doubleback
novice
I rock harder than most, yet less hard than some.
Posts: 1,262
|
Post by doubleback on Apr 17, 2018 10:59:29 GMT -6
I was interested in the requirement that if a unit is able to grow it cannot get larger than its starting point without having points in reserves. I'm still interested in poxwalkers for typhus, but it changes a bit of the construction for them. Did I miss this change in the yesterday's FAQ? As it stands now, per the DG FAQ, Pox Walkers are specifically able to grow larger than their original unit size
|
|
|
Post by Eric formerly Eric on Apr 17, 2018 11:14:07 GMT -6
I was interested in the requirement that if a unit is able to grow it cannot get larger than its starting point without having points in reserves. I'm still interested in poxwalkers for typhus, but it changes a bit of the construction for them. Did I miss this change in the yesterday's FAQ? As it stands now, per the DG FAQ, Pox Walkers are specifically able to grow larger than their original unit size You have to pay for it though
|
|
doubleback
novice
I rock harder than most, yet less hard than some.
Posts: 1,262
|
Post by doubleback on Apr 17, 2018 11:36:06 GMT -6
Wow, that is a significant nerf. I am honestly not sure they are worth it compared to the other troop options now
|
|
|
Post by Eric formerly Eric on Apr 17, 2018 12:29:11 GMT -6
While it's certainly a nerf, that ability was way overpowered to begin with. Especially paired with tide of traitors, for unlimited cultists.
|
|
|
Post by Eric formerly Eric on Apr 17, 2018 15:09:40 GMT -6
Ok now that I've seen the reactions from everyone online, i think this will turn out to be a good FAQ. If everybody thinks that their army is being nerfed, then none of their armies are being nerfed. It's all relative. Sure, i can't deepstrike turn 1, but my opponents can't eithwr. And I guarantee that tau and imperial fist gunlines have not been the problem in 8th. The biggest motif I've seen is "if I have to wait til T2 the deepstrike, then the game will already have been decided". Maybe the game is getting decided on turn one because the alpha strike is way too powerful. And so this can only be a good thing. People are really not showing any empathy for how these changes are nerfing other armies too. I saw multiple people say "I can't deepstrike my terminators, now my army is gonna get tabled T1 by Kraken genestealers"..... uh, they can't deepstrike either....
|
|
doubleback
novice
I rock harder than most, yet less hard than some.
Posts: 1,262
|
Post by doubleback on Apr 17, 2018 15:16:03 GMT -6
And we all agree that Pox Walkers were unfairly Nerfed
|
|
mike
Butts
Posts: 628
|
Post by mike on Apr 17, 2018 15:39:09 GMT -6
I was unfairly nerfed.
|
|
|
Post by Joelercoaster on Apr 17, 2018 17:20:41 GMT -6
It's fine, my stealers don't need ds for a t1 charge
|
|
|
Post by daniel, why on Apr 17, 2018 21:19:09 GMT -6
Makes sense that the beta rules would be the most contentious.
Maybe because I'm not going up against super crushing lists, I don't feel pressured to include Allies. For Imperium, the IG battery (two company commanders and 30x guardsmen, right? about 200 pts for now +5CP?) is very tempting to add and certainly promotes mixed Faction lists, rather than mono-Codex lists. Now that I'm thinking about it, is the CP increase for Battalions supposed to incentivize elite armies to include an Ally-type Detachment like that to boost CP? Because it's crazy to think that Custodes or Terminator armies like Deathwing, who are filling out SupCom & Vanguard Detachments, aren't taking Battalions because the CP bonus isn't good enough, like Nick said.
In regards to Xenos armies being boosted to the point of necessitating an 'Allied' detachment for Imperium, I have some thoughts. First off, the concept of Allies doesn't exist anymore. There are simply Faction Keywords. Speaking about it in previous editions terms is only going to cause grief, I think. Certainly the Xenos have powerful Codexes, and I see your point, Eric, about them needing to function well as solo Factions because they have to stand equal to the dozens of Faction combinations available to the Imperium. I'm no competitive player, so I can't comment on how disadvantaged you are for using a mono-Codex list versus a recently re-tooled Xenos Codex list or a mixed Faction one. But it does seem to me that choosing to write a mono-Codex list can be disadvantageous, inherently, since you're limiting your options based on your own preferences. You are, of course, welcome to have your preferences. Personally, I dislike named characters in most Codexes and avoid them in my lists.
|
|
|
Post by Nick P on Apr 17, 2018 22:04:27 GMT -6
I mostly agree with the sentiments in this thread. The Battle Brothers beta rule seems a little off the mark, but I guess that's why they're testing it. It seems to address inter-detachment unit mixups, which didn't seem to be a problem in the first place? I guess I'm unclear what the issue is with 'soup' lists. It seems totally reasonable to construct an Army with different Factions per detachment to maximize Chapter Tactic or Craftworld Attributes. Are people upset about Detachments chosen exclusively to increase Army CP? The cross-Detachment use of Stratagems seems like a clever part of constructing a list to me. If the issue is soup across Detachments, then a cleaner solution might be rewarding an Army for containing at least two or maybe three Faction keywords. Then Allies aren't discouraged, but it makes those cheap IG Detachments just for the CP a little more difficult to choose. Like, having an entirely <Imperium> <Adeptus Astartes> <Iron Hands> Army nets you more CP beyond the Detachments and base 3. Taking even one <Imperium> <whatever> would break the bonus. I think cross faction stratagems are a really fun and interesting tool in the tool box, I'm all for that- but my beef with soup lists is specific to the ynarri version. The ynarri list dominated LVO and did well at adepticon (though it didn't win). It involves taking a ynarri detachment which breaks your army of craftworld and kabal/coven/cult rules, meaning you don't get the traits, special rules like power from pain or battle focus, etc. But somehow they're still letting stratagems be used on those units from those codeces - and I think that's breaking. In the end the stratagems are more powerful than the faction abilities in most armies - so it's not even really a trade off in my opinion. That being said I want to try mixing dark eldar with the ynarri stuff just to get some use out of the triumvirate, and see if it's fun. But I won't be using Black Heart or Obsidian Rose stratagems on my units from the ynarri detachment, that I can promise!
|
|
mike
Butts
Posts: 628
|
Post by mike on Apr 17, 2018 23:15:49 GMT -6
the battery is very tempting to add and certainly promotes mixed Faction lists, rather than mono-Codex lists. Now that I'm thinking about it, is the CP increase for Battalions supposed to incentivize elite armies to include an Ally-type Detachment like that to boost CP? Because it's crazy to think that Custodes or Terminator armies like Bestwing Yeah I had planned to swap five terminators for the guard detachment if I ever wanted to take them to a tournament even before the faq. It's super strong.
|
|
|
Post by Eric formerly Eric on Apr 18, 2018 10:33:35 GMT -6
Ok, i played doubleback last night with the beta rules. I think the deepstrike rule is pretty good. Our game wasn't even close to finished after 3 turns. (Part of that was because deathguard are so damn durable). I still took 2 trygons with 2 genestealer blobs. Used the first turn to gain the midfield and distract using a hierodule. I honestly thought it was very even, and not being able to tie up half his army turn 1 definitely made the game more even and interesting.
|
|
|
Post by daniel, why on Apr 18, 2018 10:38:08 GMT -6
I went and looked at some of those Ynnari lists, Nick P, and I see what you mean. I didn't realize Ynnari Detachments kept their <Craftworld, Kabal, etc> but lost the specific Detachment and Army bonuses in exchange for Strength from Death. You do still have to take a Craftworld Detachment to access those Stratagems, but not a specific <Craftworld> one (Saim-Hann sounds like the culprit here). I guess I see people do crazy stuff like that and am impressed. I wouldn't have thought to do that, and it makes me want to try Ynnari! Good excuse to start scooping up Dark Eldar, too Remember that the Battle Brothers rule to supposedly address soup is in beta form. I suspect that loophole (or feature?) will be tightened up. You can be sure the rules guys are aware of it. It seems a little silly to let the Ynnari units keep their previous sub-Faction, from both a rules and fluff perspective. But it's not technically soup, right? They share a Faction Keyword besides just Aeldari. You take a Craftworld, Drukhari, and Ynnari Detachment in your Army, you get access to a ton of Stratagems and Relics. That seems awesome!
|
|
|
Post by daniel, why on Apr 18, 2018 10:39:30 GMT -6
the battery is very tempting to add and certainly promotes mixed Faction lists, rather than mono-Codex lists. Now that I'm thinking about it, is the CP increase for Battalions supposed to incentivize elite armies to include an Ally-type Detachment like that to boost CP? Because it's crazy to think that Custodes or Terminator armies like Bestwing Yeah I had planned to swap five terminators for the guard detachment if I ever wanted to take them to a tournament even before the faq. It's super strong. I see what you did there. DO IT. Lemme see Victoria's guardswomen on the table. You just have to execute your IG units at the end of the game so they don't reveal your secretssss.
|
|
doubleback
novice
I rock harder than most, yet less hard than some.
Posts: 1,262
|
Post by doubleback on Apr 18, 2018 10:56:21 GMT -6
Ok, i played doubleback last night with the beta rules. I think the deepstrike rule is pretty good. Our game wasn't even close to finished after 3 turns. (Part of that was because deathguard are so damn durable). I still took 2 trygons with 2 genestealer blobs. Used the first turn to gain the midfield and distract using a hierodule. I honestly thought it was very even, and not being able to tie up half his army turn 1 definitely made the game more even and interesting. Agreed, turn one is no longer a make or break for the game. Seems to even out the packing and make the game more fun overall.As a side, we modified the vertical terrain charge consolidation rule. While it does not fix all the issues with vertical terrain, I think if both players are being reasonable (I.e. not completely blocking a charge), it creates a fair trade off
|
|