Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
i get this feeling that apart from UM and other codex marines, all the "build-your-own" chapters will being "Significant Deivergence" chapter.
not that there's anything inherently wrong with this!
but i'm just curious, how many traits will everyone be taking? will you be a minor/notable/or significant divergent?
myself? minor. Honor Your Battle Brother.
I now find myself at the stage where I no longer collect armies, just lists. With each new Codex I play around with a number of ideas and write them down as a list of normally 1500 points. The lists that I find most appealing then move on to the 'proxy-play-testing' stage where friends of mine will play a couple of games against the list to iron out any weaknesses and generally see how it performs. Lists that do well normally get collected, built, painted and played at the next tournament. After which I'll have started on a new 1500 point list from a different codex....
Anyway, none of that answers your question. For my purposes I want my armies/lists to be focused and achieve very specific things. The trait system is idea for me as it provides me with 15 ways to make a list different for any of my other armies. My current play testing force uses Cleanse and Purify and they are all in Drop Pods. Basically the plan is to drop in at close range after the opponents second turn and destroy priority targets (HQ's, expensive units, objectives, etc.)
While some of the other traits sound interesting and many would work well in pairs, at the moment I think that just one is enough to make a force distinctive and interesting. Although if I were to take No Mercy, No Respite and Take the Fight to Themâ€¦â€¦ :shifty:
By the blood of Sanguinius
biggshancock: my friend is planning on converting his SMs to a DropPod 2 Assault Weapon Tact. as well, it seems like a pretty solid setup.
as for Take the Fight to Them & No mercy, No Respite. i have a feeling this is going to be very popular.
but me personally i don't see the reason to put Fassault on Tactial Squads. Assault Squads, yes. H2H command squads, yes. Vet sqaud, sure. but besides the assault sqaud, you don't have to burn a trait to give Fassault to them.
I think it is an old Blood Angel thing. BA armies are use to having everyone with FA. Also, I expect that when the new BA/DA/SW (and BT?) codices come out they will use the traits system as a way of expressing their divergence. e.g. "The XX chapter has traits X, Y & Z, while suffering from drawback 1, 2 & 3."Originally posted by BoxANT@Dec 5 2004, 10:32
but me personally i don't see the reason to put Fassault on Tactial Squads. you don't have to burn a trait to give Fassault to them.[snapback]265834[/snapback]
By the blood of Sanguinius
I'm just going to take 'Trust your battle-brothers' and I don't think it's very "divergent" at all (except ruleswise.) If anything, it's taking the codex spritit of flexibility to a whole new level.
No, the real divergence will be in the fluff :)
What about those Minor Draw Backs? some of them are a real kick in the pants...
i'm leaning towords Death Before Dishonor... but giving your opponent that kinda control will probably hurt .. alot. but it fits with the fluff :hmm:
Major Draw backs (imo) look kinda like a joke. i mean, i think too many people are just going to select the one that hurts the least. i guess it makes sense tho.. my friend doesn't use any Termies and only 1 Dread so Aspire to Glory is a no brainer for him.
the only real downside of the Major Drawbacks is if you ever *wanted* to use the banned units in large numbers, you'd couldn't.. unless you change your Flaws... which would be rather "unfluffy" is you ask me.
Most of the disadvantages are a joke. Mainly the minor ones. I mean, You can't take allies? Wow, SM really need some DH to survive. The extra turn one is also pointless, because if you've won or lost, you don't need another turn to justify that. GW should've made the disadvantages a little more disadvantageous.
well i agree with the fact that the majors flaws are rather "ho-hum" but some of the minors (imo) are worse than the majors!
Faithful Unto Death. one less fast/elite/heavy! ouch. that hurts your overall flexability more than any of the majors (imo).
Die Standing. well if you take this you probably don't like DropPods. but still, DropPods are very nice, and this will hurt your flexability. a decent(fair) flaw imo.
Death Before Dishonor. true, in games where the victory is definate, it will not matter much... but i've had MANY a game where if my opponent (or myself) would of had 1 more turn... it would of changed the outcome of the game. it really is important in "capture the objective" sytle games.