WestRider Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 Since it was suggested I bump this out into its own thread: I've been kind of thinking about this since the Necron Codex was released, and Annihilation Barges and Night Scythes got nerfed. At this point, what's really left that's broken when spammable, and primarily limited by FOC slots rather than Points cost? What of that is more problematic than the stuff you can take in an ITC-style 2-Detachment list as it stands, like 5 Flyrants or 5 Riptides? Is there a solid reason for this restriction to be a standard anymore? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 Yeah, IMO, Flyrants plus mucolid spores makes spamming CADs ridiculous. Two Flyrants and 2 mucolid spores are 500 pts. You could get 8 Flyrants on the board. Weeee? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 Also, every SINGLE Imperial list would include an Inquisitor practically because he's cheap and VERY useful in a variety of roles. It's not necessarily SPAMMING that is the issue, but cherry-picking cheap formations or the like to get maximum value in 2k. The 2 source limitation is at least a limitation. Also, the Decurion detachment isn't just carte blanche formation building, it is pretty restrictive still, so claiming that it just opens the door is a bit specious. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 Inquisitors, Assassins, and Flyrants would be the three things I'd be concerned about, yeah. If you just drop the two-detachment limit, spamming CADs isn't an issue (because you still can only take one of each detachment, leaving you exactly where you were before with 'Nids), but then you still have the issue of every army in the game taking a Cheapquisitor and/or Culexus to hard-counter other stuff. I don't really know just how much of a problem it would be and I think it's worth exploring, but my gut instinct is not to like it. However, Adepticon is allowing EVERYTHING this year, so we'll get to see what that results in (at least to a degree.) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
generalripphook Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 I think at first, people would respond by taking inquisitors and assassins that but in the end it would balance out again. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 Maybe, but I guarantee you that Coteaz would be everywhere again. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainA Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 Maybe, but I guarantee you that Coteaz would be everywhere again. :( I would love cocheaz in my star. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cadaver2k Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 I bet u would capt A. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 Yah, grenade caddies and assassins would be really common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 I don't think it's even the grenades- I mean, they'd be useful to some armies, sure, but a cheap Div/Telep psyker with Servo-Skulls is the main thing. Shuts down Infil/Scout completely, lets you bring down blasts accurately if you're Imperial. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intrizic Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 I don't think it's even the grenades- I mean, they'd be useful to some armies, sure, but a cheap Div/Telep psyker with Servo-Skulls is the main thing. Shuts down Infil/Scout completely, lets you bring down blasts accurately if you're Imperial. don't under estimate those servo-skulls 3-5 points of win Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 Still think lists without physical rules should be banned. INQ codex, for example. Seems like GW ignores balance more when making army lists that they never print into books/WD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
necrontyr Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Still think lists without physical rules should be banned. INQ codex, for example. Seems like GW ignores balance more when making army lists that they never print into books/WD. Yeah! Screw those Sisters players! They've had it too damn good. Who needs Cypher or Belakor or Assassins either! And Kill Team is a terrible way to want to play... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Still think lists without physical rules should be banned. INQ codex, for example. Seems like GW ignores balance more when making army lists that they never print into books/WD.You're wrong and should feel bad. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonVilkee Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Still think lists without physical rules should be banned. INQ codex, for example. Seems like GW ignores balance more when making army lists that they never print into books/WD. Times like this I wish for a hate post option or something like thumbs down. I like my 1500 ish points of sisters! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted February 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 I had thought about the 7-8 Flyrant list, but given how poorly 5 have been doing, figured doubling down on that would just exacerbate the list's issues. Good point on Inquisitors and such, tho. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chappy Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Still think lists without physical rules should be banned. INQ codex, for example. Seems like GW ignores balance more when making army lists that they never print into books/WD."Hello mouth, it's been a long time." -Foot 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 I said GW seems to ignore "balance." Sisters are certainly an unbalanced army, and I don't mean they are overpowered. I mean the army list lacks balance. Sad perhaps, but GW needs to make a proper codex that is designed to stand being printed into the physical world, or they should drop it. As for the models, look at the CSM players using SW rules. There's no real requirement to use GW models to represent their intended role. I'd much rather see sisters models representing a current, balanced codex, than to see their lacking PDF that gives false hope to sisters players. Anyway, my opinion is certainly my own. It is not wrong, though you may certainly disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonVilkee Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Even GW printed books lack this balance you speak of, sisters are every bit as "finished" as dark eldar. Sisters even have great allies to fill in for weaknesses just like dark eldar. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfestedKerrigan Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Even GW printed books lack this balance you speak of, sisters are every bit as "finished" as dark eldar. Sisters even have great allies to fill in for weaknesses just like dark eldar. To be fair, Pax didn't suggest that the printed books are balanced. He did suggest that if GW can't publish a balanced book, they shouldn't publish it at all. Personally, I don't feel every army should be able to build a perfectly balanced TAC list. To me, at least in theory, that kills the flavor of armies in a lot of ways. Should they have some tools to be able to take something out? Sure. Does it need to be the best way possible every time? F'k that noise, we already have SM, DA, BA and SW. As for more on topic, I can't attest to anything needing a 2 detachment restriction, but I do feel that restrictions such as those can really lock down a lot of creativity in lists. I'm also more of an unbound mindset, though. I think it's silly to describe all these types of situations in the fluff, and then not allow for it in list creation. I'm excited for the direction 7th has gone for those reasons. Can it make for cheese dick stuff? Sure, but cheese dick stuff will always exist, and so will super weak options. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Bigglesworth Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 I don't think 2 cad is necessary but limit the amount of sourcebooks might be the better route. As an example limit to 3 codices and 3 data slated to build your force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 I don't think 2 cad is necessary but limit the amount of sourcebooks might be the better route. As an example limit to 3 codices and 3 data slated to build your force. You mean 3 codices or 3 data slates total? I.e. 3 sources total? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Sisters are certainly an unbalanced army, and I don't mean they are overpowered. I mean the army list lacks balance. Sad perhaps, but GW needs to make a proper codex that is designed to stand being printed into the physical world, or they should drop it. As for the models, look at the CSM players using SW rules. There's no real requirement to use GW models to represent their intended role. I'd much rather see sisters models representing a current, balanced codex, than to see their lacking PDF that gives false hope to sisters players. Anyway, my opinion is certainly my own. It is not wrong, though you may certainly disagree. Sisters are certainly balanced, but their army list lacks depth. That's a big difference. Sisters have not had a print codex since 1998 or so. They have been shoehorned into a variety of WD lists, sub-codexes, digital codexes, etc. since then and have been fine. I've been playing them for over 15 years in this state of affairs and saying that just because right now they have a digital codex they should be eliminated, that's silly. Hope, that and faith in an eventual return, is the thing that makes a true SOB player. The current codex is actually my second favorite in their history (behind the no-doubt-nostalgia-tainted 3rd edition Codex:Chapter Approved). As with most things, just because you don't like it or think it is good, doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist. :) 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Bigglesworth Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 You mean 3 codices or 3 data slates total? I.e. 3 sources total? I threw out an example not what I would sell. I don't think I have a full enough understanding to say if that is correct. But I would think codices and data slates\fw should have separate limitations. If I were to guess what I think is apporiate I would say this per list: 2 codices 2 alternative sourced units, ie, white dwarf, dataslates, forgeworld, ia entires, a codex beyond first two. Meaning you can only have 2 unique units from alternative sources. I think this limits the mystery of the unknown for your opponent, which I think is the real issue at play in the tourney scene. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Hmm. So my list: Sisters of Battle - Codex 1 Space Wolves - Codex 2 Champions of Great Wolf - Source 1 Repressor - Source 2 That's basically the same as we have now, just an alternate way to look at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.