Dudeface wrote: Quote from Armillion over on B&C "Also, opened one of the new box style vindicators last week and saw that HK missiles are apparently S10 now?"
That'd be a welcome move for a one shot AT missile.
All talk about whether it's a good idea to inflate stats or not aside, this is such a bizarre way to do it. Why didn't they do this all at the start of the new edition? What possible sense does it make to leak stat changes piecemeal through people opening up boxes and finding out what the new stats for the models are going to be months down the road?
yukishiro1 wrote: All talk about whether it's a good idea to inflate stats or not aside, this is such a bizarre way to do it. Why didn't they do this all at the start of the new edition? What possible sense does it make to leak stat changes piecemeal through people opening up boxes and finding out what the new stats for the models are going to be months down the road?
That's definitely true. I really liked the way 3rd, 6th, and 8th did it where it was pretty much all up front. What's happening here is bizarre. I'm hoping it's not just a move to get us to use the app (that doesn't even launch for me).
yukishiro1 wrote: All talk about whether it's a good idea to inflate stats or not aside, this is such a bizarre way to do it. Why didn't they do this all at the start of the new edition? What possible sense does it make to leak stat changes piecemeal through people opening up boxes and finding out what the new stats for the models are going to be months down the road?
The schedule is completely out of whack because of COVID. They'd normally have the launch codexes for sale by now.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Not sure what the point of making them S10 is besides to just wound Knights slightly easier. There isn't exactly a lot of great T5 targets.
A hell of a lot of the Deathguard codex
I mean if you wanna waste a one shot weapon on a Blightlord sure go right for it?
yukishiro1 wrote: All talk about whether it's a good idea to inflate stats or not aside, this is such a bizarre way to do it. Why didn't they do this all at the start of the new edition? What possible sense does it make to leak stat changes piecemeal through people opening up boxes and finding out what the new stats for the models are going to be months down the road?
The schedule is completely out of whack because of COVID. They'd normally have the launch codexes for sale by now.
This makes little sense. If they were able to produce the new rules packets inside the new boxes, why weren't they able to produce the codexes? And if that really was the case, shouldn't they have, well, put a heads-up out about it, telling people why they were seeing new rules in their boxes that weren't yet reflected in the game? It's just such a weird, amateurish way to go about things.
More importantly, this would only even be an explanation if we assume that GW is going to only be updating the stats army by army as they get codexes, which would be mind-bogglingly stupid. If you're going to fundamentally change the stat balance of the game, why would you do that codex by codex when you just had a chance to do it all at once at the start of the edition? Are we seriously going to have a situation where space marines get an extra wound and better weapons but everyone else is still stuck with the old versions of the weapons and the old stats for months or years until they get a codex release?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Not sure what the point of making them S10 is besides to just wound Knights slightly easier. There isn't exactly a lot of great T5 targets.
A hell of a lot of the Deathguard codex
I mean if you wanna waste a one shot weapon on a Blightlord sure go right for it?
Or any of the T5 characters which are now being wounded on 2s (if you can target them of course but that is easier this edition)
Or the Deathshroud Terminators.
Or wounding Morty on 3s, or the plagueburst crawler.
yukishiro1 wrote: All talk about whether it's a good idea to inflate stats or not aside, this is such a bizarre way to do it. Why didn't they do this all at the start of the new edition? What possible sense does it make to leak stat changes piecemeal through people opening up boxes and finding out what the new stats for the models are going to be months down the road?
The schedule is completely out of whack because of COVID. They'd normally have the launch codexes for sale by now.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Not sure what the point of making them S10 is besides to just wound Knights slightly easier. There isn't exactly a lot of great T5 targets.
A hell of a lot of the Deathguard codex
I mean if you wanna waste a one shot weapon on a Blightlord sure go right for it?
Or any of the T5 characters which are now being wounded on 2s (if you can target them of course but that is easier this edition)
Or the Deathshroud Terminators.
Or wounding Morty on 3s, or the plagueburst crawler.
Best thing is a 2+ within Lt range hits a 96% success rate, which is pretty excellent when you're talking about 1 shot weapons.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Not sure what the point of making them S10 is besides to just wound Knights slightly easier. There isn't exactly a lot of great T5 targets.
A hell of a lot of the Deathguard codex
I mean if you wanna waste a one shot weapon on a Blightlord sure go right for it?
Or any of the T5 characters which are now being wounded on 2s (if you can target them of course but that is easier this edition)
Or the Deathshroud Terminators.
Or wounding Morty on 3s, or the plagueburst crawler.
Sure. It's a 1-shot missile. It's going to do sooo much damage. And it was wounding on 3's before anyway.
yukishiro1 wrote: All talk about whether it's a good idea to inflate stats or not aside, this is such a bizarre way to do it. Why didn't they do this all at the start of the new edition? What possible sense does it make to leak stat changes piecemeal through people opening up boxes and finding out what the new stats for the models are going to be months down the road?
The schedule is completely out of whack because of COVID. They'd normally have the launch codexes for sale by now.
This makes little sense. If they were able to produce the new rules packets inside the new boxes, why weren't they able to produce the codexes? And if that really was the case, shouldn't they have, well, put a heads-up out about it, telling people why they were seeing new rules in their boxes that weren't yet reflected in the game? It's just such a weird, amateurish way to go about things.
More importantly, this would only even be an explanation if we assume that GW is going to only be updating the stats army by army as they get codexes, which would be mind-bogglingly stupid. If you're going to fundamentally change the stat balance of the game, why would you do that codex by codex when you just had a chance to do it all at once at the start of the edition? Are we seriously going to have a situation where space marines get an extra wound and better weapons but everyone else is still stuck with the old versions of the weapons and the old stats for months or years until they get a codex release?
Codexes come from China. Tiny rules inserts likely print locally or they'd otherwise be waiting for China to pack product into boxes.
It doesn't matter as much in codex to codex as long as each successive codex takes the upgrades in stride. We're already facing mostly primaris. Adding "kind of primaris" with some extra options doesn't decisively change how we approach marines unless something is grossly undercosted.
Should everyone get weapon updates? Sure, but we'll have to see if they bother with that or not in October.
And yes, it absolutely would matter if they buffed space marines to 2W and gave them new, more deadly weapons without doing the same for everybody else at the same time, forcing other factions to wait months or years to be put on a equal footing.
yukishiro1 wrote: All talk about whether it's a good idea to inflate stats or not aside, this is such a bizarre way to do it. Why didn't they do this all at the start of the new edition? What possible sense does it make to leak stat changes piecemeal through people opening up boxes and finding out what the new stats for the models are going to be months down the road?
The schedule is completely out of whack because of COVID. They'd normally have the launch codexes for sale by now.
This makes little sense. If they were able to produce the new rules packets inside the new boxes, why weren't they able to produce the codexes? And if that really was the case, shouldn't they have, well, put a heads-up out about it, telling people why they were seeing new rules in their boxes that weren't yet reflected in the game? It's just such a weird, amateurish way to go about things.
More importantly, this would only even be an explanation if we assume that GW is going to only be updating the stats army by army as they get codexes, which would be mind-bogglingly stupid. If you're going to fundamentally change the stat balance of the game, why would you do that codex by codex when you just had a chance to do it all at once at the start of the edition? Are we seriously going to have a situation where space marines get an extra wound and better weapons but everyone else is still stuck with the old versions of the weapons and the old stats for months or years until they get a codex release?
Codexes come from China. Tiny rules inserts likely print locally or they'd otherwise be waiting for China to pack product into boxes.
It doesn't matter as much in codex to codex as long as each successive codex takes the upgrades in stride. We're already facing mostly primaris. Adding "kind of primaris" with some extra options doesn't decisively change how we approach marines unless something is grossly undercosted.
Should everyone get weapon updates? Sure, but we'll have to see if they bother with that or not in October.
When, in the entire history of GW has each successive codex taken the upgrades in stride? The powerlevel is always essentially a D20 roll on release. The biggest difference is that right now we've got one army, that shares a lot of statlines and profiles with multiple other armies, coming out with those otherwise shared profiles wildly altered and on the whole, significantly improved. Add to that the fact that it's also the best army in the game currently, and it's not unreasonable to have...trepidations.
Imagine if they DIDN'T go back to the drawing board for 7th into 8th and the first codex to be released was craftworld eldar and the first rules leaks were Wraithknights going up 2 wounds and Jetbikes getting AP-3 on their scatterlasers and that's about what we're looking at right now.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Not sure what the point of making them S10 is besides to just wound Knights slightly easier. There isn't exactly a lot of great T5 targets.
A hell of a lot of the Deathguard codex
I mean if you wanna waste a one shot weapon on a Blightlord sure go right for it?
Or any of the T5 characters which are now being wounded on 2s (if you can target them of course but that is easier this edition)
Or the Deathshroud Terminators.
Or wounding Morty on 3s, or the plagueburst crawler.
Sure. It's a 1-shot missile. It's going to do sooo much damage. And it was wounding on 3's before anyway.
It's true, the difference isn't huge. S10 improves my anti-Knight 10 Razorback build by about 3 wounds against a 4++ Knight. Buuut, failing to wound less will feel nice.
Sure. It's a 1-shot missile. It's going to do sooo much damage. And it was wounding on 3's before anyway.
Brainfart on my part with morty. But the rest still stands.
The question wasn't about it being one shot, it was what was the point on increasing to S10.
He said there was next to nothing that it made a difference against from S8.
I was pointing out there are loads of DG units it makes a difference against.
Whether it is a big buff or not is another question.
Sure. It's a 1-shot missile. It's going to do sooo much damage. And it was wounding on 3's before anyway.
Brainfart on my part with morty. But the rest still stands.
The question wasn't about it being one shot, it was what was the point on increasing to S10.
He said there was next to nothing that it made a difference against from S8.
I was pointing out there are loads of DG units it makes a difference against.
Whether it is a big buff or not is another question.
Hm. Pretty sure there are T8 models in the game other than knights, and +1 to wound vs those sounds like a good thing for an anti tank missile.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Not sure what the point of making them S10 is besides to just wound Knights slightly easier. There isn't exactly a lot of great T5 targets.
Outriders / Eradicators.
Well, it helps against T9, but they've pretty much priced everything with T9 out of the game. If they just wanted to make it better against T8 it would be fine at S9. Odd.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Not sure what the point of making them S10 is besides to just wound Knights slightly easier. There isn't exactly a lot of great T5 targets.
Outriders / Eradicators.
Well, it helps against T9, but they've pretty much priced everything with T9 out of the game. If they just wanted to make it better against T8 it would be fine at S9. Odd.
Argive wrote: Anyone wana sacrifice themselves and pick up some new logo xenos ? I sort of have everything already for me army.
people have picked up some necrons, and slight changes but nothing earth shattering.
One thing to keep in mind is a lot of the weapons changed are weapons shared across a number of factions.
Power weapons multimelta's etc.
one can hope that this will be a benifit two two things. 1: people who wanna use OLD marine units. (primaris haters should be happy with this) 2: the various other factions that share these weapons, guard, sisters of battle chaos space marines, and I think even GSCs (not seen their dex and no one locally plays them so can't say for sure on that last one)
30" range bolters but still basically every special weapon is based around a 12" range band...I have to question what that actually solves for marines.
Still looking like 2w base, but they're all still "veterans" so we don't know for sure about whether the extra wound is "veterancy" or just, a thing they get.
...Is that less attacks for a captain? Why does my brain think they have A5 base now?
30" range bolters but still basically every special weapon is based around a 12" range band...I have to question what that actually solves for marines.
Still looking like 2w base, but they're all still "veterans" so we don't know for sure about whether the extra wound is "veterancy" or just, a thing they get.
...Is that less attacks for a captain? Why does my brain think they have A5 base now?
It sort of feels like we're slowly moving into "this is a unit and you use whatever space marine models you like but we're not selling classic marines"
Still looking like 2w base, but they're all still "veterans" so we don't know for sure about whether the extra wound is "veterancy" or just, a thing they get.
...Is that less attacks for a captain? Why does my brain think they have A5 base now?
Well, all the characters have the same wounds as they do now. If a Firstborn Captain has 1W less than a Primaris Captain (and a Vanguard Veteran has 1W less than a Bladeguard Veteran), it seems quite logical that a Tactical Marine has 1W less than an Intercessor. It all points in the direction of just Veterans and Terminators getting an extra wound.
On those veterans - what's weapon 4? I might just be dense, but I can't make it out. Stat line looks like a bolt pistol, but that's clearly number 6. Why would you have two?
Tyel wrote: On those veterans - what's weapon 4? I might just be dense, but I can't make it out. Stat line looks like a bolt pistol, but that's clearly number 6. Why would you have two?
Looks like a pistol under a shield to me. Is that at thing? is there like a storm shield/bolt pistol combo?
Also, interestingly, storm bolters (terminator datasheet) appear to be 24" range still.
Tyel wrote: On those veterans - what's weapon 4? I might just be dense, but I can't make it out. Stat line looks like a bolt pistol, but that's clearly number 6. Why would you have two?
Looks like a pistol under a shield to me. Is that at thing? is there like a storm shield/bolt pistol combo?
Also, interestingly, storm bolters (terminator datasheet) appear to be 24" range still.
Tyel wrote: On those veterans - what's weapon 4? I might just be dense, but I can't make it out. Stat line looks like a bolt pistol, but that's clearly number 6. Why would you have two?
Looks like a pistol under a shield to me. Is that at thing? is there like a storm shield/bolt pistol combo?
Also, interestingly, storm bolters (terminator datasheet) appear to be 24" range still.
Combat shields, they're 5++ and bolt pistol combo
OK, so two more questions then
1) Do the veterans that come in the command squad box get some kind of special-snowflake boltgun currently?
2) does the captain, basic captain, currently have A4?
Ok, I must have just lost track of the many many captains out there.
Yeah it definitely feels like the fact that these are 1 per day lends itself to being a purposeful pot-stirring.
And the particular order as well, it seems like they're releasing them carefully to maximise how excited people get about their marine stuff. Releasing the tactical squad sheet woudl give us stats for all the special, heavy, and basic weapons all at once...gotta drip feed instead.
Definitely feels like it's a managed drip feed atm, they must have known these sorts of changes would result in the ridiculous volume of comments and backlash we've seen on here.
Better to eek it out now discretely than have a public argument when we can do it for them.
Or possibly to avoid the inevitable shock that would occur all at once were the rules section of the codex to leak. or some store owner to actually get his hands on all the new boxes and leak them all at once.
the_scotsman wrote: Or possibly to avoid the inevitable shock that would occur all at once were the rules section of the codex to leak. or some store owner to actually get his hands on all the new boxes and leak them all at once.
There's also just the stock chain in general to think of.
I can't imagine too many people are selling through huge stacks of Tactical Marines these days. Necrons basically are nonexistent for stock right now though, so any restocks are likely to be the new stuff.
the_scotsman wrote: Or possibly to avoid the inevitable shock that would occur all at once were the rules section of the codex to leak. or some store owner to actually get his hands on all the new boxes and leak them all at once.
There's also just the stock chain in general to think of.
I can't imagine too many people are selling through huge stacks of Tactical Marines these days. Necrons basically are nonexistent for stock right now though, so any restocks are likely to be the new stuff.
Yeah because space marine command squads are such a hot button item? and tactical freakin' termies?
I'm kind of not buying the "marines sell all the everything" argument quiiiiiite as much after the contents of the blind boxes got revealed and it was like...85% brand new marine character boxes they made and then didn't sell.
the_scotsman wrote: Or possibly to avoid the inevitable shock that would occur all at once were the rules section of the codex to leak. or some store owner to actually get his hands on all the new boxes and leak them all at once.
Can you imagine if they had kept this under lid and we only saw it all a week before the codex? Crazy town.
the_scotsman wrote: Or possibly to avoid the inevitable shock that would occur all at once were the rules section of the codex to leak. or some store owner to actually get his hands on all the new boxes and leak them all at once.
Can you imagine if they had kept this under lid and we only saw it all a week before the codex? Crazy town.
At least there would only be 1 week of people crying for boycotts of marine players, yelling OP at stuff and generally overreacting.
the_scotsman wrote: Or possibly to avoid the inevitable shock that would occur all at once were the rules section of the codex to leak. or some store owner to actually get his hands on all the new boxes and leak them all at once.
There's also just the stock chain in general to think of.
I can't imagine too many people are selling through huge stacks of Tactical Marines these days. Necrons basically are nonexistent for stock right now though, so any restocks are likely to be the new stuff.
Yeah because space marine command squads are such a hot button item? and tactical freakin' termies?
I'm kind of not buying the "marines sell all the everything" argument quiiiiiite as much after the contents of the blind boxes got revealed and it was like...85% brand new marine character boxes they made and then didn't sell.
Someone bought a Command Squad and Tactical Terminators to get these rules, right? Those items are sold in relatively small quantities to start with and aren't exactly "regular stock" for most places, as far as I've seen.
I think that's the Company Champions special sword/a relic blade.
Mastercrafted Powerswords are still there (3), they're +1S/AP-3/D2 just like they are now for Bladeguard Vet's.
So, if a space marine model comes at me with something the correct size to be a sword, it could have one of the following statlines:
+1S -3AP 1d
+1S -3AP 2d
+3S -3AP 2d
+1S -3AP d3d (Force Sword, I suppose I am making the assumption this is still in the game)
+2S -3AP 2D (Vanguard Veteran Item #1)
Any number of half a dozen odd power sword replacing relic items that do various things
Any number of special character specific power sword items
Good cool glad theres a lot of clarity and consistency in the rules.
I think that's the Company Champions special sword/a relic blade.
Mastercrafted Powerswords are still there (3), they're +1S/AP-3/D2 just like they are now for Bladeguard Vet's.
So, if a space marine model comes at me with something the correct size to be a sword, it could have one of the following statlines:
+1S -3AP 1d
+1S -3AP 2d
+3S -3AP 2d
+1S -3AP d3d (Force Sword, I suppose I am making the assumption this is still in the game)
+2S -3AP 2D (Vanguard Veteran Item #1)
Any number of half a dozen odd power sword replacing relic items that do various things
Any number of special character specific power sword items
Good cool glad theres a lot of clarity and consistency in the rules.
What's with the attitude? I wasn't being snarky.
As for what's what, that should be evidently clear by the real unit entry and weapon rules once released; it's not like people will actually play with these compressed datasheets.
Can a veteran have a force sword? No? So then it's probably not a force sword. Can a Librarian have a Relic Blade? No? Then it's probably not a Relic Blade either.
There are already several "sword-sized-swords" in the SM-codex and have been for years (Forcesword, Powersword, Relicblade, Mastercrafted Powersword), but it's not like it's a common issue that they get mixed up together by the players, so why would it be in 9th?
which personally I didn't even know existed. My first reaction to that datasheet was to dismiss it as a fake, since the command squad doesn't have a captain (or the relic blade or plasma pistol). But this box actually exists.
-----
This is also a summary of 5 separate real datasheets currently. The Vets are interesting since they have a _lot_ of weapon options on their current datasheet. Some of which aren't in the box.
Which makes me wonder if all of them will surivive. Obviously the special weapons will, because they're pictured. The rest (especially storm shields)...?
which personally I didn't even know existed. My first reaction to that datasheet was to dismiss it as a fake, since the command squad doesn't have a captain (or the relic blade or plasma pistol). But this box actually exists.
Oh wait, it's that box?!
That thing was a repack of the Shadow Force Solaq box Captain and had been Direct Only for quite some time...although amusingly it's now "No Longer Available Online".
which personally I didn't even know existed. My first reaction to that datasheet was to dismiss it as a fake, since the command squad doesn't have a captain (or the relic blade or plasma pistol). But this box actually exists.
Oh wait, it's that box?!
That thing was a repack of the Shadow Force Solaq box Captain and had been Direct Only for quite some time...although amusingly it's now "No Longer Available Online".
Yeah. I vaguely remember the contender for 'worst SM helmet' now.
Its unavailable here, but still seems to be on the UK site. Despite those command squad sprues really showing their age.
But presumably whoever posted the pic is over there (and for some reason wanted to buy Wing-face)
At least they got their toughness back, and a blaster upgrade.
I'm vaguely curious if the toughness increase will turn out to be a boon in the face of people scrambling to focus on 2D weapons.
yukishiro1 wrote: The "paradigm shift" is that the hero faction gets to be even more of the hero faction. Aren't you excited? I know I am!
I would LOVE for them to genuinely be well written costed and presented as a multi-wound army, not sure that'll be possible but even then the thought of marines getting to the point where they can be tough and capable in all phases but not so good that they're unbeatable is nice. Even just extra wounds on marines and their points going up cuts the number of guns and reduces their offensive output (in theory) so you're back to being OK at a lot of stuff but their defining trait being hard to bring down with small arms.
It is a paradigm shift to the Old Space Marines, making them more "elite" as in the fluff.
Given even SM vehicles we have seen are not buffed, it is not a game wide paradigm shift, not even a Space Marine Codex wide shift as most of these changes are limited to the OldMarines.
"Ehhhhhh.....nah, I mean...it's just a necron immortal, I don't really think it'll make any difference, just normal power will be fine. It's not like it's something tough, defined by being a faction of nearly impossible to bring down death robots."
"Got it sarge. I - oh god! Sarge! Standing on that necron's corpse! It's...a sp-sp-space marine, and he's got v-v-v-v-v-eteran stripes on his shoulderpad!"
"OH MAN, OH GOD, OH MAN, CRANK ITTO THE MAX JENKINS, I'LL NOTIFY YOUR NEXT OF KIN!!!"
HOGC stays at 12, but bumps strength while the OGC goes to 8 at S5.
Heavy flamer doesn't go to 12", but is now S6.
The non-overcharged plasma is D2. D3 now for OC?
The heavy flamer is 8" but S6, so it could also turn into a unique weapon like the Invictor Warsuit's Heavy Bolter with its odd 1 shot. Or maybe they decided to make the 12" flamer change after these sheets were made, who knows lol.
I'm guessing they're giving the Heavy Onslaught +1 strength to help differentiate it over the normal Onslaught, makes it better against T5 and light T3 infantry.
They once again didn't list the overcharge for plasma weapon, but yeah I'd expect it to be D3 unless the rules are changing.
Also the Redemptor Fist is "+3", which is a typo I'm unsure how to interpret. The invictor fist is flat 3 damage, if the redemptor fist is still meant to do more damage, then it could be d3+3 or something.
HOGC stays at 12, but bumps strength while the OGC goes to 8 at S5.
Heavy flamer doesn't go to 12", but is now S6.
Ugh. The last thing they needed was more inconsistent special snowflake weapons.
Onslaughts are definitely taking a different role to heavy bolters though.
Fist is also flattened to damage 3 (probably a stray + sign)
Macro Plasma is somewhat interesting. I don't feel too bad about it since as a vehicle main gun, it was rather rubbish at D1. (Especially on the Repulsor Executioner) Supercharge mode is pretty dangerous for a d6 shot weapon.
Seems like they're either rolling dice and assigning random buffs to each weapon based on a D6 table, or it's another case of Gee-dubs lacking a decent proofreader.
yukishiro1 wrote: Seems like they're either rolling dice and assigning random buffs to each weapon based on a D6 table, or it's another case of Gee-dubs lacking a decent proofreader.
While I won't rule out the former just yet, the fact we're seeing basic stat errors make it to print - the "+3" DMG, and the weapon on one of the other kits whose AP value would appear to improve a target's save (a Chainfist, wasn't it?) - would imply that the proofreaders need a talkin' to.
Assuming, of course, that these documents are proofed.
Well we know from Warhammer Community that Flamers and Heavy Flamers are moving to 12”, and it’s self-evident that Damage can’t be a healing characteristic, so it’s fairly obvious there are errors in some of these packaged Datasheets. But given as virtually no one will use them as a rules source it’s not a problem. Codex will be out in October likely alongside faction FAQs to patch those weapons for other armies, so it’ll all come out in the wash.
JohnnyHell wrote: Well we know from Warhammer Community that Flamers and Heavy Flamers are moving to 12”, and it’s self-evident that Damage can’t be a healing characteristic, so it’s fairly obvious there are errors in some of these packaged Datasheets. But given as virtually no one will use them as a rules source it’s not a problem. Codex will be out in October likely alongside faction FAQs to patch those weapons for other armies, so it’ll all come out in the wash.
JohnnyHell wrote: Well we know from Warhammer Community that Flamers and Heavy Flamers are moving to 12”, and it’s self-evident that Damage can’t be a healing characteristic, so it’s fairly obvious there are errors in some of these packaged Datasheets. But given as virtually no one will use them as a rules source it’s not a problem. Codex will be out in October likely alongside faction FAQs to patch those weapons for other armies, so it’ll all come out in the wash.
You mean FAQ's for imperial Armies.
no because they've said this'll also apply to chaos as well. Yes Xenos armies who use entirely differant weapons though will proably have to wait. still when you factor in all the codices likely to gt the needed boosts that's a good 10 (more if you count the marine chapters as differant armies) out of 20 armies. and Genestealer cults likely use a lot of Imperial weaponry too. so come october over half of the armies in the game will have gotten their needed adjustments
JohnnyHell wrote: Well we know from Warhammer Community that Flamers and Heavy Flamers are moving to 12”, and it’s self-evident that Damage can’t be a healing characteristic, so it’s fairly obvious there are errors in some of these packaged Datasheets. But given as virtually no one will use them as a rules source it’s not a problem. Codex will be out in October likely alongside faction FAQs to patch those weapons for other armies, so it’ll all come out in the wash.
You mean FAQ's for imperial Armies.
no because they've said this'll also apply to chaos as well. Yes Xenos armies who use entirely differant weapons though will proably have to wait. still when you factor in all the codices likely to gt the needed boosts that's a good 10 (more if you count the marine chapters as differant armies) out of 20 armies. and Genestealer cults likely use a lot of Imperial weaponry too. so come october over half of the armies in the game will have gotten their needed adjustments
Which will make playing anything not on the list very not fun games against these nee 9th edition armies.
Right now we have points that make 0 sence and have not improved balance, we are now getting the old rules by codex complete design change mentality of GW back.
Not to mention so far the oh its a 20% points increase for marines for these new rules still dont make 9 point Kabalite, FireWarriors or Guardians more playbale.
Also no Marines arn't different codex's they are just overbloated subfactions. Imperial fists vrs Iron hands realy dont play that differently its not a Nids to Drukari level different play style.
It's going to change maybe 8 codex's if they touch Deathguard
All the xeno players are frankly going to be so fed up with 9th by the time GW soets out the power creep disparity it's going to need a relaunch of a nee system to avoid this becoming Horus Heresy 2.0
Armies CONFIRMED to be seeing some Adjustments in October:
Space Marines. Imperial Guard, Sisters of Battle, Chaos Space Marines. Death Guard (it's been confirmed they're seeing SOME tweeks, and frankly 2 wounds combined with T5 and disgustingly resiliant will likely be pretty damn tough) Thousand Sons, NECRONS
Armies who may weapons adjustments:
Imperial Knights, Chaos Knights (granted in this case it'll basicly be pretty minimal, but meltaguns are an option for Knights) AdMech (they have one or two weapons shared but most of their gear is admech specific) Custodes (any change to Lascanons will impact their land raider) Genestealer cults
so yeah, over all, a fair number of armies will be changed.
BrianDavion wrote: Armies CONFIRMED to be seeing some Adjustments in October:
Space Marines. Imperial Guard, Sisters of Battle, Chaos Space Marines. Death Guard (it's been confirmed they're seeing SOME tweeks, and frankly 2 wounds combined with T5 and disgustingly resiliant will likely be pretty damn tough) Thousand Sons, NECRONS
Armies who may weapons adjustments:
Imperial Knights, Chaos Knights (granted in this case it'll basicly be pretty minimal, but meltaguns are an option for Knights) AdMech (they have one or two weapons shared but most of their gear is admech specific) Custodes (any change to Lascanons will impact their land raider) Genestealer cults
so yeah, over all, a fair number of armies will be changed.
Expect that leaves Nids, Eldar, Drukari, Tau, Harliquines and Orks esentially all the Xeno players playing 8th edition armies vrs 9th edition armies why do GW think this is good enough.
Ice_can wrote: Expect that leaves Nids, Eldar, Drukari, Tau, Harliquines and Orks esentially all the Xeno players playing 8th edition armies vrs 9th edition armies why do GW think this is good enough.
Why do you think they think that? Why are you acting as if change isn't coming for every army you just mentioned?
Ice_can wrote: Expect that leaves Nids, Eldar, Drukari, Tau, Harliquines and Orks esentially all the Xeno players playing 8th edition armies vrs 9th edition armies why do GW think this is good enough.
Why do you think they think that? Why are you acting as if change isn't coming for every army you just mentioned?
New models have been teased for Orks & Drukari so I wouldn't be surprised if they got new books soon (unless they are just new versions of existing models - boyz & Lelith).
BrianDavion wrote: Armies CONFIRMED to be seeing some Adjustments in October:
Space Marines. Imperial Guard, Sisters of Battle, Chaos Space Marines. Death Guard (it's been confirmed they're seeing SOME tweeks, and frankly 2 wounds combined with T5 and disgustingly resiliant will likely be pretty damn tough) Thousand Sons, NECRONS
Armies who may weapons adjustments:
Imperial Knights, Chaos Knights (granted in this case it'll basicly be pretty minimal, but meltaguns are an option for Knights) AdMech (they have one or two weapons shared but most of their gear is admech specific) Custodes (any change to Lascanons will impact their land raider) Genestealer cults
so yeah, over all, a fair number of armies will be changed.
I understood that DG would get weapon upgrades, but 2W plague marines will have to wait until the codex drops.
Ice_can wrote: Expect that leaves Nids, Eldar, Drukari, Tau, Harliquines and Orks esentially all the Xeno players playing 8th edition armies vrs 9th edition armies why do GW think this is good enough.
Why do you think they think that? Why are you acting as if change isn't coming for every army you just mentioned?
Because right now that's what is going to shortly be reality.
If they have to wait untill September 2021 you really believe that's acceptable?
Marines are the current top army/codex and they are getting the first codex of 9th in october we then have already confirmed by GW 4 suppliments for said codex plus Necrons that probably covers 40k book's for the rest of 2020, we then have choas who currently don't work in 9th, unless they are going back to multiple codex's per month some fractions will be waiting a year untill they get their 9th edition codex.
Ice_can wrote: Expect that leaves Nids, Eldar, Drukari, Tau, Harliquines and Orks esentially all the Xeno players playing 8th edition armies vrs 9th edition armies why do GW think this is good enough.
Why do you think they think that? Why are you acting as if change isn't coming for every army you just mentioned?
because the WC article said that those armies get the update with their new Codex, while the others get the update via Errata
so unless those Xenos armies get their new books first after SM & Necs, they will have to wait for adjustments
Ice_can wrote: Expect that leaves Nids, Eldar, Drukari, Tau, Harliquines and Orks esentially all the Xeno players playing 8th edition armies vrs 9th edition armies why do GW think this is good enough.
Why do you think they think that? Why are you acting as if change isn't coming for every army you just mentioned?
I do wonder if Skorchas will go to 12" at the same time as Heavy Flamers. There are plenty of direct Imperial equivalents for Xenos with different names. A rose by any other name...
Ice_can wrote: Expect that leaves Nids, Eldar, Drukari, Tau, Harliquines and Orks esentially all the Xeno players playing 8th edition armies vrs 9th edition armies why do GW think this is good enough.
Why do you think they think that? Why are you acting as if change isn't coming for every army you just mentioned?
I do wonder if Skorchas will go to 12" at the same time as Heavy Flamers. There are plenty of direct Imperial equivalents for Xenos with different names. A rose by any other name...
I think the weapon profiles will be adjusted accordingly but there could be a delay in time. Xenos may get an errate or maybe have to wait until a codex for the faction in question drops.
Daedalus81 wrote: I do wonder if Skorchas will go to 12" at the same time as Heavy Flamers. There are plenty of direct Imperial equivalents for Xenos with different names. A rose by any other name...
I hope so.
Of course, to compensate, Burners will go from D3 shots to D2 shots.
The article was pretty clear that any xenos weapon that doesn't have the exact same name as a space marine equivalent won't get updated until that faction's codex.
yukishiro1 wrote: The article was pretty clear that any xenos weapon that doesn't have the exact same name as a space marine equivalent won't get updated until that faction's codex.
the relevant quote here is
While most of their (Xenos') wargear may not be as ubiquitous as the Imperium’s mass-produced arsenal, their weapons will also be looked at too, when each of their codexes comes around.
(emphisis added)
so yeah don't expect Orks to get updates to Burna's until codex orks 9E comes out.
"Ehhhhhh.....nah, I mean...it's just a necron immortal, I don't really think it'll make any difference, just normal power will be fine. It's not like it's something tough, defined by being a faction of nearly impossible to bring down death robots."
"Got it sarge. I - oh god! Sarge! Standing on that necron's corpse! It's...a sp-sp-space marine, and he's got v-v-v-v-v-eteran stripes on his shoulderpad!"
"OH MAN, OH GOD, OH MAN, CRANK ITTO THE MAX JENKINS, I'LL NOTIFY YOUR NEXT OF KIN!!!"
Ice_can wrote: Expect that leaves Nids, Eldar, Drukari, Tau, Harliquines and Orks esentially all the Xeno players playing 8th edition armies vrs 9th edition armies why do GW think this is good enough.
Why do you think they think that? Why are you acting as if change isn't coming for every army you just mentioned?
Because those armies dont really use Imperium flamers, multi meltas or heavy bolters which were the only changes they said would be passed on to other armies without a codex release
Ice_can wrote: Expect that leaves Nids, Eldar, Drukari, Tau, Harliquines and Orks esentially all the Xeno players playing 8th edition armies vrs 9th edition armies why do GW think this is good enough.
Why do you think they think that? Why are you acting as if change isn't coming for every army you just mentioned?
Because those armies dont really use Imperium flamers, multi meltas or heavy bolters which were the only changes they said would be passed on to other armies without a codex release
Outside of tournies it's easy eneugh to house rule "ok so a burna is basicly just a flamer so we'll update it's range accordingly. a fusion lance is a melta so we'll treat it like a melta"
but some armies have totally differant weapons etc. and simply errataing the weapons might not exactly work.
But why would tournaments do that? It leaves space for people to complain "The ONLY reAson U kilLleD mY VeTErAN WOlF SaBErSawS iS bEcaUSE of ToURnaMENT HoMEBreW"
Eonfuzz wrote: But why would tournaments do that? It leaves space for people to complain "The ONLY reAson U kilLleD mY VeTErAN WOlF SaBErSawS iS bEcaUSE of ToURnaMENT HoMEBreW"
Outside of tournies it's easy eneugh to house rule "ok so a burna is basicly just a flamer so we'll update it's range accordingly. a fusion lance is a melta so we'll treat it like a melta"
but some armies have totally differant weapons etc. and simply errataing the weapons might not exactly work.
so this Edition is 2 Months old and we are back at writing our own rules to play the game
and instead of everyone is playing 40k, we have (again) everyone is using 40k minis to play a different kind of game and if you don't have a "house-rule group" it is better to get a new Marine army or wait for the next edition
you could also say that people should just use their models to play Star Wars Legion (they have delivery issues for their minis anyway so it perfectly fits), Warpath (you get your 2000 points game done in less than 2 hours) or OnePage Rules (for those who like smaller games anyway).
because outside of tournaments with your fixed group, you can do anything you want and don't need to wait for GW to fix their game at all.
so this Edition is 2 Months old and we are back at writing our own rules to play the game
and instead of everyone is playing 40k, we have (again) everyone is using 40k minis to play a different kind of game and if you don't have a "house-rule group" it is better to get a new Marine army or wait for the next edition
Not really. We don't know the related points changes so we don't know if we'd even want the rule changes to apply to other armies.
If you feel the need to write house rules for something that's not even fully known that's not an issue with the rules.
We will see how balance will be affected by the upcoming changes, but let's be honest - balance right now is already fubar, so how much worse could it really get?
There will be an Index like Errata for all Imperium Weapons with the same name
Marines get 2 Wounds with their Codex
the change to other Weapons will come with the new Codex
as will the change to other units
So we are at the same situation as we were at the start of 6th Edition with Flyers and AA-weapons
Point changes can fix some issues but not all.
Specially now with Anti-Horde rules there is no easy fix in points 10 Orks with 2 Wounds, are much better than 20 Orks with 1 Wound, even if the 20 would be cheaper
And point change is tricky anyway, as a new CA 21 in December might only add new points, but those would be just random number as there is no time to test anything
releasing a free Errata with the amount of changes needed will go against the current buisness model
So there will be at least a year for most factions to be broken until a fix happens
and if people now suggest to either use house rules or just play Marines (using Marine rules for Orks/Eldar/Tau/CSM) until GW might fix the problem is no real solution
as we are back to the old problem again, that the community is not able to agree to one set of house rules that will fix the problems
PS: by talking about "the rules" it is always the "Core" + "Codex" and never the Core Rules alone
the core was never broken or a problem, but always the factions rules
hence why massive change in the core did not solve much because the faction rules stayed the same
and while it is now a different game again, the problems are the similar to those we had in the past.
the re-work of Marines now is a chance to finally fix problems that are there since 3rd, but instead of doing it for all MEQ now but doing it via Codex release means that during this edition there are 2 different designs playing against each other and this never worked out well (as we have seen during past editions)
Yup, pretty much. Balance is screwed until everyone gets a new codex. Except I think maybe chaos will have the weapons we share with the Corpse Worshippers updated in the errata. And our fw stuff will get updated with the new books, whenever that happens.
Jidmah wrote: It's the same outside of tournament really.
depends on your situation, I'm assuming a scenerio where you have a play group of friends willing to take the odd house rule to improve the game.
That's some high hurdles you have to take there though:
1) Group of friends, not just a club or a store where you play
2) Willingness to adapt house rules at all beyond some things which are in dire need for such things (obvious typos, rules which make no sense
3) A common agreement on what will improve the game
4) People actually versed in rules-writing enough to create house rules
And then there is the issue of "if burnas get +4 range, then my hemlocks should get +4" as well".
So it's not as easy as many people make it out to be. I'm playing in a group with roughly 16 friends and friends-of-friends, and the suggestion of buffing flamers across the board would almost definitely get some vetos.
It's a bit of a shame that the only solution is "make houserules".
Especially in consideration that we pay for the rules. It should NOT be our job to fix up the rules on a basic level because GW once again, as Kodos had said, allowed for 2 design philosophies to run into each other headlong.
As bad as some indexes were, ATLEAST they all shared predominatnly the same bloody design philosophy.
tneva82 wrote: Well balance is always screwed so nothing new there ;-)
I'd argue the balance was pretty ok (ofc not perfect) before the marine 2.0 dex.
after casttelan nerf?
I guess, some unit types like MEQ or PEQ did indeed struggle, but nothing that couldn't have been fixed with propper points and the application of a few rules like bolter discipline, etc
By the time those changes have been released to the public for proper testing, they're so far ahead of where they were that it doesn't matter.
The only feedback that has any effect is from the playtesters from months ago that were given the rules before release.
GW would be multiple iterations ahead of those times when any mass public feedback comes in.
IMO community feedback is thus pretty useless and GW do little with it, except maybe go back and tweak point values as those are outside of the rest of the design cycle they're in.
Not Online!!! wrote: It's a bit of a shame that the only solution is "make houserules".
Especially in consideration that we pay for the rules. It should NOT be our job to fix up the rules on a basic level because GW once again, as Kodos had said, allowed for 2 design philosophies to run into each other headlong.
As bad as some indexes were, ATLEAST they all shared predominatnly the same bloody design philosophy.
you make it sound like the indexes where perfect, am I the only person who remembers that not everyone got a codex immediatly and some armies there stuck using the index until they got a new codex? am I the only one who remembers that also had a power imbalance?
Not Online!!! wrote: It's a bit of a shame that the only solution is "make houserules".
Especially in consideration that we pay for the rules. It should NOT be our job to fix up the rules on a basic level because GW once again, as Kodos had said, allowed for 2 design philosophies to run into each other headlong.
As bad as some indexes were, ATLEAST they all shared predominatnly the same bloody design philosophy.
you make it sound like the indexes where perfect, am I the only person who remembers that not everyone got a codex immediatly and some armies there stuck using the index until they got a new codex? am I the only one who remembers that also had a power imbalance?
How you get from my statement, to yours that i claim indexes were perfect, is a bit of a wonder to me.
And frankly, the upgrade to dex vs index armies is the perfect exemple of the same issue, design philosophies hitting each other again, and no i remember these times pretty well, considering i still remember people claiming that the mainline warlord traits were good enough for orkzs, or how much "fun" GSC players had. And for maximum fun you could play a FW index army, through 8th. I did. I know pretty well how utterly slowed that is.
The truth is, GW artificially spreads out rules releases for monetary reasons only (spread the earnings evenly amongst quartals). Which then makes it miserable for the players that have to wait to the end to get an dex, and at that stage half the edition is basically over.
This time, we didn't even get an index clock reset, but also the allready existing discrepancies taken over into 9th, with what looks like a shoddy job of CA/ FAQ pts update, ontop of a further shift of design paradigm.
Not only that but some changes feel like they were done to fight against issue that were 2 meta shifts behind. Quite commonly infact over the recent history of CA's.
Indices were imbalanced, but they were all on the same level design wise and also the first Codizes released followed the same design (the change in design came later, hence why Marines 8.5 was necessary)
Imbalance coming from points is a different thing, always has been there and only easy to fix if it is not a design problem
eg: 2 Wounds for Marines creates imbalance by design and can only be fixed with all MEQ get 2 Wounds and with a pure point adjustment (looking at Brimstones as best example, the problem came with the design choise that all had the same amount of Wounds and the same Save, so the cheapest 1W 4++ was the best no matter the points)
the last time 2 designs clashed was mid 7th edition, were "free points via formations" came up and updates happened with new books only
this created an imbalance between old and new designs as well as between good and bad formations
the difference between formations could have been fixed with restrictions/point costs for those (a reason why Age of Sigmar went with points for formation instead of giving them away for free) while the imbalance between having them and not could only be fixed by adding them to all, or removing them
the one thing that is different from the past is now that the change in design does not happen in the middel of an edition but at the beginning, yet it does not happen for all of the armies but only for some
so we again have the problem that there are 2 designs that need to be balanced against each other and the imbalance of random points
the only easy solution for now would be that everyone just uses the Marine rule as a base for "count as" rules until their Codex is released
Not Online!!! wrote: It's a bit of a shame that the only solution is "make houserules".
Especially in consideration that we pay for the rules. It should NOT be our job to fix up the rules on a basic level because GW once again, as Kodos had said, allowed for 2 design philosophies to run into each other headlong.
As bad as some indexes were, ATLEAST they all shared predominatnly the same bloody design philosophy.
you make it sound like the indexes where perfect, am I the only person who remembers that not everyone got a codex immediatly and some armies there stuck using the index until they got a new codex? am I the only one who remembers that also had a power imbalance?
No, you're not, thats exactly why I hate this new bs they're pulling, I played with an index vs a codex many times throughout 8th, and everybody acted like you suggested they eat a cat if you ask "Hey, I don't get an army-wide bonus rule just for existing, do you mind either we use one for my army from your book that makes sense, or you don't use yours?"
Their usual response would be "W-well but you get 'ere we go! That's BASICALLY the black templars trait! I mean it's only a 6++ on everything it hardly ever happens. And marines are sooooooooo underpowered without CTs and strats!"
I think when people talk about indexes they mean the 3-4 month halcyon period when you played with your friends with *reasonably* balanced mixes of whatever you wanted performing... kind of average.
"Didn't your meta just have Guilliman and 5 Stormravens"? Answer: No, perhaps surprisingly no one owned 5 Stormravens."
Clearly it wasn't perfect, but most armies felt like a 6-7 out of 10, and so it wasn't too obnoxious even if it started to be "solved" over time. See similar with Ravening Hordes 20 or whatever years ago. I don't think anyone thinks it was great that people were still using the index into 2018 as the power of new books rose higher and higher.
Tyel wrote: I think when people talk about indexes they mean the 3-4 month halcyon period when you played with your friends with *reasonably* balanced mixes of whatever you wanted performing... kind of average.
"Didn't your meta just have Guilliman and 5 Stormravens"? Answer: No, perhaps surprisingly no one owned 5 Stormravens."
Clearly it wasn't perfect, but most armies felt like a 6-7 out of 10, and so it wasn't too obnoxious even if it started to be "solved" over time. See similar with Ravening Hordes 20 or whatever years ago. I don't think anyone thinks it was great that people were still using the index into 2018 as the power of new books rose higher and higher.
Yup. right now, everyone who already had the most optimized army at the end of 8th...surprise surprise, they're still unbeatable in 9th. There's no "honeymoon period" of people not knowing what's good and what's bad, because marines are blatantly and obviously still top dog, and even more so.
tneva82 wrote: Well balance is always screwed so nothing new there ;-)
Except you have people buffing their own army, instead of a space monkey randomly pressing buttons to buff and nerf things.
Not to mention that the vast majority of fan made rules have even worse balance than GW's stuff.
I mean, sure the houserules people are proposing are all about buffing yoru army. We're talking about giving stuff that will most probably happen in the future right now.
Making ALL autohitting weapons 12" minimum for example. Or making Chaos Space marines dreadclaws able to arrive on the board turn 1 just like the loyalist ones, or give legion traits to our vehicles too.
These are all things that will probably happen when our codexes release.
Ideally we wouldn't need to have these rules but once the new codex come out and you face 12" flamers when yours are only 8", its gonna suck big time
Tyel wrote: I think when people talk about indexes they mean the 3-4 month halcyon period when you played with your friends with *reasonably* balanced mixes of whatever you wanted performing... kind of average.
"Didn't your meta just have Guilliman and 5 Stormravens"? Answer: No, perhaps surprisingly no one owned 5 Stormravens."
Clearly it wasn't perfect, but most armies felt like a 6-7 out of 10, and so it wasn't too obnoxious even if it started to be "solved" over time. See similar with Ravening Hordes 20 or whatever years ago. I don't think anyone thinks it was great that people were still using the index into 2018 as the power of new books rose higher and higher.
It's not like Gulliman with a storm raven, a storm talon, three razorbacks and a pair of predators was vastly more fun to play against. In fact, playing index orks was so much fun that I started Death Guard.
Tyel wrote: I think when people talk about indexes they mean the 3-4 month halcyon period when you played with your friends with *reasonably* balanced mixes of whatever you wanted performing... kind of average.
"Didn't your meta just have Guilliman and 5 Stormravens"? Answer: No, perhaps surprisingly no one owned 5 Stormravens."
Clearly it wasn't perfect, but most armies felt like a 6-7 out of 10, and so it wasn't too obnoxious even if it started to be "solved" over time. See similar with Ravening Hordes 20 or whatever years ago. I don't think anyone thinks it was great that people were still using the index into 2018 as the power of new books rose higher and higher.
It's not like Gulliman with a storm raven, a storm talon, three razorbacks and a pair of predators was vastly more fun to play against. In fact, playing index orks was so much fun that I started Death Guard.
TBF, that didn't really change later on, the only decent thing the dexes did was allow back some customizability and choice, if well done internally, or actually do x, with trait y and then z. if done badly.
Tyel wrote: I think when people talk about indexes they mean the 3-4 month halcyon period when you played with your friends with *reasonably* balanced mixes of whatever you wanted performing... kind of average.
"Didn't your meta just have Guilliman and 5 Stormravens"? Answer: No, perhaps surprisingly no one owned 5 Stormravens."
Clearly it wasn't perfect, but most armies felt like a 6-7 out of 10, and so it wasn't too obnoxious even if it started to be "solved" over time. See similar with Ravening Hordes 20 or whatever years ago. I don't think anyone thinks it was great that people were still using the index into 2018 as the power of new books rose higher and higher.
It's not like Gulliman with a storm raven, a storm talon, three razorbacks and a pair of predators was vastly more fun to play against. In fact, playing index orks was so much fun that I started Death Guard.
TBF, that didn't really change later on, the only decent thing the dexes did was allow back some customizability and choice, if well done internally, or actually do x, with trait y and then z. if done badly.
No what changed was Chapter Master came into the equation, and the Marine players realized they can do what Guilliman does for 200 pts less by paying 2CP.
Well, that and they could do it with their Custom Chapter that cherrypicked the best traits.
Realistically, what needs to happen is the Chapter Master stratagem needs to be locked from certain setups. Ultramarines shouldn't be able to take it, Raven Guard shouldn't be able to take it, Wolves, BA, DA.
tneva82 wrote: Well balance is always screwed so nothing new there ;-)
I'd argue the balance was pretty ok (ofc not perfect) before the marine 2.0 dex.
To be honest, I don't think balance was too bad even after Marines 2.0. Granted, it was a kick in the teeth for Chaos, given that their own 2nd codex was a pale shadow in comparison, but overall I don't think it caused a massive imbalance to the game.
IMO the real problems were the successions of supplements that followed for each of the SM factions. Not only did we have a pile of specifically SM supplements, we then had Psychic Awakening - most of which were also effectively Marine Supplements, thinly disguised as universal bonuses.
I think it was this piling on of more and more options and abilities that really started to cause issues with balance.
VladimirHerzog wrote: I mean, sure the houserules people are proposing are all about buffing yoru army. We're talking about giving stuff that will most probably happen in the future right now.
Making ALL autohitting weapons 12" minimum for example.
That's just an educated guess though, and one that is very likely to be wrong.
What range will plaguespurt gauntles have (currently 6")? Heavy D-scythes?
So it's not as simple as just making all of them 12" or giving all of them +4" range.
Or making Chaos Space marines dreadclaws able to arrive on the board turn 1 just like the loyalist ones, or give legion traits to our vehicles too.
Ever actually tried arguing the last one?
"Well, you've got a primarch"
"Your actual legion trait is disgustingly resilient"
"Those PBC would be too strong if they could shoot and move"
"You've got other things that loyalists don't have"
"There probably is a good reason for that"
*tzeench daemon player just laughing hysterically*
Ideally we wouldn't need to have these rules but once the new codex come out and you face 12" flamers when yours are only 8", its gonna suck big time
I'm fairly sure that DG heavy flamers and flamers will be in that exact situation - because their variants have different names and the plague weapon ability.
tneva82 wrote: Well balance is always screwed so nothing new there ;-)
I'd argue the balance was pretty ok (ofc not perfect) before the marine 2.0 dex.
To be honest, I don't think balance was too bad even after Marines 2.0. Granted, it was a kick in the teeth for Chaos, given that their own 2nd codex was a pale shadow in comparison, but overall I don't think it caused a massive imbalance to the game.
IMO the real problems were the successions of supplements that followed for each of the SM factions. Not only did we have a pile of specifically SM supplements, we then had Psychic Awakening - most of which were also effectively Marine Supplements, thinly disguised as universal bonuses.
I think it was this piling on of more and more options and abilities that really started to cause issues with balance.
Exactly. Balance before sm2.0 was not fine, from a marine PoV. Balance with sm2.0 seemed fine, as a salamanders player I got to play without a supplement for a while and that was fun. The supplements then pushed marines from a good place to ridiculous levels, and the nerfs since then have been very conservative, but they were getting there prior to 9th, thanks in part to PA.
The current CA is just fubar, nothing to do with marines specifically.
All we can hope for now is that gw listened to their testers this time, and that while individual units and wargear might go up in power, marines as a faction are reduced in power. I'll certainly miss the hit roll for my salamanders, but it shows that gw is willing to put straight up nerfs into the new codex.
Its a bit of a moving feast - but yes, if you *just* had the SM book, I think it would have been competitive, but not so game warping.
SM 2.0+Supplements+Faith and Fury (admittedly for the few months) however created a runaway train with seemingly no breaks.
FWIW I think they should just get rid of the Chapter Master stratagem. If you want to buy Guilliman - or your faction's chapter master, cough up the points. If you don't, or can't because they don't exist, that sucks to be you.
Maybe it can be replaced with a stratagem to let you reroll all misses in 6" of a Captain for a single phase once per game.
It's funny how the Chapter Master stratagem went from useless at 3 CP to a must take at 2 CP. Maybe they should just increase the CP cost back up to 3 or even 4 and call it a day.
Well, they should probably put in a restriction preventing you from using that stratagem if you already have a Chapter Master in your list (or at least the list of the same subfaction).
topaxygouroun i wrote: No what changed was Chapter Master came into the equation, and the Marine players realized they can do what Guilliman does for 200 pts less by paying 2CP.
Gulliman also received a hefty nerf in his codex variant, for example he lost full re-rolls to wound.
Nobody should be able to simply reroll all hits just by putting an HQ in their list. Or better, nobody should be able to reroll all hits period. When the god of dice decides you're gak-ed you should be gak-ed, not just take second chances. The game needs luck or just plain old botching to be part of the game and marine weapons and models are priced on the assumption that they fail to hit 1/3 of the time.
When you put Chapter Masters and exploding 6's suddenly you get models that make more hits than they have attacks c o n s i s t e n t l y and that's where the stupidity happens. Then it compounds by making Chapter master an aura and getting the relic to make it 9" just because. Suddenly the whole army rerolls all hits which makes someone wonder why did GW even bother to give the models a ballistic skill stat in the first place.
Chapter master should not be a thing. If it has to be, at least make it a CP stratagem targeting one unit for a turn. Start of shooting or fight phase, pay 1 CP, choose a unit within 6" of your captain. That unit may reroll hit rolls for that phase. Still strong but not broken. That hard to imagine huh?
VladimirHerzog wrote: I mean, sure the houserules people are proposing are all about buffing yoru army. We're talking about giving stuff that will most probably happen in the future right now.
Making ALL autohitting weapons 12" minimum for example.
That's just an educated guess though, and one that is very likely to be wrong.
What range will plaguespurt gauntles have (currently 6")? Heavy D-scythes?
So it's not as simple as just making all of them 12" or giving all of them +4" range.
Agreed that its an educated guess and that the only ones we know for sure are getting updated are the ones with the exact same name than the loyalists ones.
Or making Chaos Space marines dreadclaws able to arrive on the board turn 1 just like the loyalist ones, or give legion traits to our vehicles too.
Ever actually tried arguing the last one?
"Well, you've got a primarch"
"Your actual legion trait is disgustingly resilient"
"Those PBC would be too strong if they could shoot and move"
"You've got other things that loyalists don't have"
"There probably is a good reason for that"
*tzeench daemon player just laughing hysterically*
Havnt had any problem so far when playing these rules, i just ask my opponents and most of the time theyre surprised that theyre not already in place.
Altough i've seen many internet fights about legion traits, which is pretty dumb considering what loyalists get compared to chaos. My rhino giving -1 leadership would NOT break the game, and don't tell me that a rhino covered in flayed skin and skulls isn't spooky.
Heck, even a rhino with -1 to hit isnt' OP, especially not in 9th.
Ideally we wouldn't need to have these rules but once the new codex come out and you face 12" flamers when yours are only 8", its gonna suck big time
I'm fairly sure that DG heavy flamers and flamers will be in that exact situation - because their variants have different names and the plague weapon ability.
Well, yeah. Which is why i'm planning on talking to my opponents and asking them if theyre ok with me playing all flamers with 12", with me adjusting the pts if need be.
I consider myself lucky that most people i play with are pretty relaxed and unless i ask them for Giga-cheezy houserules, they'll probably accept.
Or making Chaos Space marines dreadclaws able to arrive on the board turn 1 just like the loyalist ones, or give legion traits to our vehicles too.
Ever actually tried arguing the last one?
"Well, you've got a primarch"
"Your actual legion trait is disgustingly resilient"
"Those PBC would be too strong if they could shoot and move"
"You've got other things that loyalists don't have"
"There probably is a good reason for that"
*tzeench daemon player just laughing hysterically*
Havnt had any problem so far when playing these rules, i just ask my opponents and most of the time theyre surprised that theyre not already in place.
Altough i've seen many internet fights about legion traits, which is pretty dumb considering what loyalists get compared to chaos. My rhino giving -1 leadership would NOT break the game, and don't tell me that a rhino covered in flayed skin and skulls isn't spooky.
All of those are actual responses I have gotten on that topic.
I consider myself lucky that most people i play with are pretty relaxed and unless i ask them for Giga-cheezy houserules, they'll probably accept.
In my group people are super-relaxed as well, but some of them have been part of that group for over 20 years (I joined ~10 years ago) and in that time there have been some pretty bad experiences with being to lax with what is allowed in games.
There are people which are still considered friends, but are no longer welcome to join games of 40k, and in one instance some of our members would even surrender their current game and leave a GW store if a specific former member would show up.
So unless the entire group agrees something is in dire need of change, games are played by the book.
alextroy wrote: It's funny how the Chapter Master stratagem went from useless at 3 CP to a must take at 2 CP. Maybe they should just increase the CP cost back up to 3 or even 4 and call it a day.
Well, they should probably put in a restriction preventing you from using that stratagem if you already have a Chapter Master in your list (or at least the list of the same subfaction).
Frankly, "Chapter Master" should be a UNIQUE datasheet (or set of datasheets, if you want armour options), which are a, blocked by keywords from appearing alongside special character Chapter Masters (in case you want to play a game set at a point where said character isn't around); and b, has the same Chapter Master ability for all datasheets representing a Chapter Master, regardless of whether SC or generic. If you want Dante, Azrael, etc to get a little bonus ability on top, keep that as its own rule.
Marneus, Azrael, Dante, Logan, Shrike, etc, can then all have a tweak to their datasheets to reinforce that they can't be fielded alongside a generic CM (with appropriate Wolf-themed tweaks for Logan ).
Kanluwen wrote: Well, that and they could do it with their Custom Chapter that cherrypicked the best traits.
Realistically, what needs to happen is the Chapter Master stratagem needs to be locked from certain setups. Ultramarines shouldn't be able to take it, Raven Guard shouldn't be able to take it, Wolves, BA, DA.
That and getting to use your first founding chapter's strategems.
I suspect a lot of the other armies would have been nastier if you could use sub-faction specific Strategems, etc on the custom trait subfactions.
Kanluwen wrote: Well, that and they could do it with their Custom Chapter that cherrypicked the best traits.
Realistically, what needs to happen is the Chapter Master stratagem needs to be locked from certain setups. Ultramarines shouldn't be able to take it, Raven Guard shouldn't be able to take it, Wolves, BA, DA.
That and getting to use your first founding chapter's strategems.
I suspect a lot of the other armies would have been nastier if you could use sub-faction specific Strategems, etc on the custom trait subfactions.
So what about Ultramarine armies before Calgar was Chapter Master?
topaxygouroun i wrote: Nobody should be able to simply reroll all hits just by putting an HQ in their list. Or better, nobody should be able to reroll all hits period. When the god of dice decides you're gak-ed you should be gak-ed, not just take second chances. The game needs luck or just plain old botching to be part of the game and marine weapons and models are priced on the assumption that they fail to hit 1/3 of the time.
[snip]
For the majority of 8th the big problem Marines faced was that Marine models and weapons were priced on the assumption that they were sitting in that reroll to-hit and to-wound aura, and it gimped them if you didn't have those auras.
...not that you don't have a point under the current point costs, but I somehow doubt it's going to stay that way.
Kanluwen wrote: Well, that and they could do it with their Custom Chapter that cherrypicked the best traits.
Realistically, what needs to happen is the Chapter Master stratagem needs to be locked from certain setups. Ultramarines shouldn't be able to take it, Raven Guard shouldn't be able to take it, Wolves, BA, DA.
That and getting to use your first founding chapter's strategems.
I suspect a lot of the other armies would have been nastier if you could use sub-faction specific Strategems, etc on the custom trait subfactions.
So what about Ultramarine armies before Calgar was Chapter Master?
Then Ultramarines shouldn't be able to take any primaris with a chapter master. Of course GW would never write a rule prohibiting you from taking primaris...
Kanluwen wrote: Well, that and they could do it with their Custom Chapter that cherrypicked the best traits.
Realistically, what needs to happen is the Chapter Master stratagem needs to be locked from certain setups. Ultramarines shouldn't be able to take it, Raven Guard shouldn't be able to take it, Wolves, BA, DA.
That and getting to use your first founding chapter's strategems.
I suspect a lot of the other armies would have been nastier if you could use sub-faction specific Strategems, etc on the custom trait subfactions.
So what about Ultramarine armies before Calgar was Chapter Master?
Then Ultramarines shouldn't be able to take any primaris with a chapter master. Of course GW would never write a rule prohibiting you from taking primaris...
topaxygouroun i wrote: Nobody should be able to simply reroll all hits just by putting an HQ in their list. Or better, nobody should be able to reroll all hits period. When the god of dice decides you're gak-ed you should be gak-ed, not just take second chances. The game needs luck or just plain old botching to be part of the game and marine weapons and models are priced on the assumption that they fail to hit 1/3 of the time.
When you put Chapter Masters and exploding 6's suddenly you get models that make more hits than they have attacks c o n s i s t e n t l y and that's where the stupidity happens. Then it compounds by making Chapter master an aura and getting the relic to make it 9" just because. Suddenly the whole army rerolls all hits which makes someone wonder why did GW even bother to give the models a ballistic skill stat in the first place.
Chapter master should not be a thing. If it has to be, at least make it a CP stratagem targeting one unit for a turn. Start of shooting or fight phase, pay 1 CP, choose a unit within 6" of your captain. That unit may reroll hit rolls for that phase. Still strong but not broken. That hard to imagine huh?
Listen dude. I could easily say that no unit should be able to move twice or shoot twice in a turn but pretty much every army has something to this effect. I think there is a case to be made that auras can effect to many units at once and that is a reasonable arguement but there are plenty of armies that have OP auras. Black legion can do it with Abaddon / A troop master re-rolls all wound in melee for a full melee army/ Cawl does it for admech. It's not like these armies are specifically dominting ether. In fact most admech and choas armies use different factions because other stratagems are considered better...like+1 W +1 Damage for plasma for Ryza and Alpha legion has a host of great stuff. I agree there was no point in dropping it to 2 CP...they shoulda raised it to 4 CPIMO.
Just don't think about it the way you are - every army has a host of powerful combinations that they can use in a game. The combinations are the balance issue and they make the game really unbalanced and unenjoyable.
Yeah... I usually skip Chapter master since I'm running vulkan, and I really don't care if my bolt guns get to reroll 2s as well. Might change once the hit reroll for salamanders is gone, though.
Kanluwen wrote: Well, that and they could do it with their Custom Chapter that cherrypicked the best traits.
Realistically, what needs to happen is the Chapter Master stratagem needs to be locked from certain setups. Ultramarines shouldn't be able to take it, Raven Guard shouldn't be able to take it, Wolves, BA, DA.
That and getting to use your first founding chapter's strategems.
I suspect a lot of the other armies would have been nastier if you could use sub-faction specific Strategems, etc on the custom trait subfactions.
So what about Ultramarine armies before Calgar was Chapter Master?
Then Ultramarines shouldn't be able to take any primaris with a chapter master. Of course GW would never write a rule prohibiting you from taking primaris...
Then what about after Calgar dies?
Presumably GW releases a new Special Character *shrug*
I'll repeat - make a generic Chapter Master datasheet (or datasheets, for armour/gear variants). Use keywords so you can only field one Chapter Master (or SCCM equivalent, in the case of Marneus, Dante, Azrael, Logan, et al) in a given Matched Play army. Make sure the CM re-roll rule is consistent between these datasheets. By the time you're running a force where it'd be reasonable for more than one to appear, you're either in Open or Apocalypse territory anyway.
*EDIT* - I forgot to ask, though I meant to - is there seriously nothing stopping you using the CM stratagem on a special character?
Kanluwen wrote: Well, that and they could do it with their Custom Chapter that cherrypicked the best traits.
Realistically, what needs to happen is the Chapter Master stratagem needs to be locked from certain setups. Ultramarines shouldn't be able to take it, Raven Guard shouldn't be able to take it, Wolves, BA, DA.
That and getting to use your first founding chapter's strategems.
I suspect a lot of the other armies would have been nastier if you could use sub-faction specific Strategems, etc on the custom trait subfactions.
So what about Ultramarine armies before Calgar was Chapter Master?
Then Ultramarines shouldn't be able to take any primaris with a chapter master. Of course GW would never write a rule prohibiting you from taking primaris...
Then what about after Calgar dies?
Presumably GW releases a new Special Character *shrug*
I'll repeat - make a generic Chapter Master datasheet (or datasheets, for armour/gear variants). Use keywords so you can only field one Chapter Master (or SCCM equivalent, in the case of Marneus, Dante, Azrael, Logan, et al) in a given Matched Play army. Make sure the CM re-roll rule is consistent between these datasheets. By the time you're running a force where it'd be reasonable for more than one to appear, you're either in Open or Apocalypse territory anyway.
honest to god question, have you ever seen someone running calgar alongside a upgraded chapter master? because if so they're cheating
The wording in the strat is pretty clear
Use this stratagem before the battle if your army does not include a Chapter Master model....
Calgar has (as does Shrike and Gabriel Angelos) the chapter master key word. You CANNOT upgrade a captain to a chapter master if you have a Chapter Master in your ARMY. (note army, not detachment)
Ragnar69 wrote: Because those are simplified data sheets for the Open players that don't have a codex.
Nope.
They're 'at a glance' reference sheets, set up so they don't have to print full datasheets into instructions in multiple languages. Hence why everything is done with an icon rather than spelled out.
Ragnar69 wrote: Because those are simplified data sheets for the Open players that don't have a codex.
Nope.
They're 'at a glance' reference sheets, set up so they don't have to print full datasheets into instructions in multiple languages. Hence why everything is done with an icon rather than spelled out.
And how does that contradict my statement? Or have you ever seen a guy pull out a bunch of build instructions instead of a codex at a tournament? Nobody playing battleforged ever gives a closer look to those data sheets....except right now when they give glimpses to future foresee
Dysartes wrote: *EDIT* - I forgot to ask, though I meant to - is there seriously nothing stopping you using the CM stratagem on a special character?
"Select one ADEPTUS ASTARTES CAPTAIN model from your army that is not a named character."
Thank you, Jidmah - I didn't get around to picking up SM8.5, so wasn't sure of the current wording.
And Brian, there were a couple of people further up the thread that seemed to be talking about upgrading named characters, which is another reason I was unsure.
Ragnar69 wrote: Because those are simplified data sheets for the Open players that don't have a codex.
Nope.
They're 'at a glance' reference sheets, set up so they don't have to print full datasheets into instructions in multiple languages. Hence why everything is done with an icon rather than spelled out.
And how does that contradict my statement? Or have you ever seen a guy pull out a bunch of build instructions instead of a codex at a tournament? Nobody playing battleforged ever gives a closer look to those data sheets....except right now when they give glimpses to future foresee
Your statement was "for the Open players that don't have a codex". It's an 'at a glance' reference sheet, like what we've gotten in WarCry on the cards there. The unit profile cards? There is zero text on them. Just pictures. All the icons point you towards a 'master sheet' and show a photo of the unit. Here's an example:
Spoiler:
All those 'glyphs'? They have a meaning. It's shown here:
Spoiler:
Notice that the reverse side gives you the name of the units along with their picture too.
Edge of Silence from Indomitus literally tells you to reference the Codex. They're ditching the idea of codices being 'optional' at this point.
Also: Using the instructions was literally the only way people were able to play the Techpriest Manipulus and Skorpius until Engine War dropped.
Kanluwen wrote: Well, that and they could do it with their Custom Chapter that cherrypicked the best traits.
Realistically, what needs to happen is the Chapter Master stratagem needs to be locked from certain setups. Ultramarines shouldn't be able to take it, Raven Guard shouldn't be able to take it, Wolves, BA, DA.
That and getting to use your first founding chapter's strategems.
I suspect a lot of the other armies would have been nastier if you could use sub-faction specific Strategems, etc on the custom trait subfactions.
So what about Ultramarine armies before Calgar was Chapter Master?
Then Ultramarines shouldn't be able to take any primaris with a chapter master. Of course GW would never write a rule prohibiting you from taking primaris...
Dysartes wrote: *EDIT* - I forgot to ask, though I meant to - is there seriously nothing stopping you using the CM stratagem on a special character?
"Select one ADEPTUS ASTARTES CAPTAIN model from your army that is not a named character."
Thank you, Jidmah - I didn't get around to picking up SM8.5, so wasn't sure of the current wording.
And Brian, there were a couple of people further up the thread that seemed to be talking about upgrading named characters, which is another reason I was unsure.
Honestly given the number of game conventions marines ignore that every other army has to follow I would be absolutely 0% surprised to learn you could upgrade named characters in marines.
They still get to deep strike turn 1, they don't have to give up chapter benefits to choose custom chapters, they get better rerolls, they get to keep numerous options and units that have no official models, they get multiple datasheets from the same kit, they get to have two warlord traits on one model, they get Limited Release models and get to keep their wargear as standard options...
Dysartes wrote: *EDIT* - I forgot to ask, though I meant to - is there seriously nothing stopping you using the CM stratagem on a special character?
"Select one ADEPTUS ASTARTES CAPTAIN model from your army that is not a named character."
Thank you, Jidmah - I didn't get around to picking up SM8.5, so wasn't sure of the current wording.
And Brian, there were a couple of people further up the thread that seemed to be talking about upgrading named characters, which is another reason I was unsure.
Honestly given the number of game conventions marines ignore that every other army has to follow I would be absolutely 0% surprised to learn you could upgrade named characters in marines.
They still get to deep strike turn 1, they don't have to give up chapter benefits to choose custom chapters, they get better rerolls, they get to keep numerous options and units that have no official models, they get multiple datasheets from the same kit, they get to have two warlord traits on one model, they get Limited Release models and get to keep their wargear as standard options...
Sounds about right. Too bad they lost getting all transports for free. Now that was some solid rule.
Xenomancers wrote: Listen dude. I could easily say that no unit should be able to move twice or shoot twice in a turn but pretty much every army has something to this effect.
I mean, you might well find that that idea has more support than you'd think.
There was a reason Ynnari had to be FAQd/errata'd about 6 times in early 8th.
Personally, I think any double-shoot/double-fight abilities should have to be part of a unit's dataslate.
Having them as Stratagems means that you're trying to point units that could potentially see their offensive abilities doubled based on what might as well be a CCG.
How, for example, do you point CSM Havocs in a balanced manner? Not all of them get access to the Stratagem, of those only one can have it each turn (though more models also bring redundancy in case the first squad is deleted or depleted), and you might end up not giving it to any of them on some/all turns due to, for example, running low on CPs.
At least with something like a Leman Russ you can make a reasonable assumption that it will be firing its main weapon twice each turn.
(Just to be clear, I'm not saying that units with double-move or double-fight abilities necessarily are appropriately costed, just that it's a lot easier to try and balance them than it is units who can get those abilities based on completely external factors like Stratagems.)
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The answer to your Havoc question is you don't. You price the Stratagem as though it were used on a unit with LOTS of guns.
Some stratagems are priced depending on who is the target. DW Assault for example costs 2 or 3 CP depending on how big the unit using it is.
I would like that concept to be more widely applied.
Single Minded Annihilation is probably going the same route once the new nid codex hits, since the one in Kill Team has a variable cost,
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The answer to your Havoc question is you don't. You price the Stratagem as though it were used on a unit with LOTS of guns.
Some stratagems are priced depending on who is the target. DW Assault for example costs 2 or 3 CP depending on how big the unit using it is.
I would like that concept to be more widely applied.
Single Minded Annihilation is probably going the same route once the new nid codex hits, since the one in Kill Team has a variable cost,
Keep.in mind that DW Assault only affects a couple of units though. You will not be using Endless Cacophony on regular Chaos Marines even if the Strat was only 1CP for them.
Interesting that Primaris are staying 2 wounds. Makes sense to prevent the natural creep that would impose, but it did diminish their value. A superior creation that results in... 1 more attack. Weee.
Depending on the points I could see myself bringing hellblasters again and probably the assault version to counter all the marines out there or the heavy for some anti tank perhaps. The assault are at super high risk of blowing up and dying though so there is that to consider.
I'm happy that primaris are staying at 2 wounds as apparently the points gap between tacticals and primaris is closing. Primaris marines are very slightly more durable then their OG brothers, not twice or a third as much. It wouldn't make sense a regular Primaris marine has as many wounds as a Terminator or the Custodes.
Also very happy with the Hellblaster changes where every weapon feels a bit more different now. I don't miss the old days of Hellblasters being the ONLY Primaris anti-tank but it sucks I never have a reason to bring them anymore. Hopefully now I can
Tibs Ironblood wrote: Interesting that Primaris are staying 2 wounds. Makes sense to prevent the natural creep that would impose, but it did diminish their value. A superior creation that results in... 1 more attack. Weee.
An extra attack and a bigger gun is a lot closer to what they are in lore than having literally double the wounds of non-Primaris. This way you can have things like Cult Marines actually look scarier than Primaris, and veteran SM/CSM units (Sternguard/Vanguard, Chosen) can hold their own.
I think both non-Rapid-Fire Hellblaster variants are probably going to be seen more often, provided there isn't anything screwy with their points. Three shots on the Assault profile is a lot of zapping (even non-overcharged, 3 shots at S6/D1 is slightly better than 1 shot at S8/D2 against T4/W2, and a LOT better against T5/W3), and higher damage on the Heavy variant makes it more worthwhile as a light vehicle hunter.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: Interesting that Primaris are staying 2 wounds. Makes sense to prevent the natural creep that would impose, but it did diminish their value. A superior creation that results in... 1 more attack. Weee
Technically their value remains the same. Primaris doesn't get worse just because Firstborn get's better. Firstborn getting better just means that ... Firstborn get better.
If you have a bar at 2 meters and one bar at 1,5 meters, and then raise the second bar to 1,8 or even 2 meters, the first bar is still at 2 meters.
And if we're talking fluff, well... fluff should never be an excuse for bad internal (or external) balance.
Assault plasma in Dark Angels is sweet since you can just use the strat to make D2 without overcharging. Great way to clear out other marines while ignoring risk to self.
Kanluwen wrote: Well, that and they could do it with their Custom Chapter that cherrypicked the best traits.
Realistically, what needs to happen is the Chapter Master stratagem needs to be locked from certain setups. Ultramarines shouldn't be able to take it, Raven Guard shouldn't be able to take it, Wolves, BA, DA.
That and getting to use your first founding chapter's strategems.
I suspect a lot of the other armies would have been nastier if you could use sub-faction specific Strategems, etc on the custom trait subfactions.
So what about Ultramarine armies before Calgar was Chapter Master?
Then Ultramarines shouldn't be able to take any primaris with a chapter master. Of course GW would never write a rule prohibiting you from taking primaris...
Rhinos, Razorbacks, landraider, droppod. Duh.
None of those prevent you from taking Primaris in your army, ERJAK.
C'mon, man, read the material before you try to be clever.
Xenomancers wrote: Listen dude. I could easily say that no unit should be able to move twice or shoot twice in a turn but pretty much every army has something to this effect.
I mean, you might well find that that idea has more support than you'd think.
There was a reason Ynnari had to be FAQd/errata'd about 6 times in early 8th.
Personally, I think any double-shoot/double-fight abilities should have to be part of a unit's dataslate.
Having them as Stratagems means that you're trying to point units that could potentially see their offensive abilities doubled based on what might as well be a CCG.
How, for example, do you point CSM Havocs in a balanced manner? Not all of them get access to the Stratagem, of those only one can have it each turn (though more models also bring redundancy in case the first squad is deleted or depleted), and you might end up not giving it to any of them on some/all turns due to, for example, running low on CPs.
At least with something like a Leman Russ you can make a reasonable assumption that it will be firing its main weapon twice each turn.
(Just to be clear, I'm not saying that units with double-move or double-fight abilities necessarily are appropriately costed, just that it's a lot easier to try and balance them than it is units who can get those abilities based on completely external factors like Stratagems.)
We Agree then. Those abilties are equally problematic if not more problematic than a reroll all hits aura. It is a magnify damage by 2 ability - which damage can already be multiplied many times before that from stratagems and abilities.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Keramory wrote: I'm happy that primaris are staying at 2 wounds as apparently the points gap between tacticals and primaris is closing. Primaris marines are very slightly more durable then their OG brothers, not twice or a third as much. It wouldn't make sense a regular Primaris marine has as many wounds as a Terminator or the Custodes.
Also very happy with the Hellblaster changes where every weapon feels a bit more different now. I don't miss the old days of Hellblasters being the ONLY Primaris anti-tank but it sucks I never have a reason to bring them anymore. Hopefully now I can
Being twice the size confirs very little as in not at all to their durability...it's a dumb attempt by GW to get rid of their stocks of models they will never make again.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: Is not that the exact same image posted earlier in the thread, but inexplicably not hidden by spoiler tags so now it takes forever to load?
Ah, apologies, I did a quick skim of the other page looking for the image or a spoiler tag of the datasheet, next time I'll do more reading
I'm just glad GW has finally realized that the major problem with the game is that stuff didn't die fast enough and that what we really needed was for imperium guns to be more deadly.
yukishiro1 wrote: I'm just glad GW has finally realized that the major problem with the game is that stuff didn't die fast enough and that what we really needed was for imperium guns to be more deadly.
Well it's one way to make sure their Games of 9th are faster than games of 8th prediction is correct, bring a marine list and you table your opponents before they can score a single VP.
yukishiro1 wrote: I'm just glad GW has finally realized that the major problem with the game is that stuff didn't die fast enough and that what we really needed was for imperium guns to be more deadly.
It was frankly getting embarrassing. Late 8th ed. gameplay was basically tag in the woods, everyone running around laughing and giggling until someone tripped and hurt themselves and the moms had to break it up.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: Interesting that Primaris are staying 2 wounds. Makes sense to prevent the natural creep that would impose, but it did diminish their value. A superior creation that results in... 1 more attack. Weee.
Depending on the points I could see myself bringing hellblasters again and probably the assault version to counter all the marines out there or the heavy for some anti tank perhaps. The assault are at super high risk of blowing up and dying though so there is that to consider.
The new rules say that plasma Only kills on Unmodified rolls of 1. So your only issue with assault ones is hitting on 4s.
My opinion is that they are stupidly good. With DA that’s a 15 shots for 5 guys at 3 damage. The perfect infantry killer, Including terminators and custodes.
ERJAK wrote: So...the guns these guys are toting around are a lot better now, across the board for both factions.
That's not...great for a game as lethal as 40k.
There's a point where increased lethality stops being meaningful. My opponent's army getting a 20% boost in firepower doesn't acually change anything if I'm already getting tabled turn one.
Hmm I wonder if disgustingly resiliant will stay at 5+++/function as a rule with two wound DG and three wound blightlords. Maybe they will make it into an AP negating rule or a better save..
This is brilliant. They can garuntee sales because we wanna know the new darn rules XD does anyone know if chaos got repackaged with updated rules as well?
The upgrade to hellblasters is no surprise; they werent used competitively. However, it wasnt their offence that needed a buff. They were just too expensive points-wise.
GW obviously wants them to completely take over the devestator squads roll though by making them more deadly.
They cant fit in drop pods though, so their new points cost should be just a bit cheaper than 5 grav devestators/w a pod to be balanced.
Interesting update on the Hellblaster Plasma weapons.
I have to wonder about the lack of Overcharge stats on the Plasma weapons we have seen so far. I can think of a few possible reasons it is missing:
1. To avoid it being used all the time when you only have the simplified datasheet available since it lacks special rules
2. It's part of the special rule. Overcharge causes +1 damage, but you die on a natural roll of 1
3. It's now a stratagem
4. It's just plain gone
I can actually see it as a stratagem like the Dark Angels one (which I'm sure will disappear in the new codex/supplement). Overcharging is supposed to be special, but it just seems to be thing that people do all the freaking time. I could see GW going a far as to putting the die (or take MW on a natural roll of 1) as standard on all Plasma and have an Overcharged Plasma Stratagem that gives all the Plasma weapons the unit +1 damage for the phase/shooting attack.
Eihnlazer wrote: The upgrade to hellblasters is no surprise; they werent used competitively. However, it wasnt their offence that needed a buff. They were just too expensive points-wise.
GW obviously wants them to completely take over the devestator squads roll though by making them more deadly.
They cant fit in drop pods though, so their new points cost should be just a bit cheaper than 5 grav devestators/w a pod to be balanced.
Dropping their points or buffing their weapons has the same net effect. They become more useful and effective. Only an increase to wounds or armor would have made a different impact on their usability without increasing damage output.
Argive wrote: Hmm I wonder if disgustingly resiliant will stay at 5+++/function as a rule with two wound DG and three wound blightlords. Maybe they will make it into an AP negating rule or a better save..
DG is finally getting as durable as they are supposed to be in the fluff and everyone is already whining about how they are way too resilient...
People seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that regular space marines have units that can take just as much or even more punishment than plague marines or blightlords while they also have vastly superior shooting output and move faster.
Argive wrote: Hmm I wonder if disgustingly resiliant will stay at 5+++/function as a rule with two wound DG and three wound blightlords. Maybe they will make it into an AP negating rule or a better save..
DG is finally getting as durable as they are supposed to be in the fluff and everyone is already whining about how they are way too resilient...
People seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that regular space marines have units that can take just as much or even more punishment than plague marines or blightlords while they also have vastly superior shooting output and move faster.
yeah I for one see no issue with DG being that resiliant, so long as they are properly costed. and points can always be changed if they end up too cheap or two expensive
Well, at least you can kill stuff now in 9th. Last edition was such a slog, what with the armies having enough left after Turn 2 to actually maneuver and try to beat eachother with tactics.
Hopefully in 10th there will be some system called something like "strategic time-saver" where instead of putting your models on the table you can just leave them in your carry case and in return get one free round of shooting with them at anything in your opponent's army before they count as being destroyed by the inevitable return volley.
yukishiro1 wrote: Hopefully in 10th there will be some system called something like "strategic time-saver" where instead of putting your models on the table you can just leave them in your carry case and in return get one free round of shooting with them at anything in your opponent's army before they count as being destroyed by the inevitable return volley.
I think it'd be more narrative if the two players rolled off and the one who wins shoots first. That represents the strategic initiative that's so important in 40k. Also, shooting first means you win, since each unit is expected to make its points back in one round, and since armies are made up of units, that means your army has to make it's points back in one round. Logic!
Daedalus81 wrote: December 2019:
"GW is so stupid to drop points to fix units. They should change rules instead."
Now :
"OMG GW is changing weapons and profiles. That's so stupid!"
That's not the complaint and you know that. They're complaining about amped up killing potential and the fact GW is keeping us in the dark for everything.
Daedalus81 wrote: December 2019:
"GW is so stupid to drop points to fix units. They should change rules instead."
Now :
"OMG GW is changing weapons and profiles. That's so stupid!"
That's not the complaint and you know that. They're complaining about amped up killing potential and the fact GW is keeping us in the dark for everything.
Well the keeping in the dark is normal, it shouldn't be a shock to anyone who has been in the hobby any real length of time.
As for increasing killing potential, they're buffing guns that either weren't used (multimeltas) or under performing (most of the necron improvements). Some of these are by rules tweaks I.e. the melta rule or removing randomisation (death ray); also asked for by the community, which is what Daedlaus is pointing at.
You're also complaining about killing power going up while we had pages of "how am I supposed to keep up with marines increased survivability" which suggests maybe more killing power is needed in some peoples eyes?
Argive wrote: Hmm I wonder if disgustingly resiliant will stay at 5+++/function as a rule with two wound DG and three wound blightlords. Maybe they will make it into an AP negating rule or a better save..
DG is finally getting as durable as they are supposed to be in the fluff and everyone is already whining about how they are way too resilient...
People seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that regular space marines have units that can take just as much or even more punishment than plague marines or blightlords while they also have vastly superior shooting output and move faster.
To quote a really good radio play, "name three".
Blightlords are 43 ppm* for W2* T5 2+ 4++ 5+++. I can't think of anything in the Marine arsenal that can match that on a per point basis without getting some expensive characters/strats involved, and the Blightlords have some solid defensive buffs available too.
Daedalus81 wrote: December 2019:
"GW is so stupid to drop points to fix units. They should change rules instead."
Now :
"OMG GW is changing weapons and profiles. That's so stupid!"
That's not the complaint and you know that. They're complaining about amped up killing potential and the fact GW is keeping us in the dark for everything.
Well the keeping in the dark is normal, it shouldn't be a shock to anyone who has been in the hobby any real length of time.
As for increasing killing potential, they're buffing guns that either weren't used (multimeltas) or under performing (most of the necron improvements). Some of these are by rules tweaks I.e. the melta rule or removing randomisation (death ray); also asked for by the community, which is what Daedlaus is pointing at.
You're also complaining about killing power going up while we had pages of "how am I supposed to keep up with marines increased survivability" which suggests maybe more killing power is needed in some peoples eyes?
The irony being the first faction to receive improved killing power weapons is also the faction getting more wounds per model.
You don't fix the over killing power of marines by making them more durable and more killy qhile everyone esle looks on going WTF?
Dudeface wrote: Some of these are by rules tweaks I.e. the melta rule or removing randomisation (death ray); also asked for by the community, which is what Daedlaus is pointing at.
It feels like a straw man because it's grossly simplistic and ignores two points of criticism:
1. That there are lots of units that need a rules overhaul, rather than mere points drops. Changing weapons can be part of that, but it's the core unit profiles that have the bigger issues and need to be fixed first.
2. Some of these changes feel really reactionary. Changing the melta rule is great; doubling multimelta shots is less great.
Who was saying 'I really want GW to fix the game by selectively changing weapon profiles outside of their codex'?
Daedalus81 wrote: December 2019:
"GW is so stupid to drop points to fix units. They should change rules instead."
Now :
"OMG GW is changing weapons and profiles. That's so stupid!"
That's not the complaint and you know that. They're complaining about amped up killing potential and the fact GW is keeping us in the dark for everything.
Then maybe don't play 1500pts games. Maybe playing the old 2000 aka new 2250 or 2500, or even more points is the right way to play w40k.
Daedalus81 wrote: December 2019:
"GW is so stupid to drop points to fix units. They should change rules instead."
Now :
"OMG GW is changing weapons and profiles. That's so stupid!"
That's not the complaint and you know that. They're complaining about amped up killing potential and the fact GW is keeping us in the dark for everything.
Then maybe don't play 1500pts games. Maybe playing the old 2000 aka new 2250 or 2500, or even more points is the right way to play w40k.
Luckily 9th edition actually has different missions for different points values of game! Each with Primary Objectives built to work at that specific point value.
Daedalus81 wrote: December 2019:
"GW is so stupid to drop points to fix units. They should change rules instead."
Now :
"OMG GW is changing weapons and profiles. That's so stupid!"
That's not the complaint and you know that. They're complaining about amped up killing potential and the fact GW is keeping us in the dark for everything.
Then maybe don't play 1500pts games. Maybe playing the old 2000 aka new 2250 or 2500, or even more points is the right way to play w40k.
Funny. You suggest something that has no relation whatsoever. And right way by your opinion holds more weight than gw's since...when?
So my two cents with these changes is that we're going to see a pretty significant reduction in the number of rerolls available to all armies.
The thing is there are 2 main problems they COULD be solving here by improving weapon profiles, if they do it correctly. One is the reroll issue, the other is what I call 'the multimelta problem'.
The reroll issue has been discussed ad nauseum but basically the consensus is that there are too many ways to mitigate bad rolling in the game. If they increase weapon stats while also removing a fair whack of the methods players use to insulate themselves from probability, they can keep the game at roughly the same overall level of lethality (which they seem more or less comfortable with) while also increasing the swingy-ness. That seems to go with GW's general design paradigm of "drama is good", though whether you agree with that philosophy or not is obviously debateable.
The 'Multimelta Problem' is the idea that some weapon profiles/units are so inherently flawed that in their current state they can't be fixed by points changes. This is most commonly seen in terrible weapons like the multimelta. Multimeltas, as they existed before the change, were unusable garbage at 20/25. They were actively detrimental to any model that HAD to bring them over something more reasonable than a lascannon. At 15/20 they would still never see play over a lascannon and wouldn't offer a significant enough benefit to be taken over a standard meltagun for armies like SoB that don't really have the option of running better weapons like plasma. At 10/15 they're now way better than standard meltaguns, but end up in this weird place where they're simultaneously being crammed onto everything in armies that use melta and still not being taken on armies that have better bespoke weaponry (ala eradicators). Basically no matter what points cost they end up at, it never makes sense for the weapon.
At 2 shots, especially with the new melta rule, they can actually balance it by increasing the points to the point where the output makes sense for the cost. My guess would be that it ends up at 25/30 or 30/35.
Now, unfortunately Multimeltas are presumably coming in pretty hot out of the gate at a very generous 20/25, but that's ultimately only going to effect a small number of armies and isn't going to be that big of a deal for anything but Sisters and Guard.
All of this relies on GW actually reducing the number of reroll mechanics and being willing to increase the point costs of the newly buffed weapons until their cost makes sense to their new profiles. So...we'll see how it goes.
Interesting idea. And we know that the next CSM has cut back on two chapter tactics with re-rolls with Dark Angels getting +1 to Hit and Salamanders losing their re-roll one hit roll per unit.
Not sure if this has been verified yet, but wasn't there's going to be a limitation on the number of captains/lieutenants per detachment as well? It makes up for not being able to stack negatives to hit anymore and not have borderline auto-hitting units for SM.
Grimskul wrote: Not sure if this has been verified yet, but wasn't there's going to be a limitation on the number of captains/lieutenants per detachment as well? It makes up for not being able to stack negatives to hit anymore and not have borderline auto-hitting units for SM.
Well yes but generally that affects more for smashcaptains and those are more for melee rather than providing rerolls so...not that much effect. In single detachments for gunlines it was captain+lietnaunt+chaplain/librarian more than 2 captains+lietnatnant or two. And if you have 2 det's(which is common for HQ slots anyway if you plan to spam captains..) you still have 2 captains and 4 lietnaunt. Not big drop.
Grimskul wrote: Not sure if this has been verified yet, but wasn't there's going to be a limitation on the number of captains/lieutenants per detachment as well? It makes up for not being able to stack negatives to hit anymore and not have borderline auto-hitting units for SM.
Well yes but generally that affects more for smashcaptains and those are more for melee rather than providing rerolls so...not that much effect. In single detachments for gunlines it was captain+lietnaunt+chaplain/librarian more than 2 captains+lietnatnant or two. And if you have 2 det's(which is common for HQ slots anyway if you plan to spam captains..) you still have 2 captains and 4 lietnaunt. Not big drop.
Very much the above not to mention as the aura buffs are within (not the wholly within they should be) you can still cover way too much of the army with 1 Captain and LT combo, short of them removong CM strategum or preferably the whole aura the issue isn't going to change.
Daedalus81 wrote: December 2019:
"GW is so stupid to drop points to fix units. They should change rules instead."
Now :
"OMG GW is changing weapons and profiles. That's so stupid!"
Now:
Why is GW buffing the stats on Marines who are already very dominant.
The issue isn't changes, its buffs to marines who have been S tier for the past year.
And they're also going to nerf them at the same time by increasing point costs. Once we have the adjusted points cost, we'll see if the sky's falling or not.
Not like that's the only changes that're going to happen - we already know that Salamanders are getting a nerfed Chapter Tactic, for example.
Daedalus81 wrote: December 2019:
"GW is so stupid to drop points to fix units. They should change rules instead."
Now :
"OMG GW is changing weapons and profiles. That's so stupid!"
Now:
Why is GW buffing the stats on Marines who are already very dominant.
The issue isn't changes, its buffs to marines who have been S tier for the past year.
Because as usual people are short-sightedly applying the new stuff from rumours/leaks to the 8th ed codex. If marines lost bolter discipline, shock assault and doctrines stopped adding free ap, suddenly are these changes adding to an op book?
Ofc I doubt they stripped all those off but the point that we don't know they haven't, shows people are jumping the gun using predetermined opinions based in what they know currently, rather than trying to draw a picture of what could be.
When GW puts out incomplete info to get people worked up, people are going to get worked up based on incomplete info. That's surely to be expected.
If GW had put up a marketing release that instead of trumpeting about how marines are just becoming more powerful in every way instead said "Ok guys. We know marines are already very dominant, and we know this looks like we're making them even more dominant. But trust us, that isn't the case. You may have seen some leaked datasheets from boxes, but those aren't the full picture, and rest assured that the codex is not going to ramp up the power of marines; to the contrary, we are rebalancing them to be more in line with the rest of the game" the reaction would be totally different. But that's literally the opposite of what they have done.
Now obviously GW is not going to hype a new release by telling people it's nerfing the faction most people play. But the point is that when they release hype about how the most powerful faction is becoming even more powerful - whether or not it's true - people are bound to react to that in predictable and understandable ways. "Don't pay any attention to GW's PR, maybe they're just blowing smoke up your butt, wait and see" isn't a very convincing message to people worried about what they're seeing.
How convenient of you to leave out 4" movement and halved advance rolls.
I can't think of anything in the Marine arsenal that can match that on a per point basis without getting some expensive characters/strats involved,
How about 35 ppm suppressors, 40 ppm inceptors, 45 ppm outrider, 40 ppm eradicators or 35 ppm bladeguard veterans, or pretty much any terminator that can get a stormshield.with your choice of defensive chapter tactics added on top.
and the Blightlords have some solid defensive buffs available too.
No, they don't, and with the sole exception of cloud of flies, vanilla marines have better variants of them available.
Daedalus81 wrote: December 2019:
"GW is so stupid to drop points to fix units. They should change rules instead."
Now :
"OMG GW is changing weapons and profiles. That's so stupid!"
Now:
Why is GW buffing the stats on Marines who are already very dominant.
The issue isn't changes, its buffs to marines who have been S tier for the past year.
Because as usual people are short-sightedly applying the new stuff from rumours/leaks to the 8th ed codex. If marines lost bolter discipline, shock assault and doctrines stopped adding free ap, suddenly are these changes adding to an op book?
Ofc I doubt they stripped all those off but the point that we don't know they haven't, shows people are jumping the gun using predetermined opinions based in what they know currently, rather than trying to draw a picture of what could be.
Well so far when the shoe fits which when it comes to GW and Marines is very much over buff and then spend the next year gently tickling aroudn the edges to slowely reduce them from WTAF tier to OP tier to just S tier. It's called reasonable assumptions based upon precedence.
Not to mention all of this being released after many of the previously A tier armies having just been demoted because of the shoddy work in CA2020 isnt helping consumer confidence in the design team.
Then follwing up with a press release of "oh you've seen these new stat sheets, oh yeah Marines are being buffed but not to worry they are taking minimal points increases to balance their increasing durability aswell as being the first to get all new extra damage weapons.
Oh yeah you'll be rebalanced when we get arround to your codex at a TBD time in the future."
That's like a master class on how to destroy your customer relations in the name of outrage marketing.
I think people also need to realize that Doctrines and Angels of Death are very likely getting changed. Plus, Aggressors have been stated by numerous playtesters to now basically be un-competitive because of upcoming nerfs in their rules.
They gain -1 AP on their Paired Combat Knifes, but otherwise no visible changes on the sheet itself.
This bodes kinda well for Reivers to get -1 AP as well, because it'll just be weird if Incursors get -1 AP but Reivers don't.
Also, the Incursors Carbines remain 24" range, just like the Stormbolters, so hopefully this calms the hyperbole regarding regular Bolters becoming 30".
Daedalus81 wrote: December 2019:
"GW is so stupid to drop points to fix units. They should change rules instead."
Now :
"OMG GW is changing weapons and profiles. That's so stupid!"
Now:
Why is GW buffing the stats on Marines who are already very dominant.
The issue isn't changes, its buffs to marines who have been S tier for the past year.
Because as usual people are short-sightedly applying the new stuff from rumours/leaks to the 8th ed codex. If marines lost bolter discipline, shock assault and doctrines stopped adding free ap, suddenly are these changes adding to an op book?
Ofc I doubt they stripped all those off but the point that we don't know they haven't, shows people are jumping the gun using predetermined opinions based in what they know currently, rather than trying to draw a picture of what could be.
Well so far when the shoe fits which when it comes to GW and Marines is very much over buff and then spend the next year gently tickling aroudn the edges to slowely reduce them from WTAF tier to OP tier to just S tier. It's called reasonable assumptions based upon precedence.
Not to mention all of this being released after many of the previously A tier armies having just been demoted because of the shoddy work in CA2020 isnt helping consumer confidence in the design team.
Then follwing up with a press release of "oh you've seen these new stat sheets, oh yeah Marines are being buffed but not to worry they are taking minimal points increases to balance their increasing durability aswell as being the first to get all new extra damage weapons.
Oh yeah you'll be rebalanced when we get arround to your codex at a TBD time in the future."
That's like a master class on how to destroy your customer relations in the name of outrage marketing.
Yes, because the 1st book in 8th was a complete wet fart overall, they did OK with a couple of niche builds at tourneys but were considered overall below average for the best part of 2 years. If anything the precedent is "release early edition where they set a baseline, become obsolete in 3 months, provide them with stupid buffs 2 years later to try and get them back up".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MinscS2 wrote: Incursor datasheet, courtesy of Joe at B&C:
Spoiler:
They gain -1 AP on their Paired Combat Knifes, but otherwise no visible changes on the sheet itself. This bodes kinda well for Reivers to get -1 AP as well, because it'll just be weird if Incursors get -1 AP but Reivers don't.
Also, the Incursors Carbines reimain 24" range, so hopefully this puts a lid on the "regular bolters will become 30"!!!"-hyperbole.
As you point out, they don't have bolters, so doesn't stop anything being assumed about the standard boltgun.
As you point out, they don't have bolters, so doesn't stop anything being assumed about the standard boltgun.
People are free to assume whatever they want, but so far there are more indications of boltguns remaining 24" than there are of them going to 30".
One sheet with a possibly different gun altogether (mastercrafted boltgun or special issue boltgun) showing a 30" range, or several sheets showing Stormbolters at 24" and now Occulus Carbines at 24".
Going around and complaining that bolters *will* become 30" is just spreading hyperbole for no good reason. There's no point in it before we've seen a sheet of an actual Boltgun (or better yet, the codex) other than furthering the hate against space marines, which I guess is the point as it's all the rage on dakkadakka these days. Discussing the possibility and implications is fine, but essentially basing arguments on them becoming 30" like it has been confirmed is borderline trolling.
Yes, because the 1st book in 8th was a complete wet fart overall, they did OK with a couple of niche builds at tourneys but were considered overall below average for the best part of 2 years. If anything the precedent is "release early edition where they set a baseline, become obsolete in 3 months, provide them with stupid buffs 2 years later to try and get them back up".
Which is the issue everyone's recent experience of the 40k designers work as been lots of head scratching WTAF? And in many case just out right astonishment that someone that blindingly incompetent can still have a job.
Stack that with how the Socialmedia/PR team frame it and nothing about the way the company went through handeling the launch of 9th and frankly the swansong of 8th has been helping the player perception.
It isn't to to say they are or arn't OP (Well frankly Eradicators are) but it's the poor handeling of a series of situation that are certainly adding to the outrage.
Regular Bolters remain 24". Heavy Bolters remain 3 shots and become D2.
Shotguns is now range 18".
Firstborn chainswords are now AP1.
Not sure what Combat Blades are supposed to do though, and honestly it doesn't make sense that scouts are W1; they're less trained space marines in worse armour, but from a physiological point of view they're still very much firstborn space marines (W2, T4). Not gonna throw a tantrum over it though.
It will also be interesting to see where GW ends up putting the pricetag on regular Scouts with Bolters.
If a Tactical is 18 ppm, how much is 1 less W and save worth in their mind?
TBF the only reason the first marine book wasn't a complete WTAF OP shitshow is some panic-nerfs to the ENTIRE GAME that kept them from being brokenly OP.
Stormravens with Guilliman are OP (but no other flyers are showing up in such quantites)? Better nerf every flyer in the game!!
Wait, while the people that actually liked flyers were crying, the tournament players pivoted to parkinglot Guilliman with twin asscannon Razorbacks? Better double the price on twin assault cannons! Bet the Marauder Destroyer and Land Raider Crusader really needed the points increase too...
ERJAK wrote: So my two cents with these changes is that we're going to see a pretty significant reduction in the number of rerolls available to all armies.
The thing is there are 2 main problems they COULD be solving here by improving weapon profiles, if they do it correctly. One is the reroll issue, the other is what I call 'the multimelta problem'.
The reroll issue has been discussed ad nauseum but basically the consensus is that there are too many ways to mitigate bad rolling in the game. If they increase weapon stats while also removing a fair whack of the methods players use to insulate themselves from probability, they can keep the game at roughly the same overall level of lethality (which they seem more or less comfortable with) while also increasing the swingy-ness. That seems to go with GW's general design paradigm of "drama is good", though whether you agree with that philosophy or not is obviously debateable.
The 'Multimelta Problem' is the idea that some weapon profiles/units are so inherently flawed that in their current state they can't be fixed by points changes. This is most commonly seen in terrible weapons like the multimelta. Multimeltas, as they existed before the change, were unusable garbage at 20/25. They were actively detrimental to any model that HAD to bring them over something more reasonable than a lascannon. At 15/20 they would still never see play over a lascannon and wouldn't offer a significant enough benefit to be taken over a standard meltagun for armies like SoB that don't really have the option of running better weapons like plasma. At 10/15 they're now way better than standard meltaguns, but end up in this weird place where they're simultaneously being crammed onto everything in armies that use melta and still not being taken on armies that have better bespoke weaponry (ala eradicators). Basically no matter what points cost they end up at, it never makes sense for the weapon.
At 2 shots, especially with the new melta rule, they can actually balance it by increasing the points to the point where the output makes sense for the cost. My guess would be that it ends up at 25/30 or 30/35.
Now, unfortunately Multimeltas are presumably coming in pretty hot out of the gate at a very generous 20/25, but that's ultimately only going to effect a small number of armies and isn't going to be that big of a deal for anything but Sisters and Guard.
All of this relies on GW actually reducing the number of reroll mechanics and being willing to increase the point costs of the newly buffed weapons until their cost makes sense to their new profiles. So...we'll see how it goes.
I wouldn't gamble too much on this. 5 points up, maybe? Sisters would get railroaded by having super expensive meltas in terms if survivability.
Rerolls don't seem to be changing, either.
The thing that does change (in my experience) is how hard it is to cover your army with a captain/CM and still play the missions.
Daedalus81 wrote: December 2019:
"GW is so stupid to drop points to fix units. They should change rules instead."
Now :
"OMG GW is changing weapons and profiles. That's so stupid!"
That's not the complaint and you know that. They're complaining about amped up killing potential and the fact GW is keeping us in the dark for everything.
I mean they didn't really keep us in the dark. They literally told us a loose guideline for the future of the edition of which I'm sure we'll hear more about tomorrow.
People want it now, now, now, but upgrades likely come with points hikes, strat changes, and other restrictions too. Rob Peter. Pay Paul. The nice thing is hitting the parts that need hitting so far.
Scouts with 24" range bolters, but Vets with 30" range bolters?
This rollout is so weird. I'm probably going to try and ignore what's going on for a while.
Insectum7 wrote: Scouts with 24" range bolters, but Vets with 30" range bolters?
This rollout is so weird. I'm probably going to try and ignore what's going on for a while.
I mean that seems like the most appropriate designations should they turn out to be correct. Vets might tend to have better weapons.
Insectum7 wrote: Scouts with 24" range bolters, but Vets with 30" range bolters?
This rollout is so weird. I'm probably going to try and ignore what's going on for a while.
I mean that seems like the most appropriate designations should they turn out to be correct. Vets might tend to have better weapons.
Yet another type of Bolter? Yeah, brilliant, that's just what the Space Marine codex needed.
It seems as though there's been an Intercessor leak (link was up on Reddit; can't post links yet). I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but boltguns seem to be going to 30" IF this is a valid leak...(please don't shoot the messenger). Tried to post the image, but it was ridiculously huge...
P.S. The stalker is going to 36" range (again, IF this leak was in fact a verified stat line).
dr_sarcasm wrote: It seems as though there's been an Intercessor leak (link was up on Reddit; can't post links yet). I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but boltguns seem to be going to 30" IF this is a valid leak...(please don't shoot the messenger). Tried to post the image, but it was ridiculously huge...
P.S. The stalker is going to 36" range (again, IF this leak was in fact a verified stat line).
Orodhen wrote: Intercessors already had 30" bolters though?
Ah then, well, nothing to panic about (sorry, it's been 15 years since I last played W40K, still catching up on stat lines, etc.). I was following this thread and someone above me said that the scout squad leak proved the boltgun was remaining at 24". Apologies, seems as though I may have misunderstood the conversation.
dr_sarcasm wrote: It seems as though there's been an Intercessor leak (link was up on Reddit; can't post links yet). I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but boltguns seem to be going to 30" IF this is a valid leak...(please don't shoot the messenger). Tried to post the image, but it was ridiculously huge...
P.S. The stalker is going to 36" range (again, IF this leak was in fact a verified stat line).
...Intercessors don't have Boltguns. The Bolt Rifle has always been 30" and the Stalker has always been 36".
The Newman wrote: ...Intercessors don't have Boltguns. The Bolt Rifle has always been 30" and the Stalker has always been 36".
...back in 2004, we called it a boltgun in my neck of the woods (vs. the smaller side arm i.e. bolt pistol). Again, been a while, I'll go back to lurking.
How convenient of you to leave out 4" movement and halved advance rolls.
I can't think of anything in the Marine arsenal that can match that on a per point basis without getting some expensive characters/strats involved,
How about 35 ppm suppressors, 40 ppm inceptors, 45 ppm outrider, 40 ppm eradicators or 35 ppm bladeguard veterans, or pretty much any terminator that can get a stormshield.with your choice of defensive chapter tactics added on top.
and the Blightlords have some solid defensive buffs available too.
No, they don't, and with the sole exception of cloud of flies, vanilla marines have better variants of them available.
Don't forget that for 2CP any loyalist unit that isn't a vehicle or servitor can basically have a toughness equal to the strength of whatever weapon is targeting it. Your aggressors getting shot at by a volcano cannon? 2CP: it's wounding on 4s, instant T16.
How convenient of you to leave out 4" movement and halved advance rolls.
I can't think of anything in the Marine arsenal that can match that on a per point basis without getting some expensive characters/strats involved,
How about 35 ppm suppressors, 40 ppm inceptors, 45 ppm outrider, 40 ppm eradicators or 35 ppm bladeguard veterans, or pretty much any terminator that can get a stormshield.with your choice of defensive chapter tactics added on top.
and the Blightlords have some solid defensive buffs available too.
No, they don't, and with the sole exception of cloud of flies, vanilla marines have better variants of them available.
Don't forget that for 2CP any loyalist unit that isn't a vehicle or servitor can basically have a toughness equal to the strength of whatever weapon is targeting it. Your aggressors getting shot at by a volcano cannon? 2CP: it's wounding on 4s, instant T16.
Aand this is why I hate OP strats. They make no goddam sense and the CP costs feel erratic.
The Newman wrote: ...Intercessors don't have Boltguns. The Bolt Rifle has always been 30" and the Stalker has always been 36".
...back in 2004, we called it a boltgun in my neck of the woods (vs. the smaller side arm i.e. bolt pistol). Again, been a while, I'll go back to lurking.
#New40K is a whole Smorgåsbord of Bolter weapons, You got bolt pistols, heavy bolt pistols, bolters, angelus boltguns, bolt carbines, bolt rifles, heavy bolt rifles, heavy bolters, hurricane bolters... and more. Its quite exhausting. Funniest thing is, according to the lore, most of these weapons don't have a shared ammo caliber. I can imagine being a logistics supervisor in the Imperial armouries would be quite a PITA.
Speaking of the scout leak, this leads me to assume GW's stance on increasing W according to armour instead of Transhuman physiology. This doesn't bode well for the other factions.
The new confirmed HB statline is cool though, and makes Heavy Bolters quite decent light vehicle / battlesuit killers
Insectum7 wrote: Scouts with 24" range bolters, but Vets with 30" range bolters?
This rollout is so weird. I'm probably going to try and ignore what's going on for a while.
I mean that seems like the most appropriate designations should they turn out to be correct. Vets might tend to have better weapons.
Yet another type of Bolter? Yeah, brilliant, that's just what the Space Marine codex needed.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Command Squad gun is the new statline for the Special Issue Boltgun that Sternguard currently use. That's already 30" range IIRC.
tauist wrote: Speaking of the scout leak, this leads me to assume GW's stance on increasing W according to armour instead of Transhuman physiology. This doesn't bode well for the other factions.
I wouldn't read too much into this. 2W is not the sole factor wether a model is able to compete with Marines.
Necrons don't get 2W, but they have T5 and RP to compensate. I expect other factions to get something of their own.
ERJAK wrote: So my two cents with these changes is that we're going to see a pretty significant reduction in the number of rerolls available to all armies.
The thing is there are 2 main problems they COULD be solving here by improving weapon profiles, if they do it correctly. One is the reroll issue, the other is what I call 'the multimelta problem'.
The reroll issue has been discussed ad nauseum but basically the consensus is that there are too many ways to mitigate bad rolling in the game. If they increase weapon stats while also removing a fair whack of the methods players use to insulate themselves from probability, they can keep the game at roughly the same overall level of lethality (which they seem more or less comfortable with) while also increasing the swingy-ness. That seems to go with GW's general design paradigm of "drama is good", though whether you agree with that philosophy or not is obviously debateable.
The 'Multimelta Problem' is the idea that some weapon profiles/units are so inherently flawed that in their current state they can't be fixed by points changes. This is most commonly seen in terrible weapons like the multimelta. Multimeltas, as they existed before the change, were unusable garbage at 20/25. They were actively detrimental to any model that HAD to bring them over something more reasonable than a lascannon. At 15/20 they would still never see play over a lascannon and wouldn't offer a significant enough benefit to be taken over a standard meltagun for armies like SoB that don't really have the option of running better weapons like plasma. At 10/15 they're now way better than standard meltaguns, but end up in this weird place where they're simultaneously being crammed onto everything in armies that use melta and still not being taken on armies that have better bespoke weaponry (ala eradicators). Basically no matter what points cost they end up at, it never makes sense for the weapon.
At 2 shots, especially with the new melta rule, they can actually balance it by increasing the points to the point where the output makes sense for the cost. My guess would be that it ends up at 25/30 or 30/35.
Now, unfortunately Multimeltas are presumably coming in pretty hot out of the gate at a very generous 20/25, but that's ultimately only going to effect a small number of armies and isn't going to be that big of a deal for anything but Sisters and Guard.
All of this relies on GW actually reducing the number of reroll mechanics and being willing to increase the point costs of the newly buffed weapons until their cost makes sense to their new profiles. So...we'll see how it goes.
I wouldn't gamble too much on this. 5 points up, maybe? Sisters would get railroaded by having super expensive meltas in terms if survivability.
Rerolls don't seem to be changing, either.
The thing that does change (in my experience) is how hard it is to cover your army with a captain/CM and still play the missions.
Daedalus81 wrote: December 2019:
"GW is so stupid to drop points to fix units. They should change rules instead."
Now :
"OMG GW is changing weapons and profiles. That's so stupid!"
That's not the complaint and you know that. They're complaining about amped up killing potential and the fact GW is keeping us in the dark for everything.
I mean they didn't really keep us in the dark. They literally told us a loose guideline for the future of the edition of which I'm sure we'll hear more about tomorrow.
People want it now, now, now, but upgrades likely come with points hikes, strat changes, and other restrictions too. Rob Peter. Pay Paul. The nice thing is hitting the parts that need hitting so far.
Sisters can't get railroaded by changes to multi-meltas, they can only be improved. Either the multi-melta gets changed for the worse, which doesn't matter because no one ever took it anyway, or it gets better and becomes a somewhat viable option.
Only 1 captain per detachment seems like they're reducing the number of rerolls in marines to me.
I'd not be too suprised to see GW slide in some restrictions on HQs over all in cases where things just don't make a lot of sense, like "why are there two captains leading this demi company?" etc. I'd not be too suprised to see other factions hit with this.
IIRC someone did note while back that the play testers said agressors where getting a nerf.
this is eaither a "reduced firepower by half" nerf, a "you can now split fire from your gauntlets" buff or a "you can now split fire but we quadrupled the weapons cost" nerf.
BrianDavion wrote: I'd not be too suprised to see GW slide in some restrictions on HQs over all in cases where things just don't make a lot of sense, like "why are there two captains leading this demi company?" etc. I'd not be too suprised to see other factions hit with this.
Other factions dont have HQs that take out knights for like 150 pts.
Tyel wrote: Has anyone ever seen an army with 3 lieutenants?
First Born Leuitenants can't take storm shields. Wolf Guard Battle leaders however can so it's 50/50 chances I figure that Lts will get stormshields in 9th (or wolfguard battle leaders will lose theirs :( )
if they restricted captains but you could take an unlimited number of Lts, you'd absolutely see multiple Lts, they're a cheap HQ and you can take 2 per detachment HQ slot. put a hard limit on captains and ignore Lts and yeah I could totally see lists built around 6 smash Lts popping up
Captain & Lietenant spam outside of apoc scale games feels totally unfluffy IMO. I much preffer fielding apotecharies and Chaplains, in my mind it fits the backstory of a geneseed-hoarding bunch of warrior monks a lot better. But who I'm trying to kid, its smash captains and Guillimans amirite
My money goes towards Boltstorm Gauntlets counting as one separate weapons each, so the number of shots would stay the same.
Reason: Where would they go to with the Captain in Gravis armour? His Boltstorm Gauntlet has 3 shots.
Would seem very awkward if double the guns would not mean double the shots.
Are there other incidents where "double weapons" have an uneven number of shots?
Bonus: For the Ghost Ark they showed the complete weapon array of one side for which the profile applies, similar to how they only show one fist. We don't expect the Ghost Ark to lose half of it's shots, do we?
"Look at these two big amazing gauntlet-mounted flamers, with their powers combined they become ... a regular flamer!"
Yeah I don't see Aggressors firepower getting cut in half, more likely the sheet just shows the stat for their gauntlet-weapon, but they have two of them.
I can see them loosing the shoot-twice rule, or maybe it getting turned into a stratagem however.
I don't have my SM codex right now, but do Aggressors currently have the same bit as Eradicators where they get double shots but have to target a specific unit?
Kanluwen wrote: I don't have my SM codex right now, but do Aggressors currently have the same bit as Eradicators where they get double shots but have to target a specific unit?
Cause if they do not, I could see that happening.
They can shoot 2 different units. The catch is that they have to stand still. Personally I'd like to keep my aggressors how they are, they were the Allstars of my lists
Does it explicitly state that they can shoot 2 different units or it just doesn't say the same unit?
Goofy as it sounds, I really do think that might how they be going with it. It might tone down the power of Aggressors while still giving them horde clearing capabilities.
The only thing aggressors absolutely need is to have their double-shoot when not moving rule limited so it only works when you really haven't moved. Coming in from strategic reserves, "counting as stationary" and then double-shooting is ridiculous nonsense that never should have made it through testing.
Really the double shoot rule should just go away period or maybe change into a "+1 to hit or reroll the number of shots" or something instead, but the only thing they really need is not to be able to move and shoot twice through stratagems.
I really have to think that even GW has got to be smart enough to just get rid of the custom traits entirely, they were a massive mistake that created all sorts of problems for the game. Just admit they were a failed experiment and move on IMO. The alternative is nerfing the good ones, but at that point nobody would use them anyway, so what's the point?
Of course, I have have been wrong in the past about GW's self-awareness and competence.
yukishiro1 wrote: I really have to think that even GW has got to be smart enough to just get rid of the custom traits entirely, they were a massive mistake that created all sorts of problems for the game. Just admit they were a failed experiment and move on IMO. The alternative is nerfing the good ones, but at that point nobody would use them anyway, so what's the point?
Of course, I have have been wrong in the past about GW's self-awareness and competence.
Please don't advocate this. This is the same thing that happened in 5th with it's wonderful custom guard trades that invited converting your entire army, [Warrior weapons] for example, that got erased the next codex leaving people with suddenly invalid entire armies.
You can balence things without removing the entire customisation concept, you know.
In theory? Sure. In reality? GW can't. There isn't a single example of custom traits from 8th that works and is worth having in the game. The Space Marine and Craftworld Eldar ones are overpowered and super problematic for both factions in terms of how it warps the game; the other custom traits are inferior and don't get used.
It's hard enough for GW to come up with 6+ different sub-faction traits, relics and strat combinations that are balanced with one another, it's clearly far beyond their abilities to do it in with a mix and match style.
The PA traits are a failed experiment. There's not much to it. Talking about 5th is silly because this isn't 5th. If they can come up with a custom traits system that works great...but what we got from PA doesn't work and should be binned as the failure it was.
Jidmah wrote: If you follow that logic through to the end, GW should just squat 40k.
No, not unless you think 40k is not worth playing on balance. In which case...don't play it?
The custom traits aren't worth having on balance. They create more problems than they solve. If you wanted to just squat the overpowered problematic ones and leave a bunch of terrible stuff nobody would use go for it I guess? If that'd really make people happier than just removing it entirely, it doesn't bother me.
Jidmah wrote: If you follow that logic through to the end, GW should just squat 40k.
No, not unless you think 40k is not worth playing on balance. In which case...don't play it?
The custom traits aren't worth having on balance. They create more problems than they solve. If you wanted to just squat the overpowered problematic ones and leave a bunch of terrible stuff nobody would use go for it I guess? If that'd really make people happier than just removing it entirely, it doesn't bother me.
'The Space Marine factions arn't worth having on balence. They create more problems than they solve. If you want to squat the overpowered space marines and just leave a bunch of terrible stuff nobody would use go for it a guess.
If that'd really make people happier than squatting space marines entirely, it doesn't bother me.'
If you'd like to suggest that to GW go ahead, but I somehow doubt they're going to be interested in squatting half their revenue. In other words, Space Marines obviously are worth it to GW on balance. There is no possible argument they aren't.
If you disagree with the point disagree with the point. Please don't waste everyone's time with dumb straw men.
Jidmah wrote: If you follow that logic through to the end, GW should just squat 40k.
No, not unless you think 40k is not worth playing on balance. In which case...don't play it?
The custom traits aren't worth having on balance. They create more problems than they solve. If you wanted to just squat the overpowered problematic ones and leave a bunch of terrible stuff nobody would use go for it I guess? If that'd really make people happier than just removing it entirely, it doesn't bother me.
The iasue is Marines have such a rediculously bloated range that they can abuse custome traits, if you take engine war or the greater good they both have cuatome traits for multiple factions, you know how OP thsoe are no-one really feels they are better than the standout one from the codex, because for all those you lose your subfaction specific strategums etc, another "rule" that marines got to igbore in codex 2.0
Custom traits are even worse for craftworlds than for space marines, EC warps the entire CWE list and makes running anything else non-viable because models are pointed with EC in mind because if they weren't the ~40% increase in DPS it gives to single entity units would make them totally overpowered.
The problem with custom traits is they are either overpowered (CWE/ marines) and everybody uses them except for very specific army types, or underpowered (guard/ DE except for technomancers / GSC) and nobody uses them.
There's not a single example in 8th I'm aware of of GW managing to create a good custom trait system that isn't either overpowered or underpowered relative to the normal choices.
If they want to keep the underpowered versions and make custom traits something you do for fluffy reasons but that are irrelevant competitively that's fine with me. But they really ought to remove the stupid overpowered ones - master crafters, marksmen, always in cover and ignore cover (and the CWE equivalents of those) at a minimum.
The problem with custom traits was not only the balance being all over, but you weren't locked to a particular Parent Chapter. Sure, I could see maybe a couple of Iron Hands successors being Stealthy, but the primary thing is the bionics. That's always been a constant. How it should've worked was that for each Successor, you have to choose the primary first part of the trait (so Iron Hands successors are always stuck with a 6+++ and White Scars always have the Advance/Fall Back and Charge, for example), and then you get a choice of 5-10 secondary ones so to keep everything in check. Even with some Chapters showing tons of deviance, they still shouldn't be THAT far off with fighting style. An Ultramarine Successor that was super aggressive about getting into combat would still retain Fall Back + Shoot, but perhaps they get the exploding 6s in melee or the +1 to Advance/Charge.
Whatever though I'm no designer and people want freedumb.
That would be better, but you'd still end up with people just taking whichever one was better.
And the biggest problem is just that certain ones of them are fundamentally ridiculous and never should have made it into the game. I have no idea how anybody who did the math on master artisans / expert crafters could have thought that was ok to give as a custom trait, much less one that can be comboed with something else too. The only thing I can think of is that nobody actually did the math. Which is itself telling.
Like I said if they want to just remove the good ones and leave the terrible ones that's fine too. I just think it'd be more honest intellectually to admit it was a mistake and go back to the drawing board and find other, better ways to let people customize their armies than a bunch of inferior (because you removed the overpowered ones) custom traits that lock you out of strats and relics (unless you're space marines, and you pay CP in the case of relics).
Not everything in a codex needs to be balanced internally. Some things are just straight fluff. There's a giant player base out there that no gaks about their relic or w/e being crap. If they can model it and have fun with it then there's no harm done. There are some really old relics that are just straight terrible though.
I don't think I've ever met a single player who uses the non-overpowered custom traits for their army for fluff reasons, in my experience people who play for fluff would much rather use the established, more fluffy rules including the relics, strats and characters than give that up in return for some generic bad rules. But if those people do exist and really want their bad custom traits to stay...I have no problem with that, as long as the overpowered ones are removed.
Daedalus81 wrote: Not everything in a codex needs to be balanced internally. Some things are just straight fluff. There's a giant player base out there that no gaks about their relic or w/e being crap. If they can model it and have fun with it then there's no harm done. There are some really old relics that are just straight terrible though.
You'd think that but literally nobody is going to take the rerolling melee hits on Xenos armies as a Custom trait simply because they won't make up the majority of the armies you'll face.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: That would be better, but you'd still end up with people just taking whichever one was better.
Perhaps, but the more limited number would make it easier to balance the Primary Trait and the Secondary Trait that can be chosen. Nobody should really be fethed over because they chose Bolter Fusilades and Whirlwind of Gore and a Salamanders successor for whatever forsaken reason. As long as each Primary trait can be considered fairly equal, the secondary ones won't matter AS MUCH, if that makes sense.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The problem with custom traits was not only the balance being all over, but you weren't locked to a particular Parent Chapter. Sure, I could see maybe a couple of Iron Hands successors being Stealthy, but the primary thing is the bionics. That's always been a constant. How it should've worked was that for each Successor, you have to choose the primary first part of the trait (so Iron Hands successors are always stuck with a 6+++ and White Scars always have the Advance/Fall Back and Charge, for example), and then you get a choice of 5-10 secondary ones so to keep everything in check. Even with some Chapters showing tons of deviance, they still shouldn't be THAT far off with fighting style. An Ultramarine Successor that was super aggressive about getting into combat would still retain Fall Back + Shoot, but perhaps they get the exploding 6s in melee or the +1 to Advance/Charge.
Whatever though I'm no designer and people want freedumb.
I agree with this. I kinda feel that players wanting to make use of chapter supplements probably shouldn't be allowed to wander that far from their parent's Chapter Tactics. On the other hand, if a player decides to forego the supplements, indicating major deviation from parent chapter or unknown chapter, they should be able to freely mix and match Chapter Tactics. I follow that with my space marines being unknown.
I am well versed in the making the fluff fit the rules players who would get up in arms about that sort of thing. Ultimately, I don't know if it really solves that much for the extra complication either. So I am going to continue going without any of the chapter supplements pick the Tactics I think reflect my chapter best and continue to play games that way not getting mad if I don't do so well either. It does make Battlescribe a little odd for me though as it no longer has generic space marines as an option. It's all based on founding chapters now.
If Custom Traits don't appear in the Codex's they'll almost certainly be dead in a couple of years, along with all of PA.
I can understand the idea of making your dudes... your dudes. But from a balancing and general design perspective, I think they are terrible and should be cut out.
As I see it the purpose of chapter tactics is to facilitate different lists. So you have this big SM range, you shouldn't end up with the same 3 models on every table because they are objectively the best. Instead with differing bonuses, warlord traits, stratagems etc, these will be better with IF, these will be better RG, these will be better as WS etc, and so facilitate a different style of play. The aim - if internal balance is vaguely desired - is to move these things into balance.
But GW unfortunately seems to have abandoned that concept to just spam special rules and faux-diffentialisation for no reason. "We need some relics and warlord traits for this chapter uh... uh... just phone it in". I think Harlequins was the most blatant, as there were almost as many different "chapters" as there were units. The idea each could have a meaningfully different style of play was nonsense - and so its largely proved.
I'd much rather GW went *here are 3-9 actual ways to play the faction, and here is a buff to encourage you to play that way, and we've tried to balance them accordingly" than "here's a dozen rules, the internet will decide the best two, everyone will take that. Thanks for playing." Might be an impossible dream, but still.
yukishiro1 wrote: And the biggest problem is just that certain ones of them are fundamentally ridiculous and never should have made it into the game. I have no idea how anybody who did the math on master artisans / expert crafters could have thought that was ok to give as a custom trait, much less one that can be comboed with something else too. The only thing I can think of is that nobody actually did the math. Which is itself telling.
Yeah, master artisans were sooo OP that when the first SM codex hit at the start of 8th, almost no one played Salamanders for three years.
yukishiro1 wrote: And the biggest problem is just that certain ones of them are fundamentally ridiculous and never should have made it into the game. I have no idea how anybody who did the math on master artisans / expert crafters could have thought that was ok to give as a custom trait, much less one that can be comboed with something else too. The only thing I can think of is that nobody actually did the math. Which is itself telling.
Yeah, master artisans were sooo OP that when the first SM codex hit at the start of 8th, almost no one played Salamanders for three years.
yukishiro1 wrote: In theory? Sure. In reality? GW can't. There isn't a single example of custom traits from 8th that works and is worth having in the game. The Space Marine and Craftworld Eldar ones are overpowered and super problematic for both factions in terms of how it warps the game; the other custom traits are inferior and don't get used.
It's hard enough for GW to come up with 6+ different sub-faction traits, relics and strat combinations that are balanced with one another, it's clearly far beyond their abilities to do it in with a mix and match style.
The PA traits are a failed experiment. There's not much to it. Talking about 5th is silly because this isn't 5th. If they can come up with a custom traits system that works great...but what we got from PA doesn't work and should be binned as the failure it was.
some chapter traits where unbalanced, but using that logic why not just get rid of chapter tactics over all? Most of the chapter traits where fluff and entirely about right. There are a few that proably should go by the wayside on that I won't disagree. but the entire system isn't inheriantly broken
yukishiro1 wrote: In theory? Sure. In reality? GW can't. There isn't a single example of custom traits from 8th that works and is worth having in the game. The Space Marine and Craftworld Eldar ones are overpowered and super problematic for both factions in terms of how it warps the game; the other custom traits are inferior and don't get used.
It's hard enough for GW to come up with 6+ different sub-faction traits, relics and strat combinations that are balanced with one another, it's clearly far beyond their abilities to do it in with a mix and match style.
The PA traits are a failed experiment. There's not much to it. Talking about 5th is silly because this isn't 5th. If they can come up with a custom traits system that works great...but what we got from PA doesn't work and should be binned as the failure it was.
some chapter traits where unbalanced, but using that logic why not just get rid of chapter tactics over all? Most of the chapter traits where fluff and entirely about right. There are a few that proably should go by the wayside on that I won't disagree. but the entire system isn't inheriantly broken
God yes, remove that terrible rule bloat that only benefits imperium armies. Please.
yukishiro1 wrote: In theory? Sure. In reality? GW can't. There isn't a single example of custom traits from 8th that works and is worth having in the game. The Space Marine and Craftworld Eldar ones are overpowered and super problematic for both factions in terms of how it warps the game; the other custom traits are inferior and don't get used.
It's hard enough for GW to come up with 6+ different sub-faction traits, relics and strat combinations that are balanced with one another, it's clearly far beyond their abilities to do it in with a mix and match style.
The PA traits are a failed experiment. There's not much to it. Talking about 5th is silly because this isn't 5th. If they can come up with a custom traits system that works great...but what we got from PA doesn't work and should be binned as the failure it was.
some chapter traits where unbalanced, but using that logic why not just get rid of chapter tactics over all? Most of the chapter traits where fluff and entirely about right. There are a few that proably should go by the wayside on that I won't disagree. but the entire system isn't inheriantly broken
God yes, remove that terrible rule bloat that only benefits imperium armies. Please.
yes because eldar tooootaly lacked their own "make a chapter" rules.
yukishiro1 wrote: And the biggest problem is just that certain ones of them are fundamentally ridiculous and never should have made it into the game. I have no idea how anybody who did the math on master artisans / expert crafters could have thought that was ok to give as a custom trait, much less one that can be comboed with something else too. The only thing I can think of is that nobody actually did the math. Which is itself telling.
Yeah, master artisans were sooo OP that when the first SM codex hit at the start of 8th, almost no one played Salamanders for three years.
Oh wait...
Uh lots of people were using master artisans as a custom trait ever since it became available. People didn't play salamanders because why would you when RG/IH/IF were so much stronger at the time and you could just play Master Artisans versions of those instead?
That's the whole point of the problem with MA as a custom trait. It is way too powerful a thing to just hand out to anybody who wants it with any space marine army.
But EC is a bigger problem than master artisans honestly, space marines have so many rerolls anyway and aren't really encouraged to take a bunch of single entity units. It's much worse for what it does to eldar.
BrianDavion wrote: given the salamanders nerf it's a safe bet that MA is going to get nerfed/removed in the new marines codex, if so exp[ect eldar's EC to follow.
Folks said the same thing about Alpha Legion and Alaitoc traits, and we saw where that went. Just because something is happening to one army, doesnt for a moment mean its going to extend to others.
BrianDavion wrote: given the salamanders nerf it's a safe bet that MA is going to get nerfed/removed in the new marines codex, if so exp[ect eldar's EC to follow.
Folks said the same thing about Alpha Legion and Alaitoc traits, and we saw where that went. Just because something is happening to one army, doesnt for a moment mean its going to extend to others.
yukishiro1 wrote:That would be better, but you'd still end up with people just taking whichever one was better.
That's a player problem, not a "here's some cool customisation choices" problem.
By that same logic, if we're ruling out that balance can genuinely be attained, no options should exist in the game whatsoever, because people would just take the best option. Congratulations. You removed all the customising out of 40k.
BrianDavion wrote: given the salamanders nerf it's a safe bet that MA is going to get nerfed/removed in the new marines codex, if so exp[ect eldar's EC to follow.
Folks said the same thing about Alpha Legion and Alaitoc traits, and we saw where that went. Just because something is happening to one army, doesnt for a moment mean its going to extend to others.
That's because they haven't had a new Codex yet.
Ding ding ding!
Marines were the only ones to get a full new book. Alpha Legion was in a book that was literally billed as a "second edition", not a new Codex. It's been in the product info since the preorder went live for C: CSM that it is a "compilation" of Vigilus Ablaze and the CSM book.
Anyways, hopefully custom traits go the route of the AdMech stuff in Engine War. A 'primary' with a selection of 'secondaries' that are part of an archetype.
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't think I've ever met a single player who uses the non-overpowered custom traits for their army for fluff reasons, in my experience people who play for fluff would much rather use the established, more fluffy rules including the relics, strats and characters than give that up in return for some generic bad rules. But if those people do exist and really want their bad custom traits to stay...I have no problem with that, as long as the overpowered ones are removed.
As soon as Blood of the Phoenix came out, my wraith army started using wrath of the dead and hunters of ancient relics as it's traits. Granted, Hunters has actually become a very solid trait with 9th's focus on objectives.
WhiteDog wrote: Anyone saw the datasheet for inceptors ? Apparently they nerfed the plasma version and I'm slightly sad because of that.
Must have missed that.
Do you have a link?
Took some digging, but managed to find the new Inceptor sheet. Its the lack of overcharged plasma on their simplified sheet, just like every other plasma unit. The real "nerf" was their assault bolters not getting D2, but frankly its not a nerf as if they had actually gotten their damage output doubled they would go to instant auto-take status at 40ppm.
Took some digging, but managed to find the new Inceptor sheet. Its the lack of overcharged plasma on their simplified sheet, just like every other plasma unit. The real "nerf" was their assault bolters not getting D2, but frankly its not a nerf as if they had actually gotten their damage output doubled they would go to instant auto-take status at 40ppm.
If that holds true it tells me GW is quite aware of some of the finer details.
Sterling191 wrote: Took some digging, but managed to find the new Inceptor sheet. Its the lack of overcharged plasma on their simplified sheet, just like every other plasma unit. The real "nerf" was their assault bolters not getting D2, but frankly its not a nerf as if they had actually gotten their damage output doubled they would go to instant auto-take status at 40ppm.
How is it not a nerf when squatmarine/sister with HB can now output the same damage at twice the range for far less?
The HB change was stupid, they should raise all weapons using the same ammunition (Inceptor guns, heavy bolt pistols, etc) to D2 or go back to D1, doubling of firepower just created endless issues like devaluing whole swatches of guns at a stroke (the above, plus autocannons, gun that became largely pointless with HB change) and spat at game fluff verisimilitude at the same time...
Sterling191 wrote: Took some digging, but managed to find the new Inceptor sheet. Its the lack of overcharged plasma on their simplified sheet, just like every other plasma unit. The real "nerf" was their assault bolters not getting D2, but frankly its not a nerf as if they had actually gotten their damage output doubled they would go to instant auto-take status at 40ppm.
How is it not a nerf when squatmarine/sister with HB can now output the same damage at twice the range for far less?
The HB change was stupid, they should raise all weapons using the same ammunition (Inceptor guns, heavy bolt pistols, etc) to D2 or go back to D1, doubling of firepower just created endless issues like devaluing whole swatches of guns at a stroke (the above, plus autocannons, gun that became largely pointless with HB change) and spat at game fluff verisimilitude at the same time...
"My unit got nerfed because my other unit got buffed so my FIRST unit isn't as good anymore IN COMPARISON!!!!"
It's not a heavy bolter though, and remember they have 2x of them... Or did I miss heavy bolters going up to 6 shots? This is a chaff clearing unit, just like before. Also, why on earth would you faff around with the plasma versions if the assault bolters were D2 really outside of niche situations?
I've never used inceptors, have they always been 10 movement? I thought they were 12...
endlesswaltz123 wrote: It's not a heavy bolter though, and remember they have 2x of them... Or did I miss heavy bolters going up to 6 shots? This is a chaff clearing unit, just like before. Also, why on earth would you faff around with the plasma versions if the assault bolters were D2 really outside of niche situations?
I've never used inceptors, have they always been 10 movement? I thought they were 12...
endlesswaltz123 wrote: It's not a heavy bolter though, and remember they have 2x of them... Or did I miss heavy bolters going up to 6 shots? This is a chaff clearing unit, just like before. Also, why on earth would you faff around with the plasma versions if the assault bolters were D2 really outside of niche situations?
Precisely. Plinceptors at 50ppm are still absurdly good for 9th. D2 Boltceptors at 40ppm would have made Eradicators look somewhat reasonable.
I sort of have everything already for me army.
why do 
