Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XLI: Secondary Opinions

[Squark]

My good faith says when you read 'Replace your Grey Hunters and Blood Claws with Intercessors and Incursors...', you may have inserted Assault Intercessors in there.
If that's what you read, I assure you that I didn't mean it that way because I don't rate Assault Intercessors - yes, even though they can Fight twice. Intercessors and Assault Intercessors are very different units.

>.> Eeyup, that's what happened.

[Cheesegear]

I havenÂ’t read it in detail yet, but at a glance this seems to be the most positive IÂ’ve seen them about a codex.
[...]
Yes, they get a preview copy from GW. No, this doesnÂ’t mean they are corporate shills or any nonsense like that.

I'll let you read those two sentences together. I don't believe GW is unlike any other business. They are definitely not our friends.
(You can say negative things, but you can't impact sales*).

Then again. Death Guard was always going to be the best Faction in 9th. As was predicted in that horrific article that came out in pre-order week. And I'm sure when Custodes gets a full Codex, they'll be broken too. You wont be able to not write a glowing review of the Custodes Codex. It'll be impossible, unless the entire game is redesigned. You can't anything that isn't positive about Death Guard - or Custodes - because they're literally the best armies in the game. I don't need to read the article because Death Guard got +1 Wound. Anything on top of that already breaks the game because Death Guard are already broken from the way 9th Ed. is designed:
Death Guard were broken at the end of 8th off of the back of their Psychic Awakening. They were what the meta calls for.
Death Guard were broken at the start of 9th, too, because of the mission design. They were what the meta calls for.
The disappeared for a few months 'cause Space Marines got an extra Wound and Death Guard didn't. Why play Death Guard when Custodes and/or Marines are the same, but better?

Now they're back, because they were always going to ruin the game, because they're exactly what the meta asks for; They're Chaos-Custodes. The best army in the game.
They fell behind because they didn't get the +1 Wound as early as GW said they should have; That's the only reason that Death Guard disappeared. Death Guard were never bad. Ever.

*Spot the difference:
This is ****. Do not buy. You are wasting your money.
There are some issues. But it has potential, so it's worth picking up if you're into this kind of thing.

See that negative thing? Ignore it. Consume. That's the difference. It's not that negative things don't exist. It's that negative things aren't important.

I'll wait until Goonhammer reviews a Codex that wont be an instant hit - like Drukharii.

[LeSwordfish]

Meanwhile, back in reality, Goonhammer review of the DG codex. I haven’t read it in detail yet, but at a glance this seems to be the most positive I’ve seen them about a codex. So I would be interested in knowing what is so ‘trash’ about it from other perspectives, given it is so different.

(Yes, they get a preview copy from GW. No, this doesn’t mean they are corporate shills or any nonsense like that; they can and do give negative opinions when it is warranted, such as their regular criticism of the first turn issues in 9th and their review of the strategic terrain supplement. But I don’t expect that to be enough for the trust of some people here)

I like the fact that ordinary Sorcerors and Lords are now T5 etc, it always felt wierd that Death Guard ones weren't. I like cultists losing Objective Secured too, that seems like a good rule if they apply it across the chaos books.

[Squark]

My immediate thoughts on the codex, as a non-DG player.

-Disgustingly Resilient changing was going to be divisive. On the whole, I feel it was necessary to deal with the +1W, and it's certainly terrifying to face, but I get why people would be upset.

-The list-building restrictions are... not great. Space Marines only get 1 captain and 2 Lts? Sure, We've got plenty of options to fill out a Battalion or a brigade if you have to run one for some reason. But Death guard getting only one non-psyker HQ per detachment? Ew. It also means that Death Guard can't field a battalion alongside Montarion, just a Patrol. Never mind, I didn't realize Demon Princes and Lords could share a detachment.

-Removing obsec from Cultists is also dumb. What are cultists for if not to sit in the back and chant on an objective?

There's a lot of good changes, too. But there's definitely some sticking points.

[Cheesegear]

ION:

Spoiler: 4-0...Somehow

Show

Imperial Fists, Battalion
Hero of the Chapter
Relic of the Chapter
Sentinel of Terra

(W) Captain in Phobos Armour; Stealth Adept, Hand of Dorn, The Vox Espiritum - 95 Points
Lieutenant in Phobos Armour; Storm of Fire, The Armour Indomitus - 80 Points

Intercessors (x5); AGL, Auto Bolt Rifles, Auto Bolt Rifle & Chainsword - 105 Points
Intercessors (x5); AGL, Auto Bolt Rifles, Auto Bolt Rifle & Chainsword - 105 Points
Intercessors (x5); AGL, Bolt Rifles, Bolt Rifle & Chainsword - 105 Points

Scouts (x5); Boltguns, Heavy Bolter, Storm Bolter & Chainsword - 85 Points
Scouts (x5); Boltguns, Heavy Bolter, Storm Bolter & Chainsword - 85 Points
Scouts (x5); Missile Launcher, Sniper Rifles (x4) - 93 Points
Terminator Squad (x5); Cyclone Missile Launcher, Chainfists (x2), Teleport Homer - 220 Points
Terminator Squad (x5); Cyclone Missile Launcher, Chainfists (x2), Teleport Homer - 220 Points
Contemptor Dreadnought - 150 Points

Inceptors (x4) - 160 Points

Hellblasters (x5); Heavy Plasma Incinerators - 165 Points
Hellblasters (x5); Heavy Plasma Incinerators - 165 Points
Hellblasters (x5); Heavy Plasma Incinerators - 165 Points

Total: 1998 Points | 9+D3 CPs

Necrons I already wrote a full summary about.
I beat Vehicle-heavy Astra Militarum. I think I offhandedly mentioned it and I was going to do a full write-up...But then I didn't.
I beat a very poorly put together Sororitas list... I'm convinced it has something to do with the lack of multi-damage weapons.
Then I beat Tyranids. My opponent apparently not realising that targeting Characters has been changed. You can target Characters if the unit in front of them only has 2 models. It's a big change.

All of my opponents have described themselves as 'casual.' The Tyranid player was upset via his loss. Because he believed he shouldn't have lost because he didn't know the rule, and as such we shouldn't have been playing with the rule...Umm...No. It's in the rulebook. I didn't make it up.

In every game, I have taken:
Engage on all Fronts
Deploy Scramblers
Oaths of Moment
...as my Secondaries. Nothing ever changes, because why would I?

In more recent news, Inceptors got nerfed, so, 160 - 40 + 15 = 135 Points.
So now I have 25 Points to play with.

Disgustingly Resilient changing was going to be divisive. On the whole, I feel it was necessary to deal with the +1W, and it's certainly terrifying to face, but I get why people would be upset.

When you realise that 2- and 3-Damage weapons wont work against Death Guard, there's going to be massive fallout. It's almost game-breaking, and makes them better than Custodes in certain ways - especially their Terminators.

But Death guard getting only one non-psyker HQ per detachment?

But in most cases you aren't going to be taking more than 2 Characters anyway, and one of them should be a Psyker. So I don't know what the problem is.

Removing obsec from Cultists is also dumb. What are cultists for if not to sit in the back and chant on an objective?

It's not. Because it's GW.
They don't want you using Cultists so give them a nerf.
They do - mostly - want you using Poxwalkers.

[Avaris]

-The list-building restrictions are... not great. Space Marines only get 1 captain and 2 Lts? Sure, We've got plenty of options to fill out a Battalion or a brigade if you have to run one for some reason. But Death guard getting only one non-psyker HQ per detachment? Ew. It also means that Death Guard can't field a battalion alongside Montarion, just a Patrol.

The list building restrictions are definitely awkward, I’m not quite sure what to think of them myself.

Flavourfully, I like them, and would be ok with seeing more of it going forward. I’m a big fan of the idea of different minor warlords coming together in a force, each in their own detachment.

Practically though, they’re a little frustrating, especially given there isn’t another Malignant Plaguecaster model easily available. It’s also odd with the new character model: makes it a lot less likely that I’ll purchase it, given I already have muliple DG character choices.

Not sure I follow the Mortarion is only able to go alongside a patrol? He isn’t covered by this rule afaik? Suspect I’m missing a rules interaction?

Edit: ah, see your correction! I’m not sure if Daemon Princes can fit with lords though? By my understanding, you can have ONE ‘lord if the death guard’, which is basically all the HQ choices except the Malignant Plaguecaster and Sorceror lord. Which is definitely restrictive, if flavorful.

[LeSwordfish]

-Removing obsec from Cultists is also dumb. What are cultists for if not to sit in the back and chant on an objective?

Absolutely, but they shouldn't be good at it, they shouldn't no-sell elite units at it.

[Avaris]

Another interesting thing: all demon summoning ability has been removed. I suspect this will also be the case in the CSM codex, which makes me really curious as to what is planned for Chaos Demons. Will that include a way of allowing other chaos armies to summon them without taking a detachment? Of will they be solely their own thing?

[LeSwordfish]

Are the Summoning rules not also in the Daemon book? I assumed it was just about not duplicating rules.

[Avaris]

Are the Summoning rules not also in the Daemon book? I assumed it was just about not duplicating rules.

Previous DG codex had the Daemonic Ritual rule, which allowed DG characters to summon daemons. CSM and Daemon codexes had the same, but they each only apply to units in their own codex: the Daemons one would only say ‘daemons HQ’ rather than chaos HQ. So there’s nothing in the Daemons codex that allows DG to use it. That’s my understanding anyway.

[LeSwordfish]

I can't be bothered to check the Erratas so correct me if i'm wrong, but my copy of the Daemons book says "any CHAOS CHARACTER" can summon any unit with Daemonic Ritual.

[LansXero]

(Yes, they get a preview copy from GW. No, this doesn’t mean they are corporate shills or any nonsense like that; they can and do give negative opinions when it is warranted,)

"I could not be more thrilled about this book and can’t wait to get my spooky silver horde on the table"

... and they say the writers for 1d4chan are overtly positive casuals. At least they do it for free xD.

As for the rest of the changes, list building restrictions akin to the old relic rules make the game harder and harder to grasp for newcomers. They are actively agressive because the more specific and 'flavorful' they get, the more they put a barrier on what you HAVE to buy before being to put it down.

On the whole though, the faction while getting some durability buffs lost a lot of uniqueness. Its units are still expensive (PBC just got upcosted last week) and they still play like softer-hitting marines. Flails losing their splash damage in favor of an stratagem so they can do the same thing is a horrible trend that started with the changes to overwatch and worrying going forward.

Overall, while people may take upgrades here and there and spin a positive tone on it, the end result is that this codex, like Necrons before it, exists in a world where Marines/9 is real, and out of the gate it fails to keep up and compete. Therefore, parity is still far away, you're just still as mildly relevant as before (no, DG is not dominating right now) but you no longer have the 'codex will fix it' placebo to look forward to.

Are the Summoning rules not also in the Daemon book? I assumed it was just about not duplicating rules.

Cant be, Daemons/8 isnt supposed to exist alongside DG/9 after a while.

[Avaris]

I can't be bothered to check the Erratas so correct me if i'm wrong, but my copy of the Daemons book says "any CHAOS CHARACTER" can summon any unit with Daemonic Ritual.

Ah, you have the book, I don’t! Ok, summoning still available, but not natively in the DG codex. So as you say, reducing repeated rules text. But also, makes it easier to completely change how it works if they so choose, as only the one place will have the rules.

Edit: @LansXero completely agree with the new army building rules making things more difficult for newcomers. Especially given the new Combat Patrol for DG has 30 poxwalkers, which have to be run as a single unit, given the additional restriction on not having more units of them than plague marines. I like them flavourfully, but being so tight has its own issues.

Regarding uniqueness, I feel the new contagions rules do a lot of work? Mass debuff effects of that ilk feels unusual.

[Cheesegear]

Will that include a way of allowing other chaos armies to summon them without taking a detachment? Of will they be solely their own thing?

I strongly believe that GW needs to remove the Summoning rules altogether:
It's broken in Open Play, and it's worthless in Matched Play.
It has no place in the current game - and I'm not convinced that it ever did. It should never have been anything except a different way of saying 'Reinforcements/Deep Strike'.

That is, potentially, 'Summoned' might be an alternate Deployment that all Daemon units might have. That is, any Daemonic unit can be placed into Reinforcements without spending any CPs. During your Reinforcements step, you can place a Daemonic unit within 9" of one of your Chaos Character models.

[LansXero]

I strongly believe that GW needs to remove the Summoning rules altogether:
It's broken in Open Play, and it's worthless in Matched Play.
It has no place in the current game - and I'm not convinced that it ever did. It should never have been anything except a different way of saying 'Reinforcements/Deep Strike'.

That is, potentially, 'Summoned' might be an alternate Deployment that all Daemon units might have. That is, any Daemonic unit can be placed into Reinforcements without spending any CPs. During your Reinforcements step, you can place a Daemonic unit within 9" of one of your Chaos Character models.

That would be so absurdly broken as written. Its missing the 'but 9" away from any enemy units", but then its just deepstrike which Daemons already have. Could be 'but outside engagement range and cant charge this turn' I guess?

[Avaris]

I strongly believe that GW needs to remove the Summoning rules altogether:
It's broken in Open Play, and it's worthless in Matched Play.
It has no place in the current game - and I'm not convinced that it ever did. It should never have been anything except a different way of saying 'Reinforcements/Deep Strike'.

That is, potentially, 'Summoned' might be an alternate Deployment that all Daemon units might have. That is, any Daemonic unit can be placed into Reinforcements without spending any CPs. During your Reinforcements step, you can place a Daemonic unit within 9" of one of your Chaos Character models.

I completely agree on removing summoning, or radically overhauling it. AoS has a better approach I think, varying significantly between armies, rather than a single reinforcement points mechanic.

[LansXero]

I completely agree on removing summoning, or radically overhauling it. AoS has a better approach I think, varying significantly between armies, rather than a single reinforcement points mechanic.

The better aproach being that for the past 2 years summon-based armies have entirely dominated? Seraphon's book was obsolete through most of its life, but remained viable via the power of free throw-away models :v. Now they dont, but thats because the answer to 'just flood them with summons' became 'just shoot the summoners' and so the game of epic fantasy battles now resembles 40k rocket-tag more and more. Which would be fine if many factions weren't just 'melee first' but actually 'melee only'; its so sad to see slow blocks of infantry try to crawl their way into Cities or Stormcast gunlines, while also absolutely needing said gunlines to not drown in seraphon and tzeentch summons.

[LeSwordfish]

Honestly, I think I prefer reinforcement points. AOS's summoning works because almost every army does it: 40k doesn't have that balancing factor.

[Avaris]

The better aproach being that for the past 2 years summon-based armies have entirely dominated? Seraphon's book was obsolete through most of its life, but remained viable via the power of free throw-away models :v. Now they dont, but thats because the answer to 'just flood them with summons' became 'just shoot the summoners' and so the game of epic fantasy battles now resembles 40k rocket-tag more and more. Which would be fine if many factions weren't just 'melee first' but actually 'melee only'; its so sad to see slow blocks of infantry try to crawl their way into Cities or Stormcast gunlines, while also absolutely needing said gunlines to not drown in seraphon and tzeentch summons.

That’s a quantity issue though, not a quality of the approach itself. Having the entire army costed on the basis of their ability to summon things is a reasonable principle to have, and preferable to reinforcement points IMO. But there could definitely be other approaches that are worse within that, and you certainly don’t want everyone to have it!

Edit: realise I misunderstood your point as being about lots of armies having it, rather than a few having it overwhelmingly. But still, I feel a unique mechanic being tied to how the army functions, rather than straight to points, is preferable

[Cheesegear]

Honestly, I think I prefer reinforcement points.

'Reinforcement Points' are fine, if you're using digital models, and you can pick and choose what you want to put on the board as the situation demands.
Unfortunately, in the real world, you are limited by what you actually have, so your Reinforcements are already decided by what you've bought.
Making Daemon players bleed through their wallets isn't something I want to encourage GW to do.

It's similar to how Shadow Assignment works. Before the battle begins, replace an Assassin in your list with a different Assassin.
Sounds great!
...Hang on. I don't have another Assassin?
...Hang on. You want me to buy all four Assassins?
Yeah. That's not gonna work. Just take the Assassin that's good against everything, every game, and save your CPs.

I would rather Daemonic Units just be a part of your army list with a CP-free alternate deployment type. Terminators can do it. Why not Daemons?

Straight up. Just Denizens of the Warp for everything. It's not a Stratagem. It's a Deployment type.
Maybe force it on Greater Daemons? Normal Daemons are deployed normally. But to get a Greater Daemon or Exalted Daemon, you have to Summon them. Which means they can never start the game on the board.

[LansXero]

Having the entire army costed on the basis of their ability to summon things . . .

. . . means that if you go second and somebody Soulscream Bridges a cities gunline in your face and shoots 2/3s of your summoners dead you now might as well concede. Or rather, to use less specific example, if someone rushes you with non-summoning factions who have better stats at a lower cost due to not being priced around summons, then you will fold and your ability to summon will be severely compromised. Now you could go 'ah but then reduce mobility' except that also ties into mission and objective design; or 'give the summoning army the tools to stop it' which then means everybody just throws summons at each other if you cant keep them from doing so.

You have to understand people dont want a game where their oponent gets to have their fun. Its all about not letting them do their trick in the first place, which becomes more and more important the best that trick is. So summoning exists in this weird binary state where its either worthless or too powerful. It'd be better if it was removed altogether, as free models on the field will always be hard to balance around, either by themselves or by the way they deform the meta around them.

[Avaris]

'Reinforcement Points' are fine, if you're using digital models, and you can pick and choose what you want to put on the board as the situation demands.
Unfortunately, in the real world, you are limited by what you actually have, so your Reinforcements are already decided by what you've bought.
Making Daemon players bleed through their wallets isn't something I want to encourage GW to do.

It's similar to how Shadow Assignment works. Before the battle begins, replace an Assassin in your list with a different Assassin.
Sounds great!
...Hang on. I don't have another Assassin?
...Hang on. You want me to buy all four Assassins?
Yeah. That's not gonna work. Just take the Assassin that's good against everything, every game, and save your CPs.

I would rather Daemonic Units just be a part of your army list with a CP-free alternate deployment type. Terminators can do it. Why not Daemons?

I suppose it’s a question of what the purpose of summoning is. ‘Choice’ is not a sensible purpose, as people need the models, so it has to be something different to that. Off the top of my head, some sort of ability to resummon destroyed units, or redeploy existing ones, could be a pretty good approach.

[Cheesegear]

You have to understand people dont want a game where their oponent gets to have their fun. Its all about not letting them do their trick in the first place, which becomes more and more important the best that trick is.

This.
Alpha strikes work so well because the intent of them is to prevent your opponent from doing whatever they were going to. Scoring at the start of your turn means its your opponent's job to prevent you from doing things.

The aim of the game is to prevent your opponent from having their fun.
...Having unironically said that, now I have to stare at wall.

[LeSwordfish]

'Reinforcement Points' are fine, if you're using digital models, and you can pick and choose what you want to put on the board as the situation demands.
Unfortunately, in the real world, you are limited by what you actually have, so your Reinforcements are already decided by what you've bought.
Making Daemon players bleed through their wallets isn't something I want to encourage GW to do.

What i'm in favour of is "summoned units should cost points" - aside from the summoning roll, nothing is stopping you from taking the same unit every time. Perhaps summoning should be about interesting deployment, rather than the choice as to what to take?

[LansXero]

The aim of the game is to prevent your opponent from having their fun.
...Having unironically said that, now I have to stare at wall.

Funny thing that AoS gets propped up as an example since, you see, AoS doesn't have a random first turn. Whoever finish deployment first goes first. So if you can, through Batallions, make a 1-drop army, you're pretty much guaranteed to go first and sock the enemy in the face without them having a choice about it. Some factions dont have that choice at all, and some others would have to take mandatory trash to fit into weird ass batallions. And then some like KO theoretically can... if you ever played 3k point games :v.

I do like the added mobility thing though. Sort of like 'upon wings of fire' but not tied to CPs. However, it also makes the first turn even more important; you HAVE to either spread out and edge them away, or shoot the characters in the face through sniper fire. Because otherwise all that pile of daemons behind those Obscuring pieces will be in your deployment zone next turn. Ever been in the receiving end of a Dark Crystal'd pile of Tzaangors? Not fun, and thats the one unit. This would be your entire freaking army. Ugh.

[Cheesegear]

What i'm in favour of is "summoned units should cost points" - aside from the summoning roll, nothing is stopping you from taking the same unit every time.

Summoned units should cost points, agreed.

So, either:
a) They're part of your army list anyway, or
b) It's rare that any two units will cost the same, so whatever unit you want to bring down, has to basically only be able to cost as much as the points that you've put aside. Meaning that you're limited in what you can put down anyway, but,
bi) If you were to pick-and-choose what came down based on the points that you've set aside, you have to have the models, which ultimately means that money talks, newbs walk. Because 'choices' aren't really worth anything in game, if they cost currency outside of game to get.

That's why I said that in Matched Play, Summoning is more or less worthless. Because however you pay your points for your Daemonic units, it's not like they can be anything else. So Summoning doesn't actually work like its intended to, because it just doesn't.

I rolled an 3 on my Summoning roll. It's a bit low.
I could Summon Nurglings, based on the roll. But also, if I summon Nurglings, they eat into the points I've actually set aside for something else...Also, I don't have any Nurglings.
It just doesn't work.

Oh look, I set aside a ****ton of points for a Bloodthirster. But I never rolled high enough during the game, and I didn't bring Bloodletters in case I rolled low.

You set aside a fixed amount of points.
Then you try and randomly roll for what you want?

Just...No. That's not how anything should work. If you set aside the points for a unit, why isn't it just written on your army list?
If you set aside the points for a unit, you should just get it.

Daemonic Ritual shouldn't exist.

Perhaps summoning should be about interesting deployment, rather than the choice as to what to take?

Is what I said.
Potentially you pay CPs to have a Detachment-free few units that you write down on your army list.
They gain no Detachment abilities, and they don't break the ones you already have.
They come in, as normal, during the game in your Reinforcement steps. Potentially even during Turn 1, because Drop Pods are things that exist, and Chaos don't get those.

In fact why not? 'Summoning' is where Detachment-free Daemon Infantry units can arrive from Reinforcements - even on Turn 1.

[9mm]

. . . means that if you go second and somebody Soulscream Bridges a cities gunline in your face and shoots 2/3s of your summoners dead you now might as well concede.

you know how I've said for years in this thread that if you can be alpha striked off the board turn 1 you deployed like an idiot? Same applies to AoS.

[Cheesegear]

you know how I've said for years in this thread that if you can be alpha striked off the board turn 1 you deployed like an idiot?

If you are alpha striked off the board on Turn 1, it doesn't matter how you deployed because your army is bad. Or your opponent put 30 Blood Angels Incursors on the board, 3 Invictor Warsuits, and a ****-ton of Vanguard Veterans/Death Company in Drop Pods. They then got Turn 1 and you got tabled.

[LeSwordfish]

Is what I said.
Potentially you pay CPs to have a Detachment-free few units that you write down on your army list.
They gain no Detachment abilities, and they don't break the ones you already have.
They come in, as normal, during the game in your Reinforcement steps. Potentially even during Turn 1, because Drop Pods are things that exist, and Chaos don't get those.

In fact why not? 'Summoning' is where Detachment-free Daemon Infantry units can arrive from Reinforcements - even on Turn 1.

I would probably do something more "interesting" for this that keeps the "feel" of heroes bringing in daemons but yeah, basically.

(Off the top of my head, each character is tied to a Summoned unit, you can either bring the summoned unit in near the character if the character does X, or play a CP to have the summoned unit come in when the character dies. Something like that, a bit more fun, and the "each character is bonded to a summoned unit" implies some interesting background and gives the enemy some strategic options to shut it down.)

[Voidhawk]

It looks like 2020 ends in a whimper.
Part of that might be worldwide reasons not letting people play, making it a dead game.
But that isn't true. Because mostly it's only two places in the world (the UK and US) that can't get their **** together.

Warhammer in the US and the UK together makes up about 66% of sales, with the rest of the world being the other 33%. Two-thirds dead, is "mostly dead" and waiting for a miracle.

Australia is ~6%. Small enough, that whatever happens there could just be an outlier whenever the "real" game restarts in 2021/22.

Paying attention to anywhere else would require reading something other than English, and who has time for that? /s