Bdrone wrote:
so, any folk with Tau, IG or Custodes experience. whats your take on the respective changes? i have an interest in all 3 of those factions, and does any of this shake things up for any of them?

Play against Tau and Custodies.

Neither had anything that changes their meta, Tau player annoyed that crisis are still garbage as he really likes the model, and is still stuck in one build. Custodie player likes his termies and their weapon are cheaper

Bdrone wrote:
so, any folk with Tau, IG or Custodes experience. whats your take on the respective changes? i have an interest in all 3 of those factions, and does any of this shake things up for any of them?

Guard came out relatively unscathed.

Astropath points drop was a genuine surprise when they were already dirt cheap and regularly brought.

Points drop on regular Leman Russ' was nice as there was pretty much zero reason not to run them as Tank Commanders. Since TM's weren't cranked up in points either I doubt much will actually change. Maybe more Genestealer Cult LR's here and there? But I doubt it.

Wyvern points hike was a weird one when Basilisks remained untouched. Guard hasn't exactly been stomping the meta in a long time.

Mortars going up was perhaps inevitable but it's not a huge nerf. Lascannon drop was nice since they did appear here and there. Doubt loads of people will suddenly start swinging missile launchers though.

Bdrone wrote:
so, any folk with Tau, IG or Custodes experience. whats your take on the respective changes? i have an interest in all 3 of those factions, and does any of this shake things up for any of them?

Tau: decent changes for a couple of rarely used units. Nothing game breaking and it won't change the top competitive Tau lists, imho.
Now you can use Ghostkeels, Stealth Suits, the fliers and maybe the Stormsurge in friendly games with no worries. Kroots are still bad, but it's not a matter of points for them as much as the nature of the unit (T3 Sv6+ Infantry that can be tagged easily in melee).
The Vespids at 11 points may turn out to be useful even in semi-competitive or competitive play imho, as deep-striking objective grabbers.

This is all theorycrafting by the way.

 Ordana wrote:

 The Phazer wrote:
Okay, so stand down the GSC panic. Abberants seem to have been nerfed into the ground for no real reason, but they weren't such a core part of the army that's a crisis, just a shame. The Kellermorph isn't an autotake any more, but it's not a disaster.

Shooting got a lot cheaper, but the points reductions to Russes mean they're still probably the better option - at least it's touch an go with GSC vehicles with heavy mining lasers though if you want more mobility.

They finally made Metamorphs cheap enough they're worth thinking about, and didn't change anything about Acolytes which are the core of most people's armies. My army probably nets out points wise, which is fine.

The points differential between Cult Genestealers and Tyranid ones looks even worse though, and I don't understand why that wasn't fixed.

Most GSC lists were running 2x10 Aberrants so saying they were not a core part of the army seems wrong to me.
Otherwise mostly agree tho.

I mean, competitively we have units that do the exact same job as them that didn't get any nerfs. Sucks for me as I love the lumpy lads but I also have a bunch of heavy weapon acos.

Meanwhile ridge runners in the auto take loading went down a solid 25pts. I'm sad we didn't see any drop for Goliath trucks, those things are awful. Watch out I paid for two autocannons and a stubber and they're gonna hit on 5s!!!

when is Battlescribe likely to update? will it be next weekend when CA 19 is actually released?

the_scotsman wrote:
mean, competitively we have units that do the exact same job as them that didn't get any nerfs. Sucks for me as I love the lumpy lads but I also have a bunch of heavy weapon acos.

Acolytes you need to spend £25 four times for a proper unit. Abberents you only need two at the same price and take up a decent chunk of points. Obviously GW would rather you were buying double the boxes and more still to make up the points.

I'm sad we didn't see any drop for Goliath trucks, those things are awful. Watch out I paid for two autocannons and a stubber and they're gonna hit on 5s!!!

This genuinely made me chuckle. Good job.

Both my world eaters and deathguard lists gained 130pts

got a helbrute for one list
some extra plague bearers and a herald in the other.

nice!

Very few guard changes.

Astropaths -11
Russ-15
Mortars +9
lascannon -5
Misile launcher -5
scions -2

Wyvernn...+10 wut?

The Vulture is now 137 base

There is probably more but I didn't see it

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
Wait, is the CA already sold out? I checked on the GW website and I can't find it for preorder.

Preorders go up for the US/Canada at 1pm Eastern on Saturdays.

Reviewers have their embargoes lifted when the preorders go live, so we usually see them on Fridays.

Thank for the info from those who responded, i figured roughly those things for each army except for guard. i haven't had nearby updated points, so the only army i could compare at all was Custodes from general viewing experience, but i have very little experience even as an observer of the factions, so i didn't want to just assume.

so you could generally slip the updates under internal codex balancing as opposed to anything particularly impressive. it IS nice to see the Tau Stealth kits and stormsurge become more viable. the LR drop in guard is a bit of a surprise, but yeah... Mortars shifting isn't to big of a shocker. a drop to the astropath seems.. nice? im not quite sure what they do, i assume a psyker?

now on custodes im most amused by certain kits dropping. i was hoping for a decent drop for a few things, but seeing basically each termie and the infantry custodes all drop points is very nice, even if it means comparitively little due to how expensive each model can be. notably with the reduced misericordia its even easier to fit in, in fact the drops for some gear adds back that space.

wasn't quite what i hoped, i wanted to see Saggitariums get a little cheaper, but since if you take those you like take misaricordia anyway... could have been worse. I do wonder what the future for Custodes is in specific.

RogueApiary wrote:
Nerfing demo charges, aberrants, and the kelermorph while buffing metamorphs and ridgerunners to barely usable is somehow coming out ahead? Like, if the army was pulling 55%+ win rates prior maybe I could see it, but in the context of the current balance situation, any net nerf is doubly painful.

Also, screw needing to drop $450 retail to buy 450 points of ridgerunners.

I never said "coming out ahead." I think it's still unnecessary and a nerf, but compared to the page before suggesting that Acolytes were getting more expensive and rocksaws going up 50% which would have really knocked GSC down to Grey Knight territory where they weren't much fun to play.

I just think that the entire army stays roughly flat for people who've got fairly mixed forces, even if some of the individual nerfs make no sense (like the Aberrant ones - they were powerful but very situational and I don't really recall anyone moaning they were undercosted) and the internal balance is worse in some areas and seems to push even more to taking allied Guard, which I thought GW would probably wanted to discourage.

 Chris521 wrote:
Very few guard changes.

Astropaths -11
Russ-15
Mortars +9
lascannon -5
Misile launcher -5
scions -2

Wyvernn...+10 wut?

The Vulture is now 137 base

There is probably more but I didn't see it

Regular scions went down two but command squad scions didn’t, right?

Guard Missile Launcher -5? Yes! I personally really like missile weaponry on my guard and now taking them is a lot less of a bummer

Pyroalchi wrote:
Guard Missile Launcher -5? Yes! I personally really like missile weaponry on my guard and now taking them is a lot less of a bummer

It looks like a lot of long ranged antitank weapons got drops. Bright and Dark Lances got dropped 5ppm too.
IMO this is great for the game overall as single shot weapons have always been inferior to multi shot ones even with superior Str and damage

-

 Rydria wrote:
Noise Marines 13pts, blaster master 12pts, doom siren 8, sonic blaster 4pts.

Now they just need to get off their asses and release a new Noise Marine kit

Hmm I was keen to see what they did to my kytan, which was nothing. Oddly that's bad as a basic lord of skulls is 10 points cheaper and superior in most ways (other than looks).

Dudeface wrote:
Hmm I was keen to see what they did to my kytan, which was nothing. Oddly that's bad as a basic lord of skulls is 10 points cheaper and superior in most ways (other than looks).

All FW was untouched.
FW is currently in stasis.

A few FW models saw changes in their points though

 BoomWolf wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Hmm I was keen to see what they did to my kytan, which was nothing. Oddly that's bad as a basic lord of skulls is 10 points cheaper and superior in most ways (other than looks).

All FW was untouched.
FW is currently in stasis.

Corsairs saw some point drops.

 The Phazer wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:
Nerfing demo charges, aberrants, and the kelermorph while buffing metamorphs and ridgerunners to barely usable is somehow coming out ahead? Like, if the army was pulling 55%+ win rates prior maybe I could see it, but in the context of the current balance situation, any net nerf is doubly painful.

Also, screw needing to drop $450 retail to buy 450 points of ridgerunners.

I never said "coming out ahead." I think it's still unnecessary and a nerf, but compared to the page before suggesting that Acolytes were getting more expensive and rocksaws going up 50% which would have really knocked GSC down to Grey Knight territory where they weren't much fun to play.

I just think that the entire army stays roughly flat for people who've got fairly mixed forces, even if some of the individual nerfs make no sense (like the Aberrant ones - they were powerful but very situational and I don't really recall anyone moaning they were undercosted) and the internal balance is worse in some areas and seems to push even more to taking allied Guard, which I thought GW would probably wanted to discourage.

Yeah, the second brood brothers became a troop choice in codex gsc just became a guard supplement book competitively. Let's see 1pt cheaper bodies or some weird not super useful heavy and special weapons?

 Galef wrote:

 Emicrania wrote:
Primaris have to go up. The rest need point adjustment. Either they do it, either we start to play smaller army.

I don't agree the Primaris HAVE to go up. Maybe a 1-2ppm increase for Intercessors would be fine, but it's hardly needed.
But I 100% agree with you that everyone should stop playing 2000pts and jump down to 1750pts or even 1500pts as standard

-

I do not get this mindset. The lower points games you play the more valuable and broken points efficiency becomes.

Hello,

Guard changes (not exhaustive)

Astropath -11
Leman Russ -15
Mortar +4
Lascannon -5
Missile launcher -5
Scions -2
Baneblade -40
Banehammer -40
Banesword -40
Gatling punisher +10
Ratling -2
Wyvern +10
Crusader -2

Edit : crusader points change

 BoomWolf wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Hmm I was keen to see what they did to my kytan, which was nothing. Oddly that's bad as a basic lord of skulls is 10 points cheaper and superior in most ways (other than looks).

All FW was untouched.
FW is currently in stasis.

Except the astreus. It dropped 100 points. Cause y'know PRIMARIS.

And leviathan melee weapons for some reason.

over in FW custodes there appeared to be changes to the Aquilon, Ares, Telemon, and Calladius as well unless i missed something.

Huge news everybody! After years of dominating the meta, Ogryns have gone up by 6ppm!

Well CA19 didn’t really help out Death Guard much. Watched some videos today. I’ll keep everything up to date and add units below:

The good:
-Blighthaulers -15 (102)
-Deathshroud terminators -10 (42)
-Bloat drones -20 (probes went down to 5pts)
-Typhus -20 (150)
-Poxwalkers -1 (5)
-plague caster (I think that is his name) -15 (95)
-cultists -1 (4)
-Spawn -5 (20)
-Lord of Contagion -17 (95 before weapon) (still useless until they fix aura)
-Rhino - (65)
(There are other small changes)

The bad:
-Our demon princes didn’t get the pt drop
-no change to plague marines points or wounds (50% more than a CSM =useless now)

 Chris521 wrote:
Huge news everybody! After years of dominating the meta, Ogryns have gone up by 6ppm!

Wait, like regular ogryns? 3 S5 ap- d1 shots at 12" range bs4+ ogryns?

If so, that is fething adorable.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Chris521 wrote:
Huge news everybody! After years of dominating the meta, Ogryns have gone up by 6ppm!

Wait, like regular ogryns? 3 S5 ap- d1 shots at 12" range bs4+ ogryns?

If so, that is fething adorable.

Yup, Bullgryns stayed the same ( not that I would have changed them) and the bad ones went up.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Hmm I was keen to see what they did to my kytan, which was nothing. Oddly that's bad as a basic lord of skulls is 10 points cheaper and superior in most ways (other than looks).

All FW was untouched.
FW is currently in stasis.

Except the astreus. It dropped 100 points. Cause y'know PRIMARIS.

And leviathan melee weapons for some reason.

Well how often do you see Leviathan melee being used? The answer: never.

9

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Hmm I was keen to see what they did to my kytan, which was nothing. Oddly that's bad as a basic lord of skulls is 10 points cheaper and superior in most ways (other than looks).

All FW was untouched.
FW is currently in stasis.

Except the astreus. It dropped 100 points. Cause y'know PRIMARIS.

And leviathan melee weapons for some reason.

Well how often do you see Leviathan melee being used? The answer: never.

That's why it's odd. And mine has a siege drill thanks. Gw probably thinks it'll get people to stop playing double butcher/storm cannon. WRONG.

Also I heard baneblade chassis low got a drop. True?

englishfury wrote:

Bdrone wrote:
so, any folk with Tau, IG or Custodes experience. whats your take on the respective changes? i have an interest in all 3 of those factions, and does any of this shake things up for any of them?

Play against Tau and Custodies.

Neither had anything that changes their meta, Tau player annoyed that crisis are still garbage as he really likes the model, and is still stuck in one build. Custodie player likes his termies and their weapon are cheaper

I still don't get why people dog on Crisis suits all the time.

I've been running:

2 Commanders: 1 Cold Star, 1 Standard, 1 Ethereal

30 FW Teams

12 Crisis Suits (Varying loadouts)
4 Broadside Suits
3 Ghostkeel Suits
2 Riptides
1 Stormsurge

And I find it to be fun as heck!

so there are no FW changes? no one online seems to be covering them.


edit: old SS has doen it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2qF4fkP-xY

fellblade stayed the same points, sad days

the_scotsman wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 The Phazer wrote:
Okay, so stand down the GSC panic. Abberants seem to have been nerfed into the ground for no real reason, but they weren't such a core part of the army that's a crisis, just a shame. The Kellermorph isn't an autotake any more, but it's not a disaster.

Shooting got a lot cheaper, but the points reductions to Russes mean they're still probably the better option - at least it's touch an go with GSC vehicles with heavy mining lasers though if you want more mobility.

They finally made Metamorphs cheap enough they're worth thinking about, and didn't change anything about Acolytes which are the core of most people's armies. My army probably nets out points wise, which is fine.

The points differential between Cult Genestealers and Tyranid ones looks even worse though, and I don't understand why that wasn't fixed.

Most GSC lists were running 2x10 Aberrants so saying they were not a core part of the army seems wrong to me.
Otherwise mostly agree tho.

I mean, competitively we have units that do the exact same job as them that didn't get any nerfs. Sucks for me as I love the lumpy lads but I also have a bunch of heavy weapon acos.

Meanwhile ridge runners in the auto take loading went down a solid 25pts. I'm sad we didn't see any drop for Goliath trucks, those things are awful. Watch out I paid for two autocannons and a stubber and they're gonna hit on 5s!!!

Speaking as someone who got tabled by GSC using trucks on turn one, no, they're not awful. They're really, really good.

Pro tip. Charge with them. They seem to excel at that.

 Latro_ wrote:
so there are no FW changes? no one online seems to be covering them.

Mortis dread went down 15 points. Leviathan, Contemptor and Derodero stay the same.

Any written out FW changes? Too many family members about to watch a video about it.

Specifically interested in Custodes and Aeldari changes (Asuryani, Corsairs, and Ynnari)

 Therion wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
so there are no FW changes? no one online seems to be covering them.

Mortis dread went down 15 points. Leviathan, Contemptor and Derodero stay the same.

What about Contemptor Mortis dreadnought?

Also no other FW Astartes changes? (Both kind)

I think the Chaplain Dread went down 15.

Lol, obvious misprint, but in the video where they show everything, Neophyte hybrids are listed as 55 points per model!

(EDIT: you can see it at 31:56 in the video)

 Jidmah wrote:

 Emicrania wrote:
ATM im VERY pissed for the lack of point change on PK, transports and the goddamn Stompa, I wanna play that model so bad it makes me wanna cry....

I agree, the lack of point drops on weapons and transports are weird.

Honestly, I still can't believe since the index our shooting weapons still cost so high. The additional weapons on battlewagons cost an arm and a leg and do nothing! Reducing our equipment alone would save 100+ poins in Speed lists.

All the weapon worth shooting are found on buggies. My buggy list went down by 78 points.

 Yarium wrote:
Lol, obvious misprint, but in the video where they show everything, Neophyte hybrids are listed as 55 points per model!

(EDIT: you can see it at 31:56 in the video)

There’s some wacky misprints. Deathwatch for instance can now put 31 Terminators, 25 Bikes, 16 Blackshields and 18 VanVets in a single Vet squad.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
Lol, obvious misprint, but in the video where they show everything, Neophyte hybrids are listed as 55 points per model!

(EDIT: you can see it at 31:56 in the video)

There’s some wacky misprints. Deathwatch for instance can now put 31 Terminators, 25 Bikes, 16 Blackshields and 18 VanVets in a single Vet squad.

It has been speculated that those numbers are what they meant to make the costs of those units when taken in a kill team.

Sterling191 wrote:
There’s some wacky misprints. Deathwatch for instance can now put 31 Terminators, 25 Bikes, 16 Blackshields and 18 VanVets in a single Vet squad.

Best Patrol Detachment I've ever used...

BATTLE BROTHERS, 'ANGRY MOB OF HOOLIGANS' FORMATION, NOW!!!

To beat xenos, you have to think like them.

 Jidmah wrote:
To beat xenos, you have to think like them.

I can just imagine, watching that approach- two Orks are standing there.

"Does ya see dat, Gitbusta?"
"I does. It's bee-u-ifful. I'm so proud'a the humies."

The DW error is simple. First column (where model number goes) is old points, second column has the correct adjusted points. Simple FAQ fix, and since you build units from codex entry, a non factor really.

 Rydria wrote:
Noise Marines 13pts, blaster master 12 pts, doom siren 8, sonic blaster 4pts.

Not that I'm surprised, but GW is still way over valuing ignore cover. A storm-bolter or combi-bolter are only 2 pts, and with bolter discipline better options. While an Auto Bolt Rifle with the same profile as a Sonic Blaster costs only 1 pt.

broxus wrote:
Well CA19 didn’t really help out Death Guard much. Watched some videos today. I’ll keep everything up to date and add units below:

The good:
-Blighthaulers -15 (102)
-Deathshroud terminators -10 (42)
-Bloat drones -20 (probes went down to 5pts)
-Typhus -20 (150)
-Poxwalkers -1 (5)
-plague caster (I think that is his name) -15 (95)
-cultists -1 (4)
-Spawn -5 (20)
-Lord of Contagion -17 (95 before weapon) (still useless until they fix aura)
-Rhino - (65)
(There are other small changes)

The bad:
-Our demon princes didn’t get the pt drop
-no change to plague marines points or wounds (50% more than a CSM =useless now)

Death shroud termies dropped another 8 points on top of that since their plaguespurt gauntlets are now free.
Myphitic blighthaulers also lost an extra 10 points because of the weapons dropping in points. Which means other vehicles using multi-meltas or missle launchers will be down in points. Lots of other ranged weapon drops.

Almost all points changes are in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YPr_fspC_I

So, Chapter Approve brings yet more updated daemon datasheets and something that seems to be actual (experimental) terrain rules. Shocked, me.

Points start at 17:22 in that video.

In the point changes regard, TBH, barring the poor Genestealer Aberrants and... ogryns? This has been a pretty good Chapter Approved.

I mean. I'm not a great fan of making everything cheaper. I prefer for everything to become more expensive and make the very powerfull things even more expensive. But as is know for every developer, be it boardgames, roleplaying games, or videogames, people loves "Buffs" and hates nerfs. And lowering point costs makes people buy more models and be able to play with more of their toys so is a win win for everybody. I assume.

Tetsu0 wrote:

broxus wrote:
Well CA19 didn’t really help out Death Guard much. Watched some videos today. I’ll keep everything up to date and add units below:

The good:
-Blighthaulers -15 (102)
-Deathshroud terminators -10 (42)
-Bloat drones -20 (probes went down to 5pts)
-Typhus -20 (150)
-Poxwalkers -1 (5)
-plague caster (I think that is his name) -15 (95)
-cultists -1 (4)
-Spawn -5 (20)
-Lord of Contagion -17 (95 before weapon) (still useless until they fix aura)
-Rhino - (65)
(There are other small changes)

The bad:
-Our demon princes didn’t get the pt drop
-no change to plague marines points or wounds (50% more than a CSM =useless now)

Death shroud termies dropped another 8 points on top of that since their plaguespurt gauntlets are now free.
Myphitic blighthaulers also lost an extra 10 points because of the weapons dropping in points. Which means other vehicles using multi-meltas or missle launchers will be down in points. Lots of other ranged weapon drops.

Those changes are already from CA2018

 Galas wrote:
In the point changes regard, TBH, barring the poor Genestealer Aberrants and... ogryns? This has been a pretty good Chapter Approved.

I mean. I'm not a great fan of making everything cheaper. I prefer for everything to become more expensive and make the very powerfull things even more expensive. But as is know for every developer, be it boardgames, roleplaying games, or videogames, people loves "Buffs" and hates nerfs. And lowering point costs makes people buy more models and be able to play with more of their toys so is a win win for everybody. I assume.

Nope, disagree, fw index armies are still trash, too many drops,to few hikes.

Looks like the rumour that Hemlocks were dropping 20ppm was wrong. It's clearly still 200pts + 10ppm spirit stones in that video.

-

GW *Really* seems to want people to buy Russ tanks it looks like.

Boy are they making up for previous editions hard at this point

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:
There’s some wacky misprints. Deathwatch for instance can now put 31 Terminators, 25 Bikes, 16 Blackshields and 18 VanVets in a single Vet squad.

Best Patrol Detachment I've ever used...

BATTLE BROTHERS, 'ANGRY MOB OF HOOLIGANS' FORMATION, NOW!!!

No lie, I'm actually in the middle of calculating the points to see if I can legally play this in a 2000 point game.

 Jidmah wrote:
To beat xenos, you have to think like them.

Frankly I find the idea of a xenos that thinks offensive!

 Galas wrote:
In the point changes regard, TBH, barring the poor Genestealer Aberrants and... ogryns? This has been a pretty good Chapter Approved.

I mean. I'm not a great fan of making everything cheaper. I prefer for everything to become more expensive and make the very powerfull things even more expensive. But as is know for every developer, be it boardgames, roleplaying games, or videogames, people loves "Buffs" and hates nerfs. And lowering point costs makes people buy more models and be able to play with more of their toys so is a win win for everybody. I assume.

Ravagers went up 15pts each, as the only long range fire support available in the Drukhari codex, that bloody hurts.

 Imateria wrote:

 Galas wrote:
In the point changes regard, TBH, barring the poor Genestealer Aberrants and... ogryns? This has been a pretty good Chapter Approved.

I mean. I'm not a great fan of making everything cheaper. I prefer for everything to become more expensive and make the very powerfull things even more expensive. But as is know for every developer, be it boardgames, roleplaying games, or videogames, people loves "Buffs" and hates nerfs. And lowering point costs makes people buy more models and be able to play with more of their toys so is a win win for everybody. I assume.

Ravagers went up 15pts each, as the only long range fire support available in the Drukhari codex, that bloody hurts.

Though Archons went down 15, Dark Lances went down 5 and lots of other stuff went down as well. Drazar down another 20.

It hurts the souped 3-Diss-Ravagers-plus-one-Archon, but if you run mainly Drukhari, I think it comes out a wash, mostly. You'll probably make those 45 points for 3 Dissy-Ravagers on the new savings on your HQs alone.

It's not ideal, especially with "down" being a general trend, but it's no Aberrant-style annihilation of the army, I think.

My ravager has dark lances, so no harm done here. Given that you can take disintegrators on less OP platforms, Im glad they chose that way to nerf dissie ravagers.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Though Archons went down 15,

Sigh.

And this is why I hate GW trying to fix everything with point changes.


Archons aren't garbage because of their cost. Archons are garbage because they have:
- Abysmal melee.
- Abysmal shooting outside of a single option that's index-only (and even then it doesn't even come close to making Archons tolerable).
- Crap defence.
- Zero mobility options.
- An aura that can only affect a tiny fraction of their army.
- An aura that - in a subfaction built around open-topped transports - doesn't work inside, into, or out of open-topped transports (and do remember that open-topped transports are literally the only mobility option available not just to the Archon but to the entirety of the Kabal subfaction).
- An aura that doesn't work on the unit that is purpose-built to accompany the Archon.
etc.

Put simply, a 15pt drop does nothing to make the Archon any more appealing because he's still a complete waste of space.


By the same measure, a 15pt increase isn't going to make Ravagers any less appealing because for all intents and purposes Dark Eldar have no other options for that role. Hell, Kabal don't even have any other options in the entire HQ slot because some GW employee with a pickaxe lodged in his skull decided that an already-anaemic army needed to be split into 3 subfactions with 0 synergy between them.

/rant

 Sersi wrote:

 Rydria wrote:
Noise Marines 13pts, blaster master 12 pts, doom siren 8, sonic blaster 4pts.

Not that I'm surprised, but GW is still way over valuing ignore cover. A storm-bolter or combi-bolter are only 2 pts, and with bolter discipline better options. While an Auto Bolt Rifle with the same profile as a Sonic Blaster costs only 1 pt.

Sonic Blaster I felt should have been 2 points, perhaps they kept it at 4pts due to the stratagem.

But if you compare sonic blaster armed noise marines to auto bolt rifle armed primeris, the noise marines cost more but have 1 less wound in exchange for music of the apocalypse, i'm not sure it is worth it. But the squads i was using got a 36pts discount so I can't really complain about that now it makes them substantially better than they where before.

 Marshal Loss wrote:

 Rydria wrote:
Noise Marines 13pts, blaster master 12pts, doom siren 8, sonic blaster 4pts.

Now they just need to get off their asses and release a new Noise Marine kit

Definitely the upgrade sprue doesn't even fit on the current generation of models, let alone how out of date those upgrade kits even are


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh wow not only did Slaanesh get back Chariot heralds, it also gained herald on Hellflayer that is awesome.

the_scotsman wrote:
My ravager has dark lances, so no harm done here. Given that you can take disintegrators on less OP platforms, Im glad they chose that way to nerf dissie ravagers.

Ding ding! We have a winner! For as odd as some of the points changes seem, loads of them seem to have this kind of logic in mind and I approve.

-

Should a plague marine be 5 more points than a CSM for T5 ,-1 movement, and DR? Nope, now you will never see them on the table.

 Galef wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
My ravager has dark lances, so no harm done here. Given that you can take disintegrators on less OP platforms, Im glad they chose that way to nerf dissie ravagers.

Ding ding! We have a winner! For as odd as some of the points changes seem, loads of them seem to have this kind of logic in mind and I approve.

-

I think you mean loser. As good as the tripple Dissie Ravager was for 125pts, it needs to be remembered that it's only S5 and in an army with almost zero force multipliers in an edition where force multipliers are the name of the game, being cheap is a must. It, has to be remembered that people weren't taking Dissintegrators because they were cheaper, they were taking them because they were flat out better against anything in the game that didn't have a very specific stat line (T6 or 7 with mutliple wounds and a 3+sv with no invuln is the only type of unit the Dark Lance is better against), making them the same cost wont get people to switch to Dark Lances, as much as I'd love to but I'm long since done with the dissapointment. On top of that, as Vipoid said, we have no other options to take in it's place either, sure the Razorwing is good, but it's also more expensive and has less firepower, it does not fill the heavy fire support role anywhere near as well whilst Scourge are a suicide unit.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

 Galas wrote:
In the point changes regard, TBH, barring the poor Genestealer Aberrants and... ogryns? This has been a pretty good Chapter Approved.

I mean. I'm not a great fan of making everything cheaper. I prefer for everything to become more expensive and make the very powerfull things even more expensive. But as is know for every developer, be it boardgames, roleplaying games, or videogames, people loves "Buffs" and hates nerfs. And lowering point costs makes people buy more models and be able to play with more of their toys so is a win win for everybody. I assume.

Ravagers went up 15pts each, as the only long range fire support available in the Drukhari codex, that bloody hurts.

Though Archons went down 15, Dark Lances went down 5 and lots of other stuff went down as well. Drazar down another 20.

It hurts the souped 3-Diss-Ravagers-plus-one-Archon, but if you run mainly Drukhari, I think it comes out a wash, mostly. You'll probably make those 45 points for 3 Dissy-Ravagers on the new savings on your HQs alone.

It's not ideal, especially with "down" being a general trend, but it's no Aberrant-style annihilation of the army, I think.

I am honestly trying to figure out why Venoms went down even more and Raiders are the same...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I am honestly trying to figure out why Venoms went down even more and Raiders are the same...

Venoms didn't go down. The initial leaks only claimed that they did because somebody apparently forgot that they come equipped with a 10 point Splinter Cannon by default.

 vipoid wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Though Archons went down 15,

Sigh.

And this is why I hate GW trying to fix everything with point changes.


Archons aren't garbage because of their cost. Archons are garbage because they have:
- Abysmal melee.
- Abysmal shooting outside of a single option that's index-only (and even then it doesn't even come close to making Archons tolerable).
- Crap defence.
- Zero mobility options.
- An aura that can only affect a tiny fraction of their army.
- An aura that - in a subfaction built around open-topped transports - doesn't work inside, into, or out of open-topped transports (and do remember that open-topped transports are literally the only mobility option available not just to the Archon but to the entirety of the Kabal subfaction).
- An aura that doesn't work on the unit that is purpose-built to accompany the Archon.
etc.

Put simply, a 15pt drop does nothing to make the Archon any more appealing because he's still a complete waste of space.


By the same measure, a 15pt increase isn't going to make Ravagers any less appealing because for all intents and purposes Dark Eldar have no other options for that role. Hell, Kabal don't even have any other options in the entire HQ slot because some GW employee with a pickaxe lodged in his skull decided that an already-anaemic army needed to be split into 3 subfactions with 0 synergy between them.

/rant

At least it's 15 less of a tax!

That said you're correct that they need a whole redesign, and I agree 99% with you. I don't think their melee is terrible but since you gotta use Relics and Warlord traits yeah I'm not a fan.

Twilight Pathways wrote:
Custodes:

Allarus -5
SC -10
Allarus SC -10
LR -12
Traj -5
Axe -3
Spear -3
Misericordia -1
Stormshield -5
Vexilla Imperius -30

Not sure about FW except for:
Caladius -10


Drukhari:

In the d6 evolution video they state that Talos have NOT gone up?!


Harlequins:

Neuro disruptors not dropped TO 5, they dropped BY 5. Finally!

Is`t Neuro disruptors 10 pts now, so what is the difference between dropping by 5 and they are 5 ?

I thought they were 8. I don't remember to be honest because who remembers them?

Warhound Titan is still completely unusable at 2000pts :/

 Rydria wrote:
Warhound Titan is still completely unusable at 2000pts :/

Makes sense. Some things are simply too large for the 40k system.

Marin wrote:

Twilight Pathways wrote:
Custodes:

Allarus -5
SC -10
Allarus SC -10
LR -12
Traj -5
Axe -3
Spear -3
Misericordia -1
Stormshield -5
Vexilla Imperius -30

Not sure about FW except for:
Caladius -10


Drukhari:

In the d6 evolution video they state that Talos have NOT gone up?!


Harlequins:

Neuro disruptors not dropped TO 5, they dropped BY 5. Finally!

Is`t Neuro disruptors 10 pts now, so what is the difference between dropping by 5 and they are 5 ?

Yeah they were 10. It was my favorite thing in the game. For 1 point more than fusion you could get -4str, -1ap, -d3 damage and no melta rule.

the_scotsman wrote:

Marin wrote:

Twilight Pathways wrote:
Custodes:

Allarus -5
SC -10
Allarus SC -10
LR -12
Traj -5
Axe -3
Spear -3
Misericordia -1
Stormshield -5
Vexilla Imperius -30

Not sure about FW except for:
Caladius -10


Drukhari:

In the d6 evolution video they state that Talos have NOT gone up?!


Harlequins:

Neuro disruptors not dropped TO 5, they dropped BY 5. Finally!

Is`t Neuro disruptors 10 pts now, so what is the difference between dropping by 5 and they are 5 ?

Yeah they were 10. It was my favorite thing in the game. For 1 point more than fusion you could get -4str, -1ap, -d3 damage and no melta rule.

GW probably thought the 12" range made them super good compared to the Fusion Pistols even though Harlequins can somehow deliver said Fusion Pistols.

sieGermans wrote:

 Rydria wrote:
Warhound Titan is still completely unusable at 2000pts :/

Makes sense. Some things are simply too large for the 40k system.

Thy increased points on titans to make them non-feasible for normal 40K games, but didn't adjust their rules to make them actually worth those changed points, much less their original costs. Compared to a Castellan Knight, It has +7 wounds, +2 S, +1 T, +1 Inv save base (but degrades), a much better plasma cannon, and slightly better turbolaser. Macro weapon is an odd patch which makes it far superior vs Titanic targets than normal ones. But the Warhound can only target 2 units, while the Castellan has 5 more weapon systems. And for the same points costs, you can take a second castellan, and a crusader, with some points to spare.

2000 points games are already ridiculous enough with the addition of Knights and LoW that were once restricted to Apocalypse-size games.

I don't want to see those things (Titans) anywhere near my tables, whetever their rules are.

Selfcontrol wrote:
2000 points games are already ridiculous enough with the addition of Knights and LoW that were once restricted to Apocalypse-size games.

I don't want to see those things (Titans) anywhere near my tables, whetever their rules are.

Yeah because Titans are sooooooooo broken.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Selfcontrol wrote:
2000 points games are already ridiculous enough with the addition of Knights and LoW that were once restricted to Apocalypse-size games.

I don't want to see those things (Titans) anywhere near my tables, whetever their rules are.

Yeah because Titans are sooooooooo broken.

You literally quoted the part where he explicitly said it's a preferences whatever their rules are, broken, not broken

.... whatever their rules are.

.... but they are not broken.

.... whatever their rules are.

.... but they are not broken.


The counter-argument just doesn't fit. Lol .

 Rydria wrote:
Warhound Titan is still completely unusable at 2000pts :/

Did anyone ever expect it to be?

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Selfcontrol wrote:
2000 points games are already ridiculous enough with the addition of Knights and LoW that were once restricted to Apocalypse-size games.

I don't want to see those things (Titans) anywhere near my tables, whetever their rules are.

Yeah because Titans are sooooooooo broken.

You literally quoted the part where he explicitly said it's a preferences whatever their rules are, broken, not broken

.... whatever their rules are.

.... but they are not broken.

.... whatever their rules are.

.... but they are not broken.


The counter-argument just doesn't fit. Lol .

I didn't miss it. With the rules being fine, there's nothing rational about it. It really just boils down to "I haven't moved on from the game in 3rd edition".

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

sieGermans wrote:

 Rydria wrote:
Warhound Titan is still completely unusable at 2000pts :/

Makes sense. Some things are simply too large for the 40k system.

Thy increased points on titans to make them non-feasible for normal 40K games, but didn't adjust their rules to make them actually worth those changed points, much less their original costs. Compared to a Castellan Knight, It has +7 wounds, +2 S, +1 T, +1 Inv save base (but degrades), a much better plasma cannon, and slightly better turbolaser. Macro weapon is an odd patch which makes it far superior vs Titanic targets than normal ones. But the Warhound can only target 2 units, while the Castellan has 5 more weapon systems. And for the same points costs, you can take a second castellan, and a crusader, with some points to spare.

This is my problem, if it could feasibly be useful at 2000pts in a apoc game I wouldn't mind but it is like 50%-70% better than a Castellan for over twice the cost.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Did anyone ever expect it to be?

No one expected the Baneblade and its variantes to be in regular 40k after it was added to first version of Apocalypse

It is more of a surprise that the Warhound is not already part of regular 40k, but I guess this will have to wait until GW is doing a plastic kit

the_scotsman wrote:

Marin wrote:

Twilight Pathways wrote:
Custodes:

Allarus -5
SC -10
Allarus SC -10
LR -12
Traj -5
Axe -3
Spear -3
Misericordia -1
Stormshield -5
Vexilla Imperius -30

Not sure about FW except for:
Caladius -10


Drukhari:

In the d6 evolution video they state that Talos have NOT gone up?!


Harlequins:

Neuro disruptors not dropped TO 5, they dropped BY 5. Finally!

Is`t Neuro disruptors 10 pts now, so what is the difference between dropping by 5 and they are 5 ?

Yeah they were 10. It was my favorite thing in the game. For 1 point more than fusion you could get -4str, -1ap, -d3 damage and no melta rule.

Yeah they are still crap, I did the match for them again recently. They should be about 2-3 points for one. I think they really need a rules rewrite, even just bumping up the range to 16" would do wonders for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another thing they missed the ball on for the harlequins points update is the kiss melee weapon. You know the one that they give you enough to kit the whole squad out with in the box but is still never used. It's the same price as a caress but almost equal to it in terms of damage done to multiwound MEQ. And then it is much worse against single wound infantry then both the caress and embrace.

They should have dropped it to like 4 points honestly, would have opened a lot of options for our lists, but I'm kinda glad I don't have to go and magnetize and paint up a bunch of new weapons. Other than these I think they did an amazing job with the harlequins points update.

Silly question but does chapter approved change any terrain rules? One of the books at least reviews those... and god forbid they make terrain great again that may darn well have a greater impact on the meta than these points changes...

Some people have made the contention that the ITC-style magic boxes are ruled out by the new terrain rules. It remains to be seen whether the ITC team agrees or not.

bmsattler wrote:
Some people have made the contention that the ITC-style magic boxes are ruled out by the new terrain rules. It remains to be seen whether the ITC team agrees or not.

99% sure they would rule to allow it since Magic boxes exist because FLG sells whole buildings, and not just ruins.

Has there been any reviews about the contents of the actual Chapter Approved book? Everyone only seems to be foaming about the points.

 Crimson wrote:
Has there been any reviews about the contents of the actual Chapter Approved book? Everyone only seems to be foaming about the points.

Haven’t you heard, nothing outside of 2K WAAC ITC matters????

Joking and salt apart, I’m looking forward to the missions and what they come up with for Tank Battles etc. We often play different game modes so new ideas are always welcome.

Okay, I find this review which goes through the book swiftly and concisely. (Why more Youtube reviews aren't like this? This guy did an excellent summary of the book in ten minutes.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8E-oNoe44k

Anyway, the new missions look good. Challenge missions look fun, and the matched missions seem promising too. Maelstrom missions in particular seem now more tactical and less random. I was previously opposed to using Maelstrom in tournaments as luck plays way too big role, but with this new setup it is no longer a problem.

 Rydria wrote:
Warhound Titan is still completely unusable at 2000pts :/

Fellblade says hi.

Honestly,i can't understand half the changes.
Take the leman russ f.e , the Tank is a victim from the meta delievered by the existence of knights, also conparatively few shots mean that the more accurate commander is still imo the way to go.

Astropaths got a pricecut, yet worthless malefics still cost 80 pts...

Dropping all csm PA and infantry more or less, whilest nice feels Like a bandaid, a bandaid that will lead to issues sooner or later.

Fw seems untouched generally, and most was allready preety bad,which means that it is even worse now.

Orkz get fixed buyggies i guess.

Generally too much price cutting too few propper fixes.

 Rydria wrote:

 Sersi wrote:

 Rydria wrote:
Noise Marines 13pts, blaster master 12 pts, doom siren 8, sonic blaster 4pts.

Not that I'm surprised, but GW is still way over valuing ignore cover. A storm-bolter or combi-bolter are only 2 pts, and with bolter discipline better options. While an Auto Bolt Rifle with the same profile as a Sonic Blaster costs only 1 pt.

Sonic Blaster I felt should have been 2 points, perhaps they kept it at 4pts due to the stratagem.

But if you compare sonic blaster armed noise marines to auto bolt rifle armed primeris, the noise marines cost more but have 1 less wound in exchange for music of the apocalypse, i'm not sure it is worth it. But the squads i was using got a 36pts discount so I can't really complain about that now it makes them substantially better than they where before.

 Marshal Loss wrote:

 Rydria wrote:
Noise Marines 13pts, blaster master 12pts, doom siren 8, sonic blaster 4pts.

Now they just need to get off their asses and release a new Noise Marine kit

Definitely the upgrade sprue doesn't even fit on the current generation of models, let alone how out of date those upgrade kits even are .

The upgrade kit fits just fine on the newer Chaos Marines, at least all 3 of mine did.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Honestly,i can't understand half the changes.

Sounds about right for a GW points costing..

its GW.
The only point changes that make sense are ones that can potentially boost sales.

Take my buggies for example. Im the ONLY ork player in my area (out of 6) that bought any, the others wouldnt touch them not even the wartrike for that charge aura. I 100% believe they only dropped so drastically because they sold like piss and they knew people loved the models so if they made the points less we'd buy them.
Doesnt help the Snazzwagon or Squigbuggy, those two are unplayable by design and no point drop will fix that w/o being silly cheap (were talking ~55pts for a snazzwagon cheap, which is way too cheap for that many wounds)
Meanwhile, the Stompa which is disgustingly overpriced, got a slap in the face 50pt reduction. The thing we orks have had for eons and probably wont buy more, so they dont care if the rules for it are good or not...wont affect their sales anyway.

I wish CA would also improve dataslates not just points...theres quite a few units not just in my 2 armies that are just...awful and the points arent the reason why. Adjusting rules should be the easy part of a wargame anyway.

The new missions as usual are another huge step in the right direction, in particular the maelstrom ones.

At this point i could even prefer them to eternal war for tournaments packs.

One would think that making the rules for the game better overall would get more fresh blood and untapped incomes into the game... Instead of just beefing up new models to sell new ones...

Interesting that CA19 now has rules for Sealed Fronteris Structures. Wonder if people actually switch over to those for "un-ruined", "not-full-of-holes" buildings instead of the ruins-rules.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Honestly,i can't understand half the changes.
Take the leman russ f.e , the Tank is a victim from the meta delievered by the existence of knights, also conparatively few shots mean that the more accurate commander is still imo the way to go.

Astropaths got a pricecut, yet worthless malefics still cost 80 pts...

Dropping all csm PA and infantry more or less, whilest nice feels Like a bandaid, a bandaid that will lead to issues sooner or later.

Fw seems untouched generally, and most was allready preety bad,which means that it is even worse now.

Orkz get fixed buyggies i guess.

Generally too much price cutting too few propper fixes.

So modus operandi as usual for GW. The changes aren't meant to balance the game.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Interesting that CA19 now has rules for Sealed Fronteris Structures. Wonder if people actually switch over to those for "un-ruined", "not-full-of-holes" buildings instead of the ruins-rules.

new line of terrain coming up do ya figure?

BrianDavion wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Interesting that CA19 now has rules for Sealed Fronteris Structures. Wonder if people actually switch over to those for "un-ruined", "not-full-of-holes" buildings instead of the ruins-rules.

new line of terrain coming up do ya figure?

I just want complete buildings to mildly ruin. not brand new, not shot/blown to gak, but lightly scarred.

Racerguy180 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Interesting that CA19 now has rules for Sealed Fronteris Structures. Wonder if people actually switch over to those for "un-ruined", "not-full-of-holes" buildings instead of the ruins-rules.

new line of terrain coming up do ya figure?

I just want complete buildings to mildly ruin. not brand new, not shot/blown to gak, but lightly scarred.

I could get behind that, urban hab units with bullet holes and small shell holes rather then "... ok after a week of shelling move the infantry in"

BrianDavion wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Interesting that CA19 now has rules for Sealed Fronteris Structures. Wonder if people actually switch over to those for "un-ruined", "not-full-of-holes" buildings instead of the ruins-rules.

new line of terrain coming up do ya figure?

It has a picture in CA. I think it is the Necromunda stuff? Not sure. Anyhow, an "enclosed building" and/or "bunker-style" building (without being the actual old fortification bunker) without lots of holes and see-through windows in the style of GW ruins.

The Sector Fronteris stuff is from Kill Team:



You can make enclosed buildings with it like the top left one.

If you follow GW tournament packet, completely closed floor levels are impassable terrain.

Spoletta wrote:
If you follow GW tournament packet, completely closed floor levels are impassable terrain.

They are. But especially in the states, few play it that way and allow infantry to move through closed walls as "pseudo"-ruins, in a way (which in turn leads to "magic boxes" if non-ruined walls make up all 4 walls of a building).

 Redemption wrote:
The Sector Fronteris stuff is from Kill Team:

Spoiler:

You can make enclosed buildings with it like the top left one.

hmm not avaliable anymore? damn a shame

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
If you follow GW tournament packet, completely closed floor levels are impassable terrain.

They are. But especially in the states, few play it that way and allow infantry to move through closed walls as "pseudo"-ruins, in a way (which in turn leads to "magic boxes" if non-ruined walls make up all 4 walls of a building).

GW way seems eminently less prone to cause problems.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Redemption wrote:
The Sector Fronteris stuff is from Kill Team:

Spoiler:

You can make enclosed buildings with it like the top left one.

hmm not avaliable anymore? damn a shame

It came with the GSC set and Kellermorph. That Kill Team is no longer available, but given how desirable the Kellermorph was...I'd say it would be stuff we'll see next year again.

I don't mind the point drops.

I can appreciate the concerns, I really can and in most cases I also agree that rather than devalue units, increase the value of others or re-balance the rules is a much better approach. I also understand that fundamental changes to problem units don't happen quickly, especially with such a critical community with a passionate flair for competition (I mean, dota 2, for example gets 1 major update a year? We're getting multiple). I won't pretend to know GW's development method (or lack thereof) but if there's any good with this it's that I can now use MORE of my models in the average game and i'm happy for that. A rumoured 20pt drop to Obliterators? A drop in pts for The Deceiver and Tyrannofex? Bloodthirster at 210? Abaddon at 220/230? Bring it on.

 Kanluwen wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Redemption wrote:
The Sector Fronteris stuff is from Kill Team:

Spoiler:

You can make enclosed buildings with it like the top left one.

hmm not avaliable anymore? damn a shame

It came with the GSC set and Kellermorph. That Kill Team is no longer available, but given how desirable the Kellermorph was...I'd say it would be stuff we'll see next year again.

I don't think it did. I bought that set, and there's no floor, only the walls.

I thought it came with that Kill Team?

I can't find it to check, but it was definitely around that time. Was it the Frontieris killscape?

 Kanluwen wrote:
I thought it came with that Kill Team?

I can't find it to check, but it was definitely around that time. Was it the Frontieris killscape?

It was Sector Fronteris.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Something curious I just noticed - there is a points entry for the Ork "Big Mek with Kustom Force Field". However, there is no datasheet with that name! There is the old "Big Mek" from the Index, and the Big Mek in Mega Armour can also be given a KFF, but that is listed separately. So I wonder if they are planning to bring back the old Kustom Force Field (non-megarmour) Big Mek model?

i'd hope so for orkzs sake.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I thought it came with that Kill Team?

I can't find it to check, but it was definitely around that time. Was it the Frontieris killscape?

The Sector Frontieris killzone (that included the full building) was released at the same time as the Genestealer Cult box with the Kellermorph, and that box contained an extra sprue of ruined walls. But they were two different boxes.

Voss wrote:
So, Chapter Approve brings yet more updated daemon datasheets and something that seems to be actual (experimental) terrain rules. Shocked, me.

As far as I can tell, what they did with the scenery and demon data sheets was reprint everything in CA 2018, and add whatever had been released or updated since then. I know those scenery rules all looked similar with some rearrangement of the order they were listed in.

I'm still trying to figure out why almost every low got a points drop except the hellforged/relic ones.

I mean seriously the baneblade gets a drop but not the fellblade? And the fw excuse doesn't work because they dropped the fething astreus.

Of course that was probably in order to give a viable low option to all those underperforming mono sm armies.

Honestly, a lot of the Ork stuff can be summed up as "we didn't sell as many of those buggies as we wanted".

Gadzilla666 wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out why almost every low got a points drop except the hellforged/relic ones.

I mean seriously the baneblade gets a drop but not the fellblade? And the fw excuse doesn't work because they dropped the fething astreus.

Of course that was probably in order to give a viable low option to all those underperforming mono sm armies.

Because helforged are "classic" FW units, and these got no attention what-so-ever.

You can look euqally at FW tau units for example, no changes at all.

Anything that didn't come down by demand from GW "proper" got nothing-they are mostly fething index rules STILL. and many makes no sense rulewise.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Honestly, a lot of the Ork stuff can be summed up as "we didn't sell as many of those buggies as we wanted".

So i am not the only one thinking that

8

 BoomWolf wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out why almost every low got a points drop except the hellforged/relic ones.

I mean seriously the baneblade gets a drop but not the fellblade? And the fw excuse doesn't work because they dropped the fething astreus.

Of course that was probably in order to give a viable low option to all those underperforming mono sm armies.

Because helforged are "classic" FW units, and these got no attention what-so-ever.

You can look euqally at FW tau units for example, no changes at all.

Anything that didn't come down by demand from GW "proper" got nothing-they are mostly fething index rules STILL. and many makes no sense rulewise.

Even those super riptide things? Those are the only tau models I like. Would love to see more of those on the table.

I've noticed the whole "classic " fw not getting anything as well. Think maybe they're planning on redoing the ia books? They're getting pretty long in the tooth. Loads of errata and faqs.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Honestly, a lot of the Ork stuff can be summed up as "we didn't sell as many of those buggies as we wanted".

So i am not the only one thinking that

Yeah, especially those walker and kopta drops...

Tau players i'm wondering if this makes quad missile Broadsides a more viable sub for a Riptide.

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Honestly, a lot of the Ork stuff can be summed up as "we didn't sell as many of those buggies as we wanted".

So i am not the only one thinking that

Yeah, especially those walker and kopta drops...

Ork Codex is released and Ork Player say, "these buggies cost too many points. I'm not going to use them."
CA reduces the point cost of the buggies and Ork player say, "GW is trying to sell more buggies".

Right

 alextroy wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Honestly, a lot of the Ork stuff can be summed up as "we didn't sell as many of those buggies as we wanted".

So i am not the only one thinking that

Yeah, especially those walker and kopta drops...

Ork Codex is released and Ork Player say, "these buggies cost too many points. I'm not going to use them."
CA reduces the point cost of the buggies and Ork player say, "GW is trying to sell more buggies".

Right

Well one thing's for sure, they're clearly not trying to sell Stompas.

Walker drop does make sense, theyre constantly stuffing deffdreads into our faces and we are always resisting buying anything containing them.
Deffkoptas, especially since i dont know a single person using non-AOBR ones, was the out of left field buff. And to an extent the only one, since Flash Gitz are at least a very complex, somewhat new-ish kit as well. I dont understand why they got a 10pt drop and warbikers didnt get anything. Its pretty common for ork players to want to field dozens of bikers....uh..hey GW might wanna make it possible to do that and i bet the bikers sell like hotcakes! well...not for me i already have 24 of them lol

Theyre not trying to sell stompas because almost every ork player has one and multiples make no sense, even in apocalypse they make no sense (though you could get away with 2 in that format). So why would they care about if people like using it or not? they already sold what they expect to ever sell for it. I bet the only reason its even still on the market is because they have a warehouse of the dang things somewhere

Would also explain how almost ALL of our wargear (Smasha and Skorcha missiles being the only exceptions) are 100% untouched, not even the PK dropped and its 1:1 a powerfist in every way except cost. Wargear doesnt dictate sales.

Not salty, fyi. Love those buggies and glad i can actually USE them now.

Multiple knights makes sense. No reason stompa couldn't be similarly scaled point wise. As it is originally stompa was basically walking land raider with choppity chop chainsword so there's no need it needs to be so expensive you can't field multiples. You used to field tons of them for same price as bigger titans(like couple dozen vs warlord).

Stompa should be ork knight equilavent(and not neccessarily even as good...Weaker and cheaper would be appropriate) rather than mini warhound which it never has been.

In order to justify the stompa's current price it would need bs3 and considerably better durability. T9 with 5+ fnp at minimum and then it would probably need a points drop.

I really don't understand what gw were thinking on low points in this ca. The only good thing was they didn't buff the big knights.

Nah, the stompa should be about 2/3 the power of a warhound, and the girls/morkanaughts should be about 2/3 of a knight.

The ork versions should be slightly behind the imperial ones, and outnumber them on the battlefield.

3 for the price of two just feels right to me. (Just make sure all are worth their cost!)

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Nah, the stompa should be about 2/3 the power of a warhound, and the girls/morkanaughts should be about 2/3 of a knight.

The ork versions should be slightly behind the imperial ones, and outnumber them on the battlefield.

3 for the price of two just feels right to me. (Just make sure all are worth their cost!)

Thing is stompa isn't ork equilavent of titan...Orks had another machines for that. Stompa as knight equilavent is about biggest stompa should be. You don't run squadrons of warhounds in non-titan vs titan battles.

 alextroy wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Honestly, a lot of the Ork stuff can be summed up as "we didn't sell as many of those buggies as we wanted".

So i am not the only one thinking that

Yeah, especially those walker and kopta drops...

Ork Codex is released and Ork Player say, "these buggies cost too many points. I'm not going to use them."
CA reduces the point cost of the buggies and Ork player say, "GW is trying to sell more buggies".

Right

All point drops were on units that were not doing well, and the only nerf was minimal and very much deserved. They skipped some things, but they also saved the KFF mek and the biker boss from legends, which was one of the major concerns for ork players.
There could have been more, but what we got is already far more than anyone should have expected.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Nah, the stompa should be about 2/3 the power of a warhound, and the girls/morkanaughts should be about 2/3 of a knight.

The ork versions should be slightly behind the imperial ones, and outnumber them on the battlefield.

3 for the price of two just feels right to me. (Just make sure all are worth their cost!)

A stompa is a Castallan/Tyrand-Sized walker at best. Ork titans are called gargants.

tneva82 wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Nah, the stompa should be about 2/3 the power of a warhound, and the girls/morkanaughts should be about 2/3 of a knight.

The ork versions should be slightly behind the imperial ones, and outnumber them on the battlefield.

3 for the price of two just feels right to me. (Just make sure all are worth their cost!)

Thing is stompa isn't ork equilavent of titan...Orks had another machines for that. Stompa as knight equilavent is about biggest stompa should be. You don't run squadrons of warhounds in non-titan vs titan battles.

I agree with both you and Lythrandire Biehrellian in some way: nauts should be our knights, not the stompa. Nauts have the same base and size than a knight and similar wargear in terms of shots fired. The stompa is a huge model, 900+ points for it really sound ok, if not even cheap, if you look at it. Of course its rules are a joke but I'd rather have a 1000-1200 points "Warhound equivalent" stompa than a 600 points "Knight equivalent" one. Both ork big walkers should be a bit cheaper and more unrealiable than their imperium equivalents but I'd never want discount stompas so they could be as common as knights (which are the first things I'd remove from standard games).

For size comparison:

Naut is new invention. Stompa has always been not even close to titan level. That's why you could field like half a dozen against warhound. It's only recently on 40k where it suddenly artificially got upped in size.

It's basically land raider on legs and choppity chop sword. Frankly even super heavy is pushing it. You don't run formations of nearly dozen super heavies. Orks have gargants for titan level.

Stompa has never been warhound equilavent. why you are trying to make it one? Use the actual warhound equilavents orks have rather than change the role of existing unit so you now would have MULTIPLE warhound equilavents.

There is a simply reason to it, Nauts are cheaper to get and easier to place on the table and therefore would make more sense to be fielded like (smaller) Knights while the Stompa would be in between the Knight and the Warhound (as some of the FW Knights are).

But until Orks don't get the Imperium treatment (a Codex for each sub-faction and a supplement for each clan) we won't see the possibility of a Knight style army.

tneva82 wrote:
Naut is new invention. Stompa has always been not even close to titan level. That's why you could field like half a dozen against warhound. It's only recently on 40k where it suddenly artificially got upped in size.

It's basically land raider on legs and choppity chop sword. Frankly even super heavy is pushing it. You don't run formations of nearly dozen super heavies. Orks have gargants for titan level.

Stompa has never been warhound equilavent. why you are trying to make it one? Use the actual warhound equilavents orks have rather than change the role of existing unit so you now would have MULTIPLE warhound equilavents.

What's the model of the ork gargant? The big squiggoth? A stompa looks way more intimidating and killy though, both in aesthetics and datasheet. Are there any official rules of a real gargant anyway?

Ork land raider is the battlewagon, not nauts or the stompa. Nauts are very close to knights, both in size/unit type but also datasheets. They're just more fragile, cheap and worse in shooting (but not by a lot in all fieds) as all orks units should be a bit worse but cheaper comparing to their imperium equivalents, except in combat.

I'm trying to make the stompa a warhound equivalent since it's the same size and with 3 other types of walkers we don't need another "standard" walker in our games but a titan equivalent could be very cool for real apocalypse games.

But until Orks don't get the Imperium treatment (a Codex for each sub-faction and a supplement for each clan) we won't see the possibility of a Knight style army.

I feel obliged to note you say "Imperium" but you're talking Space Marines. There's not a Cadia codex supplement, and a catachen codex. just for example.

 Blackie wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Naut is new invention. Stompa has always been not even close to titan level. That's why you could field like half a dozen against warhound. It's only recently on 40k where it suddenly artificially got upped in size.

It's basically land raider on legs and choppity chop sword. Frankly even super heavy is pushing it. You don't run formations of nearly dozen super heavies. Orks have gargants for titan level.

Stompa has never been warhound equilavent. why you are trying to make it one? Use the actual warhound equilavents orks have rather than change the role of existing unit so you now would have MULTIPLE warhound equilavents.

What's the model of the ork gargant? The big squiggoth? A stompa looks way more intimidating and killy though, both in aesthetics and datasheet. Are there any official rules of a real gargant anyway?

Ork land raider is the battlewagon, not nauts or the stompa. Nauts are very close to knights, both in size/unit type but also datasheets. They're just more fragile, cheap and worse in shooting (but not by a lot in all fieds) as all orks units should be a bit worse but cheaper comparing to their imperium equivalents, except in combat.

I'm trying to make the stompa a warhound equivalent since it's the same size and with 3 other types of walkers we don't need another "standard" walker in our games but a titan equivalent could be very cool for real apocalypse games.

Check your ork history. As said stompa as big warhound equilavent is new invention. Stompa's original role was more of walking land raider. Same survivability for starters. And you could field like dozen compared to titans.

Ork's don't currently HAVE actual titan equilavent model for 40k and good riddance. They don't work in 40k at all being either auto lose or auto win(auto win if opponent brings one as well and you go first. Otherwise you lose. Period. You bring warlord and opponent doesn't bring titan? Congrats. You lost. Opponent doesn't even have to shoot once).

Stompa shouldn't be warhound equilavent. It's not it's role. Orks have separate vehicles for that. Orks don't need multiple warhound equilavents and besides all warhound level machines are automatic losses. Including warhound. We don't need multiple models you can't field because you automatically lose. Just look at the stompa. You CAN'T make it warhound equilavent and actually have it be worthwhile. If it's around 600 pts it's not warhound equilavent(remember warhound is 2000 pts). If it's around 1000 pts level you can't have anywhere sensible rules that aren't either automatic loss or automatic win. Both are bad.

I seem to recall that the Warhound equivalent in the Epic days was the Slasha Gargant, but I could be wrong on that.

Stompas were the equivalent to the Knight Paladin, and they both formed the "small" troops section in the old Titan Legions boxed set.

 Dysartes wrote:
I seem to recall that the Warhound equivalent in the Epic days was the Slasha Gargant, but I could be wrong on that.

Stompas were the equivalent to the Knight Paladin, and they both formed the "small" troops section in the old Titan Legions boxed set.

Yeah I think that's how I remember it. Always wanted one of those gargant models as a kid.

Even in previous edition, as stompa was never in the same weight class as the warhound.
A stompa is somewhere near the baneblade, lord of skulls, castellan or daemon primarch tier, and should be costed as such.

tneva82 wrote:


Check your ork history. As said stompa as big warhound equilavent is new invention. Stompa's original role was more of walking land raider. Same survivability for starters. And you could field like dozen compared to titans.

Well things change. Something that has been written ages ago could not reflect the current state of 40k. Maybe Stompas were intended to be mobile land raiders 20 years ago but with battlewagons and nauts there's no need of such unit anymore. And even the current stompa's datasheet has nothing in common with a land raider.

tneva82 wrote:

Ork's don't currently HAVE actual titan equilavent model for 40k and good riddance. They don't work in 40k at all being either auto lose or auto win(auto win if opponent brings one as well and you go first.

Well, what's the point of an imperium titan then? Of course it doesn't work in 40k and good riddance. Models such those are meant for 10k+ games or something like that.

tneva82 wrote:

Stompa shouldn't be warhound equilavent. It's not it's role. Orks have separate vehicles for that. Orks don't need multiple warhound equilavents and besides all warhound level machines are automatic losses. Including warhound. We don't need multiple models you can't field because you automatically lose. Just look at the stompa. You CAN'T make it warhound equilavent and actually have it be worthwhile. If it's around 600 pts it's not warhound equilavent(remember warhound is 2000 pts). If it's around 1000 pts level you can't have anywhere sensible rules that aren't either automatic loss or automatic win. Both are bad.

Well, it's not its role to be a land raider either. A land raider is basically a transport with some supporting firepower, a stompa is a gigantic tool of mass destruction. At that point just bring the full kitted BW for that role.

Truth is a model like the stompa doesn't really have a purpose at the moment. You could make him significantly cheaper, that's an option, but what would you have then? For 600 points why just not taking two nauts instead? Or you could re-write its datasheet to make it an apocalypse games fun tool, like the warhound. A 1200ish point ork titan could definitely work if a 2000 points warhound does. But of course we wouldn't talk about standard 40k games, where such things shouldn't exist. We already have several other things that are the separate vehicles to counter titans, but not an actual gargant model or ruleset. The stompa model fits the gargant's dimensions and could take a role that is currently vacant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
Even in previous edition, as stompa was never in the same weight class as the warhound.
A stompa is somewhere near the baneblade, lord of skulls, castellan or daemon primarch tier, and should be costed as such.

Maybe in the lore, just take a look at my previous post, the one with the size comparison. The stompa is exactly as big as the warhound.

 Blackie wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Even in previous edition, as stompa was never in the same weight class as the warhound.
A stompa is somewhere near the baneblade, lord of skulls, castellan or daemon primarch tier, and should be costed as such.

Maybe in the lore, just take a look at my previous post, the one with the size comparison. The stompa is exactly as big as the warhound.

Lore and rules. But as we know, GW makes all models true to scale, so the height of two models trump lore and rules.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Even in previous edition, as stompa was never in the same weight class as the warhound.
A stompa is somewhere near the baneblade, lord of skulls, castellan or daemon primarch tier, and should be costed as such.

Maybe in the lore, just take a look at my previous post, the one with the size comparison. The stompa is exactly as big as the warhound.

Lore and rules. But as we know, GW makes all models true to scale, so the height of two models trump lore and rules.

Right. Look at a spartan next to a land raider. Tell me it can hold two and a half times the troops as the land raider. Hell tell me it could hold 25 marines period.

Gw doesn't make all its models to true scale.

Stompas are equivalent to knights and should be costed accordingly.

You just don't like low in 40k and will argue whatever it takes to get them costed out of the game.

Jidmah is right in the fact that GW puts rules for models based in size. Just compare the change in rules of Greater Demons when they gained the new giant models.

A Stompa will never be a Knight equivalent when the model is nearly twice the size. Thats just how GW writtes rules. Is more sensible (Because is more probable ot happen) to ask for an usable stompa at the 700-800 point bracket than ask for a 450-550 point stompa as a knight equivalent.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Honestly, a lot of the Ork stuff can be summed up as "we didn't sell as many of those buggies as we wanted".

So i am not the only one thinking that

What? But buggies were explained as

*Checks Great Games Workshop Rules Imbalance Conspiracy Flowchart*

"Games Workshop knew they'd sell so they gave them crap rules on purpose since they were a Sure Thing!"

HOW could bad rules have POSSIBLY affected their sales figures???

Sorry, but I was being sarcastic.
Obviously GW doesn't give a damn about size when designing rules and vice versa, especially when you compare FW to GW plastic.
Put a leviathan next to a contemptor when in doubt.

But you can't compare FW to GW because they hate each other. You need to compare GW to GW.

 Jidmah wrote:
Sorry, but I was being sarcastic.
Obviously GW doesn't give a damn about size when designing rules and vice versa, especially when you compare FW to GW plastic.
Put a leviathan next to a contemptor when in doubt.

I thought that was obvious. Seriously folks try to get 10 marines in a rhino.

Or 10 MANz in a battlewagon

BrianDavion wrote:

But until Orks don't get the Imperium treatment (a Codex for each sub-faction and a supplement for each clan) we won't see the possibility of a Knight style army.

I feel obliged to note you say "Imperium" but you're talking Space Marines. There's not a Cadia codex supplement, and a catachen codex. just for example.

Imperium is the main Keyword and Faction
Just because Orks don't have as many Codex and Supplements as Imperium has, does not change that. Otherwise the question should be why Knights are not a Mechanicus or AM Supplement as Stompas should be an Ork Supplement (instead of a full Stompa Codex with the Ork Keyword)

If GW wanted, there could be as many Codex books for Orks, Elder, Tyranids and Tau as there are for Imperium. Comparing Orks only to Space Marines when there is so much more than Meganobz from different Clans

realistically theres only 3 knight models they just have several different dataslates....because reasons. They could very easily take the chassis of the Stompa and just make new arms for it and do the same thing. Heck they could take all the walkers and turn them into the "Dread Waaagh!" supplement.

I own both a knight and a stompa. Stompa is absolutely massive, almost literally twice the size of a knight (if i had to put it into specifics, probably 7/8ths larger). It should not be 2/3 a knight, it should be 1/3 to 1/2 greater than a knight since it was originally a mini-titan.
Lot of people in my area like to call knights mini-titans for some reason...they arent. The only thing they have to claim that over a Baneblade or Killtank is they are walkers.

The transport part of it is kinda pointless and its aura is a joke being a reroll when it used to be fearless. What ork unit makes a morale test that they can have any hope of passing? i either autopass thanks to still being a big mob or auto-all-flee because i lost 20 models and i have 10 left, no die roll affects that result.

Comparing the stats (ignoring points) its technically about right. Its basically a Gallant and Crusader merged into one in terms of offensive capability, but given Orky BS so its shooting is unreliable and not quite double wounds and no invul on top of slightly better melee.
But its priced like it is those two merged, when they are weakened enough to not be quite both at the same time. Not to mention theres the issue of two targets are better than one.

Also, if a stompa is supposed to be 2/3 a knight then what the heck is the Naut? I run both nauts and knights commonly, they feel roughly the same with the Naut being obviously a bit weaker. But i actually LIKE that, because its not a LoW i can very easily sneak it into a ton of lists and not require 3 HQs i probably dont have after filling the reqs for 2bats.

Obviously they screwed the Epic-to-40k names up when they released the Stompa; this isn't in contention. It should have been called a Gargant and the 'nauts could then have been called stompas. But do we really need to have this discussion every time someone brings up the Stompa being worthless? It's pointlessly pedantic, we all know what everyone is going to say, and it just wastes space.

If we accept that 'nauts are worth ~300 pts, then I think it would be fine for the Stompa to be dropped to the 500ish points it's worth. That gives two distinct bands for large walkers in an army, and isn't too far from a proper ratio with what Warhounds are actual worth (also hilariously overcosted after the "well, they're not technically illegal" readjustment).

I'd also be fine with a new datasheet that made them worth the 800-900 points, but that seems like something we'd have to wait for a new codex for.

I find Ork players caring a lot about using the right terminology for orks giant walkers funny because I really can't imagine orks being very strict themselves in the terminology ^^.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I find Ork players caring a lot about using the right terminology for orks giant walkers funny because I really can't imagine orks being very strict themselves in the terminology ^^.

I can. Wars are frequently fought over whether a walker is dedicated to Gork or to Mork.

Rumor has it that the leaks aren't right for SW since the SW land speeders and bikers are going up to their CA 18 points costs (the only marine faction with this problem).

Speculation is that GW printed the wrong page. Anyone heard anything about this? Rumors also of reduced thunder wolf cav prices on the actual 2019 CA. Anyone know anything about this?

Wolves are not remotely the only army with misprints in CA2019.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I find Ork players caring a lot about using the right terminology for orks giant walkers funny because I really can't imagine orks being very strict themselves in the terminology ^^.

I believe that you'll get a really close look at your mek bosses' big choppa if you call his gargant a dread.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I find Ork players caring a lot about using the right terminology for orks giant walkers funny because I really can't imagine orks being very strict themselves in the terminology ^^.

I believe that you'll get a really close look at your mek bosses' big choppa if you call his gargant a dread.

or assume his god icon patronage wrongly.

Rumor has it that the leaks aren't right for SW since the SW land speeders and bikers are going up to their CA 18 points costs (the only marine faction with this problem).

Speculation is that GW printed the wrong page. Anyone heard anything about this? Rumors also of reduced thunder wolf cav prices on the actual 2019 CA. Anyone know anything about this?

TWC Storm Shields went down by 5pts. TWC Battle Leaders and Wolf Lords went down quite a bit.

the_scotsman wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Honestly, a lot of the Ork stuff can be summed up as "we didn't sell as many of those buggies as we wanted".

So i am not the only one thinking that

What? But buggies were explained as

*Checks Great Games Workshop Rules Imbalance Conspiracy Flowchart*

"Games Workshop knew they'd sell so they gave them crap rules on purpose since they were a Sure Thing!"

HOW could bad rules have POSSIBLY affected their sales figures???

No, no silly! GW makes the new stuff overpowered to sell them to veteran players. The brand-new, meta-dominating buggies confirm this tread. GW will now increase their cost to bring it into line, now that the crafty plan has gotten people to buy the new models.

I haven't seen anyone talk about it anywhere but the Relic Javelin Attack Speeder (one of my favorite model) had a 52 point drop!

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I find Ork players caring a lot about using the right terminology for orks giant walkers funny because I really can't imagine orks being very strict themselves in the terminology ^^.

I believe that you'll get a really close look at your mek bosses' big choppa if you call his gargant a dread.

or assume his god icon patronage wrongly.

Nah. Any warboss who can explain the difference between Gork and Mork is lying through his teef (or more likely, someone else's teef).

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Honestly, a lot of the Ork stuff can be summed up as "we didn't sell as many of those buggies as we wanted".

So i am not the only one thinking that

What? But buggies were explained as

*Checks Great Games Workshop Rules Imbalance Conspiracy Flowchart*

"Games Workshop knew they'd sell so they gave them crap rules on purpose since they were a Sure Thing!"

HOW could bad rules have POSSIBLY affected their sales figures???

No, no silly! GW makes the new stuff overpowered to sell them to veteran players. The brand-new, meta-dominating buggies confirm this tread. GW will now increase their cost to bring it into line, now that the crafty plan has gotten people to buy the new models.

the funny part about this....buggies went up in price. They were 45USD now theyre 50....

Voss wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I find Ork players caring a lot about using the right terminology for orks giant walkers funny because I really can't imagine orks being very strict themselves in the terminology ^^.

I believe that you'll get a really close look at your mek bosses' big choppa if you call his gargant a dread.

or assume his god icon patronage wrongly.

Nah. Any warboss who can explain the difference between Gork and Mork is lying through his teef (or more likely, someone else's teef).

Gork is brutal but cunnin' an' Mork is cunnin' but brutal. Any git knows that, ya panzee.

the_scotsman wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Honestly, a lot of the Ork stuff can be summed up as "we didn't sell as many of those buggies as we wanted".

So i am not the only one thinking that

What? But buggies were explained as

*Checks Great Games Workshop Rules Imbalance Conspiracy Flowchart*

"Games Workshop knew they'd sell so they gave them crap rules on purpose since they were a Sure Thing!"

HOW could bad rules have POSSIBLY affected their sales figures???

Yes it's a proper insane conspiracy theory to believe that GW use basic demand manipulation in the sale of their product.

Perhaps they didn't have the stock to sell buggies if they had decent rules before? Perhaps they used the buggies as an exception for all of those people who actually believe that GW don't make rules to sell specific models.

To answer your question it's quite simple - buggies sold before because they were a new kit for a faction whose player base are passionate/not rules driven.

The sales of buggies dried up over the last year because no one needed more than 1 of each (max) as collectors items. Now GW are making them more attractive to field so players are encouraged to buy more. This isn't complex stuff.

On CA - though the Buggy drops are welcome, they aren't enough and with other factions dropping significant points overall its a wash. I don't see the point in CA to be honest - its supposed to be a meta adjusting tool using point changes but it's always 6 months (minimum) too late. Why would I buy this for anything other than the missions?

the alternative to the conspiracy theory would just be that GW does not know what they are doing, how to write rules, how to price units and never plays their own game (with the rules they sell and want others to play it)

for a lot of poeple the conspiracy theory that all those things are intented is much more comfortable than accepting that they are investing a lot of money into a game that is bad because the devs have no clue and don't care

 Jidmah wrote:

Voss wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I find Ork players caring a lot about using the right terminology for orks giant walkers funny because I really can't imagine orks being very strict themselves in the terminology ^^.

I believe that you'll get a really close look at your mek bosses' big choppa if you call his gargant a dread.

or assume his god icon patronage wrongly.

Nah. Any warboss who can explain the difference between Gork and Mork is lying through his teef (or more likely, someone else's teef).

Gork is brutal but cunnin' an' Mork is cunnin' but brutal. Any git knows that, ya panzee.

Zog off, it's da utha way a'round!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
the alternative to the conspiracy theory would just be that GW does not know what they are doing, how to write rules, how to price units and never plays their own game (with the rules they sell and want others to play it)

for a lot of poeple the conspiracy theory that all those things are intented is much more comfortable than accepting that they are investing a lot of money into a game that is bad because the devs have no clue and don't care

Need we remind you off the wratihknight developper for GW?
No?

We know that GW suits intervene if it fits their perception of what's selling.


However i do agree that GW also often has not a good enough grasp to actually make rules it seems.
And the playtesting is horrendous / respectively the conclusions drawn from playtesting are horrendous.

 kodos wrote:
the alternative to the conspiracy theory would just be that GW does not know what they are doing, how to write rules, how to price units and never plays their own game (with the rules they sell and want others to play it)

for a lot of poeple the conspiracy theory that all those things are intented is much more comfortable than accepting that they are investing a lot of money into a game that is bad because the devs have no clue and don't care

Problem is GW is changing things too well for sake of selling models to believe they just happen to appear experts on that by random chance.

tneva82 wrote:

 kodos wrote:
the alternative to the conspiracy theory would just be that GW does not know what they are doing, how to write rules, how to price units and never plays their own game (with the rules they sell and want others to play it)

for a lot of poeple the conspiracy theory that all those things are intented is much more comfortable than accepting that they are investing a lot of money into a game that is bad because the devs have no clue and don't care

Problem is GW is changing things too well for sake of selling models to believe they just happen to appear experts on that by random chance.

We know that suits will intervene if they want to sell something.
We also know that GW has playtesting.

If you ask me it's more a question of the wrong end of the company making the game desicions for monetary sakes alone, not realising that if the game would be better balanced it would get a whole slew more custommers on top of those that allready exist.

I suspect on top of that the devs hold points rather low, there's no proof of it but consider AOS launched WITHOUT points, and that 8th edition launched with PL so that "points are optional!" I think the devs have quietly soured on points over all.

tneva82 wrote:

 kodos wrote:
the alternative to the conspiracy theory would just be that GW does not know what they are doing, how to write rules, how to price units and never plays their own game (with the rules they sell and want others to play it)

for a lot of poeple the conspiracy theory that all those things are intented is much more comfortable than accepting that they are investing a lot of money into a game that is bad because the devs have no clue and don't care

Problem is GW is changing things too well for sake of selling models to believe they just happen to appear experts on that by random chance.

If not for the face plenty of models never sold well and are consistently bad, including some of the newer ones, this works have been plausible.
Heck, for a long time Primaris as a whole sucked! GW rules team are just not good at it. They are the same couple of guys for ages and they still fail not only to balance, but to keep basic writing consistentcy

tneva82 wrote:

 kodos wrote:
the alternative to the conspiracy theory would just be that GW does not know what they are doing, how to write rules, how to price units and never plays their own game (with the rules they sell and want others to play it)

for a lot of poeple the conspiracy theory that all those things are intented is much more comfortable than accepting that they are investing a lot of money into a game that is bad because the devs have no clue and don't care

Problem is GW is changing things too well for sake of selling models to believe they just happen to appear experts on that by random chance.

Assuming the "they try to sell models" theory, they are trying to sell the ancient deff kopta now?
They also dropped points on almost all ork models deemed unplayable, none of them are old models nor in dire need of additional sales. There is as much evidence for them actually trying to make bad units better rather than just dropping points to sell models.

Plot twist: Making bad units better inevitably sells more models.

 Jidmah wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 kodos wrote:
the alternative to the conspiracy theory would just be that GW does not know what they are doing, how to write rules, how to price units and never plays their own game (with the rules they sell and want others to play it)

for a lot of poeple the conspiracy theory that all those things are intented is much more comfortable than accepting that they are investing a lot of money into a game that is bad because the devs have no clue and don't care

Problem is GW is changing things too well for sake of selling models to believe they just happen to appear experts on that by random chance.

Assuming the "they try to sell models" theory, they are trying to sell the ancient deff kopta now?
They also dropped points on almost all ork models deemed unplayable, none of them are old models nor in dire need of additional sales. There is as much evidence for them actually trying to make bad units better rather than just dropping points to sell models.

Plot twist: Making bad units better inevitably sells more models.

Or perhaps is a mix and not as black and white as people make out?

New models are generally OP because they want them to sell. We've seen this time and time again AND we have a literal GW developer telling us as much. I'm not sure what more evidence people want.

GW wants to at least pretend to be balancing the game (for new GW social cred) so they buff other units arbitrarily.

As to the Ork units they buffed - excluding the Buggies we had drops on Dreads and Kans - both feature heavily in the Apoc set (that probably didn't sell very well because they were awfully pointed units previously) and dreads are in the starter set. Flash Gits are relatively expensive, new and are likely in stock because they weren't exactly formidable on release last edition. Koptas are impossible to get ahold of outside of a weird, US exclusive set and eBay if I'm not mistaken. Note that one of our most competitive units, that is required for competitive Ork play at the top level(Mek Guns) is also one of the most expensive £ to point.

Koptas are impossible to get ahold of outside of a weird, US exclusive set and eBay if I'm not mistaken

you can also still buy the old metal ones... they really do need to replace it though,

BrianDavion wrote:

Koptas are impossible to get ahold of outside of a weird, US exclusive set and eBay if I'm not mistaken

you can also still buy the old metal ones... they really do need to replace it though,

Well exactly. Perhaps they want to shift the last dregs of their old, metal stock?

Not Online!!! wrote:

Need we remind you off the wratihknight developper for GW?
No?

We know that GW suits intervene if it fits their perception of what's selling.

It's really disingenuous to cite this as basis for an argument when the same person who told that story also made the following points at the same time:

The senior person who made that decision has since left the company

"I should stress that that sort of thing didn't happen very often"

"Thankfully, that was the old days. Things are very different now!"

Many of the most grevious rules slip-ups of the 8E-era have largely been a result of either FW's rush job with their indexes, or unforeseen interactions of multiple unit/faction-level rules that should have been examined in more detail.

This 'conspiracy' is dumb and is far better explained by paraphrasing Hanlon's razor. Perhaps this can be Lenton's razor:

Never attribute to greed what can adequately be explained by lacking attention to detail.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


New models are generally OP because they want them to sell.

I bet I can find more examples of recent new models that had over-costed or ineffective rules on release than you can find new OP models. Like, it won't even be difficult.

 xttz wrote:
Many of the most grevious rules slip-ups of the 8E-era have largely been a result of either FW's rush job with their indexes, or unforeseen interactions of multiple unit/faction-level rules that should have been examined in more detail.

In fairness to FW, everything I've heard indicates they got very little notice of 8th edition coming around, and were working on further 7th edition material at the time - it wasn't a rush job because they wanted it to be, but due to poor internal communication at Lenton.

Out of the new phobos/vanguard stuff for primaris the only thing that had OP rules from day 1 is the Invictor. Its a dakka predator but cheaper that can fight well in melee and have scout deployment.

The infiltrators, incursors, suppressors, eliminators and characters did not have great rules. Eliminators have been buffed so are now great.

For the other primaris its a mixed bag. Reivers suck. Agressors and Inceptors got buffed but still very niched units and there are better options for both. Agressors could also be subjected to huge indirect nerfs if they FAQ master of ambush or the deepstrike stratagems since without those they arent even good. Helblasters are an expensive trap unit. Redemptors arent bad but you have better dreads for shooting and better units for melee. Most of the non named primaris characters are quite bad since they all follow "no model no rules" to a teeth and have bad equipment like powersword and plasma pistols on 80pt models or might even lack a melee weapon.

Whats left is the repulsors and intercessors. Intercessors are now great but they didnt start that way. Its multiple buffs and point changes that have got them there. The repulsor executioner is quite good and have been that way from day 1 but its an outlier together with the Invictor.

2 out of like 20 datasheets have had rules good enough to push the models only by the fact of their rules. The rest havent and even with some buffs I would say its still only 3 that stand out now. Invictors, eliminators and Executioners.

The primaris range they have been pushing down our throat disprove the conspiracy. I dont think they try to make bad rules either but that its more of a coin toss if a unit gets good rules or not.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Perhaps they used the buggies as an exception for all of those people who actually believe that GW don't make rules to sell specific models.

Let me guess, entire primaris range was 'exception' for years too? Especially reivers to this very day?

I can't think of a single new 8th edition model that was in any way broken on release (with maybe a single exception of Kelermorph), yes, knights were undercosted at start but the biggest offenders were the old kits and new Armigers were hardly the hotness.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Need we remind you off the wratihknight developper for GW?

I like how people still cling to murky, off hand comment thrown by someone who no longer works at GW (and can't exactly be disproved by anyone still working there, not that people looking for conspiracies would believe it anyway). The actual reality is that every single Eldar book since 4th edition was broken in some way by Phil Kelly, rules writer who has no idea how math works and only cares about winning matches with his pet faction.

Do tell, were OP aspectwings of 7th edition meant as new model selling tactic? Oh wait, all of the aspects are ancient, cheap gak. Was Reaper spam of 8th selling new models? Wave Serpents of 6th? Current Crimson Hunters? Windriders (they only got new models halfway in being broken)? These are all old, cheap models, and maybe, just maybe, the wratihknights were just accidental new model in avalanche of cheese that were these books...

 Irbis wrote:
(with maybe a single exception of Kelermorph)

Which died to a stiff breeze and apparently lead to the entire army being nerfed into oblivion due to turn 1 ambush being disallowed.

Despite the screaming, kelermorphs at best killed a character and then promptly died. If anything they're a great example of just how much offense is under valued right now, but no more broken than the cost of a lascannon.

 xttz wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


New models are generally OP because they want them to sell.

I bet I can find more examples of recent new models that had over-costed or ineffective rules on release than you can find new OP models. Like, it won't even be difficult.

Crack on with that mate.

I've done this list before. You'd be surprised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Irbis wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Perhaps they used the buggies as an exception for all of those people who actually believe that GW don't make rules to sell specific models.

Let me guess, entire primaris range was 'exception' for years too? Especially reivers to this very day?

I can't think of a single new 8th edition model that was in any way broken on release (with maybe a single exception of Kelermorph), yes, knights were undercosted at start but the biggest offenders were the old kits and new Armigers were hardly the hotness.

How quickly people 'forget' the Castellan domination meta.

And there is a difference between 'OP' and 'broken'. Don't put words in my mouth - the new unit doesn't have to be broken to be pointed to sell.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Irbis wrote:

I like how people still cling to murky, off hand comment thrown by someone who no longer works at GW (and can't exactly be disproved by anyone still working there, not that people looking for conspiracies would believe it anyway). The actual reality is that every single Eldar book since 4th edition was broken in some way by Phil Kelly, rules writer who has no idea how math works and only cares about winning matches with his pet faction.

Oh yes. That makes way more sense. Despite a statement from an ex employee literally explaining how management told him to point a unit so it sold more, the truth is that a particular person who works for GW loves his 'pet faction' so much he writes rules so he always wins. Its gotta be that! How silly we have been to not see this obvious truth.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


New models are generally OP because they want them to sell.

I bet I can find more examples of recent new models that had over-costed or ineffective rules on release than you can find new OP models. Like, it won't even be difficult.

Crack on with that mate.

I've done this list before. You'd be surprised.

Not replying to this post because it might take too long to research your points would be a fair way to concede the argument.

However replying to say you've done this before then not posting that information is a much better way to concede the argument, thank you.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Oh yes. That makes way more sense. Despite a statement from an ex employee literally explaining how management told him to point a unit so it sold more, the truth is that a particular person who works for GW loves his 'pet faction' so much he writes rules so he always wins. Its gotta be that! How silly we have been to not see this obvious truth.

Failing to address the points made by others and instead resorting to sarcasm is also a great way to concede. Good job!

Speaking of Chapter Approved, the Castellan is going down 50pts? Didn't it just go up 50pts in 2018?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
How quickly people 'forget' the Castellan domination meta.

And there is a difference between 'OP' and 'broken'. Don't put words in my mouth - the new unit doesn't have to be broken to be pointed to sell.

I think this is exactly the sort of example which, if anything, shows the weakness of the argument that GW tries to make sell new kits by making them OP. When Knights got their 8th edition release, they got five new kits: Castellan, Valiant, Helverins, Warglaives, and the Perceptor. I have never seen a Perceptor used, the Valiant is a solid bit of kit (more so before the general IK nerfs), Helverins and Warglaives had decent niches, and the Castellan dominated the meta. Aside from two outliers, they were all basically fine.

What are the strongest kits in the new Marine books: intercessors, Aggressors, eliminators, and the Repulsor Executioner. Two are new, two are a few years old.

If GW is deliberately trying to make new kits stronger so they sell, they aren't doing a great job. Even if you give primaris a pass (they're really more of a complete army refresh), I'm just not sold that GW is able to consistently make their new stuff better.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 Irbis wrote:
(with maybe a single exception of Kelermorph)

Which died to a stiff breeze and apparently lead to the entire army being nerfed into oblivion due to turn 1 ambush being disallowed.

Despite the screaming, kelermorphs at best killed a character and then promptly died. If anything they're a great example of just how much offense is under valued right now, but no more broken than the cost of a lascannon.

The Kelermorph is my go-to example for people overreacting to rules taken out of context.

 Polonius wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
How quickly people 'forget' the Castellan domination meta.

And there is a difference between 'OP' and 'broken'. Don't put words in my mouth - the new unit doesn't have to be broken to be pointed to sell.

I think this is exactly the sort of example which, if anything, shows the weakness of the argument that GW tries to make sell new kits by making them OP. When Knights got their 8th edition release, they got five new kits: Castellan, Valiant, Helverins, Warglaives, and the Perceptor. I have never seen a Perceptor used, the Valiant is a solid bit of kit (more so before the general IK nerfs), Helverins and Warglaives had decent niches, and the Castellan dominated the meta. Aside from two outliers, they were all basically fine.

What are the strongest kits in the new Marine books: intercessors, Aggressors, eliminators, and the Repulsor Executioner. Two are new, two are a few years old.

If GW is deliberately trying to make new kits stronger so they sell, they aren't doing a great job. Even if you give primaris a pass (they're really more of a complete army refresh), I'm just not sold that GW is able to consistently make their new stuff better.

In general, I agree with you that the "GW just makes new models OP to sell them" argument is not very strong for the reasons you point out, however I would like to add a counter that somewhat supports it:
Intercessor and Aggressors may be a few years old by now, but Primaris in general are all new in the perspective of 40K's decade long history (and several kits still being over a decade old), so you could very well consider all 4 of those units you lists as "new kits" the GW wants us to buy more of. From a certain point of view.

But to counter my counter, I think the real reason "new models are OP" is a mix of GW not getting the rules right at first and erring on the side of "it's new, so lets make it good, we can fix it later" and the perception of new models often showing up in disproportionate quantities as players try them out and opponents not quite knowing how to react to them at first.
So with the exceptions of some outliers (like the Castellan) MOST new kits truly are not OP

-

 EnTyme wrote:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 Irbis wrote:
(with maybe a single exception of Kelermorph)

Which died to a stiff breeze and apparently lead to the entire army being nerfed into oblivion due to turn 1 ambush being disallowed.

Despite the screaming, kelermorphs at best killed a character and then promptly died. If anything they're a great example of just how much offense is under valued right now, but no more broken than the cost of a lascannon.

The Kelermorph is my go-to example for people overreacting to rules taken out of context.

Speak for yourself. Here in Spain we are trying to survive in the wasteland that has been made from the Kelermorph damage 2 pistols. I can't remember the last time I saw anyone smile. Thats what we are now. Nothing more than survivors, haunted by the ghosts of what could have been.

Kelermorph just wasn't very fun to play against, precisely because there's little ways to interact with it.

But ultimately, that's the same problem plaguing things like Drone-protected Tau, -2-to-charge-flying-tanks, etc.., etc.

There's not a lot of ways you can "outplay" them in ways you could tag a non-flying tank or get around a Knight's invul-protection through CC or a spell or whatever (unless your opponent makes a mistake). All you can do is "math" through them, and either your army's math is better or your opponent's is better. There's no "game" there for the most part, unfortunately, and this no "skill" beyond rolling the dice.

GW needs to bring back more tangible weaknesses for units again, roll-back all the abilities for units to ignore modifiers, ignore damage tables, morale, etc.. those were all the "core game" mechanisms meant to give player interaction and disadvantage the opponent: make his heavy weapons move. Make his Tanks degrade or tag them. Make his units take morale saves. Etc.. There's just too many ways now to just ignore all that.

 Galef wrote:
In general, I agree with you that the "GW just makes new models OP to sell them" argument is not very strong for the reasons you point out, however I would like to add a counter that somewhat supports it:
Intercessor and Aggressors may be a few years old by now, but Primaris in general are all new in the perspective of 40K's decade long history (and several kits still being over a decade old), so you could very well consider all 4 of those units you lists as "new kits" the GW wants us to buy more of. From a certain point of view.

I think that the writing is on the wall that mini marines will be increasingly sidelined. Perhaps not to Legends any time soon, but they will receive no new models, and they may even split the codex. Primaris on their own have a deeper unit selection than many other codex armies (Harlies, GSC, Admech, Knights, Chaos Knights, Thousand Sons, Custodes, Sisters, and Death Guard), but I think they are getting more of the "space marines get it first" treatment rather than "new Models are OP." Remember that at the dawn of 8th, when only marines and DG had a codex, they were really good.

But to counter my counter, I think the real reason "new models are OP" is a mix of GW not getting the rules right at first and erring on the side of "it's new, so lets make it good, we can fix it later" and the perception of new models often showing up in disproportionate quantities as players try them out and opponents not quite knowing how to react to them at first.
So with the exceptions of some outliers (like the Castellan) MOST new kits truly are not OP -

So, new kits, outside of the occasional refresh, will require new rules. Anything with new rules will have rules written for the current ecosystem. It's the same thing with codex creep: newer codices will have tools to handle older codices, while the opposite is often not true.

Anybody saying new models = OP has not even began to consider jain zar and banshees. Even had a new book to propel them upwards....nope.

 bullyboy wrote:
Anybody saying new models = OP has not even began to consider jain zar and banshees. Even had a new book to propel them upwards....nope.

GW has really struggled to find room for melee units in 8th edition.

 Polonius wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Anybody saying new models = OP has not even began to consider jain zar and banshees. Even had a new book to propel them upwards....nope.

GW has really struggled to find room for melee units in 8th edition.

That wasn't even struggling to find room, that was mroe a case of we can't be bothered.

 bullyboy wrote:
Anybody saying new models = OP has not even began to consider jain zar and banshees. Even had a new book to propel them upwards....nope.

Hell, those Banshees come with a no-Banshee-mask build-option which was advertised front-page on Warhammer Community as a unique Ynnari-build ... and that still doesn't have rules at all thus far!!!

Anybody who thinks GW is a company that is trying to maximize profits by making over powered units is a person that hasn't been in the game for long.

GW balances their units all over the place and even when they make things OP enough to sell hotcakes they screw up the release so much that they'll probably not get that much money to begin with. They released the Arch-Regent in Carrion Empire and it was an overnight sensation. If they really wanted to capitalize on its success they would have sold blisters as carrion empires was sold out soon enough. Do we have a blister 8 months later even if the unit is almost mandatory for FEC lists? No, we don't.

We have countless kits that had horrible rules on release or good units that never even got a proper kit until much later.

Plus this "Make OP to sell more" argument is entirely self-defeating. It means GW can't better balance a bad unit without being called profiteers and they can't not balance it without being called profiteers because they are making other units/factions look better. So going by that the best move GW could do is not to play, but even then the same people would complain about GW hating Orks or whatever faction they are playing. Haters gonna hate as the song goes.

In short, the people who complain like this will literally complain about any single thing GW does.

 bullyboy wrote:
Anybody saying new models = OP has not even began to consider jain zar and banshees. Even had a new book to propel them upwards....nope.

Or the massive sisters release that while a lot of fun, and decent enough, are hardly top tier.

For every new model that is the new hotness there are ten who are meh at best.

New units OP?

CSM:
Competitive:
Lord Discordant
Abaddon

Okay (for some also bad):
Master of Possession
Master of Execution
Haarken Worldclaimer
Venomcrawler
Greater Possessed
Sorcerer
Apostle + Disciples
Havocs
CSM
Oblits (are considered to be worse than before getting new models!)

(Btw when they had their last update in 6th ou oft the 4 new units they got 1 was competitive - Heldrake)

Death Guard?
Competitive when Codex released:
Crawler, Bloat Drone, Blightspawn, Mortarion?, Poxwalkers, Typhus

Rest of the Codex not so much

Space Marines
When Primaris were released IIRC only helblasters were considered good, besides them old marines were the stronger choices

Necron Crypthek on Scarab OP?

Any Ork buggy?
I guess Warboss on Trike was good, so 1 out of 7 released models.

The insanity lies in asserting that GW makes new units OP to sell them but are bad at doing that. Just cross off the first part and you are left with 'GW is bad at balancing their games' which explains the trend more easily, more widely, and more accurately.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The insanity lies in asserting that GW makes new units OP to sell them but are bad at doing that. Just cross off the first part and you are left with 'GW is bad at balancing their games' which explains the trend more easily, more widely, and more accurately.

Exactly. With the invevitable trend of newer rules being generally better suited to the modern game, that explains the phenomenon of good stuff being good far better than anything deliberate.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The insanity lies in asserting that GW makes new units OP to sell them but are bad at doing that. Just cross off the first part and you are left with 'GW is bad at balancing their games' which explains the trend more easily, more widely, and more accurately.

Is it true that the GW team in charge of the 2019 points changes and the team(s) that are writing the PA books aren't in close contact? That right there, putting them in closer contact, seems like an easy lay-up in terms of balance.

Brian888 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The insanity lies in asserting that GW makes new units OP to sell them but are bad at doing that. Just cross off the first part and you are left with 'GW is bad at balancing their games' which explains the trend more easily, more widely, and more accurately.

Is it true that the GW team in charge of the 2019 points changes and the team(s) that are writing the PA books aren't in close contact? That right there, putting them in closer contact, seems like an easy lay-up in terms of balance.

Probably?

The lead time for hardcovers is months in advance of softcovers, so PA books were probably done before CA even started getting worked on...it's hard to talk about things when your work is already done.

At some point, the community should consider listening to GW when they repeatedly tell us that balance isn't really their goal. GW seems deeply unconcerned about balance because they are, in fact, deeply unconcerned about balance.

 Polonius wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
How quickly people 'forget' the Castellan domination meta.

And there is a difference between 'OP' and 'broken'. Don't put words in my mouth - the new unit doesn't have to be broken to be pointed to sell.

I think this is exactly the sort of example which, if anything, shows the weakness of the argument that GW tries to make sell new kits by making them OP. When Knights got their 8th edition release, they got five new kits: Castellan, Valiant, Helverins, Warglaives, and the Perceptor. I have never seen a Perceptor used, the Valiant is a solid bit of kit (more so before the general IK nerfs), Helverins and Warglaives had decent niches, and the Castellan dominated the meta. Aside from two outliers, they were all basically fine.

What are the strongest kits in the new Marine books: intercessors, Aggressors, eliminators, and the Repulsor Executioner. Two are new, two are a few years old.

If GW is deliberately trying to make new kits stronger so they sell, they aren't doing a great job. Even if you give primaris a pass (they're really more of a complete army refresh), I'm just not sold that GW is able to consistently make their new stuff better.

I agree with your overall point but I disagree with the 'strongest kits in the new marine books'. Assault Centurions are generally used over aggressors, the repulsor executioners are mostly dead after the IH nerf, and you didn't even mention the Leviathan Dreadnought or Thunderfire cannons, all kits that would have made your argument even stronger.

Someone here who have never bought a Chapter Approved before and is thinking about buying one this year. Mostly intrested in the new and previous Missions and game typs. Speaking of previous are The Eights datasheets in the one as well? As GW and reviers havent done a good job selling it CA to me so i thought id go one here and ask if its worth it?

Gaen wrote:
Someone here who have never bought a Chapter Approved before and is thinking about buying one this year. Mostly intrested in the new and previous Missions and game typs. Speaking of previous are The Eights datasheets in the one as well? As GW and reviers havent done a good job selling it CA to me so i thought id go one here and ask if its worth it?

Can't confirm anything about The Eight being in this year's, but Pimp-My-Landraider wasn't in 2018 so I doubt it will be. The missions were worth it though and creating some pretty even matches regardless of who got tabled.

 xttz wrote:
Not replying to this post because it might take too long to research your points would be a fair way to concede the argument.

However replying to say you've done this before then not posting that information is a much better way to concede the argument, thank you.

Oooof I can almost taste the desperation in your post. Search through my posts it isn't hard. You'll find it. I'm not in the habit of re-posting things to prove something I already know. Educate yourself (or don't, I couldn't care less).

And you're siding with Irbis? Really? Like do I really need to explain why the statement; "there's a game developer who loves Eldar so much he makes them OP so he can win games yo" is a stupid argument? Seriously? K man. You do you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:
Anybody saying new models = OP has not even began to consider jain zar and banshees. Even had a new book to propel them upwards....nope.

We're not talking about new models for existing units, we're talking about new models for new units.

People already have Banshees and old Jain Zar, so GW have much less incentive to make them strong than a unit that has never existed before. The same goes for all of the other new models of existing units.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Oooof I can almost taste the desperation in your post. Search through my posts it isn't hard. You'll find it. I'm not in the habit of re-posting things to prove something I already know. Educate yourself (or don't, I couldn't care less).

I mean, you obviously care. Let's not pretend your sipping tea, adjusting your monocle while coolly reading this thread.

And you don't post to persuade the person you're arguing with, you post to persuade people reading that you are correct.

People already have Banshees and old Jain Zar, so GW have much less incentive to make them strong than a unit that has never existed before. The same goes for all of the other new models of existing units.

Wait, wouldn't replacement models have more of an incentive to get new, more powerful rules to induce sales? If I already have howling banshees, and banshees suck, I have zero reason to upgrade. If they become really good, perhaps due to a new model option, than I'm more likely to buy more.

 Polonius wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Oooof I can almost taste the desperation in your post. Search through my posts it isn't hard. You'll find it. I'm not in the habit of re-posting things to prove something I already know. Educate yourself (or don't, I couldn't care less).

I mean, you obviously care. Let's not pretend your sipping tea, adjusting your monocle while coolly reading this thread.

And you don't post to persuade the person you're arguing with, you post to persuade people reading that you are correct.

This. I'd be interested to see it, but have zero reason to search your entire post history to support your argument for you.

 Polonius wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Oooof I can almost taste the desperation in your post. Search through my posts it isn't hard. You'll find it. I'm not in the habit of re-posting things to prove something I already know. Educate yourself (or don't, I couldn't care less).

I mean, you obviously care. Let's not pretend your sipping tea, adjusting your monocle while coolly reading this thread.

And you don't post to persuade the person you're arguing with, you post to persuade people reading that you are correct.

You assume way too much. I learnt long ago not to care what anyone on here thought of what I post.

If I cared as much as you seem to fantasize, I'd probably respond a little quicker than 7+ hours later?

Wait, wouldn't replacement models have more of an incentive to get new, more powerful rules to induce sales? If I already have howling banshees, and banshees suck, I have zero reason to upgrade. If they become really good, perhaps due to a new model option, than I'm more likely to buy more.

No. Obviously not as much as a hot, new model that is guaranteed to require new purchases. Banshees (and any other new model of existing units) have much less of a potential market than simply creating a new unit. We've seen this time and time again - not 'Warbuggy' but 'Boomdakka Snazzwagon tm'.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Oooof I can almost taste the desperation in your post. Search through my posts it isn't hard. You'll find it. I'm not in the habit of re-posting things to prove something I already know. Educate yourself (or don't, I couldn't care less).

I mean, you obviously care. Let's not pretend your sipping tea, adjusting your monocle while coolly reading this thread.

And you don't post to persuade the person you're arguing with, you post to persuade people reading that you are correct.

You assume way too much. I learnt long ago not to care what anyone on here thought of what I post.

If I cared as much as you seem to fantasize, I'd probably respond a little quicker than 7+ hours later?

Well, if you don't care, could you perhaps follow the advice of Queen Elsa of Arendelle and *let it go*?
(Sorry, haven't seen Frozen 2 yet, there might be a more up-to-date quote I could have used there.)
Because as it happens, I also don't care.
And I can't imagine I'm the only one.

 Platuan4th wrote:


This. I'd be interested to see it, but have zero reason to search your entire post history to support your argument for you.

I can live with that.

Some people just won't be convinced. Some I could show a picture of a blue sky and they'd still say it was red. I could point to the blue sky and they'd claim it was red.

The fact is we have a statement from an ex employee going into detail of how GW management intervene in balance decisions to ensure the sale of product. Then we have multiple, obvious examples of this in practice, recently and STILL people doubt it. There is no convincing these people. I'd rather not waste my time, again.

I just thought of one thing that may be an example of rules being effected by the drive for sales. That would be my beloved harlequins and how they've so smartly balanced nearly all of the units and wargear except for, inexplicably the harlequin kiss.

I think the rules writers are just not allowed to make the kiss a decent option, it just seems so odd they haven't touched it with a points update. And like I have complained the troupe kit comes with six of them, enough to kit out the whole squad. So I think they are trying to drive more sales of the kit by one, making people buy more kits to get the good weapon options, and also probably more importantly all of the old metal models equipped with kisses are basically useless. So people with old models have to buy the new kit and people looking to buy cheap older models will have to buy the new kit instead if they don't want gimped harlequin kisses.

Like I mentioned too in this thread, I did the math on kisses, and they only become somewhat efficient against mutli-wound t3 units, which there aren't many that I can think of. The other two weapon options outshine it too much virtually everywhere else.

There are many little cases like this, that probably make a lot of us think something fishy is at play by GW.

I'm no GW hater, I actually love this game. I even enjoyed playing 7th edition on nightmare mode with DE and harlequins (speaking of 7th edition, kisses were bad back then too.) However I do think GW occasionally purposefully does things like this to drive sales. They very purposefully and carefully do many other things like no model=no rules, or even more dreadful: no bit in the box=no wargear option. All in the name of protecting their bottom line, which I think is a questionable theory of theirs. That third party bits makers would somehow siphon their sales.

BA is one of the most popular if not THE most popular space marine chapter out there and it has been in a pretty poor state this edition if you dont count 1-3 captains in a soup list as doing well.

Have you seen what kind of models they try to push in the BA boxes? A terminator captain and a Baal predator! Both useless and expensive models that make everyone who asks online the question "I want to start BA so is the larger boxes worth it?" get a big fat "No" everytime.

The baal predator is a contender for the worst marine datasheet of them all. It costs more than a normal predator, have shorter range weapons and to make up for it itcan advance super fast but then not fire any weapon since Assault cannons and heavy flamers are not assault weapons this edition. It even has a stratagem so it can go and die faster. It didnt work with the killshot stratagem either even though it wouldnt have made predators too good if it did.

If GW really wanted to sell models due to rules then they would have given the Baal predator a price drop and either an updated datasheet so it count heavy weapons as assault or allowed the stratagem that improves its advance to shoot as well.

But they forgot about it because they arent as competent as some people give them credit for. Or they have a really sinister plan to not sell BA battleforces or Christmas box sets because they ran out of Baal predator kits but like the look of them in a box on the shelf. If they sold really well then they would be in trouble!!!

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:


This. I'd be interested to see it, but have zero reason to search your entire post history to support your argument for you.

I can live with that.

Some people just won't be convinced. Some I could show a picture of a blue sky and they'd still say it was red. I could point to the blue sky and they'd claim it was red.

The fact is we have a statement from an ex employee going into detail of how GW management intervene in balance decisions to ensure the sale of product. Then we have multiple, obvious examples of this in practice, recently and STILL people doubt it. There is no convincing these people. I'd rather not waste my time, again.

Not a detailed breakdown by any stretch but based on release power levels, off top of my head:



So out of over, what, 90 new kits released in 8th edition, 12 have caused big concerns out the gates from my shoddy memory and opinions but others may add to it/correct me as I'm no competitive player.

On topic - the new mission formats seem far better, hopefully people will be more willing to give them a try.

Dudeface wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:


This. I'd be interested to see it, but have zero reason to search your entire post history to support your argument for you.

I can live with that.

Some people just won't be convinced. Some I could show a picture of a blue sky and they'd still say it was red. I could point to the blue sky and they'd claim it was red.

The fact is we have a statement from an ex employee going into detail of how GW management intervene in balance decisions to ensure the sale of product. Then we have multiple, obvious examples of this in practice, recently and STILL people doubt it. There is no convincing these people. I'd rather not waste my time, again.

Not a detailed breakdown by any stretch but based on release power levels, off top of my head:

Spoiler:

Dark imperium/space marines:
Entire primaris range of over 13 various models/units 0 broken or op
Death guard:
Completely new range 14 new units (I think?), only 2 considered op - mortarion and plague burst crawlers
Necron cryptek: nope
Eldar spirit seer: nope
Orks:
Was it 5 or 6 buggies? None op
Custodes:
3 new kits, 1 op
Gsc:
8 new kits I think? Not sure on this one the kelermorph was considered op, possibly anointed throng abberants so call it 2 units
Imp knights:
5 new kits 2 considered op in the castellan and helverins
Chaos knights:
1 new kit not op
Apoc release:
Marine executioner, not op at release
Ad mech tank considered highly efficient as a tank so that'll count
Nurgle daemons wave:
4 new kits, none op
Slaanesh daemons wave:
5 new kits, only the epitome caused waves
Khorne daemons:
2 kits, 0 op
Chaos marines:
9 new kits, only the disco lord considered op
Marine codex 2019 + supplements:
13 kits (? Not sure?), ferrios and invictors considered op
Blood of the pheonix:
4 kits none op

So out of over, what, 90 new kits released in 8th edition, 12 have caused big concerns out the gates from my shoddy memory and opinions but others may add to it/correct me as I'm no competitive player.

On topic - the new mission formats seem far better, hopefully people will be more willing to give them a try.

So you’ve included kits that aren’t new units but are resculpts? Despite me stating that I wasn’t discussing them and explaining why they are less likely to be pushed from a rules perspective.

Your assessment on how many new kits a faction received and their strength is questionable to say the least.

I’ve been asked to leave it, so I’ll leave it. Here's my take, again and now for the second time;

I wrote:The fact is we have a statement from an ex employee going into detail of how GW management intervene in balance decisions to ensure the sale of product. Then we have multiple, obvious examples of this in practice, recently and STILL people doubt it. There is no convincing these people. I'd rather not waste my time, again.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

The fact is we have a statement from an ex employee going into detail of how GW management intervene in balance decisions to ensure the sale of product.

There are two who talked about that, one from Fantasy and one from 40k, with similar experience
We just don't know if this kind of decisions are still there after Nu GW took over

 kodos wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

The fact is we have a statement from an ex employee going into detail of how GW management intervene in balance decisions to ensure the sale of product.

There are two who talked about that, one from Fantasy and one from 40k, with similar experience
We just don't know if this kind of decisions are still there after Nu GW took over

Agreed, we don’t know for sure if things have changed or not.

But when I see units like the Castellan released, the Daedalus, the Ad Mech tank, IFF, the Repulsor, the Slaanesh Daemon Prince + Herald wombo combo, the Kelermorph, the GSC bikes, the Nexos, most Forgeworld releases, the Disco Lord etc etc I have my answer. ‘Nu GW’ is old GW with a marketing team behind them, that is all.

 kodos wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

The fact is we have a statement from an ex employee going into detail of how GW management intervene in balance decisions to ensure the sale of product.

There are two who talked about that, one from Fantasy and one from 40k, with similar experience
We just don't know if this kind of decisions are still there after Nu GW took over

Nu GW=old GW with improved PR department.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

The fact is we have a statement from an ex employee going into detail of how GW management intervene in balance decisions to ensure the sale of product.

There are two who talked about that, one from Fantasy and one from 40k, with similar experience
We just don't know if this kind of decisions are still there after Nu GW took over

Agreed, we don’t know for sure if things have changed or not.

But when I see units like the Castellan released, the Daedalus, the Ad Mech tank, IFF, the Repulsor, the Slaanesh Daemon Prince + Herald wombo combo, the Kelermorph, the GSC bikes, the Nexos, most Forgeworld releases, the Disco Lord etc etc I have my answer. ‘Nu GW’ is old GW with a marketing team behind them, that is all.

Or your simply cherry picking to suit your narritive of GW releasing OP models to turn a profit?

I'm sorry, but the only one of those things you have listed that have had any impact on the meta of the game are the castellan and dico Lords. The first due to it being fed CP through soup. In pure knight lists it was manegable, and dare I say it, not obnoxious? Disco lord is really good, but again, with certain WL traits, warband rules, relics it goes up to silly levels, that's why it's strong.

Everything else has never been considered OP by no one. Repulsor Executioners are good in certain chapters. Kelemorph was a massive nothing burger, same as the nexus. As for FW being OP, I heartily laugh. Some things are good, but only if you apply certain rules. Or is that your definition of OP now, x faction synergises really well with model y, so it's obviously OP! But you carry on, claim new GW are just like old GW to suit your narrative that you relentlessly push in. Every. Thread.

 Dr. Mills wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

The fact is we have a statement from an ex employee going into detail of how GW management intervene in balance decisions to ensure the sale of product.

There are two who talked about that, one from Fantasy and one from 40k, with similar experience
We just don't know if this kind of decisions are still there after Nu GW took over

Agreed, we don’t know for sure if things have changed or not.

But when I see units like the Castellan released, the Daedalus, the Ad Mech tank, IFF, the Repulsor, the Slaanesh Daemon Prince + Herald wombo combo, the Kelermorph, the GSC bikes, the Nexos, most Forgeworld releases, the Disco Lord etc etc I have my answer. ‘Nu GW’ is old GW with a marketing team behind them, that is all.

Or your simply cherry picking to suit your narritive of GW releasing OP models to turn a profit?

I'm sorry, but the only one of those things you have listed that have had any impact on the meta of the game are the castellan and dico Lords. The first due to it being fed CP through soup. In pure knight lists it was manegable, and dare I say it, not obnoxious? Disco lord is really good, but again, with certain WL traits, warband rules, relics it goes up to silly levels, that's why it's strong.

Everything else has never been considered OP by no one. Repulsor Executioners are good in certain chapters. Kelemorph was a massive nothing burger, same as the nexus. As for FW being OP, I heartily laugh. Some things are good, but only if you apply certain rules. Or is that your definition of OP now, x faction synergises really well with model y, so it's obviously OP! But you carry on, claim new GW are just like old GW to suit your narrative that you relentlessly push in. Every. Thread.

Obviously we have different opinions of what is OP. For me 'OP' is not the same as 'meta defining'.

Almost all (perhaps even, all) of the new GSC models have seen play at the top tables of massive events. I'm talking 1-4 place finishes. Not now, obviously, the Marine meta killed GSC like so many other factions. But before then they featured a fair bit and their variety of units was staggering.

Repulsor Executioners sold out in minutes because IH and the Ironstone made them insane. Then, once sold out the Ironstone was nerfed.

"Some Forgeworld things are good, but only if you apply certain rules" - you mean like what every faction has to do to compete at the top level? I guess Ynnarri Shining Spears weren't good because they only wrecked face if you allowed them to have 2 actions a turn with the application of "rules". Same with their Dark Reapers. I've seen enough Levi and Dorito Dreads, as well as the Calladius for Custodes to know where FW models stand.

As to your final ad hominem - I've stated this opinion in a couple of threads. Feel free to build up your own narrative as to my posts in "every" thread though.

Guys - I said I'm done. No more responses now. I've already got sucked into two. Feel free to argue amongst yourselves or attack me or whatever. You have my opinion, don't worry if you disagree, I won't be offended. Nor should you be offended if my opinion isn't the same as your own.