ZergSmasher wrote: Too many whiny babies in this thread. Orks are better than they've been in years. They've got really awesome strats, great klan kulture bonuses, awesome new models, and still nothing but complain, complain, complain. I'm confident they are just fine even with other armies getting a bit of help in CA 2018. Space Marines really needed the help; they've been languishing since fairly early in 8th edition (once some more of the codexes came out and were flat out better). I admit there are some disappointing things, including Guardsmen staying at 4 ppm and Tzaangors staying at 7 while Tactical Marines stayed at 13, but otherwise I think the game will be better overall from this. It hasn't been long enough for all of the good builds to shake out of the Ork codex yet; keep experimenting and trying new units/combos, and maybe actually try to see the glass as half full for once (that last part goes for everyone, not just salty Ork players!).
Orkz are literally exactly where we have been for a decade, mid to bottom tier. We got good strats, we got 1 good kulture and 2 ok kultures, the rest are meh at best. We did get awesome new models, I will never deny that. What we got from our new Codex was a 1 trick pony army that relies exclusively on turn 2 charges to function. We got a bunch of shooting buffs for units that suck so badly that without investing 6CP a turn in them they aren't worth taking. We got our bread and butter troop choice increased in price. Our Competitive lists on average went up well over 200pts (Mine went up 200pts just in Mek Gunz).
Our PKs cost more than Imperial Power Fists, Our Burna's cost more than Flamers, our Skorcha's cost more than Heavy Flamers, our Kustom Shoota costs as much as a Storm Bolter but is worse. Hell, we can now take a Killa Kan with a Big Shoota for 45pts, a Imperial Guard player can take a armored sentinel which is Faster, Tougher, More Wounds, better Leadership, Better WS and a Multi Laser which has more Strength for 35pts. (Multi Laser: S6 Ranged 36 3 shots COST? 5pts. Big Shoota: S5, Ranged 36 3 shots cost? 5pts.) a Chimera has more Toughness a better save better ballistic skill and better weapons and costs as much as a trukk. Our Warbikers cost as much as a Space Marine Biker.....
So yeah we are a bit pissed that we are yet again paying premium points for units which are worse or as good at best as imperial equivalents.
1. Your units that can Power Klaws are S5 so you should pay more.
Remember I'm joking and I'm for universal costs.
2. Ork Bikers are a much better deal than Space Marine Bikers though. Seriously.
My BT lists just went down a good chunk. Centurion Assault got a nice drop.
I'm thinking my TH/SS Terminators are now worthy of putting into a force, and the BT characters 20 point drop really makes it a nice pickup. VERY excited about the CA adjustments that I saw, and the TS points adjustments look nice too.
ZergSmasher wrote: Too many whiny babies in this thread. Orks are better than they've been in years. They've got really awesome strats, great klan kulture bonuses, awesome new models, and still nothing but complain, complain, complain. I'm confident they are just fine even with other armies getting a bit of help in CA 2018. Space Marines really needed the help; they've been languishing since fairly early in 8th edition (once some more of the codexes came out and were flat out better). I admit there are some disappointing things, including Guardsmen staying at 4 ppm and Tzaangors staying at 7 while Tactical Marines stayed at 13, but otherwise I think the game will be better overall from this. It hasn't been long enough for all of the good builds to shake out of the Ork codex yet; keep experimenting and trying new units/combos, and maybe actually try to see the glass as half full for once (that last part goes for everyone, not just salty Ork players!).
Orkz are literally exactly where we have been for a decade, mid to bottom tier. We got good strats, we got 1 good kulture and 2 ok kultures, the rest are meh at best. We did get awesome new models, I will never deny that. What we got from our new Codex was a 1 trick pony army that relies exclusively on turn 2 charges to function. We got a bunch of shooting buffs for units that suck so badly that without investing 6CP a turn in them they aren't worth taking. We got our bread and butter troop choice increased in price. Our Competitive lists on average went up well over 200pts (Mine went up 200pts just in Mek Gunz).
Our PKs cost more than Imperial Power Fists, Our Burna's cost more than Flamers, our Skorcha's cost more than Heavy Flamers, our Kustom Shoota costs as much as a Storm Bolter but is worse. Hell, we can now take a Killa Kan with a Big Shoota for 45pts, a Imperial Guard player can take a armored sentinel which is Faster, Tougher, More Wounds, better Leadership, Better WS and a Multi Laser which has more Strength for 35pts. (Multi Laser: S6 Ranged 36 3 shots COST? 5pts. Big Shoota: S5, Ranged 36 3 shots cost? 5pts.) a Chimera has more Toughness a better save better ballistic skill and better weapons and costs as much as a trukk. Our Warbikers cost as much as a Space Marine Biker.....
So yeah we are a bit pissed that we are yet again paying premium points for units which are worse or as good at best as imperial equivalents.
1. Your units that can Power Klaws are S5 so you should pay more.
Remember I'm joking and I'm for universal costs.
2. Ork Bikers are a much better deal than Space Marine Bikers though. Seriously.
ya know I find it kind of funny that we have to pay more for options that we benefit more from, yet also pay a premium on ranged weapons that benefit us less. Orks get it coming and going
Techpriestsupport wrote: The fact an annihilation barge is now 33 points cheaper in total makes them a very attractive option.
Immortals and deathmarks getting a 2 point drop whilst warriors are now a point cheaper brings smiles to metal faces.
No because they are still saddled with Tesla destructors, which are useless. It's nice that you can take a gauss cannon on it though, but being a double cost destroyer probably does not rank as attractive.
Lack of changes to basic CSM means they still aren't worth using. Cultists will still be the default troop. Cultist swarms probably aren't viable, so now we'll switch to min size battalions to provide CPs for our much cheaper elite and heavy units.
Helbrutes and daemon engines have gotten such massive points drops that they may actually be worth using now. Especially if the rumor about traits being given to more units is true.
Our characters are freakin cheap. Kharn may be the most points efficient killer in the entire game.
Lack of changes to Rhinos means we're still pretty boned on transport and mobility.
Spawn might actually be good now. Bikes still not worth it. Chosen may be decent, if you can figure out a way to deliver them. Raptors could maybe work with Haarken if he turns out to be good.
The way they did the terminator changes is great for combi plas terminators, but cheapo axe + combi bolter terminators are probably too expensive still.
Overall, my prediction is that chaos's new meta will be MSU cultists + renegade knight + swarms of cheap helbrutes and daemon engines.
1ksons are a bit better off, but I doubt these point changes are enough to tip scarabs and rubrics into use. Those units really need some strats. If they get a formation later that could do it.
DG are saving a lot of points, and will probably go in the same direction as I predicted for Chaos above. Plague marines still aren't going to be worth it because bolters can't kill anything.
I see myself mostly agreeing to this. I'm glad that i started buying daemon engines in the last few weeks. But i also feel that CSM will mostly stay in the same bracket considering overall army strength, the buffs that most other factions (except for some poor xenos) have received and the general game mechanics. I see myself smashing helbrute fists into a lot of SS in the future, that's for certain. On a really competitive level, i think this CA might still be a nerf for chaos, since our tourney meta mostly consisted of cultist spam in a variety of ways, and i don't really see any units taking their place. Again, the game mechanics really favor big units with many models with few hit points each over elite units with few models with a lot of hit points to them. And that's basically what daemon engines are, aren't they?
Still haven't found a decent source for the FW point changes yet. I read that the Kytan will take a big drop in points, which is really great. I'm just crossing my fingers that my Butcher Cannon Leviathan will not take a big hit, but i would be frankly amazed if GeeDubs wouldn't kneecap the menace of chaos Leviathans.
But if it comes down to it, meh, chaos is still there. It could be worse. It certainly could be better - but it could also be a lot worse. I really have to start thinking about finding a good delivery system for my troops, though - a Kharybdis or a Storm Eagle might be something to consider at this point, since Rhinos and Land Raiders are still unreliable, expansive and draw fire way to easily.
Not really excited about CA point changes, but I'll take them.
I mean I knew orks were out, but I wanted IK and AM nerfed and it didn't happen. Actually the imperium top tier soup is even more powerful now.
Very disappointed with drukhari, though. All the overcosted units and wargear are still overcosted. Several units need a significant price drop.
I'm a bit glad for my space wolves though, several things went down in cost. Basically a 50-60 points drop on my tipycal lists but not too bad. I'm just a bit disappointed on the blood claws cost, they are regular SM with worse BS and just a pistol and yet they cost like the standard dudes.
ZergSmasher wrote: Too many whiny babies in this thread. Orks are better than they've been in years. They've got really awesome strats, great klan kulture bonuses, awesome new models, and still nothing but complain, complain, complain. I'm confident they are just fine even with other armies getting a bit of help in CA 2018. Space Marines really needed the help; they've been languishing since fairly early in 8th edition (once some more of the codexes came out and were flat out better). I admit there are some disappointing things, including Guardsmen staying at 4 ppm and Tzaangors staying at 7 while Tactical Marines stayed at 13, but otherwise I think the game will be better overall from this. It hasn't been long enough for all of the good builds to shake out of the Ork codex yet; keep experimenting and trying new units/combos, and maybe actually try to see the glass as half full for once (that last part goes for everyone, not just salty Ork players!).
Orkz are literally exactly where we have been for a decade, mid to bottom tier. We got good strats, we got 1 good kulture and 2 ok kultures, the rest are meh at best. We did get awesome new models, I will never deny that. What we got from our new Codex was a 1 trick pony army that relies exclusively on turn 2 charges to function. We got a bunch of shooting buffs for units that suck so badly that without investing 6CP a turn in them they aren't worth taking. We got our bread and butter troop choice increased in price. Our Competitive lists on average went up well over 200pts (Mine went up 200pts just in Mek Gunz).
Our PKs cost more than Imperial Power Fists, Our Burna's cost more than Flamers, our Skorcha's cost more than Heavy Flamers, our Kustom Shoota costs as much as a Storm Bolter but is worse. Hell, we can now take a Killa Kan with a Big Shoota for 45pts, a Imperial Guard player can take a armored sentinel which is Faster, Tougher, More Wounds, better Leadership, Better WS and a Multi Laser which has more Strength for 35pts. (Multi Laser: S6 Ranged 36 3 shots COST? 5pts. Big Shoota: S5, Ranged 36 3 shots cost? 5pts.) a Chimera has more Toughness a better save better ballistic skill and better weapons and costs as much as a trukk. Our Warbikers cost as much as a Space Marine Biker.....
So yeah we are a bit pissed that we are yet again paying premium points for units which are worse or as good at best as imperial equivalents.
1. Your units that can Power Klaws are S5 so you should pay more.
Remember I'm joking and I'm for universal costs.
2. Ork Bikers are a much better deal than Space Marine Bikers though. Seriously.
GW wanted to help their posterboys in order to convince players buying more of their recent kits, as usual.
Orks will get a massive points drop in 6 months. With the new SM costs it's impossible not to assume that. Next round of FAQs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: Ok, the new price for Storm Shields on non-characters is unbelievable. I'm actually questioning the legitimacy of the document now.
Yeah, getting a 3++ for 2 points? Only SM of course.
Helbrute with Scourge and Reaper autocannon is 105 points now. Pretty awesome if you ask me. I used them before as it was already one of the few heavy hitters of DG. It being cheap like that makes me happy.
Also, prince went down 10points? Haha, I thought it'd go up 30 points at least (Same with crawler basically, but I haven't used it yet).
Plague marines got their points changed the third time in 8th edition. They're now that cheap that I'll probably take squads of 7 again, as they're a very solid unit anyway.
Dreadnoughts across the board needed to go down, primarily because the Armigers came around and made everything look obnoxious that was anywhere near their point level (whilst they were faster, more wounds, better guns, longer range, ignored penalties to move, and had invuln saves...) So Dreadnoughts of most types ended up looking like absolute chumps at 15-20 points near to those.
Lack of changes to basic CSM means they still aren't worth using. Cultists will still be the default troop. Cultist swarms probably aren't viable, so now we'll switch to min size battalions to provide CPs for our much cheaper elite and heavy units.
Helbrutes and daemon engines have gotten such massive points drops that they may actually be worth using now. Especially if the rumor about traits being given to more units is true.
Our characters are freakin cheap. Kharn may be the most points efficient killer in the entire game.
Lack of changes to Rhinos means we're still pretty boned on transport and mobility.
Spawn might actually be good now. Bikes still not worth it. Chosen may be decent, if you can figure out a way to deliver them. Raptors could maybe work with Haarken if he turns out to be good.
The way they did the terminator changes is great for combi plas terminators, but cheapo axe + combi bolter terminators are probably too expensive still.
Overall, my prediction is that chaos's new meta will be MSU cultists + renegade knight + swarms of cheap helbrutes and daemon engines.
1ksons are a bit better off, but I doubt these point changes are enough to tip scarabs and rubrics into use. Those units really need some strats. If they get a formation later that could do it.
DG are saving a lot of points, and will probably go in the same direction as I predicted for Chaos above. Plague marines still aren't going to be worth it because bolters can't kill anything.
I see myself mostly agreeing to this. I'm glad that i started buying daemon engines in the last few weeks. But i also feel that CSM will mostly stay in the same bracket considering overall army strength, the buffs that most other factions (except for some poor xenos) have received and the general game mechanics. I see myself smashing helbrute fists into a lot of SS in the future, that's for certain. On a really competitive level, i think this CA might still be a nerf for chaos, since our tourney meta mostly consisted of cultist spam in a variety of ways, and i don't really see any units taking their place. Again, the game mechanics really favor big units with many models with few hit points each over elite units with few models with a lot of hit points to them. And that's basically what daemon engines are, aren't they?
Still haven't found a decent source for the FW point changes yet. I read that the Kytan will take a big drop in points, which is really great. I'm just crossing my fingers that my Butcher Cannon Leviathan will not take a big hit, but i would be frankly amazed if GeeDubs wouldn't kneecap the menace of chaos Leviathans.
But if it comes down to it, meh, chaos is still there. It could be worse. It certainly could be better - but it could also be a lot worse. I really have to start thinking about finding a good delivery system for my troops, though - a Kharybdis or a Storm Eagle might be something to consider at this point, since Rhinos and Land Raiders are still unreliable, expansive and draw fire way to easily.
Looks like Butcher Cannon went from 30 > 25, and Butcher Cannon Array from 60 > 40. Deredeo 135 > 120. Leviathan unchanged. Not sure about Kytan.
So for consistency, you don't think they should have access to even Lascannons?
In Infantry or Veteran Squads? Absolutely not.
ANYTHING "crew-served" should be cut from those two units, immediately, or given a "fire OR move" requirement, as Heavy Weapons have had in previous editions.
Also you really don't need Combat Squad when the total of your Special Weapon + Heavy Weapon Infantry squad is barely over the bare Tactical Squad. You can move forward all you like.
The point. You've missed it.
The point wasn't about the actual kitted out points value total--it's that the HWTs shouldn't be able to move and fire if the squad did. That's why I keep talking about how we need to see the weapons split out or given the ability to 'detach' and get treated as Characters or get a Shield Drone-esque save when non-HWTs are nearby.
I agree with you that IG man-packed heavy weapons should not be able to move & shoot. That's why you mount them on vehicles, or invent power & termie armor.... But I will never agree with you that they shouldn't be part of the squads options.
Look, if YOU don't want to include them in your squads? That's fine, don't spend the points. But me? When I field guard, my squads come prepared.... And if we move? We don't HAVE to fire them if that violates our sensibilities. I don't know about you, but 10, 15, 20+ years ago? Back when we couldn't move & shoot our heavies in the same turn? I killed plenty of targets, won plenty of games. And since the things I'm shooting at today haven't appreciably changed, I'm sure I can repeat that success. My current opponents will look at me funny though because they can't fathom why I'd not fire if allowed.
Elbows wrote: Dreadnoughts across the board needed to go down, primarily because the Armigers came around and made everything look obnoxious that was anywhere near their point level (whilst they were faster, more wounds, better guns, longer range, ignored penalties to move, and had invuln saves...) So Dreadnoughts of most types ended up looking like absolute chumps at 15-20 points near to those.
GW are ass if they think these point reductions mean anything especially after EVERYTHING ELSE got a similar point reduction.
Not EVERYTHING ELSE got a points drop. Just the stuff that was terrible that nobody played. It should make the arena bigger, which could in turn result in GK coming out of the woodwork to find a decent Niche somewhere.
Sure, they won't be a super power army, but you might actually be able to win some games now.
Dude you know that is not how it works. A castellan should cost more points. All the top tier builds people use now exist right now. Sure people may experiment with stuff that got cheaper, but they will base it around the good core of lists they already had. GK had no good core. You thinking having 4-5 termintors more in a GK list is suddenly going to make it better, specialy when some changes really do help some units to be good? And all of this is before the new book where GK get no new formations or new rules, while most of the other armies do.
The only thing , and I hope am wrong here, that changes with this CA is that other armies now have more ways to beat GK. While GK players can buy more models only to find out that their army is still much weaker then other armies.
BTW, I know you're on a limited budget, so how're these pts drops going to work out for you? Won't it make it harder for you to field an army?
Because I'm capable from divorcing my desires from the possibilities or pretending that I have all the answers. I also won't expect that a Klaw that has more base attacks and strength would get an immediate price cut. Or that by GW spending 95% of CA buffing weak units that it all of a sudden makes my army weak and unviable despite going 6-0 and taking 1st at a major tournament or 4-1 and taking second.
And I'm sorry to be really snarky, but I'm just so fething over the whining.
So you're going to have to explain why Orks should pay more for their worse shooting? Why our ranged weapons and platforms that perform worse than others are so expensive? I thought it was balanced against our superior melee but it looks like that's out.
This CA didn't just buff weak units, it did nothing to address the units that are massively over performing and it also buffed some units that were already very competitive.
In short it has done little to nothing to address the balance of the game.
As to how competitive Orks will be moving forward, well since our codex has only just launched into a meta with very little screens it was expected we do well. Players will adapt (new codexes always do well) and every other army, literally, has been buffed. Which is the same as Orks getting nerfed as far as relative strength goes. Others have already said the glaring problems with our codex in a competitive sense - an over reliance on Deep Striking and Stratagems.
Here's to another 6 months of Imperial Soup, Ynarri, DG/Daemons and TS/Daemons. Woop de fething do.
An Actual Englishman wrote: The writing on the wall was when we found Boyz were increasing in cost and base size. It was obvious this would happen.
Wait, this whole mess is still going on?
I thought that picture proving you can get the same amount of rows in combat with 25 and 33 mm bases put it to rest months ago.
Maybe, just maybe, it's not GW that doesn't understand the game?
Ah and I suppose the point increase was actually a stealth buff? Getting real bored of the IG apologists.
ZergSmasher wrote: Too many whiny babies in this thread. Orks are better than they've been in years. They've got really awesome strats, great klan kulture bonuses, awesome new models, and still nothing but complain, complain, complain. I'm confident they are just fine even with other armies getting a bit of help in CA 2018. Space Marines really needed the help; they've been languishing since fairly early in 8th edition (once some more of the codexes came out and were flat out better). I admit there are some disappointing things, including Guardsmen staying at 4 ppm and Tzaangors staying at 7 while Tactical Marines stayed at 13, but otherwise I think the game will be better overall from this. It hasn't been long enough for all of the good builds to shake out of the Ork codex yet; keep experimenting and trying new units/combos, and maybe actually try to see the glass as half full for once (that last part goes for everyone, not just salty Ork players!).
1. Calling people 'whiny babies' is rude and doesn't lead to positive discussion.
2. SM have been performing better than Orks since 8h dropped. Of all flavours except Deathwatch. There are stats to back up this fact on BCP if you'd care to look.
3. Orks literally pay more points for worse/equivalent options in other codexes. Literally. Take our skorcha - its more expensive than the heavy flamer but its the same damn weapon. Someone's going to have to explain how an Ork is somehow better at using an auto hit weapon to me.
I just can;t believe it... I was actually getting yelled at by some people to shut up and CA would show how wrong I was... We'll guess I'm right but I don't feel good being right. I'm pissed Knights got a slight points decrease. It's only like 1 or 2 pts but just shows what GW thinks of the meta right now.
Those same people will be here shortly to tell you that Orks will surely get the best formations in Vigilus and then they'll be great. If not that, then they'll have points drops in the mid-year FAQ. If not that, the 9th edition rulebook will rebalance everything properly. If not that... etc. You do gotta admire the tenacity of people who can hold on to an unshakable belief that the next release will fix everything for literal decades in the face of overwhelming evidence. It's like that joke about fusion always being just 20 years away.
Hey, you left out my favorite bit! Where you're advised to hold off buying anything until after the next FAQ/CA/Edition/Whatever drops & fixes it all. And as soon as that moment comes? Then the hold & wait advice repeats.
Elbows wrote: Dreadnoughts across the board needed to go down, primarily because the Armigers came around and made everything look obnoxious that was anywhere near their point level (whilst they were faster, more wounds, better guns, longer range, ignored penalties to move, and had invuln saves...) So Dreadnoughts of most types ended up looking like absolute chumps at 15-20 points near to those.
...or, armigers could go up, instead?
Oh wait, it’s an imperial unit - nevermind!
You can make Armigers useless if you wanted, but that doesn't mean it'll make people suddenly use Dreads.
I think the issue with Orks and Tau, etc... as my friend says, is that we're a mono army. Sure space marines can get PK for 9pts because they have S4 and we have S5 but there is nothing stopping a space marine from going out there and getting a S5 imperium model and throwing it in... hell, they could just get a better cc knight and throw it in if they want. Ork players on the other hand have nobz.... they have 1 option and can't explore outside the realms of their codex. I'd love a knight or a baneblade for 400pts but I'm stuck with a stompa for 900pts. Yet, I'm paying 900pts for something with little options when a IG player can throw in such a wide variety of knights or baneblades.
BTW, I know you're on a limited budget, so how're these pts drops going to work out for you? Won't it make it harder for you to field an army?
I turn two of my paladins in to ancients or apothecaries, there are no models for them anyway, so I doubt anyone is going to care. Plus I will probably take the second rhino.
Doesn't really matter, to me right now. My m8s army went down almost 300pts and he plays IG soup. I couldn't beat him before I doubt, I can beat him now.
just have to wait for people smarter then me to test GK, because right now the only thing I can think of is taking 5 NDK GMs in an HQ detachment and a draigo and a 6th GM NDK with some naked strikes in another, and play some sort of smaller then knights, bigger then armriggers lists. Not a list for me I could never efford buying 5 NDKs, but maybe that works if 3-4 knights work.
I can't believe the usual suspects are pissing and moaning about Orks *again*. Wtf did you expect? Our Codex has been out what, a month? Seems some people won't be happy about Orks unless everything's wildly overpowered.
So for consistency, you don't think they should have access to even Lascannons?
In Infantry or Veteran Squads? Absolutely not.
ANYTHING "crew-served" should be cut from those two units, immediately, or given a "fire OR move" requirement, as Heavy Weapons have had in previous editions.
Also you really don't need Combat Squad when the total of your Special Weapon + Heavy Weapon Infantry squad is barely over the bare Tactical Squad. You can move forward all you like.
The point. You've missed it.
The point wasn't about the actual kitted out points value total--it's that the HWTs shouldn't be able to move and fire if the squad did. That's why I keep talking about how we need to see the weapons split out or given the ability to 'detach' and get treated as Characters or get a Shield Drone-esque save when non-HWTs are nearby.
I agree with you that IG man-packed heavy weapons should not be able to move & shoot. That's why you mount them on vehicles, or invent power & termie armor.... But I will never agree with you that they shouldn't be part of the squads options.
Look, if YOU don't want to include them in your squads? That's fine, don't spend the points. But me? When I field guard, my squads come prepared.... And if we move? We don't HAVE to fire them if that violates our sensibilities. I don't know about you, but 10, 15, 20+ years ago? Back when we couldn't move & shoot our heavies in the same turn? I killed plenty of targets, won plenty of games. And since the things I'm shooting at today haven't appreciably changed, I'm sure I can repeat that success. My current opponents will look at me funny though because they can't fathom why I'd not fire if allowed.
I'm somewhere in the middle. I think mortars and missile launchers should be able to move and shoot (with penalty) but can see why it makes less sense for the tripod setup weapons.
And the fac that they buffed all of 40k besides normal Marines/CSM is really hard to understand tbh.
I really dont get the logic or thougt process on that.
The lack of GK fixes is insane. I have 5k of GKs that haven’t seen use for two editions and seems that they’ll never see use until maybe the next edition. I don’t understand GWs hatred for GKs. Looks like I will be selling my GKs on, they take up space for nothing and are a waste of money. Big winners in Chapter approved my arse. *fuming*
5 point Cultists will still be played. People mass termagants. Termagants that can shoot twice, with better armor, and amazing buffs? 5 points is fair enough. CSM squads should have gotten a point reduction its insane to me that they didn't, especially the difference between loyalist and traitor Terminators? What the?
Swarmlord getting a price discount and the meta dominating Imperial soup getting left alone is just stupid.
I think it's an overall net positive. Baby steps. GW will get better at this and I think I'd rather a cautious approach than a heavy handed one.
SHUPPET wrote: 5 point Cultists will still be played. People mass termagants. Termagants that can shoot twice, with better armor, and amazing buffs? 5 points is fair enough. CSM squads should have gotten a point reduction its insane to me that they didn't, especially the difference between loyalist and traitor Terminators? What the?
Swarmlord getting a price discount and the meta dominating Imperial soup getting left alone is just stupid.
I think it's an overall net positive. Baby steps. GW will get better at this and I think I'd rather a cautious approach than a heavy handed one.
Loyalist vs CSM termies has to be an error that will get FAQ'd. That or they really screwed something up.
And the fac that they buffed all of 40k besides normal Marines/CSM is really hard to understand tbh.
I really dont get the logic or thougt process on that.
Just more fuel for the "GW is going to squat old-marines" train there.
The points drops had me thinking about picking up some Sternguard and another Dreadnaught for a couple of minutes, and then it sunk in (again) that I already regret buying all the stuff I own that isn't Primaris and I'm probably going to regret it more at some point in the not-to-distant future.
(Although I've said several times that the Centurions look like something that would wind up in the Primaris line, and the massive point drop there gives me further hope that I'm right about them sticking around.)
Just more fuel for the "GW is going to squat old-marines" there. The points drops had me thinking about picking up some Sternguard and another Dreadnaught for a couple of minutes, and then it sunk in (again) that I already regret buying all the stuff I own that isn't Primaris and I'm probably going to regret it more at some point in the not-to-distant future.
Doesn't your first statement stand in contrast to the rest of it?
Or there is a chaos update on the horizon that will change it.
I can see 23 point Slaanesh CSM termies with plasma being super strong. They could up the CP to double tap, but then at 3 CP it becomes useless for all but the biggest baddest units (e.g. just terminators).
The Newman wrote: Just more fuel for the "GW is going to squat old-marines" there.
The points drops had me thinking about picking up some Sternguard and another Dreadnaught for a couple of minutes, and then it sunk in (again) that I already regret buying all the stuff I own that isn't Primaris and I'm probably going to regret it more at some point in the not-to-distant future.
Doesn't your first statement stand in contrast to the rest of it?
I don't see how. Point changes today make some old-marine options that I wouldn't have looked twice a bit more attractive, but in the longer term Primaris marines are the future. Sternguard I buy today are probably destined to be proxies for Veteran Intercessors or whatever, the smarter move is just waiting for Primaris wave two instead of taking the bait and buying stock GW is trying to get rid of before they discontinue the line and no one wants it anymore.
Rules changes would have been in the Big FAQ (and probably as a Beta rule first).
Why would core rules changes be found in CA? Rumors sounded fishy immediately to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Helbrute with Scourge and Reaper autocannon is 105 points now. Pretty awesome if you ask me. I used them before as it was already one of the few heavy hitters of DG. It being cheap like that makes me happy.
Also, prince went down 10points? Haha, I thought it'd go up 30 points at least (Same with crawler basically, but I haven't used it yet).
Plague marines got their points changed the third time in 8th edition. They're now that cheap that I'll probably take squads of 7 again, as they're a very solid unit anyway.
Tallyman 50 points seems like an auto-include.
Prince with wings remained the same. You still need to pay for his war gear. They're just printing the option since its missing from the codex, and only found in the FAQ.
Yeah. The whole "They are changing traits" sounded great on paper but CA isn't the place for it. Not to say those rumors were incorrect, but the timing might have been.
The Newman wrote: Just more fuel for the "GW is going to squat old-marines" there.
The points drops had me thinking about picking up some Sternguard and another Dreadnaught for a couple of minutes, and then it sunk in (again) that I already regret buying all the stuff I own that isn't Primaris and I'm probably going to regret it more at some point in the not-to-distant future.
Doesn't your first statement stand in contrast to the rest of it?
I don't see how. Point changes today make some old-marine options that I wouldn't have looked twice a bit more attractive, but in the longer term Primaris marines are the future. Sternguard I buy today are probably destined to be proxies for Veteran Intercessors or whatever, the smarter move is just waiting for Primaris wave two instead of taking the bait and buying stock GW is trying to get rid of before they discontinue the line and no one wants it anymore.
I don't disagree with not investing in old models, but it's also self fulfilling prophecy. GW will continue to produce what sells. Obviously new people jumping on will not likely buy old stuff when Primaris have the same flexibility. Not buying old stuff just hastens the decline, but that's probably the smart choice.
All that, however, is separate from points policy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: Yeah. The whole "They are changing traits" sounded great on paper but CA isn't the place for it. Not to say those rumors were incorrect, but the timing might have been.
I think they'll get to those changes eventually.
I would think CA is the better place to do it, but I'm a patient man.
Wayniac wrote: Yeah. The whole "They are changing traits" sounded great on paper but CA isn't the place for it. Not to say those rumors were incorrect, but the timing might have been.
I think they'll get to those changes eventually.
Ok, so what is the place for it? When the spring FAQ comes out and has no rules changes, everyone says it will be done in the summer FAQ or CA. Then both of those come, there are no rules changes in sight, but people keep telling that in the next upcomming thing the changes will sure be there. Is the place for rules changes the event books ?
I would think CA is the better place to do it, but I'm a patient man.
I envy you, I had to take double the dose of anti depressants to go to sleep today.
Wayniac wrote: Yeah. The whole "They are changing traits" sounded great on paper but CA isn't the place for it. Not to say those rumors were incorrect, but the timing might have been.
I think they'll get to those changes eventually.
Ok, so what is the place for it? When the spring FAQ comes out and has no rules changes, everyone says it will be done in the summer FAQ or CA. Then both of those come, there are no rules changes in sight, but people keep telling that in the next upcomming thing the changes will sure be there. Is the place for rules changes the event books ?
I would think CA is the better place to do it, but I'm a patient man.
I envy you, I had to take double the dose of anti depressants to go to sleep today.
CA would be the place for it if they said it wasn't going to be for points balance and then adding more bloat--I mean options--for Open/Narrative/Matched. What they really need to do is in addition to Chapter Approved (because this is GW), have an actual rules update periodically. That's where. GW seems reluctant to take advantage of having datasheets by being able to update them independent of everything else; they don't seem to "get" how rules work in the digital age. They don't even do this for AOS where all of the warscrolls are freely available online, so it would literally be update that, post a thing on community saying these have been updated to adjust balance, and boom done.
GW being GW, it will probably be in another book to make sure that it gets sold.
The Newman wrote: Just more fuel for the "GW is going to squat old-marines" there.
The points drops had me thinking about picking up some Sternguard and another Dreadnaught for a couple of minutes, and then it sunk in (again) that I already regret buying all the stuff I own that isn't Primaris and I'm probably going to regret it more at some point in the not-to-distant future.
Doesn't your first statement stand in contrast to the rest of it?
I don't see how. Point changes today make some old-marine options that I wouldn't have looked twice a bit more attractive, but in the longer term Primaris marines are the future. Sternguard I buy today are probably destined to be proxies for Veteran Intercessors or whatever, the smarter move is just waiting for Primaris wave two instead of taking the bait and buying stock GW is trying to get rid of before they discontinue the line and no one wants it anymore.
I don't disagree with not investing in old models, but it's also self fulfilling prophecy. GW will continue to produce what sells. Obviously new people jumping on will not likely buy old stuff when Primaris have the same flexibility. Not buying old stuff just hastens the decline, but that's probably the smart choice.
All that, however, is separate from points policy.
Is it though? Sure, all but the most rabidly competitive players are likely to have something in their collection that they bought just because they like the model, but there's no way GW doesn't sell significantly more of whatever the good options are in any given army. If they want to keep selling Tac squads they make them better. If they want to sell more Intercessors instead they make those better instead. Which one of those two things happened?
(Admittedly both, but Tacs got better indirectly due to weapon cost changes that impacted everything else while Intercessors got direct buffs.)
To me the message is clear.
Since we know that someday minimarines are going the way of the squats, GW is starting by making tac squads less attractive.
We wanted viable marines, and we got that. Intercessors at 17 are nice troops, and 14 point veterans fix a lot of stuff for marines, including having something decent to put in transports. The new dreadnaughts open up a lot of plays too. The price was tac squads, which were borderline unsalvageable and were discarded. Now they are there if you want them, but the good marine troops are scouts (buffed) and intercessors (buffed).
Techpriestsupport wrote: The fact an annihilation barge is now 33 points cheaper in total makes them a very attractive option.
Immortals and deathmarks getting a 2 point drop whilst warriors are now a point cheaper brings smiles to metal faces.
No because they are still saddled with Tesla destructors, which are useless. It's nice that you can take a gauss cannon on it though, but being a double cost destroyer probably does not rank as attractive.
How the hell is a tesla destructor useless?
Automatically Appended Next Post: On the necron front gauss blasters and tesla carbines have dropped 2 points each, making units that use them cheaper. Tomb blade are now usually 4 points cheaper for example.
Techpriestsupport wrote: The fact an annihilation barge is now 33 points cheaper in total makes them a very attractive option.
Immortals and deathmarks getting a 2 point drop whilst warriors are now a point cheaper brings smiles to metal faces.
No because they are still saddled with Tesla destructors, which are useless. It's nice that you can take a gauss cannon on it though, but being a double cost destroyer probably does not rank as attractive.
How the hell is a tesla destructor useless?
By typical Dakka hyperbole. It if can't oneshot a knight it's useless, and if it can it's still useless because it doesn't delete 40 guardsmen at the same time. A twin tesla destructor inflicts 2,64 damages on a ravager, double the damage inflicted by the gauss cannon on the same target. I wouldn't call it useless.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Doesn't mean much, and I'm convinced that putting one model against another doesn't mean squat, but just wanted to say that now an annihilation barge can win a shoot out with a 3x dissie ravager...
Is it though? Sure, all but the most rabidly competitive players are likely to have something in their collection that they bought just because they like the model, but there's no way GW doesn't sell significantly more of whatever the good options are in any given army. If they want to keep selling Tac squads they make them better. If they want to sell more Intercessors instead they make those better instead. Which one of those two things happened?
(Admittedly both, but Tacs got better indirectly due to weapon cost changes that impacted everything else while Intercessors got direct buffs.)
I'm positive dropping points has a net positive effect on purchases for those units. I just don't see a direct motive given that increases have come to weak units and decreases to strong ones (much less for those though).
Did the unit need a price drop?
Was the price drop appropriate?
If you answer yes to both then there is little room to claim it was done for sales.
Tank Commander you can't arguably answer yes to both, but then if the goal was to sell LRBTs then why didn't the regular datasheet go down?
The other problem with that theory is that the logic is inconsistent. People claim GW priced up FW models, but we just saw decreases for many. Just because people disagree with the status of titans in regular 40K doesn't mean GW is pricing them out of sales.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Ah, the typical inane trolling of 'hurr durr if you don't like something sell your army that you've invested a ton of time and money into for a pittance.'
I'll remember this comment when the nerf bat next hits TS and you express any disappointment.
What is your beef? Ork codex and CA was likely written at about the same time - so no changes - this should have been expected.
Current orks are top tier. An unbuffed ork boy was undercosted at 6 points. A 7 point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually better than the 6 point boy was. DE with no changes is actually kind of suprising - I am assuming they used DE as baseline for everything and tried to get every codex up to that level. They did fail miserably at this - but that seems to be what happened.
Is it though? Sure, all but the most rabidly competitive players are likely to have something in their collection that they bought just because they like the model, but there's no way GW doesn't sell significantly more of whatever the good options are in any given army. If they want to keep selling Tac squads they make them better. If they want to sell more Intercessors instead they make those better instead. Which one of those two things happened?
(Admittedly both, but Tacs got better indirectly due to weapon cost changes that impacted everything else while Intercessors got direct buffs.)
I'm positive dropping points has a net positive effect on purchases for those units. I just don't see a direct motive given that increases have come to weak units and decreases to strong ones (much less for those though).
Did the unit need a price drop?
Was the price drop appropriate?
If you answer yes to both then there is little room to claim it was done for sales.
Tank Commander you can't arguably answer yes to both, but then if the goal was to sell LRBTs then why didn't the regular datasheet go down?
The other problem with that theory is that the logic is inconsistent. People claim GW priced up FW models, but we just saw decreases for many. Just because people disagree with the status of titans in regular 40K doesn't mean GW is pricing them out of sales.
That's a nonsensical argument. The argument that actually holds water is that if sales were GW's only motivation you would never see anything go up in point cost, and we have seen some things go up that were obvious problems. The counter-argument to that is that losing some sales on Shining Spears or Knights is acceptable if it improves sales overall by improving the broader game-state.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Ah, the typical inane trolling of 'hurr durr if you don't like something sell your army that you've invested a ton of time and money into for a pittance.'
I'll remember this comment when the nerf bat next hits TS and you express any disappointment.
What is your beef? Ork codex and CA was likely written at about the same time - so no changes - this should have been expected.
Current orks are top tier. An unbuffed ork boy was undercosted at 6 points. A 7 point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually better than the 6 point boy was. DE with no changes is actually kind of suprising - I am assuming they used DE as baseline for everything and tried to get every codex up to that level. They did fail miserably at this - but that seems to be what happened.
You're right about CA, it was well known that orks would have been out of the book because their codex is too new.
I disagree about drukhari, it's the aeldari soup that is top tier and too powerful. In fact I wished that several drukhari units and loadouts were buffed by CA since we have lots of underperforming stuff.
Orks top tiers is also debatable, but I think SM are solid top tiers, always have been so fair enough. AM and IK deserved a lot of nerfs, way more than drukhari, and the fact that they didn't get massive points hikes is the real surprise.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Ah, the typical inane trolling of 'hurr durr if you don't like something sell your army that you've invested a ton of time and money into for a pittance.'
I'll remember this comment when the nerf bat next hits TS and you express any disappointment.
What is your beef? Ork codex and CA was likely written at about the same time - so no changes - this should have been expected.
Current orks are top tier. An unbuffed ork boy was undercosted at 6 points. A 7 point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually better than the 6 point boy was. DE with no changes is actually kind of suprising - I am assuming they used DE as baseline for everything and tried to get every codex up to that level. They did fail miserably at this - but that seems to be what happened.
You're right about CA, it was well known that orks would have been out of the book because their codex is too new.
I disagree about drukhari, it's the aeldari soup that is top tier and too powerful. In fact I wished that several drukhari units and loadouts were buffed by CA since we have lots of underperforming stuff.
Orks top tiers is also debatable, but I think SM are solid top tiers, always have been so fair enough. AM and IK deserved a lot of nerfs, way more than drukhari, and the fact that they didn't get massive points hikes is the real surprise.
Where did you get that +1A for orks boyz?
Speaking of the +1 attack if they have a certain number of boys in the unit. Much like the geensteeler rule? right?
That's a nonsensical argument. The argument that actually holds water is that if sales were GW's only motivation you would never see anything go up in point cost, and we have seen some things go up that were obvious problems. The counter-argument to that is that losing some sales on Shining Spears or Knights is acceptable if it improves sales overall by improving the broader game-state.
And so point costs will just decrease ad infinitum?
A balanced game state increases sales - correct. That doesn't mean GW has targeted specific units to achieve that result.
When all units are viable all sales are viable and that's win-win.
That's a nonsensical argument. The argument that actually holds water is that if sales were GW's only motivation you would never see anything go up in point cost, and we have seen some things go up that were obvious problems. The counter-argument to that is that losing some sales on Shining Spears or Knights is acceptable if it improves sales overall by improving the broader game-state.
And so point costs will just decrease ad infinitum?
A balanced game state increases sales - correct. That doesn't mean GW has targeted specific units to achieve that result.
When all units are viable all sales are viable and that's win-win.
That's the opposite of what I said, I flat out said that some things have gone up in price. I was using Shining Spears and Knights as examples, not implying that GW has specific targets.
(Also, how do you thing all units could end up viable without most things being adjusted?)
That's a nonsensical argument. The argument that actually holds water is that if sales were GW's only motivation you would never see anything go up in point cost, and we have seen some things go up that were obvious problems. The counter-argument to that is that losing some sales on Shining Spears or Knights is acceptable if it improves sales overall by improving the broader game-state.
And so point costs will just decrease ad infinitum?
A balanced game state increases sales - correct. That doesn't mean GW has targeted specific units to achieve that result.
When all units are viable all sales are viable and that's win-win.
ok thanks man. LoL interceptors costing the same as strikes and 39 termintors when other armies get theirs for 23.
Massive cuts on characters. Draigo is only 180, which is a steal. Psilencers and psycannons cut in half. GK termies still have force weapons. Not sure why CSM termies are 28 and loyalist are 23 though.
Screwey feature of kit pricing. Loyalist Terminators are stuck with powerfists, which means the bare minimum price is now 37pts (unless there's a change to powerfists or storm bolters I haven't noticed), while Chaos Terminators can just take power swords and come in at 34pts.
Which doesn't excuse making Chaos Terminators with powerfists 5pts more than an equivalent loyalist Terminator, but trying to separate out all the equipment prices from the unit prices leads to all kind of screwey oversights like that. Remember when Dire Avengers were 17pts/model because they had to give the shuriken catapult a price for putting it on an Autarch, but forgot to take the cost out of the Dire Avenger's price?
Waiting to see the Victrix Guard stuff before I start whining about old marines getting squatted, since the only units in that formation that can be Primaris is the Captain and the Ancient.
It might even be something that makes me want to run an army of Locutarus. I mean Vanguard Veterans.
Well looking at the review therecs really nothing I need asides from the points adjustments and I have those now. Sorry, GW, I won't be turning around and bending over to pick up CA 18. I've already paid for my codexes and don't feel lime paying again because you changed the points values.
Techpriestsupport wrote: Well looking at the review therecs really nothing I need asides from the points adjustments and I have those now. Sorry, GW, I won't be turning around and bending over to pick up CA 18. I've already paid for my codexes and don't feel lime paying again because you changed the points values.
Just use battlescribe or another tool for army building. The pt changes will be integrated asap.
Daedalus81 wrote: I think we're saying the same things from different perspectives.
Regardless as long as GW is changing points in the right ways everyone wins.
The only difference is choosing whether or not to be cynical about those changes.
Ok. will the CA changes make more people play GK, as in new people buy GK from GW? I think no. For people already with GK armies did anything new become good? Again no, the good stuff is the stuff people already had bought in 8th ed. So for GK players the changes were made to do what? Force people to buy more GK to have a legal sized army, without fixing the army? Or maybe make GK players buy another codex and another army, and hope that the GK player gets angry enought to buy a whole new army later on, seeing how more efficient anything he can ally in is?
I must be missing something about GW plans and GK. Point cost drops mean little when they are applied to units you take very few of like HQs or special characters, or never will take anyway because they are bad like special weapons, purifires etc The point costs mean even less when all armies get them. I would see the drops as a small buff to GK, if it was just GK only. But all armies got cheaper and if all armies got cheaper, and GK clearly did not get some whooping 50% drop in points, then the point change may as well have not happened. I will get 5 strikes and a rhino and my opponent will take 1-3 more units too, only his units will be better then anything I can take, so the gap will only get wider. Worse thing is that from a GK players perspective something like tau suits becoming playable or cheaper plasma is a huge problem. We can't just take 15 scouts and load up on characters, and call it a day adding a castellan.
Daedalus81 wrote: I think we're saying the same things from different perspectives.
Regardless as long as GW is changing points in the right ways everyone wins.
The only difference is choosing whether or not to be cynical about those changes.
Ok. will the CA changes make more people play GK, as in new people buy GK from GW? I think no. For people already with GK armies did anything new become good? Again no, the good stuff is the stuff people already had bought in 8th ed. So for GK players the changes were made to do what? Force people to buy more GK to have a legal sized army, without fixing the army? Or maybe make GK players buy another codex and another army, and hope that the GK player gets angry enought to buy a whole new army later on, seeing how more efficient anything he can ally in is?
I must be missing something about GW plans and GK. Point cost drops mean little when they are applied to units you take very few of like HQs or special characters, or never will take anyway because they are bad like special weapons, purifires etc The point costs mean even less when all armies get them. I would see the drops as a small buff to GK, if it was just GK only. But all armies got cheaper and if all armies got cheaper, and GK clearly did not get some whooping 50% drop in points, then the point change may as well have not happened. I will get 5 strikes and a rhino and my opponent will take 1-3 more units too, only his units will be better then anything I can take, so the gap will only get wider. Worse thing is that from a GK players perspective something like tau suits becoming playable or cheaper plasma is a huge problem. We can't just take 15 scouts and load up on characters, and call it a day adding a castellan.
8e 40k isn't a game, it's a viral marketing campaign for Imperial Guardsmen/Imperial Knights.
I just noticed yet another derp on GW's part. Devastator centurions are down to 40 points base, but assault ones are unchanged. Not sure if this'll make devcents viable now, but only love assault cents got was free assault launchers and slightly cheaper hand guns.
8e 40k isn't a game, it's a viral marketing campaign for Imperial Guardsmen/Imperial Knights.
If it is true, it isn't mentioned anywhere on their site, in their rule books or the codex. Although I must say I have not read the Knight codex, so maybe it is writen down there.
Dev cents are really only viable with HB and hurricane bolter build now. Grav cannon points didn't change (lol) single lasscannons are 25 pints still so taking 2 single las on anything is a huge waste of points. With 2 HB and hurricane they are 70 which is still pretty effing bad for a 3 wound model that moves 4 inches lol.
8e 40k isn't a game, it's a viral marketing campaign for Imperial Guardsmen/Imperial Knights.
If it is true, it isn't mentioned anywhere on their site, in their rule books or the codex. Although I must say I have not read the Knight codex, so maybe it is writen down there.
Nope, but everyone I ask for advice on how to make Deathwatch/Custodes/GK better tells me I should buy some Guardsmen, so it's been remarkably successful at infiltrating the general population and getting them to do GW marketing's work for them.
Daedalus81 wrote: I think we're saying the same things from different perspectives.
Regardless as long as GW is changing points in the right ways everyone wins.
The only difference is choosing whether or not to be cynical about those changes.
Ok. will the CA changes make more people play GK, as in new people buy GK from GW? I think no. For people already with GK armies did anything new become good? Again no, the good stuff is the stuff people already had bought in 8th ed. So for GK players the changes were made to do what? Force people to buy more GK to have a legal sized army, without fixing the army? Or maybe make GK players buy another codex and another army, and hope that the GK player gets angry enought to buy a whole new army later on, seeing how more efficient anything he can ally in is?
I must be missing something about GW plans and GK. Point cost drops mean little when they are applied to units you take very few of like HQs or special characters, or never will take anyway because they are bad like special weapons, purifires etc The point costs mean even less when all armies get them. I would see the drops as a small buff to GK, if it was just GK only. But all armies got cheaper and if all armies got cheaper, and GK clearly did not get some whooping 50% drop in points, then the point change may as well have not happened. I will get 5 strikes and a rhino and my opponent will take 1-3 more units too, only his units will be better then anything I can take, so the gap will only get wider. Worse thing is that from a GK players perspective something like tau suits becoming playable or cheaper plasma is a huge problem. We can't just take 15 scouts and load up on characters, and call it a day adding a castellan.
Point drops absolutely matter for HQs as it makes it easier to make a battalion without sacrifices. GK aren't the army you slap a Castellan onto. They're the army you add the new artillery formation that stops the enemy from firing overwatch.
Strikes were never terrible and unfortunately you can't get force weapons for free. I get my guys for 18 in total (it was 20). You get yours for 21. We both cast baby smite (you're is shorter range). I die horribly if I fail. I can't cast if my caster dies. I have better guns, but you get more shots. I get a weaker version of always in cover. I have an invulnerable that only really comes into play mostly just against disintegrators.
My guys are a wet noodle in combat - yours are not. I pay for my one force weapon and I otherwise have one attack per model where you can get two for no cost.
I'd call that mostly fair. Your army is built around getting in people's faces, letting loose with your guns, and charging in. If you're not prepared to use the army in that way then, yes, you need to pick a different army, because that is what GK are built to do.
I don't get more shots. Your guys are both more resilient and cost less, so you can run more of them. Plus this is a theory army. In reality a GK army has to run strikes, while a 1ksons army will just run tzangors As melee goes all GK have 1A, you would be suprised how bad they do in melee. They die to hordes from attrition, real melee units just kill them off, they are ok at killing something like an msutac squad. But even against those it is safer to use the stormbolters, because in shoting phase they don't hit back.
You can't get in to peoples faces with 1A. How the hell am I suppose to kill something like an IG or orc list in melee? they have more bodies then I can kill with bolters, in melee IG actually beats GK if they are catachan, and am not even going to comment on what orcs do to 1A GK in melee.
Heck I lost melee vs primaris, because they have more support options and my shoting can't kill gulliman fast enough, and he is a perfect counter for anything GK, save maybe for 1 NDKs and a draigo at the same time. Oddly enough marine players tend to target the NDKS a lot with their shoting.
SHUPPET wrote: 5 point Cultists will still be played. People mass termagants. Termagants that can shoot twice, with better armor, and amazing buffs? 5 points is fair enough. CSM squads should have gotten a point reduction its insane to me that they didn't, especially the difference between loyalist and traitor Terminators? What the?
Swarmlord getting a price discount and the meta dominating Imperial soup getting left alone is just stupid.
I think it's an overall net positive. Baby steps. GW will get better at this and I think I'd rather a cautious approach than a heavy handed one.
ok thanks man. LoL interceptors costing the same as strikes and 39 termintors when other armies get theirs for 23.
Massive cuts on characters. Draigo is only 180, which is a steal. Psilencers and psycannons cut in half. GK termies still have force weapons. Not sure why CSM termies are 28 and loyalist are 23 though.
Screwey feature of kit pricing. Loyalist Terminators are stuck with powerfists, which means the bare minimum price is now 37pts (unless there's a change to powerfists or storm bolters I haven't noticed), while Chaos Terminators can just take power swords and come in at 34pts.
Which doesn't excuse making Chaos Terminators with powerfists 5pts more than an equivalent loyalist Terminator, but trying to separate out all the equipment prices from the unit prices leads to all kind of screwey oversights like that. Remember when Dire Avengers were 17pts/model because they had to give the shuriken catapult a price for putting it on an Autarch, but forgot to take the cost out of the Dire Avenger's price?
It's basically a 3 point power fist if you want Terminators. It's stupid silly and we need to let GW know.
We need to let them know politely, though, that it's not acceptable.
Xenomancers wrote: Dev cents are really only viable with HB and hurricane bolter build now. Grav cannon points didn't change (lol) single lasscannons are 25 pints still so taking 2 single las on anything is a huge waste of points. With 2 HB and hurricane they are 70 which is still pretty effing bad for a 3 wound model that moves 4 inches lol.
You do realize not one single weapon that Centurions can take changed in point cost, right? Nothing has changed about which loadouts are viable. I still like the Heavy Bolter / Centurion Missile Launcher better.
8e 40k isn't a game, it's a viral marketing campaign for Imperial Guardsmen/Imperial Knights.
If it is true, it isn't mentioned anywhere on their site, in their rule books or the codex. Although I must say I have not read the Knight codex, so maybe it is writen down there.
Nope, but everyone I ask for advice on how to make Deathwatch/Custodes/GK better tells me I should buy some Guardsmen, so it's been remarkably successful at infiltrating the general population and getting them to do GW marketing's work for them.
At least with GK, that's not really an option. Taking a GK detachment with Guard means you are sacrificing points on more effective Guard options.
If you want to play competitively, I don't see a reason NOT to go mono-Guard right now.
Karol wrote: I turn two of my paladins in to ancients or apothecaries, there are no models for them anyway, so I doubt anyone is going to care.
Looks at WIPGK Terminator Apothecary on desk
Regarding the bolded portion of your post there, yes, there are? They're build options from the plastic GK Terminator kit, with specific wargear (banner and Narthecium, respectively).
Daedalus81 wrote: Point drops absolutely matter for HQs as it makes it easier to make a battalion without sacrifices. GK aren't the army you slap a Castellan onto. They're the army you add the new artillery formation that stops the enemy from firing overwatch.
Strikes were never terrible and unfortunately you can't get force weapons for free. I get my guys for 18 in total (it was 20). You get yours for 21. We both cast baby smite (you're is shorter range). I die horribly if I fail. I can't cast if my caster dies. I have better guns, but you get more shots. I get a weaker version of always in cover. I have an invulnerable that only really comes into play mostly just against disintegrators.
My guys are a wet noodle in combat - yours are not. I pay for my one force weapon and I otherwise have one attack per model where you can get two for no cost.
I'd call that mostly fair. Your army is built around getting in people's faces, letting loose with your guns, and charging in. If you're not prepared to use the army in that way then, yes, you need to pick a different army, because that is what GK are built to do.
Hi Daedalus81!
While that's an interesting perspective, I'm not sure it's a fair comparison. Thousand Sons don't have the option of allying with a more efficient force like Imperial Guard. You do have Tzaangors, which is cool...
The fact GK can ally with Guard sets up a strange situation. Why take them at all if you can purchase more effective options from the allied force?
I mean, sure, it would be great to deep strike, hit a unit with artillery to stop overwatch, then charge in. But you still have to make that charge roll and the odds are against you doing it. Those Strike Squads still only have Marine saves and a single wound, meaning they are not wrecking face when they get there. Seems to me it would be more effective to just take some Medusa / Basilisk batteries, infantry squads, and some deep striking plasma vets for the same points and call it a day.
Not saying you are wrong here, but am saying this is a points-efficiency problem that's not easily dealt with via direct comparisons with units from other armies. You are right, Strikes should be better than Rubrics, but GW has presented GK with an existential challenge. Adding in a few cheap HQs doesn't address the problem.
Daedalus81 wrote: I think we're saying the same things from different perspectives.
Regardless as long as GW is changing points in the right ways everyone wins.
The only difference is choosing whether or not to be cynical about those changes.
Ok. will the CA changes make more people play GK, as in new people buy GK from GW? I think no. For people already with GK armies did anything new become good? Again no, the good stuff is the stuff people already had bought in 8th ed. So for GK players the changes were made to do what? Force people to buy more GK to have a legal sized army, without fixing the army? Or maybe make GK players buy another codex and another army, and hope that the GK player gets angry enought to buy a whole new army later on, seeing how more efficient anything he can ally in is?
I must be missing something about GW plans and GK. Point cost drops mean little when they are applied to units you take very few of like HQs or special characters, or never will take anyway because they are bad like special weapons, purifires etc The point costs mean even less when all armies get them. I would see the drops as a small buff to GK, if it was just GK only. But all armies got cheaper and if all armies got cheaper, and GK clearly did not get some whooping 50% drop in points, then the point change may as well have not happened. I will get 5 strikes and a rhino and my opponent will take 1-3 more units too, only his units will be better then anything I can take, so the gap will only get wider. Worse thing is that from a GK players perspective something like tau suits becoming playable or cheaper plasma is a huge problem. We can't just take 15 scouts and load up on characters, and call it a day adding a castellan.
Point drops absolutely matter for HQs as it makes it easier to make a battalion without sacrifices. GK aren't the army you slap a Castellan onto. They're the army you add the new artillery formation that stops the enemy from firing overwatch.
Strikes were never terrible and unfortunately you can't get force weapons for free. I get my guys for 18 in total (it was 20). You get yours for 21. We both cast baby smite (you're is shorter range). I die horribly if I fail. I can't cast if my caster dies. I have better guns, but you get more shots. I get a weaker version of always in cover. I have an invulnerable that only really comes into play mostly just against disintegrators.
My guys are a wet noodle in combat - yours are not. I pay for my one force weapon and I otherwise have one attack per model where you can get two for no cost.
I'd call that mostly fair. Your army is built around getting in people's faces, letting loose with your guns, and charging in. If you're not prepared to use the army in that way then, yes, you need to pick a different army, because that is what GK are built to do.
Wrong, he isn't' playing the army wrong, no one is.
They suck because they have reduced capabilities in everything; nothing you say will change that.
Daedalus81 wrote: Point drops absolutely matter for HQs as it makes it easier to make a battalion without sacrifices. GK aren't the army you slap a Castellan onto. They're the army you add the new artillery formation that stops the enemy from firing overwatch.
Strikes were never terrible and unfortunately you can't get force weapons for free. I get my guys for 18 in total (it was 20). You get yours for 21. We both cast baby smite (you're is shorter range). I die horribly if I fail. I can't cast if my caster dies. I have better guns, but you get more shots. I get a weaker version of always in cover. I have an invulnerable that only really comes into play mostly just against disintegrators.
My guys are a wet noodle in combat - yours are not. I pay for my one force weapon and I otherwise have one attack per model where you can get two for no cost.
I'd call that mostly fair. Your army is built around getting in people's faces, letting loose with your guns, and charging in. If you're not prepared to use the army in that way then, yes, you need to pick a different army, because that is what GK are built to do.
Hi Daedalus81!
While that's an interesting perspective, I'm not sure it's a fair comparison. Thousand Sons don't have the option of allying with a more efficient force like Imperial Guard. You do have Tzaangors, which is cool...
The fact GK can ally with Guard sets up a strange situation. Why take them at all if you can purchase more effective options from the allied force?
I mean, sure, it would be great to deep strike, hit a unit with artillery to stop overwatch, then charge in. But you still have to make that charge roll and the odds are against you doing it. Those Strike Squads still only have Marine saves and a single wound, meaning they are not wrecking face when they get there. Seems to me it would be more effective to just take some Medusa / Basilisk batteries, infantry squads, and some deep striking plasma vets for the same points and call it a day.
Not saying you are wrong here, but am saying this is a points-efficiency problem that's not easily dealt with via direct comparisons with units from other armies. You are right, Strikes should be better than Rubrics, but GW has presented GK with an existential challenge. Adding in a few cheap HQs doesn't address the problem.
Let me preface with this statement - I absolutely agree GK need more - we will probably disagree on how much though. Additionally, I have come to the conclusion that these changes *should* be in the FAQ. Originally I expected them in CA, but I changed my mind as FAQs are for modifying existing rules and CA is for new rules.
but am saying this is a points-efficiency problem that's not easily dealt with via direct comparisons with units from other armies. You are right, Strikes should be better than Rubrics
Yes, I agree - direct comparisons miss a TON of information about an army. I was arguing against the general negative sentiment towards Strikes. That said direct comparisons DO have some place and attempting to compare army to army gets you here:
Seems to me it would be more effective to just take some Medusa / Basilisk batteries, infantry squads, and some deep striking plasma vets for the same points and call it a day.
If everyone boils down to, "why don't we just play IG", then why ever discuss an army at all? If we can't understand the army's strengths despite its weaknesses we'll never come to a better understanding, because that very statement - why not just do X.
If I want to play a crazy Psyker army I do Thousand Sons.
If I want to crush people with tanks I play IG.
If I want a super-elite and armed to the hilt psyker army I do GK.
At the end of the day you can't take GK and not use the gear they have. It just won't work for points efficiency. Could we make Strikes super cheap? Sure. But where is that line? A VV with a power sword and pistol is 18 points right now. If I said for 3 points more you can get a force weapon and storm bolter instead would you say ok?
Daedalus81 wrote: I think we're saying the same things from different perspectives.
Regardless as long as GW is changing points in the right ways everyone wins.
The only difference is choosing whether or not to be cynical about those changes.
Ok. will the CA changes make more people play GK, as in new people buy GK from GW? I think no. For people already with GK armies did anything new become good? Again no, the good stuff is the stuff people already had bought in 8th ed. So for GK players the changes were made to do what? Force people to buy more GK to have a legal sized army, without fixing the army? Or maybe make GK players buy another codex and another army, and hope that the GK player gets angry enought to buy a whole new army later on, seeing how more efficient anything he can ally in is?
I must be missing something about GW plans and GK. Point cost drops mean little when they are applied to units you take very few of like HQs or special characters, or never will take anyway because they are bad like special weapons, purifires etc The point costs mean even less when all armies get them. I would see the drops as a small buff to GK, if it was just GK only. But all armies got cheaper and if all armies got cheaper, and GK clearly did not get some whooping 50% drop in points, then the point change may as well have not happened. I will get 5 strikes and a rhino and my opponent will take 1-3 more units too, only his units will be better then anything I can take, so the gap will only get wider. Worse thing is that from a GK players perspective something like tau suits becoming playable or cheaper plasma is a huge problem. We can't just take 15 scouts and load up on characters, and call it a day adding a castellan.
We got it, you are angry because grey knights were not reduced to the costs of guardsmen, don't need to make 100 posts a day about this.
GK received LOADS of buffs, many more than other factions. Contrarily to other factions though, they received them on units that were actually taken, while all the other factions didn't see a single buff to the external power, they were all internal adjustments without any real effect on the competitiveness of the faction. Necrons, Admech and GK were the only factions actually buffed (and tank commanders, for some reason).
You can say that the buffs were not enough, and i actually agree with that, the buffs GK received were not enough, but saying that everyone got better and GK were left in the dust is just plain untrue and makes you look like a troll.
Griping about the GK not being effective against some armies seems to forget the GK are clearly written and created solely to fight daemons. They are a specialist army meant to engage daemons, period.
At most they should be used against daemons, or as an ally to imperial guard against forces containing daemons.
I am not attacking people who want to run GK armies, and I understand gw wants to sell as much as it can, but having a GK force fighting tau, Orks, necrons, etc is taking them waaay out of their clearly stated mission.
When a gun doubles the shots for the same strength it's effectively identical to half the shots with AP2. In fact you're twice as good vs Orks with out without a KFF and I'm spinning my wheels on them with AP2 when they don't have the KFF.
Your guys are both more resilient and cost less, so you can run more of them.
Barely less. Before CA I paid 3 points less. Now it's 24 less for 10 and 9 less for 5 - not exactly massive. I have weak always in cover, but you have advantages, too that are often never stated in these comparison.
Tzaangors are to Rubrics as IS are to GK. You've created a mental block, because you end up reaching into another codex - most people do that now. The vast majority of marines do that now. GK is not immune to this need. I even reach outside my book to fill things I don't have - like morale immunity or more varied anti-tank.
And unfortunately you do need Falchions for GK for 2A (proxied). There is no worth to the other weapons at this time. Imagine what Orks do to me.
Techpriestsupport wrote: Griping about the GK not being effective against some armies seems to forget the GK are clearly written and created solely to fight daemons. They are a specialist army meant to engage daemons, period.
At most they should be used against daemons, or as an ally to imperial guard against forces containing daemons.
I am not attacking people who want to run GK armies, and I understand gw wants to sell as much as it can, but having a GK force fighting tau, Orks, necrons, etc is taking them waaay out of their clearly stated mission.
40k does not work like that.
Marines are supposed to be a fast strike force - but they keep adding units to them to try and give them "everything"
Techpriestsupport wrote: The fact an annihilation barge is now 33 points cheaper in total makes them a very attractive option.
Immortals and deathmarks getting a 2 point drop whilst warriors are now a point cheaper brings smiles to metal faces.
No because they are still saddled with Tesla destructors, which are useless. It's nice that you can take a gauss cannon on it though, but being a double cost destroyer probably does not rank as attractive.
How the hell is a tesla destructor useless?
By typical Dakka hyperbole. It if can't oneshot a knight it's useless, and if it can it's still useless because it doesn't delete 40 guardsmen at the same time. A twin tesla destructor inflicts 2,64 damages on a ravager, double the damage inflicted by the gauss cannon on the same target. I wouldn't call it useless.
Or perhaps because Tesla imortals which are taken as a troop tax anyway, do a better job for less points, and can be the target of MWBD making them even better. Tesla destructors don't have a role. They are overpriced for a job that's done cheaper elsewhere. Necrons lack options for elite infantry, monsters and vehicles. The fluff says barges should fill this role. They don't. It's regularly remarked that making them damage 2 and AP -1 would solve the problem, even if it comes with a point increase. Necrons had so few options, but stalkers are now open, so we'll see what happens. Necrons might make it to mid tier, but with all the other changes they may just stay with gk at the bottom.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Ah, the typical inane trolling of 'hurr durr if you don't like something sell your army that you've invested a ton of time and money into for a pittance.'
I'll remember this comment when the nerf bat next hits TS and you express any disappointment.
What is your beef? Ork codex and CA was likely written at about the same time - so no changes - this should have been expected.
Current orks are top tier. An unbuffed ork boy was undercosted at 6 points. A 7 point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually better than the 6 point boy was. DE with no changes is actually kind of suprising - I am assuming they used DE as baseline for everything and tried to get every codex up to that level. They did fail miserably at this - but that seems to be what happened.
I agree about CA and ork codex, I wasn't expecting anything major, but at the least I wanted them to give us more in our errata or maybe throw in something in White dwarf for the issue with points for Orkz.
Your next point though is patently false. An unbuffed ork boy was priced correctly at 6, at 7 it is over priced. A 7point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually WORSE than the 6 point boy with the same buffs.
Movement, stayed the same, so they are as slow as ever. We can spend 2 CP to deep strike them though? or my favorite, give them evil sunz and make them faster and better at getting into assault.
Ranged damage. With Dakkax3 orkz are AS good per point as they were without Dakkax3 at 6ppm. So this is a wash....sort of, because realistically boyz prefer Pistols not shootas so if anything we are now paying for extra crap we don't use in 90% of the circumstances.
Close combat: Please explain to me how Less attacks for more points is better? The only CC buff you get is if you take Goffs and then guess what? It works out to being AS GOOD as 6ppm boyz
Durability: Here is where you really lose it. 2 Kultures give you a boost to durability, 1 gives you a 6+FNP which brings them back to where a 6ppm boy was in regards to durability per point. The other faction gives you a 6+ Invuln but that is meh at best since very rarely were people putting -1 or more AP weapons into boyz, so without a doubt durability and point per wound went down by 16% with this.
OVERALL: Each kulture gives a specific buff to boyz, but unless you incorporate 2 or more you are actually WORSE then before and since you can't incorporate 2 or more than boyz are worse point for point then they were in the index where orkz were placing mid to low tier in tournaments relying exclusively on boyz to do the lifting (180-240 boyz per list).
So you can sit there and argue all day that ork boyz needed a nerf, i'll disagree but at least that is a genuine argument you can debate on, but when you tell me that increasing the cost of boyz by 16.6% and not buffing all of their stats by a similar margin is a buff than I have to call BS on you.
A 7point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually WORSE than the 6 point boy with the same buffs.
Yeah ofc - but a lot better than a 6 point boy without them. Evil suns is trait alone is worth 1 point. Plus you get dakka dakka and +1 attack. It's not even worth arguing.
While that's an interesting perspective, I'm not sure it's a fair comparison. Thousand Sons don't have the option of allying with a more efficient force like Imperial Guard. You do have Tzaangors, which is cool...
The fact GK can ally with Guard sets up a strange situation. Why take them at all if you can purchase more effective options from the allied force?
I mean, sure, it would be great to deep strike, hit a unit with artillery to stop overwatch, then charge in. But you still have to make that charge roll and the odds are against you doing it. Those Strike Squads still only have Marine saves and a single wound, meaning they are not wrecking face when they get there. Seems to me it would be more effective to just take some Medusa / Basilisk batteries, infantry squads, and some deep striking plasma vets for the same points and call it a day.
Not saying you are wrong here, but am saying this is a points-efficiency problem that's not easily dealt with via direct comparisons with units from other armies. You are right, Strikes should be better than Rubrics, but GW has presented GK with an existential challenge. Adding in a few cheap HQs doesn't address the problem.
Let me preface with this statement - I absolutely agree GK need more - we will probably disagree on how much though. Additionally, I have come to the conclusion that these changes *should* be in the FAQ. Originally I expected them in CA, but I changed my mind as FAQs are for modifying existing rules and CA is for new rules.
Actually, I'd bet you and I see eye to eye on how much needs to change.
but am saying this is a points-efficiency problem that's not easily dealt with via direct comparisons with units from other armies. You are right, Strikes should be better than Rubrics
Yes, I agree - direct comparisons miss a TON of information about an army. I was arguing against the general negative sentiment towards Strikes. That said direct comparisons DO have some place and attempting to compare army to army gets you here:
Seems to me it would be more effective to just take some Medusa / Basilisk batteries, infantry squads, and some deep striking plasma vets for the same points and call it a day.
If everyone boils down to, "why don't we just play IG", then why ever discuss an army at all? If we can't understand the army's strengths despite its weaknesses we'll never come to a better understanding, because that very statement - why not just do X.
Well, that's just it. Anyone who actually tries to play optimized armies faces a paradox between fondness for a certain faction and the obvious points-efficiencies. There are certain conclusions that can be reached, but each contradicts the other.
If you are trying to optimize for points, just take Guard. That leads to the conclusion that it's not worth discussing any other faction. One would be sacrificing any enjoyment of the lore in favor of tabletop dominance.
If you are trying to build around your fondness for a certain faction, take that faction and ally with something that will make it useful. That means you will be faced with choices around whether to take less efficient units and trying to make them work. A player would need to recognizes the fact they are making an inferior decision that puts faction-loyalty over a natural desire to win.
If you are just in it for the fluff, take a mono-faction army. That means (unless you are playing Guard or Aeldari) you are playing with the knowledge other people are better. It's like participating in a marathon, the majority of people do it with the knowledge they have no chance to be great at what they are doing. You are just there to say you did it and (hopefully) have fun in the process.
Trying to rationalize questions like 'why discuss it at all' is the source of a lot of conflict on these forums. Everyone comes at discussions with a blend of these motivations and there's no simple way to reconcile all of them. Unless you are playing an ultra-competitive army and love the fluff around it. And those guys are jerks.
If I want to play a crazy Psyker army I do Thousand Sons.
If I want to crush people with tanks I play IG.
If I want a super-elite and armed to the hilt psyker army I do GK.
At the end of the day you can't take GK and not use the gear they have. It just won't work for points efficiency. Could we make Strikes super cheap? Sure. But where is that line? A VV with a power sword and pistol is 18 points right now. If I said for 3 points more you can get a force weapon and storm bolter instead would you say ok?
I think you are framing the challenge the wrong way. Points ultimately mean very little, they're just an arbitrary limitation on the units each side can take in a single game. They have more to do with how long the game will run then the relative balance between 2 sides.
The real challenge is in how everything works together. The choice of units, the special rules for the faction, the availability of distinctive kinds of units has a bigger impact on outcomes and player satisfaction than anything else. Good armies have a certain harmony that allows players to compete instead of choosing which side of the brain to sacrifice in constructing their forces.
Let's say strikes cost 55 points per model with marine armor, a force weapon. a storm bolter and baby smite. The real question is what else needs to be there in order to justify pricing them so high. Maybe the answer is they automatically do mortal wounds on Daemons, have a 2+ invulnerable save against attacks from Daemons, smite at 24 inches for 3+d3 wounds against Daemons, etc. Does that make them worth taking? Probably not, unless there are other things that make them effective against other armies.
I hate the points argument. It's not really a fair way to assess what armies are able to do and it feels like GW is just putting people in a place where they have to work against themselves to put together armies they like. This smacks of marketing more than game design, just like at the end of 6th edition. They way they justified 8th edition was a need to streamline the rules, which was fine, but they are not actually doing that with CA and FAQs. Updating points is not the same as a continuous commitment to improving the rules for people playing the game, it's a band aid that says they don't get what the problems with 40k are in the first place.
Game designers are continuing to show favoritism to certain factions instead of creating a satisfying game experience for everyone. The problem is, I think they believe they are improving the game and 8th is a sea-change from what came before. It's that lack of self-awareness that really gets to me.
Daedalus81 wrote: I think we're saying the same things from different perspectives.
Regardless as long as GW is changing points in the right ways everyone wins.
The only difference is choosing whether or not to be cynical about those changes.
Ok. will the CA changes make more people play GK, as in new people buy GK from GW? I think no. For people already with GK armies did anything new become good? Again no, the good stuff is the stuff people already had bought in 8th ed. So for GK players the changes were made to do what? Force people to buy more GK to have a legal sized army, without fixing the army? Or maybe make GK players buy another codex and another army, and hope that the GK player gets angry enought to buy a whole new army later on, seeing how more efficient anything he can ally in is?
I must be missing something about GW plans and GK. Point cost drops mean little when they are applied to units you take very few of like HQs or special characters, or never will take anyway because they are bad like special weapons, purifires etc The point costs mean even less when all armies get them. I would see the drops as a small buff to GK, if it was just GK only. But all armies got cheaper and if all armies got cheaper, and GK clearly did not get some whooping 50% drop in points, then the point change may as well have not happened. I will get 5 strikes and a rhino and my opponent will take 1-3 more units too, only his units will be better then anything I can take, so the gap will only get wider. Worse thing is that from a GK players perspective something like tau suits becoming playable or cheaper plasma is a huge problem. We can't just take 15 scouts and load up on characters, and call it a day adding a castellan.
We got it, you are angry because grey knights were not reduced to the costs of guardsmen, don't need to make 100 posts a day about this.
GK received LOADS of buffs, many more than other factions. Contrarily to other factions though, they received them on units that were actually taken, while all the other factions didn't see a single buff to the external power, they were all internal adjustments without any real effect on the competitiveness of the faction. Necrons, Admech and GK were the only factions actually buffed (and tank commanders, for some reason).
You can say that the buffs were not enough, and i actually agree with that, the buffs GK received were not enough, but saying that everyone got better and GK were left in the dust is just plain untrue and makes you look like a troll.
I don't think that's what he's saying.
I think he's saying the changes in points values for GK mean little because everyone else got points values changes as well. Instead of fixing problems, this makes the army relatively weaker.
Xenomancers wrote: A 7point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually WORSE than the 6 point boy with the same buffs.
Yeah ofc - but a lot better than a 6 point boy without them. Evil suns is trait alone is worth 1 point. Plus you get dakka dakka and +1 attack. It's not even worth arguing.
Coooooool, shame nobody else got a nerf like we did... in fact Warriors are actually now cheaper with all the buffs! Oh... apart from chaos now... welcome to the party!
Seriously, everyone is like "wait until the CA 2017, Wait until Big FAQ 2018, Wait until Big FAQ 2 2018, wait until CA 2018" and now CA is out GK players are being told to wait another 6 months! Or to buy a freaking new codex?!?! They should have got it right the first time! I mean they do have 30 years of experience! And, it was early in 8th so it's understandable, if they got the codex so wrong they should give you all a new free digital one! I mean I play 40k because I love collecting the models and painting (the game is kinda an after thought) but come on!
On a good note, the missions in this book look pretty balanced and should honestly be made the primary missions while the older ones should be thrown in the trash.
A10CCZ wrote: Why the mechanicus have a lot of points drop？Are they really weak before？
Hard to say. Their approach to fix destroyers is interesting. Drop to base cost of less than an intercessor for a MUCH better unit. Wish they had done the same thing for centurions.
Karol wrote: I turn two of my paladins in to ancients or apothecaries, there are no models for them anyway, so I doubt anyone is going to care.
Looks at WIPGK Terminator Apothecary on desk
Regarding the bolded portion of your post there, yes, there are? They're build options from the plastic GK Terminator kit, with specific wargear (banner and Narthecium, respectively).
well in that case I don't know what to do. I don't have plastic termintors, only metal ones and one is resin, which is Draigo.
Seriously, everyone is like "wait until the CA 2017, Wait until Big FAQ 2018, Wait until Big FAQ 2 2018, wait until CA 2018" and now CA is out GK players are being told to wait another 6 months! Or to buy a freaking new codex?!?!
I would be ok, if they just came up, told that they do not plan to update anything in the rules or the model range, and that the stuff they got is all they will get. I would be ok if they were left with the index option. Instead we got a separate section about how cool paladins or purfires are going to be after the CA change. I know it is me, am easy to trick and I have problems with letting stuff go, I generaly don't get the subtel stuff and hints, and need everything plain text. The worse thing about it all is that it damages my health, the thing I am scared the most is either getting overhyped and doing something stupid in RL, or being so down that the anti depresants stop working. I already had to take double the dose last night, and I can't do it every night.
Maybe they will errata the CA or something. I don't know. I don't even think there is enough GK players to generate enough push on GW for them to act.
Game designers are continuing to show favoritism to certain factions instead of creating a satisfying game experience for everyone. The problem is, I think they believe they are improving the game and 8th is a sea-change from what came before. It's that lack of self-awareness that really gets to me.
And to make matters worse GK the anti demon faction in lore, is the worse army to fight vs demons. It is so sad, it is almost funny.
We got it, you are angry because grey knights were not reduced to the costs of guardsmen, don't need to make 100 posts a day about this.
GK received LOADS of buffs, many more than other factions. Contrarily to other factions though, they received them on units that were actually taken, while all the other factions didn't see a single buff to the external power, they were all internal adjustments without any real effect on the competitiveness of the faction. Necrons, Admech and GK were the only factions actually buffed (and tank commanders, for some reason).
You can say that the buffs were not enough, and i actually agree with that, the buffs GK received were not enough, but saying that everyone got better and GK were left in the dust is just plain untrue and makes you look like a troll.
Ok, I guess we are going to have to wait 2-3 months and see how many GK armies will be played around the world. To me if all armies get point drops, then the point drops to fix something would have to be as you said. Something super drastic, like a full armed strike costing 14pts. the drops are not enough to fix anything. There is no buffs to GK, when the army is already over priced. If I play a 2000pts army, get a 200pts points drop, but my army is over priced by 300pts. Then the drop isn't helping me much. If at the same time my opponents IG soup army gets the same 200pts drop, but his army was at worse costing real 2000pts, and if it goes by what haters say it was having 100-150 free IG points, then where is the GK buff.
You compare GK to units tzeench armies don't even use. And use it as a supposed example as GK getting better, when they still both cost worse and shot worse. But hey they are better at melee. They can't reach it, but that is no problem right? Or if they do it is something that is actually good at melee and they just die.
Xenomancers wrote: A 7point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually WORSE than the 6 point boy with the same buffs.
Yeah ofc - but a lot better than a 6 point boy without them. Evil suns is trait alone is worth 1 point. Plus you get dakka dakka and +1 attack. It's not even worth arguing.
I know we're just feeding a fed horse at this point, but how much did Eldar pay for -1 to be hit trait, for example?
Xenomancers wrote: A 7point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually WORSE than the 6 point boy with the same buffs.
Yeah ofc - but a lot better than a 6 point boy without them. Evil suns is trait alone is worth 1 point. Plus you get dakka dakka and +1 attack. It's not even worth arguing.
I know we're just feeding a fed horse at this point, but how much did Eldar pay for -1 to be hit trait, for example?
Did eldar units also gain 2 abilities on their data sheets like ork boys did? Retorical question OFC.
Xenomancers wrote: A 7point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually WORSE than the 6 point boy with the same buffs.
Yeah ofc - but a lot better than a 6 point boy without them. Evil suns is trait alone is worth 1 point. Plus you get dakka dakka and +1 attack. It's not even worth arguing.
I know we're just feeding a fed horse at this point, but how much did Eldar pay for -1 to be hit trait, for example?
Did eldar units also gain 2 abilities on their data sheets like ork boys did? Retorical question OFC.
Are ork units priced to be worthwhile shooters?
BS5+? Paying more for every weapon despite them being the same stats or inferior?
The entire army pays for DDD on the handful of units that can actually use it.
Karol wrote: I turn two of my paladins in to ancients or apothecaries, there are no models for them anyway, so I doubt anyone is going to care.
Looks at WIPGK Terminator Apothecary on desk
Regarding the bolded portion of your post there, yes, there are? They're build options from the plastic GK Terminator kit, with specific wargear (banner and Narthecium, respectively).
well in that case I don't know what to do. I don't have plastic termintors, only metal ones and one is resin, which is Draigo.
Seriously, everyone is like "wait until the CA 2017, Wait until Big FAQ 2018, Wait until Big FAQ 2 2018, wait until CA 2018" and now CA is out GK players are being told to wait another 6 months! Or to buy a freaking new codex?!?!
I would be ok, if they just came up, told that they do not plan to update anything in the rules or the model range, and that the stuff they got is all they will get. I would be ok if they were left with the index option. Instead we got a separate section about how cool paladins or purfires are going to be after the CA change. I know it is me, am easy to trick and I have problems with letting stuff go, I generaly don't get the subtel stuff and hints, and need everything plain text. The worse thing about it all is that it damages my health, the thing I am scared the most is either getting overhyped and doing something stupid in RL, or being so down that the anti depresants stop working. I already had to take double the dose last night, and I can't do it every night.
Maybe they will errata the CA or something. I don't know. I don't even think there is enough GK players to generate enough push on GW for them to act.
Game designers are continuing to show favoritism to certain factions instead of creating a satisfying game experience for everyone. The problem is, I think they believe they are improving the game and 8th is a sea-change from what came before. It's that lack of self-awareness that really gets to me.
And to make matters worse GK the anti demon faction in lore, is the worse army to fight vs demons. It is so sad, it is almost funny.
We got it, you are angry because grey knights were not reduced to the costs of guardsmen, don't need to make 100 posts a day about this.
GK received LOADS of buffs, many more than other factions. Contrarily to other factions though, they received them on units that were actually taken, while all the other factions didn't see a single buff to the external power, they were all internal adjustments without any real effect on the competitiveness of the faction. Necrons, Admech and GK were the only factions actually buffed (and tank commanders, for some reason).
You can say that the buffs were not enough, and i actually agree with that, the buffs GK received were not enough, but saying that everyone got better and GK were left in the dust is just plain untrue and makes you look like a troll.
Ok, I guess we are going to have to wait 2-3 months and see how many GK armies will be played around the world. To me if all armies get point drops, then the point drops to fix something would have to be as you said. Something super drastic, like a full armed strike costing 14pts. the drops are not enough to fix anything. There is no buffs to GK, when the army is already over priced. If I play a 2000pts army, get a 200pts points drop, but my army is over priced by 300pts. Then the drop isn't helping me much. If at the same time my opponents IG soup army gets the same 200pts drop, but his army was at worse costing real 2000pts, and if it goes by what haters say it was having 100-150 free IG points, then where is the GK buff.
You compare GK to units tzeench armies don't even use. And use it as a supposed example as GK getting better, when they still both cost worse and shot worse. But hey they are better at melee. They can't reach it, but that is no problem right? Or if they do it is something that is actually good at melee and they just die.
People keep saying that the GK units getting points drops is meaningless in the context of other armies getting points drops, but this is an overly simplified way to look at it. GK's core units received points drops whereas most everyone else's points drops were applied to their second stringer units. Nobody was taking gak like Hydras, Broodlords, and Striking Scorpions so a drop on those units does nothing to put grey knights in a relatively worse position. Taking two 2k pre-ca guard lists of mine I had saved in battlescribe and I shaved 13 and 65 points respectively.
I can totally see the argument that GK points drops were not deep enough, but the 'everybody else got points drops so ours is useless' line is just silly.
Xenomancers wrote: A 7point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually WORSE than the 6 point boy with the same buffs.
Yeah ofc - but a lot better than a 6 point boy without them. Evil suns is trait alone is worth 1 point. Plus you get dakka dakka and +1 attack. It's not even worth arguing.
I know we're just feeding a fed horse at this point, but how much did Eldar pay for -1 to be hit trait, for example?
did you just do a PETA reference?
Automatically Appended Next Post: As much as I hate this update just checked my points.... I've gone down 200pts on my marine army... If I didn't have 15 normal marines and a normal marine HQ I'd probably have gone down even more! Yet, as the same time the feeling of joy is over shadowed by everyone else going down... like, if everyone went down then I'm back to where I was? ALSO! Annoyed my 2000pts army is no longer 2000pts and I now have to go out and buy some more minis
Xenomancers wrote: A 7point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually WORSE than the 6 point boy with the same buffs.
Yeah ofc - but a lot better than a 6 point boy without them. Evil suns is trait alone is worth 1 point. Plus you get dakka dakka and +1 attack. It's not even worth arguing.
Boyz had that +1A also in the index. Dakkadakkadakka for the boyz means an average of 3 additional hits at S4 no AP with a 30 man mob of shoota boyz. 60 dice to get +3 hits without the rule. +1 or 2 hits if the unit is equipped with sluggas instead of shootas. It means 0-1 more cheap dude like a 4pts guardsmen dead by ork shooting if the boyz unit is at full strenght. Yeah, it's not even worth arguing.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Ah, the typical inane trolling of 'hurr durr if you don't like something sell your army that you've invested a ton of time and money into for a pittance.'
I'll remember this comment when the nerf bat next hits TS and you express any disappointment.
What is your beef? Ork codex and CA was likely written at about the same time - so no changes - this should have been expected.
Current orks are top tier. An unbuffed ork boy was undercosted at 6 points. A 7 point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually better than the 6 point boy was. DE with no changes is actually kind of suprising - I am assuming they used DE as baseline for everything and tried to get every codex up to that level. They did fail miserably at this - but that seems to be what happened.
I agree about CA and ork codex, I wasn't expecting anything major, but at the least I wanted them to give us more in our errata or maybe throw in something in White dwarf for the issue with points for Orkz.
Your next point though is patently false. An unbuffed ork boy was priced correctly at 6, at 7 it is over priced. A 7point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually WORSE than the 6 point boy with the same buffs.
Movement, stayed the same, so they are as slow as ever. We can spend 2 CP to deep strike them though? or my favorite, give them evil sunz and make them faster and better at getting into assault.
Ranged damage. With Dakkax3 orkz are AS good per point as they were without Dakkax3 at 6ppm. So this is a wash....sort of, because realistically boyz prefer Pistols not shootas so if anything we are now paying for extra crap we don't use in 90% of the circumstances.
Close combat: Please explain to me how Less attacks for more points is better? The only CC buff you get is if you take Goffs and then guess what? It works out to being AS GOOD as 6ppm boyz
Durability: Here is where you really lose it. 2 Kultures give you a boost to durability, 1 gives you a 6+FNP which brings them back to where a 6ppm boy was in regards to durability per point. The other faction gives you a 6+ Invuln but that is meh at best since very rarely were people putting -1 or more AP weapons into boyz, so without a doubt durability and point per wound went down by 16% with this.
OVERALL: Each kulture gives a specific buff to boyz, but unless you incorporate 2 or more you are actually WORSE then before and since you can't incorporate 2 or more than boyz are worse point for point then they were in the index where orkz were placing mid to low tier in tournaments relying exclusively on boyz to do the lifting (180-240 boyz per list).
So you can sit there and argue all day that ork boyz needed a nerf, i'll disagree but at least that is a genuine argument you can debate on, but when you tell me that increasing the cost of boyz by 16.6% and not buffing all of their stats by a similar margin is a buff than I have to call BS on you.
And yet a list with 3 blocks of 30 Evil Sunz and 22 Bad Moon Lootas absolutely crushed a tournament. He faced Tau with Riptides, Tau SS spam, Full IK, Triple Armiger / Beserker / DPs & Ahriman, more Riptides, and Ynnari.
Given that he faced serious anti-infantry lists I'd say the Boyz are just fine regardless of attempts to make a one point nerf sound huge by pulling out the 16% figure.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Ah, the typical inane trolling of 'hurr durr if you don't like something sell your army that you've invested a ton of time and money into for a pittance.'
I'll remember this comment when the nerf bat next hits TS and you express any disappointment.
What is your beef? Ork codex and CA was likely written at about the same time - so no changes - this should have been expected.
Current orks are top tier. An unbuffed ork boy was undercosted at 6 points. A 7 point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually better than the 6 point boy was. DE with no changes is actually kind of suprising - I am assuming they used DE as baseline for everything and tried to get every codex up to that level. They did fail miserably at this - but that seems to be what happened.
I agree about CA and ork codex, I wasn't expecting anything major, but at the least I wanted them to give us more in our errata or maybe throw in something in White dwarf for the issue with points for Orkz.
Your next point though is patently false. An unbuffed ork boy was priced correctly at 6, at 7 it is over priced. A 7point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually WORSE than the 6 point boy with the same buffs.
Movement, stayed the same, so they are as slow as ever. We can spend 2 CP to deep strike them though? or my favorite, give them evil sunz and make them faster and better at getting into assault.
Ranged damage. With Dakkax3 orkz are AS good per point as they were without Dakkax3 at 6ppm. So this is a wash....sort of, because realistically boyz prefer Pistols not shootas so if anything we are now paying for extra crap we don't use in 90% of the circumstances.
Close combat: Please explain to me how Less attacks for more points is better? The only CC buff you get is if you take Goffs and then guess what? It works out to being AS GOOD as 6ppm boyz
Durability: Here is where you really lose it. 2 Kultures give you a boost to durability, 1 gives you a 6+FNP which brings them back to where a 6ppm boy was in regards to durability per point. The other faction gives you a 6+ Invuln but that is meh at best since very rarely were people putting -1 or more AP weapons into boyz, so without a doubt durability and point per wound went down by 16% with this.
OVERALL: Each kulture gives a specific buff to boyz, but unless you incorporate 2 or more you are actually WORSE then before and since you can't incorporate 2 or more than boyz are worse point for point then they were in the index where orkz were placing mid to low tier in tournaments relying exclusively on boyz to do the lifting (180-240 boyz per list).
So you can sit there and argue all day that ork boyz needed a nerf, i'll disagree but at least that is a genuine argument you can debate on, but when you tell me that increasing the cost of boyz by 16.6% and not buffing all of their stats by a similar margin is a buff than I have to call BS on you.
And yet a list with 3 blocks of 30 Evil Sunz and 22 Bad Moon Lootas absolutely crushed a tournament. He faced Tau with Riptides, Tau SS spam, Full IK, Triple Armiger / Beserker / DPs & Ahriman, more Riptides, and Ynnari.
Given that he faced serious anti-infantry lists I'd say the Boyz are just fine regardless of attempts to make a one point nerf sound huge by pulling out the 16% figure.
As long as people are obsessed with 1-shotting a knight anti meta lists with tons of cheap dudes that invalidate the anti tank are going to screw up tournaments competitive lists. It doesn't mean that the specific list you mentioned is overpowered. I also played with 25 bad moons lootas and 90 evil sunz boyz with only cheap dudes, characters and no armored stuff. It's a competitive way to play orks but not game breaking, players just need to adapt. Is it ok to tailor a list in order to 1-shotting a knight instead of killing 60+ orks per turn?
An Actual Englishman wrote: Ah, the typical inane trolling of 'hurr durr if you don't like something sell your army that you've invested a ton of time and money into for a pittance.'
I'll remember this comment when the nerf bat next hits TS and you express any disappointment.
What is your beef? Ork codex and CA was likely written at about the same time - so no changes - this should have been expected.
Current orks are top tier. An unbuffed ork boy was undercosted at 6 points. A 7 point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually better than the 6 point boy was. DE with no changes is actually kind of suprising - I am assuming they used DE as baseline for everything and tried to get every codex up to that level. They did fail miserably at this - but that seems to be what happened.
I agree about CA and ork codex, I wasn't expecting anything major, but at the least I wanted them to give us more in our errata or maybe throw in something in White dwarf for the issue with points for Orkz.
Your next point though is patently false. An unbuffed ork boy was priced correctly at 6, at 7 it is over priced. A 7point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually WORSE than the 6 point boy with the same buffs.
Movement, stayed the same, so they are as slow as ever. We can spend 2 CP to deep strike them though? or my favorite, give them evil sunz and make them faster and better at getting into assault.
Ranged damage. With Dakkax3 orkz are AS good per point as they were without Dakkax3 at 6ppm. So this is a wash....sort of, because realistically boyz prefer Pistols not shootas so if anything we are now paying for extra crap we don't use in 90% of the circumstances.
Close combat: Please explain to me how Less attacks for more points is better? The only CC buff you get is if you take Goffs and then guess what? It works out to being AS GOOD as 6ppm boyz
Durability: Here is where you really lose it. 2 Kultures give you a boost to durability, 1 gives you a 6+FNP which brings them back to where a 6ppm boy was in regards to durability per point. The other faction gives you a 6+ Invuln but that is meh at best since very rarely were people putting -1 or more AP weapons into boyz, so without a doubt durability and point per wound went down by 16% with this.
OVERALL: Each kulture gives a specific buff to boyz, but unless you incorporate 2 or more you are actually WORSE then before and since you can't incorporate 2 or more than boyz are worse point for point then they were in the index where orkz were placing mid to low tier in tournaments relying exclusively on boyz to do the lifting (180-240 boyz per list).
So you can sit there and argue all day that ork boyz needed a nerf, i'll disagree but at least that is a genuine argument you can debate on, but when you tell me that increasing the cost of boyz by 16.6% and not buffing all of their stats by a similar margin is a buff than I have to call BS on you.
And yet a list with 3 blocks of 30 Evil Sunz and 22 Bad Moon Lootas absolutely crushed a tournament. He faced Tau with Riptides, Tau SS spam, Full IK, Triple Armiger / Beserker / DPs & Ahriman, more Riptides, and Ynnari.
Given that he faced serious anti-infantry lists I'd say the Boyz are just fine regardless of attempts to make a one point nerf sound huge by pulling out the 16% figure.
would be a shame if we didn't play Badmoonz or Evil Sunz like a lot of Ork players.
Seriously don't get this though, I played Evil Sunz mass boyz the other day vs necrons and they just absolutely destroyed them.
Guardsmen stay at 4 points and veterans go DOWN to 5 points? Holy hell, I'm glad that some guard stuff that needed it got buffed like sentinels and hydras, but it seems GW is doubling down on guard infantry in the wrong direction.
Another points reduction to vanquishers, lol. GW doesn't get that nobody takes them because they are absolutely horrible at their job, not because they are too expensive. They need to buff the actual weapon profile before they start seeing use, because right now they are glorified lascannons, and nobody is going to take them no matter how cheap they are.
The points drop to GL and flamers was nice, and same with the points drop to med kits, we may actually see guard medics now.
w1zard wrote: Another points reduction to vanquishers, lol. GW doesn't get that nobody takes them because they are absolutely horrible at their job, not because they are too expensive. They need to buff the actual weapon profile before they start seeing use, because right now they are glorified lascannons, and nobody is going to take them no matter how cheap they are.
They totally buffed vanquisher cannons. They just renamed them to "Hammer of Sunderance" and made them a relic. My command vanquisher is happy with the results, and having a relic cannon is sort of fluffy for a vanquisher. Plasma sponsons are nice too, and cheaper Techpriests.
Kinda have to say, as a Black Templars player the Ork whining about how put-up they are and how everyone should pity them because they have such a bad book is interesting in the same way that a car crash inevitably draws your gaze.
Soup does nothing for me. I'd have to buy an entirely new army to benefit, because all my stuff is utter rubbish, so the fact that Imperium soup is great right now is just as much a boon for an Ork player as it is for me: squat. At least the Ork Codex is playable. Your army-wide special rule is literally my Chapter Tactics, except better.
"Imperial bias" is absolutely ridiculous. That matters for people who can spend a bunch of money to get a new army every time the meta changes.
As long as people are obsessed with 1-shotting a knight anti meta lists with tons of cheap dudes that invalidate the anti tank are going to screw up tournaments competitive lists. It doesn't mean that the specific list you mentioned is overpowered. I also played with 25 bad moons lootas and 90 evil sunz boyz with only cheap dudes, characters and no armored stuff. It's a competitive way to play orks but not game breaking, players just need to adapt. Is it ok to tailor a list in order to 1-shotting a knight instead of killing 60+ orks per turn?
Yea I don't think that list is particularly abusive. The other end is that people need to adjust and as they do these lists will be less effective, but still capable.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Kinda have to say, as a Black Templars player the Ork whining about how put-up they are and how everyone should pity them because they have such a bad book is interesting in the same way that a car crash inevitably draws your gaze.
Soup does nothing for me. I'd have to buy an entirely new army to benefit, because all my stuff is utter rubbish, so the fact that Imperium soup is great right now is just as much a boon for an Ork player as it is for me: squat. At least the Ork Codex is playable. Your army-wide special rule is literally my Chapter Tactics, except better.
"Imperial bias" is absolutely ridiculous. That matters for people who can spend a bunch of money to get a new army every time the meta changes.
You can play your black templars as ultramarines if you want. I'm sure the majority of orks players have their army painted with a single klan colour but they decide what kultur to play regardless of the paint job. My entire army is painted like goffs but gamewise there's no reason to take certain units under that specific kultur. No way I'm going to buy the same stuff I already own just to pant it in the right color scheme. There's no official and unofficial rule that involves paint job.
Ultramarines are definitely playable, even without allies. Even more after CA.
w1zard wrote: Another points reduction to vanquishers, lol. GW doesn't get that nobody takes them because they are absolutely horrible at their job, not because they are too expensive. They need to buff the actual weapon profile before they start seeing use, because right now they are glorified lascannons, and nobody is going to take them no matter how cheap they are.
They totally buffed vanquisher cannons. They just renamed them to "Hammer of Sunderance" and made them a relic. My command vanquisher is happy with the results, and having a relic cannon is sort of fluffy for a vanquisher. Plasma sponsons are nice too, and cheaper Techpriests.
What about somebody who wants to run three vanquishers?
Vanquishers are garbage this edition, and are still garbage even after the points drop. They are garbage NOT because they are too expensive, but because the vanquisher cannon itself is mathematically inferior to the battle cannon in every way, including in the anti-tank role which is supposed to be the ONLY purpose of the vanquisher cannon.
Vanquisher cannons should do 2d6 damage and cost the same as a battle cannon. Fixed. They only get one shot but they should hit like trucks. Its not a crazy a buff as you may think, it just takes the average damage from 4.5 up to 7, which is enough to make it better against vehicles than the battle cannon but worse against infantry like it should be.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Kinda have to say, as a Black Templars player the Ork whining about how put-up they are and how everyone should pity them because they have such a bad book is interesting in the same way that a car crash inevitably draws your gaze.
Soup does nothing for me. I'd have to buy an entirely new army to benefit, because all my stuff is utter rubbish, so the fact that Imperium soup is great right now is just as much a boon for an Ork player as it is for me: squat. At least the Ork Codex is playable. Your army-wide special rule is literally my Chapter Tactics, except better.
"Imperial bias" is absolutely ridiculous. That matters for people who can spend a bunch of money to get a new army every time the meta changes.
You can play your black templars as ultramarines if you want.
No, no I can't. Tactical Squads can't take bolt pistol/chainswords, see. I'd also have to get Guilliman, bolter Scouts, and a bunch of other stuff. Hence having to buy an entirely new army.
SHUPPET wrote: doesn't it take like months to get these things through print? people whining about Orkz in here astound me
Nobody is whining about Ork points not being in CA.
Some people are complaining that other armies got points reductions on things that are comparable to ork things, making Orks comparatively worse. As you say, these books take months, so it's weird that the Ork codex writer didn't know power fists were getting cheaper.
Some people are also pointing out that a common apologist excuse that Boyz went up in points in the Codex because Infantry Squads would go up in points in CA has been proven false and apologists are now moving goalposts, as apologists do.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Kinda have to say, as a Black Templars player the Ork whining about how put-up they are and how everyone should pity them because they have such a bad book is interesting in the same way that a car crash inevitably draws your gaze.
Soup does nothing for me. I'd have to buy an entirely new army to benefit, because all my stuff is utter rubbish, so the fact that Imperium soup is great right now is just as much a boon for an Ork player as it is for me: squat. At least the Ork Codex is playable. Your army-wide special rule is literally my Chapter Tactics, except better.
"Imperial bias" is absolutely ridiculous. That matters for people who can spend a bunch of money to get a new army every time the meta changes.
You can play your black templars as ultramarines if you want. I'm sure the majority of orks players have their army painted with a single klan colour but they decide what kultur to play regardless of the paint job.
Then they still have a better army than Ultramarines so no complaints?
w1zard wrote: What about somebody who wants to run three vanquishers?
Vanquishers are garbage this edition, and are still garbage even after the points drop. They are garbage NOT because they are too expensive, but because the vanquisher cannon itself is mathematically inferior to the battle cannon in every way, including in the anti-tank role which is supposed to be the ONLY purpose of the vanquisher cannon.
Vanquisher cannons should do 2d6 damage and cost the same as a battle cannon. Fixed. They only get one shot but they should hit like trucks. Its not a crazy a buff as you may think, it just takes the average damage from 4.5 up to 7.
Oh I agree that vanquishers are pretty bad these days, I have been running one purely because I love my model:
Spoiler:
I guess you could proxy them as annihilators, although that is a bit of a cop-out really. You can't get command annihilators either. Maybe a commander with the relic and two annihilators? It's all just trying to make the best of bad rules but what else can you do? Have to make do with what we have.
Xenomancers wrote: A 7point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually WORSE than the 6 point boy with the same buffs.
Yeah ofc - but a lot better than a 6 point boy without them. Evil suns is trait alone is worth 1 point. Plus you get dakka dakka and +1 attack. It's not even worth arguing.
Boyz had that +1A also in the index. Dakkadakkadakka for the boyz means an average of 3 additional hits at S4 no AP with a 30 man mob of shoota boyz. 60 dice to get +3 hits without the rule. +1 or 2 hits if the unit is equipped with sluggas instead of shootas. It means 0-1 more cheap dude like a 4pts guardsmen dead by ork shooting if the boyz unit is at full strenght. Yeah, it's not even worth arguing.
It's not - anyone with half a brain knows orks are top tier. Plus everyone knows space marines are bottom and you say they are competitive. It's kind of mind boggling.
Xenomancers wrote: A 7point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually WORSE than the 6 point boy with the same buffs.
Yeah ofc - but a lot better than a 6 point boy without them. Evil suns is trait alone is worth 1 point. Plus you get dakka dakka and +1 attack. It's not even worth arguing.
Boyz had that +1A also in the index. Dakkadakkadakka for the boyz means an average of 3 additional hits at S4 no AP with a 30 man mob of shoota boyz. 60 dice to get +3 hits without the rule. +1 or 2 hits if the unit is equipped with sluggas instead of shootas. It means 0-1 more cheap dude like a 4pts guardsmen dead by ork shooting if the boyz unit is at full strenght. Yeah, it's not even worth arguing.
It's not - anyone with half a brain knows orks are top tier. Plus everyone knows space marines are bottom and you say they are competitive. It's kind of mind boggling.
Well... it completely depends if you are playing Warhammer or ITChammer, ITChammer is completely different than BRB warhammer. Not everyone plays ITC or even cares about ITC.
Marine suck at every level. That might change now but really it's unlikely. Intercessors going down 1 point doesn't make a hoot of a difference if disintegrators are still 15 points - most of the drops marines got were not enough.
You really think anyone is going to be brining landspeeder typhons now that they are 80ish points? Or people will be playing 300 point land raiders? Or 120 point cent which a dread with twin las and missle costs exactly the same? Heck guard buffs are even better than the marine ones...why would anyone take marines?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh but I can get 3 attack intercessors for 2 CP. AMAZING.
SHUPPET wrote: doesn't it take like months to get these things through print? people whining about Orkz in here astound me
where not upset we don;t have changes, we're upset our codex wasn't taken into consideration with the changes in CA. Power Fist, for example, being 4pts less than a Power Klaw for example. Or Heavy Flamers being a few points less than Our Skorcha's dispite Skorcha's getting no price reduction.
Xenomancers wrote: A 7point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually WORSE than the 6 point boy with the same buffs.
Yeah ofc - but a lot better than a 6 point boy without them. Evil suns is trait alone is worth 1 point. Plus you get dakka dakka and +1 attack. It's not even worth arguing.
Boyz had that +1A also in the index. Dakkadakkadakka for the boyz means an average of 3 additional hits at S4 no AP with a 30 man mob of shoota boyz. 60 dice to get +3 hits without the rule. +1 or 2 hits if the unit is equipped with sluggas instead of shootas. It means 0-1 more cheap dude like a 4pts guardsmen dead by ork shooting if the boyz unit is at full strenght. Yeah, it's not even worth arguing.
It's not - anyone with half a brain knows orks are top tier. Plus everyone knows space marines are bottom and you say they are competitive. It's kind of mind boggling.
Well... it completely depends if you are playing Warhammer or ITChammer, ITChammer is completely different than BRB warhammer. Not everyone plays ITC or even cares about ITC.
ITC is basically the go to competitive format here in the states. It's basically the regular game with some house rules. It really doesn't change what units are good or bad. Good units are just good or what units are bad.
Xenomancers wrote: Marine suck at every level. That might change now but really it's unlikely. Intercessors going down 1 point doesn't make a hoot of a difference if disintegrators are still 15 points - most of the drops marines got were not enough.
You really think anyone is going to be brining landspeeder typhons now that they are 80ish points? Or people will be playing 300 point land raiders? Or 120 point cent which a dread with twin las and missle costs exactly the same? Heck guard buffs are even better than the marine ones...why would anyone take marines?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh but I can get 3 attack intercessors for 2 CP. AMAZING.
DE counters marines, thats not fair to say marines are bad b.c they are Rock and paper kills them. Thats like saying Knights are bad b.c of Harlequins with HWC's.
Anyways, Dis cannons are still not the good against marines, well as good as you think they are, 3 Ravagers with Re-rolls kills 13 SM's, so you are talking about 450pts of Tanks and HQ killing 2.5 5mans, and thats if they are NOT in cover, as soon as they are in cover its 10-11 marines, if they rolled bad its 9-10. So its 10 Marines dead to literally 1/4 my army shooting you that OP?
We got it, you are angry because grey knights were not reduced to the costs of guardsmen, don't need to make 100 posts a day about this.
GK received LOADS of buffs, many more than other factions. Contrarily to other factions though, they received them on units that were actually taken, while all the other factions didn't see a single buff to the external power, they were all internal adjustments without any real effect on the competitiveness of the faction. Necrons, Admech and GK were the only factions actually buffed (and tank commanders, for some reason).
You can say that the buffs were not enough, and i actually agree with that, the buffs GK received were not enough, but saying that everyone got better and GK were left in the dust is just plain untrue and makes you look like a troll.
Ok, I guess we are going to have to wait 2-3 months and see how many GK armies will be played around the world. To me if all armies get point drops, then the point drops to fix something would have to be as you said. Something super drastic, like a full armed strike costing 14pts. the drops are not enough to fix anything. There is no buffs to GK, when the army is already over priced. If I play a 2000pts army, get a 200pts points drop, but my army is over priced by 300pts. Then the drop isn't helping me much. If at the same time my opponents IG soup army gets the same 200pts drop, but his army was at worse costing real 2000pts, and if it goes by what haters say it was having 100-150 free IG points, then where is the GK buff.
You compare GK to units tzeench armies don't even use. And use it as a supposed example as GK getting better, when they still both cost worse and shot worse. But hey they are better at melee. They can't reach it, but that is no problem right? Or if they do it is something that is actually good at melee and they just die.
And this is where you are wrong. Top GK lists gained some points to play around, other competitive lists received almost nothing, if not straight out nerfs. You say that everyone received points reduction, but that is not true. Only those people that played sub optimal models got them, and that is a good thing. I didn't see banana captains go down, i saw wardens go down. Have you ever seen a warden on the table?
Onyl Admech, Necrons and GK received buffs to models and weapons that they were already using, everyone else only received buffs on models you never saw on the table (and tank commanders ).
This CA is one of the better publications made by GW, they reduced the gap between good lists and bad lists by a huge margin.
Is this enough for GK? No it isn't, the gap was really too big and while it is now surely reduced, they are still a mid-bottom faction (still in a much better situation than pre-CA2018).
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Kinda have to say, as a Black Templars player the Ork whining about how put-up they are and how everyone should pity them because they have such a bad book is interesting in the same way that a car crash inevitably draws your gaze.
Soup does nothing for me. I'd have to buy an entirely new army to benefit, because all my stuff is utter rubbish, so the fact that Imperium soup is great right now is just as much a boon for an Ork player as it is for me: squat. At least the Ork Codex is playable. Your army-wide special rule is literally my Chapter Tactics, except better.
"Imperial bias" is absolutely ridiculous. That matters for people who can spend a bunch of money to get a new army every time the meta changes.
You can play your black templars as ultramarines if you want.
No, no I can't. Tactical Squads can't take bolt pistol/chainswords, see. I'd also have to get Guilliman, bolter Scouts, and a bunch of other stuff. Hence having to buy an entirely new army.
You could always use Intercessors as Crusader Squads that also have the shooty output of well, intercessors. Guilliman could be proxied by a Leviathan Dreadnought Templar Marshall.
Xenomancers wrote: Marine suck at every level. That might change now but really it's unlikely. Intercessors going down 1 point doesn't make a hoot of a difference if disintegrators are still 15 points - most of the drops marines got were not enough.
You really think anyone is going to be brining landspeeder typhons now that they are 80ish points? Or people will be playing 300 point land raiders? Or 120 point cent which a dread with twin las and missle costs exactly the same? Heck guard buffs are even better than the marine ones...why would anyone take marines?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh but I can get 3 attack intercessors for 2 CP. AMAZING.
Wait, a Centurion with two Lascannons and the Missiles cost the same as a Dread before the points drop. The Cent should be 25 points cheaper now. (Grumbles about Twin Las going down to 40 and regular Las staying the same.)
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Kinda have to say, as a Black Templars player the Ork whining about how put-up they are and how everyone should pity them because they have such a bad book is interesting in the same way that a car crash inevitably draws your gaze.
Soup does nothing for me. I'd have to buy an entirely new army to benefit, because all my stuff is utter rubbish, so the fact that Imperium soup is great right now is just as much a boon for an Ork player as it is for me: squat. At least the Ork Codex is playable. Your army-wide special rule is literally my Chapter Tactics, except better.
"Imperial bias" is absolutely ridiculous. That matters for people who can spend a bunch of money to get a new army every time the meta changes.
You can play your black templars as ultramarines if you want.
No, no I can't. Tactical Squads can't take bolt pistol/chainswords, see. I'd also have to get Guilliman, bolter Scouts, and a bunch of other stuff. Hence having to buy an entirely new army.
You could always use Intercessors as Crusader Squads that also have the shooty output of well, intercessors. Guilliman could be proxied by a Leviathan Dreadnought Templar Marshall.
And Orks are still a better army with any of their Kultures (outside Snakebites, and I honestly plan to make a thread about these 6+++ factions).
Xenomancers wrote: A 7point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually WORSE than the 6 point boy with the same buffs.
Yeah ofc - but a lot better than a 6 point boy without them. Evil suns is trait alone is worth 1 point. Plus you get dakka dakka and +1 attack. It's not even worth arguing.
I know we're just feeding a fed horse at this point, but how much did Eldar pay for -1 to be hit trait, for example?
Did eldar units also gain 2 abilities on their data sheets like ork boys did? Retorical question OFC.
Couple things, a 7pt boy with the new traits AND the army wide dakkax3 is WORSE than a 6pt boy without the new traits and dakkax3, that is self evident by the mere fact that we no longer see lists of 180+ boyz competing in tournaments, if they are truly better now then they were 3 months ago, why aren't people taking even MORE boyz instead of taking the bare minimum....or hell in some cases none?. The +1 attack with 20+ boyz has been a thing since 8th dropped so I don't know why you brought that up to begin with.
So again, Orkz get Kulture, which literally every other faction got, but for some reason that means we need to be hit with the nerf hammer? A bit silly. And did Eldar get 2 army wide special rules? No idea, I don't play Eldar, but I do know that Orkz get Dakkax3.....which LITERALLY MAKES BOYS AS GOOD AS THEY WERE BEFORE, and then a handful of units that actually shoot for a living and are decent at it, get a small buff. Keep in mind, Dakkax3 means we go from 33.33% Chance to hit to 38.88% chance to hit. Hooray for a 5% increased chance to hit
The only thing holding up the codex right now from being complete garbage is evil sunz kulture teamed with Codex: Deep strike for unarguably the strongest turn 2 beta strike in the game and then for our shooting units, we get a 2cp shoot twice strat that can be teamed with a 2cp dakkax3 strat that lets us shoot another shot on 5s and 6s. I like people telling me how Lootas are the pinnacle of shooting in the game right now because 1 tournament of data And on the note of 1 tournament won by orkz.....We have the newest codex, the newest strats, the newest army basically, its going to take people a bit to adjust from fighting 210 boyz as a norm to fighting a bunch of turn 2 deep strikers and a big blob of Lootas hiding behind some grotz. Fun fact, want to know how to beat a Loota Bomb and kill about 1/4th of an ork army that is using a Loota bomb? ATTACK IT IN CLOSE COMBAT. Shooting the piss out of grots isn't going to help you that much, just get stuck in or god forbid....deep strike closer to the lootas then the grots and then shoot the lootas.
Cephalobeard wrote: No Infantry point changes, no datasheet changes, oh my God this erection may literally never end.
It just all tastes so good. All of the anger. Mm.
meow.
I honestly couldn't care less about our boyz though... it's our HQ's that piss me off... Basically our main HQ's (apart from weirdboy) wen't up in price. The Warboss, Ghaz, Big mek with kff is only in MA now.... Painboy (not a hq but hq support). Yet, in chapter approved all these characters got huge massive points reductions in mostly all factions! Yarrik got a points drop! Have you ever played a game against him as Orks? His ability is nasty! It's not just out boyz we're losing points on... it;s all the support we're forced to bring as well.
Cephalobeard wrote: No Infantry point changes, no datasheet changes, oh my God this erection may literally never end.
It just all tastes so good. All of the anger. Mm.
To be fair, Infantry squads really should be 5 ppm. It would make things perfect if conscripts/IS/veterans were 4/5/6 ppm respectively. Along with fitting with the fact that chaos cultists are 5 ppm now. I am extremely puzzled why this didn't happen, although I do welcome all of the other guard changes as they buffed stuff that was pretty bad before. Armored sentinels vs Scout sentinels is now a choice between tough vs mobile for the same points cost.
And this is where you are wrong. Top GK lists gained some points to play around, other competitive lists received almost nothing, if not straight out nerfs. You say that everyone received points reduction, but that is not true. Only those people that played sub optimal models got them, and that is a good thing. I didn't see banana captains go down, i saw wardens go down. Have you ever seen a warden on the table?
Onyl Admech, Necrons and GK received buffs to models and weapons that they were already using, everyone else only received buffs on models you never saw on the table (and tank commanders ).
This CA is one of the better publications made by GW, they reduced the gap between good lists and bad lists by a huge margin.
Is this enough for GK? No it isn't, the gap was really too big and while it is now surely reduced, they are still a mid-bottom faction (still in a much better situation than pre-CA2018).
Plasma getting cheaper is suboptimal? Cawl getting cheaper is suboptimal? And your saying that somehow by eldar not getting cheaper farseers or s spears their lists got worse. Go on buy a GK army, and play it against a "weaker" pre CA eldar list with you using all the points downgrades, or play against IG or an IG soup, am sure the games are going to be a lot more balanced then they were before.
What the hell is a top GK army anyway NDKS, maybe some interceptors and a ton of IG or SoB. What a great way to play GK. take as few GK models in it. I wonder if eldar have to take 1000pts of tau to be mid tier.
Cephalobeard wrote: No Infantry point changes, no datasheet changes, oh my God this erection may literally never end.
It just all tastes so good. All of the anger. Mm.
To be fair, Infantry squads really should be 5 ppm. It would make things perfect if conscripts/IS/veterans were 4/5/6 ppm respectively. Along with fitting with the fact that chaos cultists are 5 ppm now. I am extremely puzzled why this didn't happen, although I do welcome all of the other guard changes as they buffed stuff that was pretty bad before.
Also the fact that Chaos guardsmen (in black stone fortress) are also 5pmm. and they don;t even get chaos keywords to benefit from buffs. XD
w1zard wrote: To be fair, Infantry squads really should be 5 ppm.
Oi! Enough of that heresy. 4pts is obviously the perfect cost for Infantry, as has been decided by the point gurus. Any suggestion otherwise is sheer madness.
Cephalobeard wrote: No Infantry point changes, no datasheet changes, oh my God this erection may literally never end.
It just all tastes so good. All of the anger. Mm.
To be fair, Infantry squads really should be 5 ppm. It would make things perfect if conscripts/IS/veterans were 4/5/6 ppm respectively. Along with fitting with the fact that chaos cultists are 5 ppm now. I am extremely puzzled why this didn't happen, although I do welcome all of the other guard changes as they buffed stuff that was pretty bad before.
Also the fact that Chaos guardsmen (in black stone fortress) are also 5pmm. and they don;t even get chaos keywords to benefit from buffs. XD
Yeah, no, they're not. They're 4ppm and the squad has a flamer.
Anyone's opinion on them being more than 4 is BTFOd by GW themselves and it's Christmas, because all of dakka could not be more wrong and it's wonderful.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Allow me to be very clear, if it was not for weeks upon weeks of very detailed and comprehensive threads of armchair generals composing thousands of reasons why it should be 5-6, and then making claims like they're datasheets changing as the day went on yesterday, oof. I probably never would comment.
However, it's too good not to enjoy. It's amazing.
Cephalobeard wrote: Yeah, no, they're not. They're 4ppm and the squad has a flamer.
Anyone's opinion on them being more than 4 is BTFOd by GW themselves and it's Christmas, because all of dakka could not be more wrong and it's wonderful.
Or GW is wrong.
Mathematically, 5ppm guardsmen are roughly equivalent to fire warriors in terms of damage output and durability per point.
Look, I am just as much of a guard fanboy as anyone else. They are the main faction I play, and my favorite. I want guard to be strong, but reveling in being obviously OP is not going to do our faction any good in the long run. When the nerfhammer invariably swings in our direction and we get overnerfed we won't get any sympathy and will have another edition of being garbage tier like in 7th.
Cephalobeard wrote: Yeah, no, they're not. They're 4ppm and the squad has a flamer.
Anyone's opinion on them being more than 4 is BTFOd by GW themselves and it's Christmas, because all of dakka could not be more wrong and it's wonderful.
Or GW is wrong.
Mathematically, 5ppm guardsmen are roughly equivalent to fire warriors in terms of damage output and durability per point.
Look, I am just as much of a guard fanboy as anyone else. They are the main faction I play, and my favorite. I want guard to be strong, but reveling in being obviously OP is not going to do our faction any good in the long run. When the nerfhammer invariably swings in our direction and we get overnerfed we won't get any sympathy and will have another edition of being garbage tier like in 7th.
Are you counting orders in that? Because then Guard are really 5.5-6pts per model.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Kinda have to say, as a Black Templars player the Ork whining about how put-up they are and how everyone should pity them because they have such a bad book is interesting in the same way that a car crash inevitably draws your gaze.
Soup does nothing for me. I'd have to buy an entirely new army to benefit, because all my stuff is utter rubbish, so the fact that Imperium soup is great right now is just as much a boon for an Ork player as it is for me: squat. At least the Ork Codex is playable. Your army-wide special rule is literally my Chapter Tactics, except better.
"Imperial bias" is absolutely ridiculous. That matters for people who can spend a bunch of money to get a new army every time the meta changes.
You can play your black templars as ultramarines if you want.
No, no I can't. Tactical Squads can't take bolt pistol/chainswords, see. I'd also have to get Guilliman, bolter Scouts, and a bunch of other stuff. Hence having to buy an entirely new army.
You could always use Intercessors as Crusader Squads that also have the shooty output of well, intercessors. Guilliman could be proxied by a Leviathan Dreadnought Templar Marshall.
And Orks are still a better army with any of their Kultures (outside Snakebites, and I honestly plan to make a thread about these 6+++ factions).
I can't wait, I already have suggestions for the Iron hands.
Trickstick wrote: Are you counting orders in that? Because then Guard are really 5.5-6pts per model.
No, orders are the equivalent of guard auras. Making comparisons assuming IS are always ordered is like making comparisons of tac marines always being within a captain/lieutenant's aura, or assuming fire warriors always have markerlights, it is incredibly biased.
Cephalobeard wrote: Yeah, no, they're not. They're 4ppm and the squad has a flamer.
Anyone's opinion on them being more than 4 is BTFOd by GW themselves and it's Christmas, because all of dakka could not be more wrong and it's wonderful.
Or GW is wrong.
Mathematically, 5ppm guardsmen are roughly equivalent to fire warriors in terms of damage output and durability per point.
Look, I am just as much of a guard fanboy as anyone else. They are the main faction I play, and my favorite. I want guard to be strong, but reveling in being obviously OP is not going to do our faction any good in the long run. When the nerfhammer invariably swings in our direction and we get overnerfed we won't get any sympathy and will have another edition of being garbage tier like in 7th.
My primary faction is Daemons, and they're absolutely trash. I don't use Guard as a primary anything. I'm reveling in the arrogance of those involved with the endless posting and whining not having their way in the end.
Cephalobeard wrote: My primary faction is Daemons, and they're absolutely trash. I don't use Guard as a primary anything. I'm reveling in the arrogance of those involved with the endless posting and whining not having their way in the end.
Apologies, I assumed you were a guard player who wanted 4 ppm guardsmen reveling in the schadenfreude. Apparently you are a daemon player who for different reasons is reveling in the schadenfreude.
I really feel bad for GK players right now though holy crap. I've played guard since 3rd, and we were only competitive for small windows in 5th and 6th editions, but that was mostly neglect and GW simply not caring. However, I have never seen GW actively crap on a faction this hard. It is beyond "not even trying" territory now and is starting to feel like active trolling, and that is coming from an outsider's perspective.
I unfortunately do not define a factions viability as troop choices and a single subfaction, and then one of the most common higher tier HQs across all chaos armies.
That would be equivalent to still calling BA top tier because people use strictly smash captains, or calling Knight Errants and Paladins OP because they are Knights.
These would be strictly flawed arguments.
That being said, that discussion is not on topic to point changes, so I don't intend to carry it further for the sake of this thread.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Kinda have to say, as a Black Templars player the Ork whining about how put-up they are and how everyone should pity them because they have such a bad book is interesting in the same way that a car crash inevitably draws your gaze.
Soup does nothing for me. I'd have to buy an entirely new army to benefit, because all my stuff is utter rubbish, so the fact that Imperium soup is great right now is just as much a boon for an Ork player as it is for me: squat. At least the Ork Codex is playable. Your army-wide special rule is literally my Chapter Tactics, except better.
"Imperial bias" is absolutely ridiculous. That matters for people who can spend a bunch of money to get a new army every time the meta changes.
You can play your black templars as ultramarines if you want.
No, no I can't. Tactical Squads can't take bolt pistol/chainswords, see. I'd also have to get Guilliman, bolter Scouts, and a bunch of other stuff. Hence having to buy an entirely new army.
You could always use Intercessors as Crusader Squads that also have the shooty output of well, intercessors. Guilliman could be proxied by a Leviathan Dreadnought Templar Marshall.
Yes, I could always buy Intercessors and something suitably big to use as Guilliman (Sigismund from FW comes to mind). So could an Ork player. That's my entire point. I'd have to buy a new army's worth of models to be able to compete.An Ork player doesn't, so the constant grating about how Imperium players have it so good is gettin really damn old.
w1zard wrote: I really feel bad for GK players right now though holy crap. I've played guard since 3rd, and we were only competitive for small windows in 5th and 6th editions, but that was mostly neglect and GW simply not caring. However, I have never seen GW actively crap on a faction this hard. It is beyond "not even trying" territory now and is starting to feel like active trolling, and that is coming from an outsider's perspective.
Yeah, I don't play the army either. But it's gotta be disheartening to be left to rot for so long like they have, only for GW to tease and troll them after so long.
I unfortunately do not define a factions viability as troop choices and a single subfaction, and then one of the most common higher tier HQs across all chaos armies.
That would be equivalent to still calling BA top tier because people use strictly smash captains, or calling Knight Errants and Paladins OP because they are Knights.
That seems like a strange way to look at it considering people are placing at events with armies fielding over 100+ daemon bodies on the battlefield, with a 3 out of 4 gods represented in significant numbers and even a mono god daemon faction doing well. Not only that, but all of the daemon lists tend to have a decent amount of variety in their composition and strategy despite drawing from a similar pool of competitive units in the book. You could go heavy on bloodletters and bring a bloodmaster to provide additional synergy with the Skullreaver DP. You could bring multiple changecasters to keep multiple pink bombs buffed and help better synergize with your Thousand Sons detachment. You bring 30, 60, or 90+ plaguebearers to screen for a chaos knight or TS leviathan. You could even go 90-150 plaguebearers and just go super hard with scrivener/poxbringer/plague drones/gnarlmaw.
There was even a list in November with a support detachment of Renegades and Heretics that placed in the top 3 at an event. The allies? Thousand Sons and Daemons. The Thousand Sons and R/H and DG components of these high placing lists are not what's carrying them. Daemons is the common element. And considering these lists all play very differently, that speaks a lot to the strategic options afforded by top tier daemons units. This is not a case of the Loyal 32 or the Smash Captain where a one-trick combo is slotted in for kicks. Seriously, check out these lists: https://youtu.be/HraCf4oEdMg?t=816
They are all pretty different and they are all placing highly because daemons are powerful, varied, and flexible enough to synergize with them according to their specific needs.
This is indisputably more army composition variety and strategic variety than BA smash captains.
I mean, what would you call those lists, if not daemons? We certainly wouldn't say Thousand Sons or R/H or DG are the 4th most highly-placed army in November. It's daemons. And a relatively wide variety of them at that, especially compared to the lists from the top 3 November factions sitting right above it.
Personally, I'll running a list with Ahriman, a TS leviathan, 2x changecasters, 2x20 pinks, 30x plaguebearers, 30x bloodletters, and Skullreaver. And I expect it to smash face. With the latest updates to the daemons book, my list gets buffed to have over 30 extra points to spend on whatever I want. I'm thinking about adding 2 extra nurgling bases for 2 x 4 nurglings since they are ridiculously amazing objective holders. Daemons are really in an incredible spot right now.
For casual play, you should see how much Slaanesh lists got buffed by the points changes. In the tactica thread mono Slaanesh players are reporting 300+ points savings in their 1500 points lists. 300 free points to spend in a 1500 pt list! That is insane
Not only that, but with the greater daemons buffs (all great for casual play btw), some people (blackmage of all people ) are thinking GUO's might start to see some resurgence in the competitive scene.
Cephalobeard wrote: Yeah, no, they're not. They're 4ppm and the squad has a flamer.
Anyone's opinion on them being more than 4 is BTFOd by GW themselves and it's Christmas, because all of dakka could not be more wrong and it's wonderful.
Or GW is wrong.
Mathematically, 5ppm guardsmen are roughly equivalent to fire warriors in terms of damage output and durability per point.
Look, I am just as much of a guard fanboy as anyone else. They are the main faction I play, and my favorite. I want guard to be strong, but reveling in being obviously OP is not going to do our faction any good in the long run. When the nerfhammer invariably swings in our direction and we get overnerfed we won't get any sympathy and will have another edition of being garbage tier like in 7th.
My primary faction is Daemons, and they're absolutely trash. I don't use Guard as a primary anything. I'm reveling in the arrogance of those involved with the endless posting and whining not having their way in the end.
....? Daemons are average right now though. Unless it's Slaaneshi.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Kinda have to say, as a Black Templars player the Ork whining about how put-up they are and how everyone should pity them because they have such a bad book is interesting in the same way that a car crash inevitably draws your gaze.
Soup does nothing for me. I'd have to buy an entirely new army to benefit, because all my stuff is utter rubbish, so the fact that Imperium soup is great right now is just as much a boon for an Ork player as it is for me: squat. At least the Ork Codex is playable. Your army-wide special rule is literally my Chapter Tactics, except better.
"Imperial bias" is absolutely ridiculous. That matters for people who can spend a bunch of money to get a new army every time the meta changes.
You can play your black templars as ultramarines if you want.
No, no I can't. Tactical Squads can't take bolt pistol/chainswords, see. I'd also have to get Guilliman, bolter Scouts, and a bunch of other stuff. Hence having to buy an entirely new army.
You could always use Intercessors as Crusader Squads that also have the shooty output of well, intercessors. Guilliman could be proxied by a Leviathan Dreadnought Templar Marshall.
Yes, I could always buy Intercessors and something suitably big to use as Guilliman (Sigismund from FW comes to mind). So could an Ork player. That's my entire point. I'd have to buy a new army's worth of models to be able to compete.An Ork player doesn't, so the constant grating about how Imperium players have it so good is gettin really damn old.
Hasn't this been the state of the game since 3rd edition? GW rolls out some new gakky rules that are balanced like gak, everybody hates them, everybody complains, but despite being collectively miserable the community still goes along and updates their list in battered wife behavior? It's not like this is some new precedent, it's just GW being "good 'ol" GW.
Are you kidding? Ork models are some of the most expensive models for points in GW line up. XD everyone who went out and bought 5 Traktor cannons spent like £135. For like a few hundred points. Right now with primaris on ebay I bought I full 2000pts army for like £100. Although, I am now 1,700 thanks to CA. XD
But yeah, we do all fall in line... but then again I haven't bought anything direct from GW (apart from older small characters you can't get anywhere else) in years... muahahahaaa.
Cephalobeard wrote: Yeah, no, they're not. They're 4ppm and the squad has a flamer.
Anyone's opinion on them being more than 4 is BTFOd by GW themselves and it's Christmas, because all of dakka could not be more wrong and it's wonderful.
Or GW is wrong.
Mathematically, 5ppm guardsmen are roughly equivalent to fire warriors in terms of damage output and durability per point.
Look, I am just as much of a guard fanboy as anyone else. They are the main faction I play, and my favorite. I want guard to be strong, but reveling in being obviously OP is not going to do our faction any good in the long run. When the nerfhammer invariably swings in our direction and we get overnerfed we won't get any sympathy and will have another edition of being garbage tier like in 7th.
My primary faction is Daemons, and they're absolutely trash. I don't use Guard as a primary anything. I'm reveling in the arrogance of those involved with the endless posting and whining not having their way in the end.
....? Daemons are average right now though. Unless it's Slaaneshi.
Cephalobeard wrote: No Infantry point changes, no datasheet changes, oh my God this erection may literally never end.
It just all tastes so good. All of the anger. Mm.
To be fair, Infantry squads really should be 5 ppm. It would make things perfect if conscripts/IS/veterans were 4/5/6 ppm respectively. Along with fitting with the fact that chaos cultists are 5 ppm now. I am extremely puzzled why this didn't happen, although I do welcome all of the other guard changes as they buffed stuff that was pretty bad before. Armored sentinels vs Scout sentinels is now a choice between tough vs mobile for the same points cost.
In terms of external balance maybe, but it would be pretty screwed up regarding internal balance. Conscripts are trash and will continue to be trash until they get a rules change, them being cheaper than infantry squads won't suddenly make them better. And veterans at 6ppm just cost too much when compared to scions, they're 3ppm cheaper but they have to pay for a transport to actually get anywhere, whereas scions get native deepstrike. With the drop to 5ppm per model and the adjacent drops to transport costs and plasma/melta costs they actually look like they're worth running now.
Not that I'm disagreeing with the numerous threads and discussions about why guardsmen should be 5ppm but the goal with this CA seems to have been making units that see little board time more attractive, rather than nerfing stuff. Changes made seem to reflect that, units which didn't see the board got points drops, units which oppressed other choices took hits to encourage diversity. Moving infantry squads to 5ppm would have worked against that goal to a degree.
This thread does a great job showcasing the essence of Dakka during 2018. We have people complaining that space marines and grey are knights are trash, ork players whining that their codex is disappointing, debates on guardsman points cost, some mentions of soup, and of course the classic accusation that GW has no clue on how to balance anything .
On a more serious note: here’s a reminder that what’s disccused here does a poor job of representing reality. Playing the game is the best way to figure things out, not reading and posting on a forum.
Salt donkey wrote: This thread does a great job showcasing the essence of Dakka during 2018. We have people complaining that space marines and grey are knights are trash, ork players whining that their codex is disappointing, debates on guardsman points cost, some mentions of soup, and of course the classic accusation that GW has no clue on how to balance anything .
On a more serious note: here’s a reminder that what’s disccused here does a poor job of representing reality. Playing the game is the best way to figure things out, not reading and posting on a forum.
Name a single edition of 40k where roughly every single faction had about a 50/50 chance of winning a game based on pure stats.
Salt donkey wrote: This thread does a great job showcasing the essence of Dakka during 2018. We have people complaining that space marines and grey are knights are trash, ork players whining that their codex is disappointing, debates on guardsman points cost, some mentions of soup, and of course the classic accusation that GW has no clue on how to balance anything .
On a more serious note: here’s a reminder that what’s disccused here does a poor job of representing reality. Playing the game is the best way to figure things out, not reading and posting on a forum.
Name a single edition of 40k where roughly every single faction had about a 50/50 chance of winning a game based on pure stats.
Are you saying that people have a right to call GW terrible at balance until they are able to ensure that all factions are pretty much on an even-playing field? If this was the case then only games like chess and GO would be considered ok From a balance perspective (I.E. games which starts players with the exact same peices). Now througohout the years GW has been better and worse at balancing 40k, but claiming they have clue at all is either dishonest or naive. How on earth does anybody create a system which ensures that 15+ unque factions are extremely close in power-level?
I’ll give you a hint. It’s not by listening to what most of posters on this forum recommend (grant it there is some good advice on here, it’s just buried under some heavily, biased dribble.)
Salt donkey wrote: How on earth does anybody create a system which ensures that 15+ unque factions are extremely close in power-level?
I’ll give you a hint. It’s not by listening to what most of posters on this forum recommend (grant it there is some good advice on here, it’s just buried under some heavily, biased dribble.)
I agree with you that CA has improved the game, and listening to dakka for balance is a recipe for disaster, I just want to point out that it's not impossible to achieve this, in fact it's been done. I know of games that have more factors than that and all stand a borderline equal chance of winning a tournament. Some match ups will be worse than others, and the ones who get a slight edge will be the ones with the most good match ups, or the good match ups against the most popular characters, because symmetrical balance isn't possible for an asymmetrical game, but for the most part it's an entirely even playing field. The task isn't impossible, and 40k can potentially get there. Whether or not GW can turn that potential into a reality is another question.
Salt donkey wrote: This thread does a great job showcasing the essence of Dakka during 2018. We have people complaining that space marines and grey are knights are trash, ork players whining that their codex is disappointing, debates on guardsman points cost, some mentions of soup, and of course the classic accusation that GW has no clue on how to balance anything .
On a more serious note: here’s a reminder that what’s disccused here does a poor job of representing reality. Playing the game is the best way to figure things out, not reading and posting on a forum.
Name a single edition of 40k where roughly every single faction had about a 50/50 chance of winning a game based on pure stats.
Are you saying that people have a right to call GW terrible at balance until they are able to ensure that all factions are pretty much on an even-playing field? If this was the case then only games like chess and GO would be considered ok From a balance perspective (I.E. games which starts players with the exact same peices). Now througohout the years GW has been better and worse at balancing 40k, but claiming they have clue at all is either dishonest or naive. How on earth does anybody create a system which ensures that 15+ unque factions are extremely close in power-level?
I’ll give you a hint. It’s not by listening to what most of posters on this forum recommend (grant it there is some good advice on here, it’s just buried under some heavily, biased dribble.)
Well to start off you trim down the amount of redundant factions and units that can be consolidated into single books or datasheets. The amount of bloat in 40k is hilarious when you look at just the obscene amount of pointless units that have been added to the game that could be resolved by just turning Sternguard/Vanguard or Scions into flat upgrades. Splitting the game would also be helpful to prevent Apocalypse from creeping into 40k ever again. Things like Baneblades, Imperial Knights, Glaives, and Gargants have no place in normal 40k games. And of course they have no clue how to balance gak, again, name an edition where every faction was relatively on equal footing. Or the fact that GW even uses a turn-based system which always is biased to first turn advantage. Hell even Chess is biased to white. Just the basic structure of 40k is fundamentally flawed and makes anything but the most extreme and radical attempt to change the game doomed to fail as the turn system itself needs to go the way of the dodo.
And this is where you are wrong. Top GK lists gained some points to play around, other competitive lists received almost nothing, if not straight out nerfs. You say that everyone received points reduction, but that is not true. Only those people that played sub optimal models got them, and that is a good thing. I didn't see banana captains go down, i saw wardens go down. Have you ever seen a warden on the table?
Onyl Admech, Necrons and GK received buffs to models and weapons that they were already using, everyone else only received buffs on models you never saw on the table (and tank commanders ).
This CA is one of the better publications made by GW, they reduced the gap between good lists and bad lists by a huge margin.
Is this enough for GK? No it isn't, the gap was really too big and while it is now surely reduced, they are still a mid-bottom faction (still in a much better situation than pre-CA2018).
Plasma getting cheaper is suboptimal? Cawl getting cheaper is suboptimal? And your saying that somehow by eldar not getting cheaper farseers or s spears their lists got worse. Go on buy a GK army, and play it against a "weaker" pre CA eldar list with you using all the points downgrades, or play against IG or an IG soup, am sure the games are going to be a lot more balanced then they were before.
What the hell is a top GK army anyway NDKS, maybe some interceptors and a ton of IG or SoB. What a great way to play GK. take as few GK models in it. I wonder if eldar have to take 1000pts of tau to be mid tier.
Oh that's right, plasma is a big problem for knights, it would be a big issue if the plasma sources around that are actually played received a buff... good thing that it didn't happen! Plasma didn't get cheaper, only marine's plasma did, how many plasma guns you saw running around in marine's hands? None? That's right! Because it was sub-optimal! Guard plasma guns which were the only plasma guns you saw around are at the same exact cost as before! Veteran and scion plasma got a bit cheaper, but veteran plasma has never been seen in 8th, and scion plasma has not been seen in the last year.
Cawl sub-optimal? Obviously not, he is an auto include, but of which faction? Oh that's right, Admech! If you did actually read what i wrote, what did i say? "No faction was externally buffed, except GK, Admech and Necrons". Are you really complaining that Admech and Necrons are getting a buff? GK were at the bottom, but those other 2 factions held the next 2 places, so it's only right that they got a buff together with GK.
And yes, games with GK against Eldar are going to be more balanced by definition. Because it's like playing pre-Ca2018, except that you play with 200 bonus points. Is it going to be balanced? No, Eldar still have the edge, but surely having ad advantage cannot make it less balanced.
Salt donkey wrote: How on earth does anybody create a system which ensures that 15+ unque factions are extremely close in power-level?
I’ll give you a hint. It’s not by listening to what most of posters on this forum recommend (grant it there is some good advice on here, it’s just buried under some heavily, biased dribble.)
I agree with you that CA has improved the game, and listening to dakka for balance is a recipe for disaster, I just want to point out that it's not impossible to achieve this, in fact it's been done. I know of games that have more factors than that and all stand a borderline equal chance of winning a tournament. Some match ups will be worse than others, and the ones who get a slight edge will be the ones with the most good match ups, or the good match ups against the most popular characters, because symmetrical balance isn't possible for an asymmetrical game, but for the most part it's an entirely even playing field. The task isn't impossible, and 40k can potentially get there. Whether or not GW can turn that potential into a reality is another question.
Ok so we are only disagreeing a degrees of balance possible rather than balenced or not. Still I’m curious as to which systems you are talking about. It’s important to note a lot of games look pretty balanced to casual/beginner players, but often turn out to be far less so once you become more competitive. I’ll give two examples
During 5th edition sin had a similar mindset as you so I left 40k to play warmachine/hordes thinking it was a far more balenced than 40k. At first I thought it was, until I faced my first tournament list (cryx) and got absolutely crushed. After checking some forums I found out that most people felt certain armies where far too good (Cryx, and legion of everblight at that time) while others languished. Now a lot of that game came down to player skill (a competive player could almost always beatsome one who wasn’t), but tonce you got to tournaments army and warcaster combinations certainly made a very large difference. It was actually worse than 40k in a way, because certain list/armies would often automatically win (or at least nearly) against others. You did have an option to bring 2 lists to a tournament with the same army to help mitigate this, but this certainly didnt solve this.
Another more recent example of have is infinty. My friend went on and on about how infinity was far more balanced than 40k. That is until his entire squad? army? Whatever? got wiped out by some super sniper on the first round of the game. None of his skill or first turn choices mattered (maybe he could deployed better, but he was aware of the sniper and tried to stop it from doing what it did.) Simply put he thought the game was pretty balanced when he was new, but once he faced a tournament army that clearly has wasn’t the case.
So why do I bring up these points? Because competive games look different for Balence than regular games. 40k is popular enough that it’s competive scene has begun to affect more and more people. Furthermore many posters on here have played 40k long enough to see what 40k’s system looks like when it’s fully abused. Other games are smaller, so there’s A) less people around to try to fully abuse a system B) less of an incentive to find a way to abuse the system (the rewards for winning an infinty tournament is far less than winning a 40k one) and C) less games are played to find a way to break the system.
BTW I’m not saying there’s no tabletop game out there that is more balanced than 40k, just that its easy to perceive something is more balanced when you aren’t playing it as much as 40k. In other words don’t be that guy/girl who gets out of one relationship for another, just because you perceive a ton of problem with your current relationship, but see the other option as being “near perfect.”
Salt donkey wrote: How on earth does anybody create a system which ensures that 15+ unque factions are extremely close in power-level?
I’ll give you a hint. It’s not by listening to what most of posters on this forum recommend (grant it there is some good advice on here, it’s just buried under some heavily, biased dribble.)
I agree with you that CA has improved the game, and listening to dakka for balance is a recipe for disaster, I just want to point out that it's not impossible to achieve this, in fact it's been done. I know of games that have more factors than that and all stand a borderline equal chance of winning a tournament. Some match ups will be worse than others, and the ones who get a slight edge will be the ones with the most good match ups, or the good match ups against the most popular characters, because symmetrical balance isn't possible for an asymmetrical game, but for the most part it's an entirely even playing field. The task isn't impossible, and 40k can potentially get there. Whether or not GW can turn that potential into a reality is another question.
Ok so we are only disagreeing a degrees of balance possible rather than balenced or not. Still I’m curious as to which systems you are talking about. It’s important to note a lot of games look pretty balanced to casual/beginner players, but often turn out to be far less so once you become more competitive. I’ll give two examples
During 5th edition sin had a similar mindset as you so I left 40k to play warmachine/hordes thinking it was a far more balenced than 40k. At first I thought it was, until I faced my first tournament list (cryx) and got absolutely crushed. After checking some forums I found out that most people felt certain armies where far too good (Cryx, and legion of everblight at that time) while others languished. Now a lot of that game came down to player skill (a competive player could almost always beatsome one who wasn’t), but tonce you got to tournaments army and warcaster combinations certainly made a very large difference. It was actually worse than 40k in a way, because certain list/armies would often automatically win (or at least nearly) against others. You did have an option to bring 2 lists to a tournament with the same army to help mitigate this, but this certainly didnt solve this.
Another more recent example of have is infinty. My friend went on and on about how infinity was far more balanced than 40k. That is until his entire squad? army? Whatever? got wiped out by some super sniper on the first round of the game. None of his skill or first turn choices mattered (maybe he could deployed better, but he was aware of the sniper and tried to stop it from doing what it did.) Simply put he thought the game was pretty balanced when he was new, but once he faced a tournament army that clearly has wasn’t the case.
So why do I bring up these points? Because competive games look different for Balence than regular games. 40k is popular enough that it’s competive scene has begun to affect more and more people. Furthermore many posters on here have played 40k long enough to see what 40k’s system looks like when it’s fully abused. Other games are smaller, so there’s A) less people around to try to fully abuse a system B) less of an incentive to find a way to abuse the system (the rewards for winning an infinty tournament is far less than winning a 40k one) and C) less games are played to find a way to break the system.
BTW I’m not saying there’s no tabletop game out there that is more balanced than 40k, just that its easy to perceive something is more balanced when you aren’t playing it as much as 40k. In other words don’t be that guy/girl who gets out of one relationship for another, just because you perceive a ton of problem with your current relationship, but see the other option as being “near perfect.”
I was talking about Guilty Gear. Not a tabletop, but a game system notoriously harder to balance than one, and Guilty is one of the wackiest. 25 crazy characters with more mechanics than nearly any other fighter, and still extremely balanced. It's definitely possible to achieve balance with between 15+ different factors. It's even easier for a tabletop when you can assign and tweak a points cost to literally anything.
I think 40k is in the best state it's ever been, and I love how much GW have improved it. I'm a big supporter of 8th, and I'm supporting CA as another good addition to it.
However I'm not going to pretend that balance isn't achievable. It absolutely is (again that doesn't mean perfect symmetrical balance). It will probably just take more work than GW is capable/willing to putting in.
Salt donkey wrote: This thread does a great job showcasing the essence of Dakka during 2018. We have people complaining that space marines and grey are knights are trash, ork players whining that their codex is disappointing, debates on guardsman points cost, some mentions of soup, and of course the classic accusation that GW has no clue on how to balance anything .
On a more serious note: here’s a reminder that what’s disccused here does a poor job of representing reality. Playing the game is the best way to figure things out, not reading and posting on a forum.
I'm sorry but are you saying that the people saying Grey Knights are bad have no right to complain about it?
Yes, I could always buy Intercessors and something suitably big to use as Guilliman (Sigismund from FW comes to mind). So could an Ork player. That's my entire point. I'd have to buy a new army's worth of models to be able to compete.An Ork player doesn't, so the constant grating about how Imperium players have it so good is gettin really damn old.
Sorry but I can't agree with you, every army changes a lot after the transition between different editions. I had to buy several more kits for my drukhari and SW in order to run them competitively as my 7th editions lists didn't work anymore. With orks I didn't have the same problem because I own a very large army but they did change even more as a tipycal 7th edition orks list has nothing in common with a 8th edition orks lists. Index orks are completely different than codex orks and if you want to compete you have to buy more models, even for orks. Also orks players were forced to adapt and expanding an ork army is way more expensive than expanding a SM one.
Sure you could play your ork 7th edition list with the new rules and profiles, but they won't be more competitive than your black templars then. Also competitive index orks lists could work, sure, but don't expect them to pair with a tournament list, they'll easily get stomped. Everyone needs to adapt in order to play at competitive levels.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: ITC is basically the go to competitive format here in the states. It's basically the regular game with some house rules. It really doesn't change what units are good or bad. Good units are just good or what units are bad.
At competitive levels, aka tournaments, there's no SM faction. There's the imperium faction which is the current top tier. If you're ok with soups you can't complain about SM since their faction is already too powerful. It's like complaining that the court of the archon or killa kanz are bad if their armies are top tiers. GW decided that SM are just part of a bigger faction, and among those 1000000 entries that the entire faction can chose from, there are several overpowered and undercosted ones that belong to other codexes, that's the only issue about SM.
In any real meta, friendly or semi-competitive, pure SM armies are certainly ok.
We also shall see about those top tier orks. At the moment I think SM have more solid data than them.
Salt donkey wrote: How on earth does anybody create a system which ensures that 15+ unque factions are extremely close in power-level?
I’ll give you a hint. It’s not by listening to what most of posters on this forum recommend (grant it there is some good advice on here, it’s just buried under some heavily, biased dribble.)
I agree with you that CA has improved the game, and listening to dakka for balance is a recipe for disaster, I just want to point out that it's not impossible to achieve this, in fact it's been done. I know of games that have more factors than that and all stand a borderline equal chance of winning a tournament. Some match ups will be worse than others, and the ones who get a slight edge will be the ones with the most good match ups, or the good match ups against the most popular characters, because symmetrical balance isn't possible for an asymmetrical game, but for the most part it's an entirely even playing field. The task isn't impossible, and 40k can potentially get there. Whether or not GW can turn that potential into a reality is another question.
Ok so we are only disagreeing a degrees of balance possible rather than balenced or not. Still I’m curious as to which systems you are talking about. It’s important to note a lot of games look pretty balanced to casual/beginner players, but often turn out to be far less so once you become more competitive. I’ll give two examples
During 5th edition sin had a similar mindset as you so I left 40k to play warmachine/hordes thinking it was a far more balenced than 40k. At first I thought it was, until I faced my first tournament list (cryx) and got absolutely crushed. After checking some forums I found out that most people felt certain armies where far too good (Cryx, and legion of everblight at that time) while others languished. Now a lot of that game came down to player skill (a competive player could almost always beatsome one who wasn’t), but tonce you got to tournaments army and warcaster combinations certainly made a very large difference. It was actually worse than 40k in a way, because certain list/armies would often automatically win (or at least nearly) against others. You did have an option to bring 2 lists to a tournament with the same army to help mitigate this, but this certainly didnt solve this.
Another more recent example of have is infinty. My friend went on and on about how infinity was far more balanced than 40k. That is until his entire squad? army? Whatever? got wiped out by some super sniper on the first round of the game. None of his skill or first turn choices mattered (maybe he could deployed better, but he was aware of the sniper and tried to stop it from doing what it did.) Simply put he thought the game was pretty balanced when he was new, but once he faced a tournament army that clearly has wasn’t the case.
So why do I bring up these points? Because competive games look different for Balence than regular games. 40k is popular enough that it’s competive scene has begun to affect more and more people. Furthermore many posters on here have played 40k long enough to see what 40k’s system looks like when it’s fully abused. Other games are smaller, so there’s A) less people around to try to fully abuse a system B) less of an incentive to find a way to abuse the system (the rewards for winning an infinty tournament is far less than winning a 40k one) and C) less games are played to find a way to break the system.
BTW I’m not saying there’s no tabletop game out there that is more balanced than 40k, just that its easy to perceive something is more balanced when you aren’t playing it as much as 40k. In other words don’t be that guy/girl who gets out of one relationship for another, just because you perceive a ton of problem with your current relationship, but see the other option as being “near perfect.”
I was talking about Guilty Gear. Not a tabletop, but a game system notoriously harder to balance than one, and Guilty is one of the wackiest. 25 crazy characters with more mechanics than nearly any other fighter, and still extremely balanced. It's definitely possible to achieve balance with between 15+ different factors. It's even easier for a tabletop when you can assign and tweak a points cost to literally anything.
I think 40k is in the best state it's ever been, and I love how much GW have improved it. I'm a big supporter of 8th, and I'm supporting CA as another good addition to it.
However I'm not going to pretend that balance isn't achievable. It absolutely is (again that doesn't mean perfect symmetrical balance). It will probably just take more work than GW is capable/willing to putting in.
I have never played Guilty Gear, but i doubt that any versus game can reach the complexity of 40K.
You talk about 15 factions against 25 characters, but those 25 characters do not have internal builds. You only have to balance 25^2 combinations. The combinations in 40K are in the order of billions.
Salt donkey wrote: How on earth does anybody create a system which ensures that 15+ unque factions are extremely close in power-level?
I’ll give you a hint. It’s not by listening to what most of posters on this forum recommend (grant it there is some good advice on here, it’s just buried under some heavily, biased dribble.)
I agree with you that CA has improved the game, and listening to dakka for balance is a recipe for disaster, I just want to point out that it's not impossible to achieve this, in fact it's been done. I know of games that have more factors than that and all stand a borderline equal chance of winning a tournament. Some match ups will be worse than others, and the ones who get a slight edge will be the ones with the most good match ups, or the good match ups against the most popular characters, because symmetrical balance isn't possible for an asymmetrical game, but for the most part it's an entirely even playing field. The task isn't impossible, and 40k can potentially get there. Whether or not GW can turn that potential into a reality is another question.
Ok so we are only disagreeing a degrees of balance possible rather than balenced or not. Still I’m curious as to which systems you are talking about. It’s important to note a lot of games look pretty balanced to casual/beginner players, but often turn out to be far less so once you become more competitive. I’ll give two examples
During 5th edition sin had a similar mindset as you so I left 40k to play warmachine/hordes thinking it was a far more balenced than 40k. At first I thought it was, until I faced my first tournament list (cryx) and got absolutely crushed. After checking some forums I found out that most people felt certain armies where far too good (Cryx, and legion of everblight at that time) while others languished. Now a lot of that game came down to player skill (a competive player could almost always beatsome one who wasn’t), but tonce you got to tournaments army and warcaster combinations certainly made a very large difference. It was actually worse than 40k in a way, because certain list/armies would often automatically win (or at least nearly) against others. You did have an option to bring 2 lists to a tournament with the same army to help mitigate this, but this certainly didnt solve this.
Another more recent example of have is infinty. My friend went on and on about how infinity was far more balanced than 40k. That is until his entire squad? army? Whatever? got wiped out by some super sniper on the first round of the game. None of his skill or first turn choices mattered (maybe he could deployed better, but he was aware of the sniper and tried to stop it from doing what it did.) Simply put he thought the game was pretty balanced when he was new, but once he faced a tournament army that clearly has wasn’t the case.
So why do I bring up these points? Because competive games look different for Balence than regular games. 40k is popular enough that it’s competive scene has begun to affect more and more people. Furthermore many posters on here have played 40k long enough to see what 40k’s system looks like when it’s fully abused. Other games are smaller, so there’s A) less people around to try to fully abuse a system B) less of an incentive to find a way to abuse the system (the rewards for winning an infinty tournament is far less than winning a 40k one) and C) less games are played to find a way to break the system.
BTW I’m not saying there’s no tabletop game out there that is more balanced than 40k, just that its easy to perceive something is more balanced when you aren’t playing it as much as 40k. In other words don’t be that guy/girl who gets out of one relationship for another, just because you perceive a ton of problem with your current relationship, but see the other option as being “near perfect.”
I was talking about Guilty Gear. Not a tabletop, but a game system notoriously harder to balance than one, and Guilty is one of the wackiest. 25 crazy characters with more mechanics than nearly any other fighter, and still extremely balanced. It's definitely possible to achieve balance with between 15+ different factors. It's even easier for a tabletop when you can assign and tweak a points cost to literally anything.
I think 40k is in the best state it's ever been, and I love how much GW have improved it. I'm a big supporter of 8th, and I'm supporting CA as another good addition to it.
However I'm not going to pretend that balance isn't achievable. It absolutely is (again that doesn't mean perfect symmetrical balance). It will probably just take more work than GW is capable/willing to putting in.
I have never played Guilty Gear, but i doubt that any versus game can reach the complexity of 40K.
You talk about 15 factions against 25 characters, but those 25 characters do not have internal builds. You only have to balance 25^2 combinations. The combinations in 40K are in the order of billions.
that would imply you need every single unit to be useful in every single match up. No. Lascannon's don't have to be balanced against and Ork horde to still be worth their points for the Knight match up. Part of the skill of this game is being able to build a list that can take on as much as possible, with enough units to be able to compete across different match ups, understanding some will pull their weight more than others in each match up for them to be useful. Every single unit does not need to be balanced in every single match up, just enough need to be balanced in every match up for the armies to both be able to play evenly against each other.
But yeah as someone who plays both games, I can assure you Guilty absolutely does have the complexity of 40k, in fact likely much more so. Just blocking a button can have about 6 different properties based on how you block it, each of which will give you different options based on the range you blocked it at. Every frame is relevant in the game. Don't be exactly what he just talked about, someone who handwaves the complexity of something they aren't familiar with. It was the first game with a lot of characters and great balance that jumped into my head, I could probably think of others.
Blackie wrote: Guilty Gear is a videogame, it's way easier to balance than 40k because the company that own the rights aims to sell one thing, the videogame.
Balancing 40k is completely different as the company's aim is to sell hundreds of different kits, not just a single one.
can people please stop talking about stuff that they have zero knowledge on? part of the largest criticism the game has recieved is that almost every balance patch is released as a paid new edition. They achieved balance even with marketing their balance patches, something that GW is by no means forced to do regardless.
Yes, I could always buy Intercessors and something suitably big to use as Guilliman (Sigismund from FW comes to mind). So could an Ork player. That's my entire point. I'd have to buy a new army's worth of models to be able to compete.An Ork player doesn't, so the constant grating about how Imperium players have it so good is gettin really damn old.
Sorry but I can't agree with you, every army changes a lot after the transition between different editions. I had to buy several more kits for my drukhari and SW in order to run them competitively as my 7th editions lists didn't work anymore. With orks I didn't have the same problem because I own a very large army but they did change even more as a tipycal 7th edition orks list has nothing in common with a 8th edition orks lists. Index orks are completely different than codex orks and if you want to compete you have to buy more models, even for orks. Also orks players were forced to adapt and expanding an ork army is way more expensive than expanding a SM one.
Sure you could play your ork 7th edition list with the new rules and profiles, but they won't be more competitive than your black templars then. Also competitive index orks lists could work, sure, but don't expect them to pair with a tournament list, they'll easily get stomped. Everyone needs to adapt in order to play at competitive levels.
You're proving my point. Orks aren't any worse off than anyone else. You said so yourself: EVERYONE needs to adapt. Why, then, are Ork players so mad about "Imperial bias" and gnashing their teeth and wailing about how unfair the world is to them and how "weak" the Ork Codex is when they're miles ahead of pretty much every Space Marine faction in the game?
Let's put it this way: A Grey Knights player could make his army competetive by buying Knights and Guardsmen, and removing all the Grey Knights from the army. Would you not agree that it's more than a wee bit silly to yell "IMPERIAL BIAS!" at the fact that he has the option to start playing an entirely different army? An Ork player could do the exact same thing. The Grey Knights player presumably wants to play his Grey Knights, the same way the Ork player wants to play his Orks, so the fact that the Grey Knights player can buy an entirely different army doesn't mean squat for him, and yet people keep whining about how Imperium players get all the good things.
Blackie wrote: Guilty Gear is a videogame, it's way easier to balance than 40k because the company that own the rights aims to sell one thing, the videogame.
Balancing 40k is completely different as the company's aim is to sell hundreds of different kits, not just a single one.
can people please stop talking about stuff that they have zero knowledge on? part of the largest criticism the game has recieved is that almost every balance patch is released as a paid new edition. They achieved balance even with marketing their balance patches, something that GW is by no means forced to do regardless.
Yes, I could always buy Intercessors and something suitably big to use as Guilliman (Sigismund from FW comes to mind). So could an Ork player. That's my entire point. I'd have to buy a new army's worth of models to be able to compete.An Ork player doesn't, so the constant grating about how Imperium players have it so good is gettin really damn old.
Sorry but I can't agree with you, every army changes a lot after the transition between different editions. I had to buy several more kits for my drukhari and SW in order to run them competitively as my 7th editions lists didn't work anymore. With orks I didn't have the same problem because I own a very large army but they did change even more as a tipycal 7th edition orks list has nothing in common with a 8th edition orks lists. Index orks are completely different than codex orks and if you want to compete you have to buy more models, even for orks. Also orks players were forced to adapt and expanding an ork army is way more expensive than expanding a SM one.
Sure you could play your ork 7th edition list with the new rules and profiles, but they won't be more competitive than your black templars then. Also competitive index orks lists could work, sure, but don't expect them to pair with a tournament list, they'll easily get stomped. Everyone needs to adapt in order to play at competitive levels.
You're proving my point. Orks aren't any worse off than anyone else. You said so yourself: EVERYONE needs to adapt. Why, then, are Ork players so mad about "Imperial bias" and gnashing their teeth and wailing about how unfair the world is to them and how "weak" the Ork Codex is when they're miles ahead of pretty much every Space Marine faction in the game?
The reality is that while people are playing 8th edition no-one is really playing the same game its really about 5 or 6 sub games.
40K ITC with and without allies, 40KCA with and Without Allies, 40kETC and 40k Basic rules for fun.
By with and Without Allies I mean if you started 8th edition with 2k of marines if thats now 1 guard battalion a Castellen and some Custodes your playing with allies, if its still 2k of marines your not and that makes a huge difference to people's perception of balance.
Castellen with 15 CP fron 1K of Guard is a totally different power level than 3 knights and 2 armigers. Same with 2k of Custodes is different power to that same Guard powerup army plus dawneagle spam.
If your playing a codex without allies it's the same power in a with and without allies format, but going from codex Craftworld to Souo Codex Aledari is nothing like the same power.
No-one is going to agree untill everyone is actually playing the same game.
Yes, I could always buy Intercessors and something suitably big to use as Guilliman (Sigismund from FW comes to mind). So could an Ork player. That's my entire point. I'd have to buy a new army's worth of models to be able to compete.An Ork player doesn't, so the constant grating about how Imperium players have it so good is gettin really damn old.
Sorry but I can't agree with you, every army changes a lot after the transition between different editions. I had to buy several more kits for my drukhari and SW in order to run them competitively as my 7th editions lists didn't work anymore. With orks I didn't have the same problem because I own a very large army but they did change even more as a tipycal 7th edition orks list has nothing in common with a 8th edition orks lists. Index orks are completely different than codex orks and if you want to compete you have to buy more models, even for orks. Also orks players were forced to adapt and expanding an ork army is way more expensive than expanding a SM one.
Sure you could play your ork 7th edition list with the new rules and profiles, but they won't be more competitive than your black templars then. Also competitive index orks lists could work, sure, but don't expect them to pair with a tournament list, they'll easily get stomped. Everyone needs to adapt in order to play at competitive levels.
You're proving my point. Orks aren't any worse off than anyone else. You said so yourself: EVERYONE needs to adapt. Why, then, are Ork players so mad about "Imperial bias" and gnashing their teeth and wailing about how unfair the world is to them and how "weak" the Ork Codex is when they're miles ahead of pretty much every Space Marine faction in the game?
Let's put it this way: A Grey Knights player could make his army competetive by buying Knights and Guardsmen, and removing all the Grey Knights from the army. Would you not agree that it's more than a wee bit silly to yell "IMPERIAL BIAS!" at the fact that he has the option to start playing an entirely different army? An Ork player could do the exact same thing. The Grey Knights player presumably wants to play his Grey Knights, the same way the Ork player wants to play his Orks, so the fact that the Grey Knights player can buy an entirely different army doesn't mean squat for him, and yet people keep whining about how Imperium players get all the good things.
Those orks players see the issue from a different point of view which involves competitive gaming. There isn't a GK or SM faction vs orks, there's the imperium soup vs orks. An example of something unfair: twin weapons cost less than 2x of the same weapons for imperium but exactly 2x for orks.
In any friendly meta, where people tailor their list in order to get a balanced game, SM vs orks means a lot of fun on both sides. I'm going futher: a random collection of SM models can definitely outperform a random collection of orks since the greenskins absolutely need to rely on optimized lists in order to avoid being trash tier. Also pure GK can play decent games in a friendly meta or open play.
If you consider casual gaming SM are in no bad shape because everything can be balanced, if you consider competitive gaming SM are just part of a bigger faction which is the absolute top tier.
Salt donkey wrote: This thread does a great job showcasing the essence of Dakka during 2018. We have people complaining that space marines and grey are knights are trash, ork players whining that their codex is disappointing, debates on guardsman points cost, some mentions of soup, and of course the classic accusation that GW has no clue on how to balance anything .
On a more serious note: here’s a reminder that what’s disccused here does a poor job of representing reality. Playing the game is the best way to figure things out, not reading and posting on a forum.
Name a single edition of 40k where roughly every single faction had about a 50/50 chance of winning a game based on pure stats.
Uh, 5th edition?
I tried every single book that came out during it, sometimes playing opponent's army, and it never felt like an uphill battle, sure, some armies were stronger (IG/SW) but at worst it was like 45:55, certainly it was nothing like 6th/7th edition Eldar/Tau (if only because Phil Kelly didn't update his pet book in 5th...) and while 8th has better rules, I'd actually put 5th as best balanced edition ever overall, and with most varied lists on top of it due to troop swaps - you could have played say BA in 5 different ways, something pretty unthinkable in pretty much every other edition.
And before someone complains, the only people who I seen having any problems in 5th were ones playing bad 3rd/early 4th edition book (which is in no way 5th editions fault), those who put together armies using worst units of their respective book (as despite good overall balance some armies had a lot of dud units, admittedly), or those who refused to adapt and exploit enemy weaknesses in order to win (especially the dreaded IG and GK had glaring holes in their lists, and even the first book of the 5th edition, the SM, had pretty good chance against either, something even 8th was unable to replicate).
Well at least until the complex wound allocation exploiting units came along and ruined everything. Great edition with that single problem causing so much rage.
I have never played Guilty Gear, but i doubt that any versus game can reach the complexity of 40K.
You talk about 15 factions against 25 characters, but those 25 characters do not have internal builds. You only have to balance 25^2 combinations. The combinations in 40K are in the order of billions.
Which is why you trim the fat and remove redundant options. Consolidate all Chapters into a single codex. Punt the big things over to a completely separate re-mark of Apocalypse where balance goes to die and people enter knowing it's going to be an unfair game. Remove Characters in favor of customized generic lords able to represent characters but have costs easier to adjust. Redundant vehicle templates get folded into a single page with modifiers based on the variant of the base chassis. Likewise to increase the speed of releasing changes for affordable prices that fleece the players, strip out most artwork and fluff in lieu of the old rulebooks from fantasy and 40k and release companion books containing that information if players want it, which also doesn't need to update as frequently due to lacking rules. Primaris and the way GW are going forward with it in some respects is the right idea - veteran units are just direct upgrades to existing units without a need for a separate sheet.
If you consider casual gaming SM are in no bad shape because everything can be balanced, if you consider competitive gaming SM are just part of a bigger faction which is the absolute top tier.
But nothing in the Space Marine Codex is taken in the top-tier lists. Why does Space Marines having the keyword Imperium matter when they offer absolutely nothing to the faction whatsoever?
Blackie wrote: Guilty Gear is a videogame, it's way easier to balance than 40k because the company that own the rights aims to sell one thing, the videogame.
Balancing 40k is completely different as the company's aim is to sell hundreds of different kits, not just a single one.
can people please stop talking about stuff that they have zero knowledge on? part of the largest criticism the game has recieved is that almost every balance patch is released as a paid new edition. They achieved balance even with marketing their balance patches, something that GW is by no means forced to do regardless.
Also GW releases patches, most of the for free.
By your own logic then, 40k is easier to balance than Guilty.
If you consider casual gaming SM are in no bad shape because everything can be balanced, if you consider competitive gaming SM are just part of a bigger faction which is the absolute top tier.
But nothing in the Space Marine Codex is taken in the top-tier lists. Why does Space Marines having the keyword Imperium matter when they offer absolutely nothing to the faction whatsoever?
Captains and scouts? Never included in competitive lists?
The fact that SM stuff is out of the most performing imperium lists doesn't mean they're garbage, just that there's something even more powerful. Sorry but ultra competitive gaming isn't for long time collectors, in order to compete you have to re-buy the entire stuff on the list, or most of it, every 6-18 months, that's how GW works at those levels. In 7th edition lots of stuff in the SM codex was top tier, at the beginning of 8th guillimans lists and stormraven spam were absolute protagonists, now it's more AM+IK, maybe SM will get other units at highest levels before the new edition, maybe only after the release of 9th. If you chase the most competitive lists you have to accept that.
Blackie wrote: Guilty Gear is a videogame, it's way easier to balance than 40k because the company that own the rights aims to sell one thing, the videogame.
Balancing 40k is completely different as the company's aim is to sell hundreds of different kits, not just a single one.
can people please stop talking about stuff that they have zero knowledge on? part of the largest criticism the game has recieved is that almost every balance patch is released as a paid new edition. They achieved balance even with marketing their balance patches, something that GW is by no means forced to do regardless.
Also GW releases patches, most of the for free.
By your own logic then, 40k is easier to balance than Guilty.
No because the ultimate goal for GW isn't to create a 100% balanced game, but to sell more stuff. Those patches released for the videogame are an attemp to cure something that has already been sold by the company. I don't know if those patches are for free or not but selling a game or an edition of a game is way different than aiming to sell multiple kits and supplies without waiting years. 40k also has way more elements in its universe, it's not just a clash between a handful of characters.
What a garbage excuse. So Guilty Gear can be balanced, but 40k can't be balanced because the developers only want to milk more money. That doesn't make sense on so many levels, not least of which being that Guilty Gear still managed to achieve that balance all the while selling every its patches at almost the price of the entire game.
Well at least until the complex wound allocation exploiting units came along and ruined everything. Great edition with that single problem causing so much rage.
You say that, but unless I'm mistaken there were very few units that could actually exploit wound-allocation to any meaningful level. Nobz, Paladins, Tyranid Warriors, I think one of the Blood Angels units . . . that was about it. And even with those units I don't recall it being especially strong (especially since they were all pretty expensive).
It could be a little irritating, sure, but it was still far less annoying and far less exploitable than the wound-allocation systems in 6th/7th.
vipoid wrote: You say that, but unless I'm mistaken there were very few units that could actually exploit wound-allocation to any meaningful level. Nobz, Paladins, Tyranid Warriors, I think one of the Blood Angels units . . . that was about it. And even with those units I don't recall it being especially strong (especially since they were all pretty expensive).
It could be a little irritating, sure, but it was still far less annoying and far less exploitable than the wound-allocation systems in 6th/7th.
I guess it was personal experience. My meta had loads of Draigo+paladin players, doing annoying circles to mitigate blasts. That was because my demolishers were the best thing for taking them out, as they avoided the worst of the allocation. The rest of my army's fire just got spread around. It was also really tedious to work out where the wounds went.
The thing is people keep saying how complicated 40k is, but most of the "complexity" is minutiae that shouldn't matter or should be grossly simplified.
That GW wants to keep a ton of options to give the illusion of "Look how many complicated things you can do!" is part of the problem, not an excuse to get out of the solution.
Half the stuff in the game doesn't need to be separate datasheets and can and should be consolidated as upgrades you take rather than a totally different unit with its own set of things. Half the options are absolutely worthless with no viable reason to take them over other choices that do the same thing for cheaper/better. That's not choice.
If you consider casual gaming SM are in no bad shape because everything can be balanced, if you consider competitive gaming SM are just part of a bigger faction which is the absolute top tier.
But nothing in the Space Marine Codex is taken in the top-tier lists. Why does Space Marines having the keyword Imperium matter when they offer absolutely nothing to the faction whatsoever?
Captains and scouts? Never included in competitive lists?
If you consider casual gaming SM are in no bad shape because everything can be balanced, if you consider competitive gaming SM are just part of a bigger faction which is the absolute top tier.
But nothing in the Space Marine Codex is taken in the top-tier lists. Why does Space Marines having the keyword Imperium matter when they offer absolutely nothing to the faction whatsoever?
Captains and scouts? Never included in competitive lists?
The fact that SM stuff is out of the most performing imperium lists doesn't mean they're garbage, just that there's something even more powerful. Sorry but ultra competitive gaming isn't for long time collectors, in order to compete you have to re-buy the entire stuff on the list, or most of it, every 6-18 months, that's how GW works at those levels. In 7th edition lots of stuff in the SM codex was top tier, at the beginning of 8th guillimans lists and stormraven spam were absolute protagonists, now it's more AM+IK, maybe SM will get other units at highest levels before the new edition, maybe only after the release of 9th. If you chase the most competitive lists you have to accept that.
I KNOW. That's my entire point! The whole "WAAH! Imperium is so much stronger than Orks, it's unfair!" whining completely overlooks that everyone who has an army that is nominally Imperium is in exactly the same position as the Ork players: buy new stuff or your army is going to suck.
You're proving my point. Orks aren't any worse off than anyone else. You said so yourself: EVERYONE needs to adapt. Why, then, are Ork players so mad about "Imperial bias" and gnashing their teeth and wailing about how unfair the world is to them and how "weak" the Ork Codex is when they're miles ahead of pretty much every Space Marine faction in the game?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I KNOW. That's my entire point! The whole "WAAH! Imperium is so much stronger than Orks, it's unfair!" whining completely overlooks that everyone who has an army that is nominally Imperium is in exactly the same position as the Ork players: buy new stuff or your army is going to suck.
I don't see Ork players complaining because they are not competitive compared to Codex: Space Marines, or any specific imperial codex or hell, even any specific Eldar codex. The problem is that at the highest levels an ork player can not ally with anyone to fill in weaknesses that are inherent to Codex: Deep strike ....Sorry I mean Codex: Orkz. On the other hand, any Imperial faction player can go out and spend $100 for a Knight, hop on Ebay and buy a guard battalion for $50 and then soup to their hearts content for the low price of $150. So if Orkz lack anti-armor we have to build our lists in such a way to compensate for that weakness, an imperial player can just take some Blood Angel smash captains or a Knight. So that means that the Ork codex needs to be tooled with literally the same options as the entire imperial faction in order to function at the highest competitive levels with the Imperial Faction.
But, and here is the part that I do see a lot of ork players upset about, we have to then pay higher prices for a similar unit/weapon OR we have to pay the same cost for a sub par unit/weapon. I've given examples in the past but lets rehash some.
Powerfists are now significantly cheaper than Powerklaws, even though they do LITERALLY the same thing. Now the counter argument I see a lot from the opposition side of this is that Orkz should have to pay more points because our base model that takes a Powerklaw is S5 compared to S4 so therefore we gain more benefits from our PK then imperial players do from their PFs. My immediate rejoinder is "If that is the case, why are Twin Lascannons 40pts (1/5th cheaper) but my Twin Rokkitz are 24pts (Exactly the same price as 2 rokkitz) but you clearly gain more from a 3+ to hit compared to my base 5+ to hit, shouldn't my Rokkitz be significantly cheaper and even more cheap if I Twin them?. Or for that matter, why is a Scatter laser the same price as a Big shoota but has higher strength and is on a model with BS4 as opposed to BS5? Why can Space Marines take a 2pt shield that gives them 3++ but the best I can do is a 6+++ for 5pts on 1 in 5 models, or if you want to compare Invuln for invuln, i can take a KFF on a Big Mek in Mega armor for 119pts which gives a 6' bubble a 5++ invuln save.....For the same price a Space Marine player can give a 3++ to 59.5 models.
So it isn't so much that imperial players each have a codex that is better then orkz, its that orkz can't simply bring in allies for relatively cheap in competitive settings and therefore need more help to make their monobuild codex competitive. AND that yet again, orkz are paying premium prices for things that Imperial players get for cheaper or better.
But that's my point: if I want to compete at the top level I also have to go out and spend those $150 because my army is even worse.
Sure, the pricing differences are annoying. You know what I think is annoying though? How much better Ork Boyz are than anything I can field as Black Templars. The grass really isn't greener on the other side.
By all means, complain away about the weird and unfair rules interactions. What I'm tired of is the constant ripping on any army that has the keyword Imperium just because some specific soup lists that include 0 units from that army are the current meta. There is a point to playing Orks in a competetive setting, because they do things no one else does, and can still be reasonably competetive. Complaining about shortfalls in the Ork Codex is fine; ripping on others who are even worse off than Orks is petty.
SHUPPET wrote: What a garbage excuse. So Guilty Gear can be balanced, but 40k can't be balanced because the developers only want to milk more money. That doesn't make sense on so many levels, not least of which being that Guilty Gear still managed to achieve that balance all the while selling every its patches at almost the price of the entire game.
No, Guilty Gear is orders of magnitude easier to balance because a playtest is 5 minutes long as opposed to 3 hours, and only requires two people and a machine no matter which combination of characters and variables you're testing. I can't even begin to imagine what large scale testing of 40k would entail (obviously GW are not even attempting it). There's also the fact that Guilty Gear is completely standardized, in that the game will be exactly the same for every player in every match. There's no player-set-up terrain to account for and no dozens of optional scenarios to balance against.
As a blood angels player I am disappointed. GW killed Sanguinary Guard and Death Company by dropping points for vanguard vets + jumpacks while keeping SG and DC the same. There is absolutely no reason as to why you would take SG and DC over VV. Dante dropping to 175 points is also not great, 0 special unique rules and we pay 175 just to get chapter master special rule and jumpack while Valoris or Azrael that does so much more for an army and as a single model for just 10 points more. Dreadnought point drops and their wargear is nice , mephiston going up 15 points was expected but not its much better to take Librarian Dreadnought over Mephiston lol.Sanguinor dropping to 150 from 170 is ok, would prefer to have him at 135 when looking at what characters from other codexes do around his points cost. Very disappointed that a generic space marine unit is better than 2 unique dedicated blood angels units are suppose to be doing.
SHUPPET wrote: What a garbage excuse. So Guilty Gear can be balanced, but 40k can't be balanced because the developers only want to milk more money. That doesn't make sense on so many levels, not least of which being that Guilty Gear still managed to achieve that balance all the while selling every its patches at almost the price of the entire game.
According to that particular poster, Marines should only be, at best, middle of the road. He defends the codices and then turns around and says he knows they're bad
retrion wrote: As a blood angels player I am disappointed. GW killed Sanguinary Guard and Death Company by dropping points for vanguard vets + jumpacks while keeping SG and DC the same. There is absolutely no reason as to why you would take SG and DC over VV. Dante dropping to 175 points is also not great, 0 special unique rules and we pay 175 just to get chapter master special rule and jumpack while Valoris or Azrael that does so much more for an army and as a single model for just 10 points more. Dreadnought point drops and their wargear is nice , mephiston going up 15 points was expected but not its much better to take Librarian Dreadnought over Mephiston lol.Sanguinor dropping to 150 from 170 is ok, would prefer to have him at 135 when looking at what characters from other codexes do around his points cost. Very disappointed that a generic space marine unit is better than 2 unique dedicated blood angels units are suppose to be doing.
Lemartes dropped by 29 points, which is equivalent to 2 points per model drop for a maxed DC unit. Astorath also dropped by 38. Both are characters strongly tied to DC.
So while DC didn't get a direct buff they still got one.
Just going to say, really pleased with the balance changes on the whole. They certainly aren't perfect, but evryones idea of perfect is a bit different so I'm happy enough.
I think 5pt guardsmen and 650-700pt castellans would have been reasonable, plus a decrease for tacs and regular CSM, but perhaps they'll cone with time. 90% of these changes are really good for getting some little used options back in play.
Chapter approved and the big FAQs are the main reasons I'm loving 8th. They keep things fresh
retrion wrote: As a blood angels player I am disappointed. GW killed Sanguinary Guard and Death Company by dropping points for vanguard vets + jumpacks while keeping SG and DC the same. There is absolutely no reason as to why you would take SG and DC over VV. Dante dropping to 175 points is also not great, 0 special unique rules and we pay 175 just to get chapter master special rule and jumpack while Valoris or Azrael that does so much more for an army and as a single model for just 10 points more. Dreadnought point drops and their wargear is nice , mephiston going up 15 points was expected but not its much better to take Librarian Dreadnought over Mephiston lol.Sanguinor dropping to 150 from 170 is ok, would prefer to have him at 135 when looking at what characters from other codexes do around his points cost. Very disappointed that a generic space marine unit is better than 2 unique dedicated blood angels units are suppose to be doing.
Lemartes dropped by 29 points, which is equivalent to 2 points per model drop for a maxed DC unit. Astorath also dropped by 38. Both are characters strongly tied to DC.
So while DC didn't get a direct buff they still got one.
Same with Vanguard Veterans which got their base points dropped, wargear options were dropped, astorath got also massive points dropped meaning Vanguard vets with astorath are much better than dc with lemartes
Same with Vanguard Veterans which got their base points dropped, wargear options were dropped, astorath got also massive points dropped meaning Vanguard vets with astorath are much better than dc with lemartes
I mean I can't deny how awesome 2 point storm shields are. I still think DC are a bit stronger if you can get them there in one piece.
Same with Vanguard Veterans which got their base points dropped, wargear options were dropped, astorath got also massive points dropped meaning Vanguard vets with astorath are much better than dc with lemartes
I mean I can't deny how awesome 2 point storm shields are. I still think DC are a bit stronger if you can get them there in one piece.
10 Death Company with Power fists jumpacks= 290 points. 3+ 6+++ 1W 2A +1 on charge 20 Attacks(30 Attacks on charge)
10 Vanguard Vets with all power fists and all stormshields and jumpacks 280 points. 3+ 3++ 1W 2A (3A Sergant) 21 Attacks
10 Sanguard all power fists angelus boltgun: 320 points. 2+ 2W 2A 20 Attacks
Lemartes with DC re rolls failed charge and failed hits in CC but oonly for DC units.
Astorath re rolls failed hits for ALL blood angels models, units use his leadership of 9, is better in close combat, once per game has mass of doom ability for a unit.
I think you're just seeing the result of how stupid it is to give a model a 3+ invulnerable save for 2 points. Outside of that, I'd say those three options look more or less on par with eachother.
Elbows wrote: I think you're just seeing the result of how stupid it is to give a model a 3+ invulnerable save for 2 points. Outside of that, I'd say those three options look more or less on par with eachother.
320 points for models with no invul save, 280 points for all 10 models with 3+invul save or 290 points for unit with no invul save 6fnp. All unit make the charge and kill the model then they have to surivive one turn of concentrated firepower of enemy force. Which unit has the best chance of surviving, SG and VV both have 5fnp aura from ancinet relic banner.
Xenomancers wrote: Also worth noting the relic blade dropped in price. I think it's 6 or 8 now.
9 for those now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elbows wrote: I think you're just seeing the result of how stupid it is to give a model a 3+ invulnerable save for 2 points. Outside of that, I'd say those three options look more or less on par with eachother.
I think it has less of an impact, because of the way marines fit into the meta. Marine melee is very light and several weapons counter them strongly. SS mitigates those things, but still does nothing to help against small arms.
SHUPPET wrote: What a garbage excuse. So Guilty Gear can be balanced, but 40k can't be balanced because the developers only want to milk more money. That doesn't make sense on so many levels, not least of which being that Guilty Gear still managed to achieve that balance all the while selling every its patches at almost the price of the entire game.
According to that particular poster, Marines should only be, at best, middle of the road. He defends the codices and then turns around and says he knows they're bad
You quote my words out of context.
I've always said that in the perfect world all factions should be equally competitive. This is not possible when one faction is actually an alliance of 10ish factions that can choose from 10000 entries with no handicap. That specific faction is already too powerful, hence the necessity of keeping some of the underforming units of the imperium at the current level. As long as the imperium faction is so powerful there's no need of other imperium tools that are improved at top tier levels. If that means that pure SM are not competitive at all, I'll take it. And I'm saying that even if I own a large SW army and I know I can't win a tournament with them, even a local one. I'd love more effective marines, as long as the most broken imperium units are toned down like they deserve. With the current quality of AM, IK and maybe a few custodes units SM are fine as they are. Asking more competitive marines is like complaining about the cronos or the court of the archon being bland while the faction they belong is already solid top tier and it doesn't need other top units on the table.
And to be honest I don't even think SM are that bad. The faction they belong just has tons of overpowered stuff, that's all.
Pretty moderate changes across the board which is okay in my book. I know some players want more radical changes but frankly don't trust GW to swing the proverbial pendulum well. GKs are still awful but no point changes will fix them as they need a whole codex re-work. Same with Necrons. Wishes some DE units like ravagers got a points bump but oh well.
The one off I'm happy about is the 60pt drop in the lancer which I can now sub my errant for. Is it worse? Probably. Is it cooler model? Hell ya.
SHUPPET wrote: What a garbage excuse. So Guilty Gear can be balanced, but 40k can't be balanced because the developers only want to milk more money. That doesn't make sense on so many levels, not least of which being that Guilty Gear still managed to achieve that balance all the while selling every its patches at almost the price of the entire game.
According to that particular poster, Marines should only be, at best, middle of the road. He defends the codices and then turns around and says he knows they're bad
You quote my words out of context.
I've always said that in the perfect world all factions should be equally competitive. This is not possible when one faction is actually an alliance of 10ish factions that can choose from 10000 entries with no handicap. That specific faction is already too powerful, hence the necessity of keeping some of the underforming units of the imperium at the current level. As long as the imperium faction is so powerful there's no need of other imperium tools that are improved at top tier levels. If that means that pure SM are not competitive at all, I'll take it. And I'm saying that even if I own a large SW army and I know I can't win a tournament with them, even a local one. I'd love more effective marines, as long as the most broken imperium units are toned down like they deserve. With the current quality of AM, IK and maybe a few custodes units SM are fine as they are. Asking more competitive marines is like complaining about the cronos or the court of the archon being bland while the faction they belong is already solid top tier and it doesn't need other top units on the table.
And to be honest I don't even think SM are that bad. The faction they belong just has tons of overpowered stuff, that's all.
I love the line of logic. Marines can't be good because of all their allies being good. Bull. gak.
And yes I can quote you as having said Marines are bad and it's okay. Itll take digging but I have your direct quotes at one point.
There is an easy solution to make all concerned happy. Simply Buff Marines and make them a better standalone army. AND FETHING BAN ALLIES IN MATCHED PLAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Suddenly having good units in 30 different imperial factions doesn't mean feth all because you can only take 1 faction to a matched play event or game. Ban soup in competitive play and you can easily make the game more balanced for each individual faction.
I love the line of logic. Marines can't be good because of all their allies being good. Bull. gak.
And yes I can quote you as having said Marines are bad and it's okay. Itll take digging but I have your direct quotes at one point.
It's not bull, it's GW politics. GW decided that your faction is the imperium by allowing soups, period. Complaining that SM are out of competitive gaming is like complaining that Bubblechukkas will never see a tournament table, because we have 3 other mek gunz that do work and who cares if the 4th option is trash. I think allies are an abomination outside pure open play, but as long as they are so rewarded I also think that buffing the most competitive faction with other effective tools would be bad for the game.
So yes in competitive games SM are bad. But also some units in the aeldari soup, chaos soup, tau, orks, etc are bad. An army of pure gretchins or a dread mob sucks, like a pure wych cult list. So what?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote: There is an easy solution to make all concerned happy. Simply Buff Marines and make them a better standalone army. AND FETHING BAN ALLIES IN MATCHED PLAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Suddenly having good units in 30 different imperial factions doesn't mean feth all because you can only take 1 faction to a matched play event or game. Ban soup in competitive play and you can easily make the game more balanced for each individual faction.
Blackie wrote: It's not bull, it's GW politics. GW decided that your faction is the imperium by allowing soups, period. Complaining that SM are out of competitive gaming is like complaining that Bubblechukkas will never see a tournament table, because we have 3 other mek gunz that do work and who cares if the 4th option is trash. I think allies are an abomination outside pure open play, but as long as they are so rewarded I also think that buffing the most competitive faction with other effective tools would be bad for the game.
So yes in competitive games SM are bad. But also some units in the aeldari soup, chaos soup, tau, orks, etc are bad. An army of pure gretchins or a dread mob sucks, like a pure wych cult list. So what?
Why have GW just sharply reduced Ad Mech's point costs then?
Blackie wrote: It's not bull, it's GW politics. GW decided that your faction is the imperium by allowing soups, period. Complaining that SM are out of competitive gaming is like complaining that Bubblechukkas will never see a tournament table, because we have 3 other mek gunz that do work and who cares if the 4th option is trash. I think allies are an abomination outside pure open play, but as long as they are so rewarded I also think that buffing the most competitive faction with other effective tools would be bad for the game.
So yes in competitive games SM are bad. But also some units in the aeldari soup, chaos soup, tau, orks, etc are bad. An army of pure gretchins or a dread mob sucks, like a pure wych cult list. So what?
Why have GW just sharply reduced Ad Mech's point costs then?
I don't know, maybe because GW wanted to sell more of their kits. Also SM got (several) points drop, maybe GW thought that the new points reductions would be ok for SM and Ad Mech collectors and encourage them to buy more stuff with the assumption that their army is better now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amishprn86 wrote: Marines needs +1 attack no matter what, for no extra points cost, make them +1 atk, every marine in game. Its insane they are 1atk.
I agree. It shouldn't change much and they'd probably want to stay out of combat anyway but having only 1A is absolutely silly.
Blackie wrote: It's not bull, it's GW politics. GW decided that your faction is the imperium by allowing soups, period. Complaining that SM are out of competitive gaming is like complaining that Bubblechukkas will never see a tournament table, because we have 3 other mek gunz that do work and who cares if the 4th option is trash. I think allies are an abomination outside pure open play, but as long as they are so rewarded I also think that buffing the most competitive faction with other effective tools would be bad for the game.
So yes in competitive games SM are bad. But also some units in the aeldari soup, chaos soup, tau, orks, etc are bad. An army of pure gretchins or a dread mob sucks, like a pure wych cult list. So what?
Why have GW just sharply reduced Ad Mech's point costs then?
I don't know, maybe because GW wanted to sell more of their kits. Also SM got (several) points drop, maybe GW thought that the new points reductions would be ok for SM and Ad Mech collectors and encourage them to buy more stuff with the assumption that their army is better now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amishprn86 wrote: Marines needs +1 attack no matter what, for no extra points cost, make them +1 atk, every marine in game. Its insane they are 1atk.
I agree. It shouldn't change much and they'd probably want to stay out of combat anyway but having only 1A is absolutely silly.
Blackie wrote: It's not bull, it's GW politics. GW decided that your faction is the imperium by allowing soups, period. Complaining that SM are out of competitive gaming is like complaining that Bubblechukkas will never see a tournament table, because we have 3 other mek gunz that do work and who cares if the 4th option is trash. I think allies are an abomination outside pure open play, but as long as they are so rewarded I also think that buffing the most competitive faction with other effective tools would be bad for the game.
So yes in competitive games SM are bad. But also some units in the aeldari soup, chaos soup, tau, orks, etc are bad. An army of pure gretchins or a dread mob sucks, like a pure wych cult list. So what?
Why have GW just sharply reduced Ad Mech's point costs then?
I don't know, maybe because GW wanted to sell more of their kits. Also SM got (several) points drop, maybe GW thought that the new points reductions would be ok for SM and Ad Mech collectors and encourage them to buy more stuff with the assumption that their army is better now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amishprn86 wrote: Marines needs +1 attack no matter what, for no extra points cost, make them +1 atk, every marine in game. Its insane they are 1atk.
I agree. It shouldn't change much and they'd probably want to stay out of combat anyway but having only 1A is absolutely silly.
give every Ork +1 attack then
Orks already have 2Atk base and gains +1.... thats 3, Marines used to be able to get 2 at all times basically, and somethines 3 attacks, were orks could gain 4.
this is due to old rules gave you bonus attacks in CC for XYZ, they took away XYZ rules. But Orks, Wyches, and many other units stayed the same attacks (they gave them +1 on the profile) where marines went down 1
Orks already have 2Atk base and gains +1.... thats 3, Marines used to be able to get 2 at all times basically, and somethines 3 attacks, were orks could gain 4.
this is due to old rules gave you bonus attacks in CC for XYZ, they took away XYZ rules, Orks, Wyches, many units stayed the same attacks (they gave them +1 on the profile) where marines went down 1
Orkz have always been 2 attacks base, they didn't give us +1 when they took away +1 for charging or +1 for having 2 CC weapons, they just moved the +1 onto the actual CC weapon itself, just like a Space Marine with a Chainsword/Combat knife still gains +1 attack.
The point I was making is that this is their niche, and I honestly feel at 7ppm they are too expensive, so if every Marine gets +1 attack because "Reasons" than by that logic Orkz should all gain +1 attack because they are supposed to be better at CC than Marines but utterly inconsequential at ranged for our basic troops.
Wyches are 8ppm, you gain more Str and Toughness, where they gain Dodge in CC.
So... we can compare all day, but in general SM are terrible compare of cheaper units with more attacjs, more wounds and more attacks for 1/2 the cost.
lolman1c wrote: I'm finding it veeeeery suspicious that mostly all the units in their £100 box sets this year all received drops in points... it's getting weird.
Well there could be a few reasons. One is the "let's lower points to sell this stuff" reason, the other is a slightly less nefarious "we have loads of this underpowered stuff because no one is buying it, lets balance it and try to shift some" reason.
Who knows? It's not like it is always the evil reason. Companies are generally neutral.
Well at least until the complex wound allocation exploiting units came along and ruined everything. Great edition with that single problem causing so much rage.
Did they? I can only recall ork nob bikers (which weren't IIRC that much of a problem, if anything they helped to lift up a bit weaker book) and GK paladins, who were so horrendously expensive (55 pts a model, before any gear, and you had to take different, more expensive options to claim wound trick...) yet still had only 3+ to hit and 2A, plus died to plasma (and especially to cheap melta) en masse thanks to lack of good ++ saves, that the wound trick if anything made them viable, not OP.
Draigo in a unit of like 10 paladins, all different loadouts. You could tank all the wounds on Draigo, or pass them off to a big sea of Paladin wounds. Then you had a couple of dreads or dreadknights or something. I may have forgot some key part but it was basically Draigo leading a swarm of paladins.
SHUPPET wrote: What a garbage excuse. So Guilty Gear can be balanced, but 40k can't be balanced because the developers only want to milk more money. That doesn't make sense on so many levels, not least of which being that Guilty Gear still managed to achieve that balance all the while selling every its patches at almost the price of the entire game.
No, Guilty Gear is orders of magnitude easier to balance because a playtest is 5 minutes long as opposed to 3 hours, and only requires two people and a machine no matter which combination of characters and variables you're testing. I can't even begin to imagine what large scale testing of 40k would entail (obviously GW are not even attempting it). There's also the fact that Guilty Gear is completely standardized, in that the game will be exactly the same for every player in every match. There's no player-set-up terrain to account for and no dozens of optional scenarios to balance against.
Ah so you have literally no idea what you are talking about, but still decided to weigh in anyway?
fighters are notoriously hard to balance. every single FRAME of time on the screen is relevant. People are still finding new things, every single day, for each character, for a game that he been out for years and years. All these characters interact with each in a far more dynamic way than two different armies do. There is an insane amount of depth, it's hilarious that you genuinely think you can playtest it 5 minutes.
the terrain thing isn't an issue. Once the game is at a stage where terrain is the only problem and not the armies, that's balance. Historically terrain has been used to somewhat compensate for GWs loose balancing, and that will continue at least until we get there.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
SHUPPET wrote: What a garbage excuse. So Guilty Gear can be balanced, but 40k can't be balanced because the developers only want to milk more money. That doesn't make sense on so many levels, not least of which being that Guilty Gear still managed to achieve that balance all the while selling every its patches at almost the price of the entire game.
According to that particular poster, Marines should only be, at best, middle of the road. He defends the codices and then turns around and says he knows they're bad
ah so there's neither rhyme nor reason to his logic? that clears things up a little
lolman1c wrote: I'm finding it veeeeery suspicious that mostly all the units in their £100 box sets this year all received drops in points... it's getting weird.
And what about all the point drops for units NOT in those boxes? Occam's razor, dude.
Well at least until the complex wound allocation exploiting units came along and ruined everything. Great edition with that single problem causing so much rage.
Did they? I can only recall ork nob bikers (which weren't IIRC that much of a problem, if anything they helped to lift up a bit weaker book) and GK paladins, who were so horrendously expensive (55 pts a model, before any gear, and you had to take different, more expensive options to claim wound trick...) yet still had only 3+ to hit and 2A, plus died to plasma (and especially to cheap melta) en masse thanks to lack of good ++ saves, that the wound trick if anything made them viable, not OP.
Did I missed any unit that was OP due to it?
Im not gonna lie, I used to wreck face with a space marine biker command squad/w storm shields and grav + apothecary, attached to two captains (one of which iron hands, other white scars). Used to tank all incoming shooting with the Iron hands 2+/3++/4+++
SHUPPET wrote: What a garbage excuse. So Guilty Gear can be balanced, but 40k can't be balanced because the developers only want to milk more money. That doesn't make sense on so many levels, not least of which being that Guilty Gear still managed to achieve that balance all the while selling every its patches at almost the price of the entire game.
No, Guilty Gear is orders of magnitude easier to balance because a playtest is 5 minutes long as opposed to 3 hours, and only requires two people and a machine no matter which combination of characters and variables you're testing. I can't even begin to imagine what large scale testing of 40k would entail (obviously GW are not even attempting it). There's also the fact that Guilty Gear is completely standardized, in that the game will be exactly the same for every player in every match. There's no player-set-up terrain to account for and no dozens of optional scenarios to balance against.
Ah so you have literally NO idea what you are talking about, but still decided to weigh in anyway?
fighters are notoriously hard to balance. every single FRAME of time on the screen is relevant. People are still finding new things, every single day, for each character, for a game that he been out for years and years. There is an insane amount of depth, it's hilarious that you genuinely think you can platter it 5 minutes.
Thank you, Fighters are a whole lot harder to balance than a game that could essentially be boiled down into a mathematical formulae "Stat costs". I've been playing them semi-competitively for a few years now, and even the smallest change (-2 frames to a neutral attack) can change the character's entire gameplay.
Changing Bolters from 24" to 26" will never, ever have the same weight of impact as that does, therefore there are less cascading balance considerations for each change made, and therefore Warhammer 40k as it currently stands is an easier game to balance by a gakking mile.
lolman1c wrote: I'm finding it veeeeery suspicious that mostly all the units in their £100 box sets this year all received drops in points... it's getting weird.
And what about all the point drops for units NOT in those boxes? Occam's razor, dude.
Eh, I'd say that some of the Ork Codex changes were obviously done with $$$ in mind, tractor beams being buffed to crap comes to mind. The problem is that there's a curse of ineptitude that occasionally touches things. Or perhaps it's the other way around? There's a few global changes in this CA that aren't applied to all Factions our of what, spite? Laziness? Capitalism? Why are Killsaws ( or Chainfists ) 11 points for some armies, 15 points for others and 20+ points for other armies?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Marines are bad. Full stop. Their allies are irrelevant. They are, however, a little less bad after ca.
I think you're down talking these changes. There's clearly an *attempt* at balance being done. Orks Boyz at 7 points are equivalent to Space Marines, Cultists at 5 are equivalent to Space Marines.
The problem is that there's a whole team of chefs sticking fingers into the pot while they're trying to cook a balanced Soufflé, and at least a few of them don't care about how it tastes.
lolman1c wrote: I'm finding it veeeeery suspicious that mostly all the units in their £100 box sets this year all received drops in points... it's getting weird.
Nothing weird about it. GW wants to shift model kits. Keep in mind they don't need to make a perfectly balanced game. They're not selling the game, they're selling the miniatures. They can put on a good show, but all they need to produce is what 40K has always been; a game which is "good enough". I don't doubt there are plenty of enthusiasts working for GW, but the budget and manpower predominantly go toward making a profit.
GW will see a limited benefit (financially) to having a beautifully balanced, perfectly crafted game. In essence, that would essentially be wasted manpower, effort, etc. on their part. The game needs to be "good enough" that people buy it, enjoy it and continue to buy models. You'll have your fringe players who come back to the game, and the fringe players who depart.
40K has been in quite a big "horde" meta lately, so it's not in doubt that GW's sales numbers will reflect a decline in most super heavies outside of knights, etc. You don't need to attribute any of this to a conspiracy, it's just basic business practice.
Well, you probably couldn't establish a mathematical formula for the points cost of 40k units; because there are too many variables and potential interactions to consider. It's definitely not easy to balance a wargame, particularly one with as many units, factions, and options.
The best to really do is to get close, largely based on legacy, and then make fine adjustments until you zero in.
This is further compounded by the requirement to continuously release more models.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Well, you probably couldn't establish a mathematical formula for the points cost of 40k units; because there are too many variables and potential interactions to consider. It's definitely not easy to balance a wargame, particularly one with as many units, factions, and options.
The best to really do is to get close, largely based on legacy, and then make fine adjustments until you zero in.
This is further compounded by the requirement to continuously release more models.
Nobody is saying it's easy to balance a wargame. They'd be wrong. Almost as wrong as anyone saying it's easier to balance a fighter, which is even more difficult.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Well, you probably couldn't establish a mathematical formula for the points cost of 40k units; because there are too many variables and potential interactions to consider. It's definitely not easy to balance a wargame, particularly one with as many units, factions, and options.
The best to really do is to get close, largely based on legacy, and then make fine adjustments until you zero in.
This is further compounded by the requirement to continuously release more models.
Nobody is saying it's easy to balance a wargame. They'd be wrong. Almost as wrong as anyone saying it's easier to balance a fighter, which is even more difficult.
Well they are difficult for completely different reasons.
In fighter games you have the problem that minimal changes can have huge effects on the gameplay, while in a wargame you have the problem of list building and small sample size.
Both cannot be solved by a formula obviously, only testing and refining.
Trickstick wrote: Draigo in a unit of like 10 paladins, all different loadouts. You could tank all the wounds on Draigo, or pass them off to a big sea of Paladin wounds. Then you had a couple of dreads or dreadknights or something. I may have forgot some key part but it was basically Draigo leading a swarm of paladins.
Draigowing wasn't OP, GKMSU was. Draigowing was fun, only in relic mission it was a pain in the neck. But almost no one used it since there was a better list to field, 2x5 pagk, 2x5 purifiers, 4x3 acolytes, all inside razorbacks with THB psybolt ammo and 3x dreddy psyrifle (twin auto cannon with psybolt).
That was OP, in particular because Nemesis weapons, as force weapons, ignored armour save, the high amount of +1 STR shots and good psionic powers.
So I'm wondering what bearing guilty gear has on whether or not 40k can truly be balanced on are not. Assuming I'll take your word that guilty gear is fully balanced (as I've never played it) there is a large reason for why that doesn't mean much.
Its a video fighting game. That's so far removed from 40k that it is kinda of irrelevant. I could just as easily say 40k should be balanced because Madden NFL or Fortnight are near perfectly balanced. What factors go into balancing a fighting game are so far removed from balancing a table top game, that you might as well be comparing apples to oranges. It almost seems like we are debating which is harder to learn; programming with JavaScript or playing the violin. It seems to me in this case you're basically saying "I was able to learn JavaScript almost instantly, therefore I should have no trouble mastering the violin."
That being said I do agree that removing complexity from 40k will make it easier to balance, but I think that is mostly a bad idea for the game. Back when I first started playing, people where clamoring for things like gene-stealer cults, chaos legion specific books, ad-mech, and many other things that GW has now recently added. These things added complexity, but I'm very happy they are here. Sure GW has also added a lot of nonsense to boost sales (we really didn't need space marines with gravity guns, or what seems like their 20 unique flyers), but that stuff is here now and would ruin a lot of people's days if they where removed.
Furthermore, how much more balanced would the game be if some of the more niche options where removed? Where does the line get drawn? Barely anybody complained that Knights shouldn't be in regular 40k before their codex, yet now that's a common complaint. During 5th tons of people complained that tank companies shouldn't exist either. Heck there are still people claiming that any model bigger than a rhino should have never been added. Who's right here? My previous examples of infinity falls in area which is far closer to a small-scale skirmish with limited options that some people are clamoring for, yet is far from being near-perfectly balanced.
Again I'm not saying that 40k is near perfect, or that it can't be made to be better; only that GW has a done a good job moving the needle in the right direction recently, and that expecting 40k to be balanced as guilty gear is unrealistic.
Spoletta wrote: Well they are difficult for completely different reasons.
In fighter games you have the problem that minimal changes can have huge effects on the gameplay, while in a wargame you have the problem of list building and small sample size.
Both cannot be solved by a formula obviously, only testing and refining.
Not totally convinced.
In a fighting game - or an RTS - two players are interacting with each other in real time. You can say (kind of anyway) that in a game of perfect knowledge - and perfect skill - the game should go on forever, as each player counters the other's actions. At the danger of getting even more pompous - all actions occur in a sort of spacetime. If you are doing a low kick you can't also be doing an uppercut. If you go for a 6 pool you can't also do a 10 pool. If someone commits to a 6 pool, you can break down, second by second, all possible options for the opponent. If none of these work you can conclude the rush is too powerful and needs to be nerfed in some way. Or if the skill required to counter it is disproportionate to the effort the attacking player has put in.
The probable solution would be making the rush "slower" so opponents have more time to deploy countermeasures.
It would be a challenge to express this in a formula.
But at the same time there isn't a risk when I tell my character to punch that he just... doesn't. Or when I spawn 6 Zerglings I might sometimes get 3, or 12.
While base movement is set - almost everything else in 40k comes down to stats and probability. Typically a good unit is one which has a better than average chance to do damage (whether via shooting, psychic, assault) - while giving your opponent a worse than average chance to do damage. They can either do this directly - or by buffing other units. There are also wider considerations of scoring objectives - but these are typically related.
Identifying these isn't that difficult since there is nothing beyond the maths. It can get reasonably complicated with units operating in multiple phases - but yes, I think you can express this as a formula. Or at least get sufficiently close. When we say Ravagers are good, we mean that they are odds on to do a lot of damage, while offering the opponent limited upside. By contrast Tactical marines suffer from being the reverse. If we can identify this I don't see why we can't break things down to some sort of points formula.
Salt donkey wrote: So I'm wondering what bearing guilty gear has on whether or not 40k can truly be balanced on are not. Assuming I'll take your word that guilty gear is fully balanced (as I've never played it) there is a large reason for why that doesn't mean much.
Its a video fighting game. That's so far removed from 40k that it is kinda of irrelevant. I could just as easily say 40k should be balanced because Madden NFL or Fortnight are near perfectly balanced. What factors go into balancing a fighting game are so far removed from balancing a table top game, that you might as well be comparing apples to oranges.
1.) that's not the case at all. It's a game with 15+ factors each with their own very unique identity, playing 1v1 match ups, in a game system that has tons of depth, even more than 40k. This myth that things need to be a direct parallel for a comparison to work never holds up, and is almost always used to handwave comparisons that hold implications that some may dislike. The comparison works just fine, you take into account the differences when making it. At the very least, it's balance speaks at least to the possibility of drawing balance across such a varied system - something people are waving as an argument for why it's impossible for GW to achieve the same.
2.) Why can't we compare apples to oranges?
Salt donkey wrote: and it It almost seems like we are debating which is harder to learn; programming with JavaScript or playing the violin. It seems to me in this case you're basically saying "I was able to learn JavaScript almost instantly, therefore I should have no trouble mastering the violin."
Except that's not what's being said, and your metaphor completely rewrites the argument being made. Arc System spent 20 years tweaking updating and balancing their much more in depth game, and have eventually gotten it to a state of very tight balance, therefor there's little reason for why the same thing can't be done by GW, who's game is much less complex. The equivalent metaphor would be "It's possible for someone to put an effort in and learn Javascript, so we can see it's possible, there's no real reason that someone else couldn't also learn Javascript if they put in enough effort"
Salt donkey wrote: Again I'm not saying that 40k is near perfect, or that it can't be made to be better; only that GW has a done a good job moving the needle in the right direction recently, and that expecting 40k to be balanced as guilty gear is unrealistic.
maybe you should take a second out to read my posts. You asked, and I quote, "How on earth does anybody create a system which ensures that 15+ unque factions are extremely close in power-level?". I gave you an example of just that, off the top of my head. I also said that 40k is progressing nicely and 8th is the best edition yet, and CA is good addition to that. But expecting 40k to be as balanced as Guilty is not at all unrealistic, and is extremely achievable. If anything, people should be saying "expecting Guilty to be as balanced as 40k is unrealistic", as 40k is a far less complex game with much less hurdles towards balance, and a decade longer of development time. But let's be real, they haven't really been trying for most of that time. I don't expect them to do it in a day. It would be nice if people would stop calling it unrealistic to get it balanced, because it's far from it
I think the comparison between Guilty Gear and Warhammer is a bit dishonest.
In a digital game you can control every variable, every frame, and every minute detail. The developer has absolute control of every single variable, it is the nature of the digital beast.
In 40k you have an analog battlefield that is entirely subjective to each player's whim, using rulers that are not always super accurate when used(X-Wing does it better), using dice that add a whole random layer, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Now some of those issues can be fixed and I have even advocated for some of them. Make table setups that are match approved, rely less on random rolls(GW has already addressed some of these issues in 8th), and so on.
I am really not seeing how this Arc System and 40k comparison came up. It is entirely unrealistic as these are two completely different things. To be fair I'd rather expect people to compare StarCraft/Warcraft to Warhammer as they at least share some commonalities despite being much different things.
Now, to the original question of whether Warhammer can be truly balanced I would say: Maybe. It all depends on how brutal GW wants to be and I am talking about End Times brutal. No faffing about continuing with pointless options and index models. Cut all extra fat and focus the game on what is actually usable and is distinct enough to be used. I doubt, however, that GW will ever go that far as they do like selling models and want to keep people buying them.
Trickstick wrote: Draigo in a unit of like 10 paladins, all different loadouts. You could tank all the wounds on Draigo, or pass them off to a big sea of Paladin wounds. Then you had a couple of dreads or dreadknights or something. I may have forgot some key part but it was basically Draigo leading a swarm of paladins.
A ) that unit was literally 1000+ points by itself, and could only attack one unit at a time, if opponent dropped that down you laughed and auto-won the game as you fed it 50 pts squad per turn (especially given no split fire and 'you charge what you shot' rule), B ) it was so slow it could be easily kited, unless you wanted to risk extra perils of the warp and deep strike mishaps on top of it, risking suicide, C ) still died to single vindicator (or IG equivalent) shot with every single model besides Draigo being ID, especially if you deep struck it to make it even easier for pie plate to cover them all, D ) a lot of books actually had melee responses to it (say, 15 hammernators costing the same points would pulp them with ease, then laugh as Draigo's S4 sword bounces off them), never mind the fact Lysander, Calgar, Logan and Abaddon could all take on Draigo 1 vs 1 and win (with Swarmlord having a good shot too) making him not even top 5 melee threat in game...
Again, I played GK, and besides a few fun games, I never used Paladins because they had so many drawbacks they were borderline underpowered, not OP by any means.
Eihnlazer wrote: Im not gonna lie, I used to wreck face with a space marine biker command squad/w storm shields and grav + apothecary, attached to two captains (one of which iron hands, other white scars). Used to tank all incoming shooting with the Iron hands 2+/3++/4+++
Um, grav was not 5th edition. Neither was smashy IH dude. Whatever you can say about both, neither can be blamed on 5th. In fact, if anything, both were added after Ward left...
SHUPPET wrote: What a garbage excuse. So Guilty Gear can be balanced, but 40k can't be balanced because the developers only want to milk more money. That doesn't make sense on so many levels, not least of which being that Guilty Gear still managed to achieve that balance all the while selling every its patches at almost the price of the entire game.
No, Guilty Gear is orders of magnitude easier to balance because a playtest is 5 minutes long as opposed to 3 hours, and only requires two people and a machine no matter which combination of characters and variables you're testing. I can't even begin to imagine what large scale testing of 40k would entail (obviously GW are not even attempting it). There's also the fact that Guilty Gear is completely standardized, in that the game will be exactly the same for every player in every match. There's no player-set-up terrain to account for and no dozens of optional scenarios to balance against.
Ah so you have literally no idea what you are talking about, but still decided to weigh in anyway?
fighters are notoriously hard to balance. every single FRAME of time on the screen is relevant. People are still finding new things, every single day, for each character, for a game that he been out for years and years. All these characters interact with each in a far more dynamic way than two different armies do. There is an insane amount of depth, it's hilarious that you genuinely think you can playtest it 5 minutes.
I’ve been following competitive fighting games for 10 years, I like to think I know something about them. A play test, as in a single, complete match, the thing you are balancing for, is five minutes, yes, as opposed to a 40k game which is 3 hours long. That’s all I said. But you read into it what you want I guess. And “all these characters interact with each other in a far dynamic way then two armies” is a pretty bold statement to make casually. Are two characters more complex to balance against each other than any two armies? Sure. If those armies consist of static lists that you aren’t allowed to change. When you want to balance dozens or hundreds of permutations against each other? Nope. Simply because of the time commitment and logistics required for testing, a point you didn’t address at all.
To no one in particular, it occurs to me that expectations of balance in a game may actually be kinda unreasonable where:
- There are thousands of possible combinations of units and upgrades.
- There has to be a significant difference between units and upgrades to maintain army "uniqueness".
- Many units act as profound force multipliers on one or many other units. (i.e. you can't usefully compare units in a vacuum)
- The game may be played with any number of units (i.e. point scaling).
- The game will be played on boards of differing sizes.
- The game will be played on boards ranging from no terrain up to every square inch covered.
- The game relies on randomness for almost any action taken.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Ah, the typical inane trolling of 'hurr durr if you don't like something sell your army that you've invested a ton of time and money into for a pittance.'
I'll remember this comment when the nerf bat next hits TS and you express any disappointment.
What is your beef? Ork codex and CA was likely written at about the same time - so no changes - this should have been expected.
Current orks are top tier. An unbuffed ork boy was undercosted at 6 points. A 7 point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually better than the 6 point boy was. DE with no changes is actually kind of suprising - I am assuming they used DE as baseline for everything and tried to get every codex up to that level. They did fail miserably at this - but that seems to be what happened.
You're right about CA, it was well known that orks would have been out of the book because their codex is too new.
I disagree about drukhari, it's the aeldari soup that is top tier and too powerful. In fact I wished that several drukhari units and loadouts were buffed by CA since we have lots of underperforming stuff.
Orks top tiers is also debatable, but I think SM are solid top tiers, always have been so fair enough. AM and IK deserved a lot of nerfs, way more than drukhari, and the fact that they didn't get massive points hikes is the real surprise.
Where did you get that +1A for orks boyz?
Speaking of the +1 attack if they have a certain number of boys in the unit. Much like the geensteeler rule? right?
I dont know if anyone responded to you yet (might have missed it) but Boyz had this ability in the index. Its not new to the codex. We basically are paying for DDD (which is crap on boyz, and most ork units) since nobody else pays for their chapter tactics
They were a top competitive choice (no, not only for slow play) BEFORE traits and stratagems, so GW decided to play it safe and apply a nerf to boyz with the codex, otherwise they would have created a monstruosity. I though we were supposed to be interested in a balanced game.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Ah, the typical inane trolling of 'hurr durr if you don't like something sell your army that you've invested a ton of time and money into for a pittance.'
I'll remember this comment when the nerf bat next hits TS and you express any disappointment.
What is your beef? Ork codex and CA was likely written at about the same time - so no changes - this should have been expected.
Current orks are top tier. An unbuffed ork boy was undercosted at 6 points. A 7 point buffed boy with traits and +1 attack is actually better than the 6 point boy was. DE with no changes is actually kind of suprising - I am assuming they used DE as baseline for everything and tried to get every codex up to that level. They did fail miserably at this - but that seems to be what happened.
You're right about CA, it was well known that orks would have been out of the book because their codex is too new.
I disagree about drukhari, it's the aeldari soup that is top tier and too powerful. In fact I wished that several drukhari units and loadouts were buffed by CA since we have lots of underperforming stuff.
Orks top tiers is also debatable, but I think SM are solid top tiers, always have been so fair enough. AM and IK deserved a lot of nerfs, way more than drukhari, and the fact that they didn't get massive points hikes is the real surprise.
Where did you get that +1A for orks boyz?
Speaking of the +1 attack if they have a certain number of boys in the unit. Much like the geensteeler rule? right?
I dont know if anyone responded to you yet (might have missed it) but Boyz had this ability in the index. Its not new to the codex. We basically are paying for DDD (which is crap on boyz, and most ork units) since nobody else pays for their chapter tactics
Technically what happened is GW forced you into buying that one grenade or bomb or whatever that was 10 points but suddenly free.
SHUPPET wrote: What a garbage excuse. So Guilty Gear can be balanced, but 40k can't be balanced because the developers only want to milk more money. That doesn't make sense on so many levels, not least of which being that Guilty Gear still managed to achieve that balance all the while selling every its patches at almost the price of the entire game.
No, Guilty Gear is orders of magnitude easier to balance because a playtest is 5 minutes long as opposed to 3 hours, and only requires two people and a machine no matter which combination of characters and variables you're testing. I can't even begin to imagine what large scale testing of 40k would entail (obviously GW are not even attempting it). There's also the fact that Guilty Gear is completely standardized, in that the game will be exactly the same for every player in every match. There's no player-set-up terrain to account for and no dozens of optional scenarios to balance against.
Ah so you have literally no idea what you are talking about, but still decided to weigh in anyway?
fighters are notoriously hard to balance. every single FRAME of time on the screen is relevant. People are still finding new things, every single day, for each character, for a game that he been out for years and years. All these characters interact with each in a far more dynamic way than two different armies do. There is an insane amount of depth, it's hilarious that you genuinely think you can playtest it 5 minutes.
I’ve been following competitive fighting games for 10 years, I like to think I know something about them. A play test, as in a single, complete match, the thing you are balancing for, is five minutes, yes, as opposed to a 40k game which is 3 hours long. That’s all I said. But you read into it what you want I guess. And “all these characters interact with each other in a far dynamic way then two armies” is a pretty bold statement to make casually. Are two characters more complex to balance against each other than any two armies? Sure. If those armies consist of static lists that you aren’t allowed to change. When you want to balance dozens or hundreds of permutations against each other? Nope. Simply because of the time commitment and logistics required for testing, a point you didn’t address at all.
nah, you absolutely haven't been because nobody with any level of understanding would think this. It doesn't make sense on any level. For starters, imbalances are not discovered in live play, the time it takes to play out a match is irrelevant. The fact that you think a "playtest" is a single match, exposes your lie for what it is, if you follow the scene at all you do so extremely casually. You don't need to balance every single permutation of models against each other to balance 40k either, and not every single unit needs to be useful in every single match up for 40k to be balanced. I've addressed this already and I'm not going to repeat myself.
Daedalus81 wrote:Is Guilty Gear balanced if I decide to play by smashing only one button as quickly as possible?
If not, why not?
the game is still balanced yes, the same way Starcraft is still balanced if you just build drones all game, or Counter Strike is still balanced if you just shoot at a wall all game. The game still works just fine, you're just playing it very poorly.
SHUPPET wrote: "expecting Guilty to be as balanced as 40k is unrealistic", as 40k is a far less complex game with much less hurdles towards balance
That seems unlikely. The rules for 40K are pretty simple, but the army-wide interactions can be very complex. Imo you're selling 40K a little short here.
They were a top competitive choice (no, not only for slow play) BEFORE traits and stratagems, so GW decided to play it safe and apply a nerf to boyz with the codex, otherwise they would have created a monstruosity. I though we were supposed to be interested in a balanced game.
This is an extremely narrow view.
They were anything but nerfed. Things like Green Tide exist, as well as clan bonuses or whatever.
Stop acting like a 1 point increase is a nerf when it is part of a huge set of changes.
"Each Ork Boy now carries a lascannon that hits automatically. But, their points are going up by 1 per model." NERF NERF NERF OMG NERF NERF NEF
Daedalus81 wrote:Is Guilty Gear balanced if I decide to play by smashing only one button as quickly as possible?
If not, why not?
the game is still balanced yes, the same way Starcraft is still balanced if you just build drones all game, or Counter Strike is still balanced if you just shoot at a wall all game. The game still works just fine, you're just playing it very poorly.
Is this like people who complain about their fluffy mono list sucking when soup is available to them and encouraged?
1.) that's not the case at all. It's a game with 15+ factors each with their own very unique identity, playing 1v1 match ups, in a game system that has tons of depth, even more than 40k. This myth that things need to be a direct parallel for a comparison to work never holds up, and is almost always used to handwave comparisons that hold implications that some may dislike. The comparison works just fine, you take into account the differences when making it. At the very least, it's balance speaks at least to the possibility of drawing balance across such a varied system - something people are waving as an argument for why it's impossible for GW to achieve the same.
2.) Why can't we compare apples to oranges?
I’m going to have to disagree with you here. In my mind there is range of comparisons between direct Parallel and completely unrelated. As you move further and further away from direct parrallel, the less value your comparison has. Otherwise we reach a point where any absurd statement can be backed up with a comparison. For example, I could say there’s no reason why Starburst shouldn’t be loaded with protein, becuse steak manages to do it and both of these items are food. Another might be “why doesn’t apples and oranges taste the same? They are both fruit after all.” While I’m not saying your argument falls this far towards completely unrelated, I do think you are making an argument in a similar vein. Their just aren’t enough similarities between guilty gear and 40k to back up the extreme nature of your position. Now If you where to have said “I think there some lessons that 40k can learn from guilty gear about balencing.” I would have agreed because this statement requires less similarities between games vs your actual argument. To put it simply I believe that 40k and gultiy gear can have some comparisons drawn, but lack the similarities needed to justify your extreme position.
Obviously they don't mean all lists have an equal chance of winning, so what do they mean, then? What would balance mean?
Does it mean players with the same lists facing off should have only skill determine the win? That seems self-evidently true already.
Does it mean that different lists should win? Mono-codex only? Is the game balanced if mono-codexes can't compete on an even footing with soup?
One could argue that "not playing the best meta list" is "not playing the game correctly" in the same manner that shooting at a wall in Counterstrike is "not playing the game correctly."
40k is obviously balanced at some level, because two equal lists facing off have a 50% win chance, skill aside. What is "more balanced"?
I`m really surprised by the amount of negativity in this forum, even like negative person myself i cant judge so many changes they are doing only on 2 books.
I`m sure they play tested a lot of staff and tried their best to balance it and people should never forget that this edition is so open for soap and it give you so much option for list building. That is insane.
If you wanna be super competitive you have to invest to get the newest and hottest thing, if not i don`t see reason you can have fun with every army.
Marin wrote: I`m really surprised by the amount of negativity in this forum...
That mainly stems from people being more likely to post if they are annoyed at a thing. The happy people are probably off doing something else. You see this in all sorts of discussions. For example, a higher proportion of people will leave negative reviews for a product because they are more motivated than the people who thought it was fine.
Marin wrote: I`m really surprised by the amount of negativity in this forum
Anyway. Honestly outside of GK still "sucking" and IG not being brought up to cultist complaints how is everything else?
HaHa Epic have an internet cookie.
I think alot of the good has been lost under the mountains of salt from the WTFGW headlines.
I love that my sister of silence got cheaper more chance to mess with those pesky psycher players.
SHUPPET wrote: "expecting Guilty to be as balanced as 40k is unrealistic", as 40k is a far less complex game with much less hurdles towards balance
That seems unlikely. The rules for 40K are pretty simple, but the army-wide interactions can be very complex. Imo you're selling 40K a little short here.
40k has the illusion of being extremely complex but in reality, all that complexity is contained in what is essentially minutiae that should be of little or no consequence. That's a big part of the issue. The supposed "complexity" of 40k is in all the wrong places, seemingly by design. It only looks incredibly complex on the surface.
SHUPPET wrote: "expecting Guilty to be as balanced as 40k is unrealistic", as 40k is a far less complex game with much less hurdles towards balance
That seems unlikely. The rules for 40K are pretty simple, but the army-wide interactions can be very complex. Imo you're selling 40K a little short here.
40k has the illusion of being extremely complex but in reality, all that complexity is contained in what is essentially minutiae that should be of little or no consequence. That's a big part of the issue. The supposed "complexity" of 40k is in all the wrong places, seemingly by design. It only looks incredibly complex on the surface.
Terrain? Mission Parameters? Assault phase trickery? High model diversity with the challenge of TAC?
SHUPPET wrote: "expecting Guilty to be as balanced as 40k is unrealistic", as 40k is a far less complex game with much less hurdles towards balance
That seems unlikely. The rules for 40K are pretty simple, but the army-wide interactions can be very complex. Imo you're selling 40K a little short here.
40k has the illusion of being extremely complex but in reality, all that complexity is contained in what is essentially minutiae that should be of little or no consequence. That's a big part of the issue. The supposed "complexity" of 40k is in all the wrong places, seemingly by design. It only looks incredibly complex on the surface.
Terrain? Mission Parameters? Assault phase trickery? High model diversity with the challenge of TAC?
Eh all the Assault Phase tricks are pretty much easily avoided. I'd agree with missions if there were several more varieties.
Is anyone else surprised Guillermo didn't go up or gets a datasheet update?
Also, my favorite points change is the Kytan Ravager going down 104 points. That change literally swung me on what list I'm playing for an upcoming event.
They were a top competitive choice (no, not only for slow play) BEFORE traits and stratagems, so GW decided to play it safe and apply a nerf to boyz with the codex, otherwise they would have created a monstruosity. I though we were supposed to be interested in a balanced game.
Ork boyz were competitive when spammed to eternity because almost nothing else was remotely competitive. Tankbustas in an over priced Trukk? Lootas standing in the open to die turn 1?
In the index orkz had 2 workhorses and a couple of buffing characters, Boyz and KMK Mek gunz. The Nerf was not needed and took a staple unit of the ork army and made it almost as bad as Space Marine Tacticals....and last time I checked, people keep telling me how tacticals need a buff or a points decrease.
Technically what happened is GW forced you into buying that one grenade or bomb or whatever that was 10 points but suddenly free.
Pretty much this, and god I wish I could opt not to take the stupid thing and save myself the 10pts per 10 boyz. 1 Tankbusta bomb per 10 does about nothing. 6 inch range, D3 shots on a BS5 model. So if you take 3 on a 30 mob you get 6 shots and 2 hits on average....but only if you are within 6' of your target....which happens how often in competitive games? Ohh yeah, basically never.
They were anything but nerfed. Things like Green Tide exist, as well as clan bonuses or whatever.
Stop acting like a 1 point increase is a nerf when it is part of a huge set of changes.
"Each Ork Boy now carries a lascannon that hits automatically. But, their points are going up by 1 per model." NERF NERF NERF OMG NERF NERF NEF
Narrow? only in the fact that he thinks it was a needed nerf when it wasn't. Green tide exists? Really? Well lets take a look at the tournament scene....and nope, not there. Green tide in the index was caused directly by the fact that nothing was competitive beyond KMKs and boyz. So you take 18 KMKs and you still have 2/3rds of your list to build, should you take sup optimal units that don't work very well, or take a mob of Boyz who are both tough, cheap and extremely choppy, but utterly useless at ranged combat and horribly vulnerable to HRoF weapons. The index "Green Tide" was 210+ boyz models, the codex comes out and i haven't seen a competitive list built with more than 90 or so.
1pt is 16.6% price increase, that is a considerable hike in price and the "huge set of changes" is we finally got kultures...you know, literally what every other faction got? Funny though, I didn't see gaunts, Guardsmen, Tacticals, Scouts, rangers, avengers, Firewarriors, etc etc going up in price, why did orkz have to go up in price? And realistically, as I have shown a few times, kultures basically kept boyz about where they were at 6ppm but in only 1 aspect. Literally boyz are worse than they were and that is self evident to anyone who plays orkz, if they were as good as before people would be taking 150+ just like they were except now they would add in some more flavor with other things like wagonz or Kommandos.
As for the auto hitting lascannon.....what? So boyz getting kulture is equivalent to a S9 auto hitting ranged 48 weapon?.....almost like you don't know what you are talking about and are relying exclusively on the hopes that nobody else does either.
It is definitely still too soon to see where the Ork codex is going to fall on the Codex spectrum, pre-CA i would say it was High end of the middle of the pack, now its definitely dropped a few places, at least in my opinion....give it a few months for the tourney results to come in and lets see. But if I had to guess, I am going to say the only competitive ork lists will be Evil Sunz deep striking with either lots of Smasha gunz in backup or a Bad Moonz Loota Bomb.
SHUPPET wrote: "expecting Guilty to be as balanced as 40k is unrealistic", as 40k is a far less complex game with much less hurdles towards balance
That seems unlikely. The rules for 40K are pretty simple, but the army-wide interactions can be very complex. Imo you're selling 40K a little short here.
I can understand how you might think that's what I meant, but what I'm saying isn't exclusive with that - I'm not saying 40k isn't complex, or is simple. I'm saying the other one is even more complex. As someone else familiar with fighters already agreed, every single frame is important - taking 2 frames of a single move can completely change an entire character. Being that Guilty is possibly the most or second most complex fighter on the market with up to 50+ buttons per character and tons of crazy, crazy things each character can do, this shouldn't be too hard to imagine why the complexity is so deep and people are still finding strong, crazy new set-ups and tech every couple of days for every character. Guilty is a game where you can't learn everything for your character it's so deep, you can always keep adding to your arsenal. Like when Daemon players took like 2 months to find the 2++ re-rollable Screamer Star combo back in 6th (that would probably be found a lot faster in today's climate as well), imagine a game so deep that there is stuff like that being found for every race, every week, years and years after release. On top of all the complexities to the characters, the game wide mechanics are complex. Something as small as the way you can block something can completely change it's properties, then you have like 5 different ways you can block something and 3 different defensive options on top of that while blocking, which means you need to build your offensive tech to directly counter these options, etc. As someone with knowledge of them both, take my word for it that there's more complexity than 40k. It's not a diss.
I agree with Shuppet, even basic things like attack priority in Guilt Gear is on a different level of complexity than 40k. At the same time Guilty Gear is also much more fast paced to a degree that I think comparing the two is a stretch. If 40k were honestly like anything I would call it For Honor with the latest fighters being stronger with every iteration along with coming with a new gimmick.
Quickjager wrote: I agree with Shuppet, even basic things like attack priority in Guilt Gear is on a different level of complexity than 40k. At the same time Guilty Gear is also much more fast paced to a degree that I think comparing the two is a stretch. If 40k were honestly like anything I would call it For Honor with the latest fighters being stronger with every iteration along with coming with a new gimmick.
You're right that you couldn't compare the two gameplay wise or that the skills to play the two are very different. It was really just given as an example of a complex, 1v1 game that managed to get very good balance (not perfect though) with 15+ factors as the other guy asked. The point is mostly that there is no inherent roadblock with number of factors, or complexity, that will make achieving smooth balance impossible for 40k.
That being said, I just want to be clear that I'm not complaining about 8th. I think GW is making all the right steps, and while some races have gotten the shaft, it's clear they are trying, and that's an important part towards achieving.
@ SHUPPET: Sadly I don't have time atm to properly respond to the above, but in the meantime: A: Ok, thanks for the response, that's nicely layed out. B: I'd say that we're potentially looking at different types of complexity. I'll say one is more technical/explicit, and one is more . . . Abstract? Deep vs. Broad? And the differences have effects on what is realistically achievable balance.
Something like that. Maybe I can do a better job with this tomorrow.
Insectum7 wrote: @ SHUPPET: Sadly I don't have time atm to properly respond to the above, but in the meantime: A: Ok, thanks for the response, that's nicely layed out. B: I'd say that we're potentially looking at different types of complexity. I'll say one is more technical/explicit, and one is more . . . Abstract? Deep vs. Broad? And the differences have effects on what is realistically achievable balance.
Something like that. Maybe I can do a better job with this tomorrow.
Which is which? And no worries. I don't quite get what you mean, but I'll still be checking the thread tomorrow.
You blatantly don't, how do you know I'd even posted if you have me on ignore? my posts wouldn't even show up.
You made a big show and tell about blocking me a couple of days ago because I didn't bow down when you came into a thread trying to lord over me, yet here you are a couple of days after, with literally nothing to contribute but again antagonising because I don't share your opinion. Your obsession is really weird and I'm not the only one to notice it.
So you coincidentally read that one single post, just by chance. Sure.
I'm unsure the reason why you'd block someone just to still come into a thread and direct your attitude at them regardless, but I guess thats something you have to ask yourself.
Crazyterran wrote: Why would Guilliman go up again? Should come back down now that other books are out.
Only if he gets 10+ W.
Or maybe if he can't resurrect and gives up his insane re-roll everything aura.
At the moment he's still a must in ultramarine forces, he's not overpriced at all.
Guilliman is priced roughly right between 380pts and 400pts if the marines and/or their battle tanks is not so overcosted and fragile under the fire of disintegrator cannons and bright / dark lances and smites or other psychic power / trait / stratagem either directly causing MW or stack minus to hit that reduce the accuraccy of their precious number of shots down to Ork level.
Guilliman is not a combat monster like Magnus or Mortarion. He has no psychic ability and very vunerable to psychic power attacks, be it smite, death hex or jinx / doom. He doesn't have the high strength or numbers of attacks of his turned daemonic brothers. His only shining point is the aura buff he can give to a "close to bottom tier" army, preventing them from fallen into trash tier.
And to be honest, the actual efficiency of his buff is actually questionable given how fragile the boys he is buffing are now in the current meta, I don't think the units he is buffing can fire for more than 2 turns, they will either be dead or be tied up by enemy supersonic assault units (given the situation now that many units like Kraken Genestealers, Ork Bikers especially Evil Sun ones, Harlequins, Daemon Princes with Warp Time, all can pose a 24+" charge threat). Another factor casting doubt on his buff capability is the stacked minus to hit. Tbh, when facing -2 to hit, even his "insane buff" of rerolls would be largely reduced to pity buff.
I honestly think the 2pts SS in CA is god send to marines, I can foresee a new "Guilliman castle", that is 3 squads of 4 man Ultramarine Company Veteran on Bikes with SS and either plasma gun / melta or simply Stormbolter, surrounding Guilliman and the relic banner. This might give SM a breath, but to state BigG should worth more than 400pts may not be a fair claim at the current time.
I wish GK would get stormshields back, someone told me that once they had access to them on all of their termintors, and now it is limited to index and Draigo only.
Some SS termintors and SS paladins would look great with halabards. Not sure about how good they would be game play wise.
Karol wrote: I wish GK would get stormshields back, someone told me that once they had access to them on all of their termintors, and now it is limited to index and Draigo only.
Some SS termintors and SS paladins would look great with halabards. Not sure about how good they would be game play wise.
The usual problem 40k is plagued with "No models" also the huge number of marine Dexes means that stuff is spread our all over the place - both in terms of rules, flavour and resources (in game and out).
Crazyterran wrote: Why would Guilliman go up again? Should come back down now that other books are out.
Only if he gets 10+ W.
Or maybe if he can't resurrect and gives up his insane re-roll everything aura.
At the moment he's still a must in ultramarine forces, he's not overpriced at all.
Guilliman is priced roughly right between 380pts and 400pts if the marines and/or their battle tanks is not so overcosted and fragile under the fire of disintegrator cannons and bright / dark lances and smites or other psychic power / trait / stratagem either directly causing MW or stack minus to hit that reduce the accuraccy of their precious number of shots down to Ork level.
Guilliman is not a combat monster like Magnus or Mortarion. He has no psychic ability and very vunerable to psychic power attacks, be it smite, death hex or jinx / doom. He doesn't have the high strength or numbers of attacks of his turned daemonic brothers. His only shining point is the aura buff he can give to a "close to bottom tier" army, preventing them from fallen into trash tier.
And to be honest, the actual efficiency of his buff is actually questionable given how fragile the boys he is buffing are now in the current meta, I don't think the units he is buffing can fire for more than 2 turns, they will either be dead or be tied up by enemy supersonic assault units (given the situation now that many units like Kraken Genestealers, Ork Bikers especially Evil Sun ones, Harlequins, Daemon Princes with Warp Time, all can pose a 24+" charge threat). Another factor casting doubt on his buff capability is the stacked minus to hit. Tbh, when facing -2 to hit, even his "insane buff" of rerolls would be largely reduced to pity buff.
I honestly think the 2pts SS in CA is god send to marines, I can foresee a new "Guilliman castle", that is 3 squads of 4 man Ultramarine Company Veteran on Bikes with SS and either plasma gun / melta or simply Stormbolter, surrounding Guilliman and the relic banner. This might give SM a breath, but to state BigG should worth more than 400pts may not be a fair claim at the current time.
Yeah I said it's not overpriced, not that that he should cost more. But the poster I quoted hoped for a price decrease which isn't fair due to that ultramarines LoW's profile. He's very powerful and he can't get 1-shotted in turn 1 like other superheroes which have more wounds and are targetable. If he costs less he should give away some of his goodness or become a 10+ wounds model. I get that some people like their beloved superheroes to be invincibile dudes that do the heavy work alone but guilliman is already very powerful.
If the SM player faces those "scary" supersonic evil sunz bikers he should feel relieved, that's a unit that is clearly overcosted.
Wayniac wrote: 40k has the illusion of being extremely complex but in reality, all that complexity is contained in what is essentially minutiae that should be of little or no consequence. That's a big part of the issue. The supposed "complexity" of 40k is in all the wrong places, seemingly by design. It only looks incredibly complex on the surface.
Yep, by design. In effect GW has tried games with little to no chrome (Epic 3rd ed being the stand out example - too little chrome to number of units, same system liked for Battlefleet Gothic as far fewer units) and they don't do well. The age of players that is the main market like surface complexity and tactical simplicity. Check out renowned historical games - they are now mostly clear simple systems to give a credible historical result. The old simulation were a bit of a nightmare for many and 40k kinda has the surface complexity of one of them with a very very basic game underneath.
Another advantage is you spend more time when you aren't playing planning, reading and plotting. Again the other group of games has little beyond painting with most happening in game.
so what is the thought or consensus on point changes that were in 2017 CA but the unit is omitted from 2018 CA?
Does it stay at the 2017 CA point cost or does it revert to its origingal?
Example the 90 point Malanthrope was changed to 140 points. It is absent from 2018 CA.
To further clarify why this is being asked. Lets look at the Revenant 2017 CA is 2000 points. They decided it was needed to reprint it in 2018 CA at 2000 points.
So are some units reversing back....or is this just more errata? And how do you play it till there may be a FAQ update....perhaps months or more.???
admironheart wrote: so what is the thought or consensus on point changes that were in 2917 CA but the unit is omitted from 2018 CA?
Does it stay at the 2017 CA point cost or does it revert to its origingal?
Example the 90 point Malanthrope was changed to 140 points. It is absent from 2018 CA.
To further clarify why this is being asked. Lets look at the Revenant 2017 CA is 2000 points. They decided it was needed to reprint it in 2018 CA at 2000 points.
So are some units reversing back....or is this just more errata? And how do you play it till there may be a FAQ update....perhaps months or more.???
The 2017 points are now obsolete. You use the codex points unless they are in CA 2018. Of course, that doesn't rule out that the malanthrope could be an error, but until something else comes along they are codex points.
admironheart wrote: so what is the thought or consensus on point changes that were in 2017 CA but the unit is omitted from 2018 CA?
Does it stay at the 2017 CA point cost or does it revert to its origingal?
Example the 90 point Malanthrope was changed to 140 points. It is absent from 2018 CA.
To further clarify why this is being asked. Lets look at the Revenant 2017 CA is 2000 points. They decided it was needed to reprint it in 2018 CA at 2000 points.
So are some units reversing back....or is this just more errata? And how do you play it till there may be a FAQ update....perhaps months or more.???
The Malanthrope is still listed in CA2018 at 140pts, just like the other Tyranid FW units that retained the same point values.
admironheart wrote: so what is the thought or consensus on point changes that were in 2017 CA but the unit is omitted from 2018 CA?
Does it stay at the 2017 CA point cost or does it revert to its origingal?
Example the 90 point Malanthrope was changed to 140 points. It is absent from 2018 CA.
To further clarify why this is being asked. Lets look at the Revenant 2017 CA is 2000 points. They decided it was needed to reprint it in 2018 CA at 2000 points.
So are some units reversing back....or is this just more errata? And how do you play it till there may be a FAQ update....perhaps months or more.???
The Malanthrope is still listed in CA2018 at 140pts, just like the other Tyranid FW units that retained the same point values.
oh thanks...I was going on heresay and only glanced at some of the CA images....my mistake.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trickstick wrote: The 2017 points are now obsolete. You use the codex points unless they are in CA 2018..
I assume that only applies to points....So for 2017 CA or any in the future....strategems, possible beta rules, missions, etc can still be considered legal play unless superseded by newer rules.?
Yeah, I think any of the missions and stuff are still open to use if you want. They haven't said it invalidates the entire book, just the points are updated/superseded.
Speaking of mixing excitement and disappointment; while I was really happy to see Centurions drop 40 points, once I did the math I realized that a Dreadnaught with the Missile Launcher and two Heavy Bolters/Lsacannons is still only 5-12 points more expensive than a Centurion with similar equipment.
I'm still trying to decide if ignoring cover, ignoring to-hit penalties for movement, and 2+ is really only worth 12 points more than T7, 5 more wounds, and 2" more movement.
The Newman wrote: Speaking of mixing excitement and disappointment; while I was really happy to see Centurions drop 40 points, once I did the math I realized that a Dreadnaught with the Missile Launcher and two Heavy Bolters/Lsacannons is still only 5-12 points more expensive than a Centurion with similar equipment.
I'm still trying to decide if ignoring cover, ignoring to-hit penalties for movement, and 2+ is really only worth 12 points more than T7, 5 more wounds, and 2" more movement.
It's not. Being more than twice as easy to kill. At 3 wounds with LC and missles a cent shouldn't be more than 85 points.
Nether unit needs to move. Plus - A venerable is hitting on 2's and has 6+++ - just take the venerable.
The Newman wrote: Speaking of mixing excitement and disappointment; while I was really happy to see Centurions drop 40 points, once I did the math I realized that a Dreadnaught with the Missile Launcher and two Heavy Bolters/Lsacannons is still only 5-12 points more expensive than a Centurion with similar equipment.
I'm still trying to decide if ignoring cover, ignoring to-hit penalties for movement, and 2+ is really only worth 12 points more than T7, 5 more wounds, and 2" more movement.
Yeah, I did the math too and it just doesn't seem to be working out UNLESS you happen to be going Ultramarine and taking Guilliman anyway.
The Newman wrote: Speaking of mixing excitement and disappointment; while I was really happy to see Centurions drop 40 points, once I did the math I realized that a Dreadnaught with the Missile Launcher and two Heavy Bolters/Lsacannons is still only 5-12 points more expensive than a Centurion with similar equipment.
I'm still trying to decide if ignoring cover, ignoring to-hit penalties for movement, and 2+ is really only worth 12 points more than T7, 5 more wounds, and 2" more movement.
Yeah, I did the math too and it just doesn't seem to be working out UNLESS you happen to be going Ultramarine and taking Guilliman anyway.
Much more efficent to just run Calgar and a LT with these units. Str 9,8 is usually wounding on 3's - Paying 400 for Gman is not worth it to reroll 2's - it's really not worth it to reroll 3's ether.
Basically any marine army can do this. Stop overvaluing Gman. Standard marine armies are already rerolling all hits and 1's to wound at a minimum.
And really I can't stress this enough. Overpaying for units that die easy when you are paying 400 points for a buffer - does not help you win games.
The Newman wrote: Speaking of mixing excitement and disappointment; while I was really happy to see Centurions drop 40 points, once I did the math I realized that a Dreadnaught with the Missile Launcher and two Heavy Bolters/Lsacannons is still only 5-12 points more expensive than a Centurion with similar equipment.
I'm still trying to decide if ignoring cover, ignoring to-hit penalties for movement, and 2+ is really only worth 12 points more than T7, 5 more wounds, and 2" more movement.
Yeah, I did the math too and it just doesn't seem to be working out UNLESS you happen to be going Ultramarine and taking Guilliman anyway.
Much more efficent to just run Calgar and a LT with these units. Str 9,8 is usually wounding on 3's - Paying 400 for Gman is not worth it to reroll 2's - it's really not worth it to reroll 3's ether.
Basically any marine army can do this. Stop overvaluing Gman. Standard marine armies are already rerolling all hits and 1's to wound at a minimum.
And really I can't stress this enough. Overpaying for units that die easy when you are paying 400 points for a buffer - does not help you win games.
I agree with the sentiment, but I would add for my case specifically that I was looking at lascannons/hurricane bolter as the loadout so they could be a TAC unit.
I'm just gonna stick with my Custodes and Imperial Knights most likely so don't take me as more than a fly on the wall for these guys.
The Newman wrote: Speaking of mixing excitement and disappointment; while I was really happy to see Centurions drop 40 points, once I did the math I realized that a Dreadnaught with the Missile Launcher and two Heavy Bolters/Lsacannons is still only 5-12 points more expensive than a Centurion with similar equipment.
I'm still trying to decide if ignoring cover, ignoring to-hit penalties for movement, and 2+ is really only worth 12 points more than T7, 5 more wounds, and 2" more movement.
It's not. Being more than twice as easy to kill. At 3 wounds with LC and missles a cent shouldn't be more than 85 points.
Nether unit needs to move. Plus - A venerable is hitting on 2's and has 6+++ - just take the venerable.
And the venerable is another 10 points.
I think I'd have to disagree on them not needing to move. Yes, they both have decent range on most of their guns, but not all of their guns and LoS is still a thing even if GW's terrain rules are stupid. The last game I played with either of them they had to reposition to see the targets I wanted every single turn.
And for what it's worth the Centurion Missile Launcher is more expensive than a regular Missile Launcher for good reason. It tops out at 9 damage instead of 6 and it's a fair bit more reliable about putting something on the target.
Marmatag wrote: Imperial Fists centurions kitted for dakka can pop mortal wounds on a wound roll of 6.
With a chapter master, and the relic that lets them reroll 1s to wound, a unit of 6 expects to put over 18 mortal wounds on any target.
Now, that's a hefty chunk of change with the Centurions. But if something is within rapid fire range, it is officially dead.
They are only 18 shots each. So to get 18 morts they'd have to hit and wound with everything. They should expect a lot of mortals. Plus a lot of damage too. I wish that was a generic marine strat.
The Newman wrote: Speaking of mixing excitement and disappointment; while I was really happy to see Centurions drop 40 points, once I did the math I realized that a Dreadnaught with the Missile Launcher and two Heavy Bolters/Lsacannons is still only 5-12 points more expensive than a Centurion with similar equipment.
I'm still trying to decide if ignoring cover, ignoring to-hit penalties for movement, and 2+ is really only worth 12 points more than T7, 5 more wounds, and 2" more movement.
Could a centurion be a counts as dreadnought or is the size much different? I never seen centurion models in real life, and at my store someone has them at a box of cereal price for sale.
The Newman wrote: Speaking of mixing excitement and disappointment; while I was really happy to see Centurions drop 40 points, once I did the math I realized that a Dreadnaught with the Missile Launcher and two Heavy Bolters/Lsacannons is still only 5-12 points more expensive than a Centurion with similar equipment.
I'm still trying to decide if ignoring cover, ignoring to-hit penalties for movement, and 2+ is really only worth 12 points more than T7, 5 more wounds, and 2" more movement.
Could a centurion be a counts as dreadnought or is the size much different? I never seen centurion models in real life, and at my store someone has them at a box of cereal price for sale.
They are like organ sized. They have kind of become a "fun unit to hate on" because they look like something out of exosquad. I'd grab them up if I were you. They are bound to be good some day. Possibly even playable with heavy bolters and hurricanes.
Karol wrote: Could a centurion be a counts as dreadnought or is the size much different? I never seen centurion models in real life, and at my store someone has them at a box of cereal price for sale.
Not really. They are smaller, and plus everyone would just think they are centurions.
As just unit to slot in to an army I don't see centurions being all that hot even with the massive 40 point drop they had which goes to show just how awful they were. Their cheapest loadout has them at 70 points to spit out 6 HB shots and 6-12 bolter shots. That's not super impressive, but it's not super awful I suppose. They do have some good synergy with apothecaries who can bring back dead ones which is nice. Imperial fist centurions in the siegebreaker cohort could be an interested proposition with the bolter drill stratagem stacked with the cohort stratagem. Best case scenario you get 54 shots hitting on 3s re-rolling sixes are extra shots and any wounds (re-rolling 1s) are mortals against vehicles or buildings. Very rough match indicates if you do this against a knight you'll get like 9 or so mortal wounds on top of any normal plinks that get through. That's not awful, but it requires them to be within 12 inches and supported with re-rolls.
I really want to use centurions, but I just can't seem to justify them. If I want anti infantry aggressors do it better.
Eihnlazer wrote: Centuarians base cost should be the same as terminators.
+1T and W, -1 move no deepstrike and no invun. After that you pay for the weapons and its fair.
I will happily agree to that!
I'd happily agree to that too, because it doesn't feel like enough to account for moving without penalties and ignoring cover. I'm not sure what those are worth, but they're definitely worth something. 30ish sounds about right, but I'd almost rather they just picked up a wound and counted the arm guns as twin-linked.
Karol wrote: Could a centurion be a counts as dreadnought or is the size much different? I never seen centurion models in real life, and at my store someone has them at a box of cereal price for sale.
Not really. They are smaller, and plus everyone would just think they are centurions.
Spoiler:
That isn't a regular sized centurian lol. Plus hes standing on a rock. That is for sure modified - the thigh leg section basically doesn't exist on that actual model.
Eihnlazer wrote: Centuarians base cost should be the same as terminators.
+1T and W, -1 move no deepstrike and no invun. After that you pay for the weapons and its fair.
I will happily agree to that!
I'd happily agree to that too, because it doesn't feel like enough to account for moving without penalties and ignoring cover. I'm not sure what those are worth, but they're definitely worth something. 30ish sounds about right, but I'd almost rather they just picked up a wound and counter the arm guns as twin-linked.
You can add 5 points more if you want. It ain't worth a lot, especially when a whole Chapter offers the Ignores Cover bit too.
(Same with crawler basically, but I haven't used it yet).
.
