These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

Apr 2018
Joe Beddoe
Apr 10 2018 02:03
So now that I don't need to spend 400+ points on banana boys, what to replace them in my army with
Apr 10 2018 02:10
the more I sat and thought about that, the more I realize they are going to have to exempt some factions from it or they jkust aren't functional
Custodes, Daemons, Assassins, Inq, SoS, Knights
with the 0-3 limit GK and mechanicus go from "Might be OK" to "I can't find you in the black hole at the bottom of the dumpster"
and then custodes join them
the DE book might as well go in the shredder with how transport reliant they are to function
6 patrols? sorry bruv, can't have more than 3 raiders and 3 venoms
They'd watch the dudes that have a vested interest in an army that don't do tournaments possibly leave the hobby in droves, like skonk and a few others. Some places narrative may as well be a swearword, and like it or not matched is the "default" ruleset
Apr 10 2018 02:16
so if said rumors are true GW might be shooting themselves in the wallet and or community goodwill (at least what they generate from the non-tournament circuit)
Joe Beddoe
Apr 10 2018 02:29
The elites are drooling all over the DE book
I think they'll be just fine
The fact remains that soemthing needs to be done
Personally I'm fine with mono-Codex.
I think I'd like to try that out for a while again
Apr 10 2018 02:35
I think it can work if they take the time to add in extra errata for certain factions to give them the "Blades for hire/Phoenix lord/auxiliaries/triarch" treatment
where taking them doesn't deny you your faction bonus but they grant you no CPs
ex "any detachment with this keyword grants no command points and does not count against you for the purposes of matched play keyword requirements when fielded alongside [parent top-level keyword]"
so taking a knight in a SHA detachment would work fine, but grant no CPs
or an aux support with an assassin
or an inquisiton vanguard
but it would require the use of an entire detachment, and generate no CP
so in your case, you could take a patrol of custodes with a few important units, generate no CP and have some of that hitting power, but sacrifice 1/3 detachments to do so
Chaos I have no idea how to make work, it basically gives the finger to multi-god players unless they try to claim "God Keyword" as the top level and go mono-god
Apr 10 2018 02:43
Soup Armies I have no problem with, soup detachments still generating CP is a little "WAT" the more I think about it
Apr 10 2018 02:46
that's the real fix
"Sure you can take guard as the primary, but everything you bolt onto it generates nothing"
so now you go from ~9-10 CP down to 6
assuming the usual "battalion of guard plus extras"
ultimately all we can do is wait and see what clusterfuck GW cooks up this time and see how things go
Apr 10 2018 02:51
even a soup army still generating cp i'm ok as long as each detachment is basically mono-faction; mostly because i think the "takes what you want from that large faction" has been a larger driving force for the popularity of this edition than we might give it credit for (also mentioned in a different way above)
Apr 10 2018 02:52
So basically you're advocating for "detachment top level keyword can only be <X> and not IMPERIAL"
but army top level can still be imperial
"7th is too complicated, we need to refresh"
[cartoonish 'one year later' sign]
"What file/faq/errata has that answer again?"
Apr 10 2018 03:17
yes and lawlyes
Earl Bishop
Apr 10 2018 03:24
That’s a decent compromise to soup things
And as funny as that is. 8th is still easy compared to 7th
No template fuckery. No psyker pools. No wound tables and to hit tables. No massive tome of rules for each unit.
No d table to make up for writing themselves into a corner with titanic things.
Apr 10 2018 03:48
Can I get some input on some narrative stuff?
Cooking up an escalation campaign ruleset for my local
it is [shock-horror] using PL and narrtive rulesets
my biggest thorn has been trying to find ways to integrate latecomers into the game or who don't have as large a force
I think I nailed the second one with some custom asymmetric missions (stuff like surgical raids)
but I'll have a packet I can post here in a couple days that I'd like to get some eyes on
Apr 10 2018 04:00
doesn't the rulebook have a thing for giving them more CP?
Apr 10 2018 04:25
it does but considering the number of advantages given the attacker, which all the BRB narrative stuff makes the larger force, it seems off
especially given what we now know about 8e balance
Apr 10 2018 04:51
fair enough
Price Van-Saint
Apr 10 2018 07:26
@WindstormSCR Open war Gambits, if you have the deck ... give them underdog bonusii, bonusses, bonii... etc.
Price Van-Saint
Apr 10 2018 09:06
and I love reading campaign packets and making them up ... be happy to offer some feedback
Apr 10 2018 11:16
@skonk if the new faq doesn’t work out for you, we’ve a friendly group over on the AoS side ... should you go through with that whole “Dropping 40k” thing...
Price Van-Saint
Apr 10 2018 11:39
@WindstormSCR Shredder 12" Assault D6 looks like it's D3 on last nights update mate
and AP -1
Price Van-Saint
Apr 10 2018 11:47
added it to #2810
Apr 10 2018 12:16
Joe Beddoe
Apr 10 2018 18:38
Yeah the Open War deck is actually pretty good at levelling the playing field, especially with the Twists -- though it can also render a game very lopsided as use with caution.
You can also do things where a smaller army generates 2xVP instead of 1
Apr 10 2018 18:46
considering its supposed to be a "factional campaign" (sort of map-with-no-map) I'd rather balance the mission without artifical VP awards
Jon Kissinger
Apr 10 2018 22:48
@amis92 I second #2822 - probably a good idea