Dionysodorus wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I mean...you could be right. But then i'm like...13 point Rubrics would be crazy. Wouldn't they? Lots of other stuff would have to come down, too, possibly invalidating the change?

Why not just price things such that they're decent options? Like, why do 11 point tacticals imply 13 point Rubrics? Why do they imply 7 point Sisters? I mean, there's nothing saying you can't leave even Devastator squad members at 13 if that's a price where they're a good but not automatic choice.

But, more comprehensively, I don't know that adjusting tacticals makes it much more important to change other prices. Mostly those other units already need price adjustments. Maybe adjusting tacticals makes it obvious that other things are already in a bad place, but that's a good thing. Like, since you so rarely see tactical marines anyway, nothing is being taken because of how it matches up to tactical marines, so the price of tactical marines doesn't matter much to how anything else in the game is doing. It's just an annoying feature of the game that so many factions' basic troops are overpriced. The new Tau codex, for all that can reasonably be criticized about it, should probably be commended for making standard Fire Warriors a relatively appealing model. It looks like the Necron codex is not addressing Warriors being lackluster, though, so my guess is that GW is still overvaluing certain things.

Good points. Devastators I see often. I have yet to see an assault marine this edition though....I see tacticals more often oddly enough.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Zid wrote:
Remove the ability to use strategems from your secondary and third codices.

Add in "Chapter Abilities" that are army wide for Chaos and SM; i.e. Iron Warrior tanks get the reroll against stuff in buildings. I would probably re-do the Alpha Legion one though, a lot of people will QQ. But it makes sense if the army is that army, they should all get whatever benefit.

I think soupings fine, it breaks it when you can use multiple codex strategems. This would get rid of people using a CSM detachment solely to recycle 40 cultists, or the weird Eldar stuff, or the constant debates as to whether or not Daemon strategems work on X Y or Z unit, etc,

I see this quoted pretty often, people do understand that this is just as effective as a ban on soup armies right?

People understand that people are just trying to sneak in a ban on soup armies right?

Listen, Berzerkers need better ranged weapons. It's really silly that one of the best melee units in the game has to rely completely on its melee just to be good. Hopefully this FAQ will add the special weapons options to one Berzerker, and 2 at 10. This wouldn't need a point change either, it's a simply fix to a pretty obvious problem that everyone agrees is a problem.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Gw could just fix marines 11 point marines 16 point intercessors, mix throughout. Done. Marines suck, that’s problem. Fix it for once instead of sticking your head in the sand


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously 3+ armor isn’t worth what gw charges, it never has, the one time marines were good, they had to give them all free transports.

I mean...you could be right. But then i'm like...13 point Rubrics would be crazy. Wouldn't they? Lots of other stuff would have to come down, too, possibly invalidating the change?

Wouldn't 11 point tacticals imply 16 point Rubrics (before the gun)? Not sure where you're getting the 13 number from.

 andysonic1 wrote:
Listen, Berzerkers need better ranged weapons. It's really silly that one of the best melee units in the game has to rely completely on its melee just to be good. Hopefully this FAQ will add the special weapons options to one Berzerker, and 2 at 10. This wouldn't need a point change either, it's a simply fix to a pretty obvious problem that everyone agrees is a problem.

Wait... your upset that a specialist melee unit is only good at melee?

 djones520 wrote:

 andysonic1 wrote:
Listen, Berzerkers need better ranged weapons. It's really silly that one of the best melee units in the game has to rely completely on its melee just to be good. Hopefully this FAQ will add the special weapons options to one Berzerker, and 2 at 10. This wouldn't need a point change either, it's a simply fix to a pretty obvious problem that everyone agrees is a problem.

Wait... your upset that a specialist melee unit is only good at melee?

pretty sure he's joking.

BrianDavion wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 andysonic1 wrote:
Listen, Berzerkers need better ranged weapons. It's really silly that one of the best melee units in the game has to rely completely on its melee just to be good. Hopefully this FAQ will add the special weapons options to one Berzerker, and 2 at 10. This wouldn't need a point change either, it's a simply fix to a pretty obvious problem that everyone agrees is a problem.

Wait... your upset that a specialist melee unit is only good at melee?

pretty sure he's joking.

Being snide can be pretty hard to pick up sometimes


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I mean...you could be right. But then i'm like...13 point Rubrics would be crazy. Wouldn't they? Lots of other stuff would have to come down, too, possibly invalidating the change?

Why not just price things such that they're decent options? Like, why do 11 point tacticals imply 13 point Rubrics? Why do they imply 7 point Sisters? I mean, there's nothing saying you can't leave even Devastator squad members at 13 if that's a price where they're a good but not automatic choice.

But, more comprehensively, I don't know that adjusting tacticals makes it much more important to change other prices. Mostly those other units already need price adjustments. Maybe adjusting tacticals makes it obvious that other things are already in a bad place, but that's a good thing. Like, since you so rarely see tactical marines anyway, nothing is being taken because of how it matches up to tactical marines, so the price of tactical marines doesn't matter much to how anything else in the game is doing. It's just an annoying feature of the game that so many factions' basic troops are overpriced. The new Tau codex, for all that can reasonably be criticized about it, should probably be commended for making standard Fire Warriors a relatively appealing model. It looks like the Necron codex is not addressing Warriors being lackluster, though, so my guess is that GW is still overvaluing certain things.

Isn't reanimation protocols supposed to be changed? If its better than I could see that as a reason they aren't changing the cost

Apparently not, according to the leaks.
Don't point changes come in chapter approved anyway?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Apparently not, according to the leaks.
Don't point changes come in chapter approved anyway?

Based on GW's wording, half the users believe point changes come in CA and March both.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Zid wrote:
Remove the ability to use strategems from your secondary and third codices.

Add in "Chapter Abilities" that are army wide for Chaos and SM; i.e. Iron Warrior tanks get the reroll against stuff in buildings. I would probably re-do the Alpha Legion one though, a lot of people will QQ. But it makes sense if the army is that army, they should all get whatever benefit.

I think soupings fine, it breaks it when you can use multiple codex strategems. This would get rid of people using a CSM detachment solely to recycle 40 cultists, or the weird Eldar stuff, or the constant debates as to whether or not Daemon strategems work on X Y or Z unit, etc,

I see this quoted pretty often, people do understand that this is just as effective as a ban on soup armies right?

People understand that people are just trying to sneak in a ban on soup armies right?

Not a ban, or even a nerf, you still get the benefits of drawing from multiple codices. But some Strategems become broken in the context that you can use them in "unintended" ways, or in combos I'm sure they didn't think of originally. You need a benefit for bringing a majority army other than "well, these models are better, but these strategems are better"

 Zid wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Zid wrote:
Remove the ability to use strategems from your secondary and third codices.

Add in "Chapter Abilities" that are army wide for Chaos and SM; i.e. Iron Warrior tanks get the reroll against stuff in buildings. I would probably re-do the Alpha Legion one though, a lot of people will QQ. But it makes sense if the army is that army, they should all get whatever benefit.

I think soupings fine, it breaks it when you can use multiple codex strategems. This would get rid of people using a CSM detachment solely to recycle 40 cultists, or the weird Eldar stuff, or the constant debates as to whether or not Daemon strategems work on X Y or Z unit, etc,

I see this quoted pretty often, people do understand that this is just as effective as a ban on soup armies right?

People understand that people are just trying to sneak in a ban on soup armies right?

Not a ban, or even a nerf, you still get the benefits of drawing from multiple codices. But some Strategems become broken in the context that you can use them in "unintended" ways, or in combos I'm sure they didn't think of originally. You need a benefit for bringing a majority army other than "well, these models are better, but these strategems are better"

maybe, in other cases though I think it is intended, such as using chaos familer to grant a death guard sorc access to warp time

 Zid wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Zid wrote:
Remove the ability to use strategems from your secondary and third codices.

Add in "Chapter Abilities" that are army wide for Chaos and SM; i.e. Iron Warrior tanks get the reroll against stuff in buildings. I would probably re-do the Alpha Legion one though, a lot of people will QQ. But it makes sense if the army is that army, they should all get whatever benefit.

I think soupings fine, it breaks it when you can use multiple codex strategems. This would get rid of people using a CSM detachment solely to recycle 40 cultists, or the weird Eldar stuff, or the constant debates as to whether or not Daemon strategems work on X Y or Z unit, etc,

I see this quoted pretty often, people do understand that this is just as effective as a ban on soup armies right?

People understand that people are just trying to sneak in a ban on soup armies right?

Not a ban, or even a nerf, you still get the benefits of drawing from multiple codices. But some Strategems become broken in the context that you can use them in "unintended" ways, or in combos I'm sure they didn't think of originally. You need a benefit for bringing a majority army other than "well, these models are better, but these strategems are better"

Then you have factions that really aren't meant to stand on their own, like Inquisition, Officio Assasinorium, and all those other fun Imperial departments (I'd even say Admech, although I'll probably get a lot of flack for it), that would get totally ruined by soup restrictions. Now, I wouldn't mind if such penalties were put in place to hammer soup, but only if GW gave us a roadmap for how they intended to develop factions that were clearly meant to function in an auxiliary capacity.

The only thing I can hope for is that -1 to hit caps out at 6+, which is something I find likely, perhaps making so CP can only be used in the detachment that generated them, which I find unlikely, and the ability to let walkers go up levels, which I don't think will happen.

So could the soup problem be solved by making it so Allied detachments (units from a different codex than the "main") be forced to use the patrol detachment? At least for the tournament scene


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or the -1 CP auxiliary slot

 techsoldaten wrote:

I would hope GW would not do that and would much rather see the FAQ provide better synergy for mixed detachments on par with what you get using a mono-Codex army.

There is no problem with a soup list per se. Rules for allies fighting together was a big improvement in 6th.

This filled in a lot of gaps that came out of giving armies their own Codexes. Grey Knights used to be part of the Daemonhunters Codex. Daemons used to be part of the Chaos Space Marines Codex. It's perfectly natural to want to play them as part of a larger Inquisition or Chaos force, and I would hate to see them nerfed for working together.

The problem with soup lists is when people are forced to use them because their Codex options are too weak to stand on their own. On the one hand, synergy between two forces fighting together is hit-or-miss. SM / IG get a lot, CSM / CD don't. That's not fair. Eldar / Tau will have no synergy, and that's really awful.

On the other hand, it makes you wonder how important Codexes are now that we have Detachments. A Codex is now a collection of datasheets, warlord traits, stratagems, relics, and psychic abilities. If you can't build a strong army with a given Codex, should it even exist?

Probably not. That's a sign of bad game design, not a problem with mixing lists.

People aren't forced to do anything.

The problem with soup lists is quite simple - players are using it to cherry pick the most efficient and effective units from any given codex and mashing them together because the rules allow it. Celestine finds her way into a ton of Space Marine lists and seems to love hanging around the IG for some reason. You can make fluff excuses for anything but after a time you have to concede it for what it is.

It also breaks game balance. How on earth are the designers supposed to balance a group of potentially 10+ different codexes that can be used together. Traditionally armies had strengths and weaknesses. This is intentional and by design. Soup lists allow players to circumvent this and mitigate their factions' weakness by taking another detachment from a vaguely related army.

Orks can't take allies or soup. We manage. Same with Tau and Necrons.

Of course soup lists allow GW to sell more models so there's no way they'll be cutting it. No way should it be rewarded further though. It's already a reward and it already allows imbalance.

tournies could just insist every army be made up of a single battalion detachment, it worked for ages back in the day of 3rd through 5th editions. It WILL resctrict some models (primarchs and super heavies) and armies (imperial Knights) that are LOWs (although that could be changed by allowing everyone to take 1 super heavy auxillery detachment as well) but it'd proably ensure a semi level playing field. although it'd likely result in some armies "Staying home" from tournies. but that might simply be the way to do it if soup is deemed a problem.

Would a simple solution to the phenomenon of 'soup' not be to just bring back the old 25% limit on allied codices?

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Genuine question here - why is this bad? Is it because of luff or you find this particular build too strong?

Neither actually - it's strong list but things like that could come out of a single faction as well.
As far as I'm concerned, fluff isn't part of this discussion.

The problem is that it's a list that has simply cherry-picked the best units with the best synergies from an entire faction without any downside at all. As long as this is the case, single faction armies will never be able to compete (unless vastly more stronger than all other options) and even at a very high level of balance, there will be no more than 2-3 ways to run an entire faction (chaos or imperium), most likely with a big overlap between top lists.
In a fictional scenario, a DA player would get a stronger list by dropping his deathwing knights and replacing them with custodes terminators. Then he dropps his ravenwing for white scars bikers and replaces his rank and file with IG guardsmen, leaving little reason play DA at all.
Eldar are slightly less affected by this, but if you have a dark eldar unit that has the same job as a craftworld or harlequin units, only the best of the three will see play in ynnari lists.

Considering how the game has a natural limit on how many units can be run (usually 10-20 units at 2k), this would lead to large amount of faction units being unused. Small factions like GK, Harlequins or TS could be left with zero competitive units.

Sure, in theory you could balance all units to be viable choices, but from what I've seen in other competitive games and esports, even when companies doing their very best and the games is considered in decent state of balance, only the top 10% units/cards/characters see play in highly competitive environments.

Therefore I think cherry-picking needs to be limited, but not made completely impossible. Adding a second (or third) army to your list to compensate weaknesses is good and intended, combining all the best units of your faction into one army is not.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
How on earth are the designers supposed to balance a group of potentially 10+ different codexes that can be used together. Traditionally armies had strengths and weaknesses. This is intentional and by design. Soup lists allow players to circumvent this and mitigate their factions' weakness by taking another detachment from a vaguely related army.
Orks can't take allies or soup. We manage. Same with Tau and Necrons.

Obviously they just need let Xenos be a faction keyword.

Let space marine players use Celestine. I'll be deep striking in my Monolith and unloading 30 boyz while my Fire Warriors cap objectives.

Audustum wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Apparently not, according to the leaks.
Don't point changes come in chapter approved anyway?

Based on GW's wording, half the users believe point changes come in CA and March both.

After all, it seems logical that Matched Play points fall under the heading of "rules".

Still, this is GW, so logic may not apply

Any changes to Soup lists (and strategems) would it force smaller points games, not larger and that doesent sound very GW to me.

If there's a problem with Strategems, it's in command point saturation that some armies get while others don't. Fix that. Reward mono lists, don't punish mixed ones.

I think the 3 freebie Battleforged CP should be for mono only. Then soup armies will have to be a little more conservative. And if you're doing brigades anyway, then congrats for buying so much.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Zid wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Zid wrote:
Remove the ability to use strategems from your secondary and third codices.

Add in "Chapter Abilities" that are army wide for Chaos and SM; i.e. Iron Warrior tanks get the reroll against stuff in buildings. I would probably re-do the Alpha Legion one though, a lot of people will QQ. But it makes sense if the army is that army, they should all get whatever benefit.

I think soupings fine, it breaks it when you can use multiple codex strategems. This would get rid of people using a CSM detachment solely to recycle 40 cultists, or the weird Eldar stuff, or the constant debates as to whether or not Daemon strategems work on X Y or Z unit, etc,

I see this quoted pretty often, people do understand that this is just as effective as a ban on soup armies right?

People understand that people are just trying to sneak in a ban on soup armies right?

Not a ban, or even a nerf, you still get the benefits of drawing from multiple codices. But some Strategems become broken in the context that you can use them in "unintended" ways, or in combos I'm sure they didn't think of originally. You need a benefit for bringing a majority army other than "well, these models are better, but these strategems are better"

Then you have factions that really aren't meant to stand on their own, like Inquisition, Officio Assasinorium, and all those other fun Imperial departments (I'd even say Admech, although I'll probably get a lot of flack for it), that would get totally ruined by soup restrictions. Now, I wouldn't mind if such penalties were put in place to hammer soup, but only if GW gave us a roadmap for how they intended to develop factions that were clearly meant to function in an auxiliary capacity.

I can see your point here; so perhaps have strategems that can only be used in an auxiliary capacity? For example, IG could call in mortars or something as an aux detachment. For the Inquisition it would be anti-psycher or anti-chaos stuff. I think the issue is that the main strategems were all balanced around the actual army itself, but not tested when combined with other armies stuff. This was the exact same issue 6th edition had, with rerollable 2++ save dark eldar/eldar deathstars

Do you really think Allies and fixing holes will ever stop? Immediately after a codex drops the gamers are seeking the most OP and broken combos and gloating that they discovered them. I've seen list ideas on this site that make me cringe.

All it does is cement the idea that 40K isn't supposed to be a tournament competitive game.

But back to OP, I would like to see command point regeneration be limited to the army specific Strategems. Why should half the armies get their CP back on rerolls, when DG have to pay have to roll a 7, and also limit to DG Strategems only.



Ive seen people try and gain their CP back from the extra relic Strategems.... Isn't that during list building?

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Any changes to Soup lists (and strategems) would it force smaller points games, not larger and that doesent sound very GW to me.

If there's a problem with Strategems, it's in command point saturation that some armies get while others don't. Fix that. Reward mono lists, don't punish mixed ones.

I think the 3 freebie Battleforged CP should be for mono only. Then soup armies will have to be a little more conservative. And if you're doing brigades anyway, then congrats for buying so much.

I'm personally a fan of inverting the CP system.
You start with a bigger number of CP (say 9) and each detachment reduces the amount you have available.
So you have smaller elite armies with more tricks up their sleeve or big armies that rely more on the amount of units they bring.

Instead of the current system that rewards more bodies with more tricks

 Ordana wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Any changes to Soup lists (and strategems) would it force smaller points games, not larger and that doesent sound very GW to me.

If there's a problem with Strategems, it's in command point saturation that some armies get while others don't. Fix that. Reward mono lists, don't punish mixed ones.

I think the 3 freebie Battleforged CP should be for mono only. Then soup armies will have to be a little more conservative. And if you're doing brigades anyway, then congrats for buying so much.

I'm personally a fan of inverting the CP system.
You start with a bigger number of CP (say 9) and each detachment reduces the amount you have available.
So you have smaller elite armies with more tricks up their sleeve or big armies that rely more on the amount of units they bring.

Instead of the current system that rewards more bodies with more tricks

That's honestly not a terrible idea. Armies that use the battalion and brigade detachments would benefit from this and probably also cut down on the spam of one unit. This could work granted the detachments are tweaked a bit to encourage variety.

 Ordana wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Any changes to Soup lists (and strategems) would it force smaller points games, not larger and that doesent sound very GW to me.

If there's a problem with Strategems, it's in command point saturation that some armies get while others don't. Fix that. Reward mono lists, don't punish mixed ones.

I think the 3 freebie Battleforged CP should be for mono only. Then soup armies will have to be a little more conservative. And if you're doing brigades anyway, then congrats for buying so much.

I'm personally a fan of inverting the CP system.
You start with a bigger number of CP (say 9) and each detachment reduces the amount you have available.
So you have smaller elite armies with more tricks up their sleeve or big armies that rely more on the amount of units they bring.

Instead of the current system that rewards more bodies with more tricks

With some work that is the BEST idea I have seen for CP's

Yeah, I don't really like the idea of stacking CP from multiple detachments. It favors hoards too much.

The more I think about it the more recersed CP works, hordes have the adavantage of large numbers, where as elites would have the advantage of more CP, emphasising their elite role.

The units would be the same units but would be more tacitcaly flexible with more access to CP.

This would mean that a baseline of CP would need to be established, would it start at 15/20? And decrease from there, horde armies would find it difficult to abuse it too, even their big stuff is usually very cheap.

9 is honestly the most I'd ever want to see on the table. Any more, and the idea of stratagems having a cost is lost entirely.

9 seems fair, with Batallions reducing less than things like Vanguard and Spearheads, but a Brigade reducing less than two batallions.

Say, -2 for a Batallion, -3 for the specialty ones and a Brigade.

I would also put a LoW slot into a Batallion and a Brigade.

 Fafnir wrote:
9 is honestly the most I'd ever want to see on the table. Any more, and the idea of stratagems having a cost is lost entirely.

Agree. We recently had a campaign where you could earn CP for the final battle. In that last battle me and my ally had 20 CP available for 4000 points of Black Legion and Death Guard. We pretty much just used all the stratagems all the time and still didn't manage to use all.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
9 is honestly the most I'd ever want to see on the table. Any more, and the idea of stratagems having a cost is lost entirely.

Agree. We recently had a campaign where you could earn CP for the final battle. In that last battle me and my ally had 20 CP available for 4000 points of Black Legion and Death Guard. We pretty much just used all the stratagems all the time and still didn't manage to use all.

What charmed dice rolls do you have that you can't use 20CP?

I played a 2k game of Nids vs Tau the other day and burned through 8 of my 12cp by turn 2.

First of all I had a Tallyman, so those 20 were more like 26 CP.

Second, most good DG and CSM stratagems are just 1 CP, the only one that costs more than 1 CP we used regularly was Tide of Traitors. Fury of Khorne was only used once, since none of the Khorne Berzerkers or Daemon Princes managed to reach combat before being blown to smithereens.

Third, the game ended in after Turn 3 when our side reached the enemy gunline.

I'm not a fan of inverting CPs instead. If you go with multiple detachment you're already paying points for some "tax units" in most of the cases. Using a brigade means you must throw some elites, troops, HQs, FA, etc that you may don't want but you're willing to accept in order to get more CPs, that's a fair trade. Generally speaking I'd always favor hordes or large forces instead of small elite armies. Especially those ones that rely on superheroes, which I'd like to see very rarely

Otherwise elite armies can bring a single detachment and earn tons of CPs which can make the army too powerful if their strategem are good enough. And I absolutely hate highlanders and superheroes

Inverting CPs could work for soups though: you just need to select a main faction and gain CPs with detachments of that faction, you lose CP with allied detachments. For example if you bring a SM battallion you get +3CPs and if you ally an AM spearhead you lose 1CP. Units from different books shouldn't be allowed in the same detachment.

I think you misunderstood the idea, Blackie.

Assuming you start at 12 CP, a brigade would be 0 CP, so filling up a brigade would reward you with maximum CP.
A battalion would be -3, vanguard, spearhead, outrider or supreme command would be -4, and so on.
(numbers made up, just to show that 3+1 detachment reward less points than a battalion)

This would encourage fielding as much as possible of your army in as little detachments as possible - right now, you pretty much always want as many detachments as you can get without.
It would also remove those cheap CP generator detachments from AM and daemons people are using now.

Ok, I got it now. But it's not very different from the current system. With the cap of max 3 detachments per list even those cheap CP generator detachment are not really an issue.

Undercosted units should be priced appropriately.

I'm in favor of bringing multiple detachments without getting too many drawbacks. Orks cool heavy support units for example are too many for a single detachment, including a brigade, so if you bring a battallion and a spearhead you

At the rate we're going, the change I'm starting to expect to see is the release date - to April

 Jidmah wrote:
I think you misunderstood the idea, Blackie.

Assuming you start at 12 CP, a brigade would be 0 CP, so filling up a brigade would reward you with maximum CP.
A battalion would be -3, vanguard, spearhead, outrider or supreme command would be -4, and so on.
(numbers made up, just to show that 3+1 detachment reward less points than a battalion)

This would encourage fielding as much as possible of your army in as little detachments as possible - right now, you pretty much always want as many detachments as you can get without.
It would also remove those cheap CP generator detachments from AM and daemons people are using now.

As a GK player there is no way that I can field a usable Brigade at 2000 points. And I'm pretty sure that there are a couple of other codex armies that are in the same position. So what am I to do? Lose CPs or field sub sub-optimal units to stretch to the brigade.

 Dysartes wrote:
At the rate we're going, the change I'm starting to expect to see is the release date - to April

Why? Next weekend is Adepticon. Then they have another week to release it before hitting April.

GW is caring more about tournaments (as seen by Warhammer TV reporting on the major ones) so it makes sense for them to take them into account when they release changes.

Xachariah wrote:
Obviously they just need let Xenos be a faction keyword.

Let space marine players use Celestine. I'll be deep striking in my Monolith and unloading 30 boyz while my Fire Warriors cap objectives.

Lol that would be.... Entertaining.

This summarises the problem with soup nicely.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I think you misunderstood the idea, Blackie.

Assuming you start at 12 CP, a brigade would be 0 CP, so filling up a brigade would reward you with maximum CP.
A battalion would be -3, vanguard, spearhead, outrider or supreme command would be -4, and so on.
(numbers made up, just to show that 3+1 detachment reward less points than a battalion)

This would encourage fielding as much as possible of your army in as little detachments as possible - right now, you pretty much always want as many detachments as you can get without.
It would also remove those cheap CP generator detachments from AM and daemons people are using now.

As a GK player there is no way that I can field a usable Brigade at 2000 points. And I'm pretty sure that there are a couple of other codex armies that are in the same position. So what am I to do? Lose CPs or field sub sub-optimal units to stretch to the brigade.

Wouldn;t that be one of the advatages of being an non elite army - you can easily field a Brigade whilst more Elite armies like your Grey Knights or my Sisters have more difficulty?

I interpreted the statement to be that the default CPs would be given for a brigade and then all of the other detachments would penalize your CP total. In the list above as a GK player I can only reasonably build a battalion and therefore would lose 3 CPs leaving me only a total starting CP of 9.

 Jidmah wrote:
I think you misunderstood the idea, Blackie.

Assuming you start at 12 CP, a brigade would be 0 CP, so filling up a brigade would reward you with maximum CP.
A battalion would be -3, vanguard, spearhead, outrider or supreme command would be -4, and so on.
(numbers made up, just to show that 3+1 detachment reward less points than a battalion)

This would encourage fielding as much as possible of your army in as little detachments as possible - right now, you pretty much always want as many detachments as you can get without.
It would also remove those cheap CP generator detachments from AM and daemons people are using now.

Eh, that is not a very good solution, I feel. It punishes fluffy armies wanting a variety, like Tyrant's Legion / Macragge PDF equivalents (SM + IG), while doing nothing to curb OP spam (Eldar will just field 6 maximum sized units of Dark Reapers, Tau can still spam their gak, etc), or even to curb spam in general. Say, armies like IG can just abuse 3-tanks-in-1-slot clause to take small detachment supported by spam of max sized infantry units, Chaos has also multiple workarounds, all in all, I feel it would heavily penalize weak armies while 'good' ones can easily adapt around it...

In game design carrots tend to lead to more fun gameplay than sticks. Substractions are not fun

Pratically: add CP rather than substract from an arbitrary maximum. Maybe introduce a hard, soft, or indirect cap on them but don't penalize armies just because you don't like their structure, reward the structure you like. Matched play's rules of one scale badly upward( See GK and TS psychic troubles) and an arbitrary maximum on CP in the detachments would extend this problem to the entire game.

Also how is a balance change in the favor of cheap troops what we need now?

 Earth127 wrote:

In game design carrots tend to lead to more fun gameplay than sticks. Substractions are not fun

Pratically: add CP rather than substract from an arbitrary maximum. Maybe introduce a hard, soft, or indirect cap on them but don't penalize armies just because you don't like their structure, reward the structure you like.

Also how is a balance change in the favor of cheap troop what we need now?

Because some armies just need it to get away from the single build option that they seem to be rooted to now, a.k.a. every Space Marine army where scouts are the only real feasible troop choice.

But improving cheap troops only makes the current problem worse. Anny time you penalize something that isn't brigade or battailon you improve cheap troops and that is not what most amries need. quite the contrary in fact.

SM scouts vs tacticals is in many ways an internal more than en external balance issue. So it's a partially seperate thing.

But once again in general it's more fun to receive rewards than to be handed punishment. So don't go around substracting CP if you can achieve the same result by awarding it somewhere else.

Dionysodorus wrote:
Why not just price things such that they're decent options? Like, why do 11 point tacticals imply 13 point Rubrics? Why do they imply 7 point Sisters?

Why should tacticals only pay two points for an increase to three stats plus a legion of special rules?

Maybe start actually using the entire marine statline more instead of standing around whining about how marines aren't eldar 24/7....

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I interpreted the statement to be that the default CPs would be given for a brigade and then all of the other detachments would penalize your CP total. In the list above as a GK player I can only reasonably build a battalion and therefore would lose 3 CPs leaving me only a total starting CP of 9.

Sure, but that would still be 3 more than you have now, and the army that could easily field a brigade can no longer field two more cheap battalions for 18 cp. On the other hand, you could field a vanguard or spearhead solo and still have 8 CP.

The detachment most difficult to fill will always need to reward the most points, otherwise you might as well drop it from the game.

There's difficult and then there's, as a practicle matter, impossible. For GK it's impossible to get where almost anyone else can get.

Saying you're better off with this rather than where you were isn't necessarily true. Yes, I have 3 more CPs but how many more CPs do SMs gain? I've never faced an army with 12 CPs in my meta so everyone benefits the same and I'm no better off than before.

 Melissia wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
Why not just price things such that they're decent options? Like, why do 11 point tacticals imply 13 point Rubrics? Why do they imply 7 point Sisters?

Why should tacticals only pay two points for an increase to three stats plus a legion of special rules?

Maybe start actually using the entire marine statline more instead of standing around whining about how marines aren't eldar 24/7....

Well lets see..

The idea behind that statline is that you shoot the choppy ones and fight the shooty ones, because that's how that statline should work.. But it doesn't... You see your best weaponry is your gun. If you are outgunned you will have to move up the field on a basic infantry line's movement, while weathering fire to get up close.. And even then your melee skills aren't anything special and you don't have any actual benefit to melee since you are using a bog standard CCW.

Your gun isn't anything special either, but you at least get two shots within a closer range as a result and hopefully will deal more damage out, but the boltgun's effectiveness has dropped against some of it's former prime targets with the loss of AP, meaning it doesn't do very well against say.. a Horde of choppa wielding boyz.

So you have your entire marine statline that doesn't do anything special, doesn't help you in any way to use all of that statline, and thus your statline really only revolves around three to four things. BS, T, LD, And armour.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
[snip]

Sure it works.

First, you spend your movement phase getting marines in to range (walking, driving, flying, drop podding, whatever means you can).
Second, you spend your shooting phase shooting the enemy-- this is the easy part that you clearly already understand. Third, you spend the charge phase declaring and rolling for a charge (which is why you moved so much!). Fourth, you spend your Fight phase having your marines shank the enemy with their big knives.

Congratulations, you just utilized the entire marine statline in a single turn. And yes, I made it sound simple. That's because it pretty much is-- this isn't some hidden secret tricky strategy that takes decades to master, nor is it an automatic win button (which is what a lot of the more whiny players on Dakka appear to want).

Rather, it's the nature of the game that, when you're relying on random dice and working against the strategies of another player, your strategies won't always work. This is true whether or not you're going to be attempting to hide and turtle and pretend you're playing a pure shooty army, or playing utilizing the whole statline. However, the latter will result in you getting your points worth out of the army, and the former just makes it look like you wish you were playing Tau or Eldar and resenting the fact that marines are, in fact, neither Tau nor Eldar.

 Melissia wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
Why not just price things such that they're decent options? Like, why do 11 point tacticals imply 13 point Rubrics? Why do they imply 7 point Sisters?

Why should tacticals only pay two points for an increase to three stats plus a legion of special rules?

Maybe start actually using the entire marine statline more instead of standing around whining about how marines aren't eldar 24/7....

This isn't an argument. Tacticals should plausibly "only pay two points for an increase to three stats plus a legion of special rules" because that's plausibly what those stats and rules are worth on tactical marines. Do you disagree? Why do you think those benefits are worth 4 points? I feel like the burden is clearly on people saying that tacticals are basically fine, since we can just look around and see that, empirically, tacticals don't seem to be in a great place.

But I'm not really sure where you're coming from on this -- it would help me if you could give me some more detail about why you find this so wrongheaded. Like, what is almost everyone doing wrong with tacticals that they could fix so as to better use their whole statline? I don't really play Marines but looking over what they've got I don't really see great options for getting lots of CC attacks out of them. Their total package seems to want you to hug cover too -- you probably don't want to be advancing up the board with them so as to eventually charge the enemy on turn 3 or 4.

Just doing some back of the envelope math also seems to suggest that the stat increases alone aren't worth anywhere near 4 points over Sisters. Obviously tacticals shoot only just as well as Sisters. In CC they're somewhere between 1.33x as good (vs T5, T8) and 2.67x as good (vs T2 and T6-7), and will more commonly be something like 1.77x to 2x as good (vs T3 or T4). Defensively they're somewhere between no better (vs S5, S8) and 2x as resilient (vs S2). The "no better" case occurs pretty often (heavy bolters, anti-tank weapons) but they're also commonly going to be 1.5x to 1.33x as durable vs S3 and S4. Okay, so let's say that tacticals are all-around about 1.33x as durable as Sisters, sort of averaging over all the things they're likely to get hit with. Obviously getting some single number for offense does depend how highly we rate their CC ability. It's worth noting that even if we assume that they get to melee attack just as often as they get to fire (which is pretty ridiculous), tacticals are only doing about 17% more damage to T3 than Sisters (rapid firing then charging in for one CC attack) or 20% more to T4. So if we say that tacticals are 1.17x as kill-y as Sisters, all-in-all, then we can take this and our durability number and estimate that they should cost sqrt(1.33 * 1.17) = 1.25x what Sisters do, which would be 11.23 points. And, again, it's pretty clear that we're overestimating how much more kill-y they are, since typically you'll do a lot more shooting than melee attacking.

Obviously this is excluding this "legion of special rules", but I'm not really sure what you have in mind here. If you just mean Chapter Tactics, it's worth noting that no basic Troops have increased in price once gaining Tactics, and presumably Sisters will be getting these too. And of course Sisters have a 6++ and AoF, though neither will come into play that often on standard Sisters. They have different options, though here it's notable that Sisters' seem much better for actually trying to make use of WS and S; it's a lot easier to justify moving them up the board if you give them 3 storm bolters and keep them cheap, whereas Marines' options seem designed to keep them back in cover where they're very often getting hit with things that don't care about the difference between T3 and T4.

Since writing this I see you posted what you meant by making use of the whole statline, and it seems to be basically what I assumed for my napkin math offense calculation. Now, again, this seems like a silly view of the game -- you're obviously not doing this with tactical marines every turn, and on most turns they just want to shoot, and you also should be reluctant to move them out of cover since 3+ saves like cover so much -- but even if you say that this is what's happening you get that 11 points is pretty close to right.

 Melissia wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
[snip]

Sure it works.

First, you spend your movement phase getting marines in to range (walking, driving, flying, drop podding, whatever means you can).
Second, you spend your shooting phase shooting the enemy-- this is the easy part that you clearly already understand. Third, you spend the charge phase declaring and rolling for a charge (which is why you moved so much!). Fourth, you spend your Fight phase having your marines shank the enemy with their big knives.

Congratulations, you just utilized the entire marine statline in a single turn. And yes, I made it sound simple. That's because it pretty much is-- this isn't some hidden secret tricky strategy that takes decades to master, nor is it an automatic win button (which is what a lot of the more whiny players on Dakka appear to want).

Rather, it's the nature of the game that, when you're relying on random dice and working against the strategies of another player, your strategies won't always work. This is true whether or not you're going to be attempting to hide and turtle and pretend you're playing a pure shooty army, or playing utilizing the whole statline. However, the latter will result in you getting your points worth out of the army, and the former just makes it look like you wish you were playing Tau or Eldar and resenting the fact that marines are, in fact, neither Tau nor Eldar.

Congratulations on such a condescending post!

But lets put it bluntly.. You just utilized the statline yes! But did you actually do anything meaningful with it? Sure you could rush artillery at the enemy units to utilize their ability to "grind the enemy" beneath their treads, but that's not going to be very effective use for them is it? Since we aren't going to be adding new units in we'll just use the standard Tac marine. You have left cover to start walking towards the enemy shooting line, thus reverting to your standard MEQ armor save, you are shooting with your rapid fire weapons out of rapid fire distance, unless you desperately want to reach their lines faster and are advancing, thus losing access to your standard guns (with Special and Heavy as well). Now having survived the fire, you have chosen to charge the enemy! And successfully made it through overwatch and terrain, and now you and your S4, AP0, 1 attack combat knives are plinking away at the enemy in some vain hope that your standard attack will actually do some damage and make back some points before the enemy falls back.

Now you can utilize the MEQ line as such... But in most cases you'll be using them from cover while shooting with potentially a desperate charge to deny the enemy from charging something more valuable.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
[snip]

Sure it works.

First, you spend your movement phase getting marines in to range (walking, driving, flying, drop podding, whatever means you can).
Second, you spend your shooting phase shooting the enemy-- this is the easy part that you clearly already understand. Third, you spend the charge phase declaring and rolling for a charge (which is why you moved so much!). Fourth, you spend your Fight phase having your marines shank the enemy with their big knives.

Congratulations, you just utilized the entire marine statline in a single turn. And yes, I made it sound simple. That's because it pretty much is-- this isn't some hidden secret tricky strategy that takes decades to master, nor is it an automatic win button (which is what a lot of the more whiny players on Dakka appear to want).

Rather, it's the nature of the game that, when you're relying on random dice and working against the strategies of another player, your strategies won't always work. This is true whether or not you're going to be attempting to hide and turtle and pretend you're playing a pure shooty army, or playing utilizing the whole statline. However, the latter will result in you getting your points worth out of the army, and the former just makes it look like you wish you were playing Tau or Eldar and resenting the fact that marines are, in fact, neither Tau nor Eldar.

Congratulations on such a condescending post!

But lets put it bluntly.. You just utilized the statline yes! But did you actually do anything meaningful with it? Sure you could rush artillery at the enemy units to utilize their ability to "grind the enemy" beneath their treads, but that's not going to be very effective use for them is it? Since we aren't going to be adding new units in we'll just use the standard Tac marine. You have left cover to start walking towards the enemy shooting line, thus reverting to your standard MEQ armor save, you are shooting with your rapid fire weapons out of rapid fire distance, unless you desperately want to reach their lines faster and are advancing, thus losing access to your standard guns (with Special and Heavy as well). Now having survived the fire, you have chosen to charge the enemy! And successfully made it through overwatch and terrain, and now you and your S4, AP0, 1 attack combat knives are plinking away at the enemy in some vain hope that your standard attack will actually do some damage and make back some points before the enemy falls back.

This is pretty accurate. The MEQ statline is not that great anymore, especially since all the changes in 8th. You can see this in most lists when they are loading up on either Primaris, or special weapons (A la Dark Angels), or various imperial soup to fill in the gaps that the current statline presents.

Primaris having a second attack does help in close combat, the additional wound is not worth their points given how much plasma spam is still in the meta.

Little bit of anecdotal evidence, I had 3 reivers with knives (so 10 attacks) struggle to kill 2 fire warriors. So sure they hit on 3s, wound on 3s but there was no "risk, reward" that comes with getting into CC.

Reivers should be ashamed not being able to kill some filthy xenos. So this"fight" put a very bad taste in my mouth for marines in CC.

Well since I'm here, how are aggressors doing?
How is massed S4 shots working?

#MakeTheBolterGreatAgain

I expect this big FAQ to just be a collection of all the previous FAQs plus amendments with the possible addition of FAQs for the Tau and Necron Codexes.

Dionysodorus wrote:
Why do you think those benefits are worth 4 points?

So the comparison in question-- +1T is a 16.7% increase in survivability against basic weapons and most units' basic fight phase attacks as well as an increase in survivability against everything but S5 and S8+ attacks-- a very strong effect, and easily worth two points at least. Plague Marines are 3 points more expensive than Tactical Marines, but that's a difficult comparison to make because they trade in an inch of movement too, and gain more than just toughness in the process, so it's complicated.

16.7% increase in ability to hit, plus another 16.7% increase in ability to do damage when they hit-- which I'm counting as a single increase, because while they apply only to the fight phase, they build on each other and both S and WS drastically improve the effect of the other. The +1S and +1WS are both easily worth another point combined, possibly even two (hell, Celestians pay two points +1ws +1ld). But I'll take the lower estimate, because apparently people don't know how to get in to close combat these days. As an aside, if you never use it, it's worth nothing, but that's your fault for not using it-- might as well complain that boltguns suck because you never fire them, in which case the only response is, to borrow a phrase from video game culture, "git gud, scrub".

Back on topic, on top of that, Marines get access to ATSKNF and Chapter Tactics. Chapter tactics we'll say counts similar to acts/shield of faith (though for an army, chapter tactics are better, as they apply to all infantry, instead of applying only to a random number of infantry depending on how many points you put in to a imagifiers), which leaves ATSKNF-- something a lot of other armies either can't get or have to pay extra to get. Since we're using Sisters as the basis of comparison here, sisters have to pay 15 points for a non-combatant character (Dialogous has no ranged weapon, is WS4+, and has a crappy +1s AP- D1 close combat weapon) to give a 6" ATSKNF aura, which would take effecting 30 sisters in order to result in half a point (which, while possible, is highly unlikely)-- and unlike the marine's ATSKNF, the dialogous can be sniped away and takes up an additional elite slot (though, granted, it's not like Sisters are really using their elite slots for much else). So I'm counting this as a point, as well.

End result is around ~13 points assuming the starting point is the price of sisters, as sisters currently are. Of course, we all know Marines are the starting price given GW's own mentality, but a similar argument can be made in reverse, regardless. If Marines got cheaper, and Sisters got unchanged, Sisters would become objectively worse by comparison, and it's not like Sisters are out there winning tournaments non-stop right now. You could counter that this is because Sisters are still an Index army, and you know what, that's fair enough, but I still don't foresee Sisters getting that much of a buff if they ever get updated wtih a proper codex.

So basically what I'm saying is, stop trying to get out of justifying a change to the rules and statlines of marines. You're the one asking for a change, you fething justify it.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
But lets put it bluntly.. You just utilized the statline yes! But did you actually do anything meaningful with it?

Yes. I pushed on to an objective and contested it while doing damage to the enemy troop that was securing it, potentially even destroying the enemy troop if they failed their morale check hard enough.

You have played 40k, haven't you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Little bit of anecdotal evidence, I had 3 reivers with knives (so 10 attacks) struggle to kill 2 fire warriors. So sure they hit on 3s, wound on 3s but there was no "risk, reward" that comes with getting into CC.

I once watched a single scout marine take on Abbadon and hold him off for four turns, clearly scouts need their CC ability nerfed.

Yes. I pushed on to an objective and contested it while doing damage to the enemy troop that was securing it, potentially even destroying the enemy troop if they failed their morale check hard enough.

You have played 40k, haven't you?

Are you contesting Grots? Short of something already destroyed what is Tactical Marines going to be causing massive morale problems for?

Have you I wonder?

I'm pretty sure Melissa is just making stuff up at this point.

Just ignore her, She'll get her self banned again before too long.

ATSKNF is worth nothing because Marines rarely run big enough units to ever fail a morale check.

 Melissia wrote:
So the comparison in question-- +1T is a 16.7% increase in survivability against basic weapons and most units' basic fight phase attacks as well as an increase in survivability against everything but S5 and S8+ attacks-- a very strong effect, and easily worth two points at least. Plague Marines are 3 points more expensive than Tactical Marines, but that's a difficult comparison to make because they trade in an inch of movement too, and gain more than just toughness in the process, so it's complicated.

16.7% increase in ability to hit, plus another 16.7% increase in ability to do damage when they hit-- which I'm counting as a single increase, because while they apply only to the fight phase, they build on each other and both S and WS drastically improve the effect of the other. The +1S and +1WS are both easily worth another point combined, possibly even two (hell, Celestians pay two points +1ws +1ld). But I'll take the lower estimate, because apparently people don't know how to get in to close combat these days. As an aside, if you never use it, it's worth nothing, but that's your fault for not using it-- might as well complain that boltguns suck because you never fire them, in which case the only response is, to borrow a phrase from video game culture, "git gud, scrub".

Back on topic, on top of that, Marines get access to ATSKNF and Chapter Tactics. Chapter tactics we'll say counts similar to acts/shield of faith (though for an army, chapter tactics are better, as they apply to all infantry, instead of applying only to a random number of infantry depending on how many points you put in to a imagifiers), which leaves ATSKNF-- something a lot of other armies either can't get or have to pay extra to get. Since we're using Sisters as the basis of comparison here, sisters have to pay 15 points for a non-combatant character (Dialogous has no ranged weapon, is WS4+, and has a crappy +1s AP- D1 close combat weapon) to give a 6" ATSKNF aura, which would take effecting 30 sisters in order to result in half a point (which, while possible, is highly unlikely)-- and unlike the marine's ATSKNF, the dialogous can be sniped away and takes up an additional elite slot (though, granted, it's not like Sisters are really using their elite slots for much else). So I'm counting this as a point, as well.

End result is around ~13 points assuming the starting point is the price of sisters, as sisters currently are. Of course, we all know Marines are the starting price given GW's own mentality, but a similar argument can be made in reverse, regardless. If Marines got cheaper, and Sisters got unchanged, Sisters would become objectively worse by comparison, and it's not like Sisters are out there winning tournaments non-stop right now. You could counter that this is because Sisters are still an Index army, and you know what, that's fair enough, but I still don't foresee Sisters getting that much of a buff if they ever get updated wtih a proper codex.

So basically what I'm saying is, stop trying to get out of justifying a change to the rules and statlines of marines. You're the one asking for a change, you fething justify it.

This is innumerate. I'm also not really sure what to say about it, because the rest of my post basically pre-addressed what you're saying here and explained why it's so wrongheaded. I note that you don't seem to have a response to that. But, briefly, you're just pulling numbers out of your butt. You have no basis for saying that the things you're saying are worth 1 or 2 or 3 points are worth that many points.

So I guess for this one I'll just point out where you're being clearly disingenuous or, let's say, thoughtless:
1. Plague Marines get a lot more than 1 point of toughness for 3 points. Notably, they get a 5+ FNP. That's a whopping 50% improvement in durability against everything other than multi-damage weapons, even including mortal wounds. Give tacticals a 5+ FNP and you'll see a lot fewer calls to make them 11 points per model. No reasonable person can think that T4 over T3 is worth 2 points on a 9 point model. You're also calling it a 16.7% increase in survivability, which is not true for any reasonable definition of "survivability". Though actually here you're using a worse value than you ought to -- see my previous post for real numbers.

2. You make a ridiculous comparison to Celestians. Who uses Celestians? It is very hard to interpret this as anything other than bad faith. You're a Sisters player. You know that Celestians aren't worth the premium. What this example actually shows is that you're wrong -- CC capability isn't worth that many points on models like this. Actually, don't Celestians even get an extra attack, literally doubling their CC output all by itself? Still not worth 2 points.

3. You make a similarly dishonest comparison between ATSKNF and a Dialogus. Also you even admit here that Sisters aren't using their Elite slots for Celestians despite having just used them to try to argue about how many points CC ability is worth. But, again, how often do you see a Dialogus unless it's just to fill a slot? The reason for this is that morale re-rolls on 5-man Ld 8 units are just not very valuable. We can use real math here instead of made-up numbers to see why this is so. Absent Ld modifiers, you're in no danger of losing anyone until the 3rd model dies in a turn, in which case you average 1/6 of another lost model, and then losing the 4th model only adds another 1/6 of a lost model to the average. Even if an opponent is intentionally trying to maximize your losses to morale, and never accidentally wipes a squad, the difference between Ld 8 and morale immune is about 7% more losses. It's 4.8% for Ld 8 vs Ld 8 with a re-roll. Or maybe you want to do this for Ld 7 because you have a lascannon on a normal squaddie that you always leave for last. Then it's a 5.6% difference. Of course, in practice not many people are going to want to risk the lone Ld 7 model with a lascannon passing his 50/50 morale check and shooting next turn, so they'll just kill him anyway and then the morale difference is meaningless. So this is worth more like a quarter of a point on a ~10 point model that's typically taken in 5 man squads, at best.

4. You say that cheaper Marines means Sisters would need to be buffed because Sisters aren't "out there winning tournaments non-stop right now". But this is obviously silly. Tactical Marines also aren't central to many tournament-winning lists. All you're saying here is that anything that isn't as good as Dark Reapers should be buffed, or something. I don't know what you mean by: "Sisters would become objectively worse by comparison". If you mean that they'd become relatively worse if Marines get a buff, then, sure -- that's what it means to buff a unit. If you're saying that they'd become an absolutely worse unit overall, then you haven't even attempted to show that.

So, yes, if you just invent arbitrary point values for different things and if you pretend to justify these by comparison to units that you know are themselves overpriced, it's easy to argue that 13 point Marines are reasonable, despite all of the empirical evidence that we have that they're not in a good place. Meanwhile lots of people have explained to you why 13 points is not reasonable -- I even walked through some simple math in my last post showing why 4 points over Sisters is pretty crazy.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
There's difficult and then there's, as a practicle matter, impossible. For GK it's impossible to get where almost anyone else can get.

Saying you're better off with this rather than where you were isn't necessarily true. Yes, I have 3 more CPs but how many more CPs do SMs gain? I've never faced an army with 12 CPs in my meta so everyone benefits the same and I'm no better off than before.

If you have never met an army with a brigade, why are you complaining about armies with brigades in them in a different system. I'm kind of confused about your point here.

And why should Space Marines have more CP than you do?

If you just want a system that straight up benefits GK, you are looking in the wrong place. No amount of tailoring CP generation around the GK army is going to fix it.

If they got rid of the Special Needs codexes and made any actual special rules and units part of the main codex alot of problems would reduce.

Because of all the varied Marine dexes we have to have various different versions of the tactical, Assault, terminator Squad etc just so those special codexes can self justify.

If those units were part of the Marines dex then all would have access to them.

 Melissia wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Little bit of anecdotal evidence, I had 3 reivers with knives (so 10 attacks) struggle to kill 2 fire warriors. So sure they hit on 3s, wound on 3s but there was no "risk, reward" that comes with getting into CC.

I once watched a single scout marine take on Abbadon and hold him off for four turns, clearly scouts need their CC ability nerfed.

Frankly I don't Believe you and I assume you are mocking my personal experience and reasons for not wanting to march my marines into a position to charge for very little pay off.

On average, 10 attacks from Reivers Vs Fire Warriors should do about 2 wounds. So entirely possible to take 2 turns if you roll a little below average. That's pretty pathetic for a dedicated melee unit.

Imo, baseline melee weapons such as Chainswords and Combat Knives really should have -1 AP. Assault squads and similar units are a joke right now.

Also thats failbadon, not exactlly a tournament winning list contender either.
If you'd said morti or magnus that would have been funny. Tac marines with the +1Attack for charging where effective against basic troops in previous editions.
In 8th with the halfing of their damage output they just don't work in close combat, hecknmost of the actually good in close combat units have a bucket load of special rules to make them effective, bezerkers bloodletters etc are all rocking ao many special rules its laughable that anyone thinga charging is much more than a distraction move in 8th.

If your expectations is to be able to out punch AND out shoot everything and still be more cost effective than specialist then yes you are setting your expectations too high.

Stux wrote:
On average, 10 attacks from Reivers Vs Fire Warriors should do about 2 wounds. So entirely possible to take 2 turns if you roll a little below average. That's pretty pathetic for a dedicated melee unit.

Imo, baseline melee weapons such as Chainswords and Combat Knives really should have -1 AP. Assault squads and similar units are a joke right now.

Sorry the Reivers didn't actually kill them, a knight did lol

And yeah I 100% agree, marine "melee" units barring Vanguard are pretty meh. The jobs that come to mind for an assault squad can for the most part be replaced by Reivers.

deep strike harassment: Assault with packs, 80. Reviers with chutes, 100. 5 more wounds 5 more attacks and a pistol with ap for 20pts. Granted you can give Assault marines 3 plasma pistols for another 21pts but that gets pricey for a unit that is gonna draw a decent amount of attention (hopefully or hopefully not lol)and doesn't have great staying power

Deep strike Obj grabbers: Same thing, but Reivers can swap their blades for Carbines so now they have the same Attacks more wounds and can provide some aid in shooting.

I dream of using either of these units to tie up tanks and such, but I play in a heavy Tau/Eldar group
That's all that comes to mind for tasks I'd like them to do, but lets be serious I run 2 squads of Hellblasters I'm just a little sour that I bought a box of Reivers first

ATSKNF is really, useless.

Anyone that claims it do anything just does not play marines or only plays agaisnt Night Lord's Nurgle Raptors.

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Little bit of anecdotal evidence, I had 3 reivers with knives (so 10 attacks) struggle to kill 2 fire warriors. So sure they hit on 3s, wound on 3s but there was no "risk, reward" that comes with getting into CC.

I once watched a single scout marine take on Abbadon and hold him off for four turns, clearly scouts need their CC ability nerfed.

Frankly I don't Believe you and I assume you are mocking my personal experience and reasons for not wanting to march my marines into a position to charge for very little pay off.

weather or not you belive Melissa or not her point is one ancidote doesn't exactly mean anything, I can welll belive there's been a story like that out there where a chaos player just rolled THAT badly.

 Galas wrote:
ATSKNF is really, useless.

Anyone that claims it do anything just does not play marines or only plays agaisnt Night Lord's Nurgle Raptors.

It's pretty useless! And not just because I play Dark Angels, so can only lose 1 model to morale anyway :p

LD 8 means you have to lose 3 models in one turn to have a CHANCE of losing anyone to morale. With Primaris, most of my squads are 5 or less models anyway. If they're getting targeted enough to kill 3 models, they're probably getting wiped.

I have yet to even need to re-roll a morale test this edition.

BrianDavion wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Little bit of anecdotal evidence, I had 3 reivers with knives (so 10 attacks) struggle to kill 2 fire warriors. So sure they hit on 3s, wound on 3s but there was no "risk, reward" that comes with getting into CC.

I once watched a single scout marine take on Abbadon and hold him off for four turns, clearly scouts need their CC ability nerfed.

Frankly I don't Believe you and I assume you are mocking my personal experience and reasons for not wanting to march my marines into a position to charge for very little pay off.

weather or not you belive Melissa or not her point is one ancidote doesn't exactly mean anything, I can welll belive there's been a story like that out there where a chaos player just rolled THAT badly.

"There is a 1 in 1000 chance X happens" is not a counter argument to "on average X is not very effective in melee even against 'good' targets".

Galas wrote:ATSKNF is really, useless.

Anyone that claims it do anything just does not play marines or only plays agaisnt Night Lord's Nurgle Raptors.

Stux wrote:

 Galas wrote:
ATSKNF is really, useless.

Anyone that claims it do anything just does not play marines or only plays agaisnt Night Lord's Nurgle Raptors.

It's pretty useless! And not just because I play Dark Angels, so can only lose 1 model to morale anyway :p

LD 8 means you have to lose 3 models in one turn to have a CHANCE of losing anyone to morale. With Primaris, most of my squads are 5 or less models anyway. If they're getting targeted enough to kill 3 models, they're probably getting wiped.

I have yet to even need to re-roll a morale test this edition.

The problem isn't ATSKNF being useless, it's leadership as a mechanic being useless. It needs some serious redesign, especially because 40k is home to the intergalactic horrors that should be able to do some fun stuff with it.

Actually I'll arguee that Morale in 40k does not make any kind of sense.

It should only affect Imperial Guard (Not Tempestus), Eldar Guardians, Dark Eldar Kabalite Warriors, Chaos Cultistas and equivalents, Tau and Orks.

All other armies or units are basically, by fluff, inmune to fear or morale.

I posted this originally in the thread about the viability of the MEQ statline, but it's relevant here too:

On the point of the viability of the MEQ statline, I'd like to call to mind the previous edition. In 7th edition, basic Tac, Assault, and Dev squads were all 70pts before upgrades. Armies consisting in large parts of those units only became prominent at tournaments when the Gladius-style super-detachment made it possible for those units to take free transports. Even then, while such armies were competitive, they weren't preeminent. That suggests they were reasonably balanced, enough so to be competitive at big events, but not so much so to be an auto-win button.

People's compositions varied, but per demi-company it was fairly common to take 3 Razorbacks for the Tac Squads, a Rhino for the Dev squad and a drop pod for the Assault Squad. The prices of the transports averaged out to 47pts. Subtract that from the 70pt cost of a basic squad, and we arrive at a value of 23pts. Assuming the transports were appropriately priced (I personally think that, at least, the Rhino and Razorbacks were overpriced), that suggests that a basic Tac, Dev, or Assault squad was only worth 23pts.

Fast forward to the current edition. A basic Tac Squad is now 65pts, but has lost considerable utility in the transition. Leaving aside the loss of the Gladius, they lost the ability to ignore the armor saves of light infantry, are now subject to having their saves reduced by weapons against which they used to get full saves, and they even lost the ability to get bonus attacks when charging, which was about the only thing that gave them any claim to occasional credibility in an assault. Pretty much all they got in return was their sergeants' combi-bolters now getting to shoot the special weapon component every turn instead of once per game.

About the only MEQ-based units that see much use are those that give special weapon saturation - Dev Squads, and I'll use DA Company Vets because they can all take special weapons. Assault Squads lost most of their value when they lost the ability to deep strike within range to use flamers, and Tac Squads are just points-sinks.requiring additional points be spent on them to let them have an inadequate chance of doing anything worthwhile that Scouts couldn't do for cheaper, and base cost Scout Squads have a value in a list that they provide even if an opponent goes first and blows them off the board first turn.

The idea that Space Marine Tactical Squads still have a role as a jack-of-all-trades unit is a myth, legacy of editions past that power creep has completely obliterated. They are inconsequential in both shooting and in assault, they're not fast and have no special deployment abilities, so they're not very good at board control, and at 13pts a pop/65pts for a squad they're too expensive to be the basis of a mass army.. They'd really need to have the hell upgraded out of them (or have some really good stratagems designed for them) for them to reclaim that jack-of-all-trades role they supposedly had in editions past.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
I posted this originally in the thread about the viability of the MEQ statline, but it's relevant here too:

On the point of the viability of the MEQ statline, I'd like to call to mind the previous edition. In 7th edition, basic Tac, Assault, and Dev squads were all 70pts before upgrades. Armies consisting in large parts of those units only became prominent at tournaments when the Gladius-style super-detachment made it possible for those units to take free transports. Even then, while such armies were competitive, they weren't preeminent. That suggests they were reasonably balanced, enough so to be competitive at big events, but not so much so to be an auto-win button.

People's compositions varied, but per demi-company it was fairly common to take 3 Razorbacks for the Tac Squads, a Rhino for the Dev squad and a drop pod for the Assault Squad. The prices of the transports averaged out to 47pts. Subtract that from the 70pt cost of a basic squad, and we arrive at a value of 23pts. Assuming the transports were appropriately priced (I personally think that, at least, the Rhino and Razorbacks were overpriced), that suggests that a basic Tac, Dev, or Assault squad was only worth 23pts.

Fast forward to the current edition. A basic Tac Squad is now 65pts, but has lost considerable utility in the transition. Leaving aside the loss of the Gladius, they lost the ability to ignore the armor saves of light infantry, are now subject to having their saves reduced by weapons against which they used to get full saves, and they even lost the ability to get bonus attacks when charging, which was about the only thing that gave them any claim to occasional credibility in an assault. Pretty much all they got in return was their sergeants' combi-bolters now getting to shoot the special weapon component every turn instead of once per game.

About the only MEQ-based units that see much use are those that give special weapon saturation - Dev Squads, and I'll use DA Company Vets because they can all take special weapons. Assault Squads lost most of their value when they lost the ability to deep strike within range to use flamers, and Tac Squads are just points-sinks.requiring additional points be spent on them to let them have an inadequate chance of doing anything worthwhile that Scouts couldn't do for cheaper, and base cost Scout Squads have a value in a list that they provide even if an opponent goes first and blows them off the board first turn.

The idea that Space Marine Tactical Squads still have a role as a jack-of-all-trades unit is a myth, legacy of editions past that power creep has completely obliterated. They are inconsequential in both shooting and in assault, they're not fast and have no special deployment abilities, so they're not very good at board control, and at 13pts a pop/65pts for a squad they're too expensive to be the basis of a mass army.. They'd really need to have the hell upgraded out of them (or have some really good stratagems designed for them) for them to reclaim that jack-of-all-trades role they supposedly had in editions past.

Couldnt agree more, I mentioned in a previous post that a good designer looks at at unit both in a vacuum and in the wider context, Tac marines suffer from legacy issues which are

1: points cost
2: durability
3: weapons loadout

1: Marines have always cost around 13-17pts (with grenades), so they still do, with little to no thought on IF they should cost that much.

2: the 3+ save have always been overvalued, this edition especially, a 3+ save in the current meta is actually a 6+ save and marines should be costed as such, 10pts would be a good spot for them, problem is that then affects other units. Personally I would have power armour ignore 1 AP, so AP-3 would be AP -2.

3: bolters have always been "meh" in both game and fluff to game terms, they really really need a buff, back when Eldar got the bladestorm rules and guard got FRFSRF and all the other armies got some rule for their main weapon, marines got nothing and still have nothing, thankfully now the heavy and special can choose different targets to suit them but it still leaves the basic bolter in a bad place, personally I would have the bolter as a short range high output weapon that shreds enemy infantry, something like these.

Range 18" Str4 Ap 0 Rapid fire 2
OR
Range 18" str4 Ap 0 Rapid fire 1 "mass Reactive" for every roll to wound of 6+ bolters deals an additional automatic hit using its profile, these hits do not generate more hits.

Neither of those are perfect but it really needs something.

what if tactical squads stayed the same points themselves, but received a rule that allowed certain upgrade costs to be cut in half.

Anything they carry themselves, bam cut in half. Any pure dedicated transports, half price (so that people couldn't load up on cheap gunships, assbacks etc)

 davou wrote:
what if tactical squads stayed the same points themselves, but received a rule that allowed certain upgrade costs to be cut in half.

Anything they carry themselves, bam cut in half. Any pure dedicated transports, half price (so that people couldn't load up on cheap gunships, assbacks etc)

I remember reading something pre 8th on the community site stating that there would never be free or reduced point cost items again. I'm gonna do some digging and see if i can find it though

 fraser1191 wrote:

 davou wrote:
what if tactical squads stayed the same points themselves, but received a rule that allowed certain upgrade costs to be cut in half.

Anything they carry themselves, bam cut in half. Any pure dedicated transports, half price (so that people couldn't load up on cheap gunships, assbacks etc)

I remember reading something pre 8th on the community site stating that there would never be free or reduced point cost items again. I'm gonna do some digging and see if i can find it though

well that's obviously not held true at all. Basically every relic so far has been free unless you want a ton of them

 davou wrote:
what if tactical squads stayed the same points themselves, but received a rule that allowed certain upgrade costs to be cut in half.

Anything they carry themselves, bam cut in half. Any pure dedicated transports, half price (so that people couldn't load up on cheap gunships, assbacks etc)

Why would you want to do this?

Like, is it actually a problem that, given a tactical squad, nobody thinks it's worth upgrading them? That seems like the opposite of what we see. You only see tactical squads with upgrades -- it's the regular bolter Marines that people are reluctant to take. The heavy and special weapons are if anything underpriced given how rarely people choose not to take one. And then I'm not sure what "pure dedicated transports" means. Also there's no provision for transports being tied to specific units in the 8th edition rules, so it seems like an unlikely way to go.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 davou wrote:
what if tactical squads stayed the same points themselves, but received a rule that allowed certain upgrade costs to be cut in half.

Anything they carry themselves, bam cut in half. Any pure dedicated transports, half price (so that people couldn't load up on cheap gunships, assbacks etc)

Why would you want to do this?

Like, is it actually a problem that, given a tactical squad, nobody thinks it's worth upgrading them? That seems like the opposite of what we see. You only see tactical squads with upgrades -- it's the regular bolter Marines that people are reluctant to take. The heavy and special weapons are if anything underpriced given how rarely people choose not to take one. And then I'm not sure what "pure dedicated transports" means. Also there's no provision for transports being tied to specific units in the 8th edition rules, so it seems like an unlikely way to go.

An incredible case of Correlation does not imply causation. Given that the better answer is "This is a way to make them slightly more palatable to take" when they have a heavy and special.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 davou wrote:
what if tactical squads stayed the same points themselves, but received a rule that allowed certain upgrade costs to be cut in half.

Anything they carry themselves, bam cut in half. Any pure dedicated transports, half price (so that people couldn't load up on cheap gunships, assbacks etc)

Why would you want to do this?

Like, is it actually a problem that, given a tactical squad, nobody thinks it's worth upgrading them? That seems like the opposite of what we see. You only see tactical squads with upgrades -- it's the regular bolter Marines that people are reluctant to take. The heavy and special weapons are if anything underpriced given how rarely people choose not to take one. And then I'm not sure what "pure dedicated transports" means. Also there's no provision for transports being tied to specific units in the 8th edition rules, so it seems like an unlikely way to go.

I mean pods/rhinos. No land raiders or razorbacks or anything cheeky like that. Just the box that shuttles them to and fro.

I'm not quite sure what you meant by the rest of that frankly. I'm not advocating for cheap devastator squad upgrades. Tactical squads are quite limited already with what sort of upgrades they can take. Halving the cost of a missile launcher if someone is willing to spend 150 points on naked bolter marines seems like a fair deal. Certainly halving the cost on 5+ of them would be absurd, but one seems within reason. Similarly, letting them take a rhino for 40 points. And yes, you are right, there are no provisions for rhinos carrying the unit that bought it... But do you really think it would be so broken to let some other unit ride around in a discounted rhino? When is the last time you saw a 10 man marine squad riding around in a rhino? What unit in the SM codex is suddenly absurd when it has a 30 ish point discount on transports PROVIDED there's a tactical squad somewhere else on the table?

Can even call the rule 'Tactical armory access' and put a table out with what is and isn't available on discount for full tactical squads.

My idea is awesome and you're just jealous

 Formosa wrote:
Couldnt agree more, I mentioned in a previous post that a good designer looks at at unit both in a vacuum and in the wider context, Tac marines suffer from legacy issues which are

1: points cost
2: durability
3: weapons loadout

1: Marines have always cost around 13-17pts (with grenades), so they still do, with little to no thought on IF they should cost that much.

2: the 3+ save have always been overvalued, this edition especially, a 3+ save in the current meta is actually a 6+ save and marines should be costed as such, 10pts would be a good spot for them, problem is that then affects other units. Personally I would have power armour ignore 1 AP, so AP-3 would be AP -2.

3: bolters have always been "meh" in both game and fluff to game terms, they really really need a buff, back when Eldar got the bladestorm rules and guard got FRFSRF and all the other armies got some rule for their main weapon, marines got nothing and still have nothing, thankfully now the heavy and special can choose different targets to suit them but it still leaves the basic bolter in a bad place, personally I would have the bolter as a short range high output weapon that shreds enemy infantry, something like these.

Range 18" Str4 Ap 0 Rapid fire 2
OR
Range 18" str4 Ap 0 Rapid fire 1 "mass Reactive" for every roll to wound of 6+ bolters deals an additional automatic hit using its profile, these hits do not generate more hits.

Neither of those are perfect but it really needs something.

Nice write up. Some good points.

Bladestorm ironically represents bolters well, on a roll of a 6+ to wound) the mass reactive shell detonates in the target causing -3AP.

 Formosa wrote:
Couldnt agree more, I mentioned in a previous post that a good designer looks at at unit both in a vacuum and in the wider context, Tac marines suffer from legacy issues which are

1: points cost
2: durability
3: weapons loadout

1: Marines have always cost around 13-17pts (with grenades), so they still do, with little to no thought on IF they should cost that much.

2: the 3+ save have always been overvalued, this edition especially, a 3+ save in the current meta is actually a 6+ save and marines should be costed as such, 10pts would be a good spot for them, problem is that then affects other units. Personally I would have power armour ignore 1 AP, so AP-3 would be AP -2.

3: bolters have always been "meh" in both game and fluff to game terms, they really really need a buff, back when Eldar got the bladestorm rules and guard got FRFSRF and all the other armies got some rule for their main weapon, marines got nothing and still have nothing, thankfully now the heavy and special can choose different targets to suit them but it still leaves the basic bolter in a bad place, personally I would have the bolter as a short range high output weapon that shreds enemy infantry, something like these.

Range 18" Str4 Ap 0 Rapid fire 2
OR
Range 18" str4 Ap 0 Rapid fire 1 "mass Reactive" for every roll to wound of 6+ bolters deals an additional automatic hit using its profile, these hits do not generate more hits.

Neither of those are perfect but it really needs something.

Well, Rapid Fire was a Space Marine special rule back in 2nd edition, which got rolled out to most basic weapons in 3rd ed. One could argue that that is the root of your problem here.

 davou wrote:

I mean pods/rhinos. No land raiders or razorbacks or anything cheeky like that. Just the box that shuttles them to and fro.

I'm not quite sure what you meant by the rest of that frankly. I'm not advocating for cheap devastator squad upgrades. Tactical squads are quite limited already with what sort of upgrades they can take. Halving the cost of a missile launcher if someone is willing to spend 150 points on naked bolter marines seems like a fair deal. Certainly halving the cost on 5+ of them would be absurd, but one seems within reason. Similarly, letting them take a rhino for 40 points. And yes, you are right, there are no provisions for rhinos carrying the unit that bought it... But do you really think it would be so broken to let some other unit ride around in a discounted rhino? When is the last time you saw a 10 man marine squad riding around in a rhino? What unit in the SM codex is suddenly absurd when it has a 30 ish point discount on transports PROVIDED there's a tactical squad somewhere else on the table?

I'm just saying that this seems like a weird way to address bolter marines being too expensive -- you're buffing some of the stuff that everyone already knows is underpriced as-is. Again, when you do see tactical squads on the table, they always have upgrades. I'm not talking about Devastators. You never see a squad of naked bolter marines. When the game gives you a choice and people always pick the same thing, that's a strong signal that that option is overpowered relative to others. Actually, chopping their wargear in half also worsens the imbalance within tactical wargear -- people already prefer the expensive weapons to the cheap weapons, and this saves more points for the more expensive weapons. It's true that you would overall make a tactical squad with a lascannon more appealing, which would by itself be a good thing because that squad is not great as-is, but it just seems strange to me to try to address that by reducing the amount of real choice presented by the army list option. Like, everyone knows that the problem is that 13 points is too much for a Marine body with a bolter; why try to address that by changing the cost of things that are already good options given that you've already got a Marine body with a bolter?

The obvious response to "What unit in the SM codex is suddenly absurd when it has a 30 ish point discount on transports PROVIDED there's a tactical squad somewhere else on the table?" is: Rhinos. Nobody's going to actually put anything in them, or they might but that's beside the point. You've just created a 37 point unit that shoots 41% more efficiently than bolter Marines and pays less per T7 3+ wound than Guardsmen pay for T3 5+. That Rhino is more durable per point in the face of lascannon fire than are lots of single-wound infantry. Maybe you think tacticals are so bad that they need an effective price drop to 3 points (this is what the savings on a 5-man squad work out to with a lascannon and a Rhino) and so this balances out. But then why not just argue that tacticals should be way cheaper instead of proposing giving people a bunch of no-brainer choices such that every tactical squad always comes with a lascannon and a Rhino?

Guys and gals we already have a thread on MEQ and what it would take to improve Tac Squads. Why don't you take your conversation over to that thread?

So is it true gw is focusing solely on things being spammed at tournaments?

They also improved things that never show up, or do show up and get skunked. That's what was in CA, at any rate.

Martel732 wrote:
They also improved things that never show up, or do show up and get skunked. That's what was in CA, at any rate.

I'm hoping they do something for Wraithknights. Right now WKs are being punished for how disgusting they were in 7th edition, but as is, they are just too many points to field. I'd imagine that considering the sheer number sold in 7th, they have to be vastly underrepresented at present.

IKs, WKs and even Stormsurges are all kind of in the dumps atm.

Martel732 wrote:
IKs, WKs and even Stormsurges are all kind of in the dumps atm.

Most Lords of War are. I'm even unimpressed with the Armiger.

It seems the only one they've gotten "right" (read: competitive without dominating things) is the Baneblade and her sisters.

Baneblade is slightly undercosted imo, especially the sponsons. I think its weapons should cost more than other IG weapons, because they can't be turned off by assault, or by any means, really.

Martel732 wrote:
Baneblade is slightly undercosted imo, especially the sponsons. I think its weapons should cost more than other IG weapons, because they can't be turned off by assault, or by any means, really.

I'd agree if there was any evidence in performance. As it stands, they can be turned off by exploding, which is disturbingly common (3 Russes for 456 is better durability and firepower than 1 Baneblade w/o sponsons for 456, with the only difference being a weakness to assault). You don't generally see "baneblade spam" at the top tables, but you do see one at times in competitive lists that place fairly highly.

That's the hallmark of a balanced Lord of War: One is merely adequate, but you're not shooting yourself in the foot (competitively speaking) taking it, like you are with Knights or most other LOWs.

But IK's at least have a stock 5++ (from shooting) to give them some survivability. Sure the WK can get a 5++ against melee and shooting, but it comes at the cost of a weapon slot, which means the Heavy Wraithcannon load out is off the table. The Ghostglaive is only real option though with the Scattershield, as the Suncannon is complete and utter garbage for its cost. Were it a straight Heavy 12 instead of Heavy 2d6, perhaps it might be palatable.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Baneblade is slightly undercosted imo, especially the sponsons. I think its weapons should cost more than other IG weapons, because they can't be turned off by assault, or by any means, really.

I'd agree if there was any evidence in performance. As it stands, they can be turned off by exploding, which is disturbingly common (3 Russes for 456 is better durability and firepower than 1 Baneblade w/o sponsons for 456, with the only difference being a weakness to assault). You don't generally see "baneblade spam" at the top tables, but you do see one at times in competitive lists that place fairly highly.

That's the hallmark of a balanced Lord of War: One is merely adequate, but you're not shooting yourself in the foot (competitively speaking) taking it, like you are with Knights or most other LOWs.

I did say slightly. Which is a big shift from my previous position of "massively".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mokoshkana wrote:
But IK's at least have a stock 5++ (from shooting) to give them some survivability. Sure the WK can get a 5++ against melee and shooting, but it comes at the cost of a weapon slot, which means the Heavy Wraithcannon load out is off the table. The Ghostglaive is only real option though with the Scattershield, as the Suncannon is complete and utter garbage for its cost. Were it a straight Heavy 12 instead of Heavy 2d6, perhaps it might be palatable.

IK weapons are a joke, which means the WK must be seriously hurting.

Comparing a Baneblade to 3 Russ tanks of equivalent cost, the Russ tanks have notably more wounds, are harder to focus fire on, are putting out roughly equivalent firepower (depending on variant and target) and are easier to fit into lists and make benefit from doctrines and orders and stratagems.

One will notice Baneblades arent spectacularly popular in competitive circles, particularly when just taking more Russ tanks is an option.

A Baneblade with a single set of sponsons sporting bolters is 518pts for a BB cannon, and Autocannon, a Demolisher cannon, two Lascannons and 6 Heavy Bolters on 26 wounds. 528pts gets you 3 LRBT's, with 3 Battlecannons, 8 Heavy Bolters and 2 Lascannons on 36 wounds. That doesnt seem out of whack to me.

About the only real issue is the Shadowsword. It is difficult to see where the other superheavies are any sort of issue.

Do remember your _One_ Baneblade is much easier to give Buffs to with your handy psyker and Sergeant Harker, etc, than your _Three_ Leman Russes. Just because there are more of you, doesn't mean it's better...

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Do remember your _One_ Baneblade is much easier to give Buffs to with your handy psyker and Sergeant Harker, etc, than your _Three_ Leman Russes. Just because there are more of you, doesn't mean it's better...

Sergeant Harker can easily have 3 Russes in his 6" bubble, that's not even hard.

But you're right...

... except that Leman Russes can get orders, and Baneblade's can't. So while the Baneblade may be easier to buff with once-per-turn abilities like Stratagems and Psykers, the Leman Russes have access to more buffs, which are much more powerful and much more flexible.

A Baneblade being able to move 6" after firing (Tallarn) or blow its smoke launchers while shooting (generic) or re-roll the dice for number of shots while re-rolling 1s (Cadian) or simply re-rolling 1s in general (generic) is fantastic.

Heck, even Full Throttle is useful on Baneblades if you're using it as a Distraction Carnifex... but it's also a Leman-Russ only buff.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Do remember your _One_ Baneblade is much easier to give Buffs to with your handy psyker and Sergeant Harker, etc, than your _Three_ Leman Russes. Just because there are more of you, doesn't mean it's better...

In some circumstances sure, but the BB on balance has a lot fewer abilities, builds, and buffs that can be applied to it or made to fit in the first place that such is a much less serious concern. Even getting Regimental bonuses for a BB requires building a list around doing simply that, whereas you can stick any Russ in any list and have it benefit instantly from a much wider array of options.

I said slightly, because I still think GW is undervaluing the ability to fall back from CC and act like nothing happened. If those 3 russes get based, it's GG. Said ability if far less useful for IKs and WKs because their guns are woefully inadequate.

Martel732 wrote:
I said slightly, because I still think GW is undervaluing the ability to fall back from CC and act like nothing happened. If those 3 russes get based, it's GG. Said ability if far less useful for IKs and WKs because their guns are woefully inadequate.

Yes, though it's much easier to keep 3 Russes from getting based than one BB, since the 3 Russes have a smaller footprint even if deployed in a big block, and can be spread across the entire table (a bit hard to base all 3 if one is in each corner of a 4x6 and one is in the middle).

The reason they gave the Baneblade the ability to shoot in combat is you'd be a complete muppet to let more than 500 points of your army get touched by enemy CC units unless the game has gone horribly wrong .... except for something the size of a Baneblade, which is fairly trivial to get within an inch of from a variety of directions and is difficult to put much of a screen in front of.

Any single "big" unit would be absolutely ridiculously bad if, say, a grot getting within an inch totally shut it down for a turn. That's why all the single, big units have some rule preventing just that.

Except land raiders, of course.

And it is still taking away the only real weakness IG vehicles have.

 Ordana wrote:
"There is a 1 in 1000 chance X happens" is not a counter argument

Funny, that's exactly the point I was making.

Baneblade is the one of the few super heavy that isn't overpriced ATM. I hope they don't nerf it.

Here is what I want to see in CA.

Dark reapers +10 points each
Shinning spears +12 points each.
Manticores +40 points
Basalisk +20 points
Mortor team +8 points
Obliterators +10 points

Psychic denial determined by the casting target - not the psyker.

Command points generated by a detachment can only be used on stratagems for units in that detachment.

Space marine and CSM army traits apply to all chapter/legion units.

Space marine/csm -3 points base for every infantry based unit in PA. -5 points for every infantry based unit in Terminator armor. (includes all flvaros/ BA / DA / GK ect.)
All Grav type weapons imperial spanning - 5 points.
Rhino -20 points
Drop pod - 30 points
Repulsor/landraider -80 points base
Every space marine/CSM tank -15 points respectively if not included in any above mention.


Horma/termagant get 5+ saves.
Crisis suits dropped -10 points base
Admech destroyers varients -10 points base
Admech infantry - 2 points base

Stuff like this is what I would want to see. Nerf the stuff that is obviosuly too strong. Buff the stuff that is obviously too weak.

Martel732 wrote:
Except land raiders, of course.

And it is still taking away the only real weakness IG vehicles have.

Land Raiders are hardly 500+ points. Not even the FW ones are that overpriced.

Also, yeah, it is. But it's replacing it with other weaknesses, so it's not like it just is "better for no price." It's different, which is a good thing, without being automatically better than its points spent elsewhere, which is also a good thing.

Cultists would need love vis a vis guardsmen.

I think make indirect fire -1 to hit and make all orders on a 4+ and make conscripts not take orders at all might be a thing to try.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Except land raiders, of course.

And it is still taking away the only real weakness IG vehicles have.

Land Raiders are hardly 500+ points. Not even the FW ones are that overpriced.

Also, yeah, it is. But it's replacing it with other weaknesses, so it's not like it just is "better for no price." It's different, which is a good thing, without being automatically better than its points spent elsewhere, which is also a good thing.

I think the weaknesses it gains are not as great as you think. Which is why I still think its worth slightly more points than it currently costs. Especially if we use the other lords of war as a benchmark.

Baneblades needing a price increase because they cant be locked in CC, while losing out on orders and other abilities, being harder to fit into army lists, and having dramatically less resiliency than similar points of normal Russ tanks (26 vs 36 wounds), doesn't seem terribly necessary.

Likewise, bringing Manticores up to over 180pts isn't going to do anything for balance except remove Manticores from tables. Indirect fire isn't worth *that* much (not with 8E terrain, TLoS, and most actual terrain pieces), especially not over a Russ tank thats packing an otherwise identical main gun, better resiliency, and an array of flexible secondary heavy weapons and access to Orders for the same price. Making Mortar teams 8pts more each basically returns them to their 5E price level of 60pts for a squad, which will also probably see them evaporate from the table, as nobody took them then, or really ever, until 8E. Could Mortars use a bit of a bump? Perhaps, but 8ppm is overkill.


That said im all about seeing some CP changes, anything to reduce Soup and unintended synergies.

5 point Skitarii and 6 point vanguard WTF Xenomancers do you even balance?

Just relegate super heavies back to apoc and be done with it.

And the Reaper Chainsword should do a flat damage of (24-2*Toughness) damage in mortal freaking wounds.

 Galas wrote:
5 point Skitarii and 6 point vanguard WTF Xenomancers do you even balance?

It's rangers, not skitarii.

 Galas wrote:
5 point Skitarii and 6 point vanguard WTF Xenomancers do you even balance?

Looking at that list? No, probably not.

I'd also not be expecting too much - if anything - for Tau or Necrons as part of the Big March FAQ. I imagine they'll get the usual "clean-up" FAQs that new codexes are due to get, but not be part of this balancing pass, given they will only just have been released at the point the BFAQ drops.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Except land raiders, of course.

And it is still taking away the only real weakness IG vehicles have.

Land Raiders are hardly 500+ points. Not even the FW ones are that overpriced.

A fully kitted Custodes Land Raider clocks in at 435 points. That’s one Lascannon away from being more expensive than a barebones Baneblade.

While it’s technically correct that Land Raiders are less than 500+ points, the main thrust of your argument here doesn’t really hold up.

Edit: It also bears mentioning that Land Raiders are pretty much impossible to screen due to their role as an assault transport - you want them at the front of the army, if they’re hiding behind something then they’re not doing their job.

 Galas wrote:
5 point Skitarii and 6 point vanguard WTF Xenomancers do you even balance?

I am only aware of the 10 point skitari my buddy takes. They are worth 7-8 at most. A fire warrior is 7 now - I don't think that's a big leap.

Skitarii dropped to 7/8 in last CA, which was honestly why we all knew firewarriors would be 7ppm max.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Baneblades needing a price increase because they cant be locked in CC, while losing out on orders and other abilities, being harder to fit into army lists, and having dramatically less resiliency than similar points of normal Russ tanks (26 vs 36 wounds), doesn't seem terribly necessary.

Likewise, bringing Manticores up to over 180pts isn't going to do anything for balance except remove Manticores from tables. Indirect fire isn't worth *that* much (not with 8E terrain, TLoS, and most actual terrain pieces), especially not over a Russ tank thats packing an otherwise identical main gun, better resiliency, and an array of flexible secondary heavy weapons and access to Orders for the same price. Making Mortar teams 8pts more each basically returns them to their 5E price level of 60pts for a squad, which will also probably see them evaporate from the table, as nobody took them then, or really ever, until 8E. Could Mortars use a bit of a bump? Perhaps, but 8ppm is overkill.


That said im all about seeing some CP changes, anything to reduce Soup and unintended synergies.

Manticore outshoots most everything around 200 points - all of those units need to see the opponent to shoot them - what is indirect fire worth to you? The only reason I don't think it should cost over 200 points is it has no usable secondary weapon where those tanks do (example LR commanders / las preds / sicarians) and it's significantly easier to kill out in the open. Even at 180 3-4 would be in every competitive AM list.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Baneblades needing a price increase because they cant be locked in CC, while losing out on orders and other abilities, being harder to fit into army lists, and having dramatically less resiliency than similar points of normal Russ tanks (26 vs 36 wounds), doesn't seem terribly necessary.

Likewise, bringing Manticores up to over 180pts isn't going to do anything for balance except remove Manticores from tables. Indirect fire isn't worth *that* much (not with 8E terrain, TLoS, and most actual terrain pieces), especially not over a Russ tank thats packing an otherwise identical main gun, better resiliency, and an array of flexible secondary heavy weapons and access to Orders for the same price. Making Mortar teams 8pts more each basically returns them to their 5E price level of 60pts for a squad, which will also probably see them evaporate from the table, as nobody took them then, or really ever, until 8E. Could Mortars use a bit of a bump? Perhaps, but 8ppm is overkill.


That said im all about seeing some CP changes, anything to reduce Soup and unintended synergies.

Manticore outshoots most everything around 200 points

By what standard and circumstance?

- all of those units need to see the opponent to shoot them - what is indirect fire worth to you?

That's exactly it, indirect fire is of highly variable value. Can it be amazing? Yes. Can it be worthless? Depending on available terrain, 8E terrain and TLoS rules, deployment, opposing army style, etc...? Equally so.

The Manticore trades +1T, a Wound, secondary weapons options access, Orders, potential Defenders of Humanity, several potential turns of shooting, and the ability to Squadron that a Leman Russ Battle Tank enjoys for Indirect Fire and a 9pt base price difference. If you're going to make the Manticore 180+pts, then the variable value of indirect fire is much harder to justify over just taking a kitted out Russ tank unless you're fairly certain that fair amounts of LoS blocking terrain are going to be available and you're facing armies that won't just be jumping everything across the board into your deployment zone turn 1 anyway. If you know that for sure, then yes, that indirect fire is going to be awesome. For a general take all comers list however, where such things may be unknown at a tournament or in pickup play, that's a harder sell than the kitted Russ I feel, especially with the build opportunities the army offers for constructing around Russ tanks.

The only reason I don't think it should cost over 200 points is it has no usable secondary weapon where those tanks do (example LR commanders / las preds / sicarians) and it's significantly easier to kill out in the open. Even at 180 3-4 would be in every competitive AM list.

I can tell you I would almost certainly be dramatically more inclined to just run Russ tanks instead myself. As-is we don't see 3-4 in every competitive IG list. As a general trend they don't appear that wildly popular, with a quick perusal of the army list subforum, there were 13 Russ tanks and 1 Manticore across 5 army lists containing an IG component on the first page as of this posting.

If firing indirectly gave you a -1 to hit penalty, then the Manticore would be alright at its current value.

Martel732 wrote:
Cultists would need love vis a vis guardsmen.

I think make indirect fire -1 to hit and make all orders on a 4+ and make conscripts not take orders at all might be a thing to try.

I like it - no doubt the IG police will show up soon to dismiss it as a unnecessary nerf because IG are bottom tier

Orders should never have been automatic. Some sort of risk of failure is needed.

Another option could be going back to previous editions, rolling 2D6 and aim for under the units LD for the order to be heard - reroll or maybe +1/+2 for having a vox caster. Double 1's jams the vox and prevents any further orders that turn.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Cultists would need love vis a vis guardsmen.

I think make indirect fire -1 to hit and make all orders on a 4+ and make conscripts not take orders at all might be a thing to try.

I like it - no doubt the IG police will show up soon to dismiss it as a unnecessary nerf because IG are bottom tier

Orders should never have been automatic. Some sort of risk of failure is needed.

Another option could be going back to previous editions, rolling 2D6 and aim for under the units LD for the order to be heard - reroll or maybe +1/+2 for having a vox caster. Double 1's jams the vox and prevents any further orders that turn.

Not a guard player but if you bring that back I want

Deep strike scatter for matched
Rolling for reserves for matched
All auras work on a 2+ and only affect 1 unit for matched

Basically most auto abilities dropped to add a failure chance. Never been a fan of anything happening without a little risk

gendoikari87 wrote:
So is it true gw is focusing solely on things being spammed at tournaments?

Or what isn't spammed. They can even give 300% price hikes to stuff that wasn't broken to begin with. You have to remember GW isn't doing point changes for sake of balance. They don't CARE about it. It's irrelevant to them. What they want is MONEY. They want to shuffle people buying stuff that they didn't already have. And plastic over resin since 100£ on plastic gives them more profit than 100£ on resin.

I am pretty certain resin has cheaper molds but long term big sales are better in plastic because those molds last longer.

They want money but changing the balance on a dime doesn't work IMHO. People chasing the meta mostly buy secondhand in my opinion. And from what I have seen in my local GW awesome looking kit drives sales a hell of a lot more than good in game.

Also I don't think GW can use the perfect imbalance system, the game (balance) just isn't precise enough.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Rhino -20 points

And then ork trukks and drukhari venoms should be 35ppm.

The rhino is probably the cheapest transport in the game and definitely among of the most efficient ones. It's the SM style of playing that discourages to embark units in a rhino. But that transport works well for chaos assault units, and it's not trash in SW lists, which suffer because they still have to rely on an index but even now rhinos seem costed properly. It also works well for SoB.

At this point I don't expect any change on SM. Eldar and AM should get some nerfs, probably their most abused units with an higher points cost.

Changes for chaps space marones id like to see (these changes only apply to codex CSM)
Mono god rules
Khorne if every model on this detachment has the khorne keyword they gain +1 attack and +1 strength on the turn they charge (basically a slightly weaker version of the khorne daemon rule for csm)
Nurgle if every modal in this detachment has the Nurgle keyword they gain +1 toughness but must half the D6 when rolling to advance (rounding up)
Tzeench if every model in this detachment has the Tzeench Keyword they gain +1 to their invulnerable save or a 5+ invulnerable if they don't have one
Slaanesh if every model in this detachment has the slaanesh keyword they add +3 to their move advance and charge rolls.
Unaligned if every mpdel in this detachment doesn't take a chaos mark they gain +1 leadership and may take units of blood letters pink horrors daemonettes and plague bearers in a detachment without breaking heretic a started allegiance. However these units may not be taken as compulsory troops choices.
Obliterators stay as they are but on a turn they deep strike on count as having advanced (so are at -1 to hit if they shoot that turn)
CSM can take bolter bolt pistol and chain sword (same for chosen )
Noise marines may take a chain sword in addition to their sonic blaster

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Baneblades needing a price increase because they cant be locked in CC, while losing out on orders and other abilities, being harder to fit into army lists, and having dramatically less resiliency than similar points of normal Russ tanks (26 vs 36 wounds), doesn't seem terribly necessary.

Likewise, bringing Manticores up to over 180pts isn't going to do anything for balance except remove Manticores from tables. Indirect fire isn't worth *that* much (not with 8E terrain, TLoS, and most actual terrain pieces), especially not over a Russ tank thats packing an otherwise identical main gun, better resiliency, and an array of flexible secondary heavy weapons and access to Orders for the same price. Making Mortar teams 8pts more each basically returns them to their 5E price level of 60pts for a squad, which will also probably see them evaporate from the table, as nobody took them then, or really ever, until 8E. Could Mortars use a bit of a bump? Perhaps, but 8ppm is overkill.


That said im all about seeing some CP changes, anything to reduce Soup and unintended synergies.

Manticore outshoots most everything around 200 points - all of those units need to see the opponent to shoot them - what is indirect fire worth to you? The only reason I don't think it should cost over 200 points is it has no usable secondary weapon where those tanks do (example LR commanders / las preds / sicarians) and it's significantly easier to kill out in the open. Even at 180 3-4 would be in every competitive AM list.

Honestly i find that indirect fire is almost worthless, in 8th completely negating LOS is really hard, especially on a Manticore which isn't exactly that small.
That changes if you play ITC, but you are digging your own grave there.

tneva82 wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
So is it true gw is focusing solely on things being spammed at tournaments?

Or what isn't spammed. They can even give 300% price hikes to stuff that wasn't broken to begin with. You have to remember GW isn't doing point changes for sake of balance. They don't CARE about it. It's irrelevant to them. What they want is MONEY. They want to shuffle people buying stuff that they didn't already have. And plastic over resin since 100£ on plastic gives them more profit than 100£ on resin.

This is laughable because GW isn't good enough at balance/understanding what is and isn't good to actually do this.

 NurglesR0T wrote:
no doubt the IG police will show up soon to dismiss it as a unnecessary nerf because IG are bottom tier

IG police here. The delusion in this thread is unreal. Might as well be discussing how to nerf harlequins. IG hasn't been competitive for months but you people won't rest until it's ground into nothing. Why yes, lets nerf baneblades, basilisks, manticores, russes, and infantry. Why doesn't guard use all its other awesome options like sentinels, ratlings, and wyrdvanes? DURRRR

I want an honest opinion here. If you get the changes you listed in this thread that you would like to see done to guard, do you see them placing in tournaments? Because they don't place in tournaments now, in their presumably broken form. Where do you see them post-changes? Top of the trash pile? Middle of the trash pile? Maybe the very bottom of the trash pile? Probably squarely in the middle of the trash pile.

I can only pray GW ignores this forum.

 Formosa wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Cultists would need love vis a vis guardsmen.

I think make indirect fire -1 to hit and make all orders on a 4+ and make conscripts not take orders at all might be a thing to try.

I like it - no doubt the IG police will show up soon to dismiss it as a unnecessary nerf because IG are bottom tier

Orders should never have been automatic. Some sort of risk of failure is needed.

Another option could be going back to previous editions, rolling 2D6 and aim for under the units LD for the order to be heard - reroll or maybe +1/+2 for having a vox caster. Double 1's jams the vox and prevents any further orders that turn.

Not a guard player but if you bring that back I want

Deep strike scatter for matched
Rolling for reserves for matched
All auras work on a 2+ and only affect 1 unit for matched

Basically most auto abilities dropped to add a failure chance. Never been a fan of anything happening without a little risk

With those changes guardsmen become 9ppm lol. I'm suggesting to nerf orders only as a way to balance guardsmen vs other 4ppm models. Guardsmen already make deep strike worthless for the opponent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ThePorcupine wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
no doubt the IG police will show up soon to dismiss it as a unnecessary nerf because IG are bottom tier

IG police here. The delusion in this thread is unreal. Might as well be discussing how to nerf harlequins. IG hasn't been competitive for months but you people won't rest until it's ground into nothing. Why yes, lets nerf baneblades, basilisks, manticores, russes, and infantry. Why doesn't guard use all its other awesome options like sentinels, ratlings, and wyrdvanes? DURRRR

I want an honest opinion here. If you get the changes you listed in this thread that you would like to see done to guard, do you see them placing in tournaments? Because they don't place in tournaments now, in their presumably broken form. Where do you see them post-changes? Top of the trash pile? Middle of the trash pile? Maybe the very bottom of the trash pile? Probably squarely in the middle of the trash pile.

I can only pray GW ignores this forum.

IG will be back to killing everyone trivially once dark reapers are nerfed. Altioc reapers are THE meta check against ig. They also make the other -1 to hit factions unusable, but omelets and eggs and all that.

I'm already tired of boring uncompetitive games vs static gunlines full of undercosted cheese in 8th. So no, i'm not resting.

 Blackie wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Rhino -20 points

And then ork trukks and drukhari venoms should be 35ppm.

The rhino is probably the cheapest transport in the game and definitely among of the most efficient ones. It's the SM style of playing that discourages to embark units in a rhino. But that transport works well for chaos assault units, and it's not trash in SW lists, which suffer because they still have to rely on an index but even now rhinos seem costed properly. It also works well for SoB.

At this point I don't expect any change on SM. Eldar and AM should get some nerfs, probably their most abused units with an higher points cost.

I was saying - 20 points. This would make it 52 points. Not sure what an ork truck should cost but something like 40 points sounds about right. It should be faster but easier to kill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Baneblades needing a price increase because they cant be locked in CC, while losing out on orders and other abilities, being harder to fit into army lists, and having dramatically less resiliency than similar points of normal Russ tanks (26 vs 36 wounds), doesn't seem terribly necessary.

Likewise, bringing Manticores up to over 180pts isn't going to do anything for balance except remove Manticores from tables. Indirect fire isn't worth *that* much (not with 8E terrain, TLoS, and most actual terrain pieces), especially not over a Russ tank thats packing an otherwise identical main gun, better resiliency, and an array of flexible secondary heavy weapons and access to Orders for the same price. Making Mortar teams 8pts more each basically returns them to their 5E price level of 60pts for a squad, which will also probably see them evaporate from the table, as nobody took them then, or really ever, until 8E. Could Mortars use a bit of a bump? Perhaps, but 8ppm is overkill.


That said im all about seeing some CP changes, anything to reduce Soup and unintended synergies.

Manticore outshoots most everything around 200 points - all of those units need to see the opponent to shoot them - what is indirect fire worth to you? The only reason I don't think it should cost over 200 points is it has no usable secondary weapon where those tanks do (example LR commanders / las preds / sicarians) and it's significantly easier to kill out in the open. Even at 180 3-4 would be in every competitive AM list.

Honestly i find that indirect fire is almost worthless, in 8th completely negating LOS is really hard, especially on a Manticore which isn't exactly that small.
That changes if you play ITC, but you are digging your own grave there.

indirect fire is completely worthless now?



Even if you can't block LOS to your manticore vs every model in the opponents army - you should (or you aren't playing with suitable amount of terrain) be able to block a significant portion of his army from shooting at it. The real benefit to indirect fire is the opponent can't hide units from you.

tneva82 wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
So is it true gw is focusing solely on things being spammed at tournaments?

Or what isn't spammed. They can even give 300% price hikes to stuff that wasn't broken to begin with. You have to remember GW isn't doing point changes for sake of balance. They don't CARE about it. It's irrelevant to them. What they want is MONEY. They want to shuffle people buying stuff that they didn't already have. And plastic over resin since 100£ on plastic gives them more profit than 100£ on resin.

According to you GW can't write good rules at all, but somehow they're able to figure out how to manipulate everyone into buying exactly what they want you to buy.

If they're so good at this, why then did they have to drop points on brand spanking new kits?



Your 300% tag line is still bs. The average point change for FW listings was 11%. For non-FW units it was -11%.

If you remove the following units from the FW point changes the average FW change is 1%. These units represent 16% of all the listed FW point changes.

On the subject of introducing a risk of failure factor to IG orders, I don't think it's worthwhile. In previous editions, the risk of failure was so minimal, it hardly ever was relevant to the outcome of the game. All it did was make my opponent's turns take longer, and the game is time consuming enough as it is.

I don't think there's anything wrong with IG auto-passing orders. After all, many other armies' characters have a bubble aura granting an ability that IG officers can select one or two specific units to get.

The sheer variety of them, on the other hand, may need some toning down. Get Back In The Fight is something other armies need to spend a strat on, and Move Move Move lets IG Infantry Squads keep up with Ravenwing Bikes. The Swiss Army Knife of buffs is far more likely to be problematic than the auto-pass.

Have 'unlocking" them cost CP? guard have one of the biggest pools out there.

SO you would have spend a CP and then you gain the ability to give FRSF where possible and so forth.

Does anyone have some recent tourney results? After the GT and the LVO I haven't seen any. Or is that because there hasn't really been anything major?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Baneblade is the one of the few super heavy that isn't overpriced ATM. I hope they don't nerf it.

Here is what I want to see in CA.

Dark reapers +10 points each
Shinning spears +12 points each.
Manticores +40 points
Basalisk +20 points
Mortor team +8 points
Obliterators +10 points

Psychic denial determined by the casting target - not the psyker.

Command points generated by a detachment can only be used on stratagems for units in that detachment.

Space marine and CSM army traits apply to all chapter/legion units.

Space marine/csm -3 points base for every infantry based unit in PA. -5 points for every infantry based unit in Terminator armor. (includes all flvaros/ BA / DA / GK ect.)
All Grav type weapons imperial spanning - 5 points.
Rhino -20 points
Drop pod - 30 points
Repulsor/landraider -80 points base
Every space marine/CSM tank -15 points respectively if not included in any above mention.

Horma/termagant get 5+ saves.
Crisis suits dropped -10 points base
Admech destroyers varients -10 points base
Admech infantry - 2 points base

Stuff like this is what I would want to see. Nerf the stuff that is obviosuly too strong. Buff the stuff that is obviously too weak.

Do the Sisters power armour infantry and Rhinos (etc) also get a similar drop?

Have you included the bonus effect of adding Chapter/Legion Tactics to the Marine vehicles - of course Sisters and some other Factions still don't have that bonus but maybe get it eventually.

I think some Imperial Knight Weapons could use some work - the Errent's Melta for instance?

In my experience, there is always that part of the vehicle that sticks out, or that window, or that crack in the wall.

Sure, sometimes you play with those nice big blocks made from icecream boxes. In that case you can hide a manticore behind them and be safe, in fact i said ALMOST worthless, not completely. Sometimes, on the right table you can hide a manticore. Spammed (3 or more) manticores being out of LOS though is fantahammer.

Spoletta wrote:

Spoiler:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Rhino -20 points

And then ork trukks and drukhari venoms should be 35ppm.

The rhino is probably the cheapest transport in the game and definitely among of the most efficient ones. It's the SM style of playing that discourages to embark units in a rhino. But that transport works well for chaos assault units, and it's not trash in SW lists, which suffer because they still have to rely on an index but even now rhinos seem costed properly. It also works well for SoB.

At this point I don't expect any change on SM. Eldar and AM should get some nerfs, probably their most abused units with an higher points cost.

I was saying - 20 points. This would make it 52 points. Not sure what an ork truck should cost but something like 40 points sounds about right. It should be faster but easier to kill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Baneblades needing a price increase because they cant be locked in CC, while losing out on orders and other abilities, being harder to fit into army lists, and having dramatically less resiliency than similar points of normal Russ tanks (26 vs 36 wounds), doesn't seem terribly necessary.

Likewise, bringing Manticores up to over 180pts isn't going to do anything for balance except remove Manticores from tables. Indirect fire isn't worth *that* much (not with 8E terrain, TLoS, and most actual terrain pieces), especially not over a Russ tank thats packing an otherwise identical main gun, better resiliency, and an array of flexible secondary heavy weapons and access to Orders for the same price. Making Mortar teams 8pts more each basically returns them to their 5E price level of 60pts for a squad, which will also probably see them evaporate from the table, as nobody took them then, or really ever, until 8E. Could Mortars use a bit of a bump? Perhaps, but 8ppm is overkill.


That said im all about seeing some CP changes, anything to reduce Soup and unintended synergies.

Manticore outshoots most everything around 200 points - all of those units need to see the opponent to shoot them - what is indirect fire worth to you? The only reason I don't think it should cost over 200 points is it has no usable secondary weapon where those tanks do (example LR commanders / las preds / sicarians) and it's significantly easier to kill out in the open. Even at 180 3-4 would be in every competitive AM list.

Honestly i find that indirect fire is almost worthless, in 8th completely negating LOS is really hard, especially on a Manticore which isn't exactly that small.
That changes if you play ITC, but you are digging your own grave there.

indirect fire is completely worthless now?



Even if you can't block LOS to your manticore vs every model in the opponents army - you should (or you aren't playing with suitable amount of terrain) be able to block a significant portion of his army from shooting at it. The real benefit to indirect fire is the opponent can't hide units from you.

In my experience, there is always that part of the vehicle that sticks out, or that window, or that crack in the wall.

Sure, sometimes you play with those nice big blocks made from icecream boxes. In that case you can hide a manticore behind them and be safe, in fact i said ALMOST worthless, not completely. Sometimes, on the right table you can hide a manticore. Spammed (3 or more) manticores being out of LOS though is fantahammer.

Not on NOVA standard terrain. I can say they're standard terrain allows for 3 Manticores (and probably a little more) to be completely hidden from LoS at deployment.

Yeah. I've rarely played on a table where you could hide more than 1 Manticore completely out of LOS from the entire enemy deployment zone, and this includes my games at NOVA.

Spoletta wrote:


Sure, sometimes you play with those nice big blocks made from icecream boxes. In that case you can hide a manticore behind them and be safe, in fact i said ALMOST worthless, not completely. Sometimes, on the right table you can hide a manticore. Spammed (3 or more) manticores being out of LOS though is fantahammer.

Or you play with the ITC terrain rules where the bottom floor always blocks LoS.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:


Sure, sometimes you play with those nice big blocks made from icecream boxes. In that case you can hide a manticore behind them and be safe, in fact i said ALMOST worthless, not completely. Sometimes, on the right table you can hide a manticore. Spammed (3 or more) manticores being out of LOS though is fantahammer.

Or you play with the ITC terrain rules where the bottom floor always blocks LoS.

Indeed, refer to my first comment.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. I've rarely played on a table where you could hide more than 1 Manticore completely out of LOS from the entire enemy deployment zone, and this includes my games at NOVA.

The problem with Manticores is not them hiding, but stuff trying to hide from them.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. I've rarely played on a table where you could hide more than 1 Manticore completely out of LOS from the entire enemy deployment zone, and this includes my games at NOVA.

The problem with Manticores is not them hiding, but stuff trying to hide from them.

I too try to defy enemy MLRS batteries by hiding behind a low hedge.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Baneblade is the one of the few super heavy that isn't overpriced ATM. I hope they don't nerf it.

Here is what I want to see in CA.

Dark reapers +10 points each
Shinning spears +12 points each.
Manticores +40 points
Basalisk +20 points
Mortor team +8 points
Obliterators +10 points

Psychic denial determined by the casting target - not the psyker.

Command points generated by a detachment can only be used on stratagems for units in that detachment.

Space marine and CSM army traits apply to all chapter/legion units.

Space marine/csm -3 points base for every infantry based unit in PA. -5 points for every infantry based unit in Terminator armor. (includes all flvaros/ BA / DA / GK ect.)
All Grav type weapons imperial spanning - 5 points.
Rhino -20 points
Drop pod - 30 points
Repulsor/landraider -80 points base
Every space marine/CSM tank -15 points respectively if not included in any above mention.

Horma/termagant get 5+ saves.
Crisis suits dropped -10 points base
Admech destroyers varients -10 points base
Admech infantry - 2 points base

Stuff like this is what I would want to see. Nerf the stuff that is obviosuly too strong. Buff the stuff that is obviously too weak.

Do the Sisters power armour infantry and Rhinos (etc) also get a similar drop?

Have you included the bonus effect of adding Chapter/Legion Tactics to the Marine vehicles - of course Sisters and some other Factions still don't have that bonus but maybe get it eventually.

I think some Imperial Knight Weapons could use some work - the Errent's Melta for instance?

Sisters to me seem properly costed - but their rhinos I think should drop in cost for sure. Also any army trait that sisters eventually receive should also apply to their vehicles. This is just my opinion.

Some of the knight weapons aren't up to snuff for sure - the rapid battle cannon is pretty bad too. They have a lot of options though that aren't bad - the gatling cannon is great - if it could take 2 Gatling cannons everyone would.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. I've rarely played on a table where you could hide more than 1 Manticore completely out of LOS from the entire enemy deployment zone, and this includes my games at NOVA.

The problem with Manticores is not them hiding, but stuff trying to hide from them.

Yep. Range in itself is a huge defensive benefit.

Ask me how many times my 2 fireprisims I deploy in the 2 farthest corners of the board get targeted? The answer is practically never. Manitcores effectively have unlimmited range and are out of range of at least 80% of your opponents shooting. If you can block out the 20% of the targets can reach you with an obstruction - boom - you are effectively impervious to damage while not being 100% out of LOS to all enemies.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. I've rarely played on a table where you could hide more than 1 Manticore completely out of LOS from the entire enemy deployment zone, and this includes my games at NOVA.

My friend regularly took 3 Manticores and never had trouble keeping them out of LoS behind the mountain terrain. You put 2 back there and 1 behind a Ruin wall (the big one).

Now, can your opponent move and find you? Sure! But you can definitely deploy out of LoS of a deployment zone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. I've rarely played on a table where you could hide more than 1 Manticore completely out of LOS from the entire enemy deployment zone, and this includes my games at NOVA.

The problem with Manticores is not them hiding, but stuff trying to hide from them.

It's both. Indirect fire is undercosted currently (by comparison, psychic access is overcosted).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. I've rarely played on a table where you could hide more than 1 Manticore completely out of LOS from the entire enemy deployment zone, and this includes my games at NOVA.

The problem with Manticores is not them hiding, but stuff trying to hide from them.

I too try to defy enemy MLRS batteries by hiding behind a low hedge.

I too expect my indirect fire to be as accurate as my direct fire.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. I've rarely played on a table where you could hide more than 1 Manticore completely out of LOS from the entire enemy deployment zone, and this includes my games at NOVA.

The problem with Manticores is not them hiding, but stuff trying to hide from them.

I too try to defy enemy MLRS batteries by hiding behind a low hedge.

I too expect my indirect fire to be as accurate as my direct fire.

More accurate actually.

Indirect fire should get +1 to hit.

To be fair, we're talking wide area effect weapons, accuracy shouldnt be super important.

By the same token however, something like a Manticore has no realistic place in an actual 40k table as anything but a mission objective, being used in a tactical role against units in small arms range or even tank gun range is ridiculous for that kind of artillery (the rockets almost certainly wouldnt even be armed at such close ranges, much less be able to be targeted), its the kind of thing that should be portrayed as off-board artillery really.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


More accurate actually.

Indirect fire should get +1 to hit.

Groupings on MBTs is 0.5 meters.

This thing? Not so much.

with a circular error probable (CEP) of around 5 metres (16 ft) to 20 metres (66 ft)

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


More accurate actually.

Indirect fire should get +1 to hit.

Groupings on MBTs is 0.5 meters.

This thing? Not so much.

with a circular error probable (CEP) of around 5 metres (16 ft) to 20 metres (66 ft)

I was having a giggle, mostly. Realistically, I agree with Vakhathi. This sort of thing shouldn't even be on the table at the scales 40k is played at, unless it is a scenario game. But that's a whole different discussion.

 Formosa wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Cultists would need love vis a vis guardsmen.

I think make indirect fire -1 to hit and make all orders on a 4+ and make conscripts not take orders at all might be a thing to try.

I like it - no doubt the IG police will show up soon to dismiss it as a unnecessary nerf because IG are bottom tier

Orders should never have been automatic. Some sort of risk of failure is needed.

Another option could be going back to previous editions, rolling 2D6 and aim for under the units LD for the order to be heard - reroll or maybe +1/+2 for having a vox caster. Double 1's jams the vox and prevents any further orders that turn.

Not a guard player but if you bring that back I want

Deep strike scatter for matched
Rolling for reserves for matched
All auras work on a 2+ and only affect 1 unit for matched

Basically most auto abilities dropped to add a failure chance. Never been a fan of anything happening without a little risk

What next? AoF only happens on a 2+? Imagifer extra AoF only happens on a 4+ too?
Oh wait already the case .

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


More accurate actually.

Indirect fire should get +1 to hit.

Groupings on MBTs is 0.5 meters.

This thing? Not so much.

with a circular error probable (CEP) of around 5 metres (16 ft) to 20 metres (66 ft)

I was having a giggle, mostly. Realistically, I agree with Vakhathi. This sort of thing shouldn't even be on the table at the scales 40k is played at, unless it is a scenario game. But that's a whole different discussion.

While I agree - they make a model for it and it would be unfair to not allow people to use it. We can at least agree on rules that are actually fair. Maybe give it an upgrade ability for indirect fire. +20 points = you gain indirect fire - or something. 160 without indirect and 180 with it.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


More accurate actually.

Indirect fire should get +1 to hit.

Groupings on MBTs is 0.5 meters.

This thing? Not so much.

with a circular error probable (CEP) of around 5 metres (16 ft) to 20 metres (66 ft)

I was having a giggle, mostly. Realistically, I agree with Vakhathi. This sort of thing shouldn't even be on the table at the scales 40k is played at, unless it is a scenario game. But that's a whole different discussion.

While I agree - they make a model for it and it would be unfair to not allow people to use it. We can at least agree on rules that are actually fair. Maybe give it an upgrade ability for indirect fire. +20 points = you gain indirect fire - or something. 160 without indirect and 180 with it.

Why in the world would it be more expensive than a Leman Russ if it had no indirect fire option? It's less durable with essentially the same gun.

You guys are bonkers.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. I've rarely played on a table where you could hide more than 1 Manticore completely out of LOS from the entire enemy deployment zone, and this includes my games at NOVA.

The problem with Manticores is not them hiding, but stuff trying to hide from them.

I too try to defy enemy MLRS batteries by hiding behind a low hedge.

I too expect my indirect fire to be as accurate as my direct fire.

i too expect a computer and radar guided system to be less accurate than the old mk.I eyeball...

gendoikari87 wrote:

i too expect a computer and radar guided system to be less accurate than the old mk.I eyeball...

How does one get GPS on a planet they don't own? Is the Basilisk wire or GPS guided? How ridiculous do we want to get about an advantage in a game with no downside?

Guys....let's not balance things, because real life armies have GPS.

The Imperium doesn't have computers anyway. They got the Dune treatment I thought in the fluff.

The Imperium has computers, as does Dune, just not self aware ones for the most part (barring stuff like the Land Raiders machine spirit). Their use is rather haphazard and inconsistent however in both settings

I don't care about the changes as it won't really impact me at all, I just want them to hurry up so I can print my new cheat-sheets and be done for another 6 months.

Martel732 wrote:
The Imperium doesn't have computers anyway. They got the Dune treatment I thought in the fluff.

Computers are fine and used a lot in the Imperium.
What is not allowed is intelligent machines

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, we're talking wide area effect weapons, accuracy shouldnt be super important.

By the same token however, something like a Manticore has no realistic place in an actual 40k table as anything but a mission objective, being used in a tactical role against units in small arms range or even tank gun range is ridiculous for that kind of artillery (the rockets almost certainly wouldnt even be armed at such close ranges, much less be able to be targeted), its the kind of thing that should be portrayed as off-board artillery really.

IRL a 500lb bomb has a kill radius of your standard table top. So yeah...

Indirect fire without LOS should be -1 to hit.

Army wide -1 to hit - as a trait - should also not exist. Raven guard and Alaitoc should be always receiving the benefit of cover, like Jormungandr.

 Marmatag wrote:


Army wide -1 to hit - as a trait - should also not exist. Raven guard and Alaitoc should be always receiving the benefit of cover, like Jormungandr.

I wonder if they might do that...those books were much earlier in the design process and we haven't seen a -1 army wide again have we?

Raven Guard *don't* have an army wide -1 to be hit, though, do they? (cough, vehicles)

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Army wide -1 to hit - as a trait - should also not exist. Raven guard and Alaitoc should be always receiving the benefit of cover, like Jormungandr.

I wonder if they might do that...those books were much earlier in the design process and we haven't seen a -1 army wide again have we?

AdMech has it too as does CSM, but I think that's it.

Honestly, I'm not a fan of ditching it entirely. Only way to counter mass re-rolls.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


More accurate actually.

Indirect fire should get +1 to hit.

Groupings on MBTs is 0.5 meters.

This thing? Not so much.

with a circular error probable (CEP) of around 5 metres (16 ft) to 20 metres (66 ft)

I was having a giggle, mostly. Realistically, I agree with Vakhathi. This sort of thing shouldn't even be on the table at the scales 40k is played at, unless it is a scenario game. But that's a whole different discussion.

While I agree - they make a model for it and it would be unfair to not allow people to use it. We can at least agree on rules that are actually fair. Maybe give it an upgrade ability for indirect fire. +20 points = you gain indirect fire - or something. 160 without indirect and 180 with it.

Why in the world would it be more expensive than a Leman Russ if it had no indirect fire option? It's less durable with essentially the same gun.

You guys are bonkers.

its not the same gun. What does a LR cost anyways? I figured at least 180. It's better than my 180 point pred.

How about only allowing indirect fire (and I'm talking all units, not just Manticores) if there's at least something in the army that can see the target?

To put it in this thread's terms: the current situation is "I too randomly shoot off MLRS ordnance at random and hope my enemy is there."

-1 to hit was a response to the advantage of ranged Shooty armies. I feel that it was a good idea, implemented poorly.

I dont wish for it to be changed per se, but if it HAD to go, perhaps making it outside 18 inches instead of 12 would stop the whining.

The problem of the -1 to hit is that it makes all the other sub-faction traits irrelevant.

Not really the problem is they tended to pair it with other powerful stratagems and warlord traits etc.

Look at space marines Ravenguard see a lot of play, but ultra marines see as much of more because of Rowboat. If they did not also get the infiltrate strat, and instead that went to say white scars then they would see less. Same with alpha legion. For example if nightlords got infiltrate alpha legion would see less play.

Tyran wrote:
The problem of the -1 to hit is that it makes all the other sub-faction traits irrelevant.

I mean, part of the problem also is that the other sub-faction traits are often irrelevant to start with.

There's been a very strange reverse power creep with a lot of the traits. Very recently, Tau got half of the Salamanders' trait and it actually looks okay next to all their other ones. Eldar obviously all play Alatoic now, but just look at the other traits. Ulthwe is easily the best of the lot, and it's still a somewhat-nerfed version of the Iron Hands' trait (which was already not very well-received as an SM trait) that synergizes particularly poorly with their psychic powers and wargear. Biel-Tan re-rolls 1s to hit... with one specific kind of weapon; there are very few units that would not get much, much more out of the Salamanders' trait, and of course this does nothing when next to an Autarch. Saim-Hann re-rolls charges in an army with very few CC units such that a couple of CP re-rolls can often be used to achieve basically the same effect, and then it lets two bad units that no one takes move and fire heavy weapons. Iyanden sounds impressive -- and it'd be great for something like Guard infantry -- but it turns out to be one of the worst traits GW has yet published for the army that has access to it and will actually do literally nothing for you in many games.

The Hemlock Wraithfighter provides a good example of the problem here. It has no shuriken weapons, so it gets nothing from Biel-Tan. It has auto-hitting weapons and can advance 40" so gets basically nothing from Iyanden (and damage table resistance is not very valuable even for regular vehicles). It can't charge things and isn't a biker so gets nothing from Saim-Hann. It would benefit from another 6+ FNP but since it already has one the Ulthwe trait specifically excludes it. So when deciding what Craftworld to make your Eldar Air Wing, you can see how you have a very, very tough choice to make. There's basically no amount of nerfing you could do to Alatoic that would make it not the best choice for some units, though eventually Ulthwe would be the clear winner for most.

Apparently there was a Facebook post on the Warhammer Community page confirming that the FAQ will be released after Adepticon (apparently they want to use the seminar events to collect questions to possibly add into the FAQ)

As a Black Templar player I couldn’t give a damn if GW chooses to give Chapter Tactics to Marine Vehicles.

If they did, though, they just might make all Word Bearers players cry.

Haha, rub salt AND lemon juice in that wound. Poor Word Bearers.

I would not be angered if they gave Word Bearers another addition to that trait.

 Ordana wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The Imperium doesn't have computers anyway. They got the Dune treatment I thought in the fluff.

Computers are fine and used a lot in the Imperium.
What is not allowed is intelligent machines

this but when they need intelligent machines.... that’s what servitude’s and cogitators are for. Human brains in a jar pick up any slack


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

i too expect a computer and radar guided system to be less accurate than the old mk.I eyeball...

How does one get GPS on a planet they don't own? Is the Basilisk wire or GPS guided? How ridiculous do we want to get about an advantage in a game with no downside?

Guys....let's not balance things, because real life armies have GPS.

to get real for a moment the British army would red mist whole marine chapters. The us army would probably laugh the ultrasmurfs to death

Depends on magical space metal. But tactics and weapons wise, yes, the Imperium is laughable.

Magical space metal is hard to analyze but we have real world equivalents to 40k weapons:

Missile launcher - Carl Gustav
Auto cannon - 20-25mm bushmaster autocannon
Heavy stubbed - ma deuce browning m2 .50bmg machine gun

Few more days until the nerf

And then I get to re-write my GT list.

Again.

Look at the bright side. For us guard players all our armies are about to get much bigger point wise.

gendoikari87 wrote:
Look at the bright side. For us guard players all our armies are about to get much bigger point wise.

There's a thousand points of guard in my list.

But thanks!

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Imperium has computers, as does Dune, just not self aware ones for the most part (barring stuff like the Land Raiders machine spirit). Their use is rather haphazard and inconsistent however in both settings

The Imperium has organic brains meshed with machinery. At least, everywhere I know of where they have specifically discussed the workings of a cogitator (like in Kastellans) this has been mentioned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There are no actual robots in the Mechanicus army.

Alcibiades wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Imperium has computers, as does Dune, just not self aware ones for the most part (barring stuff like the Land Raiders machine spirit). Their use is rather haphazard and inconsistent however in both settings

The Imperium has organic brains meshed with machinery. At least, everywhere I know of where they have specifically discussed the workings of a cogitator (like in Kastellans) this has been mentioned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There are no actual robots in the Mechanicus army.

The cogitator being more of an actual digital computer means that yes, the Kastellans are robotic.

A huge, ancient robot built ten thousand years ago, the Kastelan Robot is a perfect example of the Adeptus Mechanicus’ repurposing of technology. Nearly unstoppable, their only flaw is that of any mere machine; they will follow instructions to the letter, even if this results in their own demise. A specialist Tech-Priest - the Cybernetica Datasmith - must constantly update and reprogram the Kastelan via order dataslates, lest this enormous, clanking robot simply stride blindly into a nearby chasm.

A Cogitator is the most commonly used name in Low Gothic for any type of digital computer in the Imperium of Man. Imperial Cogitators function much like their real-world equivalents (though capable of more advanced functions), but like most Imperial technology they often possess a far more arcane and Gothic exterior. Cogitators vary in size and function, from the gigantic data-looms of the Adeptus Administratum which help process all the bureaucratic data required to run the Imperium, to the slim microprocessors used in the brains of the Adeptus Mechanicus' Tech-priests and the more advanced types of Servitors.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Imperium has computers, as does Dune, just not self aware ones for the most part (barring stuff like the Land Raiders machine spirit). Their use is rather haphazard and inconsistent however in both settings

The Imperium has organic brains meshed with machinery. At least, everywhere I know of where they have specifically discussed the workings of a cogitator (like in Kastellans) this has been mentioned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There are no actual robots in the Mechanicus army.

The cogitator being more of an actual digital computer means that yes, the Kastellans are robotic.