FAQ and Adeptus Mechanicus

[Vel'Cona]

=][= Cooler heads, fellow Techpriests.  Cogitate in harmony or not at all. =][=

[brother_b]

 

=][= Cooler heads, fellow Techpriests.  Cogitate in harmony or not at all. =][=

 

 

I found our discussion civil, and our opinions different. I value everybody's input. 

 

I don't assume to know everything, however, but did point out that we can all have differing opinions. The opinion of my fellow tech priest is that 3 onagers is enough. My opinion is that my own experience shows that 4 works well, and I enjoyed that.

 

I never asked for every army  to get the same bonuses, I believe our differences in opinion are just that, differences, never did I say my way was the best way for all.

 

Cheers.

[Battybattybats]

On the Onager issue, recall both the lore and how they worked in 7th. The lore is that Onager are central data hubs for the command and control system for Skitarii, a crucial role beyond being mere tanks. They also carry the Cohort number making them in a way the Skitarii banners, the hard drives and in some ways the HQ.

 

In 7th many will recall Onagers near each other boosted their field save so keeping them in groups of 3+ was encouraged. And people will be wanting to be able to keep fielding their 7th ed armies.

 

So for narrative games and casual games there's good reasons not to impose that restriction. But Competitive gaming is an entirely different kettle of cybermats.

 

While competitive gaming is still going to carry elements of lore and casual gaming as it's foundation it's still got the needs of the sport above those concerns. I'm very glad that GW recognises the need to deal with those somewhat separately.

[Gaz1858]

Yeh I dont see the point in getting overly worked up over the perception that some armies get things that we dont. In this case tanks in Squadrons.

 

All armies have things we dont just as we have units and abilities they dont. I am sure DE would LOVE to be able to put out 108 shots like Kastelans plus reroll it all with Cawl. Or especially now with the FAQ have a Dogma like Stygies to allow Priests, Dragoons etc to get in with an alpha strike.

 

If everyone all had exactly the same things it would be boring. IMO anyway. 

[synthaside]

To true Gaz we should be thankful for what we've got .... Except transports .... we need those :-P

To quote a buddy of mine when I was complaining about building the damn things, but not being able to use them.

“Do you think the guy who works in the Ferrari factory drives a Ferrari?”
 

My response...    "No, but at least he's allowed to buy a fiat."

[Clingy]

Hehe I like this

[MajorNese]

The FAQ does damage my flexibility with Lucius (and Raptors chapter) not being able to fill the board turn 1, but now it's back to last edition with turn 2 reserves if I want to do it. No big deal, compared to how other armies were nerfed. AdMech in general profits from being safe from most turn 1 charges, those were getting ridiculous. Getting at least one movement phase means we can put forward some cheap blocker units, especially with our cheap troops.

 

The rule of 3 is a bit of an issue, as it makes army composition clumsy...I'd love to use another SC box, but 4 dunecrawlers become unplayable that way. Not that I would need 4 neutronagers, but a midfield eradication or anti air one would have been nice too for casual games. Not being able to field a key part of the SC box makes it considerably less useful. Otherwise, our detachment options are limited by how many different HQ datasheets we have, which doesn't make all too much logical sense. At least the CP increase, with our particularly nice stratagems a clear plus, so we need less detachments.

 

Limiting detachments to only one faction seems necessary for me. There's always the auxilia detachment if you really want that special unit in your army, and this limits the soup considerably (which mostly just devolves into powercherrypicking) by requiring more mandatory units/CP/number of detachments.