8th Edition: Controversial Rules and Mechanics,

[Schlitzaf]

Even with armies like those two you have to have 9ish Casts on board to not be able to do anything with your Pyschic Phase. Most units only cast 1, HQ’s cast 2. Those armies tend to be more elite and thus have lower Unit count. Even with 5-6 Units you only have 6-8 casts, 6 Codex Powers and 3 Reliable Smite Castes. Even if you accept only have of Codex Powers are good utility ones, that is still 6 good casts.

 

A pyskers heavy army needs upward 10-12 casts until it hits the point of diminishing returns. And Mortal Wounds means, super Units like 7th Ed Deathstar or Magical Wound Units of 5th Ed, don’t exist anymore. Which is fine by me.

[utilityzero]

Those units already don't exist because of the way Characters work now and Invisible is gone. Also even if I accept that Mortal Wounds aren't a horrible mistake, the extremely uneven way they are made available to different armies makes them a joke.

[Mileposter]

Those units already don't exist because of the way Characters work now and Invisible is gone. Also even if I accept that Mortal Wounds aren't a horrible mistake, the extremely uneven way they are made available to different armies makes them a joke.

Do explain why every army should have even and equal access to Mortal Wounds, and why it's a bad thing.

 

Each army has different access to different things.

[chapter master 454]

Speaking from initial exposure to eldar and their psychic powers, I will openly say that I would love to have the ability to for one reason or another slam down all their powers bar maybe one which is for leadership tests (though my army right now is largely wraithhost). Their powers that do damage are really good. However I then think back to my librarians that I have fielded. While I never knew about how busted smite was back then and attempted to use their powers unique to them and they really weren't much more than fancier smite bots (using only the damage dealing powers).

 

Personally, would like to see powers made better for armies. Then again, space marine psykers largely suck and eldar have always had good ones so maybe I'm just now benefiting from their power. I just feel the marines powers are not as interesting or powerful as they could be. Maybe if veil of time was maybe a little more powerful and if psychic fortress was a bit more far reaching. I'm mainly just whining really but to be honest, I largely like the change to smite they are trying as it ups the difficulty of smite cleverly.

Starting at 5, really easy then 6 which is still easy then 7 is when it becomes maybe a possibility of failing but then after 7 when it's 8 becomes really in question and then 9 you are really stretching so I think they change is far more impactful that I initially believed.

[utilityzero]

 

Those units already don't exist because of the way Characters work now and Invisible is gone. Also even if I accept that Mortal Wounds aren't a horrible mistake, the extremely uneven way they are made available to different armies makes them a joke.

Do explain why every army should have even and equal access to Mortal Wounds, and why it's a bad thing.

 

Each army has different access to different things.

Because on top of being a stupid game mechanic to begin with, giving some armies basically one way of getting it without spending CPs while others can spam units that deliver them fairly easily is a major imbalance. Just like making leadership tests a thing for some armies but not for others was probably a bad idea. At some point it's not just playing different armies, it's like you're playing different games. Edited December 27, 2017 by utilityzero

[Schlitzaf]

Just to respond to utility on some level that is what playing different armies should feel like.

———

Week 3: Allies

 

Allies are complicated. Their are several issues with the mechanic, however I’d say and argue that 8th style implementation feels one of the better instances of the overall allied Design.

 

First and foremost tying Keyword to Detachment not Army level, enables a real combined force. And the existence of detachment level requires paying for your allies or having no command points for which to use.

 

For those saying too cheap, keep in mind one of the ‘cheapest’ competitive (allied) detachments, Battlelion IG, is 180 Points. Just under 10% of your list at 2000 Points. Interceptors at 185 were considered expensive nigh unplayable. 18 > 12 > 8 > 4 Marines Dead. 54 Lasgun > 27 > 9 > 3 Marines Dead + 3 Lascannons > 1.50 > 1.25 > 1.00 Marines Dead or 4 Marines Dead. Or 3 Marines and 3.5 Damage. That is the same raw dead marine count on a more unwieldy platform then Interceptors, with higher damage vs vehicle. With the changes to Interceptors, 180. 24 > 16 > 10.66 or 5.33. Gaurds do one more damage and kill one less Marine (unless they are in Rapid range in which in which case it’s a 7 Marines for the Gaurdsman).

 

The Plasma Interceptors at 177, 12 Shots > 8 hit > 5.32 or 7.67 (if over charged) > 4.4 or 6.3 (12.6 damage). The Plasma Interceptors point for point are functionally as good as the Gaurdsman with better Deployment and less table space. And 180 Points is not considered cheap. Unless someone wants to argue pre-reduction Interceptors were ‘cheap’.

 

The Assassins + Inquistor come out to be 310 Points. The same price of a Landraider. No one considers Land Raiders cheap. I’ll let folks respond to this before I go on to other aspects of souping.

[chapter master 454]

Right now souping is done more right now because doing so has little drawbacks and bolster armies that don't have their codex. Until all codex are out we can't really say much for armies until then however it is an odd system they have that feels better. The use of Archetypes and Sub-types allows for what can go with what and is certainly a good system not just for this but in general for rules.

[Schlitzaf]

Chaptermaster this brings up actually next point I wanted to discuss;

Detachments, Army Tactics and Imperium/Chaos followed by Aeldari/Tyranid

 

I think one of the easiest solutions to limit bad souping, is that every unit in detachment must share two factional keywords for Battle Forged Armies (I.e no throwing Celestine into a SM Detachment Solo). Second is that have tie which units have Army Tactics in to a List to whomever your Warlord is. Essentially having it so to enable your Chapter Tactics you need a Space Marine (Chapter) Warlord. The following two changes makes its so having allies, essentially makes them weaker than their pure counterparts or your main army. Third and finally make explicit that you can only use Pre-Game/Deployment Stratagems on units that share every factional keyword in your army composition.

 

The other change of course that might be worth thinking about. Is introducing an explicit allied Detachment. My least favorite solution, but one none the less. However I think potentially in general fixing CP Issue, might be having something between Patrol/Battlelion/Brigade. Increase Battlelion to 4 CP, but introduce a 2 CP Battlelion of 1 HQ, 2 Troops and then any 1 Choice from the Speciality Battlefield Roles beside Flyer. (So 1 HQ, 2 Troops and 1 Elite). Then introduce 6 CP, 2 HQ, 4 Troops, 3 Choices from atleast two different Speciality Battlefield Roles (2 HQ, 4 Troops, 3 Specialty Slots from atleast two different battlefield roles beside Flyers). It’s not the best solution, but it keeps the troop Tax (Also the limits for in-between for MiniBattle, 1-2 HQ, 0-1 for Speciality Slots, 2-4 for Troops, then MiniGade, 2-3 HQ, 0-2 Speciality Slots, 4-6 Troops). The limit Speciality Slots, retain Battlelion as the go to basic. However it also enables armies which cannot afford Brigades or Double Battlelion, to not unreasonable be able to fill Battlelion + MiniTellion.

 

Tangent aside, the large factional keywords. The core issue is that one army (AM) in particular can easily shore up for cheap the roles an army needs to fill. Given AM has three major factions with reasonable access (Chaos, Imperium and Tyranids) it’s in some ways less of a balance issue than Taudar Represented. The Tau near universal allies made it had to thought in relation to every other army in the game itself. AM only needs Imperium + Tyranids, with R&H as an extension for Chaos. AM is what breaks allies, but in many ways a prime example of it working. SM have never been an attrition force (something this Edition has demonstrated painfully well), AM has. 8th early game ‘Alpha’ Armies, after impact losing initial momentum and often losing to crackback.

 

Showcases something heavy elite Alpha Strike lists never dealt with as much in path editions. The reason they are an Alpha Strike List. Alpha’s came and hit so hard, crippled but often after Alpha had powerful almost immobile board prescence they didn’t give anything up to Alpha effectively. AM is used to provide Strategems and table prescence as the army should for forces like Space Marines. Wanting Codex purity is understandable, but here AM/SM relationship is exactly what they should be per the fluff. Now I tangented a bit, but the contrast and basic point here, keywords if balanced on a keyword scale is fine. Once we see non-Allied Books (Tau, Necrons and Orks) and see how they stack, we could better gauge if 40K is balanced. If those armies also appears at top tables post Dexs alongside Soups then it was a success.

[Claws and Effect]

I'm actually okay with being able to ignore the Troop Tax if you want.

 

You're trading your ability to reliably hold objectives for more kill power. It could work in your favor or completely screw you, depending on the scenario you end up playing.

 

And allied keywords? It actually works pretty good now. You want Celestine in a SM detachment? Okay, say goodbye to anything that requires the whole detachment to be drawn from one Chapter. Same for Guard.

 

The fact that it is harder to fill a Brigade with Marines than Guard, Nids, or Eldar is actually fairly fluffy. Marines rarely go in with large forces. Usually you'll see a Company at a time, maybe 2.

 

The only thing I would give Marines is a slight points discount if they actually use the squads found in a Battle Company in their list. 6 Tactical Squads, 2 Devastator, 2 Assault. With a bike squad and a tank of some kind to round it out. Captain and Chaplain or Lieutenant for US.

 

How much of a discount I have no idea, but nothing as ridiculous as free transports.

[toaae]

I think we should be limited to a single detachment. As it is, there is little reason for the extra slots in each detachment; you simply select a new one and fill up it's required slots. If we could only take one, there would be a choice.

[Claws and Effect]

I think we should be limited to a single detachment. As it is, there is little reason for the extra slots in each detachment; you simply select a new one and fill up it's required slots. If we could only take one, there would be a choice.

What's your solution for the command point discrepancy between elite and horde armies?

 

Guard can run a Brigade in a 750 point game, so can Nids. Marines struggle to fill one at anything less than 2000.

 

Not at all fair to let some factions have 12 CP while others can't get more than 6.

[toaae]

 

I think we should be limited to a single detachment. As it is, there is little reason for the extra slots in each detachment; you simply select a new one and fill up it's required slots. If we could only take one, there would be a choice.

What's your solution for the command point discrepancy between elite and horde armies?

 

Guard can run a Brigade in a 750 point game, so can Nids. Marines struggle to fill one at anything less than 2000.

 

Not at all fair to let some factions have 12 CP while others can't get more than 6.

 

 

Remove Brigade, bump up the number of base CPs from 3 to 5, make Patrols give 1, Battalions give 5, and Vanguard/Outrider/Spearhead give 2 or 3. Basically, remove the huge variance of difference between low and high CP.

[Schlitzaf]

Claws, I have said this in most other threads, but how would that rule interact with my Crusader Squads and Wolves Grey Hunter Squads. Last edition, as a BT Player I got screwed because I was functionally locked out of Battle Company*. And I’d personally rather not have a repeat of the last edition.

 

But in all seriousness let’s keep the Battle Company back in 7th Edition. The only discount I would want is on Specials/Heavy for Tacticals even then I would want to see those discounts also applied to Crusader/GreyHunters/Chaos Marines.

 

*I’d be perfectly fine with 10 Man Tacticals unlocking a Command Point. I’d also change the combat squad strategem to the start of any phase on your turn. Sense that means using combat squad strategem gives you tactical flexibility throughout your entire turn. And the 1 CP Tacticals either pay for the strategem or open other strategic decision.

[Captain Idaho]

Space Marines should have either dirt cheap Stratagems or get a bonus +3 for taking X number of Tactical Marines.

[Lysere]

There should never be a discount of any kind ever.

 

Mostly because points are only an optional thing now and tying something for one aspect of play to something that is meant for several makes no sense. At best maybe an extra CP for taking a company style force. In the case of different troop options it would simply require an alternative build that matches that chapter's fluff.

 

Until all factions have their codex it's hard to judge the strength of soup because there will be changes, but in the end the most powerful stratagems require either specific units or very expensive units to make the most of, by taking allies you're pulling points from one army thus limiting your ability to properly use those stratagems. Perhaps in the future they could add an additional bonus when making an army entirely of a single army keyword thus giving people an even greater trade off to consider.

[Beams]

As someone who, for the last two editions, got constantly over looked , no faction should have unique detachments or formations. It makes it too hard to keep everything balanced, and causes some factions to fall by the wayside since they basically are stuck with CADs vs War Conventions

[Schlitzaf]

I agree Beams and also for those talking about Tacticals Squad issues. Are we just talking about Tacticals Squads or Tacticals and their equivalents (Crusaders, Chaos Marines and Grey Hunters) + Intercessors.

 

Idaho, I think in general having 10 Man Tacticals Granting another CP likely be best. Having it be 10 Man rewards you, but also keeps Razorspams from gaining another 5+ CP. Their be valid argument to include other Tactical equivalents too

Edited January 5, 2018 by Schlitzaf

[Lysere]

As someone who, for the last two editions, got constantly over looked , no faction should have unique detachments or formations. It makes it too hard to keep everything balanced, and causes some factions to fall by the wayside since they basically are stuck with CADs vs War Conventions

 

It wouldn't have to be unique, just give marines a bonus CP or something for taking particular units in a single detachment. I don't agree that it should be a thing really but if it was that's how I feel it should be done.

[Captain Idaho]

Oh yes I totally agree that a 10 man Tactical squad should grant +1 CP. Stops spam and people can't really take advantage since Tactical Marines are hardly breaking the game.

 

But GW won't do that since they're not Primaris.