Dysartes wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Safe to say I can go back to complaining about marine being terrible again.

So Marines are still great? Good to know.

Umbros wrote:
Cawl's reroll bubble is definitely gone

[* Citation required]

Tyel wrote:
The Lancer's just got Squigbuggy problems.

Xeno inexplicably thinks it's the best thing ever?

I hate to break it to you. But thinking inside the box - has never gotten anyone anywhere but where they have already been. Helping people think outside the box is something I am usually going for. I get it amuses you to keep reiterating this idea about squiqq-buggies which at the time - were actually quite good and when combined with max smasha guns - literally just shoot your opponent off the table and make them come to you. I can assure you though - no one went out and bought max squigg buggies when half the internet thinks they are garbage - Pretty sure none of you clowns even own a squig buggy or tried it on the table - so just stop.

The lancer doesn't have the "squiggbuggy" problem. Except maybe the problem where it is overcosted by about 30% - Except the squigg buggy got that point drop...down to 100 points in 8th...ofc...none of you problem even knew that ether - to busy trying to make fun of me.

The Squigbuggy has awful shooting for its points. That is, after its decrease. Before, it was even worse.

 alextroy wrote:
How about we not have a Ravager versus Lancer discussion in the Adeptus Mecahnicus thread?

We are having the lancer vs cognis ballistari discussion. Same firepower - 125 point difference. Now discuss how this is supposed to be a balanced game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
The Squigbuggy has awful shooting for its points. That is, after its decrease. Before, it was even worse.

Str 6 ap-1 d3 damage is a bad profile 36"? Honestly don't even know there custom job...what is it? That is new to me.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
How about we not have a Ravager versus Lancer discussion in the Adeptus Mecahnicus thread?

We are having the lancer vs cognis ballistari discussion. Same firepower - 125 point difference. Now discuss how this is supposed to be a balanced game?

Oh cool, you've got the new points costs from the Ad Mech Codex? Do share, please.

Edit: The Squigbuggy (Boom Squig) gets 2.33 (Heavy Launcher)+.78 (Regular Launcher) hits at that profile, for right about 3 S6 AP-1 Dd3 hits. For 110 points. The rest of its guns are 12" or less.

For 98 points, you can get two Special Weapons Squads with Grenade Launchers, who will get the same number of hits at the same profile. The Squigbuggy is more durable against small arms, but vastly more vulnerable to anti-tank, and here's the thing. Special Weapons Squads are not good.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
How about we not have a Ravager versus Lancer discussion in the Adeptus Mecahnicus thread?

We are having the lancer vs cognis ballistari discussion. Same firepower - 125 point difference. Now discuss how this is supposed to be a balanced game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
The Squigbuggy has awful shooting for its points. That is, after its decrease. Before, it was even worse.

Str 6 ap-1 d3 damage is a bad profile 36"? Honestly don't even know there custom job...what is it? That is new to me.

Last we know a Dark Lance was 15 points and a base Ravager was 95, which gets it to 140. The Dark Lance did not increase in cost with the changes.

The TCLC was +20 over the AC. Now it is only +10 above. It seems likely that Ballistari could go up 10.

The thing is that the Ballistari only has 6 wounds and a 4+/6++. Two of them have a less than 10% chance to kill a Lancer.

Screen to show I did it right ( ignore names, i'm lazy ):


Of course not dead doesn't mean useful, but there's a pretty decent buffer where it will still hit on 3s:


And these things are so soft that small arms are a problem. 10 Bolt Rifles in Tactical can just about kill one. You must take into account how soft they are.

Yeah, they're fething paper thin, and they arent actually quite the same damage - the gladiator has +1 to hit and storm bolters.

But the whole point of this discussion is that the balistarii doesn't seem overpowered - the glancer is just overcosted. Like that's been the whole discussion. A balistarii is not OP compared to - for example - a ravager, or a tank commander, or a PBC, or a land speeder, or a doomstalker, or even a laspred - normal antitank vehicle units that are not massively overcosted that people might actually field in a game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
How about we not have a Ravager versus Lancer discussion in the Adeptus Mecahnicus thread?

We are having the lancer vs cognis ballistari discussion. Same firepower - 125 point difference. Now discuss how this is supposed to be a balanced game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
The Squigbuggy has awful shooting for its points. That is, after its decrease. Before, it was even worse.

Str 6 ap-1 d3 damage is a bad profile 36"? Honestly don't even know there custom job...what is it? That is new to me.

Yeah, man, S6 AP-1 D3 is a fething terrible profile. When was the last time you saw someone fielding Guard/GSC grenade launchers?

It's bad vs marines because D3 is unreliable and AP-1 means they save most of the hits anyway, inefficient vs infantry becuase multidamage, and you can't use it against vehicles because it wounds on 5s.

I mean, a grenade launcher for 5pts is like a one-shot, short-ranged heavy bolter.

So yeah, it's just crap.

I always liked them for the models, but on the table it was just a weaker version of a mortar that needs LoS. If they took away LoS from the grenade launcher I think that would be fun!

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, they're fething paper thin, and they arent actually quite the same damage - the gladiator has +1 to hit and storm bolters.

But the whole point of this discussion is that the balistarii doesn't seem overpowered - the glancer is just overcosted. Like that's been the whole discussion. A balistarii is not OP compared to - for example - a ravager, or a tank commander, or a PBC, or a land speeder, or a doomstalker, or even a laspred - normal antitank vehicle units that are not massively overcosted that people might actually field in a game.

Erm.. Gotta disagree with you on the quad las pred. Unless they pump the points up considerably each ironstrider is likely to come in at less than 1/2 a predator with ~3/4 of the firepower.

So baring a big increase in cost 2 Ironstriders will come in at, or below a quad las predator but offer around 40% more damage.

Yes, each has 4 Str 9 AP -3 shots. But those Ironstriders are doing D3+3 damage each, as opposed to the quad lascannons D6, and that makes a huge difference.

Personally I think the both predators are easily overcosted by 10 if not 20 points.

Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:

 the_scotsman wrote:
never change, xeno. I love it when I'm making the comparison between two units and going 'yeah, it looks like because the advantages between this 140pt unit and this 200pt unit are so small, the 200pt unit should really probably be closer to a 160pt, maybe 170pt unit.." and xeno comes in and goes

A HUNDRED POINTS OVERPRICED!!!!!111!!! MAKE THE GLANCER A ONE HUNDRED POINT TANK, GIVE IT THE SAME FIREPOWER AS A RAVAGER PLUS FREE SITUATIONAL ADVANTAGES FOR A FORTY PERCENT DISCOUNT OR MARINES ARE TRASH FOREVER!!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also, the glad valiant is 50pts more expensive but at least it has enough firepower to kill god. 11.4 wounds to a standard vehicle outside of melta range - its main problem is just that there aren't that many targets big enough to warrant taking it to one-shot them. I don't know how you honestly balance the Valiant, it's either going to be wildly undercosted if you get it down in the range of a unit of 4 eradicators or wildly overcosted if it can never kill something close to its price (as it is now).

I was refering the the repulsors with those points. The Gladiator variants should be more like 60-40 points less. I don't think the Lancer should be 100 points...That would just be silly. I did literally state the points range they should be in. Lancer 150 - Valliant being 50 points more than a lancer should be 200. That would be a decent place for them.

The main problem with the unit is it dies to easy...T8 offers very little protection. They treat t8 like it is T10...A 5++ goes a long way though and they pretty much toss that out for free.

Whoa, whoa, whoa Xeno. I agree the floaty Not-A-Predators and Not-A-Land Raiders are overpriced, but 200 PPM Valiants and 265 PPM Executioners might be a bit much. I'd knock 20 points off of the Gladiators and maybe 50 off of the Executioner, just because of how pitiful they look compared to real Astartes tanks.

the_scotsman wrote:Yeah, they're fething paper thin, and they arent actually quite the same damage - the gladiator has +1 to hit and storm bolters.

But the whole point of this discussion is that the balistarii doesn't seem overpowered - the glancer is just overcosted. Like that's been the whole discussion. A balistarii is not OP compared to - for example - a ravager, or a tank commander, or a PBC, or a land speeder, or a doomstalker, or even a laspred - normal antitank vehicle units that are not massively overcosted that people might actually field in a game.

Yeah, I think they got most vehicles right in their 9th edition updates, they just overpriced the Primaris tanks. They got the fw Astartes tanks mostly right though, except for Martial Legacy.

Why are you comparing the Ironstrider to T8 tanks? Surely the better comparison is something like an armoured sentinel?
Looks like you're paying 15pts extra for another lascannon shot and greater accuracy.
People don't want to pay 50pts for a sentinel. They only did when they could hit on 2s with a lascannon and Hunter killer missile then die. I don't see how ~65pts for the Ironstrider is OP in comparison

Abaddon303 wrote:
Why are you comparing the Ironstrider to T8 tanks? Surely the better comparison is something like an armoured sentinel?
Looks like you're paying 15pts extra for another lascannon shot and greater accuracy.
People don't want to pay 50pts for a sentinel. They only did when they could hit on 2s with a lascannon and Hunter killer missile then die. I don't see how ~65pts for the Ironstrider is OP in comparison

I'm pretty sure ironstriders with the lascannon upgrade are more than 65pts. 75 or 85, I forget whether its a 10 or 20 point upgrade.

And they dont have the defenses of an armored sentinel , they have the defenses of a scout.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Abaddon303 wrote:
Why are you comparing the Ironstrider to T8 tanks? Surely the better comparison is something like an armoured sentinel?
Looks like you're paying 15pts extra for another lascannon shot and greater accuracy.
People don't want to pay 50pts for a sentinel. They only did when they could hit on 2s with a lascannon and Hunter killer missile then die. I don't see how ~65pts for the Ironstrider is OP in comparison

I'm pretty sure ironstriders with the lascannon upgrade are more than 65pts. 75 or 85, I forget whether its a 10 or 20 point upgrade.

And they dont have the defenses of an armored sentinel , they have the defenses of a scout.

Toughness of an armored, but save of a scout, but with the 6++ probably on par with armored. 75 points at present with TCLC.

( Also, I find sentinels to be capable with the stuff from PA, lol, you know I would )

Aren't CWE War Walkers a better comparison? I'd say both options on the Ironstriders are markedly better than a WW. But the Brightlance seems likely to get a similar upgrade, and we'll have to see how the 6 shot Autocannon stacks up to their other guns once they have been revisited.

The regular rifles are very interesting to me and look pretty damn good.

If the Ironstrider is 75pts it's even less OP at 25pts more than a lascannon sentinel. I think I'd rather take 3 sentinels than 2 Ironstriders actually I'd have to do the comparison a little deeper.
I'm really not seeing what the problem is?

 Slowroll wrote:
Aren't CWE War Walkers a better comparison? I'd say both options on the Ironstriders are markedly better than a WW. But the Brightlance seems likely to get a similar upgrade, and we'll have to see how the 6 shot Autocannon stacks up to their other guns once they have been revisited.

The regular rifles are very interesting to me and look pretty damn good.

How they decide to point it and whether it gets Core or not will be very interesting to see.

While the weapon upgrades look very strong, GW does seem to be overcompensating for stats like that in a lot of new datasheets; the RepEx, Doom Scythe and Mephitic Blight Hauler being the most obvious examples of getting solid stat improvements in their weapons which are then massively overpriced and relegate the units to sitting on the shelf.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Eh, it kind of is, though. If the units that were formerly Skitarii lose all their advantages, then combining them is a loss. It would be like Deathwing being no different from any other Terminator squad or Crusader Squads being dropped in favor of Tactical Squads because all these Chapters are now in Codex: Space Marines.

Though, just whining because they are combined is pointless. Complaining that your old units lost their flavor at the same time they were combined with another codex, though, is valid.

Except that a lot of codexs lost that sort of flavor in the ensuing years. It really wasn't because of the codex fusion but because a lot of dex's lost some degree of it in the crossover in that timeline. We're only getting some of it back now in 9th it seems.

Review the 4th Ed Codex: Black Templars and 6th Ed Codex: Space Marines and look at how much the Templars lost in what actually made the transition instead of just being overriden in a blanket fashion. Don't get me wrong a lot of design style changes happened between early 4th Ed and 6th Edition, but Templars were treated like a red-headed step child in the transition.

Having clearly foolishly started this tangent - I think you have to consider that the Ironstrider Lascannon is now confirmed at D3+3.

To my mind 3 BS4+ D6 damage lascannon shots compares rather badly with 4 BS3+ D3+3 damage lascannon shots (the latter is almost 3 times as much damage). But I guess its only a matter of time until all Lascannons are boosted.

Not sure what to think on the rifles. Its a big buff at range - rangers now handily outshoot Intercessors before buffs anyway. Heavy feels weird - but then there are plenty of minuses to hit, so you can potentially just jog and shoot all the same.

I'm just hoping that Ironstriders will get put into a double box going forward.

That pricetag of $55 is the biggest reason why I have more Onagers than I do Ironstriders. Onagers at least came with a dang squad of Skitarii and Techpriest Dominii if you went the Start Collecting route!

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm just hoping that Ironstriders will get put into a double box going forward.

That pricetag of $55 is the biggest reason why I have more Onagers than I do Ironstriders. Onagers at least came with a dang squad of Skitarii and Techpriest Dominii if you went the Start Collecting route!

Yea if Armigers can come two for $75 those should, too.

I wouldn't bet on it.

Could be one in the inevitable combat patrol - but that will probably only help new collectors.

Tyel wrote:
I wouldn't bet on it.

Could be one in the inevitable combat patrol - but that will probably only help new collectors.

Carnifex are only available in the Brood format of two now.

It's not guaranteed, but it is not impossible

I don't know what we'll get for a Combat Patrol if I'm going to be honest. The codex might be reengineering an actual, legitimate split between Skitarii and Cult units in regards to how they function. We could get something along the lines of the Drukhari set which was all Kabal themed or we could get something that mixes everything together.

I can say that if it's a "mix everything together"? It would be hilarious for them to add an Armiger in there. They've shown they are not afraid to do half-sized boxes in there(BA and DA each got half an Intercessor box while BA also had half an Infiltrator box), and an Armiger out of the gate would bring a massive load of "WTF?!" from observers.

Tyel wrote:
I wouldn't bet on it.

Could be one in the inevitable combat patrol - but that will probably only help new collectors.

I suspect the formerly omnipresent Dominus will wander into the combat patrol, just to discourage sales.

 Charistoph wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Eh, it kind of is, though. If the units that were formerly Skitarii lose all their advantages, then combining them is a loss. It would be like Deathwing being no different from any other Terminator squad or Crusader Squads being dropped in favor of Tactical Squads because all these Chapters are now in Codex: Space Marines.

Though, just whining because they are combined is pointless. Complaining that your old units lost their flavor at the same time they were combined with another codex, though, is valid.

Except that a lot of codexs lost that sort of flavor in the ensuing years. It really wasn't because of the codex fusion but because a lot of dex's lost some degree of it in the crossover in that timeline. We're only getting some of it back now in 9th it seems.

Review the 4th Ed Codex: Black Templars and 6th Ed Codex: Space Marines and look at how much the Templars lost in what actually made the transition instead of just being overriden in a blanket fashion. Don't get me wrong a lot of design style changes happened between early 4th Ed and 6th Edition, but Templars were treated like a red-headed step child in the transition.

They really didn't lose anything. Your Sword Brethren are just Vanguard. Get over it.

Voss wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I wouldn't bet on it.

Could be one in the inevitable combat patrol - but that will probably only help new collectors.

I suspect the formerly omnipresent Dominus will wander into the combat patrol, just to discourage sales.

I dunno...I could see the Manipulus showing up. As much as I like the Manipulus, it's another kind of "one and done" character I've found.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Review the 4th Ed Codex: Black Templars and 6th Ed Codex: Space Marines and look at how much the Templars lost in what actually made the transition instead of just being overriden in a blanket fashion. Don't get me wrong a lot of design style changes happened between early 4th Ed and 6th Edition, but Templars were treated like a red-headed step child in the transition.

They really didn't lose anything. Your Sword Brethren are just Vanguard. Get over it.

Learn reading comprehension. Sword Brother squads didn't make the transition. Emperor's Champion did. Helbrecht did. Grimaldus did. Crusader squads didn't really change except getting an optional Sergeant.

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Review the 4th Ed Codex: Black Templars and 6th Ed Codex: Space Marines and look at how much the Templars lost in what actually made the transition instead of just being overriden in a blanket fashion. Don't get me wrong a lot of design style changes happened between early 4th Ed and 6th Edition, but Templars were treated like a red-headed step child in the transition.

They really didn't lose anything. Your Sword Brethren are just Vanguard. Get over it.

Learn reading comprehension. Sword Brother squads didn't make the transition. Emperor's Champion did. Helbrecht did. Grimaldus did. Crusader squads didn't really change except getting an optional Sergeant.

damn thats so tough you have so few units and statlines to use in codex space marines to represent those Sword Brothers.

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Review the 4th Ed Codex: Black Templars and 6th Ed Codex: Space Marines and look at how much the Templars lost in what actually made the transition instead of just being overriden in a blanket fashion. Don't get me wrong a lot of design style changes happened between early 4th Ed and 6th Edition, but Templars were treated like a red-headed step child in the transition.

They really didn't lose anything. Your Sword Brethren are just Vanguard. Get over it.

Learn reading comprehension. Sword Brother squads didn't make the transition. Emperor's Champion did. Helbrecht did. Grimaldus did. Crusader squads didn't really change except getting an optional Sergeant.

Emperors Champs are glorified Chapter/Company Champions and quite frankly could be removed too.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
You do realize the primaris were made a good deal better than first born marines for a awhile before first borns were buffed yes ? You do realize that while primaris tanks may not be amazing they still end up better, mostly, than first born tanks yes ?

Would you care to quantify this statement?

Please use a Gladiator Reaper at 230 points against a TAC Razorback at 125.

You do realize that GW may be aware people all have monoliths who play necrons as they weren't a LoW before yes ?

I fail to see how this is relevant.

You do realize that Baneblades and Knights more so did have a large amount of time they were very good as choices run and Baneblades have been sold for a long time so far yes ?

CK are doing quite well. Baneblades would probably do fine as well right now if people just stopped worrying about the 3CP.

Are they always very good at it ? No but if they don't get the sales they want right off, best bet your bottom dollar they will make them tasty as soon as the next update for that models rules come out, typically. Some units oddly they seem content to not really entice people on with rules, like unless I missed it people weren't too thrilled with the ork buggies.

See...you're just arguing both sides of the coin so that you can't ever "be wrong".

Ork Buggies were decent. It's the community that decided they weren't good ( Squig Buggies mostly excluded ). Ork Buggies got a point drop and people still decided they weren't worth it. Now we see people using tons of buggies. Why? Because people decided to actually try them instead of listening to misguided community opinion.

What is or is not "good" is largely determined by how people view things not by how GW has balanced it. There have been the warping events from marines, Castellans, and Ynnari. You will claim these are as intended. I will claim that the issues surrounding are mistakes rooted in far more complex issues.

First, I did say it was " mostly " the case. I don't see people throwing up tons of first born tanks, I see many more running primaris this or that. Aside from some outliers, which is why I said mostly. The floaty predators I think were pretty well considered to be over costed but I'd still wonder how many people bought one or a few of them just because they were new, I'd imagine they sold enough even being crappy right now. I'd also go so far as to bet they won't stay bad though and those old kits that are over performing them will be drawn down. I'd think that wasn't the case if GW ruled first born could ride in primaris vehicles and vice versa. Oh and a Gladiator is more akin to a predator and not a razorback but nice deflection. Lets also compare a rhino to a leman russ, what a value !

They obviously didn't think many people would rush out to buy an over costed monolith so they really didn't care what rules they gave it. Those that had to have it will and would and others well they already had plenty of old monoliths yet. Yet again, it will come back around and monoliths will be amazing and LoW won't feel so bad, same as they hadn't earlier in 8th.

You obviously don't run, or haven't had a baneblade run against you. They would not be just fine if taken and any actual guard player would back me up on that. The cp cost is just one issue, also it is over costed by a good amount and not nearly as survivable as it would need to be. It is not a good choice. Could you take it and win ? Sure, but you are taking it for flavor and not for victory.


The more complex issues are GW needs to play and understand their own game more or people need to defend their poor work less or a combination of the two. Eventually though you do have to see too many of these things to not take them in isolation. Yeah, they are bad pushing new models with rules but they also are bad at balancing unless they are doing some of these things by choice. We can agree to disagree on it but doesn't mean the trends don't exist and haven't for some time, enough you can almost bet on it, aside from some outliers. ( Like Ogryns being forever bad. )

the_scotsman wrote:damn thats so tough you have so few units and statlines to use in codex space marines to represent those Sword Brothers.

Too bad I wasn't talking about the Sword Brothers. Slayer was. Talk to him about it. I was talking about something losing its flavor.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Emperors Champs are glorified Chapter/Company Champions and quite frankly could be removed too.

But he lost his Oath and lost his slotless nature. Since this was about units losing their flavor in codex consolidation, I would think that something that was as army-affecting as the Champion's Oath and availability/requirement the minute they were put in Codex: Space Marines would fit that categorization quite well.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Safe to say I can go back to complaining about marine being terrible again.

Well it would be a bummer to put all that practice to waste. I was always partial to how Bobby G sucked.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Oh and a Gladiator is more akin to a predator and not a razorback but nice deflection.

I mean they're pretty much the same thing regardless of how you want to classify them.

They obviously didn't think many people would rush out to buy an over costed monolith so they really didn't care what rules they gave it. Those that had to have it will and would and others well they already had plenty of old monoliths yet. Yet again, it will come back around and monoliths will be amazing and LoW won't feel so bad, same as they hadn't earlier in 8th.

+4W, +1Save, +2M, reduced DS from 12" to 9", Portal became 6 autohit S8 AP3 D3 as opposed to D6 MW on a 4+ only when charged, Particle Whip went from 6 S8 AP2 DD3 to D6 S12 AP3 D3 Blast, Guass went to RF3 from H3, and it picked up the option for death rays.

It seems to me that they very much considered the rules for the monolith and that people just don't like the mental barrier of losing traits and paying 3 CP coupled with the difficulty of moving on a more terrain heavy board.

I normally fight an Admech player and am curious to see just how many other changes these herald, honestly I'm kinda shocked at how many of these changes make them much better at shooting.

What I'm most curious about is their melee with the buffs coming for Rustalkers will Infiltrators see similar improvements?
Plus Its odd that the Neutron Laser on the Onegar is kinda weak compared to the other Neutron lasers which just turn into straight up Damage 6 guns if they stand still, found on the Venator and Sicarian Venator.

Am hopeful that they get a lot stronger, particularly at shooting, should be scary to face down Admech guns.

Though I am curious, will the durability of Admech improve? I recall the days when Dunecrawlers could squadron up, and had a genuine benefit to doing it. When I fight Admech they feel more fragile than they should.

Anyone expect any major durability buffs to the Cog Boyz?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Emperors Champs are glorified Chapter/Company Champions and quite frankly could be removed too.

Sanguinary Guard/Deathwing Terminators/Grey Hunters are just glorified Vanguard Veterans/Assault Terminators/Tactical Marines and quite frankly could be removed too.

It's very easy to gloss over the things that other people like and claim that they're basically nothing important and that they could be removed without really changing anything. The fact of the matter is that people like the things that make their armies unique, even if that uniqueness is only slight.

You'd do well not to tell people that they're having fun the wrong way, or that their chosen avenue to playing the game is basically unimportant, which is what you've done here. You're better than that Slayer.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Oh and a Gladiator is more akin to a predator and not a razorback but nice deflection.

I mean they're pretty much the same thing regardless of how you want to classify them.

They obviously didn't think many people would rush out to buy an over costed monolith so they really didn't care what rules they gave it. Those that had to have it will and would and others well they already had plenty of old monoliths yet. Yet again, it will come back around and monoliths will be amazing and LoW won't feel so bad, same as they hadn't earlier in 8th.

+4W, +1Save, +2M, reduced DS from 12" to 9", Portal became 6 autohit S8 AP3 D3 as opposed to D6 MW on a 4+ only when charged, Particle Whip went from 6 S8 AP2 DD3 to D6 S12 AP3 D3 Blast, Guass went to RF3 from H3, and it picked up the option for death rays.

It seems to me that they very much considered the rules for the monolith and that people just don't like the mental barrier of losing traits and paying 3 CP coupled with the difficulty of moving on a more terrain heavy board.

They really aren't the same but sure.

Glad to know those who don't dig the monolith now just have a mental hang up. Them poor necron players out there. They'll be happy to hear that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Emperors Champs are glorified Chapter/Company Champions and quite frankly could be removed too.

Sanguinary Guard/Deathwing Terminators/Grey Hunters are just glorified Vanguard Veterans/Assault Terminators/Tactical Marines and quite frankly could be removed too.

It's very easy to gloss over the things that other people like and claim that they're basically nothing important and that they could be removed without really changing anything. The fact of the matter is that people like the things that make their armies unique, even if that uniqueness is only slight.

You'd do well not to tell people that they're having fun the wrong way, or that their chosen avenue to playing the game is basically unimportant, which is what you've done here. You're better than that Slayer.

UH I'm right though. Different paint job does not a unique army make.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
UH I'm right though. Different paint job does not a unique army make.

You're only right from the perspective of Codex: Space Mares 6th Edition on. In the transition from the 4th Ed Black Templars codex, the Emperor's Champion lost army-wide affecting rules (The Oaths) and the ability to be taken slotless. This previous version made them more than glorified Chapter/Company Champions and one of the ways that Black Templar players could shape their army. As of 6th Edition Codex: Space Marines, they are just another fancy HQ model. These are rules that are more meaning than just having a different paint job as they affect the gameplay.

And that is a significant loss of flavor of the model with the codex consolidation. The whole point of this train of thought.

panzerfront14 wrote:
I normally fight an Admech player and am curious to see just how many other changes these herald, honestly I'm kinda shocked at how many of these changes make them much better at shooting.

As am I. However, a lot of the power of their shooting comes from character interactions and stratagems. What we really need to see is what is Core and which stratagems stay and which get modified or removed. Buffing the weapons is good, but if those units aren't getting easy access to rerolls and +1 to hit it may not mean as much as it seems right now.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
UH I'm right though.

Are you though? Who are you to say what should and should not be an army?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Different paint job does not a unique army make.

Unique paint jobs, background material, miniatures, and rules make any army. Black Templars have all four. They certainly have more than Raven Guard, Imperial Fists, Crimson Fists, Salamanders, White Scars and Iron Hands have today.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
UH I'm right though.

Are you though? Who are you to say what should and should not be an army?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Different paint job does not a unique army make.

Unique paint jobs, background material, miniatures, and rules make any army. Black Templars have all four. They certainly have more than Raven Guard, Imperial Fists, Crimson Fists, Salamanders, White Scars and Iron Hands have today.

To be fair with slayer fan, he's been pretty consistent he doesn't really dig marines having so many different books or chapters so I doubt any argument of how good or bad changes are from consolidation will be agreed upon.

Now on this topic I have disagreed with him a good deal and in reality they haven't even done a good job of consolidation. It still takes a crazy number of books to put out all the marine stuff, all they did do well is make certain choices bland and flavorless while charging everyone more to field their old armies by needing to buy both a codex and a supplement. All the while still maintaining a crazy long release window for all marines.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:


They really aren't the same but sure.

They're both tanks that carry a S6 AP1 D1 gun. You couldn't make a better comparison.

There is little daylight between the Annihilator and the Lancer if that is more appropriate.

Glad to know those who don't dig the monolith now just have a mental hang up. Them poor necron players out there. They'll be happy to hear that.

That isn't quite what I said nor all of it, but ok.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
UH I'm right though.

Are you though? Who are you to say what should and should not be an army?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Different paint job does not a unique army make.

Unique paint jobs, background material, miniatures, and rules make any army. Black Templars have all four. They certainly have more than Raven Guard, Imperial Fists, Crimson Fists, Salamanders, White Scars and Iron Hands have today.

Same argument that leads to Supplements that aren't necessary to begin with. We get it, you don't like change. Consolidation was literally the best thing that could've happened to Black Templars as they got more options than ever, but y'all can still whine that you don't have Vows anymore, which were badly done to begin with LOL

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Same argument that leads to Supplements that aren't necessary to begin with. We get it, you don't like change. Consolidation was literally the best thing that could've happened to Black Templars as they got more options than ever, but y'all can still whine that you don't have Vows anymore, which were badly done to begin with LOL

But the Oaths bring in rules which create the flavor of the army. It is the losing of that flavor at the same time the consolidation happened which started this sub-thread of conversation. Getting access to the Thunderfire Cannon doesn't quite have the same flavor as being able to have every unit Deny the Witch. This gets even more crazy when you consider that the Oaths could have been updated instead of dropped entirely. So the only flavor Black Templars had left were the Crusader Squads, no Librarians, and the fluff of being the "slightly less Angry Marines".

You whine about people whining, but in so doing, you are losing out on the point in the conversation. It is you who needs to get over yourself on people bringing up this point (a point I haven't even seen brought up in years) as you jumped on it as if it was a fresh wound.

I feel like things have gone slightly off topic considering this is an Admech thread. As for the gun change I am thrilled with the changes to the galvanic rifles. My Vanguard were usually the ones doing the footwork anyways with the Ranger sitting back.

Des702 wrote:
I feel like things have gone slightly off topic considering this is an Admech thread. As for the gun change I am thrilled with the changes to the galvanic rifles. My Vanguard were usually the ones doing the footwork anyways with the Ranger sitting back.

Yeah, news threads for upcoming faction updates tend to turn into Festivus Airing Of Grievances threads whenever something comes out that is perceived to be better than a thing some other thing has.

Des702 wrote:
I feel like things have gone slightly off topic considering this is an Admech thread. As for the gun change I am thrilled with the changes to the galvanic rifles. My Vanguard were usually the ones doing the footwork anyways with the Ranger sitting back.

Admech...

Rifles are heavy, lascannons are assault.
Tanks have legs, infantry have tracks.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Admech...

Rifles are heavy, lascannons are assault.
Tanks have legs, infantry have tracks.

And their aesthetic keeps changing wildly.

I'm personally looking forward to the divinci spiral powered robo-cat bikers wielding s2 ap0 dam3 guns that are heavy12 for no reason.

"Smilodgyro Katzikarii equipped with Alvaeic Hypersyronizors"

StarHunter25 wrote:
I'm personally looking forward to the divinci spiral powered robo-cat bikers wielding s2 ap0 dam3 guns that are heavy12 for no reason.

"Smilodgyro Katzikarii equipped with Alvaeic Hypersyronizors"

I can't wait to buy three units of these !!

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

StarHunter25 wrote:
I'm personally looking forward to the divinci spiral powered robo-cat bikers wielding s2 ap0 dam3 guns that are heavy12 for no reason.

"Smilodgyro Katzikarii equipped with Alvaeic Hypersyronizors"

I can't wait to buy three units of these !!

They'll come in squads of 3, but the kit will only contain parts for one. Priced to move at $65!

 waefre_1 wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

StarHunter25 wrote:
I'm personally looking forward to the divinci spiral powered robo-cat bikers wielding s2 ap0 dam3 guns that are heavy12 for no reason.

"Smilodgyro Katzikarii equipped with Alvaeic Hypersyronizors"

I can't wait to buy three units of these !!

They'll come in squads of 3, but the kit will only contain parts for one. Priced to move at $65!

That is awful, GW you stepped over the line, thats why I'm only buying 3 as soon as I can and that is it ! I'm serious.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 waefre_1 wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

StarHunter25 wrote:
I'm personally looking forward to the divinci spiral powered robo-cat bikers wielding s2 ap0 dam3 guns that are heavy12 for no reason.

"Smilodgyro Katzikarii equipped with Alvaeic Hypersyronizors"

I can't wait to buy three units of these !!

They'll come in squads of 3, but the kit will only contain parts for one. Priced to move at $65!

That is awful, GW you stepped over the line, thats why I'm only buying 3 as soon as I can and that is it ! I'm serious.

But Angel, you'll miss out on the special Strat they get if you only buy three! You wouldn't want to make the poor rules writers sad you can't use their neat rule, would you?

 waefre_1 wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 waefre_1 wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

StarHunter25 wrote:
I'm personally looking forward to the divinci spiral powered robo-cat bikers wielding s2 ap0 dam3 guns that are heavy12 for no reason.

"Smilodgyro Katzikarii equipped with Alvaeic Hypersyronizors"

I can't wait to buy three units of these !!

They'll come in squads of 3, but the kit will only contain parts for one. Priced to move at $65!

That is awful, GW you stepped over the line, thats why I'm only buying 3 as soon as I can and that is it ! I'm serious.

But Angel, you'll miss out on the special Strat they get if you only buy three! You wouldn't want to make the poor rules writers sad you can't use their neat rule, would you?

Alright well I'll get the amount needed for the special rules if, and this is a big if, they place them in a 90 page, $60 campaign book with about one page of useful rules ! If they don't do that, I'll just cross my arms and wait a week, then buy more of them but I'll never forgive GW for letting me down until the next pre order, mark my words.

Don't forget that you can only play them if you buy their super special book, with loads of interesting pictures, art, and a hard cardboard back, for only 95.00 USD. Unfortunatly, only 600 were made so first come first serve. FOMO.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Oh and a Gladiator is more akin to a predator and not a razorback but nice deflection.

I mean they're pretty much the same thing regardless of how you want to classify them.

They obviously didn't think many people would rush out to buy an over costed monolith so they really didn't care what rules they gave it. Those that had to have it will and would and others well they already had plenty of old monoliths yet. Yet again, it will come back around and monoliths will be amazing and LoW won't feel so bad, same as they hadn't earlier in 8th.

+4W, +1Save, +2M, reduced DS from 12" to 9", Portal became 6 autohit S8 AP3 D3 as opposed to D6 MW on a 4+ only when charged, Particle Whip went from 6 S8 AP2 DD3 to D6 S12 AP3 D3 Blast, Guass went to RF3 from H3, and it picked up the option for death rays.

It seems to me that they very much considered the rules for the monolith and that people just don't like the mental barrier of losing traits and paying 3 CP coupled with the difficulty of moving on a more terrain heavy board.

They really aren't the same but sure.

Glad to know those who don't dig the monolith now just have a mental hang up. Them poor necron players out there. They'll be happy to hear that.

It friggen sucks they are a LOW. The real issue is the Stupid Aux detachment not getting army traits. If they just changed that you'd see a lot more monos. I only have 2 so I have run in a SK+2 mono super heavy detachment and they do pretty friggen well.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It friggen sucks they are a LOW. The real issue is the Stupid Aux detachment not getting army traits. If they just changed that you'd see a lot more monos. I only have 2 so I have run in a SK+2 mono super heavy detachment and they do pretty friggen well.

I wrote up a list with a monolith and I'm going to try and play it this weekend on TTS ( if the wife lets me ).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It friggen sucks they are a LOW. The real issue is the Stupid Aux detachment not getting army traits. If they just changed that you'd see a lot more monos. I only have 2 so I have run in a SK+2 mono super heavy detachment and they do pretty friggen well.

I wrote up a list with a monolith and I'm going to try and play it this weekend on TTS ( if the wife lets me ).

'honey can i borrow the monolith?'

'Craig you know I'm using it. The lawn wont aerate itself.'

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It friggen sucks they are a LOW. The real issue is the Stupid Aux detachment not getting army traits. If they just changed that you'd see a lot more monos. I only have 2 so I have run in a SK+2 mono super heavy detachment and they do pretty friggen well.

I wrote up a list with a monolith and I'm going to try and play it this weekend on TTS ( if the wife lets me ).

Details, details! What's the plan? Great to see someone else trotting out their "completely uncompetitive" LoWs.

I was trotting out completely useless LoW units before it was cool. - so says the the hipster of unloved units that is me -


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Oh and a Gladiator is more akin to a predator and not a razorback but nice deflection.

I mean they're pretty much the same thing regardless of how you want to classify them.

They obviously didn't think many people would rush out to buy an over costed monolith so they really didn't care what rules they gave it. Those that had to have it will and would and others well they already had plenty of old monoliths yet. Yet again, it will come back around and monoliths will be amazing and LoW won't feel so bad, same as they hadn't earlier in 8th.

+4W, +1Save, +2M, reduced DS from 12" to 9", Portal became 6 autohit S8 AP3 D3 as opposed to D6 MW on a 4+ only when charged, Particle Whip went from 6 S8 AP2 DD3 to D6 S12 AP3 D3 Blast, Guass went to RF3 from H3, and it picked up the option for death rays.

It seems to me that they very much considered the rules for the monolith and that people just don't like the mental barrier of losing traits and paying 3 CP coupled with the difficulty of moving on a more terrain heavy board.

They really aren't the same but sure.

Glad to know those who don't dig the monolith now just have a mental hang up. Them poor necron players out there. They'll be happy to hear that.

It friggen sucks they are a LOW. The real issue is the Stupid Aux detachment not getting army traits. If they just changed that you'd see a lot more monos. I only have 2 so I have run in a SK+2 mono super heavy detachment and they do pretty friggen well.

On this I'll agree with you, the LoW needing its own detachment is dumb. It's equally dumb when standard units get placed into LoW for no apparent reason, rules buffs aside. GW needs to figure out if it wants people to run LoW or not honestly. Then either make the units good for what all hassle it is to bring them or just say " Hey, they are for fun but we don't think you should bring them. " It's a lot of money for most of those units to spend for a subpar unit if that is the case, not even accounting for the point cost for some of them which is intense while still costing you CP and leaving them without army traits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Don't forget that you can only play them if you buy their super special book, with loads of interesting pictures, art, and a hard cardboard back, for only 95.00 USD. Unfortunatly, only 600 were made so first come first serve. FOMO.

I think it's closer to 130 USD and Only 300 are made so I'll need to buy 2 just to be sure in case one gets destroyed !

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
...On this I'll agree with you, the LoW needing its own detachment is dumb. It's equally dumb when standard units get placed into LoW for no apparent reason, rules buffs aside. GW needs to figure out if it wants people to run LoW or not honestly. Then either make the units good for what all hassle it is to bring them or just say " Hey, they are for fun but we don't think you should bring them. " It's a lot of money for most of those units to spend for a subpar unit if that is the case, not even accounting for the point cost for some of them which is intense while still costing you CP and leaving them without army traits...

It reads to me like a catastrophically misinformed balance decision, like they're thinking to themselves "Lords of War are really good, they should require a handicap to use!" instead of taking a realistic look at what Lords of War actually are and do. It reads to me a lot like the D&D 3.5 design team picking around allowing arcane casters with armor and writing really terrible armored caster classes with huge handicaps as a result.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It friggen sucks they are a LOW. The real issue is the Stupid Aux detachment not getting army traits. If they just changed that you'd see a lot more monos. I only have 2 so I have run in a SK+2 mono super heavy detachment and they do pretty friggen well.

I wrote up a list with a monolith and I'm going to try and play it this weekend on TTS ( if the wife lets me ).

'honey can i borrow the monolith?'

'Craig you know I'm using it. The lawn wont aerate itself.'

That's what tyranids are for.

[Kinda not kidding, we're due a couple billion cicadas next month.]

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
...On this I'll agree with you, the LoW needing its own detachment is dumb. It's equally dumb when standard units get placed into LoW for no apparent reason, rules buffs aside. GW needs to figure out if it wants people to run LoW or not honestly. Then either make the units good for what all hassle it is to bring them or just say " Hey, they are for fun but we don't think you should bring them. " It's a lot of money for most of those units to spend for a subpar unit if that is the case, not even accounting for the point cost for some of them which is intense while still costing you CP and leaving them without army traits...

It reads to me like a catastrophically misinformed balance decision, like they're thinking to themselves "Lords of War are really good, they should require a handicap to use!" instead of taking a realistic look at what Lords of War actually are and do. It reads to me a lot like the D&D 3.5 design team picking around allowing arcane casters with armor and writing really terrible armored caster classes with huge handicaps as a result.

I'd say it's a case of them thinking of one particular group of LoWs (you know, the ones with an entire codex full of strategems, warlord traits, etc), writing rules to handicap anyone taking one of those, and hitting all of the other LoWs without that kind of support as collateral damage.

The solution is simple: if the LoW is from the same faction as your warlord you get the 3CP tax back and it gets the same faction trait as your warlord. Done.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
...On this I'll agree with you, the LoW needing its own detachment is dumb. It's equally dumb when standard units get placed into LoW for no apparent reason, rules buffs aside. GW needs to figure out if it wants people to run LoW or not honestly. Then either make the units good for what all hassle it is to bring them or just say " Hey, they are for fun but we don't think you should bring them. " It's a lot of money for most of those units to spend for a subpar unit if that is the case, not even accounting for the point cost for some of them which is intense while still costing you CP and leaving them without army traits...

It reads to me like a catastrophically misinformed balance decision, like they're thinking to themselves "Lords of War are really good, they should require a handicap to use!" instead of taking a realistic look at what Lords of War actually are and do. It reads to me a lot like the D&D 3.5 design team picking around allowing arcane casters with armor and writing really terrible armored caster classes with huge handicaps as a result.

I don't know it almost feels like they got afraid of their own classification for them.." WOW Lords of war !! That sounds gakking powerful ! We better be sure people can stop them ! Quick, lets make them cost a bunch and use their own organizations, yeah ! and and and..they'll cost you CP to field them, heck yeah, because they are Lords of WAR !! Oh and if they had abilities like the rest of the army that would be broken, so no way Jose ! Jobs looking good, lets go to print lads, drinks on me ! " ( Based on a true story )


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
...On this I'll agree with you, the LoW needing its own detachment is dumb. It's equally dumb when standard units get placed into LoW for no apparent reason, rules buffs aside. GW needs to figure out if it wants people to run LoW or not honestly. Then either make the units good for what all hassle it is to bring them or just say " Hey, they are for fun but we don't think you should bring them. " It's a lot of money for most of those units to spend for a subpar unit if that is the case, not even accounting for the point cost for some of them which is intense while still costing you CP and leaving them without army traits...

It reads to me like a catastrophically misinformed balance decision, like they're thinking to themselves "Lords of War are really good, they should require a handicap to use!" instead of taking a realistic look at what Lords of War actually are and do. It reads to me a lot like the D&D 3.5 design team picking around allowing arcane casters with armor and writing really terrible armored caster classes with huge handicaps as a result.

I'd say it's a case of them thinking of one particular group of LoWs (you know, the ones with an entire codex full of strategems, warlord traits, etc), writing rules to handicap anyone taking one of those, and hitting all of the other LoWs without that kind of support as collateral damage.

The solution is simple: if the LoW is from the same faction as your warlord you get the 3CP tax back and it gets the same faction trait as your warlord. Done.

If that is the case they needed to not be so lazy and actually do that from the beginning. If knight armies are a problem with how they are set up and taken as defacto imperial really really big men maybe they should have noticed that by now and realized not all lords of war are created equal. How hard would that have been ? I mean GW loves their huge model kits, we know they do, they only keep Super sizing up each new kit they can why not at least make the old big fatties useful. Otherwise they are ageist, sizeist, sleeboks and they should be booed with all the force we have in us.

 the_scotsman wrote:


'honey can i borrow the monolith?'

'Craig you know I'm using it. The lawn wont aerate itself.'

Sound about right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Details, details! What's the plan? Great to see someone else trotting out their "completely uncompetitive" LoWs.

Mephrit, SH Aux -3CP
Monolith, 4x Death Ray

Mephrit, Patrol 0CP
CCB, WL, Gauss, Orb, Void Reaper, Enduring
Warden, Conduit ( -1CP ), Pride ( -1CP )
18 Warriors
Reanimator
Spyder, Fabricator

Mephrit, Patrol -2CP
Lord, Weave ( -1CP ), Tyrant ( -1CP ), Scythe
Psychomancher
Technomancer, Ablator
6 Immortals
5 Lychguard, Sword & Board, Reserves ( -1CP )
Transcendant, Cosmic Tyrant, Meteor, Arrow
3 Tomb Blades, Beamers
Ghost Ark

WWSWF, Linebreaker, Repair Teleport Homer

Starting CP : 4

- Monolith, Spyder, and Lychguard work in tandem. The Spyder literally just hides behind it and repairs most of the time. When someone gets too close the Lychguard are coming out of the Monolith to tie them up while it walks away ( if it needs to ).
- Immortals, Ark, Blades, and Lord are a team. They work on Linebreaker and Homer.
- C'tan offers another distraction and does as much hurt as possible.
- The rest basically puts up as durable a block of Warriors that I can manage - fight last from the PM, cover save and rez from the techno, Reanimator boosting rolls, Warden ignoring attrition and providing free fallback, and orb at the ready.

I played Custodes last night. I made a ton of mistakes, because the TTS interface is massively updated since last I played. I basically didn't spend my CP fast enough. Forget I was Mephrit until turn 4. Forgot about my protocols almost entirely. I also wasn't strict on rules ( it was late ) - charged with Lord from behind containers where he wasn't visible, but let him O/W anyway ( and he died ). Came out with a 60 to 83 loss, but I'm certain I could have done far better with some more practice to keep everything top of mind.

Monolith was admirable. Took punishment and died ( he had tons of Destructors and tons of rerolls ). Took a few models with it. I should have put the C'tan more forward ( he thought it was untargetable for a bit -- I corrected him ) to take shots.

Ark and pals were unfettered as they ran up the side to do secondaries and take the back field objective. WWSWF might seem like a terrible idea, but I want them focused on those units so much that the ark isn't even a passing thought.

Lots to learn and fix. Definitely not dropping the list and I'll try and give it another go tomorrow. Maybe I'll record it so you can watch me in all my bungling glory.

Sounds solid Daed. Hope you do better next time. Remember those rules! Expect the Monolith to die, because a unit like that will always have a huge bullseye on it. The trick is making sure it makes a difference before it does.

Yeah the low restrictions are just el classic gw over balancing. The problematic lows are the ones that they made sure could still play with full cp (knights) and all the oyhers got massive punishment.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah the low restrictions are just el classic gw over balancing. The problematic lows are the ones that they made sure could still play with full cp (knights) and all the oyhers got massive punishment.

Which is honestly fascinating because most BESIDES Knights are just trash, with most of the complaints coming from people that don't care about rules but about scale.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah the low restrictions are just el classic gw over balancing. The problematic lows are the ones that they made sure could still play with full cp (knights) and all the oyhers got massive punishment.

I'm not really convinced that LoW users should have their cake and eat it, too.

I would wager that knights won't get a CP refund with soup.

Multiple LoW, plentiful CP, flexible list construction - pick two.

Many common LoW don't have their codex redone. Orks will be the chance to see if they can make a stompa useful without being overbearing.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
...I'm not really convinced that LoW users should have their cake and eat it, too...

I'm bringing a Fellblade. What cake do I get to have or eat?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah the low restrictions are just el classic gw over balancing. The problematic lows are the ones that they made sure could still play with full cp (knights) and all the oyhers got massive punishment.

I'm not really convinced that LoW users should have their cake and eat it, too.

I would wager that knights won't get a CP refund with soup.

Multiple LoW, plentiful CP, flexible list construction - pick two.

Many common LoW don't have their codex redone. Orks will be the chance to see if they can make a stompa useful without being overbearing.

Which is the problem. Taking one LoW from your own faction eats 3CP (for some of us 4CP). Without faction traits for the LoW. Under the current rules there's no such choice.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah the low restrictions are just el classic gw over balancing. The problematic lows are the ones that they made sure could still play with full cp (knights) and all the oyhers got massive punishment.

I'm not really convinced that LoW users should have their cake and eat it, too.

Why do you care if someone brings a Typhon? It's an expensive unit and only has a 2D6 blast weapon. What's game breaking here?

Taking a LoW is actually like not getting your cake, and not getting to eat it. Because LoWs mostly suck to begin with, and then on top of that, they're made to suck even more.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah the low restrictions are just el classic gw over balancing. The problematic lows are the ones that they made sure could still play with full cp (knights) and all the oyhers got massive punishment.

I'm not really convinced that LoW users should have their cake and eat it, too.

I would wager that knights won't get a CP refund with soup.

Multiple LoW, plentiful CP, flexible list construction - pick two.

Many common LoW don't have their codex redone. Orks will be the chance to see if they can make a stompa useful without being overbearing.

What I don't understand is why not just do the absolute obvious and put a soft restriction on LOWs in game size by building them in to detachments.

-If you have a Battalion with your warlord in it, you may take a Superheavy Auxiliary with the same subfaction for free (no traits etc)
-Add a LOW slot to a Brigade.

^now superheavies can actually appear in game sizes where they're warranted (2k etc) but limit them in 1k. right now, they're absolutely useless in 2k+ as well.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Why do you care if someone brings a Typhon? It's an expensive unit and only has a 2D6 blast weapon. What's game breaking here?

Nothing, really. I'm not attempting to make an absolute. Not all LoWs are created equal. The Typhon is a lot of points for a whole lotta nothin'.

But on the other end of it you can't make it remarkably easy to drag LoWs in, because some won't be so lacklustre. So, 4CP for a Typhon is absurd. 3CP for a Monolith? Perhaps less absurd.

I don't really have a universal solution though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_scotsman wrote:
What I don't understand is why not just do the absolute obvious and put a soft restriction on LOWs in game size by building them in to detachments.

-If you have a Battalion with your warlord in it, you may take a Superheavy Auxiliary with the same subfaction for free (no traits etc)
-Add a LOW slot to a Brigade.

^now superheavies can actually appear in game sizes where they're warranted (2k etc) but limit them in 1k. right now, they're absolutely useless in 2k+ as well.

Those do seem fine on the surface - though the second one might be a little friendly to some armies than others. I just can't envision that changing any time soon so my perspective is entirely focused on the present. That said I don't want to promote people going out to buy LoWs. I have money ready to burn a hole in my pocket for a Monolith, but I need to put in another 10 or 15 games before I'd be comfortable thinking it has a solid place.

I remember back when the Lord of War slot was introduced, most made sense, like Baneblades and Knights.

But then Chapter Masters were put in that slot... WTF? The Daemon Primarchs and Guilliman, I understand, but Logan Grimnar, even if he does come with a sleigh?

Then the classic tank of Necrons was put in there...

I think some of the placement was just used as a way to justify the slot's existence, and little else.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
...I'm not really convinced that LoW users should have their cake and eat it, too...

I'm bringing a Fellblade. What cake do I get to have or eat?

Sorry - I shouldn't use such firm wording, because the situation is certainly more nuanced.

Though the Fellblade is a bit scary even without T9. Perhaps a wee bit expensive as well, but it can bring a Monolith to it's knees even if it doesn't go first ( which is part of the LoW cost problem ).

The Monolith shouldn't be a LoW.

It's not the Necron Baneblade or Knight. It's the Necron Land Raider.

Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Why do you care if someone brings a Typhon? It's an expensive unit and only has a 2D6 blast weapon. What's game breaking here?

Nothing, really. I'm not attempting to make an absolute. Not all LoWs are created equal. The Typhon is a lot of points for a whole lotta nothin'.

But on the other end of it you can't make it remarkably easy to drag LoWs in, because some won't be so lacklustre. So, 4CP for a Typhon is absurd. 3CP for a Monolith? Perhaps less absurd.

I don't really have a universal solution though.

3CP for a Monolith is absolutely absurd. As H.B.M.C says, it's a Necron Land Raider. Tougher, and with a bit more firepower, but it pays for both in points. And that's the question: Can LoWs be balanced in points? Or do they need the additional CP tax, which isn't an equal price depending on faction. CP is far more important for some than others.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
...I'm not really convinced that LoW users should have their cake and eat it, too...

I'm bringing a Fellblade. What cake do I get to have or eat?

Sorry - I shouldn't use such firm wording, because the situation is certainly more nuanced.

Though the Fellblade is a bit scary even without T9. Perhaps a wee bit expensive as well, but it can bring a Monolith to it's knees even if it doesn't go first ( which is part of the LoW cost problem ).

Oh, a Fellblade is quite scary without T9, mostly because gw gave it access to a stratagem that makes up for that loss. And it can wreck a Monolith in a single round of shooting (If it gets both AE shells through. Not always easy), but is a 600 PPM unit wrecking a 380 PPM unit (if you're springing for the Death Rays) wrong? That's a 63% ROI, is that too good? Especially considering it's not going to do that against every target?

12 Heavy Melta-Rifle Eradicators will do the same thing more reliably for the same amount of points, and you're always telling everyone that we're overreacting to those. We can do the math if you want. Each unit has its own advantages and disadvantages. Each has counters. If Heavy Melta-Rifle Eradicators are fine, and you and others keep telling us that they are, then I don't see how a 600 PPM Fellblade without the 3CP tax from the SHAD and the 1CP tax from Martial Legacy is a problem.

12 HMRs will have a way harder time all getting in range - especially without penalty.

The landraider comparison is useful. Four lascannons, THB, and MM is 310. A death ray monolith is 380.

Compare four lascannons to four death rays. Compare MM to Particle Whip. According to Unit Crunch ( assuming I did it right ) a LR has a less than 0.5% chance to kill a Monolith ( slightly higher in Heavy ) whereas the Monolith has a 12% chance.

Consider that the Monolith has +8W, 6 auto-hit melee attacks at AP3 D3 compared to 6 WS6 S8 attacks on the LR, it can deepstrike, it can bring models in more easily than the Landraider, and it heals.

Surely all of this is worth more than 70 points, isn't it? That's why it is LoW and 3CP.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
12 HMRs will have a way harder time all getting in range - especially without penalty.

The landraider comparison is useful. Four lascannons, THB, and MM is 310. A death ray monolith is 380.

Compare four lascannons to four death rays. Compare MM to Particle Whip. According to Unit Crunch ( assuming I did it right ) a LR has a less than 0.5% chance to kill a Monolith ( slightly higher in Heavy ) whereas the Monolith has a 12% chance.

Consider that the Monolith has +8W, 6 auto-hit melee attacks at AP3 D3 compared to 6 WS6 S8 attacks on the LR, it can deepstrike, it can bring models in more easily than the Landraider, and it heals.

Surely all of this is worth more than 70 points, isn't it? That's why it is LoW and 3CP.

I was factoring in the penalty for moving for the Eradicators. 24 shots, 12 hits, 6 wounds, Monolith saves 1, 5.5 average damage per unsaved wound = 27.5 damage. Dead Monolith. They can also move through breachable terrain and through smaller gaps, a Fellblade is a huge model, it has to go around terrain. And it needs to get within 24 to use its Demolisher Cannon. And it won't kill the Monolith on average, remember, we're giving the AE shells an auto-pass. Put both units in your Unit Crunch, it won't work for me (won't let me add AP).

Gw is NOT factoring the 3CP tax into LoW prices. Otherwise Knights would cost more in non mono-knights armies. Hell, look at the Custodes Ares. LoW durability and firepower, LoW price in points, but no CP tax, because they bizarrely stuck it into the FLYER FOC slot.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
12 HMRs will have a way harder time all getting in range - especially without penalty.

The landraider comparison is useful. Four lascannons, THB, and MM is 310. A death ray monolith is 380.

Compare four lascannons to four death rays. Compare MM to Particle Whip. According to Unit Crunch ( assuming I did it right ) a LR has a less than 0.5% chance to kill a Monolith ( slightly higher in Heavy ) whereas the Monolith has a 12% chance.

Consider that the Monolith has +8W, 6 auto-hit melee attacks at AP3 D3 compared to 6 WS6 S8 attacks on the LR, it can deepstrike, it can bring models in more easily than the Landraider, and it heals.

Surely all of this is worth more than 70 points, isn't it? That's why it is LoW and 3CP.

This assumes a Land Raider is well-pointed. Mileage may vary on that.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:


Gw is NOT factoring the 3CP tax into LoW prices. Otherwise Knights would cost more in non mono-knights armies. Hell, look at the Custodes Ares. LoW durability and firepower, LoW price in points, but no CP tax, because they bizarrely stuck it into the FLYER FOC slot.

Knights and to an extent Custodes are different beasts. They're also in old books.

I will wager you'll see mono Knights pick up a restriction.

Custodes would have a really hard time making a functional list around more than one Ares. You also have to consider it will never participate in scoring.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
This assumes a Land Raider is well-pointed. Mileage may vary on that.

That's a fair point, but then consider their average damage is pretty close ( 8ish to 9ish ) and just the durability it extended on the Monolith. The Landraider can trade into more conditional durability for a CP, which more than doubles its survival rate in that scenario.

One problem with LRs is that they should have some sort of assault ramp strat or ability to make their transport for useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

I was factoring in the penalty for moving for the Eradicators. 24 shots, 12 hits, 6 wounds, Monolith saves 1, 5.5 average damage per unsaved wound = 27.5 damage. Dead Monolith. They can also move through breachable terrain and through smaller gaps, a Fellblade is a huge model, it has to go around terrain. And it needs to get within 24 to use its Demolisher Cannon. And it won't kill the Monolith on average, remember, we're giving the AE shells an auto-pass. Put both units in your Unit Crunch, it won't work for me (won't let me add AP).

To circle back on this -- if I saw that list I'd probably deepstrike it or deploy it on the edge. If this dude is just barely in after deploying on the line and moving 5" lots of his buddies won't be. Not to mention deploying like that with units of that size is asking for trouble. Optimally you could get four to six in range. The Fellblade is unfortunately way bigger and harder to stash and move around so I feel that pain.

At 24 wounds the Monolth is a LoW. There is no arguing that point.

I could see it being brought back to an heavy support, but not with those stats.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:


Gw is NOT factoring the 3CP tax into LoW prices. Otherwise Knights would cost more in non mono-knights armies. Hell, look at the Custodes Ares. LoW durability and firepower, LoW price in points, but no CP tax, because they bizarrely stuck it into the FLYER FOC slot.

Knights and to an extent Custodes are different beasts. They're also in old books.

I will wager you'll see mono Knights pick up a restriction.

Custodes would have a really hard time making a functional list around more than one Ares. You also have to consider it will never participate in scoring.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
This assumes a Land Raider is well-pointed. Mileage may vary on that.

That's a fair point, but then consider their average damage is pretty close ( 8ish to 9ish ) and just the durability it extended on the Monolith. The Landraider can trade into more conditional durability for a CP, which more than doubles its survival rate in that scenario.

One problem with LRs is that they should have some sort of assault ramp strat or ability to make their transport for useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

I was factoring in the penalty for moving for the Eradicators. 24 shots, 12 hits, 6 wounds, Monolith saves 1, 5.5 average damage per unsaved wound = 27.5 damage. Dead Monolith. They can also move through breachable terrain and through smaller gaps, a Fellblade is a huge model, it has to go around terrain. And it needs to get within 24 to use its Demolisher Cannon. And it won't kill the Monolith on average, remember, we're giving the AE shells an auto-pass. Put both units in your Unit Crunch, it won't work for me (won't let me add AP).

To circle back on this -- if I saw that list I'd probably deepstrike it or deploy it on the edge. If this dude is just barely in after deploying on the line and moving 5" lots of his buddies won't be. Not to mention deploying like that with units of that size is asking for trouble. Optimally you could get four to six in range.

Yes, Knights will probably pick up a restriction, but a single Knight will probably still be the same price in a non-knight army. Could you make a functional list with more than one Fellblade or Scorpion?

As far as comparing s Monolith to a Land Raider, I think an Achilles compared to a Monolith with Gauss is a better example. Both are exactly the same price (in points, not CP). The Monolith is about 33% more durable, but the Achilles far outstrips it in firepower. Monolith against T8 3+: 5.665 average damage outside of 15, 7.443 within. Achilles against T8 3+: 12 outside of 12, 17.334 within. If we're talking Land Raiders, let's talk about the good one.

Yes, that's a good plan. Now let me ask you this: with that board layout, how are you getting a Fellblade around all of that terrain? It's about 8 1/2 × 6 1/2. You'll have a hard time getting into Demolisher Cannon range turn 1 (which means it's a good board setup).

Spoletta wrote:
At 24 wounds the Monolth is a LoW. There is no arguing that point.

I could see it being brought back to an heavy support, but not with those stats.

Only if you believe 24 wounds are enough for vehicles with the weapon stats we have now.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yes, Knights will probably pick up a restriction, but a single Knight will probably still be the same price in a non-knight army. Could you make a functional list with more than one Fellblade or Scorpion?

No certainly not, but that doesn't necessarily mean there shouldn't be an additional cost to those models.

As far as comparing s Monolith to a Land Raider, I think an Achilles compared to a Monolith with Gauss is a better example. Both are exactly the same price (in points, not CP). The Monolith is about 33% more durable, but the Achilles far outstrips it in firepower. Monolith against T8 3+: 5.665 average damage outside of 15, 7.443 within. Achilles against T8 3+: 12 outside of 12, 17.334 within. If we're talking Land Raiders, let's talk about the good one.

Well, you've stepped into FW territory. It comes with 1CP tax, trades down on transport, and picks up a fairly inconsequential invuln. At that point you have to start considering the deepstrike, transport capability, melee presence, and the free fallback more heavily.

Yes, that's a good plan. Now let me ask you this: with that board layout, how are you getting a Fellblade around all of that terrain? It's about 8 1/2 × 6 1/2. You'll have a hard time getting into Demolisher Cannon range turn 1 (which means it's a good board setup).

Well, I just threw that on without consideration to DZ. I think that map would actually be corners. A good terrain and DZ layout will heavily impact viability ( which is why consistency is nice ).

 Daedalus81 wrote:
No certainly not, but that doesn't necessarily mean there shouldn't be an additional cost to those models.

But why just these units? And is the additional price too high? Or too low?

Well, you've stepped into FW territory. It comes with 1CP tax, trades down on transport, and picks up a fairly inconsequential invuln. At that point you have to start considering the deepstrike, transport capability, melee presence, and the free fallback more heavily.

Well we're already talking about Fellblades and Typhons, and fw is our only current source for LOWs with 9th edition rules, so I think it's relevant. Land Raider Achilles don't have Martial Legacy, so no 1CP tax. The invul isn't inconsequential considering all of the AP-4 currently floating around, especially when we're comparing durability vs melta weapons.

Well, I just threw that on without consideration to DZ. I think that map would actually be corners. A good terrain and DZ layout will heavily impact viability ( which is why consistency is nice ).

The point is that neither the Fellblade nor Eradicators are going to get all of their guns in range turn 1, which is good. But if they do the Eradicators have a far higher chance of killing the Monolith in one shot. Again, each has its advantages and disadvantages. The Fellblade has more movement and loses effectiveness slower, the Eradicators can move more freely and benefit more from cover. But only one pays a 4CP tax.

Edit: As further proof that gw doesn't consider CP taxes in the price of units consider Contemptors: A Relic or Chaos Contemptor with multi-melta and cc weapon is exactly the same price as a codex Contemptor +1CP, with no additional rules.

You know GW has messed something up when it comes to LoWs when even I think they've gone too far in penalizing them.

The 3CP for the aux LoW detachment should obviously be refunded if you have a warlord in a pat/bat/brigade of the same faction, similar to how supreme commander works, but in reverse.

There probably shouldn't be any refunds anywhere (or no costs anywhere). WL or not. Single Battalion or not. Certainly not for Supreme Command, Dark Angel Vanguard, Drukhari Patrols, whatever.

The entire idea of building it from a starting budget goes out of the window if there're quickly again more exceptions than armies that actually have to stick with the rules.

Meh, if you want to rewrite the rules of the game go for it, but that isn't the game GW has created. GW seems enamored of this system that has ridiculous base costs for detachments and then gets around it by offering you refunds. Is that the best system? Probably not. But within that system, a refund for the aux LoW is a no-brainer.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Well we're already talking about Fellblades and Typhons, and fw is our only current source for LOWs with 9th edition rules, so I think it's relevant. Land Raider Achilles don't have Martial Legacy, so no 1CP tax.

Ah, so it doesn't. What a jerk!

The point is that neither the Fellblade nor Eradicators are going to get all of their guns in range turn 1, which is good. But if they do the Eradicators have a far higher chance of killing the Monolith in one shot. Again, each has its advantages and disadvantages. The Fellblade has more movement and loses effectiveness slower, the Eradicators can move more freely and benefit more from cover. But only one pays a 4CP tax.

You'd likely find yourself spending more CP on those eradicators than you might imagine - transhuman, reserves, +1 save.

Edit: As further proof that gw doesn't consider CP taxes in the price of units consider Contemptors: A Relic or Chaos Contemptor with multi-melta and cc weapon is exactly the same price as a codex Contemptor +1CP, with no additional rules.

Just feels like a flexibility thing though. Loyalist contemptor is bare bones on weapon options.

Don't forget the eradicators can get all the CORE buffs while the Fellblade gets bugger all.

Plus they can be resurrected by an Apothecary.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ah, so it doesn't. What a jerk!

Which goes directly against the lore for the Chaos version. But they obviously weren't worried about the Lore for the Legions when they copy paste....er, I mean "wrote" the rules for the Chaos fw vehicles.....

You'd likely find yourself spending more CP on those eradicators than you might imagine - transhuman, reserves, +1 save.

Same for the Fellblade. You're going to be popping Smokescreen every turn and loyalists will be using POTMS once it gets bracketed to keep all of those guns firing at peak efficiency. Prey On the Weak works pretty good too.

Just feels like a flexibility thing though. Loyalist contemptor is bare bones on weapon options.

Are you aware of any other units that pay CP so that they can then pay points for optional wargear?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Are you aware of any other units that pay CP so that they can then pay points for optional wargear?

Not off the top of my head. I'm just peeing into the wind, so don't take what I say with too much gravity.

The Chaos versions don't even get Legion traits, do they? Meaning you pay 1CP for something objectively worse.

yukishiro1 wrote:You know GW has messed something up when it comes to LoWs when even I think they've gone too far in penalizing them.

The 3CP for the aux LoW detachment should obviously be refunded if you have a warlord in a pat/bat/brigade of the same faction, similar to how supreme commander works, but in reverse.

Never thought we'd be in agreement on this particular subject.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Are you aware of any other units that pay CP so that they can then pay points for optional wargear?

Not off the top of my head. I'm just peeing into the wind, so don't take what I say with too much gravity.

Oh, don't worry Daed, I'm not. Figured you were doing a bit of "Devils Advocate".



Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The Chaos versions don't even get Legion traits, do they? Meaning you pay 1CP for something objectively worse.

No, they don't. I'm betting the new CSM codex will give Legion traits to all "Heretic Astartes" units, but that doesn't help much now. They forgot to include the MACHINE SPIRIT keyword on the appropriate units as well. Doesn't really affect the Undivided Legions and 1KSONS right now because they don't have the appropriate strategem, but Death Guard does, and right now it works on standard Land Raiders, and that's it.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah the low restrictions are just el classic gw over balancing. The problematic lows are the ones that they made sure could still play with full cp (knights) and all the oyhers got massive punishment.

I'm not really convinced that LoW users should have their cake and eat it, too.

I would wager that knights won't get a CP refund with soup.

Multiple LoW, plentiful CP, flexible list construction - pick two.

Many common LoW don't have their codex redone. Orks will be the chance to see if they can make a stompa useful without being overbearing.

Which is the problem. Taking one LoW from your own faction eats 3CP (for some of us 4CP). Without faction traits for the LoW. Under the current rules there's no such choice.

Which is exactly what many did, take one for say feeling or I don't know because it looks cool and could do something. Most still weren't great for their cost nor as survivable as its points in similar units being one target over many.

However, it's not looking great many will be able to take their LoW without it costing them lots, in cp and points for no real gain in the end. That isn't a good design choice maybe they shouldn't be take always choices but they shouldn't feel like take never choices.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
12 HMRs will have a way harder time all getting in range - especially without penalty.

The landraider comparison is useful. Four lascannons, THB, and MM is 310. A death ray monolith is 380.

Compare four lascannons to four death rays. Compare MM to Particle Whip. According to Unit Crunch ( assuming I did it right ) a LR has a less than 0.5% chance to kill a Monolith ( slightly higher in Heavy ) whereas the Monolith has a 12% chance.

Consider that the Monolith has +8W, 6 auto-hit melee attacks at AP3 D3 compared to 6 WS6 S8 attacks on the LR, it can deepstrike, it can bring models in more easily than the Landraider, and it heals.

Surely all of this is worth more than 70 points, isn't it? That's why it is LoW and 3CP.

You are correct on this IMO. From a purely points comparison - it is a bargain. But all units of this size suffer from hyperinflation of anti tank weapons. Weapons that deal mortals / weapons that average 6 damage - AP-4 weapons even are quite common. So even as a bargain - it is still a huge risk to take one. Aux LOW need to get army traits if it is the same type as your warlord or if it is your warlord and dropped to 2 points in CP. 3x supper detachment needs to go to 3 CP - fixed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't forget the eradicators can get all the CORE buffs while the Fellblade gets bugger all.

Plus they can be resurrected by an Apothecary.

Aye - core is probably the worst rule they have come out with. ESP with it being arbitrarily assigned with no clear link to point cost ether. Very poorly done.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't forget the eradicators can get all the CORE buffs while the Fellblade gets bugger all.

Plus they can be resurrected by an Apothecary.

Fellblade can be repaired, smoke, and operate at full wounds through machine spirit now....well not the Chaos one, yet.

Rerolls and Apoths are fine, but you're talking no small amount of points and a battalion's worth of HQ slots on top of constraining where those Eradicators can go.

I think a really key part of playing a super heavy is having enough units to force them to reveal their deployments before the SH gets placed. e.g. Someone with a bunch of attack bikes then has to commit to spreading then out instead of grouping them. Depends on the map and deployment type, too though.

Similar to radioactive decay, it would appear that all threads must eventually end up discussing the Fellblade.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't forget the eradicators can get all the CORE buffs while the Fellblade gets bugger all.

Plus they can be resurrected by an Apothecary.

Fellblade can be repaired, smoke, and operate at full wounds through machine spirit now....well not the Chaos one, yet.

Rerolls and Apoths are fine, but you're talking no small amount of points and a battalion's worth of HQ slots on top of constraining where those Eradicators can go.

I think a really key part of playing a super heavy is having enough units to force them to reveal their deployments before the SH gets placed. e.g. Someone with a bunch of attack bikes then has to commit to spreading then out instead of grouping them. Depends on the map and deployment type, too though.

A Fellblade is 600 points base. It gets, at BS 3+ (4+ at 13- wounds)...

1d6 S10 AP-3 Dd6 shots, Blast
One of 2 S14 AP-4 D6 shots, or 2d6 S8 AP-3 D2 shots, Blast
8 S9 AP-3 Dd6 shots or 6 S10 AP-4 Dd3+3 shots for +10 Points
6 S5 AP-1 D2 shots

It can also take a Multi-Melta for +25 points, for 2 S8 AP-4 Dd6 (d6+2 in half range) shots.

Eradicators (squad of 3) are 135 Points.
+5 Points per Heavy Melta Rifle, +10 for a Multi-Melta.

I'll assume that the Eradicators go ham, and pay for the upgrades-155 for 3 Eradicators, two Heavy Rifles and one Multi. Compare that to a 625 points Fellblade with added Multi Melta.

Assuming the Eradicators move, each squad does...

4 shots with Heavy Rifles and Multi-Meltas
2 hits
1 wound against T8
1 failed save (3+) or 5/6ths a failed save (2+ or 6++) per gun type for 1d6+2 on one and 1d6 on the other

Point for point, Eradicators kill a Fellblade in one volley, no buffs.

The Fellblade, meanwhile, does...

A Fellblade kills about half the 12 Eradicators in one volley, assuming they have no Apothecary and are not benefiting from cover.

Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
12 HMRs will have a way harder time all getting in range - especially without penalty.

The landraider comparison is useful. Four lascannons, THB, and MM is 310. A death ray monolith is 380.

Compare four lascannons to four death rays. Compare MM to Particle Whip. According to Unit Crunch ( assuming I did it right ) a LR has a less than 0.5% chance to kill a Monolith ( slightly higher in Heavy ) whereas the Monolith has a 12% chance.

Consider that the Monolith has +8W, 6 auto-hit melee attacks at AP3 D3 compared to 6 WS6 S8 attacks on the LR, it can deepstrike, it can bring models in more easily than the Landraider, and it heals.

Surely all of this is worth more than 70 points, isn't it? That's why it is LoW and 3CP.

You are correct on this IMO. From a purely points comparison - it is a bargain. But all units of this size suffer from hyperinflation of anti tank weapons. Weapons that deal mortals / weapons that average 6 damage - AP-4 weapons even are quite common. So even as a bargain - it is still a huge risk to take one. Aux LOW need to get army traits if it is the same type as your warlord or if it is your warlord and dropped to 2 points in CP. 3x supper detachment needs to go to 3 CP - fixed.

So one LoW will run you 2CP but three will run you 3CP? No. If you're going that route it should be 1CP for a SHAD and 3CP for the SHD.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't forget the eradicators can get all the CORE buffs while the Fellblade gets bugger all.

Plus they can be resurrected by an Apothecary.

Fellblade can be repaired, smoke, and operate at full wounds through machine spirit now....well not the Chaos one, yet.

Rerolls and Apoths are fine, but you're talking no small amount of points and a battalion's worth of HQ slots on top of constraining where those Eradicators can go.

I think a really key part of playing a super heavy is having enough units to force them to reveal their deployments before the SH gets placed. e.g. Someone with a bunch of attack bikes then has to commit to spreading then out instead of grouping them. Depends on the map and deployment type, too though.

Ding! A wound on a Fellblade is worth 23 points. So a Techmarine or Warpsmith on average will get you 46 points worth of wounds per turn, that's an Eradicator worth of points. Master of the Forge will get you 69 points back (really hope Warpsmiths get to be upgraded like that). Plenty of other stuff still works for Chaos Fellblades too. Iron Warriors can really make our vehicles work. We'll see how much of that sticks around in the new CSM codex.

Agreed on deploying a SH as well. You need more armour to make them think about where their going to put their AT. I find that a Leviathan + Contemptor works, or an Achilles.

Edit: @JNAPRODUCTIONS: Instead of spending 25 points on the MM spend the 20 on the Laser Destroyers. You'll kill more Eradicators, or ABs, for that matter. Greater range too.

I don't know if I've ever even seen a Fellblade on the table more than once. I think Falchions came up more often, for whatever reason.

(and by more often I mean like three times total maybe)

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
12 HMRs will have a way harder time all getting in range - especially without penalty.

The landraider comparison is useful. Four lascannons, THB, and MM is 310. A death ray monolith is 380.

Compare four lascannons to four death rays. Compare MM to Particle Whip. According to Unit Crunch ( assuming I did it right ) a LR has a less than 0.5% chance to kill a Monolith ( slightly higher in Heavy ) whereas the Monolith has a 12% chance.

Consider that the Monolith has +8W, 6 auto-hit melee attacks at AP3 D3 compared to 6 WS6 S8 attacks on the LR, it can deepstrike, it can bring models in more easily than the Landraider, and it heals.

Surely all of this is worth more than 70 points, isn't it? That's why it is LoW and 3CP.

You are correct on this IMO. From a purely points comparison - it is a bargain. But all units of this size suffer from hyperinflation of anti tank weapons. Weapons that deal mortals / weapons that average 6 damage - AP-4 weapons even are quite common. So even as a bargain - it is still a huge risk to take one. Aux LOW need to get army traits if it is the same type as your warlord or if it is your warlord and dropped to 2 points in CP. 3x supper detachment needs to go to 3 CP - fixed.

So one LoW will run you 2CP but three will run you 3CP? No. If you're going that route it should be 1CP for a SHAD and 3CP for the SHD.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't forget the eradicators can get all the CORE buffs while the Fellblade gets bugger all.

Plus they can be resurrected by an Apothecary.

Fellblade can be repaired, smoke, and operate at full wounds through machine spirit now....well not the Chaos one, yet.

Rerolls and Apoths are fine, but you're talking no small amount of points and a battalion's worth of HQ slots on top of constraining where those Eradicators can go.

I think a really key part of playing a super heavy is having enough units to force them to reveal their deployments before the SH gets placed. e.g. Someone with a bunch of attack bikes then has to commit to spreading then out instead of grouping them. Depends on the map and deployment type, too though.

Ding! A wound on a Fellblade is worth 23 points. So a Techmarine or Warpsmith on average will get you 46 points worth of wounds per turn, that's an Eradicator worth of points. Master of the Forge will get you 69 points back (really hope Warpsmiths get to be upgraded like that). Plenty of other stuff still works for Chaos Fellblades too. Iron Warriors can really make our vehicles work. We'll see how much of that sticks around in the new CSM codex.

Agreed on deploying a SH as well. You need more armour to make them think about where their going to put their AT. I find that a Leviathan + Contemptor works, or an Achilles.

I figure the detachments worth is about equal to a patrol and a batallion. That is there the pricing comes from in my head. Seems fair.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I don't know if I've ever even seen a Fellblade on the table more than once. I think Falchions came up more often, for whatever reason.

(and by more often I mean like three times total maybe)

Astreus puts them both to shame IMO for the points. The Fellblade is obnoxiously bad on its main gun. The falchion at lest is blowing up 1 thing a turn with it's maingun.

Astreus has void sheilds / an invune / costs less. Its maingun is also very versatile. Got mine build last week. Excited to give it a go and have it be rocked by armies of 9 ironstriders.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
12 HMRs will have a way harder time all getting in range - especially without penalty.

The landraider comparison is useful. Four lascannons, THB, and MM is 310. A death ray monolith is 380.

Compare four lascannons to four death rays. Compare MM to Particle Whip. According to Unit Crunch ( assuming I did it right ) a LR has a less than 0.5% chance to kill a Monolith ( slightly higher in Heavy ) whereas the Monolith has a 12% chance.

Consider that the Monolith has +8W, 6 auto-hit melee attacks at AP3 D3 compared to 6 WS6 S8 attacks on the LR, it can deepstrike, it can bring models in more easily than the Landraider, and it heals.

Surely all of this is worth more than 70 points, isn't it? That's why it is LoW and 3CP.

You are correct on this IMO. From a purely points comparison - it is a bargain. But all units of this size suffer from hyperinflation of anti tank weapons. Weapons that deal mortals / weapons that average 6 damage - AP-4 weapons even are quite common. So even as a bargain - it is still a huge risk to take one. Aux LOW need to get army traits if it is the same type as your warlord or if it is your warlord and dropped to 2 points in CP. 3x supper detachment needs to go to 3 CP - fixed.

So one LoW will run you 2CP but three will run you 3CP? No. If you're going that route it should be 1CP for a SHAD and 3CP for the SHD.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't forget the eradicators can get all the CORE buffs while the Fellblade gets bugger all.

Plus they can be resurrected by an Apothecary.

Fellblade can be repaired, smoke, and operate at full wounds through machine spirit now....well not the Chaos one, yet.

Rerolls and Apoths are fine, but you're talking no small amount of points and a battalion's worth of HQ slots on top of constraining where those Eradicators can go.

I think a really key part of playing a super heavy is having enough units to force them to reveal their deployments before the SH gets placed. e.g. Someone with a bunch of attack bikes then has to commit to spreading then out instead of grouping them. Depends on the map and deployment type, too though.

Ding! A wound on a Fellblade is worth 23 points. So a Techmarine or Warpsmith on average will get you 46 points worth of wounds per turn, that's an Eradicator worth of points. Master of the Forge will get you 69 points back (really hope Warpsmiths get to be upgraded like that). Plenty of other stuff still works for Chaos Fellblades too. Iron Warriors can really make our vehicles work. We'll see how much of that sticks around in the new CSM codex.

Agreed on deploying a SH as well. You need more armour to make them think about where their going to put their AT. I find that a Leviathan + Contemptor works, or an Achilles.

Edit: @JNAPRODUCTIONS: Instead of spending 25 points on the MM spend the 20 on the Laser Destroyers. You'll kill more Eradicators, or ABs, for that matter. Greater range too.

Isn't it only ten for the Laser Destroyers?

But that changes it from 7.41 damage (Quad Las) to exactly 10 damage. Huh, neat how that worked out.

It's an improvement of...

10-7.41-2.22=.37 points of damage, or an entirely negligible amount.

[/spoiler]

Understood, however, getting them all in range is still not simple and terrain can still block shots. More importantly if my opponent had that list the Fellblade would immediately go reserves ( yes, 4CP ) and I would do my best to deny them their effectiveness.

Ultimately you need to really carefully design a list with this model ( including CP regen ) to make it work in this edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Isn't it only ten for the Laser Destroyers?

But that changes it from 7.41 damage (Quad Las) to exactly 10 damage. Huh, neat how that worked out.

It's an improvement of...

10-7.41-2.22=.37 points of damage, or an entirely negligible amount.

Averages are not good here.

6 * .666 * .833 = 3.3 unsaveable wounds guaranteed to kill a model each time
8 * .666 * .666 * .833 = 3.0 wounds that will kill the model 66% of the time

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoiler:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't forget the eradicators can get all the CORE buffs while the Fellblade gets bugger all.

Plus they can be resurrected by an Apothecary.

Fellblade can be repaired, smoke, and operate at full wounds through machine spirit now....well not the Chaos one, yet.

Rerolls and Apoths are fine, but you're talking no small amount of points and a battalion's worth of HQ slots on top of constraining where those Eradicators can go.

I think a really key part of playing a super heavy is having enough units to force them to reveal their deployments before the SH gets placed. e.g. Someone with a bunch of attack bikes then has to commit to spreading then out instead of grouping them. Depends on the map and deployment type, too though.

A Fellblade is 600 points base. It gets, at BS 3+ (4+ at 13- wounds)...

1d6 S10 AP-3 Dd6 shots, Blast
One of 2 S14 AP-4 D6 shots, or 2d6 S8 AP-3 D2 shots, Blast
8 S9 AP-3 Dd6 shots or 6 S10 AP-4 Dd3+3 shots for +10 Points
6 S5 AP-1 D2 shots

It can also take a Multi-Melta for +25 points, for 2 S8 AP-4 Dd6 (d6+2 in half range) shots.

Eradicators (squad of 3) are 135 Points.
+5 Points per Heavy Melta Rifle, +10 for a Multi-Melta.

I'll assume that the Eradicators go ham, and pay for the upgrades-155 for 3 Eradicators, two Heavy Rifles and one Multi. Compare that to a 625 points Fellblade with added Multi Melta.

Assuming the Eradicators move, each squad does...

4 shots with Heavy Rifles and Multi-Meltas
2 hits
1 wound against T8
1 failed save (3+) or 5/6ths a failed save (2+ or 6++) per gun type for 1d6+2 on one and 1d6 on the other

Point for point, Eradicators kill a Fellblade in one volley, no buffs.

The Fellblade, meanwhile, does...

[spoiler]7/2 S10 AP-3 Dd6 shots
14/6 or 7/3 hits
35/18 wounds
175/108 failed saves
875/216 damage, or 4.05 damage from the Demolisher Cannon

7 S8 AP-3 D2 shots
14/3 hits
28/9 wounds
140/54 or 70/27 failed saves
210/54 or 105/27 damage, or 3.89 damage from the main cannon

8 S9 AP-3 Dd6 shots
16/3 hits
32/9 wounds
160/54 or 80/27 failed saves
200/27 damage, or 7.41 damage from the Lascannons

6 S5 AP-1 D2 shots
4 hits
2 wounds
1 failed save
2 damage from the Heavy Bolters

2 shots at S8 AP-4 Dd6
4/3 hits
8/9 wounds
8/9 failed saves
20/9 damage or 2.22 damage from the Multi-Melta

Total damage is, assuming prescient levels of split firing...

19.57, or six dead Eradicators.

A Fellblade kills about half the 12 Eradicators in one volley, assuming they have no Apothecary and are not benefiting from cover.

[/spoiler]

Understood, however, getting them all in range is still not simple and terrain can still block shots. More importantly if my opponent had that list the Fellblade would immediately go reserves ( yes, 4CP ) and I would do my best to deny them their effectiveness.

Ultimately you need to really carefully design a list with this model ( including CP regen ) to make it work in this edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Isn't it only ten for the Laser Destroyers?

But that changes it from 7.41 damage (Quad Las) to exactly 10 damage. Huh, neat how that worked out.

It's an improvement of...

10-7.41-2.22=.37 points of damage, or an entirely negligible amount.

Averages are not good here.

6 * .666 * .833 = 3.3 unsaveable wounds guaranteed to kill a model each time
8 * .666 * .666 * .833 = 3.0 wounds that will kill the model 66% of the time

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Isn't it only ten for the Laser Destroyers?

But that changes it from 7.41 damage (Quad Las) to exactly 10 damage. Huh, neat how that worked out.

It's an improvement of...

10-7.41-2.22=.37 points of damage, or an entirely negligible amount.

Averages are not good here.

6 * .666 * .833 = 3.3 unsaveable wounds guaranteed to kill a model each time
8 * .666 * .666 * .833 = 3.0 wounds that will kill the model 66% of the time

Ding again! Also a guaranteed dead AB per wound. And it's 10 points per gun.

You'll have trouble putting a Fellblade in reserves Daed. Remember, if the unit can't fit within 6 of a board edge it can't do anything on the turn it arrives, and a Fellblade is over 6 from sponson to sponson.

Remind me: why are we discussing Fellblades and Eradicators (and previously Monoliths) in a fething Ad Mech thread?

ryzouken wrote:
Remind me: why are we discussing Fellblades and Eradicators (and previously Monoliths) in a fething Ad Mech thread?

because someone bitched that admech shooting was too good for the price, which morphed into people comparing thier own armies shooting, forgetting that its supposed to be relative to admech.


since its clear the codex has been delayed by logistical issues, its not like we have much better to do, apart form speculate wildly.

xerxeskingofking wrote:

ryzouken wrote:
Remind me: why are we discussing Fellblades and Eradicators (and previously Monoliths) in a fething Ad Mech thread?

because someone bitched that admech shooting was too good for the price, which morphed into people comparing thier own armies shooting, forgetting that its supposed to be relative to admech.


since its clear the codex has been delayed by logistical issues, its not like we have much better to do, apart form speculate wildly.

Realistically - this is how 40k conversation goes. Plus yes. Codex massively delayed - WTF we gonna do anyways?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

You'll have trouble putting a Fellblade in reserves Daed. Remember, if the unit can't fit within 6 of a board edge it can't do anything on the turn it arrives, and a Fellblade is over 6 from sponson to sponson.

Fair - that's a thing I would petition to change or bug the TO about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ryzouken wrote:
Remind me: why are we discussing Fellblades and Eradicators (and previously Monoliths) in a fething Ad Mech thread?

Because we like arguing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:


But here's the thing-Fellblade can't benefit from Obscuring Terrain. Eradicators can.
Fellblade can't be buffed by a Captain and Lieutenant. Eradicators can.
Fellblade was calculated hitting normally. Eradicators already kill it even with a -1.
Fellblade would need prescient split firing to properly kill Eradicators, or anything else besides s superheavy, without wasting some shots to overkill. Eradicators are in four squads, meaning they can split fire more effectively. (Yes, ERADICATORS split fire more effectively.)
Fellblade doesn't get Chapter Tactics. Eradicators do.
Fellblade costs 4 CP just to take it. Eradicators don't.

There is a price point where the Fellblade is a good model, or even competitive. If it was, say, 100 points? You'd see three in every Marine list! That's well worth eating 6 CP and 300 points! But at 600 points per Fellblade, plus a little extra to upgun it... No. It's bad.

Not all terrain will give a 24" gun line of sight through it and the firing angle to the visible part of the model will be a much longer distance.

Would a Fellblade do well with these Admech guns coming on board? I don't know. They could be worse for vehicle than Eradicators. We'll see.

I won't sit here and definitively claim it is a good model, but I still think people have to approach things a little differently. You're not getting traits? Go soup and support it the best way you can. Taking a lot of heat? Bring fast moving melee vehicles.

Are you going to win tournaments? Probably not. Will you have fun? I think so.

xerxeskingofking wrote:

ryzouken wrote:
Remind me: why are we discussing Fellblades and Eradicators (and previously Monoliths) in a fething Ad Mech thread?

because someone bitched that admech shooting was too good for the price, which morphed into people comparing thier own armies shooting, forgetting that its supposed to be relative to admech.


since its clear the codex has been delayed by logistical issues, its not like we have much better to do, apart form speculate wildly.

How about we discuss wild AdMech comparisons here and talk about Fellblades somewhere else?

 alextroy wrote:
How about we discuss wild AdMech comparisons here and talk about Fellblades somewhere else?

i agree with you, but im not the one talking about fellblades.

Realistically - this is how 40k conversation goes. Plus yes. Codex massively delayed - WTF we gonna do anyways?

oh i know, its the same down the pub (now that they are open again), but still threads are supposed to stay on topic more than drunk people.

anyway, since we can be fairly certain that the admech codex has been finalised, what things do we think have been done that they HAVEN'T talked about? My hope is they've re-worked our relics as they are all very warlord centric (In a army that doesnt use warlords as Buffers, not beatsticks), and done something with the Infiltraitors unit to make it semi-viable (currently just bad. crappy low strenght shooting, medicore at best in melee, no charge buffs to actually get them into melee, and their signature trick has been usurped by thier own alternate build option via a PA strat). im not sure how to rescue them with the existing plastic kits, but some good strats and a always on power might be the way.

 alextroy wrote:

xerxeskingofking wrote:

ryzouken wrote:
Remind me: why are we discussing Fellblades and Eradicators (and previously Monoliths) in a fething Ad Mech thread?

because someone bitched that admech shooting was too good for the price, which morphed into people comparing thier own armies shooting, forgetting that its supposed to be relative to admech.


since its clear the codex has been delayed by logistical issues, its not like we have much better to do, apart form speculate wildly.

How about we discuss wild AdMech comparisons here and talk about Fellblades somewhere else?

Excellent. Care to start us off?

I personally don't think any of these are a problem. The galvanic rifles are basically bolt rifles, but heavy instead of rapid fire, and come on less durable platforms. The Arc Rifles come 1 per 3 models, which makes them hard to spam. Am I wrong? Should I run around screaming about the sky falling?

Admech are probably going to experience a ground up approach like DG. So much of it will change, because the book came out so early in 8th.

I could see canticles getting similar treatment to command protocols from the cron dex.

On the subject of arc rifles being good: breachers have heavier versions of them as their basic gun, so you might look at them to spam. Even meshes with the army of renown, I guess.

ryzouken wrote:
I could see canticles getting similar treatment to command protocols from the cron dex.

On the subject of arc rifles being good: breachers have heavier versions of them as their basic gun, so you might look at them to spam. Even meshes with the army of renown, I guess.

Hmmm. Those are HEAVY Arc Rifles. Arc Rifles went from D1 Dd3 against vehicles to Dd3 D3 against vehicles. The Heavy Arc Rifles are currently Dd3 Dd6 against vehicles. Could they possibly go to Dd6 D6 against vehicles?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Admech are probably going to experience a ground up approach like DG. So much of it will change, because the book came out so early in 8th.

After seeing Death Guard and Drukhari, I would expect to see many of the same names with differences in the rules. Don't expect the same 8th Edition Canticles. Expect more unit adjustments for statlines, special rules, and weapon profiles.

And fewer options within squads.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

ryzouken wrote:
I could see canticles getting similar treatment to command protocols from the cron dex.

On the subject of arc rifles being good: breachers have heavier versions of them as their basic gun, so you might look at them to spam. Even meshes with the army of renown, I guess.

Hmmm. Those are HEAVY Arc Rifles. Arc Rifles went from D1 Dd3 against vehicles to Dd3 D3 against vehicles. The Heavy Arc Rifles are currently Dd3 Dd6 against vehicles. Could they possibly go to Dd6 D6 against vehicles?

flat 6 seems a bit much? d3+3 would probably be my guess.

 Ordana wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

ryzouken wrote:
I could see canticles getting similar treatment to command protocols from the cron dex.

On the subject of arc rifles being good: breachers have heavier versions of them as their basic gun, so you might look at them to spam. Even meshes with the army of renown, I guess.

Hmmm. Those are HEAVY Arc Rifles. Arc Rifles went from D1 Dd3 against vehicles to Dd3 D3 against vehicles. The Heavy Arc Rifles are currently Dd3 Dd6 against vehicles. Could they possibly go to Dd6 D6 against vehicles?

flat 6 seems a bit much? d3+3 would probably be my guess.

Yeah, possibly. If they stay BS4 I don't think that would be too much.

Has there been any more leaks yet? Instruction stats or anything?

Not yet unfortunately.

Shame we got nocked back until May, though I understand.

I don't think anybody really understands, since they didn't tell us. Aside from people with inside info I guess.

They mentioned it’s to do with shipping issues, so I’m just guessing it’s covid problems.

1.Giving skitarii some resilience thats not just a 6++ would be great to symbolize that they are cyborgs.

2. GW also likes giving armies rules that change per turn. This would be great to symbolize the Admech analyzing data. (this mechanic is actually great imo, as that reduces power early in favor to later turns)

3. Infiltrator weapons are mostly fine model and fluff to ruleswise ( not much to do with stubbers and magnetic nailguns), they need a much stronger aura though ( maybe regain the give enemy units -1 to hit and more than 3" range), maybe make it count only for 1 or 2 rounds to keep them cheaper and because it uses a lot of energy.

4. Im sad to see ( on serberys leaked datasheet) that they didnt regain a ld of 9, 8 would have been fine too.)

5. Torsion cannons getting a buff is much needed( although in comparison to the other changes, they didnt give it a defined and fitting role [which imo would have been a short range melta with disruption capabilitys, eg. reduce movement]) Their main problem was that its competing with a better, more consistent arc rifle that gets buffs too AND is cheaper currently.

6. Our Hqs model and lorewise are terrifying, not so much on the tabletop. They arent worth to consider for any opponent. (engineseers are fine, lorewise they arent much, but modelwise he looks more intimidating than he is) He wasnt even part of the admech roster in 7th ( basically just low level priests that are gifted to the AM) and went from elite to the HQ slot in admech in 8th, as they only had one HQ: the dominus at the time, in an edition were HQ spam was favourable.

7. They fixed a lot with so few changes (most importantly giving defined roles and not have 6 of all possible 12 units do the same thing). That leaves the datasmith and servitors, who dont do anything sadly.

8. Many rules which are part of kits got sadly removed, as well as not having machinespirit rules. Grenades on ruststalkers, Dominus doesnt have mechadendrites, Dunecrawler has a servoarm+ drill.

9. Given Skitarii buffs, the elite Secutarii Hoplites and Peltasts hopefully see appropriate buffs as well.

Honorable mention: the Dragoons jezzail that got lifted from joke to trash tier. When giving a light vehicle a D1 2shot sniper as its main weapon is a great idea. Im also wondering about the Transvector, which is mostly a giant flying brick.

Admech HQs suffer from what I like to call "The Necron/GSC/AM HQ Problem" where they're one of the four factions whose lore isn't that theyre the BEST MELEE DUELLISTS EVARRRR NOBODY CAN EVER DEFEAT THEIR MIGHTY CHARACTERS IN A DUELLL but all their characters are mostly still equipped with melee gear so the question is how to make them useful without creating the possibility that at some point some Admech HQ will get into a fight with a marine captain equipped with a dull butterknife and win.

So far, the answer GW seems to have come up with is "welp, you can charge them into basic, no special rules shooting-focused marine units, and they WILL, you have our assurances, deal enough wounds to kill at least one space marine.

Other than that, noooooooooo promises. Anything with CHARACTER in that keyword line, you wanna avoid. Once you get down to a space marine...doctor, then MAYBE, MAYBE in three or four uninterrupted rounds of combat you'll get to kill him. But a space marine third-in-command lieutenant, fugeddaboudit."

 the_scotsman wrote:
Admech HQs suffer from what I like to call "The Necron/GSC/AM HQ Problem" where they're one of the four factions whose lore isn't that theyre the BEST MELEE DUELLISTS EVARRRR NOBODY CAN EVER DEFEAT THEIR MIGHTY CHARACTERS IN A DUELLL but all their characters are mostly still equipped with melee gear so the question is how to make them useful without creating the possibility that at some point some Admech HQ will get into a fight with a marine captain equipped with a dull butterknife and win.

So far, the answer GW seems to have come up with is "welp, you can charge them into basic, no special rules shooting-focused marine units, and they WILL, you have our assurances, deal enough wounds to kill at least one space marine.

Other than that, noooooooooo promises. Anything with CHARACTER in that keyword line, you wanna avoid. Once you get down to a space marine...doctor, then MAYBE, MAYBE in three or four uninterrupted rounds of combat you'll get to kill him. But a space marine third-in-command lieutenant, fugeddaboudit."

The Overlord / CCB is a ball buster with FNP / invuln ignore scythe even with only 4A and no rerolls. He can be built to absolutely crush any marine in a round. I'd like to see GSC keep the assassination angle in glass cannon territory.

I'm hoping the Marshall is really hard to put down or has some other funky tricks. I don't think they need to be murder machines like the succubus, but enough to have an impact if they get there at the right time and right place.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Admech HQs suffer from what I like to call "The Necron/GSC/AM HQ Problem" where they're one of the four factions whose lore isn't that theyre the BEST MELEE DUELLISTS EVARRRR NOBODY CAN EVER DEFEAT THEIR MIGHTY CHARACTERS IN A DUELLL but all their characters are mostly still equipped with melee gear so the question is how to make them useful without creating the possibility that at some point some Admech HQ will get into a fight with a marine captain equipped with a dull butterknife and win.

So far, the answer GW seems to have come up with is "welp, you can charge them into basic, no special rules shooting-focused marine units, and they WILL, you have our assurances, deal enough wounds to kill at least one space marine.

Other than that, noooooooooo promises. Anything with CHARACTER in that keyword line, you wanna avoid. Once you get down to a space marine...doctor, then MAYBE, MAYBE in three or four uninterrupted rounds of combat you'll get to kill him. But a space marine third-in-command lieutenant, fugeddaboudit."

I genuinely have no idea why Necron HQs don't dice up Marines with War scythes or whatever they're packing, the majority of Necrons I have read about in the fluff are more along the lines of they show up and bad things happen. I recall in the Word Bearer's novels the Necron Lord or Overlord simply bisecting Jarulek a Word Bearer's Dank Apostle and his traitorous First Acolyte not even bothering to fight and just ran for it.

But on Admech, I'm surprised that there isn't some sort of hulked out Techpriest who could take on a Carnifex with sheer brute force, or has some serious firepower hiding within those robes, ready to be brought forth. They should have some of the most customizable HQs in game.

A Necron Overlord should with just a War scythe be able on his Space Marine counter part with good odds of winning. Hell Make him cost a little more and I could understand him thematically cutting them to ribbons. If it would create balance issues for Lychguard just attach Royal in front of Warscythe and move on.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Overlord / CCB is a ball buster with FNP / invuln ignore scythe even with only 4A and no rerolls. He can be built to absolutely crush any marine in a round.

Unfortunately it isn't possible to create an Overlord that ignores invuls; only C'tan have that option. The Overlord can take a 3-damage scythe that ignores FNPs. Without further buffs he averages just 1.1 unsaved wounds against a T4 4++ Marine, translating to 3.3 damage. There are a few WTs that push him up to 4-5 wounds.

Twilight Pathways wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Overlord / CCB is a ball buster with FNP / invuln ignore scythe even with only 4A and no rerolls. He can be built to absolutely crush any marine in a round.

Unfortunately it isn't possible to create an Overlord that ignores invuls; only C'tan have that option. The Overlord can take a 3-damage scythe that ignores FNPs. Without further buffs he averages just 1.1 unsaved wounds against a T4 4++ Marine, translating to 3.3 damage. There are a few WTs that push him up to 4-5 wounds.

You're right, sorry. The +2A vs characters has been in consideration, but I tend to lean on -1D. With the former the average is 5, but that means a high chance to pass 6 wounds though, which is enough to kill all but the names characters, iirc.

 Tiberius501 wrote:
They mentioned it’s to do with shipping issues, so I’m just guessing it’s covid problems.

It's most likely not COVID related.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
They mentioned it’s to do with shipping issues, so I’m just guessing it’s covid problems.

It's most likely not COVID related.

Oh my god. ERP...

We work with DXC. Thankfully on a very limited basis.

The article won't load for me. Someone mind giving a TLDR?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The article won't load for me. Someone mind giving a TLDR?

Game Workshop is changing the ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) programs they are using. So, the stock database, the parts control programs, the ordering system etc. They have (like many companies have before, and many will in the future) kept a creaking outdated system (form 2005 ) in use for many years past when they should have changed it because of the problems of migrating to a new system. They've finally decided to swallow that bitter pill and are changing to a new suite that, when its working, will make them work "better", but they need to ride out the bumps and mishaps of the transition period. it was supposed to be finished by christmas, but it appears that its not working properly, and they've had to hire external experts to come in and help sort out the mess.

so, basically their replacing thier software with something younger than the Eldar range, and the new system is having teething troubles that is slowing everything down.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The article won't load for me. Someone mind giving a TLDR?

ERP is basically a big umbrella of software - warehouse management, financial, manufacturing, supply chain, etc. It's what makes everything tick. GW has been working on the project for a long time and they were due to implement last year, but it went south. Now they're changing ( changed ) their contractor and it's a huge mess.

This down time is likely to bring the systems online without the old one running and give it all a thorough test.

As dev of an ERP System for one and a half decades.... Changing your ERP is one of the most expensive, disruptive and scariest things you can do.
Especially if you feth it up, switch over to the new system before it works correctly and you somehow already designed your processes around the new one and cannot easily keep working with the old.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The article won't load for me. Someone mind giving a TLDR?

ERP is basically a big umbrella of software - warehouse management, financial, manufacturing, supply chain, etc. It's what makes everything tick. GW has been working on the project for a long time and they were due to implement last year, but it went south. Now they're changing ( changed ) their contractor and it's a huge mess.

This down time is likely to bring the systems online without the old one running and give it all a thorough test.

I'm aware of what it is but had no clue they were doing anything about changing, well, anything.

 Thairne wrote:
As dev of an ERP System for one and a half decades.... Changing your ERP is one of the most expensive, disruptive and scariest things you can do.
Especially if you feth it up, switch over to the new system before it works correctly and you somehow already designed your processes around the new one and cannot easily keep working with the old.

Ive experienced the horror of a botched ERP change. It is an experience to avoid.

Kataphron box leaks! breachers have a 2+ and destroyers a 3+

https://www.reddit.com/r/AdeptusMechanicus/comments/n7ufy0/kataphron_boxed_rules/

I'm holding my breath. The buffs plus how DE popped out makes me concerned for their debut.

I'm nervously excited. If points don't go up too much and we get some good fluffy and useful rules like all others are getting I think it could be great.

For me it all comes down to the points and what we lose (engine war was amazing for us, anything we lose will be a loss).

Any Admech players want to give us a rundown of what changed and how? Didn't they have a 3+ save before?

Both had their save improved by 1

(some of this if from the community article)
plasma destroyers now only do a mortal wound on a roll of 1. not kill the model.

heavy arc rilfe went to flat 2 damage rather than d3 (likely to wound any vehicle on a 4+)
torion canon doubled range
arc claw went from ap-1 to ap-3
hydrolic claw went from ap-1 to ap-2 and d3 damage to flat 3

Dd3+3 is an improvement for the Torsion Canon too isn't it? Aren't they currently Dd6?

You're right, I missed that one, cheers.

On one hand its nice that breachers didnt get buffs to shooting as they are meant to be resilient and a buff to melee helps them to be frontliners. Didnt expect the ap3 on arc claws though. On the other hand its weird that the heavy version of the arc rifle only gives 6" more range, and more consistency to damage and shots.

Heav arc may do more damage vs vehicles, maybe 2+d3 opposed to the flat 3 of the regular?