January 2024 MFM and Dataslate

[Spurspinter1]

On 2/1/2024 at 7:13 AM, Mogger351 said:

First of all that's a bit rude.

 

The point of the ally rules were to let people make thematic lists and use more of their collection. If they fixed the rules imbalances that led you to want to take the thematically weird choices in the first place, you'd still not be taking them and buying something else.

 

It's not weird ass, it makes sense. What doesn't make sense is the changeling bumming around with a set of knights so he can sit on an objective due to an in game rule or whatever.

 

Yes those units are a bit weird in their ability to complete those tasks, but it makes slightly more sense than your stance does.

 

Which seems to be "I took the meta choices fluff or setting be damned, don't change it, change other people's, now my list isn't as good so I'm angry".

 

It's not that the list isn't as good, that's way off the mark for the situation that I have described. If I wanted to just simply get the best Chaos Knights list I would have run 13 War Dogs so you can accuse me of chasing the meta if you want but that doesn't make it a valid stance. And the most meta part of Chaos allies is the nurglings, of which aren't affected by the big change anyway because they're battleline.

 

It's that the list we're talking about is now not allowed by the rules when it wasn't hugely OP like CSM for example. I expect points changes but not for wholesale changes on what you have to field to be able to use certain units. For an army that was as close to only one viable unit to be competitive, they've taken away the possibility of even trying to mix it up. So it's still a mono list, mono model army but even more than it was. Does that seem like a good thing to you?

 

It doesn't help Chaos Daemons at all who really needed the help, and in terms of narrative, thematically, Chaos is Chaos. And okay buddy, sending some wolves to go an investigate signals and report back in woofs makes more sense then chaos being allied with chaos lol. Why would the Tzeench God not want one of their changeling dudes to help out other Chaos folk? Adding on some more Tzeench in the form of horrors then suddenly makes that make sense in your head? Alrighty then, but it's a mighty leap of logic there to pretend that lore is relevant rather than sales being the driving force.

 

If I choose not to pay £80 to play in an official tournament it'll never be a problem but even in casual I don't like the imposition of asking to house rule something, but I think I prefer that to being pushed in to buying bad models that aren't a good fit. If only I had gone for the full list of war dogs ie chasing the meta, which is what you're incorrectly suggesting I have done. Look, it probably was too good to be true to be able to pick the best of the faction, but they were the rules so should I have been suspicious enough to not use the clear as daylight rules? It sounds like you may have been burnt by the changeling and are bitter about it, although not as bitter as I am about these changes haha.

 

I might have said before, if I had bought a bunch of allies 3 months before the end of an edition it would be fair to say I'd be opening myself up to getting shafted, but now it's open season all the way through the edition? I was chatting to a Sisters player yesterday who is looking at getting a big knight because they're in dire need of firepower, but who is to say that in the next update they'll stop allowing big imperial knights in a sisters list? The lore behind these things is however they want to write it and they'll do what they can sell models, it's impressively naive to think otherwise. Not sure if you are aware of this but money is kind of tight for people, and people are effectively punished by wanting to field half decent lists because of the elite players spamming things to death? It's a joke.

Edited February 2 by Spurspinter1
Spelling

[Xenith]

On 2/1/2024 at 7:13 AM, Mogger351 said:

The point of the ally rules were to let people make thematic lists and use more of their collection. If they fixed the rules imbalances that led you to want to take the thematically weird choices in the first place, you'd still not be taking them and buying something else.

 

As 'matched' (tournament) play is so far from the actual theme and setting of the game (you regularly hear tourney players making the decision not to attack, or not to shoot, or playing un-interactive armies that just sit and do secondaries), allies could (should?) be removed from official tournament play entirely. They're only ever used to shore up weaknesses in the main book anyway, and make balancing codexes harder. 

[Mogger351]

3 hours ago, Spurspinter1 said:

 

It's not that the list isn't as good, that's way off the mark for the situation that I have described. If I wanted to just simply get the best Chaos Knights list I would have run 13 War Dogs so you can accuse me of chasing the meta if you want but that doesn't make it a valid stance. And the most meta part of Chaos allies is the nurglings, of which aren't affected by the big change anyway because they're battleline.

 

It's that the list we're talking about is now not allowed by the rules when it wasn't hugely OP like CSM for example. I expect points changes but not for wholesale changes on what you have to field to be able to use certain units. For an army that was as close to only one viable unit to be competitive, they've taken away the possibility of even trying to mix it up. So it's still a mono list, mono model army but even more than it was. Does that seem like a good thing to you?

 

It doesn't help Chaos Daemons at all who really needed the help, and in terms of narrative, thematically, Chaos is Chaos. And okay buddy, sending some wolves to go an investigate signals and report back in woofs makes more sense then chaos being allied with chaos lol. Why would the Tzeench God not want one of their changeling dudes to help out other Chaos folk? Adding on some more Tzeench in the form of horrors then suddenly makes that make sense in your head? Alrighty then, but it's a mighty leap of logic there to pretend that lore is relevant rather than sales being the driving force.

 

If I choose not to pay £80 to play in an official tournament it'll never be a problem but even in casual I don't like the imposition of asking to house rule something, but I think I prefer that to being pushed in to buying bad models that aren't a good fit. If only I had gone for the full list of war dogs ie chasing the meta, which is what you're incorrectly suggesting I have done. Look, it probably was too good to be true to be able to pick the best of the faction, but they were the rules so should I have been suspicious enough to not use the clear as daylight rules? It sounds like you may have been burnt by the changeling and are bitter about it, although not as bitter as I am about these changes haha.

 

I might have said before, if I had bought a bunch of allies 3 months before the end of an edition it would be fair to say I'd be opening myself up to getting shafted, but now it's open season all the way through the edition? I was chatting to a Sisters player yesterday who is looking at getting a big knight because they're in dire need of firepower, but who is to say that in the next update they'll stop allowing big imperial knights in a sisters list? The lore behind these things is however they want to write it and they'll do what they can sell models, it's impressively naive to think otherwise. Not sure if you are aware of this but money is kind of tight for people, and people are effectively punished by wanting to field half decent lists because of the elite players spamming things to death? It's a joke.

Because a singular daemon doesn't spontaneously appear on a whim to chill out on an objective being a lone operative? Codex daemons largely was designed to be able to represent a real space incursion, a summoning opening a rift or something like that. This is the fluff and history of the game, it's divorced from in-game allies rules for the most part. The changeling is more of a rogue operative for example but it's not a minor warp presence, stronger daemons need more warp access and sacrifice etc. to exist, it's unlikely you'd pluck out just a bloodthirster, more unlikely again it'd be just the singular skarbrand that happens to exist.

 

Tzeentch will definitely want to help tzeentch worshippers, they'll want them to open a warp rift and pour daemons through, they'll want the planet pulling into the warp, so yes having some horrors does suddenly make that make more sense. I have no qualms about chaos allying, I have chaos knights and world eaters personally. Sales are relevant to GW, but the game is supposed to be built to represent the setting and lore, if it ceases to do that it's just a generic ruleset with their minis.

 

That being said the allies rules are all over the place because they generally breed imbalance, unless there's a definitive downside to taking allies, there's little reason not to simply bring the best of everything across books. They've essentially opted to place a points tax on some combinations because you can't balance out the ability to drop in a lone operative for gaming reasons. Which regards the "meta" or to word it better, over-focus on the competitive play side of it, Wardogs + changeling definitely has been a meta list in 10th at the start of the edition, you constantly reference "only one viable unit" or "buying bad models" maybe even "wanting to field half decent lists because of the elite players spamming things" and if you are attending £80 tournaments, then the boot fits? You do you but to some people this game is simply a game with no cares given about the setting, for others the setting is why they play the game.

 

But yes, money is tight but buying a single 2k list and assuming it'll never change has never worked.

 

2 hours ago, Xenith said:

 

As 'matched' (tournament) play is so far from the actual theme and setting of the game (you regularly hear tourney players making the decision not to attack, or not to shoot, or playing un-interactive armies that just sit and do secondaries), allies could (should?) be removed from official tournament play entirely. They're only ever used to shore up weaknesses in the main book anyway, and make balancing codexes harder. 

 

This is a very reasonable take imo.

Edited February 2 by Mogger351
address other post

[ThePenitentOne]

@Xenith Allies need to exist for narrative play. If you want them removed from Matched for balance, I'd be okay with that, but leave Crusade alone. Since GW doesn't seem to like making rule updates just for matched anymore though, I think that ship has sailed.

 

Allied armies are EVERYWHERE in the fluff- both Black Library (which I don't think of as the best standard for fluff due to its tendencies toward bolter porn) AND the game books of pretty much every edition (even those with more restrictive ally rules, strangely). 

 

And as I pointed out, in 10th, allies DO have a disadvantage: they usually don't have the Keywords to us any of the Enhancements, Strats or Detachment rules of the army to whom they ally, which makes them far less versatile than other units from the main army, even if their statlines and datacard abilities are amazing. The caveat here is that chaos might be different, because their keywords are sometimes God aligned rather than faction-aligned.

 

All that said though, I still think in most cases it is usually more fluffy to send a character with at least one back-up unit from its own faction. HQ doesn't go anywhere without trusted grunts to protect it. The Changeling is not stupid enough to expose itself in realspace without protection that it can trust, and even if it was, what could it hope to achieve without minions to direct in battle- because it isn't going to be commanding any of the Knights- they may appreciate its support and recognise it as an ally, but they certainly aren't going to take orders from it.

 

Again, you can build your fluff to support the idea: "Back in the dark history of the Knight House, the Changling itself seeded the corruption of a particular Knight commander, and has taken a personal interest in its fate since the moment of its corruption..." But it still feels like a bit of a stretch. I mean, if I was your opponent, and you told me that story, I'd say "Bring it on!" but then I'm a guy who is okay with weird narrative stuff.

 

HQ having a loyal bodyguard/ grunt unit/ foddershield unit from their own faction everywhere they go is the default fluffy choice. You want to break that, you have to come up with a weird story to justify it, because that is the fluff norm. You aren't a commander if you don't bring at least one unit to command, because allying with somebody does not make you the commander of your allies. They are your ALLIES not your MINIONS.

 

 

[LSM]

1 hour ago, ThePenitentOne said:

...HQ having a loyal bodyguard/ grunt unit/ foddershield unit from their own faction everywhere they go is the default fluffy choice...

 

 

I wonder if the rule should have then perhaps been the number of "...Character units...", rather than being the number of "...non-Battleline units..." (not greater than the number of Battleline), if that was the intent.

 

I had a passing interest in WE + Karanak & Flesh Hounds. Now it'd need Bloodletters.

[TheMawr]

A single Changeling doing his thing while a chaos knights army is warring, and the disturbances in the warp create a small hole where nurglings pour through and fleshhounds chase after them is an obscure event that can absolutely happen in the 40k setting.

 

But thats the thing... its an event, its definitely not an army. By its very nature its something that you do in a narrative game and with house rules. In matched play you throw armies against each other, you dont simulate narrative events.

 

Now a chaos knight... lord ? ( I dont know their hierarchy names.) making infernal deals for aid of daemons, and thus being accompanied by a herald and some daemonic attendants of their color ( because after all, in lore, the daemons are less allies of each other than some physical world factions that cannot ally are.) That too, is an army. Bonuspoints for at least subtle hints in your mortal chaos followers whom they pled allegiance to.

 

However, on the other end of the spectrum... a Worldeaters warlord with fleshhounds, but no bloodletters, is very much an army, their pact isnt situational, but goes back to their very core... this is now ruined by the exploits of others, personally I also strongly dislike Bloodletters.. and one way to solve it is house ruling, another way to solve it is make bloodletters into something you like ( but Im a converter at heart.) but I think its likely, or if anything else, preferable, that they either get a mixed detachment or daemons go back in their codex.

 

Ever since I returned (7th), allies have been a problematic topic... I dont know how it was between 3rd and 6th, but in 2nd I cant remember it being so controversial ( admittedly, I do think that era was more of a hobbyist gamer era, much less gameplay focused, wich had its good sides and also definitely its bad sides.)

 

I actually do think this edition has the perfect framework to do a better job at it... GW just fdont realise that themselves (yet?).

 

I also think the allies rules we have now have been an after thought, the reason why is because the actual rules themselves are all over the place, sometimes its in the respective army rules for taking allies ( brood brothers), sometimes in a specific detachment ( ynnari )... wich is really the only place where it should be. Sometimes its in the army you take as allies ( Daemons, Imperial agents.) wich is a little bit off... and then there is a case where you can find ally rules in another army's detachment ( Travelling players ) wich is the absolutely wrong place for it, and technically makes it a non available option. Established players can see through ( and often ignore ) the error of this.

 

The steps are Choose your army, choose your detachment, built your army... allies should be in one of the first 2 steps. Also before step 3.. you shouldnt have to look at another codex/index yet.

But most of the time.. if it makes sense as an ally-rule in the first step, it makes even more sense to just include datasheets as part of the army. If really necessary without the faction ability, wich is regularily done (corsairs). Broodbrothers core in GSC and (unnamed) mark daemons in cult codexes should be part of the codex. SoB should have ordo hereticus inquisitor (and retinue) in their codex, grey knights ordo malleus inquisitor (and retinue).. its basically the Imperium's daemon princes.

 

Then subsequentally a detachment can expand on it... A Broodbrother Military division detachment that gives Astra militarum ally rules. Or a narrative event where Skarbrand gathers his own worldeater/daemon hybrid army -> detachment, especially since a detachment can technically cover 2 factions. But also simpler universal things, like chaos knights allying in daemons should be a detachment... as it represents a very specific chaos knight group.. not the faction as a whole.

 

In short.. there should ideally be no universal ally rules, and in the current framework, there doesnt have to be. ( even on the imperial agents front, but, its a lot of words for now ;))

 

When they first introduced the new rules, I said here ( I think) that the way detachments work now, and the framework of the new edition has a lot of potential, and the biggest mistake they could make is threat it as <subfaction> by another name... thus by changing alot achieve changing nothing.

They did exactly that.

 

I have more thoughts on it, but I leave it at this.

 

As for the points issue... I really wonder if leaving the all or nothing idea behind would be a middleground solution.

In the current framework I dont think we are getting back wargear point cost ( as I think it would mean each datasheet has its own pointlist, works for a lot of armies, but not spacemarines, where it is I believe most desirable.)

 

While I do think better gamedesign would mean that each choice is valuable in its own right, it doesnt work that way in reality.. not to mention its not always the preferable approach, sometimes the price of something is the valuable choice. Its one of those things where GW works with different measures where they shouldnt;

-- Landspeeders have a different datasheet for each weapon option, while a more healthy solution would be point costs associated with the weapon option.

-- Wraithknight has a same datasheet for completely different loadouts... here its better to just have two datasheets, with one of them having points for guns.

 

In general there is a difference between the big guns not having wargear point costs, and the squad level not having it.

On a squad level a solution could be :

Voidreavers/Kabalites etc having 3 point cost listed.. one for a 5man squad with either combat or rifle loadout, one for a 10man squad with either combat or rifle loadout and one for a 10man squad with 2 special and 1 heavy weapon added.

This would work for the Acolyte type issues too... basically able to upgrade your squad with flamers... even if that is getting closer to wargear pointcost again.

 

For the record, with the points, Im talking solutions in the current framework.. personally I dont like not being able to add individual troops to a unit, even if Im a bit more neutral on the lack of wargear points granularity. ( I think you should be able to really build your core leader and battleline troops to taste.. and then have the current system for all the specialists... but it wont ever be like that.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ThePenitentOne]

2 hours ago, LSM said:

 

I wonder if the rule should have then perhaps been the number of "...Character units...", rather than being the number of "...non-Battleline units..." (not greater than the number of Battleline), if that was the intent.

 

I had a passing interest in WE + Karanak & Flesh Hounds. Now it'd need Bloodletters.

I agree 100%.

 

Right down to your interest in Karanak and Hounds- they're the only Khorne Daemons I really like, though Thirsters are cool too.

 

Again, for me, 9th did best. Want allies? Cool. Build a detachment of them. It's just the most likely way that forces would actually ally (see my previous post in this thread about using existing command structures within each detachment).

[Tyriks]

=][= Do not disparage people's opinions. I have hidden some posts that were either insulting or replying to insults. =][=

[chapter master 454]

Not to be a wet blanket but if you are playing in a group that likes fluffy then won't they be ok with you having such things? I mean...the tabletop police don't break your door down by playing games by whatever rules your group agrees to.

In the competitive format however I would agree that the change is questionable at best considering knights of both flavours are doing bad right now, and both took effective nerfs now that are yet to be reverted.  (Chaos now can't have easy objective holders without taking garbage and Imperials can have good objective holders but our rules still suck because bondsman still isn't worth it on armigers alone).

I would be surprised if their win rates go up from this change to be honest, chaos knights just need battle-shock to actually be meaningful and something that doesn't fall off instantly and imperial still need bondsman fixed AND both factions need a points drop in relation to the fact that terrain screws them. We barely got reversion to our points for the towering rules.

 

In terms of competitive areas for chaos, lots of hits. lots and lots of hits. And necrons still have C'tan Clan which ain't anything to mess with.

 

Suppose time will tell but I suspect sadly we will only see movement in the upper half of the bracket with the lower brackets just jockeying for position to not be last.

[Bloody Legionnaire]

On 2/2/2024 at 5:35 AM, Xenith said:

 

As 'matched' (tournament) play is so far from the actual theme and setting of the game (you regularly hear tourney players making the decision not to attack, or not to shoot, or playing un-interactive armies that just sit and do secondaries), allies could (should?) be removed from official tournament play entirely. They're only ever used to shore up weaknesses in the main book anyway, and make balancing codexes harder. 

 

I don't disagree with this point at all, but.. if I can argue for the guy who was arguing for his 'khorne daemonkin' inspired (WEs?) army.. 

If KDK is the only Army that guy has, which GW killed off after 7th, he may be trying to find any way to play with the models that he has in his collection; and GW is making that problematic. The right thing to do (IMO), GW needs to stop tossing out factions like they did with KDK.

All that being said, I do think your point is 100% correct. However... the other side of this is the community has to stop acting like competitive play is the basis for which all games need to be approached from, solely because it represents a "standard." Personally, I think the "'matched' (tournament) play" needs to be reserved for that only.. but.. that only happens when people in the hobby stop acting like it is the only fair way to play WH40k that allows for all parties to have fun; and in turn, stop stigmatizing everything that doesn't conform to what GW wants to achieve in competitive-tournament, 'matched' play. 

Edited February 4 by Bloody Legionnaire

[Spurspinter1]

On 2/2/2024 at 12:48 PM, Mogger351 said:

Because a singular daemon doesn't spontaneously appear on a whim to chill out on an objective being a lone operative? Codex daemons largely was designed to be able to represent a real space incursion, a summoning opening a rift or something like that. This is the fluff and history of the game, it's divorced from in-game allies rules for the most part. The changeling is more of a rogue operative for example but it's not a minor warp presence, stronger daemons need more warp access and sacrifice etc. to exist, it's unlikely you'd pluck out just a bloodthirster, more unlikely again it'd be just the singular skarbrand that happens to exist.

 

Tzeentch will definitely want to help tzeentch worshippers, they'll want them to open a warp rift and pour daemons through, they'll want the planet pulling into the warp, so yes having some horrors does suddenly make that make more sense. I have no qualms about chaos allying, I have chaos knights and world eaters personally. Sales are relevant to GW, but the game is supposed to be built to represent the setting and lore, if it ceases to do that it's just a generic ruleset with their minis.

 

That being said the allies rules are all over the place because they generally breed imbalance, unless there's a definitive downside to taking allies, there's little reason not to simply bring the best of everything across books. They've essentially opted to place a points tax on some combinations because you can't balance out the ability to drop in a lone operative for gaming reasons. Which regards the "meta" or to word it better, over-focus on the competitive play side of it, Wardogs + changeling definitely has been a meta list in 10th at the start of the edition, you constantly reference "only one viable unit" or "buying bad models" maybe even "wanting to field half decent lists because of the elite players spamming things" and if you are attending £80 tournaments, then the boot fits? You do you but to some people this game is simply a game with no cares given about the setting, for others the setting is why they play the game.

 

But yes, money is tight but buying a single 2k list and assuming it'll never change has never worked.

 

 

This is a very reasonable take imo.

 

It's possible I haven't been clear, I've never played a competitive tournament but I like playing within the set parameters of the game with the idea of being able to step up to that level at some stage.

 

You clearly know the lore better than I ever will, so if it's a real no no for just having a changeling by itself, why was that allowed in the first place? I'm guessing the lore hasn't changed in between dataslates, so that's why it seems more like an excuse for the change rather than a genuine reason.

 

On building a 2 k list and expecting it to never change, I finished my list in December and by the end of January it became ineligible, not better, not worse, just not allowed within the rules. The list could become viable if I buy more models that are in that precarious category of allies which can literally be changed every dataslate balance by the precedent set. But these additional models wouldn't actually be suited to the armies needs (imo). Unless I've misunderstood you have me down as being angry that my list might be worse but that's not the case, if you can't see why this situation is crazy then I don't know man....I wanted the list to be fun to play, tbh as my other faction were massively OP I barely ever lost, having to buy models that i have no interest in with either the rules or painting is not so much fun. FWIW I have a big knight in the list because thematically, it makes sense to have one big guy as the centerpiece in charge of the war pups, despite all of the load outs being near enough trash, my list was not just war dog spam with the changeling.

 

And I can't be any clearer, I expect there to be drastic changes on what can be fielded from one edition to the next. It's odd that even that is normalized within the community, especially as the lore doesn't really change to make a valid reason for these changes but we accept it nonetheless. However, the changes of the allies rules mid edition just doesn't sit right with me. But I feel like I'm going round in circles, it's not going to change the rules. I still need to sort out the last 200 / 250 points of my knights to have an eligible army, when I previously had it sorted, bickering on the internet about the lore which I have literally no interest in isn't going to change anything.

 

It's a really odd thing, it's quite natural to look at options and get what looks good in game when building a list. Unless you're going full fluff it'd be odd to be seeking out bad units don't you think? If I had bought 3 full blobs of accursed cultists with dark communes I guess it'd be my fault for choosing to get what was really good at that point in time, so what, the safest thing is to get stuff that sucks so at least it can only get better? 

Edited February 4 by Spurspinter1

[phandaal]

5 hours ago, Spurspinter1 said:

And I can't be any clearer, I expect there to be drastic changes on what can be fielded from one edition to the next. It's odd that even that is normalized within the community, especially as the lore doesn't really change to make a valid reason for these changes but we accept it nonetheless.

 

Not only do people accept it - some people will actively attack people who complain about it. Just yesterday I saw someone calling it "entitlement" that people wanted to play their Space Marines as Imperial Fists with special chapter rules, when GW themselves actively encouraged and supported this playstyle until about five minutes ago when they didn't anymore. All you can do with that attitude is point out the absurdity and move on.

 

5 hours ago, Spurspinter1 said:

So what, the safest thing is to get stuff that sucks so at least it can only get better?

 

The safest thing is to not play games with the current ruleset. Once you walk away from the circus and stop letting clowns manage your free time, you might be surprised how many people are out there just having fun and wargaming. Exactly how it should be!

[TheMawr]

4 hours ago, Spurspinter1 said:

 

It's possible I haven't been clear, I've never played a competitive tournament but I like playing within the set parameters of the game with the idea of being able to step up to that level at some stage.

 

You clearly know the lore better than I ever will, so if it's a real no no for just having a changeling by itself, why was that allowed in the first place? I'm guessing the lore hasn't changed in between dataslates, so that's why it seems more like an excuse for the change rather than a genuine reason.

 

On building a 2 k list and expecting it to never change, I finished my list in December and by the end of January it became ineligible, not better, not worse, just not allowed within the rules. The list could become viable if I buy more models that are in that precarious category of allies which can literally be changed every dataslate balance by the precedent set. But these additional models wouldn't actually be suited to the armies needs (imo). Unless I've misunderstood you have me down as being angry that my list might be worse but that's not the case, if you can't see why this situation is crazy then I don't know man....I wanted the list to be fun to play, tbh as my other faction were massively OP I barely ever lost, having to buy models that i have no interest in with either the rules or painting is not so much fun. FWIW I have a big knight in the list because thematically, it makes sense to have one big guy as the centerpiece in charge of the war pups, despite all of the load outs being near enough trash, my list was not just war dog spam with the changeling.

 

And I can't be any clearer, I expect there to be drastic changes on what can be fielded from one edition to the next. It's odd that even that is normalized within the community, especially as the lore doesn't really change to make a valid reason for these changes but we accept it nonetheless. However, the changes of the allies rules mid edition just doesn't sit right with me. But I feel like I'm going round in circles, it's not going to change the rules. I still need to sort out the last 200 / 250 points of my knights to have an eligible army, when I previously had it sorted, bickering on the internet about the lore which I have literally no interest in isn't going to change anything.

 

It's a really odd thing, it's quite natural to look at options and get what looks good in game when building a list. Unless you're going full fluff it'd be odd to be seeking out bad units don't you think? If I had bought 3 full blobs of accursed cultists with dark communes I guess it'd be my fault for choosing to get what was really good at that point in time, so what, the safest thing is to get stuff that sucks so at least it can only get better? 

 

 

The safest thing with a hobby like this is always to get the stuff you like the look of, not the look of the rules, but the actual miniatures you will be spending money and time on.

Two other things to keep in mind is A. We are not mid edition (though editions are too short) and B. Miniature wargames are always going to have moving parts and changes by their very nature, especially one with the size and speed of releases a 40k... its just something that you gonna have to accept. The safest way to have a non changing miniature game is to play one where the company has gone down. ( its always weird to me that the community then goes down with it, but that too is another story.)

 

However regarding the other parts.. you dont have to like or have an interest in the lore, and "lore" might be an excuse rather than a reason in a vacuum, but it isnt as simple as that.

 

When the rules where being written/tested GW does so from a naive "as intended" perspective. GW or their playtesters arent going to test every odd combination ( wether they should or not is a whole different thing.) they test the armies they expect people to take. For example while the Eldar rules in general where already OP, the absolute overwhelming winning armies where armylists I had never ever seen before. They did not represent the average eldar army for the past 30 years.

Likewise that specific combo of daemon allies - Changeling, Flesh hounds and Nurglings.. I had not seen before, I was curious by your first post and googled it, and quickly found it where top tier choices for the same kind of influencers promoting the weird broken eldar lists.

 

GW probably didnt expect that combo, therefore never tested that combo. What we call "lore" is in such a context just another word for "expectation". And then it becomes a reason.

 

From tournament results, it might not seem as an OP combo, but in general I think people look too much at the total picture. For example, the combo might represent something thats useless against eldar, necron or other current top lists, but might be a massive wall against armies that rank lower in the meta ( with the changeling in a knight army specifically I can see this being the case.) so in the bigger picture its not OP, but it might create unwinnable situations for some armies. Perhaps GW should communicate a bit more with examples why the bigger nerfs/changes are done.

 

 

 

You are angry that GW changes affected your list, but wouldnt you be equally angry if GW didnt change anything to eldar, and they would have been just nullifying every other army until the next edition in 3 years time ? I genuinely wonder if you are just as angry about the eldar changes.

 

Im not trying to get you to see it my way ( none of this is btw.. Im the opposite of the spectrum), but to understand why something happens, and perhaps next time, temper your anger that caused you to offend anyone who did agree with the changes and temper your future expectations. All in good will.

 

 

 

[Mogger351]

6 hours ago, Spurspinter1 said:

 

It's possible I haven't been clear, I've never played a competitive tournament but I like playing within the set parameters of the game with the idea of being able to step up to that level at some stage.

 

You clearly know the lore better than I ever will, so if it's a real no no for just having a changeling by itself, why was that allowed in the first place? I'm guessing the lore hasn't changed in between dataslates, so that's why it seems more like an excuse for the change rather than a genuine reason.

 

On building a 2 k list and expecting it to never change, I finished my list in December and by the end of January it became ineligible, not better, not worse, just not allowed within the rules. The list could become viable if I buy more models that are in that precarious category of allies which can literally be changed every dataslate balance by the precedent set. But these additional models wouldn't actually be suited to the armies needs (imo). Unless I've misunderstood you have me down as being angry that my list might be worse but that's not the case, if you can't see why this situation is crazy then I don't know man....I wanted the list to be fun to play, tbh as my other faction were massively OP I barely ever lost, having to buy models that i have no interest in with either the rules or painting is not so much fun. FWIW I have a big knight in the list because thematically, it makes sense to have one big guy as the centerpiece in charge of the war pups, despite all of the load outs being near enough trash, my list was not just war dog spam with the changeling.

 

And I can't be any clearer, I expect there to be drastic changes on what can be fielded from one edition to the next. It's odd that even that is normalized within the community, especially as the lore doesn't really change to make a valid reason for these changes but we accept it nonetheless. However, the changes of the allies rules mid edition just doesn't sit right with me. But I feel like I'm going round in circles, it's not going to change the rules. I still need to sort out the last 200 / 250 points of my knights to have an eligible army, when I previously had it sorted, bickering on the internet about the lore which I have literally no interest in isn't going to change anything.

 

It's a really odd thing, it's quite natural to look at options and get what looks good in game when building a list. Unless you're going full fluff it'd be odd to be seeking out bad units don't you think? If I had bought 3 full blobs of accursed cultists with dark communes I guess it'd be my fault for choosing to get what was really good at that point in time, so what, the safest thing is to get stuff that sucks so at least it can only get better? 

Ultimately as other have pointed out, the rules are malleable to whatever GW thinks or wants them to be at that time.

 

For a lot of people they likely won't just own a single daemon and it won't be purely for the confines of the list. As other have said they collect based on the minis they like, themes etc. hence end up insulated to this over time.

 

The safest thing to do is simply accept this has happened and either add the horrors in despite the fact they're not optimal, because that facilitates what you wanted to do in the first place, or be cautious as you say and stick inside the codex.

 

I had chaos marines and mixed god daemon armies in 7th and 8th, I sold the daemons off because the ally rules kept getting moved all over the place and you were punished for not being mono-god.

 

So I do understand the frustration, but as the frater above states, it's understanding how this fits into the ecosystem and largely, you understanding what you want. If people you play with don't mind, ignore the rule simply, if you like the minis and want to grow a daemon collection, this is a good launch point. If you're simply interested in the good options and playing a game with no further interests beyond, then sadly you're at the whims of what GW do in their rules. It's worth noting they can change it again at any time, they might change again with codex release and they may chance again next edition.

 

Frankly I expect we'll see a shift to god-books when the Emperor's children get a release.

[ZeroWolf]

30 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

Ultimately as other have pointed out, the rules are malleable to whatever GW thinks or wants them to be at that time.

 

For a lot of people they likely won't just own a single daemon and it won't be purely for the confines of the list. As other have said they collect based on the minis they like, themes etc. hence end up insulated to this over time.

 

The safest thing to do is simply accept this has happened and either add the horrors in despite the fact they're not optimal, because that facilitates what you wanted to do in the first place, or be cautious as you say and stick inside the codex.

 

I had chaos marines and mixed god daemon armies in 7th and 8th, I sold the daemons off because the ally rules kept getting moved all over the place and you were punished for not being mono-god.

 

So I do understand the frustration, but as the frater above states, it's understanding how this fits into the ecosystem and largely, you understanding what you want. If people you play with don't mind, ignore the rule simply, if you like the minis and want to grow a daemon collection, this is a good launch point. If you're simply interested in the good options and playing a game with no further interests beyond, then sadly you're at the whims of what GW do in their rules. It's worth noting they can change it again at any time, they might change again with codex release and they may chance again next edition.

 

Frankly I expect we'll see a shift to god-books when the Emperor's children get a release.

I concur with the last statement, I suspect we'll move to an AoS model (though GW could still prove me wrong there).

 

When is the next tournaments that would use this dataslate? Curious to see what effects it'll cause.

[TrawlingCleaner]

19 minutes ago, ZeroWolf said:

When is the next tournaments that would use this dataslate? Curious to see what effects it'll cause.

 

Some are using the dataslate this weekend, some haven't used it because of the event cut-off. I know a Skysplinter assault detachment came 3rd at a tournament this weekend.

We're not going to see fully the effects for at least another 2 weeks I think.

 

 

[MegaVolt87]

On 2/2/2024 at 9:35 PM, Xenith said:

 

As 'matched' (tournament) play is so far from the actual theme and setting of the game (you regularly hear tourney players making the decision not to attack, or not to shoot, or playing un-interactive armies that just sit and do secondaries), allies could (should?) be removed from official tournament play entirely. They're only ever used to shore up weaknesses in the main book anyway, and make balancing codexes harder. 

 

I'll add on to this that all stratagems should also be banned and there is a small matched play universal pool of them that everyone can use and is aware of, like 5-6 max. Comp play has never been good because GW only panders, not do anything meaningful there, hence casuals are locked in with Rosearch from watchmen and suffering needlessly from comp players who value different things from 40k. 

[chapter master 454]

Not sure but feeling like this one is a done deal folks. Lots of circling round and round and now we have gone and stopped talking about the dataslate and the changes within and those notably lacking and now just going on our own grievances.

 

Mainly saying this because not exactly a fan of some of this hate we are seeing towards a style of play. I get that matched play isn't everyones favourite thing but it is natural that it gets the most attention and balance updates put towards it; people in those circles tend to give feedback quite actively. If we were to just take 40k back to "open" play, then why any balance updates? No reason, just ban those armies in your locals as agreed by your group and there you go.

We would still have devastating wounds wrecking entire blocks of infantry, eldar would be banned in even casual play because lol 12 fate dice you can mag dump into one overwatch goes brrrrrt.

 

Just saying that there is some extreme over-reactions here. I ain't happy with the dataslate because my knights (and I won't stop going on about it, Bondsman needs returned) but I am seeing some really REALLY weird takes being put here.

"Ban Allies" "Stop this" "That shouldn't be an option"

Allies have been massively toned down and straightened out. Sometimes I wonder how far memories go...I returned on the tail of 7th and I couldn't escape hearing about Tau'Dar just annililating with a SQUAD of 3 stormsurges getting guide boost from farseers that also doomed targets. 8th edition we were ragging on the Blood Angels running with a castellan and the loyal 32. Now we have allies being near enough be a special faction ability for a select couple of factions (Imperial Agents, Knights of both sides and Chaos Daemons) with their allowance being fairly fluffy by all standards. Not going to lie, surprised to see the Callidus got away but then again, that's her job as the assassin of subterfuge. Though would argue it doesn't change much for knights in general. As for chaos on the whole, that change certainly earns ire not because it isn't fluffy (summoning daemons isn't an exact science, you summon one you summon twenty because they are ALL wanting in on this party) but mainly because...why? It wasn't a top list thing anyway and Chaos Knights at best are holding their cockpits above water (while imperials are drowning...the extra war dog variants help).

 

And going to address Megavolt...I'm going to assume you are joking. Its a good joke...because you can't be serious making such a suggestion. You decry the competitive scene for being sterile then make a suggestion to sterilise the game further, which again would punish the casuals more like you complain about for the faults of competitive players.

 

Competitive players cannot be stopped. Competitions and the like of these aren't the fault of GW ether. In fact the balance changes we are seeing are because of the competitive scene, not GW. The tournament Circuit wasn't GWs creation, it was the communities creation. OUR creation. Our passion for this game is outright un-stoppable with even our own fandom being a meme in its own right, how could 40k NOT generate its own tournament scene? If people can get competitive over chess, then it can happen to 40k. Even fighting games do this and effectively can live and DIE by the tournament scene they create and the fan base they have.

 

 

You can't stop them, and clearly they are important because GW listen to them and are keeping an active eye on the game and how they play it. They clearly want to do good and help the game be healthy because that means it will keep being played and a game that keeps being played keeps selling models and rules, and models and rules that sell make money. That is quite a logical breakthrough for any company in the stratus of Games Workshop and in fact they were nearing a death spiral from how they weren't keeping the game healthy. Then it would of all went bye-bye, just a few little geeks, nerds and enthusiasts (I use the first 2 terms endearingly, not to insult because we are all nerds and geeks here...we argue probality on D6s!) in garages and backrooms of hobby shops. Just the way you want it, right?

[TrawlingCleaner]

=][= I think here's a good place to lock this topic and move discussion on how this effects armies into each faction's subforum =][=