derek Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 So link will show it from the review and that's bogus they better start allowing multiples from the other armies then that's super irritating https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/06/16/first-look-space-marines-codex/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek Posted June 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 About the 3rd or 4th paragraph in when they speak about the battle company Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 From our very own AbusePuppy. I guess when compared to SAF, double Demi Companies isn't so bad now though. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek Posted June 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 I better be allowed multiple formations then too. I can think of a couple that would be really cool to have multiple of Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek Posted June 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 So what do you mean SAF 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 I better be allowed multiple formations then too. I can think of a couple that would be really cool to have multiple of It will be a specific exception because it is a new formation created from two formations. If you have two formations that create a new formation, I imagine that will be allowed as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 So what do you mean SAF Skyhammer Annihilation Force. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 So what do you mean SAF Smooth As [big bad swear word]. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indytims Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Superman And Friends Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splinx Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 LOL Smash And Flatten! :) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 To be clear about this: I absolutely think Reece made the wrong call here and I think it's bad for the game, but there's nothing I can do to change that. Also, I think the Battle Company is stronger than the Skyhammer. Skyhammer will get its own article. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentP Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 I agree, it is stronger than Skyhammer. And I agree that this was totally the wrong call, and an affront to their alleged insistence on voting on things before. This was straight up marine favoritism and cannot be justified by any logical and consistent reading of the ITC rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 From a competitive standpoint, company is better. That much obsec for free is wrong. For a wtf just happened to me standpoint, SAF is worse. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 That's actually a perfect description. I feel more people will complain about SAF, but BC is going to make a mark on the tournament scene in a big way. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentP Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 I walked away from LVO vowing to never again play a competitive game without at least two ObSec units. I cannot imagine a whole army of them. ObSec may not make a difference to the top 5% of the players, but it makes all the difference between mid-level players where one person has it, and the other doesn't. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 As the top tables of LVO proved, ObSec is still kinda a big deal. My "new" ITC army runs 24 ObSec units. :| Balanced! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek Posted June 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 I don't think it was very fair to allow that duplicate formation. I hope that Reece changes his mind or at least allows other armies to do the same thing. I don't think it's cool to just let a army that gets freetransports because of duplicating a whole formation is just bull. I agree that the itc has stated that it votes for everything as they did about the whole ranged d weapons and they also voted against duplicate formations because that'd get kinda crazy but hey guess alot of people won't be down for the itc rules if they just favor one army because it's 1 formation is stupid op and eldar were soooooooooooooooooo op and then this..... man not sure how I feel about this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Sorry, I'm in smug mode right now... This is why I hate it when TOs start dicking around with structural components of the game. I appreciate that the game is evolving in such a way as to not help competitive play, but when you start restricting/allowing certain formations etc. without considering the consequences you should expect to get flak. Whilst I'll always be a "comp-whore" even I have to recognize that the times are a changing; I think the way OFCC has gone about it is the best solution for now. Unless someone can come up with a Swedish Comp system for 40k. One that does not start WW3.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Sorry, I'm in smug mode right now... This is why I hate it when TOs start dicking around with structural components of the game. I appreciate that the game is evolving in such a way as to not help competitive play, but when you start restricting/allowing certain formations etc. without considering the consequences you should expect to get flak. I really agree with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 This is why I hate it when TOs start dicking around with structural components of the game. Unless someone can come up with a Swedish Comp system for 40k. One that does not start WW3.... How is Swedish Comp different/better than ITC bans/erratas? They are aiming at the same goals... Just curious. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 They aren't. Doc just likes one over the other. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 It is not better, but it may be a way, and I say MAY, to rate/rank teams in a formal manner without limiting player's choices in what seems to increasingly be an arbitrary manner. No system is perfect, but I hope we can find a less imperfect system. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Are you talking about ITC or OFCC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 generally - ITC may just have killed itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 generally - ITC may just have killed itself. Yeah... Wanna take a bet on that? 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.