2018 Big FAQ - how will it affect your list?

[Wargamer]

Now I'm thinking of running some Tacs in Rhinos, a Sternguard squad in Rhino with the HQs all piling in, and some Dreadnoughts marching behind to lay down fire.

 

Just need to buy the Rhinos. :P

[Tamiel]

I tried running 10 sternguard in a drop pod, just because of the strategem they get. They clear up infantry really well with that strategem if you land the drop pod within rapid fire range. The reason I actually used the droppod was because the rhino doesn't guarantee the survival of its passengers. Since I only need to land within 15" for the rapid fire on sternguard, and since I have no intention of charging with them, the drop pod seemed like a good choice for them even though it is more expensive. Overall I don't think charging with sternguard is a good idea, since their guns and their strategem is really good.

Tac marines, on the other hand, are cheaper and almost as good as sternguard in melee. Since we only want to charge shooty units that suck in melee with our tacticals to tie them up and slowly punch them to death, they fit the role a lot better than sternguard do.

 

As a side note for sternguard, our "Scions of Guilliman" strategem works for them, giving them reroll 1s to hit (while tac squads and intercessors get full rerolls to hit from that stratagem, but can't have everything, I guess). With Scions of Guilliman and the unique sternguard stratagem used at the same time, you can seriously clear up infantry if you're rapid firing on them. I don't know how well it does agianst tougher targets, but anything that's toughness 3 and has a bad save is going to be easy to clear up. Someone needs to do the math, but I wouldn't be surprised if you can reliably kill a 10man guardsmen squad a turn with that.

Edit: Just did the math. With Scions of Guilliman and the Sterguard Strategem, 10 rapid firing sterguard will kill 14.63 guardsmen on average each turn, before morale comes in. Even if there's a comissar nearby with the new rules, that's probably going to result in five or six more dead guardsmen if the squad you're shooting at was a 50man conscript squad or something. Neither regular guardsmen nor conscripts get saves. 

Is shooting at conscripts/guardsmen the best use of sternguard? I don't know, but being able to reliably kill 14.63 toughness 3 models might be useful. If you're facing something that has carapace armour, like scions or skitaari, then you still kill 12.19 on average. After your initial drop volley, you will probably take heavy damage on the sternguard so they won't be able to do the same thing twice.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

I've been harping on the use of mechanized Tactical Squads for months and been roundly shouted down. While I'm perhaps a little miffed that Tamiel pushes the same narrative and people express interest where they argued with me, at the very least I'm glad that the discussion is starting to move forward.

[Brother Captain Ed]

I've been harping on the use of mechanized Tactical Squads for months and been roundly shouted down. While I'm perhaps a little miffed that Tamiel pushes the same narrative and people express interest where they argued with me, at the very least I'm glad that the discussion is starting to move forward.

 

Six months ago, no one was desperate for a tactic (ANY tactic) that would keep their army viable in even friendly situations. 

 

Desperate times, etc.

[d36williams]

 

 

I tried running 10 sternguard in a drop pod, just because of the strategem they get. They clear up infantry really well with that strategem if you land the drop pod within rapid fire range. The reason I actually used the droppod was because the rhino doesn't guarantee the survival of its passengers. Since I only need to land within 12" for the rapid fire on sternguard,

Sternguard need only 15" for rapidfire range using their Special Issue Ammunition. As far as killing cheap chaffe goes, I'm not sure if SIB are more efficient or Stormbolters. They're actually very similar production against Marines, but I suspect SIB sans +Expert Marksmen is less efficient against T3 type models. Ignoring armor altogether (a 5+ goes to 7+) isnt to be overlooked though

[Tamiel]

Yeah, forgot they only need 15" to rapid fire. I think the sternguard strategem (Masterful Marksmenship, looked up the name now) is really good for 1 CP.

 

If you want stormbolters you can also get Company Veterans instead of Sternguard. Nothing really changes cost-wise of performance-wise if you go with this route, except the vets can replace their pistols with chainswords, which the sternguard can't do to my knowledge. So if you want pure stormbolter + chainsword, vets allow you to do that. If you want stormbolter + bolt pistol, then sternguard and vets are identical in that role and cost the same. 

[Aothaine]

I've been harping on the use of mechanized Tactical Squads for months and been roundly shouted down. While I'm perhaps a little miffed that Tamiel pushes the same narrative and people express interest where they argued with me, at the very least I'm glad that the discussion is starting to move forward.

 

I feel ya. I've been going on and on about the uses of drop pods, bolters, storm bolters and flamers. People will catch on eventually.

[SydonianDragoon404]

This stuff about Rhinos is absolute nonsense, they are a waste of points at the moment for competitive.

[Panzer]

Will that argument become more than a plain "yes!" "no!" back and forth? If not then I can stop reading this thread I guess. ^^

[h0U5e]

Am I gimping myself by not starting every list I write with a Guard Battalion of 2x Company Commanders and 3x 10 man Infantry Squads? I'm aware Scouts are quite competitive however the extra CP and having chaff seem invaluable to shore up SM weaknesses.

[Panzer]

Probably.

The most competetive lists will always include Astra Militarum detachments currently. It'll just be a mixed Imperium army then and not a Marine army. ^^

[MARK0SIAN]

I have to agree. Gimping yourself might be a strong term but I think most people would agree that Marine and Guard armies will always be a more competitive force than pure marines as it stands at the moment.

[Tamiel]

This aspect of 8th edition is really unfortunate. Mono-SM armies need some love from GW.

[Captain Idaho]

I'm just gonna say it - soup lists need to die. There shouldn't be allies in Matched Play.

 

If you want your big themed list then go play narrative and scenario games.

[h0U5e]

It feels like such an auto take - which I strongly dislike. It would be great if detachments brought only gave CP if they are the same faction your warlord is from. Hopefully they do something about it in the next big update.

[HighMarshalAmp]

As someone playing only SM, but multiple Chapters across my Detachments to make use of the Tactics each Detachment benefits the most from, let me be the first to say:

 

If matched play ever requires me to take only one chapter/ sept/ dynasty, I'm screwed.

[Panzer]

I'm just gonna say it - soup lists need to die. There shouldn't be allies in Matched Play.

 

If you want your big themed list then go play narrative and scenario games.

 

I had high hopes for the no-soup ruling in the FAQ. But then GW screwed up by doing it on detachment level lol

[MARK0SIAN]

I'm just gonna say it - soup lists need to die. There shouldn't be allies in Matched Play.

 

If you want your big themed list then go play narrative and scenario games.

Why should people who want to take allies not be allowed to ask for a balanced, points costed game with tight rules?

 

Why is it, if we don’t want to play the game exactly as you envision it, we should be relegated to some vague, ridiculously open game mode. Narrative and open play were invented by a GW employee who started working on them at 4:45pm to meet a 5:00pm deadline.

 

There are plenty of ways to fix soups without banning allies. Matched play should not be focussed on super competitive tournament lists only and everyone else has to make do with a child’s version. This FAQ has already done some good work in reigning in the abuse of soups, more needs to be done but I can be accomplished without banning allies. Lore and theme are important at all levels of 40k, otherwise GW could just make one army and say everyone needed to bring the exact same things to every match like a game of chess.

[Deathwalker]

 

I'm just gonna say it - soup lists need to die. There shouldn't be allies in Matched Play.

 

If you want your big themed list then go play narrative and scenario games.

 

I had high hopes for the no-soup ruling in the FAQ. But then GW screwed up by doing it on detachment level lol

 

Detachment soup sells models, mixed detachment, not as much.

[Ishagu]

Limit allies to a single detachment would be a start, but not an outright ban on allies.

 

Seeing Guard and marines on the tabletop is a great reflection of the lore.

[Captain Idaho]

@ MARK0SIAN:

 

Isn't it obvious? The game is astonishingly hard, if not impossible, to balance if you let everyone eliminate all weaknesses with another Codex.

 

And your logic doesn't hold up. You want open and broad armies yet won't play narrative play which it is designed for. You want to force your Soup list on Matched Play, which is designed for balance and pick up play.

 

Not much to argue with there. You won't play narrative armies in narrative games. *shrugs*

 

***

 

If GW are truly committed to narrative and open play then they should take the leap and restrict allies completely (outside things like a single Inquisitor, an Assassin etc).

 

However, a potential work around is to say no duplicate Detachments and only the Warlord's Codex faction gets Strategum and Relics from their Codex and can generate Command Points.

[MARK0SIAN]

Open and narrative play makes no effort at balance beyond a few basic efforts at power levels. It’s going too far to say narrative play is designed for that, it’s an easy cop out of a play method that’s had no real thought gone into it. Now if narrative play had some effort put into it I might reconsider, however Narrative armies are not and should not be restricted to narrative play only. Matched play is also meant for broad armies. Everything about the 40k hobby is sold on the lore and the opportunity to make your army into ‘your dudes’. To then say that that force can’t take part in the only structured version of the game is not ok.

 

Like I said, there’s plenty of ways to balance taking allies in matched play without eliminating them. My first step would be making sure the individual codexes could compete with each other and then add in bonuses for armies that all use the same codex.

 

The entire problem with this is it feels like matched play was a major afterthought for the designers. They came up with a vague game and have retrospectively tried to add in rules and limitations to balance it rather than designing it from the ground up to be matched play then remove some of the restrictions for more open play. It seems they didn’t learn much from AoS, I mean, was anyone really asking for 40k to switch to an open play format?

[Deathwalker]

 

I'm just gonna say it - soup lists need to die. There shouldn't be allies in Matched Play.

 

If you want your big themed list then go play narrative and scenario games.

Why should people who want to take allies not be allowed to ask for a balanced, points costed game with tight rules?

 

Why is it, if we don’t want to play the game exactly as you envision it, we should be relegated to some vague, ridiculously open game mode. Narrative and open play were invented by a GW employee who started working on them at 4:45pm to meet a 5:00pm deadline.

 

There are plenty of ways to fix soups without banning allies. Matched play should not be focussed on super competitive tournament lists only and everyone else has to make do with a child’s version. This FAQ has already done some good work in reigning in the abuse of soups, more needs to be done but I can be accomplished without banning allies. Lore and theme are important at all levels of 40k, otherwise GW could just make one army and say everyone needed to bring the exact same things to every match like a game of chess.

 

 

Matched play MUST consider the most broken form of anything, that is simply the right thing to do from a games design perspective. When you write a set of rules, you don't take it to a playtesting group and say make it work, you say try to break it and I fear this is a trap GW has fallen into for as long as I have played it (2nd ed WFB and RT), they either fail to playtest, or tell the play testers to make it work.

 

On a separate, but related point

GW NEEDS to determine a set of backhouse parameters for points cost for stats, then tailor weapons / options cost according to stats (which they have done to some degree) and the way stats work in 8th, it's even easier that back in the compare stats days.

 

For example

A lasgun toting Guardsman costs 3 points

M=6, WS 4+ BS 4+ S 3 T 3 W 1 LD 7 fielding a 24" range rapid fire S3 weapon

 

A marine costs 13 pnts and gets

No extra move, WS 3+ BS 3+ S 4 T 4 W 1 LD 8 fielding a 24" range rapid fire S4 weapon.

 

Move is a wash, so no point adjustment required, WS 3+ is situational, so .5 cost, BS is constant, so +1, S is situational, so .5, T is constant, but huge, so perhaps +2, W is the same, so a wash, LD +1 is situational, so .5

That would put a marines base cost at 7.5 points, add .5 of a point for bolters over lasguns and a marine should weigh in at 8 points per model

 

Now, to deal with armour, add .5 per level beyond 5 as it is pretty easy to combat armour and your marine costs 9 points per model.

[Arachnofiend]

My destroyers come in on turn 2 now, and I'm running a battalion+outrider instead of 3 outriders now because the CP gains are worth it. That's it, basically.

 

Erm, I thought this was general discussion. Ignore me. >.>

[Panzer]

 

 

I'm just gonna say it - soup lists need to die. There shouldn't be allies in Matched Play.

 

If you want your big themed list then go play narrative and scenario games.

Why should people who want to take allies not be allowed to ask for a balanced, points costed game with tight rules?

 

Why is it, if we don’t want to play the game exactly as you envision it, we should be relegated to some vague, ridiculously open game mode. Narrative and open play were invented by a GW employee who started working on them at 4:45pm to meet a 5:00pm deadline.

 

There are plenty of ways to fix soups without banning allies. Matched play should not be focussed on super competitive tournament lists only and everyone else has to make do with a child’s version. This FAQ has already done some good work in reigning in the abuse of soups, more needs to be done but I can be accomplished without banning allies. Lore and theme are important at all levels of 40k, otherwise GW could just make one army and say everyone needed to bring the exact same things to every match like a game of chess.

 

 

Matched play MUST consider the most broken form of anything, that is simply the right thing to do from a games design perspective. When you write a set of rules, you don't take it to a playtesting group and say make it work, you say try to break it and I fear this is a trap GW has fallen into for as long as I have played it (2nd ed WFB and RT), they either fail to playtest, or tell the play testers to make it work.

 

On a separate, but related point

GW NEEDS to determine a set of backhouse parameters for points cost for stats, then tailor weapons / options cost according to stats (which they have done to some degree) and the way stats work in 8th, it's even easier that back in the compare stats days.

 

For example

A lasgun toting Guardsman costs 3 points

M=6, WS 4+ BS 4+ S 3 T 3 W 1 LD 7 fielding a 24" range rapid fire S3 weapon

 

A marine costs 13 pnts and gets

No extra move, WS 3+ BS 3+ S 4 T 4 W 1 LD 8 fielding a 24" range rapid fire S4 weapon.

 

Move is a wash, so no point adjustment required, WS 3+ is situational, so .5 cost, BS is constant, so +1, S is situational, so .5, T is constant, but huge, so perhaps +2, W is the same, so a wash, LD +1 is situational, so .5

That would put a marines base cost at 7.5 points, add .5 of a point for bolters over lasguns and a marine should weigh in at 8 points per model

 

Now, to deal with armour, add .5 per level beyond 5 as it is pretty easy to combat armour and your marine costs 9 points per model.

 

 

I agree that they need some logic behind giving points to units, however it's not that easy unfortunately. The value of S and T changes depending on what you face and what kind of weapon you're equipped with. The value of weapons changes depending on the BS of the model using it. The value of armor and wounds changes depending on what you get hit with. And so on and on.

Then things change again depending on special rules. Yours and the target ones. Then depending on Stratagems and traits.

 

They definitely can do better than currently, but I doubt it'll ever be perfect without making things way too complicated for most people. It's a board game and not a computer simulation after all.