Do we have any idea when the combat patrols might come out? I don't think GW dropped any hints, but with what we know is in the pipeline, any good guesses based on that?
With all the delays to GW's release schedule I have completely lost track of what to expect...
Kid_Kyoto wrote: I just want to praise this very impressive bit of snark and sarcasm.
Geifer wrote: Do we have any idea when the combat patrols might come out? I don't think GW dropped any hints, but with what we know is in the pipeline, any good guesses based on that?
Some of them we quite delayed (1KSons and GKs especially). Here's hoping that it's after the Tau Codex, which will be after the AoS releases, which will be long before that Eldar/Chaos box.
Dude, stop trolling, because it's not funny and you're not contributing anything.
I can't help but agree. Even if you disagree, there are less obnoxious ways to make it known.
The drawback to the ignore list is missing incredible moments like this. Entire civilisations could be powered by the levels of irony generated from Wha-Mu accusing someone else of "not contributing anything" to a thread.
I don't see how, despite the opinion of some, contributing healthy skepticism and criticism to a thread can be misconstrued as "not contributying anything". What, is blind optimism and positivity the thing that possibly counts as "meaningful"? Because in that case i'd consider them significantly less impactful, as you're basically regurgitating GW's sales pitch.
Dude, stop trolling, because it's not funny and you're not contributing anything.
I can't help but agree. Even if you disagree, there are less obnoxious ways to make it known.
The drawback to the ignore list is missing incredible moments like this. Entire civilisations could be powered by the levels of irony generated from Wha-Mu accusing someone else of "not contributing anything" to a thread.
I don't see how, despite the opinion of some, contributing healthy skepticism and criticism to a thread can be misconstrued as "not contributying anything". What, is blind optimism and positivity the thing that possibly counts as "meaningful"? Because in that case i'd consider them significantly less impactful, as you're basically regurgitating GW's sales pitch.
Ok so blind scepticism, criticism and downright hatred of GW is fine, yet the deem the polar opposite stance unhealthy. Never mind the fact it's infinitely better for your mental state to be positive than to be constantly downbeat, both for yourself and others. If you want a more concise point - neither of you contributed much of anything, but at least Gert was actually engaging with the topic rather than just offending someone.
Geifer wrote: Do we have any idea when the combat patrols might come out? I don't think GW dropped any hints, but with what we know is in the pipeline, any good guesses based on that?
With all the delays to GW's release schedule I have completely lost track of what to expect...
From the WarCom article:
If all that T’au tech fails to tickle you, don’t worry – over the next few months, more new Combat Patrols are coming to Warhammer 40,000, for Grey Knights, Thousand Sons, Genestealer Cults, and Adeptus Custodes.
So I'm guessing the T’au one will be with their Codex and the rest will follow...
Geifer wrote: Do we have any idea when the combat patrols might come out? I don't think GW dropped any hints, but with what we know is in the pipeline, any good guesses based on that?
Some of them we quite delayed (1KSons and GKs especially). Here's hoping that it's after the Tau Codex, which will be after the AoS releases, which will be long before that Eldar/Chaos box.
Geifer wrote: Do we have any idea when the combat patrols might come out? I don't think GW dropped any hints, but with what we know is in the pipeline, any good guesses based on that?
With all the delays to GW's release schedule I have completely lost track of what to expect...
From the WarCom article:
If all that T’au tech fails to tickle you, don’t worry – over the next few months, more new Combat Patrols are coming to Warhammer 40,000, for Grey Knights, Thousand Sons, Genestealer Cults, and Adeptus Custodes.
So I'm guessing the T’au one will be with their Codex and the rest will follow...
Thanks, guys. I didn't consider that the combat patrols might get released staggered when I read that article.
Geifer wrote: Do we have any idea when the combat patrols might come out? I don't think GW dropped any hints, but with what we know is in the pipeline, any good guesses based on that?
With all the delays to GW's release schedule I have completely lost track of what to expect...
Thanks, guys. I didn't consider that the combat patrols might get released staggered when I read that article.
Didn't figure Tau were that close either.
Something to make a note of is that whenever a faction gets a 2P box alongside of a codex/army book, there tends to be a delay in their "faction starter" release. It happened before Combat Patrols and Vanguards were a thing, and it will likely continue to happen as long as GW sees 2P starters as a viable route. Interesting note is that Eldritch Omens will be given the "Preorder Promise" that we have seen becoming a thing now, meaning anyone who preorders during that weekend is guaranteed a set.
Tau are not getting a 2P box. They'll be getting their new Darkstrider model, possibly the "updated" Pathfinder set with the Kill-Team components, and the new Combat Patrol set alongside of their codex and that's it for them until the next go-around.
Grey Knights and 1k Sons got a 2P box featuring a new plastic Crowe for GK(not in their Combat Patrol box) and the new Sorcerer for 1k Sons(in their box)+Codices. The release of the Combat Patrol boxes should be around February, which is around the 4-5 month window for a solo model release from a 2P box that GW seems to like to do.
Custodes and GSC both just got a 2P box, and their codices were delayed by a month through unrelated issues. So when their Combat Patrols drop later in the year, it should be accompanied by their 2 new characters.
xttz wrote: H.B.M.C.'s criteria can be satisfied by removing 5 sisters from the new Custodes box and it would still be close to doubling that PL/points target above. Of course it would be a worse deal for customers
The target would move to "GW could have at least included, oh, another unit of Sisters of Silence, but they hate the customer"
The codex books have a "how to make an army, here's a sample combat patrol perfect to start a crusade with and is easy to build on" that GW offers as a box with a discount for the consumer. It seems so strange to me that one would take to the internet and use precious time and energy to complain that they sell a product that is advertised in the codex.
Nevelon wrote: Not sure we needed special rules to field a phobos army. Seems like something you could do a not bad job of with just the core codex.
I can see what you're saying and mostly agree, but the hop from the previous codex to the newest one was weird for Phobos stuff. Notably Incursors losing their ability to deploy a Haywire Mine and instead it basically just being a "use it in melee" or whatever the current nonsense is.
Nevelon wrote: Not sure we needed special rules to field a phobos army. Seems like something you could do a not bad job of with just the core codex.
Hey, GW has to fix Reivers without actually fixing Reivers somehow, right?
How many times have they tried and failed? They can do OK in crusade games. PL and some of the level up bonuses help.
Kanluwen wrote:
Nevelon wrote: Not sure we needed special rules to field a phobos army. Seems like something you could do a not bad job of with just the core codex.
I can see what you're saying and mostly agree, but the hop from the previous codex to the newest one was weird for Phobos stuff. Notably Incursors losing their ability to deploy a Haywire Mine and instead it basically just being a "use it in melee" or whatever the current nonsense is.
9th did some odd things to “simplify” things, some a little too much. GW being random with changes is unfortunately nothing new.
Nevelon wrote: Not sure we needed special rules to field a phobos army. Seems like something you could do a not bad job of with just the core codex.
But you wouldn't be doing it with all Phobos for sure.
Neither is this formation, as it also allows supressors, invictors, and impulsors.
Theme lists are almost never going to be top table, but can do fine on the FLGS level. Especially if you are willing to bend a little to include units to round out a TAC list.
While I never personally did a pure phobos list, it is the sort of thing I’d field.
Nevelon wrote: Not sure we needed special rules to field a phobos army. Seems like something you could do a not bad job of with just the core codex.
But you wouldn't be doing it with all Phobos for sure.
Neither is this formation, as it also allows supressors, invictors, and impulsors.
Suppressors are wearing "Omnis" pattern armor, which is mostly Phobos with a few components from Gravis and Tacitus.
Invictor and Impulsor pilots are wearing Phobos gear.
Nevelon wrote: Neither is this formation, as it also allows supressors, invictors, and impulsors.
Suppressors are wearing "Omnis" pattern armor, which is mostly Phobos with a few components from Gravis and Tacitus.
Invictor and Impulsor pilots are wearing Phobos gear.
Did not realize that the Impulsor pilot was phobos. Learn something new every day.
yeah, there's a good range of Phobos units, but nothing that really hits hard. it's an army with a good amount of mobility, but very little in the way of high strength or AP, or even multi damage weapons.
Nevelon wrote: Not sure we needed special rules to field a phobos army. Seems like something you could do a not bad job of with just the core codex.
Same goes for previous ror like ork speed thing or tyranid stampede. Point isn't allowing something that wasn't possible before. Point is to throw enough bonus rules to get people buy more models.
Nevelon wrote: Not sure we needed special rules to field a phobos army. Seems like something you could do a not bad job of with just the core codex.
Same goes for previous ror like ork speed thing or tyranid stampede. Point isn't allowing something that wasn't possible before. Point is to throw enough bonus rules to get people buy more models.
From a practical POV, you are correct. That is why it happens.
IMHO these sorts of special formations should be made to let you play armies that are in the lore, but can’t really be done with the rules available. Idealistic pipe dreams, I know.
Oguhmek wrote: So bi-fortnightly would then either be every week or every month?
Wow, English.
You've got monthly which is once a month, fortnightly or bi-monthly which is twice a month or bi-weekly which is twice a week.
Not to be TOO picky, but with a fortnightly schedule, I'd expect 26 things every year. Bi-monthly would be 24 things every year. Or six, because... English.
Had to bugfix enough wonky hospital clinic computer system calendars over the years.
A summary of recent rumours from B&C. Some have been posted here last week:
New Chapter Approved leaks, here's a couple from two different sources:
- no more subfaction soup (no idea on how it's going to be phrased, though)
- (most?) detachments will be losing slots, excluding battalions and brigades. Namely, patrols seem to be losing one heavy support and one fast attack slot.
On top of the leaked custodes points, here are some leaked ones for SoB:
- Morvenn Vahl +15
- Novitiates +2.5
- Sacresants +2
- Paragon Warsuits -10 (per model)
- Exorcists -10
- Immolators -10
Custodes points leaks
TRAJ: 160
SC ON BIKE: 160
BLADE CHAMP: 120
SC ON FOOT: 105 + 10 FOR A SHIELD
VALERIAN: 130
ALLARUS: 60
GUARDIANS: 45 SHIELDS are +10? (New rule?)
WARDENS: 50
VENATARI: 55
VEXILLA: 105
ALLARUS VEXILLA: 115
BIKERS: 80 +5 MISSILES
PLASTIC DREAD: 155
GUARDIAN WITH ADARASITE: 55
SISTERS NO CHANGES
SAGITTARUM: 50 NO MISCORDIA COST
AQUILON: 70 (10 FOR DESTRUCTOR OR FLAMER)
GALATUS: 170
ACHILLUS: 160 (10 FOR EACH WRIST)
AGAMANTUS: 95
PALLAS: 95
CALADIUS: 205
TELEMON: 260 (+15 FOR STORM)
ORION: 450
ARES: 400(!)
CORONUS: 220
Beastboss on squigasaur +30
Squig buggy +20
Scrapjets +10
Kill rig +20
Meganobs -5
Killa kans -5
Battlewagon and variants -15
Kannonwagon -20
Lootas down to 15
Deffkoptas and Bikes unchanged
Kommandos up to 12
Mek gunz -5 (unless you take the kustom mega kannon)
Ares and Orion both down 50 PPM? Here's hoping that means gw realizes that they've overpriced most big vehicles and we will see similar buffs for similar units.
Orks already been kicked in the teeth enough already.
I believe the correct term is 'gobsmacked'. And I have to respectfully disagree. It doesn't particularly matter what your BS is when a unit is firing off 12d3 Strength-8 Damage-3 shots. Those things are punching WAY above their weight.
Orks already been kicked in the teeth enough already.
I believe the correct term is 'gobsmacked'. And I have to respectfully disagree. It doesn't particularly matter what your BS is when a unit is firing off 12d3 Strength-8 Damage-3 shots. Those things are punching WAY above their weight.
I think that really shows how little you probably know how Orks work, because it's precisely the high volume of fire that makes them actually worth taking since you get enough shots to offset the poor BS (keep in mind we're not space marines or eldar who get reroll options in spades). Not to mention -1 to hit mods are pretty easy to come by nowadays, even if it's just through dense cover, which instantly cuts down the amount of shots coming through significantly. Are deffkoptas good for their points? Yes. Good enough to nerf? I'd argue no, especially in light of a lot of other things that should actually get price cuts not getting them (i.e. Flash Gitz).
Orks already been kicked in the teeth enough already.
I believe the correct term is 'gobsmacked'. And I have to respectfully disagree. It doesn't particularly matter what your BS is when a unit is firing off 12d3 Strength-8 Damage-3 shots. Those things are punching WAY above their weight.
I think that really shows how little you probably know how Orks work, because it's precisely the high volume of fire that makes them actually worth taking since you get enough shots to offset the poor BS (keep in mind we're not space marines or eldar who get reroll options in spades). Not to mention -1 to hit mods are pretty easy to come by nowadays, even if it's just through dense cover, which instantly cuts down the amount of shots coming through significantly. Are deffkoptas good for their points? Yes. Good enough to nerf? I'd argue no, especially in light of a lot of other things that should actually get price cuts not getting them (i.e. Flash Gitz).
Mayhaps I'm a tad biased as I'm mostly playing Chaos Knights these days, but considering Ork armies seem to almost exclusively be fielding lots of buggies and Koptas that fire buckets of missiles...
Koptas are fairly priced; the +20 to Squigbuggies is probably a bridge too far though, given that they've already been nerfed to only being able to take a single unit of them. But I'm not an Ork player, so I'll let someone who knows more about the faction than me tell us if the listed changes will have a major impact on Ork lists overall.
The only thing I don't understand about the ork changes is why they are taking such a big chunk out of the rather healthy goff archetype. It's getting a bigger points nerf than drukhari got when they were at over 70% win rate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ZergSmasher wrote: Koptas are fairly priced; the +20 to Squigbuggies is probably a bridge too far though, given that they've already been nerfed to only being able to take a single unit of them. But I'm not an Ork player, so I'll let someone who knows more about the faction than me tell us if the listed changes will have a major impact on Ork lists overall.
Compared to other ork shooting units, 110 points for long range non-LoS shooting is fine. Not great, but still good enough.
As an ork player I like the changes, considering what I field I now have a handful of spared points to invest. The +30 points on the beastboss was the only hike I disagree with, the model was already fairly priced and not even particularly powerful. But I don't play it so.... whatever. All the other units that went up in points will still see the table pretty often.
Dakkajet could have get a price hike of 15-20 points. Nauts and flash gitz deserved a discount instead.
This battlezone is designed to give you a range of new terrain for your battles on frontier worlds or to add a little bit more militaristic utility to your existing gaming tables. It includes STC Hab-Bunkers, a Landing Pad, Vox-Antenna, Auspex Shrine, plus a selection of stockades, and will soon be available as a complete battlezone and in a variety of smaller kits.
This battlezone is designed to give you a range of new terrain for your battles on frontier worlds or to add a little bit more militaristic utility to your existing gaming tables. It includes STC Hab-Bunkers, a Landing Pad, Vox-Antenna, Auspex Shrine, plus a selection of stockades, and will soon be available as a complete battlezone and in a variety of smaller kits.
I like the look of simple, no nonsense, actually intact terrain. How much we get for price will decide if I get it or not. The ork killteam terrain is really nice. Itll take forever to paint but look good. These I could probably paint in a day.
Problem I run into with GW terrain is if its not in a major bundle its not really worth getting in my experience. If I miss out on the bundle I wont bother. Ive only got 3 boxes of the killteam stuff because people kept selling me them cheap.
While the T’au are rightly infamous for the speed of their progress, the lack of warp travel – and the careful guidance of the Ethereals – often hampers the spread of new ideas to more remote corners of the Empire.
When creating your own Sept Tenet, you must therefore pick two tenets from neighbouring sectors on the map below, representing the limited range of influence your army can draw from.
This in no way means your sept is bereft of choice. Each sector contains four different tenets to choose from, meaning there are a total of almost 100 different combinations on offer.
Little did I ever imagine that Tau would be the army of the flowchart from hell!
Orks already been kicked in the teeth enough already.
I believe the correct term is 'gobsmacked'. And I have to respectfully disagree. It doesn't particularly matter what your BS is when a unit is firing off 12d3 Strength-8 Damage-3 shots. Those things are punching WAY above their weight.
I think that really shows how little you probably know how Orks work, because it's precisely the high volume of fire that makes them actually worth taking since you get enough shots to offset the poor BS (keep in mind we're not space marines or eldar who get reroll options in spades). Not to mention -1 to hit mods are pretty easy to come by nowadays, even if it's just through dense cover, which instantly cuts down the amount of shots coming through significantly. Are deffkoptas good for their points? Yes. Good enough to nerf? I'd argue no, especially in light of a lot of other things that should actually get price cuts not getting them (i.e. Flash Gitz).
Mayhaps I'm a tad biased as I'm mostly playing Chaos Knights these days, but considering Ork armies seem to almost exclusively be fielding lots of buggies and Koptas that fire buckets of missiles...
Considering we know of weapons that will just flat out ignore Invuls soontm, are you really concerned about a 50 pts model that hits twice with a rokkit in the MOST OPTIMAL circumstance against a target that guarantees enough hits due to explosive?
Against single targets that drops down to an average of 1,3 hits with a rokkit? which wounds a knight 50 % of the time Against which you still have invul / armor?
That has nothing to do anymore with bias and more to do with either Superior Luck of the ork player or complete and utter unluckyness of you.
NVM that 6 koptas are 300 pts. At that stage if they wouldn't dent knights or other tanks then i'd assume something is wrong.
Considering we know of weapons that will just flat out ignore Invuls soontm, are you really concerned about a 50 pts model that hits twice with a rokkit in the MOST OPTIMAL circumstance against a target that guarantees enough hits due to explosive?
Against single targets that drops down to an average of 1,3 hits with a rokkit? which wounds a knight 50 % of the time Against which you still have invul / armor?
That has nothing to do anymore with bias and more to do with either Superior Luck of the ork player or complete and utter unluckyness of you.
NVM that 6 koptas are 300 pts. At that stage if they wouldn't dent knights or other tanks then i'd assume something is wrong.
Yes?
2 Str. 8 damage 3 hits on average shouldn't be 50 points, lol, much less on a ramshackle/fly body. Most stuff in that price-range gets a single shot to start with.
You think that tau concept is fiddly? Come on, it's even colour coordinated to make it easy. It's a nice idea, and I may use it occasionally if I'm not impressed with the way FSE plays (hearing they lost a lot of their character, no fusion blades....what!!!)
bullyboy wrote: You think that tau concept is fiddly? Come on, it's even colour coordinated to make it easy. It's a nice idea, and I may use it occasionally if I'm not impressed with the way FSE plays (hearing they lost a lot of their character, no fusion blades....what!!!)
So the one Custodes paying points for Misericordia are Sagittarum. You know, that actually kinda makes sense. Everyone else gets a bonus attack that's less than their normal weapon. Sagittarum get a bonus attack and stat boosts to ALL attacks.
Considering we know of weapons that will just flat out ignore Invuls soontm, are you really concerned about a 50 pts model that hits twice with a rokkit in the MOST OPTIMAL circumstance against a target that guarantees enough hits due to explosive?
Against single targets that drops down to an average of 1,3 hits with a rokkit? which wounds a knight 50 % of the time Against which you still have invul / armor?
That has nothing to do anymore with bias and more to do with either Superior Luck of the ork player or complete and utter unluckyness of you.
NVM that 6 koptas are 300 pts. At that stage if they wouldn't dent knights or other tanks then i'd assume something is wrong.
Yes?
2 Str. 8 damage 3 hits on average shouldn't be 50 points, lol, much less on a ramshackle/fly body. Most stuff in that price-range gets a single shot to start with.
They should definitely be 100 points easily.
LOL you don't get two hits against knights since well, single target which means you roll 2d3 for the shots you get which averages 4 which means 1.333 hits.
Then you need to wound, which you do 50% against big knights and 66% against amirigers.
Then the knight player has a 5+SV / invul and chaos knights can push that to 4+ as far as i know.
So basically out of 6 koptas you get 9 hits, 4.5 wounds, of which you get to subtract 1,5 due to armor or 2.25 with invul.
At which point you have done 6 pts of damage, for 300 pts. Impressive.
Can't wait to see the new missions. Glad they are going to change these up at least once a year. Keeps the tournaments from getting stale.
Not excited about the continued Campaign books.
"Similar to the War Zone Octarius books, it will feature new army rules, including an Army of Renown and a Codex Supplement.."
That's cool. I'll never fething read them or use them. Put that gak in a codex, please, not in a $50 to $60 campaign book with 250 pages of crap I don't care about and 2 pages of useful rules.
On one hand, tying custom traits in space is sort of a cool concept. If I want to imagine my Sept is between Sa'cea and Dal'yth, I can draw from sector B and C (or, if I want to draw and B and C, I can place such in the world).
But equally... is anyone going to care after 5 minutes as we'll quickly discover some combo beats all the others and every custom Tau will be running that.
LOL you don't get two hits against knights since well, single target which means you roll 2d3 for the shots you get which averages 4 which means 1.333 hits.
Then you need to wound, which you do 50% against big knights and 66% against amirigers.
Then the knight player has a 5+SV / invul and chaos knights can push that to 4+ as far as i know.
So basically out of 6 koptas you get 9 hits, 4.5 wounds, of which you get to subtract 1,5 due to armor or 2.25 with invul.
At which point you have done 6 pts of damage, for 300 pts. Impressive.
It is super-impressive.
No buffs/Clan Deffkopta vs. Armiger
4 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.889 wounds, 0.593 after saves for an average 1.777 damage, or about 28.125 points per damage dealt in a turn.
New Hammerhead Railgun, assuming it stays at 140 points (without drones and targeting array freee)
1 shot, 0.888 hits with in-built re-roll, 0.59 wounds with no save or invul for an average of 8 damage and 3 mortals, or 24.6 points per damage dealt in a turn.
It's literally in the weight-class of the new ignore-invul Tau Railgun everyone is freaking out about. And more spammeable. And better into massed targets. And it doesn't hit on a 6+ with 1 attack AP- in combat either.
Compare that to more common similar fast attack vehicles.
Ridgerunner with the damage 3 weapon vs, an Armiger
3 shots, 1.5 hits, 0.5 wounds, 0.33 after saves for 1 damage, or 80 points per damage dealt in a turn. No fly. No ramshackle, etc..
Deffkopta would needs to go up by 2.8 it's current price, or to about 140 points to be equally in efficiency to Ridgerunners, Marine ATVs, etc.., probably more if GW would also price in fly and ramshackle correctly.
It's literally among the top 3 the most efficient ranged damage-dealer in the entire goddamn game at the moment. It outclasses Ravagers and NDKs and plenty of other things by orders of magnitude.
The fact you don't think that is impressive efficiency is laughable.
Beastboss on squigasaur +30
Squig buggy +20
Scrapjets +10
Kill rig +20
Meganobs -5
Killa kans -5
Battlewagon and variants -15
Kannonwagon -20
Lootas down to 15
Deffkoptas and Bikes unchanged
Kommandos up to 12
Mek gunz -5 (unless you take the kustom mega kannon)
Beastboss wasn't taken by any competitive lists so giving it a 30pt price hike is...stupid.
Squigbuggy, already been nerfed this edition so instead of taking 9 you can only take 3, and it honestly isn't great as it currently was, this just guarantees it doesn't get taken in Competitive metas again.
Scrapjets, honestly the only buggies I own. I love how they look, but dmg potential they aren't that great and this is just a massive knee jerk reaction to Orkz winning a few tournaments for the first time in years. "OMG ORKZ ARE PLACING! QUICK BREAK OUT THE NERF HAMMER!"
Killrig...I never see this thing. I think I played a FLGS tournament against one a few times but it wasn't that impressive for its cost. +20 is just telling ork players Feth you because you are NPCs, deal with it.
Meganobz, Killakanz, battlewagons: Cool, thanks for the minuscule price cut that takes massively over priced, noncompetitive units and turns them into...slightly less over priced but equally worthless/noncompetitive units?
Kannonwagon: This is probably my favorite one so far. Keep in mind this comes out literally the same time frame as we are hearing about new Tau HH railguns. The Kannonwagon will become the same price (ish) as the HH, but instead of getting a really cool new main gun that ignores armor and invulns and does an average of like 11dmg a turn, what does the kannonwagon do? 2D6 shots at S8 -2AP 3dmg, awesome right? 7 shots on average, 3.5 hits on average and against those pesky T8 vehicles its 1.75 hits and about 3.5dmg a turn. Woohoo! Talk about impressive.
Lootas: Oh thank god GW finally realized that lootas were too expensive and addressed their complete lack of durability and firepower. oh no...they didnt Unit of 10 Lootas is actually 8 lootas and 2 spanners with big shootas who are functionally useless. What does that unit get you? 16 shots hitting on 3s. So for the low low price of 150pts you get 5.3 Autocannon hits. Fun fact, 2 Chickenwalkers which have been nerfed twice this edition still average 10 Autocannon hits a turn for 150pts "Oh but Semper, they are dakka weapons now! what if they are in half range!" Ok good point. Well for starters, that means they are dead next turn and even with half range dakka rules they only put out 8 hits a turn. Still significantly less than 2 chickenwalkers who are significantly faster and more durable.
Kommandos: Honestly, this is too much. A kommando is literally just a boyz profile that gets forward deploy and 2 rules which benefit it only while in cover. I'm not kidding, that is literally what a kommando is. Forward deploying boyz who are really good in cover. Starting from the premise that boyz SUCK right now, you realize that those 3 special rules aren't really worth an extra 3ppm but here we are. I'll keep playing with them because they are the only Elite choices worth taking, but christ could GW just not screw over every single competitive thing in the ork codex?
No...no they don't. 50pts for a deffkopta is actually pushing it as is. Its BS5 armed with Rokkitz which didn't get the 9th edition treatment of turning every factions dedicated anti-tank weapons into killers. How many weapons from from D6dmg to D6+3, D3+3 or D6+2? Rokkitz went from 3D to....3D. They got heavy 3 instead of Assault 1, but all that meant is that they are useless on our best platform for them, tankbustas.
I believe the correct term is 'gobsmacked'. And I have to respectfully disagree. It doesn't particularly matter what your BS is when a unit is firing off 12d3 Strength-8 Damage-3 shots. Those things are punching WAY above their weight.
12D3 rokkitz is 6 Deffkoptas. that is 300pts. 12D3 rokkits averages 24 shots, 8 hits, and against your knights thats 4 wounds and you get a 5+ save. works out to 8dmg. So 300pts would take 3 full turns to down a Knight. That is actually the rule I use for whether a shooting unit is ok, not OP but ok. Can it kill its points back in 3 turns.
2 Str. 8 damage 3 hits on average shouldn't be 50 points, lol, much less on a ramshackle/fly body. Most stuff in that price-range gets a single shot to start with.
They should definitely be 100 points easily.
As already pointed out, its not 2 hits on average its 2D3 shots which averages 4, and with ork ballistic skill its 1.33 hits on average. But lets take your premise and throw it at you sideways because you are full of it
A chickenwalker with lasccannons is 85pts, it has way more durability, its almost as fast, and here is the kicker. It gets twice the range and without any buffs from outside sources can average 1.66 hits a turn with its S9 -3AP D3+3 lascannon. That thing averages 4.6dmg a turn vs a T8 3+ vehicle, compared to the Kopta which averages 1.33dmg.
Want more comparisons?
Ok you compared it to the new Tau HH and a ridgerunner...which is kind of funny because nobody takes either right now, but the new HH will definitely be taken. The ridgerunner is still 8th edition and hasn't been updated yet. Funny you forgot to mention that.
What does that hammerhead do? Its S14, -6AP and ignores invulns when it dmgs it does 6+D3 and does 3mortal wounds on top of that. Against those T8 knights its likely hitting on 3s re-rolling for basically 2+ to hit so its 0.83 hits 0.55 wounds, ignores armor, ignores invuln goes straight through and does 6.1dmg on average. Reminder, a single Kopta does 1.33dmg, so you would need about 4.58 of them to do the same dmg. And 4.58 koptas costs 229pts. or 69pts more than the current HH or 43% more. So yeah..totally the same as the new hammerhead...
Loving how even with a lot of the unwarranted points nerfs for Orks that there are still people baying for blood on Ork units that aren't even overperforming. I'm fairly sure it's just that they're not familiar with how differently Orks play compared to more combined arms approaches taken by other factions like SM and Drukhari, so the moment they deal with something remotely different it must be nerfed. Seriously, play with the units yourself first before you guys cry broken or OP, Tabletop Simulator exists, go take the crazy non-existent all deffkopta list and see how well it does against competent people and tell me how it goes.
Grimskul wrote: Loving how even with a lot of the unwarranted points nerfs for Orks that there are still people baying for blood on Ork units that aren't even overperforming. I'm fairly sure it's just that they're not familiar with how differently Orks play compared to more combined arms approaches taken by other factions like SM and Drukhari, so the moment they deal with something remotely different it must be nerfed. Seriously, play with the units yourself first before you guys cry broken or OP, Tabletop Simulator exists, go take the crazy non-existent all deffkopta list and see how well it does against competent people and tell me how it goes.
Gotta agree lol. These are the same people who were screaming Lootas were OP in 8th, and that Kanz needed to be nerfed. Basically, they have 1 bad game against orkz and immediately scream OP! NERF!
DE and Ad-Mech have been oppressive for over half a year, they received minor nerfs. If those leaks above are correct that means orkz are getting hit harder than either faction did and we don't have the win rate or top placings as those armies.
Don't hold your breath for that, if anything there will be only minor tweaks in the CA. The likely release date of the Codex is early 2023 and they are working on it currently. I wouldn't even be surprised if they raised the cost of regular infantry to 6ppm. Most likely the same guy that did all the Eldar models in the last 5 years (hence so many of them look rather uninspired, in comparison to the over the top action poses and swirly swirls we see since 2019) is currently working on whatever regiment is destined to replace Cadians as the new poster boys. It sure isn't Krieg or Tanith btw. My money is still on Primaris esque "Militarum Solar" a Regiment held back on Ice by Cawl. Now issuing new gear to all the Regiments, so new toys for everyone. Yes that is a cynical approach. But that way, what ever comes across in the end, I won't be let down.
Don't hold your breath for that, if anything there will be only minor tweaks in the CA. The likely release date of the Codex is early 2023 and they are working on it currently. I wouldn't even be surprised if they raised the cost of regular infantry to 6ppm. Most likely the same guy that did all the Eldar models in the last 5 years (hence so many of them look rather uninspired, in comparison to the over the top action poses and swirly swirls we see since 2019) is currently working on whatever regiment is destined to replace Cadians as the new poster boys. It sure isn't Krieg or Tanith btw. My money is still on Primaris esque "Militarum Solar" a Regiment held back on Ice by Cawl. Now issuing new gear to all the Regiments, so new toys for everyone. Yes that is a cynical approach. But that way, what ever comes across in the end, I won't be let down.
To put it nicely, there is no way in hell IG are getting released in 2023. They'll be out sooner rather than later. Probably summer or fall at latest.
The same thing happens with Legends. "not part of the ongoing balance review" means that their point values won't get updated. And, being Legends, their data sheets won't get updated to reflect codex changes.
For example... Suppose GW decides that some Chaos Lords are overpowered, and increases their point costs by 20 (noting that you'd have to compare point values between Chapter Approved to know which point values changed, in the first place). If you're trying to use the Legends Chaos Lords, which ones should (because you're trying to be a fair player) increase by 20?
And then suppose that the new CSM codex comes out and 'Death to the False Emperor' gets changed to a different ability or removed. If you're not familiar with the old codex and the new codex, how would you know what changed? Or, for that matter, look at the various previews where weapon profile changes get announced, and think about how many Legends PDFs have those weapon profiles in them. Note: I played through one of GW's "if your codex references a rule we removed, just ignore it" edition changes. If you haven't, I'll just tell you that it's a compete garbage situation that leaves you with randomly unusable models.
That's what the text you quoted means--it's GW saying "We won't fix this model when the rules and points changes change around it." And that's why people don't take "You can still play with Legends models, no one is stopping you" as a serious statement.
Bad analogy aside, let's go through the process of these complaints:
1 - I can't use my old Named Characters because of background progression so let's get rid of a whole army False, those NCs are in the Legends PDFs, and comparing that to the removal of an entire army is silly.
2 - I can't use my old NCs in Matched Play so let's get rid of a whole army because eventually, the enthusiasm would die down False, the Legends PDFs are 100% usable in all 40k types of play.
3 - I can't use my old NCs because it is 100% balanced to every single new releasesigh You keep moving the argument because you know you're wrong but can't admit it otherwise you'd have to not go hard on the "GW BAD" train for one day out of 365. It's pathetic that you'd rather whine and moan about not getting perfection when you were never going to get it, than just using what you have and enjoy yourselves. Go outside and take in some bloody fresh air for christ's sake and stop being so angry all the damn time.
This is false. Nearly any game you play, except maybe with close friends, will disallow legends.
Considering we know of weapons that will just flat out ignore Invuls soontm, are you really concerned about a 50 pts model that hits twice with a rokkit in the MOST OPTIMAL circumstance against a target that guarantees enough hits due to explosive?
Against single targets that drops down to an average of 1,3 hits with a rokkit? which wounds a knight 50 % of the time Against which you still have invul / armor?
That has nothing to do anymore with bias and more to do with either Superior Luck of the ork player or complete and utter unluckyness of you.
NVM that 6 koptas are 300 pts. At that stage if they wouldn't dent knights or other tanks then i'd assume something is wrong.
Yes?
2 Str. 8 damage 3 hits on average shouldn't be 50 points, lol, much less on a ramshackle/fly body. Most stuff in that price-range gets a single shot to start with.
They should definitely be 100 points easily.
Eradicators are 45 for 2 melta shots at BS3+. Do they need to be 75-80ppm by your logic? Attack bike with multimelta is 55 points....
DE and Ad-Mech have been oppressive for over half a year, they received minor nerfs. If those leaks above are correct that means orkz are getting hit harder than either faction did and we don't have the win rate or top placings as those armies.
I guess orks sell a lot regardless of how competitive they are, while some other factions need strong rules to be popular... I love drukhari, they're one of my favorite factions and I had an army of them not long ago, but it's the absolute top tier of the edition for a really long time now and in the meanwhile GW only fixed unintended mistakes (DT liquifier spam or super killy razor succubus), never really nerfed anything about them.
Don't hold your breath for that, if anything there will be only minor tweaks in the CA. The likely release date of the Codex is early 2023 and they are working on it currently. I wouldn't even be surprised if they raised the cost of regular infantry to 6ppm. Most likely the same guy that did all the Eldar models in the last 5 years (hence so many of them look rather uninspired, in comparison to the over the top action poses and swirly swirls we see since 2019) is currently working on whatever regiment is destined to replace Cadians as the new poster boys. It sure isn't Krieg or Tanith btw. My money is still on Primaris esque "Militarum Solar" a Regiment held back on Ice by Cawl. Now issuing new gear to all the Regiments, so new toys for everyone. Yes that is a cynical approach. But that way, what ever comes across in the end, I won't be let down.
To put it nicely, there is no way in hell IG are getting released in 2023. They'll be out sooner rather than later. Probably summer or fall at latest.
Well they've previewed chaos knights, chaos marines, eldar, still have tau to drop. Logically imperial knights will ape the chaos knight release. Sigmar need some army books sooner rather than later, there's supposedly a horus heresy big release, possibly a new LotR edition, all the usual smaller games getting their content and IG are due a big wave. I can't see them being any earlier than autumn/fall.
Jarms48 wrote: This is false. Nearly any game you play, except maybe with close friends, will disallow legends.
We've had multiple polls on that. Outside of tournaments, no one gives a damn if you bring legends as long as you have the right models, as they are almost exclusively sub-par choices with wonky rules and keywords.
2 Str. 8 damage 3 hits on average shouldn't be 50 points, lol, much less on a ramshackle/fly body. Most stuff in that price-range gets a single shot to start with.
They should definitely be 100 points easily.
Is there a reason why you are so intent on intentionally misrepresenting the capabilities of koptas while also skipping all the drawbacks?
It's not 2 hits shots for 50, but 6d3 shots for 150 points, which translates to 4 hits with AP-2 (usually AP-3). Unlike the gun you are comparing them to, almost every model gets a 5+ or 6+ save against them, many units even get armor saves better than their invuls against their shooting. -1 to hit also halves their damage output, which is not true for any of those other weapons Ramshackle does nothing against most anti-tank weaponry which is really good at killing koptas, they have just a 4+ armor save, no invul, do not get cover ever, count 3 VP for bring it down and have leadership 6 which already is enough to kill another kopta or two if you shoot down a single one. There also are next to no offensive buffs you could drop on koptas, there is a single speed mob stratagem (which has its own issues), no auras and no abilities that could increase their damage output.
If you don't conveniently ignore all the shortcomings of koptas, they compare fairly well against units that other armies wouldn't even consider top tier, like ravagers, storm speeders or heavy destroyers.
Well they've previewed chaos knights, chaos marines, eldar, still have tau to drop. Logically imperial knights will ape the chaos knight release. Sigmar need some army books sooner rather than later, there's supposedly a horus heresy big release, possibly a new LotR edition, all the usual smaller games getting their content and IG are due a big wave. I can't see them being any earlier than autumn/fall.
For Knights, I wouldn't be surprised to see both codexes drop together and GW also release a new version of Knight: Renegade. Good way to push both factions at once.
The big red flag for me in all these rumours recently is that there's little space for non-40K releases. If we really have:
Eldar
CSM
New Chaos Knight
Space Marines + supplements
Possibly World Eaters
That's already more 40k models than last year, and means less room for AOS and other games. Hard to see how IG also fit in there too this year.
This is false. Nearly any game you play, except maybe with close friends, will disallow legends.
I mean you are objectively wrong and anyone who says you can't use Legends is also objectively wrong. They are 100% legal for every single game you play with one caveat that Tournaments can choose to disallow them in the interest of maintaining "competitive balance". So unless you're on playing in Tournaments, jog on.
Well they've previewed chaos knights, chaos marines, eldar, still have tau to drop. Logically imperial knights will ape the chaos knight release. Sigmar need some army books sooner rather than later, there's supposedly a horus heresy big release, possibly a new LotR edition, all the usual smaller games getting their content and IG are due a big wave. I can't see them being any earlier than autumn/fall.
For Knights, I wouldn't be surprised to see both codexes drop together and GW also release a new version of Knight: Renegade. Good way to push both factions at once.
The big red flag for me in all these rumours recently is that there's little space for non-40K releases. If we really have:
Eldar
CSM
New Chaos Knight
Space Marines + supplements
Possibly World Eaters
That's already more 40k models than last year, and means less room for AOS and other games. Hard to see how IG also fit in there too this year.
Exactly, if it was a book and 1 model, they can slip it into a filler month, but I think we're expecting a model wave with IG which makes this harder to fit in.
What is the idea for Space Marines 2.0 + supplements based on? Just cynicism or actual (reliable) rumors? It would make absolutely no (non-monetary) sense if Space Marines got another 9th edition codex before every faction received one...
Spoletta wrote: There is no way that IG and Nid are coming this year.
We know there's a Tyranid of some flavour coming this year. The big question is if it's something linked to a small codex release (like a new Red Terror or Parasite character), or separate (such as a Shrike Kill Team).
I don't see a big Ork/Eldar scale codex release for Nids happening this year, but there's still a chance the codex shows up with a minimal amount of models and it's the Kill Team schedule delaying it.
Us3Less wrote: What is the idea for Space Marines 2.0 + supplements based on? Just cynicism or actual (reliable) rumors? It would make absolutely no (non-monetary) sense if Space Marines got another 9th edition codex before every faction received one...
Space Marine 2.0 is from the person releasing the Craftworld information. Read the Space Marine codex rumor yesterday on the Aeldari discord.
General:
>Codex expected mid-late Feb, followed by Renegade Knights in march and Chaos April
>In addition at least three brand new units will be released in 2023 not aspects (new not the ones we're getting this year corsairs, and quin unit hint)
>>Space Marine codex 2 Electric Blugaloo within 6 months. No Necron v2 intended
>>>New Redemptor variant, new models, new supplements
Ugh, it's absurd that Space Marines get two codices per edition apparently. Even more absurd that they get their second codex before some armies even get their first. Supposedly all the codices were done at the start of 9th to begin with, so it's just (supposedly) profits and (poor) logistics that makes the release schedule so frustrating. GW really knows how it can make its customers feel appreciated...
Geifer wrote: I am amused by the idea of Marines getting two codices per edition as the new standard.
At this point we just have to hope that only the main codex gets a 2.0 version, and not all the supplements as well. Having to buy 4 rule-books plus eventual expansions and the game core rule-book just for a single faction (SW in my case) and a single edition is beyond madness.
Geifer wrote: I am amused by the idea of Marines getting two codices per edition as the new standard.
I play marines and I really don't like this. When was the last one released? Feels like it was just recently. I think I've literally not played a single game with the current one. I guess if you're super active player it makes sense, but for my super casual and sporadic gaming tendencies buying these books really doesn't make sense anymore.
Kitane wrote: I wonder whether we can squeeze 3 Space Marine codexes (+ all the suplements twice) between two Tyranid codexes.
With my main armies being Nids / GSC / Orks, it's quite reassuring to know that when I buy a codex I'll get some use out of it before it's invalidated. Glad I'm not paying the marines tax.
Crimson wrote: I play marines and I really don't like this. When was the last one released? Feels like it was just recently. I think I've literally not played a single game with the current one. I guess if you're super active player it makes sense, but for my super casual and sporadic gaming tendencies buying these books really doesn't make sense anymore.
SM 'dex was either the first or second released after Indomitus - while Indomitus was July 2020, the first Codexes were released in October 2020. Currently been out for ~1.25 years.
Not Online!!! wrote: Truly, we needed another 2.0 marine dex.
Now will it be a csm 2.0 or another sm 2.0 situation? Who knows.
Yeah, could just be a "add new models, update a few rules" thing, or a complete rework. Either way, it'll be quite annoying for anyone who plays a faction that hasn't gotten their 9th edition codex yet.
Esmer wrote: Obligatory "they're finally going to kill off Firstborn Marines" comment
"We realise that a Marine army can be pretty intimidating for new players, so in the interest of accessibility we have made the difficult decision to move First Born units to Legends..."
Firstborn won't get squated when there's supposedly a bunch of 30k vehicles moving to plastic. They'll want to sell the Marine whales those for 40k as well, even if the buyer never so much as glances at 30k.
Us3Less wrote: Ugh, it's absurd that Space Marines get two codices per edition apparently. Even more absurd that they get their second codex before some armies even get their first. Supposedly all the codices were done at the start of 9th to begin with, so it's just (supposedly) profits and (poor) logistics that makes the release schedule so frustrating. GW really knows how it can make its customers feel appreciated...
Supposedly lol. You believed that? Supposed by whom?
Us3Less wrote: Ugh, it's absurd that Space Marines get two codices per edition apparently. Even more absurd that they get their second codex before some armies even get their first. Supposedly all the codices were done at the start of 9th to begin with, so it's just (supposedly) profits and (poor) logistics that makes the release schedule so frustrating. GW really knows how it can make its customers feel appreciated...
Supposedly lol. You believed that? Supposed by whom?
IIRC that "all codexes were written together" thing came from one of the bigger community youtube channels when they first started discussing & reviewing the new edition. It was also phrased more like they "believe" it was the case, rather than anything GW have stated in public.
if all Codex were written together, we would not see the design shift over time
and all the Codex would have been play tested together and a 2 week FAQ would not be needed as those questions would have been asked long before the book went to print
that the basic design idea and models were all made at the beginning could be true, but if the full books were really written at the same time, GW is doing a much worse job than we already think
They probably had an idea for all the codex in the beginning - directions they would like to take them and maybe an outline for all of them.
Then naturally things change, they come up with new ideas, some things doesn't work as well in practice as in theory, and the end result doesn't always match the initial intention. It's how a design process works, that's nothing strange.
It's just unfortunate that it is so difficult to avoid the creep (alas, my poor Necrons). I don't think it's intentional, it's just a result of the drawn out release schedule.
Yes, a bit poor wording from my side. The playtesters at Tabletop Tactics mentioned they were part of the codex play testers. It's impossible to playtest something when there's not at least a concept of the codex. It is known that things have changed (for better but more likely worse) between the playtested codices and the final products. But all the concepts being in place was what I meant with 'written'.
A different question about the coming preorders this Saturday. I'm interested in the fancy version of the Triumph of Saint Katherine. Are such versions only available from the Games Workshop website? And preorders come online at 11:00 AM correct? I've read posts here about similar releases that would sell out quickly, so I want to try and be as much on time as possible.
Us3Less wrote: Yes, a bit poor wording from my side. The playtesters at Tabletop Tactics mentioned they were part of the codex play testers. It's impossible to playtest something when there's not at least a concept of the codex. It is known that things have changed (for better but more likely worse) between the playtested codices and the final products. But all the concepts being in place was what I meant with 'written'.
A different question about the coming preorders this Saturday. I'm interested in the fancy version of the Triumph of Saint Katherine. Are such versions only available from the Games Workshop website? And preorders come online at 11:00 AM correct? I've read posts here about similar releases that would sell out quickly, so I want to try and be as much on time as possible.
I can't find nor have the time to rewatch the video where they talk about it but I felt it was very clear they'd seen something for every faction, they even mentioned that codex creep shouldn't happen because from what they'd been working with it was all very well balanced and had all been done at once.
kodos wrote: and all the Codex would have been play tested together and a 2 week FAQ would not be needed as those questions would have been asked long before the book went to print
More games happen with a new Codex in the first week after release than in the entirety - and that's ignoring that things may have been changed or reworded since the playtesters last clapped their eyes on a draft.
Should some stuff have been caught before a 2 week FAQ? Probably. But I prefer 2 week FAQs being a thing than not being a thing, even if they trigger a bunch of posters to bleat about books being "worthless" and "outdated" when they happen.
Us3Less wrote: Yes, a bit poor wording from my side. The playtesters at Tabletop Tactics mentioned they were part of the codex play testers. It's impossible to playtest something when there's not at least a concept of the codex. It is known that things have changed (for better but more likely worse) between the playtested codices and the final products. But all the concepts being in place was what I meant with 'written'.
A different question about the coming preorders this Saturday. I'm interested in the fancy version of the Triumph of Saint Katherine. Are such versions only available from the Games Workshop website? And preorders come online at 11:00 AM correct? I've read posts here about similar releases that would sell out quickly, so I want to try and be as much on time as possible.
11am CET, yes. Apparently people occasionally experience things going up a few minutes early, so you should start refreshing early as well just to be sure.
I believe it's also been mentioned that the homepage doesn't necessarily update and it's the page that shows the pre-orders you want to refresh.
Dudeface wrote: I can't find nor have the time to rewatch the video where they talk about it but I felt it was very clear they'd seen something for every faction, they even mentioned that codex creep shouldn't happen because from what they'd been working with it was all very well balanced and had all been done at once.
Just to say:
For a reboot like 8th ed it is impossible to release indices for every army at the start of the edition and not have some form of rules for all armies at the start of the edition.
For an edition like 9th ed that is based on and compatible with the previous edition, it is impossible for the previous edition to have had rules for all armies and not have a form or rules for armies at the start of the edition.
I find it highly unlikely for GW to have finalized codices ready at the start of the edition. It goes against anything I've ever seen of how they work, and how the final product turns out. That doesn't mean playtesters couldn't have been given core army rules for all factions at the same time and gotten the idea from there that everything exists in pretty much finalized state and might even be balanced against each other.
My take on the Tabletop Tactics video was that GW had a rough idea where they wanted to take unit/gun stats, and the 9th edition purity rule. The details however varied. Hence say Dark Lances being D3+3 which wasn't what they tested - but surely not really surprising given where MMs had gone.
I don't believe a finalised Tau Codex for instance has been sat on a shelf for 2 years waiting for its day of release. I can believe however (although I've not read anything about it) that people were playtesting with something similar to the new Montka/Kauyon rules.
And unless they are excelent actors the playtesters do not know the final products seeing how often TTT says "we don't know" regarding what's coming...And "they aren't allowed to say" isn't much excuse as they could then "sorry we can't say" would be better statement than "we don't know but are interested to find out ourselves" etc
Like 10 points on the Exorcist and Immolator (and straight up ignoring the Castigator which is the worst of the 3) is gonna do anything. The exorcist is 40pts overpriced MINIMUM and the immolator needs a 10pt drop on it's weapons IN ADDITION to the 10pt chassis drop to even see fringe play.
Meanwhile on the otherside Vulkite Contemptors and NDKs only go up 10 points? So space marine lists go up maybe 20pts and GK lists 30.
Not Online!!! wrote: Ah yes, the paying for balance patch has begun.
GW just could not resist to paywall the pts update.
Truly masterfully done.
Ever heard of battlescribe?
Isnt it the best when people complain about something that isnt actually a problem in their lives? I feel zero pressure to actually buy it. The app has most points correct and if they dont then when I build it in battlescribe I can check it.
I buy the combo pack because having everything available in the little book is helpful and throw out the points book once battlescribe updates.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: Wait, so they nerfed the Beastboss but not the character version?
Because the character version basically costs the same, or currently 5 points less than the generic version because the Generic version is better in almost every way after you deck him out in the proper klan, relic and warlord trait. The character one is locked into Snakebites, arguably one of the worst Klanz in the book atm, and whose main selling point over the typical Goff version is a flat 3 damage weapon (only at S7 though), and that his squig does 4 mortal wounds instead of 3 if you roll a 6 to wound with the squig jaws. I guess he also has a 3+ save and 4+ invuln base versus the 4+ save and 5+ invuln of the normal BBoS, but he pales in comparison to the normal BBoS durability/damage output from getting either Ard as Nails/BBK with the Beasthide Mantle's 5+ FNP save.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: Wait, so they nerfed the Beastboss but not the character version?
No competitive lists use Mozrog. He's overpriced if anything compared to a normal boss on squig and he's locked into a klan no one uses competitively and has to take a pretty bad warlord trait if you want to give him one.
The generic boss on squig is definitely way overpriced at 175 points. The normal beast boss on foot actually hits about as hard given similar relics and warlord traits, while now being almost half the cost. He loses some durability (2 wounds and the -1 damage), but you can put him in transports and he has the infantry keyword which makes him way easier to maneuver in game despite having half the movement of the squig boss.
As usual, these changes feel like they were made for a meta that might have existed at some point months ago. No one is running tons of squig buggies any more (they literally can't), so the price increase on them feels out of line.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: Wait, so they nerfed the Beastboss but not the character version?
No competitive lists use Mozrog. He's overpriced if anything compared to a normal boss on squig and he's locked into a klan no one uses competitively and has to take a pretty bad warlord trait if you want to give him one.
Like 10 points on the Exorcist and Immolator (and straight up ignoring the Castigator which is the worst of the 3) is gonna do anything. The exorcist is 40pts overpriced MINIMUM and the immolator needs a 10pt drop on it's weapons IN ADDITION to the 10pt chassis drop to even see fringe play.
Meanwhile on the otherside Vulkite Contemptors and NDKs only go up 10 points? So space marine lists go up maybe 20pts and GK lists 30.
Then it will get changes on the next pass. I am absolutely no fan of big swings on points. The Talos drop was stupid and while I'm sure dropping the Exorcist more won't put it into Talos territory I'm not eager to run head first into that conclusion.
You also forget how it's going to be much harder for marines to score secondaries with engage requiring 3 models and RND requiring a test. The overall picture isn't simple.
Still doesn't excuse if they don't give points out in a free pdf.
If your book is 8th edition - free for now. If you own a 9th book you'll get points there, too. Their app isn't worth using, but it will be there in any case.
Daedalus81 wrote: If your book is 8th edition - free for now. If you own a 9th book you'll get points there, too. Their app isn't worth using, but it will be there in any case.
You get the points even if you don't have the 9E codex code entered into the app. Entering the code just lets you look at the rules for the model (and the rest of the codex), you can still build lists without doing so.
Like 10 points on the Exorcist and Immolator (and straight up ignoring the Castigator which is the worst of the 3) is gonna do anything. The exorcist is 40pts overpriced MINIMUM and the immolator needs a 10pt drop on it's weapons IN ADDITION to the 10pt chassis drop to even see fringe play.
Meanwhile on the otherside Vulkite Contemptors and NDKs only go up 10 points? So space marine lists go up maybe 20pts and GK lists 30.
Then it will get changes on the next pass. I am absolutely no fan of big swings on points. The Talos drop was stupid and while I'm sure dropping the Exorcist more won't put it into Talos territory I'm not eager to run head first into that conclusion.
You also forget how it's going to be much harder for marines to score secondaries with engage requiring 3 models and RND requiring a test. The overall picture isn't simple.
Still doesn't excuse if they don't give points out in a free pdf.
If your book is 8th edition - free for now. If you own a 9th book you'll get points there, too. Their app isn't worth using, but it will be there in any case.
LVO and Adepticon are both between now and when they inevitably have to go back and fix Sisters after all this crap dumpsters the army. I could give a crap if they fix it 6 months qhen everything that these rules matter for is happening RIGHT NOW.
Like 10 points on the Exorcist and Immolator (and straight up ignoring the Castigator which is the worst of the 3) is gonna do anything. The exorcist is 40pts overpriced MINIMUM and the immolator needs a 10pt drop on it's weapons IN ADDITION to the 10pt chassis drop to even see fringe play.
Meanwhile on the otherside Vulkite Contemptors and NDKs only go up 10 points? So space marine lists go up maybe 20pts and GK lists 30.
Then it will get changes on the next pass. I am absolutely no fan of big swings on points. The Talos drop was stupid and while I'm sure dropping the Exorcist more won't put it into Talos territory I'm not eager to run head first into that conclusion.
You also forget how it's going to be much harder for marines to score secondaries with engage requiring 3 models and RND requiring a test. The overall picture isn't simple.
Still doesn't excuse if they don't give points out in a free pdf.
If your book is 8th edition - free for now. If you own a 9th book you'll get points there, too. Their app isn't worth using, but it will be there in any case.
Yeah I agree - I prefer GW makes small points adjustments to nerf and buff units. I just wish they'd do them more often.
Like 10 points on the Exorcist and Immolator (and straight up ignoring the Castigator which is the worst of the 3) is gonna do anything. The exorcist is 40pts overpriced MINIMUM and the immolator needs a 10pt drop on it's weapons IN ADDITION to the 10pt chassis drop to even see fringe play.
Meanwhile on the otherside Vulkite Contemptors and NDKs only go up 10 points? So space marine lists go up maybe 20pts and GK lists 30.
Then it will get changes on the next pass. I am absolutely no fan of big swings on points. The Talos drop was stupid and while I'm sure dropping the Exorcist more won't put it into Talos territory I'm not eager to run head first into that conclusion.
You also forget how it's going to be much harder for marines to score secondaries with engage requiring 3 models and RND requiring a test. The overall picture isn't simple.
Still doesn't excuse if they don't give points out in a free pdf.
If your book is 8th edition - free for now. If you own a 9th book you'll get points there, too. Their app isn't worth using, but it will be there in any case.
Yeah I agree - I prefer GW makes small points adjustments to nerf and buff units. I just wish they'd do them more often.
Small nerfs are fine, small buffs are useless.
Hitting Morven 15pts has a large cascading effect on sisters of battle list building. Buffing an exorcist 10pts has 0 effect on list building.
Buffing an exorcist 20pts? 0 effect.
Buffing an Exorcist 30pts? 0 effect.
Buffing an Exorcist 40pts? Now you have a legitimate argument for ONE in an army.
Nerfs have a significant immediate effect and must be done carefully. Buffs rarely matter unless they're very large or they're on units that were already seeing play like the PBC.
ERJAK wrote: Like 10 points on the Exorcist and Immolator (and straight up ignoring the Castigator which is the worst of the 3) is gonna do anything. The exorcist is 40pts overpriced MINIMUM and the immolator needs a 10pt drop on it's weapons IN ADDITION to the 10pt chassis drop to even see fringe play.
Gladiator Lancer goes from 190 pts to 175. Since no one here probably saw it on table*, for reference its heavy laser does on average ~5 damage. Meanwhile, Tau are getting the exact same tank spewing buckets of unsaveable wounds for ~140. Balance!
*insert dumb conspiracy theory endlessly peddled here how GW makes every new model broken, if you ignore 95% of cases, that is.
ERJAK wrote: Like 10 points on the Exorcist and Immolator (and straight up ignoring the Castigator which is the worst of the 3) is gonna do anything. The exorcist is 40pts overpriced MINIMUM and the immolator needs a 10pt drop on it's weapons IN ADDITION to the 10pt chassis drop to even see fringe play.
Gladiator Lancer goes from 190 pts to 175. Since no one here probably saw it on table*, for reference its heavy laser does on average ~5 damage. Meanwhile, Tau are getting the exact same tank spewing buckets of unsaveable wounds for ~140. Balance!
*insert dumb conspiracy theory endlessly peddled here how GW makes every new model broken, if you ignore 95% of cases, that is.
Exact same, except for the effective 2+ BS, multiple shots, higher toughness, stratagem access, etc.
Not saying the Lancer is any good or that it shouldn't be cheaper, but it's definitely a very different tank.
Hitting Morven 15pts has a large cascading effect on sisters of battle list building. Buffing an exorcist 10pts has 0 effect on list building.
Buffing an exorcist 20pts? 0 effect.
Buffing an Exorcist 30pts? 0 effect.
Buffing an Exorcist 40pts? Now you have a legitimate argument for ONE in an army.
Nerfs have a significant immediate effect and must be done carefully. Buffs rarely matter unless they're very large or they're on units that were already seeing play like the PBC.
This is the chassis of the Exorcist. There's nothing that says the ML couldn't also go down, which is what I presume you're concerned about.
I haven't assessed the Exorcist much so I'll take your word that 140 wouldn't be absurd, but it's possible that it could wind up at 150/160.
Hitting Morven 15pts has a large cascading effect on sisters of battle list building. Buffing an exorcist 10pts has 0 effect on list building.
Buffing an exorcist 20pts? 0 effect.
Buffing an Exorcist 30pts? 0 effect.
Buffing an Exorcist 40pts? Now you have a legitimate argument for ONE in an army.
Nerfs have a significant immediate effect and must be done carefully. Buffs rarely matter unless they're very large or they're on units that were already seeing play like the PBC.
This is the chassis of the Exorcist. There's nothing that says the ML couldn't also go down, which is what I presume you're concerned about.
I haven't assessed the Exorcist much so I'll take your word that 140 wouldn't be absurd, but it's possible that it could wind up at 150/160.
This is a fair point. They could certainly lower the points of the EML and make the alt fire turret free, ending up in that range.
It would still be largely unplayable. The actual problem with the Exorcist is that it costs 2CP PER SHOT to shoot it's mediocre gun currently (leaving the exorcist in LoS of ANYTHING is an immediate death sentence at T7 and 11W). The only way to really remedy this issue through point changes is to make the Exorcist SO cheap that you can afford to sacrifice them after 1 volley. For that to happen it would have to be in the <=140pt range.
The Immolator on the other hand would immediately become a reasonable counter meta pick with an additional 10pts off it's guns. Immospam army's might be a somewhat viable check on crusher stampede.
The Castigator could be 40pts and I probably still wouldn't take it. It doesn't really do anything. The main gun averages 4 damage per turn on appropriate targets and it doesn't benefit from miracle dice at all. You'd be better off breaking your purity bonus and taking an SM Quad las predator most of the time. It's THAT bad.
ERJAK wrote: Like 10 points on the Exorcist and Immolator (and straight up ignoring the Castigator which is the worst of the 3) is gonna do anything. The exorcist is 40pts overpriced MINIMUM and the immolator needs a 10pt drop on it's weapons IN ADDITION to the 10pt chassis drop to even see fringe play.
Gladiator Lancer goes from 190 pts to 175. Since no one here probably saw it on table*, for reference its heavy laser does on average ~5 damage. Meanwhile, Tau are getting the exact same tank spewing buckets of unsaveable wounds for ~140. Balance!
*insert dumb conspiracy theory endlessly peddled here how GW makes every new model broken, if you ignore 95% of cases, that is.
Exact same, except for the effective 2+ BS, multiple shots, higher toughness, stratagem access, etc.
Not saying the Lancer is any good or that it shouldn't be cheaper, but it's definitely a very different tank.
There's seriously no point in engaging with Irbis. Guy comes into threads all the time spewing hyperbole and verifiably wrong statements and never bothers to respond to when people call him out on his bullgak. Pretty sure he's just here to stir the pot and pull the victimhood narrative of being a poor "underpowered" marine player.
ERJAK wrote: Like 10 points on the Exorcist and Immolator (and straight up ignoring the Castigator which is the worst of the 3) is gonna do anything. The exorcist is 40pts overpriced MINIMUM and the immolator needs a 10pt drop on it's weapons IN ADDITION to the 10pt chassis drop to even see fringe play.
Gladiator Lancer goes from 190 pts to 175. Since no one here probably saw it on table*, for reference its heavy laser does on average ~5 damage. Meanwhile, Tau are getting the exact same tank spewing buckets of unsaveable wounds for ~140. Balance!
*insert dumb conspiracy theory endlessly peddled here how GW makes every new model broken, if you ignore 95% of cases, that is.
Exact same, except for the effective 2+ BS, multiple shots, higher toughness, stratagem access, etc.
Not saying the Lancer is any good or that it shouldn't be cheaper, but it's definitely a very different tank.
They're in the same role. Though the Lancer is really 165 before gubbins. We don't have an official HH cost before drones that I know of.
Dudeface wrote: What if.... GW did free point updates, but only updated them via their app?
Isn't that exactly what they do?
Almost, although a lot of people seem to think you must pay for the points. But I mean what if the MFM didn't exist. What if the only source of updates was the app, but it was free. Would that appease enough of the "stop charging me for my balance patch!" crowd?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leth wrote: Hammer head is gonna be 3+/4+ with a native reroll or 2+/3+ with a marker light. Its then going to wound most things on 2s and knights on 3s.
Not sure why people talk about it like its feast or famine when its 1 shot is much more reliable for getting results than 5+ shots of other weapons.
Hammer head is also 155 with two smart missile systems confirmed.
I'm confused why it's got WS 3+ BS 4+ base or is that not what you mean?
Dudeface wrote: What if.... GW did free point updates, but only updated them via their app?
Isn't that exactly what they do?
Almost, although a lot of people seem to think you must pay for the points. But I mean what if the MFM didn't exist. What if the only source of updates was the app, but it was free. Would that appease enough of the "stop charging me for my balance patch!" crowd?
I treat them as the Karens of 40k. They want it exactly their way down to the minutia, and they will raise holy hell until they get it. It doesnt matter that you can play the game without buying this easily if you spend 5 minutes on google/in the app which is updated with rules purchase.
Leth wrote: Hammer head is gonna be 3+/4+ with a native reroll or 2+/3+ with a marker light. Its then going to wound most things on 2s and knights on 3s.
Not sure why people talk about it like its feast or famine when its 1 shot is much more reliable for getting results than 5+ shots of other weapons.
Hammer head is also 155 with two smart missile systems confirmed.
That requires markerlights, which is a cost.
Feast or famine means it gets through or it does not. When it does, it goes spectacularly. That statement is to help reflect that the averages don't tell the whole story.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: I'm confused why it's got WS 3+ BS 4+ base or is that not what you mean?
They mean the values for Longstrike / HH respectively.
not being funny, but the points values on the app ARE free, you can see the points for everything, the costs of the weapons, the points cost upgrades for nits (for example helix gauntlet, or the proficient planning upgrades for GSC), all without paying the cost as far as i know (i do pay for the app so i might be wrong thier, but i can see all points costs even for 9e books i dont own/have codes for).
you dont get the abilies rules, WLT or strats, relics etc without paying, but you can see the current points costs without paying.
So, yhea, Games Workshop has a 100% free way of getting the points costs. I agree its not as easy as a single page list for the MFM, or battlescribe, but it DOES exist.
xerxeskingofking wrote: not being funny, but the points values on the app ARE free, you can see the points for everything, the costs of the weapons, the points cost upgrades for nits (for example helix gauntlet, or the proficient planning upgrades for GSC), all without paying the cost as far as i know (i do pay for the app so i might be wrong thier, but i can see all points costs even for 9e books i dont own/have codes for).
you dont get the abilies rules, WLT or strats, relics etc without paying, but you can see the current points costs without paying.
So, yhea, Games Workshop has a 100% free way of getting the points costs. I agree its not as easy as a single page list for the MFM, or battlescribe, but it DOES exist.
I would argue that how unpleasant the app is to use should be considered a cost.
xerxeskingofking wrote: not being funny, but the points values on the app ARE free, you can see the points for everything, the costs of the weapons, the points cost upgrades for nits (for example helix gauntlet, or the proficient planning upgrades for GSC), all without paying the cost as far as i know (i do pay for the app so i might be wrong thier, but i can see all points costs even for 9e books i dont own/have codes for).
you dont get the abilies rules, WLT or strats, relics etc without paying, but you can see the current points costs without paying.
So, yhea, Games Workshop has a 100% free way of getting the points costs. I agree its not as easy as a single page list for the MFM, or battlescribe, but it DOES exist.
I would argue that how unpleasant the app is to use should be considered a cost.
In that case, it's slightly cheaper than Battlescribe!
Rihgu wrote: In that case, it's slightly cheaper than Battlescribe!
Battlescribe beats the GW app by a country mile.
oh, 100%, I totally use battlescribe over the GW app army builder, absolutely no question. but i suspect that the app was never intended to be a "battlescribe killer" by GW. I think its planned use was as a lookup tool, a more portable way of looking up things like the exact wording of a stratagem, or Warlord trait, or the strength of a certain gun, etc. thats how i use it, and it works well enough in that role, certainly more coinvent than doing the same in the hardcopy codex (which i normally only open for the faction secondaries).
Rihgu wrote: In that case, it's slightly cheaper than Battlescribe!
Battlescribe beats the GW app by a country mile.
oh, 100%, I totally use battlescribe over the GW app army builder, absolutely no question. but i suspect that the app was never intended to be a "battlescribe killer" by GW. I think its planned use was as a lookup tool, a more portable way of looking up things like the exact wording of a stratagem, or Warlord trait, or the strength of a certain gun, etc. thats how i use it, and it works well enough in that role, certainly more coinvent than doing the same in the hardcopy codex (which i normally only open for the faction secondaries).
Exactly this. Battlescribe is a better army builder than the GW app but I've always found it patchy rules wise. I built a Custodes list the other day and for the Ka'Tahs it just said 'see codex Adeptus custodes'. Not great.
I want to like the GW app but the ork list builder alone is riddled with issues and 0 have been fixed. Even though I emailed them the issues within two weeks of release and they even responded to me asking for more details from appeared to be a real honest to god human. You still cant give nobs in some squads weapons the codex says they get, some units cant take certain models theyre supposed to have, and in some cases their pts costs are just outright wrong.
Its a shame too, it has a lot of potential. If I was running an event though I wouldnt accept lists made in the Warhammer App because it just has too many errors right now. Its kind of sad. They seem to care but appear to be stretched very thin given the weird updates it gets.
MrMoustaffa wrote: I want to like the GW app but the ork list builder alone is riddled with issues and 0 have been fixed. Even though I emailed them the issues within two weeks of release and they even responded to me asking for more details from appeared to be a real honest to god human. You still cant give nobs in some squads weapons the codex says they get, some units cant take certain models theyre supposed to have, and in some cases their pts costs are just outright wrong.
Its a shame too, it has a lot of potential. If I was running an event though I wouldnt accept lists made in the Warhammer App because it just has too many errors right now. Its kind of sad. They seem to care but appear to be stretched very thin given the weird updates it gets.
I seem to recall their latest business statements mentioned the delays and costs in the ERP project pushed development of all their other technical functions (i.e. apps) back 12 months, leaving customers hanging in the wind because they don't have their devs free to work on stuff.
I really like the idea of taking an Obelisk in my Iyanden army. That should shake things up a bit.
Grimskul wrote: There's seriously no point in engaging with Irbis. Guy comes into threads all the time spewing hyperbole and verifiably wrong statements and never bothers to respond to when people call him out on his bullgak. Pretty sure he's just here to stir the pot and pull the victimhood narrative of being a poor "underpowered" marine player.
It's especially amusing when he tries to have a go at me.
Leth wrote: Hammer head is gonna be 3+/4+ with a native reroll or 2+/3+ with a marker light. Its then going to wound most things on 2s and knights on 3s.
Not sure why people talk about it like its feast or famine when its 1 shot is much more reliable for getting results than 5+ shots of other weapons.
Hammer head is also 155 with two smart missile systems confirmed.
That requires markerlights, which is a cost.
A cost you are going to put on something you wanted to kill anyway. They are even easier to get now than they were before.
Also Feast or Famine is not really applicable when it is like 70-80%+. If 80% is feast or famine than it can apply to almost anything and loses all meaning.
I seem to recall their latest business statements mentioned the delays and costs in the ERP project pushed development of all their other technical functions (i.e. apps) back 12 months, leaving customers hanging in the wind because they don't have their devs free to work on stuff.
It seems pretty implausible that the consumer app development team and the ERP devs are the same people, they're pretty disparate skill sets, and both are outsourced from GW as far as I know.
But the apps are clearly suffering from a lack of investment. The paint app, which everyone quite liked, has fallen behind and doesn't even cover the full range any more, and still doesn't have any way to sync your inventory. The army builder apps don't have tablet views yet! I don't think that's due to anything more than GW underinvesting and picking a dev team who aren't big enough to do what they want do to.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I really like the idea of taking an Obelisk in my Iyanden army. That should shake things up a bit.
Grimskul wrote: There's seriously no point in engaging with Irbis. Guy comes into threads all the time spewing hyperbole and verifiably wrong statements and never bothers to respond to when people call him out on his bullgak. Pretty sure he's just here to stir the pot and pull the victimhood narrative of being a poor "underpowered" marine player.
It's especially amusing when he tries to have a go at me.
The release of Chapter Approved is generally the time of year when I MOST dislike GW. They're ostensibly for balance but they never DO anything. At best you get a few irrelevant buffs to units no one played before and no one will play after, at worst they tank armies/strategies that haven't been considered particularly above the curve for months and introduce stupid bandaid rules changes like banning subfaction mixes.
There's no reason they can't drop things like the Castigator 60pts to get it in line with it's stats. There's no reason they can't bump NDKs by 20-25 per and put those bumps back into paladins. There's no reason to ban subfaction mixing when codexes like SoB were designed in a way that specifically encouraged it.
I seem to recall their latest business statements mentioned the delays and costs in the ERP project pushed development of all their other technical functions (i.e. apps) back 12 months, leaving customers hanging in the wind because they don't have their devs free to work on stuff.
It seems pretty implausible that the consumer app development team and the ERP devs are the same people, they're pretty disparate skill sets, and both are outsourced from GW as far as I know.
But the apps are clearly suffering from a lack of investment. The paint app, which everyone quite liked, has fallen behind and doesn't even cover the full range any more, and still doesn't have any way to sync your inventory. The army builder apps don't have tablet views yet! I don't think that's due to anything more than GW underinvesting and picking a dev team who aren't big enough to do what they want do to.
As an ERP developer irl - yes and no. It's commonplace for IT staff to be directly involved in those projects in various ways even if when it's not their full time job. ERP partners can charge upwards of £1,000 per day so you don't often pay them to handle all the mundane functions needed for an implementation, such as extracting data from the old ERP system, writing reports or interfaces to external systems. In larger organisations tasks like that often fall on the internal IT department.
New ERP systems are notoriously complex and tend to impact nearly all departments of a company to varying degree and delay or interfere with other smaller projects. I've lost count of the number of ambitious projects I've seen trimmed down in scope in order to get a system up and running with just the essentials.
Leth wrote: Hammer head is gonna be 3+/4+ with a native reroll or 2+/3+ with a marker light. Its then going to wound most things on 2s and knights on 3s.
Not sure why people talk about it like its feast or famine when its 1 shot is much more reliable for getting results than 5+ shots of other weapons.
Hammer head is also 155 with two smart missile systems confirmed.
That requires markerlights, which is a cost.
A cost you are going to put on something you wanted to kill anyway. They are even easier to get now than they were before.
Also Feast or Famine is not really applicable when it is like 70-80%+. If 80% is feast or famine than it can apply to almost anything and loses all meaning.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the min size for units is 10, which means at least 110 for Pathfinders. A HH can not be said to reliably kill something with 12 wounds on it's own, so you want two lights. To get two lights you'll probably want to put 5 lights giving you room to fail a roll or two. This now makes the 155 point HH effectively 210 points.
Pathfinders are not known to be exceptionally durable and there are a few armies with good ooLOS shooting to take them out.
In "appropriate" terrain it's incredibly hard to draw sight across the table and if you can it's probably traversing dense terrain to do it.
Now treat that as a fly model with 12-14 inch move(dont remember) that counts as stationary when advancing due to monkta, factoring that a model in terrain ignores the obscuring from that terrain, that GW event level of terrain is not standard, and that they have a 4-5 inch turret that allows them to draw LOS
Also pathfinders used to be min 4, so we will see. You can get markerlights on squad leaders and vehicles so its not limited to pathfinders.
You could also say the samething about any unit that gets buffs.They are 63% chance to kill a contemptor with no external buffs. Show me anything else thats even close to that at over 24 inches. If your answer is hive guard you are kinda proving my point.
Leth wrote: Now treat that as a fly model with 12-14 inch move(dont remember) that counts as stationary when advancing due to monkta and factoring that a model in terrain ignores the obscuring from that terrain. Also factor in that GW event level of terrain is not standard.
Also pathfinders used to be min 4, so we will see. You can get markerlights on squad leaders and vehicles so its not limited to pathfinders.
You could also say the samething about any unit that gets buffs.They are 63% chance to kill a contemptor with no external buffs. Show me anything else thats even close to that at over 24 inches. If your answer is hive guard you are kinda proving my point.
Fly is the key there. It seems very likely that it will lose it, but...crazier things have happened.
Big damage guns are the counter to -1D. You won't find any unit as good, because the multiplicative effect of many shots against -1D makes the HH stand out.
ERJAK wrote: Like 10 points on the Exorcist and Immolator (and straight up ignoring the Castigator which is the worst of the 3) is gonna do anything. The exorcist is 40pts overpriced MINIMUM and the immolator needs a 10pt drop on it's weapons IN ADDITION to the 10pt chassis drop to even see fringe play.
Gladiator Lancer goes from 190 pts to 175. Since no one here probably saw it on table*, for reference its heavy laser does on average ~5 damage. Meanwhile, Tau are getting the exact same tank spewing buckets of unsaveable wounds for ~140. Balance!
*insert dumb conspiracy theory endlessly peddled here how GW makes every new model broken, if you ignore 95% of cases, that is.
Exact same, except for the effective 2+ BS, multiple shots, higher toughness, stratagem access, etc.
Not saying the Lancer is any good or that it shouldn't be cheaper, but it's definitely a very different tank.
Tau has 3+ rerollable hit. That beats 2+ BS(hint: You miss 1/9 times. BS 2+ misses 1/6 times. 1/6 is more often than 1/9)
Multiple shots isn't that important if it causes 5 damage in average vs way higher tau vehicle has.
ERJAK wrote: How does a Plagueburst go down 15 when the Exorcist only goes down 10?
For the same reason that Eldar now get Obelisks: GW are bad at this.
There is also a disproportionate amount of firepower between Death Guard and Sisters of Battle. There is a reason why a lot of DG players tend to use the volkite contemptor(now being nerfed) as a crutch as the army isn't exactly known for heavy firepower in a game that is very much about firepower. The Plagueburst Crawler is a workhorse, but far from being OP.
There is also discussion that this is to remove "To The Last" 2nd objective as an auto-take from Death Guard.
Now to be fair I do think the Exorcist deserves some love(maybe get the LOS thing changed again), but comparing the two is a bit pointless as both factions work on completely different paradigms.
Rihgu wrote: In that case, it's slightly cheaper than Battlescribe!
Battlescribe beats the GW app by a country mile.
I agree, Battlescribe is a far superior product.
What does worry me is that I am hearing is the creator is MIA so nobody is supporting BS anymore on a development level(people are still making data files) which makes me worried about the future of Battlescribe.
tneva82 wrote: Tau has 3+ rerollable hit. That beats 2+ BS(hint: You miss 1/9 times. BS 2+ misses 1/6 times. 1/6 is more often than 1/9)
Multiple shots isn't that important if it causes 5 damage in average vs way higher tau vehicle has.
Have I missed something official confirming that the HH is remaining at BS 3+? Last I heard it was unclear as to if it'd be 3+ or 4+ (with a reroll either way) to hit with the big gun...
tneva82 wrote: Tau has 3+ rerollable hit. That beats 2+ BS(hint: You miss 1/9 times. BS 2+ misses 1/6 times. 1/6 is more often than 1/9)
Multiple shots isn't that important if it causes 5 damage in average vs way higher tau vehicle has.
Have I missed something official confirming that the HH is remaining at BS 3+? Last I heard it was unclear as to if it'd be 3+ or 4+ (with a reroll either way) to hit with the big gun...
It's base BS 4+ with the reroll thing previewed on Warcom, and has access to +1 to hit from a couple of sources.
Is that per detachment? Or the entire army? (Article made it seem like "entire army")
If it's per army, that's a massivenerf to armies like Drukhari and thousand sons.
EDIT: re-read it again:
Originally these were picked on a unit-by-unit basis, so squads and Detachments could come from different subfactions. This selection is now made when you start to build your list, and the sub-faction you choose now replaces every example of that keyword – meaning your whole army now has to come from the same grouping.
Drukhari still get to take 1 of each Keyword type, they just can't double Coven anymore.
Only in Realspace Raid...right?
Because according to article:
meaning your whole army now has to come from the same grouping.
...sorta implies that every detachment has to match.
Try quoting the entire sentence:
This selection is now made when you start to build your list, and the sub-faction you choose now replaces every example of that keyword – meaning your whole army now has to come from the same grouping.
If your army includes multiple types of replaceable Keywords such as <CHAPTER> and <REGIMENT>, you would have to pick one of each since <REGIMENT> is NOT <CHAPTER> and thus can't be replaced by a selection for <CHAPTER>.
Interesting to see mention of a new Balance Dataslate in February - I wonder how it'll be presented.
Will it be FAQ style, with new entries added to the original document (and, presumably, stuff that has made it to print being removed), or will players be expected to have both around.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Where... where are the FW points changes for Custodes?
Also, couldn't they have just said "Move nearby terrain slightly" rather than "remove the entire piece of nearby terrain"?
I can see why they did it. The abject terror of things touching other things that informs the current terrain system absolutely forbids it. If you move terrain to make room for fortifications, it might breach the 3" bubble around other terrain or, horror of horrors, objectives, and we can't have that. No one in the 40k universe would dare put important cargo, information, or other resources inside a building or forest!
Necronmaniac05 wrote: I like the changes to super heavy aux detachments. I might actually get a monolith now.
They already did that though as of last years changes?
2021 mission pack rule:
Spoiler:
Huh. I didn't know about that either. We've been playing matched play games using power levels (for easy list building) so didn't pick up the GT pack for 2021. I wonder why this didn't make it into the balance data slate as it seems like a general rule change not just an amendment to tournament play
Why aren't they part of the PDF GW uploaded? They even show off two FW units in their summary, yet the document is 1 page and just has regular GW units.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Where... where are the FW points changes for Custodes?
Also, couldn't they have just said "Move nearby terrain slightly" rather than "remove the entire piece of nearby terrain"?
I can see why they did it. The abject terror of things touching other things that informs the current terrain system absolutely forbids it. If you move terrain to make room for fortifications, it might breach the 3" bubble around other terrain or, horror of horrors, objectives, and we can't have that. No one in the 40k universe would dare put important cargo, information, or other resources inside a building or forest!
Tbh I think we can all easily imagine TFG making a concerted effort to want to place the fortification in a spot that means they get to move a solid wall 3" to close off someone's firing lanes etc.
So does a fortification have to be wholly within my deployment zone, but if I can't fit it in due to terrain I can remove one piece of my choice to fit it in? Or is placing fortifications a bit more flexible than the deployment zone?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Where... where are the FW points changes for Custodes?
Also, couldn't they have just said "Move nearby terrain slightly" rather than "remove the entire piece of nearby terrain"?
I can see why they did it. The abject terror of things touching other things that informs the current terrain system absolutely forbids it. If you move terrain to make room for fortifications, it might breach the 3" bubble around other terrain or, horror of horrors, objectives, and we can't have that. No one in the 40k universe would dare put important cargo, information, or other resources inside a building or forest!
Tbh I think we can all easily imagine TFG making a concerted effort to want to place the fortification in a spot that means they get to move a solid wall 3" to close off someone's firing lanes etc.
Oh, sure. I just don't think that was what informed GW's decision. There seems to be something about the Holy Three Inches that informs their decisions far more than game practicality, fairness or whatever.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Where... where are the FW points changes for Custodes?
Also, couldn't they have just said "Move nearby terrain slightly" rather than "remove the entire piece of nearby terrain"?
I can see why they did it. The abject terror of things touching other things that informs the current terrain system absolutely forbids it. If you move terrain to make room for fortifications, it might breach the 3" bubble around other terrain or, horror of horrors, objectives, and we can't have that. No one in the 40k universe would dare put important cargo, information, or other resources inside a building or forest!
Tbh I think we can all easily imagine TFG making a concerted effort to want to place the fortification in a spot that means they get to move a solid wall 3" to close off someone's firing lanes etc.
Oh, sure. I just don't think that was what informed GW's decision. There seems to be something about the Holy Three Inches that informs their decisions far more than game practicality, fairness or whatever.
Given most terrain is largely impassible to non-infantry, 3" lets lighter vehicles get by without issue (3" is the width of a Rhino hull), and means bikers don't have to queue up in a conga line to get through.
You probably won't be able to use the terrain-removing rule in most cases anyway. I've fit the Sororitas Battle Sanctum on tournament tables, and the footprint of that thing is hyuuge.
You only get to delete terrain if your fortification can't be placed anywhere in your deployment zone. So long as it fits, it sits.
Hankovitch wrote: You probably won't be able to use the terrain-removing rule in most cases anyway. I've fit the Sororitas Battle Sanctum on tournament tables, and the footprint of that thing is hyuuge.
You only get to delete terrain if your fortification can't be placed anywhere in your deployment zone. So long as it fits, it sits.
Flip side of that, I've never once actually been able to fit it on a table that wasn't player placed terrain. Not even close. Especially then it can't be on an objective.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: Wait, so they nerfed the Beastboss but not the character version?
Asking this literally disqualifies you from every being taking serious in any discussion related to orks ever again
In fairness to him, it makes about as much sense as GW nerfing the Beastboss on squig into the ground, giving Kommandos a 20% increase in price and then going "Ohh! but look! the Battlewagon is now only 20pts over priced for what little it does!"
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: Wait, so they nerfed the Beastboss but not the character version?
Asking this literally disqualifies you from every being taking serious in any discussion related to orks ever again
In fairness to him, it makes about as much sense as GW nerfing the Beastboss on squig into the ground, giving Kommandos a 20% increase in price and then going "Ohh! but look! the Battlewagon is now only 20pts over priced for what little it does!"
Come on. That's 25 points more than a rhino for 6 wounds, ramshackle, and a way better degrade. 15 points for T8 from there is a steal.
Besides...now you can't say boyz aren't worth it because kommandos exist.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: Wait, so they nerfed the Beastboss but not the character version?
Asking this literally disqualifies you from every being taking serious in any discussion related to orks ever again
In fairness to him, it makes about as much sense as GW nerfing the Beastboss on squig into the ground, giving Kommandos a 20% increase in price and then going "Ohh! but look! the Battlewagon is now only 20pts over priced for what little it does!"
Come on. That's 25 points more than a rhino for 6 wounds, ramshackle, and a way better degrade. 15 points for T8 from there is a steal.
Besides...now you can't say boyz aren't worth it because kommandos exist.
I get you're kind of joking but no one will take boyz instead of kommandos. A lot of builds are moving away from kommandos already.
The problem I have with the battlewagon is sure its cheaper but it still doesn't do anything. It has no weapons by default and the rolla is not what it was editions ago.
I think the BW with 'ard case, deff rolla and forktress is farily priced, but pretty useless without all those upgrades. Its real problem is the lack of precious cargo. All things considered it's still a transport that eats up an HS slot, not a gun boat or a melee specialist. Specialist mobs can't be embarked in it. So you need to field a sub optimal model carrying other sub optimal models, getting a points sink of 300-400 points all in one place.
Same problem with rhinos in some armies. They're fairly costed for their profile, but that's assuming some valuable units can get benefits from riding in them. They're useful to sisters for example and in fact they're taken pretty often, but to SM? Not so much.
Empty wagon can be played as a distraction maybe but if it wasn't popular before I don't think going from 170 to 150 points would really change anything. Could be ok and cheap/useful enough for an Army of Renown though since it wouldn't need the forktress upgrade then.
I'm personally happy because I do use it pretty often in conjuction with meganobz and points drops on those model counter a bit the hikes on buggies and kommandos which I will still bring in the same numbers, probably reducing the squigbuggies to a single one and switching to more of the cheaper ones.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Where... where are the FW points changes for Custodes?
Also, couldn't they have just said "Move nearby terrain slightly" rather than "remove the entire piece of nearby terrain"?
they list the FW stuff seperately, as they seem to do points lists on a "per book" basis, so they list everything for codex: custodes, then later on have the imperail armour compendium which will have a section for the custodes FW stuff.
yhea, they should have attached it to the free download, but they didnt.
what i find intresting is these points changes, coming so soon after the codex was released, CANNOT be a result of playtesting or player feedback on the 9e rules, given the lead time to get hardcopy books out. Ergo, they were planning to do this regardess, and its only the logistic problems that made it apparent. Either theirs was some super secret plan influence players spending that needed to be enacted, or the MFM team doesnt talk to or care what the codex custodes team put in thier points chart, made thier own and overrode them. I mean, some of the FW stuff might be because the codex custodes team didnt have authority to change their point values or some other internal bull like that, and these "new-new" points better reflect the reduced buffability of the telemon and such now that custodes auras are CORE locked, but still, this move must have been planned independent of playtesting.
just i little observation on what must be happening inside GW.
Skip to 01:08 for a great rant that's 100% on point
TL;DR - blame the accountants.
I rolled my eyes at the normal stuff I hate in podcasts - overlong theme tune; personal stuff about the presenters; and hey! aren't we cool and a bit wacky! But I agreed on the rant bit (not at 1 minute 8 seconds, but at 1 hour 8 minutes!). If they do some stuff that's less than 15 minutes long I might have to give them another look.
I was planning to buy this one, having skipped CA2021 because of its minimal changes compared to CA2020. Not being spiral bound and not having the core rules (and updates, including FAQs, etc.) is a dealbreaker for me though. I'll get the information through other channels then. Also the only type of 'feedback' that GW will understand, most probably.
If I was GW I would be so embarrassed on this product. They literally made a terrible product, with no spiral bound, lack of core rules, and make the meta worse. I mean for example why the massive nerf to DG who don’t win events, but for some reason thought it was fine to release the DE buffs. It feels like with the crazy power creep and terrible points adjustments have turned 9th into a dumpster fire. Headed to AoS I’ll check back in 6 months.
those changes are not meant to balance the meta or make it better
it is all about random changes to the meta, so that previous lists are not valid any more
the stuff you have makes a nice 2000 point list?
well, now those are just 1900 points but here is a new unit you can buy
your list is 2100 points? why don't you buy the models that are now cheap to get back to 2k
kodos wrote: those changes are not meant to balance the meta or make it better
it is all about random changes to the meta, so that previous lists are not valid any more
the stuff you have makes a nice 2000 point list? well, now those are just 1900 points but here is a new unit you can buy your list is 2100 points? why don't you buy the models that are now cheap to get back to 2k
Except it doesn't even do THAT right.
There is not a single change in here that would make me want to buy anything. The only effect it has is making armies smaller.
Am I suddenly going to guy BUY an Exorcist because it's 170pts now? NO. All that change does is make me want to sell the exorcists I have to someone who doesn't know any better.
The Castigator is the only SoB model I don't own. Am I suddenly going to go buy one now that it's 150? No. It's exactly the same level of useless it was before.
Am I going to go buy Paragons? They got a THIRTY point drop for the unit. Surely, with every good unit in the book going up a hundred points Paragons will be taken now right? NO. Because not only are Paragons STILL not good, now I don't have any room for tech choices at all.
TTT complain about the value of the book and blame it on the accountants. They said over and over it's not the rules team's fault. Unpopular opinion but the rules team IS responsible for the points changes and as a result are the PRIMARY REASON this book is doggak.
I'm American. I'm comfortable with exploitative corporate greed. What I'm not okay with is just how terrible they are at it. If they had dropped all the tanks 60pts to FORCE you to go buy them, I would have been WAY happier than I am with this garbage update. At least that would have given me something NEW to think about. But no, they can't even exploit their consumers correctly.
It laid flat and was better for gaming with in the original China-printed CA incarnation. The Europe-printed one sucked for actually using during the game in comparison.
Come on. That's 25 points more than a rhino for 6 wounds, ramshackle, and a way better degrade. 15 points for T8 from there is a steal.
Besides...now you can't say boyz aren't worth it because kommandos exist.
Yes, for a mere 25pts more you can have a useless vehicle that functions exclusively as a transport. But wait there's more! For the low low price of 20pts you can give it 4 peashooters which average 0.8dmg to a Marine a turn! Call now and we will even let you equip 15pt deffrolla which gives it WS2+ which it should already have! and it makes the attacks -2AP and 2dmg flat which sounds great until you remember the meta is filled with -1AP and -1DMG So for a pittance you can have a vehicle that sucks, but you can pay heavily for the ability to suck that bad
Why would i say "Boyz aren't worth it because kommandos exist" now? Boyz aren't worth it because THEY SUCK. Making other options worse doesn't magically make them competitive..however it is that mindset at GW which causes this level of stupidity.
broxus wrote: If I was GW I would be so embarrassed on this product. They literally made a terrible product, with no spiral bound, lack of core rules, and make the meta worse. I mean for example why the massive nerf to DG who don’t win events, but for some reason thought it was fine to release the DE buffs. It feels like with the crazy power creep and terrible points adjustments have turned 9th into a dumpster fire. Headed to AoS I’ll check back in 6 months.
You should see the Imperial Guard changes. We’re now the bottom tier faction and got no meaningful buffs, and a nerf. Literally our lists did not change except for potentially cutting 20 points for the Manticore change. It’s quite sad.
Marshal Loss wrote: Absolutely no idea what they were thinking when they wrote up these changes for Death Guard.
Only thing I get from this is that GW hates Death Guard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: those changes are not meant to balance the meta or make it better
it is all about random changes to the meta, so that previous lists are not valid any more
the stuff you have makes a nice 2000 point list?
well, now those are just 1900 points but here is a new unit you can buy
your list is 2100 points? why don't you buy the models that are now cheap to get back to 2k
I just get the feeling the point changes were done by a bot. Not a living, thinking person, but a bot that just looked at units that were always taken and just increased points. It's just way too formulaic.
Only thing I get from this is that GW hates Death Guard.
DG Points changes would have maybe made some internal balance sense in February 2021. (Not convinced you'd buff PBCs and ignore Plague Marines but sure, go with it).
Look faintly ludicrous now in the context of the wider game.
Which I think is why its weird. Some of these changes look like things drafted 9 months ago. Others are clearly a result of much more recent information.
Only thing I get from this is that GW hates Death Guard.
DG Points changes would have maybe made some internal balance sense in February 2021. (Not convinced you'd buff PBCs and ignore Plague Marines but sure, go with it).
Look faintly ludicrous now in the context of the wider game.
Which I think is why its weird. Some of these changes look like things drafted 9 months ago. Others are clearly a result of much more recent information.
I agree.
I have heard rumors, though, that the PBC "boost" is related to To The Last secondary objective as their current cost now makes them ineligible for TTL as the termies are now more expensive.
I'm American. I'm comfortable with exploitative corporate greed. What I'm not okay with is just how terrible they are at it. If they had dropped all the tanks 60pts to FORCE you to go buy them, I would have been WAY happier than I am with this garbage update. At least that would have given me something NEW to think about. But no, they can't even exploit their consumers correctly.
there is no corporate greed, GW is just very bad at their job and only the top dog because they were lucky back in the "good old days" and now keep going without knowing what they are doing
and yes, it is not the rules teams fault, as the points changes for CA are not done by the rules team, they don't even know about those changes before they are released (as we were told with the last Ork Codex as by accident the points in CA did not match the points of the Codex although they were released at the same time, because the points team forgot to share the new points with rules team)
those are random changes for the sake of "community look, we care about the game and really try to get it done, pls keep buying"
think of people sitting on a car, all looking thru the back window while they are driving full speed forward against a wall
I give the community another year of this mess until sales start going down again or GW gives as a reboot before it happens
Eldarsif wrote: I have heard rumors, though, that the PBC "boost" is related to To The Last secondary objective as their current cost now makes them ineligible for TTL as the termies are now more expensive.
That makes sense from a balancing perspective, having 2-3 TTL units sit out of LoS most/all of the game and still be useful isn't that balanced given most other armies have to have there's in LoS to be useful or weirdly costed unit that can sit in a corner and not be too much of a points sink. At the same time though I think there have been quite a few none vehicle points changes taking some characters out of being able a viable TTL option.
Vehicles as a whole got the points drop cause ever since the start of 9th with the silly cheap and far too long range eradicators dominated making taking vehicles just handicapped yourself, and it was only with dark Eldar, Ad Mech and Orks that ever seemed to take there very cheap and deadly vehicles, all of which came after the move away from eradicator spam. However with Tau coming around the corner and all the official previews showing off there incredible anti-tank I can see Vehicles backing a come back any time soon.
kodos wrote: those changes are not meant to balance the meta or make it better
it is all about random changes to the meta, so that previous lists are not valid any more
the stuff you have makes a nice 2000 point list?
well, now those are just 1900 points but here is a new unit you can buy
your list is 2100 points? why don't you buy the models that are now cheap to get back to 2k
Except it doesn't even do THAT right.
There is not a single change in here that would make me want to buy anything. The only effect it has is making armies smaller.
Am I suddenly going to guy BUY an Exorcist because it's 170pts now? NO. All that change does is make me want to sell the exorcists I have to someone who doesn't know any better.
The Castigator is the only SoB model I don't own. Am I suddenly going to go buy one now that it's 150? No. It's exactly the same level of useless it was before.
Am I going to go buy Paragons? They got a THIRTY point drop for the unit. Surely, with every good unit in the book going up a hundred points Paragons will be taken now right? NO. Because not only are Paragons STILL not good, now I don't have any room for tech choices at all.
TTT complain about the value of the book and blame it on the accountants. They said over and over it's not the rules team's fault. Unpopular opinion but the rules team IS responsible for the points changes and as a result are the PRIMARY REASON this book is doggak.
I'm American. I'm comfortable with exploitative corporate greed. What I'm not okay with is just how terrible they are at it. If they had dropped all the tanks 60pts to FORCE you to go buy them, I would have been WAY happier than I am with this garbage update. At least that would have given me something NEW to think about. But no, they can't even exploit their consumers correctly.
They're writing these changes months before they reach people, of course they're weird, out of date and inappropriate, TTT do explain this in the video as well.
But ultimately your issue is precieved entirely by "make me buy what's OP" when that's not the goal at all. Points changes affect all players, not just people trying to be the top 10% in tournaments. There shouldn't be a most effective or best choice, closing that gap down is only a positive.
Maybe someone has a unit of paragon suits they love and want to play, but making them cheaper makes it easier to include them in list with adequate redundancy, or add more.
Also, buying a laptop is tech, including a precision laser measure would be including tech. Taking a different unit of plastic models is not tech and its an utterly misplaced term. I appreciate this isn't aimed at anyone in particular but I get sick of seeing and hearing the term like they've been playing civilisation on the table top.
Glad to see Battlewagons got a modest point cost since they've always been a favorite of mine.
I know a simple table is helpful for reference but I really like the presentation GW is doing by showing point changes with a portrait of the model, I actually find it very easy to find what I'm looking for that way.
Edit: Just watched the Tabletop Tactics video, wow, GW isn't putting a whole lot of value in that tiny book are they?
Dudeface wrote: Also, buying a laptop is tech, including a precision laser measure would be including tech. Taking a different unit of plastic models is not tech and its an utterly misplaced term. I appreciate this isn't aimed at anyone in particular but I get sick of seeing and hearing the term like they've been playing civilisation on the table top.
Hmmm?
Tech in a list building sense refers to how you might put something into your deck/list/build which doesn't necessarily synergise with the rest - but reflects the current meta.
So the equivalent in say 40k would be where you have a list of say 1750-1800 points. The last points to reach 2000 could be an anti-MEQ unit, an anti-horde unit, an anti-heavy unit etc. That's a tech choice - you can make it largely independently of the rest of your army. You can start pulling out more significant things - but at some point its a completely different list, playing in a different way.
Dudeface wrote: Also, buying a laptop is tech, including a precision laser measure would be including tech. Taking a different unit of plastic models is not tech and its an utterly misplaced term. I appreciate this isn't aimed at anyone in particular but I get sick of seeing and hearing the term like they've been playing civilisation on the table top.
Hmmm?
Tech in a list building sense refers to how you might put something into your deck/list/build which doesn't necessarily synergise with the rest - but reflects the current meta.
So the equivalent in say 40k would be where you have a list of say 1750-1800 points. The last points to reach 2000 could be an anti-MEQ unit, an anti-horde unit, an anti-heavy unit etc. That's a tech choice - you can make it largely independently of the rest of your army. You can start pulling out more significant things - but at some point its a completely different list, playing in a different way.
Wondering if it's an Atlantic divide here? Tech is most commonly "technology" here, I'm wondering if an American would first assume "technical" which, whilst not the best word to use imo, would loosely fit that definition.
How did orks take a bigger hit in chapter approved then drukari? This just shows how out of touch both the Gw rules team is and how biased the playtesters are with orks. Orks been sitting at 55% win rates since the codex dropped and drukari has been anywhere from 60-65% for almost a year.
Dudeface wrote: Also, buying a laptop is tech, including a precision laser measure would be including tech. Taking a different unit of plastic models is not tech and its an utterly misplaced term. I appreciate this isn't aimed at anyone in particular but I get sick of seeing and hearing the term like they've been playing civilisation on the table top.
Hmmm?
Tech in a list building sense refers to how you might put something into your deck/list/build which doesn't necessarily synergise with the rest - but reflects the current meta.
So the equivalent in say 40k would be where you have a list of say 1750-1800 points. The last points to reach 2000 could be an anti-MEQ unit, an anti-horde unit, an anti-heavy unit etc. That's a tech choice - you can make it largely independently of the rest of your army. You can start pulling out more significant things - but at some point its a completely different list, playing in a different way.
Wondering if it's an Atlantic divide here? Tech is most commonly "technology" here, I'm wondering if an American would first assume "technical" which, whilst not the best word to use imo, would loosely fit that definition.
Don't think so, I assume someone is trying to port in jargon from some other game or community. Or maybe sport?
I'd honestly expect 'sidebar' rather than something as disassociated as 'tech.' Maybe JRPGs? That's the only place I've ever heard it used as its own term.
Tech as used here is an abbreviation for technique, originating I think from trading card games and most commonly used in fighting game communities. RTS does it a lot.
You have "tech" for dealing with certain things your opponent does. You have tech for dealing with a zerg rush, or tech for dealing with Ryu. You have anti-Delver of Secrets "tech" in M:TG.
Rihgu wrote: Tech as used here is an abbreviation for technique, originating I think from trading card games and most commonly used in fighting game communities. RTS does it a lot.
You have "tech" for dealing with certain things your opponent does. You have tech for dealing with a zerg rush, or tech for dealing with Ryu. You have anti-Delver of Secrets "tech" in M:TG.
But in 40k a technique is something you do, not a unit you bring? Honestly I think it stems from tech trees in rts and 4x games, which is why it seems inappropriate.
Rihgu wrote: Tech as used here is an abbreviation for technique, originating I think from trading card games and most commonly used in fighting game communities. RTS does it a lot.
You have "tech" for dealing with certain things your opponent does. You have tech for dealing with a zerg rush, or tech for dealing with Ryu. You have anti-Delver of Secrets "tech" in M:TG.
But in 40k a technique is something you do, not a unit you bring? Honestly I think it stems from tech trees in rts and 4x games, which is why it seems inappropriate.
Right, the phrase has evolved a bit so it's a bit looser than the strict meaning. Tech is options you have to deal with something. In Fighting Games, Shoryuken is anti-air tech. In Starcraft, hellbats are anti-zergling tech. In 40k, bringing attack bikes in your list is anti-vehicle tech. The "thing you're doing" is "bringing a unit".
gungo wrote: How did orks take a bigger hit in chapter approved then drukari? This just shows how out of touch both the Gw rules team is and how biased the playtesters are with orks. Orks been sitting at 55% win rates since the codex dropped and drukari has been anywhere from 60-65% for almost a year.
In say a card game - say Hearthstone, there used to be (and probably still are) cards that would be called tech cards by the community. Say for example an Acidic Swamp Ooze that destroyed an opponent's weapon when played.
This card doesn't really synergise with anything. If your opponent doesn't have a weapon its inefficient for its cost. Nor is it the sort of card you'd build a deck around. But it was a card you might throw in if you knew the meta was big on weapons at the moment. It would improve your odds in those matchups, and since those matchups were so common, it would therefore improve your overall win rate in that meta.
If the meta changes, and no one was running weapons any more, you just take it out and put something else in - to take into account what the meta has changed. Because you are only altering 1 card out of 30, you are not altering your entire deck. The deck essentially plays the same - you are just tweaking at the margins.
I guess yes - it could also be described as "things you would likely put in a sideboard" - but lets assume you have to commit before the game/tournament etc.
In 40k its not unusual to see tournament lists which are 80-90% the same line by line. These units, with this warlord traits and relics in that chapter etc etc. The final unit or two though may vary and at the competitive end, that will usually represent a tech choice based on the perceived meta. You don't rejig your entire list because we know those choices are good. But you might tweak the stats slightly, because you want an edge in the finals and you think this will give it to you.
40 bucks for books we already know will be outdated in six months?! I'm not one of the "I hate GW and everything they do" crowd, but even I have a hard time swallowing this one.
CKO wrote: I think making the game competitive has proven to be profitable. That is why we see the type of changes GW is making.
They became their most profitable during a time in which tournaments couldn't be run. I don't think your hypothesis bears out.
competitive as being the engine that keeps the game running is a thing since 4th/5th, the average casual gamer does not care about point changes, missions/scenarios or even Edition changes of there is no competitive community next to him that makes him care
want to play in the local store/club, those are running tournaments hence use the latest missions, points and rules, so you need to use them as well
there is no tournament scene next to you and/or you just play with friends in the basement, there is a chance you still play 5th Edition because it is the most fun for you and just update some models from time to time or house-rule them in
that a lot of people picked up the hobby during a time were everyone was sitting at home, got money from the state and had finally the time and money to build the army he always wanted to was of course driving sales much more than change for the sake of change
so lets see if those people still keep buying in the future or became the local crowed in the basement that plays with what they have and stopped caring about new rules and points changes
Rihgu wrote: Tech as used here is an abbreviation for technique, originating I think from trading card games and most commonly used in fighting game communities. RTS does it a lot.
You have "tech" for dealing with certain things your opponent does. You have tech for dealing with a zerg rush, or tech for dealing with Ryu. You have anti-Delver of Secrets "tech" in M:TG.
But in 40k a technique is something you do, not a unit you bring? Honestly I think it stems from tech trees in rts and 4x games, which is why it seems inappropriate.
Right, the phrase has evolved a bit so it's a bit looser than the strict meaning. Tech is options you have to deal with something. In Fighting Games, Shoryuken is anti-air tech. In Starcraft, hellbats are anti-zergling tech. In 40k, bringing attack bikes in your list is anti-vehicle tech. The "thing you're doing" is "bringing a unit".
In Starcraft, you have to build the appropriate buildings, gather appropriate resources, you can upgrade them with (ironcially) tech upgrades. Most importantly you can go down that route reactively. In 40k you're drafting into a build blind to your opponent, that'd very different. The knowledge of scouting and build orders lead to helbats in starcraft, they're not built "just in case" without some harrying and scouting.
kodos wrote: those changes are not meant to balance the meta or make it better
it is all about random changes to the meta, so that previous lists are not valid any more
the stuff you have makes a nice 2000 point list? well, now those are just 1900 points but here is a new unit you can buy your list is 2100 points? why don't you buy the models that are now cheap to get back to 2k
Except it doesn't even do THAT right.
There is not a single change in here that would make me want to buy anything. The only effect it has is making armies smaller.
Am I suddenly going to guy BUY an Exorcist because it's 170pts now? NO. All that change does is make me want to sell the exorcists I have to someone who doesn't know any better.
The Castigator is the only SoB model I don't own. Am I suddenly going to go buy one now that it's 150? No. It's exactly the same level of useless it was before.
Am I going to go buy Paragons? They got a THIRTY point drop for the unit. Surely, with every good unit in the book going up a hundred points Paragons will be taken now right? NO. Because not only are Paragons STILL not good, now I don't have any room for tech choices at all.
TTT complain about the value of the book and blame it on the accountants. They said over and over it's not the rules team's fault. Unpopular opinion but the rules team IS responsible for the points changes and as a result are the PRIMARY REASON this book is doggak.
I'm American. I'm comfortable with exploitative corporate greed. What I'm not okay with is just how terrible they are at it. If they had dropped all the tanks 60pts to FORCE you to go buy them, I would have been WAY happier than I am with this garbage update. At least that would have given me something NEW to think about. But no, they can't even exploit their consumers correctly.
They're writing these changes months before they reach people, of course they're weird, out of date and inappropriate, TTT do explain this in the video as well.
But ultimately your issue is precieved entirely by "make me buy what's OP" when that's not the goal at all. Points changes affect all players, not just people trying to be the top 10% in tournaments. There shouldn't be a most effective or best choice, closing that gap down is only a positive.
Maybe someone has a unit of paragon suits they love and want to play, but making them cheaper makes it easier to include them in list with adequate redundancy, or add more.
Also, buying a laptop is tech, including a precision laser measure would be including tech. Taking a different unit of plastic models is not tech and its an utterly misplaced term. I appreciate this isn't aimed at anyone in particular but I get sick of seeing and hearing the term like they've been playing civilisation on the table top.
1. It's not closing the gap. It's OPENING the gap. If Sisters(for example) were the only faction in the game, yes there would be a smaller gap between the best and worst units. They are not the only faction, so all this does is increase the gap between them and factions like Drukhari who saw very little change in this.
The points changes were not significant enough to make garbage units like the Castigator playable. All it accomplished was making the overall army smaller. Considering several factions that were at the same level or higher DIDN'T get hit with 100pts of nerfs per list, the balance externally is worse even if the internal balance is technically(meaninglessly) better. Especially when you consider how it's compounded by the subfaction changes.
Also, 'tech choice' in gaming is a colloquial term referring to an option chosen for its ability to fulfill a specific purpose, rather than simply for its raw effectiveness. It's been around since at least the 90s. Language is very mutable.
Also, it's a lot like 'buff' in that, whatever term it actually originated from is irrelevant now. 'Tech Choice' exists as its own thing.
Rihgu wrote: Tech as used here is an abbreviation for technique, originating I think from trading card games and most commonly used in fighting game communities. RTS does it a lot.
You have "tech" for dealing with certain things your opponent does. You have tech for dealing with a zerg rush, or tech for dealing with Ryu. You have anti-Delver of Secrets "tech" in M:TG.
But in 40k a technique is something you do, not a unit you bring? Honestly I think it stems from tech trees in rts and 4x games, which is why it seems inappropriate.
Right, the phrase has evolved a bit so it's a bit looser than the strict meaning. Tech is options you have to deal with something. In Fighting Games, Shoryuken is anti-air tech. In Starcraft, hellbats are anti-zergling tech. In 40k, bringing attack bikes in your list is anti-vehicle tech. The "thing you're doing" is "bringing a unit".
In Starcraft, you have to build the appropriate buildings, gather appropriate resources, you can upgrade them with (ironcially) tech upgrades. Most importantly you can go down that route reactively. In 40k you're drafting into a build blind to your opponent, that'd very different. The knowledge of scouting and build orders lead to helbats in starcraft, they're not built "just in case" without some harrying and scouting.
I can hear the WHOOSH noise of the point going by your head from here, lol.
kodos wrote: those changes are not meant to balance the meta or make it better
it is all about random changes to the meta, so that previous lists are not valid any more
the stuff you have makes a nice 2000 point list?
well, now those are just 1900 points but here is a new unit you can buy
your list is 2100 points? why don't you buy the models that are now cheap to get back to 2k
Except it doesn't even do THAT right.
There is not a single change in here that would make me want to buy anything. The only effect it has is making armies smaller.
Am I suddenly going to guy BUY an Exorcist because it's 170pts now? NO. All that change does is make me want to sell the exorcists I have to someone who doesn't know any better.
The Castigator is the only SoB model I don't own. Am I suddenly going to go buy one now that it's 150? No. It's exactly the same level of useless it was before.
Am I going to go buy Paragons? They got a THIRTY point drop for the unit. Surely, with every good unit in the book going up a hundred points Paragons will be taken now right? NO. Because not only are Paragons STILL not good, now I don't have any room for tech choices at all.
TTT complain about the value of the book and blame it on the accountants. They said over and over it's not the rules team's fault. Unpopular opinion but the rules team IS responsible for the points changes and as a result are the PRIMARY REASON this book is doggak.
I'm American. I'm comfortable with exploitative corporate greed. What I'm not okay with is just how terrible they are at it. If they had dropped all the tanks 60pts to FORCE you to go buy them, I would have been WAY happier than I am with this garbage update. At least that would have given me something NEW to think about. But no, they can't even exploit their consumers correctly.
They're writing these changes months before they reach people, of course they're weird, out of date and inappropriate, TTT do explain this in the video as well.
But ultimately your issue is precieved entirely by "make me buy what's OP" when that's not the goal at all. Points changes affect all players, not just people trying to be the top 10% in tournaments. There shouldn't be a most effective or best choice, closing that gap down is only a positive.
Maybe someone has a unit of paragon suits they love and want to play, but making them cheaper makes it easier to include them in list with adequate redundancy, or add more.
Also, buying a laptop is tech, including a precision laser measure would be including tech. Taking a different unit of plastic models is not tech and its an utterly misplaced term. I appreciate this isn't aimed at anyone in particular but I get sick of seeing and hearing the term like they've been playing civilisation on the table top.
1. It's not closing the gap. It's OPENING the gap. If Sisters(for example) were the only faction in the game, yes there would be a smaller gap between the best and worst units. They are not the only faction, so all this does is increase the gap between them and factions like Drukhari who saw very little change in this.
The points changes were not significant enough to make garbage units like the Castigator playable. All it accomplished was making the overall army smaller. Considering several factions that were at the same level or higher DIDN'T get hit with 100pts of nerfs per list, the balance externally is worse even if the internal balance is technically(meaninglessly) better. Especially when you consider how it's compounded by the subfaction changes.
Also, 'tech choice' in gaming is a colloquial term referring to an option chosen for its ability to fulfill a
specific purpose, rather than simply for its raw effectiveness. It's been around since at least the 90s. Language is very mutable. Try to keep up.
Rihgu wrote: Tech as used here is an abbreviation for technique, originating I think from trading card games and most commonly used in fighting game communities. RTS does it a lot.
You have "tech" for dealing with certain things your opponent does. You have tech for dealing with a zerg rush, or tech for dealing with Ryu. You have anti-Delver of Secrets "tech" in M:TG.
But in 40k a technique is something you do, not a unit you bring? Honestly I think it stems from tech trees in rts and 4x games, which is why it seems inappropriate.
Right, the phrase has evolved a bit so it's a bit looser than the strict meaning. Tech is options you have to deal with something. In Fighting Games, Shoryuken is anti-air tech. In Starcraft, hellbats are anti-zergling tech. In 40k, bringing attack bikes in your list is anti-vehicle tech. The "thing you're doing" is "bringing a unit".
In Starcraft, you have to build the appropriate buildings, gather appropriate resources, you can upgrade them with (ironcially) tech upgrades. Most importantly you can go down that route reactively. In 40k you're drafting into a build blind to your opponent, that'd very different. The knowledge of scouting and build orders lead to helbats in starcraft, they're not built "just in case" without some harrying and scouting.
I can hear the WHOOSH noise of the point going by your head from here, lol.
Likewise, I'll go tech into my asparagus while enjoying my unplayable unit I still play with being a little cheaper in a casual game.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: 40 bucks for books we already know will be outdated in six months?! I'm not one of the "I hate GW and everything they do" crowd, but even I have a hard time swallowing this one.
Its taking the forced obsolescence model a bit far, yeah.
Its particularly galling since the last points update was online in PDF format, and the current and future quarterly updates are going to be online PDFs. Not books, or WD articles or app garbage, just... available.
It feels like two different branches of the company are completely out of touch with each other and trying to do things 'their way.'
And given how dated (and just bizarre in the case of Custodes) some of these changes are, the books are obviously the incredibly inferior approach.
kodos wrote: those changes are not meant to balance the meta or make it better
it is all about random changes to the meta, so that previous lists are not valid any more
the stuff you have makes a nice 2000 point list?
well, now those are just 1900 points but here is a new unit you can buy
your list is 2100 points? why don't you buy the models that are now cheap to get back to 2k
Except it doesn't even do THAT right.
There is not a single change in here that would make me want to buy anything. The only effect it has is making armies smaller.
Am I suddenly going to guy BUY an Exorcist because it's 170pts now? NO. All that change does is make me want to sell the exorcists I have to someone who doesn't know any better.
The Castigator is the only SoB model I don't own. Am I suddenly going to go buy one now that it's 150? No. It's exactly the same level of useless it was before.
Am I going to go buy Paragons? They got a THIRTY point drop for the unit. Surely, with every good unit in the book going up a hundred points Paragons will be taken now right? NO. Because not only are Paragons STILL not good, now I don't have any room for tech choices at all.
TTT complain about the value of the book and blame it on the accountants. They said over and over it's not the rules team's fault. Unpopular opinion but the rules team IS responsible for the points changes and as a result are the PRIMARY REASON this book is doggak.
I'm American. I'm comfortable with exploitative corporate greed. What I'm not okay with is just how terrible they are at it. If they had dropped all the tanks 60pts to FORCE you to go buy them, I would have been WAY happier than I am with this garbage update. At least that would have given me something NEW to think about. But no, they can't even exploit their consumers correctly.
They're writing these changes months before they reach people, of course they're weird, out of date and inappropriate, TTT do explain this in the video as well.
But ultimately your issue is precieved entirely by "make me buy what's OP" when that's not the goal at all. Points changes affect all players, not just people trying to be the top 10% in tournaments. There shouldn't be a most effective or best choice, closing that gap down is only a positive.
Maybe someone has a unit of paragon suits they love and want to play, but making them cheaper makes it easier to include them in list with adequate redundancy, or add more.
Also, buying a laptop is tech, including a precision laser measure would be including tech. Taking a different unit of plastic models is not tech and its an utterly misplaced term. I appreciate this isn't aimed at anyone in particular but I get sick of seeing and hearing the term like they've been playing civilisation on the table top.
1. It's not closing the gap. It's OPENING the gap. If Sisters(for example) were the only faction in the game, yes there would be a smaller gap between the best and worst units. They are not the only faction, so all this does is increase the gap between them and factions like Drukhari who saw very little change in this.
The points changes were not significant enough to make garbage units like the Castigator playable. All it accomplished was making the overall army smaller. Considering several factions that were at the same level or higher DIDN'T get hit with 100pts of nerfs per list, the balance externally is worse even if the internal balance is technically(meaninglessly) better. Especially when you consider how it's compounded by the subfaction changes.
Also, 'tech choice' in gaming is a colloquial term referring to an option chosen for its ability to fulfill a
specific purpose, rather than simply for its raw effectiveness. It's been around since at least the 90s. Language is very mutable. Try to keep up.
Rihgu wrote: Tech as used here is an abbreviation for technique, originating I think from trading card games and most commonly used in fighting game communities. RTS does it a lot.
You have "tech" for dealing with certain things your opponent does. You have tech for dealing with a zerg rush, or tech for dealing with Ryu. You have anti-Delver of Secrets "tech" in M:TG.
But in 40k a technique is something you do, not a unit you bring? Honestly I think it stems from tech trees in rts and 4x games, which is why it seems inappropriate.
Right, the phrase has evolved a bit so it's a bit looser than the strict meaning. Tech is options you have to deal with something. In Fighting Games, Shoryuken is anti-air tech. In Starcraft, hellbats are anti-zergling tech. In 40k, bringing attack bikes in your list is anti-vehicle tech. The "thing you're doing" is "bringing a unit".
In Starcraft, you have to build the appropriate buildings, gather appropriate resources, you can upgrade them with (ironcially) tech upgrades. Most importantly you can go down that route reactively. In 40k you're drafting into a build blind to your opponent, that'd very different. The knowledge of scouting and build orders lead to helbats in starcraft, they're not built "just in case" without some harrying and scouting.
I can hear the WHOOSH noise of the point going by your head from here, lol.
Likewise, I'll go tech into my asparagus while enjoying my unplayable unit I still play with being a little cheaper in a casual game.
Have fun, maybe use the time to catch up on some colloquial terminology? Based on missing out on 'tech choice', I would recommend starting with phrases like "Groovy man!" and "Far out, brother!" and work toward the modern lexicon.
Have fun, maybe use the time to catch up on some colloquial terminology? Based on missing out on 'tech choice', I would recommend starting with phrases like "Groovy man!" and "Far out, brother!" and work toward the modern lexicon.
Or possibly consider your folksy jargon is useless if it isn't universal (or even related) to the hobby you're trying to apply it to.
You're at a keyboard, you've got time to use your words.
ERJAK wrote: I almost alway buy them just for the mission but this piece of garbage? Yarr Matey...
Yea it's always been a nice to have, but I've crossed the point of really needing it especially when it isn't even spiral bound and has not core rules reference.
CKO wrote: I think making the game competitive has proven to be profitable. That is why we see the type of changes GW is making.
They became their most profitable during a time in which tournaments couldn't be run. I don't think your hypothesis bears out.
LVO has 1000 players majority of them flying in to play 40k, I know what I am talking about.
I used to work GenCon, 1000 players isn't as big as you think. Tournament players are a small fraction of over all players in every table top. Of course it could be profitable, but it's not THE profit driver, especially with proof that sales went UP when tournaments weren't being held.
competitive as being the engine that keeps the game running is a thing since 4th/5th,
No, it wasn't. 5th Ed was when we learned GW's idea of playtesting was having everyone in the studio play a big game where the planetary governor could become possessed by a Greater Daemon.
$40 is pretty outrageous at this point. I really hope people don't buy this
Yeah as several people in this thread have already noted, it's incredibly obvious how much the practical demands of physical printing have affected and distorted the final results. There's no chance of reaching anything close to game balance when updates are based on feedback from 6-12 months ago. The kicker is how much of the final product ends up getting released for free (AdMech / Custodes / DE players), or doesn't apply at all (GSC & Tau players).
With a game that changes and evolves with such a pace, there's no excuse for key updates lagging so far behind reality. At this point our best shot at any improvement is for as many as possible to leave this product on store and warehouse shelves.
Also, 'tech choice' in gaming is a colloquial term referring to an option chosen for its ability to fulfill a specific purpose, rather than simply for its raw effectiveness. It's been around since at least the 90s. Language is very mutable. Try to keep up.
I can hear the WHOOSH noise of the point going by your head from here, lol.
Have fun, maybe use the time to catch up on some colloquial terminology? Based on missing out on 'tech choice', I would recommend starting with phrases like "Groovy man!" and "Far out, brother!" and work toward the modern lexicon.
While you're clearly a language expert, you may benefit from looking further into the words "patronising", "condescending", and "unpleasant".
Platuan4th wrote: No, it wasn't. 5th Ed was when we learned GW's idea of playtesting was having everyone in the studio play a big game where the planetary governor could become possessed by a Greater Daemon.
might have been different in your country, but without the competitive scene pushing the game, no one would have played 40k at all in the local clubs or stores
Platuan4th wrote: No, it wasn't. 5th Ed was when we learned GW's idea of playtesting was having everyone in the studio play a big game where the planetary governor could become possessed by a Greater Daemon.
might have been different in your country, but without the competitive scene pushing the game, no one would have played 40k at all in the local clubs or stores
I can guarantee you that was an issue with your country/area and not a RoW or GW issue in 5th.
Platuan4th wrote: No, it wasn't. 5th Ed was when we learned GW's idea of playtesting was having everyone in the studio play a big game where the planetary governor could become possessed by a Greater Daemon.
might have been different in your country, but without the competitive scene pushing the game, no one would have played 40k at all in the local clubs or stores
I can guarantee you that was an issue with your country/area and not a RoW or GW issue in 5th.
so people actually liked the mess GW called a game for casual pick up games, no comp/restrictions, no scenarios, no community FAQ/Errata or house rules?
Platuan4th wrote: No, it wasn't. 5th Ed was when we learned GW's idea of playtesting was having everyone in the studio play a big game where the planetary governor could become possessed by a Greater Daemon.
might have been different in your country, but without the competitive scene pushing the game, no one would have played 40k at all in the local clubs or stores
I can guarantee you that was an issue with your country/area and not a RoW or GW issue in 5th.
so people actually liked the mess GW called a game for casual pick up games, no comp/restrictions, no scenarios, no community FAQ/Errata or house rules?
Despite what Warmachine players would like people to believe, 40K has always been THE game where you could find players nearly every where you went. I moved literally across the US TWICE during 5th ed and never had issues finding casual games or groups in all 3 states. And while I'm not across the pond, going by Ammobunker at the time, that was fairly common in the UK, too. They, Warhammer World, and other groups regularly ran narrative campaign weekends with massive rule/fluff packs back then.
so people actually liked the mess GW called a game for casual pick up games, no comp/restrictions, no scenarios, no community FAQ/Errata or house rules?
Despite what Warmachine players would like people to believe, 40K has always been THE game where you could find players nearly every where you went. I moved literally across the US TWICE during 5th ed and never had issues finding casual games or groups in all 3 states.
my question was not if you found someone to play but if you used the original rules from GW without any modifications or house rules?
so people actually liked the mess GW called a game for casual pick up games, no comp/restrictions, no scenarios, no community FAQ/Errata or house rules?
Despite what Warmachine players would like people to believe, 40K has always been THE game where you could find players nearly every where you went. I moved literally across the US TWICE during 5th ed and never had issues finding casual games or groups in all 3 states.
my question was not if you found someone to play but if you used the original rules from GW without any modifications or house rules?
House Rules have ALWAYS been a part of the game, even more so for competitive than for casual. They still are. More often than not, the casual games I've played didn't have any issue playing by the rules without house rules because *gaspshock* most casual players don't care enough to waste time arguing about that when we could be playing.
Also, that's moving the goal posts. Your original point was "tournaments drove the survival of the game in 4th/5th", which was the whole patently false point I was disproving.
Platuan4th wrote: No, it wasn't. 5th Ed was when we learned GW's idea of playtesting was having everyone in the studio play a big game where the planetary governor could become possessed by a Greater Daemon.
might have been different in your country, but without the competitive scene pushing the game, no one would have played 40k at all in the local clubs or stores
I can guarantee you that was an issue with your country/area and not a RoW or GW issue in 5th.
so people actually liked the mess GW called a game for casual pick up games, no comp/restrictions, no scenarios, no community FAQ/Errata or house rules?
Despite what Warmachine players would like people to believe, 40K has always been THE game where you could find players nearly every where you went. I moved literally across the US TWICE during 5th ed and never had issues finding casual games or groups in all 3 states. And while I'm not across the pond, going by Ammobunker at the time, that was fairly common in the UK, too. They, Warhammer World, and other groups regularly ran narrative campaign weekends with massive rule/fluff packs back then.
I recently retired after 20 years in the military and getting in 40K games was never an issue no matter what state I lived in/visited (FL, CA, NC, SC, GA, VA, AZ ). This spanned 3rd through 9th Edition. I always found other players and tourneys for 40K. Now back in Florida and it was super easy to meet new folks and get games/tourneys in locally. 40K is/has been such an easy way to meet folks in a new area regardless of location in the U.S.
so people actually liked the mess GW called a game for casual pick up games, no comp/restrictions, no scenarios, no community FAQ/Errata or house rules?
Despite what Warmachine players would like people to believe, 40K has always been THE game where you could find players nearly every where you went. I moved literally across the US TWICE during 5th ed and never had issues finding casual games or groups in all 3 states.
my question was not if you found someone to play but if you used the original rules from GW without any modifications or house rules?
House Rules have ALWAYS been a part of the game, even more so for competitive than for casual. They still are. More often than not, the casual games I've played didn't have any issue playing by the rules without house rules because *gaspshock* most casual players don't care enough to waste time arguing about that when we could be playing.
again, the competitive scene kept the game running during the time GW did not care because they provided all the things the players needed
except in your region because no one used any house rules, FAQ/Errata, scenarios by that time (as there were non provided by GW, and everything else was spread by the competitive scene)
I would say this is a unique situation as I have seen way more people using the ETC/ITC rules for casual games than going with the original rulebook scenarios during 5th-7th
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sarigar wrote: I recently retired after 20 years in the military and getting in 40K games was never an issue no matter what state I lived in/visited (FL, CA, NC, SC, GA, VA, AZ ). This spanned 3rd through 9th Edition. I always found other players and tourneys for 40K. Now back in Florida and it was super easy to meet new folks and get games/tourneys in locally. 40K is/has been such an easy way to meet folks in a new area regardless of location in the U.S.
but if you played tourney you are not the group of players he is referring too
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Platuan4th wrote: Also, that's moving the goal posts. Your original point was "tournaments drove the survival of the game in 4th/5th", which was the whole patently false point I was disproving.
no, I said the competitive scene kept the game alive, as those were the people running the local communities, providing all the things for free GW is asking money now
the 2 week FAQ not coming from GW (as no FAQ ever came from them) but form the competitive players, same as scenarios or rules adjustments
if there would have been no competitive scene during that time, the game would have not been that popular
again, the competitive scene kept the game running during the time GW did not care because they provided all the things the players needed
In your area. There was no ONE set of house rules or tournament rules back then, no agreed upon set of "balance adjustments". Most house rules were about flow or ease of play, not balance or things the game actually needed(hell, people couldn't even agree on what they "needed" out of the game). Saying the "competitive scene" drove that is patently false because the majority of players weren't competitive players and practically every group and store had their own set of house rules for all types of games, even those that didn't run events.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: no, I said the competitive scene kept the game alive, as those were the people running the local communities...
if there would have been no competitive scene during that time, the game would have not been that popular
Patently false. Again, the "competitive scene" is actually a fairly small fraction of the niche. YOUR AREA had the local communities run by "the competitive scene", that was far from a universal truth. I literally pointed you to at least one large "community" that was run by narrative casual players.
no, I said the competitive scene kept the game alive, as those were the people running the local communities, providing all the things for free GW is asking money now
What now?
Not sure what 'community' you were in, but no was providing anything, let alone for free, on this continent.
Competitive scene here was largely run by stores, and they wanted an entry fee for their events.
the "now" that the problem comes from that 40k is now a competitive game, which again blames the wrong people
being competitive is not the problem, its GWs idea of what a competitive game is and the execution of those ideas
everyone being able to access the changes for free, with the updates coming in time and digital, wich was already the case in the past and it worked
Lord Damocles wrote: But guys, GWchanged. They have a Facebook page and stuff...
Sorry - I might be critical of the business model here, but the book offers a lot of good changes.
Completely negated by the things it MASSIVELY fethed up. Or did you really thing that Blightlords and Deathshrouds were just as good as Vulkite Contemptors, so desevered basically the same nerf.
the "now" that the problem comes from that 40k is now a competitive game, which again blames the wrong people
being competitive is not the problem, its GWs idea of what a competitive game is and the execution of those ideas
everyone being able to access the changes for free, with the updates coming in time and digital, wich was already the case in the past and it worked
Sorry, that 'What now?' was an expression of disbelief, not a question of time.
Like Plantuan4th, I was aware of the ETC and other 'we've fixed it (if you play OUR way)' groups. We didn't use them anywhere I played. Apart from some alternate scenarios (after one disastrous store tournament to try them out, we ignored and just played out of the book), they didn't really provide 'changes' or updates I can recall (apart from arbitrary unit caps based on which factions they loved or hated).
To me, competitive/casual is just the same as it was then (except GW wastes too much time and effort trying to pretend they're fundamentally different, rather than interlinked). Heck, the (not so) LGS to the west of me just opened back up last week to in-person games with a slow-grow narrative league. (The stores to the south and east still aren't open to games)
gungo wrote: How did orks take a bigger hit in chapter approved then drukari? This just shows how out of touch both the Gw rules team is and how biased the playtesters are with orks. Orks been sitting at 55% win rates since the codex dropped and drukari has been anywhere from 60-65% for almost a year.
Gungo, this was my biggest WTF from the entire CA as well. Orkz have 1 really competitive build that relies on a host of buffs and shenanigans. We won 1 major event....1! and the entire game world freaked out and demanded nerfs across the board. Our buggies got beaten to death with a nerf hammer, our Kommandos went up 20%, Boss on Squig went up 20%+ Killrig etc. And then to make everyone feel like GW understands what they are doing they handed out miniscule (read as USELESS) buffs to other units that doesn't go anywhere close to addressing the problems.
And just to really put the cherry on top....some of those "Nerfs" aren't nerfs for Drukhari. The Incubi went up in points...but their transport they are basically required to take went down a corresponding amount. Um.... Yeah.
artific3r wrote: Someone tell GW it isn't 2001 anymore and releasing balance updates via printed books makes no sense.
This is the same company that only a few years bragged that they didn't do any market research or asked their customers what they actually want (see my signature quote? its taken verbatim from a GW investor meeting like in 2013 or so). They probably still think most people use dial-up...
Effectively there's now a £50 annual sub to play competitive 40k, which sucks.
I think that's it for me as a competitive 40k player. I don't have huge amounts of time on my hands so spending a weekend at an event playing what I now think is simply a bad game just isn't worth it.
The issue as I see it is that the process that happens at GW for 40k design is just terrible. I don't claim to know what mixture of rules designers, "suits" and the idiotic system of printing rules updates 6 months late on dead trees in 2022 is to blame. Regardless of the cause, the effect is a bad product that isn't worth my time.
Something I find really weird is that there seems to be a crazy imbalance of intelligence between the players and GW's system. "Intelligence" is a pretty controversial word to use here but I think can't think of a better one. You have all these super clever people on Goonhammer, TTT and so on poring over GW's latest offering, trying to understand what on earth they were thinking. But there's nothing to really analyse at GW's end - they just do stupid stuff, which is why it's so hard for all these intelligent people to understand.
For the very small amount it's worth, my analysis is that the points changes they've made are about internal balance within codexes, rather than fixing the overall meta. People aren't buying paragon warsuits or gladiators, so they get a price cut. Sales win because players bought something else instead previously, and now (in theory) we need to buy paragons and gladiators. Except actually we don't do that because they are still bad, and now decent units like Redemptors are worse.
There are lots of good games out there. I'm really enjoying Titanicus, Kill team looks interesting, blood bowl is always fun and I've had some fun games of bolt action lately. Maybe I'll even try AoS.
Lord Damocles wrote: But guys, GWchanged. They have a Facebook page and stuff...
Sorry - I might be critical of the business model here, but the book offers a lot of good changes.
Completely negated by the things it MASSIVELY fethed up. Or did you really thing that Blightlords and Deathshrouds were just as good as Vulkite Contemptors, so desevered basically the same nerf.
I'm talking more about the missions stuff.
Deathguard is like they're still thinking DG are strong and the internal balance is wonky so they punched the common stuff. I don't necessarily thing PM should go down as I don't want to start the race to the bottom again so I think it's good that there aren't large drops on primary units.
Ultimately it's going to come down to missions and secondaries and the February Dataslate.
artific3r wrote: Someone tell GW it isn't 2001 anymore and releasing balance updates via printed books makes no sense.
This is the same company that only a few years bragged that they didn't do any market research or asked their customers what they actually want (see my signature quote? its taken verbatim from a GW investor meeting like in 2013 or so). They probably still think most people use dial-up...
A few years != almost a decade...which is like next year from your quote. You're not even under the same CEO anymore.
There's more yet to change, but a lot has changed even if people want to play coy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mandragola wrote: People aren't buying paragon warsuits or gladiators, so they get a price cut. Sales win because players bought something else instead previously, and now (in theory) we need to buy paragons and gladiators. Except actually we don't do that because they are still bad, and now decent units like Redemptors are worse.
Should Paragon Warsuits not get a points cut? How exactly are sales winning out if you're still not going to use those models?
Lord Damocles wrote: But guys, GWchanged. They have a Facebook page and stuff...
Sorry - I might be critical of the business model here, but the book offers a lot of good changes.
Completely negated by the things it MASSIVELY fethed up. Or did you really thing that Blightlords and Deathshrouds were just as good as Vulkite Contemptors, so desevered basically the same nerf.
I'm talking more about the missions stuff.
Deathguard is like they're still thinking DG are strong and the internal balance is wonky so they punched the common stuff. I don't necessarily thing PM should go down as I don't want to start the race to the bottom again so I think it's good that there aren't large drops on primary units.
Ultimately it's going to come down to missions and secondaries and the February Dataslate.
artific3r wrote: Someone tell GW it isn't 2001 anymore and releasing balance updates via printed books makes no sense.
This is the same company that only a few years bragged that they didn't do any market research or asked their customers what they actually want (see my signature quote? its taken verbatim from a GW investor meeting like in 2013 or so). They probably still think most people use dial-up...
A few years != almost a decade...which is like next year from your quote. You're not even under the same CEO anymore.
There's more yet to change, but a lot has changed even if people want to play coy.
The changes made to the points were clearly intended to be almost entirely internally focused (except for Necrons) but were obviously done with ZERO consideration as to how they effect the factions relative to each other.
I keep using Sisters for these examples but that's the army I'm most familiar with AND one that was hit exceptionally hard by this asinine mindset. They are NOT the only army, however, and Guard, Deathguard, and Chaos Daemons all faced exactly the same problem.
The most commonly used units in the SoB book are Sacresanct, Dominions, Morvenn, and Retributors. All of these units received substantial hits.
The most unusable units in the SoB book are Paragons, Castigators, Exorcists, and Immolators. These saw paltry buffs.
In a purely numerical sense, these units have been brought closer to each other in terms effectiveness. In real life play the drops to the vehicles are irrelevant and the increases on common units causes basically every single build of the army to increase by a flat 100ish points. Some of these changes can be mitigated but none are mitigated by OTHER changes in this book. This is terrible design, ESPECIALLY considering this impact is felt hardest by midtier armies.
The mission changes are largely irrelevant. Making ROD harder to score and having two primaries isn't going to suddenly justify an out of left field 100pt hike on an army that just lost subfaction souping.
So CA has already done considerable DAMAGE to the factional balance of the game, especially in the middle tiers. We're now fully reliant on the February update to not only reign in the already overbuffed Custodes, Crusher Stampede, Drukhari, and possibly Tau, we need it to fix the 5 or 6 factions this book broke.
We were 100% better off in terms of the health of the game before this book came out.
In regards to Paragons, this is an example of pure incompetence. Between this and the Strats we've already seen from the BR supplement, it's clear they want to push Paragons to some degree. HOWEVER, they've failed to realize how bad they were to start. 30pts is nowhere near enough to get them on the table anyway.
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU NERF EVERYTHING PARAGONS SYNGERIZE WITH BY MORE THAN THE DROP TO PARAGONS! If you're going to use these books to exploit your consumers AT LEAST do a good job with it!
I don't consider Sisters middle, but that's beside the point.
There's so much new info flowing in with what seems like T'au landing in two weeks on top of new mechanics from GSC that I think the points are basically toss up. Necrons are big winners, but it all comes down to how everything interacts with missions and new armies.
What an awful book. Points changes that should have been free, rules updates that should have been free, and missions that are just more of the same with slightly different maps for the deployment and objective.
It's actually pretty insulting that they then followed this up with more custodes points updates that are free and take precedent over this publication. Like, there's all the proof you need that these points updates could have been free.
I can only pray that people don't buy this, and that those that do feel burned by it and don't buy the next one.
gungo wrote: How did orks take a bigger hit in chapter approved then drukari? This just shows how out of touch both the Gw rules team is and how biased the playtesters are with orks. Orks been sitting at 55% win rates since the codex dropped and drukari has been anywhere from 60-65% for almost a year.
Gungo, this was my biggest WTF from the entire CA as well. Orkz have 1 really competitive build that relies on a host of buffs and shenanigans. We won 1 major event....1! and the entire game world freaked out and demanded nerfs across the board. Our buggies got beaten to death with a nerf hammer, our Kommandos went up 20%, Boss on Squig went up 20%+ Killrig etc. And then to make everyone feel like GW understands what they are doing they handed out miniscule (read as USELESS) buffs to other units that doesn't go anywhere close to addressing the problems.
And just to really put the cherry on top....some of those "Nerfs" aren't nerfs for Drukhari. The Incubi went up in points...but their transport they are basically required to take went down a corresponding amount. Um.... Yeah.
People are blaming the fact this is because the print book is already outdated from 4-6 months ago… the fact is 4-6 months ago this was still complete crap point adjustments… this is obviously a rules team that’s out of touch with thier own game and a bunch of biased playtesters who mostly play certain armies and don’t play/understand other armies making blatantly piss poor balance suggestions. Drukari point changes even 6 months ago was bad. The beastboss on squig point adjustment is just bad (every other warlord choice even better choices like warboss on bike are 60pts cheaper) .. the limit to 1 unit of buggies is just bad (completely negates kustom jobs on buggies). Just complete and utter lack of understanding of codexs from both the rules team and playtesters… I can’t see how anyone can look at what they did to drukari and say it’s a point balance fix or death guard or myriad of just bad internal and external balance updates with these points… fortunately GW is going to try to play whack a mole with thier quarterly balance updates to fix this bad game balance. But if they don’t butcher drukari in the February update I will lose all faith in Gw rules team having any clue what they are doing anymore.
drbored wrote: What an awful book. Points changes that should have been free, rules updates that should have been free, and missions that are just more of the same with slightly different maps for the deployment and objective.
And now they're going to release them twice a year!
A whole team of people that make a living determining how to make products as profitable as possible determined that pushing these books was a good idea... as a customer that really hasn’t been buying much, I’ve been spending my time on my grey pile of shame waiting for the rules to feel like a solid investment. I’ve started to lose interest in 40k because of the constant churn of rules and obvious shameless cash grabs like this one...
If points balance changes were going to be free and just meant to shake the meta up (while leaving every army a viable build),, the rules better edited and audited and play tested, then I I would feel like the game is worth investing time and money into. The only thing keeping me interested in 40k at this point is pretty much the lore and to a lesser degree the models. And that is wearing thin. At least I can take this time to work through my pile of shame while I ponder on whether or not I want to remain with GW or move on to a different system and manufacturer...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Basically I really don’t understand what anyone involved in the decision to sell these books is thinking. Digital updates have the wonderful advantage of making the game more accessible, not needing the logistics to distribute books nor the resources to manufacture them and no warehouse space to store the books. And customers can spend their money on models instead. And it can flood the hobby world with exposure of their wonderful “good will” of doing what they probably should have been doing for some time,
Done with 9th edition. We are playing 5th. Main rulebook and codex is all we need. Not a perfect game by any means, but for us it's the best version of 40k.
Mandragola wrote: People aren't buying paragon warsuits or gladiators, so they get a price cut. Sales win because players bought something else instead previously, and now (in theory) we need to buy paragons and gladiators. Except actually we don't do that because they are still bad, and now decent units like Redemptors are worse.
Should Paragon Warsuits not get a points cut? How exactly are sales winning out if you're still not going to use those models?
Yes of course they should have got a price cut. But the actually good units in the codex shouldn’t have got a price rise at the same time. The overall effect is to make an average army worse by taking away its efficient tools, while turning something useless into something still pretty bad.
GW has attempted to fix internal balance within codexes by levelling out those costs. They haven’t attempted to correct balance between codexes. The effect is to make the game’s balance worse. DE haven’t suffered because everything was already good but average books have lost their few good options.
My theory is that this approach is driven by sales, or lack of sales. People aren’t buying bad stuff so make it cheaper, and make the stuff they are buying worse. But the outcome is likely to be that people give up on sisters altogether rather than trying to compete with DE.
Mandragola wrote: People aren't buying paragon warsuits or gladiators, so they get a price cut. Sales win because players bought something else instead previously, and now (in theory) we need to buy paragons and gladiators. Except actually we don't do that because they are still bad, and now decent units like Redemptors are worse.
Should Paragon Warsuits not get a points cut? How exactly are sales winning out if you're still not going to use those models?
Yes of course they should have got a price cut. But the actually good units in the codex shouldn’t have got a price rise at the same time. The overall effect is to make an average army worse by taking away its efficient tools, while turning something useless into something still pretty bad.
GW has attempted to fix internal balance within codexes by levelling out those costs. They haven’t attempted to correct balance between codexes. The effect is to make the game’s balance worse. DE haven’t suffered because everything was already good but average books have lost their few good options.
My theory is that this approach is driven by sales, or lack of sales. People aren’t buying bad stuff so make it cheaper, and make the stuff they are buying worse. But the outcome is likely to be that competitive hyper focused waac people give up on sisters altogether rather than trying to compete with DE.
Fixed that for you, gotta remember you're talking about the minority, most players play the army the like and collect regardless of the points changes, rather than chasing a meta.
Mandragola wrote: People aren't buying paragon warsuits or gladiators, so they get a price cut. Sales win because players bought something else instead previously, and now (in theory) we need to buy paragons and gladiators. Except actually we don't do that because they are still bad, and now decent units like Redemptors are worse.
Should Paragon Warsuits not get a points cut? How exactly are sales winning out if you're still not going to use those models?
Yes of course they should have got a price cut. But the actually good units in the codex shouldn’t have got a price rise at the same time. The overall effect is to make an average army worse by taking away its efficient tools, while turning something useless into something still pretty bad.
GW has attempted to fix internal balance within codexes by levelling out those costs. They haven’t attempted to correct balance between codexes. The effect is to make the game’s balance worse. DE haven’t suffered because everything was already good but average books have lost their few good options.
My theory is that this approach is driven by sales, or lack of sales. People aren’t buying bad stuff so make it cheaper, and make the stuff they are buying worse. But the outcome is likely to be that competitive hyper focused waac people give up on sisters altogether rather than trying to compete with DE.
Fixed that for you, gotta remember you're talking about the minority, most players play the army the like and collect regardless of the points changes, rather than chasing a meta.
Whatever. You can pretend that balance only affects tournaments if you want but that’s obviously not true. It affects everyone - and arguably “competitive hyper focused waac“ least. They can read a book and know not to buy the dross that GW has failed to make work. Kids go out and waste their limited funds on it, then lose every game.
I’ve got a couple of younger cousins. When they were teenagers their parents bought them some 40K orks and marines. The one with orks lost every game so they decided it wasn’t worth the money or hassle, and stopped. I think about that quite a lot (often when GW releases a hopelessly unbalanced battle box or starter) because it must happen all the time. And maybe my cousins were right to quit all those years ago.
drbored wrote: It's actually pretty insulting that they then followed this up with more custodes points updates that are free and take precedent over this publication. Like, there's all the proof you need that these points updates could have been free.
Unless I've missed something - like people comparing preview copies of the new MFM to the Custodes PDF - all they've done is release the Codex: Custodes page of the MFM as a PDF given how close the two releases are, when there should've been more of a gap. The article around the PDF didn't read like "this replaces the page of the MFM", as far as I could see.
Mandragola wrote: People aren't buying paragon warsuits or gladiators, so they get a price cut. Sales win because players bought something else instead previously, and now (in theory) we need to buy paragons and gladiators. Except actually we don't do that because they are still bad, and now decent units like Redemptors are worse.
Should Paragon Warsuits not get a points cut? How exactly are sales winning out if you're still not going to use those models?
Yes of course they should have got a price cut. But the actually good units in the codex shouldn’t have got a price rise at the same time. The overall effect is to make an average army worse by taking away its efficient tools, while turning something useless into something still pretty bad.
GW has attempted to fix internal balance within codexes by levelling out those costs. They haven’t attempted to correct balance between codexes. The effect is to make the game’s balance worse. DE haven’t suffered because everything was already good but average books have lost their few good options.
My theory is that this approach is driven by sales, or lack of sales. People aren’t buying bad stuff so make it cheaper, and make the stuff they are buying worse. But the outcome is likely to be that competitive hyper focused waac people give up on sisters altogether rather than trying to compete with DE.
Fixed that for you, gotta remember you're talking about the minority, most players play the army the like and collect regardless of the points changes, rather than chasing a meta.
Ah yes, the two types of people in the world. Competitive hyper focused waac and rest. So binary and easy to remember. Probably also wrong as it reduces complexity of people to simplistic tropes.
People don't need to chase a meta to feel like their army is doing nothing on the table, and that will drive people away from factions. I know a lot of people want to believe in the mindless consumer, but the fanatics are the exceptions, not the norm.
Mandragola wrote: People aren't buying paragon warsuits or gladiators, so they get a price cut. Sales win because players bought something else instead previously, and now (in theory) we need to buy paragons and gladiators. Except actually we don't do that because they are still bad, and now decent units like Redemptors are worse.
Should Paragon Warsuits not get a points cut? How exactly are sales winning out if you're still not going to use those models?
Yes of course they should have got a price cut. But the actually good units in the codex shouldn’t have got a price rise at the same time. The overall effect is to make an average army worse by taking away its efficient tools, while turning something useless into something still pretty bad.
GW has attempted to fix internal balance within codexes by levelling out those costs. They haven’t attempted to correct balance between codexes. The effect is to make the game’s balance worse. DE haven’t suffered because everything was already good but average books have lost their few good options.
My theory is that this approach is driven by sales, or lack of sales. People aren’t buying bad stuff so make it cheaper, and make the stuff they are buying worse. But the outcome is likely to be that competitive hyper focused waac people give up on sisters altogether rather than trying to compete with DE.
Fixed that for you, gotta remember you're talking about the minority, most players play the army the like and collect regardless of the points changes, rather than chasing a meta.
Ah yes, the two types of people in the world. Competitive hyper focused waac and rest. So binary and easy to remember. Probably also wrong as it reduces complexity of people to simplistic tropes.
People don't need to chase a meta to feel like their army is doing nothing on the table, and that will drive people away from factions. I know a lot of people want to believe in the mindless consumer, but the fanatics are the exceptions, not the norm.
Beyond that guy in general, I've never head of anyone ditching their entire army over minor point tweaks. The vast majority of players are not in tournaments, the vast majority play what rhey like to play. Contrary to the above the vast majority of the game will not be going "gak my Exorcist only dropped 15 points, durkhari are top of the tables, better go buy them!".
So yes, if someone is trashing a collection over a points rebalance because their army isn't the "best", they're conforming with that trope. Lots of people just play casual balanced lists that can play reasonably nicely with most lists from most factions outside of the tournament window.
I’ve got a couple of younger cousins. When they were teenagers their parents bought them some 40K orks and marines. The one with orks lost every game so they decided it wasn’t worth the money or hassle, and stopped. I think about that quite a lot (often when GW releases a hopelessly unbalanced battle box or starter) because it must happen all the time. And maybe my cousins were right to quit all those years ago.
This situation is equally likely to happen even under a 'perfectly' balanced game though. A new player picking up something like Drukhari right now doesn't automatically get to win their first games just because that faction currently posts 60%+ win rates in a competitive environment. If they're up against more experienced players they're going to make the usual new player mistakes and may still lose. Then if GW manage to balance Drukhari in a future update and bring them in line with other faction winrates, new Drukhari players are even less likely to win initial games.
Further more, competitive rankings and faction balance comparisons are a result of an environment where all game rules are used to their fullest extent. How many brand new 40k players understand how to "play the mission" rather than just trying to kill enemy units? Even two equally skilled new players will get disjointed results if they're using factions where one has been successfully balanced around objective play or special rules over raw killing power. Think GSC versus Space Marines as an obvious example; the latter is far more forgiving of mistakes than the former.
That isn't an argument against improving game balance, just pointing out that the process doesn't help new players to the same extent people assume it would.
