Does it make sense that DE have decided that lining up in a battle line and slugging it out is the new strategy? No.

I am going to adapt to what I've got and we'll see what happens. I just don't see the point of fixating on data that tells you you're going to have a terrible time before you've even tried it.

You sound dead set on not enjoying your army in 8th. Nobody is able to talk you off the ledge there, so what's the goal at this point? No rest until everyone here understands that BA are so mathematically inferior that it doesn't make a difference if you're playing them or not—your chances of victory are the same?

 

[Skkipper]

Forgeworld xenos book ordered. 

Curious if forgeworld will mail the chaos one tomorrow or is it already on its way

[derek]

Looks like the forgeworld books ship Monday :( dang well guess it gives me time to fiddle with models and decide how I'm gonna play stuff for now.  

[pretre]

13 hours ago, WestRider said:

A great blog post with some good tips and insights on 8th.

This post was great!

[Sugarlessllama]

6 hours ago, Munkie said:

A small counter-point:

While the insight of high profile competitive players certainly holds weight when deciding the high level competitive value of an army, highly competitive players tend to exaggerate the flaws of an army too.

"X is great, X-1 is unplayable."

While slight differences become huge at top tables and lead to that sort of binary thinking, it has little value for casual to semi-competitive gamers, IMO.

I was told for years that 4th edition tau were "unplayable" and I loved them in 4th and 5th. I won more than I lost too. Then they got their 6th edition book and god I hated it. Sooooo boring. Competitive, sure, but if you wanted your opponent to have fun too, then Tau are not the army for you.

It's just weird to me when people flip out that their army isn't high end competitive. I know the difference between me winning a big tournament and not has waaay more to do with my skills than it does my army's relative competitive value. 

Play what you like, and play the hell out of it. The rest will sort itself out. 

This. So much this.

Personally, I have found competitive 40K players to be kind of lazy. And what I mean by that, is that they lean too much on their army rules being out of balance rather than on their skill as a player. When the top tables are all, "the meta" as can be found on a netlist, I don't consider than excellent play on their part.

I came to 40K from Warmachine. I played competitive Warmachine for 10 years. And the "meta" in Warmachine revolved around play design and not factions. Heavy 'Jacks, or infantry would be "the meta", not Protectorate, or Khador. And the last year I went to Lock & Load, the World Championship was won by a Cygnar player, and Cygnar was the "weakest" faction at the time. The top tables always had the same few players, and the same players rarely, if ever, changed factions. Wil Pagani is a Circle player. And was considered by many to be the best player in the world before he got hired by the PP design team. 

But 40K doesn't really track the best players. Because it tracks the most broken book. It kind of doesn't matter who is rolling the dice when the outcome has been decided by the match making most of the time. That is not skill, that is paying to win. 

I am hoping that 8th edition will fix it. Hitting the hard reset on WFB and turning it into AoS has done great things for their comp scene IMHO. I think it really brought back a level of skill based play that was missing from that game for a long time. 

In other words: play what you want.

So, that's my two cents. 

[spagunk]

12 minutes ago, Munkie said:

Did you skip 5th? If so, that's unfortunate. BA were top tier for several years then. Poor guys dropped to tier 2 when necrons and grey knights came out. Probably? I don't even know at this point how often I played that edition but I pretty much struggled most of the time. I remember eldar being completely gone but not much else rings a bell to me about that edition.

I know "flip out" might have been hyperbole, but then so is:

"I want a reasonable expectation that if I bring my army to the table top, I have at least a chance to do something. "

How is a desire for a reasonable expectation hyperbolic? I don't think you understand exactly how depressing 7th edition was for armies like Blood Angels. It was really bad. I've literally been told to pick a different army or play Red marines several times.

Or do you actually believe BA are so bad that you don't have a chance to do anything?

Well, I think they are at a real bad place, and technically we aren't even out yet. If there is any success, it would be finding those armies that struggle the most handling 3+ and 2+ saves. Since everyone has been given ways to deal with this, would be "interesting" to find out what BA specifically counters.

"Having to put units on the board and then take them off turn one REALLY FRIGGIN SUCKS!"

8th Edition might not be the one for you then. Everything I've read and heard indicates that will be commonplace, BA or no. 

"Just stop playing" is pretty much not the response I look for.

And more hyperbole. I'll withdraw my "flip out" comment if you lay off the flippy outty type comments. 

I get that you had expectations that haven't been met. Sure that's frustrating. Am I annoyed that every army gained the advantage of my WWP (no scatter deep strike), while I lost almost all of my deep strike capabilities? Sure. 

Does it make sense that DE have decided that lining up in a battle line and slugging it out is the new strategy? No.

I am going to adapt to what I've got and we'll see what happens. I just don't see the point of fixating on data that tells you you're going to have a terrible time before you've even tried it.

You sound dead set on not enjoying your army in 8th. Nobody is able to talk you off the ledge there, so what's the goal at this point? No rest until everyone here understands that BA are so mathematically inferior that it doesn't make a difference if you're playing them or not—your chances of victory are the same?

 

See comments in red.

It's not the RULES I didnt like, it was how they rebuilt my army. THAT Is what I am upset about.

But thanks for saying my concerns are invalid and I'm off the deep end.

[pretre]

Maybe everyone take a step back?

[Lyraeus]

I vote for player skill. Fun times happen when it's down to player skill. Well, as long as it doesn't turn into EVE style player skill

[pretre]

22 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

 EVE style player skill

SPREADSHEETS FOR EVERYONE!

[pretre]

With just a handful of hours left before the release of the brand new edition of Warhammer 40,000, Frankie returns for the final Faction Focus article covering the legendary Talons of the Emperor.|

 

Hello everyone, Frankie from SoCal Open here to finish off our faction focused reviews with the ever-loyal warriors of the Adeptus Custodes and Sisters of Silence! I was one of the playtesters for Warhammer 40,000 and help run several of the largest Games Workshop gaming events in the world! Suffice it to say, I love these games and enjoy showing them to other people. But enough about me, let’s get to it.

The Custodes are the warriors trusted with guarding the Emperor and the Golden Throne. They are more powerful than the Space Marines and are constantly at war with Daemons, which has kept them fairly preoccupied for the past 10,000 years. They are said to be forged from the Emperor’s own gene-seed and can take on entire armies on their own. These mighty warriors were only recently available in Warhammer 40,000, but let’s take a closer look at how they will perform in the new Warhammer 40,000.

First up, we have the Custodian Guard themselves. These guys are monsters coming in with Toughness and Strength 5 with 3 Wounds and a 2+ Save. They are basically small characters running around the table with their guardian spears or sentinel blades. Both of these are AP -3 and do D3 Damage which makes these guys very scary in close combat. Their ranged weapons are also quite good, being AP -1 and dealing 2 Damage. The Custodes also inspire all other Imperial units and give them a re-rolls to morale if within 6” of the Custodes Vexilla. As in the lore, these mighty warriors will wade into the worst of the enemy’s fire, shrug it off, and then cut them down with blade and bolter!

The Custodes also have a Venerable Contemptor Dreadnaught in their arsenal. The Dreadnaught starts off with a BS and WS of 2+ and 10 Wounds. You can either arm it with a multi-melta or a Kheres pattern assault cannon which is Strength 7 and AP -1 with a LOT of shots. It also has a 5+ Invulnerable save and a 6+ ignore-all-wounds style save to back that up. This Dreadnaught is truly fearsome and, in addition to being a gorgeous model, serves an important function of providing mid-range fire support to the advancing Custodes.

Lastly, we have the Custodes’ Venerable Land Raider. This Land Raider has a BS of 2+ which makes it a little deadlier than even other Imperial Land Raiders, who already loom large on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium. As if a 2+ Save on a Toughness 8 model wasn’t enough, it also has a 5+ invulnerable save and a 6+ ignore-all-wounds rule which makes it the most resilient Land Raider we have seen so far. This is the perfect vehicle to transport your Custodes and, in most cases, will get them up the field safely so they can spread the good word of the Emperor….or just smash things to bits!

The Sisters of Silence provide even more fantastic tools to the Imperial player. They come with the Psychic Abomination ability, which has a stacking weakening effect on enemy psykers, giving them up to a -4 to manifest psychic powers. That really diminishes the psychic capabilities which many lists rely on for their strategies, such as Chaos units moving a unit twice with Warp Time, etc.

Beyond this, Sisters of Silence also reroll failed wound rolls against units with the Psyker keyword and pack some serious firepower. They’ve got a choice of bolters, swords or flamers in the three infantry units available to them. If the unit is equipped with bolters, they can also opt to target enemy Psyker Characters even if they’re not the closest unit with their Prosecution Protocols rule.

Well, thank you all for joining us on this journey with the faction focused articles. We hope you all enjoyed them and are as excited about the new Warhammer 40,000 as we are. Happy gaming!

[fluger]

1 hour ago, spagunk said:

See comments in red.

It's not the RULES I didnt like, it was how they rebuilt my army. THAT Is what I am upset about.

But thanks for saying my concerns are invalid and I'm off the deep end.

I think its perfectly valid to look at all the buffs handed out to other [big bad swear word]ty codexes and be jealous.  My comment is simply this:  Keep playing and try and track specifically what is lacking and make it KNOWN to GW.  The points updates need to have info to make them work.