"Sure, because all codices have access to the same force multipliers, weapon profiles and stratagems."
That doesn't make them incomparable.
One counter-example to prove you wrong:
No one fields conscripts right now. How much play do you think they would see if they were in a marine codex? How about the imperial knights codex?
Units need to be seen in the context of their faction.
That doesn't prove me wrong at all. We can still compute mathematical efficacy of a unit both in a vacuum and in the context of possible buffs and compare to other codices. I can tell you right marines have nothing remotely as efficient as a ravager in the whole codex. Maybe FW, but not the codex.
Plague marines are solid. Death Guard just have better options. Poxwalkers are flatly too durable, especially when paired with Cultists.
The attitude that marines are complete garbage isn't really fair. Tactical squads are hurting, but that's not because T4 3+, it's because they lack synergy.
All of the best troops in the game possess some synergy with what is around them.
Martel732 wrote: Personally, I agree. I just don't know what mathematical outs gw has left. Custodes needed t6 w5 to leave room.
Is there any justification for a space marine captain being superior to a custodian guard? Nope. Not in the least.
Why not? Stuff the fluff.
Or are we going to let stupid story logic get in the way of balancing again?
Fluff is the justification for relative power level. Not the justification for point costs associated with that power level. A custode should be superior to all astartes. The are practically primarchs - all of them. The whole army should be 130-150 point heros. I guess the figured that wouldn't be fun to play against - ehh...they are wrong but okay. Only a chapter master should be able to face a custodian mono A mono.
Blah, enough of that nonsense. The fluff has been rewritten and retconed a million times over, why must it be held as gospel today?
Free this game from these draconian fluff limitations. It will never be balanced otherwise. After all, how many times have battles in the fluff been held between two suspiciously equal forces in capability and firepower? The game needs some freedom from the fluff to balance itself, and that's an issue caused by the fluff, not the game rules.
Not saying abandon it of course, that would be silly. Just...loosen that grip.
I don't care much about that per say - I only care that it pidgeonholes space marine options which are supposed to compete at that point cost but don't. Because I assure you - everyone will say - "they can't be better than custodes" or...what? "that's practically a custode"
Fluff wise marines are correctly represented by T4 3+. If you read some books, you will notice that marines actually die really easily. A single hit from a genestealer or a bonesword is usually lethal for them, even in terminator armor.
Maybe that they shouldn't go down so easily to light weapons, so a rule like "Reduce by 1 the strenght of shooting attacks against this model" could be applicable.
What is not correctly represented is that they should fell enemies by the dozens both in melee and with the bolters.
Martel732 wrote: *For the cost*, T4 3+ is a poor defensive stat and their offense is even worse. Sisters on the other hand are quite good for the cost, despite T3.
Only because you're looking at their current level of synergy with the overall marine army, and offensive output. T4 3+ is durable enough. And sisters are undercosted.
Martel732 wrote: I think sisters are appropriately costed. Marines don't need synergy if they get cheaper.
That's incredibly short sighted.
Unless you're prepared to run all your marines as Deathwatch. In which case, more power to you. Although deathwatch are already a good army. So, yeah.
Well it's case of quality or quantity. Tacticals can me made equal with deathwatch by point cost differences. Deathwatch might be better but there's less. After all isn't that what points are supposed to be for?-)
"Sure, because all codices have access to the same force multipliers, weapon profiles and stratagems."
That doesn't make them incomparable.
One counter-example to prove you wrong:
No one fields conscripts right now. How much play do you think they would see if they were in a marine codex? How about the imperial knights codex?
Units need to be seen in the context of their faction.
That doesn't prove me wrong at all. We can still compute mathematical efficacy of a unit both in a vacuum and in the context of possible buffs and compare to other codices. I can tell you right marines have nothing remotely as efficient as a ravager in the whole codex. Maybe FW, but not the codex.
Look who just rolled a six to advance with his goalposts
Your original argument was ork point costs = marine point costs, which is wrong.
For finding a proper cost for a marine, it doesn't matter how much an ork with completely different stats, gear and rules costs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: Plague marines are solid. Death Guard just have better options. Poxwalkers are flatly too durable, especially when paired with Cultists.
I wasn't saying they are bad, I was just responding to the suggestion that all infantry and bike marines should get +1 wound across the board (which I think is a great idea). Plague marines won't be utterly broken at 2 wounds for 17 points even if they keep all other rules.
The Newman wrote: What worries me is the possibility that GW won't take any corrective action to address Marines at all between the FAQ and the next CA.
What it would signal (and what I suspect is the case) is that GW doesn't actually see the various flavors of Marine as factions. They see Imperium as a faction with Guard, Knights, AdMech Sisters, and Marines as sub-components. As long as Imperial Soup is doing ok then there isn't a problem, and if you take a handicap by playing a monobuild list then you have only yourself to blame.
I hope I'm wrong.
Marines or no Marines, I think there's generally been a trend over the past year of Codex releases that, Index-to-Codex, most armies got significantly more damage output buffs than defensive buffs for their armies.
- Astra Militarum, Eldar, etc.. saw tanks double their shooting.
- "Chapter Tactics" and equivalents added more re-roll 1s, more range,
- Stratagems, etc.. also serve to make units more killy, allow you to ignore cover, add bonuses to wound rolls, shoot and/or fight twice, etc, etc....
An average Astra Militarum army Index to Codex, with the identical models, probably does maybe some 40%-50% (numbers could be wrong, just making it up) more damage in the Codex version thanks to Cadian/Catachan/whatever traits, double shooting tanks, Strats, etc., etc.. Same for Eldar, Drukhari, etc., etc., etc.
But the durability of models (especially but not only Marines) in the game, by and large just hasn't gone up by the same 40-50% with two notable exceptions. The first being -1 to hit armies like Alaitoc, Stygies, etc.. The second being plain point drops allowing you to field more models in a game.
There're some exceptions (Custodes, being new, Knights perhaps, Hive Tyrants getting a 4++), but in an overall, broad trend of things getting more "lethal" on the damage output side but not comparatively more "survivable" on the defensive side, it's inevitably gonna squeeze out all the stuff that survives by anything other than super-hordes or super-resiliance/nullifying weapons through invuls, character-rule, etc..
The Newman wrote: What worries me is the possibility that GW won't take any corrective action to address Marines at all between the FAQ and the next CA.
What it would signal (and what I suspect is the case) is that GW doesn't actually see the various flavors of Marine as factions. They see Imperium as a faction with Guard, Knights, AdMech Sisters, and Marines as sub-components. As long as Imperial Soup is doing ok then there isn't a problem, and if you take a handicap by playing a monobuild list then you have only yourself to blame.
I hope I'm wrong.
Marines or no Marines, I think there's generally been a trend over the past year of Codex releases that, Index-to-Codex, most armies got significantly more damage output buffs than defensive buffs for their armies.
- Astra Militarum, Eldar, etc.. saw tanks double their shooting.
- "Chapter Tactics" and equivalents added more re-roll 1s, more range,
- Stratagems, etc.. also serve to make units more killy, allow you to ignore cover, add bonuses to wound rolls, shoot and/or fight twice, etc, etc....
An average Astra Militarum army Index to Codex, with the identical models, probably does maybe some 40%-50% (numbers could be wrong, just making it up) more damage in the Codex version thanks to Cadian/Catachan/whatever traits, double shooting tanks, Strats, etc., etc.. Same for Eldar, Drukhari, etc., etc., etc.
But the durability of models (especially but not only Marines) in the game, by and large just hasn't gone up by the same 40-50% with two notable exceptions. The first being -1 to hit armies like Alaitoc, Stygies, etc.. The second being plain point drops allowing you to field more models in a game.
There're some exceptions (Custodes, being new, Knights perhaps, Hive Tyrants getting a 4++), but in an overall, broad trend of things getting more "lethal" on the damage output side but not comparatively more "survivable" on the defensive side, it's inevitably gonna squeeze out all the stuff that survives by anything other than super-hordes or super-resiliance/nullifying weapons through invuls, character-rule, etc..
Exalted.
I agree, we are currently playing games where almost everything is a glass cannon. Hordes are the one notable exception, but for most units the game has become more lethal than ever before. When units like Mortarion, Land Raiders or Monoliths die turn one by default, how is a squad of marines supposed to hold an objective over multiple turns?
So in the end ot boils down to, either an army has low enough cost to go all out swarm and fuel something with its CP. OR it does not swarm, but has some very powerful rules that entice players to use the army or unit even with the handicap of being fewer in numbers.
So the way to fix any w40k army, is either by making it able to be horde or give it enough very powerful rules. If a tac squad had an option to run one special or hvy weapon for every 3 dudes on top of the combi the sgt can get people would definitly run tacs, even with the cost they have right now. And if GW did something extra, like add some rule to make them shotier if they don't move or do something special, people would call them the best troop in game.
In a game where most armies can take chaff or kill units from multiple books, having middle of the pack units means the chance those will ever see play is close to zero.
In fact the only time when I could imagine a mid tier units to be used is in a situation like DW primaris ended up in. Primaris are meh, but if you give them 2-3 special rules, and let them mix different units they suddenly aren't as bad.
I imagine if a pure marine detachment of lets say GK, to pick the worse marines right now, got an extra full page of special rules for each of their units aka new 2-3 rules per unit. GK would probablly be flavour of the week in no time.
GK need something that protects them from being wiped off the board despite having low numbers. In 5th edition it was almost impossible for orks to wipe 2000 points of ward knights.
Now? I can accidentally shoot them dead. And ork shooting sucks big time.
Martel732 wrote: I think sisters are appropriately costed. Marines don't need synergy if they get cheaper.
That's incredibly short sighted.
Unless you're prepared to run all your marines as Deathwatch. In which case, more power to you. Although deathwatch are already a good army. So, yeah.
Well it's case of quality or quantity. Tacticals can me made equal with deathwatch by point cost differences. Deathwatch might be better but there's less. After all isn't that what points are supposed to be for?-)
Martel732 wrote: I think sisters are appropriately costed. Marines don't need synergy if they get cheaper.
That's incredibly short sighted.
Unless you're prepared to run all your marines as Deathwatch. In which case, more power to you. Although deathwatch are already a good army. So, yeah.
Well it's case of quality or quantity. Tacticals can me made equal with deathwatch by point cost differences. Deathwatch might be better but there's less. After all isn't that what points are supposed to be for?-)
That's my point.
I think marines, and similar units, would benefit a lot if they were able to perform certain tasks more points-efficiently than say guardsmen, kabalites or cultists. In my mind, they should have better resilience to small arms fire than them. The problem, really, is the overuse of AP in high volume fire weaponry. This would also make invulnerable saves less of a must-have for a unit to be considered tough or survivable.
SM are "bad" if you play them solo because of their point cost. In my example, I don't want to play a soup, I want to play my Chapter, the army I collect. When I play against DE for example, I need to surprise my rival from the beginning, starting at my list, deployment, movement, use of os strats...
One mistake and game over. The DE player can do what he wants, so many troops he has, his special rules, cheap units...
It is well knowed the problem in the game is the high death in shooting. Well you have cover but the high AP makes it bull s#&1/.
In the next FAQ and CA aproved we need some rules and points balance. I would like to see my SM a little bit cheaper, but thats not generall.
Las week I played my first Kill Team match. I like the rule that if you shoot more than half of the range of the weapons you have a - 1 to hit. Maybe for 40K we could see a - 1 to AP or something like this. I also like the idea of the use of CP for who it generates. And as a personal dream, for SM an 6++, just to give them as "small" army an opportunity to survive.
Forfiter wrote: This becomes marines discussion, but how about staying in topic and screaming FAQ WHEN GW PLZ FIX GAME NAU
Seriously, 20sept and 0 info about SEPTEMBER FAQ? no leaks besides last one regarding castellan/spears/taloses (hope its true)?
But you could replace space marine with every other bad army and the fixs would be the same, get cheaper or, maybe even and, get more powerful rules. If one army has cheaper dudes, and most armies use the same kill units, then the army that is cheaper is going to fit in more of the kill units, and in an edition where something like unkillable units don't really exist outside of someone ploping 400 models, this makes marines with a higher cost weaker. Look at adeptus stuff, if you don't want to hear about marines, the fix to their units that never get used is the same. Either the electro priests stuff needs more rules or rules interaction with other stuff, or it has to be slash 50% points for a melee unit without transport that walks on foot.
I don't know enough about GW though , if they do care about their own rule set. From what they say online or write in aritcles the view is rather odd, as if they did not play their own games. I mean when the fix to my GK are getting shot to bits, is ask your opponent to not shot your stuff, then my raction is this =>
The last FAQ was so disgustingly underwhelming that people really need to check their expectations.
There will be a change to the CP system and a possible points increase for the castellan (if they deem that removing the CP battery isn't enough, which they might not).
I don’t see how the FAQ will fix much of anything. The new AP system is partially to blame for crippling the game and distorting points values etc. and I don’t see that getting addressed in two pages of notes. I’ll be surprised if BA get any clarification to discrepancies and problems in the codex beyond smash captain getting smashed.
Yeah. Like I said, I think the FAQ has been slightly delayed until the first week of October, and I wouldn't expect any huge changes in it. Maybe some refinement of the current beta rules, and a couple changes to a couple of OP units. The rest will just be clarifying existing rules to make sure no one is mis-interpreting them. In all honesty, most of the discussion on here is more inline with stuff I would hope to see in the new Chapter Approved, not in the FAQ. And even with that, I wouldn't bet on it.
Process wrote: The last FAQ was so disgustingly underwhelming that people really need to check their expectations.
There will be a change to the CP system and a possible points increase for the castellan (if they deem that removing the CP battery isn't enough, which they might not).
I wouldn't expect more than 1.5 pages.
Actually the last FAQ was exactly what we expected:
1) Confirmation or modification of the beta rules
2) New Beta Rules
3) Fixes to spam
4) Point cost changes to the most glaring problems (Dark Reapers, Dark Talon, Flyrants and a few other)
So i predict the following:
1) Confirmation of the rule of 3. Confirmation with a slight modification of the tactical reserves rule.
2) New Beta Rules to prevent CP sharing.
3) Cost changes to Discannons, banana captains, castellan and a few other.
Bremon wrote: I don’t see how the FAQ will fix much of anything. The new AP system is partially to blame for crippling the game and distorting points values etc. and I don’t see that getting addressed in two pages of notes. I’ll be surprised if BA get any clarification to discrepancies and problems in the codex beyond smash captain getting smashed.
Personally, I think the AP system of 8E is leaps and bounds a better system that prior editions, due in part to it allowing lower AP weapons to actually have some measure of affect on decently armoured targets.
The problem is that GW decided to hold onto the old armour save values fro prior editions. Terminators, for example, would be far more appealing in 8E with a 1+ armour save. 1s would still fail as normal, but their armour would actually matter in more situations than now.
Bremon wrote: I don’t see how the FAQ will fix much of anything. The new AP system is partially to blame for crippling the game and distorting points values etc. and I don’t see that getting addressed in two pages of notes. I’ll be surprised if BA get any clarification to discrepancies and problems in the codex beyond smash captain getting smashed.
Personally, I think the AP system of 8E is leaps and bounds a better system that prior editions, due in part to it allowing lower AP weapons to actually have some measure of affect on decently armoured targets.
The problem is that GW decided to hold onto the old armour save values fro prior editions. Terminators, for example, would be far more appealing in 8E with a 1+ armour save. 1s would still fail as normal, but their armour would actually matter in more situations than now.
-
Yeah, they should have adjusted the armor across the board to go with the AP changes. Another half-arsed decision on their part.
Forfiter wrote: This becomes marines discussion, but how about staying in topic and screaming FAQ WHEN GW PLZ FIX GAME NAU
Seriously, 20sept and 0 info about SEPTEMBER FAQ? no leaks besides last one regarding castellan/spears/taloses (hope its true)?
But you could replace space marine with every other bad army and the fixs would be the same, get cheaper or, maybe even and, get more powerful rules. If one army has cheaper dudes, and most armies use the same kill units, then the army that is cheaper is going to fit in more of the kill units, and in an edition where something like unkillable units don't really exist outside of someone ploping 400 models, this makes marines with a higher cost weaker. Look at adeptus stuff, if you don't want to hear about marines, the fix to their units that never get used is the same. Either the electro priests stuff needs more rules or rules interaction with other stuff, or it has to be slash 50% points for a melee unit without transport that walks on foot.
I don't know enough about GW though , if they do care about their own rule set. From what they say online or write in aritcles the view is rather odd, as if they did not play their own games. I mean when the fix to my GK are getting shot to bits, is ask your opponent to not shot your stuff, then my raction is this =>
Bro, i am GK player too, i know exactly how bad balance is Especialy that i play Guard too, but without Castellan and BA caps. There are many many problems are, most of them due to GW not playing game (or playing some narrative stuff only) and/or have 0 knowledge in math, statistics etc. Look at examples:
1. GW presenting "the highest dmg model in game" - knight with harpoon. One shot, 10dmg. That can miss or bounce to invul. With rerol. That gives <1/10 chance to deal more than 0 dmg to enemy 3++ castellan. And castellan wtih Cawl plasma and volcano and rerolling all 1s? One shotting shadowswords. They introduced damage tables to nerf big models but then gives 1cp ignore that gem to most broken unit in game. niceeee
2. Leman russ vanquisher similar as 1, comparing to other leman russ is utter garbage. One shot with one-of-two d6 comparing to d6 shots with 2dmg. Multiple shots weapons are better anyway but why they also have higher average dmg into one model? that does not make any sense other that GW cant count.
3. How broken Ynnari is with shinning spears that are able to do anything on any point on map with easy. And reapers, that ignore all mechanics that protect other eldari on the best shooty unit in game that can move back to cover/best transport in game for 1cp, 48' range and to be sure they also have two shooting modes to always have optimal damage output.
4. How they increased CP from batalions/brigades saying it will help low-cp armies. Let's comment it with silence, we all know how it ended.
5. When commanders that suppose to buff your troops and sometimes give heroic actions became core spammed damage units. All leman russes are command tanks, tau commanders were thing before, shield cpt and smash capitans everywhere. When commander should be expensive aura buffer it's now just baseline better unit that replace regular one. How it make any sense...
6. Cover mechanics that makes most of terrain useless. Oh and many armies recieve "always in cover" anyway, so barricades and things like aegis defence makes 0 sense. THings that "ignore cover" are also ported from 7ed without any sense, like baneblade variant with that rule and worse ap and weapon. So you pay for a "ignore cover" that is basicali situational ap+1 while you have ap-1. Nice!
7. For some reason they invented other better cover for several armies like "-1 hit" that is stackable and broken and only several things can ignore it... like best shooting unit, dark reaper.
8. Being very restrictive about invul saves (termies only 5++, land rider and monolith without one) and next introducing units like castellan with 3++ or taloses with 4++ breaking game balance.
9. Adding huge price for useless things that GW thinks are strong. Like GK force weapons and their very weak psyker abilities.
10. Design of mortal wounds. They suppose to be cosmic-scale devastating wounds like c'tan powers or doom scythe synced weapons or tau anti-tank drones but they deal like d3 dmg to huge targets that they suppose (narrative-speaking) destroy. I think they had two ideas regarding mortal wounds - one from smite (warp powers that pierce any kind of invul saves) and one from necron/tau codex (devastating weapons). They just don't make any sense, like with c'tan - you bring huge comet striking that tank for a dmg equal to 2 dead guardsmans. And deathstirkes... yes, ICBM with narration that can destroy whole continents deal similar damage. Good work GW.
11. Flamers as anti-air weapon, hoovering aircrafts charging tanks to block them, shining spears sitting on your vechicles to make shooting to them impossible (i hate this game concept)... a lot of more narrative-bad rules
12. Leadership. Another edition proving that GW have no idea how to properly implement leadership. In 7ed at least guard had use of ld modifiers to recieve orders, now all armies just ignore leadership (valhallans with pistols). There are only several cases of using ld and its of course, aeldari thing with mind war. Oh, and meantime GW broken unit very core to setting - comissars, beacause they tought it will fix hordes if they will break this unit giving them unplayable rule. And don't even mention valhallan stratagem... clearly, they never ever tried to play matched game.
13. Rulebook is horrible written and designed, mixing together those "3 ways of play", trying ot be simple but creating mindblowing situyations like how ot measure 3d fly move or aiming to 2 knights and then saying what weapon for what etc. They had good idea adding keywords to units, but they forgot to add keywords to skills and weapons now making any big scale change impossible (if they would like for example fix something with "flamer type" weapon they have to name every one from every codex and they WILL forget some datasheets like they forget to give vendettas +1bs when they given it to valkyries.
uhh, i have no trust that any FAQ/CA will fix that i hope 9ed will come some time and GW hire at least one person playing on tournaments that can quickly find broken stuff. Currently Castellans, shining spears and BA capitains need quick fix and there is no reason GW is delaying that FAQ wanting to address multiple things instead of giving fixes to obviously broken stuff.
Bremon wrote: I don’t see how the FAQ will fix much of anything. The new AP system is partially to blame for crippling the game and distorting points values etc. and I don’t see that getting addressed in two pages of notes. I’ll be surprised if BA get any clarification to discrepancies and problems in the codex beyond smash captain getting smashed.
Personally, I think the AP system of 8E is leaps and bounds a better system that prior editions, due in part to it allowing lower AP weapons to actually have some measure of affect on decently armoured targets.
The problem is that GW decided to hold onto the old armour save values fro prior editions. Terminators, for example, would be far more appealing in 8E with a 1+ armour save. 1s would still fail as normal, but their armour would actually matter in more situations than now.
-
I’d totally agree that most of the fundamental issues with 8th (and I am, in general, a fan) are down to the fact that while the core mechanics of the game changed, a lot of stats (and point values) remained the same as they were in 7th, rather than altering them to take into account the various level of impact the mechanical changes would have on different models, and the way they’d interact. Personally, I feel it was an error to have ported stat lines across, rather than drastically overhauling some, but I can understand there were probably time limitations, combined with a reluctance to overcompensate.
Eldarsif wrote: So, any rumors about when the new FAQ hits? As fun as wishlisting is I'd love to see some actual data.
^This
^No
Automatically Appended Next Post: I expect the first we’ll know about it, and therefore can confirm and specifics, will be when it appears. Same as the last one.
uhh, i have no trust that any FAQ/CA will fix that i hope 9ed will come some time and GW hire at least one person playing on tournaments that can quickly find broken stuff. Currently Castellans, shining spears and BA capitains need quick fix and there is no reason GW is delaying that FAQ wanting to address multiple things instead of giving fixes to obviously broken stuff.
I dont think they will fix much, maybe the CP farms, maybe hike up some points. It is the Fix to anything in GWs mind.
But to use your examples. I don't think we disagree. You mentioned reapers or s.spears. They are exactly what I was talking about, if both were eldar guardian costed with hvy weapons or jetbike and a points hike for the extra stats, no one would have played them. vide dire avengers. Eldar are just lucky to have those 3-4 extra rules on units delivered without a FAQ or detachment. I mean just imagine if space marine devastators had dark reaper special rules, or if guard or the good type of knights got soul burst. Or if a ravellan could still use some sort ad mecha stratagem or rule, because of an odd interaction between its codex and the ad mecha codex.
Eldar just get the premium fixs others want stock. And god help us if they ever get imperiums version of cheap swarms. I dread the day DE get some sort of 3-4pts beasty and eldar start running 80-120 of those.
Forfiter wrote: Seriously, 20sept and 0 info about SEPTEMBER FAQ? no leaks besides last one regarding castellan/spears/taloses (hope its true)?
That would be because it is an AutumnFAQ, not a September FAQ, and Autumn is 3 months long...
Nazrak wrote: I’d totally agree that most of the fundamental issues with 8th (and I am, in general, a fan) are down to the fact that while the core mechanics of the game changed, a lot of stats (and point values) remained the same as they were in 7th, rather than altering them to take into account the various level of impact the mechanical changes would have on different models, and the way they’d interact. Personally, I feel it was an error to have ported stat lines across, rather than drastically overhauling some, but I can understand there were probably time limitations, combined with a reluctance to overcompensate.
Except that this is reversion from the stupid AP system of 3rd through 7th edition back to the more sensible ASM system from 1st and 2nd edition - and, in most cases, basic troop statlines didn't really change when they went from 2nd to 3rd, so why would they change when they go from 7th to 8th?
There may have been some argument for S & T to be looked at, given the apparent removal there of the cap of 10, but everything else? Nah.
Bremon wrote: I don’t see how the FAQ will fix much of anything. The new AP system is partially to blame for crippling the game and distorting points values etc. and I don’t see that getting addressed in two pages of notes. I’ll be surprised if BA get any clarification to discrepancies and problems in the codex beyond smash captain getting smashed.
Personally, I think the AP system of 8E is leaps and bounds a better system that prior editions, due in part to it allowing lower AP weapons to actually have some measure of affect on decently armoured targets.
The problem is that GW decided to hold onto the old armour save values fro prior editions. Terminators, for example, would be far more appealing in 8E with a 1+ armour save. 1s would still fail as normal, but their armour would actually matter in more situations than now.
-
Yeah, they should have adjusted the armor across the board to go with the AP changes. Another half-arsed decision on their part.
I agree with these sentiments. Further adjusting of stat lines and armour saves would have gone a long way to making this new edition work smoother. Old stats ported into a system that decimates the old AP and wound charts is a glaring issue.
Armors are fine, but strenght and thoughness really needed to enjoy the new ranges.
It's absurd that to make a guardsmen stronger to account for it to be catachan, you can now make it armwrestle with a marine in power armor.
Guards should have been S3, Hormagants and Kroot S4, Marines and Orks S5, Custodes S6, Wraithguards S7, Canoptek Wraiths S8, Fexes S9, 'naughts S10. Over 10 you would have all things bigger yhan a 'naught, from a Trigon to Knight.
Spoletta wrote: Armors are fine, but strenght and thoughness really needed to enjoy the new ranges.
It's absurd that to make a guardsmen stronger to account for it to be catachan, you can now make it armwrestle with a marine in power armor.
Guards should have been S3, Hormagants and Kroot S4, Marines and Orks S5, Custodes S6, Wraithguards S7, Canoptek Wraiths S8, Fexes S9, 'naughts S10. Over 10 you would have all things bigger yhan a 'naught, from a Trigon to Knight.
I actually agree with this.
I would also go further to say that there should be some formula for damage spillover. Maybe it's at double toughness. Maybe it's at triple toughness. But, if a lascannon shoots into a squad of guardsmen, it should kill D6 of them, not just 1.
I would also go further to say that there should be some formula for damage spillover. Maybe it's at double toughness. Maybe it's at triple toughness. But, if a lascannon shoots into a squad of guardsmen, it should kill D6 of them, not just 1.
Spoletta wrote: Armors are fine, but strenght and thoughness really needed to enjoy the new ranges.
It's absurd that to make a guardsmen stronger to account for it to be catachan, you can now make it armwrestle with a marine in power armor.
Guards should have been S3, Hormagants and Kroot S4, Marines and Orks S5, Custodes S6, Wraithguards S7, Canoptek Wraiths S8, Fexes S9, 'naughts S10. Over 10 you would have all things bigger yhan a 'naught, from a Trigon to Knight.
I actually agree with this.
I would also go further to say that there should be some formula for damage spillover. Maybe it's at double toughness. Maybe it's at triple toughness. But, if a lascannon shoots into a squad of guardsmen, it should kill D6 of them, not just 1.
Apart from it's silly focused beam suddenly kills many you realize it would basically make anti-horde and anti-tank weapons same...There wouldn't be difference between d6 shots D1 and 1 shot Dd6 weapons. As it is suddenly lascannon would become primary infantry killer for marine/IG infantry. Heavy bolter? That's for wimps. Real marine kills infantry with lascannon.
Weapons are already fairly samey. No need to make it even worse.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: At this point I fully expect the FAQ to be delayed till mid October.
I guessed first week of October. Probably the first Monday, but I guess we'll see. I'm kind of curious to see how much I got right and wrong. I'd love to see some big changes come through.
Marmatag wrote: We can agree to disagree here, but there currently is no efficient weapon for T3 5+ at 4 points per model.
When Guardsmen get boosted to 6ppm, i'll pump the brakes on damage spillover.
I think certain weapons providing a morale penalty would work. Instead of spillover you could do something where the spillover damage still counts as casualties or something like that, though I think the Ld system as a whole would need a bit of rethinking for that to work.
Basically the same thoughts on T and Armor. The new core rules are better, but the statlines need some tweaking for them.
Marmatag wrote: We can agree to disagree here, but there currently is no efficient weapon for T3 5+ at 4 points per model.
When Guardsmen get boosted to 6ppm, i'll pump the brakes on damage spillover.
I think certain weapons providing a morale penalty would work. Instead of spillover you could do something where the spillover damage still counts as casualties or something like that, though I think the Ld system as a whole would need a bit of rethinking for that to work.
Makes sense. I mean, if you see your buddy get absolutely obliterated by a lascannon blast that's sure to cause some PTSD. Maybe something like "every extra point of damage that exceeds a slain model's toughness characteristic after reducing their wounds to 0 counts as 1 casualty for the purposes of morale checks."
Marmatag wrote: We can agree to disagree here, but there currently is no efficient weapon for T3 5+ at 4 points per model.
When Guardsmen get boosted to 6ppm, i'll pump the brakes on damage spillover.
I think certain weapons providing a morale penalty would work. Instead of spillover you could do something where the spillover damage still counts as casualties or something like that, though I think the Ld system as a whole would need a bit of rethinking for that to work.
Basically the same thoughts on T and Armor. The new core rules are better, but the statlines need some tweaking for them.
I'm ok with anti-tank weapons being inefficient when used on swarms of infantry.
Marmatag wrote: We can agree to disagree here, but there currently is no efficient weapon for T3 5+ at 4 points per model.
Yes, there should be such a weapon. That weapon should not be a lascannon! I am really glad the AOS idiocy of wounds spilling over was avoided in 40K.
I agree, but I do think weapons should scale more based on the number of models in the squad. Particularly Flamer weapons (All factions have access to these) I fhtink that is Flamer weapons got a D6 shots per 5 models in the target, cap at 3D6, it would be nasty and effective.
And maybe cut down on some of the horde forces and fix some of the horde durability issues we keep seeing the problems with.
Marmatag wrote: We can agree to disagree here, but there currently is no efficient weapon for T3 5+ at 4 points per model.
When Guardsmen get boosted to 6ppm, i'll pump the brakes on damage spillover.
I think certain weapons providing a morale penalty would work. Instead of spillover you could do something where the spillover damage still counts as casualties or something like that, though I think the Ld system as a whole would need a bit of rethinking for that to work.
Basically the same thoughts on T and Armor. The new core rules are better, but the statlines need some tweaking for them.
I'm ok with anti-tank weapons being inefficient when used on swarms of infantry.
I'm definitely okay with it as is. I don't particularly enjoy the way damage rolls in AoS and makes target selection feel a little pointless. I suppose my real thought is just that morale is a good way to deal with the difficulty created by things that are so cheap that they break the lower bounds on viable attack volumes.
Spoletta wrote: Armors are fine, but strenght and thoughness really needed to enjoy the new ranges.
It's absurd that to make a guardsmen stronger to account for it to be catachan, you can now make it armwrestle with a marine in power armor.
Guards should have been S3, Hormagants and Kroot S4, Marines and Orks S5, Custodes S6, Wraithguards S7, Canoptek Wraiths S8, Fexes S9, 'naughts S10. Over 10 you would have all things bigger yhan a 'naught, from a Trigon to Knight.
I actually agree with this.
I would also go further to say that there should be some formula for damage spillover. Maybe it's at double toughness. Maybe it's at triple toughness. But, if a lascannon shoots into a squad of guardsmen, it should kill D6 of them, not just 1.
I like the idea of having anti-tank and anti-infantry guns. Some of the anti-infantry just need a rework. Unless all the guardsmen decided to stand in a straight line i dont see a lascannon killing more then 1 99% of the time
A Lascannon killing 6 Guardsmen would be ridiculous. I also like the separation between anti infantry and anti armour in 40K finally. One of the best touches of the new edition.
Marmatag wrote: We can agree to disagree here, but there currently is no efficient weapon for T3 5+ at 4 points per model.
Yes, there should be such a weapon. That weapon should not be a lascannon! I am really glad the AOS idiocy of wounds spilling over was avoided in 40K.
I agree, but I do think weapons should scale more based on the number of models in the squad. Particularly Flamer weapons (All factions have access to these) I fhtink that is Flamer weapons got a D6 shots per 5 models in the target, cap at 3D6, it would be nasty and effective.
And maybe cut down on some of the horde forces and fix some of the horde durability issues we keep seeing the problems with.
Huh - my apologies, then. I thought they'd learned from the criticism they got for missing March for the March FAQ (which was renamed to the Spring FAQ at the time), and been smart enough to given themselves a larger window to work with.
Oh, well, cue the gnashing of teeth when it misses September...
I would be careful thinking of flamer weapons hitting with that kind of power. 3D6 auto hits for a less than 10 point weapon would be disgusting. And deep striking double-hand flamer marines would be just gross, i think BA can do this. One guy putting out 6d6 auto-hits? Nah, that's busted.
Marmatag wrote: I would be careful thinking of flamer weapons hitting with that kind of power. 3D6 auto hits for a less than 10 point weapon would be disgusting. And deep striking double-hand flamer marines would be just gross, i think BA can do this. One guy putting out 6d6 auto-hits? Nah, that's busted.
Or make Guardsmen S2, T2.
How are the BA getting within 9" when they deep strike with those Flamers? Or are you talking about once they make it into melee? Because I have been playing BA since 8th dropped, and unless we use the 2 CP Stratagem that lets a DC unit move before the game begins, we aren't getting that close with Flamers besides a single Librarian with Wings of Sanguinius...
There is a reason I have stopped using Flamers and Hand Flamers with BA, I NEVER got to use them.
Take a page from Killteam and say that "When a unit makes a morale check, it adds to the result the total of number of units with the same datasheet that have been destroyed in that game".
Troops are only a problem if they can MSU horde, in big hordes you either have problems with morale, or you have spent to make them morale immune (and added a possible weakness).
I know this won't make Catachan players happy, but what if grenades and flamers with a random number of shots get to reroll that number vs units with 5 or more models in it. So if facing a larger mob of models, your flamer or frag grenade has a better chance of hurting more models. Would somehow need to be applied to missile launchers too. (I'm sure there are a bunch of weapons under the umbrella but you get my drift).
bullyboy wrote: I know this won't make Catachan players happy, but what if grenades and flamers with a random number of shots get to reroll that number vs units with 5 or more models in it. So if facing a larger mob of models, your flamer or frag grenade has a better chance of hurting more models. Would somehow need to be applied to missile launchers too. (I'm sure there are a bunch of weapons under the umbrella but you get my drift).
5? That's not even large number of models...Where has this come when basically minimum size unit is considered "large mob of models"...
GW ups the size of armies by dropping point costs and upping standard game size and players respond by lowering minimum unit of models to be considered "large mob of models"
ph34r wrote: I'm on a big 40k pause till this dang FAQ comes out.
Likewise. I want to pick up some more stuff soon, but, i'm also not going to just go and buy things that are likely going to be changed, or potentially affected by some new beta rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In regards to flamers and them being a bit more reliable vs hordes, I’d do the following –
Hand Flamer – remains the same.
Flamer – -1 ap, 2D3 shots + D3 for every 5 models in the unit after the first 5. (to a maximum of 4d3)
Heavy Flamer - -2 ap, 2d3 shots + D3 for every 5 models in the unit after the first 5. (to a maximum of 4d3)
I’d also adjust them and grenades with the following rule –
These weapons cannot make shooting attacks against units benefitting from the Supersonic rule.
Only problem is, at this point, the weapon profile comments start getting a bit lengthy and boarding on reintroducing USRs again.
bullyboy wrote: I know this won't make Catachan players happy, but what if grenades and flamers with a random number of shots get to reroll that number vs units with 5 or more models in it. So if facing a larger mob of models, your flamer or frag grenade has a better chance of hurting more models. Would somehow need to be applied to missile launchers too. (I'm sure there are a bunch of weapons under the umbrella but you get my drift).
5? That's not even large number of models...Where has this come when basically minimum size unit is considered "large mob of models"...
GW ups the size of armies by dropping point costs and upping standard game size and players respond by lowering minimum unit of models to be considered "large mob of models"
It also creates weird situations where people start taking 9 strong units instead of 10 just to dodge such rules.
GW needs to create a weapon type that has linear scaling with model count. The bombs dropped by ork bommers do this really well, maybe blast should return to a similar mechanic.
For those who are not familiar with ork bommers: Ork bommer roll a d6 for every model in the unit, on a 4+/5+ they suffer a mortal wound. The anti-tank bomb counts vehicles as three models, the anti-infantry bomb gets +1 to the roll. Both are capped at 10 dice.
So maybe previous small/large blasts could just get a shot for every model in the enemy unit, small blasts capped at 5, large blasts at 10. Or you could just do something like "Blast X - this model has shots equal to the number of models in the target unit, but no more than X".
Guys, we already have good anti-horde weapons, it's not a problem for current meta.
>Guard have punishers
>Custodes bikes
>marines have hurricane (stormravens, dark angels flyers etc.)
>knights and chaos knights have gatlings
>daemons have bloodletters
> necrons have tesla
>tau got riptides and basicaly everything
> eldar is eldar
> DE have poision spam
Hordes are not a problem atm, they are easly counterable, just many people are not prepared to handle them taking generic weapon or focusing on knights.
Problem is Castellan - unkillable due to 3++, Taloses - unkillable due to 4++ and high T, shining spears and reapers - due to stratagems and soulbursts.
hordes are perforimg well, but they are counterable easly. People see lists Castellan+guard+BA cpt and say guardsmans are problem? No. problem is castellan and spammable smashcpt. without them infantry spam would not work, guard were all about leman russes before castellan come to play.
EDIT: okay, there is one cancerous horde build - plaguebarer spam. I am perfectly fine with nurgle resilient hordes, but why the feth they are almost FASTEST UNIT IN GAME? They just overflow table in 1-2 turns. They could stay but i cannot see any narrative support to rotting guys being so fast
But we are looking for an infantry swarm killer, right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Forfiter wrote: Guys, we already have good anti-horde weapons, it's not a problem for current meta.
>Guard have punishers
>Custodes bikes
>marines have hurricane (stormravens, dark angels flyers etc.)
>knights and chaos knights have gatlings
>daemons have bloodletters
> necrons have tesla
>tau got riptides and basicaly everything
> eldar is eldar
> DE have poision spam
Hordes are not a problem atm, they are easly counterable, just many people are not prepared to handle them taking generic weapon or focusing on knights.
Problem is Castellan - unkillable due to 3++, Taloses - unkillable due to 4++ and high T, shining spears and reapers - due to stratagems and soulbursts.
hordes are perforimg well, but they are counterable easly. People see lists Castellan+guard+BA cpt and say guardsmans are problem? No. problem is castellan and spammable smashcpt. without them infantry spam would not work, guard were all about leman russes before castellan come to play.
EDIT: okay, there is one cancerous horde build - plaguebarer spam. I am perfectly fine with nurgle resilient hordes, but why the feth they are almost FASTEST UNIT IN GAME? They just overflow table in 1-2 turns. They could stay but i cannot see any narrative support to rotting guys being so fast
The problem is not that you cannot kill hordes - the problem is that all those "anti-horde" weapons you listed are also great at wiping out elite infantry.
Forfiter wrote: Guys, we already have good anti-horde weapons, it's not a problem for current meta.
Thing is all those are even better at killing non-horde ;-)
True. Even PUNISHER deals more damage to Castellan than Shadowsword volcano - that is riddiculus.
Problem is as mentioned before, GW cant do stats and makes a lot of multi-dice weapons like heavy 20 with dmg 1 (that have 20 max dmg) but on similar price it will do heavt 1 D6dmg that is really bad. Single dice weapons are worse usually due to dmg not going thru models and high rerolable invul save but they also have very low max dmg comparing to multi-dice one. Noone play vanquisher as it's useless vs horden AND doing lower damage even vs tanks than Punishers.
Its not a problem related to infantry, it's bad weapon balance overaly. GW have to learn statistics.
Huh - my apologies, then. I thought they'd learned from the criticism they got for missing March for the March FAQ (which was renamed to the Spring FAQ at the time), and been smart enough to given themselves a larger window to work with.
Oh, well, cue the gnashing of teeth when it misses September...
Well, the official reasoning for the delay of the March/Spring-FAQ (whether correct or not) was that the GW guys wanted to wait until after the Adepticon tournament (which was around the last weekend of March?) and incorporate experiences and feedback from that event. 2 weeks after Adepticon, they released the FAQ.
The corresponding event they attached themselves to for the fall was Nova, with GW rules writers famously being there and doing some judging at the event, as well as collecting feedback, so there shouldn't, in theory, be a delay into October, because there's an extra month, relatively, between the "let's have a last look big-tournament" and the FAQ "deadline".
Of course, the Adepticon thing could've just been an excuse too.
Forfiter wrote: Guys, we already have good anti-horde weapons, it's not a problem for current meta.
>Guard have punishers
>Custodes bikes
>marines have hurricane (stormravens, dark angels flyers etc.)
>knights and chaos knights have gatlings
>daemons have bloodletters
> necrons have tesla
>tau got riptides and basicaly everything
> eldar is eldar
> DE have poision spam
Hordes are not a problem atm, they are easly counterable, just many people are not prepared to handle them taking generic weapon or focusing on knights.
Problem is Castellan - unkillable due to 3++, Taloses - unkillable due to 4++ and high T, shining spears and reapers - due to stratagems and soulbursts.
hordes are perforimg well, but they are counterable easly. People see lists Castellan+guard+BA cpt and say guardsmans are problem? No. problem is castellan and spammable smashcpt. without them infantry spam would not work, guard were all about leman russes before castellan come to play.
EDIT: okay, there is one cancerous horde build - plaguebarer spam. I am perfectly fine with nurgle resilient hordes, but why the feth they are almost FASTEST UNIT IN GAME? They just overflow table in 1-2 turns. They could stay but i cannot see any narrative support to rotting guys being so fast
Go and take any of those, calculate how many points of Guardsman it kills, and how many points of space marines. And you will see why people are complaining about a lack of anti-horde weapons.
No one here is denying that the Imperial netlist is not a problem, everyone is expecting nerfs to it. A person is capable of talking about problem X without instantly forgetting that problem Y also exists.
Why not give stuff like flamers a base number of auto hits? Lets say it is 5 auto hits, +dX for units that have 10 plus models and scaling. So a unit of 30 dudes would get hit 5+3d6 times. Which would be enough to hurt horde, Would still do those 5 hits to marines and other msu.
Or another thing they could do is to give it a flat number of hits, but a really low strenght like 2 or 3, -1ap and a stacking bonus to strenght for how big the unit is. So 5-10 marines would be hit by str 3, but 30 genestealers would be getting hit with str 5 ot even 6.
Hordes are just a symptom of the game in general becoming more "glasscannon" for all armies, as Index-to-Codex dials up the damage output of armies, but not the ability of (normal) armies to take/defend against damage in equal measure.
- There're plenty of boosts in the form of double-shooting tanks and units, but no units that just take half of all hits
- There're plenty of strats to add +1 and/or re-roll to hits and wounds, but the inverse is rare (and those armies that have it, like Lightning Fast Reflexes use it basically every game).
- Fight/Shoot again strats are in almost every codex, but -1 activation strats to counter them don't exist.
- Weapons get boosted from D3 shots to D6 shots everywhere, be it Harlequins, Knights, etc..
- re-rolls to hit and/or to wound are far more common than re-rolls to saves, etc..
If, as a rule of thumb, 40K just gets more and more lethal on the offensive side, but the game pieces across all armies aren't buffed in equal measure defensively, your average "white dwarf-battle-report-style-armies" are all essentially playing 1-turn glasscannon-40K at some point.
The only ways you can even get around is to go for "extreme" defensive concepts like stacking -1s or just going extreme horde, simply because point drops on models is one of the few "defensive buffs" GW has included in Codexes, which benefits hordes more than it does "medium quality units" which are left at Index-levels defensively for the most part, while the offensive output of most armies has skyrocketed.
But the game has to be leathal. If GW made their units resilient people would be playing smaller games aka buy fewer models. There are very few people that can mentaly stomach 100-150models per side killing 10-15 models each turn.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Hordes are just a symptom of the game in general becoming more "glasscannon" for all armies, as Index-to-Codex dials up the damage output of armies, but not the ability of (normal) armies to take/defend against damage in equal measure.
- There're plenty of boosts in the form of double-shooting tanks and units, but no units that just take half of all hits
- There're plenty of strats to add +1 and/or re-roll to hits and wounds, but the inverse is rare (and those armies that have it, like Lightning Fast Reflexes use it basically every game).
- Fight/Shoot again strats are in almost every codex, but -1 activation strats to counter them don't exist.
- Weapons get boosted from D3 shots to D6 shots everywhere, be it Harlequins, Knights, etc..
- re-rolls to hit and/or to wound are far more common than re-rolls to saves, etc..
If, as a rule of thumb, 40K just gets more and more lethal on the offensive side, but the game pieces across all armies aren't buffed in equal measure defensively, your average "white dwarf-battle-report-style-armies" are all essentially playing 1-turn glasscannon-40K at some point.
The only ways you can even get around is to go for "extreme" defensive concepts like stacking -1s or just going extreme horde, simply because point drops on models is one of the few "defensive buffs" GW has included in Codexes, which benefits hordes more than it does "medium quality units" which are left at Index-levels defensively for the most part, while the offensive output of most armies has skyrocketed.
I agree and it is a problem which contributes many of the game's issues. IGOUGO system breaks down if armies can annihilate huge chunks of the enemy force in one turn.
I haven't bought any models for my main army since 8E dropped. I had to go out a get some Eldar Troops since GW decided to remove mine as a Troops option (Windriders), but after I got some Rangers and Guardians, I haven't bought anything for me Eldar since.
However, I've bought far more models just for painting/collecting from other factions than I've ever done in the past. Of course, part of that is to keep me invested in the game as I don't get enough time away from home to play games lately. I've also built up 3 Index rules only armies for Marines, CSM and Necrons to play small games at home with.
Galef wrote: I haven't bought any models for my main army since 8E dropped. I have to go out a get some Eldar Troops since GW decided to remove mine as a Troops option (Windriders), but after I got some Rangers and Guardians, I haven't bought anything for me Eldar since.
However, I've bought far more models just for painting/collecting from other factions than I've ever done in the past. Of course, part of that is to keep me invested in the game as I don't get enough time away from home to play games lately. I've also built up 3 Index rules only armies for Marines, CSM and Necrons to play small games at home with.
-
You could still buy some Dark Reapers despite their pt increase. Still one of the best units in the game.
Windriders fill gaps in a gun line and are useful in a Ynnari army.
Dark Reapers are still quite good. I personally feel they are at a good point now, but to be fair I don't play Ynnari so I don't know if that is still broken as hell.
Windriders can be decent objective runners if you keep them cheap. They do not, however, carry the army like they used to.
bullyboy wrote: I know this won't make Catachan players happy, but what if grenades and flamers with a random number of shots get to reroll that number vs units with 5 or more models in it. So if facing a larger mob of models, your flamer or frag grenade has a better chance of hurting more models. Would somehow need to be applied to missile launchers too. (I'm sure there are a bunch of weapons under the umbrella but you get my drift).
5? That's not even large number of models...Where has this come when basically minimum size unit is considered "large mob of models"...
GW ups the size of armies by dropping point costs and upping standard game size and players respond by lowering minimum unit of models to be considered "large mob of models"
Truthful.
Perhaps 10 models better, I was just going by the other rules that are similar (Vindicator etc)
Sunny Side Up wrote: Hordes are just a symptom of the game in general becoming more "glasscannon" for all armies, as Index-to-Codex dials up the damage output of armies, but not the ability of (normal) armies to take/defend against damage in equal measure.
- There're plenty of boosts in the form of double-shooting tanks and units, but no units that just take half of all hits
- There're plenty of strats to add +1 and/or re-roll to hits and wounds, but the inverse is rare (and those armies that have it, like Lightning Fast Reflexes use it basically every game).
- Fight/Shoot again strats are in almost every codex, but -1 activation strats to counter them don't exist.
- Weapons get boosted from D3 shots to D6 shots everywhere, be it Harlequins, Knights, etc..
- re-rolls to hit and/or to wound are far more common than re-rolls to saves, etc..
If, as a rule of thumb, 40K just gets more and more lethal on the offensive side, but the game pieces across all armies aren't buffed in equal measure defensively, your average "white dwarf-battle-report-style-armies" are all essentially playing 1-turn glasscannon-40K at some point.
The only ways you can even get around is to go for "extreme" defensive concepts like stacking -1s or just going extreme horde, simply because point drops on models is one of the few "defensive buffs" GW has included in Codexes, which benefits hordes more than it does "medium quality units" which are left at Index-levels defensively for the most part, while the offensive output of most armies has skyrocketed.
I agree and it is a problem which contributes many of the game's issues. IGOUGO system breaks down if armies can annihilate huge chunks of the enemy force before they get to take a turn.
Fixed that for you.
IGOUGO wouldn't be so broken if the standard setup had enough distance between the deployment zones that maneuvering into rifle range wasn't trivial and the average heavy weapon didn't have range on the entire board. I swear GW designs profiles like they think we all play on 10'x10' boards with a piece of terrain big enough to hide a Knight every 6" or so.
(...at least until I remember that Basilisks have a 720" range, suffer no to-hit penalties for indirect fire, and can shell units that are not only out of LoS for them but that no allied unit has LoS to either.)
Eldarsif wrote: Windriders can be decent objective runners if you keep them cheap. They do not, however, carry the army like they used to.
There is no way to "keep them cheap", but my main issue with them is 2-fold: A) I played Eldar long before Scatterbike spam was the OP thing to do, and Bikes were always my preferred Troops, to the exclusion of all others Having to now buy and field Troops that I never had before just to have a decent # of CPs makes my army feel off B) For basically pennies more, you can just get Spears, which are far better and since I had to spend points of different units for fill Troops above, why bother with WRs now at all?
I agree spears need a points bump, but it's unlikely (hopefully) for them to go above 35-40ppm. If WRs don't also get a points decrease, Spears will still be the better option However the points get adjusted, I like to see 2 WRs with Twin-cats cost LESS than 1 Spear, while 2 WR's with either Scatters or Shuricannons can be just slightly more than 1 Spear. FAQ/Errata that change and I'll be happy
Forfiter wrote: Guys, we already have good anti-horde weapons, it's not a problem for current meta.
Thing is all those are even better at killing non-horde ;-)
This is actually a common misconception. That is only because someone made the calculation using a guardmen against a marine and it results that a bolter kills marine points better than it kills guardsmen points. True,but the problem is with the marine, not with the weapon.
If you make that calculation using another elite troop, like a tyranid warrior, you discover that a bolter kills guards better than tyranid warriors, and that is using guards, which as we know could be easily a 5 point model.
If you use a boyz as a representative of hordes, which is a competitive choice, you discover that bolt weapons actually inflict 56% more point damage on "hordes", than on "elites".
So no, that arguemtn has always been false. The game has plenty of anti horde weapons, everything S3 or S4 without AP is.
IGOUGO wouldn't be so broken if the standard setup had enough distance between the deployment zones that maneuvering into rifle range wasn't trivial and the average heavy weapon didn't have range on the entire board. I swear GW designs profiles like they think we all play on 10'x10' boards with a piece of terrain big enough to hide a Knight every 6" or so.
(...at least until I remember that Basilisks have a 720" range, suffer no to-hit penalties for indirect fire, and can shell units that are not only out of LoS for them but that no allied unit has LoS to either.)
Epic solved this problem pretty well. It was designed to play on the same size of table as 40K, but typical weapon ranges were ~6" for small arms, 12-18" for standard infantry heavy weapons, and then 24-48" for vehicle weapons. As long as they kept in command, units were much more mobile relative to their weapon ranges, both from shorter weapon ranges and from being able to move multiple times in one turn.
Random thought: Would 40K completely break if GW added the Kill Team rule of -1 to hit at over half range, but also made a roll of 6 always hit? Seems like it could address issues of melee being underpowered, shooting being too lethal, and horde (typically BS4+) armies being too effective all in one stroke, while also making weapon ranges more relevant to typical tabletop sizes.
Boyz are the only unit which is protected by nothing but a 6+ save. Most horde units have a 5+ or better (5++, fnp) save, which makes them more durable than boyz, even if they are T3.
Jidmah wrote: Boyz are the only unit which is protected by nothing but a 6+ save. Most horde units have a 5+ or better (5++, fnp) save, which makes them more durable than boyz, even if they are T3.
Um? no? All 3 style of Gants are 6+ (H, T, G) then you have Swarms (rippers), then there is DE RWF's they are 7+ save
Maybe we should start expecting successful Kill Team rules to become beta rules for 40k.
Things I like - shooting requires you to get closer to the target to be more effective, cover impacts the ability for your forces to be hit rather than their armour save, the alternate activation (which probably won't happen in 40k yet), etc.
When people say hordes are a problem they pretty much just mean Guardsmen.
No one (as far as I am aware) complains about gaunts or boyz (although I can see that changing if the codex buffs them at all). Nurgle spam can be annoying, but you don't really see it that often - and other daemons don't really work just running across the table.
You can spam cultists, but apart from that one buffed up unit they are decidedly meh.
Kabalites should be mathematically really good - but I have yet to see a list where they are taken on foot on mass. You could try the same with Guardian defenders although I suspect it would be objectively inferior.
I remain suspect that mass fire warriors (i.e. 100+) would be potentially effective, but everyone who plays Tau seems to think I am wrong on this and they should know. Ditto for massed Skitarri.
Tyel wrote: When people say hordes are a problem they pretty much just mean Guardsmen.
No one (as far as I am aware) complains about gaunts or boyz (although I can see that changing if the codex buffs them at all). Nurgle spam can be annoying, but you don't really see it that often - and other daemons don't really work just running across the table.
You can spam cultists, but apart from that one buffed up unit they are decidedly meh.
Kabalites should be mathematically really good - but I have yet to see a list where they are taken on foot on mass. You could try the same with Guardian defenders although I suspect it would be objectively inferior.
I remain suspect that mass fire warriors (i.e. 100+) would be potentially effective, but everyone who plays Tau seems to think I am wrong on this and they should know. Ditto for massed Skitarri.
Its also Poxwalkers, Cultist, Tzaangors, etc...
Kabals are good, but they are not Horde good, they are good b.c they are just cheap enough to take a Battalion to be worth it, sadly they are not strong enough to take 90+, 15-30 is their magic number. ANd b.c a Venom is just really good, there is no reason to double the number of Kabals when you have a venom.
Tyel wrote: Kabalites should be mathematically really good - but I have yet to see a list where they are taken on foot on mass.
I would wager that this is due to most Dark Eldar players preferring to keep them in transports, rather than anything objective about their strength. A list that looked something like three Archons, three Ravagers and 180 Kabalites with 18 Blasters would probably work out very well.
Forfiter wrote: Guys, we already have good anti-horde weapons, it's not a problem for current meta.
>Guard have punishers
>Custodes bikes
>marines have hurricane (stormravens, dark angels flyers etc.)
>knights and chaos knights have gatlings
>daemons have bloodletters
> necrons have tesla
>tau got riptides and basicaly everything
> eldar is eldar
> DE have poision spam
Hordes are not a problem atm, they are easly counterable, just many people are not prepared to handle them taking generic weapon or focusing on knights.
Problem is Castellan - unkillable due to 3++, Taloses - unkillable due to 4++ and high T, shining spears and reapers - due to stratagems and soulbursts.
hordes are perforimg well, but they are counterable easly. People see lists Castellan+guard+BA cpt and say guardsmans are problem? No. problem is castellan and spammable smashcpt. without them infantry spam would not work, guard were all about leman russes before castellan come to play.
EDIT: okay, there is one cancerous horde build - plaguebarer spam. I am perfectly fine with nurgle resilient hordes, but why the feth they are almost FASTEST UNIT IN GAME? They just overflow table in 1-2 turns. They could stay but i cannot see any narrative support to rotting guys being so fast
Straken + Priest + Guardsmen + Artillery & Shadowsword is a cancer list.
4ppm models should not have 3 strength 4 attacks rerolling failed hits. That's just fething dumb.
Dunno, 200+ Cultists with Abbadon, a fair few Infiltrating, etc.. is easily one of the most obnoxious things currently in 40K, not even considering the fluff-idiocy of cultists throwing around VotLW
Tyel wrote: Kabalites should be mathematically really good - but I have yet to see a list where they are taken on foot on mass.
I would wager that this is due to most Dark Eldar players preferring to keep them in transports, rather than anything objective about their strength. A list that looked something like three Archons, three Ravagers and 180 Kabalites with 18 Blasters would probably work out very well.
And with 8 LD (I know thats not bad) but in 20mans its devastating, you are forced to play 10mans, Just kill 8 in each unit and watch D6 more die, its not hard to kill 8 T3/5+ infantry at all.
Marmatag wrote: Straken + Priest + Guardsmen + Artillery & Shadowsword is a cancer list.
4ppm models should not have 3 strength 4 attacks rerolling failed hits. That's just fething dumb.
Where does the re-rolling failed hits come from? Straken and Priest each confer +1A.
And it's not really 4ppm models when you have to spend three whole squads worth of points to get those buffs, now is it?
Considering you have to take HQs anyway, it's not a cost. Straken is 75 points, a priest is 35. Don't forget you can issue orders to these squads, too. Not to mention you could also just pay another 180 points and get 2 commanders and 30 more guardsmen.
Tyel wrote: When people say hordes are a problem they pretty much just mean Guardsmen.
No one (as far as I am aware) complains about gaunts or boyz (although I can see that changing if the codex buffs them at all). Nurgle spam can be annoying, but you don't really see it that often - and other daemons don't really work just running across the table.
You can spam cultists, but apart from that one buffed up unit they are decidedly meh.
Kabalites should be mathematically really good - but I have yet to see a list where they are taken on foot on mass. You could try the same with Guardian defenders although I suspect it would be objectively inferior.
I remain suspect that mass fire warriors (i.e. 100+) would be potentially effective, but everyone who plays Tau seems to think I am wrong on this and they should know. Ditto for massed Skitarri.
I suspect one of the problems with mass fire warriors is the price of the box.
Marmatag wrote: Straken + Priest + Guardsmen + Artillery & Shadowsword is a cancer list.
4ppm models should not have 3 strength 4 attacks rerolling failed hits. That's just fething dumb.
Where does the re-rolling failed hits come from? Straken and Priest each confer +1A.
And it's not really 4ppm models when you have to spend three whole squads worth of points to get those buffs, now is it?
Considering you have to take HQs anyway, it's not a cost. Straken is 75 points, a priest is 35. Don't forget you can issue orders to these squads, too. Not to mention you could also just pay another 180 points and get 2 commanders and 30 more guardsmen.
Oh look i have 60 bodies on the table and 4 HQs to the tune of 410 points. You can literally build an entire list after doing that.
Rapid Fire 24" guns
3 str4 attacks in melee per guy
Orders
Can be blobbed into bigger squads
+10 Command Points
Kurov's Aquila
Watched the Long War podcast last night while getting some painting in and they had a good point: the last big FAQ was 3 weeks after Gencon, so 3 weeks after Nova (next week basically) would be about right if they stick to the pattern.
ClockworkZion wrote: Watched the Long War podcast last night while getting some painting in and they had a good point: the last big FAQ was 3 weeks after Gencon, so 3 weeks after Nova (next week basically) would be about right if they stick to the pattern.
I don't really think a single example is a pattern at this point, eh?
ClockworkZion wrote: Watched the Long War podcast last night while getting some painting in and they had a good point: the last big FAQ was 3 weeks after Gencon, so 3 weeks after Nova (next week basically) would be about right if they stick to the pattern.
I don't really think a single example is a pattern at this point, eh?
I was just saying that it makes sense that we may see it next week is all.
ClockworkZion wrote: Watched the Long War podcast last night while getting some painting in and they had a good point: the last big FAQ was 3 weeks after Gencon, so 3 weeks after Nova (next week basically) would be about right if they stick to the pattern.
I don't really think a single example is a pattern at this point, eh?
Well we know they wanted to wait till after a major event and that the three weeks gave them enough time so i could see them following the same structure
Tyel wrote: When people say hordes are a problem they pretty much just mean Guardsmen.
No one (as far as I am aware) complains about gaunts or boyz (although I can see that changing if the codex buffs them at all). Nurgle spam can be annoying, but you don't really see it that often - and other daemons don't really work just running across the table.
You can spam cultists, but apart from that one buffed up unit they are decidedly meh.
Kabalites should be mathematically really good - but I have yet to see a list where they are taken on foot on mass. You could try the same with Guardian defenders although I suspect it would be objectively inferior.
I remain suspect that mass fire warriors (i.e. 100+) would be potentially effective, but everyone who plays Tau seems to think I am wrong on this and they should know. Ditto for massed Skitarri.
I suspect one of the problems with mass fire warriors is the price of the box.
My partner plays mass fire warriors, so I've had a lot of experience against that and thought I'd throw in my two cents. They're kind of a 1-trick pony: they're very powerful in a certain bubble and S5 is a great spot to be at because you're not wounding anything on less than 5's...but they're very brittle and very immobile. You also have to have your opponent be dumb enough to get within rapid fire range for them to have that efficiency..
ClockworkZion wrote: Watched the Long War podcast last night while getting some painting in and they had a good point: the last big FAQ was 3 weeks after Gencon, so 3 weeks after Nova (next week basically) would be about right if they stick to the pattern.
I don't really think a single example is a pattern at this point, eh?
Well we know they wanted to wait till after a major event and that the three weeks gave them enough time so i could see them following the same structure
My thoughts too. We know certain changes are inevitable, and I'm sure they have a massive list of stuff after Cruddace sat in on the invitational and watched how things are broken. I'm just hoping that while they're hammering some nails down, they do something for the armies that need to be lifted up a bit (like monofaction armies).
ClockworkZion wrote: Watched the Long War podcast last night while getting some painting in and they had a good point: the last big FAQ was 3 weeks after Gencon, so 3 weeks after Nova (next week basically) would be about right if they stick to the pattern.
I don't really think a single example is a pattern at this point, eh?
Well we know they wanted to wait till after a major event and that the three weeks gave them enough time so i could see them following the same structure
My thoughts too. We know certain changes are inevitable, and I'm sure they have a massive list of stuff after Cruddace sat in on the invitational and watched how things are broken. I'm just hoping that while they're hammering some nails down, they do something for the armies that need to be lifted up a bit (like monofaction armies).
I hope so too but my guess is we will see a larger change like that in chapter approved.... although we might see a new beta rule that will then be accepted or modified in chapter approved. Actually the more i think about it they are probably doing some rush beta testing on a new beta rule hopefully to curve cp batteries
Asmodios wrote: I don't think that the CP increase was necessarily a bad idea..... Giving it to everyone was a bad idea. If they would have given bonus CP to struggling armies to increase their playability it would have made sense. Instead, they simply made it work on armies that could already generate mass CP and thus made souping those even more advantageous
Exactly.
Here I am playing mono Ravenwing, lucky to bring 5-6CP total because of Outrider detachments only, and yet they boost battalions up to +5 CP and Brigades even more. There was nothing wrong with the CPs as they were. It's far better to have fewer CPs so a player has to pick and choose wisely, not provide so many that all the right combos can be done every damn turn.
Many of the issues are due to mass use of CPs to get a desired effect, and armies that are low on CP are handicapped accordingly. hence whey you only really see lists with lots of CPs.
GW should start thinking about specific detachment bonuses and adding them to CA. Speaking in my case..
Ravenwing.....give more than just +1 CP for an Outrider detachment that has units only with the Ravenwing keyword.
Ghostwarriors....Vanguard detachment yields +3CPs instead of +1CP if it contains 3 spirit host units from Elite slot.
And what about Space Marine battle Companies..Demi Companies?
Encourage the use of tacs, assault and devs by boosting their CPs.
I would much prefer to see that employed, rather than the generic +5CP for battalions because you know people are going to spam the cheapest, most efficient Troops choice possible just to get the CPs. It gets really old and boring.
except this is, broadly, what CPs do already, they allow fluffy elite formations, such as raven wing, death wing, Space Wolf Wolf guard etc, well at the same time enchouraging people to sue troops etc in a more standand format by rewarding it. you are not being PUNSIHED for playing Ravenwing, I am being REWARDED for taking a balanced force..
or so the design logic goes.
yeah, so these net lists with 20CPs are balanced? that's a laugh. I'm not sure where an army of 3 scout units deserves more CPs than an army of 3 biker units.
The system is broken currently, and needs a total revamp to be balanced correctly.
Why not adopt the KT method for CP's? You get X for having a battleforged army, and then 1 per turn. If your warlord is alive you get 2 per turn.
So, for example. Bringing a brigade would entitle you to 4 CP Each turn you would add +2 (if your warlord is alive) to your current pool.
ONLY 1 Stratagem may be played per phase, and players can attempt to deny using rolls.
Forfiter wrote: Guys, we already have good anti-horde weapons, it's not a problem for current meta.
>Guard have punishers
>Custodes bikes
>marines have hurricane (stormravens, dark angels flyers etc.)
>knights and chaos knights have gatlings
>daemons have bloodletters
> necrons have tesla
>tau got riptides and basicaly everything
> eldar is eldar
> DE have poision spam
Hordes are not a problem atm, they are easly counterable, just many people are not prepared to handle them taking generic weapon or focusing on knights.
Problem is Castellan - unkillable due to 3++, Taloses - unkillable due to 4++ and high T, shining spears and reapers - due to stratagems and soulbursts.
hordes are perforimg well, but they are counterable easly. People see lists Castellan+guard+BA cpt and say guardsmans are problem? No. problem is castellan and spammable smashcpt. without them infantry spam would not work, guard were all about leman russes before castellan come to play.
EDIT: okay, there is one cancerous horde build - plaguebarer spam. I am perfectly fine with nurgle resilient hordes, but why the feth they are almost FASTEST UNIT IN GAME? They just overflow table in 1-2 turns. They could stay but i cannot see any narrative support to rotting guys being so fast
Go and take any of those, calculate how many points of Guardsman it kills, and how many points of space marines. And you will see why people are complaining about a lack of anti-horde weapons.
Because people are idiots? That has nothing to do with the effectiveness of those weapons against horde units.
Then should they rename it to 'Fortunate shooting'? or 'Guide thy killing'?
Because that's not DOOM. Doom is 'You're doomed'. Fell out of bed, but didn't die outright from the ordeal? Reroll. Stub your toe, but it didn't cause massive blood loss? Reroll. Get run over by a semi but somehow survive? Reroll.
It's not about what's shooting you. It's about you being doomed.
Bharring wrote: Then should they rename it to 'Fortunate shooting'? or 'Guide thy killing'?
Because that's not DOOM. Doom is 'You're doomed'. Fell out of bed, but didn't die outright from the ordeal? Reroll. Stub your toe, but it didn't cause massive blood loss? Reroll. Get run over by a semi but somehow survive? Reroll.
It's not about what's shooting you. It's about you being doomed.
Didn't they have a power called Guide that made a unit better at shooting?
Marmatag wrote: Straken + Priest + Guardsmen + Artillery & Shadowsword is a cancer list.
4ppm models should not have 3 strength 4 attacks rerolling failed hits. That's just fething dumb.
Where does the re-rolling failed hits come from? Straken and Priest each confer +1A.
And it's not really 4ppm models when you have to spend three whole squads worth of points to get those buffs, now is it?
Considering you have to take HQs anyway, it's not a cost. Straken is 75 points, a priest is 35. Don't forget you can issue orders to these squads, too. Not to mention you could also just pay another 180 points and get 2 commanders and 30 more guardsmen.
Oh look i have 60 bodies on the table and 4 HQs to the tune of 410 points. You can literally build an entire list after doing that.
Rapid Fire 24" guns
3 str4 attacks in melee per guy
Orders
Can be blobbed into bigger squads
+10 Command Points
Kurov's Aquila
All for 400 points.
It's dumb. It's just dumb.
I'm not arguing that it isn't an issue, but isn't this more along lines of the Alaitoc, or Raven Guard problem? That is, the specific buffs from a subfaction (Catachan getting Strength 4) plus the Catachan only HQ that buffs only Catachans? To be precise - the melee strength wouldn't mean as much with any other guard faction, as the Priest would only be granting an extra attack to strength 3 units for 2 attacks total, but with Catachan, they get the boost to strength and Straken gives them an additional attack for 3 total.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still perfectly fine with seeing a large number of low priced units (Infantry Squads, Fire Warriors, Ork Boyz if codex buffs them at all, Kabalites, Skitarii) go up a point, but the argument here seems to be specifically nerf the faction because the subfaction has the issue.
Sidenote, I glanced through my book and can't seem to find the rerolling hits bit either. Is that with melee? Or are you talking about the Take Aim order to reroll hits of 1 in the shooting phase? Both Straken and the Priest have rules for rerolling for themselves personally - Straken rerolls wounds vs Monsters, and the Priest can reroll hits if he charged, got charged, or heroically intervened, but that isn't the whole blob either. I'm just trying to figure out what bit I am missing here...
Martel732 wrote: The way 8th rolls, squatting doom might be the only way to balance it. It's a spell to increase lethality in a game that doesn't need that.
the core problem with a d6 system.
If 70% of the game hits on a 3+ and saves on a 3+ Then what is the point? Change the entire system from a D6 to a D8 or D10 system and greatly vary the stat lines of units.
Honestly, that's what I like about AoS though, if you wanted to go the other rout and keep the D6 system.
Toughness
Wounds
Leadership
Save
Everything else is already factored into the profile. Simple, easy, no fuss, no argument. Add in modifiers and bam, system can be flexible and smart, while still not being clunky.
Martel732 wrote: The way 8th rolls, squatting doom might be the only way to balance it. It's a spell to increase lethality in a game that doesn't need that.
Nah, it doesn't need to be squatted. What we need is more universal means of dealing with Psykers. Too many armies lack psychic defense making some powers basically too good since they never get countered.
The whole psychic phase is extremely wonky and inconsistent, to be honest... it's presence does more to put the game in the hands of a single dice roll than anything else. "Did you get Death Hex off or not" is an enormous swing in value and will absolutely be the difference between a dead knight or not. Every psyker heavy army is like this.
Arachnofiend wrote: The whole psychic phase is extremely wonky and inconsistent, to be honest... it's presence does more to put the game in the hands of a single dice roll than anything else. "Did you get Death Hex off or not" is an enormous swing in value and will absolutely be the difference between a dead knight or not. Every psyker heavy army is like this.
Except Thousand Sons. If one Smite fails you can just do it again thirteen more times that turn!
Martel732 wrote: Technically marines have psykers, but lobbies are so crappy I don't count them. So yeah, I completely agree. More psychic defense.
Primaris Libbies are pretty good. Extra wound without paying more? Sign me up. That said, the power pool is pretty pants so that's a whole different problem.
Without factoring in support via soup: Black Templars, Necrons (Gloom Prism is a nice attempt but fails to really do anything honestly), Mono-faction Dark Eldar, Tau, Custodes, and likely a few I'm forgetting, lack proper methods to deal with psykers, much less armies like Thousand Sons or Eldar who can spam them like there is no tomorrow.
bananathug wrote: Please let them nerf doom to only be cast ON <CRAFTWORLD> UNIT. ALLOW THAT UNIT TO RE-ROLL FAILED WOUND ROLLS.
That's not how Doom has worked or should work.
But DOOM shouldn't be as easy to cast for the insane buff it currently gives to all Aeldari shooting.
It needs changed to either be alot harder to cast or
If manifested, choose an enemy unit within 24" of the psyker. You can re-roll failed wound rolls againt that unit for friendly craftworld units until your next Psychic phase.
bananathug wrote: Please let them nerf doom to only be cast ON <CRAFTWORLD> UNIT. ALLOW THAT UNIT TO RE-ROLL FAILED WOUND ROLLS.
That's not how Doom has worked or should work.
But DOOM shouldn't be as easy to cast for the insane buff it currently gives to all Aeldari shooting.
It needs changed to either be alot harder to cast or
If manifested, choose an enemy unit within 24" of the psyker. You can re-roll failed wound rolls againt that unit for friendly craftworld units until your next Psychic phase.
I can agree with upping it's cost to manifest as that is incredibly valid. I was more saying that psychic powers have always been less restrictive than things like auras, special rules or stratagems in terms of which faction in your army can benefit.
bananathug wrote: Please let them nerf doom to only be cast ON <CRAFTWORLD> UNIT. ALLOW THAT UNIT TO RE-ROLL FAILED WOUND ROLLS.
That's not how Doom has worked or should work.
But DOOM shouldn't be as easy to cast for the insane buff it currently gives to all Aeldari shooting.
It needs changed to either be alot harder to cast or
If manifested, choose an enemy unit within 24" of the psyker. You can re-roll failed wound rolls againt that unit for friendly craftworld units until your next Psychic phase.
I can agree with upping it's cost to manifest as that is incredibly valid. I was more saying that psychic powers have always been less restrictive than things like auras, special rules or stratagems in terms of which faction in your army can benefit.
It's interactions with haywire etc would mean it's casting value should be like 9 as even at 8 with the free rerolls farseers get it's wat to easy to cast for the benifit.
Arachnofiend wrote: The whole psychic phase is extremely wonky and inconsistent, to be honest... it's presence does more to put the game in the hands of a single dice roll than anything else. "Did you get Death Hex off or not" is an enormous swing in value and will absolutely be the difference between a dead knight or not. Every psyker heavy army is like this.
Except Thousand Sons. If one Smite fails you can just do it again thirteen more times that turn!
Smite, sure. But I used Death Hex as an example because Thousand Sons is one of my armies. If you are up against a unit that is reliant on its invuln to survive, then getting that spell off means you win. If you somehow manage to perils instead? Well, you probably lost that game.
Arachnofiend wrote: The whole psychic phase is extremely wonky and inconsistent, to be honest... it's presence does more to put the game in the hands of a single dice roll than anything else. "Did you get Death Hex off or not" is an enormous swing in value and will absolutely be the difference between a dead knight or not. Every psyker heavy army is like this.
Except Thousand Sons. If one Smite fails you can just do it again thirteen more times that turn!
Smite, sure. But I used Death Hex as an example because Thousand Sons is one of my armies. If you are up against a unit that is reliant on its invuln to survive, then getting that spell off means you win. If you somehow manage to perils instead? Well, you probably lost that game.
Yeah, if we're talking an all Knight army with a CP farmed Castellan perhaps (since you can Smite it to death in a single turn). Not too many armies are so reliant on good invuls on units that can also survive mass smiting like that army is.
Point was more that there is an exception to the rule rather more than anything. Also, the power balance is incredibly swingy. Some powers you need every game no matter what (and not just because of personal preferences on which you find best for your playstyle) which really makes players more likely spam means of getting off said power at the cost of everything else.
Arachnofiend wrote: The whole psychic phase is extremely wonky and inconsistent, to be honest... it's presence does more to put the game in the hands of a single dice roll than anything else. "Did you get Death Hex off or not" is an enormous swing in value and will absolutely be the difference between a dead knight or not. Every psyker heavy army is like this.
Couldn't we just rework psychic abilities:
For example:
No Psychic Phase
Instead different units have psychic abilities built into their data sheet. Powers become unique to the model, rather than being pulled off a chart.
Then we could treat the psychic abilities in a number of different ways.
Example:
A Psychic attack could be used in the shooting/fight phase
Where as a buff or debuff would specify that it can only be used in phase "x,y,z"
At any point psychic units close enough to the caster could attempt to intervene as we do now, just it would be a reaction happening in that phase instead of one single phase for all psychics.
I mean theoretically you could use this system to make units extremely variable and this could even add a whole host of new spells and unique interactions to what I personally feel is a very dull and stagnant magic phase currently.
No, the psychic phase is fine in practice and is better than the old "at the start of ..." powers we had. Putting the powers in a chart is fine too, the thing I see is that we really should be paying points for powers. But by that logic, warlord traits should cost points too. And so should relics. And so should all wargear given to a model.
And then we basically end up going back to 3rd edition's means of doing things.
The psychic phase is fine. Its just that every army should have something to do in the psychic phase, and the ones who can't should get strong anti-psy to compensate.
Tau should get their nicassar, or guevesa psykers, or some new alien race that look like squids or something.
Necrons should be like dwarfs. Sure, they don't get psychic powers, but they sure as hell aren't going to let you have any either.
Dark Eldar are a bit trickier to design. They shouldn't be like necrons, but they shouldn't get psychics as well, because the last thing a race hiding from demons wants is to bring what is basically a lighthouse in the warp with them. Maybe they could have some ability or item that doesn't stop psychic powers, but forces perils instead. The idea being that they have experience in directing demons away from them to attack something else.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The psychic phase is fine. Its just that every army should have something to do in the psychic phase, and the ones who can't should get strong anti-psy to compensate.
Tau should get their nicassar, or guevesa psykers, or some new alien race that look like squids or something.
Necrons should be like dwarfs. Sure, they don't get psychic powers, but they sure as hell aren't going to let you have any either.
Dark Eldar are a bit trickier to design. They shouldn't be like necrons, but they shouldn't get psychics anyway, because the last thing a race hiding from demons wants is to bring what is basically a lighthouse in the warp with them.
Maybe they should have some ability or item that doesn't stop psychic powers, but forces perils instead.
The idea being that they have experience in directing demons away from them to attack something else.
Eh, Its going to piss off the lore purists - but I feel the DE could very easily have psykers but now due to the free-flowing allied rules they never will. Much like how we will (probably) never get dark-wraithguard/Castigators.
"You can't do psychic in Commorragh, Vect said so."
Well... maybe Vect got over it due the recent drama. Maybe they keep the psykers trapped in horrible pain dimensions that are separate from Commorragh when not raiding real space. Maybe they are just kept in horrible torture chambers in real space.
They could very easily justify Haemis having an ability to disrupt psykers if we are just talking defence (rather than the crucible of malediction being a slightly awkward psyker focused smite stratagem).
Game wise the problem with psychic powers is that its all or nothing. You have to have a good chance of getting an ability off, or its hard to price the psyker. There are similar issues with assault units. How do you price a unit which can't guarantee it will do any damage when ranged units can?
ClockworkZion wrote: No, the psychic phase is fine in practice and is better than the old "at the start of ..." powers we had. Putting the powers in a chart is fine too, the thing I see is that we really should be paying points for powers. But by that logic, warlord traits should cost points too. And so should relics. And so should all wargear given to a model.
And then we basically end up going back to 3rd edition's means of doing things.
Relics SHOULD cost points. Warlord traits is fine as long as each Trait as merit though.
ClockworkZion wrote: No, the psychic phase is fine in practice and is better than the old "at the start of ..." powers we had. Putting the powers in a chart is fine too, the thing I see is that we really should be paying points for powers. But by that logic, warlord traits should cost points too. And so should relics. And so should all wargear given to a model.
And then we basically end up going back to 3rd edition's means of doing things.
Relics SHOULD cost points. Warlord traits is fine as long as each Trait as merit though.
Oh I'm not disagreeing with that, I mean, I did mention it after all. I was just lamenting that it would likely be too much of a step back for GW to go back to that.
bananathug wrote: Please let them nerf doom to only be cast ON <CRAFTWORLD> UNIT. ALLOW THAT UNIT TO RE-ROLL FAILED WOUND ROLLS.
That's not how Doom has worked or should work.
But DOOM shouldn't be as easy to cast for the insane buff it currently gives to all Aeldari shooting.
It needs changed to either be alot harder to cast or
If manifested, choose an enemy unit within 24" of the psyker. You can re-roll failed wound rolls againt that unit for friendly craftworld units until your next Psychic phase.
The problem is its range - 24" is too high for a spell that powerful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The psychic phase is fine. Its just that every army should have something to do in the psychic phase, and the ones who can't should get strong anti-psy to compensate.
Tau should get their nicassar, or guevesa psykers, or some new alien race that look like squids or something.
Necrons should be like dwarfs. Sure, they don't get psychic powers, but they sure as hell aren't going to let you have any either.
Dark Eldar are a bit trickier to design. They shouldn't be like necrons, but they shouldn't get psychics anyway, because the last thing a race hiding from demons wants is to bring what is basically a lighthouse in the warp with them.
Maybe they should have some ability or item that doesn't stop psychic powers, but forces perils instead.
The idea being that they have experience in directing demons away from them to attack something else.
I disagree it's fine. Vs eldar - they are putting doom an a decent target at the minimum - likely the exact target they want with a 22" move on a bike seer. It's reasonable that you wont even be able to deny - because all they have to do is put their doom target between your psyker and themselves and guess what - you can't deny them.
Solution - your psyker out front...Okay - now shinning spears come in and assault your psyker from their deployment zone turn 1. Plus buff their unit outside of deny range - then move in any kill your psyker.
IMO - deny probably just need to be board with with a bonus for being within 18" or 12" kind of how a psychic hood works.
There are ofc a lot of issues with eldar. 22" moves is too much for units that can act as normal afterwards. There is literally 0 counter other than having 80 plus bodies filling you DZ so they have no place to land after a 44 inch move with quicken.
bananathug wrote: Please let them nerf doom to only be cast ON <CRAFTWORLD> UNIT. ALLOW THAT UNIT TO RE-ROLL FAILED WOUND ROLLS.
That's not how Doom has worked or should work.
But DOOM shouldn't be as easy to cast for the insane buff it currently gives to all Aeldari shooting.
It needs changed to either be alot harder to cast or
If manifested, choose an enemy unit within 24" of the psyker. You can re-roll failed wound rolls againt that unit for friendly craftworld units until your next Psychic phase.
The problem is its range - 24" is too high for a spell that powerful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The psychic phase is fine. Its just that every army should have something to do in the psychic phase, and the ones who can't should get strong anti-psy to compensate.
Tau should get their nicassar, or guevesa psykers, or some new alien race that look like squids or something.
Necrons should be like dwarfs. Sure, they don't get psychic powers, but they sure as hell aren't going to let you have any either.
Dark Eldar are a bit trickier to design. They shouldn't be like necrons, but they shouldn't get psychics anyway, because the last thing a race hiding from demons wants is to bring what is basically a lighthouse in the warp with them.
Maybe they should have some ability or item that doesn't stop psychic powers, but forces perils instead.
The idea being that they have experience in directing demons away from them to attack something else.
I disagree it's fine. Vs eldar - they are putting doom an a decent target at the minimum - likely the exact target they want with a 22" move on a bike seer. It's reasonable that you wont even be able to deny - because all they have to do is put their doom target between your psyker and themselves and guess what - you can't deny them.
Solution - your psyker out front...Okay - now shinning spears come in and assault your psyker from their deployment zone turn 1. Plus buff their unit outside of deny range - then move in any kill your psyker.
IMO - deny probably just need to be board with with a bonus for being within 18" or 12" kind of how a psychic hood works.
There are ofc a lot of issues with eldar. 22" moves is too much for units that can act as normal afterwards. There is literally 0 counter other than having 80 plus bodies filling you DZ so they have no place to land after a 44 inch move with quicken.
The issue I have with changing the range is as you say bike sears give no care even if it was 12inch as its still a point and delete the target regardless.
Atleast changing it to craftworld would prevent some of the worst abuses of DOOM plus haywire or DOOM plus poison. They just don't feel like that interaction was considered.
bananathug wrote: Please let them nerf doom to only be cast ON <CRAFTWORLD> UNIT. ALLOW THAT UNIT TO RE-ROLL FAILED WOUND ROLLS.
That's not how Doom has worked or should work.
But DOOM shouldn't be as easy to cast for the insane buff it currently gives to all Aeldari shooting.
It needs changed to either be alot harder to cast or
If manifested, choose an enemy unit within 24" of the psyker. You can re-roll failed wound rolls againt that unit for friendly craftworld units until your next Psychic phase.
The problem is its range - 24" is too high for a spell that powerful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The psychic phase is fine. Its just that every army should have something to do in the psychic phase, and the ones who can't should get strong anti-psy to compensate.
Tau should get their nicassar, or guevesa psykers, or some new alien race that look like squids or something.
Necrons should be like dwarfs. Sure, they don't get psychic powers, but they sure as hell aren't going to let you have any either.
Dark Eldar are a bit trickier to design. They shouldn't be like necrons, but they shouldn't get psychics anyway, because the last thing a race hiding from demons wants is to bring what is basically a lighthouse in the warp with them.
Maybe they should have some ability or item that doesn't stop psychic powers, but forces perils instead.
The idea being that they have experience in directing demons away from them to attack something else.
I disagree it's fine. Vs eldar - they are putting doom an a decent target at the minimum - likely the exact target they want with a 22" move on a bike seer. It's reasonable that you wont even be able to deny - because all they have to do is put their doom target between your psyker and themselves and guess what - you can't deny them.
Solution - your psyker out front...Okay - now shinning spears come in and assault your psyker from their deployment zone turn 1. Plus buff their unit outside of deny range - then move in any kill your psyker.
IMO - deny probably just need to be board with with a bonus for being within 18" or 12" kind of how a psychic hood works.
There are ofc a lot of issues with eldar. 22" moves is too much for units that can act as normal afterwards. There is literally 0 counter other than having 80 plus bodies filling you DZ so they have no place to land after a 44 inch move with quicken.
The issue I have with changing the range is as you say bike sears give no care even if it was 12inch as its still a point and delete the target regardless.
Atleast changing it to craftworld would prevent some of the worst abuses of DOOM plus haywire or DOOM plus poison. They just don't feel like that interaction was considered.
Or the playtesters didn't find it as broken as it became in the hands of a wider player community.
bananathug wrote: Please let them nerf doom to only be cast ON <CRAFTWORLD> UNIT. ALLOW THAT UNIT TO RE-ROLL FAILED WOUND ROLLS.
That's not how Doom has worked or should work.
But DOOM shouldn't be as easy to cast for the insane buff it currently gives to all Aeldari shooting.
It needs changed to either be alot harder to cast or
If manifested, choose an enemy unit within 24" of the psyker. You can re-roll failed wound rolls againt that unit for friendly craftworld units until your next Psychic phase.
The problem is its range - 24" is too high for a spell that powerful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The psychic phase is fine. Its just that every army should have something to do in the psychic phase, and the ones who can't should get strong anti-psy to compensate.
Tau should get their nicassar, or guevesa psykers, or some new alien race that look like squids or something.
Necrons should be like dwarfs. Sure, they don't get psychic powers, but they sure as hell aren't going to let you have any either.
Dark Eldar are a bit trickier to design. They shouldn't be like necrons, but they shouldn't get psychics anyway, because the last thing a race hiding from demons wants is to bring what is basically a lighthouse in the warp with them.
Maybe they should have some ability or item that doesn't stop psychic powers, but forces perils instead.
The idea being that they have experience in directing demons away from them to attack something else.
I disagree it's fine. Vs eldar - they are putting doom an a decent target at the minimum - likely the exact target they want with a 22" move on a bike seer. It's reasonable that you wont even be able to deny - because all they have to do is put their doom target between your psyker and themselves and guess what - you can't deny them.
Solution - your psyker out front...Okay - now shinning spears come in and assault your psyker from their deployment zone turn 1. Plus buff their unit outside of deny range - then move in any kill your psyker.
IMO - deny probably just need to be board with with a bonus for being within 18" or 12" kind of how a psychic hood works.
There are ofc a lot of issues with eldar. 22" moves is too much for units that can act as normal afterwards. There is literally 0 counter other than having 80 plus bodies filling you DZ so they have no place to land after a 44 inch move with quicken.
The issue I have with changing the range is as you say bike sears give no care even if it was 12inch as its still a point and delete the target regardless.
Atleast changing it to craftworld would prevent some of the worst abuses of DOOM plus haywire or DOOM plus poison. They just don't feel like that interaction was considered.
I don't think a lot of things are considered. Doom Haywire is just really effective against things that are otherwise indestructible (which is just about a big a problem as doom haywire - too many invo saves). Is it really any worse than doom buffing dark reapers though? Doom is actually amazing with bladestorm stuff too - probably better than it is with poison.
I feel like nerfing haywire itself would work better. say vs vehicals - instead of rolling to wound - on a 4+ you take 1 mortal wound and on a 6 d3. That way Doom wouldn't affect it.
Then say doom has a casting range of 18" or 12". So at least you have a chance to deny it.
Or make an general game rule that allows you to deny at any range. Or Deny range is determined by the target of the spell. So if a unit of spears was getting buffs from a farseer 30 inches away - you could deny them because their fortune target is 18" away from your psyker.
bananathug wrote: Please let them nerf doom to only be cast ON <CRAFTWORLD> UNIT. ALLOW THAT UNIT TO RE-ROLL FAILED WOUND ROLLS.
That's not how Doom has worked or should work.
But DOOM shouldn't be as easy to cast for the insane buff it currently gives to all Aeldari shooting.
It needs changed to either be alot harder to cast or
If manifested, choose an enemy unit within 24" of the psyker. You can re-roll failed wound rolls againt that unit for friendly craftworld units until your next Psychic phase.
The problem is its range - 24" is too high for a spell that powerful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The psychic phase is fine. Its just that every army should have something to do in the psychic phase, and the ones who can't should get strong anti-psy to compensate.
Tau should get their nicassar, or guevesa psykers, or some new alien race that look like squids or something.
Necrons should be like dwarfs. Sure, they don't get psychic powers, but they sure as hell aren't going to let you have any either.
Dark Eldar are a bit trickier to design. They shouldn't be like necrons, but they shouldn't get psychics anyway, because the last thing a race hiding from demons wants is to bring what is basically a lighthouse in the warp with them.
Maybe they should have some ability or item that doesn't stop psychic powers, but forces perils instead.
The idea being that they have experience in directing demons away from them to attack something else.
I disagree it's fine. Vs eldar - they are putting doom an a decent target at the minimum - likely the exact target they want with a 22" move on a bike seer. It's reasonable that you wont even be able to deny - because all they have to do is put their doom target between your psyker and themselves and guess what - you can't deny them.
Solution - your psyker out front...Okay - now shinning spears come in and assault your psyker from their deployment zone turn 1. Plus buff their unit outside of deny range - then move in any kill your psyker.
IMO - deny probably just need to be board with with a bonus for being within 18" or 12" kind of how a psychic hood works.
There are ofc a lot of issues with eldar. 22" moves is too much for units that can act as normal afterwards. There is literally 0 counter other than having 80 plus bodies filling you DZ so they have no place to land after a 44 inch move with quicken.
The issue I have with changing the range is as you say bike sears give no care even if it was 12inch as its still a point and delete the target regardless.
Atleast changing it to craftworld would prevent some of the worst abuses of DOOM plus haywire or DOOM plus poison. They just don't feel like that interaction was considered.
Or the playtesters didn't find it as broken as it became in the hands of a wider player community.
"Play-testers"
The same ones that thought Dev Cents should be 80 points base? Those play testers? I don't think these play testers exist.
how about the psychic phase stops being called the psychic phase, and we add rules for tau tech warfare, sob and templar prayers etc With different type of mechanics or synergies with the armies. That could even be a help for mono armies. A sob prayer phase could be more efficient if the whole army is made out of only "holy" detachments.
There are ofc a lot of issues with eldar. 22" moves is too much for units that can act as normal afterwards. There is literally 0 counter other than having 80 plus bodies filling you DZ so they have no place to land after a 44 inch move with quicken.
[/spoiler]The issue I have with changing the range is as you say bike sears give no care even if it was 12inch as its still a point and delete the target regardless.
Atleast changing it to craftworld would prevent some of the worst abuses of DOOM plus haywire or DOOM plus poison. They just don't feel like that interaction was considered.
Or the playtesters didn't find it as broken as it became in the hands of a wider player community.
but a testers job is to exactly to test for the broken stuff. you first check what blows up the engine, and not check what happens if you go safe with it.
bananathug wrote: Please let them nerf doom to only be cast ON <CRAFTWORLD> UNIT. ALLOW THAT UNIT TO RE-ROLL FAILED WOUND ROLLS.
That's not how Doom has worked or should work.
But DOOM shouldn't be as easy to cast for the insane buff it currently gives to all Aeldari shooting.
It needs changed to either be alot harder to cast or
If manifested, choose an enemy unit within 24" of the psyker. You can re-roll failed wound rolls againt that unit for friendly craftworld units until your next Psychic phase.
The problem is its range - 24" is too high for a spell that powerful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The psychic phase is fine. Its just that every army should have something to do in the psychic phase, and the ones who can't should get strong anti-psy to compensate.
Tau should get their nicassar, or guevesa psykers, or some new alien race that look like squids or something.
Necrons should be like dwarfs. Sure, they don't get psychic powers, but they sure as hell aren't going to let you have any either.
Dark Eldar are a bit trickier to design. They shouldn't be like necrons, but they shouldn't get psychics anyway, because the last thing a race hiding from demons wants is to bring what is basically a lighthouse in the warp with them.
Maybe they should have some ability or item that doesn't stop psychic powers, but forces perils instead.
The idea being that they have experience in directing demons away from them to attack something else.
I disagree it's fine. Vs eldar - they are putting doom an a decent target at the minimum - likely the exact target they want with a 22" move on a bike seer. It's reasonable that you wont even be able to deny - because all they have to do is put their doom target between your psyker and themselves and guess what - you can't deny them.
Solution - your psyker out front...Okay - now shinning spears come in and assault your psyker from their deployment zone turn 1. Plus buff their unit outside of deny range - then move in any kill your psyker.
IMO - deny probably just need to be board with with a bonus for being within 18" or 12" kind of how a psychic hood works.
There are ofc a lot of issues with eldar. 22" moves is too much for units that can act as normal afterwards. There is literally 0 counter other than having 80 plus bodies filling you DZ so they have no place to land after a 44 inch move with quicken.
The issue I have with changing the range is as you say bike sears give no care even if it was 12inch as its still a point and delete the target regardless.
Atleast changing it to craftworld would prevent some of the worst abuses of DOOM plus haywire or DOOM plus poison. They just don't feel like that interaction was considered.
I don't think a lot of things are considered. Doom Haywire is just really effective against things that are otherwise indestructible (which is just about a big a problem as doom haywire - too many invo saves). Is it really any worse than doom buffing dark reapers though? Doom is actually amazing with bladestorm stuff too - probably better than it is with poison.
I feel like nerfing haywire itself would work better. say vs vehicals - instead of rolling to wound - on a 4+ you take 1 mortal wound and on a 6 d3. That way Doom wouldn't affect it.
Then say doom has a casting range of 18" or 12". So at least you have a chance to deny it.
Or make an general game rule that allows you to deny at any range. Or Deny range is determined by the target of the spell. So if a unit of spears was getting buffs from a farseer 30 inches away - you could deny them because their fortune target is 18" away from your psyker.
bananathug wrote: Please let them nerf doom to only be cast ON <CRAFTWORLD> UNIT. ALLOW THAT UNIT TO RE-ROLL FAILED WOUND ROLLS.
That's not how Doom has worked or should work.
But DOOM shouldn't be as easy to cast for the insane buff it currently gives to all Aeldari shooting.
It needs changed to either be alot harder to cast or
If manifested, choose an enemy unit within 24" of the psyker. You can re-roll failed wound rolls againt that unit for friendly craftworld units until your next Psychic phase.
The problem is its range - 24" is too high for a spell that powerful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The psychic phase is fine. Its just that every army should have something to do in the psychic phase, and the ones who can't should get strong anti-psy to compensate.
Tau should get their nicassar, or guevesa psykers, or some new alien race that look like squids or something.
Necrons should be like dwarfs. Sure, they don't get psychic powers, but they sure as hell aren't going to let you have any either.
Dark Eldar are a bit trickier to design. They shouldn't be like necrons, but they shouldn't get psychics anyway, because the last thing a race hiding from demons wants is to bring what is basically a lighthouse in the warp with them.
Maybe they should have some ability or item that doesn't stop psychic powers, but forces perils instead.
The idea being that they have experience in directing demons away from them to attack something else.
I disagree it's fine. Vs eldar - they are putting doom an a decent target at the minimum - likely the exact target they want with a 22" move on a bike seer. It's reasonable that you wont even be able to deny - because all they have to do is put their doom target between your psyker and themselves and guess what - you can't deny them.
Solution - your psyker out front...Okay - now shinning spears come in and assault your psyker from their deployment zone turn 1. Plus buff their unit outside of deny range - then move in any kill your psyker.
IMO - deny probably just need to be board with with a bonus for being within 18" or 12" kind of how a psychic hood works.
There are ofc a lot of issues with eldar. 22" moves is too much for units that can act as normal afterwards. There is literally 0 counter other than having 80 plus bodies filling you DZ so they have no place to land after a 44 inch move with quicken.
The issue I have with changing the range is as you say bike sears give no care even if it was 12inch as its still a point and delete the target regardless.
Atleast changing it to craftworld would prevent some of the worst abuses of DOOM plus haywire or DOOM plus poison. They just don't feel like that interaction was considered.
Or the playtesters didn't find it as broken as it became in the hands of a wider player community.
"Play-testers"
The same ones that thought Dev Cents should be 80 points base? Those play testers? I don't think these play testers exist.
Reese from Frontline gaming is one of the playtesters, and when you flip open a codex they mention who helped playtest the book.
That said, the playtesters are looking to catch the most broken combos in the books, so units being overpriced is more of a studio issues. And even Reese has mentioned he gets caught by surprise by some of the combos players have found if only because the playtesting team is maybe a dozen people while thousands are combing over these books and looking to create new combos. With only a year into the game we've also seen GW tackle a lot of major issues (with middling results depending on who you ask) that the game has and even bring the points down on some units. But at the end of the day a playtester can only make recommendations, it's the dev team that is responsible for making it actually happen, and I'm willing to bet that when it comes to what is weak, that hasn't been as big of a concern as the way things like alpha strike or 2" charges from atop of buildings have been.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: but a testers job is to exactly to test for the broken stuff. you first check what blows up the engine, and not check what happens if you go safe with it.
And a dozen people (give or take depending on the specific team) will never suss out every problem or possible way to break the game. So yes, they try to break the game and then point out how they could break it, but even that could lead to changes that result in new ways to break the game. Remember, every step of this game's production is handled by people and we're all fallible.
And a dozen people (give or take depending on the specific team) will never suss out every problem or possible way to break the game. So yes, they try to break the game and then point out how they could break it, but even that could lead to changes that result in new ways to break the game. Remember, every step of this game's production is handled by people and we're all fallible.
I am one noob, and I noticed that soul bursting dark reapers at the points cost they had was a problem. How many tests does one need to notice that? But then again if I remember right that Reece guy is the one that told all GK players that they don't know how to play their army, that GK are fine, even powerful and if they need any changes it is nerfs because they are too good. And then proceded to let stuff like dark reaper soul bursts, or super cheap normal smite units pass.
And a dozen people (give or take depending on the specific team) will never suss out every problem or possible way to break the game. So yes, they try to break the game and then point out how they could break it, but even that could lead to changes that result in new ways to break the game. Remember, every step of this game's production is handled by people and we're all fallible.
I am one noob, and I noticed that soul bursting dark reapers at the points cost they had was a problem. How many tests does one need to notice that? But then again if I remember right that Reece guy is the one that told all GK players that they don't know how to play their army, that GK are fine, even powerful and if they need any changes it is nerfs because they are too good. And then proceded to let stuff like dark reaper soul bursts, or super cheap normal smite units pass.
Again, final choice on actually acting on playtester feedback is in the studio's hands. You can't tout the end result as solely being the fault of a team who don't make the final changes.
And if that that is true, either Reese is a lot more arrogant than I knew, or he knows something about how the army is supposed to work we have noticed, or both. I don't know. I've got no skin in that game to stress over it honestly.
I think that you people are underestimating what it means to reach balance in a game with so many possible variables and interactions.
Just to give you an idea though, think about that other game with 1000 times more budget than this one, about the same age.
It has the same problems as far as list/deck building goes and are tackling it with an army of professionist and by gathering an amount of data every week that is greater than the whole history of 40K games ever played.
Yet what was the solution they found?" Screw balance! We are going to balance only around the strongest cards and the strongest comboes." Oh and even like this they had to cut up the format in tiers,else it was impossible to balance.
Oh and even like this, they keep breaking formats every time they introduce new cards!
Since MtG is a paragon for what it means to manage a game/hobby like a pro, i wouldn't call the decent results that GW is getting as amateurish. They have one tiny fraction of the resources of MtG, with a complessity that is smaller but not THAT smaller, and yet they are a doing a better work than wizard.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (And a MUCH better work than Privater Press with WM/H, which only appeared as balanced initially, but only because they took the same stance as MtG "Everything is fine as long as every faction has something equally broken, internal balance is for losers")
The results aren't decent. There are many problems with the game that have existed since the beginning of the game. Nothing has be done to:
Limit allies
Balance points on obviously OP units (Infantry/spears/ect) - not to mention magic is by nature - horribly balanced with 95% of cards being unplayable.
Fix CP sharing and generation.
It is extremely inept in fact. With most balancing changing ether:
Fixing issues the wrong way (they don't actaully fix the problem - or make armies that wern't problematic unplayable(Grey knights for example) Or fix a problem that isn't even there (smite is not a problem - 30 point smiters were a problem).
No one wants to play MTG in 40k - they all their options to be playable. If that is the direction they are going. 40k will always be a joke.
Xenomancers wrote: The results aren't decent. There are many problems with the game that have existed since the beginning of the game. Nothing has be done to:
Limit allies
Balance points on obviously OP units (Infantry/spears/ect) - not to mention magic is by nature - horribly balanced with 95% of cards being unplayable.
Fix CP sharing and generation.
It is extremely inept in fact. With most balancing changing ether:
Fixing issues the wrong way (they don't actaully fix the problem - or make armies that wern't problematic unplayable(Grey knights for example) Or fix a problem that isn't even there (smite is not a problem - 30 point smiters were a problem).
No one wants to play MTG in 40k - they all their options to be playable. If that is the direction they are going. 40k will always be a joke.
Exactly, MtG is horribly balanced, and to reach that horrible balance it uses a staff bigger than the whole GW design team probably. But that is the "Industry standard", so on what basis can we tell that GW is not good at playtesting when the other examples existent (PP and Wizard, the other mini games simply do not have this number of factions/models) are doing worse than GW? Keep in mind that like you said, GW has an harder task than MtG, since they actually need to preserve internal balance.
Also, you really have no idea what you are talking about if you think that the only problem with smite where the 30 point psykers. Even with this huge nerf to smite spam, we STILL have smite spam lists (zoan spam and TS smiters), and they work really well.
Without the smite rule, smite spam would be the current meta, knights would actually be considered highly underpowered, especially Gallants who can't stay behind a screen. Elite wounds would be even less useful than now.
Lemondish wrote: There's no value in stringing up a community member over perceived play test slights. Take that gak elsewhere.
While they may not be on topic for this thread, I don't think his own public statements are really 'perceived' so much 'his public statements'.
Since he is the main villain in the conspiracy theories that many on this forum get off on. Anything he says is warped to re-enforce the perception that some armies are a persecuted minority. So Lemonondish is correct.
I am going to start off and say that Craftworlds shouldn't be balanced with Ynnari in mind and Ynnari should get its own point costs for each unit they can use as to balance their own damn faction. Army traits should also cost points. I am tired of my Saim-hann army being dragged to hell because Ynnari is too strong and Alaitoc are strong. If they keep balancing Craftworlds in that way then everyone has to be Ynnari/Alaitoc just to be able to play.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still perfectly fine with seeing a large number of low priced units (Infantry Squads, Fire Warriors, Ork Boyz if codex buffs them at all, Kabalites, Skitarii) go up a point, but the argument here seems to be specifically nerf the faction because the subfaction has the issue.
Exactly. -1 to hit abilities that are army wide should not exist. A completely different faction that takes another faction's point costs should not exist.
But DOOM shouldn't be as easy to cast for the insane buff it currently gives to all Aeldari shooting.
It's at average as its psychic value is 7. I can't tell how often that roll has failed and that is including rerolls. Too be fair I wouldn't mind Doom being limited to its faction only, ie. only Craftworld units get to use its reroll power and not Drukhari, Ynnari and Harlequins. This would stop the seer allying you are seeing now. Looking at last NOVA it would effectively mean no Craftworlds in the top 10 as most of them are taken for their psychic boost to other factions.
The psychic phase is fine. Its just that every army should have something to do in the psychic phase, and the ones who can't should get strong anti-psy to compensate.
Every army should have some form of countering in my mind as well. Necrons are an advanced army so why haven't they found technological ways to counter psychic powers. I wouldn't find it out of place to allow Crypteks to counter psychic powers. Same goes for Drukhari, as an advanced race that forbids psychic powers I feel like they should have a unit capable of blocking psychic powers(and detecting psykers fluffwise so they can kill them for their transgressions).
Relics SHOULD cost points
Definitely. Nothing should be free due to the inherent imbalance of free traits, warlord abilities, and relics.
-1 army traits are not wrong per se, they can be made to work.
The idea behind them is fine, they are a powerful defense trait against a certain type of attacks. Problem is that that "Certain type of attacks", right now are the majority of them, so those traits are overperforming. If those traits were changed to work at 24" range for example, there would be a much more meaningful choice to select them. Right now with 12", even those lists that don't gunline but try to close distances are affected by it. Yeah, i feel that they should be changed to 24", then they would be fine.
Necrons have psychic defense, the problem is that it's really bad. Gloom prisms are attached to a unit you wouldn't otherwise take and give you one deny with no way to make the roll more reliable.
Arachnofiend wrote: Necrons have psychic defense, the problem is that it's really bad. Gloom prisms are attached to a unit you wouldn't otherwise take and give you one deny with no way to make the roll more reliable.
The other is a warlord trait.
Its not that Necrons don't have psy-defense, its just that its way worse than it should be. I mean, they are a race that fought the Old Ones and won. They should have way better defensive options than they do now.
The Necron psychic defense was always bad and this will not change I guess.
The problem for the Necrons is that the psychic powers have become deadlier, especially those which inflict mortal wounds.
Arachnofiend wrote: Necrons have psychic defense, the problem is that it's really bad. Gloom prisms are attached to a unit you wouldn't otherwise take and give you one deny with no way to make the roll more reliable.
The other is a warlord trait.
Its not that Necrons don't have psy-defense, its just that its way worse than it should be. I mean, they are a race that fought the Old Ones and won. They should have way better defensive options than they do now.
Well they vritually destroyed by the Old Ones and had to sell their souls ot the C'tan to survive and eventually win..
They have some defences (usually fixed) but the Psyker and the Daemon are a potent weapon against the Necron - the latter destroying Tomb Worlds...
Arachnofiend wrote: Necrons have psychic defense, the problem is that it's really bad. Gloom prisms are attached to a unit you wouldn't otherwise take and give you one deny with no way to make the roll more reliable.
The other is a warlord trait.
Its not that Necrons don't have psy-defense, its just that its way worse than it should be. I mean, they are a race that fought the Old Ones and won. They should have way better defensive options than they do now.
Well they vritually destroyed by the Old Ones and had to sell their souls ot the C'tan to survive and eventually win..
They have some defences (usually fixed) but the Psyker and the Daemon are a potent weapon against the Necron - the latter destroying Tomb Worlds...
They still won though in the end though. Its likely that they didn't know about the Old One's psy-powers before, but when round 2 came along they had ways to deal with it. And you'd think that a race who's primarily threat were psykers and demons would specialize in developing counter measures. That's like arms race 101.
Arachnofiend wrote: Necrons have psychic defense, the problem is that it's really bad. Gloom prisms are attached to a unit you wouldn't otherwise take and give you one deny with no way to make the roll more reliable.
The other is a warlord trait.
Its not that Necrons don't have psy-defense, its just that its way worse than it should be. I mean, they are a race that fought the Old Ones and won. They should have way better defensive options than they do now.
Well they vritually destroyed by the Old Ones and had to sell their souls ot the C'tan to survive and eventually win..
They have some defences (usually fixed) but the Psyker and the Daemon are a potent weapon against the Necron - the latter destroying Tomb Worlds...
They still won though in the end though. Its likely that they didn't know about the Old One's psy-powers before, but when round 2 came along they had ways to deal with it. And you'd think that a race who's primarily threat were psykers and demons would specialize in developing counter measures. That's like arms race 101.
Also I don't feel lore is a justification for this kind of thing. The game needs a semblance of balance and counter play for every matchup, regardless of how that matchup would go down in the lore.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Same reason I think rules like 'Death to the False Emperor' are garbage incidentally. An army shouldn't get a significant advantage in specific matchups which isn't reciprocated.
Spoletta wrote: I think that you people are underestimating what it means to reach balance in a game with so many possible variables and interactions.
This comes down to a question of what balance is.
You can go for a situation where any 2000 points should approximately equal any other 2000 points - which is highly unlikely without having every unit be the same - or you have a system where there is a meta and the meta sort of keeps things honest.
So in say MTG you can try to play the meta. If control is strong right now, you can assume it will be popular at any tournaments, and therefore build an anti-control deck. You hope to run into control decks and you have a high chance of winning.
40k has a meta, but its never really been rock/paper/scissors. Instead its tier lists of power. You don't really have aggro, or control. You have mathematically good, and mathematically bad.
Maybe someone can disagree with me - but I don't think there is a counter-list to Imperial Soup. Or Eldar Soup. Or (moving down a little) even Chaos Soup, Tau or mono IG (beyond perhaps those two lists previously mentioned). These are just objectively better than the alternatives. You get more power for your points, so you push the odds of winning in your favour. This is pretty much how every edition has gone. This tier list changes every time GW changes the game (adding new models, changing old rules) but its still there. Its a problem to solve - the meta acts as a gatekeeper (thy must kill a 3++ Castellan to win a tournament) rather than something encouraging counter picks and evolution.
With that in mind a system where every codex has a power build would probably be balanced enough. Yes, like Warmachine it might mean internal balance is shot, and every Tyranid list looks like X, every Necron list looks like Y etc - but that surely beats every Necron list being "did not appear in this tournament".
In terms of internal balance - basic maths and some iteration (mainly to take into account movement abilities) could get most units to within a rough power range. You don't need to consider a million possible army combinations, because most units do not buff any other by their presence and are available as strict like for like replacements. If they are not good on paper its highly unlikely they will be good on the table.
My concept of balance is "Any list built with a rationale has decent chances to compete".
Honestly it's not like we are far from that. Souping right now is covering a situation that isn't half bad as far as general balance goes. Without souping we would see a lot of different lists in the competition.
The meta top dogs would probably be DE, IG and CWE, but wouldn't be at unreachable levels for other factions.
Sure, they 'won'. Nothing says winning like going to hide for millions of years...
Are there still old ones? No? Then they won. They lost against the Eldar though. Turns out wasting time and resources fighting gods when the creations of your dead enemy are still alive is a really bad idea.
First time they fought the Old Ones they lost Then they made a pact with the C'tan and became machines. They fought the Old Ones again. This time they won and hunted them to extinction, forcing the Old One's creations to go underground. Then they reigned the galaxy for a bit, during which time the C'tan began to fight amongst themselves. Then the Necrons turned on the C'tan, and right after they enslaved them the Eldar, which have been gathering their forces, saw their chance and attacked the necrons. The necrons went into hibernation to recover.
The necrons won the war against the Old Ones. They even call it a victory in the codex.
ClockworkZion wrote: No, the psychic phase is fine in practice and is better than the old "at the start of ..." powers we had. Putting the powers in a chart is fine too, the thing I see is that we really should be paying points for powers. But by that logic, warlord traits should cost points too. And so should relics. And so should all wargear given to a model.
And then we basically end up going back to 3rd edition's means of doing things.
take me home, country road. Points for powers makesenss because some powers are objectively worse than others. Warlord traits could be free I suppose if there weren’t obvious winner and loser traits, but relics should also cost points.
I don't think relics should go back to points for pretty much every reason in this thread the GW struggles to keep up with balanace in a competitive meta. Adding points won't change some relics better than others. Their solution of them being has the same effect that certain relics will be chosen over others.
Just look at 7th if you need an example of horrible relic pointing. The black legion relics went for upwards of 75-100pts for one use, horrible, relics.
buddha wrote: I don't think relics should go back to points for pretty much every reason in this thread the GW struggles to keep up with balanace in a competitive meta. Adding points won't change some relics better than others. Their solution of them being has the same effect that certain relics will be chosen over others.
Just look at 7th if you need an example of horrible relic pointing. The black legion relics went for upwards of 75-100pts for one use, horrible, relics.
So because GW is bad at assigning point values you shouldn't add point values to them at all leaving ultimate bad value of them all(free) instead? Yep makes sense...
Charging points for Relics or free Relics is a moot point discussion because you'll always end up with 1 or 2 that are good, and the rest being useless by comparison. When was the last time you saw a DG list use the Plague Skull on a character? Imagine charging 25 points for that.. lol
They are getting better at it overall compared to previous editions to be fair
Spoletta wrote: My concept of balance is "Any list built with a rationale has decent chances to compete".
Honestly it's not like we are far from that. Souping right now is covering a situation that isn't half bad as far as general balance goes. Without souping we would see a lot of different lists in the competition.
The meta top dogs would probably be DE, IG and CWE, but wouldn't be at unreachable levels for other factions.
I'd rather see Tau, Orks and Necrons continue to get bent over (or buffed) rather than make most of the Imperium and Chaos sub factions get put into the garbage bin by killing soup. The current meta at least has top table representation from Eldar, Chaos, Imperium and Nids, even if they're all the souped versions of those factions.
Mono CWE and DE would run absolutely wild without Chaos and Imperium soup to keep them in check as mono Guard can't even touch Alaitoc without doing silly gimmick 13 Hellhounds gak and mono-marines can't stand up to any flavor of Eldar.
NurglesR0T wrote: Charging points for Relics or free Relics is a moot point discussion because you'll always end up with 1 or 2 that are good, and the rest being useless by comparison. When was the last time you saw a DG list use the Plague Skull on a character? Imagine charging 25 points for that.. lol
They are getting better at it overall compared to previous editions to be fair
Maybe if the other relics would cost more than 25 pts you would have more reason to take it. But when it's free there's no point in not taking the best one possible.
Why would you take grot if you could get ork boy for same price?
NurglesR0T wrote: Charging points for Relics or free Relics is a moot point discussion because you'll always end up with 1 or 2 that are good, and the rest being useless by comparison. When was the last time you saw a DG list use the Plague Skull on a character? Imagine charging 25 points for that.. lol
They are getting better at it overall compared to previous editions to be fair
But GW now adjusts points bi-annually, so they could address some relics being better than others by addressing points. And sure, GW is bad at assigning points, but then you can apply the same logic to whole game and just play without points altogether like in early AOS...
Marmatag wrote: Death Hex, Doom, Warp Time, Word of the Phoenix - none of these powers should exist.
Death hex and Warptime are kinda hard to pull off every time. Also, I've run into situations where DH is useless, and Warptime is only really good in the first couple of turns.
Marmatag wrote: Death Hex, Doom, Warp Time, Word of the Phoenix - none of these powers should exist.
Death hex and Warptime are kinda hard to pull off every time. Also, I've run into situations where DH is useless, and Warptime is only really good in the first couple of turns.
Warp Time is also significantly less powerful with the big FAQ. Not being able to Warp Time from deep strike lowers it's utility a lot. Still good, but I think it's in an ok place now. And I never play chaos, my main opponent does hah!
Well, I would not be fond of paying for relics or psychic powers.
I'd keep the game as simple as possible.
Technically, one could penalize OP relics or powers if any.
Spoletta wrote: My concept of balance is "Any list built with a rationale has decent chances to compete".
Honestly it's not like we are far from that. Souping right now is covering a situation that isn't half bad as far as general balance goes. Without souping we would see a lot of different lists in the competition.
The meta top dogs would probably be DE, IG and CWE, but wouldn't be at unreachable levels for other factions.
I'd rather see Tau, Orks and Necrons continue to get bent over (or buffed) rather than make most of the Imperium and Chaos sub factions get put into the garbage bin by killing soup. The current meta at least has top table representation from Eldar, Chaos, Imperium and Nids, even if they're all the souped versions of those factions.
Mono CWE and DE would run absolutely wild without Chaos and Imperium soup to keep them in check as mono Guard can't even touch Alaitoc without doing silly gimmick 13 Hellhounds gak and mono-marines can't stand up to any flavor of Eldar.
CWE and DE did not receive anything more since the custodes and knight codici, i.e. before the era of soups.
They were not destroying the meta before imperial soups, and will not destroy it if you remove imperial soups. In particular since at the same time you are also hurting quite badly the aeldari soups, which indeed are dangerous. Sure they had the top win percentage before soups, but a reasonable one, they were the top contenders, not the only contenders.
In any case between FAQ and CA, a certain number of point nerfs will be given to DE, that is for sure.
Ummm DEdef got huge boost with codex. And what you mean by "before era of soups" with regards of custodes and knights? Soup was all well and good before those codexes came out. Most powerful imperium list was soup even before those two. soup by it's very nature is always more powerful than non-soup so if you can soup just do it.
tneva82 wrote: Ummm DEdef got huge boost with codex. And what you mean by "before era of soups" with regards of custodes and knights? Soup was all well and good before those codexes came out. Most powerful imperium list was soup even before those two. soup by it's very nature is always more powerful than non-soup so if you can soup just do it.
Yes, there were soups, but they were at the level of the top mono codex builds. It's with custodes and knights that soups became the alpha and the omega.
My problem with Psychic powers is, as Arachnofiend said, how black or white they are.
I would prefer for all Psychic powers to be made much less powerfull but be able to use them multiple times with a -1 to cast like Smite (For example, change the Chaos power of moving an extra time to something like +2" to move, advance and charge rolls). That way they can be a flexible tactical tool, and not a "Did I made my psychic power? Cool, I won"
Galas wrote: My problem with Psychic powers is, as Arachnofiend said, how black or white they are.
I would prefer for all Psychic powers to be made much less powerfull but be able to use them multiple times with a -1 to cast like Smite (For example, change the Chaos power of moving an extra time to something like +2" to move, advance and charge rolls). That way they can be a flexible tactical tool, and not a "Did I made my psychic power? Cool, I won"
Rather than that, why not just change the casting system to 3D6, perils on any double 1 or 6 (super perils on triples) and then adjust the cost of each power more accordingly to scale?
Galas wrote: My problem with Psychic powers is, as Arachnofiend said, how black or white they are.
I would prefer for all Psychic powers to be made much less powerfull but be able to use them multiple times with a -1 to cast like Smite (For example, change the Chaos power of moving an extra time to something like +2" to move, advance and charge rolls). That way they can be a flexible tactical tool, and not a "Did I made my psychic power? Cool, I won"
Yeah I can get on board with that. Move twice abilities very predictably dominate games.
Galas wrote: My problem with Psychic powers is, as Arachnofiend said, how black or white they are.
I would prefer for all Psychic powers to be made much less powerfull but be able to use them multiple times with a -1 to cast like Smite (For example, change the Chaos power of moving an extra time to something like +2" to move, advance and charge rolls). That way they can be a flexible tactical tool, and not a "Did I made my psychic power? Cool, I won"
Rather than that, why not just change the casting system to 3D6, perils on any double 1 or 6 (super perils on triples) and then adjust the cost of each power more accordingly to scale?
Because that does nothing to fix the brokenness of the powers? All it does is ad another hoop to jump through and lots of really power psykers just ignore perils anyways - or practically ignore it.
NurglesR0T wrote: Charging points for Relics or free Relics is a moot point discussion because you'll always end up with 1 or 2 that are good, and the rest being useless by comparison. When was the last time you saw a DG list use the Plague Skull on a character? Imagine charging 25 points for that.. lol
They are getting better at it overall compared to previous editions to be fair
Maybe if the other relics would cost more than 25 pts you would have more reason to take it. But when it's free there's no point in not taking the best one possible.
Why would you take grot if you could get ork boy for same price?
Exactly. I've NEVER seen that being used as an argument. It's the same reason Power Level is such a garbage system.
Plus one of the reasons lots of the relic weapons weren't taken was because of the old AP system. Compare the Spartean now to the old Spartean. The new one isn't terrible, but the issue is that it costs the same as Teeth of Terra and Shield Eternal, otherwise known as FREE.
An issue I ran into this weekend was the number of eldar (craftworld and harli) powers that didn't require LOS to work. As if they were not already powerful as feth to begin with being able to put them on any unit within 24" without worrying about LOS is just crazy.
I feel there are a ton of these small adjustments that could be made in the FAQ, tested and then rolled into the CA with major changes that the small ones couldn't fix (Necrons, marines, CP). I'm just not sure GW and I are playing the same game at this point.
Because that does nothing to fix the brokenness of the powers? All it does is ad another hoop to jump through and lots of really power psykers just ignore perils anyways - or practically ignore it.
But, it allows freedom. Sure, Doom might be completely busted. But, if it goes to a casting value of say, 12 on 3d6, at least it now presents somewhat of a challenge to get the power off, especially considering that (generally) you can only potentially re-roll 1 dice with CP (yes, Farseers can re-roll all dice once per phase, but if all powers increase in cost then it isn't as reliable to get the 2nd power off).
Likewise, if Jinx became an 11, or Miasma of Pestilence became an 11 etc etc.
By increasing the casting range from 2-12 to 3-18, it gives you more opportunity to make the "broken" powers harder to cast in the first place, whilst allowing you to potentially reliably cast some of the "weaker" powers.
2d6 is more than enough for that. A power that is cast on 8 is really difficult to cast, at 9 its a complete gamble and should be used only for really busted powers.
Because that does nothing to fix the brokenness of the powers? All it does is ad another hoop to jump through and lots of really power psykers just ignore perils anyways - or practically ignore it.
But, it allows freedom. Sure, Doom might be completely busted. But, if it goes to a casting value of say, 12 on 3d6, at least it now presents somewhat of a challenge to get the power off, especially considering that (generally) you can only potentially re-roll 1 dice with CP (yes, Farseers can re-roll all dice once per phase, but if all powers increase in cost then it isn't as reliable to get the 2nd power off).
Likewise, if Jinx became an 11, or Miasma of Pestilence became an 11 etc etc.
By increasing the casting range from 2-12 to 3-18, it gives you more opportunity to make the "broken" powers harder to cast in the first place, whilst allowing you to potentially reliably cast some of the "weaker" powers.
The trouble with moving from 2d6 to 3d6 is that the tendency for average rolls goes way up. The swing from 8 to 9, or 9 to 10, is greater than the swing on 2d6 from 6 to 7 or 7 to 8.
I don't think that 3d6 does anything 2d6 doesn't do for the most part. It allows you to make a spell a little harder to cast or a little easier. That doesn't seem to be the core of the problem.
The core of the problem is - the spell (doom) has too big a range. It prevents you from being able to deny with a range that high. Nor does the psyker have to expose itself to damage next turn to really use it.
I think making it an 8 to cast with a reduced cast range to 18" would make a BIG difference.
To be fair there previous codex was a huge pile of gak so getting them anywhere up would was always going to be a huge boost.
As I've mentioned before I am looking forward to see how GW addresses soup and CP because those two things will tell us better how good any of the codexes are. If the playtesters were mostly going for monobuilds I could easily see how skewed that might have become when people start factoring in all the ally possibilities.
GW doesn't have to change the name to slip the date. Just because it was referred to as the September FAQ doesn't provide any guarantee that it will be out this week.
beir wrote: GW doesn't have to change the name to slip the date. Just because it was referred to as the September FAQ doesn't provide any guarantee that it will be out this week.
Oh absolutely, whatever they're calling it I fully expect it to be October before we see it! Though I'll be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong
beir wrote: GW doesn't have to change the name to slip the date. Just because it was referred to as the September FAQ doesn't provide any guarantee that it will be out this week.
Oh absolutely, whatever they're calling it I fully expect it to be October before we see it! Though I'll be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong
beir wrote: GW doesn't have to change the name to slip the date. Just because it was referred to as the September FAQ doesn't provide any guarantee that it will be out this week.
Oh absolutely, whatever they're calling it I fully expect it to be October before we see it! Though I'll be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong
Or maybe not so pleasantly.
If Guilliman goes up in price again - I quit.
So far he's gained points at every opportunity, I wouldn't rule it out though maybe it's been already written into CA anyway.
If they point bump Guiliman again I'll laugh my butt off. At that point they are really just kicking a corpse. Insert the "Stop it he's already dead" Simpsons meme.
BaconCatBug wrote: I genuinely can't tell if it's incompetence (Rules writers being clueless) or malice (Deliberately under-costed to bamboozle you into buying it).
I think they went from malice in 7th to incompetence with 8th. Of course, they were also incompetent when they were trying malice, so it failed half of the time.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: If they point bump Guiliman again I'll laugh my butt off. At that point they are really just kicking a corpse. Insert the "Stop it he's already dead" Simpsons meme.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: If they point bump Guiliman again I'll laugh my butt off. At that point they are really just kicking a corpse. Insert the "Stop it he's already dead" Simpsons meme.
BaconCatBug wrote: I genuinely can't tell if it's incompetence (Rules writers being clueless) or malice (Deliberately under-costed to bamboozle you into buying it).
Or it's just really difficult to balance via points a model whose whole job is to make everything around him like 80% better.
I'm also not sure we can ascribe incompetence or malice as the reason for the reluctance to substantially change data sheets outside of a codex or edition release.
BaconCatBug wrote: I genuinely can't tell if it's incompetence (Rules writers being clueless) or malice (Deliberately under-costed to bamboozle you into buying it).
Or it's just really difficult to balance via points a model whose whole job is to make everything around him like 80% better.
I'm also not sure we can ascribe incompetence or malice as the reason for the reluctance to substantially change data sheets outside of a codex or edition release.
He seems easy to fix with just points, Give him a rule that people can only use him in game that are 3000pts or more and he is balanced in matched play, and he is fixed. All those people that want to use him in smaller games can play narrative or something like that.
BaconCatBug wrote: I genuinely can't tell if it's incompetence (Rules writers being clueless) or malice (Deliberately under-costed to bamboozle you into buying it).
Or it's just really difficult to balance via points a model whose whole job is to make everything around him like 80% better.
I'm also not sure we can ascribe incompetence or malice as the reason for the reluctance to substantially change data sheets outside of a codex or edition release.
He seems easy to fix with just points, Give him a rule that people can only use him in game that are 3000pts or more and he is balanced in matched play, and he is fixed. All those people that want to use him in smaller games can play narrative or something like that.
If you go that route though you also have to talk about Magnus and Mortarion, both of whom are substantially better than him but would have no arbitrary 3k+ only limit.
I don't really see why you are putting in a 3k limit. RG becomes better the bigger the game and the more stuff you can get into his reroll everything footprint.
Really he isn't obviously a competitive choice any more, he is just a mill stone round the neck of Codex Marines. I'd expect him to be fundamentally changed when they get a new codex, probably mid way through next year.
BaconCatBug wrote: I genuinely can't tell if it's incompetence (Rules writers being clueless) or malice (Deliberately under-costed to bamboozle you into buying it).
Or it's just really difficult to balance via points a model whose whole job is to make everything around him like 80% better.
I'm also not sure we can ascribe incompetence or malice as the reason for the reluctance to substantially change data sheets outside of a codex or edition release.
He seems easy to fix with just points, Give him a rule that people can only use him in game that are 3000pts or more and he is balanced in matched play, and he is fixed. All those people that want to use him in smaller games can play narrative or something like that.
If you go that route though you also have to talk about Magnus and Mortarion, both of whom are substantially better than him but would have no arbitrary 3k+ only limit.
Magnus and Mortarion are significantly better than Rowboat? What? Since when?
Tyel wrote: I don't really see why you are putting in a 3k limit. RG becomes better the bigger the game and the more stuff you can get into his reroll everything footprint.
Really he isn't obviously a competitive choice any more, he is just a mill stone round the neck of Codex Marines. I'd expect him to be fundamentally changed when they get a new codex, probably mid way through next year.
All games cap at 2k pts, so puting a 3000pts limit on him mean you will never see him at events, pick up games, you will maybe see him in those group games that seem to be popular in western stores, and the narrative players can use him, they are already crazy. At the same time you have the model in codex, people already bought and own it, you could put the change in to a book people would have to buy to know the rule exists in the first place, so new players could be buying those still and the store owners could still tell them that they can play them in game no problem, they just wouldn't have to add that it is just for narrative games. A win/win for GW.
If you go that route though you also have to talk about Magnus and Mortarion, both of whom are substantially better than him but would have no arbitrary 3k+ only limit
you would not do that, chaos csm or chaos demons have fewer initial players so you need everyone that can to buy those models. If you put limits on chaos primarchs the new chaos players are going to be too few, comparing to new marine players, to generate sales you may expect.
They aren’t going to put arbitrary limits on characters again, despite what you whiners want. He isn’t nearly as cheesey as he was at his apex, and even then he was only kind of cheesey. He isn’t the noobcrusher the daemon primarchs or knights are.
Crazyterran wrote: They aren’t going to put arbitrary limits on characters again, despite what you whiners want. He isn’t nearly as cheesey as he was at his apex, and even then he was only kind of cheesey. He isn’t the noobcrusher the daemon primarchs or knights are.
Difficult to say what they will do - they have limited Tau Commanders?
Crazyterran wrote: They aren’t going to put arbitrary limits on characters again, despite what you whiners want. He isn’t nearly as cheesey as he was at his apex, and even then he was only kind of cheesey. He isn’t the noobcrusher the daemon primarchs or knights are.
Difficult to say what they will do - they have limited Tau Commanders?
Yeah, Tau commanders are one per detachment max, iirc.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: If they point bump Guiliman again I'll laugh my butt off. At that point they are really just kicking a corpse. Insert the "Stop it he's already dead" Simpsons meme.
Tell people to quit trying to break him in pure SM lists. Everytime someone finds a new way to overdrive his buff bubble, the higher his point cost will go. (I'm looking at you Reece )
Crazyterran wrote: They aren’t going to put arbitrary limits on characters again, despite what you whiners want. He isn’t nearly as cheesey as he was at his apex, and even then he was only kind of cheesey. He isn’t the noobcrusher the daemon primarchs or knights are.
You know that is like saying that the new dark reapers are just fine, because they are no where near as good as they were before GW nerfed them like 3 or 4 times. Yet people still seem to be using them.
If GW method of fixing is either to not fix something, or nerf it in to unplayability, and we want him to be fixed, then the only way to do it is to nerf him in such a way that he will not be used in matched play.
BaconCatBug wrote: I genuinely can't tell if it's incompetence (Rules writers being clueless) or malice (Deliberately under-costed to bamboozle you into buying it).
Or it's just really difficult to balance via points a model whose whole job is to make everything around him like 80% better.
I'm also not sure we can ascribe incompetence or malice as the reason for the reluctance to substantially change data sheets outside of a codex or edition release.
He seems easy to fix with just points, Give him a rule that people can only use him in game that are 3000pts or more and he is balanced in matched play, and he is fixed. All those people that want to use him in smaller games can play narrative or something like that.
If you go that route though you also have to talk about Magnus and Mortarion, both of whom are substantially better than him but would have no arbitrary 3k+ only limit.
Magnus and Mortarion are significantly better than Rowboat? What? Since when?
Since, like, his first nerf-bat hit. Re-rolling to Hit and to Wound for Ultramarines (and just 1 to Hit for Imperium) is way less than Magnus's Psychic power and Mortarions Mortal Wounds aura. They're all about equals in combat now too (maybe not against each other, but against their designed target/targets). Magnus and Morty also both have the extremely coveted Fly keyword.
Let's put it this way, at NOVA, we had a Magnus + Mortarion list break the top 10. I think there was one at ETC too. There ain't nobody at that top end running Guilliman. There's a reason for this.
tneva82 wrote: They specified september faq. This week left.
Not autumn faq. They specifically showed september when they introduced new system
Yes, then they changed it.
Matt.Kingsley wrote:And then they changed it after to Autumn when everyone complained that the first FAQ came out a few weeks late.
Gonna need to source that claim, boyz. Even the GWfaq email response still says September.
To be fair, hands up, I can't find anything now! So maybe I just bought into a rumour that was going around. Sorry
You're not alone there. I'm sure I remember reading something about the "Fall FAQ" around April time, but I can't find it now.
On the FLG podcast, they said that the FAQ was coming out this month and that the socal open (October 27th) will be using the FAQ so if it's not out this month it will have to be early the first week of October.
Crazyterran wrote: They aren’t going to put arbitrary limits on characters again, despite what you whiners want. He isn’t nearly as cheesey as he was at his apex, and even then he was only kind of cheesey. He isn’t the noobcrusher the daemon primarchs or knights are.
Difficult to say what they will do - they have limited Tau Commanders?
Yeah, Tau commanders are one per detachment max, iirc.
Which did nothing to fix how powerful they actually are. Broken models are broken, regardless of how many you are allowed to take.
Not to mention they did nothing to fix regular Crisis Suits. I personally think they need to go to BS3+ but that's a different topic.
Yeah, FLG made it sound like they have seen the FAQ, which means either, they are given it in advance as part of play testing, or as I have suspected in the past, it is FLG who is writing the FAQ. Not sure if this FAQ has been completed for at least the last couple of weeks, why GW is holding off on releasing it. There didn’t appear to be any major issues at Nova, beyond CP farming (not something new) that would warrant a delay in the FAQ. Certainly it would not hurt GW to at least give a date the FAQ would be released. Their posted schedule is done through Friday for announcements on Warhammer TV with no mention of the FAQ, so it is either released tomorrow unannounced or it’s not going to make the September deadline, since they don’t appear to be dropping the FAQs on weekends.
NecronLord3 wrote: Yeah, FLG made it sound like they have seen the FAQ, which means either, they are given it in advance as part of play testing, or as I have suspected in the past, it is FLG who is writing the FAQ. Not sure if this FAQ has been completed for at least the last couple of weeks, why GW is holding off on releasing it. There didn’t appear to be any major issues at Nova, beyond CP farming (not something new) that would warrant a delay in the FAQ. Certainly it would not hurt GW to at least give a date the FAQ would be released. Their posted schedule is done through Friday for announcements on Warhammer TV with no mention of the FAQ, so it is either released tomorrow unannounced or it’s not going to make the September deadline, since they don’t appear to be dropping the FAQs on weekends.
They have seen it as they are part of the play testing/ input but they do not have the final say. GW has “held off on releasing it” do to things happening at nova that the head rules judge didn’t anticipate. For example the judge who wrote 8th had a rules dispute with juice from the long war about the order of declaring what order you pick which guns to fire in sequence with “rotate ion shields”. Things like this have been been getting hot fixed in before it’s release. But it’s safe to say if FLG says it will be out with time for SoCal it will be
beir wrote: GW doesn't have to change the name to slip the date. Just because it was referred to as the September FAQ doesn't provide any guarantee that it will be out this week.
True. Gw is such a bunch of amateurs that expecting them to follow deadlines(that they theyselves set) is optimistic. Were they professionals it would be out but since they are bad amateurs.
beir wrote: GW doesn't have to change the name to slip the date. Just because it was referred to as the September FAQ doesn't provide any guarantee that it will be out this week.
True. Gw is such a bunch of amateurs that expecting them to follow deadlines(that they theyselves set) is optimistic. Were they professionals it would be out but since they are bad amateurs.
Yes they should not be held to a commitment they choose to make for themselves.
I'm also curious to see when this FAQ is going to drop.
I don't purchase 40K armies anymore until I see a Chapter Approved come out 6 months after the fact. I've been burned several times over the last year because GW decided to change their minds over a rule they wrote not even a year ago.
I really want a Dark Eldar army again, but I'm not buying gak until I see the points values fluctuate and see what gets the nerf hammer.
beir wrote: GW doesn't have to change the name to slip the date. Just because it was referred to as the September FAQ doesn't provide any guarantee that it will be out this week.
True. Gw is such a bunch of amateurs that expecting them to follow deadlines(that they theyselves set) is optimistic. Were they professionals it would be out but since they are bad amateurs.
Yes they should not be held to a commitment they choose to make for themselves.
A delayed fix is better than an insufficient one - stop whining.
And if you don't trust that it can be better, then stop playing. And also stop whining. It's getting old, boys.
A delayed fix is better than an insufficient one - stop whining.
And if you don't trust that it can be better, then stop playing. And also stop whining. It's getting old, boys.
Agreed, GW are not contractually bound to put the FAQ out by a particular date, or even at all. They put out the ETA dates as a helpful guide to when their helpful FAQ services will be released.
Anyway its besides the point. Its not even the end of September yet! Why are people flooding good discussion threads with whining that the FAQ is 'late'.
beir wrote: GW doesn't have to change the name to slip the date. Just because it was referred to as the September FAQ doesn't provide any guarantee that it will be out this week.
True. Gw is such a bunch of amateurs that expecting them to follow deadlines(that they theyselves set) is optimistic. Were they professionals it would be out but since they are bad amateurs.
Yes they should not be held to a commitment they choose to make for themselves.
A delayed fix is better than an insufficient one - stop whining.
And if you don't trust that it can be better, then stop playing. And also stop whining. It's getting old, boys.
or they could just drop an announcement on their Facebook page about the Space Wolf Codex delay and if there is a big FAQ delay then mention that also, like they did in the spring when it was also delayed. This is Dakka, if you don’t like whining, why are you here?
We are all thinking the FAQ has SW fixes, right? Months and months ago, everybody was assuming that the wolves were to be released with a campaign box with Orks...right?
So what if the FAQs has Ork fixes in it as well...and they can't release it until Orktober / NovOrkber is over because it gives away too much?
Orks have obviously slipped months. That leaves us with NovOrkber, followed by December FAQ, just in time for Christmas.
We are all thinking the FAQ has SW fixes, right? Months and months ago, everybody was assuming that the wolves were to be released with a campaign box with Orks...right?
So what if the FAQs has Ork fixes in it as well...and they can't release it until Orktober / NovOrkber is over because it gives away too much?
Orks have obviously slipped months. That leaves us with NovOrkber, followed by December FAQ, just in time for Christmas.
Unless the Orks are somehow getting their changes in the core rulebook, that wouldn't work since they can just delay the Ork document on it's own.
No, it's more likely that adjustments (and the play testing of adjustments) made in response to Nova (not counting the stuff they just go "this is how you're supposed to play it you grots") have resulted in a bit of a delay.
Here's hoping the 20 attack Rune Priest is addressed...
We are all thinking the FAQ has SW fixes, right? Months and months ago, everybody was assuming that the wolves were to be released with a campaign box with Orks...right?
So what if the FAQs has Ork fixes in it as well...and they can't release it until Orktober / NovOrkber is over because it gives away too much?
Orks have obviously slipped months. That leaves us with NovOrkber, followed by December FAQ, just in time for Christmas.
No the ork Codex written last year was never printed. The English SW Dex was printed and they stopped the production to make fixes. The delay from the ork/Space wolf announcment was the Ork rewrite. The FAQ has nothing to do with Orks.
BaconCatBug wrote: I genuinely can't tell if it's incompetence (Rules writers being clueless) or malice (Deliberately under-costed to bamboozle you into buying it).
Or it's just really difficult to balance via points a model whose whole job is to make everything around him like 80% better.
I'm also not sure we can ascribe incompetence or malice as the reason for the reluctance to substantially change data sheets outside of a codex or edition release.
He seems easy to fix with just points, Give him a rule that people can only use him in game that are 3000pts or more and he is balanced in matched play, and he is fixed. All those people that want to use him in smaller games can play narrative or something like that.
If you go that route though you also have to talk about Magnus and Mortarion, both of whom are substantially better than him but would have no arbitrary 3k+ only limit.
Magnus and Mortarion are significantly better than Rowboat? What? Since when?
Since they both appear in competitive lists and Rowboat is no where to be seen anymore?
Rowboat is curretnly fine, SM are dead in competitive anyway
We need quick FAQ to deal with broken Castellans and shining spears. Those 2 are breaking the game now just ignore anyone saying Guilman is the problem, they probably never been/saw current tournament lists. It's all about Eldar soulbursting spears+reapers and imperiual Castellans. Whole "soup" thing woundlnt be an issue if we did not had Castellans. Actualy they are better in Soup than in IK lists - as they dont worry about CP and have all good gems on one IK (with more knights IK player need to choose what knight will benefit from it cause other will not).
Forfiter wrote: Rowboat is curretnly fine, SM are dead in competitive anyway
We need quick FAQ to deal with broken Castellans and shining spears. Those 2 are breaking the game now just ignore anyone saying Guilman is the problem, they probably never been/saw current tournament lists. It's all about Eldar soulbursting spears+reapers and imperiual Castellans. Whole "soup" thing woundlnt be an issue if we did not had Castellans. Actualy they are better in Soup than in IK lists - as they dont worry about CP and have all good gems on one IK (with more knights IK player need to choose what knight will benefit from it cause other will not).
The thing is the more I think about it the less I agree the castellan is the problem, it's auxiliary and SH auxiliaries giving acess to strategums.
The Castellan need maybe 50 points increase.
What needs to happen otherwise is some of the strategums (definataly thr warlord trait and relic ones) in the knight codex need to be locked behind a lance then guard CP shenanigans fixed.
Forfiter wrote: Shining Spears on same OP level as Mortarion and Guilman
I hope GW does not read this...
Ynnari Spears. As with other things discussed here, the problem here is in synergies with other mechanics you can bring into the army, more than it is with the unit as it appears on the data sheet.
Just like mitigating the worst Castellan abuse would be changes to the CP system (though the Castellan would, point for point, still need be balanced roughly equally in firepower/survivability against similar types of long range shooting like Predator tanks, etc..) Ynnari Spears can probably be toned down through ancillary mechanics. Not having access to Saim Hann/Biel Tan stratagems, if they're not actually bringing a battle-forged Saim Hann/Biel Tan army, for example, would be a good start.
Rowboat is curretnly fine, SM are dead in competitive anyway
We need quick FAQ to deal with broken Castellans and shining spears. Those 2 are breaking the game now just ignore anyone saying Guilman is the problem, they probably never been/saw current tournament lists. It's all about Eldar soulbursting spears+reapers and imperiual Castellans.
You mean Ynnari are the problem. As someone who has been playing Craftworld I have never seen Shining Spears be as broken as they are described. Hard hitting for sure when allowed to charge, but without soulburst they aren't as broken as some people would let on. Even the top 10 lists last NOVA only had one squad of Shining Spears in all 10 lists and that was an Ynnari/Drukhari mix.
Forfiter wrote: Shining Spears on same OP level as Mortarion and Guilman
I hope GW does not read this...
Ynnari Spears. As with other things discussed here, the problem here is in synergies with other mechanics you can bring into the army, more than it is with the unit as it appears on the data sheet.
Of course, Castellan on pure datasheet won't be a problem aswel.
Problem is Raven (reroll all 1s), gem to ignore damage table (wasn't their goal was to deal with such monsters?), 5++ going into ridiculusly strong 3++, Cawl plasma Castellan.
But if they design rules without checking such things it's pure incompetence and it require fix asap beacause it's unbeatable for many armies.
Saying about NOVA open, top16 can have some randoms that rolled well, look higher at top. Castellans & Ynnari spears...
Of course, Castellan on pure datasheet won't be a problem aswel.
Problem is Raven (reroll all 1s), gem to ignore damage table (wasn't their goal was to deal with such monsters?), 5++ going into ridiculusly strong 3++, Cawl plasma Castellan.
But if they design rules without checking such things it's pure incompetence and it require fix asap beacause it's unbeatable for many armies.
Saying about NOVA open, top16 can have some randoms that rolled well, look higher at top. Castellans & Ynnari spears...
Guilman, Mortarion and Magnus are perfectly fine.
The entire tournament scene is already the Top 0.1% of the Top 1% of army lists, simply the way tournament self-selects and biases list that appear, even at the very top tables.
Top 16 of such a prestigious and large tournament isn't too far up. Looking at the Top 16,000 of the ITC year as a whole wouldn't be amiss and still be a shockingly small sample, all things considered.
Guilliman and M&M are definitely in need of adjustment. Aside from tournament placement, you can easily playtest them against lists from their own books without these models to see that even internal balance for these guys is off.
The difference in a Ynnari list placing 3rd and Mortarion/Magnus placing 4th or so in NOVA (after losing the top-table final) isn't where the line is drawn on what's OP and what is not.
And for that particular Ynnari/Drukhari lists, the ridiculous Prophets of Flesh buff over other Coven-traits on Grotesques & Taloses is probably more worrysome than the Spears. How anyone ever thought those were balanced is still beyond me.
Rowboat is curretnly fine, SM are dead in competitive anyway
We need quick FAQ to deal with broken Castellans and shining spears. Those 2 are breaking the game now just ignore anyone saying Guilman is the problem, they probably never been/saw current tournament lists. It's all about Eldar soulbursting spears+reapers and imperiual Castellans.
You mean Ynnari are the problem. As someone who has been playing Craftworld I have never seen Shining Spears be as broken as they are described. Hard hitting for sure when allowed to charge, but without guide, doom, and soulburst they aren't as broken as some people would let on. Even the top 10 lists last NOVA only had one squad of Shining Spears in all 10 lists and that was an Ynnari/Drukhari mix.
So in short: Ynnari and Soup are a problem.
You can nerf your list by yourself taking CW Spears instead of Ynnari but you cannot expect your opponents to do the same. Ynnari is the best choice for them and they will be used and need to be deal with.
Same with Castellan, if someone take non-Raven and no-3++ Castellan it's his/her choice, but people who are familar with basic math will see whats going on and want to be competitive will take better one. Game should be balanced between choices and to do that, compare optimal variants - if someone wants to play sub-optimal he will still can, but balance should be aware of maxed lists. You can play with 1500 points vs 2000 points if you want, but it's not the point. Arguments "casuals play different" is same as saying "go play with 1500 pts vs 2000 pts", really. You cannot make balance for this.
I want game that gives you option to pick your IK household/Aeldari faction/IG doctrine etc according to your playstyle/fluff/aescethic that are comparable with power, not to pick "optimal" vs "suboptimal" version. That should be the point of multiple options in 8ed, but currently its "pick whatever is maxing the best units" beacause of bad game balance, not bad players. I would really want to play Armageddon Chimeras mech division but it makes no sense beacause GW writen bad rules for Chimeras and Armageddon.
You can nerf your list by yourself taking CW Spears instead of Ynnari but you cannot expect your opponents to do the same. Ynnari is the best choice for them and they will be used and need to be deal with.
But that's the point.
If you can "nerf yourself" with one option compared to another option, the options are by definition not balanced and thus need to be adjusted.
Ynnari Spears need to be balanced against CW spears if those two meet on the tournament table.
Raven Castellan need to be balanced against Terryn Valiants, when those two meet on the tournament table.
Guilliman Ultramarines need to be balanced against White Scar Primaris when they meet on the tournament table.
Mortarion & Plaguebearers need to be balanced against Plague Marines in Rhinos with Predator support, when they meet on the tournament table.
That's easily the first step before you even worry about balancing between codexes.
You can nerf your list by yourself taking CW Spears instead of Ynnari but you cannot expect your opponents to do the same. Ynnari is the best choice for them and they will be used and need to be deal with.
My point was that Ynnari needs to be addressed as its own unique problem without outright killing Craftworlds.
You can nerf your list by yourself taking CW Spears instead of Ynnari but you cannot expect your opponents to do the same. Ynnari is the best choice for them and they will be used and need to be deal with.
My point was that Ynnari needs to be addressed as its own unique problem without outright killing Craftworlds.
I agree but we probably both know how it will end up.
GW is blind for some obvious interactions and won't fix them directly, but will take nerfbat and beat some innocent players like pure CW spears. Same for Iguard that will probably see another nerf due to Castellan+BA+IG lists.
Look for last FAQ, where they just increased cost for reapers and "nerfed" Ynnari with some minor psyker test levels that they can do 99% times anyway. So Ynnari reapers are still monsters while CW reapers are now totally fair and maybe even not worth.
GW way is probably giving Castellan point increase what will make non-Raven-cawl Castellans even worse. They should deal with 1cp "ignore table", Cawl plasma and 3++ instead but we all know they won't.
Rowboat is curretnly fine, SM are dead in competitive anyway
We need quick FAQ to deal with broken Castellans and shining spears. Those 2 are breaking the game now just ignore anyone saying Guilman is the problem, they probably never been/saw current tournament lists. It's all about Eldar soulbursting spears+reapers and imperiual Castellans.
You mean Ynnari are the problem. As someone who has been playing Craftworld I have never seen Shining Spears be as broken as they are described. Hard hitting for sure when allowed to charge, but without guide, doom, and soulburst they aren't as broken as some people would let on. Even the top 10 lists last NOVA only had one squad of Shining Spears in all 10 lists and that was an Ynnari/Drukhari mix.
So in short: Ynnari and Soup are a problem.
You can nerf your list by yourself taking CW Spears instead of Ynnari but you cannot expect your opponents to do the same. Ynnari is the best choice for them and they will be used and need to be deal with.
Same with Castellan, if someone take non-Raven and no-3++ Castellan it's his/her choice, but people who are familar with basic math will see whats going on and want to be competitive will take better one. Game should be balanced between choices and to do that, compare optimal variants - if someone wants to play sub-optimal he will still can, but balance should be aware of maxed lists. You can play with 1500 points vs 2000 points if you want, but it's not the point. Arguments "casuals play different" is same as saying "go play with 1500 pts vs 2000 pts", really. You cannot make balance for this.
I want game that gives you option to pick your IK household/Aeldari faction/IG doctrine etc according to your playstyle/fluff/aescethic that are comparable with power, not to pick "optimal" vs "suboptimal" version. That should be the point of multiple options in 8ed, but currently its "pick whatever is maxing the best units" beacause of bad game balance, not bad players. I would really want to play Armageddon Chimeras mech division but it makes no sense beacause GW writen bad rules for Chimeras and Armageddon.
Think his point is that if you just nerf shining spears on their own hard you can easily end up in situation where shining spears on CW will be 100% useless while with ynnari soup they would then be OK. That's not good situation either. You would need to deal with the BROKEN part of that which is them in YNNARI SOUP without making them total suckers without being part of ynnari soup.
Ie nerf the ynnari soup part of the equation rather than base shining spear.
If we had competent designers intending for balanced game that's where we would be aiming for. Alas FAQ is just another way of GW pushing models so instead we will get bunch of changes intended to shuffle meta around(what the new meta is GW doesn't care as long as it's different enough tournament players are rushing to buy new models).
Truth to be told I wasn't against the Dark Reaper nerf in the last big FAQ. Even after the point increase they are still good and I still use them.
Spears I might stop using if they get a big price hike. I find them way too situational and reliant on psychic powers proccing at the right time making them decent at getting recon or behind enemy lines when you need something fast moving, but for that you could technically just use Windriders.
You can nerf your list by yourself taking CW Spears instead of Ynnari but you cannot expect your opponents to do the same. Ynnari is the best choice for them and they will be used and need to be deal with.
Same with Castellan, if someone take non-Raven and no-3++ Castellan it's his/her choice, but people who are familar with basic math will see whats going on and want to be competitive will take better one. Game should be balanced between choices and to do that, compare optimal variants - if someone wants to play sub-optimal he will still can, but balance should be aware of maxed lists. You can play with 1500 points vs 2000 points if you want, but it's not the point. Arguments "casuals play different" is same as saying "go play with 1500 pts vs 2000 pts", really. You cannot make balance for this.
I want game that gives you option to pick your IK household/Aeldari faction/IG doctrine etc according to your playstyle/fluff/aescethic that are comparable with power, not to pick "optimal" vs "suboptimal" version. That should be the point of multiple options in 8ed, but currently its "pick whatever is maxing the best units" beacause of bad game balance, not bad players. I would really want to play Armageddon Chimeras mech division but it makes no sense beacause GW writen bad rules for Chimeras and Armageddon.
Just to clarrify Yannari is 1 problem in that they have a bonus thats equivelent to 20 CP's worth of additional activities per game.
Imagine vanguard vets that could double fight for free and double shooting hellblasters. They would go from mediocre to auto include units.
Also point of clarity its not a 3++ its a 4++ thats boosted to 3++ for 3 CP per phase.
Same with Slamquinius's they only exsist in soup as only Guard has the CP insanity to sustain them over multiple turns.
Ie nerf the ynnari soup part of the equation rather than base shining spear.
Exactly.
At some point GW has to make a decision regarding how they want to approach the Ynnari. They can either change their trait completely or give Ynnari their own separate point list for all available units. They really need to detach Ynnari from the rest of the Aeldari race and make them a completely discrete faction.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: If they point bump Guiliman again I'll laugh my butt off. At that point they are really just kicking a corpse. Insert the "Stop it he's already dead" Simpsons meme.
Excellent! Now kill him in the fluff too!
You really need some therapy, dude.
* * *
General aside - anyone else find it weird that the FAQ documents seem to have so few Q's getting A's?
Tibs Ironblood wrote: If they point bump Guiliman again I'll laugh my butt off. At that point they are really just kicking a corpse. Insert the "Stop it he's already dead" Simpsons meme.
Excellent! Now kill him in the fluff too!
You really need some therapy, dude.
I don't know if I'd go that far, but Crimson does seem to insert Guilliman hate all over the place...
Forfiter wrote: Rowboat is curretnly fine, SM are dead in competitive anyway
We need quick FAQ to deal with broken Castellans and shining spears. Those 2 are breaking the game now just ignore anyone saying Guilman is the problem, they probably never been/saw current tournament lists. It's all about Eldar soulbursting spears+reapers and imperiual Castellans. Whole "soup" thing woundlnt be an issue if we did not had Castellans. Actualy they are better in Soup than in IK lists - as they dont worry about CP and have all good gems on one IK (with more knights IK player need to choose what knight will benefit from it cause other will not).
If the Castellan was the problem the Chaos Castellan would be making a big show also. It is not. Ergo the Castellan isn't the problem.
Forfiter wrote: Rowboat is curretnly fine, SM are dead in competitive anyway
We need quick FAQ to deal with broken Castellans and shining spears. Those 2 are breaking the game now just ignore anyone saying Guilman is the problem, they probably never been/saw current tournament lists. It's all about Eldar soulbursting spears+reapers and imperiual Castellans. Whole "soup" thing woundlnt be an issue if we did not had Castellans. Actualy they are better in Soup than in IK lists - as they dont worry about CP and have all good gems on one IK (with more knights IK player need to choose what knight will benefit from it cause other will not).
If the Castellan was the problem the Chaos Castellan would be making a big show also. It is not. Ergo the Castellan isn't the problem.
They just win tournaments with crusaders instead. Also - Choas knights don't get an army trait - that just makes them weaker options than Imperial Knights anyways.
There's currently a lot of major, across-the-board issues with the game itself at the moment that I can't see being fixed in an FAQ or Chapter Approved, such as how certain factions rely on playing only 1 of their traits (such as Ultramarines with the Space Marine codex, or half the armies with a -1 to hit trait), or how some relics simply never see the light of day. The biggest for me is probably the redundancy of the current AP system, since Games Workshop has decided to give out a lot of 3+ or 4+ invuln saves to stuff that should be weaker to larger guns. Volume of fire and High Damage weapons are always better than prioritising AP weapons, and kinda makes some weapons like meltaguns, Vanquishers etc really poor at the job that they're supposed to be good at. I think that there will continue to be major balance issues after this FAQ as a result of these bigger balance issues.
Soup, Game length, CP, and Hordes are the ongoing issue the game has to me.
Hordes should be fixed by a weapon rebalance. If your shooting a Flamer type weapon (all factions have these) you should get 1D6 shots per models targetted, CP should be by faction only, an d these two changes most likely fix Soup and Game Length.
Reemule wrote: Soup, Game length, CP, and Hordes are the ongoing issue the game has to me.
Hordes should be fixed by a weapon rebalance. If your shooting a Flamer type weapon (all factions have these) you should get 1D6 shots per models targetted, CP should be by faction only, an d these two changes most likely fix Soup and Game Length.
Did I read that right? Are you saying a single flamer against a unit of 20 cultists should do 20d6 shots?
Forfiter wrote: Rowboat is curretnly fine, SM are dead in competitive anyway
We need quick FAQ to deal with broken Castellans and shining spears. Those 2 are breaking the game now just ignore anyone saying Guilman is the problem, they probably never been/saw current tournament lists. It's all about Eldar soulbursting spears+reapers and imperiual Castellans. Whole "soup" thing woundlnt be an issue if we did not had Castellans. Actualy they are better in Soup than in IK lists - as they dont worry about CP and have all good gems on one IK (with more knights IK player need to choose what knight will benefit from it cause other will not).
If the Castellan was the problem the Chaos Castellan would be making a big show also. It is not. Ergo the Castellan isn't the problem.
It's almost like if the model is the problem, you go after the model rather than something like Soup to fix the issue, huh?
lolman1c wrote: So... any hets we will get a sep faq in September?
I was a believer, but we'd have seen a teaser article by now. Since it wasn't coming in september, we'll probably see it in october. Probably not the first week of October since they'll want to get all their excitement for Orktober and the Ork codex release out of the way first.
Darsath wrote: There's currently a lot of major, across-the-board issues with the game itself at the moment that I can't see being fixed in an FAQ or Chapter Approved, such as how certain factions rely on playing only 1 of their traits (such as Ultramarines with the Space Marine codex, or half the armies with a -1 to hit trait), or how some relics simply never see the light of day. The biggest for me is probably the redundancy of the current AP system, since Games Workshop has decided to give out a lot of 3+ or 4+ invuln saves to stuff that should be weaker to larger guns. Volume of fire and High Damage weapons are always better than prioritising AP weapons, and kinda makes some weapons like meltaguns, Vanquishers etc really poor at the job that they're supposed to be good at. I think that there will continue to be major balance issues after this FAQ as a result of these bigger balance issues.
I agree that there are a some across-the-board changes needed, especially with traits and relics. Except for maybe IG I've found the volume of fire with 0 AP not doing much. It's why you don't see many Kabalite warriors and poison weapons(that tend to be 0 AP) see much table usage. Regarding meltaguns I think the problem lies more with how effective plasma is currently at its price point. You can get plasma more easily and it tends to be a more versatile gun compared to meltas(although a SoB melta army did ruin me a week ago).
Good thing with playing Necrons is that with every change it can only get better!
Can just sit back, relax, bring the bucket og popcorn, and watch everybody haggle on how to fix the system without taking a nerf (too hard) for their own pet army.
torblind wrote: Good thing with playing Necrons is that with every change it can only get better!
Can just sit back, relax, bring the bucket og popcorn, and watch everybody haggle on how to fix the system without taking a nerf (too hard) for their own pet army.
See, you say that but I bet something is gonna get a price increase like those destroyers. I don't know if they're underpriced or overpriced but I seems like those are the only unit that gets talked about. Ergo, they'll get a price increase
Forfiter wrote: Rowboat is curretnly fine, SM are dead in competitive anyway
We need quick FAQ to deal with broken Castellans and shining spears. Those 2 are breaking the game now just ignore anyone saying Guilman is the problem, they probably never been/saw current tournament lists. It's all about Eldar soulbursting spears+reapers and imperiual Castellans. Whole "soup" thing woundlnt be an issue if we did not had Castellans. Actualy they are better in Soup than in IK lists - as they dont worry about CP and have all good gems on one IK (with more knights IK player need to choose what knight will benefit from it cause other will not).
If the Castellan was the problem the Chaos Castellan would be making a big show also. It is not. Ergo the Castellan isn't the problem.
It's almost like if the model is the problem, you go after the model rather than something like Soup to fix the issue, huh?
Kinda. If you look at the competitive list, it its really the same issue again and again. If you have enough CP you just dump that on whatever can best use it to produce results. Right now that is a B.A. Smash captain and a Castellan. If you nerf the captain and the castellan, its just going to next be a Space Wolf Captain and a Crusader IK, in the same setup, doing the same things.
It seems clear the game breaks down at some extremes. Extreme CP seems to be showing right now. Extreme Hordes was showing a while ago. Soup was never the problem, but more the byproduct of how to get the CP you need to get to the extreme CP you want to "break" the game.
Maybe reduce the emphasis on stratagems? drop the CP's back down, restrict their usage to the faction that generated them and adjust a couple of the relics that allow regeneration?
And back to what stands, all players are bad at balance due to that bias.
That's ok. That is why there is sampling. Everyone has biases, whether it's political surveys, market research, etc.. and you sample representatively precisely to get around that. That's the whole point.
It's only when you collect data from a group that is inherently self-selected instead of sampled, e.g. people who live in certain areas, people who pursue certain types of jobs, people who on their own volition choose to play 40K competitively, that's when you start to make the really, really hideous mistakes as you're dealing with a systematically biased group, rather than biased individuals.
torblind wrote: Good thing with playing Necrons is that with every change it can only get better!
Can just sit back, relax, bring the bucket og popcorn, and watch everybody haggle on how to fix the system without taking a nerf (too hard) for their own pet army.
See, you say that but I bet something is gonna get a price increase like those destroyers. I don't know if they're underpriced or overpriced but I seems like those are the only unit that gets talked about. Ergo, they'll get a price increase
That. And they did in fact hike the Gauss Pylon from 485 to 5.. something the first FAQ I think. Were definitely not immune.
And of course, I say I'm relaxed, but nothing can really dull the knot of pain, deep within, from loving an army that just won't ever perform in foreseeable future.
torblind wrote: Good thing with playing Necrons is that with every change it can only get better!
Can just sit back, relax, bring the bucket og popcorn, and watch everybody haggle on how to fix the system without taking a nerf (too hard) for their own pet army.
See, you say that but I bet something is gonna get a price increase like those destroyers. I don't know if they're underpriced or overpriced but I seems like those are the only unit that gets talked about. Ergo, they'll get a price increase
Probably because Destroyers are either fine or even a bit too expensive, but that stratagem for them is just insane. Not sure what they were smoking when they gave re-roll to hit AND to wound a 1 CP price tag. Most codexes pay at least 2 CP for just one of those. It just doesn't appear on the radar as much because the unit to take it with isn't the very best.
Ideally, Destroyers down in points along with most Necron stuff, but that Extermination Protocols Stratagem needs to be something like 2-3 CP for re-roll to wounds only or a 1 CP for re-roll 1s to wound.
Reemule wrote: Soup, Game length, CP, and Hordes are the ongoing issue the game has to me.
Hordes should be fixed by a weapon rebalance. If your shooting a Flamer type weapon (all factions have these) you should get 1D6 shots per models targetted, CP should be by faction only, an d these two changes most likely fix Soup and Game Length.
Did I read that right? Are you saying a single flamer against a unit of 20 cultists should do 20d6 shots?
Ehh I meant 1D6 per 5 models. But so much for typing.
lolman1c wrote:So... any hets we will get a sep faq in September?
5 days to go, it seems unlikely.
Stux wrote:
Reemule wrote: Hordes should be fixed by a weapon rebalance. If your shooting a Flamer type weapon (all factions have these) you should get 1D6 shots per models targetted, CP should be by faction only, an d these two changes most likely fix Soup and Game Length.
Did I read that right? Are you saying a single flamer against a unit of 20 cultists should do 20d6 shots?
Nothing so extreme, but I would like flamers to get something though. At present they're very underwhelming.
And back to what stands, all players are bad at balance due to that bias.
That's ok. That is why there is sampling. Everyone has biases, whether it's political surveys, market research, etc.. and you sample representatively precisely to get around that. That's the whole point.
It's only when you collect data from a group that is inherently self-selected instead of sampled, e.g. people who live in certain areas, people who pursue certain types of jobs, people who on their own volition choose to play 40K competitively, that's when you start to make the really, really hideous mistakes as you're dealing with a systematically biased group, rather than biased individuals.
But overall, I'm okay with that. I think we had this discussion before, the Tourney system is great at identifying the most broken, and terrible at identifying the second most broken.
It also doesn't do anything at identifying problems at the other end of the spectrum, the most overcosted.
I think where I differ is I don't think a well defined casual meta can do any of those, including the one thing I think the tourney system can do well, identifying the most broken, due to the lack of codified play, and the susceptibility of the smaller meta to have one alpha player that defines good and bad based off their ability to play well.
So one system shows 1 thing really well, and the other system might or might not show you anything. I'll go with the system that shows 1 things well myself.
But overall, I'm okay with that. I think we had this discussion before, the Tourney system is great at identifying the most broken, and terrible at identifying the second most broken.
It also doesn't do anything at identifying problems at the other end of the spectrum, the most overcosted.
I think where I differ is I don't think a well defined casual meta can do any of those, including the one thing I think the tourney system can do well, identifying the most broken, due to the lack of codified play, and the susceptibility of the smaller meta to have one alpha player that defines good and bad based off their ability to play well.
So one system shows 1 thing really well, and the other system might or might not show you anything. I'll go with the system that shows 1 things well myself.
Well, there'd be no issue if tourney's would just stick to identifying the most broken than and acknowledge, that things might be just as broken for the other 99.9% of 40K players, even if it's a non-issue in tournaments.
Problems arise if people than come out with idiotic statements of "Chaos Castellans aren't broken" or "AdMech Dunecrawlers aren't broken" or whatever "because they don't place high in tournament". If you know tournaments cannot identify these cases, don't claim they "are fine" or "not OP" just because they aren't and structurally cannot be perceived as such in the tournament circuit as you've just said.
Tournament circuits can identify potentially broken units, other methods of investigation can also identify potentially broken units. They need not overlap and one does not invalidate the other.
Process wrote: Maybe reduce the emphasis on stratagems? drop the CP's back down, restrict their usage to the faction that generated them and adjust a couple of the relics that allow regeneration?
You can't do that at this point, Stratagems are a relevant part of the game and "toning" down their usage will only further nerf armies that extremely rely on their usage
But overall, I'm okay with that. I think we had this discussion before, the Tourney system is great at identifying the most broken, and terrible at identifying the second most broken.
It also doesn't do anything at identifying problems at the other end of the spectrum, the most overcosted.
I think where I differ is I don't think a well defined casual meta can do any of those, including the one thing I think the tourney system can do well, identifying the most broken, due to the lack of codified play, and the susceptibility of the smaller meta to have one alpha player that defines good and bad based off their ability to play well.
So one system shows 1 thing really well, and the other system might or might not show you anything. I'll go with the system that shows 1 things well myself.
Well, there'd be no issue if tourney's would just stick to identifying the most broken than and acknowledge, that things might be just as broken for the other 99.9% of 40K players, even if it's a non-issue in tournaments.
Problems arise if people than come out with idiotic statements of "Chaos Castellans aren't broken" or "AdMech Dunecrawlers aren't broken" or whatever "because they don't place high in tournament". If you know tournaments cannot identify these cases, don't claim they "are fine" or "not OP" just because they aren't and structurally cannot be perceived as such in the tournament circuit as you've just said.
Tournament circuits can identify potentially broken units, other methods of investigation can also identify potentially broken units. They need not overlap and one does not invalidate the other.
First, So I know a guy who plays about .2 games a year. Yep, he collects paints, and played a game 3 years go. He should be good to play again in 2020. You really want to give him the same voice as some guy who has played 200 games this year? Why? What is he going to bring? Same with your idea that going to some meta that doesn't have any kind of format that they have something to add, how do you know it isn't modified by some house rule they didn't tell you about?
Second, Plenty of game companies have an organized play that works very well. Not sure why 40K has decided to not do that. Maybe they will, but go look at every game system. Video games, people are watching pro players. Warmachine people are watching WMW players, Xwing players are watching the guys that play nationals.
I'll go even further. Why are your casual players playing in matched play? Wouldn't this be solved if people stuck to the classifications GW laid out, and they stuck to open play? And then GW if they choose can make changes to open play to adjust the play experince for those players as needed?
torblind wrote: Good thing with playing Necrons is that with every change it can only get better!
Can just sit back, relax, bring the bucket og popcorn, and watch everybody haggle on how to fix the system without taking a nerf (too hard) for their own pet army.
See, you say that but I bet something is gonna get a price increase like those destroyers. I don't know if they're underpriced or overpriced but I seems like those are the only unit that gets talked about. Ergo, they'll get a price increase
Probably because Destroyers are either fine or even a bit too expensive, but that stratagem for them is just insane. Not sure what they were smoking when they gave re-roll to hit AND to wound a 1 CP price tag. Most codexes pay at least 2 CP for just one of those. It just doesn't appear on the radar as much because the unit to take it with isn't the very best.
Ideally, Destroyers down in points along with most Necron stuff, but that Extermination Protocols Stratagem needs to be something like 2-3 CP for re-roll to wounds only or a 1 CP for re-roll 1s to wound.
Well they're coming from rerolling 1s to hit already, with the stratagem we get to pick up the 2s in addition to the 1s. (And of course with rerolling 1s to hit, we roll a s*** load of 2s, so that's nice). Rerolling to wound is a pure gain, as our sources for reroll 1s to wound don't really fly well with destroyers.
First, So I know a guy who plays about .2 games a year. Yep, he collects paints, and played a game 3 years go. He should be good to play again in 2020. You really want to give him the same voice as some guy who has played 200 games this year? Why? What is he going to bring? Same with your idea that going to some meta that doesn't have any kind of format that they have something to add, how do you know it isn't modified by some house rule they didn't tell you about?
Second, Plenty of game companies have an organized play that works very well. Not sure why 40K has decided to not do that. Maybe they will, but go look at every game system. Video games, people are watching pro players. Warmachine people are watching WMW players, Xwing players are watching the guys that play nationals.
I'll go even further. Why are your casual players playing in matched play? Wouldn't this be solved if people stuck to the classifications GW laid out, and they stuck to open play? And then GW if they choose can make changes to open play to adjust the play experince for those players as needed?
First. Yes. In a representative sampling, all types of players should be included. That's the point. He's part of the GW customer base, so a "representative sample" needs to also include these kind of people, simply because they exist in the customer base. That's the definition of "representative". They must have a voice simply because they exist.
If there were (hypothetical) to be a 1000 of those 2-games-a-year-people for every tournament player out there, they would also need to be weighted 1000-to-1 compared to the respective tournament player. The reason is so you have an ACCURATE representation of the people playing 40K. Since very few people play 200 games a year, giving them an outsized say in what the rules should be like would be distorting the picture. That's the entire problem. Nothing else.
And what they perceive as problematic or broken is just as valid as what a tournament players perceives as problematic or broken, weighted, as above, as best as possible by how much of a % of the player-base they represent or constitute. There shouldn't be a "better-than-thou" type of players that get's a bigger say, relative to how big a part they are in the community.
Second, If plenty of game companies do it more to your liking, why not play their games? I am in 40K precisely because they DON'T do it like this and as long as there are other companies doing it more to your liking, what's the issue. Diversity in the market place is a good thing. There's value in and of itself in GW doing it differently BECAUSE a lot of companies don't do it the way GW does. If GW would do it like PP, what should people do who enjoy the GW-way precisely because they take a different tackt.
I wouldn't want ALL gaming companies to do it like GW neither, because people getting into things like Warmachine went there precisely because it's done differently there. Again, diversity and having different gaming cultures for different styles and tastes is the point. Let people pick the flavour they like, rather than force all companies to conform to a narrow model favoured by some, making the gaming world a poorer, blander, less diverse place.
I'll go further. If you want your gaming to be more like competitive Warmachine or X-Wing or Chess or whatever, why not play those? See? Telling people to get "out of your game" because they enjoy their plastic soldiers different than you is pretty a-hole thing to do, don't you agree?
First, So I know a guy who plays about .2 games a year. Yep, he collects paints, and played a game 3 years go. He should be good to play again in 2020. You really want to give him the same voice as some guy who has played 200 games this year? Why? What is he going to bring? Same with your idea that going to some meta that doesn't have any kind of format that they have something to add, how do you know it isn't modified by some house rule they didn't tell you about?
Second, Plenty of game companies have an organized play that works very well. Not sure why 40K has decided to not do that. Maybe they will, but go look at every game system. Video games, people are watching pro players. Warmachine people are watching WMW players, Xwing players are watching the guys that play nationals.
I'll go even further. Why are your casual players playing in matched play? Wouldn't this be solved if people stuck to the classifications GW laid out, and they stuck to open play? And then GW if they choose can make changes to open play to adjust the play experince for those players as needed?
First. Yes. In a representative sampling, all types of players should be included. That's the point. He's part of the GW customer base, so a "representative sample" needs to also include these kind of people, simply because they exist in the customer base. That's the definition of "representative". They must have a voice simply because they exist.
If there were (hypothetical) to be a 1000 of those 2-games-a-year-people for every tournament player out there, they would also need to be weighted 1000-to-1 compared to the respective tournament player. The reason is so you have an ACCURATE representation of the people playing 40K. Since very few people play 200 games a year, giving them an outsized say in what the rules should be like would be distorting the picture. That's the entire problem. Nothing else.
Second, If plenty of game companies do it more to your liking, why not play their games? I am in 40K precisely because they DON'T do it like this and as long as there are other companies doing it more to your liking, what's the issue. Diversity in the market place is a good thing. There's value in and of itself in GW doing it differently BECAUSE a lot of companies don't do it the way GW does. If GW would do it like PP, what should people do who enjoy the GW-way precisely because they take a different tackt.
I wouldn't want ALL gaming companies to do it like GW neither, because people getting into things like Warmachine went there precisely because it's done differently there. Again, diversity and having different gaming cultures for different styles and tastes is the point. Let people pick the flavour they like, rather than force all companies to conform to a narrow model favoured by some, making the gaming world a poorer, blander, less diverse place.
I'll go further. If you want your gaming to be more like competitive Warmachine or X-Wing or Chess or whatever, why not play those?
I don't want to. I want to play Competitive 40K. A game they made. A game they designed for me. Its called match play. The real question is why do you keep pushing the idea that Casual players can't find the game that was designed for them? Why aren't you playing Open play? If you want the precepts of casual play, go play the game for you. Stop trying to get the competitive game to fit your casual play ideals, and your going to be much happier?
I don't want to. I want to play Competitive 40K. A game they made. A game they designed for me. Its called match play. The real question is why do you keep pushing the idea that Casual players can't find the game that was designed for them? Why aren't you playing Open play? If you want the precepts of casual play, go play the game for you. Stop trying to get the competitive game to fit your casual play ideals, and your going to be much happier?
I also want to play matched play. I don't play open play often. In open, the (Chaos) Castellan (in the same list with the same CP battery, if we're talking imperial) being mathematically flat-out better than Predators, point for point, isn't an issue. It's a problem in matched play where things ought to be balanced.
Hell, since you evidently don't care about the 4th, or 5th or 10th most OP thing, but only the top OP thing, I'd probably say Open Play would be a much better fit for the competitive ITC circuit and it's players who perceive finding the most powerful combo as "part of the game" (and hilariously mis-labelled as "skill"), than the matched play rules, whose aim in balancing the game you and many other tournament players clearly don't value and/or seem to be far more accepting of imbalances beyond the most egregious cases.
I do care about the other ones, but your system of using casual players gives no chance of fixing them either, despite your idea that some how causal players are good at identifying those things.
And again, Trying to balance the one thing with multiple nerfs at the same time just leads to centurions.
Chaos doesn't bring predators either. So chances are your matching something that is broken, against something else that is broken.
Asking people to play open play is like asking kids to go play in the kiddy pool. No one will do that. It is the nature of man kind. I see it in League of Legends - it is the same kind of selfish people there too.
Matched play does not mean "Ultra competitive setting".
The saturday game at the LGS organized on a Whatsapp group that same morning by saying "Hey! Who's up for a game with my salamanders? 2000 points", is the definition of matched play. The rules exist for this exact event, which represents easily more than 90% of the 40K games being played.
Those games are not ultra competitive, and the players usually bring to the table a mix of models they like and models that make the list work. This is 40K, this is what the rulebook is made for. This is what codici aim at.
The rules for "Ultra competitive play" the kind of which is right now made exclusively by soups, do not exist. They have no reason to, because they represent such a tiny amount of games, that they are completely irrelevant to the state of the game.
The difference in 8th is that GW finally understood that those tiny percentage of games tend to attract a lot of attention, and so through FAQs and CA, they are trying to patch the worst issues.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Even there, they don't really to resolve them fully, they just need to constantly shake what is played at those levels, so that the cost of chasing the meta is high.
This way, the average 40K player (which takes his time to paint minis and has in general limited time to dedicate to the hobby), is not encouraged to buy into the last hotness, because the time required to implement it into his army, is longer than the time the meta requires to change.
As long as this is true, you prevent the cancer of the top competitive lists to contaminate the healthy parts of the hobby.
Balance will only ever come to 40k when the game is broken down to a few basic rules and everyone uses the same thing.
An example would be something like...
An army is made of 2 characters, 3 troop units, 2 elite, 2 heavy support, 2 fast attack, 1 flyer and one lord of war.
A troop unit is ten models on 25-40mm bases. Your choice.
They hit on 4+, wound on a 4+ and save on a 4+. Range of weapons is 12 inches.
One model may carry a special weapon. It does mortal wound instead.
One can carry a heavy weapon. It does d6 mortal.
Doesn't matter the model. They're all the same.
For a touch of flavor you add basic rules.
Space marines have a 3+ save.
Eldar move +1 inch in movement.
Orks can re roll to charge.
Ect.
If you want a plasma gun be different from a flamer and be more "realistic"... Play narrative/open where all the detailed rules come into play.
Balance and an end to the arguments.
Play a balanced game of tactics using little figures or play an in-depth detailed game with crazy expansive rules and all the minutiae.
box.
)
