by Baragash » Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:15 am
by killmaimburn » Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:22 am
ruffian4 wrote:Handy fellow, this kmb...Like Ahriman delving the paths of the webway ...
by Baragash » Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:36 am
by killmaimburn » Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:52 am
Baragash wrote:Well the Termies thing may be too common, but he does mooch around with a load of Termies, I don't think abandoning fluff just because it's something a lot of people do is the right approach. I wasn't otherwise planning to change him directly*..
by Baragash » Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:11 pm
by Ljundhammer » Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:17 pm
by killmaimburn » Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:19 pm
Baragash wrote:4) "Each of the Chosen of Abaddon is a mighty Chaos Lord in his own right and in charge of his own forces." I'm probably going to add an Icon Bearer as a 2W character as it happens (also inspired by the WB trilogy).
When taking Abaddon as an HQ he often travels with the very best of the bad any chaos lord taken provides strategic incite reducing reserve rolls by 1/2.Likewise any sorceror who accompanies him must have been decidely blessed by the warp.A psychic tempest dominates the arena of war any opponent psychic powers may only be activated after passing a 4+ roll on a D6.
by Baragash » Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:26 pm
Why not use the combat tactics template from SM codex?1) Basic is that CSM squads get re-roll to moral.2) Select a lord & get choices to change this to certain other benefits like infiltrate etc...
Marked troops are elite & buy a SC to unlock to troops - or a lord with a mark to unlock?
Make psykers uber.
Keep DPs as they are
by Ljundhammer » Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:42 pm
Baragash wrote:Why not use the combat tactics template from SM codex?1) Basic is that CSM squads get re-roll to moral.2) Select a lord & get choices to change this to certain other benefits like infiltrate etc...Been toying with that for months, then I realised that just means that IW, AL and NL end up being pussies when it comes to Ld rolls, hence why I've put two rules in.
Baragash wrote:Marked troops are elite & buy a SC to unlock to troops - or a lord with a mark to unlock?I said this (though not SCs, this is not a God book).
Baragash wrote:Make psykers uber.They will be!
Baragash wrote:Keep DPs as they areThe rate at which they're selected shows they're too cheap, I put the price up in the Legion Codices, they'll be going up in this (not to DoC levels though). Will be looking to add other abilities to Lords and Sorcerers.
Baragash wrote:- Land Raiders - something needs to happen- Chosen - I said this!- Make raptors useful - will prob give H&R back- Defilers need to be sexified! - not really sure how, why don't people use them? (I don't because they are too expensive for a massive Av12 model)
by Baragash » Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:52 pm
But doesn't that just show that:AL & NL - hit & run and lighting strike armies respectively - if heavily engaged would they not retreat & re-engage anyway?IW - hmmm, agree - perhaps buying a MoTF upgrade for a lord unlocks tank hunters for a cost per unit?
Are they too cheap, or are the rest simpley rubbish? By improving the other options, then they won't be the 'default option'. I'm not convinced they are undercosted in light of SW & BA...
by Ljundhammer » Wed Dec 15, 2010 1:14 pm
Baragash wrote:Ordered retreat <> running like a girl
Baragash wrote:IW - if it's a "trait" of a faction then IMO the GW Chapter Tactics method is superior ie if everyone should have it, charging x per model for every appropriate unit during army construction is unnecessarily PITA.
Baragash wrote:Or, perhaps I should ask:a) what is wrong with the proposed method?
Baragash wrote:b) why is the alternative better?
Baragash wrote:Well the points for CL/Sorc are pretty similar to the equivalents in other Codices. Now I see a lot of Librarians so I think vs a DP it's a bit of both. Captains are only popular in SW lists, so I would say with the CL it's more a case of being rubbish.
Baragash wrote:Well, Raptors are over-priced at the moment as well, plus it's not that well received to just go thieving too many rules from other people, needs more thought. Fluffwise it may be justified though.
Baragash wrote:I nearly suggested FA-ing the Defiler, but that opens up the old IW pie-plate list which is why I don't like it.
by Baragash » Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:56 pm
1) GW has moved away from promoting certain armies as having certain traits - cp Vulkan the SMurf
2) In a tournament setting why would anyone not bin off "The face of chaos", it's too specific & unbalances certain games (either to or against CSM)
2) It gives a reason to purchase a lord over the more powerful DP & sorceror
3) It gives more unique armies available
Agree, all the codexes have an issue in the HQ department IMO, with one type being far better than the others - why not use this codex to give the players a choice rather than a 'go to'. Sorcerors are arguably not as good as librarians (SM & BA) and are definately worse than SW (which is the only codex IMO which has a decent choice in generic HQs - which is why you see lords here).
How about changing the cannon then? The soulgrinder can have different cannon... I think the old pie-plate list won't work so well in the 5th ed meta anyway... Arguably you'd do vehicle spam better with IG (up to 9 pie plates and/or inferno cannons) or BA (3 pie plates & 3 inferno cannons)
by Ljundhammer » Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:31 pm
Baragash wrote:1) GW has moved away from promoting certain armies as having certain traits - cp Vulkan the SMurfThis isn't true!Imperial Fists = StubbornCrimson Fists = StubbornRaven Guard = FleetSpace Wolves = Counter-AttackWhite Scars = Outflank
Baragash wrote:And then there's army-wide rules like Mob Rule etc.
Baragash wrote:2) In a tournament setting why would anyone not bin off "The face of chaos", it's too specific & unbalances certain games (either to or against CSM)Depends on the local meta for starters, SW, SM, IG and BA can all rock some effective lists, I don't think it's an automatic choice by any means. Rock, paper, scissors exists (nullzone vs Daemons for example, FW vs Nidzilla or even Warrior-heavy, Daemonhunters vs daemons) that's just the way it is some times. Since tournaments are by definition not fluff driven they're only important to me from the point of view of not putting in something broken, and I don't think PE: Imperium is by any stretch.
Baragash wrote:2) It gives a reason to purchase a lord over the more powerful DP & sorcerorSo the Iron Warriors only get out of bed if their CL comes along? I don't see that as being popular or anything other than band-aiding the lack of balance between the 3.
Baragash wrote:3) It gives more unique armies availableHow so? They all have to have a Chaos Lord with that suggestion and the only other differences is some units having x ability instead of all.
Baragash wrote:Agree, all the codexes have an issue in the HQ department IMO, with one type being far better than the others - why not use this codex to give the players a choice rather than a 'go to'. Sorcerors are arguably not as good as librarians (SM & BA) and are definately worse than SW (which is the only codex IMO which has a decent choice in generic HQs - which is why you see lords here).Assuming that Librarians were in the CSM Codex IMO you'd see Lib + DP in most lists and the only reason that would be would be for the Psychic Hood, otherwise it would still be dual DP. The comments regarding the use of HQs in other Codices IMO shows that the base cost of CL/Sorc is correct and the power/options are not. Even so, if you compare the 20/10 point extra the DP costs against them for the stat increases it gets, it just isn't a competition.
Baragash wrote:How about changing the cannon then? The soulgrinder can have different cannon... I think the old pie-plate list won't work so well in the 5th ed meta anyway... Arguably you'd do vehicle spam better with IG (up to 9 pie plates and/or inferno cannons) or BA (3 pie plates & 3 inferno cannons)Funnily enough that occurred to me when I went out for lunch. Maybe a small blast AP4 assault gun of some sort. Then the proposed artillery unit I have can be something like a "Stalkfiend", a smaller version with weak CC stats, perhaps looking a bit like a mechanical Biovore (and no Fleet obvs).
by Baragash » Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:09 pm
All of which are unlocked through special characters (BA, DA, BT & SW aren't that comparable as they are stand alone SM codecies)
Stuff about tournaments
Well, yes. See above, although I stress that it's only my opinion. Although, by the thought process you've put above, then Raven Guard only come out if Shrike is there...[.quote]As I said, that's something much maligned in my experience of surfing most forums. I think most respondents would not be interested if a CL is a statutory requirement of playing a legion.I also think the idea that a Sorc or CL ascending to DP suddenly becomes less mighty than a CL, or suddenly loses their desire to lead difficult to swallow. And given the selfish nature of individuals that being a Sorc suddenly lobotomises all ambition to lead. Or that a CL (even accepting that they somehow outrank achieving Daemonic ascension, whereas fluff suggests the opposite is true) can't send elements of his forces out under the control of his subordinates without them forgetting how they've behaved for the last 10k years.(Actually Shrike is not a good example as his Company fights differently from the RG according to the fluff anyway, and representing RG is more about what units are used).Well you have a number of choices:Generic warband - psycher leadGeneric warband - DP leadGeneric warband - Lord lead'Legion specific' (however many 'legions' you'd like) - Lord leadBig 4 legion - ? leadAll with the option of secondary HQsGive enough options to the Lords & squads & you'll see very few similar armies...Far better than the SM equivilent of Librarian lead, or a special character painted in the 'wrong colours', or a captain on a bike. And far better than the current CSM approach of DP unless cunning plan in which case sorceror or Abbadon.
Well you have a number of choices:Generic warband - psycher leadGeneric warband - DP leadGeneric warband - Lord lead'Legion specific' (however many 'legions' you'd like) - Lord leadBig 4 legion - ? leadAll with the option of secondary HQsGive enough options to the Lords & squads & you'll see very few similar armies...Far better than the SM equivilent of Librarian lead, or a special character painted in the 'wrong colours', or a captain on a bike. And far better than the current CSM approach of DP unless cunning plan in which case sorceror or Abbadon.
by Ljundhammer » Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:53 pm
Return to 40K Rules Development
In association with Gaming Figures
Age of Strife