Get Ready For Chapter Approved

[Ishagu]

The large tournament scenes and GW's sales figures are the opposite of anecdotal. These are the measures that show the game's popularity.

 

My local example was just a contrast to the one you gave and the exact reason I said not to judge by your local scene.

 

Also, of course GW will continue to write books and models. They are in it to make money. Have you ever heard of Fiduciary responsibility to their share holders? :-P

Edited December 5, 2017 by Ishagu

[Cpt_Reaper]

The thing that baffles me is those that are being critical of 8th/40k/GW in general seem to hate the idea that anyone at all is enjoying anything about the game in it's current state. I get it, you are critical of the game and/or GW's business practices because it's your hard earned dollarydoos at stake. But there is a point when it stops being a critical analysis and just becomes unadulterated defecation on the product.

 

I can't name any one person in particular. It is simply the general vibe I am getting from forum posts, blogs and youtube videos.

[chapter master 454]

 

@Damo

 

How about the fact that GW sales are through the roof and the bigger tournaments are setting attendance records?

 

Your local meta might be in decline, mine has regular games every day and bi-weekly tournaments.

So you agree?

 

Meta discussions will always be anecdotal?

 

Sales records for an expe dive new edition will always skew any theories on actual performance.

 

Average gamer:

 

Dark Imperium £95

Index £15

Codex £35

 

That's just for Space Marines, and bare basics of what a lot of Marine players bought, without things like cards, dice, objectives, and Primaris releases for band-wagon jumping.

 

Some people haven't touched Primaris and some have gone OTT in the hopes of something special.

 

Then you add in every released codex and either any special units released with or around them, and you still won't have an accurate picture. How many people were disappointed by their codex? How many lost more faith once their FAQ was released?

 

 

So coming in with my side again here and fighting along side Ishagu here.

 

First off, any 'average' playing coming in will expect the hobby to be expensive and this is the big point of the hobby: we make Magic the gathering modern top tier deck lists look budget. Using cost as a point of people turning off is moot point as it always has been one of the biggest drawbacks of the game since creation and always will be. Even when price hikes weren't around the game was still expensive and still will be. You didn't even include Paints, Brushes, Glue and tools which can easily rack up a hefty sum for the "Average Gamer" but I will contend that anyone coming into this game is not an "Average" gamer if they really want to.

 

Previous editions are not better. I have heard stories that have come from tournament players where in 7th, games would be over before they even began where if anyone brought out a supremacy suit (if they were allowed) would just forfeit and any mirror matches were determined by the die. Is that your better game? Where we needed a BAN LIST? Currently 8th edition allows those with those models to play them for fun because that is what those units are for. Fun.

 

On top of that various other games are being brought back by GW and while not in huge swathes, it is great to see their efforts to bring back games and support them. While of an older time, I did notice they did a second run of space hulk, they are working on bring back necromunda and shadespire is regarded by many at my shop as a great game and many at my shop like 8th edition. The only reason for a drop in attendance is that work gets in the way.

 

Like mentioned, I think GW are still trying to get their bearings. People seem to forget what 8th edition was. They tore the old house down and built it from the ground up keeping on certain foundations. People complain about it being expensive and shallow but out of question, if GW wanted to make money then why do such a pricey endeavour? It's a lot of resource to not only have to print 5 indexes and a rulebook all at once along with various new models and then have to get new codexes out every month with no break? Each army is barely getting any time to breath by it's self and would be considered suicide for products as it will quickly lead to buyer fatigue and that is what is happening really. To be honest I think the opposite is true in that it isn't buyer fatigue but buyer waiting. People are waiting for their codex to come out and thus aren't spending anything until then which may attribute to your 'sell up and leave' mentality, they aren't playing until THEIR army comes out.

 

8th edition is a good game. I want you, the other side of this arguement, you give me reasons for this game not being better? Is it the rulebook you are not happy with or is it that your codex isn't up to 'your' standard?

[Silas7]

Sincerely Ishagu, sometimes your positivity is inspiring. I don't always agree with you but i'm never sorry to hear what you have to say.

[Damo1701]

Comparison between editions:

 

8th Morale is awful. There is no real explanation for the reasoning, other than punitive. Every edition previous to 8th got morale right.

 

Vehicles - are no longer the armoured behemoths that they are supposed to be. Facing and positioning doesn't matter. 2nd edition had vehicles that behaved correctly. Remove Hull Points for 3-7 and you still had a better vehicle system.

 

Short-range Auto-hit. This is regardless of unit type or weapon type. Flame weapons are not going to touch, let alone damage a supersonic flyer.

 

Wounds - everything does not damage/wound everything. Go ahead, fire your pistol at an armoured tank. Show me where you manage to really do anything that "degrades" it. Same with your random creature that is twice your height, 10x your weight, and your pocket knife.

 

Combat - there is no way that if you are better than your opponent, they are going to hit you as easily as somebody they are better than. Flat rolls make no sense. Was the previous system perfect? No. It needed some 2+ and some Impossible. Just like the wound table. It averaged things out nicely.

 

I'm not entirely sure where to start with the Marine codex, other than to say that it looks, once again, as the baseline codex that the others are designed to be able to defeat. No Chapter Tactics on Marine vehicles (Dreadnoughts excluded), unless you are an Ultramarine, you are fairly screwed for Command Points, and the fact our vehicles are expensive and suffer -1 for the move/fire heavy weapons is another kick.

 

Any of those things could have been addressed in Chapter Approved, and none of them were, unless you count the fact many Marine vehicles got priced upwards, to the point where casual gamers who didn't spam were penalised.

 

I'll add in the fact that Chapter Approved early release didn't help the situation where players already felt taken for mugs, for needing to try and constantly justify Index requirements, because the Codexes were either too light on the options available, or, removed units completely. So much so that HE had yo release their flow-chart... rather than including everything in the codex.

[Ishagu]

Sincerely Ishagu, sometimes your positivity is inspiring. I don't always agree with you but i'm never sorry to hear what you have to say.

Thank you for the compliment :-)

 

In truth I'm not always positive. I was actually disappointed by Chapter Approved although I don't hate it.

I've simply been in the hobby a long time, and I've seen the highs and lows. Not everyone feels this way but we're currently riding pretty high lol

[DuskRaider]

Comparison between editions:

 

8th Morale is awful. There is no real explanation for the reasoning, other than punitive. Every edition previous to 8th got morale right.

 

Vehicles - are no longer the armoured behemoths that they are supposed to be. Facing and positioning doesn't matter. 2nd edition had vehicles that behaved correctly. Remove Hull Points for 3-7 and you still had a better vehicle system.

 

Short-range Auto-hit. This is regardless of unit type or weapon type. Flame weapons are not going to touch, let alone damage a supersonic flyer.

 

Wounds - everything does not damage/wound everything. Go ahead, fire your pistol at an armoured tank. Show me where you manage to really do anything that "degrades" it. Same with your random creature that is twice your height, 10x your weight, and your pocket knife.

 

Combat - there is no way that if you are better than your opponent, they are going to hit you as easily as somebody they are better than. Flat rolls make no sense. Was the previous system perfect? No. It needed some 2+ and some Impossible. Just like the wound table. It averaged things out nicely.

 

I'm not entirely sure where to start with the Marine codex, other than to say that it looks, once again, as the baseline codex that the others are designed to be able to defeat. No Chapter Tactics on Marine vehicles (Dreadnoughts excluded), unless you are an Ultramarine, you are fairly screwed for Command Points, and the fact our vehicles are expensive and suffer -1 for the move/fire heavy weapons is another kick.

 

Any of those things could have been addressed in Chapter Approved, and none of them were, unless you count the fact many Marine vehicles got priced upwards, to the point where casual gamers who didn't spam were penalised.

 

I'll add in the fact that Chapter Approved early release didn't help the situation where players already felt taken for mugs, for needing to try and constantly justify Index requirements, because the Codexes were either too light on the options available, or, removed units completely. So much so that HE had yo release their flow-chart... rather than including everything in the codex.

 

While I've had fun with 8th for the most part, I'd have to agree with this. Maybe it's because I started up again while it was new and the WAAC trolls didn't learn how to neckbeard the edition as they have at this point in time...

 

The tanks and "everything can wound anything" part of the game really annoys me, as does the loss of initiative for the purposes of close combat. I'm not entirely keen on the streamlining of the current edition codices as well, it's reminiscent of 4th edition in that options for units is very limited in many cases (mainly HQs / ICs).

 

Edit: Not to mention the heavy handed changes in Chapter Approved (some armies like Grey Knights and Renegade Militia may be gimped to the point of being shelved) and the lackluster VDR. 

Edited December 5, 2017 by DuskRaider

[Tamiel]

@Tamiel

 

The codex is indeed lacking in some areas, but Guilliman is by no means the only effective way to play. As missions become more objective and mobility focused his impact will be lessened. You need to adjust. Are you using Inceptors for example?

 

Also, were you expecting rule changes and new datasheets for existing units? They never promised this in truth.

I've tried quite a few different lists. In all of them, the ones with Guilliman (all games were objective based) has done much better than the ones without Guilliman. Whether I include Inceptors or not, Guilliman is always doing so well that the lists he's not in do not feel or perform as good. 

 

I believe that in tournament play, too, Guilliman is present in pretty much every Ultramarine list. The only way to play? Of course not. The way to play that is the most effective? Tournament data, my own personal testing data, community agreement, and math seems to think so. All of these things could be wrong, and even if they're right I can't source all of them, but I'll take my stake on that side.

 

I don't want Guilliman to be nerfed, as even with him at our side, we are not an OP army. And I think our codex is definitely starting to show its age.

 

And no, I wasn't expecting rule changes, but point changes to named characters like Cato Sicarius, or better point reductions on drop pods (and landspeeders) would have been great. A re-working of Smite would have also been great.

 

It may sadden you to hear that I am not happy with CA, but I'm not saying all of this to be negative. It's on us as consumers to voice our concerns so that GW can have valid feed back. Hopefully they take that feedback and do better with it next year.

 

I'm simply disappointed with CA, and I'm hoping GW does better next time.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Tamiel

[Mileposter]

I know that I'm in the odd camp, but I am actually glad that vehicle facing and firing arcs are a thing of the past. It is far more realistic without these constraints to the pacing of a battle. These rules, along with initiative, are useful when you are playing a battle blow-by-blow - Dungeons & Dragons Style. It does not translate very well when you are focusing on the entire battle rather than one move within it.

 

I completely understand preferring that slow punch by punch style of game, and from time to time I do as well, I am simply glad that 40K is not that game.

 

The game is far more tactical without them. They are a crutch, with the rules dictating tactics to you, rather than rewarding players for controlling the battlefield. Tactics should never be baked in. You don't have to reward good tactics in the system, because the battlefield will adjust to your smart moves. You don't need lower armor in the rear of the vehicle, because if you show up behind the vehicle I guarantee you the opponent's strategy will shift dramatically as soon as you do. Armor facing does not change that. Firing arcs do not change that.

 

I will, however, agree on the Oddity of flame weapons and their interaction with Flyers.

 

I also I'm a fan of the everything can wound everything. Not just from a game balance point of view, where it is a clearly Superior mechanic, but also from a war point of view. Many types of Special Forces and other high-risk military outfits stress to their soldiers that there is no such thing as a useless situation. Your last pistol may do nothing more than take out the tyranids eye (1 hp), enraging it perhaps, but slowing it ever so slightly enough that the comrades who survive you have a better chance. That there are three to four difficult dice rolls required to achieve that result properly represents that unlikelihood.

 

Babble babble, I have opinions on the internet.

[DuskRaider]

Actually I think if anything, firing arcs, armour value variations, the ability to wound and initiative lent itself MORE to tactics than anything else. You had to be two steps ahead in the thought process; be it ensuring your vehicle has a view of the intended target and it was protected from any kind of ambush or if the unit you have on hand is a hard counter to whatever you're about to encounter or even if it's a wise move to assault that opposing squad since they have a higher initiative and could potentially wipe you out before you even swung. Now all you need is a bunch of flashlights to down a tank or disable it. You don't need to have a plan of attack to ensure your shots will penetrate armour, they simply can. It doesn't matter if you're assaulting Khorne Berserkers with Grots because you'll strike first anything regardless of initiative. If anything, 8th has taken the thought of tactics out and made it easier for the younger players.

[chapter master 454]

Personally mixed about the change to facing, firing arcs and such. There are two points here:

 

AV made flanking tanks a worthwhile tactic. It meant making your opponent have to shoot at the front was a real value thing however there is the flip side: Tanks back then were bad because they couldn't take a hit well anyway. The only difference flanking made was it just made it easier than it already was. Most anti-tank weapons would laugh at most AVs and the famous anti-tank gun (the melta family) laughed at all AVs no matter what side you showed because they all looked like the rear end of a sentinels freshly made child! To this respect the value of AV was more a formality than anything. While it could add depth it never did because in the end what army had weapons that needed to flank? Go on. List them. If you were using lascannons you never needed to flank nor could you realistically flank with them unless they were mounted on tanks themselves as lascannons having str9 meant they could brute force their way past AV13 with ease and even AV14 could be managed. Meanwhile Meltaguns as mentioned that WOULD flank are only doing so because it was the best route to the tank, not because they needed to. There were no rules for "Front armour damage negation" where the tanks armour on the front could negate damage, no, just higher AV that we can all agree were easily beat. (because tanks sucked and always have remember?)

 

In terms of firing arcs these again COULD add depth but never did. More often they lead to arguements over what the weapon could and couldn't see and since there was no split fire, the tank would often have 1 gun at all times hanging around doing nothing which feels bad. Maybe if we had split fire back then it wouldn't of been such an issue but this method allows for hard and fast reads on what can be shot along with no more arguments over where to measure from and to with ascine mechanics being considered when you build a land raider (Like putting the Multi-Melta on the front mount so you get an extra inch or putting the sponsons on the front so you get an extra 2 inchs or so).

 

Those mechanics were just inflated and really just needless fluff. It is reasonable to assume the tanks can position as needed for the scenario and react as such. While we are playing it turn about, it doesn't mean the units in reality would be sitting still. I could imagine tanks trying to keep angles but it is something I could see but unless tanks get buffed why nerf them? Why add rules that only served to give them weakness when MCs never did? Why do MCs not have a "Face, torso, leg, arms" hit box like out of war machine? Why can we disable their weapons?

It is a case of if one exists, then many more rules need to exist to keep balance or are we arguing against old timers who thought MC spam was fine? (like Stormsurges and Riptides).

 

The biggest problem 8th edition has is that it is new. It is a new Era. It's a new Monarch, a new Government. Something new and we aren't familiar with it yet like we were with all the other editions and their transitions. This is evident in how do we compare formats.

 

4th to 5th we ditched size based line of sight (remember that? Where a rhino could block line of sigh to an infantry squad on top of a 6"inch high terrain piece because tanks and builds were size 3 and thus blocked line of sight to each other?) but we kept a lot of fundamentals. We only got a minor update really. To be honest, I am quite baffled actually let me ask:

 

How come the minor changes of past editions never got lampooned for not doing enough, not fixing the game or changing it in any meaningful way but NOW we get a rulebook that does do that, major changes everywhere, every army is currently still finding it's feet and we are getting small changes here and there to help not break anything majorly and now we whine?

 

Sorry. Just a little frustrated is all. I just want to know what people are really complaining about because it's nothing new.

 

"X is too cheap"

"Y is too expensive"

"Z rule is just silly and makes no sense in regards to edition V"

 

This really is just us doing the same dance to a different beat. We complained about 7th and called it horrible but now 8th is worse and 7th was better and 5 was better and so on just like how people treated Dark Souls 2 when 3 came out, "Dark Souls 3 is bad. Dark Souls 2 is the best" when on release and a majority of its life Dark Souls 2 was considered bad. I am just hoping we can see we are just whining for sake of whining and that's fine and fun but I do feel some people here actively try and just berate something just because it has negatives with it just like everything in life.

 

Yes, marines are struggling to do anything but let me ask: when haven't we? Isn't that your grimdark for you? Where the emperor's finest struggle against the odds and win but more often have to fight tooth and nail? Marines have never been competitive and only through select things did we ever get things done (prior to Gulliman in 7th we just spammed Grav-turions because they just didn't die and EVERYTHING fell over to grav weapons).

[Mileposter]

I do not mean to suggest that the granular rules of 7th were without tactics. Merely that those tactics were dictated for you, in the same sense that the Magic The Gathering 'Stack' is a tactic that is dictated for you. 454 touches on some of the why of that and the larger detriments it can bring to a wargame as a whole. Do I blame anyone for enjoying that? Not one bit. The Stack is a wonderful structure for Magic, after all.
 
However, with the freedom from dictated tactic design, the more creative and tactical minds are now better able to take advantage of the battlefield at hand and not immediately broadcast their intent to their opponent. Flanking is still very advantageous - merely for a practical and more realistic reason than a game mechanic reason. My tougher tank is still a tougher tank and I can still mow over lasguns with mostly impunity - but does happen and lucky shots occur. If my opponent is looking for a tactical advantage on paper alone, I'm on a short path to victory.
 
I feel that the game design logic behind the changes are sound. Some they've done well, some not so well - but better overall. The argument against some of the things from a fluff perspective is... Flawed. Firstly, we're talking about a world where there are no bullets but miniature warheads, lasers, and supersonic shurikens. Nothing from our world is an apt comparison. Secondly, for one to say that a (thing) shouldn't harm a (thing), to say that it is impossible, to demand it, is to claim to know the world better than its creators. They say it can. Imagine the Imperial Guard got better lasers, or something. Blame Cawl. That's popular, these days.

[Damo1701]

1) my Raven Guard have never used Centurions. Please, as I was told, don't make sweeping statements.

 

2) you think my concerns for my game are whining for the sake of whining? I was asked what, specifically, I didn't like about 8th edition, and expanded to how Chapter Approved could have fixed the problems I saw.

 

3) 8th edition is kind of a misnomer. There is significant change, leaving the game unrecognizable, apart from the factions present. If anything, it's Age of the Primarchs 1st edition. Which then means there is nothing comparable, and you may have a point.

 

Chapter Approved could have fixed the morale issue. Marines don't flee or die when things get tough. They fall back, regroup, and try again.

 

Chapter Approved could also have permitted Marines, and Chaos, to benefit from their doctrines with the vehicles. It makes more sense that they would benefit than to be the only factions without. (That's any and all Marines, not just vanilla).

 

Chapter Approved could have easily returned facing and fire arcs, could have removed the anything hurts anything.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that there are things that should have been in the book, yet, it doesn't have anything remotely like fixes for the main system.

[Ishagu]

The game is far from unrecognisable. In fact units perform in a way more true to the lore.

 

Leman Russ tanks aren't made of paper. Knorn Berserkers are actually great in combat, Nids actually affect psykers etc etc.

 

I don't know where this fondness for 7th comes from. It was such a flawed game it was basically unplayable in a pick up situation. Games, as mentioned before, could be won by a single dice roll, Invincible, Invisible units were zooming about, and Eldar were armed with D weapons that ignored all common sense. 6th and 7th were awful. 5th became a one faction show at the end and was equally junky with rules that made no thematic sense.

[battle captain corpus]

 I'm not a MOD anymore...but I would say we've floated away from general talk about the original topic...

 

BCC

[Mileposter]

...

 

2) you think my concerns for my game are whining for the sake of whining? I was asked what, specifically, I didn't like about 8th edition, and expanded to how Chapter Approved could have fixed the problems I saw.

 

...

 

The point I'm trying to make is that there are things that should have been in the book, yet, it doesn't have anything remotely like fixes for the main system.

We've had threads where we agree nearly 100%, and threads where we disagree nearly 100%. I've nothing on you personally. Debate is cool. Just wanted to be sure #2 here wasn't to think I was tossing anything on the pile. While I responded to some points you brought up I had been pointing the ideas at the thread as a whole in regards to Chapter Approved.

 

In this case, it's the sense of 'should' that I am arguing against. It's hazardous.

[Bryan Blaire]

The argument that “Chapter Approved should have changed...” or “Chapter Approved could have changed...” are meaningless in the face of GW not feeling like the rules of this edition are really the issue. They made specific design choices for the rules, it’s almost ludicrous to think that they were going to do a total face-heel turn on a sizable portion of those newly revised mechanics.

 

That’s really not what Chapter Approved was going to be for. They might make minor alterations to mechanics, but sweeping changes that would result in effectively a new Edition - that wasn’t going to happen, and certainly not six months in.

 

Regarding the popularity of 8th Edition and Chapter Approved: anecdotally, I’ve seen a total split - one FLGS has a regular weekly league, but doesn’t really run consistent tournaments (maybe twice a year), their league membership has doubled since 8th came out (from a modest six regulars to 12, which is pretty good sized for regulars considering the store size) and they sold out of all 28 copies of Chapter Approved they ordered. The other FLGS in the area still has a stable 40K night around 16-20 folks, but they only sold about 15 of the 50 copies of Chapter Approved they ordered, and they usually sell out of every book they get in the first weekend, even though the folks buying them aren’t regular store players. That store does more regular tournaments, at least six a year, and several of them are pretty big events and they still have good attendance, so those players haven’t been slipping, if there has been loss, it’s been replaced by new players.

[Schlitzaf]

Comparison between editions:

8th Morale is awful. There is no real explanation for the reasoning, other than punitive. Every edition previous to 8th got morale right.

Vehicles - are no longer the armoured behemoths that they are supposed to be. Facing and positioning doesn't matter. 2nd edition had vehicles that behaved correctly. Remove Hull Points for 3-7 and you still had a better vehicle system.

Short-range Auto-hit. This is regardless of unit type or weapon type. Flame weapons are not going to touch, let alone damage a supersonic flyer.

Wounds - everything does not damage/wound everything. Go ahead, fire your pistol at an armoured tank. Show me where you manage to really do anything that "degrades" it. Same with your random creature that is twice your height, 10x your weight, and your pocket knife.

Combat - there is no way that if you are better than your opponent, they are going to hit you as easily as somebody they are better than. Flat rolls make no sense. Was the previous system perfect? No. It needed some 2+ and some Impossible. Just like the wound table. It averaged things out nicely.

I'm not entirely sure where to start with the Marine codex, other than to say that it looks, once again, as the baseline codex that the others are designed to be able to defeat. No Chapter Tactics on Marine vehicles (Dreadnoughts excluded), unless you are an Ultramarine, you are fairly screwed for Command Points, and the fact our vehicles are expensive and suffer -1 for the move/fire heavy weapons is another kick.

Any of those things could have been addressed in Chapter Approved, and none of them were, unless you count the fact many Marine vehicles got priced upwards, to the point where casual gamers who didn't spam were penalised.

I'll add in the fact that Chapter Approved early release didn't help the situation where players already felt taken for mugs, for needing to try and constantly justify Index requirements, because the Codexes were either too light on the options available, or, removed units completely. So much so that HE had yo release their flow-chart... rather than including everything in the codex.

1) Morale. It Matters. It actually matters. That is a significant improvement over previous editions where Morale was basically non-existent factor

2) Less time spent angling my Models for advantage or arguing my hurricane bolsters can shoot something. More time spent rolling dice and playing the game. Maybe change it so something can only shoot in its front arc but otherwise good bye ‘my back sponsons cannot shoot anything’

3) Real Life does not equal game balance. Gone are the games of three Baneblade murdering an infantry army because they don’t have the proper guns. Or more specifically the proper were alpha murdered

4) “What your WS? Is it 4 or 5?” Now you have your own character sheet. The WS also hurt Melee more than shooting anyways. And shooting is already strong. This is a direct melee buff. It also makes having low WS matter because previously you almost always hit on universally 4+

5) Combined Arms Combined Arms. If you take a single Codex you are hamstringing yourself. You never see the army go in alone. Why would Marines? If you do take a purist army your disadvantages are hightened but your strengths magnified. As I said in the SM Chapter Approved, if you refuse to take allies, then you’ll find yourself lacking in other areas. If one faction does everything perfectly that is bad for game design. Instead every faction has innate weakness and advantages.

[Damo1701]

If you say so.

 

It feels like you are working extremely hard to justify what GW has done to 40k.

 

I'm not going "soup" because that is disingenuous. It's netlisting. Which means it's boring. I don't want the models required to "fill the gaps" I would rather have the balanced product we were sold in the run up to 8th than the mess we have now.

 

If real life example don't work for you, don't try and use them in your justification.

 

If you have low weapon skill, you will suck in combat. That's the idea. Just like if you had low ballistic skill, you sucked at shooting. The 4+ hit band was far too large. There was not 6+ band, or not "not a chance" band. Without those, the previous combat system was flawed. I still don't see a basic human hitting a Primaech on even odds...

 

Less time angling? Or less time thinking about tactics?

[Lexington]

Short-range Auto-hit. This is regardless of unit type or weapon type. Flame weapons are not going to touch, let alone damage a supersonic flyer.

I think this is a problem with flyers more than anything else. I like a lot of 8th Ed, but the way it treats air support as a bunch of low-flying, weaponized weather balloons leaves a lot to be desired.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Lexington

[Mileposter]

5) Combined Arms Combined Arms. If you take a single Codex you are hamstringing yourself. You never see the army go in alone. Why would Marines? If you do take a purist army your disadvantages are hightened but your strengths magnified. As I said in the SM Chapter Approved, if you refuse to take allies, then you’ll find yourself lacking in other areas. If one faction does everything perfectly that is bad for game design. Instead every faction has innate weakness and advantages.

There are a few statements you make here in which I agree with the words... but not your intent. This suggests that the intended game design is "Soup Or Go Home", which several of the GW folks (and some of their Community material) specifically speak against.

[the jeske]

Am rather sure that the DT more then once pointed out that they want each player to buy as many models as possible, including GW materials showing armies which have illegal set ups of units, and with their use being explained by "I like it, so I use it".

 

what GW does is to say that if something is "unfun" or complained about in the rule set/game, it is not their foult. Which is more avoiding the responsibility, then anything else.

[Schlitzaf]

 

5) Combined Arms Combined Arms. If you take a single Codex you are hamstringing yourself. You never see the army go in alone. Why would Marines? If you do take a purist army your disadvantages are hightened but your strengths magnified. As I said in the SM Chapter Approved, if you refuse to take allies, then you’ll find yourself lacking in other areas. If one faction does everything perfectly that is bad for game design. Instead every faction has innate weakness and advantages.

There are a few statements you make here in which I agree with the words... but not your intent. This suggests that the intended game design is "Soup Or Go Home", which several of the GW folks (and some of their Community material) specifically speak against.

That isn’t what I said what I said; what I said is every army natural strengths and weaknesses. You can ‘patch’ natural weaknesses by adding allies. If you are spending 500 Points on Gaurd those are 500 Points not spent on Marines.

 

At 2000 Point Space Marine Black Templar will have more mid-field/melee staying power but might find itself lacking elsewhere. Chaff or backfield fire potential most notably.

 

However a 1250 Points Templar + 750 Gaurd List. Will lack the hard hitters or push units. (Marine have weak pushers in general (comparatively to Chaos Marines and other Loyalists) but going on). A classic push unit is Assault Terminators with triple hammer and double claw. They come out to give or 230ish Points. Two squads as is normal would could cost 460-480 Points. Leaving you 320-360 Points either for a third squads or auxiliary elements.

 

My personal BT Army, I run a Marshall/Castallen. Had I not spend around 700-800 Points on Gaurdsman I could easily have found 100 Points Grimaldus and an Emperor’s Champion.

 

However because I lack those units, my Crusaders can hold but weaker and have difficulty dislodging entrenched enemies. Quickly. Instead I have to attrition them out and use a variety of reserve and counter assault elements.

 

But using allies to patch your various weakness, your main force own innate strength is dulled. Is a risk v reward. Do you value the Jack of All Trade Master of None (and as such agree with the second half of phrase, ‘Better than the Master of One) or do you believe in Bruce Lee tenet of “I fear the man who was practiced one kick a thousand times, then the man practice a thousand kicks one time.”

 

I am not saying allies should be considered mandatory or otherwise. Buts if you don’t take allies your army own innate strengths will be highlights and strengthened while your own weakness will become even more salient. It’s a trade off.

 

As my quote on my sig implies, I believe in the “Jack of All Trades” concept over forcing myself into one angle or force construction. Finally if you believe allies are netlisting? You can take a look at my list (Templars and IG Soup). No Gulliman, no Primaris, and no Celestine. If their is an Astropath I removed after I decided the 30 Point deny was not worth.

[Damo1701]

What I have valued, long before Chapter tactics were created, was the fact that, on level ground, with decent rules, Marines could go face to face with almost any other army and expect a decent game.

 

Since 3rd edition, Marines have been seen as the baseline. The codex that everything else is written to negate.

 

8th appears very much like Anakin Skywalker. It was supposed to bring balance to 40k. It has, so far, failed.

 

Yes, every army should have weaknesses. Some should be more obvious than others.

 

It's poor game design, but great marketing, to attempt to enforce allies upon armies at low levels.

 

Chapter Approved never really addressed that though.

[Sonoftherubric21]

I dont get the attitude honestly; across codexs all of them appear to be at face value in the same range of power. 

Astra mili----*cough* Imperial Guard look a bit harder to deal with on the face of it but frankly is  a minor issue in all but the highest of tier meta. 

 

IF you are including index then of course things look lop-sided and they say "hey might wanna get allies for the time being" 

 

I am not entirely sure what you are getting at; marines are still the "baseline" as Str4 / T4 and 3+ will always be the most prevalent stat line in the game 

 

I have had issues with my index-army against codex armies. No lie, but when I use my black legion or my White scars they tend to perform just fine in a semi-competetive meta, my thousand sons are fighting an uphill battle for the next few months till our dex drops in early 2018.

 

If you are hyper-top-tier-meta obsessed maybe this game just isnt for you? there will always be top-tier to mid/low tier inconsistencies. Its basically true in every game, even online ones.  there will always be people that obsess over "points efficiency" and "tourney tactics" in every game. 40k is no different. and most companies have issue controlling that at one point or another, so instead GW is actively changing the meta AS things evolve in 8th.. To be entirely honest I am *very* confused about what exactly it is that you "want" from GW in that regard.  In 8th so far they have changed several major issues that were damaging the meta, they havent gotten around to all of it but they literally opened a community survey to do just that.  

And with the recent addition of better balanced missions from chapter approved and the points overhaul for several units and the helping of bringing up non-codex factions to decent levels......I just dont get it.