However if they follow Jormungandr, it will not apply to models with FLY keyword. So, no 2+ Hemlocks. Would be my guess.
This would make Alaitoc worthless as jet bikes, grav tanks, etc all have fly. If that happens, Everyone will play Ulthwe for the free 6+++
Not entirely true.
Wraithguards, Wraithblades, Dark Reapers, Wraithknights, Guardians, etc. all do not have fly.
Silly knee-jerk reactions aside, this would make the trait balanced in that you actually consider what trait is best for your army.
You're not serious are you? It wouldn't be a consideration at all in that situation.
That entirely depends on if it's: A) cover all the time even in the open B) bonus to cover if you actually are in cover C) both A & B
If it's A or B, I'd agree it would suck if it didn't apply to models with FLY If it's C, it might still be worth considering if you have a more Infantry bases list
gendoikari87 wrote: If it turns out to be +1 to cover, mechanicus just got stupid op. An arny of 2+ effectively without paying for it
Not sure I get your meaning. Marines and Terminators would have 1+/0+ in cover respectively with +1 to cover and I highly doubt that would make them OP. Remember that RG/AL/Alaitoc only work outside 12", so getting around them and outright ignoring the trait is possible. That will most likely remain true.
gendoikari87 wrote: If it turns out to be +1 to cover, mechanicus just got stupid op. An arny of 2+ effectively without paying for it
Not sure I get your meaning. Marines and Terminators would have 1+/0+ in cover respectively with +1 to cover and I highly doubt that would make them OP.
Remember that RG/AL/Alaitoc only work outside 12", so getting around them and outright ignoring the trait is possible. That will most likely remain true.
-
The robots and walkers would be annoying. Melta might be finally relevant (and ignore cover). Interesting to see either way.
Marmatag wrote: This is how the JORMUNGANDR faction trait works. It doesn't work on units with FLY and it doesn't work if you advance or charge.
I would expect Alaitoc to work the same way.
Alaitoc is blatantly overpowered in its current form, and a permanent +1 to save regardless of role is also overpowered.
It makes literally no sense that a FLYER zipping around the board receives the benefit of cover and there is already a precedent.
So long as they also remove the 12" bubble, that'd be fair, But currently Alaitoc/RG/AL can be ignored by just getting within 12".
I agree it needs to be a cover bonus instead of a -1 to hit, but just being cover is both lazy and makes it the absolute worse CWE trait
But saying Alaitoc can have the trait AL and RG are gonna have, but half their units can't use it because Fly, and the other half must choose between using it or their Army Special Rule (BattleFocus)?
Reemule wrote: A lot of ambiguity would have been cleared up if GW has labeled Ruins as buildings... Not ruins, and made that clear that a ruin was still a building.
Bharring wrote: But saying Alaitoc can have the trait AL and RG are gonna have, but half their units can't use it because Fly, and the other half must choose between using it or their Army Special Rule (BattleFocus)?
Seems unlikely that Eldar would follow the Jorm model.
Reemule wrote: A lot of ambiguity would have been cleared up if GW has labeled Ruins as buildings... Not ruins, and made that clear that a ruin was still a building.
gendoikari87 wrote: If it turns out to be +1 to cover, mechanicus just got stupid op. An arny of 2+ effectively without paying for it
Not sure I get your meaning. Marines and Terminators would have 1+/0+ in cover respectively with +1 to cover and I highly doubt that would make them OP.
Remember that RG/AL/Alaitoc only work outside 12", so getting around them and outright ignoring the trait is possible. That will most likely remain true.
-
stygies will give an additional +1 cover , canticles basically becomes an auto “get shroudpsalm however you can, and skitarii are then 2+ against shooting
Bharring wrote: But saying Alaitoc can have the trait AL and RG are gonna have, but half their units can't use it because Fly, and the other half must choose between using it or their Army Special Rule (BattleFocus)?
Seems unlikely that Eldar would follow the Jorm model.
Agreed as that would be really dumb of GW. I still hold that what is most likely to happen is that Alaitoc/RG/AL will become something like the following: "Units with this trait receive an additional +1 cover bonus if both in cover and targeted by an enemy outside 12". This will usually result in +2 to the armour save roll"
Not ideal, but useful. It also pretty much means it would not apply to units with FLY, because those units rarely receive cover as is, which is why I really hope it also counts units in the open as also in cover (but with just the regular +1). Certainly would make Swooping Hawks and Spiders interesting though, as being Infantry would mean they could get cover easier
And the precedence for fast flying units to recieve better saves has been around for several additions. It's why armour saves were treated as Invuls on turboboosting jetbikes in 4E and why Jink 5++ save was given to bikes and skimmers in the last few editions. Alaitoc/RG/AL could easily be better at using this tactic along with other tactics to hide/obscure their units from sight
However if they follow Jormungandr, it will not apply to models with FLY keyword. So, no 2+ Hemlocks. Would be my guess.
This would make Alaitoc worthless as jet bikes, grav tanks, etc all have fly. If that happens, Everyone will play Ulthwe for the free 6+++
Iron Hands have the 6+++ and I know from experience it doesn't feel like it does much.
I bet it would feel stronger if it worked on tanks. It certainly is super helpful on Primaris let along Wraithblades with a 4++ and 3 wounds.
Yeah on 1 or 2 wound models you might get another wound out of them 1 in 6 dead or 1 in 3 dead models at best which drops off if your being shot with D2+ or D3+ weapons, but on a vehical with multiple wounds it finally actually impacts the game.
Marmatag wrote: This is how the JORMUNGANDR faction trait works. It doesn't work on units with FLY and it doesn't work if you advance or charge.
I would expect Alaitoc to work the same way.
Alaitoc is blatantly overpowered in its current form, and a permanent +1 to save regardless of role is also overpowered.
It makes literally no sense that a FLYER zipping around the board receives the benefit of cover and there is already a precedent.
IDK if that is equal to compare the two tho, if Tyranids MC were actually balanced having 2+ or even 2+ ignore 1 point of rend MC that are impactful in the game could be worst than -1 to hit, the -1 to hit is only strong b.c they can stack it to -2 and -3 so easily, (or even units like Warriors, Pyrovores, etc..)
I play Harlequins and i promise you a basic -1 isnt all that strong, especially on things that are T3-T5, there is just to many guns with -1, -2, ap or to much value.
Lets look at it this way.
Bolter, 100 shots vs T4, 4+ (Tyranid warrior) with -1 to hit its 12.50 wounds, with +1 save its 11.11 wounds HB, 100 shots vs T4, 4+ (Tyranid warrior) with -1 to hit its 22.22 wounds, with +1 to save it 22.22 wounds
So its really a wash depending on the weapon, and in some cases the +1sv is better than a -1 to hit
Now... with full Re-rolls the -1 to hit will always be better (tho very few armies actually get full re-rolls to hits via shooting)
But these armies can still get -1 to hit, CWE, Quins, DE, Tyranids, etc.. can all have -1 to hit in some way or another.
I think units like Rangers getting an addition +1sv, still having a -1 to hit, will make them even stronger for the most part, especially b.c the units that are shooting them wont be plasma type of weapons, but S4-S5 mass fire ones, they will effectively be -1/2+ at all times.
Insectum7 wrote: Lets hope all flamers get at least the upgrade to ignore cover. That'd be nice.
Agreed, although I'd be just as happy with them being 2d6 hits instead. That could just as easily represent "ignores cover" both statistically and from the lore of laying down gouts of indiscriminant fire
Insectum7 wrote: Lets hope all flamers get at least the upgrade to ignore cover. That'd be nice.
Agreed, although I'd be just as happy with them being 2d6 hits instead. That could just as easily represent "ignores cover" both statistically and from the lore of laying down gouts of indiscriminant fire
-
Seems less likely, but yeah, that'd be nice. It'd actually start to be an effective anti-horde weapon. Flamers used to be absolute murder to GEQ. I miss that.
Insectum7 wrote: Lets hope all flamers get at least the upgrade to ignore cover. That'd be nice.
Agreed, although I'd be just as happy with them being 2d6 hits instead. That could just as easily represent "ignores cover" both statistically and from the lore of laying down gouts of indiscriminant fire
-
Seems less likely, but yeah, that'd be nice. It'd actually start to be an effective anti-horde weapon. Flamers used to be absolute murder to GEQ. I miss that.
Yeah, flamers should absolutely do more hits to return them to a useful weapon. Right now they just seem like an auto-hit Bolter with shorter range that sometimes gets more hits. It would be just as easy to add "ignores cover" as it would be to add the following rule to all weapons with "Flamer" in their name: "If the target unit contains 5 or more models, change the weapons type from Assault D6 to Assault 2D6". Done and easy
Bharring wrote: But saying Alaitoc can have the trait AL and RG are gonna have, but half their units can't use it because Fly, and the other half must choose between using it or their Army Special Rule (BattleFocus)?
Seems unlikely that Eldar would follow the Jorm model.
Agreed as that would be really dumb of GW.
I still hold that what is most likely to happen is that Alaitoc/RG/AL will become something like the following:
"Units with this trait receive an additional +1 cover bonus if both in cover and targeted by an enemy outside 12". This will usually result in +2 to the armour save roll"
Not ideal, but useful. It also pretty much means it would not apply to units with FLY, because those units rarely receive cover as is, which is why I really hope it also counts units in the open as also in cover (but with just the regular +1).
Certainly would make Swooping Hawks and Spiders interesting though, as being Infantry would mean they could get cover easier
And the precedence for fast flying units to recieve better saves has been around for several additions. It's why armour saves were treated as Invuls on turboboosting jetbikes in 4E and why Jink 5++ save was given to bikes and skimmers in the last few editions.
Alaitoc/RG/AL could easily be better at using this tactic along with other tactics to hide/obscure their units from sight
-
Why wouldn't the following work for them
A unit with this tactic receives the benefit of cover, even while in the open. A unit with this tactic that moves for any reason loses the benefit of this tenet until the start of its next Movement phase.
It would be just as easy to add "ignores cover" as it would be to add the following rule to all weapons with "Flamer" in their name:
"If the target unit contains 5 or more models, change the weapons type from Assault D6 to Assault 2D6". Done and easy
A unit with this tactic receives the benefit of cover, even while in the open. A unit with this tactic that moves for any reason loses the benefit of this tenet until the start of its next Movement phase.
Why wouldn't a rule that requires the most mobile army in 40K to remain stationary not work? Let me think about that one. Contrary to the meta, Eldar are not a gunline army. Even our "heavy" options have always been given special rules to allow them to move. And for the last few additions, we've been given an army-wide rule to encourage us to move as fast as possible
No, it needs to be at least +1 cover if you're in cover regardless of movement. Giving cover in the open would be a nice bonus to that, but isn't enough for the trait alone
A unit with this tactic receives the benefit of cover, even while in the open. A unit with this tactic that moves for any reason loses the benefit of this tenet until the start of its next Movement phase.
Why wouldn't a rule that requires the most mobile army in 40K to remain stationary not work? Let me think about that one.
Contrary to the meta, Eldar are not a gunline army. Even our "heavy" options have always been given special rules to allow them to move.
No, it needs to be at least +1 cover if you're in cover regardless of movement. Giving cover in the open would be a nice bonus to that, but isn't enough for the trait alone
-
Is your complaint that the trait is bad or that eldar shouldn't be forced to choose between better saves and mobility?
A unit with this tactic receives the benefit of cover, even while in the open. A unit with this tactic that moves for any reason loses the benefit of this tenet until the start of its next Movement phase.
Why wouldn't a rule that requires the most mobile army in 40K to remain stationary not work? Let me think about that one.
Contrary to the meta, Eldar are not a gunline army. Even our "heavy" options have always been given special rules to allow them to move.
No, it needs to be at least +1 cover if you're in cover regardless of movement. Giving cover in the open would be a nice bonus to that, but isn't enough for the trait alone
-
Is your complaint that the trait is bad or that eldar shouldn't be forced to choose between better saves and mobility?
It’s a useless trait, Tau have it and even they won’t use it despite theoretically needing to move less than Eldar.
A unit with this tactic receives the benefit of cover, even while in the open. A unit with this tactic that moves for any reason loses the benefit of this tenet until the start of its next Movement phase.
Why wouldn't a rule that requires the most mobile army in 40K to remain stationary not work? Let me think about that one.
Contrary to the meta, Eldar are not a gunline army. Even our "heavy" options have always been given special rules to allow them to move.
No, it needs to be at least +1 cover if you're in cover regardless of movement. Giving cover in the open would be a nice bonus to that, but isn't enough for the trait alone
-
Is your complaint that the trait is bad or that eldar shouldn't be forced to choose between better saves and mobility?
My complaint is that several people have claimed that making Alaitoc just be cover in the open would make it balanced amongst the other traits. And that "might" be the case. But to further add retrictions like "as long as they don't move" or "doesn't apply to units with FLY" would absolutely, unequivocally make Alaitoc the worst CWE trait.
The point should NEVER be to nerf a rule to uselessness. It should always be for balance.
I'd like to see cover in the open + additional +1 for being in cover outside 12". But I'd settle for just additional +1 for being in cover.
But whatever happens, I would be surprised if the "outside 12" clause was removed, so adding further ways to outright remove the trait's usefulness are just egregious.
could see flamers going to 2d6, and burna to 1d6 to counter hordes, however would also suggest the following:
- flamer can inflict no more that two hits on any single model in a unit, excess hits are lost (to stop them being character assassination tools, also stops them being the anti flier weapons they are), this to apply to all flamers fired by a unit as a group - so five flamers generate 10d6 hits, but no more than two per model.
- flamers halve the number of hits (rounding up) in overwatch to represent the lack of time to prepare (basically so hordes can still actually charge a unit with flamers without it being outright suicide)
leopard wrote: could see flamers going to 2d6, and burna to 1d6 to counter hordes, however would also suggest the following:
- flamer can inflict no more that two hits on any single model in a unit, excess hits are lost (to stop them being character assassination tools, also stops them being the anti flier weapons they are), this to apply to all flamers fired by a unit as a group - so five flamers generate 10d6 hits, but no more than two per model.
- flamers halve the number of hits (rounding up) in overwatch to represent the lack of time to prepare (basically so hordes can still actually charge a unit with flamers without it being outright suicide)
Hordes can already charge units with flamers and outright ignore the flamers. They just need to start their charge 8.1" away
"That's nice and all, but how many Fly units do Tyranids have compared to Eldar units with Fly?"
Nids might have more units than Eldar have units with Fly. But I'm not even confident of that.
I think CWE has more Fly units than non-Fly units, offhand. And CWE have a *lot* of entries.
leopard wrote: could see flamers going to 2d6, and burna to 1d6 to counter hordes, however would also suggest the following:
- flamer can inflict no more that two hits on any single model in a unit, excess hits are lost (to stop them being character assassination tools, also stops them being the anti flier weapons they are), this to apply to all flamers fired by a unit as a group - so five flamers generate 10d6 hits, but no more than two per model.
- flamers halve the number of hits (rounding up) in overwatch to represent the lack of time to prepare (basically so hordes can still actually charge a unit with flamers without it being outright suicide)
Hordes can already charge units with flamers and outright ignore the flamers. They just need to start their charge 8.1" away
-
And that's a risky charge. With a reroll, that's only slightly better than 50% to make it.
I'd actually prefer that flamers do something completely different in overwatch.
Wall of flame: any model over watching with a flamer ignores it's normal profile and rolls a d3. Subtract the result from the charge range of any unit charging this unit and they suffer -1 LD till the end of the turn. This ability does not stack for multiple flamers.
Heavy flamers would reduce charge range by 3 and drop LD by 2.
Bharring wrote: "That's nice and all, but how many Fly units do Tyranids have compared to Eldar units with Fly?"
Nids might have more units than Eldar have units with Fly. But I'm not even confident of that.
I think CWE has more Fly units than non-Fly units, offhand. And CWE have a *lot* of entries.
It will be just like every other trait. It's good for some units but useless for others. The +2 to armor save while in cover is actually stronger than -1 to hit in lots of situations. BUT
Nids traits are actaully worse for no reason in a lot of cases though so you might be right. For example. My ulthwe get 6+FNP on every unit straight up. Leviathan gets 6+ FNP if they are withing 6 inches of a synapse creature...uhhh...why the discrepancy?
Marmatag wrote: This is how the JORMUNGANDR faction trait works. It doesn't work on units with FLY and it doesn't work if you advance or charge.
I would expect Alaitoc to work the same way.
Alaitoc is blatantly overpowered in its current form, and a permanent +1 to save regardless of role is also overpowered.
It makes literally no sense that a FLYER zipping around the board receives the benefit of cover and there is already a precedent.
That's nice and all, but how many Fly units do Tyranids have compared to Eldar units with Fly?
Probably about the same number.
Tyranids have 12 without FW, i guess that Eldar have about the same.
No, Eldar have a LOT more than 12 units with FLY.
It's closer to 24 units
-
And that's the answer I wanted them to actually answer. However since that number is now actually presented, how does it feel to have a Chapter Tactic that doesn't work with several units?
CWE, off the top of my head?
-Windriders
-Shining Spears
-Vypers
-Hornets
-Serpents
-Falcons
-Fire Prisms
-Night Spinners
-Hemlocks
-Crimson Hunters
-Seer Councils
-Swooping Hawks
-Warp Spiders
-Baharoth
-Autarch on Bike
-Farseer on Bike
You could even claim, but shouldn't
-Crimson Hunter Exarch
-Autarch w/Wings
-Autarch w/Warp Generator
-Solo Warlock on Bike
And that's without superheavies/ForgeWorld.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "However since that number is now actually presented, how does it feel to have a Chapter Tactic that doesn't work with several units?"
We'll have to wait until last year when our codex came out to answer that.
Uthwe doesn't do anything for several units, but that's nothing compared to Iyanden doing nothing for most units, Saim-Hann doing nothing for almost all units, and Biel-Tan doing nothing for any of the units they're known for beyond Dire Avengers.
I don't think it will matter, in the end. Jormungandr tactics are representing tyranids burrowing for cover and using tunnels, which is why it doesn't work on FLY. Jorm also keeps that bonus within 12".
For the Eldar trait, which is using some sort of fancy-camoflage iirc, it ought to work on FLY, and a nice way to balance it was if it didn't work within 12". Imo that'd be fine.
Insectum7 wrote: I don't think it will matter, in the end. Jormungandr tactics are representing tyranids burrowing for cover and using tunnels, which is why it doesn't work on FLY. Jorm also keeps that bonus within 12".
For the Eldar trait, which is using some sort of fancy-camoflage iirc, it ought to work on FLY, and a nice way to balance it was if it didn't work within 12". Imo that'd be fine.
However if they follow Jormungandr, it will not apply to models with FLY keyword. So, no 2+ Hemlocks. Would be my guess.
This would make Alaitoc worthless as jet bikes, grav tanks, etc all have fly. If that happens, Everyone will play Ulthwe for the free 6+++
Iron Hands have the 6+++ and I know from experience it doesn't feel like it does much.
I bet it would feel stronger if it worked on tanks. It certainly is super helpful on Primaris let along Wraithblades with a 4++ and 3 wounds.
Yeah on 1 or 2 wound models you might get another wound out of them 1 in 6 dead or 1 in 3 dead models at best which drops off if your being shot with D2+ or D3+ weapons, but on a vehical with multiple wounds it finally actually impacts the game.
For IH it works on Dreadnaughts (including the 13-wound Redemptor) and 3-wound Centurions, and even there it seldom feels like it accomplishes anything.
Bharring wrote: Are you saying you prefer -1-to-hit Hemlocks to +1-armor Hemlocks?
Honestly I was FINE with anyone having the -1 To Hit army traits. It's just the gunline people that really complain about it.
Says the Raven Guard player.
Actually Deathwatch, as they can function a little bit. Raven Guard was mostly for the characters (Shrike, Lias, and then a generic dude with the relic Jump Pack). Otherwise I would be Imperial Fists all the way in terms of abilities but their characters and stuff suck.
Bharring wrote: Are you saying you prefer -1-to-hit Hemlocks to +1-armor Hemlocks?
I'm saying Hemlocks are ridiculous with -1 to hit, and are still ridiculous with +1 armor.
Orks would answer your question with "absolutely."
FYI, Hemlocks only get a combined -2 to be hit if their opponent goes first. After that, they'll have moved forward to be in range of their 16" guns. It takes nothing to then move within 12" of them and outright ignore their Alaitoc trait. Even moving up the flanks doesn't guarantee everything that can shoot them wouldn't be able to ignore this. Just deploy tightly and play aggressively and Hemlocks die pretty quick. I lose both of mine in almost every game.
If Alaitoc becomes additional cover if in cover, then Hemlocks will stop being Alaitoc altogether (and there isn't any other trait for them as literally every other trait does NOTHING for them)
Well, they'll get more use out of..
Uthwe for extra durability! It's like Soulstones for free! The only downside is you still have to pay for them! Maybe not.
Biel Tan for extra dakka! Err, how many Shuriken Weapons does it use? Maybe not that either.
Saim-Hann! I wanna go FAST! Because reroll Charge is great on them! We just need to make them Jetbikes first... Maybe not that either.
Aren't the only CTs Hemlocks can benefit from Iyanden (which is terribad for almost everything else) and Alaitoc (which is OP obviously)?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit - ninjad by an edit.
leopard wrote: could see flamers going to 2d6, and burna to 1d6 to counter hordes, however would also suggest the following:
- flamer can inflict no more that two hits on any single model in a unit, excess hits are lost (to stop them being character assassination tools, also stops them being the anti flier weapons they are), this to apply to all flamers fired by a unit as a group - so five flamers generate 10d6 hits, but no more than two per model.
- flamers halve the number of hits (rounding up) in overwatch to represent the lack of time to prepare (basically so hordes can still actually charge a unit with flamers without it being outright suicide)
Hordes can already charge units with flamers and outright ignore the flamers. They just need to start their charge 8.1" away
-
yup you can, however the game has 'overwatch' as less effective than usual weapons fire so it seems to make sense not to mask it here.
my point is really one that you need to consider a unit with one flamer as one thing, a unit with several as something else.
in effect one flamer in overwatch would function exactly as it does now, they just get double the potential hits and a lot more predictability when the operator has time to prepare and use them properly.
but when you are charged by say ten orks, and you have five flamers there is only so much "on fire" you can make an ork, went for two hits per model because one is basically rubbish (given the roll to wound), so two gives a decent chance to get at least one wound on each model.
I highly doubt this is going to change anyway, but it seemed to work to what thought I put into it
Bharring wrote: Well, they'll get more use out of..
Uthwe for extra durability! It's like Soulstones for free! The only downside is you still have to pay for them! Maybe not.
Biel Tan for extra dakka! Err, how many Shuriken Weapons does it use? Maybe not that either.
Saim-Hann! I wanna go FAST! Because reroll Charge is great on them! We just need to make them Jetbikes first... Maybe not that either.
Aren't the only CTs Hemlocks can benefit from Iyanden (which is terribad for almost everything else) and Alaitoc (which is OP obviously)?
Right, and Iyanden really doesn't do anything for them either since they don't care about degrading BS or Attacks and degrading Movement isn't a big deal when you can still move 20-25" in the lowest bracket.
So I take back my original comment. Hemlocks will continue to be Alaitoc if it changes to just a cover bonus. But they won't get to ever use it, just like all the other traits.
Bharring wrote: Well, they'll get more use out of..
Uthwe for extra durability! It's like Soulstones for free! The only downside is you still have to pay for them! Maybe not.
Biel Tan for extra dakka! Err, how many Shuriken Weapons does it use? Maybe not that either.
Saim-Hann! I wanna go FAST! Because reroll Charge is great on them! We just need to make them Jetbikes first... Maybe not that either.
Aren't the only CTs Hemlocks can benefit from Iyanden (which is terribad for almost everything else) and Alaitoc (which is OP obviously)?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit - ninjad by an edit.
Well to be honest I would argue how great Sam Hainn is when you have Fly so you shoot, charge, and then fall back and shoot something else. It'll only happen once in the game but still.
That said, I'm angry for Eldar players over how bad Biel Tan is. Like, it's super ridiculous how bad it is.
Marmatag wrote: Tzaangors going up makes me happy. Pretty stupid how well they pair with the dark matter crystal.
I would have rather they reduced Tzaangors to 6 points and made the blades cost 2 points. Chain-gors suck pretty bad and are absolutely not worth the same cost as the far superior blade-gors. Maybe just keeping the base Tzaangor at 7 and making the blades cost 1 would have been fine, I dunno.
"Well to be honest I would argue how great Sam Hainn is when you have Fly so you shoot, charge, and then fall back and shoot something else. It'll only happen once in the game but still."
1) You know Hemlocks aren't Jetbikes, right?
2) You realize that's not what Sam Hain does, right?
3) How often have you seen Hemlocks - or other Flyers (not models with Fly) - actually Charge?
Automatically Appended Next Post: "That said, I'm angry for Eldar players over how bad Biel Tan is. Like, it's super ridiculous how bad it is."
Well, it's not terrible if you want to do a fluffy Guardian Warhost, like with tons of Guardians. As in, what Uthwe is known for. Also as in, what Biel Tan is known to *not* do.
Bharring wrote: "Well to be honest I would argue how great Sam Hainn is when you have Fly so you shoot, charge, and then fall back and shoot something else. It'll only happen once in the game but still."
1) You know Hemlocks aren't Jetbikes, right?
2) You realize that's not what Sam Hain does, right?
3) How often have you seen Hemlocks - or other Flyers (not models with Fly) - actually Charge?
Automatically Appended Next Post: "That said, I'm angry for Eldar players over how bad Biel Tan is. Like, it's super ridiculous how bad it is."
Well, it's not terrible if you want to do a fluffy Guardian Warhost, like with tons of Guardians. As in, what Uthwe is known for. Also as in, what Biel Tan is known to *not* do.
Sam Hainn rerolls charges, yes? So you shoot one target and then tie up another.
When talking about "how great Sam Hainn is when you have Fly so you shoot, charge, and then fall back and shoot something else", it gets kinda silly to be talking about Reroll Charges on a Flyer that moves 60". If you can't get a short enough charge range with 60" of movement, you're doing something very wrong.
On the upside, Sam Hainn ignore the movement penalty on heavy weapons - which would really help if the Hemlock's heavy weapons weren't autohit. Although that's Jetbike-only, so still.
It's like saying a Rhino benefits from IH tactics because it blowing up is less likely to kill it's friends.
I feel it's important to note the actual rule for Saim-Hann. Yes it gives reroll charges for all units, but it only ignores the heavy weapon penalty on JETBIKES. There is only 1 unit in the entire Eldar army that can take advantage of BOTH those bonuses, and it's a Index only choice.
Spears might like the re-roll charge, but they have no heavy weapons. Windriders and Vypers can take heavies, but should never be close enough to charge, reroll or not. Autarch Skyrunner with Laser Lance and Reaper Launcher is the only Saim-Hann unit that wants both bonuses. And as I've mentioned, that's only available via Index (to get the Reaper launcher)
It's sad really, though not as sad as the UM Primarch not benefiting from his own Chapter's Tactic.
Bharring wrote: When talking about "how great Sam Hainn is when you have Fly so you shoot, charge, and then fall back and shoot something else", it gets kinda silly to be talking about Reroll Charges on a Flyer that moves 60". If you can't get a short enough charge range with 60" of movement, you're doing something very wrong.
On the upside, Sam Hainn ignore the movement penalty on heavy weapons - which would really help if the Hemlock's heavy weapons weren't autohit. Although that's Jetbike-only, so still.
It's like saying a Rhino benefits from IH tactics because it blowing up is less likely to kill it's friends.
You might want to charge a unit that's not 2" away from you.
I'm just saying I feel it's the second best Craftworld for the Hemlock for that reason. Nothing else is really any good.
Bharring wrote: When talking about "how great Sam Hainn is when you have Fly so you shoot, charge, and then fall back and shoot something else", it gets kinda silly to be talking about Reroll Charges on a Flyer that moves 60". If you can't get a short enough charge range with 60" of movement, you're doing something very wrong.
On the upside, Sam Hainn ignore the movement penalty on heavy weapons - which would really help if the Hemlock's heavy weapons weren't autohit. Although that's Jetbike-only, so still.
It's like saying a Rhino benefits from IH tactics because it blowing up is less likely to kill it's friends.
You might want to charge a unit that's not 2" away from you.
I'm just saying I feel it's the second best Craftworld for the Hemlock for that reason. Nothing else is really any good.
Hemlock's have a little rule called "Airborne" which states they cannot charge. This trait does absolutely nothing for them.
Bharring wrote: When talking about "how great Sam Hainn is when you have Fly so you shoot, charge, and then fall back and shoot something else", it gets kinda silly to be talking about Reroll Charges on a Flyer that moves 60". If you can't get a short enough charge range with 60" of movement, you're doing something very wrong.
On the upside, Sam Hainn ignore the movement penalty on heavy weapons - which would really help if the Hemlock's heavy weapons weren't autohit. Although that's Jetbike-only, so still.
It's like saying a Rhino benefits from IH tactics because it blowing up is less likely to kill it's friends.
You might want to charge a unit that's not 2" away from you.
I'm just saying I feel it's the second best Craftworld for the Hemlock for that reason. Nothing else is really any good.
Hemlock's have a little rule called "Airborne" which states they cannot charge. This trait does absolutely nothing for them.
So when Alaitoc becomes a cover bonus (that likely requires the unit to actually have cover already), we all agree that the Hemlock gets zero possible bonus from any of the 5 CW traits? That's enough of a nerf for it. No point bump needed. Move along
Galef wrote: So when Alaitoc becomes a cover bonus (that likely requires the unit to actually have cover already), we all agree that the Hemlock gets zero possible bonus from any of the 5 CW traits?
That's enough of a nerf for it. No point bump needed. Move along
-
Iyanden does keep its movement from degrading as quickly, but that it likely very situational.
Galef wrote: So when Alaitoc becomes a cover bonus (that likely requires the unit to actually have cover already), we all agree that the Hemlock gets zero possible bonus from any of the 5 CW traits?
That's enough of a nerf for it. No point bump needed. Move along
-
It is still too cheap. It is a psyker as well as a vehicle. It should pay more for being able to cast Jinx, and full smite. And it would benefit from the 6+++.
Galef wrote: So when Alaitoc becomes a cover bonus (that likely requires the unit to actually have cover already), we all agree that the Hemlock gets zero possible bonus from any of the 5 CW traits? That's enough of a nerf for it. No point bump needed. Move along
-
It is still too cheap. It is a psyker as well as a vehicle. It should pay more for being able to cast Jinx, and full smite. And it would benefit from the 6+++.
It already has Spirit Stones which cannot stack with Ulthwe's 6+++. It's over 200pts for something that has to get very close. Trust me, it dies just fine and Jinx fails about 1/3 of the time (it would be about half the time, but CP reroll is a thing, but that also drains an already CP starved army of CPs) Don't get me wrong, they are one of the best units in the Codex, especially with Alaitoc giving a total -2. My point is that once you remove Alaitoc from it, it's a fairly priced unit. At most, it would still be fielded at ~225pts. Any more than that and Crimson Hunter Exarchs are a much better buy.
I have 2 Hemlocks that are Iyanden, because that's what my army is. I don't care if it doesn't benefit from the trait, not every unit will do so. Changing Alaitoc to open up the decision making process is a very good thing. Eldar have some of the worst warlord traits and relics, but some of the best units in the game. I wish this scale was a little more balanced (tone down some of the really offending units, add some better relics/traits), but that's not happening anytime soon (unless the new formation warlord traits are impressive....I will automatically take the wraith host one because god knows I don't need another deny which is the Iyanden trait). C'est la vie.
"We have to make a decision fething WAHH" -Eldar players
"Alaitoc MUST remain overpowered, so we don't have to make decisions WAHHH INTENSIFIES" -Eldar players
`
More like:
"CWE traits should have nothing to do with CWE" - non-Eldar players
You're basically saying:
"Alaitoc should only impact a minority of CWE options at all, and of those units, only if they don't play move."
Because apparently it's hard to make something hard to hit when it's moving too fast or something.
And the 'choices' we're complaining about:
-Choosing between Reroll Charges, a 6+++, reroll 1s for Shuriken weapons, or gain Cover if you don't have fly, on a model that cannot charge, already must pay for a 6+++, has no Shuriken weapons, and is a flyer.
-Choosing between staying still to get a cover bonus or move, on a platform that must move if able, and gets RFP if it doesn't.
-Choosing whether half our units move or get CT, while the other half don't get it at all
There's also
-Choosing Uthwe's trait if you want to play stereotypical Iyanden, or Biel-Tan's trait if you want to play stereotypical Uthwe
But that one is GW's fault, not yours.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To be clear: I do hope they change Alaitoc's trait. But a rule like this:
"Alaitoc models always count as being in cover when shot at from outside 12" unless they're Flyers, have the Fly special move, or have moved at all"
Is dumb. It'd be like an IG trait that said "Reroll all Boltgun shots of 1" - not technically worthless, but clearly not designed for that army.
It's unfair that my Hive Fleet Behemoth only benefits some of the units in my codex. Its literally no benefit to my Hive Guard, cuz reroll charges is terrible.
Its unfair that my Iron Hands Chapter Tactic only benefits some of my units. Its literally no benefit to my Rhinos and Land Raiders.
Its unfair that my Vior'la Sept trait only benefits some of the units in my codex. It's useless on my Broadsides and other heavy weapons platforms.
Its unfair that my [insert faction trait here]only benefits some of my units. Its literally useless on [a few units from said codex].
Talinsin wrote: It's unfair that my Hive Fleet Behemoth only benefits some of the units in my codex. Its literally no benefit to my Hive Guard, cuz reroll charges is terrible.
Its unfair that my Iron Hands Chapter Tactic only benefits some of my units. Its literally no benefit to my Rhinos and Land Raiders.
Its unfair that my Vior'la Sept trait only benefits some of the units in my codex. It's useless on my Broadsides and other heavy weapons platforms.
Its unfair that my [insert faction trait here]only benefits some of my units. Its literally useless on [a few units from said codex].
Well then, we can extrapolate this argument to every other instance of faction X having ability Y. Or you could just play CWE and live that "fair" dream
Talinsin wrote: Its unfair that my [insert faction trait here]only benefits some of my units. Its literally useless on [a few units from said codex].
I think the problem is that codex creep (and the -1 to hit outside 12" was the start of it all imo) has meant those situational abilities are usually meh.
Instead you want an overpowered (er - better than the rest) trait to build an entire army (sorry, detachment) around.
Crying about Hemlocks not having a useful trait is top tier codex problems.
Talinsin wrote: It's unfair that my Hive Fleet Behemoth only benefits some of the units in my codex. Its literally no benefit to my Hive Guard, cuz reroll charges is terrible.
Its unfair that my Iron Hands Chapter Tactic only benefits some of my units. Its literally no benefit to my Rhinos and Land Raiders.
Its unfair that my Vior'la Sept trait only benefits some of the units in my codex. It's useless on my Broadsides and other heavy weapons platforms.
Its unfair that my [insert faction trait here]only benefits some of my units. Its literally useless on [a few units from said codex].
Talinsin wrote: Its unfair that my [insert faction trait here]only benefits some of my units. Its literally useless on [a few units from said codex].
I think the problem is that codex creep (and the -1 to hit outside 12" was the start of it all imo) has meant those situational abilities are usually meh.
Instead you want an overpowered (er - better than the rest) trait to build an entire army (sorry, detachment) around.
Crying about Hemlocks not having a useful trait is top tier codex problems.
It would be silly to have the Trait not affect anything with Fly though when like almost half the codex is Fly.
Talinsin wrote: Its unfair that my [insert faction trait here]only benefits some of my units. Its literally useless on [a few units from said codex].
I think the problem is that codex creep (and the -1 to hit outside 12" was the start of it all imo) has meant those situational abilities are usually meh.
Instead you want an overpowered (er - better than the rest) trait to build an entire army (sorry, detachment) around.
Crying about Hemlocks not having a useful trait is top tier codex problems.
Most sane CWE generals are absolutely on board with Alaitoc changing. I think all traits should be viable as opposed to one or two being optimal while the rest are trash.
Right, and if Alaitoc is "always +1 cover" it is still the go-to choice without question, because that is still fantastic, if there are no limitations.
If Jormungandr didn't have limits, you'd see 2+ tyrants flying around the board, and 3++ genestealers running up the table.
Marmatag wrote: Right, and if Alaitoc is "always +1 cover" it is still the go-to choice without question, because that is still fantastic, if there are no limitations.
If Jormungandr didn't have limits, you'd see 2+ tyrants flying around the board, and 3++ genestealers running up the table.
But it does have a limitation, one that is likely to stay: It only works outside of 12" I'd actually like it to change to "an additional +1 to cover if the unit has cover (so +2 total)" rather than "always counts as having cover". I mean, it would be very powerful if it was both, but if I had to choose, I'd prefer it to be additional cover, not always cover. Additional cover makes more sense, and it requires thought to use. It also goes well with Prepared Positions and the camo cloak of the Rangers (ya know, the iconic Alaitoc unit)
But my point about the Hemlock is that if Alaitoc doesn't grant "always in cover" (which as above I hope it isn't), but instead just additional cover, you cannot deny that is a straight nerf to the Hemlock. I'm not debating whether that nerf is justified or not, but just pointing it out
"Crying about Hemlocks not having a useful trait is top tier codex problems."
I think we're talking past eachother.
There's some discussion about how Hemlocks will then have no Faction Trait that impacts them. That's interesting. But it's not really the complaint.
The complaint is the suggestion that Alaitoc's trait be +1 cover save for less than half their options, and then only if they don't move. Because most of the units it *would* affect need to move to function. It'd be like if we rewrote Iron Hands to only affect Servitors.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or better yet, if Iron Hand's trait required that the model not take an Armor Save that round to take effect.
Galef wrote: So when Alaitoc becomes a cover bonus (that likely requires the unit to actually have cover already), we all agree that the Hemlock gets zero possible bonus from any of the 5 CW traits?
That's enough of a nerf for it. No point bump needed. Move along
-
It is still too cheap. It is a psyker as well as a vehicle. It should pay more for being able to cast Jinx, and full smite. And it would benefit from the 6+++.
It has to take spirit stones anyways. Not free anymore :(
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: "Crying about Hemlocks not having a useful trait is top tier codex problems."
I think we're talking past eachother.
There's some discussion about how Hemlocks will then have no Faction Trait that impacts them. That's interesting. But it's not really the complaint.
The complaint is the suggestion that Alaitoc's trait be +1 cover save for less than half their options, and then only if they don't move. Because most of the units it *would* affect need to move to function. It'd be like if we rewrote Iron Hands to only affect Servitors.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or better yet, if Iron Hand's trait required that the model not take an Armor Save that round to take effect.
This makes the crimson hunter exarch more auto include.
I just like to point out in playing thousand sons, so considering MOST of my army don't get the faction ability, eldar crying not every single unit would be benefiting from craft world sound real lame.
BoomWolf wrote: I just like to point out in playing thousand sons, so considering MOST of my army don't get the faction ability, eldar crying not every single unit would be benefiting from craft world sound real lame.
Cool, your army is built around that faction ability, which lets be honest, is really good. TS has the best smites in the game.
BoomWolf wrote: I just like to point out in playing thousand sons, so considering MOST of my army don't get the faction ability, eldar crying not every single unit would be benefiting from craft world sound real lame.
Well anything that can't cast Smite doesn't get it, sure. Seems par the course that none of the Marine vehicles benefit because reasons.
Yeah, I think it's ok for units to not benefit from a faction trait because the rule itself doesn't really apply. Like how Saim-Hann only helps melee units or Jetibkes with heavy weapons, but does nothing for non-melee units or non-jetbikes That seems common among all factions
But what I have issues with is: A) all the traits not applying to a specific set of units (like Marines) and B) a specific trait excluding a set of unit for dumb reasons (like excluding FLY units on any Eldar trait)
Galef wrote: Yeah, I think its ok for units to not benefit from a faction trait because the rule itself doesn't really apply.
But what I have issues with is:
A) all the traits not applying to a specific set of units (like Marines) and
B) a specific trait excluding a set of unit for dumb reasons (like excluding FLY units on any Eldar trait)
What does it matter? The end result is the same: some units are not affected.
Galef wrote: Yeah, I think its ok for units to not benefit from a faction trait because the rule itself doesn't really apply.
But what I have issues with is:
A) all the traits not applying to a specific set of units (like Marines) and
B) a specific trait excluding a set of unit for dumb reasons (like excluding FLY units on any Eldar trait)
What does it matter? The end result is the same: some units are not affected.
What's the acceptable amount of units to not be affected though?
Galef wrote: Yeah, I think its ok for units to not benefit from a faction trait because the rule itself doesn't really apply.
But what I have issues with is: A) all the traits not applying to a specific set of units (like Marines) and B) a specific trait excluding a set of unit for dumb reasons (like excluding FLY units on any Eldar trait)
What does it matter? The end result is the same: some units are not affected.
I'm ok with *some* units not being affect, but specifically excluding further units means *most* units are not affected
There can be a significant difference between *some* and *most*. The purpose of faction traits to be to add a bit of flavor to your army, but when the units you want to take only benefit from being Chocolate, you'll never make them Vanilla, even if you want Vanilla.
Personally I want to be Saim-Hann. Have been since 4E. But Saim-Hann does nothing for my army at all (mostly because my Troops got removed from the game). So I've been Alaitoc since the codex dropped.
What's the acceptable amount of units to not be affected though?
It doesn't really matter if they're the same units for all the subfactions of the army. Then point cost of those units can be based on for them not having the trait. I'd be perfectly fine with SM vehicles not having tactics if they wouldn't be overpriced for their effectiveness.
There can be a significant difference between *some* and *most*. The purpose of faction traits to be to add a bit of flavor to your army, but when the units you want to take only benefit from being Chocolate, you'll never make them Vanilla, even if you want Vanilla.
Personally I want to be Saim-Hann. Have been since 4E. But Saim-Hann does nothing for my army at all (mostly because my Troops got removed from the game). So I've been Alaitoc since the codex dropped.
Well, that is the biggest reason why these traits are a bad idea to begin with. One always ends up being OP, or at least OP with certain units.
Crimson wrote: Well, that is the biggest reason why these traits are a bad idea to begin with. One always ends up being OP, or at least OP with certain units.
I actually agree with this. Army flavor is great, but even the best game designers wouldn't be able to balance them completely. As you said, one trait will always be the clear winner.
I wonder how the community would react if army trait abilities were Narrative only? Like you could still be UMs in Matched Play, but you get no bonus aside from Strats and other abilities that affect specifically UMs. But the +1LD and fall back and shoot at -1 only applied in Narrative games. Seems a potential way to make both Play modes appealing. Would have to put more restrictions on Narrative to work, but it might be a good start
It's not like Eldar are crying because suddenly they'd have a Trait not everyone can benefit from. After all:
Uthwe: Nothing for Hemlocks or Avatars as-is
Biel-Tan: Nothing for most Aspects, CH, Hemlock, any Wraith units, and more
Sam-Hainn: Nothing for Flyers, almost nothing for anything but Windriders and Vypers
Iyanden: Nothing for everything except Grav Tanks, WraithKnight/Lords, and Guardian blobs
The complaint is making Alaitoc so it can only *possibly* impact less than half the book, and of the remaining half only impacts them if they don't play like Eldar.
Thousand Sons special rule only impacting units with Smite makes some sense in that Thousand Sons is an army built around units that can Smite.
It'd be like if you gave Thousand Sons "Tzangors each get free Pulse Rifles"? Do you even care if it's powerful or not? It doesn't match your faction, only benefits a small section of your list, and then only when you aren't fielding them like Thousand Sons.
If you give Alaitoc a trait that only impacts half the army, but fits, I don't care. For instance, I actually really like the Sam-Hainn trait. And my only complaint about Biel-Tan is that it should have been Uthwe. Turn Alaitoc into something like that, and sure. But turn it into "Don't play Eldar, get +amazingbonus", and we'll be unhappy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: +1 the "Traits are a bad idea, Mkay!" post. I liked the CWE book more without them. And the other faction books too.
You can't have balance problems if everything is the same <guy tapping on side of head.jpg>
So the problem is that some traits are better than others, so everyone takes those, and every army ends up being the same. So the solution is to remove traits, so that every army...is the same? No thanks. At least with the current system, people can choose to sacrifice some competitiveness for flavor and variety. And different unit builds can be better with different traits. Sure, something is going to end up being the best overall. But that doesn't mean we have to destroy all B lists.
Before Chapter Traits, I felt like my UltraMarines were UltraMarine descendents, whereas another guy's were RG, another were Sallies, and so forth.
Before Chapter Traits, a Spirit Host was very different from a Swordwind force or a Guardian Warhost.
We shouldn't reduce everything to no variance for the sake of balance, but I don't see Chapter Traits adding much variance to the game. It's still the same choices for armies. They just have better rules
But the 'flavour' of these traits doesn't even make sense. Biel-tan encourages you to run guardian hordes and Catachans encourage you to run a lot of Leman Russ tanks.
Crimson wrote: But the 'flavour' of these traits doesn't even make sense. Biel-tan encourages you to run guardian hordes and Catachans encourage you to run a lot of Leman Russ tanks.
That i'll certainly agree with. I would almost prefer if traits weren't attached to any specific chapter.
Bharring wrote: Before Chapter Traits, I felt like my UltraMarines were UltraMarine descendents, whereas another guy's were RG, another were Sallies, and so forth.
Before Chapter Traits, a Spirit Host was very different from a Swordwind force or a Guardian Warhost.
We shouldn't reduce everything to no variance for the sake of balance, but I don't see Chapter Traits adding much variance to the game. It's still the same choices for armies. They just have better rules
Except not, because you're forced into running Roboute. So how did a army actually feel like those Chapters outside paint colors?
Except not, because you're forced into running Roboute. So how did a army actually feel like those Chapters outside paint colors?
Roboute shouldn't exist.
But that aside, 'Chapter Traits' are relatively new invention in the 40K, and people made flavourful armies for years fine without them. If you want to make a thematic White Scars army, choose a lot of bikes and Land Speeders, if you want to make a thematic Biel-Tan army, choose a lot of aspect warriors. Why there needs to be some special rules for it?
Except not, because you're forced into running Roboute. So how did a army actually feel like those Chapters outside paint colors?
Roboute shouldn't exist.
But that aside, 'Chapter Traits' are relatively new invention in the 40K, and people made flavourful armies for years fine without them. If you want to make a thematic White Scars army, choose a lot of bikes and Land Speeders, if you want to make a thematic Biel-Tan army, choose a lot of aspect warriors. Why there needs to be some special rules for it?
Absolutely agree. Ultimately if you want to make the most powerful army possible you have to make concessions on the fluff. We could say we wish it were otherwise, but it's the case for virtually any game of this kind. The most optimal build is rarely the most lore accurate in any game.
Except not, because you're forced into running Roboute. So how did a army actually feel like those Chapters outside paint colors?
Roboute shouldn't exist.
But that aside, 'Chapter Traits' are relatively new invention in the 40K, and people made flavourful armies for years fine without them. If you want to make a thematic White Scars army, choose a lot of bikes and Land Speeders, if you want to make a thematic Biel-Tan army, choose a lot of aspect warriors. Why there needs to be some special rules for it?
There don't need to be, but those armies aren't competitive for the most part. For example, in 5th we saw lots of bike armies because of bikes as troops option. Without that, we wouldn't have seen many because bikes weren't good enough without it.
The same complaints about traits being imbalanced can also be applied to unit configurations.
Ideally, traits should be used to encourage less viable list builds by buffing otherwise less desirable units if taken on a large scale.
There don't need to be, but those armies aren't competitive for the most part. For example, in 5th we saw lots of bike armies because of bikes as troops option. Without that, we wouldn't have seen many because bikes weren't good enough without it.
But everyone could do that, it was not a White Scar thing.
The same complaints about traits being imbalanced can also be applied to unit configurations.
Not really. At least without traits you can theoretically balance the units. But if one trait makes unit A better while another makes unit B better, how do you balance that? Should the unit be pointed as it was receiving the buff from the trait or not?
Ideally, traits should be used to encourage less viable list builds by buffing otherwise less desirable units if taken on a large scale.
Except not, because you're forced into running Roboute. So how did a army actually feel like those Chapters outside paint colors?
Roboute shouldn't exist.
But that aside, 'Chapter Traits' are relatively new invention in the 40K, and people made flavourful armies for years fine without them. If you want to make a thematic White Scars army, choose a lot of bikes and Land Speeders, if you want to make a thematic Biel-Tan army, choose a lot of aspect warriors. Why there needs to be some special rules for it?
Uh...
You had a Chapter creation system and Legion traits with 3rd/4th, and in 5th a named Character for Loyalist Scum conferred certain bonuses by replacing Combat Tactics (or whatever it was called).
There don't need to be, but those armies aren't competitive for the most part. For example, in 5th we saw lots of bike armies because of bikes as troops option. Without that, we wouldn't have seen many because bikes weren't good enough without it.
But everyone could do that, it was not a White Scar thing.
The same complaints about traits being imbalanced can also be applied to unit configurations.
Not really. At least without traits you can theoretically balance the units. But if one trait makes unit A better while another makes unit B better, how do you balance that? Should the unit be pointed as it was receiving the buff from the trait or not?
Ideally, traits should be used to encourage less viable list builds by buffing otherwise less desirable units if taken on a large scale.
Why not just buff those units directly?
That's why I'm for balancing everything without Special HQ and Traits first, and then when everyone is balanced as that we can start adding what the Traits do.
In a way, if the Index lists had any semblance of balance that would've been an excellent framework. Instead, GW is kinda balancing as they go.
There don't need to be, but those armies aren't competitive for the most part. For example, in 5th we saw lots of bike armies because of bikes as troops option. Without that, we wouldn't have seen many because bikes weren't good enough without it.
But everyone could do that, it was not a White Scar thing.
The same complaints about traits being imbalanced can also be applied to unit configurations.
Not really. At least without traits you can theoretically balance the units. But if one trait makes unit A better while another makes unit B better, how do you balance that? Should the unit be pointed as it was receiving the buff from the trait or not?
Ideally, traits should be used to encourage less viable list builds by buffing otherwise less desirable units if taken on a large scale.
Why not just buff those units directly?
1) Yes, in that case they could. I used that example because you mentioned white scars. But there were other character dependent builds that were tied to specific factions via special characters. At least our traits aren't tied to special characters anymore!
2) What I mean is that you are saying that traits are bad because they cause imbalances. Well, the main thing that causes imbalances is different unit configurations. So why not limit unit options more as well? In both cases, you are removing options in the name of balance.
3) In an ideal world, traits work like this: both armies are balanced, and then each get a trait buffing a different area, but with about the same power overall, so both armies stay balanced. Now obviously it doesn't actually work that way because the game wasn't balanced at the unit level in the first place. So what we actually get is that certain unit combinations produce the most powerful lists, but if you have a trait affecting less used units, that can bring them up to the level of better units.
The big problem is when we see a list that has an optimal unit composition that then is also buffed by a trait. Bad lists with traits aren't a problem. Good lists that also have a relevant trait are.
You are talking about some ideal state of balance that the game isn't going to achieve. If we could achieve total unit balance, then it may not be worth introducing traits. But we can't achieve total unit balance, and we're not going to. So let's at least leave some mechanical variety in so that people who aren't going to play the top meta list can have things be a bit more interesting.
Uh...
You had a Chapter creation system and Legion traits with 3rd/4th, and in 5th a named Character for Loyalist Scum conferred certain bonuses by replacing Combat Tactics (or whatever it was called).
It isn't a new invention I promise you.
Everything after the second edition is 'new'. And I'm pretty sure there weren't chapter traits in the third edition either.
That's why I'm for balancing everything without Special HQ and Traits first, and then when everyone is balanced as that we can start adding what the Traits do.
But it still doesn't solve the issue with the traits. If one trait buffs unit A while another trait doesn't buff it (it buffs something else instead) how do you cost the unit A? If you cost is like it hadn't the trait, it is OP with it, if you cost it like it had it, it will be overcosted without it.
Uh...
You had a Chapter creation system and Legion traits with 3rd/4th, and in 5th a named Character for Loyalist Scum conferred certain bonuses by replacing Combat Tactics (or whatever it was called).
It isn't a new invention I promise you.
Everything after the second edition is 'new'. And I'm pretty sure there weren't chapter traits in the third edition either.
That's why I'm for balancing everything without Special HQ and Traits first, and then when everyone is balanced as that we can start adding what the Traits do.
But it still doesn't solve the issue with the traits. If one trait buffs unit A while another trait doesn't buff it (it buffs something else instead) how do you cost the unit A? If you cost is like it hadn't the trait, it is OP with it, if you cost it like it had it, it will be overcosted without it.
I believe 3rd ed had different legion traits. 3.5ed CSM did at least.
And if we are calling everything after 2nd ed new, then wtf timescale are we even on here?
"So how did a army actually feel like those Chapters outside paint colors?"
My UltraMarine (descendents): at least 2 Tac squads, 1 Dev squad and 1 ASM squad as the backbone of every list. Working together, not as 3 seperate forces.
Other guy's Sallies: Lots of Flamers and Meltas. A beautiful TH/SS Termie squad with cloaks.
White Scars: More Bikes than the average Marine list. Or every Marine mounted up (Rhino, Razorback, or Bike)
Swordwind: No duplicate non-troops. Preferably very different types of units, too.
Spirit Host: Lots of Wraith constructs. Tends to build slow and durable.
Guardian Warhost: Lots of Guardians. Not much to explain here.
Windrider Host: Moar Jetbikes. Same.
You could build each of these armies, and they would build, look, and play differently. Even without different rules.
White Scars, for example, should be exemplified by more Bikes and having Rhinos for their on-foot doods more often than most chapters. But their bikes should, on average, be just as good as UM or RG bikes. Likewise, UM will probably have more Tacs than others, but their Tacs would be no better.
White Scars, for example, should be exemplified by more Bikes and having Rhinos for their on-foot doods more often than most chapters. But their bikes should, on average, be just as good as UM or RG bikes. Likewise, UM will probably have more Tacs than others, but their Tacs would be no better.
Exactly! Doing it otherwise results a situation, that if for example White Scars had better bikes than other chapters, you'd be gimping yourself if you for some reason wanted to run a bike heavy Ultramarine 8th company army.
White Scars, for example, should be exemplified by more Bikes and having Rhinos for their on-foot doods more often than most chapters. But their bikes should, on average, be just as good as UM or RG bikes. Likewise, UM will probably have more Tacs than others, but their Tacs would be no better.
Exactly! Doing it otherwise results a situation, that if for example White Scars had better bikes than other chapters, you'd be gimping yourself if you for some reason wanted to run a bike heavy Ultramarine 8th company army.
That would be an argument to make the traits generic and not attached to the fluff. for example, if anyone could take a trait to buff bikes, then the UM bike company and White Scars would be of equal power. It doesn't mean we have to get rid of traits entirely.
But then if you want a Company:
-A White Scars detatchment of Bikers
-An Imperial Fists detatchment of Devs -An UM detatchment of Tacs
For a silly soup forces. And, depending on the army building rules, you may have 1 WSTac squad, 1 IF Tac squad, and 4 UM Tac squads - each with different rules.
Why not just have SM Bikes capable stock, and not need a trait to skew your force in their favor? That way, you have fewer silly beardy lists, and more variety within most lists.
White Scars, for example, should be exemplified by more Bikes and having Rhinos for their on-foot doods more often than most chapters. But their bikes should, on average, be just as good as UM or RG bikes. Likewise, UM will probably have more Tacs than others, but their Tacs would be no better.
Exactly! Doing it otherwise results a situation, that if for example White Scars had better bikes than other chapters, you'd be gimping yourself if you for some reason wanted to run a bike heavy Ultramarine 8th company army.
That would be an argument to make the traits generic and not attached to the fluff. for example, if anyone could take a trait to buff bikes, then the UM bike company and White Scars would be of equal power. It doesn't mean we have to get rid of traits entirely.
But if bikes are in practice always run with a certain trait, then why not just make that trait part of the base bike unit rules to begin with?
White Scars, for example, should be exemplified by more Bikes and having Rhinos for their on-foot doods more often than most chapters. But their bikes should, on average, be just as good as UM or RG bikes. Likewise, UM will probably have more Tacs than others, but their Tacs would be no better.
Exactly! Doing it otherwise results a situation, that if for example White Scars had better bikes than other chapters, you'd be gimping yourself if you for some reason wanted to run a bike heavy Ultramarine 8th company army.
That would be an argument to make the traits generic and not attached to the fluff. for example, if anyone could take a trait to buff bikes, then the UM bike company and White Scars would be of equal power. It doesn't mean we have to get rid of traits entirely.
But if bikes are in practice always run with a certain trait, then why not just make that trait part of the base bike unit rules to begin with?
Well for one, that would just increase the power of all units across the board. And it would leave no difference between bikes run as part of some other list, and bikes run as part of a specialized list.
I think it's good if we have some slight buffs for variety. for example, say you have 2 players with the same list: a couple tacs, some devs, and a bike squad. 1 player picks a trait that buffs the devs, and the other picks a trait that buffs bikes. That should be fine and viable, and is more interesting than both players having the same list. This is the same thing as I mentioned before about list ideally being balanced before traits.
And there's also the issue of specialized lists. They are fun and fluffy, but by definition are going to be weaker than more well rounded lists. If you normally need some tacs to take objectives, some devs to kill Knights, and some bikes to harass back line units, but then you run only bikes, you're going to have trouble taking points or killing Knights, no? In which case you need buffs on your bikes if the list is still going to be competitive. This is also what I was saying before, about traits being used to make less competitive builds still good enough to field.
GW just need to be clear on what traits are meant to be.
They could be a small nod to the fluff, offering tiny bonuses to the units which you would expect to see in a fluffy army. This could be extremely incidental. So for Eldar it could be Alaitoc=+1 save for Rangers (and just rangers). Wind Riders and Vipers get +1 movement with Saim Hann. Beil-Tan, Ulthwe and Iyanden give +1 Ld to Aspect Warriors, Guardians and Wraithguard respectively.
These abilities are token in themselves - so are almost certainly not worth building lists around. But they could "represent the fluff" for people who really care about that.
At the opposite extreme you have big powers to open up alternative builds. So say Wraithguard are pretty "meh" on their own - but maybe they become competitive with Iyanden's buff. Same for Jet bikes, aspect warriors etc and their respective craftworld. This would allow GW to create more "mini" armies and potentially encourage players to expand their collections. Warmahordes 2.0 had problems - but the idea that certain commanders elevated certain units towards a competitive tier wasn't a terrible one (imo anyway, I think the game keeled over due to bloat). Chapter tactics could have done that in 40k.
As it stands however we just have abilities with massive deviations in power (some of which are clearly phoned in) and so its a relatively simple process of identifying which ones are competitive and which ones are garbage. There is an attempt to complicate this, and encourage inter-faction souping, by throwing in warlord traits, relics and stratagems, but by and large its still obvious.
Also we are probably 24 hours from someone reading out the points in CA over a youtube video and yet there are still no leaks. Congrats to operation potato camera, but my frustration is infinite.
Tyel wrote: GW just need to be clear on what traits are meant to be.
They could be a small nod to the fluff, offering tiny bonuses to the units which you would expect to see in a fluffy army. This could be extremely incidental. So for Eldar it could be Alaitoc=+1 save for Rangers (and just rangers). Wind Riders and Vipers get +1 movement with Saim Hann. Beil-Tan, Ulthwe and Iyanden give +1 Ld to Aspect Warriors, Guardians and Wraithguard respectively.
These abilities are token in themselves - so are almost certainly not worth building lists around. But they could "represent the fluff" for people who really care about that.
At the opposite extreme you have big powers to open up alternative builds. So say Wraithguard are pretty "meh" on their own - but maybe they become competitive with Iyanden's buff. Same for Jet bikes, aspect warriors etc and their respective craftworld. This would allow GW to create more "mini" armies and potentially encourage players to expand their collections. Warmahordes 2.0 had problems - but the idea that certain commanders elevated certain units towards a competitive tier wasn't a terrible one (imo anyway, I think the game keeled over due to bloat). Chapter tactics could have done that in 40k.
As it stands however we just have abilities with massive deviations in power (some of which are clearly phoned in) and so its a relatively simple process of identifying which ones are competitive and which ones are garbage. There is an attempt to complicate this, and encourage inter-faction souping, by throwing in warlord traits, relics and stratagems, but by and large its still obvious.
Also we are probably 24 hours from someone reading out the points in CA over a youtube video and yet there are still no leaks. Congrats to operation potato camera, but my frustration is infinite.
Tyel wrote: GW just need to be clear on what traits are meant to be.
They could be a small nod to the fluff, offering tiny bonuses to the units which you would expect to see in a fluffy army. This could be extremely incidental. So for Eldar it could be Alaitoc=+1 save for Rangers (and just rangers). Wind Riders and Vipers get +1 movement with Saim Hann. Beil-Tan, Ulthwe and Iyanden give +1 Ld to Aspect Warriors, Guardians and Wraithguard respectively.
These abilities are token in themselves - so are almost certainly not worth building lists around. But they could "represent the fluff" for people who really care about that.
At the opposite extreme you have big powers to open up alternative builds. So say Wraithguard are pretty "meh" on their own - but maybe they become competitive with Iyanden's buff. Same for Jet bikes, aspect warriors etc and their respective craftworld. This would allow GW to create more "mini" armies and potentially encourage players to expand their collections. Warmahordes 2.0 had problems - but the idea that certain commanders elevated certain units towards a competitive tier wasn't a terrible one (imo anyway, I think the game keeled over due to bloat). Chapter tactics could have done that in 40k.
As it stands however we just have abilities with massive deviations in power (some of which are clearly phoned in) and so its a relatively simple process of identifying which ones are competitive and which ones are garbage. There is an attempt to complicate this, and encourage inter-faction souping, by throwing in warlord traits, relics and stratagems, but by and large its still obvious.
Also we are probably 24 hours from someone reading out the points in CA over a youtube video and yet there are still no leaks. Congrats to operation potato camera, but my frustration is infinite.
If we assume that the weapon costs are mostly changes across factions, I am seeing a lot of lower cost weapons. Flamers, autocannons, heavy stubbers, etc.
"So for Eldar it could be Alaitoc=+1 save for Rangers (and just rangers)."
I think that's the crux of so much of the disagreement.
If Alaitoc's rule is "+1 save for non-Fly units that don't move at all", that's just dumb and I hate it and I hate you for suggesting it. It's not fluffy, and doesn't fit CWE in general or Alaitoc specifically.
If Alaitoc's rule is "+1 save for Rangers", I'm totally on board.
Note that the second is only better when Rangers move, which they rarely ever do. So the second is basically a straight downgrade from the first. But the second is good and the first is bad.
But a lot of the more-believed rumors don't seem to jive with this?
For instance, no change to any non-FW-related CWE units? Everything under Asuryani are options on FW or Corsair choices. But nothing on the base price of a Wraithknight. No change to Shining Spears.
There's also no entry under Aeldari or Craftworlds, from what I'm seeing.
Considering GW has posted that there are changes that *arent* in the leaks, we must be missing something?
DW terminators are 23 base. So maybe BolS is reporting the Chaos Termie price AFTER you add their axe and combi-bolter Nvm, that link shows Chaos Termies base at 28ppm before axe and combi-bolter. That's super lame. But arguably, they can take cheaper melee weapons, Marks and combi-weapons, so maybe not so bad
I notice that BA Missile Launchers, Multimeltas, and twin-linked Lascannons got cheaper, but Lascannons don't seem to have an entry. I think I'm ok with that. Nice point reduction on the Plasma Cannon too.
Deathwatch Termies confirmed at 23 points, Power Fist at 9, no change on Storm Bolters. That means probably 34 point terminators, that's a nice reduction there.
Bharring wrote: But a lot of the more-believed rumors don't seem to jive with this?
For instance, no change to any non-FW-related CWE units? Everything under Asuryani are options on FW or Corsair choices. But nothing on the base price of a Wraithknight. No change to Shining Spears.
There's also no entry under Aeldari or Craftworlds, from what I'm seeing.
Considering GW has posted that there are changes that *arent* in the leaks, we must be missing something?
It's at the end of a page - we're missing pages and WK would come after those listings. So it's still possible.
Bharring wrote: But a lot of the more-believed rumors don't seem to jive with this?
For instance, no change to any non-FW-related CWE units? Everything under Asuryani are options on FW or Corsair choices. But nothing on the base price of a Wraithknight. No change to Shining Spears.
There's also no entry under Aeldari or Craftworlds, from what I'm seeing.
Considering GW has posted that there are changes that *arent* in the leaks, we must be missing something?
It's at the end of a page - we're missing pages and WK would come after those listings. So it's still possible.
It looks like some FW parts are separate from their non-FW counterparts (the missing WK points for instance but things like Hornets and Wasps are there).
I was reading the latest White Dwarf and there was an article about Cities of Death, where they talked about changes to terrain rules.
Basically soft cover (crates, wooden fences, stuff you'd have lying around) gives +1 to armour, while hard cover (ruins, buildings...) gives +2. This can be countered by being higher up, as a height advantage of at least 3" gives your guys -1 AP extra and there is a stratagem to increase it to -2. Most interestingly, there is a general obscured penalty to hit: if your target is over 50% out of sight, the firer gets -1 to hit. Also ~20 new stratagems for urban fighting, like sewers for deep striking and point blank overwatch even when the enemy starts the charge out of sight.
Bharring wrote: Perhaps all the CWE changes are on Datasheets, which it says are elsewhere in the book?
Another leak went out on the FW unit wargear. Scatter laser - 7ppm Shuricannon remains 10ppm Star cannon down to 13ppm
This is likely going to be the same for the Codex options too. Glad to see GW agrees that the Scatter laser is worse then the Shuricannon. At 7ppm it's actually an interesting choice now. It also makes Scatter Lasers or Star cannons almost auto-take on WKs. Depending on how cheap Windriders become (and they NEED to be cheaper) Scatterbikes might be viable again, but certainly not to the extend of 7E (thankfully)
ASM at 15ppm with Jumppacks is a -1ppm change. Don't know if it's the Battle Brother or the Jumppack. But it being listed seperately seems to be a change, too.
The leaked points look...broadly good at first glance, a couple hear scratchers. Not sure why Loyalist termis are 23 and Chaos termis are 28ppm. Lots of stuff that needs help didnt get it, but some stuff did.
Looks like Demolisher cannons got a merciful price break of 20pts. Loving the decreased Daemon Engine points, looking forward to playing around with that.
Chimeras got a huge price break, a classic Multilaser/HB chimera went from 93pts to 73. Not quite as cheap as I think they should be but they're at least useable now. Devilfish are now a bit cheaper as well, glad to see that.
Was hoping to see Rhinos get a break too
Hydras and Armored Sentinels also got love, I'm a big fan of that. The Deathstrike is down 30pts but im still unsure of its utility. Vanquisher got a points break as did thr Exterminator but 5 and 8pts off respectively isnt gonna make them usable. Tank Commanders got a 25pt reduction, really? Shadowsword went up 20pts but I dont think thats gonna change much there.
Vaktathi wrote: The leaked points look...broadly good at first glance, a couple hear scratchers. Not sure why Loyalist termis are 23 and Chaos termis are 28ppm. Lots of stuff that needs help didnt get it, but some stuff did.
Looks like Demolisher cannons got a merciful price break of 20pts. Loving the decreased Daemon Engine points, looking forward to playing around with that.
Chimeras got a huge price break, a classic Multilaser/HB chimera went from 93pts to 73. Not quite as cheap as I think they should be but they're at least useable now. Devilfish are now a bit cheaper as well, glad to see that.
Was hoping to see Rhinos get a break too
Hydras and Armored Sentinels also got love, I'm a big fan of that. The Deathstrike is down 30pts but im still unsure of its utility. Vanquisher got a points break as did thr Exterminator but 5 and 8pts off respectively isnt gonna make them usable. Tank Commanders got a 25pt reduction, really? Shadowsword went up 20pts but I dont think thats gonna change much there.
Gaurd are actually the most imprtoved army IMO except maybe tau wins most improved. 70 point ghost keels is REALLY dumb and they are going to be spammed. 27 point crisis is and 15 point missle pods really good. Tank commanders down 25 points is maybe the biggest head scratcher though - they were already phenomenally good - command demolisher is now god mode LOL.
gendoikari87 wrote: Anyone notice gk terms are 39 points while others are 23? Even with full smite thats bs
I think the 23 is a misprint.
SoT are 30. 34 with sword, which is 5 less than a GK termie with a force weapon.
yes better guns, better psy powers, more chaff utility, cheaper, don't they also have like a +4inv? And they get all of that for 5pts less, on an elite unit when GK termintors are suppose to be troops. The GK psychic powers better be super awesome in CA change.
Vaktathi wrote: The leaked points look...broadly good at first glance, a couple hear scratchers. Not sure why Loyalist termis are 23 and Chaos termis are 28ppm. Lots of stuff that needs help didnt get it, but some stuff did.
Looks like Demolisher cannons got a merciful price break of 20pts. Loving the decreased Daemon Engine points, looking forward to playing around with that.
Chimeras got a huge price break, a classic Multilaser/HB chimera went from 93pts to 73. Not quite as cheap as I think they should be but they're at least useable now. Devilfish are now a bit cheaper as well, glad to see that.
Was hoping to see Rhinos get a break too
Hydras and Armored Sentinels also got love, I'm a big fan of that. The Deathstrike is down 30pts but im still unsure of its utility. Vanquisher got a points break as did thr Exterminator but 5 and 8pts off respectively isnt gonna make them usable. Tank Commanders got a 25pt reduction, really? Shadowsword went up 20pts but I dont think thats gonna change much there.
Gaurd are actually the most imprtoved army IMO except maybe tau wins most improved. 70 point ghost keels is REALLY dumb and they are going to be spammed. 27 point crisis is and 15 point missle pods really good. Tank commanders down 25 points is maybe the biggest head scratcher though - they were already phenomenally good - command demolisher is now god mode LOL.
Don't sleep on the Asuryani. They got some pretty stellar drops across the board. More CWE units that can be fields means more potential for synergy...
gendoikari87 wrote: Anyone notice gk terms are 39 points while others are 23? Even with full smite thats bs
I think the 23 is a misprint.
SoT are 30. 34 with sword, which is 5 less than a GK termie with a force weapon.
yes better guns, better psy powers, more chaff utility, cheaper, don't they also have like a +4inv? And they get all of that for 5pts less, on an elite unit when GK termintors are suppose to be troops. The GK psychic powers better be super awesome in CA change.
I'm not making a claim on the overall benefits of TS, because there are a ton of layers there (your dreads are down 22 points and they still get spells - mine do not_. Just that the costs are pretty close. I still think you'll want IGCP helpers.
Better spells for sure. I hope GK get extra lores and more full smites on characters. SoT 4++ never comes into play, but they'll negate some AP on weaker weapons. Troops is a benefit. You also have far better protection from perils.
A small amount of terminators aren't great. A bucket of them is hard for lots of lists to deal with.
gendoikari87 wrote: Anyone notice gk terms are 39 points while others are 23? Even with full smite thats bs
A GK Termie doesn't have any equipment options, 39 is probably the final point cost down from 43. Vanilla Marine Termies have to pay for their Power Fist and Stormbolter, so they'll probably be 34 ppm by the time you actually get them off the lot. GK probably needed a bigger drop than that I'll admit, but it's probably not quite the gak it looks like at first glance.
Edit: Wait, where are you seeing costs for GK stuff? If you're talking about the BoLs link they put GK Termies at 26 points base.
Dreadnaughts drop 10 points before equipment, Repentors drop 35ish. Both needed it, those are good.
I see no changes to Blood Claws or Grey Hunters, that doesn't bode well for basic Marines.
Better spells for sure. I hope GK get extra lores and more full smites on characters. SoT 4++ never comes into play, but they'll negate some AP on weaker weapons. Troops is a benefit. You also have far better protection from perils.
A small amount of terminators aren't great. A bucket of them is hard for lots of lists to deal with.
Ok, they don't get new rules or spells in this CA. Well ++4 is better then ++5 for more points. You can't run a real bucket of GK termintors though. almost 400pts per squads means you will get maybe 2-3 squads, along draigo and NDKs. Some d2 units can blow them up really fast.
Eldars got points drop because they needed points drop.
Eldars are not a good faction, they are a faction that is being carried by shining spears and a busted sub-faction trait. If you fix those 2, the eldars are quite down in the competitivity chart.
Karol wrote: Although it would be nice to see someone from the design team explain why they thought that eldar should be getting point drops on multiple units.
Most of those point changes are from units that never see the table. They could jack up the "overpowered" stuff or do what they did and increase the competition within the codex.
Spoletta wrote: Eldars got points drop because they needed points drop.
Eldars are not a good faction, they are a faction that is being carried by shining spears and a busted sub-faction trait. If you fix those 2, the eldars are quite down in the competitivity chart.
A couple of my FW units went down, this makes me very happy. Blood Slaughterers -15, Kytan -104, Butcher cannons -5, contemptor base -16. Plus Bloodthirsters down 100, who doesn't like that?
Spoletta wrote: Eldars got points drop because they needed points drop. Eldars are not a good faction, they are a faction that is being carried by shining spears and a busted sub-faction trait. If you fix those 2, the eldars are quite down in the competitivity chart.
This just isn't true.
CWE is a good faction, but outside of the "optimal" build, they are not the amazing, overpowered group that the community at large thinks they are. I'm sure when it all shakes out, the mixture between CWE/Drukhari/Ynnari will get sillier due to these changes, which will result in more valid complaints, but this change does make standalone CWE better.
Karol wrote: Although it would be nice to see someone from the design team explain why they thought that eldar should be getting point drops on multiple units.
Most of those point changes are from units that never see the table. They could jack up the "overpowered" stuff or do what they did and increase the competition within the codex.
Cool, but doesn't that mean that eldar will just get more option to play with now ?
I'm sure when it all shakes out, the mixture between CWE/Drukhari/Ynnari will get sillier due to these changes, which will result in more valid complaints, but this change does make standalone CWE better.
It does Karol and that isn't a bad thing, it isn't like they're gonna be fielding 2 unit of each discounted unit now. It just means there will be wiggle room for people. I mean it's what we wanted, kinda hard to begrudge people who want to use their models.
Bharring wrote: ASM at 15ppm with Jumppacks is a -1ppm change. Don't know if it's the Battle Brother or the Jumppack. But it being listed seperately seems to be a change, too.
It's a Jump Pack change. Prior prices meant that Assault Marines paid 3 points for their Pack, while Vanguard paid 2.
"Although it would be nice to see someone from the design team explain why they thought that eldar should be getting point drops on multiple units."
Because Storm Guardians, WraithKnights, and Warlock Conclaves made GK look *good*.
Not everything in the CWE book is OP. Some of it actually is garbage (not just "garbage by CWE standards). The points drops were on those garbage units. I'm not seeing the current top CWE lists going down in points.
Quickjager wrote: It does Karol and that isn't a bad thing, it isn't like they're gonna be fielding 2 unit of each discounted unit now. It just means there will be wiggle room for people. I mean it's what we wanted, kinda hard to begrudge people who want to use their models.
I would have no problem with them using the models, if they had bad rules. Probably thinking that GW is going to give good rules to GK and nerfs everyone else wasn't the right mind set the last few months. I hope that people smarter then me at GW found out a way to play GK in an efficient way, that doesn't require FW or other armies. I look at the changes at see the void. Even with free 200pts, which my army doesn't get, I would still be stomped by all armies at my store, only now they get to play around with new stuff. Also knowing my store next 2-3 months is going to be CA events, to encourage people to buy in to the fixed units. I fully expect no monster and no special character weeks, just like last years CA.
Can wait for the design studio review of their book. IMO it is going to tell us a lot about the future of w40k.
Because Storm Guardians, WraithKnights, and Warlock Conclaves made GK look *good*.
I had big units of guardians teleport in and wipe out my whole army turn 2, although that was months ago. I never seen WK or conclaves, and I don't think anyone else did. And an option that doesn't get used isn't making anyone look good just, because it exists. Because you know just because my 6y old brother can't write in english, I am not suddenly turned in to the second incarnation of Hemingway. .
Bharring wrote: I suppose the obvious should be pointed out: what we're seeing in CA is a continuation of 'GK are a flavor-add to lists, not a core army'.
Not saying that's good or bad. Just saying that's the most likely explanation of everything GW has done with respect to GK this edition.
Ok, but where is this writen down or said. People keep saying it. But it is not in the codex, not in the old CA, not in faction review for last year FAQ, there is no this years GKFAQ review because GW didn't gave them one. Was it said in a twich stream or something like that?
Bharring wrote: I suppose the obvious should be pointed out: what we're seeing in CA is a continuation of 'GK are a flavor-add to lists, not a core army'.
Not saying that's good or bad. Just saying that's the most likely explanation of everything GW has done with respect to GK this edition.
Ok, but where is this writen down or said. People keep saying it. But it is not in the codex, not in the old CA, not in faction review for last year FAQ, there is no this years GKFAQ review because GW didn't gave them one. Was it said in a twich stream or something like that?
It's in the brain of people who have played for a loooooong time. GK used to be only field-able as a single squad of ultra-powerful Terminators. It remains somewhat their lore, too. They're the force that exists to fight Daemons, so why they show up in an engagement against Tau (or whatever) is beyond me. They exist for a single purpose, the use of them otherwise is canonically a waste.
Maybe that's shifted in there lore, but I sorta doubt it.
"I had big units of guardians teleport in and wipe out my whole army turn 2, although that was months ago."
Did they have swords or guns? I'm betting guns. those were Guardian *Defenders*, a different unit - which did *not* get a points reduction (rightly - they're fine as-is).
*Storm* Guardians are basically the same unit, but trade away the gun for pistol+sword. On an S3 body. Basically, Guardsmen with pistol/sword. For 7ppm vs 4ppm. They're the ones that went to 6ppm - still half again the points.
Maybe that's shifted in there lore, but I sorta doubt it.
In the GK lore, at least in the book I have, it is writen that GK respond before any other forces thanks to having super oracles that know in advance where an attack may or may not happen, better and more accurate then the eldar ones. And this is why GK forces drop when a demon infestation starts to stop it and not come after 20 years of warp travel to a planet that was already eaten. But I get it, non GK players don't have to read GK lore in their books.
" And an option that doesn't get used isn't making anyone look good just, because it exists. Because you know just because my 6y old brother can't write in english, I am not suddenly turned in to the second incarnation of Hemingway. . "
This argument boils down to: "If an option is bad, just forget it exists. Balancing doesn't help if it's not used."
Why does that apply to Storm Guardians but not GK? Aren't GK jsut another "option that doesn't get used"?
Bharring wrote: "I had big units of guardians teleport in and wipe out my whole army turn 2, although that was months ago."
Did they have swords or guns? I'm betting guns. those were Guardian *Defenders*, a different unit - which did *not* get a points reduction (rightly - they're fine as-is).
*Storm* Guardians are basically the same unit, but trade away the gun for pistol+sword. On an S3 body. Basically, Guardsmen with pistol/sword. For 7ppm vs 4ppm. They're the ones that went to 6ppm - still half again the points.
they had 2 melta guns and pistols. 3 squads droped in they had meltaguns, he also had warlocks and farseers, and some DE. After one turn of shoting my 4 squads of paladins went down to 2 squads of 1 dude each.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: " And an option that doesn't get used isn't making anyone look good just, because it exists. Because you know just because my 6y old brother can't write in english, I am not suddenly turned in to the second incarnation of Hemingway. . "
This argument boils down to: "If an option is bad, just forget it exists. Balancing doesn't help if it's not used."
Why does that apply to Storm Guardians but not GK? Aren't GK jsut another "option that doesn't get used"?
Because eldar have a ton of options that do get used. you could take a squad of guardians, park it anywhere or even forget to deploy it, and you would still be beating any non tournament list, and sure as heck all GK lists.
Making an unused unit better for an army that is already great is giving it options. Making crow cheaper, aka making a bad unit cost less in a bad list is not adding anything, it is just rubbing it in, or what ever GW though when they kept strikes at the same point cost and termintors at 39pts.
Bharring wrote: "I had big units of guardians teleport in and wipe out my whole army turn 2, although that was months ago."
Did they have swords or guns? I'm betting guns. those were Guardian *Defenders*, a different unit - which did *not* get a points reduction (rightly - they're fine as-is).
*Storm* Guardians are basically the same unit, but trade away the gun for pistol+sword. On an S3 body. Basically, Guardsmen with pistol/sword. For 7ppm vs 4ppm. They're the ones that went to 6ppm - still half again the points.
they had 2 melta guns and pistols. 3 squads droped in they had meltaguns, he also had warlocks and farseers, and some DE. After one turn of shoting my 4 squads of paladins went down to 2 squads of 1 dude each.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: " And an option that doesn't get used isn't making anyone look good just, because it exists. Because you know just because my 6y old brother can't write in english, I am not suddenly turned in to the second incarnation of Hemingway. . "
This argument boils down to: "If an option is bad, just forget it exists. Balancing doesn't help if it's not used."
Why does that apply to Storm Guardians but not GK? Aren't GK jsut another "option that doesn't get used"?
Because eldar have a ton of options that do get used. you could take a squad of guardians, park it anywhere or even forget to deploy it, and you would still be beating any non tournament list, and sure as heck all GK lists.
Making an unused unit better for an army that is already great is giving it options. Making crow cheaper, aka making a bad unit cost less in a bad list is not adding anything, it is just rubbing it in, or what ever GW though when they kept strikes at the same point cost and termintors at 39pts.
You can make squads of 2 paladins?
Edit : OK min size is 3.
Still means 30 wounds were taken out mainly with 24 shuriken pistols
Making an unused unit better for an army that is already great is giving it options. Making crow cheaper, aka making a bad unit cost less in a bad list is not adding anything, it is just rubbing it in, or what ever GW though when they kept strikes at the same point cost and termintors at 39pts.
Oh, those were Storm Guardians, then. But it takes quite a lot to go wrong for Storm Guardians to do real damage.
It's kinda hard to picture 6 Melta Guns and 18 Shuriken Pistols bringing 4 Pally Squads down to 2 Models. Assuming each started with 4 members, that's 14 kills. Let's just pretend each Melta Gun kills a Pally (only about 1/3 chance of an unsaved wound from each MG, so all 6 doing so is... crazy unlikely). That leaves you with 8 kills from 18 Shuriken Pistol shots. So as long as he has a 178% success rate at wounding with Pistols, it could happen!
In other words, no. 3 Storm Guardian squads aren't shooting 4 Pally squads down to 2 models.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just figured out how it happened:
"3 squads droped in they had meltaguns"
Because they weren't playing by the rules.
You can make squads of 2 paladins?
Edit : OK min size is 3.
Still means 30 wounds were taken out mainly with 24 shuriken pistols
And psychic powers and desintegrators. Still 1000pts of his army killed 2000pts of my in 2 turns.
This is just utter nonsense.
Ok, maybe am stupid. Could you explain to me where am I wrong? to me if everyone gets 1$, but the entery fee is 5$, and most other people had 3-4$, but you have 1$ your still stuck in the no ticket zone.
How is the points drop list for GK deal with something like an Inari soup or a Castellan list? By adding a razorback or taking 6 strikes more? I already played games when people let me recycle units, most good lists can kill 2500pts of GK and still win on objectives.
"And psychic powers and desintegrators. Still 1000pts of his army killed 2000pts of my in 2 turns. "
That's like saying GK are OK because a squad of Interceptors and a Castellian could destroy a Wraithknight.
Those Storm Guardians didn't do nearly as much damage as you think they did.
"How is the points drop list for GK deal with something like an Inari soup or a Castellan list? By adding a razorback or taking 6 strikes more? I already played games when people let me recycle units, most good lists can kill 2500pts of GK and still win on objectives."
What's nonsense is claiming that fixing non-GK units that are currently terribad is unfair, because GK are bad.
Bharring wrote: " And an option that doesn't get used isn't making anyone look good just, because it exists. Because you know just because my 6y old brother can't write in english, I am not suddenly turned in to the second incarnation of Hemingway. . "
This argument boils down to: "If an option is bad, just forget it exists. Balancing doesn't help if it's not used."
Why does that apply to Storm Guardians but not GK? Aren't GK jsut another "option that doesn't get used"?
Honestly the Storm Guardian entry just needs to be deleted. It's the silliest idea in the history of the game, and that says a lot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: "How is the points drop list for GK deal with something like an Inari soup or a Castellan list? By adding a razorback or taking 6 strikes more? I already played games when people let me recycle units, most good lists can kill 2500pts of GK and still win on objectives."
What's nonsense is claiming that fixing non-GK units that are currently terribad is unfair, because GK are bad.
EH it's unfair if Grey Knights don't get correct fixes though.
Honestly the Storm Guardian entry just needs to be deleted. It's the silliest idea in the history of the game, and that says a lot.
I have fond memories from 5th edition taking Storm Guardians with 2 flamers and accompanying them with a Warlock with Destructor. I used to put them into a Wave Serpent. Tank shock the flank of an unsuspecting foe, which forced them to bunch up. Then I would hop out of the Serpent, and put 3 templates on their models. I actually preferred Storm Guardians to regular guardians because back then Eldar civilians only hit on a 3, so auto hitting fire templates were a big draw to me. The Warlock's Witchlbade was also crazy back then, as vs vehicles it was like he was swinging a las cannon...
Times have changed now though, and Storm Guardians are basically totally worthless these days.
Bharring wrote: "How is the points drop list for GK deal with something like an Inari soup or a Castellan list? By adding a razorback or taking 6 strikes more? I already played games when people let me recycle units, most good lists can kill 2500pts of GK and still win on objectives."
What's nonsense is claiming that fixing non-GK units that are currently terribad is unfair, because GK are bad.
Am not saying it is unfair. I said that saying that just because other armies got updates too and this time GK were not skiped in updates, like it happened with the past FAQs, suddenly makes GK good. If everyone gets a points drop, then nothing changes, other then people being made to buy more models. If eldar get more options to use more models, then just because Crow costs 80pts, GK do not become ok. It has nothing to do with fairness, but everything with how the change looks. How many units of lets say wind raiders can an eldar player take ? 2-3 right? This will change his list, as far as game play goes. Or at least I think so. How is the fact that a GM NDK cost less going to change the GK lists? The point drop is not enough to run a second one, and if you took draigo like me, the other HQ slot is full already. Neither the drop to the GM NDK, nor the Draigo gives enough points to run 2 battalions of GK. So more or less you get enough points to have a razorback "for free". Nothing in the game play changes, no new ways of playings come from it. And as stupid as I am, I think people will agree with me, that the GK game play is not something that could be described as working. Even if you added a "free razorback" to it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: "And psychic powers and desintegrators. Still 1000pts of his army killed 2000pts of my in 2 turns. "
That's like saying GK are OK because a squad of Interceptors and a Castellian could destroy a Wraithknight.
Those Storm Guardians didn't do nearly as much damage as you think they did.
They removed 11 wounds from my models. desintegrators killed 4 paladians, the warlock killed 1 and the farseer killed 2. And am not disagreing with you that storm guardians aren't the best of the best eldar have.
How is the points drop list for GK deal with something like an Inari soup or a Castellan list?
Ynnari is still a little borked.
Castellans you just kill everything around it and go for objectives. Like, don't even shoot it at all.
Ok, so which army or build do GK kill after the change. I know they won't be able to deal with eldar or tyranids, If orks don't change much they can't deal with orcs either. This leaves other imperial armies, but vs other imperials GK always feel like playing marines -2. Were demons nerfed, so GK are good against them now ?
3 5-man Tac squads in a 'Pod would have done the same thing. Including being likewise illegal, because only 2 can fit in a Pod (like only 2 Storm Guardian squads can DS). They would have done *much* more damage (Plasma vs Melta...), and would have survived more of a rebuttal.
The 6 Melta Guns would have averaged roughly 2 kills, for 4 wounds. The 18 Shuriken Pistol shots should average roughly 2 wounds. Doing 11 wounds when you should be averaging 6 is insane luck.
Warlock killing one is reasonable luck. A 1/9 chance of happening, but a single event, so much more likely.
The Farseer killing 2 though? They had to give the Farseer a crappy Relic Pistol, I don't recall if its 2 shots or 3, but each shot has a 1/9 chance of doing damage - so in addition to taking a crappy relic, they also had to get *insanely* lucky.
These things happen. I've had a Wave Serpent do 15 wounds to a Land Raider in one round, and have a FarSeer go next and finish it with her pistol. But they aren't indicative of balance. Farseers aren't great at killing Land Raiders just because I rolled hot that one time.
I'm not saying Storm Guardians aren't the best that Eldar have. I'm saying they're worse than most things out there, including most of GK's options.
Am not saying it is unfair. I said that saying that just because other armies got updates too and this time GK were not skiped in updates, like it happened with the past FAQs, suddenly makes GK good. If everyone gets a points drop, then nothing changes, other then people being made to buy more models. If eldar get more options to use more models, then just because Crow costs 80pts, GK do not become ok. It has nothing to do with fairness, but everything with how the change looks. How many units of lets say wind raiders can an eldar player take ? 2-3 right? This will change his list, as far as game play goes. Or at least I think so. How is the fact that a GM NDK cost less going to change the GK lists? The point drop is not enough to run a second one, and if you took draigo like me, the other HQ slot is full already. Neither the drop to the GM NDK, nor the Draigo gives enough points to run 2 battalions of GK. So more or less you get enough points to have a razorback "for free". Nothing in the game play changes, no new ways of playings come from it. And as stupid as I am, I think people will agree with me, that the GK game play is not something that could be described as working. Even if you added a "free razorback" to it.
It just doesn't work like that. The bad units were just not used in a competitive setting. This does not increase the overall Eldar power, it only makes the life of the Eldar players who were not cheese mongers and had those bad units a little bit easier.
If you save 100-200 points in your space marines army, that just means you can supplement more imperial guard. That's the way to do it.
And, since the imperial guard stuff got cheaper, you're better off.
You need to be thinking of Imperium with a "Guard First" mentality when building a competitive list. GK are definitely no exception. The best GK lists are about 900 points of guard for a reason. And they are still inferior to an all guard list.
Don't really understand the whinging against those Craftworld changes. Everything Craftworlds were spamming got a point increase and everything Craftworlds wouldn't touch with a 10 feet pole got a slight point adjustment. It's like GW is actually trying to balance the game; something everyone has been asking them for.
Hell, Shining Spears went up and they are the biggest gripe everyone and their mother had about Craftworlds. Are people seriously not wanting to balance all units out or is this just the usual "I want Craftworlds player to suffer for a 1000 years because I am salty"?
So far I am impressed by these changes. They are adjusting things, getting people to try out new combinations. I also liked that they increased the cost of Fire Dragons but reduced the price of Fusion gun as to make it more cost effective for non-Fire Dragon units(who have special abilities and good armor compared to Storm Guardians f.ex). As a Saim-hann player I am quite excited about trying these new Windrider and Vyper changes.
Eldarsif wrote: Don't really understand the whinging against those Craftworld changes. Everything Craftworlds were spamming got a point increase and everything Craftworlds wouldn't touch with a 10 feet pole got a slight point adjustment. It's like GW is actually trying to balance the game; something everyone has been asking them for.
Hell, Shining Spears went up and they are the biggest gripe everyone and their mother had about Craftworlds. Are people seriously not wanting to balance all units out or is this just the usual "I want Craftworlds player to suffer for a 1000 years because I am salty"?
So far I am impressed by these changes. They are adjusting things, getting people to try out new combinations. I also liked that they increased the cost of Fire Dragons but reduced the price of Fusion gun as to make it more cost effective for non-Fire Dragon units(who have special abilities and good armor compared to Storm Guardians f.ex). As a Saim-hann player I am quite excited about trying these new Windrider and Vyper changes.
You are impressed by the ELDAR changes don't go implying anything else.
Eldarsif wrote: Don't really understand the whinging against those Craftworld changes. Everything Craftworlds were spamming got a point increase and everything Craftworlds wouldn't touch with a 10 feet pole got a slight point adjustment. It's like GW is actually trying to balance the game; something everyone has been asking them for.
Hell, Shining Spears went up and they are the biggest gripe everyone and their mother had about Craftworlds. Are people seriously not wanting to balance all units out or is this just the usual "I want Craftworlds player to suffer for a 1000 years because I am salty"?
So far I am impressed by these changes. They are adjusting things, getting people to try out new combinations. I also liked that they increased the cost of Fire Dragons but reduced the price of Fusion gun as to make it more cost effective for non-Fire Dragon units(who have special abilities and good armor compared to Storm Guardians f.ex). As a Saim-hann player I am quite excited about trying these new Windrider and Vyper changes.
I can understand it. Let me explain it with this example: Lets say your list had 9 Spears, 3 Fire Prims Farseer Skyrunner, a Warlock or 2 and some Hemlocks
Those are pretty standard "it" units for Eldar right now. The Spears got a superficial 6ppm increase, but Twin-cats also went down 3ppm So those 9 Spears would only be 18pts more But look what else in that list has Twin-cats: The Farseer and the Fire Prims, which by virtue of the Twin-cat decrease, each went down 3ppm So in total, that list only went up 6pts.
SIX...POINTS. And if the list only had 7 Spears, there would be no change in total points...at all
Now, don't get me wrong, I like the changes. A lot. Especially since I want to play WRs and I now can without feeling like I am gimping myself But considering Eldar lists will generally not have to change, and many Marine armies still have overcosted Troops, AND Dark Eldar got NO changes/nerfs, I can easily see the hate/frustration.
Eldarsif wrote: Don't really understand the whinging against those Craftworld changes. Everything Craftworlds were spamming got a point increase and everything Craftworlds wouldn't touch with a 10 feet pole got a slight point adjustment. It's like GW is actually trying to balance the game; something everyone has been asking them for.
Hell, Shining Spears went up and they are the biggest gripe everyone and their mother had about Craftworlds. Are people seriously not wanting to balance all units out or is this just the usual "I want Craftworlds player to suffer for a 1000 years because I am salty"?
So far I am impressed by these changes. They are adjusting things, getting people to try out new combinations. I also liked that they increased the cost of Fire Dragons but reduced the price of Fusion gun as to make it more cost effective for non-Fire Dragon units(who have special abilities and good armor compared to Storm Guardians f.ex). As a Saim-hann player I am quite excited about trying these new Windrider and Vyper changes.
I can understand it. Let me explain it with this example:
Lets say your list had 9 Spears, 3 Fire Prims Farseer Skyrunner, a Warlock or 2 and some Hemlocks
Those are pretty standard "it" units for Eldar right now. The Spears got a superficial 6ppm increase, but Twin-cats also went down 3ppm
So those 9 Spears would only be 18pts more
But look what else in that list has Twin-cats: The Farseer and the Fire Prims, which by virtue of the Twin-cat decrease, each went down 3ppm
So in total, that list only went up 6pts.
SIX...POINTS. And if the list only had 7 Spears, there would be no change in total points...at all
Now, don't get me wrong, I like the changes. A lot. Especially since I want to play WRs and I now can without feeling like I am gimping myself
But considering Eldar lists will generally not have to change, and many Marine armies still have overcosted Troops, AND Dark Eldar got NO changes/nerfs, I can easily see the hate/frustration.
-
Yea, but other armies got massive point reductions. My Guard army I'm building, for example... I have enough points now from the reductions to throw in a Manticore without changing anything about my list. Other armies are seeing drastic point reductions as well. If CWE costs stay about the same, then it is in effect a nerf if everyone else got cheaper.
Bharring wrote: New theory of what happened to Tacs in regards to CA:
The new Intercessor datasheet includes all the options Tacs have as-is. Thus, Tacs are 'fixed'.
That's not a rumor. Just throwing that out there.
They should absolutely do that, that way you can just use your old tac models as "counts-as" primaris, and as long as you don't mix primaris units and tac marines in the same army there's no confusion.
Bharring wrote: New theory of what happened to Tacs in regards to CA: The new Intercessor datasheet includes all the options Tacs have as-is. Thus, Tacs are 'fixed'.
That's not a rumor. Just throwing that out there.
But that: A) Does nothing to help Chaos Marines B) Does not jive with the options in the Intercessor box and we all know how GW reacts to this
But I get the joke. Hopefully, however, part of your "theory" is true in that Tacticals and CSMs do indeed get updated datasheets with something extra to merit not getting their MUCH needed points decrease. Maybe they're getting 2 Wounds? Maybe they're getting some special ability that improves their damage output?
But holding my breathe might be fatal, so I wont' be doing that
Bharring wrote: New theory of what happened to Tacs in regards to CA:
The new Intercessor datasheet includes all the options Tacs have as-is. Thus, Tacs are 'fixed'.
Yea, but other armies got massive point reductions. My Guard army I'm building, for example... I have enough points now from the reductions to throw in a Manticore without changing anything about my list. Other armies are seeing drastic point reductions as well. If CWE costs stay about the same, then it is in effect a nerf if everyone else got cheaper.
Which is what I feel GW is going for. They appear to be pushing a lot of the armies up instead of taking things down. Time will tell how effective that will be.
Now, don't get me wrong, I like the changes. A lot. Especially since I want to play WRs and I now can without feeling like I am gimping myself
But considering Eldar lists will generally not have to change, and many Marine armies still have overcosted Troops, AND Dark Eldar got NO changes/nerfs, I can easily see the hate/frustration.
You make fair points Galef. I do however wonder if those decrying Craftworlds/Drukhari are taking into account the overall boost other armies are getting. These point changes are not happening in a vacuum where every other army is not getting anything.
I personally am looking forward to the next few months to see how things change. I am also looking forward to see if they've changed traits like the Alaitoc one. If they were to change that(no more -1 to hit) I would be a happy camper.
A) "Chaos Marine players love their Thousand Sons and Death Guard. So they're fine. We'll just bump Cultists to show 'em we're listening."
B) Well, there's a $40 upgrade kit for Intercessors that come with a bunch of Specials, CC weapons, and a Heavy weapon or two. Plus, you get 10 cheerleader mini-Primaris with every upgrade kit you buy.
As a craftworlds player who often runs things like falcons and Wraithlords and other non top tier units I can tell you from experience that whilst lists with spears and reaper spam may be top tier if you don't take our best units it's pretty tough to win games against good lists. A regular opponent plays a pretty serious drukhari list and I get a serious hiding every time.
I can understand people see competitive craftworlds armies running a few select units and thinks that we're op, but a non competitive list is actually not that great, not rubbish but not op by any stretch.
Watching battle reports from people like Liam from moarhammer and striking scorpion 82 should illustrate my point. They take non competitive armies and really struggle quite often, even against non optimised marine lists. But then Liam takes windriders, warlock conclaves, wraithknights and night spinners, so seeing him lose regularly is no surprise!
were printed long after CA went to the printers. Orks will probably get changed in the mid year errata.
Yeah, it's mainly the issue of being released so close to CA. Ideally, we get matched up in points to some of the other factions, but I don't think the sky is falling for Orks for the most part. P.K. are no longer the workhorse for our army (thankfully) and I think the changes to our codex plus our stratagems and traits will be enough to keep us up against most of the competition. Certainly better than us still being with the index right now.
Blndmage wrote: Anyone else notice "The Eight" as a 22 model unit for 1120?
Drones probably. 14 drones, all but two for farsight.
I'm wondering how usable it will be, at 1120, you'd need to be playing, what, 1250 atvteh smallest? Even in a 2k list, it's more than half the cost in one unit, so you can't even put it in reserves to bomb with.
were printed long after CA went to the printers. Orks will probably get changed in the mid year errata.
Yeah, it's mainly the issue of being released so close to CA. Ideally, we get matched up in points to some of the other factions, but I don't think the sky is falling for Orks for the most part. P.K. are no longer the workhorse for our army (thankfully) and I think the changes to our codex plus our stratagems and traits will be enough to keep us up against most of the competition. Certainly better than us still being with the index right now.
Yeah....nothing like most of the army still being over priced and the few competitive units relying exclusively on CP to function..... Or am I still supposed believe that 23pt Warbikers are somehow competitive?
Dark eldar didn’t go up because they’re the new baseline. Eldar only got Serpent spam adjusted. Yes, Mechdar with Vect is strong and it didn’t get nerfed, but Knights didn’t get either. They got cheaper too (stubbers) and better against flyers because the 20p Icarus and the fact Ad Mech got crazy buffs. Onager at 110p is value and the tax hqs are now cheap.
Many Tau, Admech and Necron lists now got more than 200p of additional stuff into their lists. Marines didn’t get buffed enough, and Chaos got screwed, but other than that my initial impression is that this CA is a great adjustment to the game.
If you save 100-200 points in your space marines army, that just means you can supplement more imperial guard. That's the way to do it.
And, since the imperial guard stuff got cheaper, you're better off.
You need to be thinking of Imperium with a "Guard First" mentality when building a competitive list. GK are definitely no exception. The best GK lists are about 900 points of guard for a reason. And they are still inferior to an all guard list.
But something, something stormbolters! Amirite Marm?
Knights didn't get a point increase because they don't need one, except maybe the Gallant.
Castellan is a perfectly fine model, actually i can see it being a bit overcosted for what it does. The huge problem is Cawl's wrath. A relic that doubles the damage of a 600+ points model is overly dumb. It would have been a nice relic even if it only gave an additional point of AP over the standard weapon loadout, no need to also increase strenght and damage. Cawl's wrath is the strongest relic in the game, with points it would be costed around 300-350 points, no wonder that people think that castellan is hugely OP, that thing with Cawl's Wrath is a 1000 point model.
Now have to wait half a year for this imaginary balance that we were told to wait for 6 years ago. Seriously, boyz... yes I get it... but Ghaz, painboy, warbos all went up in points while imperium got all their characters reduced. Some of which were already pretty good.
Would have saved us a lot of time and money if GW just had a central Excel spreadsheet to know how much things cost and what's going to change. It's either GW is so incompetent that they finished Orks without even considering CA or they did thisnon purpose. Either is a bad option.
But I do not even care a bit for Orks in comparison for how bad I feel for GK players right now... They basically gave them a stepping stool while giving all the other factions a ladder. And they're expecting you to pay for these rule changes! Hahahahaaaa!
)
