Siege of Cthonia thoughts

[Bung]

7 hours ago, TheTrans said:

Actually a bit shocking given the game was pretty even keeled(ish) in its first iteration, most forces could bloody the nose of their opponent.

Like honestly man, with 2.0 it seems like only SoH and IF exist.

 

The older Black Books havent been better after Book 3.

They only promoted one or 2 Legions exactly like SoC.

The only difference was you had 9 Books in 10 years then 1 Book in 1 year.

[Gorgoff]

7 minutes ago, Bung said:

 

The older Black Books havent been better after Book 3.

They only promoted one or 2 Legions exactly like SoC.

 

That's wrong.

Plain and simple. You got a lot of stuff for all legions in every book.

But we got stuff for everyone in SoC as well. The problem is, it is just so underwhelming. 

[Brofist]

There is a notable difference in overall design too. The legion list, in 2.0, is excellent. All other factions are notably written as allies first, and as a list that can stand on its own, second.

[Stitch5000]

9 hours ago, TheTrans said:

Actually a bit shocking given the game was pretty even keeled(ish) in its first iteration, most forces could bloody the nose of their opponent.

Like honestly man, with 2.0 it seems like only SoH and IF exist.

Is that REALLY the case? We've got one campaign book that so far introduces some peripheral stuff for SoH and IF and then plenty of stuff for everyone else. 

[Bung]

3 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

That's wrong.

Plain and simple. You got a lot of stuff for all legions in every book.

But we got stuff for everyone in SoC as well. The problem is, it is just so underwhelming. 

 

For rules and units yes not for Fluff, thats what i am talking about and people seem to complain about.

 

And in that regard SoC doesnt differ from Black Book 4 onwards.

 

 

[Gorgoff]

I don't think people complain about the fluff. Or at least that this is the main concern. But yes, we had thematic books in the past of course. 

We will see what GW has to offer in the future I guess.

[Petitioner's City]

On 6/14/2023 at 11:38 AM, Gorgoff said:

I don't think people complain about the fluff. Or at least that this is the main concern. But yes, we had thematic books in the past of course. 

We will see what GW has to offer in the future I guess.

 

I do hope we find out sometime soon, but realise that's not the case - at least not til the Thursday previews are to return. But at this rate we'll probably not have a new book til next year at this rate 

 

Unless that new army really is a new weird never seen before army list too, but I'd hope they tackle one of the current ones without either minis or plastic minis (sisters, but maybe also mech or solar auxilia or weirdo daemons) first. 

[Gorgoff]

On 6/22/2023 at 7:40 PM, Petitioner's City said:

 

I do hope we find out sometime soon, but realise that's not the case - at least not til the Thursday previews are to return. But at this rate we'll probably not have a new book til next year at this rate 

 

I am crrtain we won't see another book this year. And not sorry at all. We have what we need so I am satisfied. 

[WolfLogic]

I enjoyed the narrative around the Siege of Cthonia and the fluff presented in this book, while I am getting a bit tired of IF and SoH being push so heavily, I have a feeling we'll be seeing them more in the future. 

 

The Inductii are kind of interesting but I'm personally just going to stick with a Tac Squad 9 times out of 10. 

 

My real complaint about the book has to do with the artwork, or lack thereof. I was hoping for 2 to three pages per legion to be new artwork. While I fortunately got the Mark VI clad Ultramarine, that was it. There were no other images showing heraldry or anything cool they could have added. I'd have liked a page of new heraldry spawned from the rapid intake of Inductii but I guess you can't get everything if GW is producing it. 

 

To sum it up, parts of it are nice, but it left a lot of be desired for a $60 240 page book IMO of course. 

[ProsperoStands]

Love it, minus the four turn limit on games. :cuss: that. 

[Gorgoff]

Has anyone the picture GW released as a teaser for the book in which we could see heads of all different Inductii?

 

 

[XiaphasJurr]

3 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

Has anyone the picture GW released as a teaser for the book in which we could see heads of all different Inductii?

 

 

There you go! :)

[Gorgoff]

YEAH.

Thx.

I really don't understand why that picture isn't in the book. Seems like a no brainer to me.

[Squark]

The DA Inductii is really hard to tell from a veteran unless you're very good at tiny cross hatches

[Xenith]

Odd to see that some inductii are more ornamented than veteran legionnaires! 

[WrathOfTheLion]

8 hours ago, Squark said:

The DA Inductii is really hard to tell from a veteran unless you're very good at tiny cross hatches

You could almost do a metallic Guardians of the Covenant style body and a black helmet, something I've considered.

[Marshal Rohr]

52 minutes ago, Xenith said:

Odd to see that some inductii are more ornamented than veteran legionnaires! 

I think it’s just a different helmet scheme and not special armor mods. 

[Squark]

21 minutes ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

You could almost do a metallic Guardians of the Covenant style body and a black helmet, something I've considered.

That's not a bad idea. You could do something that suggests limited paint until they earn the right to wear the full chapter colors.

[SkimaskMohawk]

44 minutes ago, Xenith said:

Odd to see that some inductii are more ornamented than veteran legionnaires! 

 

In Solar war and in Siege of Cthonia it's presented like all the inductii are super try-harding with the Legion iconography and home world tokens to try and prove their place as "proper" marines.

 

Almost like the charicatures the wolves turn themselves into in 40k.

[lansalt]

21 hours ago, XiaphasJurr said:

There you go! :)

 

Note that this image doesn't necessarily display inductii paint schemes. The book has also regular marines and veterans, and a few of the inductii illustrations in the book do not look like those portraits.

[Gorgoff]

29 minutes ago, lansalt said:

 

Note that this image doesn't necessarily display inductii paint schemes. The book has also regular marines and veterans, and a few of the inductii illustrations in the book do not look like those portraits.

Which it makes it even more infuriating that they just gave us this picture without any context and further pictures. 

[Xenith]

3 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

In Solar war and in Siege of Cthonia it's presented like all the inductii are super try-harding with the Legion iconography and home world tokens to try and prove their place as "proper" marines.

 

Almost like the charicatures the wolves turn themselves into in 40k.

 

That makes some sense. I know plenty that have muddied up their clean trousers and Hi vis jackets before going on site so they don't get made fun of by the veterans. 

[Gorgoff]

I played my first game with the new core rules on saturday. 

My two cents:

We will ignore first strike as a secondary objective because it gives the player who gets the first turn a way to big advantage.

We used the rules for alternating terrain deployment which was fun. I really like the give the players a big fat sign which says "PLAY. WITH. LOTS. OF. TERRAIN!" 

For thirty years now I am advocating this and still each year I face new players who play on basically empty tables and wonder why shooting armies are so much better than CC ones.

Four turns is cool.

Progressive scoring works for us.

Having to put units into special reserves at a very early stage is fun.

Strategic advantage giving the power over night fight is dumb.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Gorgoff