BA Today

[Damon Nightman]

It got delayed

[Panzer]

Sorry to completely change the topic, but wasn’t there supposed to be a chapter approved coming out every March? Does anybody know anything about that?

 

No, the big FAQ comes out every March and September. The CA comes once every year iirc.

 

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/12/15/the-future-of-faqs-and-chapter-approved-dec-15gw-homepage-post-2/

[Pendent]

Specifically, the FAQ got delayed because the GW team got badly tabled by Flyrant spam at AdeptiCon and realized that there may be an issue

[Panzer]

Which is funny because the GW team took Tyranids to the tournament as well but apparently their tournament players aren't able to spot the most obvious cheese or didn't feel comfortable playing such a list due representing GW or something. ^^

[Damon Nightman]

Probably the former unfortunately.

[FormelyKnownAsSmashyPants]

Which is funny because the GW team took Tyranids to the tournament as well but apparently their tournament players aren't able to spot the most obvious cheese or didn't feel comfortable playing such a list due representing GW or something. ^^

This. This made me chuckle.

[Karhedron]

Which is funny because the GW team took Tyranids to the tournament as well but apparently their tournament players aren't able to spot the most obvious cheese or didn't feel comfortable playing such a list due representing GW or something. ^^

It reminds me of a line from one of the Devs back in the day talking about Slaaneshi Daemon Princes with lashes. He basically said they never expected anyone to take more than one.

 

This attitude persists among their testers today. They consider the effect of units taken singly in a varied list, they never bother trying to spam things to really find out if they are broken. One Flyrant is strong but manageable, 4 are less so.

 

Fortunately they do seem to slowly be coming around to the idea that certain units can break the game when fielded in multiples. The 0-1 restriction on Coldstar battlesuits in the new Tau codex suggests they might finally be learning.

 

Time will tell.

[Panzer]

 

Which is funny because the GW team took Tyranids to the tournament as well but apparently their tournament players aren't able to spot the most obvious cheese or didn't feel comfortable playing such a list due representing GW or something. ^^

It reminds me of a line from one of the Devs back in the day talking about Slaaneshi Daemon Princes with lashes. He basically said they never expected anyone to take more than one.

 

This attitude persists among their testers today. They consider the effect of units taken singly in a varied list, they never bother trying to spam things to really find out if they are broken. One Flyrant is strong but manageable, 4 are less so.

 

Fortunately they do seem to slowly be coming around to the idea that certain units can break the game when fielded in multiples. The 0-1 restriction on Coldstar battlesuits in the new Tau codex suggests they might finally be learning.

 

Time will tell.

 

 

They really should hang up a big poster with "Can the unit be spammed without breaking the game?" lol

[Pendent]

I'm a little surprised that they weren't hearing a lot about the spam issues already given that the FLG guys were supposedly doing some of the playtesting for 8th. At least once they become aware of issues these days stuff gets fixed

[Indefragable]

What makes me scratch my head about the GW designers is their seeming lack of understanding human psychology at times. I never met any of them, so this is not ad hominem, but I just plain don't get it.

 

Almost all of 40k's product lines are built, designed, packaged, and marketed as combined-arms forces. Yet the game system itself rarely seems to reward combined arms/1-each-of-5-different-units builds. Rather, the game seems to favor 5-of-1-unit-type builds since it's that much easier to overwhelm a core piece of an enemy's force. Do one thing and do it prohibitively well seems to be the name of the game.

 

I thought Decurions and Formations in 7th were a start to fixing that issue. For example, a Landspeeder + Whirlwind becomes more effective than 2x Whirlwinds. Stuff like that.

 

Thinking about space marines, to me, it would make sense if synergies were built into units so that any ASM that charges a unit shot by Tacticals gets to re-roll charges, or +1A, or the enemy has to re-roll successful Overwatch attempts or such. A single IG Infantry Squad within 3" of a Leman Russ tank that is charged by an enemy can have the LR fire Overwatch in addition to the squad's own. Stuff like that. The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts, etc...

 

The alternatives are what they are already doing with 0-1 hard caps on certain units like Tau Commander suits, or just nerfing most units into pale shadows of themselves (which nobody wants).

[Karhedron]

The CP system is a step in the right direction in providing some additional bonuses for fielding plenty of Troop units but even that does not perfectly address the problem of "combined arms" because it just details numbers, not interactions between them. Also it does not help that Troops units themselves vary wildly in quality between armies.

 

Decurions and Formation were a good idea implemented very badly. At a most basic level, giving away free models (like transports in the Battle Company) was a bad idea. Some Formations attempted to make poor units good by piling on special rules that then became silly when spammed while others attempted to undermine core mechanics of the system (Skyhammer for example was one of the few places where you could charge out of Deep Strike).

 

This inconsistent approach doomed formations and led to a lot of people getting fed up with 7th edition. They started promisingly enough with the Necron and Eldar codices which were strong but balanced against each other but then degenerated into confusion with Space Marines getting piles of freebies while Dark Eldar were saddled with one of the weakest codices in years.

 

8th edition has mercifully leveled the playing field but at the cost of the "combined arms" feeling you mention.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

I still advocate for tournaments to go back to the old force org charts. 2 HQs 2-6 troops, up to 3 of everything not LoW or Dedicated transport. We can't do this anymore because of things like imperial knights being implemented, but I'm sure exceptions could be made.

 

The good thing is most casual players don't spam/bring filth to locals, and local meta only slightly picks up for the semi-competitive to competitive crowd.

 

Rip tide wing and Wraithknight spam can stay in whatever level of hell it was sent too.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Dont-Be-Haten

[Deathwalker]

What makes me scratch my head about the GW designers is their seeming lack of understanding human psychology at times. I never met any of them, so this is not ad hominem, but I just plain don't get it.

 

Almost all of 40k's product lines are built, designed, packaged, and marketed as combined-arms forces. Yet the game system itself rarely seems to reward combined arms/1-each-of-5-different-units builds. Rather, the game seems to favor 5-of-1-unit-type builds since it's that much easier to overwhelm a core piece of an enemy's force. Do one thing and do it prohibitively well seems to be the name of the game.

 

I thought Decurions and Formations in 7th were a start to fixing that issue. For example, a Landspeeder + Whirlwind becomes more effective than 2x Whirlwinds. Stuff like that.

 

Thinking about space marines, to me, it would make sense if synergies were built into units so that any ASM that charges a unit shot by Tacticals gets to re-roll charges, or +1A, or the enemy has to re-roll successful Overwatch attempts or such. A single IG Infantry Squad within 3" of a Leman Russ tank that is charged by an enemy can have the LR fire Overwatch in addition to the squad's own. Stuff like that. The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts, etc...

 

The alternatives are what they are already doing with 0-1 hard caps on certain units like Tau Commander suits, or just nerfing most units into pale shadows of themselves (which nobody wants).

This is the seed of a really good idea.

It would have to be limited to a degree (same detachment for example) but I really, really do like this to off-set soup lists. Soup lists get clear advantages, and that's perfectly fine, but pure lists get hampered by not having those, or alternative advantages.

[Paladin777]

How about only being able to use stratagems of the force that your warlord belongs to? That would probably take soup lists down a notch. (This idea might suck, but I’m just throwing it out there.)

[Deathwalker]

How about only being able to use stratagems of the force that your warlord belongs to? That would probably take soup lists down a notch. (This idea might suck, but I’m just throwing it out there.)

I think that is a bit extreme, and defeats the purpose of battle forged detachments being mandatory for at least tournament/ PV play. The idea really is to buff purist lists, not crap on soup.

Say for example that Fast attack choices got +2 to their charge if a heavy support choice shot at them and removed a model -if they share a detatchment,-, or tac's get +1 to hit if a heavy detach shot at them, or tacs/ heavies get +1 to hit if a Fast attack or elite withdrew from combat.

All of a sudden, battalion regiments get a reason for existing outside of CP spam, and having different troop types adds actual tactical flexibility to an army list

Why do I need 6 troops, 3 FA, 3 HS, 3 EL??

Cause they actually have an in-game mechanic to support that choice. 

[Paladin777]

That sounds really cool, but also sounds like a ton of bookkeeping and special rules to keep track of. Though to be honest, I don’t have a better idea... Edited March 29, 2018 by Paladin777

[Deathwalker]

That sounds really cool, but also sounds like a ton of bookkeeping and special rules to keep track of. Though to be honest, I don’t have a better idea...

I honestly know why the notion of book-keeping is bad or became bad.

When I played tournaments, I took tons of notes on how my troops performed against XYZ in XYZ conditions, I just did it in my own turn instead of sitting around for half an hour while my opponent beat the snot out of me. (granted, that's less of an option in CC when we can interrupt or go first anyway).

 

If you want to push 40k into a tactical game, make it fewking tactical!!!

Right now, everything exists in a bubble -except- stratagems.

[Indefragable]

The first hints of 8th I heard through channels suggested that the Keyword system would REALLY reward purist builds. Like if every unit in the army has the Blood Angels keyword, then every model in the army gets +1 to movement, advance, and charge ranges. Therefore, choosing to bring a Culexus Assassin provides alternative benefits, but playing a pure single faction also provides a bonus. Right now the benefits of soup automatically win because there is no quantifiable benefit in a purist list that can compete.

[NinjaNard]

https://ibb.co/e0pi5S

 

Need to add some highlights but first scout squads pretty much done!

Edited March 29, 2018 by NinjaNard

[Indefragable]

https://ibb.co/e0pi5S

 

Need to add some highlights but first scout squads pretty much done!

 

Lookin' good, Ninja!

 

__________ 

 

Now for something completely different....

 

 

This has 0 tacitcal utility, but it may be casually interesting to any observers.

 

I realized I keep making quips about how "half our book is Elites..." and realized I never actually did the math. So, in case you are ever THAT bored and are curious...

 

31.17% of all Codex unit choices available to BA are in the Elites FOC slot....which makes it the second largest with 24 selections.

32.47% of the book is HQ's, making that the plurality of options available, and thus the largest FOC slot for us with 25 selections. Breaking out units into seperate datasheets by their armor type etc... really inflates this section.

What feels just plain wrong is the fact that a mere 7.79% of our Faction is Fast Attack...which just feels weird for "the red ones" chapter.

 

Where this information could potentially be useful (and I'm stretching here) is for edition 8.1 or something. Having a seperated Dedicated Transports FOC slot really takes away from FA, and having a seperate Flyer section also harms both our HS and FA options. Why this could matter is when it comes to filling out a Brigade: if Rhinos/Rbacks were still technically FA, then it would be far more advantageous to run mech Tacticals and such, while in the current system you are actively punished for bringing DT's since they provide 0 ability to give you CP.

 

Full breakdown:

Hidden Content

HQ   1 Commander Dante 2 Gabriel Seth 3 The Sanguinor 4 Brother Corbulo 5 Sanguinary Priest 6 Chief Librarian Mephiston 7 Librarian Dreadnought 8 Librarian 9 Primaris Librarian 10 Librarian in Terminator Armor 11 Astorath 12 Lemartes 13 Chaplin in Terminator Armor 14 Primaris Chaplain 15 Chaplain 16 Tycho the Lost 17 Captain 18 Captain Tycho 19 Captain in Terminator Armor 20 Captain in Cataphractii Armor 21 Primaris Captain 22 Captain in Gravis Armor 23 Lieutenants 24 Primaris Lieutenants 25 Techmarine 25 Total 32.47% Percentage of book         TROOPS   1 Tactical Squad 2 Intercessor Squad 3 Scout Squad 3 Total 3.90% Percentage of book         ELITES   1 Sanguinary Guard 2 Sanguinary Ancient 3 Primaris Apothecary 4 Aggressor Squad 5 Sanuinary Novitiate 6 Death Company Dreadnought 7 Death Company 8 Servitors 9 Terminator Ancient 10 Company Ancient 11 Primaris Ancient 12 Company Champion 13 Company Veterans 14 Reiver Squad 15 Terminator Squad 16 Terminator Assault Squad 17 Cataphractii Terminator Squad 18 Tartaros Terminator Squad 19 Vanguard Veteran Squad 20 Sternguard Veteran Squad 21 Dreadnought 22 Furioso Dreadnought 23 Contemptor Dreadnought 24 Redemptor Dreadnought 24 Total 31.17% Percentage of book         FAST ATTACK   1 Assault Squad 2 Bike Squad 3 Attack Bike Squad 4 Land Speeders 5 Scout Bike Squad 6 Inceptor Squad 6 Total 7.79% Percentage of book         HEAVY SUPPORT 1 Devastator Squad 2 Predator 3 Hellblaster Squad 4 Baal Predator 5 Hunter 6 Stalker 7 Whirlwind 8 Vindicator 9 Land Raider 10 Land Raider Crusader 11 Land Raider Redeemer 11 Total 14.29% Percentage of book         DEDICATED TRANSPORTS 1 Rhino 2 Razorback 3 Drop Pod 4 Land Speeder Storm 5 Repulsor 5 Total 6.49% Percentage of book         FLYERS   1 Stormhawk Interceptor 2 Stormraven Gunship 3 Stormtalon Gunship 3 Total 3.90% Percentage of book     77 Total # of datasheets in book

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Indefragable

[Jolemai]

So Semper posted this today. I wonder what it could mean...?

[Jolemai]

So Semper posted this today. I wonder what it could mean...?

To add, the build up thread for this will begin once B&Z is fully complete.

[Panzer]

Sounds like a challenge to beat the Chaos guys for once. The loyalists might even win this year considering I'm going to join with BA since EC aren't released yet. :P

[Paladin777]

So... should I hold off on painting my sanguinary guard and librarian for now?

[Paladin777]

all basecoated and ready for detail!