What do you guys think of impulsor with the point hike ? Are they still worth ? Was thinking about buying one out before the 9th appeared to feth everything up.
So what units have people found that have dropped in points? I saw that a vulture with 4 rocket pods dropped by 2, which makes me consider it over the 50pt more expensive punisher variant.
Right, but it's not the same item. There's a Chainsword, and then an Astartes Chainsword. The Primaris guys get the Astartes Chainsword, the minimarines get the normal Chainswords. It's not any more confusing to have both than to have power swords and power mauls.
Power mauls and swords look different, these do not. It is just confusing to have astartes with chainsword which is differnt than astartes chainsword that looks identical. Furthermore, Intercessors Sergeants can get chainswords too, so surely these at least should be the better ones?
Trickstick wrote: So what units have people found that have dropped in points? I saw that a vulture with 4 rocket pods dropped by 2, which makes me consider it over the 50pt more expensive punisher variant.
most of the big ones are typical GW utter lack of proofing anything.
9th edition as all editions will take time to settle. This isn't anything new and the game with regards addressing problems is better now than it has been in the past in my opinion.
I don't think most armies will find their proper place until their Official Codex is released.
Folk talking about throwing their armies on eBay need to settle thereselves down.
"GW always makes a mess of new releases, calm down" is a funny sort of argument. I don't necessarily disagree, but what does it say that people have been conditioned to expect GW to mess all sorts of things up when transitioning to a new edition?
The whole reason they have playtesters is to spot all this stuff that basically amount to bad proofreading. I have no doubt the playtesters did, and flagged it. But GW just didn't fix stuff, as usual. What's the point of playtesting when you don't actually fix the obvious errors your playtesters identify?
WhiteDog wrote: What do you guys think of impulsor with the point hike ? Are they still worth ?
They strike me as really solid. Contesting (or just outright claiming) objectives early is a big deal- so move 14" forward and chuck the objective secured squad out to claim anything up to 3" away. Or if you can't quite reach, huddle under the shield for a turn.
Right, but it's not the same item. There's a Chainsword, and then an Astartes Chainsword. The Primaris guys get the Astartes Chainsword, the minimarines get the normal Chainswords. It's not any more confusing to have both than to have power swords and power mauls.
Power mauls and swords look different, these do not. It is just confusing to have astartes with chainsword which is differnt than astartes chainsword that looks identical. Furthermore, Intercessors Sergeants can get chainswords too, so surely these at least should be the better ones?
It doesn't matter. Whats on the datasheet determines how things function.
Its why a big chunk of FAQs had to go over Demolisher cannons, because quite a few armies still had outdated versions.
It doesn't matter. Whats on the datasheet determines how things function.
Yes, I know. But how it now functions is stupid.
Its why a big chunk of FAQs had to go over Demolisher cannons, because quite a few armies still had outdated versions.
And they could have done that with the marine chainswords too. Though I suspect and hope that the reason they didn't bother is that a new codex is right around the corner and it will be fixed there. (As annoying as the codex being invalidated this soon would be.)
Right, but it's not the same item. There's a Chainsword, and then an Astartes Chainsword. The Primaris guys get the Astartes Chainsword, the minimarines get the normal Chainswords. It's not any more confusing to have both than to have power swords and power mauls.
Power mauls and swords look different, these do not. It is just confusing to have astartes with chainsword which is differnt than astartes chainsword that looks identical. Furthermore, Intercessors Sergeants can get chainswords too, so surely these at least should be the better ones?
Well, according to the Astartes points leak video the normal Chainsword is still in the book and is zero points. If that's really going to stick and GW missed the opportunity to do a full overhaul and give everybody "Astartes Chainswords". . . that's a real shame.
It doesn't matter. Whats on the datasheet determines how things function.
Yes, I know. But how it now functions is stupid.
Its why a big chunk of FAQs had to go over Demolisher cannons, because quite a few armies still had outdated versions.
And they could have done that with the marine chainswords too. Though I suspect and hope that the reason they didn't bother is that a new codex is right around the corner and it will be fixed there. (As annoying as the codex being invalidated this soon would be.)
There are _a lot_ more entries for chainswords. They'd have to reference... a couple dozen (or more) entries per book, for...half the books? Including a fair number of PA books. Imagine the demolisher entry in the guard FAQ, but it takes up half a page with numbers and citations.
I think 'patching' it that way would be much worse, and open a can of worms as well. 'Why not stormshields?,' I hear the internet cry, and why not fix the dozen or so dark eldar weapons nerfed into oblivion while they're at it? The cascade of 'but what about?' would go on for a while. Or end in more 'those space marines are so special' grumbling.
Edit:
And what yukishiro said. A dedicated assault unit getting -1 AP is grudgingly fine (less so when assault doctrine kicks in). Another SM wide buff? Come on now.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, marines definitely need even more free AP on their attacks, it's what the game is calling out for.
It is just about consistency and verisimilitude. Give the better chainsword an appropriate point cost and it is fine. (Not that they seem to be able to do that. I guess it will either cost zero or five points...)
(It has bugged me since the third edition that the iconic chaisword is not better than any random pointy stick.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote: 'Why not stormshields?,' I hear the internet cry,
Yes, definitely! They absolutely should fix the storm shields! Decide how a piece of equipment works, then make it work like that for everyone.
Crimson wrote: They should definitely errata all marine chainswords and stormshields to work the same way. It will just be confusing if there are several different versions of the same item in one army.
The chainsword isn't the same. There's a normal chainsword, and an astartes chainsword. Not the same item.
If I remember right the article was distinguishing Marie chainswords from other chainswords in the universe.
That's why it is an Astartes chainsword. Whereas storm shields need no such separation just as melta guns work the same across the universe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I thought 9th was gonna be different and better because it was written with tournament players and playtesters in mind?
Have you played it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WhiteDog wrote: What do you guys think of impulsor with the point hike ? Are they still worth ? Was thinking about buying one out before the 9th appeared to feth everything up.
They likely will be, but you never know how things will adjust. It seems to be there will always be space for at least one or two of them.
Speaking of stupid marines things, eradicators. Multi-meltas for some reason nobody can understand cost 20 on infantry, or 25 on vehicles. A devastator with a multi-melta - T4, 1W, 1 shot, suffers -1 for heavy - is 35 points.
An eradicator - T5, 3W, no -to hit for moving, can even shoot while advancing (at -1), fires twice every round no matter what as long as it fires both shots at the same target - 40 points.
yukishiro1 wrote: Space Marines never pay for having better stuff. I guess maybe that's consistency and verisimilitude too?
You get an extra attack from it, so it is definitely better than a pointy stick.
Where were you for the first ... 75% of 8th ed, when Marines were getting the same equipment as other Imperial factions and paying more for the privilege?
The devastator is on the way to legends. The eradicator is not. One is a new model. The other is not. GW is finally doing what people have accused them of for decades.
Table wrote: Nah, im done with GW. Been dealing with the chaos tax for to long. 6 point cultists and 14 point CSM's while Inter's are at 20. That's just blatant favoritism. Problem is, not sure where is the best place is to sell my stuff? Ebay?
yukishiro1 wrote: Speaking of stupid marines things, eradicators. Multi-meltas for some reason nobody can understand cost 20 on infantry, or 25 on vehicles. A devastator with a multi-melta - T4, 1W, 1 shot, suffers -1 for heavy - is 35 points.
An eradicator - T5, 3W, no -to hit for moving, can even shoot while advancing (at -1), fires twice every round no matter what as long as it fires both shots at the same target - 40 points.
This is offensively stupid.
Fun fact: White Scars eradicators can advance and shoot them at no penalty.
They got a chapter buff since the -1 penalty for moving heavy weapons on bikes no longer exists.
Given the sheer number of assault weapons in primaris hands, White Scars are the primaris army you never knew you needed.
Oddly the new primaris bikes don't particularly benefit from this new aspect of White Scars tactics. (they definitely love the advance and charge bit though!)
Scion command squads got cheaper, and here is how. +4 points cost for the actual bodies, 4 bodies, BUT, armed with either hotshotvolleyguns (2 points less each) or melta guns (4 points less each) they actually go down in price. Similarly, a scions group with 2 melta guns and a plasma pistol in a 5 man msu squad goes up in price 10 poitns but down in price 8, so only a 2 point creep up. That's not cheaper per se, but it sort of makes dropping in some melta scions an attractive option again, and the HSVG scions fill an excellent back line/ support / grab an objective role.
But .. elysians, what the hell, man, what the hell.
Or salamanders, who get to do their master artisans reroll twice since they're firing twice rather than getting two shots, plus the bonus to wound on T3, and the bonus AP on T2.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, marines definitely need even more free AP on their attacks, it's what the game is calling out for.
Well the new Primaris are getting it anyways so the ship has sailed on that one. I'm only in this for the Classic/True/Realmarine Assault Squads and their Chaos counterparts. Those Chaos marines in particular don't have the free Doctrine AP either.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, marines definitely need even more free AP on their attacks, it's what the game is calling out for.
Well the new Primaris are getting it anyways so the ship has sailed on that one. I'm only in this for the Classic/True/Realmarine Assault Squads and their Chaos counterparts. Those Chaos marines in particular don't have the free Doctrine AP either.
What are the odds the chaos marines didn't 'trade in' their shiny Astartes chainswords when they signed up to be traitors, like so many other pieces of kit?
Voss wrote: Given the sheer number of assault weapons in primaris hands, White Scars are the primaris army you never knew you needed.
Interesting.
I've been going over the Marine books to see what rules I want to use for my Primaris force that's my own custom chapter. I'm not 100% sold on the custom Chapter Tactics, so figured I'd go with a successor or one of the main ones.
I had been thinking White Scars simply because "May assault & charge" is by far the easiest to remember, but now it seems like that's an even better idea.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, marines definitely need even more free AP on their attacks, it's what the game is calling out for.
Well the new Primaris are getting it anyways so the ship has sailed on that one. I'm only in this for the Classic/True/Realmarine Assault Squads and their Chaos counterparts. Those Chaos marines in particular don't have the free Doctrine AP either.
What are the odds the chaos marines didn't 'trade in' their shiny Astartes chainswords when they signed up to be traitors, like so many other pieces of kit?
If mini marines get it and we dont then CSM would pretty much revolt.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, marines definitely need even more free AP on their attacks, it's what the game is calling out for.
Well the new Primaris are getting it anyways so the ship has sailed on that one. I'm only in this for the Classic/True/Realmarine Assault Squads and their Chaos counterparts. Those Chaos marines in particular don't have the free Doctrine AP either.
What are the odds the chaos marines didn't 'trade in' their shiny Astartes chainswords when they signed up to be traitors, like so many other pieces of kit?
If mini marines get it and we dont then CSM would pretty much revolt.
CSM revolting? Welcome to 10,000 years ago.
Horus needed a mum to tell him if he kept making faces it would get stuck that way.
Eldarain wrote: Assuming we're not numb from the constant beatings...
And we no longer have the numbers, given we went up 3 points each.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: It really wasn't, heck Noise Marines with their Sonic Blasters cost more then Intercessors.
Hopefully that'll be less of a problem in the long run, if an EC Codex comes out.
Man I hope that EC and WE get Codices before a new Chaos 'Dex comes out. I don't want a Chaos 'Dex with outdated Noise Marines/Berzerkers in there for a whole edition.
They got relief? CSM used to be 13 - a separation of 4 from Primaris. The separation is now 6.
Do you think that's remotely sufficient?
I can't believe I'm agreeing with Martel on this.
It really wasn't, heck Noise Marines with their Sonic Blasters cost more then Intercessors.
GW should never have made doctrines, never made super doctrines, and never made gak like the eradicators. They should have just made the old rule marines cheaper. They started the race to the bottom, then turned it on its head with rules that they didn't understand with effects that they didn't think about.
They got relief? CSM used to be 13 - a separation of 4 from Primaris. The separation is now 6.
Do you think that's remotely sufficient?
I can't believe I'm agreeing with Martel on this.
It really wasn't, heck Noise Marines with their Sonic Blasters cost more then Intercessors.
GW should never have made doctrines, never made super doctrines, and never made gak like the eradicators. They should have just made the old rule marines cheaper. They started the race to the bottom, then turned it on its head with rules that they didn't understand with effects that they didn't think about.
Changing cost was never a solution for the normal MeQ statline problems. The whole game changed around marines. MeQs needed a new statline, not to get cheap and become horde infantry. The problem is str4 ap0 and T4 3+.
Instead of Doctrines and Super Doctrines, they should have just restored the marine statline to how it worked in previous editions. +1 attack on the charge, let bolters have old-style Ap5 (fully ignore 5+ and 6+), and ignore ap-1. Add -1 ap to chainswords to make up for other melee changes. And then base marines at 15pts.
It wouldn't have been a perfect solution either, but its a lot better than Doctrines+Super Doctrines.
You can look at space marines and figure out what an extra T4 3+ wound is valued at. Hint: it's 3 points or less, since a tactical is 15 and an intercessor is 20, and the intercessor also has better range and AP on the gun, and more attacks.
Now is that a reasonable value? Of course not. But they are all-in now on making Primaris just better period, and that means making tacticals utterly useless so nobody ever uses them again because they gotta sell those primaris models to whoever hasn't already bought them.
Oh. Additional. That's a much harder question. Put I'd price oldmarines with no doctrines at 11-12 pts tops.
Right, so - say 12 points. Intercessors at 20.
10 minis for 6 primaris
10 wounds vs 12
20 AP0 bolter shots @ 24" vs 12 AP1 @ 30"
21 S4 AP0 vs 13 S4 AP0 in melee
A ravager could kill 40 points of mini and 133 points of primaris.
An twin assault cannon -- 32 of mini and 27 of primaris
40 lasgun shots -- 27 of mini and 33 of primaris
Would you take the mini that loses a single extra AP for a turn over the Primaris? I think I would every time.
This tells me 1 wound, 6" & 1 AP, and 1A are worth less than 8 points. 6 points is probably ok (maybe 7, but that isn't wildly different from 6), but then traits and docs suck the wind out.
As for Noise Marines - 2 points for death throes is ok. 5 for a sonic blaster feels wrong - I can see where they might have anchored it against a combi-bolter and wound up making a bad decision as a result.
Your math on at least some of that is hugely off. Lasgun shots for example by definition would kill fewer points of primaris than minimarines if the minimarines cost more than half what the primaris do. Anything D1 will.
yukishiro1 wrote: Your math on at least some of that is hugely off. Lasgun shots for example by definition would kill fewer points of primaris than minimarines if the minimarines cost more than half what the primaris do. Anything D1 will.
Sorry - you're right. FIxed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Stumbled across this - should be pretty handy:
Thanks Daed. 50 actually, but didn't twin heavy bolters go up? So not quite that. Maybe there's something in the new fw books that explains why it didn't go down more. I'll wait and see before getting salty.
Yea there's the whole FW re-write, but I wouldn't expect too much for units like the Fellblade.
Ok, let's say you're right. So my previously 917 point bone stock fellblade is now 880 points: a whopping 37 point buff. Why? They obviously noticed it this time, so shear laziness is out. It's still massively overpriced compared to similar units. Does gw just not want the fw super heavys to be played? I'm starting to feel salty. In fact, considering what they did to Renegades and Heretics and what I'm seeing for csm, I'm feeling really salty.
And since I'm behind the conversation let me just get these out of the way:
Grots the same price as guardsmen? That's some fine balance right there.
Also: nice to see that gw is finally acknowledging the fact that they've screwed up the rules for the ancient Veterans of the Long War so badly that a warrior who has survived hundreds to thousands of years fighting in literal hell is now equal to a neophyte from a thin blooded chapter from founding #12365 by pricing them the same. And the best of the best of those ancient warriors? They're the equivalent to the average joes from founding #12365. Fine fluffy rules writing right there yessirree Bob.
There, I feel better. Been holding that in all day.
WhiteDog wrote: What do you guys think of impulsor with the point hike ? Are they still worth ? Was thinking about buying one out before the 9th appeared to feth everything up.
I think they are still going to be fine. So far from my whole 4 games played of 9th edition, there is a real push to get up the table and get on those objectives fast, so I'm sure they will see play, but I don't think we are going to see a lot of value in running impulsor spam. I have two for my blood angels and honestly, I can't see myself buying any more than that for them. For my Space Wolves, ill likely pick up one or two, but again, I don't see myself buying any more than that to play them.
2 impulsors in a list is going to be very common I think, just to immediately get out onto the middle objectives T1 with stuff that's hard to dislodge.
Martel732 wrote: What sunk primaris inititally was how many damage 2 weapons they put in the game. It's still their achilles heel.
Right - there's a delicate balance. It won't be a perfect balance. Primaris facing riptides will have less fun than CSM, perhaps and CSM won't enjoy fighting Primaris - unless they're bringing more special weapons.
I think the extra 6" is going to matter a lot less with the missions and table size.
Speaking of....where are those damned mission leaks?
I think the table size thing has been over-emphasised. People keep bringing it up like everyone's tables just shrunk spontaneously and that all players worldwide have happily and graciously adopted GW's standardrecommended minimum table size.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think the table size thing has been over-emphasised. People keep bringing it up like everyone's tables just shrunk spontaneously and that all players worldwide have happily and graciously adopted GW's standardrecommended minimum table size.
Watching some of the 9th ed preview vids, I think Tabletop Tactics was saying that many major events were switching to the new table size. If that's the case I think you'll see many metas shift to that.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think the table size thing has been over-emphasised. People keep bringing it up like everyone's tables just shrunk spontaneously and that all players worldwide have happily and graciously adopted GW's standardrecommended minimum table size.
Well, right I guess it depends on what lens you will take from the hobby. More casual players might experience games on 6x4 and feel differently about balance than a tournament player.
This is certainly not a great dynamic to have, but I think people who don't want to do tournament stuff might have to accept a little more fudge factor.
Martel732 wrote: What sunk primaris inititally was how many damage 2 weapons they put in the game. It's still their achilles heel.
Right - there's a delicate balance. It won't be a perfect balance. Primaris facing riptides will have less fun than CSM, perhaps and CSM won't enjoy fighting Primaris - unless they're bringing more special weapons.
I think the extra 6" is going to matter a lot less with the missions and table size.
Speaking of....where are those damned mission leaks?
They didn't fix this problem. They just made primaris kill MOAR THINGS and ROLL MOAR DICE. The gravis armor +1 W fix was a good change, though.
9th looks great but the blanket approach to points is just sloppy. Feels like years worth of work was disregarded.
Also less models smaller board is good for faster games but not as much for playing with my models. Wish they had kept the pts values more in line with 8th.
Thanks Daed. 50 actually, but didn't twin heavy bolters go up? So not quite that. Maybe there's something in the new fw books that explains why it didn't go down more. I'll wait and see before getting salty.
Yea there's the whole FW re-write, but I wouldn't expect too much for units like the Fellblade.
Ok, let's say you're right. So my previously 917 point bone stock fellblade is now 880 points: a whopping 37 point buff. Why? They obviously noticed it this time, so shear laziness is out. It's still massively overpriced compared to similar units. Does gw just not want the fw super heavys to be played? I'm starting to feel salty. In fact, considering what they did to Renegades and Heretics and what I'm seeing for csm, I'm feeling really salty.
And since I'm behind the conversation let me just get these out of the way:
Grots the same price as guardsmen? That's some fine balance right there.
Also: nice to see that gw is finally acknowledging the fact that they've screwed up the rules for the ancient Veterans of the Long War so badly that a warrior who has survived hundreds to thousands of years fighting in literal hell is now equal to a neophyte from a thin blooded chapter from founding #12365 by pricing them the same. And the best of the best of those ancient warriors? They're the equivalent to the average joes from founding #12365. Fine fluffy rules writing right there yessirree Bob.
There, I feel better. Been holding that in all day.
Where did they admit they suck writing CSM rules???
ArcaneHorror wrote: Honestly, this whole 'all points go up' thing I don't think should have happened. I don't see it having a massive income on sales, and just strikes me as a way to rile up the fanbase.
Don't agree, It needed to happen, as too much was smooshed into the low end.
Unfortunately introducing a floor of 5 points sets up some obvious problems for people to yell about.
And there needed to be more individual judgement and less formulas.
And GW is still hung up on the elf statline for some bizarre reason. The only time they ever got it even close to right was when the errata'd the entire Dark Elf armybook away from the Always-Strike-First High Elf point values.
But the lethality of 8th/9th edition 40k just doesn't care about elf stats. In terms of dying, they're exactly the same as guard, admech or sister's stats, depending on the armor save.
There needed to be some changes, yes, but not this game-wide hike, and I definitely don't see why having low-end points is a bad thing, as doing so allows people to have bigger and more diverse armies. There definitely needed to be more individual analysis for different units. Going to a new edition in and of itself tends to put people on edge, and adding these points changes just throws in a whole mess of unwanted anxiety that at least for me is dampening a lot of excitement that I had about this new edition.
After reading to a good part of the point changes of the various factions, I'm not so negative about them. The total result feels a bit weird but it could make sense after a few games.
What I really cannot understand are Eradicators at 40 points... WHY?????
That single point value can literally ruin the game! I'm getting 7E WraithKnight vibes from this!
The implications of that single point entry will warp the meta completely into "Do you have an answer to Eradicators? No? You lose!"
I'm pretty excited for the 9th but that single point value is making me think of skipping this edition until it gets fixed...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let's hope that the marine codex is right around the corner and that it bumps it to at least 55.
I just took a quick look on the leaked points...
holy guacamole!
I started Tau in february - got a stormsurge, just because I like the looks.
Reaching 9th Ed, LoWs can't be reasonable added to my existing army and it took a 120 points increase.
It has to get some overwhelmingly good rules, or it is just dead...
I have a theory about the noise marine hike. It was pointed out recently (gimme a bit to find it again) that “ignores cover” means you ignore the effects of light cover, heavy cover, and dense cover. So they’re trying to balance out noise marines suddenly able to avoid a -1 to hit.
Naturally we’ll see an equivalent price hike in imperial fists.
Edit: correction, imperial fists specifically say they ignore the saving throw bonus from cover.
Edit 2: sonic weapons say the same thing now. Never mind.
Crackedgear wrote: I have a theory about the noise marine hike. It was pointed out recently (gimme a bit to find it again) that “ignores cover” means you ignore the effects of light cover, heavy cover, and dense cover. So they’re trying to balance out noise marines suddenly able to avoid a -1 to hit.
Naturally we’ll see an equivalent price hike in imperial fists.
Edit: correction, imperial fists specifically say they ignore the saving throw bonus from cover.
I hope that this doesn't mean that we see some ish pulled for stuff that works well with the Iron Warriors, since they ignore cover as well.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, marines definitely need even more free AP on their attacks, it's what the game is calling out for.
Well the new Primaris are getting it anyways so the ship has sailed on that one. I'm only in this for the Classic/True/Realmarine Assault Squads and their Chaos counterparts. Those Chaos marines in particular don't have the free Doctrine AP either.
What are the odds the chaos marines didn't 'trade in' their shiny Astartes chainswords when they signed up to be traitors, like so many other pieces of kit?
If mini marines get it and we dont then CSM would pretty much revolt.
CSM have been revolting since second edition, with a particular highlight being the period where the 3.5 'dex was an albatross around the neck of the game.
The implications of that single point entry will warp the meta completely into "Do you have an answer to Eradicators? No? You lose!"
When would you not have an answer for a T5 unit?
Well it turns out that Eradicators are quite point efficient at killing Eradicators, so there's that.
Space Marine Devastator with Multimelta. T4, 1W, 1 Heavy Melta shot at 24" 35 points.
Eradicator: T5 3W, 2 Assault Melta shots at 24" 40 points.
Perfect balance. A++
And I'm usually the guy who says things like point to point comparisons aren't particularly valid. This comparison in particular just seems off.
My expectation for Eradicators to "make sense" would be MM at like 12 or 15. MM has to change or it just doesn't work.
Eradicators themselves don't concern me though.
Which is why I think the Multimelta is going to two shots. . .
But the Eradicator still compares quite favorably for their weapon being Assault, having 3W and T5 for only +5 points.
An Attack Bike looks like 55 points with a Multimelta. They have 4W, 2A, T5, twin Boltgun and a 14" move. They compare reasonably to an Eradicator only if the Multimelta is getting something like 2 shots.
Thanks Daed. 50 actually, but didn't twin heavy bolters go up? So not quite that. Maybe there's something in the new fw books that explains why it didn't go down more. I'll wait and see before getting salty.
Yea there's the whole FW re-write, but I wouldn't expect too much for units like the Fellblade.
Ok, let's say you're right. So my previously 917 point bone stock fellblade is now 880 points: a whopping 37 point buff. Why? They obviously noticed it this time, so shear laziness is out. It's still massively overpriced compared to similar units. Does gw just not want the fw super heavys to be played? I'm starting to feel salty. In fact, considering what they did to Renegades and Heretics and what I'm seeing for csm, I'm feeling really salty.
And since I'm behind the conversation let me just get these out of the way:
Grots the same price as guardsmen? That's some fine balance right there.
Also: nice to see that gw is finally acknowledging the fact that they've screwed up the rules for the ancient Veterans of the Long War so badly that a warrior who has survived hundreds to thousands of years fighting in literal hell is now equal to a neophyte from a thin blooded chapter from founding #12365 by pricing them the same. And the best of the best of those ancient warriors? They're the equivalent to the average joes from founding #12365. Fine fluffy rules writing right there yessirree Bob.
There, I feel better. Been holding that in all day.
Where did they admit they suck writing CSM rules???
On their knees while being flogged, and with csm players being allowed to throw rotten fruits at them in the amount of 1kg of rotten fruits for each year of playing csm.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think the table size thing has been over-emphasised. People keep bringing it up like everyone's tables just shrunk spontaneously and that all players worldwide have happily and graciously adopted GW's standardrecommended minimum table size.
Correct. I think outside of organized events the new size won't matter at all. Once GW starts to put out more maps with their own size you'll have new players using that (If they don’t play other Wargames with the usual 6x4). Even GW stores might continue to use to use the old sizes because of AoS, Lotr and their specialist Systems.
On their knees while being flogged, and with csm players being allowed to throw rotten fruits at them in the amount of 1kg of rotten fruits for each year of playing csm.
No. We actualy have rituals like that. You make a effigy of something bad, and after easter it gets wacked first by an adult, then by all the children, then the effigy is taken on a cart to the river, set on fire, stoned and drowned.
Now I don't think that should happen to live GW employees. But public whippings and being showered with rotten fruits has a long tradition in my country. There are still places where stone "pręgierze", which I think are called pillories in english, still stand.
Sorry I ment that the effigies of opposition politicans are burned or hanged around those in big city events.
Are you really going to argue that the new morale rules aren't wildly beneficial for hordes?
Horde players agree going to go from losing a third of thier army to morale to losing maybe 15-20%.
It depends on the unit. Boyz with a warboss or another large unit nearby bypassed the moral issue anyway, while gretchins got a significant benefit from the new morale rule.... except they are now 5ppm and combined with a plethora of new rules that badly affect large squads (blasts, coherency, cover...) it means that they were way better before.
Inquisitors seem to be set to help on the imperial side with their ability to give their leadership to friendly imperium units.
The points increases in 9th look like they were done in 20 mins, no effort has been put into balancing armies in any way,
So much for the most playtested edition! I’m guessing the play testers used 8th edition points and weren’t asked to test anything beyond the core rules,
considering the quality Of the play testers this is a real shame and a Huge missed opportunity on gw’s part.
Guyver 3 wrote: The points increases in 9th look like they were done in 20 mins, no effort has been put into balancing armies in any way,
So much for the most playtested edition! I’m guessing the play testers used 8th edition points and weren’t asked to test anything beyond the core rules,
considering the quality Of the play testers this is a real shame and a Huge missed opportunity on gw’s part.
Pretty sure the playtesters fielded brimstone horrors and grots against guardsmen and concluded that they both worth the same.
Guyver 3 wrote: The points increases in 9th look like they were done in 20 mins, no effort has been put into balancing armies in any way,
So much for the most playtested edition! I’m guessing the play testers used 8th edition points and weren’t asked to test anything beyond the core rules,
considering the quality Of the play testers this is a real shame and a Huge missed opportunity on gw’s part.
20 mins ? I have to disagree all that dice / dart chucking was clearly a long post-Bugmans Friday afternoon of serious game development
This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.
But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...
Nibbler wrote: I just took a quick look on the leaked points...
holy guacamole!
I started Tau in february - got a stormsurge, just because I like the looks.
Reaching 9th Ed, LoWs can't be reasonable added to my existing army and it took a 120 points increase.
It has to get some overwhelmingly good rules, or it is just dead...
Stormsurge was questionable even before 9th. Now it's just unplayable until the 9th edition codex drops in which case it could become viable again if GW actually support it.
I guess the only thing it has going for it is the Cluster rocket system being able to absolutely decimate larger units since it counts as a blast weapon. landing 24 hits on units with 11+ models is just downright dirty. Still doesn't justify such a price hike IMHO though.
Edit: Actually, Double checking. I could be wrong, there's no points cost listed for the cluster rocket system, destroyer missiles or either main weapon for the stormsurge, so with the added sub-weapons, we're only looking at a 277pt stormsurge with SMS and Flamers increasing to
320pts which is slightly more palatable. Not exactly go-out-and-buy-3 palatable, but enough that people might start trying them out.
Grimtuff wrote: This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.
But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...
I honestly don´t fething buy it about playtester. I´m 100% sure they told the fethers at GW that those points were slowed, as much they told them that IH and new SM were broken.
They just decide to ignore it. I get it you want to push one product in your line, but how long will last the power amour frenzy? I mean doesn´t it get boring after a while?
Grimtuff wrote: This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.
But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...
People are also acting like GW took a dump in their cornflakes and personally killed their pets because a grot might be out by a point or two.
"OMG eradicators make the game unplayable?!?!??!?!" 6 melta shots aren't going to win you games on their own. They're good, they're too cheap, they're not an I-win button.
Grimtuff wrote: This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.
But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...
People are also acting like GW took a dump in their cornflakes and personally killed their pets because a grot might be out by a point or two.
"OMG eradicators make the game unplayable?!?!??!?!" 6 melta shots aren't going to win you games on their own. They're good, they're too cheap, they're not an I-win button.
I hear you. Just gag it, go the extra mile. Remove the cost of the eradicators all together. 0 points for 3. What? Melta shots aren't going to win you games on their own. While at it, change the aggressors to shoot 50 shots per arm. It's only str 4, not broken by any means.
Yeah. Really no point in bothering about balancing a strategy game that has winning objectives.
Grimtuff wrote: This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.
But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...
but who's the Una 2 and who's the Skorne ?
Spoiler:
Primaras and everyone else of course
"They are my Space Marines. And they shall know no unfavourable rules changes!"
Grimtuff wrote: This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.
But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...
People are also acting like GW took a dump in their cornflakes and personally killed their pets because a grot might be out by a point or two.
"OMG eradicators make the game unplayable?!?!??!?!" 6 melta shots aren't going to win you games on their own. They're good, they're too cheap, they're not an I-win button.
considering 2 factions more have been first slowly ignored all through 8th and then squatted, ans such a unit shows up for the faction with blatant selfperpetuating release favour and people get pissed?
Grimtuff wrote: This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.
But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...
People are also acting like GW took a dump in their cornflakes and personally killed their pets because a grot might be out by a point or two.
"OMG eradicators make the game unplayable?!?!??!?!" 6 melta shots aren't going to win you games on their own. They're good, they're too cheap, they're not an I-win button.
I hear you. Just gag it, go the extra mile. Remove the cost of the eradicators all together. 0 points for 3. What? Melta shots aren't going to win you games on their own. While at it, change the aggressors to shoot 50 shots per arm. It's only str 4, not broken by any means.
Yeah. Really no point in bothering about balancing a strategy game that has winning objectives.
Go for it, please continue to wave your arms and make irrational childish statements like it actually helps or adds to the fact the unit for 3 is maybe 20-30 points too cheap. Literally proving my point about the overreactions, thank you.
Grimtuff wrote: This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.
But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...
People are also acting like GW took a dump in their cornflakes and personally killed their pets because a grot might be out by a point or two.
"OMG eradicators make the game unplayable?!?!??!?!" 6 melta shots aren't going to win you games on their own. They're good, they're too cheap, they're not an I-win button.
considering 2 factions more have been first slowly ignored all through 8th and then squatted, ans such a unit shows up for the faction with blatant selfperpetuating release favour and people get pissed?
I get you're upset that the OOPFW armies are gone, but that literally has nothing to do with the relative points values of eradicators?
Grimtuff wrote: This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.
But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...
People are also acting like GW took a dump in their cornflakes and personally killed their pets because a grot might be out by a point or two.
"OMG eradicators make the game unplayable?!?!??!?!" 6 melta shots aren't going to win you games on their own. They're good, they're too cheap, they're not an I-win button.
So. Guess you play marines. Let's see would you support 28 intercessors. And hey let's have 5 point smasha gun. d3 shots ain't winning games on their own?
Grimtuff wrote: This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.
But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...
People are also acting like GW took a dump in their cornflakes and personally killed their pets because a grot might be out by a point or two.
"OMG eradicators make the game unplayable?!?!??!?!" 6 melta shots aren't going to win you games on their own. They're good, they're too cheap, they're not an I-win button.
So. Guess you play marines. Let's see would you support 28 intercessors. And hey let's have 5 point smasha gun. d3 shots ain't winning games on their own?
Chaos marines and sisters, no horse in this race I'm afraid. Intercessors maybe do need to go up another point or two and smasha guns aren't winning games on their own. Yet again, give a serious response rather than over dramatic arm waving please.
Grimtuff wrote: This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.
But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...
People are also acting like GW took a dump in their cornflakes and personally killed their pets because a grot might be out by a point or two.
"OMG eradicators make the game unplayable?!?!??!?!" 6 melta shots aren't going to win you games on their own. They're good, they're too cheap, they're not an I-win button.
considering 2 factions more have been first slowly ignored all through 8th and then squatted, ans such a unit shows up for the faction with blatant selfperpetuating release favour and people get pissed?
I get you're upset that the OOPFW armies are gone, but that literally has nothing to do with the relative points values of eradicators?
But it does, it's interlinked. You have enough time to make new unit entries for SMs that frankly do not need any right now but not enough time to make unit entries for the above, because...?
Grimtuff wrote: This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.
But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...
People are also acting like GW took a dump in their cornflakes and personally killed their pets because a grot might be out by a point or two.
"OMG eradicators make the game unplayable?!?!??!?!" 6 melta shots aren't going to win you games on their own. They're good, they're too cheap, they're not an I-win button.
considering 2 factions more have been first slowly ignored all through 8th and then squatted, ans such a unit shows up for the faction with blatant selfperpetuating release favour and people get pissed?
I get you're upset that the OOPFW armies are gone, but that literally has nothing to do with the relative points values of eradicators?
But it does, it's interlinked. You have enough time to make new unit entries for SMs that frankly do not need any right now but not enough time to make unit entries for the above, because...?
Because releasing an entire R&H army takes more resources than they've put into this wave of primaris releases? But even then, it still has nothing to do with the balance of those units in regards to 9th.
Lets break this down further: "I think that eradicators are too cheap because renegade militia got removed" is a nonsensical statement.
But it does, it's interlinked. You have enough time to make new unit entries for SMs that frankly do not need any right now but not enough time to make unit entries for the above, because...?
Because marines are GW main source of income, played by most people, which makes them more important then any faction or even whole games GW makes.
Grimtuff wrote: This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.
But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...
People are also acting like GW took a dump in their cornflakes and personally killed their pets because a grot might be out by a point or two.
"OMG eradicators make the game unplayable?!?!??!?!" 6 melta shots aren't going to win you games on their own. They're good, they're too cheap, they're not an I-win button.
They may not win the game, but they can ruin it.
If a model is too cheap by a wide enough margin, like the current case, you will see that model on most tables, especially if it is a model available to 9 different factions, which also happen to be the most played factions.
If that model is a specialist and is extremely good at what it does, like the current case, you have pushed out of the game his favorite targets.
The simple presence of eradicators, already tells us that any big target without an invul save is toast. If you happened to like that sort of models, like for example an IG tank company or a nidzilla, those 2 digits on that publication can literally ruin the game for you.
Grimtuff wrote: This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.
But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...
People are also acting like GW took a dump in their cornflakes and personally killed their pets because a grot might be out by a point or two.
"OMG eradicators make the game unplayable?!?!??!?!" 6 melta shots aren't going to win you games on their own. They're good, they're too cheap, they're not an I-win button.
The issue is as has always been the case with primaris, they keep getting so many apparently poorly pointed units that each release ways seems to pile on more and more bloating and there always seems to be some unit that's so out of touch with what it should cost your really left questioning if the people creating the points play the game.
Also when it's marines, more marines, even more marines, it's a marine thing honest. Relesse cycle with the inevitably broken OP unit that takes months to get fixed it gets very difficult to turn the other cheek when your getting rofl stomped by marine's week in and out for a year.
Add in that a number of armies have just seen massive points increases across their most competitive units while marines get more OP stuff extreme saltyness is to be expected and frankly justified.
Grimtuff wrote: This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.
But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...
People are also acting like GW took a dump in their cornflakes and personally killed their pets because a grot might be out by a point or two.
"OMG eradicators make the game unplayable?!?!??!?!" 6 melta shots aren't going to win you games on their own. They're good, they're too cheap, they're not an I-win button.
They may not win the game, but they can ruin it.
If a model is too cheap by a wide enough margin, like the current case, you will see that model on most tables, especially if it is a model available to 9 different factions, which also happen to be the most played factions.
If that model is a specialist and is extremely good at what it does, like the current case, you have pushed out of the game his favorite targets.
The simple presence of eradicators, already tells us that any big target without an invul save is toast. If you happened to like that sort of models, like for example an IG tank company or a nidzilla, those 2 digits on that publication can literally ruin the game for you.
Again, a unit of eradicators does 7 damage outside of 12 inches to a leman russ, how is that ruining the game? Fex will fare worse mostly but still it's still capably to survive 1 volley with the -1 to hit carapace.
GW never wanted a perfectly balanced game, new points aim to have a game which is balanced enough to keep players around but there's also the goal to sell specific kits over other ones to take into account.
Take orks: gretchins sold a lot in 8th since players needed loads of them, SAG and flash gitz also sold and had their glory days, and all those units were crap before 8th so GW needed players to buy those models... now GW is pushing buggies, which apparently didn't sold enough when they were released. Not a surprise, even primaris got their buffs long after they were released.
Nauts, buggies, meganobz, mek gunz, flyers... are all very expensive (and quite recent) kits and not many players have loads of them: it comes natural that those units have viable rules. Maybe even dreads: they're definitely more common to have in older collections but they can have multiple loadouts and not many players magnetize stuff, so I guess a simple change in the most performing combinations of weapons is enough to keep the kit appealing for buyers. Works on flyers and mek gunz kits too, just change one variant to be to top performers over the other options included in the kit and they keep selling a lot.
Units like lootas, boyz, bikes, etc that were very common prior 8th edition aren't gonna be pushed in terms of rules because GW know that lots of player already have enough of them. After X years of bad rules GW will ultimately revamp them as all the players that started the hobby in those X years will unlikely have them. Same for those units which actually don't rely on kits like tankbustas, kommandos or koptas: it's unlikely that GW decides to push them as the consequence is no $ for the company. Luckily GW guys forgot about tankbustas not having a kit and they kept their 8th points value (which by the way was already a bit high).
Grimtuff wrote: This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.
But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...
People are also acting like GW took a dump in their cornflakes and personally killed their pets because a grot might be out by a point or two.
"OMG eradicators make the game unplayable?!?!??!?!" 6 melta shots aren't going to win you games on their own. They're good, they're too cheap, they're not an I-win button.
The issue is as has always been the case with primaris, they keep getting so many apparently poorly pointed units that each release ways seems to pile on more and more bloating and there always seems to be some unit that's so out of touch with what it should cost your really left questioning if the people creating the points play the game.
Also when it's marines, more marines, even more marines, it's a marine thing honest. Relesse cycle with the inevitably broken OP unit that takes months to get fixed it gets very difficult to turn the other cheek when your getting rofl stomped by marine's week in and out for a year.
Add in that a number of armies have just seen massive points increases across their most competitive units while marines get more OP stuff extreme saltyness is to be expected and frankly justified.
Marines sucked for most of 8th, people seem to be quick to forget that. But every faction has a unit that's got questionable points in one direction or another, plenty of examples in here. Marines have the largest range so have the largest room for some unusual discrepancies, it's to be expected if a faction has something wrong, it's them.
Again, a unit of eradicators does 7 damage outside of 12 inches to a leman russ, how is that ruining the game? Fex will fare worse mostly but still it's still capably to survive 1 volley with the -1 to hit carapace.
Try again the avarage with CM & LT is 11Wound from a 3 man unit.
Marines sucked for most of 8th, people seem to be quick to forget that. But every faction has a unit that's got questionable points in one direction or another, plenty of examples in here. Marines have the largest range so have the largest room for some unusual discrepancies, it's to be expected if a faction has something wrong, it's them.
Then we have had a year of nothing but Iron hands, imperial fists, etc etc they have all been nerfed consistently and still are hitting a 60% win tmratio against non marines.
It's not one or two units it's be systemic miscalculation by the design team or blatent unwillingness to nerf the offenders appropriately.
Emicrania wrote: I honestly don´t fething buy it about playtester. I´m 100% sure they told the fethers at GW that those points were slowed, as much they told them that IH and new SM were broken.
They just decide to ignore it. I get it you want to push one product in your line, but how long will last the power amour frenzy? I mean doesn´t it get boring after a while?
Given how many people are reacting with "Woohoo, everything is great!" i'm guessing the marine boredom hasn't set in yet in some places. Where I'm at, pre-pandemic there was already a growing contingent of people asking "hey, I've done marines vs marines three games in a row, anyone want to play something else?"
Again, a unit of eradicators does 7 damage outside of 12 inches to a leman russ, how is that ruining the game? Fex will fare worse mostly but still it's still capably to survive 1 volley with the -1 to hit carapace.
Try again the avarage with CM & LT is 11Wound from a 3 man unit.
Marines sucked for most of 8th, people seem to be quick to forget that. But every faction has a unit that's got questionable points in one direction or another, plenty of examples in here. Marines have the largest range so have the largest room for some unusual discrepancies, it's to be expected if a faction has something wrong, it's them.
Then we have had a year of nothing but Iron hands, imperial fists, etc etc they have all been nerfed consistently and still are hitting a 60% win tmratio against non marines.
It's not one or two units it's be systemic miscalculation by the design team or blatent unwillingness to nerf the offenders appropriately.
I like this game, let's buff the carnifex with catalyst and get it back down to 7 wounds done shall we? It's also cheaper than the resources you're putting into firing at it now.
Grimtuff wrote: This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.
But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...
People are also acting like GW took a dump in their cornflakes and personally killed their pets because a grot might be out by a point or two.
"OMG eradicators make the game unplayable?!?!??!?!" 6 melta shots aren't going to win you games on their own. They're good, they're too cheap, they're not an I-win button.
considering 2 factions more have been first slowly ignored all through 8th and then squatted, ans such a unit shows up for the faction with blatant selfperpetuating release favour and people get pissed?
I get you're upset that the OOPFW armies are gone, but that literally has nothing to do with the relative points values of eradicators?
But it does, it's interlinked. You have enough time to make new unit entries for SMs that frankly do not need any right now but not enough time to make unit entries for the above, because...?
Because releasing an entire R&H army takes more resources than they've put into this wave of primaris releases? But even then, it still has nothing to do with the balance of those units in regards to 9th.
Lets break this down further: "I think that eradicators are too cheap because renegade militia got removed" is a nonsensical statement.
Such nonsense, my point was that it is valid complaint to point at this rather too good priced unit that suddendly appearead , shanking all internal balance with a sorry shiv meanwhile it is Part of even more new Units for said faction but the other two get nothing?
Also the ressources claim is bollocks all you'd need to do is 3 boxes like broodbrothers and 4 charachters and a command squad and that is the luxury treatment that also can stand in as a propper cultist release for csm/TS/DG.
Edit: and of course a propper rulebook, which they literally could one to one copy from the past and adapt easily enough.
Spoletta wrote: Oh look the new unit comes a bit short of a 100% efficency on that target when in non optimal condition and unbuffed! Then it must be fine!
Or that maybe just gnashing teeth aimlessly on a forum without any real world experience means nothing.
Spoletta wrote: Oh look the new unit comes a bit short of a 100% efficency on that target when in non optimal condition and unbuffed! Then it must be fine!
Or that maybe just gnashing teeth aimlessly on a forum without any real world experience means nothing.
You are the one that raised the point of them not being as good as they look like.
Running away now that you were proven wrong?
By the way, I was wrong too, the eradicators have MORE than 100% efficiency on fexes when out of melta range and unbfuffed! They actually come out to 121 points of fexes down!
Dudeface wrote: Again, a unit of eradicators does 7 damage outside of 12 inches to a leman russ, how is that ruining the game? Fex will fare worse mostly but still it's still capably to survive 1 volley with the -1 to hit carapace.
The argument isn't that the unit is single handedly going to the destroy the game. The point is that it's a unit which is undercosted for what it does, in an army full of undercosted units. Doing 21 damage to a tank at 24" range, or ~26.8 at 12" range for 360 points means that the rest of the army really doesn't need to be that bothered by large models as they remove one per turn. It's not like 7 wounds is shabby anyway, that's as much as a lev dread with 2 storm cannon arrays did on average to tanks; plus, at T5 W3 they're quite hard to remove. Compound this with the troop choice for that army having guns which are very effective against infantry, as well as everything in the army being decent in combat and it simply feels very unfair. Just because a unit doesn't single handedly break the game doesn't mean it's fair, nor does it mean it's not an issue in the wider context of the game.
Spoletta wrote: Oh look the new unit comes a bit short of a 100% efficency on that target when in non optimal condition and unbuffed! Then it must be fine!
Or that maybe just gnashing teeth aimlessly on a forum without any real world experience means nothing.
You are the one that raised the point of them not being as good as they look like.
Running away now that you were proven wrong?
By the way, I was wrong too, the eradicators have MORE than 100% efficiency on fexes when out of melta range and unbfuffed! They actually come out to 121 points of fexes down!
No I said they were too good, I just said they don't render playing the game pointless:
Dudeface wrote:
Grimtuff wrote: This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.
But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...
People are also acting like GW took a dump in their cornflakes and personally killed their pets because a grot might be out by a point or two.
"OMG eradicators make the game unplayable?!?!??!?!" 6 melta shots aren't going to win you games on their own. They're good, they're too cheap, they're not an I-win button.
A unit against a fex with spore cysts (which I did specify) hits 3 times, wounds twice, does 7 wounds.
That is 5 points more than a Captain in Gravis without the CHARACTER protections and with 1 less wound + no Invul save.
Sure, Assault Multi-melta, is a bit daft and double shooting with concentrated fire makes them strong against Vehicles; but Primaris needed a real anti-tank unit, and this still limits full potential to a single target.
There are some far worse Goofy points to look at(although this is going back towards 3rd edition points costs): Razorback is more expensive base than a rhino and still has to pay for guns while a base Impulsor is only slightly less than the cheapest gun on the razorback(Impulse and Razorback having less capacity), Heavy Bolter/Flamer costs the same for marines as guard, etc.
Dudeface wrote: Again, a unit of eradicators does 7 damage outside of 12 inches to a leman russ, how is that ruining the game? Fex will fare worse mostly but still it's still capably to survive 1 volley with the -1 to hit carapace.
The argument isn't that the unit is single handedly going to the destroy the game. The point is that it's a unit which is undercosted for what it does, in an army full of undercosted units. Doing 21 damage to a tank at 24" range, or ~26.8 at 12" range for 360 points means that the rest of the army really doesn't need to be that bothered by large models as they remove one per turn. It's not like 7 wounds is shabby anyway, that's as much as a lev dread with 2 storm cannon arrays did on average to tanks; plus, at T5 W3 they're quite hard to remove. Compound this with the troop choice for that army having guns which are very effective against infantry, as well as everything in the army being decent in combat and it simply feels very unfair. Just because a unit doesn't single handedly break the game doesn't mean it's fair, nor does it mean it's not an issue in the wider context of the game.
People in this thread have literally said the unit ruins the game single handedly.
Grimtuff wrote: This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.
But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...
People are also acting like GW took a dump in their cornflakes and personally killed their pets because a grot might be out by a point or two.
"OMG eradicators make the game unplayable?!?!??!?!" 6 melta shots aren't going to win you games on their own. They're good, they're too cheap, they're not an I-win button.
considering 2 factions more have been first slowly ignored all through 8th and then squatted, ans such a unit shows up for the faction with blatant selfperpetuating release favour and people get pissed?
I get you're upset that the OOPFW armies are gone, but that literally has nothing to do with the relative points values of eradicators?
But it does, it's interlinked. You have enough time to make new unit entries for SMs that frankly do not need any right now but not enough time to make unit entries for the above, because...?
Because releasing an entire R&H army takes more resources than they've put into this wave of primaris releases? But even then, it still has nothing to do with the balance of those units in regards to 9th.
Lets break this down further: "I think that eradicators are too cheap because renegade militia got removed" is a nonsensical statement.
Who mentioned releasing a new army? Right now, we've got two armies that don't even have the same support they had in 8th of a points list. Going by MFM19, we're talking a page, maybe two, of points - many of which have probably already been calculated for other forces and would just be copied across.
Grimtuff wrote: This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.
But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...
People are also acting like GW took a dump in their cornflakes and personally killed their pets because a grot might be out by a point or two.
"OMG eradicators make the game unplayable?!?!??!?!" 6 melta shots aren't going to win you games on their own. They're good, they're too cheap, they're not an I-win button.
They may not win the game, but they can ruin it.
If a model is too cheap by a wide enough margin, like the current case, you will see that model on most tables, especially if it is a model available to 9 different factions, which also happen to be the most played factions.
If that model is a specialist and is extremely good at what it does, like the current case, you have pushed out of the game his favorite targets.
The simple presence of eradicators, already tells us that any big target without an invul save is toast. If you happened to like that sort of models, like for example an IG tank company or a nidzilla, those 2 digits on that publication can literally ruin the game for you.
Eyjio wrote:
Dudeface wrote: People in this thread have literally said the unit ruins the game single handedly.
Grimtuff wrote: This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.
But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...
People are also acting like GW took a dump in their cornflakes and personally killed their pets because a grot might be out by a point or two.
"OMG eradicators make the game unplayable?!?!??!?!" 6 melta shots aren't going to win you games on their own. They're good, they're too cheap, they're not an I-win button.
considering 2 factions more have been first slowly ignored all through 8th and then squatted, ans such a unit shows up for the faction with blatant selfperpetuating release favour and people get pissed?
I get you're upset that the OOPFW armies are gone, but that literally has nothing to do with the relative points values of eradicators?
But it does, it's interlinked. You have enough time to make new unit entries for SMs that frankly do not need any right now but not enough time to make unit entries for the above, because...?
Because releasing an entire R&H army takes more resources than they've put into this wave of primaris releases? But even then, it still has nothing to do with the balance of those units in regards to 9th.
Lets break this down further: "I think that eradicators are too cheap because renegade militia got removed" is a nonsensical statement.
Who mentioned releasing a new army? Right now, we've got two armies that don't even have the same support they had in 8th of a points list. Going by MFM19, we're talking a page, maybe two, of points - many of which have probably already been calculated for other forces and would just be copied across.
9 wounds, not 6 - Eradicators, according to the Indomitus Face-Off article on WHC, have 3W each.
Even if they would be a "new army" release the ressources claim is bollocks all you'd need to do is 3 boxes like broodbrothers and 4 charachters and a command squad that also can stand in as a propper cultist release for csm/TS/DG. and chaos vehicle sprues. that's literally it. That would be the luxury treatment even you could just release 2 differing upgrade sprue boxes, making militia and cultists share one.
and of course a propper rulebook, which they literally could one to one copy from the past and adapt easily enough, which allready had prototraits so not even that would need time to create.
Grimtuff wrote: This thread takes me back to the release of Warmachine Mk3. "Three years of playtesting" they said and were rightfully raked over the coals by their customers when this was proven to not be exactly true.
But we all know this won't happen here. People will bitch and moan but still fork over their dosh hand and fist to GW...
People are also acting like GW took a dump in their cornflakes and personally killed their pets because a grot might be out by a point or two.
"OMG eradicators make the game unplayable?!?!??!?!" 6 melta shots aren't going to win you games on their own. They're good, they're too cheap, they're not an I-win button.
considering 2 factions more have been first slowly ignored all through 8th and then squatted, ans such a unit shows up for the faction with blatant selfperpetuating release favour and people get pissed?
I get you're upset that the OOPFW armies are gone, but that literally has nothing to do with the relative points values of eradicators?
But it does, it's interlinked. You have enough time to make new unit entries for SMs that frankly do not need any right now but not enough time to make unit entries for the above, because...?
Because releasing an entire R&H army takes more resources than they've put into this wave of primaris releases? But even then, it still has nothing to do with the balance of those units in regards to 9th.
Lets break this down further: "I think that eradicators are too cheap because renegade militia got removed" is a nonsensical statement.
Who mentioned releasing a new army? Right now, we've got two armies that don't even have the same support they had in 8th of a points list. Going by MFM19, we're talking a page, maybe two, of points - many of which have probably already been calculated for other forces and would just be copied across.
9 wounds, not 6 - Eradicators, according to the Indomitus Face-Off article on WHC, have 3W each.
Even if they would be a "new army" release the ressources claim is bollocks all you'd need to do is 3 boxes like broodbrothers and 4 charachters and a command squad that also can stand in as a propper cultist release for csm/TS/DG. and chaos vehicle sprues. that's literally it. That would be the luxury treatment even you could just release 2 differing upgrade sprue boxes, making militia and cultists share one.
and of course a propper rulebook, which they literally could one to one copy from the past and adapt easily enough, which allready had prototraits so not even that would need time to create.
Yeah, if any new army launched with half the kits GW have released for Primaris Marines it would be the most deluxe, over the top, incredible new faction release in history.
I know - that was my bar for where I thought they would make sense in the other thread. They didn't meet it so either meltas have to change or eradicators go up. Probably not 55 though.
An Attack Bike looks like 55 points with a Multimelta. They have 4W, 2A, T5, twin Boltgun and a 14" move. They compare reasonably to an Eradicator only if the Multimelta is getting something like 2 shots.
The really perplexing thing is this:
If GW is aiming to sell Primaris then why stick this model with mini-marine weapons? The points are in line with current weapon costs since the MM is 5 more than the Asscan on a vehicle.
That is 5 points more than a Captain in Gravis without the CHARACTER protections and with 1 less wound + no Invul save.
Sure, Assault Multi-melta, is a bit daft and double shooting with concentrated fire makes them strong against Vehicles; but Primaris needed a real anti-tank unit, and this still limits full potential to a single target.
There are some far worse Goofy points to look at(although this is going back towards 3rd edition points costs): Razorback is more expensive base than a rhino and still has to pay for guns while a base Impulsor is only slightly less than the cheapest gun on the razorback(Impulse and Razorback having less capacity), Heavy Bolter/Flamer costs the same for marines as guard, etc.
3 x 3 wounds = 9. just for starters
Why do people always defend the most broken units - same with the Cheese Serpents, and Eldar jet bikes, Iron hands....
Completely aside from all the discussions of specific examples here, does anyone else think it's a really weird move to go "we've increasing the points of everything to improve granularity and give more flexibility at the low end of the scale" while simultaneously reducing granularity (by bumping most everything to multiples of five) and reducing flexibility at the bottom of the scale (by shifting the "points floor" upwards to minimum 5ppm)?
Nazrak wrote: Completely aside from all the discussions of specific examples here, does anyone else think it's a really weird move to go "we've increasing the points of everything to improve granularity and give more flexibility at the low end of the scale" while simultaneously reducing granularity (by bumping most everything to multiples of five) and reducing flexibility at the bottom of the scale (by shifting the "points floor" upwards to minimum 5ppm)?
Probably to make the new 40k app easier to code, reduce the variables?
It’s to allow room to finesse up and down later without pretending they’ve playtested to the new level of granularity yet. It’s a reset to be tuned later.
Nazrak wrote: Completely aside from all the discussions of specific examples here, does anyone else think it's a really weird move to go "we've increasing the points of everything to improve granularity and give more flexibility at the low end of the scale" while simultaneously reducing granularity (by bumping most everything to multiples of five) and reducing flexibility at the bottom of the scale (by shifting the "points floor" upwards to minimum 5ppm)?
It certainly isn't an irony that hasn't escaped my attention.
Honestly, I just think there's a certain subset of units that GW is just trying to discourage appearing in competitive games. Whether the reason for that is "they aren't an 'iconic' part of the faction" or "they slow down competitive events and we don't like that" you can look at what units are most effected and see a pretty clear theme: Light infantry units that aren't "the star of the show" for that army.
A storm guardian is self-evidently not the equal to a Skitarii, or a Fire Warrior, or worth one point more than a Bloodletter. They're not supposed to be. Fire Warriors and Skitarii and Bloodletters are what GW wants to see on the table when an army of that faction wins a tournament event, Guardians and Storm Guardians are not.
JohnnyHell wrote: It’s to allow room to finesse up and down later without pretending they’ve playtested to the new level of granularity yet. It’s a reset to be tuned later.
wasn't their statement along the line off "most playtested ever", have they so low faith in their own and those that they hired?
Btw, why not make the playtesting public, give some insights, not that much off effort and would allow for better feedback of the community...
JohnnyHell wrote: It’s to allow room to finesse up and down later without pretending they’ve playtested to the new level of granularity yet. It’s a reset to be tuned later.
wasn't their statement along the line off "most playtested ever", have they so low faith in their own and those that they hired?
Btw, why not make the playtesting public, give some insights, not that much off effort and would allow for better feedback of the community...
They'd be walking the fine line of "giving a codex away for free" if they allowed public testing.
Okay...
Eradicators are ostensibly too good for their points at what they're meant to do. Fine. Points change, and this one unit isn't exactly destroying the game- there's a codex coming in a few months. Especially considering the utter lack of tournamnets at the moment
Completely redoing everything (again) means they're going to get a lot of stuff wrong. especially at the smaller scales where 1ppm either way makes a unit apparently 'useless' or 'broken'.
It's the dawn of a new edition. And to be honest, the game is looking a lot healthier than it did at the start of 8th
They'd be walking the fine line of "giving a codex away for free" if they allowed public testing.
I understand the argument but I'm not sure it could survive further investigation.
Between Battlescribe, that russian site everyone is using, leaks, Youtube reviews and sites like 1d4 chan, everyone is able to get basically all rules for free nowadays.
McMagnus Mindbullets wrote: Okay...
Eradicators are ostensibly too good for their points at what they're meant to do. Fine. Points change, and this one unit isn't exactly destroying the game- there's a codex coming in a few months. Especially considering the utter lack of tournamnets at the moment
Completely redoing everything (again) means they're going to get a lot of stuff wrong. especially at the smaller scales where 1ppm either way makes a unit apparently 'useless' or 'broken'.
It's the dawn of a new edition. And to be honest, the game is looking a lot healthier than it did at the start of 8th
This sums it up for me, as much as the last two pages have been people self feeding their rage at me for not overreacting and acting like the world has ended, they're making an attempt to shuffle things around and whilst there are some obviously questionable changes, nothing earth shattering or horrific has happened.
They'd be walking the fine line of "giving a codex away for free" if they allowed public testing.
I understand the argument but I'm not sure it could survive further investigation.
Between Battlescribe, that russian site everyone is using, leaks, Youtube reviews and sites like 1d4 chan, everyone is able to get basically all rules for free nowadays.
There's a big theological step for them to take between giving it away and someone taking it though, it's not the sort of leap they're historically fond of.
McMagnus Mindbullets wrote: Okay...
Eradicators are ostensibly too good for their points at what they're meant to do. Fine. Points change, and this one unit isn't exactly destroying the game- there's a codex coming in a few months. Especially considering the utter lack of tournamnets at the moment
Completely redoing everything (again) means they're going to get a lot of stuff wrong. especially at the smaller scales where 1ppm either way makes a unit apparently 'useless' or 'broken'.
It's the dawn of a new edition. And to be honest, the game is looking a lot healthier than it did at the start of 8th
The problem is that these models were not 40 points "broken", 41 points "useless".
They should be about 55 points - possibly even 60 if they were to be "balanced" as opposed to "good".
Which, if you take 9, is a significant amount of points.
JohnnyHell wrote: It’s to allow room to finesse up and down later without pretending they’ve playtested to the new level of granularity yet. It’s a reset to be tuned later.
wasn't their statement along the line off "most playtested ever", have they so low faith in their own and those that they hired?
Btw, why not make the playtesting public, give some insights, not that much off effort and would allow for better feedback of the community...
They'd be walking the fine line of "giving a codex away for free" if they allowed public testing.
Who said anything about the dex, why not point out certain things, specific units, f.e. CA balance , why something went up, why down.
You could ive insights without risking the monetary gain from rules sales.
McMagnus Mindbullets wrote: Okay...
Eradicators are ostensibly too good for their points at what they're meant to do. Fine. Points change, and this one unit isn't exactly destroying the game- there's a codex coming in a few months. Especially considering the utter lack of tournamnets at the moment
Completely redoing everything (again) means they're going to get a lot of stuff wrong. especially at the smaller scales where 1ppm either way makes a unit apparently 'useless' or 'broken'.
It's the dawn of a new edition. And to be honest, the game is looking a lot healthier than it did at the start of 8th
I do think it's a lot, lot easier to say that as someone who has one of the armies that's looking the absolute best going in. If I only had my Thousand Sons I might think the same thing, but I also have casual ork and eldar lists that got absolutely shellacked by the point changes and provide me with the perspective of having Storm guardians over HERE that Gw decided were worth 9 points, and Pink Horrors over HERE that GW thought looked good at 8.... hmmmmmmmm....
That is 5 points more than a Captain in Gravis without the CHARACTER protections and with 1 less wound + no Invul save.
Sure, Assault Multi-melta, is a bit daft and double shooting with concentrated fire makes them strong against Vehicles; but Primaris needed a real anti-tank unit, and this still limits full potential to a single target.
There are some far worse Goofy points to look at(although this is going back towards 3rd edition points costs): Razorback is more expensive base than a rhino and still has to pay for guns while a base Impulsor is only slightly less than the cheapest gun on the razorback(Impulse and Razorback having less capacity), Heavy Bolter/Flamer costs the same for marines as guard, etc.
It's a 9 wound unit, pointing out how terrible a gravis captain is in comparison for the same price doesn't really help, an anti-tank unit is supposed to only be killing one target, it's not a limitation for them, it's a BONUS.
McMagnus Mindbullets wrote: Okay...
Eradicators are ostensibly too good for their points at what they're meant to do. Fine. Points change, and this one unit isn't exactly destroying the game- there's a codex coming in a few months. Especially considering the utter lack of tournamnets at the moment
Completely redoing everything (again) means they're going to get a lot of stuff wrong. especially at the smaller scales where 1ppm either way makes a unit apparently 'useless' or 'broken'.
It's the dawn of a new edition. And to be honest, the game is looking a lot healthier than it did at the start of 8th
The problem is that these models were not 40 points "broken", 41 points "useless".
They should be about 55 points - possibly even 60 if they were to be "balanced" as opposed to "good".
Which, if you take 9, is a significant amount of points.
Consider that they effectively have a twin multimelta(only better) a twin multimelta sitting in the dirt is 10 points more expensive than they are.
McMagnus Mindbullets wrote: Okay...
Eradicators are ostensibly too good for their points at what they're meant to do. Fine. Points change, and this one unit isn't exactly destroying the game- there's a codex coming in a few months. Especially considering the utter lack of tournamnets at the moment
Completely redoing everything (again) means they're going to get a lot of stuff wrong. especially at the smaller scales where 1ppm either way makes a unit apparently 'useless' or 'broken'.
It's the dawn of a new edition. And to be honest, the game is looking a lot healthier than it did at the start of 8th
I do think it's a lot, lot easier to say that as someone who has one of the armies that's looking the absolute best going in. If I only had my Thousand Sons I might think the same thing, but I also have casual ork and eldar lists that got absolutely shellacked by the point changes and provide me with the perspective of having Storm guardians over HERE that Gw decided were worth 9 points, and Pink Horrors over HERE that GW thought looked good at 8.... hmmmmmmmm....
Easy to assume I'm still mainly playing Tsons. Love my guy magnus, but played drukhari a lot more before the changes. I liked my dissies, my patrols, and my transports full of cheap troops. Now the army is unusable. my poor kabalites....
That's not to say they won't be enjoyable, and won't receive justified changes in the future. Still trying to make it work will be a challenge Im all for
Unit1126PLL wrote: I thought 9th was gonna be different and better because it was written with tournament players and playtesters in mind?
Have you played it?
Have you?
Dude, if they don't listen to the playtesters, there's nothing they can do. Do you honestly think ANYONE on the playtest team looked at a handflamer and said "yeah, that needs to be FIVE TIMES more expensive?" No, they didn't.
The core rules seem to be a pretty vast improvement over 8th, especially with terrain, it's just the repointing that gakked the bed and you can tell just by how wacky it is that it was done mostly by spreadsheet, not by playtesting.
McMagnus Mindbullets wrote: Okay...
Eradicators are ostensibly too good for their points at what they're meant to do. Fine. Points change, and this one unit isn't exactly destroying the game- there's a codex coming in a few months. Especially considering the utter lack of tournamnets at the moment
Completely redoing everything (again) means they're going to get a lot of stuff wrong. especially at the smaller scales where 1ppm either way makes a unit apparently 'useless' or 'broken'.
It's the dawn of a new edition. And to be honest, the game is looking a lot healthier than it did at the start of 8th
The problem is that these models were not 40 points "broken", 41 points "useless".
They should be about 55 points - possibly even 60 if they were to be "balanced" as opposed to "good".
Which, if you take 9, is a significant amount of points.
There's no denying that, I agree. Hopefully we'll see them changed in the near future with a dex- they should most definitely be a premium unit
More talking about down at the 4-8 ppm range
A Spearhead Detachment full of Eradicators seems like a no-brainer, considering their special rule is basically a free stratagem.
Especially if a lot of people drop horde units for elite/monsters. The math doesn't look good for my 115-point Talos when this 120-point unit walks onto the board from any table edge.
That is 5 points more than a Captain in Gravis without the CHARACTER protections and with 1 less wound + no Invul save.
Sure, Assault Multi-melta, is a bit daft and double shooting with concentrated fire makes them strong against Vehicles; but Primaris needed a real anti-tank unit, and this still limits full potential to a single target.
There are some far worse Goofy points to look at(although this is going back towards 3rd edition points costs): Razorback is more expensive base than a rhino and still has to pay for guns while a base Impulsor is only slightly less than the cheapest gun on the razorback(Impulse and Razorback having less capacity), Heavy Bolter/Flamer costs the same for marines as guard, etc.
Does your captain in gravis shoot often 6 assault multimelta shots?
Oaka wrote: A Spearhead Detachment full of Eradicators seems like a no-brainer, considering their special rule is basically a free stratagem.
360 + HQ so about 500 pts?
I mean, yeah there's a CP tax (2 detachments) so you'd maybee want to fill them up in the mainline battalion or brigade most armies are fielding. but at 360 pts and 2 CP for infiltrating them i would do it 9/10 times.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I thought 9th was gonna be different and better because it was written with tournament players and playtesters in mind?
Have you played it?
Have you?
Dude, if they don't listen to the playtesters, there's nothing they can do. Do you honestly think ANYONE on the playtest team looked at a handflamer and said "yeah, that needs to be FIVE TIMES more expensive?" No, they didn't.
The core rules seem to be a pretty vast improvement over 8th, especially with terrain, it's just the repointing that gakked the bed and you can tell just by how wacky it is that it was done mostly by spreadsheet, not by playtesting.
My critique is aimed squarely at GW; I also have critique of the playtesters but not as people (they did a fine job) but as the category chosen (tournament players) based on things like the Tabletop Titans Ork video, but there's no need to rehash that here given the other thread on it.
9th edition is... an adequate change, but I wouldn't say a vast improvement. The biggest improvements, IMO, come from the missions and terrain, both of which could come from Chapter Approved 2020 instead of a new edition (they've had new terrain and missions in CA before as well).
The actual core rules changes (Models that can fight being .5" instead of 1" away, the coherency changes, the blast weapon changes, and the 5" vertical engagement range) are either well-intentioned and ill-executed (lol 5" engagement range. That should just be on a monster datasheet, rather than having a unit on a catwalk prevent other units from walking underneath it) or baffling and unnecessary (unless tournament speed is your concern re: blast weapons).
Nazrak wrote: Completely aside from all the discussions of specific examples here, does anyone else think it's a really weird move to go "we've increasing the points of everything to improve granularity and give more flexibility at the low end of the scale" while simultaneously reducing granularity (by bumping most everything to multiples of five) and reducing flexibility at the bottom of the scale (by shifting the "points floor" upwards to minimum 5ppm)?
It certainly isn't an irony that hasn't escaped my attention.
Honestly, I just think there's a certain subset of units that GW is just trying to discourage appearing in competitive games. Whether the reason for that is "they aren't an 'iconic' part of the faction" or "they slow down competitive events and we don't like that" you can look at what units are most effected and see a pretty clear theme: Light infantry units that aren't "the star of the show" for that army.
A storm guardian is self-evidently not the equal to a Skitarii, or a Fire Warrior, or worth one point more than a Bloodletter. They're not supposed to be. Fire Warriors and Skitarii and Bloodletters are what GW wants to see on the table when an army of that faction wins a tournament event, Guardians and Storm Guardians are not.
You are 100% wrong about DE and Wracks. the DE community is moving MORE towards Wracks b.c of how 9th is and Wyches/Kabals also went up by 3pts (2pts to many b.c the transports also went up). Every competitive DE player is thinking of taking at least 15-20 Wracks. If Kabals and Wyches did not go up so much with their transports going up then you might be correct.
McMagnus Mindbullets wrote: There's no denying that, I agree. Hopefully we'll see them changed in the near future with a dex- they should most definitely be a premium unit
More talking about down at the 4-8 ppm range
Fair enough.
I agree this can be marginal. Its more that its.. upsetting, when you have say X at 8 points, and Y at 9 points, and its... very unclear why Y is meaningfully better.
But really, unless you were planning to chuck 100 Y in your list, its probably not wrecking the game.
I think Kabalites have been done dirty at 9 points - but I'm not convinced its going to massively change DE if they were subsequently buffed to being just 8. Nerfing Dissies into the floor is going to have a rather more negative impact on the faction.
I was first elated at the pts increases, since i hoped that this would solve the wierdness in the low bracket infantry realm, of conscripts, militia , IS and cultists sharing a spot pts wise, even though they are NOT EQUAL.
Now we get even more at 5 pts, units that have no buissness beiing there. We have 6 pts cultists and 5 pts IS.
We . Have. Grots. At. 5 Pts.
Not Online!!! wrote: I was first elated at the pts increases, since i hoped that this would solve the wierdness in the low bracket infantry realm, of conscripts, militia , IS and cultists sharing a spot pts wise, even though they are NOT EQUAL.
Now we get even more at 5 pts, units that have no buissness beiing there. We have 6 pts cultists and 5 pts IS.
We . Have. Grots. At. 5 Pts.
if you ask me, that alone is a failure...
The worst part is that it doesn't even open up any more design space. If they wanted more space to differentiate between IG, Cultists, and Grots (for examples), then why not make IG 10 pts and increase game size to compensate? All this does is make it unbalanced - and then when points go back down to balance them, we end up exactly where we were in CA2019 so there's no reason to touch things in the first place (unless you're deliberately trying to imbalance things, that is).
Unit1126PLL wrote: If they wanted more space to differentiate between IG, Cultists, and Grots (for examples), then why not make IG 10 pts and increase game size to compensate?
Because that would destroy the 2k game size. I know that you could change that, but community inertia on that point is huge. I think they wanted smaller games, to lower the price of a normal size army and make the game more appealing to start. If they pushed the point increases too far, people would go to 2.5k or more. So they had to walk the line of increasing things, but just enough so that people would take less stuff.
Honestly, I just think there's a certain subset of units that GW is just trying to discourage appearing in competitive games. Whether the reason for that is "they aren't an 'iconic' part of the faction" or "they slow down competitive events and we don't like that" you can look at what units are most effected and see a pretty clear theme: Light infantry units that aren't "the star of the show" for that army.
Sadly (from my pov) the points changes have done the opposite for Drukhari. It is Wracks that will be increasingly fielded, because Kabalites and their boats have seen a big points hike, and their hit-and-run playstyle has been nerfed into the ground.
Unit1126PLL wrote: If they wanted more space to differentiate between IG, Cultists, and Grots (for examples), then why not make IG 10 pts and increase game size to compensate?
Because that would destroy the 2k game size. I know that you could change that, but community inertia on that point is huge. I think they wanted smaller games, to lower the price of a normal size army and make the game more appealing to start. If they pushed the point increases too far, people would go to 2.5k or more. So they had to walk the line of increasing things, but just enough so that people would take less stuff.
Points is a number. They could of said they are doubling the base value for things and tweeking it from there so a 2000 point game from 8th is roughly equal to a 4000 point game. It gives more room for granularity and is easy to work with. People are a lot more likely to run a 4K game than they are to use GW's weird new table sizes (which requires modifying/replacing existing 4x6 play areas).
Unit1126PLL wrote: I thought 9th was gonna be different and better because it was written with tournament players and playtesters in mind?
Have you played it?
Have you?
Ayep - three games now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oaka wrote: A Spearhead Detachment full of Eradicators seems like a no-brainer, considering their special rule is basically a free stratagem.
Especially if a lot of people drop horde units for elite/monsters. The math doesn't look good for my 115-point Talos when this 120-point unit walks onto the board from any table edge.
Vankraken wrote: Points is a number. They could of said they are doubling the base value for things and tweeking it from there so a 2000 point game from 8th is roughly equal to a 4000 point game. It gives more room for granularity and is easy to work with. People are a lot more likely to run a 4K game than they are to use GW's weird new table sizes (which requires modifying/replacing existing 4x6 play areas).
People generally hate change. If you want to reduce army size, you can't do it to such an extreme degree. For example, say you doubled points costs but made 3k the new standard. People are going to take their lists, see that they are now 4k, then make 4k the new standard. 4k will filter through the community via events and forums. So because you tried to change too much, you failed at your objective. However, give people something familiar like 2k and just tweak what they can fit in that by 15-20%, they are much more likely to adopt that army size.
Oaka wrote: A Spearhead Detachment full of Eradicators seems like a no-brainer, considering their special rule is basically a free stratagem.
Especially if a lot of people drop horde units for elite/monsters. The math doesn't look good for my 115-point Talos when this 120-point unit walks onto the board from any table edge.
Well, a 120 point unit should probably have a decent chance of killing a 115 point model, shouldn't it? especially if that target is a dreadnought style model and these guys are designed to kill dreadnought and vehicle style models? Wouldnt the other two in the unit of 3 just run up and eat them in melee without thinking about it? cause then its 345 points vs 120, and that would make sense?
These guys are good, I'm not saying they aren't, but the doom train is a bit crazy on this one. I also agree with the position that they are better than they should be, or probably so, but I don't think their existence is world ending.
They are t5, 3w, spd 5, and can only be transported by a repulsor or an executioner. Additionally, you can put them in TR, but at the cost of CP to do so, but that also kind of just telegraphs their play and where they are going. they're good, but a buddy played with them against me with proxies and they weren't the end all be all. They killed a Carnifex. They then got overran and eaten. of course that's completely anecdotal to the situation at hand and has more variables that can be counted to take it seriously, but I really think if you look at the limitations of the unit they really arent as bad as most people think.
Still very good. Still, probably a bit too points efficient, but not the end all be all of the hot new brokeness.
Well, a 120 point unit should probably have a decent chance of killing a 115 point model, shouldn't it?
Yes and no. It should usually take more points to kill a unit. A quad las pred does 5.2 to a dread at a fair bit more points. Eradicators do 9.3. Obviously the predator is more durable, longer range, and doesn't worry about move and shoot any longer. There's a gap there with some pros and cons to consider.
The worst part is that it doesn't even open up any more design space. If they wanted more space to differentiate between IG, Cultists, and Grots (for examples), then why not make IG 10 pts and increase game size to compensate? All this does is make it unbalanced - and then when points go back down to balance them, we end up exactly where we were in CA2019 so there's no reason to touch things in the first place (unless you're deliberately trying to imbalance things, that is).
GW said from day 1 of announcing the points changes that they were NOT about balance but rather being done specifically to alter the size of the standard game to make it play faster. I said from day 1 that not only would this not make the game faster, it would damage it in other areas. I was accused of all manner of terrible things, and yet here we are. lol
While these are not nearly as bad as I thought they would be, they aren't going to make 9th faster. So far, from the games I've played and seen played, the game isn't faster. Armies dropping by 100-200 points (which amounts to about 1 - 1.5 squads for most armies) isn't going to speed up ... anything. If that one ten man squad of old marines was causing your games to be appreciably longer, no amount of changes to the game will help you.
I think people screaming about tourney players being the testers is a bit silly. If you feel that way you may not understand how testing this kind of thing works.
You need:
1. Consistency -
You need a group of people playing the same way or you don't have controls. The last few years I've been much more of a garage player than a tourney player and I can tell you that, on average, if you go to 3 different "for fun/narrative" groups, you're likely to se at least 4 different styles of play. There's no way to use that as a test because of the radically different views they will have.
2. # of games. You're average garage gamer or LGS pick-up player isn't likely to have even a third the number of games over the course of 6 months that a tourney player will get in two weeks.
Having narrative players give feedback on narrative items is awesome. Trying to get them to balance the game is a disaster waiting to happen ...
Not that GW listens to the testers anyway. That kind of makes it a moot point I suppose. lol
Well, a 120 point unit should probably have a decent chance of killing a 115 point model, shouldn't it?
Yes and no. It should usually take more points to kill a unit. A quad las pred does 5.2 to a dread at a fair bit more points. Eradicators do 9.3. Obviously the predator is more durable, longer range, and doesn't worry about move and shoot any longer. There's a gap there with some pros and cons to consider.
Is it? The gap between T5 and T7 is pretty small (we know that, recall the discussions surrounding the drukhari meta) and the unit of eradicators has 9W vs the predators...11w, right? Every 3W the eradicators lose 1/3 of their firepower and the predator loses 1 from its BS.
The real question is how much 24" range matters vs 48" range on the new board. I'd say "not a whole hell of a lot". the eradicators are also much less likely to get tied up by a cheapo unit, since they can punch their way out of a paper bag.
JohnnyHell wrote: It’s to allow room to finesse up and down later without pretending they’ve playtested to the new level of granularity yet. It’s a reset to be tuned later.
wasn't their statement along the line off "most playtested ever", have they so low faith in their own and those that they hired?
Btw, why not make the playtesting public, give some insights, not that much off effort and would allow for better feedback of the community...
Yeah I'd be very curious about the playtest methodology. What was actually tested? What was the goal? What if anything was the acceptance criteria?
Swooping Hawks vs Pteraxii Skystalkers. The same type of unit performing the exact same role on the tabletop. Skystalker has more than double the survivability, more than double the melee capability, their bomb is more than twice as good, and their gun is 66% better. Hawks have better leadership, a little more movement and a leadership buff that is at cross purposes to what you would be doing with this unit. Skystalkers cost ONE more point!
I test software for a living. It seems clear to me that they didn't do any sort of comprehensive testing as I understand it, or that their acceptance criteria prioritizes something other than game balance. It is similar to the birth of 8E where they thought things like Wyches and flamers were super powerful (kill one or two light infantry at short range, wow!).
Its just a tabletop game and no one is going to die because the Swooping Hawks or whatever aren't any good, and they probably don't have any paid testers, but I certainly wouldn't be bragging about the testing if I were them.
yeah, how you could ever not go "hmmm, let's compare this brand new admech unit's point cost to the unit that it is clearly most similar to in the eldar arsenal and make sure the cost is within the same universe of reasonableness" is beyond me.
one point. ONE POINT difference between them. Just laughable.
JohnnyHell wrote: It’s to allow room to finesse up and down later without pretending they’ve playtested to the new level of granularity yet. It’s a reset to be tuned later.
wasn't their statement along the line off "most playtested ever", have they so low faith in their own and those that they hired?
Heh. They named some (out of how many?) of the playtesters in the faction focus articles. That strikes me as a pretty high degree of faith. Or providing obvious scapegoats. One of the two.
Though personally I don't like putting playtesting in the hands of people with a vested interest in specific factions and units 'winning' the test process. Even unconscious bias is a thing, and I can't imagine that every unit that's considered 'bad' in tournament play got the same scrutiny and was argued for with the same passion as the faction favorite units.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I thought 9th was gonna be different and better because it was written with tournament players and playtesters in mind?
Have you played it?
Have you?
Ayep - three games now.
You're pretty quick if you got 3 games in since the points came out.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also worth mentioning that the whole "A unit should be able to kill 100% of its preferred target in a single shooting phase" is a flawed measure of a unit, because if you scale that up to armies, then you're saying "An army should be able to kill 100% of its points value in a single shooting phase".
I.e., an army should table another army in a single shooting phase. This means the only way to survive at all is terrain, and I don't think it's a healthy gamestate for an IGOUGO system.
A unit should make its points back over the course of a game, perhaps, and points should be measured by firepower endured as much as firepower output. So a unit that has great output and great armor should be more expensive than a unit with the same output but fragile armor.
I wrote a post about this ages ago in a lethality thread; let me see if I can find it.
Unit1126PLL wrote: If they wanted more space to differentiate between IG, Cultists, and Grots (for examples), then why not make IG 10 pts and increase game size to compensate?
Because that would destroy the 2k game size. I know that you could change that, but community inertia on that point is huge. I think they wanted smaller games, to lower the price of a normal size army and make the game more appealing to start. If they pushed the point increases too far, people would go to 2.5k or more. So they had to walk the line of increasing things, but just enough so that people would take less stuff.
I sincerely doubt it. People will play whatever the tournament standard is and generally you only get complaints about points levels being too HIGH at tournaments. There are some people who will talk about going to 2500 but that's not likely to happen just because most tournament players will be more than happy to get home at 8 after an event rather than 10.
The more likely reason is that someone at corporate didn't want people buying less models for tournaments.
I found it, here's what I proposed: "If I was a game designer, I'd make "all purpose" guns (like a Leman Russ Battlecannon) needing a 4-1 ratio against most targets (e.g. you need 4x the points of a Leman Russ with Battlecannon to completely destroy a unit worth 1x points). Specialized guns (e.g. the Exterminator autocannon against multi-wound infantry) would need a 3-1 against their specialist targets (so only a 3x points advantage to totally wipe a unit in one round of shooting) and a 5-1 against suboptimal targets. Then, hyperspecialized units (e.g. Ork tankbustas) need a 2-1 to wipe a unit of their preferred target type, and a 6-1 to wipe a unit of another type."
In this case, the Eradicators should need a 3x points advantage to wipe out a tank, and a 5-1 to wipe out other things (e.g. guardsmen). The only reason I didn't rule them as hyperspecialized is because of their melee capability, which makes them fairly alright against light hordes of infantry; they aren't as hyperspecialized as, say, Ork Tankbustas.
In this case, a 150-point Predator should need about 450 points of unbuffed eradicators to kill it. Right now, if I am not mistaken, the ratio is considerably less.
Of course, my original formulation was for shooting only, but the general rule should apply (obviously melee specialists exist).
The usual meter is that a unit should hit between 1/4 and 1/3 of his point value. Can get up to 1/2 if it specialized against a specific target, or if it is really glassy.
Spoletta wrote: The usual meter is that a unit should hit between 1/4 and 1/3 of his point value. Can get up to 1/2 if it specialized against a specific target, or if it is really glassy.
Good, we're roughly in agreement then (I said 4-1, 3-1, and 2-1 also, though I framed my ratios differently ). Unfortunately, people are expecting units to make back their points in a single battle round, which is just too much.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I thought 9th was gonna be different and better because it was written with tournament players and playtesters in mind?
Have you played it?
Have you?
Dude, if they don't listen to the playtesters, there's nothing they can do. Do you honestly think ANYONE on the playtest team looked at a handflamer and said "yeah, that needs to be FIVE TIMES more expensive?" No, they didn't.
The core rules seem to be a pretty vast improvement over 8th, especially with terrain, it's just the repointing that gakked the bed and you can tell just by how wacky it is that it was done mostly by spreadsheet, not by playtesting.
My critique is aimed squarely at GW; I also have critique of the playtesters but not as people (they did a fine job) but as the category chosen (tournament players) based on things like the Tabletop Titans Ork video, but there's no need to rehash that here given the other thread on it.
9th edition is... an adequate change, but I wouldn't say a vast improvement. The biggest improvements, IMO, come from the missions and terrain, both of which could come from Chapter Approved 2020 instead of a new edition (they've had new terrain and missions in CA before as well).
The actual core rules changes (Models that can fight being .5" instead of 1" away, the coherency changes, the blast weapon changes, and the 5" vertical engagement range) are either well-intentioned and ill-executed (lol 5" engagement range. That should just be on a monster datasheet, rather than having a unit on a catwalk prevent other units from walking underneath it) or baffling and unnecessary (unless tournament speed is your concern re: blast weapons).
So you're splitting hairs over what part of the core rules the rules are written in? I know that some people create this arbitrary distinction between the matched play rules and the "core rules" but let's be real, if you're not using the matched play rules you're likely not all that fussed with following the "core" rules either, usually in an effort to build a better play experience for your local group. The letter of the rules only really ever matters to tournament players.
Models fighting within .5 is weird but ultimately not particularly impactful. The coherency changes are there to stop congalining large squads, which they do effectively if inelegantly. The 5" vertical engagement range is quite odd in practice, yes, but it is an improvement over 'I'm on a crate, you can't touch me, neener neener neener!', which your proposed solution still faces for any non-monster.
As for Blast and the other changes that limit horde armies, that's a deliberate design choice made to limit large hordes of models on the table. I don't know WHY they made that choice, but the steps they've made have been effective in doing so.
Changing the CP reroll strat was massive, the changes to morale create a much less binary interaction and as such opens up design space for GW to stop handing out immune to morale like candy, and the terrain rules fix one of the biggest flaws 8th had.
If they had just dropped us in with 8ths points and then adjusted everything in december with (some) actual DATA, rather than a spreadsheet, we would have been fine. As is they botched the points so the fact that the core rules are better doesn't really matter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I found it, here's what I proposed:
"If I was a game designer, I'd make "all purpose" guns (like a Leman Russ Battlecannon) needing a 4-1 ratio against most targets (e.g. you need 4x the points of a Leman Russ with Battlecannon to completely destroy a unit worth 1x points). Specialized guns (e.g. the Exterminator autocannon against multi-wound infantry) would need a 3-1 against their specialist targets (so only a 3x points advantage to totally wipe a unit in one round of shooting) and a 5-1 against suboptimal targets. Then, hyperspecialized units (e.g. Ork tankbustas) need a 2-1 to wipe a unit of their preferred target type, and a 6-1 to wipe a unit of another type."
In this case, the Eradicators should need a 3x points advantage to wipe out a tank, and a 5-1 to wipe out other things (e.g. guardsmen). The only reason I didn't rule them as hyperspecialized is because of their melee capability, which makes them fairly alright against light hordes of infantry; they aren't as hyperspecialized as, say, Ork Tankbustas.
In this case, a 150-point Predator should need about 450 points of unbuffed eradicators to kill it. Right now, if I am not mistaken, the ratio is considerably less.
Of course, my original formulation was for shooting only, but the general rule should apply (obviously melee specialists exist).
Salamanders eradicators kill a predator outright on average dice in melta range.
ERJAK wrote: Salamanders eradicators kill a predator outright on average dice in melta range.
And this is why (free) faction bonuses are a bad idea. It is literally impossible to accurately point units with them. (Not that this unit would have been accurately priced even if we ignore such bonuses.)
ERJAK wrote: So you're splitting hairs over what part of the core rules the rules are written in? I know that some people create this arbitrary distinction between the matched play rules and the "core rules" but let's be real, if you're not using the matched play rules you're likely not all that fussed with following the "core" rules either, usually in an effort to build a better play experience for your local group. The letter of the rules only really ever matters to tournament players.
Models fighting within .5 is weird but ultimately not particularly impactful. The coherency changes are there to stop congalining large squads, which they do effectively if inelegantly. The 5" vertical engagement range is quite odd in practice, yes, but it is an improvement over 'I'm on a crate, you can't touch me, neener neener neener!', which your proposed solution still faces for any non-monster.
As for Blast and the other changes that limit horde armies, that's a deliberate design choice made to limit large hordes of models on the table. I don't know WHY they made that choice, but the steps they've made have been effective in doing so.
Changing the CP reroll strat was massive, the changes to morale create a much less binary interaction and as such opens up design space for GW to stop handing out immune to morale like candy, and the terrain rules fix one of the biggest flaws 8th had.
If they had just dropped us in with 8ths points and then adjusted everything in december with (some) actual DATA, rather than a spreadsheet, we would have been fine. As is they botched the points so the fact that the core rules are better doesn't really matter.
I'm not splitting hairs. I'm saying the best parts of 9th could've come out as changes for 8th in Chapter Approved (since it's terrain rules and missions, which are literally what's in every Chapter Approved in 8th).
The other changes that came with 9th, well, it sounds like we're in agreement. Some random changes which are okay as a shake-up but don't exactly make sense or could have been done better. The morale rules are clunky and take up extra time, as well as being unintuitive (failing morale = models die? Is there no positioning? Does the morale of nearby units matter? does this strange mechanic have more to do with game mechanics than with the psychology of our plastic soldiers?) and the command re-roll is a more subtle change than adding a stratagem whole-cloth, which they did in an 8th Edition FAQ of all things (prepared positions). So nothing published for 9th that couldn't be published for 8th is really a "vast improvement"
Eradicators are a complete mess at the current points value, and a good test of whether someone's ideas about game balance are worth taking seriously. Nobody can seriously say these aren't hugely undercosted. They looked undercosted when we first saw the datasheet, and they absolutely are.
Playtesters aren't stupid. They knew this, and I guarantee you they reported it, just like I guarantee you they reported many of the obvious errors in the points. And yet, as usual, GW ignored the feedback and did nothing. Is this simply because of incompetence, or because of a deliberate desire to sell the kits? Does it really matter? The end result is the same - game balance sacrificed in order to make the most powerful faction even more powerful.
I'd switch things around - but 25% (4-1), 33% (3-1) and 40% (2.5-1) returns work for me.
The problem in 8th is that the indexes (ignoring outliers) were priced at about 25% effectiveness.
This then rapidly jumped towards 35% in the codexes - and with optimal chapter tactics, warlord traits, stratagems etc you moved towards 40-45%.
And this is where you get ye infamous two turn Warhammer, if you don't *also* have a bunch of debuffs (minuses to hit being the most successful. invuls and FNPs also helping) to bring that percentage down.
Seabass wrote: Well, a 120 point unit should probably have a decent chance of killing a 115 point model, shouldn't it?
Absolutely not- unless you think an army should have a decent chance of tabling an equivalent points army in one Shooting Phase, which is what that boils down to.
Can you name some other anti-tank infantry that reliably kill their own points' worth of vehicles in one attack? Or just infantry in general that get a 100% return against their preferred target? Bonus points if they're not Marines.
Seabass wrote: They killed a Carnifex. They then got overran and eaten.
A Carnifex costs as much as they do in 9th. A Carnifex has fewer wounds, albeit at slightly higher T, and is more vulnerable to multi-damage weapons. There is no Carnifex build that reliably makes back its points in one round of melee, let alone one round of shooting at 24".
The Eradicators shoot once and then it's all gravy. They absolutely have to be killed before they have a chance to shoot, they have the range to hit anything that leaves its deployment zone, they can move and fire without penalty (so can hide out of LOS to start), and they're not that squishy either. There is not a single infantry model in the game that compares favorably- put them side-by-side with Kataphron Breachers or Wraithguard and it's like a bad joke. Then put them in the context of being in an army with easy access to re-rolls to hit and to-wound, and it gets even worse.
I am continually amazed that there are people defending this, and especially the glib statements like 'it's just that melta has always sucked' or 'well they're not that hard to kill' or 'but it costs me CP to make them even better by outflanking' or 'they're not guaranteed to make back their points' or- and this is my personal favorite- 'my army is already so overpowered that I'd still rather just take Eliminators'.
Obscuring terrain is going to help them a lot. You could just sit them behind a feature towards the middle of the board and wait for a good target to enter their 30" threat range.
Ok, so the more that I look at these points the angrier I seem to get. Well, sometimes anger and sometimes disappointment.
I tend to be one of the calmer, less reactionary, types around here. But looking at these points they seem extremely low effort and pretty much a draft copy. As if they are the first pass at inflating the points, without the refinement that you should add later.
I'm not annoyed too much at particular increases or decreases, I'm used to meta changes and such. However, the way that certain pieces of equipment have all been set to the same points seems really telling. To cite an example that I am familiar with: Guard infantry weapons. The flamer, grenade launcher, metla and plasma have all become 5 points. There is no way that all those options are the same. The entire point of the grenade launcher is that it is a cheap alternative. This suggests to me either a lack of care, effort, ability, or time.
Ugh, I could rant about this but I think most of my points will have been made by others. I thought I would just put it here to express my disappointment.
Trickstick wrote: Ok, so the more that I look at these points the angrier I seem to get. Well, sometimes anger and sometimes disappointment.
I tend to be one of the calmer, less reactionary, types around here. But looking at these points they seem extremely low effort and pretty much a draft copy. As if they are the first pass at inflating the points, without the refinement that you should add later.
I'm not annoyed too much at particular increases or decreases, I'm used to meta changes and such. However, the way that certain pieces of equipment have all been set to the same points seems really telling. To cite an example that I am familiar with: Guard infantry weapons. The flamer, grenade launcher, metla and plasma have all become 5 points. There is no way that all those options are the same. The entire point of the grenade launcher is that it is a cheap alternative. This suggests to me either a lack of care, effort, ability, or time.
Ugh, I could rant about this but I think most of my points will have been made by others. I thought I would just put it here to express my disappointment.
Yeah, the Goonhammer review was pretty spot-on, I think - some specific and needed changes, but mostly formulaic adjustments that removed years of internal balancing and fine-tuning in the name of... what? Round numbers?
There are other similar examples....a Venom Blade used to be a cheap (2pts) Drukhari option, as opposed to the the more impressive/expensive Huskblade (6pts).
Now they are both 5pts, but the stats are unchanged.
Trickstick wrote: Ok, so the more that I look at these points the angrier I seem to get. Well, sometimes anger and sometimes disappointment.
I tend to be one of the calmer, less reactionary, types around here. But looking at these points they seem extremely low effort and pretty much a draft copy. As if they are the first pass at inflating the points, without the refinement that you should add later.
I'm not annoyed too much at particular increases or decreases, I'm used to meta changes and such. However, the way that certain pieces of equipment have all been set to the same points seems really telling. To cite an example that I am familiar with: Guard infantry weapons. The flamer, grenade launcher, metla and plasma have all become 5 points. There is no way that all those options are the same. The entire point of the grenade launcher is that it is a cheap alternative. This suggests to me either a lack of care, effort, ability, or time.
Ugh, I could rant about this but I think most of my points will have been made by others. I thought I would just put it here to express my disappointment.
Yeah. I can understand getting balance of new units like Eradicators wrong, as annoying as it might be. But this flattening of the weapon costs just seems like intentional sabotage. I really can't understand why it was done.
Seabass wrote: Well, a 120 point unit should probably have a decent chance of killing a 115 point model, shouldn't it?
Absolutely not- unless you think an army should have a decent chance of tabling an equivalent points army in one Shooting Phase, which is what that boils down to.
Can you name some other anti-tank infantry that reliably kill their own points' worth of vehicles in one attack? Or just infantry in general that get a 100% return against their preferred target? Bonus points if they're not Marines.
Seabass wrote: They killed a Carnifex. They then got overran and eaten.
A Carnifex costs as much as they do in 9th. A Carnifex has fewer wounds, albeit at slightly higher T, and is more vulnerable to multi-damage weapons. There is no Carnifex build that reliably makes back its points in one round of melee, let alone one round of shooting at 24".
The Eradicators shoot once and then it's all gravy. They absolutely have to be killed before they have a chance to shoot, they have the range to hit anything that leaves its deployment zone, they can move and fire without penalty (so can hide out of LOS to start), and they're not that squishy either. There is not a single infantry model in the game that compares favorably- put them side-by-side with Kataphron Breachers or Wraithguard and it's like a bad joke. Then put them in the context of being in an army with easy access to re-rolls to hit and to-wound, and it gets even worse.
I am continually amazed that there are people defending this, and especially the glib statements like 'it's just that melta has always sucked' or 'well they're not that hard to kill' or 'but it costs me CP to make them even better by outflanking' or 'they're not guaranteed to make back their points' or- and this is my personal favorite- 'my army is already so overpowered that I'd still rather just take Eliminators'.
I guess People like to play cheesy broken units in their own army.
Seabass wrote: Well, a 120 point unit should probably have a decent chance of killing a 115 point model, shouldn't it?
Absolutely not- unless you think an army should have a decent chance of tabling an equivalent points army in one Shooting Phase, which is what that boils down to.
Can you name some other anti-tank infantry that reliably kill their own points' worth of vehicles in one attack? Or just infantry in general that get a 100% return against their preferred target? Bonus points if they're not Marines.
Seabass wrote: They killed a Carnifex. They then got overran and eaten.
A Carnifex costs as much as they do in 9th. A Carnifex has fewer wounds, albeit at slightly higher T, and is more vulnerable to multi-damage weapons. There is no Carnifex build that reliably makes back its points in one round of melee, let alone one round of shooting at 24".
The Eradicators shoot once and then it's all gravy. They absolutely have to be killed before they have a chance to shoot, they have the range to hit anything that leaves its deployment zone, they can move and fire without penalty (so can hide out of LOS to start), and they're not that squishy either. There is not a single infantry model in the game that compares favorably- put them side-by-side with Kataphron Breachers or Wraithguard and it's like a bad joke. Then put them in the context of being in an army with easy access to re-rolls to hit and to-wound, and it gets even worse.
I am continually amazed that there are people defending this, and especially the glib statements like 'it's just that melta has always sucked' or 'well they're not that hard to kill' or 'but it costs me CP to make them even better by outflanking' or 'they're not guaranteed to make back their points' or- and this is my personal favorite- 'my army is already so overpowered that I'd still rather just take Eliminators'.
I guess People like to play cheesy broken units in their own army.
Trickstick wrote: Ok, so the more that I look at these points the angrier I seem to get. Well, sometimes anger and sometimes disappointment.
I tend to be one of the calmer, less reactionary, types around here. But looking at these points they seem extremely low effort and pretty much a draft copy. As if they are the first pass at inflating the points, without the refinement that you should add later.
I'm not annoyed too much at particular increases or decreases, I'm used to meta changes and such. However, the way that certain pieces of equipment have all been set to the same points seems really telling. To cite an example that I am familiar with: Guard infantry weapons. The flamer, grenade launcher, metla and plasma have all become 5 points. There is no way that all those options are the same. The entire point of the grenade launcher is that it is a cheap alternative. This suggests to me either a lack of care, effort, ability, or time.
Ugh, I could rant about this but I think most of my points will have been made by others. I thought I would just put it here to express my disappointment.
Yeah, the Goonhammer review was pretty spot-on, I think - some specific and needed changes, but mostly formulaic adjustments that removed years of internal balancing and fine-tuning in the name of... what? Round numbers?
Nobody seems to have any clue. I've yet to see a single person venture a convincing explanation for why this normalization and rounding to 5 points was a good change.
I guarantee you competitive playtesters wouldn't have been in favor of it.
Trickstick wrote: The flamer, grenade launcher, metla and plasma have all become 5 points. There is no way that all those options are the same. The entire point of the grenade launcher is that it is a cheap alternative.
Let's pause for a moment and think through this.
The Grenade Launcher has blast now with a little extra flexibility.
Plasma can kill the owner, but is otherwise strong.
Melta is the strongest, but carries a limited range.
Flamers can auto-hit.
All of these weapons on a T3 5+ model. Do we absolutely need a point or two of variance? You have roles for each weapon. Your choice will be the role and not the points.
Trickstick wrote: The flamer, grenade launcher, metla and plasma have all become 5 points. There is no way that all those options are the same. The entire point of the grenade launcher is that it is a cheap alternative.
Let's pause for a moment and think through this.
The Grenade Launcher has blast now with a little extra flexibility.
Plasma can kill the owner, but is otherwise strong.
Melta is the strongest, but carries a limited range.
Flamers can auto-hit.
All of these weapons on a T3 5+ model. Do we absolutely need a point or two of variance? You have roles for each weapon. Your choice will be the role and not the points.
Plasma needs to the most expensive by a signficant amount due to its destructive potential and flexibility.
Daedalus81 wrote: All of these weapons on a T3 5+ model. Do we absolutely need a point or two of variance? You have roles for each weapon. Your choice will be the role and not the points.
I understand your argument, but I still fail to see why I would take a grenade launcher, other than fluff/model reasons.
In that specific case the points were not really going to do much. If the nade launcher was 2 points, you would still not take it, since the biggest part of the cost is the opportunity cost offered by that squad.
Well, a 120 point unit should probably have a decent chance of killing a 115 point model, shouldn't it?
Yes and no. It should usually take more points to kill a unit. A quad las pred does 5.2 to a dread at a fair bit more points. Eradicators do 9.3. Obviously the predator is more durable, longer range, and doesn't worry about move and shoot any longer. There's a gap there with some pros and cons to consider.
I guess I'm a bit confused then (and I freely admit to it) but there are a lot of units that will one round that model for around the same points values. devastators, dark reapers, etc. So in my mind, it feels like it's pretty ok. I understand that you don't necessarily want a 1:1, and I also freely admit that they are probably too efficient, but I don't see where it's necessarily a terrible thing that if they get to pick on their preferred prey (multi-wound models with limited to no invulns) that they could trash one.
But, this is why I'm not a game designer. I freely admit that I do not understand how balance and game construction should look like.
Daedalus81 wrote: All of these weapons on a T3 5+ model. Do we absolutely need a point or two of variance? You have roles for each weapon. Your choice will be the role and not the points.
I understand your argument, but I still fail to see why I would take a grenade launcher, other than fluff/model reasons.
You may not want the GL, because you don't care about or need its role, but there seems to be something there. Plasma values get doubled at 12", but if your goal is to stand off and shoot the GL is going to want to be at 24".
Daedalus81 wrote: You may not want the GL, because you don't care about or need its role, but there seems to be something there. Plasma values get doubled at 12", but if your goal is to stand off and shoot the GL is going to want to be at 24".
Daedalus81 wrote: You may not want the GL, because you don't care about or need its role, but there seems to be something there. Plasma values get doubled at 12", but if your goal is to stand off and shoot the GL is going to want to be at 24".
Is that single shot of plasma?
Yes - I noted to double the values if you were aiming to be w/i 12". If you want the risk of OC and care to be w/i 12" of stuff then plasma is the right gun. If you're worried about hordes for whatever reason, but want to stand off - GL. If you want to be up close and personal against soft infantry - flamer.
Trickstick wrote: The flamer, grenade launcher, metla and plasma have all become 5 points. There is no way that all those options are the same. The entire point of the grenade launcher is that it is a cheap alternative.
Let's pause for a moment and think through this.
The Grenade Launcher has blast now with a little extra flexibility.
Plasma can kill the owner, but is otherwise strong.
Melta is the strongest, but carries a limited range.
Flamers can auto-hit.
All of these weapons on a T3 5+ model. Do we absolutely need a point or two of variance? You have roles for each weapon. Your choice will be the role and not the points.
The issue is at 5pts, if we're talking Infantry Squad functionality and the role of these weapons, the Plasma gun is clear no-brainer option for 99% of things you'd want your Infantry Squads to be doing. Even with the Blast enhancement, there's no point to taking the GL over just another Guardsman for the same general damage output in conjunction with FRFSRF and an extra body to boot and even with 6 shots isn't much better at killing Orks or Guardsmen than a PG is. The flamer auto-hits...but only at an extremely short range and with a variable number of shots, and the firepower output over just investing in additional guardsmen is negligible. The Meltagun has the highest S, but the Plasma gun gets double the range, double the shots at the same range, and is only meaningfully outperformed at under 6" against certain specific T7 and T8 targets and generally only if they have no invul save while the PG is significantly better against most other targets and is roughly as capable against vehicles and monsters at anything over 6" (and definitely so from 12-24").
Now, this has been true in lots of editions, there's a reason the PG is generally the perennial favorite, but at least in previous editions this was acknowledged in the weapons costs, and that was enough to encourage at least some variance. Going back to 5E there could be valid arguments made for every one of the options as a result of the cost and their roles being a bit more differentiated (flamers ignored cover giving them a unique role and were dirt cheap, rapid fire Lasguns and Orders couldn't deliver the same volume of mobile firepower they can now at up to 24" giving the cheap GL at least some minimal mobility value and able to smack tightly clumped units if used en-masse, 5E vehicle rules really promoted melta use and had some ID use against multiwound T4 models but they cost twice what flamers or GL's did, and while the PG was the most versatile it was also by far the most expensive option), but with less unique functionality and all being the same cost, you just stick a Plasma Gun on everything.
At this point honestly I'd have to wonder if paying anything for a flamer or grenade launcher is worth it on most IG units
Plasma needs to the most expensive by a signficant amount due to its destructive potential and flexibility.
But you also have the chance to off yourself - especially as a guardsman.
On the other hand, that matters least... of literally anything in the game now.
Other armies can zap their own 30+ point multi-wound models out of existence.
Vaktathi wrote: At this point honestly I'd have to wonder if paying anything for a flamer or grenade launcher is worth it on most IG units
I really want to bring back the 4x flamer/grenade platoon command squad, those were so much fun. If the rumour I started about officers going back into command squads comes to pass (the look out sir wording does mention units containing characters), I can see them being really fun little roving firepower squads. Jumping on someone with 4 flamers, or kiting around with 4 GL, should be fun. Of course, at 5 points the question would still be "why are they not plasma?".
Eradicators + Hammer of Sunderance = 0 Eradicators
'Why are they not Plasma?'
Plasmaguns on Guard might kill 1 model per turn due to the 4+ to hit, but against larger (10+) units, the GL would still be preferential due to the new blast rules. Flamers make for fantastic anti aircraft weapons, if you get close enough (like Iotan Gorgonnes Scion Command Squads, using the Daring Descent Stratagem).
Perhaps Valhallans will see some additional use with the Blast Rules?
On the other hand, that matters least... of literally anything in the game now.
Other armies can zap their own 30+ point multi-wound models out of existence.
Yea, but those models will usually have easy access reroll 1s.
Daedalus81 wrote: All of these weapons on a T3 5+ model. Do we absolutely need a point or two of variance? You have roles for each weapon. Your choice will be the role and not the points.
Of course there is a need for variance. The role will always be "which one is the most generally useful in most situations". If they're all the same cost, then the most powerful one in most situations (the high strength plasma) is always the obvious choice.
Another big box of math from you isn't going to change that. Guard players have been taking plasma as the general special weapon for years. Melta needs numbers to work, flamers are in a similar situation and really who ever brought grenade launchers?
I'm reminded of something that happened years ago when Guard plasma switched from 6 points to 10 points. Janthkin, a longtime member and mod of Dakka, quite plainly stated that this wouldn't change the amount of plasma guns in our armies. It would just mean we take less of something else to adjust for the points increase.
You have 5 turns to make an impact. Plasma makes the biggest impact. It will be taken over all the others, especially if the other weapons cost the same amount of points.
Seabass wrote: Well, a 120 point unit should probably have a decent chance of killing a 115 point model, shouldn't it?
Absolutely not- unless you think an army should have a decent chance of tabling an equivalent points army in one Shooting Phase, which is what that boils down to.
Can you name some other anti-tank infantry that reliably kill their own points' worth of vehicles in one attack? Or just infantry in general that get a 100% return against their preferred target? Bonus points if they're not Marines.
Seabass wrote: They killed a Carnifex. They then got overran and eaten.
A Carnifex costs as much as they do in 9th. A Carnifex has fewer wounds, albeit at slightly higher T, and is more vulnerable to multi-damage weapons. There is no Carnifex build that reliably makes back its points in one round of melee, let alone one round of shooting at 24".
The Eradicators shoot once and then it's all gravy. They absolutely have to be killed before they have a chance to shoot, they have the range to hit anything that leaves its deployment zone, they can move and fire without penalty (so can hide out of LOS to start), and they're not that squishy either. There is not a single infantry model in the game that compares favorably- put them side-by-side with Kataphron Breachers or Wraithguard and it's like a bad joke. Then put them in the context of being in an army with easy access to re-rolls to hit and to-wound, and it gets even worse.
I am continually amazed that there are people defending this, and especially the glib statements like 'it's just that melta has always sucked' or 'well they're not that hard to kill' or 'but it costs me CP to make them even better by outflanking' or 'they're not guaranteed to make back their points' or- and this is my personal favorite- 'my army is already so overpowered that I'd still rather just take Eliminators'.
I guess People like to play cheesy broken units in their own army.
I've been attacking GW regarding their balance for a VERY long time, so to really make that statement just because I'm defending the damn unit seems off. Now, do I think the rules to get the extra shot are lazy? Yeah absolutely. Should they be consistent with Aggressors in terms of double shots? Yeah sure. However people going around saying they're broken with support is really no different than claiming Aggressors or Centurions are broken because Raven Guard strats, or that Repulsors are broken because Iron Hands strats.
Look at the source of the buffer. If the unit is good without the buffer, the buffers need to be priced as though they'll be supporting the good unit, not the other way around.
Ok, I've did a little more studying on the new fw points. The new books better be really good for csm or this is just straight up bias. My apologies if this has already been covered:
Relic contemptor now same base cost as hellforged contemptor, despite having 2 additional wounds (12 for the relic vs 10 for the hellforged) and a 6+++.
Relic leviathan with double storm cannons: 350 vs hellforged leviathan with double butcher cannons: 410, despite the relic having a 4++ against everything compared to the hellforged only having a 5++ against shooting and a 4++ against melee.
Astreus: 718 with full wargear vs hellforged fellblade: 880 with full wargear, despite the astreus having the fly keyword and void shields that provide a 5++ at top bracket and a 6++ at the middle bracket that can stop mortal wounds.
And need I remind everyone that the hellforged unit's Machine Malifica rule means they can only regain wounds by killing things in close combat, while the loyalist units can be repaired by techmarines and other methods.
The Karybdis is also now just gone, despite still having a model in production.
And I've just started. Danged job has gotten me behind.
I'd suggest stopping. Nothing you find is going to make you happy. The FW points were an afterthought. I mean can we even be sure that the person writing them even understood the difference between a 'Relic' unit and a non-relic unit? We'll need to wait for the new books.
Daedalus81 wrote: All of these weapons on a T3 5+ model. Do we absolutely need a point or two of variance? You have roles for each weapon. Your choice will be the role and not the points.
Of course there is a need for variance. The role will always be "which one is the most generally useful in most situations". If they're all the same cost, then the most powerful one in most situations (the high strength plasma) is always the obvious choice.
Another big box of math from you isn't going to change that. Guard players have been taking plasma as the general special weapon for years. Melta needs numbers to work, flamers are in a similar situation and really who ever brought grenade launchers?
I'm reminded of something that happened years ago when Guard plasma switched from 6 points to 10 points. Janthkin, a longtime member and mod of Dakka, quite plainly stated that this wouldn't change the amount of plasma guns in our armies. It would just mean we take less of something else to adjust for the points increase.
You have 5 turns to make an impact. Plasma makes the biggest impact. It will be taken over all the others, especially if the other weapons cost the same amount of points.
Bringing specialized tools requires your opponent to bring the thing they're specialized against. Any strategy that depends on your opponent doing something probably won't work out well.
Plasma is good whether your opponent bring grots or greater daemons
I'd suggest stopping. Nothing you find is going to make you happy. The FW points were an afterthought. I mean can we even be sure that the person writing them even understood the difference between a 'Relic' unit and a non-relic unit? We'll need to wait for the new books.
If into the FW points you go, only pain will you find.
Daedalus81 wrote: All of these weapons on a T3 5+ model. Do we absolutely need a point or two of variance? You have roles for each weapon. Your choice will be the role and not the points.
Of course there is a need for variance. The role will always be "which one is the most generally useful in most situations". If they're all the same cost, then the most powerful one in most situations (the high strength plasma) is always the obvious choice.
Another big box of math from you isn't going to change that. Guard players have been taking plasma as the general special weapon for years. Melta needs numbers to work, flamers are in a similar situation and really who ever brought grenade launchers?
I'm reminded of something that happened years ago when Guard plasma switched from 6 points to 10 points. Janthkin, a longtime member and mod of Dakka, quite plainly stated that this wouldn't change the amount of plasma guns in our armies. It would just mean we take less of something else to adjust for the points increase.
You have 5 turns to make an impact. Plasma makes the biggest impact. It will be taken over all the others, especially if the other weapons cost the same amount of points.
Right, but a plasma dropped 2 when a melta dropped by 5. The GL goes up, because it finds a little bit of new life. The changes are not favoring plasma, but your post indicates that they'll take it anyway (even though I've not seen plasma on guard all edition). So at that point why even worry about points for anything else?
But if you instead find yourself facing down a lot of infantry at the end of the game and most of your plasma killed itself would it still have been the best choice? It's one of those un-falsifiable choices, because no one will try differently. And that's fine. I don't have a problem with that.
Did GW create some grand hidden scheme here? gak no. A basic and soft target like an IS typically dies so fast that special weapons can easily be a waste. The impact is so limited that having intricately pointed weapon options doesn't seem like it changes the calculus for them much at all.
And need I remind everyone that the hellforged unit's Machine Malifica rule means they can only regain wounds by killing things in close combat, while the loyalist units can be repaired by techmarines and other methods.
Yes, but what is the cost of that? It's only (typically) going to be one model. Crunch-a-munching with vehicles mid-table could be valuable. I don't know.
I'd *like* to think they were making that consideration, but it seems unlikely for what been mostly an afterthought for 8th. The new books will certainly tell us one way or another though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Melta is still awful, though. It could be free and still be pretty bad because its taking a plasma slot.
What if you need to shoot a T5 W3 3+ model with a 5+++? Not saying it would be likely, but a melta has way more ability to remove the agency if its target and this edition seems to be really close quarters so far.
Not Online!!! wrote:Now we get even more at 5 pts, units that have no buissness beiing there. We have 6 pts cultists and 5 pts IS.
We . Have. Grots. At. 5 Pts.
I suppose it's bad, yes. But funny story there, Dark Reapers were also 5 points for most of 8th edition (plus cheap guns on top of that). Difference in quality between a grot and IG trooper is about as big as between trooper and Dark Reaper. But every time I pointed out how broken the unit is I got a lot of clown replies 'they are totally balanced, git gud'. Funny how things look in reverse, eh?
yukishiro1 wrote:Eradicators are a complete mess at the current points value, and a good test of whether someone's ideas about game balance are worth taking seriously. Nobody can seriously say these aren't hugely undercosted. They looked undercosted when we first saw the datasheet, and they absolutely are.
Nice historical revisionism. Because I recall some headless doom heralding chickens ""predicting"" they will be 20 points, then proclaiming they will be massively undercosted, yes. Lo and behold, they are double that, and the whole doomsaying from back then proved to be laughably inaccurate and just wrong.
They are strong, sure. But pretending the 'first look' which proved to be nothing but straw windmill in La Mancha says anything about balance ideas being any good is just silly.
catbarf wrote:Can you name some other anti-tank infantry that reliably kill their own points' worth of vehicles in one attack? Or just infantry in general that get a 100% return against their preferred target? Bonus points if they're not Marines.
Tau commanders, for easy one. Initial Dark Reapers were also almost as good as eliminators are now, but, they could shoot twice thanks to broken double action rules, making them by far most laughably OP unit of the whole 8th edition (imagine the salt if melta rifles could shoot four times, and you will get a pretty good approximation). Funny though, one had million posts saying it's totes balanced bro, lift the ""unfair"" GW limit, the other just had smug Eldar players saying 'git gud, it's bad unit'. So, yeah, let me play this here smallest violin to commemorate mental gymnastics used to defend these back then
Unit1126PLL wrote:I found it, here's what I proposed:
"If I was a game designer, I'd make "all purpose" guns (like a Leman Russ Battlecannon) needing a 4-1 ratio against most targets (e.g. you need 4x the points of a Leman Russ with Battlecannon to completely destroy a unit worth 1x points). Specialized guns (e.g. the Exterminator autocannon against multi-wound infantry) would need a 3-1 against their specialist targets (so only a 3x points advantage to totally wipe a unit in one round of shooting) and a 5-1 against suboptimal targets. Then, hyperspecialized units (e.g. Ork tankbustas) need a 2-1 to wipe a unit of their preferred target type, and a 6-1 to wipe a unit of another type."
In this case, the Eradicators should need a 3x points advantage to wipe out a tank, and a 5-1 to wipe out other things (e.g. guardsmen). The only reason I didn't rule them as hyperspecialized is because of their melee capability, which makes them fairly alright against light hordes of infantry; they aren't as hyperspecialized as, say, Ork Tankbustas.
5-1 you say? Ok, let's see. Eradicators shoot IG 6 times, hit 4, kill 3. Ok, let's be generous, kill 4. That's just 20 points killed by 120 pts squad.
Conclusion: by your own metric, Eradicators are underpowered and need buffing with additional rifle shot to actually do the 5-1 design target
And need I remind everyone that the hellforged unit's Machine Malifica rule means they can only regain wounds by killing things in close combat, while the loyalist units can be repaired by techmarines and other methods.
Yes, but what is the cost of that? It's only (typically) going to be one model. Crunch-a-munching with vehicles mid-table could be valuable. I don't know.
I'd *like* to think they were making that consideration, but it seems unlikely for what been mostly an afterthought for 8th. The new books will certainly tell us one way or another though.
So what's your theory on the points discrepancies I pointed out? Shooty loyalist leviathans 50 ppm cheaper than shooty chaos leviathans, the superior relic contemptor the same price as a hellforged contemptor, an astreus with void shields, fly, and an anti-charge mechanic 162 points cheaper than a fellblade? Favoritism or lack of knowledge on what they were doing?
Unit1126PLL wrote:I found it, here's what I proposed:
"If I was a game designer, I'd make "all purpose" guns (like a Leman Russ Battlecannon) needing a 4-1 ratio against most targets (e.g. you need 4x the points of a Leman Russ with Battlecannon to completely destroy a unit worth 1x points). Specialized guns (e.g. the Exterminator autocannon against multi-wound infantry) would need a 3-1 against their specialist targets (so only a 3x points advantage to totally wipe a unit in one round of shooting) and a 5-1 against suboptimal targets. Then, hyperspecialized units (e.g. Ork tankbustas) need a 2-1 to wipe a unit of their preferred target type, and a 6-1 to wipe a unit of another type."
In this case, the Eradicators should need a 3x points advantage to wipe out a tank, and a 5-1 to wipe out other things (e.g. guardsmen). The only reason I didn't rule them as hyperspecialized is because of their melee capability, which makes them fairly alright against light hordes of infantry; they aren't as hyperspecialized as, say, Ork Tankbustas.
5-1 you say? Ok, let's see. Eradicators shoot IG 6 times, hit 4, kill 3. Ok, let's be generous, kill 4. That's just 20 points killed by 120 pts squad.
Conclusion: by your own metric, Eradicators are underpowered and need buffing with additional rifle shot to actually do the 5-1 design target
Why are you shooting anti-tank weapons at light infantry? Are you new to the game? Would you like some friendly pointers?
Already addressed that in the other thread, try again. Commanders with quad fusion cap out at about 2/3 the efficiency of Eradicators.
Irbis wrote: Initial Dark Reapers were also almost as good as eliminators are now, but, they could shoot twice thanks to broken double action rules, making them by far most laughably OP unit of the whole 8th edition (imagine the salt if melta rifles could shoot four times, and you will get a pretty good approximation). Funny though, one had million posts saying it's totes balanced bro, lift the ""unfair"" GW limit, the other just had smug Eldar players saying 'git gud, it's bad unit'. So, yeah, let me play this here smallest violin to commemorate mental gymnastics used to defend these back then
I was one of the people arguing that they were overpowered, actually, but let's get the facts straight: Dark Reapers only get two shots base on a S5, AP-2, D2 profile. The more powerful one is S8, AP-2, D3, which is similar to melta albeit at lower AP... except they only get one shot.
At the time when you argue Dark Reapers were brokenly OP (with shoot-twice) they were firing the same number of shots as Eradicators (two each), but at a lower AP. They also cost 31pts apiece, so over three-quarters the cost of an Eradicator, but T3/W1/3+.
So, just to make sure your position is clear:
-31pt model getting 2 shots at S8/AP-2/D3, with a T3/W1/3+ profile: Brokenly overpowered and deserved the nerf.
-40pt model getting 2 shots at S8/AP-4/DD6, with a T5/W3/3+ profile: Perfectly balanced.
Yeah? 9pt increase (a mere 29% premium) significantly outweighs the higher damage, higher AP, and 4-6x tougher defensive profile?
And just to be clear: Even with shoot-twice, they still don't have the same efficiency as Eradicators. That lower AP makes a difference.
Oh, and that was 8th Ed points. 40ppm for Eradicators is 9th Ed, under the higher baseline. Dark Reapers are 35pts now. That's a joke of a comparison with the shoot-twice gone.
So what's your theory on the points discrepancies I pointed out? Shooty loyalist leviathans 50 ppm cheaper than shooty chaos leviathans, the superior relic contemptor the same price as a hellforged contemptor, an astreus with void shields, fly, and an anti-charge mechanic 162 points cheaper than a fellblade? Favoritism or lack of knowledge on what they were doing?
Yea I don't think they really considered it as "this is a shooty dread so it may not benefit as greatly". It was likely, "hey these guys can shoot into combat and heal - increase!". They're not entirely wrong. I'm totally putting melee weapons back on contemptors and taking the c-beams off.
As for the Astreus and Fellblade - I think a portion of the increase comes down to the Fellblade being T9 W26 where Astreus is T8 W24. Void shields are cool and all, but they don't really do much these days.
As a barometer - 23 LC to kill Astreus and 33 to kill Fellblade. Or in nu-40k terms -- 12 Eradicators to kill Astreus and 20 for the Fellblade.
Daedalus81 wrote: Right, but a plasma dropped 2 when a melta dropped by 5. The GL goes up, because it finds a little bit of new life. The changes are not favoring plasma, but your post indicates that they'll take it anyway (even though I've not seen plasma on guard all edition). So at that point why even worry about points for anything else?
Did you not get what I said about being the most generally useful? The Meltagun isn't the most generally useful as it has such a short range. The Grenade Launcher isn't the most generally useful as it doesn't cause enough of an impact (and never has). The flamer has the same issue as the Melta, only more pronounced, and it can't hurt the same range of targets. The Plasma, on the other hand, reaches out to 24" at high strength with decent armour penetration capabilities. It is the most generally useful, and if they're all equal, why wouldn't you take it?
What you're saying about the changes not favouring plasma and then listing the fact that the melta went down more points really doesn't mean anything. It costs less. That doesn't make it more applicable to most situations. The plasma remains a superior generalist weapon.
And if you're arguing that the changes do not favour the plasma gun because the melta went down more points than the plasma gun did, then you're just arguing raw figures outside of any actual context.
Daedalus81 wrote: But if you instead find yourself facing down a lot of infantry at the end of the game and most of your plasma killed itself would it still have been the best choice?
That's a specific scenario, and is quite irrelevant when creating lists unless your local meta is that you're always facing lots of infantry. Again, the plasma is the most generally useful in most situations. And if it costs the same as everything else there is little reason to bring anything else except in specialist units that can maximise the usage of the other weapon types (but, again, those are specialist, not general).
Daedalus81 wrote: Did GW create some grand hidden scheme here? gak no. A basic and soft target like an IS typically dies so fast that special weapons can easily be a waste. The impact is so limited that having intricately pointed weapon options doesn't seem like it changes the calculus for them much at all.
I disagree completely. Plasma Guns are better than these other weapons in general application, and things should be worth their cost. Grenade Launchers are worse than plasma guns in almost all respects, and should be cheaper (or rather plasmas should cost more). Meltaguns should cost more than Grenade Launchers because they are better than Grenade Launchers, but not as much as Plasma Guns as they don't have the same broad level of application.
This isn't some "grand hidden scheme" or whatever else you're talking about. This is simple points comparisons. We've been doing this for decades. It ain't hard.
So what's your theory on the points discrepancies I pointed out? Shooty loyalist leviathans 50 ppm cheaper than shooty chaos leviathans, the superior relic contemptor the same price as a hellforged contemptor, an astreus with void shields, fly, and an anti-charge mechanic 162 points cheaper than a fellblade? Favoritism or lack of knowledge on what they were doing?
Yea I don't think they really considered it as "this is a shooty dread so it may not benefit as greatly". It was likely, "hey these guys can shoot into combat and heal - increase!". They're not entirely wrong. I'm totally putting melee weapons back on contemptors and taking the c-beams off.
As for the Astreus and Fellblade - I think a portion of the increase comes down to the Fellblade being T9 W26 where Astreus is T8 W24. Void shields are cool and all, but they don't really do much these days.
As a barometer - 23 LC to kill Astreus and 33 to kill Fellblade. Or in nu-40k terms -- 12 Eradicators to kill Astreus and 20 for the Fellblade.
Perhaps, but the increase on the hellforged leviathan comes from the weapons, butcher cannon arrays are 25 points more than storm cannons. The base price is the same, so I don't think Machine Malifica was the reason. Melee weapons are the same for both loyalist and hellforged dreadnoughts, both contemptors and leviathans.
As for the astreus vs the Fellblade, remember how good we've been thinking the fly keyword will be in 9th? Guess we'll have to wait and see.
Still doesn't explain why the Karybdis got the axe when the model is still available from fw.
Daedalus81 wrote: What if you need to shoot a T5 W3 3+ model with a 5+++? Not saying it would be likely, but a melta has way more ability to remove the agency if its target and this edition seems to be really close quarters so far.
Ok. That clarifies things pretty well. You don't get it. You keep coming up with specific examples where one weapon is superior to another. This isn't about specifics. This is about the overall points values of weapons, and their relative worth at various points scales.
Daedalus81 wrote: What if you need to shoot a T5 W3 3+ model with a 5+++? Not saying it would be likely, but a melta has way more ability to remove the agency if its target and this edition seems to be really close quarters so far.
Ok. That clarifies things pretty well. You don't get it. You keep coming up with specific examples where one weapon is superior to another. This isn't about specifics. This is about the overall points values of weapons, and their relative worth at various points scales.
No, I do. I fully understand plasma will be the prime choice.
The specifics is what determines the value of a weapon. Plasma IS the best generalist weapon, but it can also kill you. There is an opportunity cost to assess if you're going to make sure reroll 1s are available.
If you had four people play IG and each of them built their lists around squads that take one type of special weapon (Catachan / Pyro, Slum Fighter - Flamers, Vostroyan / Cadian - Plasma, Fire from the Hip / Tallarn - Melta, Wilderness Survival - GL) and then logged each time a model with that weapon "scored points" by killing a model you'd likely find the overall net impact is not so vast that spending 12 extra points on GLs or saving 6 points on PGs makes an appreciable difference.
A GL being 3 points isn't going to convince anyone looking at plasma to pick the GL. If someone wants to bust hordes they might be inclined to pick it, because over time it will do better - IF they encounter larger units more often. But again, I understand, few will choose to do so.
Perhaps, but the increase on the hellforged leviathan comes from the weapons, butcher cannon arrays are 25 points more than storm cannons. The base price is the same, so I don't think Machine Malifica was the reason. Melee weapons are the same for both loyalist and hellforged dreadnoughts, both contemptors and leviathans.
As for the astreus vs the Fellblade, remember how good we've been thinking the fly keyword will be in 9th? Guess we'll have to wait and see.
Still doesn't explain why the Karybdis got the axe when the model is still available from fw.
Butcher Cannon Arrays are pretty nice though.
36" 8 S8 AP1 D2 -2LD
24" 10 S7 AP2 D2
Now it may be they're overvaluing the -2 LD in the new edition. I think the reason you don't see BCAs making waves is because CSM don't have the same crap to make a Levi stay around forever so it just isn't as popular. That and CSM lack reroll wounds that can be key to the SCA effectiveness.
Karybdis is probably a goof...maybe...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Killing a guardsmen is a non-drawback in practice.
Sure, but if games are coming down to the wire like we've seen a single dude surviving morale with his special weapon could be useful near the end of the game.
"Sure, but if games are coming down to the wire like we've seen a single dude surviving morale with his special weapon could be useful near the end of the game."
That's way too cornercase. YOu can't dance around the fact that plasma should cost considerably more than the others. It's just way better.
Daedalus81 wrote: What if you need to shoot a T5 W3 3+ model with a 5+++? Not saying it would be likely, but a melta has way more ability to remove the agency if its target and this edition seems to be really close quarters so far.
Ok. That clarifies things pretty well. You don't get it. You keep coming up with specific examples where one weapon is superior to another. This isn't about specifics. This is about the overall points values of weapons, and their relative worth at various points scales.
No, I do. I fully understand plasma will be the prime choice.
The specifics is what determines the value of a weapon. Plasma IS the best generalist weapon, but it can also kill you. There is an opportunity cost to assess if you're going to make sure reroll 1s are available.
If you had four people play IG and each of them built their lists around squads that take one type of special weapon (Catachan / Pyro, Slum Fighter - Flamers, Vostroyan / Cadian - Plasma, Fire from the Hip / Tallarn - Melta, Wilderness Survival - GL) and then logged each time a model with that weapon "scored points" by killing a model you'd likely find the overall net impact is not so vast that spending 12 extra points on GLs or saving 6 points on PGs makes an appreciable difference.
A GL being 3 points isn't going to convince anyone looking at plasma to pick the GL. If someone wants to bust hordes they might be inclined to pick it, because over time it will do better - IF they encounter larger units more often. But again, I understand, few will choose to do so.
Yeah Plasma can kill you. That sucks on more expensive models like Hellblasters, where those wounds are pretty pricey. However, saying Plasma can kill you with a 5 point model is pretty much never an issue.
It's actually a problem with the plasma rules being quite inconsistent. With some plasma weapons, when you overheat you not only suffer the mortal wounds, but the weapon is destroyed. If you applied that to all plasma weapons, I can assure you that it would be less common.
About plasma I think I'd just remove the possibility of re-rolling 1s. If they roll a 1, no matter what aura-ability they can have and the model suffer that mortal wound. Maybe even D3 mortal wounds.
And plasma weapons should probably go back to the single profile, removing the overcharged one. I don't think they should cost more than meltas, just tone down their efficiency.
I'd suggest stopping. Nothing you find is going to make you happy. The FW points were an afterthought. I mean can we even be sure that the person writing them even understood the difference between a 'Relic' unit and a non-relic unit? We'll need to wait for the new books.
If into the FW points you go, only pain will you find.
Why are you shooting anti-tank weapons at light infantry? Are you new to the game? Would you like some friendly pointers?
Because it's round two+ & the AT guys finished their primary task in the previous round? Because at the moment there's no better targets in LOS?
I mean, you don't seriously think I'm just going to stop shooting at things do you?
Because for whatever reason I need that squad dead (or at least shot up) now? When the goal is to make it go away I'm not choosy about what I hit it with.
Why are you shooting anti-tank weapons at light infantry? Are you new to the game? Would you like some friendly pointers?
Because it's round two+ & the AT guys finished their primary task in the previous round? Because at the moment there's no better targets in LOS?
I mean, you don't seriously think I'm just going to stop shooting at things do you?
Because for whatever reason I need that squad dead (or at least shot up) now? When the goal is to make it go away I'm not choosy about what I hit it with.
True, specialy when you start to score at the begining of your turn. I expect to see games where a single grot or cultist is taking fire power to the face, which could flatten a tank just because he is one of two last ones sitting on an objective.
But maybe mr Gadzia is talking about narrative games, where you are expected to engage melee units in melee, give your opponents chance to have fun and not kill of their units before they can score.
Nice historical revisionism. Because I recall some headless doom heralding chickens ""predicting"" they will be 20 points,
Source?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Melta is still awful, though. It could be free and still be pretty bad because its taking a plasma slot.
If they're equal points I'm not so sure. Melta can hit tougher units really hard and that's definitely worth something, and it doesn't risk killing my own model to do so. I will definitely bring some Melta to the party in my lists, at the very least giving characters combi-Meltas since it's less risky than combi-Plas and will have a nice 2+ to hit on Captains.
ccs wrote: In my case they'd have more success by designing cool models. Oh, drat, they realized that along time ago....
Same. Rules come and go with each codex, edition, errata or FAQ. Awesome looking models that make you want to field that unit or army are staying with you for decades (Hello Eldar farseer sculpts! Hello Emperor's champion!)
Eldenfirefly wrote: So, the overall message I am getting from 9th ed rules and the points changes is that ...
... if you play horde, GW wants you to go and play another army....
The more I look at 9th, the more I'm convinced that this the hordes edition. Playtesters catched this and reacted with the coherency rules and blast rules, but hordes are still going really strong.
I have seen many battle reports of 9th. An horde list would have done well in all those games.
Nice historical revisionism. Because I recall some headless doom heralding chickens ""predicting"" they will be 20 points,
Source?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Melta is still awful, though. It could be free and still be pretty bad because its taking a plasma slot.
If they're equal points I'm not so sure. Melta can hit tougher units really hard and that's definitely worth something, and it doesn't risk killing my own model to do so. I will definitely bring some Melta to the party in my lists, at the very least giving characters combi-Meltas since it's less risky than combi-Plas and will have a nice 2+ to hit on Captains.
Given how much mouth frothing there is over the eradicators and then we get "melta could be free and is still bad because it's not plasma" appreciate the context is slightly different, but it's a massive double standard.
Agree that melta has a place though, it's a little harder to get the mileage from compared to plasma however.
Eldenfirefly wrote: So, the overall message I am getting from 9th ed rules and the points changes is that ...
... if you play horde, GW wants you to go and play another army....
The more I look at 9th, the more I'm convinced that this the hordes edition. Playtesters catched this and reacted with the coherency rules and blast rules, but hordes are still going really strong.
I have seen many battle reports of 9th. An horde list would have done well in all those games.
Only the deathguard lists could be a problem.
What hordes are you considering though? Ork players seem to all agree to switch to elite oriented lists.
Dudeface wrote: Given how much mouth frothing there is over the eradicators and then we get "melta could be free and is still bad because it's not plasma" appreciate the context is slightly different, but it's a massive double standard.
Melta rifles have double the range though, which is a huge advantage. There is generally a 9" limit on how close you can deploy from away from an enemy from reserves. This really hurts things like melta scions, as they don't get the full advantage that melta provides. A 12" melta range fixes this.
Termagants are 5 points and Hormagaunts are 6. Hormagaunts in particular are nice, with speed 8" obsec and 6" pile in they are incredibily good to negate the opponent primaries.
As long as Eradicators are around, we cannot play nidzilla in any serious way, so we are short on alternatives.
Dudeface wrote: Given how much mouth frothing there is over the eradicators and then we get "melta could be free and is still bad because it's not plasma" appreciate the context is slightly different, but it's a massive double standard.
Melta rifles have double the range though, which is a huge advantage. There is generally a 9" limit on how close you can deploy from away from an enemy from reserves. This really hurts things like melta scions, as they don't get the full advantage that melta provides. A 12" melta range fixes this.
18 > 24 isn't double? Appreciate it helps, but if people are claiming melta is objectively worse than plasma, why the fuss?
Dudeface wrote: Given how much mouth frothing there is over the eradicators and then we get "melta could be free and is still bad because it's not plasma" appreciate the context is slightly different, but it's a massive double standard.
Melta rifles have double the range though, which is a huge advantage. There is generally a 9" limit on how close you can deploy from away from an enemy from reserves. This really hurts things like melta scions, as they don't get the full advantage that melta provides. A 12" melta range fixes this.
I have a dream. One day I wake up to find that datasheet FAQed to have range 14". Would make it so much better on a gameplay and balance aspects...
Dudeface wrote: 18 > 24 isn't double? Appreciate it helps, but if people are claiming melta is objectively worse than plasma, why the fuss?
I guess I could have worded my point more clearly. I meant that melta rifles have double the range of meltaguns.
You're right, for some reason in the back of my head, I thought a normal melta was 18". Is there an 18" melta somewhere? Fusion weapons maybe. I need a warm beverage.
Dudeface wrote: 18 > 24 isn't double? Appreciate it helps, but if people are claiming melta is objectively worse than plasma, why the fuss?
I guess I could have worded my point more clearly. I meant that melta rifles have double the range of meltaguns.
You're right, for some reason in the back of my head, I thought a normal melta was 18". Is there an 18" melta somewhere? Fusion weapons maybe. I need a warm beverage.
I'm still in the process of catching up in this threat but as the question was stated towards the general audience how much our armies went up:
I'm surprised but my own was really barely hit. I have an IG/Deathkorps collection (the latter counts as) that is pretty infantry heavy, with lots of Deathriders and some Forgeworld stuff. With a bit of wrigling around (Tauris now count as Sentinels as they seem to have disappeared, Salamander Scout tanks are Gryphonne Pattern Chimeras for now), my ~ 2900 points went to ~ 3000. So +3.5%.
A lot of things went up, but my 25 Deathriders got cheaper, my Meltaguns too and I only had one Leman Russ. Even if the Tauris come back (fingers crossed) at roughly their old price it should be enough to drop the Leman Russ to be were I was in 8th.
Funny thing though: as Twin Multilasers came down the Carnodon can now be taken at 80 points with 4x Multilaser. that's 8points per T7 3+ wound.
INFANTRTY/BIKES: Shining Spears, Dark Reapers, Wraithguard w/wraithcannons
Ok, so what were the units GW thought were the MOST IMPORTANT TO NERF (again, I'm including wargear in here, don't hit me with this 'they just made the weapons cost less')
CHARACTERS: Prince Yriel, Autarch on foot, Warlock conclave on foot
VEHICLES: Wraithlord, Fire Prism, Nightspinner
INFANTRY: Guardians and Guardian Heavy Weapon Platform, Striking Scorpions, Swooping Hawks
Good fething gak, GW! Everything that anybody used in a fething tournament you decided to increase WAY WAY LESS than units nobody fething uses! Literally the only thing that ever saw tournament play in eldar lists that you managed to nerf is the Nightspinner, and the only units that got relatively buffed that WEREN'T competitive standbys is wraithguard and arguably vypers. What are you doing? Dark eldar is like this too, to an arguably lesser extent but still. What's up at the top of the list for lightest nerfs? Why it's the Razorwing Jetfighter and the Ravager, the units every drukhkari list spammed the hell out of last edition! What do we see down near the worst nerfed category? Oh look, it's the Cronos, Wyches, Hellions and Reavers, the worst units in Codex Drukhari!
the_scotsman 789943 10866900 wrote:
Good fething gak, GW! Everything that anybody used in a fething tournament you decided to increase WAY WAY LESS than units nobody fething uses! Literally the only thing that ever saw tournament play in eldar lists that you managed to nerf is the Nightspinner, and the only units that got relatively buffed that WEREN'T competitive standbys is wraithguard and arguably vypers. What are you doing? Dark eldar is like this too, to an arguably lesser extent but still. What's up at the top of the list for lightest nerfs? Why it's the Razorwing Jetfighter and the Ravager, the units every drukhkari list spammed the hell out of last edition! What do we see down near the worst nerfed category? Oh look, it's the Cronos, Wyches, Hellions and Reavers, the worst units in Codex Drukhari!
Well you now know how GK players felt, when GW decided that the prime objecte of their scrutiny has to be the brother hood champion, who requires multi level nerfs. At a time when no one sane was using him .
I have a feeling that a lot of changes for some armies are linked to what models GW sells and wants to sell for those armies in the future. So maybe the changes are good in a way. Maybe eldar will get a lot of new models , just like necron did. Could be in 9th or in the starter set for 10th ed.
the_scotsman 789943 10866900 wrote:
Good fething gak, GW! Everything that anybody used in a fething tournament you decided to increase WAY WAY LESS than units nobody fething uses! Literally the only thing that ever saw tournament play in eldar lists that you managed to nerf is the Nightspinner, and the only units that got relatively buffed that WEREN'T competitive standbys is wraithguard and arguably vypers. What are you doing? Dark eldar is like this too, to an arguably lesser extent but still. What's up at the top of the list for lightest nerfs? Why it's the Razorwing Jetfighter and the Ravager, the units every drukhkari list spammed the hell out of last edition! What do we see down near the worst nerfed category? Oh look, it's the Cronos, Wyches, Hellions and Reavers, the worst units in Codex Drukhari!
Well you now know how GK players felt, when GW decided that the prime objecte of their scrutiny has to be the brother hood champion, who requires multi level nerfs. At a time when no one sane was using him .
I have a feeling that a lot of changes for some armies are linked to what models GW sells and wants to sell for those armies in the future. So maybe the changes are good in a way. Maybe eldar will get a lot of new models , just like necron did. Could be in 9th or in the starter set for 10th ed.
I mean, it is weird that they just released 4 new kits for eldar and dark eldar and decided they needed hefty nerfs in the new rules to make sure nobody buys 'em. Sure am glad I never picked up Banshees or Incubi!
Not sure if it contributes, but Razorwings and Ravagers were nerfed in CA19. So maybe they didn't think they needed to be "nerfed" as much again.
Obviously things have gone up - but I wasn't convinced Ravagers were especially dominant at 120 before they were nerfed. 120->160 (with dissies) would be seen as quite the hike. (Admittedly you might say this is special pleading.)
Edit - Sorry, it was 125 before, not 120.
Still, a reasonable step up.
I mean, it is weird that they just released 4 new kits for eldar and dark eldar and decided they needed hefty nerfs in the new rules to make sure nobody buys 'em. Sure am glad I never picked up Banshees or Incubi!
well maybe GW wants people to buy their marine armies first, and maybe necron. And plans something for eldar in 10th ed or mid 9th. knights weren't a thing at the start of 8th, yet in mid edition they were fun to play as soup.
sanguine40k wrote: T'au Fusion is 18", for which we now pay 1.5 times as much as most other armies pay for Melta (and triple what BS4+ guard pay for it).
Fusion Blaster seems to be the only (non-vehicle) Melta weapon to have *INCREASED* in points...
And you are still outside of the magic 9" range, when you come in from reserves.
I mean, it is weird that they just released 4 new kits for eldar and dark eldar and decided they needed hefty nerfs in the new rules to make sure nobody buys 'em. Sure am glad I never picked up Banshees or Incubi!
well maybe GW wants people to buy their marine armies first, and maybe necron. And plans something for eldar in 10th ed or mid 9th. knights weren't a thing at the start of 8th, yet in mid edition they were fun to play as soup.
could be, though I am at this point used to my dark eldar being the worst army in the game. They have been for three out of the four editions I've played them now going into 9th.
sanguine40k wrote: T'au Fusion is 18", for which we now pay 1.5 times as much as most other armies pay for Melta (and triple what BS4+ guard pay for it).
Fusion Blaster seems to be the only (non-vehicle) Melta weapon to have *INCREASED* in points...
And you are still outside of the magic 9" range, when you come in from reserves.
Special weapon balance is completely borked.
A PG i get for 10 pts, why should i bother with a melta?
Heck i get an AC for 10 pts aswell?
Nice historical revisionism. Because I recall some headless doom heralding chickens ""predicting"" they will be 20 points,
Source?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Melta is still awful, though. It could be free and still be pretty bad because its taking a plasma slot.
If they're equal points I'm not so sure. Melta can hit tougher units really hard and that's definitely worth something, and it doesn't risk killing my own model to do so. I will definitely bring some Melta to the party in my lists, at the very least giving characters combi-Meltas since it's less risky than combi-Plas and will have a nice 2+ to hit on Captains.
Given how much mouth frothing there is over the eradicators and then we get "melta could be free and is still bad because it's not plasma" appreciate the context is slightly different, but it's a massive double standard.
Agree that melta has a place though, it's a little harder to get the mileage from compared to plasma however.
This is mostly related to Martel continuing to misunderstand Plasma's place in the game.
The thing is, no one takes plasma outside of scion lists and some admech setups as it is.
Yes, plasma is the better generalist weapon; the problem is that that means it's competing against actually good generalist options, particularly the unique weapons or units that buff a certain type of weapon to generalist standard.
Now the majority of the time a good generalist weapon will be more powerful than a good specialist weapon, but plasma is a mediocre specialist weapon. So melta still has it's place. Especially in situations where your reroll 1s aren't around which will happen more often now.
I mean, it is weird that they just released 4 new kits for eldar and dark eldar and decided they needed hefty nerfs in the new rules to make sure nobody buys 'em. Sure am glad I never picked up Banshees or Incubi!
well maybe GW wants people to buy their marine armies first, and maybe necron. And plans something for eldar in 10th ed or mid 9th. knights weren't a thing at the start of 8th, yet in mid edition they were fun to play as soup.
could be, though I am at this point used to my dark eldar being the worst army in the game. They have been for three out of the four editions I've played them now going into 9th.
I thought they were one of the strongest armies in 8th for a long time? So much that many people actually found their lazy PA update okay - they were already topdogs at that time and didn't need much improvement.
The model side is something else though. Their HQ roster especially is... lacking.
sanguine40k wrote: T'au Fusion is 18", for which we now pay 1.5 times as much as most other armies pay for Melta (and triple what BS4+ guard pay for it).
Fusion Blaster seems to be the only (non-vehicle) Melta weapon to have *INCREASED* in points...
And you are still outside of the magic 9" range, when you come in from reserves.
Special weapon balance is completely borked.
A PG i get for 10 pts, why should i bother with a melta?
Heck i get an AC for 10 pts aswell?
Realistically you're not taking either of those because they both suck compared to the actually good guns on actually good units.
Vaktathi wrote: Just taking a quick look Guard point changes, I'm somewhat shocked at how much they increased pricing on the Exterminator Autocannon, Heavy Bolters & Twin Heavy Bolters, Missile Launcher, Grenade Launcher, Heavy Stubber, etc all went wayyyyyyyy up, most of which were not very good. Those took the biggest hits of just about anything in the army, and I'm not sure...why?
Meanwhile the Battlecannon got even...cheaper?
I'm hoping this means that some changes went into the Exterminator Battlecannon and Missile Launcher and the like to make them more attractive, but I'm more guessing this is GW being bad at things again.
Looking for logic in 40k points is like looking for robust structure in a Salvador Dali painting.
I mean there is a logic.
GW obviously algorithmicly derived points adjustments overall and then touched up certain units they felt under or overperformed. The issue is that the rules writers lacked the time or skill to understand all the units that needed this treatment and just let the unit live with what the algorithm decided,
could be, though I am at this point used to my dark eldar being the worst army in the game. They have been for three out of the four editions I've played them now going into 9th.
I thought they were one of the strongest armies in 8th for a long time? So much that many people actually found their lazy PA update okay - they were already topdogs at that time and didn't need much improvement.
The model side is something else though. Their HQ roster especially is... lacking.
I think that was Scotsman's point...Drukhari were good in 8th, but before that the last time they weren't trash tier was, 5th?
The big issue with PA for Drukhari was that it contributed nothing at all. Nobody was asking for Black Heart and Prophets of the Flesh to be buffed, but there are a large number of really poor options, in an already small codex, that could have done with a lift to improve variety. Instead we got a name generator for £25 (?) and I didn't bother buying it.
INFANTRTY/BIKES: Shining Spears, Dark Reapers, Wraithguard w/wraithcannons
Ok, so what were the units GW thought were the MOST IMPORTANT TO NERF (again, I'm including wargear in here, don't hit me with this 'they just made the weapons cost less')
CHARACTERS: Prince Yriel, Autarch on foot, Warlock conclave on foot
VEHICLES: Wraithlord, Fire Prism, Nightspinner
INFANTRY: Guardians and Guardian Heavy Weapon Platform, Striking Scorpions, Swooping Hawks
Good fething gak, GW! Everything that anybody used in a fething tournament you decided to increase WAY WAY LESS than units nobody fething uses! Literally the only thing that ever saw tournament play in eldar lists that you managed to nerf is the Nightspinner, and the only units that got relatively buffed that WEREN'T competitive standbys is wraithguard and arguably vypers. What are you doing? Dark eldar is like this too, to an arguably lesser extent but still. What's up at the top of the list for lightest nerfs? Why it's the Razorwing Jetfighter and the Ravager, the units every drukhkari list spammed the hell out of last edition! What do we see down near the worst nerfed category? Oh look, it's the Cronos, Wyches, Hellions and Reavers, the worst units in Codex Drukhari!
You know, lists like this make me think even more that GW didn't start with CA19 points for rebalance, but some other balance point. I.e. for the crap units that have gotten points decreases in CA, they started from a higher baseline and then got nerfed. Meanwhile, the already solid things or things that received points increases in CA started from a lower baseline and therefore got hit less.
But, y'know, I don't know. The whole thing is just a complete kludge. I mean, yeah, there's obviously an algorithm, and GW was obviously lazy about the changes. But I think those two statements undersell just how lazy and crap this update was.
I guess, since my time starting in early 6th edition as a Tyranids player, I've seen some bad rules updates/balance passes (that's putting it mildly). But I don't think I've seen incompetence on such a broad and grand display before, or such a clear step backwards in balance. The FAQs of 7th had some blush of this (making drop pod doors count as part of the model, for example), but let's be fair, rules are harder. I really will give them a bit of credit on that. Points, though... there's just no excuse for this sort of balancing. Especially when the rules seem to be moving in such a good direction.
Mr Morden wrote: Maybe the Tournament foccussed playtesters were more likely to play with and argue for the units that they already owned and used?
That couldn't be it! Why, if that were the answer, you'd see specific bugbears of tournament focused players like chaplain dreadnoughts, second-floor immunity, stacked to-hit modifiers and tripointing being a huge percentage of the focus of 9th edition's new ruleset, mission setups that looked identical to popular tournament houserules from ITC, a whole string of high-profile tournament players promoting the new edition as the best ever, and a point change list that does not require any of those tournament players to meaningfully restructure their meta power lists!
Now we just need Disney to buy out GW and we can get around to having our Mickey Mouse army!
Activision bought blizzard .
Also, the thing with this joke is that, depending on if 40k media takes off, this is legitimately something that has a good chance of happening a few years into the future.
Maybe the Tournament foccussed playtesters were more likely to play with and argue for the units that they already owned and used?
Too much credit. Look at the way this was handled. GW didn't really consider these at all. It was a blanket formula followed by small select tweaks (likely based on GWs misconceptions on how everyone plays the game). This was never about balance. At all. It was about scaling the game differently.
DE got a decent index that buffed them significantly compared to earlier editions.
They then got further boosts in their codex. Like Guard, almost every unit was pointed aggressively, with maybe just the Chronos standing in for the Vanquisher Leman Russ in the "why bother" column - and even then, it was a relatively cheap source of tough wounds. Certain things (wych cult especially) would however subsequently drop off as the world grew progressively more lethal.
Their real value was in Eldar Soup. Concealed a bit by the meta-warping weight of the Castellan, various evolving forms of Eldar Soup would be the alternate power list for about 12 months (about 18 if you include conventional Craftworld Eldar and Ynnari before).
Once Eldar Soup got nerfed (no Doom/Jinx on DE units for instance after the April 2019 big FAQ, Ynnari cast to the outer dark) Dark Eldar seem to have largely left the competitive scene, something which the Marine domination from July/August 2019 did little to change.
The round of nerfs in CA19 took a faction already on the way out and threw it into the abyss (see for example, the LVO). PA1 gave Test of Skill flyers as a sort of sidegrade, and then a bunch of options which were hard nerfs on what you already had.
As I think Goonhammer rightly said - the problem with DE is that the faction has essentially remained stuck in amber since the codex was released. Unlike other factions, PA did not open up any alternative builds or units. So when you nerf them, the only thing the faction does is get worse.
Which if it was rocking an Ironhands win percentage would be fine - but those days are long gone.
Maybe I should just put the models I like most on a table, and if 90% of the time I spend the first 2 turns just taking them all off, Bah humbug. And avoid playing space marine players whenever possible... if I am feeling particularly masochistic I’ll try out that crusade mode and watch those battle scars rack up... and just keep fighting the long war!
sanguine40k wrote: T'au Fusion is 18", for which we now pay 1.5 times as much as most other armies pay for Melta (and triple what BS4+ guard pay for it).
Fusion Blaster seems to be the only (non-vehicle) Melta weapon to have *INCREASED* in points...
And you are still outside of the magic 9" range, when you come in from reserves.
Special weapon balance is completely borked.
A PG i get for 10 pts, why should i bother with a melta?
Heck i get an AC for 10 pts aswell?
I find it so weird that people are flabbergasted over melta that used to be more expensive than plasma and now that its the same price its "why would I ever do that! "
AC have a higher constant shots with lower AP and the lowest strength (of the 3).
A plasma gun is like a half range AC with more AP and less damage until you OC and risk user death.
A metla is like a half range plasma with OC that has more AP and damage and doesn't kill the user.
When you start playing 9th you might see why you might like melta sometimes. And I can't stress this enough - melta isn't just for vehicles.
could be, though I am at this point used to my dark eldar being the worst army in the game. They have been for three out of the four editions I've played them now going into 9th.
I thought they were one of the strongest armies in 8th for a long time? So much that many people actually found their lazy PA update okay - they were already topdogs at that time and didn't need much improvement. The model side is something else though. Their HQ roster especially is... lacking.
I think that was Scotsman's point...Drukhari were good in 8th, but before that the last time they weren't trash tier was, 5th?
The big issue with PA for Drukhari was that it contributed nothing at all. Nobody was asking for Black Heart and Prophets of the Flesh to be buffed, but there are a large number of really poor options, in an already small codex, that could have done with a lift to improve variety. Instead we got a name generator for £25 (?) and I didn't bother buying it.
5th was playable vs Marines, trash vs GK and Necrons 6th 100% unplayable vs most armies unless you beaststarand didn't gunboat or venom spam 7th new codex was trash until Coven supplement came out, otherwise it was 3 kabals in venoms with 2 Lhameans and as many bikes as you could take.
5th and early 6th was lower tier over all but, late 6th and early 7th almost not even playable, late 7th had 2 viable builds.
8th was the first real time DE has been played well, 3rd and some of 5th with some of 7th you had the ability to do well, it was just very hard to play. 9th will tell soon enough, but i do not like how how DE was treated in 9th point changes at all.. Why TF is a Shock Prow, Agoniser, Venomblade, etc.. 5pts... Non of the point changes for DE actually makes any sense at all.
Why did hellions go up? No one touched them, GW can't even sell them, this was their one change to be viable, but nope... Why did Kabals go up 3pts but guardsmen 1pt? Why did Splinter cannons go to 15 pts? They are NOT as good as a HB in anyway but now are same cost, sure its Rapid 3, but its also poison with no AP and DE doesn't re-roll hits very easily and rrw1 is very hard to get (only 1 relic aura and it doesn't work inside vehicles). No one took a 2nd SC on Venoms anyways or on infantry b.c it wasn't worth it at 10pts, so why 15pts?
macluvin wrote: Maybe I should just put the models I like most on a table, and if 90% of the time I spend the first 2 turns just taking them all off, Bah humbug. And avoid playing space marine players whenever possible... if I am feeling particularly masochistic I’ll try out that crusade mode and watch those battle scars rack up... and just keep fighting the long war!
...it's not like this is something a lot of people have been doing since doctrines got released.
If you play marines and you think "wow, sure is weird that I play so many marines vs marines games now" that's not just coincidence. Playing vs a primaris marine army feels like a game against a hideous mutated lovechild of 7th edition meta eldar with the invigorating static gunline playstyle of tau. They've even got the Timmy Turner's Dentist specialist units that Eldar aspect warriors used to be in 7th.
"Well yes, you have melta guns, but you see, OUR melta guns are THE MELTIEST, you don't DESERVE melta guns as melty and blasty as ours!"
"Oh sure, you have bikes too, but OUR bikes are THE BIKIEST, which is why only WE get special rules for our bikes smacking into you and giving us more melee attacks!"
"YOU only have regular, boring plasma guns and regular, boring plasma cannons, WE have macro assault heavy rapid plasma incineradicinators, so as you can see, it is the plasmiest, and deserves to be the best!"
I believe people is undervaluing special weapon squads with fusion guns or even infantry squads with a fusion gun on it. Specially if people starts spamming more vehicles in 9th.
Galas wrote: I believe people is undervaluing special weapon squads with fusion guns or even infantry squads with a fusion gun on it. Specially if people starts spamming more vehicles in 9th.
Maybe, but special weapon squads are very squishy. 6 Guardsmen with 3 meltas is not going to get in range if it is anything the opponent needs to worry about. So you have to use special deployment options or transports, which are really hard to get within 6" for the extra ability.
macluvin wrote: Maybe I should just put the models I like most on a table, and if 90% of the time I spend the first 2 turns just taking them all off, Bah humbug. And avoid playing space marine players whenever possible... if I am feeling particularly masochistic I’ll try out that crusade mode and watch those battle scars rack up... and just keep fighting the long war!
...it's not like this is something a lot of people have been doing since doctrines got released.
If you play marines and you think "wow, sure is weird that I play so many marines vs marines games now" that's not just coincidence. Playing vs a primaris marine army feels like a game against a hideous mutated lovechild of 7th edition meta eldar with the invigorating static gunline playstyle of tau. They've even got the Timmy Turner's Dentist specialist units that Eldar aspect warriors used to be in 7th.
"Well yes, you have melta guns, but you see, OUR melta guns are THE MELTIEST, you don't DESERVE melta guns as melty and blasty as ours!"
"Oh sure, you have bikes too, but OUR bikes are THE BIKIEST, which is why only WE get special rules for our bikes smacking into you and giving us more melee attacks!"
"YOU only have regular, boring plasma guns and regular, boring plasma cannons, WE have macro assault heavy rapid plasma incineradicinators, so as you can see, it is the plasmiest, and deserves to be the best!"
Well they opened Pandora’s box... now we have to live with it and there’s really no way to fix this that doesn’t screw somebody over... am I the only one that finds primaris marines models boring? I mean the old marines have beakies and mk VIII... the variety in the space marine kit! I don’t even play them.
Galas wrote: I believe people is undervaluing special weapon squads with fusion guns or even infantry squads with a fusion gun on it. Specially if people starts spamming more vehicles in 9th.
Maybe, but special weapon squads are very squishy. 6 Guardsmen with 3 meltas is not going to get in range if it is anything the opponent needs to worry about. So you have to use special deployment options or transports, which are really hard to get within 6" for the extra ability.
Galas wrote: I believe people is undervaluing special weapon squads with fusion guns or even infantry squads with a fusion gun on it. Specially if people starts spamming more vehicles in 9th.
Maybe, but special weapon squads are very squishy. 6 Guardsmen with 3 meltas is not going to get in range if it is anything the opponent needs to worry about. So you have to use special deployment options or transports, which are really hard to get within 6" for the extra ability.
When you are paying 10 points for a melta shot you don't even need the damage bonus to make it worth it. I'm not saying it will be better than plasma but I would not be so fast to say it has no place.
Galas wrote: I believe people is undervaluing special weapon squads with fusion guns or even infantry squads with a fusion gun on it. Specially if people starts spamming more vehicles in 9th.
Maybe, but special weapon squads are very squishy. 6 Guardsmen with 3 meltas is not going to get in range if it is anything the opponent needs to worry about. So you have to use special deployment options or transports, which are really hard to get within 6" for the extra ability.
Meh. Screw the bonus.
Wouldn't overcharged plasma deal more damage if you're not getting the melta range bonus?
Galas wrote: I believe people is undervaluing special weapon squads with fusion guns or even infantry squads with a fusion gun on it. Specially if people starts spamming more vehicles in 9th.
Maybe, but special weapon squads are very squishy. 6 Guardsmen with 3 meltas is not going to get in range if it is anything the opponent needs to worry about. So you have to use special deployment options or transports, which are really hard to get within 6" for the extra ability.
Meh. Screw the bonus.
so then just take lascannons instead?
Thats the problem with melta. Theres a better gun if they don't get the melta rule.
macluvin wrote: am I the only one that finds primaris marines models boring? I mean the old marines have beakies and mk VIII... the variety in the space marine kit! I don’t even play them.
The basics are ok, but the new characters & vets in Indomitus are fire.
macluvin wrote: ...am I the only one that finds primaris marines models boring? I mean the old marines have beakies and mk VIII... the variety in the space marine kit! I don’t even play them.
I've not actually built any, but I get a feeling that they are very "you have 5 poses and will like it". Is that the case? I always hate that, which is why I love the Cadian kit. You can make every Guardsman look different, even if there are only limited of each type of piece.
Galas wrote: I believe people is undervaluing special weapon squads with fusion guns or even infantry squads with a fusion gun on it. Specially if people starts spamming more vehicles in 9th.
Maybe, but special weapon squads are very squishy. 6 Guardsmen with 3 meltas is not going to get in range if it is anything the opponent needs to worry about. So you have to use special deployment options or transports, which are really hard to get within 6" for the extra ability.
Meh. Screw the bonus.
Wouldn't overcharged plasma deal more damage if you're not getting the melta range bonus?
I also believe that with 5 point plasma you'll see one in each infantry squad. I mean. I would prefer to have one infantry squad less and have 10 infantry squads with a plasma gun each.
Mr Morden wrote: Maybe the Tournament foccussed playtesters were more likely to play with and argue for the units that they already owned and used?
Okey, but this would not explain things like the GSC changes. It is a codex writen in mind to be played alongside codex IG and codex Tyranid detachments. nerfing the costs of GSC stuff, when they are already losing a lot of unit, and not fixing any other their problems is a strange choice. Unless among the testers, there were zero people interested in making gsc a valid army to play.
Knights feel like that too. The way they were changed and how 9th works, it feels as if they were not made to be played in 9th ed. And it isn't just a few units elite army problem, there are missions that can only be done by infantry or psykers, and banner rising requires a unit to do nothing for both players turns.
Galas wrote: I believe people is undervaluing special weapon squads with fusion guns or even infantry squads with a fusion gun on it. Specially if people starts spamming more vehicles in 9th.
SWS's are great in terms of damage output per point invested. The problem is that they're not troops, they're tiny and trivially destroyed units, with no delivery mechanism.
That said, with regards to Meltaguns, they only have an advantage over Plasma Guns at 6" and under against big targets, and even that isn't actually particularly powerful, and only holds true if the target is not getting an invul. Anything over 6", or if the target has an Invul, and the PG is a dramatically superior tool.
Mr Morden wrote: Maybe the Tournament foccussed playtesters were more likely to play with and argue for the units that they already owned and used?
Okey, but this would not explain things like the GSC changes. It is a codex writen in mind to be played alongside codex IG and codex Tyranid detachments. nerfing the costs of GSC stuff, when they are already losing a lot of unit, and not fixing any other their problems is a strange choice. Unless among the testers, there were zero people interested in making gsc a valid army to play.
Knights feel like that too. The way they were changed and how 9th works, it feels as if they were not made to be played in 9th ed. And it isn't just a few units elite army problem, there are missions that can only be done by infantry or psykers, and banner rising requires a unit to do nothing for both players turns.
It also relies on this insane idea that tournament players like stuff just because the numbers are good. Tournament players USE stuff with good number but LIKE all kinds of things. 90% of every game I play is in tournaments and my favorite models are dreadnaughts, mortifiers, immolators, and landspeeders. Dreadnaughts are only good NOW, immolators are arguably the worst armed transport in the game, landspeeders are painfully mediocre, and mortifiers are only just now approaching viable. If I was on the playtest team, these would be my pet units. Not exorcists, centurions, aggressors, or intercessors.
Thats the problem with melta. Theres a better gun if they don't get the melta rule.
Which is 15 and subject to a move penalty on infantry. One LC for 3 meltaguns (or PG, of course). You need to wipe squads now as well. They don't blow off the table after 7/8 casualties.
Wouldn't overcharged plasma deal more damage if you're not getting the melta range bonus?
Probably, but that's a 30% chance to kill yourself.
2 * .5 * .666 * .833 = 0.55 wounding hits on an Eradicator (for example) - this results in a little better than 50% chance to put 2 damage on
1 * .5 * .666 = 0.33 wounding hits - 33% * 66% = 22% to kill an Eradicator outright
Lasguns might be a better paired finisher though if the PG goes through as they should be able to do 1 wound.
Thats the problem with melta. Theres a better gun if they don't get the melta rule.
Which is 15 and subject to a move penalty on infantry. One LC for 3 meltaguns (or PG, of course). You need to wipe squads now as well. They don't blow off the table after 7/8 casualties.
sure but, 12" vs 48", i'd rather pay more and give them lascannons if i want an anti-tank squad.
Mr Morden wrote: Maybe the Tournament foccussed playtesters were more likely to play with and argue for the units that they already owned and used?
Okey, but this would not explain things like the GSC changes. It is a codex writen in mind to be played alongside codex IG and codex Tyranid detachments. nerfing the costs of GSC stuff, when they are already losing a lot of unit, and not fixing any other their problems is a strange choice. Unless among the testers, there were zero people interested in making gsc a valid army to play.
Its going to depend on how persuasive the playtesters are and how strongly GW feels about an army. I can easily see GW sticking more to their numbers on GSC, simply for how they perceive Ambush as deviating from the normal game rules.
There is a tax there. Some of it might even be justified for how easily GSC can claim or contest objectives and accomplish secondaries.
It doesn't explain everything, of course, and focused way too much on the CC units over bikes and things, but I suspect GW's attitude toward what the army might do with their special rules played a big role.
Mr Morden wrote: Maybe the Tournament foccussed playtesters were more likely to play with and argue for the units that they already owned and used?
Okey, but this would not explain things like the GSC changes. It is a codex writen in mind to be played alongside codex IG and codex Tyranid detachments. nerfing the costs of GSC stuff, when they are already losing a lot of unit, and not fixing any other their problems is a strange choice. Unless among the testers, there were zero people interested in making gsc a valid army to play.
Knights feel like that too. The way they were changed and how 9th works, it feels as if they were not made to be played in 9th ed. And it isn't just a few units elite army problem, there are missions that can only be done by infantry or psykers, and banner rising requires a unit to do nothing for both players turns.
The currently competitive units (the bikes, the acolytes, the kelermorph, and the achilles ridgerunner) all got fairly light points nerfs, while lesser used units got absolutely slam-dunked.
...Which is how it is for seemingly every faction. If the only person playtesting GSC had a currently meta tournament-competitive list, no way in hell did he provide any feedback about Purestrain Genestealers, Metamorphs, Goliath Rockgrinders, Cult Sentinels, etc.
Surprise surprise, which units in GSC got shat on the most?
Mr Morden wrote: Maybe the Tournament foccussed playtesters were more likely to play with and argue for the units that they already owned and used?
Okey, but this would not explain things like the GSC changes. It is a codex writen in mind to be played alongside codex IG and codex Tyranid detachments. nerfing the costs of GSC stuff, when they are already losing a lot of unit, and not fixing any other their problems is a strange choice. Unless among the testers, there were zero people interested in making gsc a valid army to play.
Its going to depend on how persuasive the playtesters are and how strongly GW feels about an army. I can easily see GW sticking more to their numbers on GSC, simply for how they perceive Ambush as deviating from the normal game rules.
There is a tax there. Some of it might even be justified for how easily GSC can claim or contest objectives and accomplish secondaries.
It doesn't explain everything, of course, and focused way too much on the CC units over bikes and things, but I suspect GW's attitude toward what the army might do with their special rules played a big role.
Point me at the durable GSC unit that can achieve any objectives in the new 9th ed missions for gak.
Sure, they can do a couple secondaries easly like the table quarters one, but you already get tabled playing as GSC like 90% of the time.
Putting 30% fewer units on the table? Your gaks gonna be gone turn 3-4 every game against any kind of competent opponent. GSC troops are made of paper, their elites are made of paper, and their vehicles are made of paper. They just fething die no matter how you build them.
). Unfortunately, people are expecting units to make back their points in a single battle round, which is just too much.
Sure am glad I never picked up Banshees or Incubi!
