What other armies? You have CSM in your profile picture at the very least, and thats one of the top dexes in the game right now.
Regular csm? And here i thought death guard and TS were the ones keeping them in the top tables.
Heck alpha legion went from hero to zero rulewise.
Black Legion and Iron Warriors are very powerful with fearless cultists, VotLW and Tide of Traitors. The three dexes keep each other at the top tables, CSM is probably in the middle of them.
I 'd like to point out, as has been said, bypassing the rule of three for DP's aswell as spamming Cultists, whilest strong is still questionable design at best.
Yeah those 2 units are great, great enough to carry with other CSM's with heavy hitters that they can field (cough DG) but not on their own.(Kinda the problem with all factions that can soup, delegating heavy hitters Cp generation and etc. too outside Dexes, meanwhile the base armies get worse for it.)
I think Incubi are fine for what they are meant to. They are efficient can openers on Marines and similar.
The problem is
A) MEQ are not relevant in the meta, so this isn't something a list needs to prioritise.
B) You have better options to achieve this if it mattered anyway. Could also be summed up as "can't turn 1 assault, may not even manage a turn 2 assault, therefore have problems." There are a fair number of units scattered across the game who have the same issue. You can make them cheaper but that doesn't change the fundamentals. (And if you make them so cheap they are capable against hordes/can just jog across the table being shot, they are going to completely wreck Marines/equivalents).
People seem to dislike them but I feel Hellions are on the tipping point too. Their offensive power is good - they are just fragile. If they were much cheaper it would start to get silly.
The main thing I'm not clear on is if they are even going to bother trying to fix Incubi, Beasts, Mandrakes, and to a lesser extent, Hellions. Some could maybe be manageable with a simple point decrease (Hellions/Mandrakes), but Incubi and Beasts need something else probably.
They will at best apply some price changes, but fundamental changes to individual unitt will not be applied, and some of these need some fundamental changes to make them viable. At best they can try to make them an equal choice to another, but that might result in weird point reductions where an Incubi will cost nearly the same as a wych and so on. I really doubt that will happen.
Rule changes I imagine they will address army-wide -1 to hit.
Overall my greatest fear is that they will overnerf things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
People seem to dislike them but I feel Hellions are on the tipping point too. Their offensive power is good - they are just fragile. If they were much cheaper it would start to get silly.
Glasscannons tend to be a problem in an igougo systems. If you have nothing but glasscannons and you go second then most of your units will be lost to a stiff breeze before you get to return fire. This is why glasscannons with survivability tend to be favored such as Shining Spears with their 4+ invuln and Ravagers with dissies over scourges.
Hellions suffer from this. Sure, if you get to do first and get them where you need them then they are going to provide some needed destruction. If you go second they might not get to do much.
Incubi aren't bad. For their cost they are pretty great BUT as pointed out - their roll is not needed.
However - they can be useful if trying to fill out a Kabal brigade. Not sure a DE brigade is high on anyones radar but what it comes down to is "mandrakes or Incubi". Nether is a bad unit. I prefer the incubi because 5 incubi in a venom just seems sacrier than 9 mandrakes.
Then in the fast attack section it is basically scourge all day.
At 2k this is way too limiting of a build. However at 2500+ it can be useful. Obviously not competitive.
Xenomancers wrote: Incubi aren't bad. For their cost they are pretty great BUT as pointed out - their roll is not needed.
However - they can be useful if trying to fill out a Kabal brigade. Not sure a DE brigade is high on anyones radar but what it comes down to is "mandrakes or Incubi". Nether is a bad unit. I prefer the incubi because 5 incubi in a venom just seems sacrier than 9 mandrakes.
Then in the fast attack section it is basically scourge all day.
At 2k this is way too limiting of a build. However at 2500+ it can be useful. Obviously not competitive.
I've sort of written off Drukari brigades, they really aren't even a thing in my book, probably because my primary detatchment is usually Cult, and when I use Kabal I don't use Ravagers. I almost never use Elites except Lahmians, and there just aren't enough options in HS. Symptom of having a fractured Codex, it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make though.
That asside, I disagree about Incubi. Even if MEQ was still the gold standard, would people really take them rather than shooting options or other close combat options you get from Coven or Cults? I wouldn't, there are numerous better options to get the job done.
Case in point Banshees, moderately competitive, fill the same theoretical role as Incubi. Except Banshees don't get Overwatched, can be Quickened to get stuck in turn 1, etc. Incubi get some weak morale thing, and that's it, nothing that actually helps with their 2 issues of actually getting into combat and survivability.
Another example, Would most DE players rather have Incubi? Or and equivalent point cost of Wyches. At least Wyches have drugs and Shardnets to help with the functionality of the army, and Wyches aren't even considered to be top tier options in the Codex, they're good, but not overly so. Incubi just don't synergize with anything. With the way they are currently written they would have to come down 4-6ppm to really be considered on the same level as other CC options we have.
Hellions are in a tough spot. I want to love them. The real issue I think is that there is just no good way to deploy them. Their footprint is huge so they are really hard to hide from an Alpha Strike, and Deep Striking them just doesn't get you much production. They are just a little too expensive for a unit that has a very high chance of being shot off the board by crap shooting (lasguns, bolters etc).
Xenomancers wrote: Incubi aren't bad. For their cost they are pretty great BUT as pointed out - their roll is not needed.
However - they can be useful if trying to fill out a Kabal brigade. Not sure a DE brigade is high on anyones radar but what it comes down to is "mandrakes or Incubi". Nether is a bad unit. I prefer the incubi because 5 incubi in a venom just seems sacrier than 9 mandrakes.
Then in the fast attack section it is basically scourge all day.
At 2k this is way too limiting of a build. However at 2500+ it can be useful. Obviously not competitive.
I've sort of written off Drukari brigades, they really aren't even a thing in my book, probably because my primary detatchment is usually Cult, and when I use Kabal I don't use Ravagers. I almost never use Elites except Lahmians, and there just aren't enough options in HS. Symptom of having a fractured Codex, it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make though.
That asside, I disagree about Incubi. Even if MEQ was still the gold standard, would people really take them rather than shooting options or other close combat options you get from Coven or Cults? I wouldn't, there are numerous better options to get the job done.
Case in point Banshees, moderately competitive, fill the same theoretical role as Incubi. Except Banshees don't get Overwatched, can be Quickened to get stuck in turn 1, etc. Incubi get some weak morale thing, and that's it, nothing that actually helps with their 2 issues of actually getting into combat and survivability.
Another example, Would most DE players rather have Incubi? Or and equivalent point cost of Wyches. At least Wyches have drugs and Shardnets to help with the functionality of the army, and Wyches aren't even considered to be top tier options in the Codex, they're good, but not overly so. Incubi just don't synergize with anything. With the way they are currently written they would have to come down 4-6ppm to really be considered on the same level as other CC options we have.
Hellions are in a tough spot. I want to love them. The real issue I think is that there is just no good way to deploy them. Their footprint is huge so they are really hard to hide from an Alpha Strike, and Deep Striking them just doesn't get you much production. They are just a little too expensive for a unit that has a very high chance of being shot off the board by crap shooting (lasguns, bolters etc).
Yeah - Incubi do need a price cut. Along with most eldar aspect warriors. Actually when you compare them to a harlequin troope it is quite pathetic.
For +3 points a player gets +1M, +1A, a 4++ save, and a shooting attack, the ability to move over terrain without penalty, not to mention the awesome ability to fall back and charge and + 1 more attack on the charge for the auto include masque trait (incubi for some reason do not benefit from army traits) they do get a 6+++ though.
^Really if that player is gonna be 19 points (undercosted perhaps) An Incubi can't be more than 13 points lol.
I expect some point changes. The real question is.. will some things get a point decrease? If they continue just raising points for over performers it kind of sucks, as I’d sure like to see the carrot in play also, not just the stick.
Rewriting stuff they have already put out. I expect that you’re going to see a big section announcing the rules made permeant from the FAQ in this release.
I wish they would do some innovation stuff. Reprint and make official some rules for some of the forgeworld stuff. Announce an Organized Play feature. Update 30K to 40K 8th Edition rules. Introduce the Official Army builder app, and tell people points will be changed in it on a bi-annual basis
I expect some point changes. The real question is.. will some things get a point decrease? If they continue just raising points for over performers it kind of sucks, as I’d sure like to see the carrot in play also, not just the stick.
Rewriting stuff they have already put out. I expect that you’re going to see a big section announcing the rules made permeant from the FAQ in this release.
I wish they would do some innovation stuff. Reprint and make official some rules for some of the forgeworld stuff. Announce an Organized Play feature. Update 30K to 40K 8th Edition rules. Introduce the Official Army builder app, and tell people points will be changed in it on a bi-annual basis
The Forge World rules are in the FW indices. You can buy them digitally via the iTunes store and those get updated every time they make changes.
I expect some point changes. The real question is.. will some things get a point decrease? If they continue just raising points for over performers it kind of sucks, as I’d sure like to see the carrot in play also, not just the stick.
Rewriting stuff they have already put out. I expect that you’re going to see a big section announcing the rules made permeant from the FAQ in this release.
I wish they would do some innovation stuff. Reprint and make official some rules for some of the forgeworld stuff. Announce an Organized Play feature. Update 30K to 40K 8th Edition rules. Introduce the Official Army builder app, and tell people points will be changed in it on a bi-annual basis
Yeah - Incubi do need a price cut. Along with most eldar aspect warriors. Actually when you compare them to a harlequin troope it is quite pathetic.
For +3 points a player gets +1M, +1A, a 4++ save, and a shooting attack, the ability to move over terrain without penalty, not to mention the awesome ability to fall back and charge and + 1 more attack on the charge for the auto include masque trait (incubi for some reason do not benefit from army traits) they do get a 6+++ though.
^Really if that player is gonna be 19 points (undercosted perhaps) An Incubi can't be more than 13 points lol.
Which Masque is auto include? Frozen Stars? I've only ever used Soaring Spite or Silent Shroud to be honest.
I'm also hoping they 'use the carrot' more than just nerfing OP stuff. I can imagine when trying to 'balance' things it could be easy to focus in on the stuff that needs point increases because we see it all the time, rather than considering all the other stuff that rarely gets play.
Yeah - Incubi do need a price cut. Along with most eldar aspect warriors. Actually when you compare them to a harlequin troope it is quite pathetic.
For +3 points a player gets +1M, +1A, a 4++ save, and a shooting attack, the ability to move over terrain without penalty, not to mention the awesome ability to fall back and charge and + 1 more attack on the charge for the auto include masque trait (incubi for some reason do not benefit from army traits) they do get a 6+++ though.
^Really if that player is gonna be 19 points (undercosted perhaps) An Incubi can't be more than 13 points lol.
Which Masque is auto include? Frozen Stars? I've only ever used Soaring Spite or Silent Shroud to be honest.
I'm also hoping they 'use the carrot' more than just nerfing OP stuff. I can imagine when trying to 'balance' things it could be easy to focus in on the stuff that needs point increases because we see it all the time, rather than considering all the other stuff that rarely gets play.
I think it's frozen stars - the +1 attack on the charge trait (I'd call this auto include in any harlequin list). Soaring spite is probably next best - advance and shoot pistols is really nice.
We shall see - quins already took a big nerf to their flip belts. I really doubt there are going to be as many changes as their should be. Probably like 10 units points go up 5-6 go down. Some new beta rule. That will be the end of it.
Tyel wrote: I think transports just need to be re-imagined.
1. Make them cheaper.
2. Make them more fragile as a result.
3. Let units jump out of them after the Transport moved not before and then psychic/shoot/assault.
I'd say a Rhino should go back to being about 35 points - but in exchange it should probably only have 5~ wounds. Maybe this would be too much of a death trap (those 1/6 casualties do add up) but you can't price 10 wounds at T7/3+ save at low enough points to be attractive.
Then again I can see the argument against this - because say Khorne Berzerkers etc would get 12" from the Rhino, 3" jump out, and then only need an 9" charge to cover 24" in the first turn.
Rhino's need there fire points back. The reason you took them was one they were cheap and two you could bring some of your marines fire power to bear while being immune from getting shot back at. Now a rhino is expensive, has little of it's own fire power and your guys aren't doing anything while in it.
Daedalus81 wrote: Meh. I think rhinos are fine. Two combibolters puts out a healthy number of shots. Drop them 5 or so points to be a little more competitive.
People just need to nut up and commit to them instead of half assing it.
Rhinos will never ever ever ever be under 60 to 65 points, so is 50 points really going to break you?
Love taps like that do not make unplayable units playable.
Well for some armies every point counts. In fact, why can't rhinos have a different cost for armies that have units that cost a lot more points as balance. It is not like any other army model can get in to lets say a GK transport.
What do you mean by full commiting a rhino? They can't do anything else then drive around.
Karol wrote: Well for some armies every point counts. In fact, why can't rhinos have a different cost for armies that have units that cost a lot more points as balance. It is not like any other army model can get in to lets say a GK transport.
What do you mean by full commiting a rhino? They can't do anything else then drive around.
This is one thing from the past I don't want to see. Absent additional rules that add a lot of value to a unit I don't want to see the bad old days of the same unit having different point costs between books.
Daedalus81 wrote:Meh. I think rhinos are fine. Two combibolters puts out a healthy number of shots. Drop them 5 or so points to be a little more competitive.
People just need to nut up and commit to them instead of half assing it.
Rhinos will never ever ever ever be under 60 to 65 points, so is 50 points really going to break you?
Rhinos kind of suffer three main issues for marines in competitive play that seriously ruin their worth, and it really isn't the unit's fault.
1. There's often no reason to ever re-embark, because one turn of losing your shooting is already painful enough for an elite army that doesn't have the durability to waste offensive output
2. Marines don't really have much that's worth transporting and protecting that wouldn't just be better off with the points spent on more bodies that can contribute from the first turn
3. The most important issue - marines are tied to their auras and as such there's not much benefit in giving them extra movement since they'll just outpace the aura unless you want to also transport that character, which disables the aura
That makes them one time use units that severely hamper your army's offensive output when used as transports and have very limited (though somewhat fun, I think) tactical benefits after dropping off its cargo. Not to mention you probably could have used a different unit altogether to secure that part of the board, one who's efficiency at that role is better than giving a foot slogging unit another 18.5" of movement on average in exchange for not shooting, and if there's a character involved, not providing an aura.
Being able to disembark after moving as long as the unit began embarked, at the cost of that unit's movement, would solve all 3. Perhaps too strong a rule, though. Firepoints coming back would be a good change.
fraser1191 wrote: So they talked about looted wagons in CA today. So does that mean announcement on Sunday, pre-order following Saturday, release on the 17th?
Honestly pulling that out of thin air, but I'd like it to be true
CA is supposed to be in December.
I think its just a teaser and a closing article for Orktober.
fraser1191 wrote: So they talked about looted wagons in CA today. So does that mean announcement on Sunday, pre-order following Saturday, release on the 17th?
Honestly pulling that out of thin air, but I'd like it to be true
CA is supposed to be in December.
I think its just a teaser and a closing article for Orktober.
Mm yeah, last year's pre order was the last week of November. Either way I'll have it long before I start my campaign
Arachnofiend wrote: It is a real shame that the actual CSM models are as weak as they are... Chaos Raptors are some of my favorite models in the whole line and they're just... well they're not good, that's for sure.
That's because GW still isn't treating the army like it's a bunch of Elites. In my ideal system, Chosen would be the baseline troop and Cultists would be able to stop your Infantry, Bikes, and Helbrutes from being shot like though they were Characters.
DudleyGrim wrote: a 10%-20% points reductions across the board for necrons. Maybe even a slight buff to Tesla Destructors, and Quantum Shielding added to flyers.
That's pretty much my only gripes with the army, overcosted as hell and no real reason to take any other vehicle other than DDA.
I'd rather Reanimation just be a FnP save, and QS treat all weapons as -1 to wound, or ignore rend, or something.
Making them cheaper wont fix their broken rules, they need their basic army rules re-written
Even if it was the most sensible possible solution RP will never be a 5+ FNP. That is quite specifically a Death Guard thing in 8th. I'm pretty sure everyone else with a similar rule is operating on a 6+ for this very reason.
It acts as a FnP now just later in the round, its clunky, annoying, and not working. Give it a FnP rule, keep them same cost, they are more costly b.c of the FnP rule, they are freaking 12ppm troops lol
I think it's worth pursuing a world where all the main factions are mechanically distinct and have something that makes them truly unique from any of their competitors. I'm just as dissatisfied with RP as you are, but I would rather it be changed into something new than for Death Guard and Necrons to just be different aesthetic flavors of the exact same variety of hard-to-kill.
Martel732 wrote: IH marines should be t4 5+++. They are damn cyborgs. DG should not have a monopoly on 5+++
Hrm, most of them have no more than a mechanical hand that is ritually grafted, especially the basic battle brothers. They're hardly an entire chapter of cyborgs. Such are rare gifts bestowed upon the worthy, not handed out like candy.
Arachnofiend wrote: I think it's worth pursuing a world where all the main factions are mechanically distinct and have something that makes them truly unique from any of their competitors. I'm just as dissatisfied with RP as you are, but I would rather it be changed into something new than for Death Guard and Necrons to just be different aesthetic flavors of the exact same variety of hard-to-kill.
Arachnofiend wrote: I think it's worth pursuing a world where all the main factions are mechanically distinct and have something that makes them truly unique from any of their competitors. I'm just as dissatisfied with RP as you are, but I would rather it be changed into something new than for Death Guard and Necrons to just be different aesthetic flavors of the exact same variety of hard-to-kill.
Problem being currently Deathguard are annoyingly resilient to play against. Necrons right now feel like they are made from Victorian tinfoil for the most part.
The issue I see with SM Rhinos is that the Space Marines don't need to ride anywhere, therefore they don't need an APC.
A Razorback is a little tank, but a Rhino is just a box for moving dudes, and it's not like there are dudes that need moving.
At that rate, any cost more than a brick that can capture objectives is "too high" for Space Marines.
However, some other armies have units which very much need to have a car to get where they're going. Sisters Dominions, Acro Flagellants, or Khorne Berzerkers, for example. In this capacity, a Rhino can be very useful at it's cost.
The Rhino is probably fine at cost, there's just no unit to ride in it, if you're Space Marines.
Chimera are pretty bad too, for the same reasons. They're not very good at being a little tank, and the Guard doesn't need to carry people anywhere. We'll either stand there, or Move! Move! Move!
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: The issue I see with SM Rhinos is that the Space Marines don't need to ride anywhere, therefore they don't need an APC.
A Razorback is a little tank, but a Rhino is just a box for moving dudes, and it's not like there are dudes that need moving.
At that rate, any cost more than a brick that can capture objectives is "too high" for Space Marines.
However, some other armies have units which very much need to have a car to get where they're going. Sisters Dominions, Acro Flagellants, or Khorne Berzerkers, for example. In this capacity, a Rhino can be very useful at it's cost.
The only thing I can think of in the vanilla codex would be agressors but they are primaris locked so need to wait for the scheduled replusive bus.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: The issue I see with SM Rhinos is that the Space Marines don't need to ride anywhere, therefore they don't need an APC.
A Razorback is a little tank, but a Rhino is just a box for moving dudes, and it's not like there are dudes that need moving.
At that rate, any cost more than a brick that can capture objectives is "too high" for Space Marines.
However, some other armies have units which very much need to have a car to get where they're going. Sisters Dominions, Acro Flagellants, or Khorne Berzerkers, for example. In this capacity, a Rhino can be very useful at it's cost.
The only thing I can think of in the vanilla codex would be agressors but they are primaris locked so need to wait for the scheduled replusive bus.
Oh, yeah. Rhino harnesses can't fit a guy who's a foot taller than normal, but the harnesses in a Chimera or Valkyrie can accommodate Ogryn just fine, even though they're sitting across three seats. Further rubbing it in, the Rhino harnesses can accommodate Sisters, who are like a fully 2 feet shorter than Space Marines, without any sort of difficulty.
From a more mechanical perspective, would Primaris being able to ride a Rhino break the game? Probably not.
Martel732 wrote: Marines have nothing worth moving. The rhino itself is passable.
Also, Space Marine units tend to come in small squads which fit nicely in a Razorback. And the Razorback is also a small tank, so if you don't need ten transport slots, you don't really need a Rhino. The Rhino serves a very niche transport role for the Space Marines, and it's a niche that doesn't need filling, because I can't think of any Space Marine unit that A: needs to be moved by transport and B: does not fit in a Razorback and C: fits in a Rhino.
As an addendum, for the units that could benefit from transports, there's a Chapter Strategem that fills almost the same role as putting them in a transport, so it's really unnecessary.
Daedalus81 wrote: Meh. I think rhinos are fine. Two combibolters puts out a healthy number of shots. Drop them 5 or so points to be a little more competitive.
People just need to nut up and commit to them instead of half assing it.
Rhinos will never ever ever ever be under 60 to 65 points, so is 50 points really going to break you?
Love taps like that do not make unplayable units playable.
Good thing it's totally playable.
It's not like spending an extra 80 points to shoot an autocannon out of a rhino makes it amazing.
Primaris Marines not being able to ride rhinos or other oldmarine transports is probably the most blatant marketing decision we've seen in 8th. The only justification for it is that they want to sell you the new transport.
Arachnofiend wrote: Primaris Marines not being able to ride rhinos or other oldmarine transports is probably the most blatant marketing decision we've seen in 8th. The only justification for it is that they want to sell you the new transport.
If that were true wouldn't it make it even MORE useful to let regular marines ride in the Repulsor, too?
Arachnofiend wrote: Primaris Marines not being able to ride rhinos or other oldmarine transports is probably the most blatant marketing decision we've seen in 8th. The only justification for it is that they want to sell you the new transport.
If that were true wouldn't it make it even MORE useful to let regular marines ride in the Repulsor, too?
Yes, but that would also require me to want to actually use a Repulsor as a transport anyway. It's way too costly to be shuttling anything around the field.
Though, to its credit, it flies, which makes it better than a Land Raider at doing the whole heavy assault transport thing since going in the direction of the enemy isn't also detrimental to it's function as a 400 point tank with 4 Lascannons.
Arachnofiend wrote: Primaris Marines not being able to ride rhinos or other oldmarine transports is probably the most blatant marketing decision we've seen in 8th. The only justification for it is that they want to sell you the new transport.
It would make more sense if there were a new dedicated transport. Repulsors aren't something I would want to run headfirst into enemy lines with.
Amishprn86 wrote: It acts as a FnP now just later in the round, its clunky, annoying, and not working. Give it a FnP rule, keep them same cost, they are more costly b.c of the FnP rule, they are freaking 12ppm troops lol
It is working though. It just needs to be at the end of the movement phase so you have a chance to get your buffs in position, and for a way to bring back dead squads. If Orks can do it, then why not necrons? That's kind of their thing. Its no more clunky or annoying than FNP.
RP isn't even what's wrong with necrons. Their offensive output is lacking compared to most other factions, which means any advantage they get from RP is undermined.
Arachnofiend wrote: I think it's worth pursuing a world where all the main factions are mechanically distinct and have something that makes them truly unique from any of their competitors. I'm just as dissatisfied with RP as you are, but I would rather it be changed into something new than for Death Guard and Necrons to just be different aesthetic flavors of the exact same variety of hard-to-kill.
We dont need unique rules to feel unique
You kind of do though? I mean, that's why its called a "unique" rule.
Rhinos would go up in value if Marines had a decent assault unit. I think if they fixed Assault Marines (as in, gave them a points drop AND a better statline, even just an extra attack would help), they are one unit that would benefit from a Rhino.
I would not expect much. I am going to speculate by not speculating my speculation.
In all honesty I am just probably going to say "Knights Will Remain Broken, Deathguard will meet hammer, Grey Knights will be ignored, Sisters will break the meta, and gak all for Space Marines."
NurglesR0T wrote: Only a matter of time until they release a Primaris Rhino equivalent
Repulsor IS the rhino.
What we don't have is the MBT.
Repulsor is the Land Raider. A gunboat that's confused trying to be a transport. The issue that Land Raiders have had since it's inception.
You would think, but it's a transport option and not HS like a LR. The Primaris shtick is being hilariously upgunned for buckets of points. Fear the MBT, because I'm fairly certain it will be a thing.
NurglesR0T wrote: Only a matter of time until they release a Primaris Rhino equivalent
Repulsor IS the rhino.
What we don't have is the MBT.
Repulsor is the Land Raider. A gunboat that's confused trying to be a transport. The issue that Land Raiders have had since it's inception.
You would think, but it's a transport option and not HS like a LR. The Primaris shtick is being hilariously upgunned for buckets of points. Fear the MBT, because I'm fairly certain it will be a thing.
This seems like semantics. Repulsor is a tank and plays like a tank, a bigger tank possibly coming out sometime in the uncertain future does not change that.
Amishprn86 wrote: It acts as a FnP now just later in the round, its clunky, annoying, and not working. Give it a FnP rule, keep them same cost, they are more costly b.c of the FnP rule, they are freaking 12ppm troops lol
It does not work like fnp later. Rp can be negated completely making rule scale badly. Good in sub-1k, bad in 2k, lol at bigger
Amishprn86 wrote: It acts as a FnP now just later in the round, its clunky, annoying, and not working. Give it a FnP rule, keep them same cost, they are more costly b.c of the FnP rule, they are freaking 12ppm troops lol
It does not work like fnp later. Rp can be negated completely making rule scale badly. Good in sub-1k, bad in 2k, lol at bigger
And is not negated by multidamage weapons, so no it definitely is a different kind of beast compared to FnP.
RP isn't even actually a bad rule, it just suffers from the game having too much shooting power. Shooting allows you to focus down a single unit, assault has many more problems with it.
Amishprn86 wrote: It acts as a FnP now just later in the round, its clunky, annoying, and not working. Give it a FnP rule, keep them same cost, they are more costly b.c of the FnP rule, they are freaking 12ppm troops lol
It does not work like fnp later. Rp can be negated completely making rule scale badly. Good in sub-1k, bad in 2k, lol at bigger
And is not negated by multidamage weapons, so no it definitely is a different kind of beast compared to FnP.
RP isn't even actually a bad rule, it just suffers from the game having too much shooting power. Shooting allows you to focus down a single unit, assault has many more problems with it.
Yes it's different. But as it is worse. In 2k effect is neglible.
Honestly at this point they could/should just go back to making it like "We'll Be Back" and have it always work, even if the unit is wiped. Except maybe without the whole "joining other units" part and just having the whole unit be rezzed roughly where it died.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Honestly at this point they could/should just go back to making it like "We'll Be Back" and have it always work, even if the unit is wiped.
Except maybe without the whole "joining other units" part and just having the whole unit be rezzed roughly where it died.
We'll be Back didn't allow wiped squads to return.
In order to do that, you need a spyder which had a rule that allowed that. Wiped squads coming back was not an innate property of WBB.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Honestly at this point they could/should just go back to making it like "We'll Be Back" and have it always work, even if the unit is wiped.
Except maybe without the whole "joining other units" part and just having the whole unit be rezzed roughly where it died.
We'll be Back didn't allow wiped squads to return.
In order to do that, you need a spyder which had a rule that allowed that. Wiped squads coming back was not an innate property of WBB.
I could have sworn it allowed wiped squads to return if the same squad type was within 6" of where they died?
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Honestly at this point they could/should just go back to making it like "We'll Be Back" and have it always work, even if the unit is wiped. Except maybe without the whole "joining other units" part and just having the whole unit be rezzed roughly where it died.
We'll be Back didn't allow wiped squads to return. In order to do that, you need a spyder which had a rule that allowed that. Wiped squads coming back was not an innate property of WBB.
I could have sworn it allowed wiped squads to return if the same squad type was within 6" of where they died?
I just double checked, you are right. Tomb Spyders increase the range to 12". Which means I was playing 3rd ed necrons wrong Yeah, bring back that part of the rule would be useful.
I don't think reanimation protocols is that bad - its just certain Necron units need to be cheaper. In the case of the elite/small squad size units this is considerable.
I also think - and this is coming up from grots in the Ork Codex - that all units which don't currently get a chapter tactic should get some sort of special rule. This isn't even really a balance thing - its just... feels like you are being short changed. Which upsets people.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Honestly at this point they could/should just go back to making it like "We'll Be Back" and have it always work, even if the unit is wiped.
Except maybe without the whole "joining other units" part and just having the whole unit be rezzed roughly where it died.
That leads to problem with kill point scenarios though. Necrons will be either laughably easy to win against(unit dies, 1KP scored, some 2-3 comes back, you kill them, yet another KP) or pretty much impossible to win especially if necrons go second(last turn necrons roll RP's and if anything succeeds no kill point whatsoever for you)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: I don't think reanimation protocols is that bad - its just certain Necron units need to be cheaper. In the case of the elite/small squad size units this is considerable.
Problem here is that the rule does not scale. At all. It's very powerful at the lower points because wiping out necron unit is much harder. At 1500 pts it starts to be weak. At 2k units will get focus fired and destroyed so now necrons are paying for ability they don't really get to use. At 3k unit surviving long enough to roll RP is super slim. 5k? Yeah right. RP? What's that?
Tyel wrote: I don't think reanimation protocols is that bad - its just certain Necron units need to be cheaper. In the case of the elite/small squad size units this is considerable.
Problem here is that the rule does not scale. At all. It's very powerful at the lower points because wiping out necron unit is much harder. At 1500 pts it starts to be weak. At 2k units will get focus fired and destroyed so now necrons are paying for ability they don't really get to use. At 3k unit surviving long enough to roll RP is super slim. 5k? Yeah right. RP? What's that?
What if you make the roll for a necron unit whenever an enemy unit resolves shooting or assault against them? That would minimize the impact of focus firing somewhat. It would still be distinct from FNP, as dead necrons still have a chance to get up and multiple damage weapons still only cause 1 roll for every necron.
tneva82 wrote: Problem here is that the rule does not scale. At all. It's very powerful at the lower points because wiping out necron unit is much harder. At 1500 pts it starts to be weak. At 2k units will get focus fired and destroyed so now necrons are paying for ability they don't really get to use. At 3k unit surviving long enough to roll RP is super slim. 5k? Yeah right. RP? What's that?
Well yeah - but I don't really care about 500 point or 5000 point games. I'm not convinced GW does either.
In a 2k game sure, your opponent will try to focus down units. There may be good reasons to do this (getting kill points, denying objectives) but forcing your opponent to kill whole units or risk them coming back is a reasonable boon. It could make them force them into less efficient choices because they need that unit wiped. The question is "what is this worth"? Right now a Necron Warrior isn't worth 12 points. An Immortal isn't worth 17. Lychguard are not worth 35 or whatever.
tneva82 wrote: Problem here is that the rule does not scale. At all. It's very powerful at the lower points because wiping out necron unit is much harder. At 1500 pts it starts to be weak. At 2k units will get focus fired and destroyed so now necrons are paying for ability they don't really get to use. At 3k unit surviving long enough to roll RP is super slim. 5k? Yeah right. RP? What's that?
Well yeah - but I don't really care about 500 point or 5000 point games. I'm not convinced GW does either.
In a 2k game sure, your opponent will try to focus down units. There may be good reasons to do this (getting kill points, denying objectives) but forcing your opponent to kill whole units or risk them coming back is a reasonable boon. It could make them force them into less efficient choices because they need that unit wiped. The question is "what is this worth"? Right now a Necron Warrior isn't worth 12 points. An Immortal isn't worth 17. Lychguard are not worth 35 or whatever.
That's a good point. Forcing your opponent to waste his turn destroying a unit is a good thing. The problem though is that necrons are too expensive for that tactic to really work, as you won't be able to afford that many high threat targets. Your opponent would be more inclined to destroy your destroyers than warriors. Only possible solution, other than making them cheaper, is to make every necron a potential threat. Warriors suddenly seem a lot more dangerous if their guns have a chance of inflicting an extra point of damage, for example.
This seems like semantics. Repulsor is a tank and plays like a tank, a bigger tank possibly coming out sometime in the uncertain future does not change that.
The best kind of semantics!
That is plays like a tank just speaks to the Primaris design philosophy. You could say it's a Razorback, I suppose.
tneva82 wrote: Problem here is that the rule does not scale. At all. It's very powerful at the lower points because wiping out necron unit is much harder. At 1500 pts it starts to be weak. At 2k units will get focus fired and destroyed so now necrons are paying for ability they don't really get to use. At 3k unit surviving long enough to roll RP is super slim. 5k? Yeah right. RP? What's that?
Well yeah - but I don't really care about 500 point or 5000 point games. I'm not convinced GW does either.
In a 2k game sure, your opponent will try to focus down units. There may be good reasons to do this (getting kill points, denying objectives) but forcing your opponent to kill whole units or risk them coming back is a reasonable boon. It could make them force them into less efficient choices because they need that unit wiped. The question is "what is this worth"? Right now a Necron Warrior isn't worth 12 points. An Immortal isn't worth 17. Lychguard are not worth 35 or whatever.
Ah yes. Let's ignore everything but 2k(where RP already sucks) because everybody plays only it right? Now that's good excuse for lazy game design! Just like GW. Can't be bothered to do the job they are paid for so put out any crap.
tneva82 wrote: Problem here is that the rule does not scale. At all. It's very powerful at the lower points because wiping out necron unit is much harder. At 1500 pts it starts to be weak. At 2k units will get focus fired and destroyed so now necrons are paying for ability they don't really get to use. At 3k unit surviving long enough to roll RP is super slim. 5k? Yeah right. RP? What's that?
Well yeah - but I don't really care about 500 point or 5000 point games. I'm not convinced GW does either.
In a 2k game sure, your opponent will try to focus down units. There may be good reasons to do this (getting kill points, denying objectives) but forcing your opponent to kill whole units or risk them coming back is a reasonable boon. It could make them force them into less efficient choices because they need that unit wiped. The question is "what is this worth"? Right now a Necron Warrior isn't worth 12 points. An Immortal isn't worth 17. Lychguard are not worth 35 or whatever.
That's a good point. Forcing your opponent to waste his turn destroying a unit is a good thing. The problem though is that necrons are too expensive for that tactic to really work, as you won't be able to afford that many high threat targets. Your opponent would be more inclined to destroy your destroyers than warriors.
Only possible solution, other than making them cheaper, is to make every necron a potential threat. Warriors suddenly seem a lot more dangerous if their guns have a chance of inflicting an extra point of damage, for example.
Again tgis just highlights the inconsistency between codex's.
Are troops supposed to be good enough that you want to take them anyway or are they supposed to be a tax unit that rewards you with CP?
Right now the elite armies with expensive troops have tax units while the horde armies have non tax troops, so get better units and more CP? How is that balanceable?
tneva82 wrote: Problem here is that the rule does not scale. At all. It's very powerful at the lower points because wiping out necron unit is much harder. At 1500 pts it starts to be weak. At 2k units will get focus fired and destroyed so now necrons are paying for ability they don't really get to use. At 3k unit surviving long enough to roll RP is super slim. 5k? Yeah right. RP? What's that?
Well yeah - but I don't really care about 500 point or 5000 point games. I'm not convinced GW does either.
In a 2k game sure, your opponent will try to focus down units. There may be good reasons to do this (getting kill points, denying objectives) but forcing your opponent to kill whole units or risk them coming back is a reasonable boon. It could make them force them into less efficient choices because they need that unit wiped. The question is "what is this worth"? Right now a Necron Warrior isn't worth 12 points. An Immortal isn't worth 17. Lychguard are not worth 35 or whatever.
That's a good point. Forcing your opponent to waste his turn destroying a unit is a good thing. The problem though is that necrons are too expensive for that tactic to really work, as you won't be able to afford that many high threat targets. Your opponent would be more inclined to destroy your destroyers than warriors.
Only possible solution, other than making them cheaper, is to make every necron a potential threat. Warriors suddenly seem a lot more dangerous if their guns have a chance of inflicting an extra point of damage, for example.
Again tgis just highlights the inconsistency between codex's.
Are troops supposed to be good enough that you want to take them anyway or are they supposed to be a tax unit that rewards you with CP?
Right now the elite armies with expensive troops have tax units while the horde armies have non tax troops, so get better units and more CP? How is that balanceable?
Yeah, ideally "elite" armies should have higher damage output per model. Right now though the damage output of a marine is the same as an ork or a guardsman; they both fire the same number of shots. Except for the price of a marine you could have 3 guardsmen, effectively tripling the number of potential casualties.
tneva82 wrote: Now that's good excuse for lazy game design! Just like GW. Can't be bothered to do the job they are paid for so put out any crap.
C'mon, give the guys a break. They've been doing a better job the past couple years than they have been in previous decades before. At least they're listening to their customers somewha...
WTF. I'm actually defending GW now?!? What has the world come to?!? Every now and then I have to remind myself what they did to WFB 8th.
tneva82 wrote: Now that's good excuse for lazy game design! Just like GW. Can't be bothered to do the job they are paid for so put out any crap.
C'mon, give the guys a break. They've been doing a better job the past couple years than they have been in previous decades before. At least they're listening to their customers somewha...
WTF. I'm actually defending GW now?!? What has the world come to?!? Every now and then I have to remind myself what they did to WFB 8th.
No. I would give them if a break if it hadn't taken said decades to actually realize we want a balanced game. A year and a half of half arsed and lazy updates is not going to erase those decades of them totally fething up, and besides some decent PR, their rules writing hasn't really improved. They just take 6 months to write a "patch" and change a few points costs that could have been done in an hour tops, and people give them applause saying how amazing the "new GW" is. Power creep is real, the recent fluff makes me gag, and the nerfing of "OP" stuff without addressing the source of problem is lazy trash.
tneva82 wrote: Now that's good excuse for lazy game design! Just like GW. Can't be bothered to do the job they are paid for so put out any crap.
C'mon, give the guys a break. They've been doing a better job the past couple years than they have been in previous decades before. At least they're listening to their customers somewha...
WTF. I'm actually defending GW now?!? What has the world come to?!? Every now and then I have to remind myself what they did to WFB 8th.
No. I would give them if a break if it hadn't taken said decades to actually realize we want a balanced game. A year and a half of half arsed and lazy updates is not going to erase those decades of them totally fething up, and besides some decent PR, their rules writing hasn't really improved. They just take 6 months to write a "patch" and change a few points costs that could have been done in an hour tops, and people give them applause saying how amazing the "new GW" is. Power creep is real, the recent fluff makes me gag, and the nerfing of "OP" stuff without addressing the source of problem is lazy trash.
skchsan wrote: There needs to be a grounds-up point adjustments with guardsmen as the baseline.
Absolutely. Plus 2000 point games are just arbitrary numbers. But I'm also for a 10 point guardsman and go from there and who knows 3000 points might be the norm from there
tneva82 wrote: Now that's good excuse for lazy game design! Just like GW. Can't be bothered to do the job they are paid for so put out any crap.
C'mon, give the guys a break. They've been doing a better job the past couple years than they have been in previous decades before. At least they're listening to their customers somewha...
WTF. I'm actually defending GW now?!? What has the world come to?!? Every now and then I have to remind myself what they did to WFB 8th.
No. I would give them if a break if it hadn't taken said decades to actually realize we want a balanced game. A year and a half of half arsed and lazy updates is not going to erase those decades of them totally fething up, and besides some decent PR, their rules writing hasn't really improved. They just take 6 months to write a "patch" and change a few points costs that could have been done in an hour tops, and people give them applause saying how amazing the "new GW" is. Power creep is real, the recent fluff makes me gag, and the nerfing of "OP" stuff without addressing the source of problem is lazy trash.
I think you've grinded this axe to dust. Time to find a new game for you, m8.
But here's an Ork head psychically playing a violin to hopefully make you feel better
skchsan wrote: There needs to be a grounds-up point adjustments with guardsmen as the baseline.
Yeah, probably true. Also maybe time to reassess the value of a wound.
tneva82 wrote: Now that's good excuse for lazy game design! Just like GW. Can't be bothered to do the job they are paid for so put out any crap.
C'mon, give the guys a break. They've been doing a better job the past couple years than they have been in previous decades before. At least they're listening to their customers somewha...
WTF. I'm actually defending GW now?!? What has the world come to?!? Every now and then I have to remind myself what they did to WFB 8th.
No. I would give them if a break if it hadn't taken said decades to actually realize we want a balanced game. A year and a half of half arsed and lazy updates is not going to erase those decades of them totally fething up, and besides some decent PR, their rules writing hasn't really improved. They just take 6 months to write a "patch" and change a few points costs that could have been done in an hour tops, and people give them applause saying how amazing the "new GW" is. Power creep is real, the recent fluff makes me gag, and the nerfing of "OP" stuff without addressing the source of problem is lazy trash.
Dude you are literally the hero of Dakka. It's tough to be the hero though. Prepare for the Dakka backlash.
tneva82 wrote: Now that's good excuse for lazy game design! Just like GW. Can't be bothered to do the job they are paid for so put out any crap.
C'mon, give the guys a break. They've been doing a better job the past couple years than they have been in previous decades before. At least they're listening to their customers somewha...
WTF. I'm actually defending GW now?!? What has the world come to?!? Every now and then I have to remind myself what they did to WFB 8th.
No. I would give them if a break if it hadn't taken said decades to actually realize we want a balanced game. A year and a half of half arsed and lazy updates is not going to erase those decades of them totally fething up, and besides some decent PR, their rules writing hasn't really improved. They just take 6 months to write a "patch" and change a few points costs that could have been done in an hour tops, and people give them applause saying how amazing the "new GW" is. Power creep is real, the recent fluff makes me gag, and the nerfing of "OP" stuff without addressing the source of problem is lazy trash.
Yea, so I'm going to call bs.
It was a year and a half of nearly wall to wall codexes that weren't fully envisioned at the onset of 8th. They've clearly explored many facets and grown in certain areas.
What you think is a simple patch is a moving target with each successive codex. Their creativity has gotten better aside from the Necron nose dive.
AdMech, Tau, Necrons, Deathwatch and Tyranids were not power creep. Eldar and IK are the only books that were far enough from the misunderstandings from the initial releases that could be considered creep.
People here like to wax poetic on how easy they think it is, but I'd bet you'd fall flat on your face, too.
All that said this CA is GW's prime opportunity to show they have a good grasp of the situation now that most of the books are out.
I really think the necron players who are expecting a complete codex overhaul in CA are deluding themselves and setting themselves up for disappointment. Necrons probably will never be a top tier army in 8th edition, and I am ok with this. I do really hope for some points reductions though, maybe a look at repricing or errata-ing some of our less powerful stratagems.
240 pts for a max squad of warriors kinda sucks, but 200 would be pretty cool, like wise a monolith at 400 is AWFUL, but 230 would make it at least playable.
If we could just field MORE units, I think we'd have a much better baseline to worth with.
DudleyGrim wrote: I really think the necron players who are expecting a complete codex overhaul in CA are deluding themselves and setting themselves up for disappointment. Necrons probably will never be a top tier army in 8th edition, and I am ok with this. I do really hope for some points reductions though, maybe a look at repricing or errata-ing some of our less powerful stratagems.
240 pts for a max squad of warriors kinda sucks, but 200 would be pretty cool, like wise a monolith at 400 is AWFUL, but 230 would make it at least playable.
If we could just field MORE units, I think we'd have a much better baseline to worth with.
Agreed. I would be satisfied if a typical 2k necron list would be 1.8k with CA 2018. I dont expect any major rules changes. RP will stay the same.
Necrons need about a 10-25% reduction across the board on all but:
Infantry need to either be immune to morale or can't lose more than 1d3 models on a failed roll.
Tomb blades and Destroyers.
Monolith and Obelisk need roughly a 50% reduction.
I would like to see the monolith return to being the support vehicle for the silver tide. Add a 5++ aura to troop units within 6" of it. Give it a 5++ save or quantum shielding. Increase the to wound by +1 for troops within the same aura.
Fix Gauss to be a mortal wound on 6's vs all non-infantry.
Fix Tesla to be on an unmodified roll of 6.
Overlord change to reroll misses aura.
Fliers need quantum shielding.
Doom Scythe to 2d3 attacks, changed to assault or ignores heavy.
Spiders become characters
That could make them at least competitive (Still low tier 1 or high tier 2 *maybe*). It also doesn't make any model better than their equivalent in other armies for the same price.
Some of your ideas are insane. 25% point decrease on all units ? Ridiculous. Monolith and obelisk 50% ? Impossible. I would be very suprised if either loses more than 100 points.
p5freak wrote: Some of your ideas are insane. 25% point decrease on all units ? Ridiculous. Monolith and obelisk 50% ? Impossible. I would be very suprised if either loses more than 100 points.
I get that you don't understand the issue necrons have. At 50% off the Monolith would barely be playable, and *still* not competitive.
25% off on most units? I said 10-25% actually. Also, yes, that is pretty accurate. Compare necron models 1 for 1 with other top tier armies and you will see 10-25% barely puts them in the ballpark. Remember that they still don't have psykers or any method to fight them.
valdier wrote: Necrons need about a 10-25% reduction across the board on all but:
Infantry need to either be immune to morale or can't lose more than 1d3 models on a failed roll.
Tomb blades and Destroyers.
Monolith and Obelisk need roughly a 50% reduction.
I would like to see the monolith return to being the support vehicle for the silver tide. Add a 5++ aura to troop units within 6" of it. Give it a 5++ save or quantum shielding. Increase the to wound by +1 for troops within the same aura.
Fix Gauss to be a mortal wound on 6's vs all non-infantry.
Fix Tesla to be on an unmodified roll of 6.
Overlord change to reroll misses aura.
Flier need quantum shielding.
Doom Scythe to 2d3 attacks, changed to assault or ignores heavy.
That could make them at least competitive (Still low tier 1 or high tier 2 *maybe*). It also doesn't make any model better than their equivalent in other armies for the same price.
Mostly proof of how badly GW messed up the Necron codex.
Seriously, tell me where I'm wrong in my assessment compared to units in other armies.
(Btw, I've actually written for award winning books in the game industry and edited for the same numbers intensive system [#2 selling game in the world at the time], since you mentioned it)
I wouldn't expect much from Chapter Approved as far as game balance goes. Keep in mind that it has already hit the printers and the final version has therefore been locked in, so they can't make changes to stuff that shows up now. This CA is certainly an opportunity for GW to make the fundamental changes the game needs. However, as we creep up to December, more and more red flags seem to be showing up, and it's becoming more and more likely that any of the larger-scale balance changes people are expecting in CA will be mainly patch jobs and a couple of points changes per army. For me, the biggest red flag has to be the way that it is being marketed. They seem to draw more and more on the sister's beta codex and the looted wagon rules as their big draw. It could be nothing, but it wouldn't be unrealistic to believe that the reason for them pushing these elements is because they're the areas that they put their primary efforts into.
valdier wrote: Necrons need about a 10-25% reduction across the board on all but:
Infantry need to either be immune to morale or can't lose more than 1d3 models on a failed roll.
Tomb blades and Destroyers.
Monolith and Obelisk need roughly a 50% reduction.
I would like to see the monolith return to being the support vehicle for the silver tide. Add a 5++ aura to troop units within 6" of it. Give it a 5++ save or quantum shielding. Increase the to wound by +1 for troops within the same aura.
Fix Gauss to be a mortal wound on 6's vs all non-infantry.
Fix Tesla to be on an unmodified roll of 6.
Overlord change to reroll misses aura.
Fliers need quantum shielding.
Doom Scythe to 2d3 attacks, changed to assault or ignores heavy.
Spiders become characters
That could make them at least competitive (Still low tier 1 or high tier 2 *maybe*). It also doesn't make any model better than their equivalent in other armies for the same price.
lol
back to the drawing board for you friendo
"still just upper mid tier" right
The Necron codex is bad, but with opinions like these I guarantee it's not responsible for a single one of your losses.
...we'll wait for the codex...
...we'll wait for the faq...
...we'll wait for the CA...
...we'll wait for the next edition...
We're nearly through the entire 8th edition; and there's been minimal change in GW's ability to write codexs', and even less in their ability to balance armies, and individual units.
I'm very curious what changes in CA2018 - but I'm not getting my hopes up.
valdier wrote: At 50% off the Monolith would barely be playable, and *still* not competitive.
Barely playable? That's 190 points, which is the same as a Las Pred.
The monolith has 9 more wounds, T8, living metal, and no heavy penalty. I'm sure it does less damage overall, but it's a transport and very durable. It's not worth 381, but definitely not 190 either.
fe40k wrote: ...we'll wait for the codex...
...we'll wait for the faq...
...we'll wait for the CA...
...we'll wait for the next edition...
We're nearly through the entire 8th edition; and there's been minimal change in GW's ability to write codexs', and even less in their ability to balance armies, and individual units.
I'm very curious what changes in CA2018 - but I'm not getting my hopes up.
I'm just going to wait to see what it has to offer. Of course, let Games Workshop show it in the best light that they can, and more importantly now than ever with the importance on this release on the future of the game. Really though, my biggest concern is the red flags I'm seeing around the marketing of the book before the big push comes in November.
fe40k wrote: ...we'll wait for the codex...
...we'll wait for the faq...
...we'll wait for the CA...
...we'll wait for the next edition...
We're nearly through the entire 8th edition; and there's been minimal change in GW's ability to write codexs', and even less in their ability to balance armies, and individual units.
I'm very curious what changes in CA2018 - but I'm not getting my hopes up.
Red Herring.
GW has been making changes, adding beta rules, and progressing those rules through feedback. Codexes have largely become more complex save Necrons who seem like they were forced out.
Just because they haven't done what you want doesn't mean they haven't done anything at all.
valdier wrote: At 50% off the Monolith would barely be playable, and *still* not competitive.
Barely playable? That's 190 points, which is the same as a Las Pred.
The monolith has 9 more wounds, T8, living metal, and no heavy penalty. I'm sure it does less damage overall, but it's a transport and very durable. It's not worth 381, but definitely not 190 either.
You also forgot fly, which is important as it means it won't get tied down on combat. However, using Living Metal as a main plus is certainly generous for sure. For me, I wouldn't ever pay more than 300 points for such a model. It dies a lot faster than people think, and it's transport ability not allowing you to bring characters with a unit is pretty painful.
You also forgot fly, which is important as it means it won't get tied down on combat. However, using Living Metal as a main plus is certainly generous for sure. For me, I wouldn't ever pay more than 300 points for such a model. It dies a lot faster than people think, and it's transport ability not allowing you to bring characters with a unit is pretty painful.
Sure, I agree.
I think the other half of the problem is knights normalizing a price range for models with T8 and 20+ wounds (or damage output for their price range). We now have a mental anchor - are knights too cheap or everything else to expensive?
It's more complex than that and not likely solved all in one swoop.
fe40k wrote: ...we'll wait for the codex...
...we'll wait for the faq...
...we'll wait for the CA...
...we'll wait for the next edition...
We're nearly through the entire 8th edition; and there's been minimal change in GW's ability to write codexs', and even less in their ability to balance armies, and individual units.
I'm very curious what changes in CA2018 - but I'm not getting my hopes up.
What evidence do you have for declaring we’re nearly through the entire 8th edition?
DudleyGrim wrote: I really think the necron players who are expecting a complete codex overhaul in CA are deluding themselves and setting themselves up for disappointment. Necrons probably will never be a top tier army in 8th edition, and I am ok with this. I do really hope for some points reductions though, maybe a look at repricing or errata-ing some of our less powerful stratagems.
240 pts for a max squad of warriors kinda sucks, but 200 would be pretty cool, like wise a monolith at 400 is AWFUL, but 230 would make it at least playable.
If we could just field MORE units, I think we'd have a much better baseline to worth with.
Agreed. I would be satisfied if a typical 2k necron list would be 1.8k with CA 2018. I dont expect any major rules changes. RP will stay the same.
Marines are more or less in the same situation. A 10-15% point reduction and replacing all the "take three of this not-great thing and spend CPs to make it less not great" strategems that nobody uses is about the best I think we should really expect.
I do have my fingers crossed for making the basic Marine character auras 9" instead of 6" or adding some CP regeration to basic Captains (or both) to help non-Ultramarine armies feel less penalized for not being able to take Girly-man though.
valdier wrote: Necrons need about a 10-25% reduction across the board on all but:
Probably. It depends. A 25% point reduction on warriors would bring them down to 8pts, which is excessive.
valdier wrote: Infantry need to either be immune to morale or can't lose more than 1d3 models on a failed roll.
Necrons are already LD10 across the board and there's a WL trait that makes them immune to morale. Such a rule is unnecessary.
Tomb blades and Destroyers.
Uh what? Did you mean to write something and forgot?
Monolith and Obelisk need roughly a 50% reduction.
Hah, no. Monoliths need a reduction, but that's way too much.
I would like to see the monolith return to being the support vehicle for the silver tide. Add a 5++ aura to troop units within 6" of it. Give it a 5++ save or quantum shielding. Increase the to wound by +1 for troops within the same aura.
The monolith never did any of those things. It should buff RP. Or maybe FNP, idk. What the monolith really needs is for it to be able to deploy units from the tomb world on arrival. You have to wait until turn 3 in order to use it as intended.
Fix Gauss to be a mortal wound on 6's vs all non-infantry.
Oh joy, yet ,more mortal wounds, and on a basic weapon as well How about just +1 to damage on a 6?
Fix Tesla to be on an unmodified roll of 6.
No argument there, although that would be more of a sidestep than a buff. Yes, you can advance now and shoot at -1 hit mod protected things without losing tesla procs, but on the flip side the tesla immortal + MWBD combo would be now be impossible. Annihilation barges would benefit most of all though; they can't benefit from MWDB, so losing it doesn't matter.
Overlord change to reroll misses aura.
Why though? MWBD is good. I'd much rather have that than yet another reroll aura.
Fliers need quantum shielding.
Probably, but flyers are crap in general
Doom Scythe to 2d3 attacks, changed to assault or ignores heavy.
Why would you give a Doom Scythe 2D3 attacks in combat? Unless you mean the Deathray. A flat 3 shots would be better in terms of flow and balance, imo. All flyers need to ignore heavy. Its not just a Doom Scythe problem. Because flyers are gak.
fe40k wrote: ...we'll wait for the codex...
...we'll wait for the faq...
...we'll wait for the CA...
...we'll wait for the next edition...
We're nearly through the entire 8th edition; and there's been minimal change in GW's ability to write codexs', and even less in their ability to balance armies, and individual units.
I'm very curious what changes in CA2018 - but I'm not getting my hopes up.
Do you really believe 8th edition is going to end in 2019? I remember rumblings that this was going to stick around as a "living edition" for a while. I'd expect 8.5 at some point to re-consolidate the rules from CA and FAQ changes, and give us a new wave of releases (likely at a slower rate so they can update more armies with new kits) before we see 9th ed.
Regarding how well GW writes codexes, I'd argue it's improved. Or do you really feel that 8th ed codexes are the same as 6th and 7th ed?
alextroy wrote: I'm hoping the Ork Codex points changes are a harbinger of what they do to most of the rest of the Codexes, which generally is:
Characters are more expensive
Light Infantry (aka under 10 points) are more expensive
Medium and Heavy Infantry and Bikes are less expensive
Transports are less expensive
Weapon cost are more balanced to actual effectiveness
Can't say we can ask for much better than that.
It definitely feels like a change in how they're designing the game and if it's how they make the rest of the game in the long run we should be seeing a nice shake up all over.
fe40k wrote: ...we'll wait for the codex...
...we'll wait for the faq...
...we'll wait for the CA...
...we'll wait for the next edition...
We're nearly through the entire 8th edition; and there's been minimal change in GW's ability to write codexs', and even less in their ability to balance armies, and individual units.
I'm very curious what changes in CA2018 - but I'm not getting my hopes up.
Do you really believe 8th edition is going to end in 2019? I remember rumblings that this was going to stick around as a "living edition" for a while. I'd expect 8.5 at some point to re-consolidate the rules from CA and FAQ changes, and give us a new wave of releases (likely at a slower rate so they can update more armies with new kits) before we see 9th ed.
Same was said for AOS, took around 3 years to for a revised edition. Was more of a refinement then a full blown new edition and borrowing some concepts they developed in 40k.
Would expect the same for 8th ed. A couple years and there will be a new edition set. Current model is a hybrid for both systems. Release a CA/GH each year as a "living" model to revise the meta and after a couple iterations, consolidate into a revised new "edition".
fe40k wrote: ...we'll wait for the codex...
...we'll wait for the faq...
...we'll wait for the CA...
...we'll wait for the next edition...
We're nearly through the entire 8th edition; and there's been minimal change in GW's ability to write codexs', and even less in their ability to balance armies, and individual units.
I'm very curious what changes in CA2018 - but I'm not getting my hopes up.
Do you really believe 8th edition is going to end in 2019? I remember rumblings that this was going to stick around as a "living edition" for a while. I'd expect 8.5 at some point to re-consolidate the rules from CA and FAQ changes, and give us a new wave of releases (likely at a slower rate so they can update more armies with new kits) before we see 9th ed.
Same was said for AOS, took around 3 years to for a revised edition. Was more of a refinement then a full blown new edition and borrowing some concepts they developed in 40k.
Would expect the same for 8th ed. A couple years and there will be a new edition set. Current model is a hybrid for both systems. Release a CA/GH each year as a "living" model to revise the meta and after a couple iterations, consolidate into a revised new "edition".
AoS also has the General's Handbook in the meantime which served as a kind of pseudo-index/main rulebook for consolidated changes in the middle of that cycle which we haven't seen applied to 40k in the same way, so while the models are similar, they're not identical.
NurglesR0T wrote: Is that not what Chapter Approved and the 6 monthly big FAQ does? (genuine question)
Not to the level the General's Handbook did. CA only gives points changes, not all points in the game. And it didn't give an updated version of errata'd datasheets either.
(Btw, I've actually written for award winning books in the game industry and edited for the same numbers intensive system [#2 selling game in the world at the time], since you mentioned it)
Sure Tell me, how come that most of us mostly disagree with your rule suggestions ?
fe40k wrote: ...we'll wait for the codex...
...we'll wait for the faq...
...we'll wait for the CA...
...we'll wait for the next edition...
We're nearly through the entire 8th edition; and there's been minimal change in GW's ability to write codexs', and even less in their ability to balance armies, and individual units.
I'm very curious what changes in CA2018 - but I'm not getting my hopes up.
Do you really believe 8th edition is going to end in 2019? I remember rumblings that this was going to stick around as a "living edition" for a while. I'd expect 8.5 at some point to re-consolidate the rules from CA and FAQ changes, and give us a new wave of releases (likely at a slower rate so they can update more armies with new kits) before we see 9th ed.
Regarding how well GW writes codexes, I'd argue it's improved. Or do you really feel that 8th ed codexes are the same as 6th and 7th ed?
Sooner or later 8th ed will replace. "Living rules". Hah. GW isn't going to stop their cycle of new editions and new codexes. If anything Age of Sigmar shows opposite.
Codexes aren't same sure. They are more pretty more smoke&mirror. Old GW is same as new GW except GW has added more smoke&mirror. In terms of quality and balance it has gone DOWNHILL but GW manages to mask it improvement. Smoke&mirror.
NurglesR0T wrote: Is that not what Chapter Approved and the 6 monthly big FAQ does? (genuine question)
Not to the level the General's Handbook did. CA only gives points changes, not all points in the game. And it didn't give an updated version of errata'd datasheets either.
So if the FAQ does not bring rules changes or points changes, and the CA doesn't change rules either, then what does change the rules for better in 8th ed ?
Regarding how well GW writes codexes, I'd argue it's improved. Or do you really feel that 8th ed codexes are the same as 6th and 7th ed?
I don't know about necrons, but I did download an old GK of some sort and it had 4 pages of special gear, a ton more units that are no where in the codex right now, The only difference was the nemezis dread knight wasn't in the book, but maybe it didn't exist back when the codex was legal. It ain't on any of the art in the book anyway. But even within 8th ed, the index GK were a better army, then the codex GK, specialy with every new FAQ added. So I don't know anything about necron, but from my army perspective their books get worse with time.
(Btw, I've actually written for award winning books in the game industry and edited for the same numbers intensive system [#2 selling game in the world at the time], since you mentioned it)
Sure Tell me, how come that most of us mostly disagree with your rule suggestions ?
Because most of you have never played necrons and really don't have an idea of what you are talking about in regards to them?
They are utterly bad. Terrible bad. All but 3-4 units in the codex unplayable bad.
The monolith is the perfect example. People talking about it being 300 points as potentially reasonable. Lets compare to a land raider.
Monolith 381
Land Raider with multi-melta 383
Penalties for heavy, both negate
Transport: Land raider can carry characters and can transport turn 1. Monolith can carry no characters, can't act as a transport till turn 3, and if it dies, all units waiting to transport are killed. 100% of them. Monolith is not a functional transport on any level.
Movement: Land raider 10", Monolith 6" Although Monolith can fly... which, if you surround it doesn't matter, because it's size makes it too big to escape with fly.
Wounds: Monolith has 4 more but a 1 point worse save, we can call that even probably.
Defensive Abilities: Land Raider has smoke launchers, Monolith has "regen 1 wound per turn". If either comes into play, -1 to hit is significantly better.
So far the land raider is ahead in pretty much every category, significantly so in some. Now lets look at offense.
Land Raider with twin las, twin assault and multi does 9.18 wounds to a leman russ, and 4.68 to marines.
Monolith does with 4 gauss flux arcs, and a particle whip, 4.44 wounds to a leman russ, and 5.78 to marines.
it does literally less than half of the damage against high toughness enemies. It does slightly better, *only* against low armor, low toughness units.
Did I mention the land raiders main weapons have twice the range?
So the land raider is better in almost every category, on almost every front, and it's weapons against important targets do twice the damage... but the garbage monolith should be around 300 points? Seriously?
In the time it takes a monolith to kills 1 land raider, the land raider has killed 2 monoliths (short by a wound or two but close). How is that not worth twice the points if it has twice the killing power, and is better in every other category? (BTW, If they start at max range, the land raider gets to kill 4 monoliths before the monolith can kill 1 land raider.)
On top of that, nobody plays the land raider today because they are too expensive point wise. It is over costed, and so is the monolith, massively.
Btw, Gauss mortal wounding on a 6 is more of an extreme version of it I have been advocating gauss should be rending for a long time (as can be seen in my previous posts). I realize mortals on a 6 is the extreme end, I was just being snarky
Automatically Appended Next Post: Long multiple quote response incoming, sorry.
valdier wrote: Necrons need about a 10-25% reduction across the board on all but:
Probably. It depends. A 25% point reduction on warriors would bring them down to 8pts, which is excessive.
Noting that marines themselves are overcosted, I don't think it's overly excessive, but agreed, I would but them in the 10-15% range, which is why I said 10-25%. That is a range that needs to be adjusted per model/unit type. Somewhere in that range.
Necrons are already LD10 across the board and there's a WL trait that makes them immune to morale. Such a rule is unnecessary.
That doesn't help when warriors are taken in squad sizes of 20. You shouldn't have only one WL trait that makes silver tide playable. That is supposed to be a mainstay of the army, not the only way to play it.
Uh what? Did you mean to write something and forgot?
I was saying tomb blades and destroyers are fine, they don't need any adjustments. They are the two definitively good-ish units we have in the army this edition... it's arguable true about 1 or 2 others.
Hah, no. Monoliths need a reduction, but that's way too much.
Nah, see the comparison I did in the previous post. A land raider can kill 2-4 monoliths before a monolith could do 1, and has better stats in pretty much every category.
The monolith never did any of those things. It should buff RP. Or maybe FNP, idk.
What the monolith really needs is for it to be able to deploy units from the tomb world on arrival. You have to wait until turn 3 in order to use it as intended.
I know it never did those things, I was trying to say, at it's current cost, to justify it, it would need to do something similar. I would prefer to have it capable of transporting turn 1, and allowing characters with the units transported.
Oh joy, yet mortal wounds, and on a basic weapon as well How about just +1 to damage on a 6?
I have actually advocated a lot for rending on Gauss, +1 damage would be fine honestly as well. Mortal wounds on gauss was just a reflection back to the old gauss glance days
Fix Tesla to be on an unmodified roll of 6.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: No argument there, although that would be more of a sidestep than a buff. Yes, you can advance now and shoot at -1 hit mod protected things without losing tesla procs, but on the flip side the tesla immortal + MWBD combo would be now be impossible. Annihilation barges would benefit most of all though; they can't benefit from MWDB, so losing it doesn't matter.
Agreed, Tesla is a broken concept with the -1 to hit issue everywhere. This would at least semi-resolve that. It would allow them to cost Tesla without assuming mwbd is a requirement.
Overlord change to reroll misses aura.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Why though? MWBD is good. I'd much rather have that than yet another reroll aura.
Because MWBD isn't that good. It is attached to a horribly over costed character that exists only to provide a +1 to hit to a single unit each round.
Agreed, this is kind of an attempt to make them less "suck"
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Why would you give a Doom Scythe 2D3 attacks in combat? Unless you mean the Deathray. A flat 3 shots would be better in terms of flow and balance, imo.
All flyers need to ignore heavy. Its not just a Doom Scythe problem. Because flyers are gak.
Yes, I meant on the death ray and should have better stated that. 2d3 would put it close to d.eldar flyers in output of damage.
Mostly proof of how badly GW messed up the Necron codex.
Seriously, tell me where I'm wrong in my assessment compared to units in other armies.
(Btw, I've actually written for award winning books in the game industry and edited for the same numbers intensive system [#2 selling game in the world at the time], since you mentioned it)
No one mentioned gakk. He just said that your post showed that game design isn't an easy thing to do. You just decided to inform us you wrote some books based on or for games. How is that relevant to anything?
You might "write" and "edit" books in the game industry but that doesn't explain gakk about your assessment? Nor have anything to do with this forum?
Anyway here's my assessment.
Necrons are a pretty good singular Codex that does well in non-competitive games. However, once you put necrons against armies that can Ally and soup e.g. BA + Knights, Harlequins + Ynarri, Nurgle + Khorne etc we are gakk. Tbh, most singular Codex armies don't preform well due to the lack of allying. You can say that T'au do well time to time and I am sure Orkz will change things up until CA18 but, in a game where GW encourages allying and playing several factions in 1 army, no singular Codex army is going to stand a chance in this meta. The only way to fix 40k is to restrict allying and how it works.
In terms of what Necrons need for more viability.
Monolith needs to be roughly 250-281pts to be playable. Or, make it T9-10, keep it at 381pts.
Doomsday Arks needs to be 173pts or have the ability to go into 3 models per unit like Leman Russ's. Ghost Ark should be 130-140pts
Warriors at 10-11 ppm, Immortals at 15 ppm, same with the deathmarks. Lychguard need to be 16ppm with both the Warscythe and Sword+board costing the same price e.g. Warscythe = 11pts, Sword+Board = 11pt.
Doomscythe needs to ignore moving and firing heavy weapons and it's gun needs more reliability.
Wraiths need a good 10pt drop per model.
Obelisk should be 320pts seeing as it's a LoW and the T vault could do with either costing 340pts. give or take.
Triarch Stalker should have ignore moving and firing heavy weapons. Also, all Triarch should be treated like IK Freeblades. While not being part of a dynasty they should be given some buffs to make them playable. It's kind of slow to have 90% of your units get a Codex buff and let a few units as they are because they lack any dynasty support.
Spyders need a rule that gives it the character Keyword or an ability to "look out sir" onto Scarabs that are nearby. And for the gloom prism to deny D3 pysker powers.
fe40k wrote: ...we'll wait for the codex...
...we'll wait for the faq...
...we'll wait for the CA...
...we'll wait for the next edition...
We're nearly through the entire 8th edition; and there's been minimal change in GW's ability to write codexs', and even less in their ability to balance armies, and individual units.
I'm very curious what changes in CA2018 - but I'm not getting my hopes up.
What evidence do you have for declaring we’re nearly through the entire 8th edition?
Nearly might be pushing it. But we're likely over half way. Evidence being past experience of editions of 40k and how long Sigmar 1e lasted.
tneva82 wrote: Now that's good excuse for lazy game design! Just like GW. Can't be bothered to do the job they are paid for so put out any crap.
C'mon, give the guys a break. They've been doing a better job the past couple years than they have been in previous decades before. At least they're listening to their customers somewha...
WTF. I'm actually defending GW now?!? What has the world come to?!? Every now and then I have to remind myself what they did to WFB 8th.
No. I would give them if a break if it hadn't taken said decades to actually realize we want a balanced game. A year and a half of half arsed and lazy updates is not going to erase those decades of them totally fething up, and besides some decent PR, their rules writing hasn't really improved. They just take 6 months to write a "patch" and change a few points costs that could have been done in an hour tops, and people give them applause saying how amazing the "new GW" is. Power creep is real, the recent fluff makes me gag, and the nerfing of "OP" stuff without addressing the source of problem is lazy trash.
Bruh. Lighten up. I'm in agreeance with you.
Lol. My bad. Half alseep and reading this is no excuse. Sorry!
Spyders need a rule that gives it the character Keyword or an ability to "look out sir" onto Scarabs that are nearby. And for the gloom prism to deny D3 pysker powers.
You mean scarabs should look out sir for spyders ? Gloom prisms should be -2 to psychic powers at 12", and -1 at 24".
(Btw, I've actually written for award winning books in the game industry and edited for the same numbers intensive system [#2 selling game in the world at the time], since you mentioned it)
Sure Tell me, how come that most of us mostly disagree with your rule suggestions ?
Because most of you have never played necrons and really don't have an idea of what you are talking about in regards to them?
They are utterly bad. Terrible bad. All but 3-4 units in the codex unplayable bad.
The monolith is the perfect example. People talking about it being 300 points as potentially reasonable. Lets compare to a land raider.
Monolith 381
Land Raider with multi-melta 383
Penalties for heavy, both negate
Transport: Land raider can carry characters and can transport turn 1. Monolith can carry no characters, can't act as a transport till turn 3, and if it dies, all units waiting to transport are killed. 100% of them. Monolith is not a functional transport on any level.
Movement: Land raider 10", Monolith 6" Although Monolith can fly... which, if you surround it doesn't matter, because it's size makes it too big to escape with fly.
Wounds: Monolith has 4 more but a 1 point worse save, we can call that even probably.
Defensive Abilities: Land Raider has smoke launchers, Monolith has "regen 1 wound per turn". If either comes into play, -1 to hit is significantly better.
So far the land raider is ahead in pretty much every category, significantly so in some. Now lets look at offense.
Land Raider with twin las, twin assault and multi does 9.18 wounds to a leman russ, and 4.68 to marines.
Monolith does with 4 gauss flux arcs, and a particle whip, 4.44 wounds to a leman russ, and 5.78 to marines.
it does literally less than half of the damage against high toughness enemies. It does slightly better, *only* against low armor, low toughness units.
Did I mention the land raiders main weapons have twice the range?
So the land raider is better in almost every category, on almost every front, and it's weapons against important targets do twice the damage... but the garbage monolith should be around 300 points? Seriously?
In the time it takes a monolith to kills 1 land raider, the land raider has killed 2 monoliths (short by a wound or two but close). How is that not worth twice the points if it has twice the killing power, and is better in every other category? (BTW, If they start at max range, the land raider gets to kill 4 monoliths before the monolith can kill 1 land raider.)
On top of that, nobody plays the land raider today because they are too expensive point wise. It is over costed, and so is the monolith, massively.
Btw, Gauss mortal wounding on a 6 is more of an extreme version of it I have been advocating gauss should be rending for a long time (as can be seen in my previous posts). I realize mortals on a 6 is the extreme end, I was just being snarky
Automatically Appended Next Post: Long multiple quote response incoming, sorry.
valdier wrote: Necrons need about a 10-25% reduction across the board on all but:
Probably. It depends. A 25% point reduction on warriors would bring them down to 8pts, which is excessive.
Noting that marines themselves are overcosted, I don't think it's overly excessive, but agreed, I would but them in the 10-15% range, which is why I said 10-25%. That is a range that needs to be adjusted per model/unit type. Somewhere in that range.
Necrons are already LD10 across the board and there's a WL trait that makes them immune to morale. Such a rule is unnecessary.
That doesn't help when warriors are taken in squad sizes of 20. You shouldn't have only one WL trait that makes silver tide playable. That is supposed to be a mainstay of the army, not the only way to play it.
Uh what? Did you mean to write something and forgot?
I was saying tomb blades and destroyers are fine, they don't need any adjustments. They are the two definitively good-ish units we have in the army this edition... it's arguable true about 1 or 2 others.
Hah, no. Monoliths need a reduction, but that's way too much.
Nah, see the comparison I did in the previous post. A land raider can kill 2-4 monoliths before a monolith could do 1, and has better stats in pretty much every category.
The monolith never did any of those things. It should buff RP. Or maybe FNP, idk.
What the monolith really needs is for it to be able to deploy units from the tomb world on arrival. You have to wait until turn 3 in order to use it as intended.
I know it never did those things, I was trying to say, at it's current cost, to justify it, it would need to do something similar. I would prefer to have it capable of transporting turn 1, and allowing characters with the units transported.
Oh joy, yet mortal wounds, and on a basic weapon as well How about just +1 to damage on a 6?
I have actually advocated a lot for rending on Gauss, +1 damage would be fine honestly as well. Mortal wounds on gauss was just a reflection back to the old gauss glance days
Fix Tesla to be on an unmodified roll of 6.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: No argument there, although that would be more of a sidestep than a buff. Yes, you can advance now and shoot at -1 hit mod protected things without losing tesla procs, but on the flip side the tesla immortal + MWBD combo would be now be impossible. Annihilation barges would benefit most of all though; they can't benefit from MWDB, so losing it doesn't matter.
Agreed, Tesla is a broken concept with the -1 to hit issue everywhere. This would at least semi-resolve that. It would allow them to cost Tesla without assuming mwbd is a requirement.
Overlord change to reroll misses aura.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Why though? MWBD is good. I'd much rather have that than yet another reroll aura.
Because MWBD isn't that good. It is attached to a horribly over costed character that exists only to provide a +1 to hit to a single unit each round.
Agreed, this is kind of an attempt to make them less "suck"
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Why would you give a Doom Scythe 2D3 attacks in combat? Unless you mean the Deathray. A flat 3 shots would be better in terms of flow and balance, imo.
All flyers need to ignore heavy. Its not just a Doom Scythe problem. Because flyers are gak.
Yes, I meant on the death ray and should have better stated that. 2d3 would put it close to d.eldar flyers in output of damage.
For someone who writes and edits book you might want to look at a codex before you start claiming landraiders in imaginary configurations exsist.
Secondly you also overlooked the inherent advantage that being able to deepstrike such a heavy unit has.
On the marine topic I saw a fairly eloquent fix, with some adjustment that doesnt need a million point reductions. (Marines becoming a horde army is a mistake imo)
All MEQ get a rule something like armoured ceramaite (or whatever name you want): reduce ap (ie ap value +1) on incoming attacks from ranged weapons by 1.
TEQ: either 2d6 for saves or +2 to the AP. I prefer the 2d6 over the +2. Feels like it starts messing with fluff of plasma chewing through armour.
Better saves are not going to make basic Tacs/Assault/Chaos Marines etc worth taking.
I don't really know why people are afraid of "horde" marines.
Lets say Tactical Marines and Intercessors went down 2 points. How many were you taking before? How many are you now going to flood the board with? If a quarter of your list was tacticals/a third of your list was intercessors (....) you are now free to take another 5 man squad. Maybe across the whole army we are talking 2 such squads.
You know, I've been thinking; maybe its necron weapons that are overpriced.
Just look at the base cost of an immortal - 8 points.
Now look at the base cost of a tesla carbine or a gauss blaster - 9 points.
The gun is quite literally worth more than the model its on. And they aren't even worth that much.
A gauss blaster has a lower rate of fire and range than a heavy bolter and its 1 point more. It has better AP, but is that really worth the extra point, at that range and ROF?
Similarly, we are being charged a premium for tesla, which can be easily lost and isn't reliable enough to be that expensive.
Both options should probably be around 6-7 points.
l1ttlej wrote: On the marine topic I saw a fairly eloquent fix, with some adjustment that doesnt need a million point reductions. (Marines becoming a horde army is a mistake imo)
All MEQ get a rule something like armoured ceramaite (or whatever name you want): reduce ap (ie ap value +1) on incoming attacks from ranged weapons by 1.
TEQ: either 2d6 for saves or +2 to the AP. I prefer the 2d6 over the +2. Feels like it starts messing with fluff of plasma chewing through armour.
MEQ one is fairly common equilavent.
TEQ do you REALLY want to start rolling 10 saves individually? Also 5+ on 2d6 with lascannon...Don't you think that's "bit" too strong? With this you WILL be rolling tons of saves individually as even strongest weapons will struggle to kill anything needing 6 lascannon wounds to get 1 failed save. I hope you would at least remove the 5++ or do you really intend 2+(on 1d6) be worst termies would save with?
I was thinking a similar thing about armor saves the other day, though not just about Marines. With the way AP works this edition you practically could improve every armor save by 1 and it would probably be ok, with some exceptions, at least for more elite units. Not that I'd advocate a huge change like that all at once, but its probably about time for 2+ to no longer be considered the 'best'.
As to overall balance, I left the game during 6th and 7th edition because the game was so bad and just kept track of things on the outside. I think 8th is vastly improved, hence why I'm playing again. I agree that a couple factions need substantial work, but 2 out of roughly 25 (depending on how you count) isn't that bad. I've never seen tournament results with so many varied lists and factions. I'm not an authority on the topic and can only speak for myself, but 8th Ed has me playing again.
Tyel wrote: Better saves are not going to make basic Tacs/Assault/Chaos Marines etc worth taking.
I don't really know why people are afraid of "horde" marines.
Lets say Tactical Marines and Intercessors went down 2 points. How many were you taking before? How many are you now going to flood the board with? If a quarter of your list was tacticals/a third of your list was intercessors (....) you are now free to take another 5 man squad. Maybe across the whole army we are talking 2 such squads.
Are you a horde now?
my current SM list is almost entirely tac marines. totals 81 power armor marines at 1750 if going higher i usually just add more power armor to fill. spread them out but daisy chain for rerolling 1s to hit and 1s to wound as much as possible. it is hard to deal with that much power armor.
If space marines went down to base 10 points I would be adding ~33% more tac marines
ravenguard chapter 1734 points
battalion 1
captain with a chainsword and storm bolter 76
LT w/ stormbolter and chainsword 62
5x 5 man tac squad with plasma gun. sarg has a storm bolter in every squad 400
battalion 2
captain with a chainsword and storm bolter 76
LT w/ stormbolter and chainsword 62
5x 5 man tac squad with missile launcher. sarg has a storm bolter in every squad 460
battalion 3
captain with a chainsword and storm bolter 76
LT w/ stormbolter and chainsword 62
5x 5 man tac squad with missile launcher. sarg has a storm bolter in every squad 460
Yeah, marines are probably too cheap already if we go by fluff. 81 marines on the table is like 10% of a chapter. That's a huge disconnect.
Marines should be buffed, not made cheaper. Also there should be chapter serfs or something to fulfil the role of cheap cannon fodder. Board control is really important in 8th, and if you can field screens of cheap fodder you'll have an advantage over someone who can't. Primaris are actually closer to what marines should be like on the table, really.
Martel732 wrote: " it is hard to deal with that much power armor. "
Is it, though? Sisters can already do this.
it does well vs guard based soup, and most meta lists. its a case of not being super strong against anything, but it is far enough from what people expect to see that they are not prepared for it. It really is priceless to see the face of an opponent as you keep pulling more and more power armor out of the case, usually they double check the lsit to verify that many marines are possible at the points level. They also do well at board control and grabbign objectives as the opponent really has a hard time prioritizing and has to wipe squads completely to remove the special or heavy weapon. with ATSKNF 5 man squads just almost never run.
I am on team make marines better or cheaper, i agree they cost to much, as is I think a marine is basically a 10-11 point model closer to 11. but to make them 13 i think just power armor ignoring 1 ap and terminator armor ignoring 2 ap ie ap-3 weapon means power armor is treating it as ap-2 and terminators treat it as ap-1 would be a better solution. it would also make them more fluffy because I agree having 1/10th of a chapter on the table would be even more ridiculous (though i would totally do it)
Tyel wrote: Better saves are not going to make basic Tacs/Assault/Chaos Marines etc worth taking.
I don't really know why people are afraid of "horde" marines.
Lets say Tactical Marines and Intercessors went down 2 points. How many were you taking before? How many are you now going to flood the board with? If a quarter of your list was tacticals/a third of your list was intercessors (....) you are now free to take another 5 man squad. Maybe across the whole army we are talking 2 such squads.
Are you a horde now?
my current SM list is almost entirely tac marines. totals 81 power armor marines at 1750 if going higher i usually just add more power armor to fill. spread them out but daisy chain for rerolling 1s to hit and 1s to wound as much as possible. it is hard to deal with that much power armor.
If space marines went down to base 10 points I would be adding ~33% more tac marines
ravenguard chapter 1734 points
battalion 1
captain with a chainsword and storm bolter 76
LT w/ stormbolter and chainsword 62
5x 5 man tac squad with plasma gun. sarg has a storm bolter in every squad 400
battalion 2
captain with a chainsword and storm bolter 76
LT w/ stormbolter and chainsword 62
5x 5 man tac squad with missile launcher. sarg has a storm bolter in every squad 460
battalion 3
captain with a chainsword and storm bolter 76
LT w/ stormbolter and chainsword 62
5x 5 man tac squad with missile launcher. sarg has a storm bolter in every squad 460
Funny you should mention - I've been wanting to run a CSM spam list for fun. Full rerolls to hit from Abaddon. Full rerolls to wound in CC. VotLW for big stuff. Spring for 5+ DTTFE on the Exalted and a blob of 20 CSM with just chainswords will put 9 wounds on a Castellan (if they make it there).
I imagine they would have a hard time killing enough marines AND the objective grabbers. There just aren't enough guns in most lists.
Tyel wrote: Better saves are not going to make basic Tacs/Assault/Chaos Marines etc worth taking.
I don't really know why people are afraid of "horde" marines.
Lets say Tactical Marines and Intercessors went down 2 points. How many were you taking before? How many are you now going to flood the board with? If a quarter of your list was tacticals/a third of your list was intercessors (....) you are now free to take another 5 man squad. Maybe across the whole army we are talking 2 such squads.
Are you a horde now?
my current SM list is almost entirely tac marines. totals 81 power armor marines at 1750 if going higher i usually just add more power armor to fill. spread them out but daisy chain for rerolling 1s to hit and 1s to wound as much as possible. it is hard to deal with that much power armor.
If space marines went down to base 10 points I would be adding ~33% more tac marines
ravenguard chapter 1734 points
battalion 1
captain with a chainsword and storm bolter 76
LT w/ stormbolter and chainsword 62
5x 5 man tac squad with plasma gun. sarg has a storm bolter in every squad 400
battalion 2
captain with a chainsword and storm bolter 76
LT w/ stormbolter and chainsword 62
5x 5 man tac squad with missile launcher. sarg has a storm bolter in every squad 460
battalion 3
captain with a chainsword and storm bolter 76
LT w/ stormbolter and chainsword 62
5x 5 man tac squad with missile launcher. sarg has a storm bolter in every squad 460
Funny you should mention - I've been wanting to run a CSM spam list for fun. Full rerolls to hit from Abaddon. Full rerolls to wound in CC. VotLW for big stuff. Spring for 5+ DTTFE on the Exalted and a blob of 20 CSM with just chainswords will put 9 wounds on a Castellan (if they make it there).
I imagine they would have a hard time killing enough marines AND the objective grabbers. There just aren't enough guns in most lists.
Spoiler:
Interesting, but why possesd over chosen?
I personally made good results with 5 chosen each with combi Bolter.
They are utterly bad. Terrible bad. All but 3-4 units in the codex unplayable bad.
Yes, they are bad, but far from utterly bad. In tournaments necrons arent always in last place.
They're pretty near though. I won't pretend valdier's fixes are anything but terrible, but I understand the frustration.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: Better saves are not going to make basic Tacs/Assault/Chaos Marines etc worth taking.
I don't really know why people are afraid of "horde" marines.
Lets say Tactical Marines and Intercessors went down 2 points. How many were you taking before? How many are you now going to flood the board with? If a quarter of your list was tacticals/a third of your list was intercessors (....) you are now free to take another 5 man squad. Maybe across the whole army we are talking 2 such squads.
Are you a horde now?
It's because they're portrayed as an elite army and function as anything but already. It's a matter of principle at that point that GW needs to make them feel elite, not just be priced as elite.
l1ttlej wrote: On the marine topic I saw a fairly eloquent fix, with some adjustment that doesnt need a million point reductions. (Marines becoming a horde army is a mistake imo)
All MEQ get a rule something like armoured ceramaite (or whatever name you want): reduce ap (ie ap value +1) on incoming attacks from ranged weapons by 1.
TEQ: either 2d6 for saves or +2 to the AP. I prefer the 2d6 over the +2. Feels like it starts messing with fluff of plasma chewing through armour.
Anybody proposing the 2D6 armor save is on drugs. Lemme just shoot your squad with 3 Frag Cannons and 6 Storm Bolters and laugh as you run down the clock.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: To hell with principle. Elites get hosed in 8th. Cheaper is better. Cheaper gives more shots, more wounds, more punches.
It really doesn't as long as the basic profile does nothing. The only reason Sisters work is because they get more Special Weapon saturation and getting a couple extra Bolters doesn't help that.
l1ttlej wrote: On the marine topic I saw a fairly eloquent fix, with some adjustment that doesnt need a million point reductions. (Marines becoming a horde army is a mistake imo)
All MEQ get a rule something like armoured ceramaite (or whatever name you want): reduce ap (ie ap value +1) on incoming attacks from ranged weapons by 1.
TEQ: either 2d6 for saves or +2 to the AP. I prefer the 2d6 over the +2. Feels like it starts messing with fluff of plasma chewing through armour.
Anybody proposing the 2D6 armor save is on drugs. Lemme just shoot your squad with 3 Frag Cannons and 6 Storm Bolters and laugh as you run down the clock.
It doesn't work in this format of game anyway.
How are you going to speed roll 2D6 armor saves? The reason why it existed back then is because it was more skirmish based. You didn't have huge squads like you do now.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, marines are probably too cheap already if we go by fluff.
81 marines on the table is like 10% of a chapter. That's a huge disconnect.
Marines should be buffed, not made cheaper. Also there should be chapter serfs or something to fulfil the role of cheap cannon fodder.
Board control is really important in 8th, and if you can field screens of cheap fodder you'll have an advantage over someone who can't.
Primaris are actually closer to what marines should be like on the table, really.
If anything units should be both cheaper and be more effective. A guardian has 1/6 of a chance of gaining a -3 ap. Space Marines have no such luxury and no massive buffs they can use or benefit from.
I agree we should have cheap cannon fodder for space marines, IE Scouts or something similar to as you suggest chapter serfs. But currently space marines have way too many entries in the codex, there needs to be a crunch of what space marines can take, and removal or retiring of certain units.
Ice_can wrote: For someone who writes and edits book you might want to look at a codex before you start claiming landraiders in imaginary configurations exist.
Sorry to interject, but what's wrong with the Landraider configuration he used?
Edit: Nevermind, I see it now. The basic Landraider is 2 twin Lascannons and a twin Heavy Bolter, the twin Assault Cannon only comes on the Redeemer and Crusader variants.
Anybody proposing the 2D6 armor save is on drugs. Lemme just shoot your squad with 3 Frag Cannons and 6 Storm Bolters and laugh as you run down the clock.
Just roll once dice for each save. If it's a 1 reroll it and 1s fail after that (or whatever the target is).
Ultimately I think GW needs to revisit total wounds of units and stop thinking that every single infantry unit should have just 1 wound.
I would very much like them to put more wounds on elite units. Tac Marines become 2 wound, terminators and bikes 3 wounds, and so on.
This would give them survivability while still retaining the anti-marine effectiveness(weapons that do 2 damage) of many weapons.
The problem we currently have is that the spectrum of survivability is very two dimensional. It has the toughness that is very simplified currently, and then you have saves that are being mitigated with increasingly deadly weapons. By giving certain elite units more wounds you would almost immediately feel their eliteness increase as they start to shrug off more wounds.
(I ignore FnP because it's technically just another save that increases rolls instead of addressing the problem properly)
Also, adding more wounds to a single model allows for greater granularity than just lowering price of the model only. A double wound infantry model does not double shooting, but it does double survivability against many weapons.
There is also another thing that GW might need to do sooner or later and that is what X-Wing 2.0 did: double the points values. It allowed FFG to increase the granularity of cost in a unit and therefore allow better precision in pointing a unit. This is something that GW is lacking as you can see how much a single point matters when it comes to guardsmen. If guardsmen were double the price(as everything else) then 1 point increase would feel a bit more modest.
Ice_can wrote: For someone who writes and edits book you might want to look at a codex before you start claiming landraiders in imaginary configurations exist.
Sorry to interject, but what's wrong with the Landraider configuration he used?
Edit: Nevermind, I see it now. The basic Landraider is 2 twin Lascannons and a twin Heavy Bolter, the twin Assault Cannon only comes on the Redeemer and Crusader variants.
Yep, and besides that he's comparing apples to oranges. The monolith was never an offensive vehicle. Its primary purpose is to land behind enemy lines, deploy units, teleport units to its gate to keep up the pressure and give supporting fire. Even in 3rd-4th ed its offensive capabilities weren't amazing compared to other units. What was amazing was that it was a hard to kill block that's in your face and shoving necrons into your backline, and back then it ignored Deep Strike mishaps. If it landed on an enemy unit, that enemy unit is forced to move out of the way. Other deep strikers would roll on the Mishap chart and risk destruction if that happened.
That stratagem should have been an innate ability, not something you need a resource for. But I don't think its going away.
Eldarsif wrote: Ultimately I think GW needs to revisit total wounds of units and stop thinking that every single infantry unit should have just 1 wound.
I would very much like them to put more wounds on elite units. Tac Marines become 2 wound, terminators and bikes 3 wounds, and so on.
This would give them survivability while still retaining the anti-marine effectiveness(weapons that do 2 damage) of many weapons.
The problem we currently have is that the spectrum of survivability is very two dimensional. It has the toughness that is very simplified currently, and then you have saves that are being mitigated with increasingly deadly weapons. By giving certain elite units more wounds you would almost immediately feel their eliteness increase as they start to shrug off more wounds.
(I ignore FnP because it's technically just another save that increases rolls instead of addressing the problem properly)
Also, adding more wounds to a single model allows for greater granularity than just lowering price of the model only. A double wound infantry model does not double shooting, but it does double survivability against many weapons.
There is also another thing that GW might need to do sooner or later and that is what X-Wing 2.0 did: double the points values. It allowed FFG to increase the granularity of cost in a unit and therefore allow better precision in pointing a unit. This is something that GW is lacking as you can see how much a single point matters when it comes to guardsmen. If guardsmen were double the price(as everything else) then 1 point increase would feel a bit more modest.
The problem still remains space marine shooting phases are still very subpar. Their bolt weapons should retain their rules AP5 which should be AP -1. Or they become more effective against any models with a 5+ or 6+ save.
I still think increasing wounds isn't addressing the problem space marines have which is just how poorly they perform against something like deathguard, they lack synergies within their own lists and have to rely upon other imperial lists to even be considered competitive or you pluck down Bobby G or a Levithian dread. The point is that space marines yes have great auras but they aren't factionwide or board wide (which they should be if there is a chapter master on the field). Space Marines in 5th edition had their captain bound abilities/chapter abilities that make a mockery of the currently subpar chapter tactics. (heck even 4th edition had better special rules for space marines feel no pain or +2 saves on all commanders and units having access to varied amounts of abilities). IE Counter-Attack, True Grit, and Feel No Pain with very few negatives you could basically have space marine tacticals hunting down tanks relatively easily.
Anybody proposing the 2D6 armor save is on drugs. Lemme just shoot your squad with 3 Frag Cannons and 6 Storm Bolters and laugh as you run down the clock.
Just roll once dice for each save. If it's a 1 reroll it and 1s fail after that (or whatever the target is).
You seem to have a disconnect from how much time that will take. That is 16 shots without rerolls from those Storm Bolters at Rapid Fire range, and heaven forbid I used the flamer profile for the Frag Cannon (that's 7 shots on average!)
fraser1191 wrote: I'd like to see marines ignoring a point of ap and getting a point of ap on bolt weapons.
Haven't thought about how it scales but I don't really care either
But they can though. They are called Bolt Rifles. Maybe an addition -1 AP on a 6 to hit, to represent the explosive round damaging armor or good marksmanship or something.
Anybody proposing the 2D6 armor save is on drugs. Lemme just shoot your squad with 3 Frag Cannons and 6 Storm Bolters and laugh as you run down the clock.
Just roll once dice for each save. If it's a 1 reroll it and 1s fail after that (or whatever the target is).
You seem to have a disconnect from how much time that will take. That is 16 shots without rerolls from those Storm Bolters at Rapid Fire range, and heaven forbid I used the flamer profile for the Frag Cannon (that's 7 shots on average!)
Maybe we're not talking about the same thing?
Your storm bolters get 5 wounds and the flamer profile nets 3.5. I roll 8 or 9 dice. For the 1 or 2 that roll a 1 I roll a second dice to see if I've failed.
It's not terribly different than if someone were to get a reroll to their saves like AoS. The majority of dice rolling is on your end.
Anybody proposing the 2D6 armor save is on drugs. Lemme just shoot your squad with 3 Frag Cannons and 6 Storm Bolters and laugh as you run down the clock.
Just roll once dice for each save. If it's a 1 reroll it and 1s fail after that (or whatever the target is).
You seem to have a disconnect from how much time that will take. That is 16 shots without rerolls from those Storm Bolters at Rapid Fire range, and heaven forbid I used the flamer profile for the Frag Cannon (that's 7 shots on average!)
Maybe we're not talking about the same thing?
Your storm bolters get 5 wounds and the flamer profile nets 3.5. I roll 8 or 9 dice. For the 1 or 2 that roll a 1 I roll a second dice to see if I've failed.
It's not terribly different than if someone were to get a reroll to their saves like AoS. The majority of dice rolling is on your end.
Nah, the Deathwatch ones will wound on a 2+ because I want to make you waste time rolling all those saves. You also forgot I use 3 Frag Cannons in a squad. 21 hits is 14 wounds from that at AP-1.
Land Raider with twin las, twin assault and multi does 9.18 wounds to a leman russ, and 4.68 to marines.
The Phobos Land Raider (the standard version you're referring to) doesn't have a twin assault cannon. It has a twin heavy bolter. It's the variants that lack lascannons (the Crusader and the Redeemer) that have twin assault cannons.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, marines are probably too cheap already if we go by fluff.
81 marines on the table is like 10% of a chapter. That's a huge disconnect.
Marines should be buffed, not made cheaper. Also there should be chapter serfs or something to fulfil the role of cheap cannon fodder.
Board control is really important in 8th, and if you can field screens of cheap fodder you'll have an advantage over someone who can't.
Primaris are actually closer to what marines should be like on the table, really.
It occurs to me that what some of the sub-par Marine units could really use are some decent strats tied to them. Tac Marines are mostly a sub-par shooting unit. Give them a strat that lets them shoot twice. They get a little better. Rhinos - give them a strat where a unit can disembark after the Rhino moves. Drop Pods - what about a strat where the disembarking unit can move instead of charging after it arrives? I've never been able to have Marines charge out of a pod, but I have been able to use them to deliver units within flamer/optimal melta range, so it eats at me that they can't now.
Nah, the Deathwatch ones will wound on a 2+ because I want to make you waste time rolling all those saves. You also forgot I use 3 Frag Cannons in a squad. 21 hits is 14 wounds from that at AP-1.
So yeah, have fun rolling all that.
Yea I still just don't see it, I guess. If it's minus one then any 1s and 2s get rerolled and 1s fail after that.
Multiple damage weapons would be annoying, but those don't bring nearly as many shots.
fraser1191 wrote: I'd like to see marines ignoring a point of ap and getting a point of ap on bolt weapons.
Haven't thought about how it scales but I don't really care either
But they can though. They are called Bolt Rifles.
Maybe an addition -1 AP on a 6 to hit, to represent the explosive round damaging armor or good marksmanship or something.
Thats like what 1% of the space marine list? Bolters all bolt weapons including primaris need -1 ap
That would definitely make Marines less durable against other Marines.
I'm for the solution that an unsaved wound from a Bolt weapon should cause an additional hit to be saved. It'd be a unique mechanic that isn't over the top, though it doesn't really make you want to pack more of them which I guess is an issue.
In all previous editions of 40k space marines had ap 5 which is the equivalent of Ap - 1
The fact bolters are the same AP as Lasguns is reason enough for them to be given that benefit.
Except AP4 is -1 and AP5 is nothing. I'd almost like to argue that the old AP- should be +1 to the save due to it's weak armour pen.
Well you would fire your bolters way back into a squad of boys with 6+ and they would be able to throw their normal armor save. They would just die. Compare a current edition bolter vs a previous edition bolter and they would not stack up at all.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That would definitely make Marines less durable against other Marines.
I'm for the solution that an unsaved wound from a Bolt weapon should cause an additional hit to be saved. It'd be a unique mechanic that isn't over the top, though it doesn't really make you want to pack more of them which I guess is an issue.
This would be a substantial dramatic increase in anti-infantry firepower. You go from 20 BS3+ Bolter shots killing an average of 5.5 Orks to an average of 10.18, or an average of 5.93 Guardsmen to 9.88 Guardsmen. If applied to all bolt weapons, you'd also run into issues with other armies as well (Sisters, Guard heavy weapons, etc).
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That would definitely make Marines less durable against other Marines.
I'm for the solution that an unsaved wound from a Bolt weapon should cause an additional hit to be saved. It'd be a unique mechanic that isn't over the top, though it doesn't really make you want to pack more of them which I guess is an issue.
This would be a substantial dramatic increase in anti-infantry firepower. You go from 20 BS3+ Bolter shots killing an average of 5.5 Orks to an average of 10.18, or an average of 5.93 Guardsmen to 9.88 Guardsmen. If applied to all bolt weapons, you'd also run into issues with other armies as well (Sisters, Guard heavy weapons, etc).
What if bolt weapons gave a reroll to wound if the target has an armor save of 5+ or 6+? Fluff wise that would represent the bolt weapon being more dangerous against lightly armored targets, as the bolt would pierce enough of the armor for the explosion to deal some real damage.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: What if bolt weapons gave a reroll to wound if the target has an armor save of 5+ or 6+? Fluff wise that would represent the bolt weapon being more dangerous against lightly armored targets, as the bolt would pierce enough of the armor for the explosion to deal some real damage.
I'd prefer to keep it simple and just make bolters explode on 6s.
Just give marines more shots. More shots is the only way under the current rules to increase anti-infantry firepower. Mass lasgun/bolgtun fire is deadly to infantry. The problem is that marines can't field masses of boltguns in a way that's efficient. Unless you count Aggressors, which once in range will murder infantry.
So give them +1 shots, or double fire or something when armed with boltguns (e.g. +1 shots when in half range). But only marines, because any change to boltguns will affect sisters too, and they're already better when armed with them (cuz they're cheaper).
CthuluIsSpy wrote: What if bolt weapons gave a reroll to wound if the target has an armor save of 5+ or 6+? Fluff wise that would represent the bolt weapon being more dangerous against lightly armored targets, as the bolt would pierce enough of the armor for the explosion to deal some real damage.
I'd prefer to keep it simple and just make bolters explode on 6s.
For extra hits though? Tesla already has that rule. I'd prefer if there was not much rule overlap. Maybe an extra wound on a wound roll of a six? It would follow the normal damage rules, so getting 2 wounds off would just mean 2 saves for a single model, not 2 saves for 2 models.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That would definitely make Marines less durable against other Marines.
I'm for the solution that an unsaved wound from a Bolt weapon should cause an additional hit to be saved. It'd be a unique mechanic that isn't over the top, though it doesn't really make you want to pack more of them which I guess is an issue.
This would be a substantial dramatic increase in anti-infantry firepower. You go from 20 BS3+ Bolter shots killing an average of 5.5 Orks to an average of 10.18, or an average of 5.93 Guardsmen to 9.88 Guardsmen. If applied to all bolt weapons, you'd also run into issues with other armies as well (Sisters, Guard heavy weapons, etc).
In all previous editions of 40k space marines had ap 5 which is the equivalent of Ap - 1
GW moved the scale, AP-1 starts at what used to be AP4, anythinf AP5/6/- is now AP0.
The fact bolters are the same AP as Lasguns is reason enough for them to be given that benefit.
To be fair, bolters have had identical AP to Lasguns for 3 of the game's 5 editions (Lasguns had AP-1 in RT and 2E IIRC).
Would you rather it just ignore the armor altogether like previous editions?
I mean, next to the 3E paradigm era, you'd only be killing 6.66 Orks and 8.88 Guardsmen relative to the respective 10.18 and 9.88 for the "take a another save for each unsaved wound" idea. Particular for the 6+ save Boyz, that's brutal, but either way its inflicting more casualties than in any previous edition.
For extra hits though? Tesla already has that rule.
I'd prefer if there was not much rule overlap.
Maybe an extra wound on a wound roll of a six? It would follow the normal damage rules, so getting 2 wounds off would just mean 2 saves for a single model, not 2 saves for 2 models.
That would create a lot of extra rolling for shots fired in that sort of volume.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That would definitely make Marines less durable against other Marines.
I'm for the solution that an unsaved wound from a Bolt weapon should cause an additional hit to be saved. It'd be a unique mechanic that isn't over the top, though it doesn't really make you want to pack more of them which I guess is an issue.
This would be a substantial dramatic increase in anti-infantry firepower. You go from 20 BS3+ Bolter shots killing an average of 5.5 Orks to an average of 10.18, or an average of 5.93 Guardsmen to 9.88 Guardsmen. If applied to all bolt weapons, you'd also run into issues with other armies as well (Sisters, Guard heavy weapons, etc).
In all previous editions of 40k space marines had ap 5 which is the equivalent of Ap - 1
GW moved the scale, AP-1 starts at what used to be AP4, anythinf AP5/6/- is now AP0.
The fact bolters are the same AP as Lasguns is reason enough for them to be given that benefit.
To be fair, bolters have had identical AP to Lasguns for 3 of the game's 5 editions (Lasguns had AP-1 in RT and 2E IIRC).
Would you rather it just ignore the armor altogether like previous editions?
I mean, next to the 3E paradigm era, you'd only be killing 6.66 Orks and 8.88 Guardsmen relative to the respective 10.18 and 9.88 for the "take a another save for each unsaved wound" idea. Particular for the 6+ save Boyz, that's brutal, but either way its inflicting more casualties than in any previous edition.
The other idea I originally proposed is that a 6+ to wound forces the reroll of a successful save. Obviously silly with Roboute but he really shouldn't be in this conversation.
For extra hits though? Tesla already has that rule. I'd prefer if there was not much rule overlap. Maybe an extra wound on a wound roll of a six? It would follow the normal damage rules, so getting 2 wounds off would just mean 2 saves for a single model, not 2 saves for 2 models.
That would create a lot of extra rolling for shots fired in that sort of volume.
How so? Its not going to happen every time, you have to hit first, and then roll a 6 to wound. I don't think its going to add that much rolling. I use tesla and the number of extra hits I generate isn't as much as you'd think. And you still have to wound with tesla extra hits. With my suggestion your opponent is just saving against an extra bolter wound.
In all previous editions of 40k space marines had ap 5 which is the equivalent of Ap - 1
The fact bolters are the same AP as Lasguns is reason enough for them to be given that benefit.
Except AP4 is -1 and AP5 is nothing. I'd almost like to argue that the old AP- should be +1 to the save due to it's weak armour pen.
Changing lasguns and various other AP - weapons to AP +1 is the best/easiest possible fix for bolters currently being on the same level as lasguns. It would also make Space marines more durable against IG and DE million shot spam. It's even something that could realistically be implemented into a CA (unlike pretty much everything posted on this forum).
It would generally increase the durability of elite infantry, which people seem to enjoy clamoring about.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That would definitely make Marines less durable against other Marines.
I'm for the solution that an unsaved wound from a Bolt weapon should cause an additional hit to be saved. It'd be a unique mechanic that isn't over the top, though it doesn't really make you want to pack more of them which I guess is an issue.
How?
If they ignore a point of Ap and their guns have - 1 ap it cancels out
Automatically Appended Next Post: At most it punishes light infantry for being out of cover and helps with pot shots against larger targets
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That would definitely make Marines less durable against other Marines.
I'm for the solution that an unsaved wound from a Bolt weapon should cause an additional hit to be saved. It'd be a unique mechanic that isn't over the top, though it doesn't really make you want to pack more of them which I guess is an issue.
How?
If they ignore a point of Ap and their guns have - 1 ap it cancels out
Automatically Appended Next Post: At most it punishes light infantry for being out of cover and helps with pot shots against larger targets
That's assuming you would get both improvements. Do you need both though?
For someone who writes and edits book you might want to look at a codex before you start claiming landraiders in imaginary configurations exsist.
Secondly you also overlooked the inherent advantage that being able to deepstrike such a heavy unit has.
What imaginary configuration?
Yeah, being able to deepstrike a model turn 2, that can't land anywhere due to its size... huge advantage. Btw it will die before it ever gets to bring a unit on the field turn 3. (And then all those units die also). What is the advantage?
Yeah, being able to deepstrike a model turn 2, that can't land anywhere due to its size... huge advantage. Btw it will die before it ever gets to bring a unit on the field turn 3. (And then all those units die also). What is the advantage?
Yes, which is why it should bring in units when it arrives. That's what it needs most of all so it may perform its function. I have no trouble landing the monolith. If a monolith can't do it then most deepstrikers probably couldn't either. Not 20 wounds worth of deepstrikers anyway.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That would definitely make Marines less durable against other Marines.
I'm for the solution that an unsaved wound from a Bolt weapon should cause an additional hit to be saved. It'd be a unique mechanic that isn't over the top, though it doesn't really make you want to pack more of them which I guess is an issue.
How?
If they ignore a point of Ap and their guns have - 1 ap it cancels out
Automatically Appended Next Post: At most it punishes light infantry for being out of cover and helps with pot shots against larger targets
That's assuming you would get both improvements. Do you need both though?
Ideally I'd want both. They would work well off of each other. Marine on marine violence stays the same but they get slight buff against other armies
You are correct that if only the boltgun gets ap then marines are worse off.
I don't think it would be necessary for a points drop with both. Though that would probably mean all bolt weapons getting bumped up an ap.
Sisters make it odd though since they (Chaos marines are just a mirror of loyal ones) are they only other faction that can take mass boltguns for cheaper.
And the other concern of mine is the Heavy Bolter going to Ap-2. For marines it's a non issue but might be too much for what it's for. That being said it would be more attractive
Land Raider with twin las, twin assault and multi does 9.18 wounds to a leman russ, and 4.68 to marines.
The Phobos Land Raider (the standard version you're referring to) doesn't have a twin assault cannon. It has a twin heavy bolter. It's the variants that lack lascannons (the Crusader and the Redeemer) that have twin assault cannons.
Yeah I wrote twin assault because it was 2am and I mistyped. The stats I did up were for whatever the twin las was. (bolters)
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That would definitely make Marines less durable against other Marines.
I'm for the solution that an unsaved wound from a Bolt weapon should cause an additional hit to be saved. It'd be a unique mechanic that isn't over the top, though it doesn't really make you want to pack more of them which I guess is an issue.
How?
If they ignore a point of Ap and their guns have - 1 ap it cancels out
Automatically Appended Next Post: At most it punishes light infantry for being out of cover and helps with pot shots against larger targets
That's assuming you would get both improvements. Do you need both though?
Ideally I'd want both. They would work well off of each other. Marine on marine violence stays the same but they get slight buff against other armies
You are correct that if only the boltgun gets ap then marines are worse off.
I don't think it would be necessary for a points drop with both. Though that would probably mean all bolt weapons getting bumped up an ap.
Sisters make it odd though since they (Chaos marines are just a mirror of loyal ones) are they only other faction that can take mass boltguns for cheaper.
And the other concern of mine is the Heavy Bolter going to Ap-2. For marines it's a non issue but might be too much for what it's for. That being said it would be more attractive
The Tempestus Scions feel their armour and remember they have a 4+ save, and an AP -2 lasgun. Marines get dunked on.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: That would definitely make Marines less durable against other Marines.
I'm for the solution that an unsaved wound from a Bolt weapon should cause an additional hit to be saved. It'd be a unique mechanic that isn't over the top, though it doesn't really make you want to pack more of them which I guess is an issue.
How?
If they ignore a point of Ap and their guns have - 1 ap it cancels out
Automatically Appended Next Post: At most it punishes light infantry for being out of cover and helps with pot shots against larger targets
That's assuming you would get both improvements. Do you need both though?
Ideally I'd want both. They would work well off of each other. Marine on marine violence stays the same but they get slight buff against other armies
You are correct that if only the boltgun gets ap then marines are worse off.
I don't think it would be necessary for a points drop with both. Though that would probably mean all bolt weapons getting bumped up an ap.
Sisters make it odd though since they (Chaos marines are just a mirror of loyal ones) are they only other faction that can take mass boltguns for cheaper.
And the other concern of mine is the Heavy Bolter going to Ap-2. For marines it's a non issue but might be too much for what it's for. That being said it would be more attractive
"The Tempestus Scions feel their armour and remember they have a 4+ save, and an AP -2 lasgun. Marines get dunked on."
If marines are gonna field less units/bodies than their opponents than they should be able to get through cover saves imo
Ignoring all of the bickering and inane arguing in this thread, how aggressive do people think Chapter Approved 2018 will be? On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "they do feth all", and 10 being "they get into the weeds and fix loads of units that people aren't even talking about"...what are you guys expecting?
Honestly, marines (of all kinds) cannot get overhauled in CA to the level that they really need. However, there is possibly a way to indirectly buff them that helps across the board.
Produce new Adeptus Astartes strategems that are straight out buffs for all power armour or terminator armour. Just simple stuff like "Steadfast in the face of the enemy" (or whatever). 1CP . When targeted by an enemy unit, improve armour save by 1 to a maximum of 2+ for the rest of the phase.Or "Overwhelming firepower" 1CP. If an Adeptus Astartes infantry unit did not move in the movement phase, it may shoot twice with all bolter type weapon this phase (is there a bolter drill type strategem in regular SM codex?). And so on. Just devise some really cheap CPs that buff a SM unit for a phase, either in resiliency, firepower, or close combat.
It's a bandaid, granted, but that's the best we can hope for in a CA. IMHO of course.
Elbows wrote: Ignoring all of the bickering and inane arguing in this thread, how aggressive do people think Chapter Approved 2018 will be? On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "they do feth all", and 10 being "they get into the weeds and fix loads of units that people aren't even talking about"...what are you guys expecting?
Probably on the scale of "they do feth all"
We know there's going to be some Sisters testing stuff, and that there's going to be looted wagon rules. Beyond that [and missions], there's probably going to be general knee-jerk reactions to whatever is showing up in tournaments right now that doesn't actually attempt to analyse or address the situation.
That said, it'll probably be fine, and the sky won't fall.
Land Raider with twin las, twin assault and multi does 9.18 wounds to a leman russ, and 4.68 to marines.
The Phobos Land Raider (the standard version you're referring to) doesn't have a twin assault cannon. It has a twin heavy bolter. It's the variants that lack lascannons (the Crusader and the Redeemer) that have twin assault cannons.
Yeah I wrote twin assault because it was 2am and I mistyped. The stats I did up were for whatever the twin las was. (bolters)
But they aren't, because a double twin-las. twin HB and multimelta in half range Land Raider is only doing on average 7.335 wounds to a Leman Russ.
There is a bolter drill stratagem, but it's for Imperial Fists only.
@Elbows, probably about a 5 on the scale for me. I'm not expecting too much more than a few points changes and them maybe reworking Legion Traits/Chapter Tactics slightly to apply to all units except Servitors.
Most of the space that was used last time to give other armies a few small bits here and there while they were waiting for a codex will be taken up by the Sister's beta codex, and the rest will probably be dedicated to Narrative modes or new missions again.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: There is a bolter drill stratagem, but it's for Imperial Fists only.
@Elbows, probably about a 5 on the scale for me. I'm not expecting too much more than a few points changes and them maybe reworking Legion Traits/Chapter Tactics slightly to apply to all units except Servitors.
Most of the space that was used last time to give other armies a few small bits here and there while they were waiting for a codex will be taken up by the Sister's beta codex, and the rest will probably be dedicated to Narrative modes or new missions again.
Elbows wrote: Ignoring all of the bickering and inane arguing in this thread, how aggressive do people think Chapter Approved 2018 will be? On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "they do feth all", and 10 being "they get into the weeds and fix loads of units that people aren't even talking about"...what are you guys expecting?
(Btw, I've actually written for award winning books in the game industry and edited for the same numbers intensive system [#2 selling game in the world at the time], since you mentioned it)
Please cite your name & works so that I & others may be properly impressed.
I would say 6,5. They will nerf the obvious problems and buff the obvious underperformers while sprinkling a few buffs here and there to make the book interesting for every faction.
About the marine issue, a fix eaasy enough to be implemented in a CA book would be something like this:
Fire pattern: Adeptus Astartes units that shoot with bolter weapons receive bonuses based on the number of models in the unit:
-3 or more: +1 to hit
- 5 or more:+1 to wound
- 8 or more: Ignore hit penalties, in addition roll 2 wound rolls for every unmodified hit roll of 6 instead of one.
These bonuses stack with each other. For the purpose of this rule bolter weapons are bolters, storm bolters, stalker bolters, stalker bolt rfile, auto bolt rifles and bolt rifles.
This adds a bit more punch to the bolter class weapons and in particular to the troops. This way a drop pod of 10 tacticals dropping on you starts becoming a more serious threath (assuming a reduction in cost of the pod), or 10 tacticals dropped in rapid fire range by a rhino. 10 intercessors with stalker bolt rifles become a big issue for the opponent.
For those that like to crunch numbers, at 10 men this means an increased firepower of 82% against GEQ, 94% against MEQ and 191% against T8 targets
The first bonus being at 3 also does something to help bikes.
This is a simple and thematical way to improve the performance of bolters, but only when in the hands of marines.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, drop Gman to 310 points and change his aura to only reroll 1's to wound, this plague on the marines has to end. He will still be good as a Chapter master + Lt + beatstick + 3CP package, but not a cornerstone of marine lists.
l1ttlej wrote: On the marine topic I saw a fairly eloquent fix, with some adjustment that doesnt need a million point reductions. (Marines becoming a horde army is a mistake imo)
All MEQ get a rule something like armoured ceramaite (or whatever name you want): reduce ap (ie ap value +1) on incoming attacks from ranged weapons by 1.
TEQ: either 2d6 for saves or +2 to the AP. I prefer the 2d6 over the +2. Feels like it starts messing with fluff of plasma chewing through armour.
Problem with 2D6 is now you have Long Fangs with a WG Terminator loaded out with a cyclone ML, Stormshield and a combi weapon, camping at the top of a building; body blocking. Now that Terminator has a 1+, 3++ invuln. 2D6 save will basically gurantee that Long Fang squad will never come down and no one can charge it.
Sheer volume of firepower won't stop SW players from just running three of this combo. It'd be downright insane. Now further, imagining five WG termies with stormshields, combi plasmas. Sitting in cover and damn near un removable.
What if MEQ (and other power armor wearers) was just moved to a 2+ save and TEQ to a 1+ (with the understanding that 1's always fail, so it's still essentially a 2+ against AP0)? That would give room to move Necron Warriors to a 3+ save while still leaving their bodies as inferior to the Immortal. Not really sure what else would fit at a 3+ in this scenario though, I doubt anyone would argue that carapace armor should have a better save.
Obviously this whole thing falls apart if the math says that would make marines too durable, but from a design standpoint it's far more fluid than giving termies a 2d6 save.
The only problem I see of terminators moving to a 2D6 save is that it would render their 5++ redundant.
But, since in the fluff the all terminator armour contains a microscopic part of the emperors armour, perhaps it could give them the Custodes 6+++ against mortal wounds in the psychic phase instead of a 5++ invulnerable?
Arachnofiend wrote: What if MEQ (and other power armor wearers) was just moved to a 2+ save and TEQ to a 1+ (with the understanding that 1's always fail, so it's still essentially a 2+ against AP0)? That would give room to move Necron Warriors to a 3+ save while still leaving their bodies as inferior to the Immortal. Not really sure what else would fit at a 3+ in this scenario though, I doubt anyone would argue that carapace armor should have a better save.
Obviously this whole thing falls apart if the math says that would make marines too durable, but from a design standpoint it's far more fluid than giving termies a 2d6 save.
The problem is it makes Marines disproportionately more durable to small arms than to the real marine killing weapons.
I prefer the idea of reducing AP by 1. It's effectively the same against weapons with AP, without making them too durable against small arms.
Terminators can have the same, though I'd also give them an extra wound.
I don't like 2d6 saves at all (as much as I have some nostalgia for them). It means you can't fast roll.
For extra hits though? Tesla already has that rule.
I'd prefer if there was not much rule overlap.
Maybe an extra wound on a wound roll of a six? It would follow the normal damage rules, so getting 2 wounds off would just mean 2 saves for a single model, not 2 saves for 2 models.
That would create a lot of extra rolling for shots fired in that sort of volume.
How so? Its not going to happen every time, you have to hit first, and then roll a 6 to wound.
I don't think its going to add that much rolling. I use tesla and the number of extra hits I generate isn't as much as you'd think.
And you still have to wound with tesla extra hits. With my suggestion your opponent is just saving against an extra bolter wound.
Tesla is different as you can fast roll them and not roll them per model. FNP on no save model(ie only save he gets is the FNP) is slower than inv save for that reason as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elbows wrote: Ignoring all of the bickering and inane arguing in this thread, how aggressive do people think Chapter Approved 2018 will be? On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "they do feth all", and 10 being "they get into the weeds and fix loads of units that people aren't even talking about"...what are you guys expecting?
Level 4 changing stuff to make people buy what they don't already have
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: Honestly, marines (of all kinds) cannot get overhauled in CA to the level that they really need. However, there is possibly a way to indirectly buff them that helps across the board.
Produce new Adeptus Astartes strategems that are straight out buffs for all power armour or terminator armour. Just simple stuff like "Steadfast in the face of the enemy" (or whatever). 1CP . When targeted by an enemy unit, improve armour save by 1 to a maximum of 2+ for the rest of the phase.Or "Overwhelming firepower" 1CP. If an Adeptus Astartes infantry unit did not move in the movement phase, it may shoot twice with all bolter type weapon this phase (is there a bolter drill type strategem in regular SM codex?). And so on. Just devise some really cheap CPs that buff a SM unit for a phase, either in resiliency, firepower, or close combat.
It's a bandaid, granted, but that's the best we can hope for in a CA. IMHO of course.
And if that's what really helps then it helps marines basically in small scale games but for example +1 save will be fairly irrelevant in 2k game where there's multiple units so enemy can instead shoot at other units instead.
Elbows wrote: Ignoring all of the bickering and inane arguing in this thread, how aggressive do people think Chapter Approved 2018 will be? On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "they do feth all", and 10 being "they get into the weeds and fix loads of units that people aren't even talking about"...what are you guys expecting?
I think, realistically it'll be about 4.5. What I'm hoping for is closer to 7-8. I wouldn't want them to delve too deep as they might.ake things worse by overcompensating . There's a lot I'd like to happen but I expect to be partially let down, because I'm just one dude and my opinion doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
Elbows wrote: Ignoring all of the bickering and inane arguing in this thread, how aggressive do people think Chapter Approved 2018 will be? On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "they do feth all", and 10 being "they get into the weeds and fix loads of units that people aren't even talking about"...what are you guys expecting?
A 3-4, most likely. I think we'll see some obvious targets getting nerfs (Disintegrator Cannons, Grotesques) but I'm not so sure we'll see much to help bring up the struggling armies/units like Necrons. Marines might get something due to being the poster boys of 40k. Any mechanical fixes like terrain seem equally unlikely too as that seems to be more of a FAQ thing.
What I'd love to see more from GW is some riskier, more impactful beta rules suggestions. At the moment everything feels really safe and incremental. Why not use the FAQs and Chapter Approved to throw out some more off-the-wall ideas? If they don't work then fine, they were beta after all.
Slipspace wrote: Why not use the FAQs and Chapter Approved to throw out some more off-the-wall ideas? If they don't work then fine, they were beta after all.
Then again that means in practice all those off the wall ideas will become de facto standard until revoken.
Elbows wrote: Ignoring all of the bickering and inane arguing in this thread, how aggressive do people think Chapter Approved 2018 will be? On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "they do feth all", and 10 being "they get into the weeds and fix loads of units that people aren't even talking about"...what are you guys expecting?
Probably like a 3, which I think is ok. When game developers try completely fix everything all at once it usually just results in a shift to new problems in different places. For example, if they were to make all the massive point decreases to Necrons some here have wanted we would probably end up with unbeatable flying bakery's again like we did in 5th edition. When the changes are smaller I think it's easier to avoid breaking the game.
IIRC, chapter approved is mainly:
1) small to moderate points adjustments.
2) occasional stat adjustments (more uncommon).
3) 'fun' stuff for open play (looted stuff this year, landraider stuff last year).
And this year to include
4) SoB beta Codex.
Actual changes to rules seem to mainly occur during the FAQ, which we already had.
Arachnofiend wrote: What if MEQ (and other power armor wearers) was just moved to a 2+ save and TEQ to a 1+ (with the understanding that 1's always fail, so it's still essentially a 2+ against AP0)? That would give room to move Necron Warriors to a 3+ save while still leaving their bodies as inferior to the Immortal. Not really sure what else would fit at a 3+ in this scenario though, I doubt anyone would argue that carapace armor should have a better save.
Obviously this whole thing falls apart if the math says that would make marines too durable, but from a design standpoint it's far more fluid than giving termies a 2d6 save.
I’m also expecting around the “4” on the scale.
I think we’ll see hits to the main things, i.e Castellan and Talos etc, but I also expect a couple of hits and buffs to random units no one is really expecting.
I don’t think that there will be wide scale changes to Marines or Grey Knights etc, even though we all know they are needed and want them.
Elbows wrote: Ignoring all of the bickering and inane arguing in this thread, how aggressive do people think Chapter Approved 2018 will be? On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "they do feth all", and 10 being "they get into the weeds and fix loads of units that people aren't even talking about"...what are you guys expecting?
I'd say about a 4. Some changes to over-performers, and maybe some points changes to a couple units per army, but nothing more. The main focus of this Chapter Approved doesn't appear to be for balance changes, but instead a collection of missions, beta rules, Looted vehicle rules and beta Sister's codex. Amongst all that, there is little development space for any real balance changes or army fixes.
Elbows wrote: Ignoring all of the bickering and inane arguing in this thread, how aggressive do people think Chapter Approved 2018 will be? On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "they do feth all", and 10 being "they get into the weeds and fix loads of units that people aren't even talking about"...what are you guys expecting?
6 - they won't be able to hit it all and new issues will pop up.
Actual changes to rules seem to mainly occur during the FAQ, which we already had.
When the FAQ came out and I asked about the lack of any GKFAQ, people said that rules changes only happen in the CA book. So which of the true is true, they change rules only in the FAQ or durning the CA. If they only change them in FAQ, this means we would have to wait to a new update till spring next year.
Elbows wrote: Ignoring all of the bickering and inane arguing in this thread, how aggressive do people think Chapter Approved 2018 will be? On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "they do feth all", and 10 being "they get into the weeds and fix loads of units that people aren't even talking about"...what are you guys expecting?
I'd say about a 4. Some changes to over-performers, and maybe some points changes to a couple units per army, but nothing more. The main focus of this Chapter Approved doesn't appear to be for balance changes, but instead a collection of missions, beta rules, Looted vehicle rules and beta Sister's codex. Amongst all that, there is little development space for any real balance changes or army fixes.
Did you miss the last one?
It was 128 pages.
Open was 24.
Narrative was 33.
Matched was 24.
New faction rules were 12.
Terrain was 4.
Campaigns were 2.
Points were 8.
Sisters have 15 datasheets across 8 pages. Stratagems, relics, and traits come in at 4 to 5 pages for singular factions like Sisters. So the whole Sisters beta codex could fit almost within the new faction rules of last year.
Not all units need points updates so far fewer pages will be needed there.
Case in point - there is plenty of room.
(They're not constrained on the number of pages, either.)
On Elbows' ranking, I'd say about a 2. I don't think GW sees (or is concerned about) problems in the same way as some in this thread.
Beyond some point adjustments and finalizing/editing Beta rules from the FAQs, I don't see real changes in the works.
Part of that has been the rush to get everything out- while that allows them time to doodle napkin rules for looted wagons over lunch breaks for open play, it doesn't leave real time for systematic changes to the rule set, or overhauling major codex lines less than a year out.
Maybe next year, once the final few are out and done.
Anybody proposing the 2D6 armor save is on drugs. Lemme just shoot your squad with 3 Frag Cannons and 6 Storm Bolters and laugh as you run down the clock.
Just roll once dice for each save. If it's a 1 reroll it and 1s fail after that (or whatever the target is).
The op meant roll 2 dice for the save and add the results together if I understood him correctly. I don't think there's a gun in the game with an AP high enough to entirely deny such a save. Mortal Wounds would screw such Termies over even harder though.
Slipspace wrote: Why not use the FAQs and Chapter Approved to throw out some more off-the-wall ideas? If they don't work then fine, they were beta after all.
Then again that means in practice all those off the wall ideas will become de facto standard until revoken.
Not really. The idea would be that they wouldn't be along the lines of the minor adjustments we've seen until now. They'd be much bigger changes that would get people thinking while also not being automatically added to the rules. Of course, you then run the risk of the player base being a little too safe and not using them.
Anybody proposing the 2D6 armor save is on drugs. Lemme just shoot your squad with 3 Frag Cannons and 6 Storm Bolters and laugh as you run down the clock.
Just roll once dice for each save. If it's a 1 reroll it and 1s fail after that (or whatever the target is).
The op meant roll 2 dice for the save and add the results together if I understood him correctly. I don't think there's a gun in the game with an AP high enough to entirely deny such a save. Mortal Wounds would screw such Termies over even harder though.
Well, back in 2ed Terminators were a 3+ on 2D6 (or was it 2+?). In either case rolling one dice determines the importance of the second. Same thing with charge rolls - if I need 7" to get in and I roll a 6 I don't need to roll the second dice to know what will happen.
Mortal wounds will be fine, because you still need two of them to kill a terminator.
Well, back in 2ed Terminators were a 3+ on 2D6 (or was it 2+?). In either case rolling one dice determines the importance of the second. Same thing with charge rolls - if I need 7" to get in and I roll a 6 I don't need to roll the second dice to know what will happen.
Mortal wounds will be fine, because you still need two of them to kill a terminator.
I wouldn't be entirely opposed to 'heavy' infantry being defined with having 2d6 rolls. This would make an important distinction between heavy infantry and light infantry. It would also, in my opinion, make Terminators and heavy infantry some of the strongest in the game. Wraithguard, chaos terminators, helk even primarchs would suddenly become very effective.
But that would make them far more worth it to take and would justify their costs. It would also provide vechiles and other options the ability to be, well, pardon the pun: 'tanky'.
Now that would people would only take terminators? Or would it encourage people to run heavy infantry more?
The issue you have is one of scale. If Terminators were 3+ save on 2D6 (meaning you'd bounce a lascannon shot on a 6+, below the average), what about Dreadnoughts? land raiders. Things that should be far more resilient, wouldn't be.
Maybe next year, once the final few are out and done.
At which point they are too busy with redoing codexes completely invalidating current good builds into trash and making new ones to ensure new models are bought not fixing problems but just changing them
bullyboy wrote: The issue you have is one of scale. If Terminators were 3+ save on 2D6 (meaning you'd bounce a lascannon shot on a 6+, below the average), what about Dreadnoughts? land raiders. Things that should be far more resilient, wouldn't be.
He makes a good point on Magnus. It would make AP3/4/5 weapons more relevant when it takes a lot more to knock them down to an invulnerable.
Deadnought / LR / etc are fine in their current config, because they don't pack invulnerable saves and aren't juiced by disintegrators so easily.
With the currenr ASM scheme, 2d6 saves would be far more powerful than in the past. ASM's are dramatically more restrained than in 2E when the game last had them. When Terminators took their saves on 2d6 on a 3+, a Lascannon had a -6ASM (and did 2d6 damage instead of 1d6 so a Terminator failing a save would have an additional 1/6 chance to survive in 8E that they didnt in 2E) so a Terminator was saving on a 9+, saving 1 in 3.6 times. With 8E ASM's, assuming a 3+ in 2d6, the Terminator is passing on a 6+, saving 1 in 1.7 times, basically having a "3.5++" save.
With respect to weapons like heavy bolters, you'd need 24 BS4+ heavy bolters, putting out 72 shots, to average 1 dead Terminator. You'd need as many heavy bolters to kill 3 Terminators as you would to kill a Russ tank.
Overall, I think recosting is probably a better tool than getting into messing with saves at this point unless we're talking about a potential 9E.
bullyboy wrote: The issue you have is one of scale. If Terminators were 3+ save on 2D6 (meaning you'd bounce a lascannon shot on a 6+, below the average), what about Dreadnoughts? land raiders. Things that should be far more resilient, wouldn't be.
Dreadnoughts already are as multi wound models and high toughness which should offset that ''resilience problem" that termies and other heavy infantry have. I might playtest though to see what happens.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: With the currenr ASM scheme, 2d6 saves would be far more powerful than in the past. ASM's are dramatically more restrained than in 2E when the game last had them. When Terminators took their saves on 2d6 on a 3+, a Lascannon had a -6ASM (and did 2d6 damage instead of 1d6 so a Terminator failing a save would have an additional 1/6 chance to survive in 8E that they didnt in 2E) so a Terminator was saving on a 9+, saving 1 in 3.6 times. With 8E ASM's, assuming a 3+ in 2d6, the Terminator is passing on a 6+, saving 1 in 1.7 times, basically having a "3.5++" save.
With respect to weapons like heavy bolters, you'd need 24 BS4+ heavy bolters, putting out 72 shots, to average 1 dead Terminator. You'd need as many heavy bolters to kill 3 Terminators as you would to kill a Russ tank.
Overall, I think recosting is probably a better tool than getting into messing with saves at this point unless we're talking about a potential 9E.
That works too!
Termies are a bit overcosted, and a points drop would increase their effectiveness (IE you can take more). But that still doesn't address Space Marines lack thereof of good special rules in comparision to codex creeps such as Craftworlds or other race's codexes.
Maybe we might get an incentive to play mono space marines?
I don't think recosting really touches it all that well as certain weapons will still devastate them out of proportion.
It doesn't need to be a 3+ on 2D6, either.
A 4+ is still better than a 2+ regular save. A lascannon makes that a 7+, which is 58%.
A 5+ is equivalent to a 2+ currently and give the lascannon a 42% chance - though they need better protection from small arms not something that is the same.
I'm ok with points reductions, too. I'm just skeptical for the moment.
I think I might have thought of a way to fix AP5 weapons. Something along the lines of "if a bolter has higher S than its target's T, gain an addition AP". Marine durability would be completely untouched while regular infantry will die much faster.
DominayTrix wrote: I think I might have thought of a way to fix AP5 weapons. Something along the lines of "if a bolter has higher S than its target's T, gain an addition AP". Marine durability would be completely untouched while regular infantry will die much faster.
But then marines suffer more when a disintegrator removes their save entirely.
Maybe next year, once the final few are out and done.
At which point they are too busy with redoing codexes completely invalidating current good builds into trash and making new ones to ensure new models are bought not fixing problems but just changing them
Daedalus81 wrote: Not all units need points updates so far fewer pages will be needed there.
You don't think they'll take the opportunity to make CA18 a complete reference for any units which have had their points updated since their Index/Codex?
Maybe next year, once the final few are out and done.
At which point they are too busy with redoing codexes completely invalidating current good builds into trash and making new ones to ensure new models are bought not fixing problems but just changing them
Congrats, you now understand the GW way.
Ha ha. Rite guys?
Remember when they made all those new Craftworld kits for those killer new rules? Oh and the new Infantry Squads are AMAZING! I particularly favor the brand new Gallant.
Oh and did anyone see them over price that really ancient Squig Buggy kit? Absolutely dreadful.
Silly GW and their corrupt greedy ways always making new kits with the best rulez.
Actual changes to rules seem to mainly occur during the FAQ, which we already had.
When the FAQ came out and I asked about the lack of any GKFAQ, people said that rules changes only happen in the CA book. So which of the true is true, they change rules only in the FAQ or durning the CA. If they only change them in FAQ, this means we would have to wait to a new update till spring next year.
The truth is that these people don't know.
GW could do one or the other, both, some mix, or even neither. And even if they imply something on FB, Twitter, etc - -they aren't bound by that. On this end? There's really nothing you can do but await the day. So speculate if you want. But don't pin your hopes on it, don't let it stop you from gaming, & don't stress about it. And once the CA lands? Apply the changes & then refer back to this advice while awaiting the next FAQ. Repeat as often as needed.
Well, back in 2ed Terminators were a 3+ on 2D6 (or was it 2+?). In either case rolling one dice determines the importance of the second. Same thing with charge rolls - if I need 7" to get in and I roll a 6 I don't need to roll the second dice to know what will happen.
Mortal wounds will be fine, because you still need two of them to kill a terminator.
Not even close to the same thing. This is a very bad example (even though your point is very clear). You absolutely do want to roll the second die here because charging allows you to move up to the maximum of your charge roll. It's not a binary component (charge success/fail). You may be guaranteed to make the charge, but if you were to play it this way then you're giving up significant tactical advantage. By that I mean, I won't stop you, but its still wrong.
Well, back in 2ed Terminators were a 3+ on 2D6 (or was it 2+?). In either case rolling one dice determines the importance of the second. Same thing with charge rolls - if I need 7" to get in and I roll a 6 I don't need to roll the second dice to know what will happen.
Mortal wounds will be fine, because you still need two of them to kill a terminator.
Not even close to the same thing. This is a very bad example (even though your point is very clear). You absolutely do want to roll the second die here because charging allows you to move up to the maximum of your charge roll. It's not a binary component (charge success/fail). You may be guaranteed to make the charge, but if you were to play it this way then you're giving up significant tactical advantage. By that I mean, I won't stop you, but its still wrong.
Well, yes - longer distances are always more helpful. I was just aiming for the binary aspect as a comparison.
DominayTrix wrote: I think I might have thought of a way to fix AP5 weapons. Something along the lines of "if a bolter has higher S than its target's T, gain an addition AP". Marine durability would be completely untouched while regular infantry will die much faster.
But then marines suffer more when a disintegrator removes their save entirely.
Disintegrators aren't bolters so they would not be affected. It would have to be specific to each AP5 weapon that is currently AP0.
DominayTrix wrote: I think I might have thought of a way to fix AP5 weapons. Something along the lines of "if a bolter has higher S than its target's T, gain an addition AP". Marine durability would be completely untouched while regular infantry will die much faster.
But then marines suffer more when a disintegrator removes their save entirely.
Disintegrators aren't bolters so they would not be affected. It would have to be specific to each AP5 weapon that is currently AP0.
Oh, I see what you were saying. Still seems tough to remember.
Marines definitely need something. I’d like to see marines get increased durability by increasing them from a T:4 base to a T:6 base. That should increase their resistance to light weaponry while leaving them vulnerable to plasma/AT weapons. It would also boost bikes and other specialists.
Daedalus81 wrote: Not all units need points updates so far fewer pages will be needed there.
You don't think they'll take the opportunity to make CA18 a complete reference for any units which have had their points updated since their Index/Codex?
Naah. That would be too player friendly. They will be instead keeping CA17 and CA18 on sale making you buy both to have up to date points!
(with this system at least they should have put the points to datasheets. As it is there's no gain whatsoever in having points at the back)
Daedalus81 wrote: Not all units need points updates so far fewer pages will be needed there.
You don't think they'll take the opportunity to make CA18 a complete reference for any units which have had their points updated since their Index/Codex?
Naah. That would be too player friendly. They will be instead keeping CA17 and CA18 on sale making you buy both to have up to date points!
(with this system at least they should have put the points to datasheets. As it is there's no gain whatsoever in having points at the back)
Of course there is no gain, it's by design. GW didn't want to have points at all but the playtester badger literally told them the edition would crash and burn if they didn't, so they had to patch them in at the last second for "matched" play.
Lets see....
1) nerf or rework of ynnari - wishlist, basically nerf their free actions stuff to once per turn or something
2) points reduction across the board for crons and marines
3) de points bumps or reworks of some stuff
4) knight points bumps....
5) guardsmen go up 1 point, dudes are still too good compared to other chaff options; when cultists are 4 ppm...
6) ahriman points bump, hes really damn good.
7) would love to see some demon reworks, i.e. giving codex demon tzeentch dps a second spell.
8) points drops on all greater demons. Further wishlist would guo goes to t8
9) custodes price drops for troop options, bikers points go up
10) tyranid point drops on thjngs like carnifexes, or bumping a few things to t8 (exocrine)
Gw wont address core issues, but meh
Just a few ideas, but im prepared to be dissapoint.
Daedalus81 wrote: Not all units need points updates so far fewer pages will be needed there.
You don't think they'll take the opportunity to make CA18 a complete reference for any units which have had their points updated since their Index/Codex?
Naah. That would be too player friendly. They will be instead keeping CA17 and CA18 on sale making you buy both to have up to date points!
(with this system at least they should have put the points to datasheets. As it is there's no gain whatsoever in having points at the back)
Of course there is no gain, it's by design. GW didn't want to have points at all but the playtester badger literally told them the edition would crash and burn if they didn't, so they had to patch them in at the last second for "matched" play.
Verifiable source for that, or is this just the regular garbage?
Daedalus81 wrote: Not all units need points updates so far fewer pages will be needed there.
You don't think they'll take the opportunity to make CA18 a complete reference for any units which have had their points updated since their Index/Codex?
Naah. That would be too player friendly. They will be instead keeping CA17 and CA18 on sale making you buy both to have up to date points!
(with this system at least they should have put the points to datasheets. As it is there's no gain whatsoever in having points at the back)
Of course there is no gain, it's by design. GW didn't want to have points at all but the playtester badger literally told them the edition would crash and burn if they didn't, so they had to patch them in at the last second for "matched" play.
Verifiable source for that, or is this just the regular garbage?
40k was indeed going pointless but the utter failure of AoS showed this would not fly so the release of 8th was put back by a year is what I was told by someone, I'm not going to name them or the department they are in as they still work there.
The whole issue with points could easily be sold by hiring an in house statistician but they are too tight fisted, so instead they flail around in the dark.
Daedalus81 wrote: Not all units need points updates so far fewer pages will be needed there.
You don't think they'll take the opportunity to make CA18 a complete reference for any units which have had their points updated since their Index/Codex?
Naah. That would be too player friendly. They will be instead keeping CA17 and CA18 on sale making you buy both to have up to date points!
(with this system at least they should have put the points to datasheets. As it is there's no gain whatsoever in having points at the back)
Of course there is no gain, it's by design. GW didn't want to have points at all but the playtester badger literally told them the edition would crash and burn if they didn't, so they had to patch them in at the last second for "matched" play.
Verifiable source for that, or is this just the regular garbage?
The initial floundering of AoS and its strong turn around with the general's handbook shows that a GW game system without points is not desired by the community and that having points is the smarter move. Don't think they needed play testers to tell them that points are desired when they had a ton of angry feedback from the fantasy community.
Daedalus81 wrote: Not all units need points updates so far fewer pages will be needed there.
You don't think they'll take the opportunity to make CA18 a complete reference for any units which have had their points updated since their Index/Codex?
Naah. That would be too player friendly. They will be instead keeping CA17 and CA18 on sale making you buy both to have up to date points!
(with this system at least they should have put the points to datasheets. As it is there's no gain whatsoever in having points at the back)
Of course there is no gain, it's by design. GW didn't want to have points at all but the playtester badger literally told them the edition would crash and burn if they didn't, so they had to patch them in at the last second for "matched" play.
Verifiable source for that, or is this just the regular garbage?
The initial floundering of AoS and its strong turn around with the general's handbook shows that a GW game system without points is not desired by the community and that having points is the smarter move. Don't think they needed play testers to tell them that points are desired when they had a ton of angry feedback from the fantasy community.
No gak it would be badly recieved, the question is for a source of them actually planning it at all.
hobojebus wrote:
SHUPPET wrote: So a no verifiable source, just some guy on the internet saying it?
Automatically Appended Next Post: points could definitely be improved though
No ones going to put their job on the line to criticize their bosses with an official statement.
And I'm not going to throw anyone under the bus to win internet points.
But the Kirby strategy was clearly to ditch points to encourage people to get into an arms race so whoever spent more had the advantage.
Okay that's really not clear at all that this was their plan for 8th. All I have to go off is you telling me it, with no verifiable source.
Right now I could say I spoke to a current employee and they told me anything in the world, it has just as much credibility as what you're saying right now. So much garbage gets passed around this community, there's sites that seem almost dedicated to spreading every false rumor, you can literally message them right now with a wishlist and tell them its an insider source and they'll post it.
In terms of DG/Chaos, I hope at least the following:
Possesed with T5 and/or DR (maybe pts increase)
Chaos lord with T5 and/or DR (maybe pts increase)
Defiler with DR
Plague marines cheaper/power armor/boltgun rework.
New srategems, cause DG strats are suffering heavy from early codex syndrome and are lackluster.
Xenomancers wrote: There is 1 thing that makes his story credible Shuppet. The points in this game are a complete gak fest.
You say that as if we're not just coming from an edition where Space Marines were given hundreds of free points just to make them competitive. Points costs not being exactly where they should be isn't new.
Xenomancers wrote: There is 1 thing that makes his story credible Shuppet. The points in this game are a complete gak fest.
Sorry but its rubbish.
GW make their whole "oh, sorry, yes, we want AOS to be a thing, here are points because they are clearly required" in 2016. There is no way - except in some very early stage - that 8th edition 40k was conceived without them.
GW have got points wrong for decades and will no doubt continue to do so.
Sorry but its rubbish.
GW make their whole "oh, sorry, yes, we want AOS to be a thing, here are points because they are clearly required" in 2016. There is no way - except in some very early stage - that 8th edition 40k was conceived without them.
Then again, AOS points are basically like 40K power levels, they don't take into account upgrades. So I guess it is possible that they though that the power levels would be a sufficient point system. But probably not.
Sorry but its rubbish.
GW make their whole "oh, sorry, yes, we want AOS to be a thing, here are points because they are clearly required" in 2016. There is no way - except in some very early stage - that 8th edition 40k was conceived without them.
Then again, AOS points are basically like 40K power levels, they don't take into account upgrades. So I guess it is possible that they though that the power levels would be a sufficient point system. But probably not.
It's more like AOS points assume you took the upgrades.
Its been a fact forever - and its destroyed several editions of the game - that GW don't care about points. They could employ say 10 people to play test and price, but they don't. Unless they have started.
Xenomancers wrote: There is 1 thing that makes his story credible Shuppet. The points in this game are a complete gak fest.
Sorry but its rubbish.
GW make their whole "oh, sorry, yes, we want AOS to be a thing, here are points because they are clearly required" in 2016. There is no way - except in some very early stage - that 8th edition 40k was conceived without them.
GW have got points wrong for decades and will no doubt continue to do so.
At what point do you think 40k 8th eddition index was being worked on? THINK ABOUT IT. There are no points on the data sheets. Everyone is like...Man - this sucks that I have to turn to the back of the book to figure out points. They make up some trash story that it's just so they can update the points easier...REALLY? If you make a point change how does it change that fact that the points are going to be wrong in my hard copy no matter where they are. Pretty sure they were just going to use power level until very late in the 8ths development. It all makes sense now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: Its been a fact forever - and its destroyed several editions of the game - that GW don't care about points. They could employ say 10 people to play test and price, but they don't. Unless they have started.
They don't - it's a load of hogwash. We are play testing the game for them right now.
If the whole purpose of having the point cost sheets separate from the data sheets was to make updating them easier (which is not a bad idea, though it does make giving equipment different costs based on who carries it, but whatever)... and we are told this is why it was done...
why when the points are updated do they not simply update the lot, in effect make it part of the reason to buy Chapter Approved, it is the place to issue the points for next year, for everything thats got a point cost at the time CA is issued for any faction where any value changes
Ice_can wrote: So cheaper than assualt squads still have the same stats
I suspect the number of players running assault or deepstrike seraphim will be approaching zero unless they have new wargear options but it'll be interesting to see sisters that don't roll over quite as readily to the counter-charge.
So cheaper than assualt squads still have the same stats
Well WS 4+ for the most part as well. Oh and T3.
I hoped the winks would get across it was ment in jest.
But Astra Millicheese have proven that T3 doesn't matter in 8th edition it's all about being Cheapest. Sisters players just need to hope sisters don't break the single digits in points costs.
It is a solid rule for sure, but Sisters really don't traditionally have much melee options. They're short to medium ranged shooty army. So you might want to pick a trait that supports that.
Crimson wrote: It is a solid rule for sure, but Sisters really don't traditionally have much melee options. They're short to medium ranged shooty army. So you might want to pick a trait that supports that.
One could make the argument that they're giving the melee Sisters faction an unusually powerful trait to compensate for the fact that if it was "normal" it'd be worthless. I kinda thought they would do this with the Farsight Enclaves trait since you'd have to have some really sweet bonuses to convince Tau players to get up in their opponent's face but obviously that didn't happen.
The more likely answer is that time has shown that the World Eaters legion trait sucks and there's no reason to copy and paste a bad trait.
Crimson wrote: It is a solid rule for sure, but Sisters really don't traditionally have much melee options. They're short to medium ranged shooty army. So you might want to pick a trait that supports that.
One could make the argument that they're giving the melee Sisters faction an unusually powerful trait to compensate for the fact that if it was "normal" it'd be worthless. I kinda thought they would do this with the Farsight Enclaves trait since you'd have to have some really sweet bonuses to convince Tau players to get up in their opponent's face but obviously that didn't happen.
The more likely answer is that time has shown that the World Eaters legion trait sucks and there's no reason to copy and paste a bad trait.
Crimson wrote: It is a solid rule for sure, but Sisters really don't traditionally have much melee options. They're short to medium ranged shooty army. So you might want to pick a trait that supports that.
One could make the argument that they're giving the melee Sisters faction an unusually powerful trait to compensate for the fact that if it was "normal" it'd be worthless. I kinda thought they would do this with the Farsight Enclaves trait since you'd have to have some really sweet bonuses to convince Tau players to get up in their opponent's face but obviously that didn't happen.
The more likely answer is that time has shown that the World Eaters legion trait sucks and there's no reason to copy and paste a bad trait.
The Farsight bonus is/was actually pretty good.
It think his point was more that for the "Close Combat Tau subfaction" yeah that sounds wierd to me too their bonuses dont actually make them any better at CC that anyone else in the Tsu empire.
Crimson wrote: It is a solid rule for sure, but Sisters really don't traditionally have much melee options. They're short to medium ranged shooty army. So you might want to pick a trait that supports that.
One could make the argument that they're giving the melee Sisters faction an unusually powerful trait to compensate for the fact that if it was "normal" it'd be worthless.
Yeah, I assume that this exactly is the logic. Makes sense to me.
Crimson wrote: It is a solid rule for sure, but Sisters really don't traditionally have much melee options. They're short to medium ranged shooty army. So you might want to pick a trait that supports that.
One could make the argument that they're giving the melee Sisters faction an unusually powerful trait to compensate for the fact that if it was "normal" it'd be worthless. I kinda thought they would do this with the Farsight Enclaves trait since you'd have to have some really sweet bonuses to convince Tau players to get up in their opponent's face but obviously that didn't happen.
The more likely answer is that time has shown that the World Eaters legion trait sucks and there's no reason to copy and paste a bad trait.
The Farsight bonus is/was actually pretty good.
It's solid in a vacuum, and for a lot of factions it would actually be pretty amazing, but for the marquee "stand way back and don't let them get close" faction it needs to be way better than it is to actually convince people to run the opposite style. For clarification I don't think it should have been a specifically CC trait, my original proposal was "add one to hit rolls for all attacks made within 6 inches of the target" which would benefit both shooting and assault.
Maybe the suits were ment to be good at melee at some point. If they cost less and had the option to either use their weapons as pistols when they are farsight enclave or get a nice AP on their robot fists, and an extra A, they could be ok at melee. Not s spears level, but they sure could beat up some marines.
Actually with rules for The Eight Farsight Enclaves can become easely the best Tau faction... maybe... I don't know. A ton of special character heavy suits sound pretty powerfull.
Maybe next year, once the final few are out and done.
At which point they are too busy with redoing codexes completely invalidating current good builds into trash and making new ones to ensure new models are bought not fixing problems but just changing them
Congrats, you now understand the GW way.
This is a stupid fething thing to be salty about. If you wanna be mad that they're making you shell out 50 bucks for a new book, that's fair. If you're mad because the same 4 units aren't the only thing that sees any play for years at a time, you're being dumb.
I'm not mad. I was congratulating a fellow gamer for recognizing the pattern.
This is just the general way of GW (and the gaming industry in general) They write books & when they get to the end of their cycle they start over. Often emphasizing/de-emphasizing different things each time. Either through the unit entries directly or just with the general rules.
As for # of units used? I don't know what you're on about. I have & will use plenty of options. Good/bad/mediocre/fantastic/near useless... Because I build, paint & play with units based on what I like model-wise 1st, & what's currently effective somewhere a distant 3rd. (My only thing is that I want to have the option to keep using all of them edition after edition after edition.)
It's the rest of you that get hung up on the math that suffer. ":( They've ruined my _______! X should be 2pts less! Y should go up 1pt! The only thing worth taking is ____. etc etc etc "
Crimson wrote: It is a solid rule for sure, but Sisters really don't traditionally have much melee options. They're short to medium ranged shooty army. So you might want to pick a trait that supports that.
One could make the argument that they're giving the melee Sisters faction an unusually powerful trait to compensate for the fact that if it was "normal" it'd be worthless. I kinda thought they would do this with the Farsight Enclaves trait since you'd have to have some really sweet bonuses to convince Tau players to get up in their opponent's face but obviously that didn't happen.
The more likely answer is that time has shown that the World Eaters legion trait sucks and there's no reason to copy and paste a bad trait.
The Farsight bonus is/was actually pretty good.
It's solid in a vacuum, and for a lot of factions it would actually be pretty amazing, but for the marquee "stand way back and don't let them get close" faction it needs to be way better than it is to actually convince people to run the opposite style. For clarification I don't think it should have been a specifically CC trait, my original proposal was "add one to hit rolls for all attacks made within 6 inches of the target" which would benefit both shooting and assault.
Between Stealth Suits, Tigershark & Coldstars, it was one of the strongest traits available. With the nerf of the Tigershark it may not be worth a detachment anymore though who knows. It still works very well for some great units.
Tyel wrote: Sorry did I miss some chapter approved buff somewhere?
How is rerolling wound rolls of 1 for shooting in 6" remotely useful?
Coldstars, Stealth Suits, Tigersharks. All can/could grab this buff first turn before they can be shot. You can turn half an army into paste, and all have Fly if you need to fallback the next turn.
leopard wrote: If the whole purpose of having the point cost sheets separate from the data sheets was to make updating them easier (which is not a bad idea, though it does make giving equipment different costs based on who carries it, but whatever)... and we are told this is why it was done...
why when the points are updated do they not simply update the lot, in effect make it part of the reason to buy Chapter Approved, it is the place to issue the points for next year, for everything thats got a point cost at the time CA is issued for any faction where any value changes
Tyel wrote: Obviously points could change - but sorry but 2 S4 attacks when a Marine gets 1 for considerably more points is laughable.
It's the repentia that will see the benefits (if they don't still suck in every other way) as it'll get the eviscerator back up to S8 for a turn after it was gimped for non-marine users. If they give the jump pack back to the canoness they'll benefit too.
All of the sisters other close combat units (penitent engines, death cultists, arco-flagellants) will miss out.
Blood Rose battle sisters vs tactical marines would be an ineffectual slap-fight from both sides. Frankly i'd be impressed if CA does anything to encourage squads of either to be fielded beyond minimum size.
So, there were a fair amount of whispers over the B&G weekend that CA is coming late November, as opposed to some random time in December. How true this is, I have no idea, but it seemed to be a fairly common suggestion from people that have been involved in other tests in 8th.
Kdash wrote: So, there were a fair amount of whispers over the B&G weekend that CA is coming late November, as opposed to some random time in December. How true this is, I have no idea, but it seemed to be a fairly common suggestion from people that have been involved in other tests in 8th.
A good old corporate cynic would probably do it like that so the internet can explode over what's the new hotness everyone should by for Christmas...
More reasonably, sooner the better as it isn't really tied to any fixed date. I'm intrigued by the Sisters and rectification of Guardsmen to 5 ppm, with a slight pinch of hope if we could also see something to help terminators of various kinds.
ERJAK wrote: This is a stupid fething thing to be salty about. If you wanna be mad that they're making you shell out 50 bucks for a new book, that's fair. If you're mad because the same 4 units aren't the only thing that sees any play for years at a time, you're being dumb.
Problem is changing unit efficiency just to change people to buy new units is NOT good game design.
Rather than 1 year unit A being good and unit B being good and next unit A is bad and unit B is good howabout such a novel concept as BOTH being useful?
But yeah...white knights! Defending even GW being greedy and changing balance just to get people buy rather than making things actually balanced like they are supposed to do(they are after all pretending to be professionals and maker of best miniature game...)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
leopard wrote: If the whole purpose of having the point cost sheets separate from the data sheets was to make updating them easier (which is not a bad idea, though it does make giving equipment different costs based on who carries it, but whatever)... and we are told this is why it was done...
why when the points are updated do they not simply update the lot, in effect make it part of the reason to buy Chapter Approved, it is the place to issue the points for next year, for everything thats got a point cost at the time CA is issued for any faction where any value changes
That was how players THOUGHT it would be as that would be only reason that makes sense in having points at back rather than at the datasheet which would be most player friendly.
Instead GW went for most unplayer friendly version. Probably so that they can force you to buy ALL chapter approveds and keep them until the oldest one has no more points not replaced by another chapter approved/codex.
But yeah...white knights! Defending even GW being greedy and changing balance just to get people buy rather than making things actually balanced like they are supposed to do(they are after all pretending to be professionals and maker of best miniature game...)
Instead GW went for most unplayer friendly version. Probably so that they can force you to buy ALL chapter approveds and keep them until the oldest one has no more points not replaced by another chapter approved/codex.
I'd rather be a white knight than someone who spins inane conspiracy theories without evidence or logic.
+1S and +1A is proportionally more powerful on units that are good at and want to be in melee. While sisters behave like a melee army, we don't have very good melee potential.
That said, it also not terrible or unusable, because its good enough to make close-quarters viable against Guardsmen and light infantry units on the charge, and make closing in to finish off shot-up units a viable possibility. At the very least, it will do work, since we'll be in charge range on the first turn, and we find ourselves in CQC a lot.
Also, I like the points costs being in the back of the book and not on the datasheets. In my opinion, it's much easier to reference and build my lists that way. Like, I actually think the new means of doing points is overall much more convenient that last edition. That said, it would be more convenient if they put the whole points-cost page with everything on it, like the back of the index, in the FAQ and CA when the update them. At the very least, there's no page count in the FAQ, so it's not like it would take up too much space.
That was how players THOUGHT it would be as that would be only reason that makes sense in having points at back rather than at the datasheet which would be most player friendly.
Instead GW went for most unplayer friendly version. Probably so that they can force you to buy ALL chapter approveds and keep them until the oldest one has no more points not replaced by another chapter approved/codex.
CA2018 will include every instance where points change from a Codex.
Warhammer 40,000 Facebook Page wrote:Q. The big question is will it include all the current points changes from the available codexs or do I need to find a copy of chapter approved 2017 to play my army at the right point cost
A. If there are any differences in points values from those printed in a Codex, they will be included in Chapter Approved 2018.
fraser1191 wrote: I think just having all point values in CA would be easier than checking to see which ones changed
Here, here! I think that's a great idea. That would also make it worth paying for as you could see what other armies pay for, even if you don't know what their units do specifically
Getting real nervous and concerned that there is so far, no official news regarding GKs in the CA. Really can’t stomach waiting another edition before my army becomes usable again..
chnmmr wrote: Getting real nervous and concerned that there is so far, no official news regarding GKs in the CA. Really can’t stomach waiting another edition before my army becomes usable again..
I noticed that, too. I'm not sure if it is news worthy like Sisters. So either the rework is limited in scope or they're just getting point adjustments along with any core rule changes.
I imagine they'll become more viable, but still a bit boring.
Rumor has it the CA is due near the end of November so we should hear quite soon.
fraser1191 wrote: I think just having all point values in CA would be easier than checking to see which ones changed
This is how it works in the General's Handbook and it SHOULD be the same with CA. It'd be a higher page count, due to equipment pricing being a thing, but totally worth it.
How is CA going to deal with rules it changed in the prior version? Are those going to be reprinted, or are they stop being actual rules and only the new stuff counts, or do you have to buy both CA, which maybe a bit tricky considering GW doesn't let stores other them anymore.
fraser1191 wrote: I think just having all point values in CA would be easier than checking to see which ones changed
This is how it works in the General's Handbook and it SHOULD be the same with CA. It'd be a higher page count, due to equipment pricing being a thing, but totally worth it.
Or they could enter this century and provide the bloody data sheets and points costs via an app...
Might even give them an opportunity to update more than just points for balance purposes.
Lemondish wrote: Or they could enter this century and provide the bloody data sheets and points costs via an app...
Might even give them an opportunity to update more than just points for balance purposes.
That'd be fine so long as there are physical copies for those of us who are fine living in the last century and prefer the game technology free. The ebooks still cost as much as the real books, I'd prefer not to have to buy a tablet too.
Karol wrote: How is CA going to deal with rules it changed in the prior version? Are those going to be reprinted, or are they stop being actual rules and only the new stuff counts, or do you have to buy both CA, which maybe a bit tricky considering GW doesn't let stores other them anymore.
They will have a consolidation of rules changed so far and likely further updates to beta rules.
Karol wrote: How is CA going to deal with rules it changed in the prior version? Are those going to be reprinted, or are they stop being actual rules and only the new stuff counts, or do you have to buy both CA, which maybe a bit tricky considering GW doesn't let stores other them anymore.
They will have a consolidation of rules changed so far and likely further updates to beta rules.
is the book going to cost more then? By sole virtue of number of changes and inclusion of the SoB codex, it would have to be bigger. And in two or three years it is going to be huge being the collection of 3-4 CA in to one book.
fraser1191 wrote: I think just having all point values in CA would be easier than checking to see which ones changed
This is how it works in the General's Handbook and it SHOULD be the same with CA. It'd be a higher page count, due to equipment pricing being a thing, but totally worth it.
Or they could enter this century and provide the bloody data sheets and points costs via an app...
Might even give them an opportunity to update more than just points for balance purposes.
I wish not. Not at the expense of hardcopies.
E books are inconvenient, and I'd definitely never want to read my stats via a phone app.
Edit: actually, though, a PDF of the points cost would be pretty nice. I could just print the 2 pages I'm interested in, and points costs aren't necessary once the game begins.
fraser1191 wrote: I think just having all point values in CA would be easier than checking to see which ones changed
This is how it works in the General's Handbook and it SHOULD be the same with CA. It'd be a higher page count, due to equipment pricing being a thing, but totally worth it.
Or they could enter this century and provide the bloody data sheets and points costs via an app...
Might even give them an opportunity to update more than just points for balance purposes.
I wish not. Not at the expense of hardcopies.
E books are inconvenient, and I'd definitely never want to read my stats via a phone app.
Edit: actually, though, a PDF of the points cost would be pretty nice. I could just print the 2 pages I'm interested in, and points costs aren't necessary once the game begins.
^^This. Having stuff online is great, but it should never come at the expense of physical copies. A PDF with points changes would be ideal because it can be updated for free and printed if desired (which I would personally) but could also just be on your device if you want. Anything that is flexible enough for the player to decided how they want it formatted is in GWs best interest
Karol wrote: How is CA going to deal with rules it changed in the prior version? Are those going to be reprinted, or are they stop being actual rules and only the new stuff counts, or do you have to buy both CA, which maybe a bit tricky considering GW doesn't let stores other them anymore.
They will have a consolidation of rules changed so far and likely further updates to beta rules.
is the book going to cost more then? By sole virtue of number of changes and inclusion of the SoB codex, it would have to be bigger. And in two or three years it is going to be huge being the collection of 3-4 CA in to one book.
It could go up $5 at most. It's a paperback so usually a bit cheaper for them to produce.
I picked up Dark Angels after 15 years out of the hobby. There were other reasons I picked them, but their Terminators were one of them.
I don’t have a ton of experience with Sisters, so forgive me if this comparison is a little too apples to oranges. There are presumably other units who might be able to use sky strike after the codex is released, of course, but I assume that a Seraphim squad is who this is meant for, yes? If so, I just did some quick math on this because it jumped out at me.
For a roughly maxed out Seraphim Squad, it’s:
8x Seraphim – 14 bolt pistols
+
1x seraphim superior – 1 bolt pistol, 1 plasma pistol
+
2x seraphim with special weapons – 4x hand flamers
=
Under current points costs this is 129 points for 15 bolt shots, 1 plasma shots, and 4d3 hand flamer shots that can hit at 12” for a turn.
For 1 more CP, it’s 30 bolt shots, 2 plasma shots, and 8d3 hand flamer shots that can hit at 12” for a turn.
VS.
For 5-man Terminator squad with a heavy weapon, it’s:
3x terminators – 3 storm bolters
+
1x terminator sgt with no melee upgrade – 1 storm bolter
+
1 heavy weapon terminator – 1x assault cannon. You could also use a plasma cannon here, but not the heavy flamer.
=
Under current points costs this is 212 points for 16 bolt shots and 6 assault cannon shots/1d3 plasma shots (-1 point).
For 2 more CP, it’s 32 bolt shots and 12 assault cannon shots/2d3 plasma shots (-1 point).
Under current points costs, this is 212 points for
I really want the long-suffering Sisters players to get an awesome new codex and a whole range of great new models. I have always liked the faction and think that they deserve a strong treatment. This isn’t a knock on them at all. I also fully realize that codices don’t exist in a vacuum, and there are other considerations that might make this strat and combo key to making sisters work, let alone to making my army work.
But man, is it frustrating that I’m currently expected to pay 2 CP and an extra 83 points for an extra 2 bolter shots and some heavy weapons that I had to shell out more than a few points for, or 3 CP if I take more terminators. I worry more than a little about the power creep that this indicates, but I also worry that it's too much to expect Terminators to get the boost they'd need to compete with this in CA, or that the strat’s cost might reduced. Or both, though I don’t actually want GW to go overboard and overpower us, I just want to feel like I’m not playing with weird restrictions placed on my army that I can’t make sense of. I guess another way to ask might be - am I wrong to be concerned that it might just make way more sense to take a Sisters detachment for the same relative effect, at least for shooting twice out of reserves? (Don't worry, as strong as that Sisters CC strat could be, I'm not going to argue that it's somehow as good as Terminators with powerfists )
TL;DR – Sisters get to pay 1 CP on a 129 point squad for about the same number of bolter shots and an (arguably, maybe) comparable amount of special weapons fire that Dark Angels currently spend 212 points and 2 CP for.**
*Note - I left the 50-point missile launcher out for now because I actually felt it might artificially inflate the points cost for my argument, and I wanted the lower cost terminator v. Sisters squad point to stand on its own, though I will fully admit that shooting twice with the missile launcher is certainly nothing to sneeze at, even if it is an extra 50 points.
** - as overcosted and crummy as this strat/unit combo can feel sometimes, I recognize that DA are still lucky to have it and that many marines can’t even do stuff like this!
Daedalus81 wrote: It's a bit early to do the analysis when we don't have datasheets and points for the new codex. Using old information is prone to error.
While I guess I needed to say it more explicitly, I agree that it's a little early and that there are things that we don't know, which I think is pretty clear in my post. But this doesn't really address the substance of it, which was less about potential tools in the Sisters Codex, and some specific concerns I have about my own, for example, stratagems I already had a tough time justifying becoming even less useful, as well as powercreep, more broadly, though that's perhaps almost inevitable in any game. I also don't think it's totally unreasonable to expect that Seraphim Squad are going to be in the range of 9 points per model*, give a take or point, maybe an outside chance of 1, or that Terminators are going to be reduced by so many points that the disparity in points above for use of these two strats isn't still pretty tough to stomach. Namely - am I wrong to be concerned about this? It doesn't seem like I am to date, but maybe other people have heard more that I haven't. I could, of course, be vastly underestimating potential fixes to Terminators, for example.
*I could be underestimating how big the overhaul might be for them, of course, but they are, from everything I've seen, still expected to be T3 S3 models with power armor and access to bolt weaponry, so barring any previews or rumors I've missed here (which is very possible), this seems like a fairly safe assumption, but I am more than open to corrections here as Sisters are not my faction, and I'm sure others are tracking potential changes more closely than I have been.
+1S and +1A is proportionally more powerful on units that are good at and want to be in melee. While sisters behave like a melee army, we don't have very good melee potential.
That said, it also not terrible or unusable, because its good enough to make close-quarters viable against Guardsmen and light infantry units on the charge, and make closing in to finish off shot-up units a viable possibility. At the very least, it will do work, since we'll be in charge range on the first turn, and we find ourselves in CQC a lot.
Will likely have to see if any new units move towards a more melee focus to really get a handle on how useful the conviction is. Plague Marines went from being a shooting unit exclusively to having some powerful melee weapons in the Death Guard update so whatever fancy new wargear Sisters get could potentially make an assault-oriented list more viable.
Daedalus81 wrote: It's a bit early to do the analysis when we don't have datasheets and points for the new codex. Using old information is prone to error.
While I guess I needed to say it more explicitly, I agree that it's a little early and that there are things that we don't know, which I think is pretty clear in my post. But this doesn't really address the substance of it, which was less about potential tools in the Sisters Codex, and some specific concerns I have about my own, for example, stratagems I already had a tough time justifying becoming even less useful, as well as powercreep, more broadly, though that's perhaps almost inevitable in any game. I also don't think it's totally unreasonable to expect that Seraphim Squad are going to be in the range of 9 points per model*, give a take or point, maybe an outside chance of 1, or that Terminators are going to be reduced by so many points that the disparity in points above for use of these two strats isn't still pretty tough to stomach. Namely - am I wrong to be concerned about this? It doesn't seem like I am to date, but maybe other people have heard more that I haven't. I could, of course, be vastly underestimating potential fixes to Terminators, for example.
*I could be underestimating how big the overhaul might be for them, of course, but they are, from everything I've seen, still expected to be T3 S3 models with power armor and access to bolt weaponry, so barring any previews or rumors I've missed here (which is very possible), this seems like a fairly safe assumption, but I am more than open to corrections here as Sisters are not my faction, and I'm sure others are tracking potential changes more closely than I have been.
If we go back to the analysis you make an assumption that the hand flamers will be in range in the regular shooting phase, which they won't.
They kill 7.7 GEQ and then 5 in the subsequent shooting phase for a total of 12.7.
The terminators kill 7.5, which is largely comparable to the special Seraphim shooting phase. Your double tap while 2 CP will produce an additional 7.5. So, you've paid an extra CP for a couple extra kills - not fabulous. But for only 1 CP more you can trigger it on a max size squad so "1.5 CP each".
Of course there is still the problem of point costs, which if course can change in CA for all parties, but right now there is a 83 point disparity.
You have 11 T3 3+ wounds vs 10 T4 2+ (this is an illegal unit). It's not hard to see the difference in survivability.
Additionally, the terminators are packing powerfists at S8 2A each while Seraphim are on 1 S3 attack.
Terminators are solidly better all around, but suffer from 2 damage weapons.
Tell me, how come that most of us mostly disagree with your rule suggestions ?
