H.B.M.C. wrote: So do the new points come out tomorrow when pre-orders go up, or next week when the book comes out?
I haven't seen it confirmed either way, but I'd suspect alongside the actual release - maybe on the Friday the day before.
And dammit, people - the SoB leaks were meant to be of points increases to set ERJACK off again...
I'm disappointed too. I've been practicing my rants in the shower all week. I was ready to be completely off the rails, but those(if real) are completely reasonable.
Most of those Sisters leaked points changes are very reasonable. The Imagifier is still garbage though and a 5 point reduction on the Immolator feels rather pointless. If it was 15-20 points then they actually might be tournament viable. Still, any reduction is nice and it's better than nothing. Maybe in another year they'll have dropped those remaining 10-15 points.
I can understand leaks from the book, as printing and pre-orders and such, but I don't think there has been leaks of the PDF's yet, so I'll be taking any points 'leaks' with a grain of salt.
So something with zero evidence, and flys in the face of almost everything they have done, you take as true because you assume they are terrible at heir jobs, and use that to attack them?
Like it’s one thing to have something you don’t like, but to believe things that are borderline obviously made up, just to enable an attack on people you don’t like. What was the term for that?
Anyway, I got my annual fill of dakka in two days lol. Never change.
Tyel wrote: I think the problem is you are fighting a subjective opinion.
My opposition isn't in balance. Its in interest. Freely available WLT/Relics allowed for making characters "your dudes", since the scope for doing so had largely been taken out of the datasheets.
"Its fine, in competitive games you only ever saw the same combos and 90% might never have been printed" isn't really a response either. If you want a reduction in power, nerf the good ones. (This arguably also applies to people using a bunch of CP over turns 1 and 2.)
Instead we are doubling down on the cookie cutter or nothing.
But that isn't correct. You can still take them. You just need to deal with the cost of going all in on them.
You can drink bleach too, that doesn't make it a beverage.
Tyel wrote: I think the problem is you are fighting a subjective opinion.
My opposition isn't in balance. Its in interest. Freely available WLT/Relics allowed for making characters "your dudes", since the scope for doing so had largely been taken out of the datasheets.
"Its fine, in competitive games you only ever saw the same combos and 90% might never have been printed" isn't really a response either. If you want a reduction in power, nerf the good ones. (This arguably also applies to people using a bunch of CP over turns 1 and 2.)
Instead we are doubling down on the cookie cutter or nothing.
But that isn't correct. You can still take them. You just need to deal with the cost of going all in on them.
You can drink bleach too, that doesn't make it a beverage.
I mean...that is a sentence there.
I don't find the black and white perspectives very useful.
Twisted Dice have a Youtube video about point changes scheduled for when the Chapter Approved NDA lifts tomorrow morning. The title implies good things for Orks.
Leth wrote: Anyone who saw “+2 to reivers” and thought these were legit is probably not paying attention
Why? It would make perfect sense, GW has been very committed to making Reivers unplayable from the get go.
They've improved Reivers several times and even game them their own AoR to no effect. They have never nerfed Reivers.
They have never nerfed Reivers. They just made Incursors and Infiltrators, both much more useful units, to steal what little additional thunder they gave Reivers every time they have "improved" them.
Twisted Dice have a Youtube video about point changes scheduled for when the Chapter Approved NDA lifts tomorrow morning. The title implies good things for Orks.
Don't get my hopes up, I'm trying very hard to not be disappointed
Well, better than expected I guess? Not sure it will be enough though, at least the undid the nerfs for the rather cool goff archetype and made the squig buggy not flaming garbage.
Edit: You missed burnas and kommadoz also going down 1 point each Edit2: Also Lootas - essentially all ork infantry went down by 1 ppm.
Why is this person the only one reporting on the new points and only of a specific faction? I'm not really doubting that he's correct but more wondering where the rest of the points are.
I don't find the black and white perspectives very useful.
I mean in practice - and vaguely relevantly - its like when you have a mediocre unit that isn't seeing successful tournament play but you like it so run it... and then GW decides it needs a points hike of 10-20%. So yes you can still run it - but now its even more suboptimal to do so. It will vary from player to player - but I think most eventually hit some sort of breaking point where something is such an inferior choice taking it starts sucking the fun out of the game.
To be fair, GW is now (usually) at least on the same page as the wider community, so their balance updates go in the right direction, but still.
Anyway hopefully we get some more points reveals in the next 24 hours.
Us3Less wrote: Why is this person the only one reporting on the new points and only of a specific faction? I'm not really doubting that he's correct but more wondering where the rest of the points are.
Maybe they were trying to shut down the shitstorm kicked up by the (now debunked) rumors I shared earlier.
Task failed successfully!
Anyways the guy apparently is a TO in the UK, so it's possible that he actually has some sources on that.
Dysartes wrote: Huh - removing the 5 ppm floor? Interesting.
Yea, too bad Grots are still overpriced at 4pt though.
They do nothing. They need new rules to be useful.
*looks sadly at the 40 Grots that is collecting dust on the shelf*
They should have objective secured as a troops choice but they do get some extra love in the mission changes as well… so there is some play there for them or if they have orrible gits but they are still a cheap troop and throwaway unit.
Kanluwen wrote: I'm actually going to disagree with you on the "objective secured" bit.
They're supposed to be wildly unfocused without a handler. So maybe no OS unless there's a Grot Herder nearby?
Or hell, just give them(and Nurglings!) some kind of "distracting nuisance" rule.
We can always make up some nonsensical lore reason why something sucks but in game balance means having a troop based unit that does absolutely nothing but claim objectives that are even limited in that role because they don’t have the one rule every other troop unit In Game has means that unit sucks.
No one takes herders, heck no one even takes the brand new named herder zodgrod who literally makes the best super grots because no matter how much those units improve grots they still are awful at doing anything for the cost except claim objectives.
Kanluwen wrote: Then maybe other fodder type troop units in the game shouldn't get it as well?
I have zero issues with Conscripts not getting it. Zero issues with Cultists not getting it.
Because that seems to be the part you're glossing over. It's not just a "lore reason". It's the mechanism and intention behind the unit itself.
I mean the intention of the unit is pretty blatant now… games workshop just specifically carved out a role for Gretchin in the new missions to claim objectives!!’
Heck I think adding a herder to make grots objective secured is a good idea (and gives the herder a reason to be taken)… the trick is making it point efficient enough so that taking a unit of Gretchin and a herder isn’t more expensive then just taking a unit of boys that do the same thing only better. For that to work herders need to be around 17 Base with 3pt hound/lash.. putting the unit at 60pts to the ork boys 80pt or ~6ppm Gretchin… which is still kinda expensive… but playable.
While I'm still not a fan of loosing the free WLT/Relic, The Fact this book has the updated and FAQ'd core rules and all the work put into the faction secondaries means I'm not as averse to buying it as I was.
I'm actually pretty happy with how it turned out... except I really wish it was spiral bound. Hopefully the points drops show up soon.
Dysartes wrote: Huh - removing the 5 ppm floor? Interesting.
Yea, too bad Grots are still overpriced at 4pt though.
They do nothing. They need new rules to be useful.
*looks sadly at the 40 Grots that is collecting dust on the shelf*
They should have objective secured as a troops choice but they do get some extra love in the mission changes as well… so there is some play there for them or if they have orrible gits but they are still a cheap troop and throwaway unit.
Well, the 'orrible gitz thing exists, but still sucks for a number of reasons:
1. It's a specialist mob, so only one / army
2. It also has a disadvantage (the -1 to shooting within 3" which is more likely to affect you than your enemy), and I'm sick and tired of Orks ALWAYS getting this "hey here's a rule that helps you slightly, but attached to it is a friggin -1 to shooting/leadership etc. etc. wtf do we always get these negative rules?)
3. Grots die/run away from a slight breeze, so they're not going to hold this objective by themselves anyway, which means I need to invest more points in other units to actually hang on to the objective if I need to (which also then likely get the -1 to shoot, yay)
4. They are only slightly useful as a throwaway unit because Boyz also kinda suck.
I dunno, Grots are never going to be an offensive unit, maybe give them a defensive role, like a built in Grot Shields ability (instead of a strategem) that gives dense cover (instead of light, which is pretty useless for Ork infantry), but also cause mortal wounds to the Grots if triggered. Anyway, I love the little guys, and just wish I had a reason to field them.
Us3Less wrote: Why is this person the only one reporting on the new points and only of a specific faction? I'm not really doubting that he's correct but more wondering where the rest of the points are.
Maybe they were trying to shut down the shitstorm kicked up by the (now debunked) rumors I shared earlier.
Task failed successfully!
Anyways the guy apparently is a TO in the UK, so it's possible that he actually has some sources on that.
Got some further info from someone on GSC Discord. Basically the folks doing video reviews for Chapter Approved have the new points details, but sites like Goonhammer doing text reviews do not.
However reviewers aren't supposed to discuss the points until GW posts something, so it's possible that Twisted Dice has misunderstood the rules.
Dysartes wrote: Huh - removing the 5 ppm floor? Interesting.
Yea, too bad Grots are still overpriced at 4pt though.
They do nothing. They need new rules to be useful.
*looks sadly at the 40 Grots that is collecting dust on the shelf*
They should have objective secured as a troops choice but they do get some extra love in the mission changes as well… so there is some play there for them or if they have orrible gits but they are still a cheap troop and throwaway unit.
Well, the 'orrible gitz thing exists, but still sucks for a number of reasons:
1. It's a specialist mob, so only one / army
2. It also has a disadvantage (the -1 to shooting within 3" which is more likely to affect you than your enemy), and I'm sick and tired of Orks ALWAYS getting this "hey here's a rule that helps you slightly, but attached to it is a friggin -1 to shooting/leadership etc. etc. wtf do we always get these negative rules?)
3. Grots die/run away from a slight breeze, so they're not going to hold this objective by themselves anyway, which means I need to invest more points in other units to actually hang on to the objective if I need to (which also then likely get the -1 to shoot, yay)
4. They are only slightly useful as a throwaway unit because Boyz also kinda suck.
I dunno, Grots are never going to be an offensive unit, maybe give them a defensive role, like a built in Grot Shields ability (instead of a strategem) that gives dense cover (instead of light, which is pretty useless for Ork infantry), but also cause mortal wounds to the Grots if triggered. Anyway, I love the little guys, and just wish I had a reason to field them.
Not disagreeing with you. Just saying they might have play with the new mission rule that allows them to score turn 1. All you need is 1x 40pt unit to grab an objective turn 1. If it stays alive great if not it did it’s job.. fill the second troop slot with beastsnaggas in Killrig. Which is a useful unit. Take several units of kommandos to block some of your opponents missions and a beastboss on squig w beasthide mantle or BBK. And you have a decent core for a goff pressure again. Mission play is what makes or break 9th edition armies and orks look like they got some new tools this Chapter approved. (I expect to see a lot more of the above type lists some with or without ghaz/makari.) some using stormboys min size units to grab objectives or some with squigriders instead because FA and HS slot limits suck for orks. It’s the only list we have left with mission play. Nothing in The new missions seems to really help push buggy spam or army of renown and does nothing for dreadmob or greentide builds issues.
Goonhammer CA review here, including all secondaries.
Orks get some positive changes here too.
They lost me on 'updated rules make this a must buy' rather than accepting that GW should be posting an updated core rules document on the regular. Especially after acknowledging that it isn't even up today with rules changes from four months ago.
---
Weirdest change:
No Empty Dedicated Transports: When you deploy your army, each Dedicated Transport must have at least one unit embarked in it – if it doesn’t, then it’s destroyed. No more empty Wave Serpents or Land Speeder Storms (the main culprits in the past).
Way to prove you've no concept of reserves, battlefield tactics or basic safety, GW.
Everybody waits for the battle kickoff whistle in the APC, not dispersed in terrain. That's just...
Dysartes wrote: Huh - removing the 5 ppm floor? Interesting.
Yea, too bad Grots are still overpriced at 4pt though.
They do nothing. They need new rules to be useful.
*looks sadly at the 40 Grots that is collecting dust on the shelf*
They should have objective secured as a troops choice but they do get some extra love in the mission changes as well… so there is some play there for them or if they have orrible gits but they are still a cheap troop and throwaway unit.
Well, the 'orrible gitz thing exists, but still sucks for a number of reasons:
1. It's a specialist mob, so only one / army
2. It also has a disadvantage (the -1 to shooting within 3" which is more likely to affect you than your enemy), and I'm sick and tired of Orks ALWAYS getting this "hey here's a rule that helps you slightly, but attached to it is a friggin -1 to shooting/leadership etc. etc. wtf do we always get these negative rules?)
3. Grots die/run away from a slight breeze, so they're not going to hold this objective by themselves anyway, which means I need to invest more points in other units to actually hang on to the objective if I need to (which also then likely get the -1 to shoot, yay)
4. They are only slightly useful as a throwaway unit because Boyz also kinda suck.
I dunno, Grots are never going to be an offensive unit, maybe give them a defensive role, like a built in Grot Shields ability (instead of a strategem) that gives dense cover (instead of light, which is pretty useless for Ork infantry), but also cause mortal wounds to the Grots if triggered. Anyway, I love the little guys, and just wish I had a reason to field them.
Not disagreeing with you. Just saying they might have play with the new mission rule that allows them to score turn 1. All you need is 1x 40pt unit to grab an objective turn 1. If it stays alive great if not it did it’s job.. fill the second troop slot with beastsnaggas in Killrig. Which is a useful unit. Take several units of kommandos to block some of your opponents missions and a beastboss on squig w beasthide mantle or BBK. And you have a decent core for a goff pressure again. Mission play is what makes or break 9th edition armies and orks look like they got some new tools this Chapter approved. (I expect to see a lot more of the above type lists some with or without ghaz/makari.) some using stormboys min size units to grab objectives or some with squigriders instead because FA and HS slot limits suck for orks. It’s the only list we have left with mission play. Nothing in The new missions seems to really help push buggy spam or army of renown and does nothing for dreadmob or greentide builds issues.
Yea, I get what you are saying - they do more now than they used to. Still, they don't DO anything - just deploy them on an objective, or on your deployment line and advance them onto an objective on T1 (unless you lose first turn, and they all die/run away because they were shot at by a random rhino storm bolter). I dunno it just feels like going through the motions, like paying a scoring tax, these new tournament rules aren't my thing anyway, I mostly play tempest of war. I prefer units to have a use because of their rules/stat line, not because of mission technicalities.
Beastboss: Went up 30pts last time because GW is stupid. Nobody was using Beastboss but they still hit it with a 20% price hike. Now, after making characters worse, especially 1 per detachment characters they gave it a 15pt price reduction. Still 15pts higher than it started when almost nobody was using it in the competitive scene...and definitely nobody was using it and placing.
Boyz/Grots/beastsnaggas/nobz/tankbustas/lootas/stormboyz: Summary: 1pt price reduction...your units which die to a stiff breeze are now a tiny bit cheaper to bring...also, we are going to heavily penalize you if you take multiple detachments so make sure you fully utilize those battalion slots because you aren't likely going to be taking more than 3 of each battlefield role
Squigbuggies: couldn't care less for two reasons. 1: I don't like the model and therefore never bought any, I think they are ugly. and 2: Dropping them by 15pts after they've been limited, are stuck in squadrons AND with the new indirect weapons rules making them significantly less useful...You could have dropped them 30-35 and they would still have been relegated to the shelf over the better buggies like Scrapjetz.
Killrig: literally just undoes what GW did last points change. They gave it a 20pt price hike and realized "Whoops this thing isn't worth 210pts" and brought it right back to where it was, where almost nobody was taking it to begin with.
If they do not fundamentally change Ork rules, especially movement, limitations and Morale then unless you make those aforementioned units so cheap they become a true horde army, none of these minuscule price changes will do anything.
Nor, by the look of things, do basic mathematics skills - 110 to 95 is a 15 point drop, not a 25 point drop.
That is a spectacularly mean-spirited and uncharitable reading of what could just as well explained as a run of the mill mistake. Are you a hateful git out of obsessive compulsion, or choice?
Nor, by the look of things, do basic mathematics skills - 110 to 95 is a 15 point drop, not a 25 point drop.
That is a spectacularly mean-spirited and uncharitable reading of what could just as well explained as a run of the mill mistake. Are you a hateful git out of obsessive compulsion, or choice?
Isn't calling someone an obsessively compulsive hateful git, a little strong given the nature of your post? If you want to call someone out as unfairly offensive, don't immediately follow the same example.
Nor, by the look of things, do basic mathematics skills - 110 to 95 is a 15 point drop, not a 25 point drop.
That is a spectacularly mean-spirited and uncharitable reading of what could just as well explained as a run of the mill mistake. Are you a hateful git out of obsessive compulsion, or choice?
Killrig at 190 Vs wazboom at 190.
Not an easy choice, maybe a killrig will be superior now that fliers can't engage. Of course it will depend on the rest of the list but there is a debate.
If grots actually are moved down to 4 points, I'd be shocked that GW are finally admitting that their asinine 5 point minimum is dumb and that they can actually point things lower than that.
It'd be better if grots got more functional rules, but at least it's a start. I don't even know if they're worth 3ppm at their current ruleset, but 4ppm won't be enough to make them "competitive". Likewise with Boyz being at 8. I see them needing to be around 6-7 points with the AoC changes and general lack of synergy in the current codex.
No Empty Dedicated Transports: When you deploy your army, each Dedicated Transport must have at least one unit embarked in it – if it doesn’t, then it’s destroyed. No more empty Wave Serpents or Land Speeder Storms (the main culprits in the past).
Way to prove you've no concept of reserves, battlefield tactics or basic safety, GW.
Everybody waits for the battle kickoff whistle in the APC, not dispersed in terrain. That's just...
Nope. Just no.
The double-tap of CP reduction and no free WT/Relic was bad enough, but this is flat out insane.
Dysartes wrote: Huh - removing the 5 ppm floor? Interesting.
Yea, too bad Grots are still overpriced at 4pt though.
They do nothing. They need new rules to be useful.
*looks sadly at the 40 Grots that is collecting dust on the shelf*
kely going to be taking more than 3 of each battlefield role
A 1 pt reduction in grots is still a 20% reduction in cost. They may still be underpowered/overcosted, but they are dramatically less underpowered/overcosted than they were previously which brings them a bit closer to usable. It might not be as much progress as we wanted, but its still substantial improvement.
No Empty Dedicated Transports: When you deploy your army, each Dedicated Transport must have at least one unit embarked in it – if it doesn’t, then it’s destroyed. No more empty Wave Serpents or Land Speeder Storms (the main culprits in the past).
Way to prove you've no concept of reserves, battlefield tactics or basic safety, GW.
Everybody waits for the battle kickoff whistle in the APC, not dispersed in terrain. That's just...
Nope. Just no.
The double-tap of CP reduction and no free WT/Relic was bad enough, but this is flat out insane.
They really haven't a clue what they're doing.
Ah yes, because Land Speeder Storms were dominating and scary. OH and all those pesky Wave Serpents doing so much heavy lifting.
No Empty Dedicated Transports: When you deploy your army, each Dedicated Transport must have at least one unit embarked in it – if it doesn’t, then it’s destroyed. No more empty Wave Serpents or Land Speeder Storms (the main culprits in the past).
Way to prove you've no concept of reserves, battlefield tactics or basic safety, GW.
Everybody waits for the battle kickoff whistle in the APC, not dispersed in terrain. That's just...
Nope. Just no.
The double-tap of CP reduction and no free WT/Relic was bad enough, but this is flat out insane.
They really haven't a clue what they're doing.
Well sales tell do they have clue or not. After all sales is their only goal so those decide do they have a clue.
If sales go strong they do as they archieve goal they need to fulfill.
I'm not sure what the problem is here, but I never liked that you could take a transport but then not actually transport the unit you bought it for... it only made things like venom/raider spam even better and personally it just felt wrong. I haven't encountered a situation yet where separating transport and 'cargo' made sense, so I'm all for this change.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: I'm all for it, there have been too many nuisance transports across multiple editions that weren't used to transport.
It also stops them being used to block out deep strike and charges etc.
Hell, you can still use them for that. You just have to have their passengers hop out turn one and they can go do whatever they want.
Which is fine, but stops it being used as a deployment tactic, and then if your opponent is the essentially redeploying the first turn rather than going forward, then it's all good.
No Empty Dedicated Transports: When you deploy your army, each Dedicated Transport must have at least one unit embarked in it – if it doesn’t, then it’s destroyed. No more empty Wave Serpents or Land Speeder Storms (the main culprits in the past).
Way to prove you've no concept of reserves, battlefield tactics or basic safety, GW. Everybody waits for the battle kickoff whistle in the APC, not dispersed in terrain. That's just...
Doesn't this basically kill Ghost Arks? Normally you get an Ark and 20 warriors and use it as a supporting unit. Can't do that anymore, it seems. Because feth necrons I guess.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Us3Less wrote: I'm not sure what the problem is here, but I never liked that you could take a transport but then not actually transport the unit you bought it for... it only made things like venom/raider spam even better and personally it just felt wrong. I haven't encountered a situation yet where separating transport and 'cargo' made sense, so I'm all for this change.
It's a blanket rule that screws over more esoteric dedicated transports like Ghost Arks. Before you could just get 20 warriors and a ghost ark and you're fine, you can use it as intended. Now you have to get 30 warriors to use it as how it's meant to be used, as a support vehicle for warriors.
There might be other awkward interactions with other units. At least Night Scythes aren't dedicated transports.
Us3Less wrote: I'm not sure what the problem is here, but I never liked that you could take a transport but then not actually transport the unit you bought it for... it only made things like venom/raider spam even better and personally it just felt wrong. I haven't encountered a situation yet where separating transport and 'cargo' made sense, so I'm all for this change.
It's a blanket rule that screws over more esoteric dedicated transports like Ghost Arks.
Before you could just get 20 warriors and a ghost ark and you're fine, you can use it as intended.
Now you have to get 30 warriors to use it as how it's meant to be used, as a support vehicle for warriors.
There might be other awkward interactions with other units. At least Night Scythes aren't dedicated transports.
If I understand you correctly, you don't like the rule because it prevents you from taking a transport for a unit that doesn't fit in the transport (i.e. a unit of 20 warriors in a Ghost Ark that has a transport capacity less than 20)? Because to me, it only makes sense that you shouldn't be able to.
Jidmah wrote: Uhm, semper, you might want to check your "nobody was using this" statements against actual data...
Should we be pedantic or do you want to just admit you know I was being hyperbolic to make the point it was an unneeded nerf to a unit which was seeing play but was by no stretch of the imagination oppressive or OP or even an Auto-include.
In 2021 there were 54 GTs where ork lists placed in the top 4, 46 of those with the new Codex. Of the 46 only 17 had a Beastboss on Squigosaur in them. None ironically had the named character who went up 30pts as well. So yes it was taken, but not in an insane amount nor was it an auto-include. Hence my use of hyperbole, sorry if you didn't pick that up.
It'd be better if grots got more functional rules, but at least it's a start. I don't even know if they're worth 3ppm at their current ruleset, but 4ppm won't be enough to make them "competitive". Likewise with Boyz being at 8. I see them needing to be around 6-7 points with the AoC changes and general lack of synergy in the current codex.
They aren't worth 3ppm except as action monkeys and back field objective holders. The lack of armor and additional rules to make them bad (-1 attrition tests, not obsec) just means that is all they are good for.
A 1 pt reduction in grots is still a 20% reduction in cost. They may still be underpowered/overcosted, but they are dramatically less underpowered/overcosted than they were previously which brings them a bit closer to usable. It might not be as much progress as we wanted, but its still substantial improvement.
Most competitive lists weren't taking any of them, the few that had them were generally taking 1 MSU squad, so on average this saves a list 10pts. And i'll point out that GW hit them with a 66% Price hike in this edition so giving them a 20pt price cut isn't breaking news or game changing. Grots weren't running away with 9th edition prior to the new codex the whole point of making Ork troops more expensive was to stop hordes.
Jidmah wrote: Uhm, semper, you might want to check your "nobody was using this" statements against actual data...
Should we be pedantic or do you want to just admit you know I was being hyperbolic to make the point it was an unneeded nerf to a unit which was seeing play but was by no stretch of the imagination oppressive or OP or even an Auto-include.
In 2021 there were 54 GTs where ork lists placed in the top 4, 46 of those with the new Codex. Of the 46 only 17 had a Beastboss on Squigosaur in them. None ironically had the named character who went up 30pts as well. So yes it was taken, but not in an insane amount nor was it an auto-include. Hence my use of hyperbole, sorry if you didn't pick that up.
Sorry, if one third of the top tournament lists are running a model "no one uses those" isn't hyperbole, it's ignorant and wrong.
Even if it was hyperbole, it's completely misplaced here and makes you look like a fool.
That said, both the kill rig and the beastboss were staples for the goff archetype which was doing very well at tournaments before its unwarranted nerf. The other lists were not running that archetype, but exploiting freeboota planes and squig buggy spam.
TL;DR: If you post dumb gak, be prepared to be called out for it. Your post was dumb gak and going "loL i wAs beEinG iROnic, yOu jUSt diDN't gET iT" while rolling your eyes like a teenage girl doesn't change that.
Us3Less wrote: I'm not sure what the problem is here, but I never liked that you could take a transport but then not actually transport the unit you bought it for... it only made things like venom/raider spam even better and personally it just felt wrong. I haven't encountered a situation yet where separating transport and 'cargo' made sense, so I'm all for this change.
It's a blanket rule that screws over more esoteric dedicated transports like Ghost Arks. Before you could just get 20 warriors and a ghost ark and you're fine, you can use it as intended. Now you have to get 30 warriors to use it as how it's meant to be used, as a support vehicle for warriors.
There might be other awkward interactions with other units. At least Night Scythes aren't dedicated transports.
If I understand you correctly, you don't like the rule because it prevents you from taking a transport for a unit that doesn't fit in the transport (i.e. a unit of 20 warriors in a Ghost Ark that has a transport capacity less than 20)? Because to me, it only makes sense that you shouldn't be able to.
You don't know what the Ghost Ark is for then. Ghost Arks aren't rhinos. They aren't primarily for transport, they're for healing your warrior blobs. It's why you can only repair warriors and why you can repair warriors outside of Ghost Arks. It's why there's a repair rule that only heals an embarked unit up to the transport cap; you would embark a heavily damaged squad into the ark, heal it up to 10 and return it to the field to be repaired by the Ark's aura and other means.
The GA is an ambulance, it is not an IFV or APC. Making a rule that forces you to embark a healthy squad into a GA undermines its purpose and indirectly nerfs it, as you have to pay for additional squad of warriors to take a vehicle to support your warrior blobs. It was already an expensive (yet effective) combo before the change, now I'm not sure if it's viable.
Jidmah wrote: Uhm, semper, you might want to check your "nobody was using this" statements against actual data...
Should we be pedantic or do you want to just admit you know I was being hyperbolic to make the point it was an unneeded nerf to a unit which was seeing play but was by no stretch of the imagination oppressive or OP or even an Auto-include.
In 2021 there were 54 GTs where ork lists placed in the top 4, 46 of those with the new Codex. Of the 46 only 17 had a Beastboss on Squigosaur in them. None ironically had the named character who went up 30pts as well. So yes it was taken, but not in an insane amount nor was it an auto-include. Hence my use of hyperbole, sorry if you didn't pick that up.
Sorry, if one third of the top tournament lists are running a model "no one uses those" isn't hyperbole, it's ignorant and wrong.
Even if it was hyperbole, it's completely misplaced here and makes you look like a fool.
That said, both the kill rig and the beastboss were staples for the goff archetype which was doing very well at tournaments before its unwarranted nerf. The other lists were not running that archetype, but exploiting freeboota planes and squig buggy spam.
TL;DR: If you post dumb gak, be prepared to be called out for it. Your post was dumb gak and going "loL i wAs beEinG iROnic, yOu jUSt diDN't gET iT" while rolling your eyes like a teenage girl doesn't change that.
Lets compare that to the top character other factions are taking that didn't get nerfed...like Trajann. How many top Custards lists featured Trajann? like 80-90% I'm guessing because I don't feel like looking but I can only imagine its the vast majority of them
But hey if you feel like being rude, that's on you bud I hope you have a wonderful day.
Us3Less wrote: I'm not sure what the problem is here, but I never liked that you could take a transport but then not actually transport the unit you bought it for... it only made things like venom/raider spam even better and personally it just felt wrong. I haven't encountered a situation yet where separating transport and 'cargo' made sense, so I'm all for this change.
It's a blanket rule that screws over more esoteric dedicated transports like Ghost Arks.
Before you could just get 20 warriors and a ghost ark and you're fine, you can use it as intended.
Now you have to get 30 warriors to use it as how it's meant to be used, as a support vehicle for warriors.
There might be other awkward interactions with other units. At least Night Scythes aren't dedicated transports.
If I understand you correctly, you don't like the rule because it prevents you from taking a transport for a unit that doesn't fit in the transport (i.e. a unit of 20 warriors in a Ghost Ark that has a transport capacity less than 20)? Because to me, it only makes sense that you shouldn't be able to.
You don't know what the Ghost Ark is for then.
Ghost Arks aren't rhinos. They aren't primarily for transport, they're for healing your warrior blobs. It's why you can only repair warriors and why you can repair warriors outside of Ghost Arks.
It's why there's a repair rule that only heals an embarked unit up to the transport cap; you would embark a heavily damaged squad into the ark, heal it up to 10 and return it to the field to be repaired by the Ark's aura and other means.
The GA is an ambulance, it is not an IFV or APC. Making a rule that forces you to embark a healthy squad into a GA undermines its purpose and indirectly nerfs it, as you have to pay for additional squad of warriors to take a vehicle to support your warrior blobs. It was already an expensive (yet effective) combo before the change, now I'm not sure if it's viable.
That sounds more like a quirk of the rule rather than intended. It embarks a 20 man squad that has been reduced to below 10, heals it up to 10 then let's it out to heal up even more in it's aura?
Also, and crucially it doesn't stop you from doing that tactic, it just means you have a squad of 10 for the ghost ark that starts in it, and then the squad of 10 embarks later in the game.
Us3Less wrote: I'm not sure what the problem is here, but I never liked that you could take a transport but then not actually transport the unit you bought it for... it only made things like venom/raider spam even better and personally it just felt wrong. I haven't encountered a situation yet where separating transport and 'cargo' made sense, so I'm all for this change.
It's a blanket rule that screws over more esoteric dedicated transports like Ghost Arks. Before you could just get 20 warriors and a ghost ark and you're fine, you can use it as intended. Now you have to get 30 warriors to use it as how it's meant to be used, as a support vehicle for warriors.
There might be other awkward interactions with other units. At least Night Scythes aren't dedicated transports.
If I understand you correctly, you don't like the rule because it prevents you from taking a transport for a unit that doesn't fit in the transport (i.e. a unit of 20 warriors in a Ghost Ark that has a transport capacity less than 20)? Because to me, it only makes sense that you shouldn't be able to.
You don't know what the Ghost Ark is for then. Ghost Arks aren't rhinos. They aren't primarily for transport, they're for healing your warrior blobs. It's why you can only repair warriors and why you can repair warriors outside of Ghost Arks. It's why there's a repair rule that only heals an embarked unit up to the transport cap; you would embark a heavily damaged squad into the ark, heal it up to 10 and return it to the field to be repaired by the Ark's aura and other means.
The GA is an ambulance, it is not an IFV or APC. Making a rule that forces you to embark a healthy squad into a GA undermines its purpose and indirectly nerfs it, as you have to pay for additional squad of warriors to take a vehicle to support your warrior blobs. It was already an expensive (yet effective) combo before the change, now I'm not sure if it's viable.
That sounds more like a quirk of the rule rather than intended. It embarks a 20 man squad that has been reduced to below 10, heals it up to 10 then let's it out to heal up even more in it's aura?
Also, and crucially it doesn't stop you from doing that tactic, it just means you have a squad of 10 for the ghost ark that starts in it, and then the squad of 10 embarks later in the game.
Well yeah, because giving effective immunity to a 10+ warrior blob would be a bit too much. Think about it, if it could heal an embarked squad up to 20 it would be really annoying to play against. You bring down a warrior squad to single model, it retreats back inside the ark and comes back out at full strength. You bring it down to a single model again, it does the same thing again. 10 warriors are a lot easier to kill than 20 warriors, especially if there's already a bunch of RP buffs at play.
It doesn't stop the tactic, but as I said, it makes it more expensive. It adds a good 130 point to the list if you want to keep your silver tide. Might as well just drop the Ark and add more warriors.
Edit : Actually, I was mistaken, I was thinking of the 8th ed codex. As of 9th ed, the Ghost Ark cannot repair models embarked within it, as the clause stating that it could no longer exists. It only repairs units outside of it. So you can't even use that tactic.
Us3Less wrote: I'm not sure what the problem is here, but I never liked that you could take a transport but then not actually transport the unit you bought it for... it only made things like venom/raider spam even better and personally it just felt wrong. I haven't encountered a situation yet where separating transport and 'cargo' made sense, so I'm all for this change.
It's a blanket rule that screws over more esoteric dedicated transports like Ghost Arks.
Before you could just get 20 warriors and a ghost ark and you're fine, you can use it as intended.
Now you have to get 30 warriors to use it as how it's meant to be used, as a support vehicle for warriors.
There might be other awkward interactions with other units. At least Night Scythes aren't dedicated transports.
If I understand you correctly, you don't like the rule because it prevents you from taking a transport for a unit that doesn't fit in the transport (i.e. a unit of 20 warriors in a Ghost Ark that has a transport capacity less than 20)? Because to me, it only makes sense that you shouldn't be able to.
You don't know what the Ghost Ark is for then.
Ghost Arks aren't rhinos. They aren't primarily for transport, they're for healing your warrior blobs. It's why you can only repair warriors and why you can repair warriors outside of Ghost Arks.
It's why there's a repair rule that only heals an embarked unit up to the transport cap; you would embark a heavily damaged squad into the ark, heal it up to 10 and return it to the field to be repaired by the Ark's aura and other means.
The GA is an ambulance, it is not an IFV or APC. Making a rule that forces you to embark a healthy squad into a GA undermines its purpose and indirectly nerfs it, as you have to pay for additional squad of warriors to take a vehicle to support your warrior blobs. It was already an expensive (yet effective) combo before the change, now I'm not sure if it's viable.
Yeah, you're describing an abuse of the rules, not 'what was intended'. Props to GW for fixing it.
Yeah, you're describing an abuse of the rules, not 'what was intended'. Props to GW for fixing it.
They already "fixed it" in 9th though by simply removing the ability to repair models in the ark (faulty memory ftw). It was also an ability it had since it's inception and wasn't that cheesy. If you think that was abuse of the rules, you haven't seen Sonic the Genestealer, rerollable 2+ invuls or Fish of Fury. Unless you mean the repair aura around the vehicle is an abuse of the rules. Explain how killing a unit's primary purpose and gimmick is a good thing.
No, that's literally what the ghost ark was intended for. Since it original release that's been it's purpose. This is an arbitrary fix that's damaged the ghost arks utility.
The ghost ark is a repair centre but is in necron novels being used as a straight up transport as well iirc.
I understand it appears wonky because it has supplemental rules for units near it, but it's primary purpose is/was a transport, changing it to a different slot might solve that more eloquently though, but I dare say it would see even less use then if it robs a slot.
Ultimately yes, if you want a ghost ark, take a unit of 10 warriors and your blob of 20, at least then once the 20 gets below 10 you can hotswap as needed or keep reaper models in the ark while the flayer guys move up etc.
Dudeface wrote: The ghost ark is a repair centre but is in necron novels being used as a straight up transport as well iirc.
I understand it appears wonky because it has supplemental rules for units near it, but it's primary purpose is/was a transport, changing it to a different slot might solve that more eloquently though, but I dare say it would see even less use then if it robs a slot.
Ultimately yes, if you want a ghost ark, take a unit of 10 warriors and your blob of 20, at least then once the 20 gets below 10 you can hotswap as needed or keep reaper models in the ark while the flayer guys move up etc.
I'm pretty sure Ghost Arks do not have the Open Topped rule, so therefore reapers can't shoot out of it. It used to be open topped, but it lost that rule since 8th ed. As of 9th ed it lost the clause allowing for repairs in the ark. So keeping reapers in the ark effectively wastes them. So you can't use it to repair units in the ark, you can't use it to do drive bys and now you have to pay an additional warrior tax. Might as well drop the ark, take 10 more warriors with the points you gained from the drop and deploy two 20 model strong units of warriors.
Gives the Reanimator a use at least, I suppose. Spending 80 points for healer beats spending 145+130 points.
Dudeface wrote: The ghost ark is a repair centre but is in necron novels being used as a straight up transport as well iirc.
I understand it appears wonky because it has supplemental rules for units near it, but it's primary purpose is/was a transport, changing it to a different slot might solve that more eloquently though, but I dare say it would see even less use then if it robs a slot.
Ultimately yes, if you want a ghost ark, take a unit of 10 warriors and your blob of 20, at least then once the 20 gets below 10 you can hotswap as needed or keep reaper models in the ark while the flayer guys move up etc.
I'm pretty sure Ghost Arks do not have the Open Topped rule, so therefore reapers can't shoot out of it. It used to be open topped, but it lost that rule since 8th ed. As of 9th ed it lost the clause allowing for repairs in the ark. So keeping reapers in the ark effectively wastes them.
So you can't use it to repair units in the ark, you can't use it to do drive bys and now you have to pay an additional warrior tax. Might as well drop the ark, take 10 more warriors with the points you gained from the drop and deploy two 20 model strong units of warriors.
Gives the Reanimator a use at least, I suppose. Spending 80 points for healer beats spending 145+130 points.
You still don't want the Reanimator. It's still major trash.
Ghost Ark can carry characters still, right? Throw the Cryptek on it at the beginning of the game I guess?
Dudeface wrote: The ghost ark is a repair centre but is in necron novels being used as a straight up transport as well iirc.
I understand it appears wonky because it has supplemental rules for units near it, but it's primary purpose is/was a transport, changing it to a different slot might solve that more eloquently though, but I dare say it would see even less use then if it robs a slot.
Ultimately yes, if you want a ghost ark, take a unit of 10 warriors and your blob of 20, at least then once the 20 gets below 10 you can hotswap as needed or keep reaper models in the ark while the flayer guys move up etc.
I'm pretty sure Ghost Arks do not have the Open Topped rule, so therefore reapers can't shoot out of it. It used to be open topped, but it lost that rule since 8th ed. As of 9th ed it lost the clause allowing for repairs in the ark. So keeping reapers in the ark effectively wastes them. So you can't use it to repair units in the ark, you can't use it to do drive bys and now you have to pay an additional warrior tax. Might as well drop the ark, take 10 more warriors with the points you gained from the drop and deploy two 20 model strong units of warriors.
Gives the Reanimator a use at least, I suppose. Spending 80 points for healer beats spending 145+130 points.
You still don't want the Reanimator. It's still major trash.
Ghost Ark can carry characters still, right? Throw the Cryptek on it at the beginning of the game I guess?
I guess that's a viable work around. A lord or warden might be better as a "sacrifice" though because you'd want teks to support your forces with their buffs. A bit clunky, but then again, so is this inelegant rule.
Dudeface wrote: The ghost ark is a repair centre but is in necron novels being used as a straight up transport as well iirc.
I understand it appears wonky because it has supplemental rules for units near it, but it's primary purpose is/was a transport, changing it to a different slot might solve that more eloquently though, but I dare say it would see even less use then if it robs a slot.
Ultimately yes, if you want a ghost ark, take a unit of 10 warriors and your blob of 20, at least then once the 20 gets below 10 you can hotswap as needed or keep reaper models in the ark while the flayer guys move up etc.
Not correct. Codex says the ghost ark is a repair barge that repairs warriors on the battlefield and can be pressed into service as a conventional transport if needed. Its primary purpose since arriving in the game was to repair units. Transport has always been just something it can do if needed.
The "fix" to the game is stupid with regards to transports. They are already accounted for with the points or power level system. If they wanted to prevent spamming empty transports they could have just given them a maximum amount like they had in other editions. But needing to be in a transport or it implodes is dumb and people shouldn't spend so much energy trying to defend dumb ideas.
Dudeface wrote: The ghost ark is a repair centre but is in necron novels being used as a straight up transport as well iirc.
I understand it appears wonky because it has supplemental rules for units near it, but it's primary purpose is/was a transport, changing it to a different slot might solve that more eloquently though, but I dare say it would see even less use then if it robs a slot.
Ultimately yes, if you want a ghost ark, take a unit of 10 warriors and your blob of 20, at least then once the 20 gets below 10 you can hotswap as needed or keep reaper models in the ark while the flayer guys move up etc.
Not correct. Codex says the ghost ark is a repair barge that repairs warriors on the battlefield and can be pressed into service as a conventional transport if needed. Its primary purpose since arriving in the game was to repair units. Transport has always been just something it can do if needed.
The "fix" to the game is stupid with regards to transports. They are already accounted for with the points or power level system. If they wanted to prevent spamming empty transports they could have just given them a maximum amount like they had in other editions. But needing to be in a transport or it implodes is dumb and people shouldn't spend so much energy trying to defend dumb ideas.
It's nothing to do with fluff or points etc. It's almost 100% just to do with the stalling deployment via having more drops and loading up the transport t1. Re: ghost ark I said in my post they should just move It's slot.
No Empty Dedicated Transports: When you deploy your army, each Dedicated Transport must have at least one unit embarked in it – if it doesn’t, then it’s destroyed. No more empty Wave Serpents or Land Speeder Storms (the main culprits in the past).
Way to prove you've no concept of reserves, battlefield tactics or basic safety, GW.
Everybody waits for the battle kickoff whistle in the APC, not dispersed in terrain. That's just...
Nope. Just no.
The double-tap of CP reduction and no free WT/Relic was bad enough, but this is flat out insane.
They really haven't a clue what they're doing.
Really? Flat out insane?
Were non-competitive types just running around with oodles of empty transports? A unit that this forum spits on unless it's part of Eldar, Harlies, DE, or Nids?
Thr ghost ark was never considered in this change. Just a casualty of the dart and dart board method of game design.
Empty wave serpents might be a issue some where. They could adjust the wave serpent, adjust transport allotments, make it more desirable to fill the transport or make transports implode T1 if empty. The dart landed on implosion and now empty wave serpents are fixed.
No Empty Dedicated Transports: When you deploy your army, each Dedicated Transport must have at least one unit embarked in it – if it doesn’t, then it’s destroyed. No more empty Wave Serpents or Land Speeder Storms (the main culprits in the past).
Way to prove you've no concept of reserves, battlefield tactics or basic safety, GW.
Everybody waits for the battle kickoff whistle in the APC, not dispersed in terrain. That's just...
Nope. Just no.
The double-tap of CP reduction and no free WT/Relic was bad enough, but this is flat out insane.
They really haven't a clue what they're doing.
Really? Flat out insane?
Were non-competitive types just running around with oodles of empty transports? A unit that this forum spits on unless it's part of Eldar, Harlies, DE, or Nids?
You don't know what the Ghost Ark is for then.
Ghost Arks aren't rhinos. They aren't primarily for transport, they're for healing your warrior blobs. It's why you can only repair warriors and why you can repair warriors outside of Ghost Arks.
It's why there's a repair rule that only heals an embarked unit up to the transport cap; you would embark a heavily damaged squad into the ark, heal it up to 10 and return it to the field to be repaired by the Ark's aura and other means.
The GA is an ambulance, it is not an IFV or APC. Making a rule that forces you to embark a healthy squad into a GA undermines its purpose and indirectly nerfs it, as you have to pay for additional squad of warriors to take a vehicle to support your warrior blobs. It was already an expensive (yet effective) combo before the change, now I'm not sure if it's viable.
No. That's what YOU think they should work like.
A 10 man in a super durable transport that flies makes for a really great objective capper that can heal it's own fairly durable infantry.
You are mixing taking a 20 man to do damage against a 10 man to play the mission.
BrotherGecko wrote: Thr ghost ark was never considered in this change. Just a casualty of the dart and dart board method of game design. Empty wave serpents might be a issue some where. They could adjust the wave serpent, adjust transport allotments, make it more desirable to fill the transport or make transports implode T1 if empty. The dart landed on implosion and now empty wave serpents are fixed.
I know they do this every time and more often than not it hits orks - but is it really that much to ask to just flip through all codices, find every single datasheet affected by such a sweeping change and think for one minute whether a change like that causes problems?
It always feels like the check space marines, eldar and guard and if none of the three break in half, the change is good to go for all other armies as well.
BrotherGecko wrote: Thr ghost ark was never considered in this change. Just a casualty of the dart and dart board method of game design.
Empty wave serpents might be a issue some where. They could adjust the wave serpent, adjust transport allotments, make it more desirable to fill the transport or make transports implode T1 if empty. The dart landed on implosion and now empty wave serpents are fixed.
I know they do this every time and more often than not it hits orks - but is it really that much to ask to just flip through all codices, find every single datasheet affected by such a sweeping change and think for one minute whether a change like that causes problems?
It always feels like the check space marines, eldar and guard and if none of the three break in half, the change is good to go for all other armies as well.
If they looked through all the codexes before making a rule they run the chance of feeling embarrassed with their inability to write a coherent edition of rules.
You don't know what the Ghost Ark is for then.
Ghost Arks aren't rhinos. They aren't primarily for transport, they're for healing your warrior blobs. It's why you can only repair warriors and why you can repair warriors outside of Ghost Arks.
It's why there's a repair rule that only heals an embarked unit up to the transport cap; you would embark a heavily damaged squad into the ark, heal it up to 10 and return it to the field to be repaired by the Ark's aura and other means.
The GA is an ambulance, it is not an IFV or APC. Making a rule that forces you to embark a healthy squad into a GA undermines its purpose and indirectly nerfs it, as you have to pay for additional squad of warriors to take a vehicle to support your warrior blobs. It was already an expensive (yet effective) combo before the change, now I'm not sure if it's viable.
No. That's what YOU think they should work like.
A 10 man in a super durable transport that flies makes for a really great objective capper that can heal it's own fairly durable infantry.
You are mixing taking a 20 man to do damage against a 10 man to play the mission.
White knight to save the day, and one that doesn't play Necrons to boot!
You ever bothered to actually play Necrons or read the codex, or do you think defending these asinine changes will make GW favor your own army at some point?
Manfred von Drakken wrote: It really feels like a lot of you are missing the 'Dedicated' part of 'Dedicated Transport'.
If you weren't taking the transport for the purpose of putting something inside it, then you were just abusing the rules and not following the intent.
I'm not sorry if GW hurt your feeling by making you use transports as, y'know, transports.
Fair enough. So then it should implode immediately upon starting a turn without anything actively embarked on it. Because if you do anything other than transport a model with the dedicated part of the transport you are very much abusing the rules.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: It really feels like a lot of you are missing the 'Dedicated' part of 'Dedicated Transport'.
If you weren't taking the transport for the purpose of putting something inside it, then you were just abusing the rules and not following the intent.
I'm not sorry if GW hurt your feeling by making you use transports as, y'know, transports.
Fair enough. So then it should implode immediately upon starting a turn without anything actively embarked on it. Because if you do anything other than transport a model with the dedicated part of the transport you are very much abusing the rules.
Attention class: this is a classic example of being intentionally obtuse.
In what world is having a unit not inside its transport at the start of the game "abusing the rules"? That's just mental!
And if GW wanted them to be dedicated transports, then they'd go back to the way it was in editions prior to 8th, where a transport was purchased (READ: dedicated) to a specific unit, and no other unit could ride in it.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: It really feels like a lot of you are missing the 'Dedicated' part of 'Dedicated Transport'.
If you weren't taking the transport for the purpose of putting something inside it, then you were just abusing the rules and not following the intent.
I'm not sorry if GW hurt your feeling by making you use transports as, y'know, transports.
Fair enough. So then it should implode immediately upon starting a turn without anything actively embarked on it. Because if you do anything other than transport a model with the dedicated part of the transport you are very much abusing the rules.
Attention class: this is a classic example of being intentionally obtuse.
Should my Devastators implode if I decide to charge into melee with them? Just wondering.
H.B.M.C. wrote: In what world is having a unit not inside its transport at the start of the game "abusing the rules"? That's just mental!
And if GW wanted them to be dedicated transports, then they'd go back to the way it was in editions prior to 8th, where a transport was purchased (READ: dedicated) to a specific unit, and no other unit could ride in it.
When you're a transport for a unit that can't get into it.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: It really feels like a lot of you are missing the 'Dedicated' part of 'Dedicated Transport'.
If you weren't taking the transport for the purpose of putting something inside it, then you were just abusing the rules and not following the intent.
I'm not sorry if GW hurt your feeling by making you use transports as, y'know, transports.
Fair enough. So then it should implode immediately upon starting a turn without anything actively embarked on it. Because if you do anything other than transport a model with the dedicated part of the transport you are very much abusing the rules.
Attention class: this is a classic example of being intentionally obtuse.
I fundamentally don't see the difference between a empty transport T1 used to do something other than transport a unit and a empty transport T3 used to do something other than transport a unit.
H.B.M.C. wrote: In what world is having a unit not inside its transport at the start of the game "abusing the rules"? That's just mental!
And if GW wanted them to be dedicated transports, then they'd go back to the way it was in editions prior to 8th, where a transport was purchased (READ: dedicated) to a specific unit, and no other unit could ride in it.
When you're a transport for a unit that can't get into it.
Ghost arks by lore are pressed into service as transports. My 20 man squad gets reduced to less than 11, I embark the squad. Pressing the ark into service as a transport.
Followed lore, followed transport rules, followed dedicated transport rules, added tactical complexity to my strategy of gameplay.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: It really feels like a lot of you are missing the 'Dedicated' part of 'Dedicated Transport'.
If you weren't taking the transport for the purpose of putting something inside it, then you were just abusing the rules and not following the intent.
I'm not sorry if GW hurt your feeling by making you use transports as, y'know, transports.
This sums it up best, if you're using something outside of being a dedicatedtransport it probably doesn't belong in that slot.
I'm trying to think of what would be left in that slot, then.
Let's see..
so not LS Storms, Razorbacks, Immolators, Chimeras, Tauroxen (prime or vanilla), Duneriders, Chaos Rhinos (combi weapons and havocs make them useful for something other than transport), Venoms and Raiders (both are used as gunboats), Starweavers, Wave Serpents, Ghost arks.
Devilfish is a maybe? Might be able to put too many seeker missiles on there.
So that leaves... loyalist Rhinos, Trukks and Goliath Trucks. Well done.
And that assumes that GW is right to force playstyles on people. There's certainly no valid reason to have a squad in cover at the beginning of the game, then jump in a transport in later turns to get to an objective or act as a mobile reserve on the table. That level of tactical play is just _super_ bad for the game.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: It really feels like a lot of you are missing the 'Dedicated' part of 'Dedicated Transport'.
If you weren't taking the transport for the purpose of putting something inside it, then you were just abusing the rules and not following the intent.
I'm not sorry if GW hurt your feeling by making you use transports as, y'know, transports.
This sums it up best, if you're using something outside of being a dedicatedtransport it probably doesn't belong in that slot.
I'm trying to think of what would be left in that slot, then.
Let's see..
so not LS Storms, Razorbacks, Immolators, Chimeras, Tauroxen (prime or vanilla), Duneriders, Chaos Rhinos (combi weapons and havocs make them useful for something other than transport), Venoms and Raiders (both are used as gunboats), Starweavers, Wave Serpents, Ghost arks.
Devilfish is a maybe? Might be able to put too many seeker missiles on there.
So that leaves... loyalist Rhinos, Trukks and Goliath Trucks. Well done.
And that assumes that GW is right to force playstyles on people. There's certainly no valid reason to have a squad in cover at the beginning of the game, then jump in a transport in later turns to get to an objective or act as a mobile reserve on the table. That level of tactical play is just _super_ bad for the game.
You're trying a little too hard there. Most of those units still primarily function as a transport, I can't recall the last time I saw someone form a chaos rhino gunline, or chimera, or immolators, or duneriders.
Ironically the ones you call "gunboats" are called and used as such because they transport stuff and shoot out of them.
Ghost arks you have plenty of people in this thread saying they're not a transport, so get them out of the Dedicated Transport slot.
I can recall multiple editions where transports were either the boogeyman or broke the game however.
Apologies for interrupting the Internet slap fight, but here are the Tyranid point changes from reliable sources on the Tyranid & GSC Discords who have leaked previous codex details:
Manfred von Drakken wrote: It really feels like a lot of you are missing the 'Dedicated' part of 'Dedicated Transport'.
If you weren't taking the transport for the purpose of putting something inside it, then you were just abusing the rules and not following the intent.
I'm not sorry if GW hurt your feeling by making you use transports as, y'know, transports.
This sums it up best, if you're using something outside of being a dedicatedtransport it probably doesn't belong in that slot.
I'm trying to think of what would be left in that slot, then.
Let's see..
so not LS Storms, Razorbacks, Immolators, Chimeras, Tauroxen (prime or vanilla), Duneriders, Chaos Rhinos (combi weapons and havocs make them useful for something other than transport), Venoms and Raiders (both are used as gunboats), Starweavers, Wave Serpents, Ghost arks.
Devilfish is a maybe? Might be able to put too many seeker missiles on there.
So that leaves... loyalist Rhinos, Trukks and Goliath Trucks. Well done.
And that assumes that GW is right to force playstyles on people. There's certainly no valid reason to have a squad in cover at the beginning of the game, then jump in a transport in later turns to get to an objective or act as a mobile reserve on the table. That level of tactical play is just _super_ bad for the game.
You're trying a little too hard there. Most of those units still primarily function as a transport, I can't recall the last time I saw someone form a chaos rhino gunline, or chimera, or immolators, or duneriders.
Yeah, people seemed to need this rubbed in their face a little. Other than nitpicking the list for specific vehicles, any comment on GW disallowing tactical play through random rules changes?
Manfred von Drakken wrote: It really feels like a lot of you are missing the 'Dedicated' part of 'Dedicated Transport'.
If you weren't taking the transport for the purpose of putting something inside it, then you were just abusing the rules and not following the intent.
I'm not sorry if GW hurt your feeling by making you use transports as, y'know, transports.
This sums it up best, if you're using something outside of being a dedicatedtransport it probably doesn't belong in that slot.
I'm trying to think of what would be left in that slot, then.
Let's see..
... Razorbacks, Immolators, Venoms and Raiders (both are used as gunboats), Starweavers...
I've played all those vehicles in multiple editions and not once I deployed them empty.
I like the new rule, maybe fielding empty transports was not really "abuse" but it's definitely a gamey mechanic, and I'm glad it's gone.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: It really feels like a lot of you are missing the 'Dedicated' part of 'Dedicated Transport'.
If you weren't taking the transport for the purpose of putting something inside it, then you were just abusing the rules and not following the intent.
I'm not sorry if GW hurt your feeling by making you use transports as, y'know, transports.
This sums it up best, if you're using something outside of being a dedicatedtransport it probably doesn't belong in that slot.
I'm trying to think of what would be left in that slot, then.
Let's see..
so not LS Storms, Razorbacks, Immolators, Chimeras, Tauroxen (prime or vanilla), Duneriders, Chaos Rhinos (combi weapons and havocs make them useful for something other than transport), Venoms and Raiders (both are used as gunboats), Starweavers, Wave Serpents, Ghost arks.
Devilfish is a maybe? Might be able to put too many seeker missiles on there.
So that leaves... loyalist Rhinos, Trukks and Goliath Trucks. Well done.
And that assumes that GW is right to force playstyles on people. There's certainly no valid reason to have a squad in cover at the beginning of the game, then jump in a transport in later turns to get to an objective or act as a mobile reserve on the table. That level of tactical play is just _super_ bad for the game.
You're trying a little too hard there. Most of those units still primarily function as a transport, I can't recall the last time I saw someone form a chaos rhino gunline, or chimera, or immolators, or duneriders.
Yeah, people seemed to need this rubbed in their face a little. Other than nitpicking the list for specific vehicles, any comment on GW disallowing tactical play through random rules changes?
What are you defining as tactical play? Forcing longer deployment due to taking contents out of the transport? Because that is literally the only thing this stops.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Sounds like the Ghost Ark should have a slot instead of being a dedicated transport imo.
But its not in a different slot and its not going to be. So how some people liked to use it is now scrubbed so that some guy in some tournament can't deploy a empty wave serpent or something for whatever reason.
Maybe they should just have made you buy the transport with the squad like they did in every other edition than the most recent two instead of any infantry squad unlocks transports.
Then it wouldn't matter how you used the transport for the squad you bought it for.
Feels like there were a lot of better ways to prevent hypothetical wave serpent player from annoying hypothetical person annoyed by empty wave serpent player.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Sounds like the Ghost Ark should have a slot instead of being a dedicated transport imo.
But its not in a different slot and its not going to be. So how some people liked to use it is now scrubbed so that some guy in some tournament can't deploy a empty wave serpent or something for whatever reason.
If you're not in a tournament (and even if you are possibly), this rule doesn't need to apply? Just play a different mission pack. Or talk beforehand.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Sounds like the Ghost Ark should have a slot instead of being a dedicated transport imo.
But its not in a different slot and its not going to be. So how some people liked to use it is now scrubbed so that some guy in some tournament can't deploy a empty wave serpent or something for whatever reason.
If you're not in a tournament (and even if you are possibly), this rule doesn't need to apply? Just play a different mission pack. Or talk beforehand.
I don't actually play matched play but I used to. But I also don't like other players in my community having their experiences negatively impacted by terrible arbitrary rules. So I'm willing to express support for their concerns.
And once again, you don't have to try so hard to defend this. Its dumb and arbitary and its okay to not relentlessly defend every decision GW makes.
I like when they make the right call and don't when they don't. I'm complex like that lol.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Sounds like the Ghost Ark should have a slot instead of being a dedicated transport imo.
But its not in a different slot and its not going to be. So how some people liked to use it is now scrubbed so that some guy in some tournament can't deploy a empty wave serpent or something for whatever reason.
If you're not in a tournament (and even if you are possibly), this rule doesn't need to apply? Just play a different mission pack. Or talk beforehand.
I don't actually play matched play but I used to. But I also don't like other players in my community having their experiences negatively impacted by terrible arbitrary rules. So I'm willing to express support for their concerns.
And once again, you don't have to try so hard to defend this. Its dumb and arbitary and its okay to not relentlessly defend every decision GW makes.
I like when they make the right call and don't when they don't. I'm complex like that lol.
It's OK not to criticise every decision as well, I quite like the change and feel it better represents the intent of the game. It's has a negative impact for the questionable design scope of ghost arks however, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Sounds like the Ghost Ark should have a slot instead of being a dedicated transport imo.
But its not in a different slot and its not going to be. So how some people liked to use it is now scrubbed so that some guy in some tournament can't deploy a empty wave serpent or something for whatever reason.
If you're not in a tournament (and even if you are possibly), this rule doesn't need to apply? Just play a different mission pack. Or talk beforehand.
I don't actually play matched play but I used to. But I also don't like other players in my community having their experiences negatively impacted by terrible arbitrary rules. So I'm willing to express support for their concerns.
And once again, you don't have to try so hard to defend this. Its dumb and arbitary and its okay to not relentlessly defend every decision GW makes.
I like when they make the right call and don't when they don't. I'm complex like that lol.
It's OK not to criticise every decision as well, I quite like the change and feel it better represents the intent of the game. It's has a negative impact for the questionable design scope of ghost arks however, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.
I don't criticize every decision GW makes, I doubt I criticize a quarter of GW's decisions. But this one is pretty bad so it deserves a criticism.
Having played 40k since the 90s I don't feel this represents the game at all.
I also served in a heavy mechanized division and would have been horrified if my bradley imploded because we were walking next or behind it. So I don't find this change is representative of anything.
Maybe representative of people who started with 7th edition and its free transport rules...but that edition ended and was terrible.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Sounds like the Ghost Ark should have a slot instead of being a dedicated transport imo.
But its not in a different slot and its not going to be. So how some people liked to use it is now scrubbed so that some guy in some tournament can't deploy a empty wave serpent or something for whatever reason.
If you're not in a tournament (and even if you are possibly), this rule doesn't need to apply? Just play a different mission pack. Or talk beforehand.
I don't actually play matched play but I used to. But I also don't like other players in my community having their experiences negatively impacted by terrible arbitrary rules. So I'm willing to express support for their concerns.
And once again, you don't have to try so hard to defend this. Its dumb and arbitary and its okay to not relentlessly defend every decision GW makes.
I like when they make the right call and don't when they don't. I'm complex like that lol.
It's OK not to criticise every decision as well, I quite like the change and feel it better represents the intent of the game. It's has a negative impact for the questionable design scope of ghost arks however, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.
I don't criticize every decision GW makes, I doubt I criticize a quarter of GW's decisions. But this one is pretty bad so it deserves a criticism.
Having played 40k since the 90s I don't feel this represents the game at all.
I also served in a heavy mechanized division and would have been horrified if my bradley imploded because we were walking next or behind it. So I don't find this change is representative of anything.
That's fair, I just see it as them trying to get people to use the units in the way they designed, rather than a cheap method to force deployment issues for their opponent before the game starts.
Either way people will do what people will do, I don't think any of the big tourney lists will be impacted either way and anyone playing casually can choose to disregard at discretion.
White knight to save the day, and one that doesn't play Necrons to boot!
You ever bothered to actually play Necrons or read the codex, or do you think defending these asinine changes will make GW favor your own army at some point?
Ahh, trolls. Good stuff. Whining about absolutely everything without pause.
I have news for you:
Spoiler:
I don't bring them to tournaments, because they aren't painted yet.
Dudeface wrote: Either way people will do what people will do, I don't think any of the big tourney lists will be impacted either way and anyone playing casually can choose to disregard at discretion.
See and there is the issue. It doesn't impact high level competitive play, it doesn't adjust something broken and doesn't impact out of control armies. Its just a feels bad rule for people playing matched play at their LGS and are using out dated tactics or playing niche army concepts. So why do it at all?
Though personally I just think people are beta testing 10th edition. Where this stuff gives my style of enjoying the game concern because if its in the foundation of the next edition...that is going to suck.
White knight to save the day, and one that doesn't play Necrons to boot!
You ever bothered to actually play Necrons or read the codex, or do you think defending these asinine changes will make GW favor your own army at some point?
Ahh, trolls. Good stuff. Whining about absolutely everything without pause.
I have news for you:
Spoiler:
I don't bring them to tournaments, because they aren't painted yet.
So you haven't bothered to play with your Necrons, got it.
Dudeface wrote: Either way people will do what people will do, I don't think any of the big tourney lists will be impacted either way and anyone playing casually can choose to disregard at discretion.
See and there is the issue. It doesn't impact high level competitive play, it doesn't adjust something broken and doesn't impact out of control armies. Its just a feels bad rule for people playing matched play at their LGS and are using out dated tactics or playing niche army concepts.
But while the tournament pack is in matched play, matched play is not the tournament pack. They don't have to play these missions or restrictions.
Dudeface wrote: Either way people will do what people will do, I don't think any of the big tourney lists will be impacted either way and anyone playing casually can choose to disregard at discretion.
See and there is the issue. It doesn't impact high level competitive play, it doesn't adjust something broken and doesn't impact out of control armies. Its just a feels bad rule for people playing matched play at their LGS and are using out dated tactics or playing niche army concepts.
But while the tournament pack is in matched play, matched play is not the tournament pack. They don't have to play these missions or restrictions.
Except in practice one way is popular because it's easier and faster to show up to flgs/club and play rather than start negotiating game parameters and then start hashing out army lists(which neccesiates spare models being carried)
Dudeface wrote: Either way people will do what people will do, I don't think any of the big tourney lists will be impacted either way and anyone playing casually can choose to disregard at discretion.
See and there is the issue. It doesn't impact high level competitive play, it doesn't adjust something broken and doesn't impact out of control armies. Its just a feels bad rule for people playing matched play at their LGS and are using out dated tactics or playing niche army concepts.
But while the tournament pack is in matched play, matched play is not the tournament pack. They don't have to play these missions or restrictions.
But they will because as much as I avocate for people to abandon tournament style play it is the default playstyle because its the thing GW is spending their energy on. Buddy groups can make due but metas and club players will have to adjust.
And as you can see in this thread, "doesn't hurt me so I don't care, or I didn't like you could do that so I don't care" is pretty prevalent so anyone hoping to keep on keeping on will have to contend with TFG just to play as they have been.
Again its a unnecessary feels bad rule for no positive change of game play experience. If it sucked but largely made the game more positive I'd be for it.
Thank you, good sir, for bringing some interesting news in this topic.
It's a shame i almost missed it because of the rants of some trolls. I hope mods do something about it. What i can do is quote you so we give people looking for news two chances of reading something useful and not 50 years old children squabbling.
xttz wrote: Apologies for interrupting the Internet slap fight, but here are the Tyranid point changes from reliable sources on the Tyranid & GSC Discords who have leaked previous codex details:
pjklan wrote: Thank you, good sir, for bringing some interesting news in this topic.
It's a shame i almost missed it because of the rants of some trolls. I hope mods do something about it. What i can do is quote you so we give people looking for news two chances of reading something useful and not 50 years old children squabbling.
xttz wrote: Apologies for interrupting the Internet slap fight, but here are the Tyranid point changes from reliable sources on the Tyranid & GSC Discords who have leaked previous codex details:
xttz wrote: Apologies for interrupting the Internet slap fight, but here are the Tyranid point changes from reliable sources on the Tyranid & GSC Discords who have leaked previous codex details:
You don't know what the Ghost Ark is for then.
Ghost Arks aren't rhinos. They aren't primarily for transport, they're for healing your warrior blobs. It's why you can only repair warriors and why you can repair warriors outside of Ghost Arks.
It's why there's a repair rule that only heals an embarked unit up to the transport cap; you would embark a heavily damaged squad into the ark, heal it up to 10 and return it to the field to be repaired by the Ark's aura and other means.
The GA is an ambulance, it is not an IFV or APC. Making a rule that forces you to embark a healthy squad into a GA undermines its purpose and indirectly nerfs it, as you have to pay for additional squad of warriors to take a vehicle to support your warrior blobs. It was already an expensive (yet effective) combo before the change, now I'm not sure if it's viable.
No. That's what YOU think they should work like.
A 10 man in a super durable transport that flies makes for a really great objective capper that can heal it's own fairly durable infantry.
You are mixing taking a 20 man to do damage against a 10 man to play the mission.
No, this is a terrible change. 10 Mans in a GA have not been viable nearly the entire edition due to how easy it is to kill them and knock out RP. The Ghost Ark was primarily used for healing and move blocking and made sense with a 20 man change. This is a stupid change, and they should increase the capacity of the Ghost Ark if they want to do this.
This is why you dont' have to have a codex come out and dominate so hard. This is a pretty large overcorrection to the codex.
Kinda.
While I don't agree with some of the changes (Maleceptor, Swarmlord, OOE and Thornback), the codex is still one of the top tier ones even with these changes, even if they no longer are the codex to beat.
I like the new rule, maybe fielding empty transports was not really "abuse" but it's definitely a gamey mechanic, and I'm glad it's gone.
Ironically deploying outside is one of the most realistic most makes sense ways to use them if you think how transports are used
They should really have made it so that you have to deploy the squad within a certain distance of their transport. Not this hard limit of "do what we say or die."
You don't know what the Ghost Ark is for then. Ghost Arks aren't rhinos. They aren't primarily for transport, they're for healing your warrior blobs. It's why you can only repair warriors and why you can repair warriors outside of Ghost Arks. It's why there's a repair rule that only heals an embarked unit up to the transport cap; you would embark a heavily damaged squad into the ark, heal it up to 10 and return it to the field to be repaired by the Ark's aura and other means.
The GA is an ambulance, it is not an IFV or APC. Making a rule that forces you to embark a healthy squad into a GA undermines its purpose and indirectly nerfs it, as you have to pay for additional squad of warriors to take a vehicle to support your warrior blobs. It was already an expensive (yet effective) combo before the change, now I'm not sure if it's viable.
No. That's what YOU think they should work like.
A 10 man in a super durable transport that flies makes for a really great objective capper that can heal it's own fairly durable infantry.
You are mixing taking a 20 man to do damage against a 10 man to play the mission.
Too bad that's how literally everyone else used the Ghost Ark since it's inception then, and that's literally the purpose of the GA.
H.B.M.C. wrote: In what world is having a unit not inside its transport at the start of the game "abusing the rules"? That's just mental!
And if GW wanted them to be dedicated transports, then they'd go back to the way it was in editions prior to 8th, where a transport was purchased (READ: dedicated) to a specific unit, and no other unit could ride in it.
When you're a transport for a unit that can't get into it.
They can get into as a transport when they take damage. Because if you followed the history of the Ghost Ark, that's how it was used. A squad takes enough damage for it be able to enter the vehicle, it gets repaired by the Ghost Arks passenger repair rule (which no longer exists) until it reaches 10 models, and it goes back in. That is literally the purpose, intent and fluff of the GA.
And don't "but muh dedicated transport tho" me. Dedicated Transports stopped being a thing when they changed it from a unit upgrade to something that you can take for each unit of infantry. Dedicated Transport stopped being a thing when they changed it so that any unit can use it, not just the unit it was bought for. Dedicated transport is just a term that's recycled from prior editions, the "dedicated" part of it has no meaning anymore. It's just a vehicle that doesn't fit into the force org chart that units can ride around it, without them being "bound" to it.
Dudeface wrote: The ghost ark is a repair centre but is in necron novels being used as a straight up transport as well iirc.
I understand it appears wonky because it has supplemental rules for units near it, but it's primary purpose is/was a transport, changing it to a different slot might solve that more eloquently though, but I dare say it would see even less use then if it robs a slot.
Ultimately yes, if you want a ghost ark, take a unit of 10 warriors and your blob of 20, at least then once the 20 gets below 10 you can hotswap as needed or keep reaper models in the ark while the flayer guys move up etc.
Not correct. Codex says the ghost ark is a repair barge that repairs warriors on the battlefield and can be pressed into service as a conventional transport if needed. Its primary purpose since arriving in the game was to repair units. Transport has always been just something it can do if needed.
The "fix" to the game is stupid with regards to transports. They are already accounted for with the points or power level system. If they wanted to prevent spamming empty transports they could have just given them a maximum amount like they had in other editions. But needing to be in a transport or it implodes is dumb and people shouldn't spend so much energy trying to defend dumb ideas.
It's nothing to do with fluff or points etc. It's almost 100% just to do with the stalling deployment via having more drops and loading up the transport t1. Re: ghost ark I said in my post they should just move It's slot.
If that was the issue they could just make you deploy the unit and transport at the same time. Wasn't that a rule at some point?
EviscerationPlague wrote: And if you actually have, you'd not be defending this nerf to the Ghost Ark as hard as you are LOL
Except that's exactly how I use Ghost Arks, because I have technos for blob rez.
Nobody cares and literally everyone else is telling you that you're wrong about the Ghost Ark. I doubt you played with Necrons based on these comments.
tneva82 wrote: Haha how's the wording in ca22? Might the hades auto destuct now?
Models never embarked the drill. They basically "deepstrike" behind it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote: Nobody cares and literally everyone else is telling you that you're wrong about the Ghost Ark. I doubt you played with Necrons based on these comments.
Three people = literally everyone. Good to know.
I guess all these armies in TTS are for gaks and giggles:
Tyel wrote: I guess we'll see. I'm not entirely sure its an overcorrection to a faction with a 65% win rate.
Certain builds (like the Hydra one that got 2nd I think in a big tournament a few weeks back) would be barely effected.
Yeah Tyranids have a fairly deep codex, and I think even with these changes we'll still see other approaches that get win rates of 55-60%
There probably is a little bit of overcorrection here though. The Maleceptor would have been fine at 200pts following the FAQ changes. Swarmlord didn't need the same increase as regular hive tyrants given that they were already far more popular. I'd also have preferred Warrior increases to go onto DS/BS weapons so that other wargear options had a niche.
At the same time the Harpy change likely doesn't go far enough, and could easily rise another 10-20pts.
Does anybody have anything useful: Namely NUMBERS?
The final Nid leaks are nice but if EVERY leak we've seen is missing as many as the Nids were before this batch, this is going to be a VERY busy week for listbuilders and I'm VERY MUCH here for it.
Does anyone know when the actual point changes will be released? I'm not quite on the pulse of 40k releases as I used to be and got super confused that they released a chapter approved but no points changes?
Radikus wrote: Does anyone know when the actual point changes will be released? I'm not quite on the pulse of 40k releases as I used to be and got super confused that they released a chapter approved but no points changes?
I'd expect Sat when the chapter approved is in the wild, rather than up for preorder.
Radikus wrote: Does anyone know when the actual point changes will be released? I'm not quite on the pulse of 40k releases as I used to be and got super confused that they released a chapter approved but no points changes?
I'd expect Sat when the chapter approved is in the wild, rather than up for preorder.
EviscerationPlague wrote: And if you actually have, you'd not be defending this nerf to the Ghost Ark as hard as you are LOL
Except that's exactly how I use Ghost Arks, because I have technos for blob rez.
Nobody cares and literally everyone else is telling you that you're wrong about the Ghost Ark. I doubt you played with Necrons based on these comments.
You really need to chill, there's no need for the sheer aggression you put into these posts.
Radikus wrote: Does anyone know when the actual point changes will be released? I'm not quite on the pulse of 40k releases as I used to be and got super confused that they released a chapter approved but no points changes?
I'd expect Sat when the chapter approved is in the wild, rather than up for preorder.
I don't think GW have ever published rules on a weekend before. Friday is more likely imo, although really it could be any day this week.
Yikes... those Tyranid point increases are insane. +30 on the Exocrine? The Hive Tyrants continue to pay more and more just for existing. +50 on the Maleceptor despite the nerfing it got in the FAQ.
And increasing the points for Warriors? Are you kidding me? The biggest problem with Warriors is that, due to them having no weapon costs outside of Heavy Weapons, you always take the best choice. By increasing their cost rather than assigning costs to their specific weapons you have just guaranteed that people will always take the best option because now taking anything less would be a waste of those extra points.
And all the while they're fine with Termagants being 7 points a piece. Even with Armour of Contempt being a thing.
Makes the first 'Nid list I brought from that Codex 125 points more than it was.
Blackie wrote: I like the new rule, maybe fielding empty transports was not really "abuse" but it's definitely a gamey mechanic, and I'm glad it's gone.
It doesn't even make conceptual/narrative sense. Every transport is always full at the start of a battle? Every battle starts right at the exact moment when everyone got there in their transports? Even forces defending fortifications have to get in their transports before getting out and manning the walls?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yikes... those Tyranid point increases are insane. +30 on the Exocrine? The Hive Tyrants continue to pay more and more just for existing. +50 on the Maleceptor despite the nerfing it got in the FAQ.
And increasing the points for Warriors? Are you kidding me? The biggest problem with Warriors is that, due to them having no weapon costs outside of Heavy Weapons, you always take the best choice. By increasing their cost rather than assigning costs to their specific weapons you have just guaranteed that people will always take the best option because now taking anything less would be a waste of those extra points.
Blackie wrote: I like the new rule, maybe fielding empty transports was not really "abuse" but it's definitely a gamey mechanic, and I'm glad it's gone.
It doesn't even make conceptual/narrative sense. Every transport is always full at the start of a battle? Every battle starts right at the exact moment when everyone got there in their transports? Even forces defending fortifications have to get in their transports before getting out and manning the walls?
While the changes are certainly inelegant, I wouldn't call them 'insane'. The army has a pretty consistent 65%+ winrate and units that are so good that the next best thing in the book is STILL OP.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yikes... those Tyranid point increases are insane. +30 on the Exocrine? The Hive Tyrants continue to pay more and more just for existing. +50 on the Maleceptor despite the nerfing it got in the FAQ.
And increasing the points for Warriors? Are you kidding me? The biggest problem with Warriors is that, due to them having no weapon costs outside of Heavy Weapons, you always take the best choice. By increasing their cost rather than assigning costs to their specific weapons you have just guaranteed that people will always take the best option because now taking anything less would be a waste of those extra points.
Blackie wrote: I like the new rule, maybe fielding empty transports was not really "abuse" but it's definitely a gamey mechanic, and I'm glad it's gone.
It doesn't even make conceptual/narrative sense. Every transport is always full at the start of a battle? Every battle starts right at the exact moment when everyone got there in their transports? Even forces defending fortifications have to get in their transports before getting out and manning the walls?
Every transport will spontaneously explode if there's no one inside of it as soon as combat starts? Its just an inelegant rule.
All they had to do was say "every dedicated transport must either have an infantry unit in it or within close proximity." That's all it needed, not that instant kill nonsense.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Every transport will spontaneously explode if there's no one inside of it as soon as combat starts? Its just an inelegant rule.
All they had to do was say "every dedicated transport must either have an infantry unit in it or within close proximity." That's all it needed, not that instant kill nonsense.
But GW wouldn't know nuance if it came up and bit 'em in the face...
Tyel wrote: I guess we'll see. I'm not entirely sure its an overcorrection to a faction with a 65% win rate.
Certain builds (like the Hydra one that got 2nd I think in a big tournament a few weeks back) would be barely effected.
Yeah Tyranids have a fairly deep codex, and I think even with these changes we'll still see other approaches that get win rates of 55-60%
There probably is a little bit of overcorrection here though. The Maleceptor would have been fine at 200pts following the FAQ changes. Swarmlord didn't need the same increase as regular hive tyrants given that they were already far more popular. I'd also have preferred Warrior increases to go onto DS/BS weapons so that other wargear options had a niche.
At the same time the Harpy change likely doesn't go far enough, and could easily rise another 10-20pts.
The tyranids list that took second at ACO has gone up 250 points, and notably runs the 2 extra relics/2 extra warlord traits alongside dual patrols meaning it would be starting at -2 CP.
There will be quite a lot of lists that need restructuring.
Tyel wrote: I guess we'll see. I'm not entirely sure its an overcorrection to a faction with a 65% win rate.
Certain builds (like the Hydra one that got 2nd I think in a big tournament a few weeks back) would be barely effected.
The Hydra list goes up about 100 points from these changes, that's pretty significant.
This felt very scattershot with some of these Changes. Exocrenes and Tyrannofexes were not exactly tearing up the meta. Carnifexes getting a base increase + Plus HVC going up is probably too much.
I think hitting the major offenders + the CP changes would probably be enough to bring them down in combination with the other nerfs they had. I guess they just didn't want a Drukhari/Ad Mech situation again where they had to go through 3-4 nerf iterations to bring them down.
Every transport will spontaneously explode if there's no one inside of it as soon as combat starts? Its just an inelegant rule.
All they had to do was say "every dedicated transport must either have an infantry unit in it or within close proximity." That's all it needed, not that instant kill nonsense.
Hades will auto explode every game as it's supposed to have unit embarked or be destroyed yet doesn't have transport capacity so can't have unit embarked
So, taking a step back on the Dedicated Transports thing, a couple of questions...
A, What was the issue that was being seen that merited a fix of some form?
2, Was it a significant enough issue within GT play that a fix was required?
iii, If a fix was needed, did it need to be as broad as this, or was it specific units that needed looking at?
Dysartes wrote: So, taking a step back on the Dedicated Transports thing, a couple of questions...
A, What was the issue that was being seen that merited a fix of some form? 2, Was it a significant enough issue within GT play that a fix was required? iii, If a fix was needed, did it need to be as broad as this, or was it specific units that needed looking at?
δ) There was a small problem with people spamming gunboat transports without any intention of using them as transports that could have been fixed with a scalpel, but GW opted for the vortex grenade instead.
Tyel wrote: I guess we'll see. I'm not entirely sure its an overcorrection to a faction with a 65% win rate.
Certain builds (like the Hydra one that got 2nd I think in a big tournament a few weeks back) would be barely effected.
This felt very scattershot with some of these Changes. Exocrenes and Tyrannofexes were not exactly tearing up the meta. Carnifexes getting a base increase + Plus HVC going up is probably too much.
I noticed earlier that the new Tyrannofex points value is actually the same as the Tyrannocyte. It's possible that this one is a copy/paste error and the Tfex has changed by a different amount, or even hasn't changed at all
Dysartes wrote: So, taking a step back on the Dedicated Transports thing, a couple of questions...
A, What was the issue that was being seen that merited a fix of some form?
2, Was it a significant enough issue within GT play that a fix was required?
iii, If a fix was needed, did it need to be as broad as this, or was it specific units that needed looking at?
δ) There was a small problem with people spamming gunboat transports without any intention of using them as transports that could have been fixed with a scalpel, but GW opted for the vortex grenade instead.
tbf, gw only uses the scalpel when it buffs orks... -1 on boys ... the rest of the buff nerf instruments start damage and sizewise at the sledgehammer and only go bigger...
Every transport will spontaneously explode if there's no one inside of it as soon as combat starts? Its just an inelegant rule.
All they had to do was say "every dedicated transport must either have an infantry unit in it or within close proximity." That's all it needed, not that instant kill nonsense.
Hades will auto explode every game as it's supposed to have unit embarked or be destroyed yet doesn't have transport capacity so can't have unit embarked
Hence why my suggestion has the "within close proximity" clause, to catch esoteric cases like Ghost Arks and Hades.
Dysartes wrote: So, taking a step back on the Dedicated Transports thing, a couple of questions...
A, What was the issue that was being seen that merited a fix of some form? 2, Was it a significant enough issue within GT play that a fix was required? iii, If a fix was needed, did it need to be as broad as this, or was it specific units that needed looking at?
δ) There was a small problem with people spamming gunboat transports without any intention of using them as transports that could have been fixed with a scalpel, but GW opted for the vortex grenade instead.
tbf, gw only uses the scalpel when it buffs orks... -1 on boys ... the rest of the buff nerf instruments start damage and sizewise at the sledgehammer and only go bigger...
Actual footage of the scalpel used to apply ork buffs:
Spoiler:
To be fair, they undid some of the nerfs to the goff archetype which wasn't too shabby before and gave us some decent secondaries to go along with it. -1 points mostly matters for beastsnaggas, gretchin and kommandoz, for pretty much all other units it's just a sign of good will, which is more than I expected anyways.
The foothorde list I was planning to play on Sunday would drop by 125 points, that's a full mob of whatever I want that I didn't have before.
Every transport will spontaneously explode if there's no one inside of it as soon as combat starts? Its just an inelegant rule.
All they had to do was say "every dedicated transport must either have an infantry unit in it or within close proximity." That's all it needed, not that instant kill nonsense.
Hades will auto explode every game as it's supposed to have unit embarked or be destroyed yet doesn't have transport capacity so can't have unit embarked
Hence why my suggestion has the "within close proximity" clause, to catch esoteric cases like Ghost Arks and Hades.
Problem is there's no "within close proximity" when you are off board either. So that would auto-explode hades anyway...
GW forgot entirely there are dedicated transports without transport capacity(well to be fair they are pretty rare)
Oh that would be so typical for GW. Let's hope that's the case. Without the Tyrannofex changing it seems already a lot more manageable for non-tournament games.
Dysartes wrote: So, taking a step back on the Dedicated Transports thing, a couple of questions...
A, What was the issue that was being seen that merited a fix of some form? 2, Was it a significant enough issue within GT play that a fix was required? iii, If a fix was needed, did it need to be as broad as this, or was it specific units that needed looking at?
δ) There was a small problem with people spamming gunboat transports without any intention of using them as transports that could have been fixed with a scalpel, but GW opted for the vortex grenade instead.
Except this change doesn't really fix it either, because they can just leave the transport on the first turn and still use the gunboat spam. All it does is change deployment a little. If they really wanted to fix gunboats, they should have fixed the gunboats instead of implementing an arbitrary rule that affects all vehicles.
Dysartes wrote: So, taking a step back on the Dedicated Transports thing, a couple of questions...
A, What was the issue that was being seen that merited a fix of some form?
2, Was it a significant enough issue within GT play that a fix was required?
iii, If a fix was needed, did it need to be as broad as this, or was it specific units that needed looking at?
δ) There was a small problem with people spamming gunboat transports without any intention of using them as transports that could have been fixed with a scalpel, but GW opted for the vortex grenade instead.
Except this change doesn't really fix it either, because they can just leave the transport on the first turn and still use the gunboat spam. All it does is change deployment a little.
If they really wanted to fix gunboats, they should have fixed the gunboats instead of implementing an arbitrary rule that affects all vehicles.
Well does affect area you can screen and if you go 2nd at least gives you risk with people dying with transport dying(which btw is why in real life soldiers aren't inside transport when fight becomes spitting distance like 40k battles...).
But yeah silly change and in typical gw way sweeping change having side effects. But hey that's GW. Their goal isn't good game but sell models by changing what's good and bad all the time. The swingier the better.
Dysartes wrote: So, taking a step back on the Dedicated Transports thing, a couple of questions...
A, What was the issue that was being seen that merited a fix of some form?
2, Was it a significant enough issue within GT play that a fix was required?
iii, If a fix was needed, did it need to be as broad as this, or was it specific units that needed looking at?
δ) There was a small problem with people spamming gunboat transports without any intention of using them as transports that could have been fixed with a scalpel, but GW opted for the vortex grenade instead.
Except this change doesn't really fix it either, because they can just leave the transport on the first turn and still use the gunboat spam. All it does is change deployment a little.
If they really wanted to fix gunboats, they should have fixed the gunboats instead of implementing an arbitrary rule that affects all vehicles.
You are aware of how vortex grenades used to work?
Dysartes wrote: So, taking a step back on the Dedicated Transports thing, a couple of questions...
A, What was the issue that was being seen that merited a fix of some form?
2, Was it a significant enough issue within GT play that a fix was required?
iii, If a fix was needed, did it need to be as broad as this, or was it specific units that needed looking at?
δ) There was a small problem with people spamming gunboat transports without any intention of using them as transports that could have been fixed with a scalpel, but GW opted for the vortex grenade instead.
Except this change doesn't really fix it either, because they can just leave the transport on the first turn and still use the gunboat spam. All it does is change deployment a little.
If they really wanted to fix gunboats, they should have fixed the gunboats instead of implementing an arbitrary rule that affects all vehicles.
You are aware of how vortex grenades used to work?
You would throw one at a gunboat and it immediately fixed any gunboat balance issues!
From what I've been told, it was more like you tried to hit a wave serpent, but ended up creating a vortex to the warp the wiped out a dozen unrelated units, very much like this rules change.
Dysartes wrote: So, taking a step back on the Dedicated Transports thing, a couple of questions...
A, What was the issue that was being seen that merited a fix of some form?
2, Was it a significant enough issue within GT play that a fix was required?
iii, If a fix was needed, did it need to be as broad as this, or was it specific units that needed looking at?
δ) There was a small problem with people spamming gunboat transports without any intention of using them as transports that could have been fixed with a scalpel, but GW opted for the vortex grenade instead.
Except this change doesn't really fix it either, because they can just leave the transport on the first turn and still use the gunboat spam. All it does is change deployment a little.
If they really wanted to fix gunboats, they should have fixed the gunboats instead of implementing an arbitrary rule that affects all vehicles.
if you go 2nd at least gives you risk with people dying with transport dying(which btw is why in real life soldiers aren't inside transport when fight becomes spitting distance like 40k battles...).
Which doesn't really matter, because the gunboats would have been targeted first anyway and the infantry units taken for them are a tax unit; it doesn't matter if they take casualties because it's the gunboat the player cares about.
So really, as a means of stopping gunboat spam this rule is pointless.
Sasori wrote: The Hydra list goes up about 100 points from these changes, that's pretty significant.
This felt very scattershot with some of these Changes. Exocrenes and Tyrannofexes were not exactly tearing up the meta. Carnifexes getting a base increase + Plus HVC going up is probably too much.
I think hitting the major offenders + the CP changes would probably be enough to bring them down in combination with the other nerfs they had. I guess they just didn't want a Drukhari/Ad Mech situation again where they had to go through 3-4 nerf iterations to bring them down.
True on the 100 points. Those 3 Screamer Killers add up (I'd kind of forgotten them). I think you'd probably drop 1 and adjust the points a bit. Maybe tweak out some Hormagaunts or something.
Beyond that - I don't know about tearing up the meta exactly - but I feel Exocrines were appearing in a lot of top performing lists (if you go down that sort of archetype). More generally - and its a bit like Warriors - you just got too much stuff. It shouldn't have T8, 15 wounds, a 2+ SV with scope for decent invuls/transhuman etc and have an average of 8 good shots... and just be 170 points. You can I guess take the approach of "this is fine - the game just needs to adjust" - but its clearly out of line with other things as exist today.
I'm not really getting the mountains of salt that seem to be being poured over the CSM book - but you can see a friendly Forgefiend. T7, 12 wounds, 3+/5++. AoC kicking in to help a bit - but still.
If you take 3 Ecto cannons the Forgefiend has 3D3 S7 AP-3 3 damage shots. As compared with the Exocrine's D3+6 S8 AP-4 3 damage shots. (Ignoring cover if you don't move much etc). You are paying a bit more points (155 to 170) but this doesn't seem remotely close. It can perhaps be argued "well the Forgefiend just sucks" - a bit like drawing any comparison with say a predator - but I'm not sure there's much in the game that combines this package. Admittedly whether you'd bring an Exocrine at 200 points can be questioned (just as whether you'd bother with a Forgefiend) - but its more in line with the game as a whole.
It would be like me sitting here complaining about Deathleaper. Was it an auto-include? I'd say it was close. Was it the major reason Tyranids were so good? Not really. But you compare what you were getting for 95 points to a lot of other things in the game, and it feels very silly.
My view is that if Tyranids (or other factions) are going to have this power in the datasheets, you'd need to gut their buff architecture. (I.E. dramatically nerf the fleet traits, the imperatives, the stratagems etc) And GW probably decided that was too difficult after trying a bit last time round.
So we've spent the last 2 editions stripping wargear and other customisation options from characters and turning them into warlord traits, relics and (depressingly) stratagems.
But it seems players have actually had the temerity to use those warlord traits, relics and stratagems (shock, horror!). Thus, the solution is to severely reduce starting CP and also to make players pay for both the first relic and the first warlord trait they take.
Surely I can't be the only one who thinks this is a terrible solution to a problem that should not have existed in the first place?
Incidentally, if this comes down to some warlord traits, relics and/or stratagems being overpowered, perhaps tweak those rather than punishing players who want to make remotely flavourful characters (or, in many cases, characters that aren't absolute arse on the table)?
Or perhaps warlord traits and relics could actually use a more granular system that would allow the more powerful traits and items to cost more, rather than all of them costing the exact same amount. If only such a system existed in warhammer.
Oh and then we have the delights of this dedicated transport rule, wherein any unoccupied transport will spontaneously detonate on turn 1. Even the Necron one. Maybe that was what the old Phase Out rule really represented - that every Necron's greatest fear is loneliness, to the point where the pilot of a Necron transport would rather obliterate himself than face the rejection of his passengers.
I mean relics should have always cost points and be limited.. relics aren’t created equal… I can see the first relic not costing a CP but an additional relic cost 1cp and they both still cost points…
Sasori wrote: The Hydra list goes up about 100 points from these changes, that's pretty significant.
This felt very scattershot with some of these Changes. Exocrenes and Tyrannofexes were not exactly tearing up the meta. Carnifexes getting a base increase + Plus HVC going up is probably too much.
I think hitting the major offenders + the CP changes would probably be enough to bring them down in combination with the other nerfs they had. I guess they just didn't want a Drukhari/Ad Mech situation again where they had to go through 3-4 nerf iterations to bring them down.
True on the 100 points. Those 3 Screamer Killers add up (I'd kind of forgotten them). I think you'd probably drop 1 and adjust the points a bit. Maybe tweak out some Hormagaunts or something.
Beyond that - I don't know about tearing up the meta exactly - but I feel Exocrines were appearing in a lot of top performing lists (if you go down that sort of archetype). More generally - and its a bit like Warriors - you just got too much stuff. It shouldn't have T8, 15 wounds, a 2+ SV with scope for decent invuls/transhuman etc and have an average of 8 good shots... and just be 170 points. You can I guess take the approach of "this is fine - the game just needs to adjust" - but its clearly out of line with other things as exist today.
I'm not really getting the mountains of salt that seem to be being poured over the CSM book - but you can see a friendly Forgefiend. T7, 12 wounds, 3+/5++. AoC kicking in to help a bit - but still.
If you take 3 Ecto cannons the Forgefiend has 3D3 S7 AP-3 3 damage shots. As compared with the Exocrine's D3+6 S8 AP-4 3 damage shots. (Ignoring cover if you don't move much etc). You are paying a bit more points (155 to 170) but this doesn't seem remotely close. It can perhaps be argued "well the Forgefiend just sucks" - a bit like drawing any comparison with say a predator - but I'm not sure there's much in the game that combines this package. Admittedly whether you'd bring an Exocrine at 200 points can be questioned (just as whether you'd bother with a Forgefiend) - but its more in line with the game as a whole.
It would be like me sitting here complaining about Deathleaper. Was it an auto-include? I'd say it was close. Was it the major reason Tyranids were so good? Not really. But you compare what you were getting for 95 points to a lot of other things in the game, and it feels very silly.
My view is that if Tyranids (or other factions) are going to have this power in the datasheets, you'd need to gut their buff architecture. (I.E. dramatically nerf the fleet traits, the imperatives, the stratagems etc) And GW probably decided that was too difficult after trying a bit last time round.
The one that is getting me anxious is the Tyrannofex.
In part because chances are GW is going to forget to fix the typo. In part because +40 is IMHO a little too much, +30 would be fine, although I would prefer +20 base and +10 on Rupture Cannon.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I've been told that if you use a character as a Warlord then you get the Warlord Trait associated with them for free. True/False?
Named characters, you mean? Some people assumed that their WTs would be free for...inexplicable reasons. Named characters still have to pay 1CP to get a warlord trait, they're just locked into their specific warlord trait.
gungo wrote: I mean relics should have always cost points and be limited.. relics aren’t created equal… I can see the first relic not costing a CP but an additional relic cost 1cp and they both still cost points…
Warlord traits cost a CP is fine…
Rules bloat is real
Isn't it technically rules contraction now? They've reduced the amount of meaningful CP in a game by functionally almost half (-1 total, -2 from warlord traits/relics, -4 from T4 and T5 CP being worth almost nothing comparatively, bringing us from 15 meaningful CP to 9.) As a result we should see about that many less stratagems, warlord traits, or relics. That's half as many rules interacting half as a often. (I know it's 40% but half sounds better).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: The real head scratcher is what about characters with mutliple warlord traits?
Based off the rules we have so far, Mortarion has to pay for his warlord traits. 3CP for him.
tneva82 wrote: GW forgot entirely there are dedicated transports without transport capacity(well to be fair they are pretty rare)
Well, what would we do with ourselves if we didn't have a day 1 FAQ?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Well does affect area you can screen and if you go 2nd at least gives you risk with people dying with transport dying(which btw is why in real life soldiers aren't inside transport when fight becomes spitting distance like 40k battles...).
There's also the effect of having more deployment drops than your opponent, but I imagine the rule is reflective of empty tyrranocytes.
Regardless of how I feel about strategems, I do like the idea of generating more CP during the game, instead of all at the beginning. I find I use strats turn 1 and 2, and then I just can't use them after that lol.
I find the starting relic and warlord trait costing CP a bit wild.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I've been told that if you use a character as a Warlord then you get the Warlord Trait associated with them for free. True/False?
gungo wrote: I mean relics should have always cost points and be limited.. relics aren’t created equal… I can see the first relic not costing a CP but an additional relic cost 1cp and they both still cost points…
Warlord traits cost a CP is fine…
Rules bloat is real
Isn't it technically rules contraction now? They've reduced the amount of meaningful CP in a game by functionally almost half (-1 total, -2 from warlord traits/relics, -4 from T4 and T5 CP being worth almost nothing comparatively, bringing us from 15 meaningful CP to 9.) As a result we should see about that many less stratagems, warlord traits, or relics. That's half as many rules interacting half as a often. (I know it's 40% but half sounds better).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: The real head scratcher is what about characters with mutliple warlord traits?
Based off the rules we have so far, Mortarion has to pay for his warlord traits. 3CP for him.
The footnote under the WarCom article says that you have to pay 1 CP, no matter how many warlord traits you get, naming Mortarion as an explicit example.
I'm liking the new CP allocation quite a lot. Currently there is still too much stratagems involved in the 2-3 first rounds, too much gotcha, too many extra relics, extra warlord traits involved for a honest wargaming experience. Add on top of that the extra patrol or specialist detachment for your additional limited HQ or more super duper units. I welcome most of these changes. Remember mid-8th edition, when you had your full allotment of 13 CP at the beginning of the game for a double battalion, and no generation ? Everyone was burning them like crazy to gain the advantage in alpha / beta strike. We have elvolved from this situation, now it's the final step (maybe not) of this evolution. We will have a restrained CP capital to build our armies, then a steady flow of CP through the game to spice up our actions up to the 5th round (if there is one of course). This is better.
The only change I'm a bit perplexed by is the cost for a warlord trait : it was a very nice, fluffy and cool addition of the 6th edition, and a unique but free warlord trait should have stayed as a cornerstone of army building. On the other hand, back in the day, relics had a point cost, so that the more powerful ones made you think twice about fielding them. The unforgivable mistake of the current design studio has been to made them free. Now they cost a CP, so that, you are not going to pay this cost for a fun albeit not very poweful one. For example, relics and warlord traits that may refund CP on a roll of 5+/6+ are out. A bit sad, but good riddance if you consider the whole picture IMHO.
jaredb wrote: Regardless of how I feel about strategems, I do like the idea of generating more CP during the game, instead of all at the beginning. I find I use strats turn 1 and 2, and then I just can't use them after that lol.
I find the starting relic and warlord trait costing CP a bit wild.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I've been told that if you use a character as a Warlord then you get the Warlord Trait associated with them for free. True/False?
That's Crusade.
the problem is that my specific faction relies pretty heavily on spending a boatload of CP pregame in order to be competitive. Most Ork lists rely on multiple warlord traits/relics and a 2nd specialist detachment to fill in the required slots to be competitive...the AoR one for example is nothing but Fast Attack choices which means you pretty much have to take a -3CP hit from the start just to field your army. Atm if you want to run the remotely competitive AoR you need -3CP for the specialist detachment and if you want your warlord to be useful -2CP to equip them with a relic/trait, leaving you with 1CP.
I am actually fine with this mind you so long as GW buffs our units/rules to make them more attractive competitive choices and from the leaks so far....they haven't. giving our troops choices 1ppm discounts isn't suddenly going to make boyz go from a tax unit to competitive. Taking away prior unnecessary nerfs or partially taking them away again isn't going to turn a unit into a powerhouse to make up or the nerfs they are hitting us with these new changes.
Honestly, this feels a lot like the recent emergency patch which saw Indirect fire become garbage and Marines get AoC. Looked good on paper, but nobody took 5 seconds to see how it would impact all the factions, and in the case of orkz, it made all our IDF weapons useless and took away the biggest buff dmg wise orkz got in 9th, AP-1 Choppas.
EviscerationPlague wrote: What whole picture? The best armies aren't reliant on their warlord traits and relics, and only need the initial CP to fund their first turn anyway.
I mean...the average nids list when up 150-200pts. We've mostly been assuming that the CP changes would be the single most important balance factor because GW's point changes have been so worthless historically.
If they're actually willing to make big swings all of a sudden, everything's up in the air.
Ravajaxe wrote: I'm liking the new CP allocation quite a lot. Currently there is still too much stratagems involved in the 2-3 first rounds, too much gotcha, too many extra relics, extra warlord traits involved for a honest wargaming experience. Add on top of that the extra patrol or specialist detachment for your additional limited HQ or more super duper units. I welcome most of these changes. Remember mid-8th edition, when you had your full allotment of 13 CP at the beginning of the game for a double battalion, and no generation ? Everyone was burning them like crazy to gain the advantage in alpha / beta strike. We have elvolved from this situation, now it's the final step (maybe not) of this evolution. We will have a restrained CP capital to build our armies, then a steady flow of CP through the game to spice up our actions up to the 5th round (if there is one of course). This is better.
The only change I'm a bit perplexed by is the cost for a warlord trait : it was a very nice, fluffy and cool addition of the 6th edition, and a unique but free warlord trait should have stayed as a cornerstone of army building. On the other hand, back in the day, relics had a point cost, so that the more powerful ones made you think twice about fielding them. The unforgivable mistake of the current design studio has been to made them free. Now they cost a CP, so that, you are not going to pay this cost for a fun albeit not very poweful one. For example, relics and warlord traits that may refund CP on a roll of 5+/6+ are out. A bit sad, but good riddance if you consider the whole picture IMHO.
Alpha Strike Combos stay the same for armies with the CP for them though, because if you have the CP for it, why wouldn't you still use the combo? Also, everyone has less CP for defensive strats, so if anything they've made these combos stronger.
Dysartes wrote: So, taking a step back on the Dedicated Transports thing, a couple of questions...
A, What was the issue that was being seen that merited a fix of some form?
2, Was it a significant enough issue within GT play that a fix was required?
iii, If a fix was needed, did it need to be as broad as this, or was it specific units that needed looking at?
δ) There was a small problem with people spamming gunboat transports without any intention of using them as transports that could have been fixed with a scalpel, but GW opted for the vortex grenade instead.
Less gunboat transports (although I'm sure those are a factor as well), more using Land Speeder Storms as a cheap objective holder/grabber in armies with no scouts. It showed up in a lot of top table Space Marine lists. Basically it sits safely out of line of sight on a backfield objective for most of the game, then hops on a safe objective in the mid to late using its 18+1d6" movement. Not quite as cheap of a backfield objective holder as Cyberwolves or Servitors, but a lot more durable against non-LoS shooting and more capable of actually hopping out and doing something.
Tyran wrote: Everyone has around the same amount of CP as their opponent, so for every CP spent on a combo a CP can be spent on defense.
It is up to the players if they want to spend their CP offensively or defensively.
Not really, it just means the player going first gets to dictate the CP expenditure of the game. If I use full CP combo on your most important unit, you MUST transhuman et all in response. If I don't, I get my entire movement phase to deny you any decent crackbacks and we can do the same dance next turn.
Laughing Man wrote: ... more using Land Speeder Storms as a cheap objective holder/grabber in armies with no scouts...
Then it begs the question of why you wouldn't just fix that unit if that really was a big problem (and given we've never heard of it until this thread, I doubt it really was that widespread or that big a deal) rather than take another massive sledgehammer to an entire unit type.
I mean, that could be fixed with "This unit can be taken as a Dedicated Transport if your army includes any Scouts". There. Done. Solved. No need to screw over every transport in the game with inelegant and conceptually stupid rules.
Quick question- Wasn't/Isn't there a strat that says the defender can opt for something in the attacker's first turn? I can't remember if it was +1 save or -1 to be hit or something else. Whatever it was/is isn't in my deck of strats.
Ravajaxe wrote: I'm liking the new CP allocation quite a lot. Currently there is still too much stratagems involved in the 2-3 first rounds, too much gotcha, too many extra relics, extra warlord traits involved for a honest wargaming experience.
What counts as an "honest wargaming experience"?
I ask because a number of armies seem fully intended to use warlord traits and relics on all their characters, while others seem built with a 'take them or leave them' mindset.
Let me give you some examples:
- A Dark Eldar Archon is a melee character whose best profile is 5 attacks at WS2+ S3 AP-2 D1d3. He inflicts all of 1.35 wounds to a bog-standard Marine squad. His only other ability is a reroll 1s aura that has no synergy with most Kabal units (as it doesn't work in transports), and outright doesn't work on the rest of the codex.
- A Dark Eldar Succubus is also a melee character, whose best profile is 7 attacks at WS2+ S5 AP-3 D1, which actually kills a whole marine (2.75 wounds to be precise)! She also has a reroll aura that, for all intents and purposes, affects a single unit in the codex (there are two other units it could effect... except that she has no way to keep up with them).
Bear in mind that these are with the best melee weapons available to both. Moreover, neither of them have any additional wargear they can purchase beyond pistols. Nothing to boost their combat or defensive output, nor any support options or any suchlike.
I hope you'd agree that these do not seem like units that are supposed to function without warlord traits or relics.
As a contrast, a Necron Overlord is a support character with some melee ability. With his base weapons (either S7 AP-4 D2 or S10, AP-4 D3 with -1 to hit), he can inflict up to 3.7 wounds to a Marine unit (nothing outstanding, but still significantly better than both of the dedicated-melee DE characters above). What's more, he has an aura that gives a small boost to the speed of nearby Necron units, as well as MWBD - a very potent buff for any Core Necron unit. He can also purchase a Resurrection Orb to give him an additional, once-per-battle support ability.
You can still give him artefacts if you want to improve his damage, support abilities or such (or, heaven forbid, to add some flavour/character), but he doesn't actually *need* them to be functional. He's already a perfectly fine support character with semi-decent melee ability.
In contrast, the DE characters above *need* warlord traits and relics just to achieve their core functions.
Obviously I'm just using the armies I'm familiar with here, but given other comments it's clear that many armies suffer from the problem of characters that are heavily reliant on warlord traits and relics, whilst other armies' characters can take them or leave them.
If GW really wanted to go down this route, then *all* generic characters need to be functional without warlord traits and relics.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Quick question- Wasn't/Isn't there a strat that says the defender can opt for something in the attacker's first turn? I can't remember if it was +1 save or -1 to be hit or something else. Whatever it was/is isn't in my deck of strats.
Ravajaxe wrote: I'm liking the new CP allocation quite a lot. Currently there is still too much stratagems involved in the 2-3 first rounds, too much gotcha, too many extra relics, extra warlord traits involved for a honest wargaming experience.
What counts as an "honest wargaming experience"?
I ask because a number of armies seem fully intended to use warlord traits and relics on all their characters, while others seem built with a 'take them or leave them' mindset.
Let me give you some examples:
- A Dark Eldar Archon is a melee character whose best profile is 5 attacks at WS2+ S3 AP-2 D1d3. He inflicts all of 1.35 wounds to a bog-standard Marine squad. His only other ability is a reroll 1s aura that has no synergy with most Kabal units (as it doesn't work in transports), and outright doesn't work on the rest of the codex.
- A Dark Eldar Succubus is also a melee character, whose best profile is 7 attacks at WS2+ S5 AP-3 D1, which actually kills a whole marine (2.75 wounds to be precise)! She also has a reroll aura that, for all intents and purposes, affects a single unit in the codex (there are two other units it could effect... except that she has no way to keep up with them).
Bear in mind that these are with the best melee weapons available to both. Moreover, neither of them have any additional wargear they can purchase beyond pistols. Nothing to boost their combat or defensive output, nor any support options or any suchlike.
I hope you'd agree that these do not seem like units that are supposed to function without warlord traits or relics.
As a contrast, a Necron Overlord is a support character with some melee ability. With his base weapons (either S7 AP-4 D2 or S10, AP-4 D3 with -1 to hit), he can inflict up to 3.7 wounds to a Marine unit (nothing outstanding, but still significantly better than both of the dedicated-melee DE characters above). What's more, he has an aura that gives a small boost to the speed of nearby Necron units, as well as MWBD - a very potent buff for any Core Necron unit. He can also purchase a Resurrection Orb to give him an additional, once-per-battle support ability.
You can still give him artefacts if you want to improve his damage, support abilities or such (or, heaven forbid, to add some flavour/character), but he doesn't actually *need* them to be functional. He's already a perfectly fine support character with semi-decent melee ability.
In contrast, the DE characters above *need* warlord traits and relics just to achieve their core functions.
Obviously I'm just using the armies I'm familiar with here, but given other comments it's clear that many armies suffer from the problem of characters that are heavily reliant on warlord traits and relics, whilst other armies' characters can take them or leave them.
If GW really wanted to go down this route, then *all* generic characters need to be functional without warlord traits and relics.
Succubus - advance and charge turn 2 / +1 to hit turn 3 ( not always relevant ), combat drugs ( +1A ), blade artists
3.4 marines dead for 70 points. The blast pistol kills a marine about ~70% of the time. And then she can consolidate away 6" if you upgrade.
So in one turn she kills 80+ points of marines for 70.
Now let's look at a Captain for 85 with a MCBG.
If he doesn't move -- 2 *.833 * .5 * .5 * 2 = 0.8 marines
And if he fights -- 4 * .833 * .5 * .333 = 0.6 marines
All he does is give CORE reroll 1s. He'll occasionally get extra AP. With a Relic blade he kills 1.8 marines, which is the same as a Power Fist.
Succubus and Archons aren't any more "deficient" than other characters. You're just not used to using them without loading them up. So, if you want the reason they stripped relics and traits - you have your answer - it lowers the power of the game.
Laughing Man wrote: ... more using Land Speeder Storms as a cheap objective holder/grabber in armies with no scouts...
Then it begs the question of why you wouldn't just fix that unit if that really was a big problem (and given we've never heard of it until this thread, I doubt it really was that widespread or that big a deal) rather than take another massive sledgehammer to an entire unit type.
I mean, that could be fixed with "This unit can be taken as a Dedicated Transport if your army includes any Scouts". There. Done. Solved. No need to screw over every transport in the game with inelegant and conceptually stupid rules.
The fact that a Multi-Melta attack bike can do the same is something else to think about
Tyran wrote: Everyone has around the same amount of CP as their opponent, so for every CP spent on a combo a CP can be spent on defense.
It is up to the players if they want to spend their CP offensively or defensively.
But imagine only starting with 2CP. In your first turn you're hit with the big wombo combo and you use a 2CP defensive stratagem. That is you now done, you can no longer use other strats to defend yourself or any rerolls, rewarding the attacking player by putting in a corner defensively. When your own turn comes around you now have to decide whether you do your own offensive strats, or save the CP for defensive strats, because you literally cannot afford to do both. So again the alpha strike combo is ideal because if you cripple your opponent turn 1, you don't need the defensive strats and can focus on outright offense. So you go all in on offense.
Imagine only having 1 CP or 0, and not being able to use that defensive strat turn 1. Even more so the attacker is rewarded.
Also, some factions are heavily reliant on needing a second detachment and/or WL traits and relics to function effectively. My Ork list starts with 1CP after I've neutered what traits and relics I start with, because I need to run a Patrol and Outrider detachments. If I go against a faction that only needs to run a battalion and isn't reliant on any WLT/relics, then they can start with up to 6CP. A 1:6 ratio on starting CP isn't close to starting on about the same amount.
But imagine only starting with 2CP. In your first turn you're hit with the big wombo combo and you use a 2CP defensive stratagem. That is you now done, you can no longer use other strats to defend yourself or any rerolls, rewarding the attacking player by putting in a corner defensively. When your own turn comes around you now have to decide whether you do your own offensive strats, or save the CP for defensive strats, because you literally cannot afford to do both. So again the alpha strike combo is ideal because if you cripple your opponent turn 1, you don't need the defensive strats and can focus on outright offense. So you go all in on offense.
A big wombo made with 2CP is not exactly a big wombo IMHO.
But imagine only starting with 2CP. In your first turn you're hit with the big wombo combo and you use a 2CP defensive stratagem. That is you now done, you can no longer use other strats to defend yourself or any rerolls, rewarding the attacking player by putting in a corner defensively. When your own turn comes around you now have to decide whether you do your own offensive strats, or save the CP for defensive strats, because you literally cannot afford to do both. So again the alpha strike combo is ideal because if you cripple your opponent turn 1, you don't need the defensive strats and can focus on outright offense. So you go all in on offense.
A big wombo made with 2CP is not exactly a big wombo IMHO.
The cost of an alpha strike combo isn't really what I'm arguing. Whether it costs you 1CP or 4CP is irrelevant.
I'm arguing that the alpha strike player is encouraged to continue using their own alpha strike, because it takes away the choice of the defender in using their own offensive strats the following turn if they want to survive turn one.
The alpha strike player is controlling the flow of the game more than ever because the person on the recieving end now has to choose between defending themselves and hitting back effectively.
But imagine only starting with 2CP. In your first turn you're hit with the big wombo combo and you use a 2CP defensive stratagem. That is you now done, you can no longer use other strats to defend yourself or any rerolls, rewarding the attacking player by putting in a corner defensively. When your own turn comes around you now have to decide whether you do your own offensive strats, or save the CP for defensive strats, because you literally cannot afford to do both. So again the alpha strike combo is ideal because if you cripple your opponent turn 1, you don't need the defensive strats and can focus on outright offense. So you go all in on offense.
A big wombo made with 2CP is not exactly a big wombo IMHO.
The cost of an alpha strike combo isn't really what I'm arguing. Whether it costs you 1CP or 4CP is irrelevant.
I'm arguing that the alpha strike player is encouraged to continue using their own alpha strike, because it takes away the choice of the defender in using their own offensive strats the following turn if they want to survive turn one.
The alpha strike player is controlling the flow of the game more than ever because the person on the recieving end now has to choose between defending themselves and hitting back effectively.
It's why I think people who have been saying that this change will make the latter turns matter more aren't really looking at the actual changes.
Big 6CP alphastrikes comboing on a unit to buff it to the moon are mostly a myth as it is. You usually see 1CP on your Dire Avengers, 1 CP on your Shining Spears, 1-2 CP on your whatever Eldar thing, and 1 CP on a damage or charge reroll and that's your 4.5CP spent in the first turn (which is the average according to goonhammer) leaving you with 4.5 CP to use defensively or save for the next turn (using Goonhammer's average of 8 starting CP per army).
You opponent probably used their closest transhuman equivalent, something similar to smokescreen, and a CP on a save reroll (most factions have 1-2 genral use defensive strats) if they didn't, (or even if they did) the probably had a second relic or second warlord trait that went to their defenses and still had to use their Transhuman equivalent and the save reroll. Then you figure you're going to try and use a heal if you have one, So you use 3-4 CP defensively. We'll say 3.5 So now your opponent has used 4.5 of their start of game CP and has 4.5 left for defense. You've used 3.5 of your CP and during your first turn go up to 5.5 which you can use offensively. They had the advantage of first movers but now you have more CP (again, on average) and enough to use pretty much any combination of stratagem effects you want.
Now, assume both lists had to still shell out 2 CP for their output WT and Relics, that means first turn Army A can still use 4.5 CP on offense, which means army B needs to use their 3.5 CP on defense.
The problem now is that Army B only has 2.5CP to react back and Army A still has 1.5 CP to defend with, if necessary.
To put it plainer, the army going first can use their normal suite of offensive stratagems, still have 1-2 CP leftover for defense. The army that goes second has to use their normal suite of defensive stratagems, but only has enough CP themselves for 2, maybe even 1 offensive stratagem in return. In that situation, army B will generally fail to do as much damage as Army A did, both because of the CP disparity and because Army B lost units before they could contribute to the game and Army A didn't. This leads to first turn alphastrike being EVEN MORE decisive than it was previously.
TLDR: The CP change has the potential to make alphastrike even stronger and make turns 4 and 5 even more irrelevant.
EviscerationPlague wrote: What whole picture? The best armies aren't reliant on their warlord traits and relics, and only need the initial CP to fund their first turn anyway.
I mean...the average nids list when up 150-200pts. We've mostly been assuming that the CP changes would be the single most important balance factor because GW's point changes have been so worthless historically.
If they're actually willing to make big swings all of a sudden, everything's up in the air.
Not the average nid lists, just the most competitive and OP ones. Average nid lists have tons of infantries, not tons of warriors or multiwounds models, and those 1W dudes didn't go up. Just like other monsters that used to be popular in older editions but not really competitive now, and a lot of casual players still play them.
Now, assume both lists had to still shell out 2 CP for their output WT and Relics, that means first turn Army A can still use 4.5 CP on offense, which means army B needs to use their 3.5 CP on defense.
The problem now is that Army B only has 2.5CP to react back and Army A still has 1.5 CP to defend with, if necessary.
To put it plainer, the army going first can use their normal suite of offensive stratagems, still have 1-2 CP leftover for defense. The army that goes second has to use their normal suite of defensive stratagems, but only has enough CP themselves for 2, maybe even 1 offensive stratagem in return. In that situation, army B will generally fail to do as much damage as Army A did, both because of the CP disparity and because Army B lost units before they could contribute to the game and Army A didn't. This leads to first turn alphastrike being EVEN MORE decisive than it was previously.
TLDR: The CP change has the potential to make alphastrike even stronger and make turns 4 and 5 even more irrelevant.
All numbers include start of turn CP gains.
With the upcoming rule both players can now start with the same number of CP, since players gain a CP also in the opponent turn. But you can't burn loads of CPs turn 1 to delete tons of the opponent's stuff and gain a massive advantage now. So it's actually much more balanced and less decisive now. How many CPs do or can you usually invest in a turn for defensive strats? Seriously, more than a couple?
I agree with ERJAK that "wombo combo" is an 8th edition sort of thing. These days its more that you tend to burn multiple stratagems, across multiple units and phases, rather than using 2-3 on one unit to boost its damage by 200%+.
But I feel something's gone wrong with the numbers.
Case in point. Lets assume two players, both with their army in a single Battalion, using 1 WLT, 1 Relic.
So Both players start with 4 CP. Both players go up to 5.
Lets say player 1 uses all 5 CP in Battle Round 1.
Lets say Player 2 uses 3 CP to defend.
Its now battle round 2. Player 1 has 1 CP available to defend. Player 2 has 3 CP to attack. This may mean player 2's "Alpha" is less (due to lacking a stratagem or 2) - but equally, player 1 now lacks the CP to do multiple defensive stratagems.
More importantly though, it means player 1 can't do something like use 3 CP in battle round 1, 2 CP in battle round 2, then break out 5+ CP for the turn 2 decapitation strike - which I feel is a more typical (although clearly it may vary with army/scenario etc). They'd have to be 3 CP down somewhere.
Blackie wrote: I mean...the average nids list when up 150-200pts.
The list I made a fortnight ago wasn't a "competitive" or "OP" list. It contained no Maleceptor. No Reaper of Oblitathingy. No Bonesword/Deathspitter Warriors. It had a Scythed Hierodule and a Mawloc, FFS.
Ravajaxe wrote: I'm liking the new CP allocation quite a lot. Currently there is still too much stratagems involved in the 2-3 first rounds, too much gotcha, too many extra relics, extra warlord traits involved for a honest wargaming experience.
What counts as an "honest wargaming experience"?
I ask because a number of armies seem fully intended to use warlord traits and relics on all their characters, while others seem built with a 'take them or leave them' mindset.
Let me give you some examples:
- A Dark Eldar Archon is a melee character whose best profile is 5 attacks at WS2+ S3 AP-2 D1d3. He inflicts all of 1.35 wounds to a bog-standard Marine squad. His only other ability is a reroll 1s aura that has no synergy with most Kabal units (as it doesn't work in transports), and outright doesn't work on the rest of the codex.
- A Dark Eldar Succubus is also a melee character, whose best profile is 7 attacks at WS2+ S5 AP-3 D1, which actually kills a whole marine (2.75 wounds to be precise)! She also has a reroll aura that, for all intents and purposes, affects a single unit in the codex (there are two other units it could effect... except that she has no way to keep up with them).
Bear in mind that these are with the best melee weapons available to both. Moreover, neither of them have any additional wargear they can purchase beyond pistols. Nothing to boost their combat or defensive output, nor any support options or any suchlike.
I hope you'd agree that these do not seem like units that are supposed to function without warlord traits or relics.
As a contrast, a Necron Overlord is a support character with some melee ability. With his base weapons (either S7 AP-4 D2 or S10, AP-4 D3 with -1 to hit), he can inflict up to 3.7 wounds to a Marine unit (nothing outstanding, but still significantly better than both of the dedicated-melee DE characters above). What's more, he has an aura that gives a small boost to the speed of nearby Necron units, as well as MWBD - a very potent buff for any Core Necron unit. He can also purchase a Resurrection Orb to give him an additional, once-per-battle support ability.
You can still give him artefacts if you want to improve his damage, support abilities or such (or, heaven forbid, to add some flavour/character), but he doesn't actually *need* them to be functional. He's already a perfectly fine support character with semi-decent melee ability.
In contrast, the DE characters above *need* warlord traits and relics just to achieve their core functions.
Obviously I'm just using the armies I'm familiar with here, but given other comments it's clear that many armies suffer from the problem of characters that are heavily reliant on warlord traits and relics, whilst other armies' characters can take them or leave them.
If GW really wanted to go down this route, then *all* generic characters need to be functional without warlord traits and relics.
Succubus - advance and charge turn 2 / +1 to hit turn 3 ( not always relevant ), combat drugs ( +1A ), blade artists
3.4 marines dead for 70 points. The blast pistol kills a marine about ~70% of the time. And then she can consolidate away 6" if you upgrade.
Your math is off because you're ignoring AoC. The actual numbers are:
7 * .833 * .5 * .66 = 1.94
7 * .833 * .167* .833 = 0.81
1.94 + 0.81 = 2.75
I don't count the Blast Pistol because:
1) If you advance to get into charge range then you can't fire it at all.
2) If you don't advance but are more than 6" from your target then you also don't get to fire it at all.
3) If killing a model will make your charge more risky then you might not want to fire it.
If you actually get to shoot it, great. But it's absolutely not something you can rely on.
Tyel wrote: I agree with ERJAK that "wombo combo" is an 8th edition sort of thing
So i've been hiding in the background of this thread - lots of discussion and arguments but noone has actually posted an example of a combo that is routinely used?
hardcore1six wrote: So i've been hiding in the background of this thread - lots of discussion and arguments but noone has actually posted an example of a combo that is routinely used?
What examples are there?
I actually have to go back to 8th edition to find a combo I routinely used for my Blood Angels. That was Descent of Angels (3D6" charge out of Deep Strike) on my Captain 2CPs, Red Rampage (+D3 Attacks) 1CP and Honour the Chapter (Fight twice) 3CPs. So that would be 6CPs out of the door for 12-16 Thunder Hammer attacks that my opponent couldn't do very much about.
I don't have anything similar in my repertoire anymore.
Tyel wrote: I agree with ERJAK that "wombo combo" is an 8th edition sort of thing
So i've been hiding in the background of this thread - lots of discussion and arguments but noone has actually posted an example of a combo that is routinely used?
What examples are there?
Here's a recent example for Tyranids that could be used for Flyrants:
Shard lure (1CP) for a charge bonus
Trampling Charge (1CP) for MW on the charge
Adrenal Surge (1CP) to get +D3 attacks
Voracious Appetite (1CP) to reroll wounds
If the target dies, then Overrun (1CP) to perform a normal move after combat
Under Nephilim rules you'd need to spend 1-2CP for a WLT/relic on that unit to make the combo worthwhile too.
Obviously you may not use all of them at the same time depending on the target, but spending 4+ CP on one unit is fairly plausible if it will delete a valuable enemy unit.
Tyel wrote: I agree with ERJAK that "wombo combo" is an 8th edition sort of thing. These days its more that you tend to burn multiple stratagems, across multiple units and phases, rather than using 2-3 on one unit to boost its damage by 200%+.
But I feel something's gone wrong with the numbers.
Case in point. Lets assume two players, both with their army in a single Battalion, using 1 WLT, 1 Relic.
So Both players start with 4 CP. Both players go up to 5.
Lets say player 1 uses all 5 CP in Battle Round 1.
Lets say Player 2 uses 3 CP to defend.
Its now battle round 2. Player 1 has 1 CP available to defend. Player 2 has 3 CP to attack. This may mean player 2's "Alpha" is less (due to lacking a stratagem or 2) - but equally, player 1 now lacks the CP to do multiple defensive stratagems.
More importantly though, it means player 1 can't do something like use 3 CP in battle round 1, 2 CP in battle round 2, then break out 5+ CP for the turn 2 decapitation strike - which I feel is a more typical (although clearly it may vary with army/scenario etc). They'd have to be 3 CP down somewhere.
Big combos are mostly gone, but not entirely. It's more like constant CP spend to work a target down. The true alpha strike is gone. It's pretty rare that people like to go first these days. If you do go first you play cagey so they can't walk up on you. Then it's a cat and mouse game with CP to see who can get effective outcomes.
Your math is off because you're ignoring AoC. The actual numbers are:
7 * .833 * .5 * .66 = 1.94
7 * .833 * .167* .833 = 0.81
1.94 + 0.81 = 2.75
I don't count the Blast Pistol because:
1) If you advance to get into charge range then you can't fire it at all.
2) If you don't advance but are more than 6" from your target then you also don't get to fire it at all.
3) If killing a model will make your charge more risky then you might not want to fire it.
If you actually get to shoot it, great. But it's absolutely not something you can rely on.
Gotcha. Though that reduces the relative math on the other stuff. Overall, characters are going to have to be more carefully considered for purpose.
Tyel wrote: I agree with ERJAK that "wombo combo" is an 8th edition sort of thing
So i've been hiding in the background of this thread - lots of discussion and arguments but noone has actually posted an example of a combo that is routinely used?
What examples are there?
I will admit, I definitely used the wrong terms. I would be better off describing it as someone else did earlier as more of a mass CP dump over a number of units across a single turn, rather than one unit having multiple strats stacked up.
Tyel wrote: I agree with ERJAK that "wombo combo" is an 8th edition sort of thing
So i've been hiding in the background of this thread - lots of discussion and arguments but noone has actually posted an example of a combo that is routinely used?
What examples are there?
Here's a recent example for Tyranids that could be used for Flyrants:
Shard lure (1CP) for a charge bonus
Trampling Charge (1CP) for MW on the charge
Adrenal Surge (1CP) to get +D3 attacks
Voracious Appetite (1CP) to reroll wounds
If the target dies, then Overrun (1CP) to perform a normal move after combat
Under Nephilim rules you'd need to spend 1-2CP for a WLT/relic on that unit to make the combo worthwhile too.
Obviously you may not use all of them at the same time depending on the target, but spending 4+ CP on one unit is fairly plausible if it will delete a valuable enemy unit.
Which is why I said 'mostly' a myth. The amount of stuff that has to go right for you and wrong for your opponent for that combo to be worth it, makes it highly unlikely.
You'd need a unit in charge range of the Tyrant that can survive the normal tyrant, but won't survive the buff tyrant. You need no other threating units within engagement/HI range, you'd need suitable terrain to have a decent position to retreat to. You need the unit the Tyrant targets to be expensive enough to risk losing the tyrant on the crackback.
Unless your opponent left Vahl or Abaddon out in the open against a Reaper Tyrant, a combo like this is almost always going to be relatively inefficient.
So I've read a few pages (starting around 13 or so) WRT the dedicated transport rules changes, and I was wondering:
Are the people that like the rule change narrative players? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves; there's nothing narrative about a unit of mechanized infantry being unable to begin the battle as dismounts rather than mounted up.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So I've read a few pages (starting around 13 or so) WRT the dedicated transport rules changes, and I was wondering:
Are the people that like the rule change narrative players? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves; there's nothing narrative about a unit of mechanized infantry being unable to begin the battle as dismounts rather than mounted up.
Lol, people should do something because some random dude(tte) writes something on the internet? I like the change because I find the concept of taking a transport for a unit and then not putting the unit it dumb. That does not mean that I find the issues this creates with apparently Ghost Arks and other transports fine. Those are dumb as well. A case of damned if you do and damned if you don't because of poor rules design of GW.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So I've read a few pages (starting around 13 or so) WRT the dedicated transport rules changes, and I was wondering:
Are the people that like the rule change narrative players? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves; there's nothing narrative about a unit of mechanized infantry being unable to begin the battle as dismounts rather than mounted up.
Lol, people should do something because some random dude(tte) writes something on the internet? I like the change because I find the concept of taking a transport for a unit and then not putting the unit it dumb. That does not mean that I find the issues this creates with apparently Ghost Arks and other transports fine. Those are dumb as well. A case of damned if you do and damned if you don't because of poor rules design of GW.
You take a transport for many reasons:
1) You want to play (roleplay?) a mechanized company/army like Armageddon Steel Legion - having infantry without their IFVs would be utterly unfluffy, even if you've deployed them in protected positions for a defensive op. 2) You want the flexibility of being able to maneuver and engage like a tank, whilst being able to dig into cover and scale ruins like infantry. (this is an IRL and ingame reason) 3) You want the additional firepower of the vehicle added to the platoon (e.g. BMPs being used as ATGM platforms in support of infantry without their own long range ATGMs). (This is also an IRL and ingame reason).
Can you imagine if actual military officers thought that way? It's what the Russians are going through now, lol. "You're saying the entire squad was wiped out by an NLAW ambush from the next door building that blew up their BTR? Why didn't they clear the house first?" "Because they had the BTR - what's the point in having the transport if you aren't going to ride in it, sir?"
I don't know if there's a facepalm hard enough to describe the sheer absurdity of a unit that exists precisely because of its flexible employment options relative to other unit types subsequently being forced to be inflexible.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So I've read a few pages (starting around 13 or so) WRT the dedicated transport rules changes, and I was wondering:
Are the people that like the rule change narrative players? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves; there's nothing narrative about a unit of mechanized infantry being unable to begin the battle as dismounts rather than mounted up.
Sure there is:
The deployment phase is the point in time where the two sides are finally getting into effective combat range of each other. Hence, as they're driving/flying up, the troops are embarked inside for the trip to the line. Once the battle (game) starts, they then start jumping out to engage the foe.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So I've read a few pages (starting around 13 or so) WRT the dedicated transport rules changes, and I was wondering:
Are the people that like the rule change narrative players? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves; there's nothing narrative about a unit of mechanized infantry being unable to begin the battle as dismounts rather than mounted up.
Sure there is:
The deployment phase is the point in time where the two sides are finally getting into effective combat range of each other. Hence, as they're driving/flying up, the troops are embarked inside for the trip to the line. Once the battle (game) starts, they then start jumping out to engage the foe.
That's one way of seeing it. You know what's another way of seeing it? The troops are already out, either because they were waiting for the enemy or ran into an enemy patrol when they themselves were out of their vehicles. Mechanized infantry don't sit in their vehicles all of the time, only in transit. You know, something that was already represented prior to this rule.
Also, how do the armies know to engage each other like that? Is there a time schedule? I can see it now, some administratum agent going "Let's see, Space Wolves have a battle with Tau at 9:00 on Tuesday, Blood Angels have a battle at 20:00 on Wednesday. Oh what's that? The Orks want to attack a planet? I'm sorry, we don't have an opening, please ask them to call back next week"
Unit1126PLL wrote: So I've read a few pages (starting around 13 or so) WRT the dedicated transport rules changes, and I was wondering:
Are the people that like the rule change narrative players? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves; there's nothing narrative about a unit of mechanized infantry being unable to begin the battle as dismounts rather than mounted up.
Considering it's a narrative rule change, probably.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So I've read a few pages (starting around 13 or so) WRT the dedicated transport rules changes, and I was wondering:
Are the people that like the rule change narrative players? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves; there's nothing narrative about a unit of mechanized infantry being unable to begin the battle as dismounts rather than mounted up.
Sure there is:
The deployment phase is the point in time where the two sides are finally getting into effective combat range of each other. Hence, as they're driving/flying up, the troops are embarked inside for the trip to the line. Once the battle (game) starts, they then start jumping out to engage the foe.
Every battle in the 41st millennium is a meeting engagement. Every single one. No wonder the generals suffer so many casualties - none have ever considered fortifying their position!
ERJAK wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote: So I've read a few pages (starting around 13 or so) WRT the dedicated transport rules changes, and I was wondering:
Are the people that like the rule change narrative players? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves; there's nothing narrative about a unit of mechanized infantry being unable to begin the battle as dismounts rather than mounted up.
Considering it's a narrative rule change, probably.
Us3Less wrote:I'm not sure what the problem is here, but I never liked that you could take a transport but then not actually transport the unit you bought it for... it only made things like venom/raider spam even better and personally it just felt wrong. I haven't encountered a situation yet where separating transport and 'cargo' made sense, so I'm all for this change.
endlesswaltz123 wrote:I'm all for it, there have been too many nuisance transports across multiple editions that weren't used to transport.
It also stops them being used to block out deep strike and charges etc.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: I'm all for it, there have been too many nuisance transports across multiple editions that weren't used to transport.
It also stops them being used to block out deep strike and charges etc.
Hell, you can still use them for that. You just have to have their passengers hop out turn one and they can go do whatever they want.
Which is fine, but stops it being used as a deployment tactic, and then if your opponent is the essentially redeploying the first turn rather than going forward, then it's all good.
Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote: So I've read a few pages (starting around 13 or so) WRT the dedicated transport rules changes, and I was wondering:
Are the people that like the rule change narrative players? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves; there's nothing narrative about a unit of mechanized infantry being unable to begin the battle as dismounts rather than mounted up.
Sure there is:
The deployment phase is the point in time where the two sides are finally getting into effective combat range of each other. Hence, as they're driving/flying up, the troops are embarked inside for the trip to the line. Once the battle (game) starts, they then start jumping out to engage the foe.
Every battle in the 41st millennium is a meeting engagement. Every single one. No wonder the generals suffer so many casualties - none have ever considered fortifying their position!
ERJAK wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote: So I've read a few pages (starting around 13 or so) WRT the dedicated transport rules changes, and I was wondering:
Are the people that like the rule change narrative players? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves; there's nothing narrative about a unit of mechanized infantry being unable to begin the battle as dismounts rather than mounted up.
Considering it's a narrative rule change, probably.
Spoiler:
This isn't the first time GW has put moronic restrictions for narrative reasons. Martial Legacy happened shortly after complaints that 30k dreads were supposed to be hyper rare in 40k.
DominayTrix wrote: This isn't the first time GW has put moronic restrictions for narrative reasons. Martial Legacy happened shortly after complaints that 30k dreads were supposed to be hyper rare in 40k.
Yeah, but I'd like to see the narrative reasons for this one. It really is rather indefensible narratively, which makes it very difficult to understand why this decision would be made from a narrative, rather than casual or competitive, perspective.
DominayTrix wrote: This isn't the first time GW has put moronic restrictions for narrative reasons. Martial Legacy happened shortly after complaints that 30k dreads were supposed to be hyper rare in 40k.
Yeah, but I'd like to see the narrative reasons for this one. It really is rather indefensible narratively, which makes it very difficult to understand why this decision would be made from a narrative, rather than casual or competitive, perspective.
Pretty sure we've already established that it was for competitive reasons because people were abusing transports.
Someone had asked for a narrative explanation and I just tapped out the first thing to came to mind. Not my fault y'all are giving yourselves atomic wedgies crying about it.
DominayTrix wrote: This isn't the first time GW has put moronic restrictions for narrative reasons. Martial Legacy happened shortly after complaints that 30k dreads were supposed to be hyper rare in 40k.
Yeah, but I'd like to see the narrative reasons for this one. It really is rather indefensible narratively, which makes it very difficult to understand why this decision would be made from a narrative, rather than casual or competitive, perspective.
Pretty sure we've already established that it was for competitive reasons because people were abusing transports.
Someone had asked for a narrative explanation and I just tapped out the first thing to came to mind. Not my fault y'all are giving yourselves atomic wedgies crying about it.
No one was abusing transports or, if they were, it was incredibly fringe cases that had no meaningful impact on actually competitive gameplay.
That change was made because someone at GW saw someone on a stream or whatever deploy an empty rhino one time so he could use it capture objectives in a situation where he didn't want to rush another unit forward and said: NOT IN MY 40K!!!
It was a thing you could do that didn't fit someone in charge's narrative headcanon and that's why the rule changed. Like 90% of all the jankest rules patches in the game, it was for purely narrative reasons of dubious substance.
DominayTrix wrote: This isn't the first time GW has put moronic restrictions for narrative reasons. Martial Legacy happened shortly after complaints that 30k dreads were supposed to be hyper rare in 40k.
Yeah, but I'd like to see the narrative reasons for this one. It really is rather indefensible narratively, which makes it very difficult to understand why this decision would be made from a narrative, rather than casual or competitive, perspective.
Pretty sure we've already established that it was for competitive reasons because people were abusing transports.
Someone had asked for a narrative explanation and I just tapped out the first thing to came to mind. Not my fault y'all are giving yourselves atomic wedgies crying about it.
Except it doesn't fix "abusing" transports, because you can still spam venoms, which apparently were the problem that needed such a change. Also, explain how starting the game with an empty transport is such a problem that it required a rule that forces the player to start with them occupied.
Manfred von Drakken wrote: Pretty sure we've already established that it was for competitive reasons because people were abusing transports.
Yes, this apparent pandemic of transport "abuse" that was sweeping the globe that no one ever noticed because they were too busy fighting off FtoM armies like Harlis or Tyranids.
My God... imagine thinking that troops not starting a game in a transport is "abuse".
It wouldn't surprise me if the change were due to the people in GWHQ getting roll stomped by somebody with a transport list in a test game or two.
It was rumored at the time that the changes to a less lethal Bloodbowl edition happened after somebody taught Jervis and Co how people played in the wild.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So I've read a few pages (starting around 13 or so) WRT the dedicated transport rules changes, and I was wondering:
Are the people that like the rule change narrative players? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves; there's nothing narrative about a unit of mechanized infantry being unable to begin the battle as dismounts rather than mounted up.
Sure there is:
The deployment phase is the point in time where the two sides are finally getting into effective combat range of each other. Hence, as they're driving/flying up, the troops are embarked inside for the trip to the line. Once the battle (game) starts, they then start jumping out to engage the foe.
Except them being inside transports at spitting distances isn't logical and isn't how transports are used in reality.
DominayTrix wrote: This isn't the first time GW has put moronic restrictions for narrative reasons. Martial Legacy happened shortly after complaints that 30k dreads were supposed to be hyper rare in 40k.
Yeah, but I'd like to see the narrative reasons for this one. It really is rather indefensible narratively, which makes it very difficult to understand why this decision would be made from a narrative, rather than casual or competitive, perspective.
Honestly, the rules change has zero impact on our narrative games because we played it that way to begin with.
There isn't really a reason for infantry to not start inside their transports unless enjoying taking artillery fire to the face is part of your narrative.
The only game reason to start outside your transport is to increase your footprint to screen deep strikers, which really isn't a narrative reason at all.
Sometimes you guys just try too hard to be angry about every single thing GW does.
So I will admit this change does hurt my Ultramarines list a bit, but only because I was running 3 land speeder storms but only 2 scout squads. I found lss to be very effective for its points for the speed they gave and ability to just fly up a quarter and get me engage on all fronts. Now I need another scout squad, taking up another elite slot which means I have 7 elite options, so would need another Detachment.... but that is wasted thanks to cp cost so.... its just easier to take only 2 speeders and drop the 3rd.
But I don't see how the lss was the issue. Most people forget it exists.
DominayTrix wrote: This isn't the first time GW has put moronic restrictions for narrative reasons. Martial Legacy happened shortly after complaints that 30k dreads were supposed to be hyper rare in 40k.
Yeah, but I'd like to see the narrative reasons for this one. It really is rather indefensible narratively, which makes it very difficult to understand why this decision would be made from a narrative, rather than casual or competitive, perspective.
Honestly, the rules change has zero impact on our narrative games because we played it that way to begin with.
There isn't really a reason for infantry to not start inside their transports unless enjoying taking artillery fire to the face is part of your narrative.
The only game reason to start outside your transport is to increase your footprint to screen deep strikers, which really isn't a narrative reason at all.
Sometimes you guys just try too hard to be angry about every single thing GW does.
To add to this, is it also realistic to current military tactics to run across the battlefield waving shovels at people whilst 6 limbed crustaceans burrow from underneath you?
If you're upset over this narrative breaking change because infantry can't set up in good defensive cover that makes them easier to kill than being in their transports, then why aren't you outraged at tanks mysteriously firing twice as fast because they move slower?
Why would the biomass fixated psychic hivemind of an alien race oblige to comply their deployment along 21st century human military techniques? They wouldn't waste the resources to make empty Tyrannocytes.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So I've read a few pages (starting around 13 or so) WRT the dedicated transport rules changes, and I was wondering:
Are the people that like the rule change narrative players? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves; there's nothing narrative about a unit of mechanized infantry being unable to begin the battle as dismounts rather than mounted up.
Considering it's a narrative rule change, probably.
Repeating something that is unproven is not proof.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So I've read a few pages (starting around 13 or so) WRT the dedicated transport rules changes, and I was wondering:
Are the people that like the rule change narrative players? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves; there's nothing narrative about a unit of mechanized infantry being unable to begin the battle as dismounts rather than mounted up.
Considering it's a narrative rule change, probably.
Repeating something that is unproven is not proof.
Especially as it's matched play mode rule. By definition isn't narrative rule change.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So I've read a few pages (starting around 13 or so) WRT the dedicated transport rules changes, and I was wondering:
Are the people that like the rule change narrative players? If so, they should be ashamed of themselves; there's nothing narrative about a unit of mechanized infantry being unable to begin the battle as dismounts rather than mounted up.
Considering it's a narrative rule change, probably.
Repeating something that is unproven is not proof.
Especially as it's matched play mode rule. By definition isn't narrative rule change.
Twice so when the rules are in the mission pack for tournament play.
ERJAK wrote: That change was made because someone at GW saw someone on a stream or whatever deploy an empty rhino one time so he could use it capture objectives in a situation where he didn't want to rush another unit forward and said: NOT IN MY 40K!!!
It was a thing you could do that didn't fit someone in charge's narrative headcanon and that's why the rule changed. Like 90% of all the jankest rules patches in the game, it was for purely narrative reasons of dubious substance.
I'm not really clear whether this is a competitive or narrative view - but while its a scenario I can believe happened - its not obviously explaining why you'd need to have a unit inside the rhino at deployment. Because clearly the embarked unit can continue to just jump out of the Rhino turn 1 (or later in the game) - leaving the Rhino to either hold a back line objective, or motor forward towards one on the mid board. (I can eventually see GW having a "narrative" issue with empty transports parking on objectives - but that's been a thing for years a this point.)
I suspect this is more rooted in the occasional whinges (when certain specific units seem too good for their points) that Transports should be limited by the rule of 3. And since GW won't want to go that far, they can say you can't run empty ones.
They should have just made actual slots for transports then. Taking a transport for each character seems silly anyway.
People talk about how empty transports are abusive, but not about taking a transport for a single, cheap character just to have the transport. That to me seems a lot more "abusive" than starting the game with units outside of a transport.
As for empty transports on objectives, they could just not allow transports to hold or contest objectives.
Azuza001 wrote: So I will admit this change does hurt my Ultramarines list a bit, but only because I was running 3 land speeder storms but only 2 scout squads. I found lss to be very effective for its points for the speed they gave and ability to just fly up a quarter and get me engage on all fronts. Now I need another scout squad, taking up another elite slot which means I have 7 elite options, so would need another Detachment.... but that is wasted thanks to cp cost so.... its just easier to take only 2 speeders and drop the 3rd.
But I don't see how the lss was the issue. Most people forget it exists.
I mean, this seems to me like an instance of the rule doing exactly what I presume its intent to be: stop people taking transports that serve no transport purpose, just to cheese the rules to their advantage.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: They should have just made actual slots for transports then. Taking a transport for each character seems silly anyway.
People talk about how empty transports are abusive, but not about taking a transport for a single, cheap character just to have the transport. That to me seems a lot more "abusive" than starting the game with units outside of a transport.
I think that's a rule change they could bring in - but narratively, command vehicles make total sense. An Archon flying around in his Venom, allowing him to survey the carnage, communicate with his forces, get the best loot etc is perfectly in tune with a narrative. Same as with a Company Commander reviewing things from a Chimera etc.
Azuza001 wrote: So I will admit this change does hurt my Ultramarines list a bit, but only because I was running 3 land speeder storms but only 2 scout squads. I found lss to be very effective for its points for the speed they gave and ability to just fly up a quarter and get me engage on all fronts. Now I need another scout squad, taking up another elite slot which means I have 7 elite options, so would need another Detachment.... but that is wasted thanks to cp cost so.... its just easier to take only 2 speeders and drop the 3rd.
But I don't see how the lss was the issue. Most people forget it exists.
I mean, this seems to me like an instance of the rule doing exactly what I presume its intent to be: stop people taking transports that serve no transport purpose, just to cheese the rules to their advantage.
Except most transports can just have a single character in it, meaning that you can just get away by placing a character in the transport with no changes to the list. Venoms can just have a single character, for example, and they can take most troops choices which you're going to need anyway for a legal list. LSS are the exception as they can only have scouts. So basically, marines did something that GW doesn't like, so GW implemented a rule that affects everything instead of a rule that affects the issue directly.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: They should have just made actual slots for transports then. Taking a transport for each character seems silly anyway.
People talk about how empty transports are abusive, but not about taking a transport for a single, cheap character just to have the transport. That to me seems a lot more "abusive" than starting the game with units outside of a transport.
I think that's a rule change they could bring in - but narratively, command vehicles make total sense. An Archon flying around in his Venom, allowing him to survey the carnage, communicate with his forces, get the best loot etc is perfectly in tune with a narrative. Same as with a Company Commander reviewing things from a Chimera etc.
I guess, but shouldn't that only be for the warlord/general then, rather than any character? How many "command" vehicles do you need?
Azuza001 wrote: So I will admit this change does hurt my Ultramarines list a bit, but only because I was running 3 land speeder storms but only 2 scout squads. I found lss to be very effective for its points for the speed they gave and ability to just fly up a quarter and get me engage on all fronts. Now I need another scout squad, taking up another elite slot which means I have 7 elite options, so would need another Detachment.... but that is wasted thanks to cp cost so.... its just easier to take only 2 speeders and drop the 3rd.
But I don't see how the lss was the issue. Most people forget it exists.
I mean, this seems to me like an instance of the rule doing exactly what I presume its intent to be: stop people taking transports that serve no transport purpose, just to cheese the rules to their advantage.
Except most transports can just have a single character in it, meaning that you can just get away by placing a character in the transport with no changes to the list. Venoms can just have a single character, for example, and they can take most troops choices which you're going to need anyway for a legal list.
LSS are the exception as they can only have scouts.
So basically, marines did something that GW doesn't like, so GW implemented a rule that affects everything instead of a rule that affects the issue directly.
Tbh "use transports as transports" hardly seems like the end of the world to me, regardless of who's riding around in them. Honestly, I think the players who spend their time combing the minutiae of the rules for any possible loophole to give them an advantage so they can beat someone at the toy spacemen game are much more detrimental to the overall state of 40K than the creators' occasionally excessively broad-brush approach to writing the rules.
But they're not being used as a transport though? If a unit disembarks from a vehicle before it even moves, then it's still not transporting anything, now is it? The point of a transport is to go from A to B. If you get in and then get out of a stationary car, you aren't going to point B. You're still at point A.
So the rule doesn't actually encourage the player to use the transport as a transport, it doesn't stop venom spam, it adds more busy work to the game, limits deployment options and kills the hades drill.
It's an arbitrary rule that doesn't fix what it's supposed to fix. It's just a bad rule.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: But they're not being used as a transport though? If a unit disembarks from a vehicle before it even moves, then it's still not transporting anything, now is it? The point of a transport is to go from A to B. If you get in and then get out of a stationary care, you aren't going to point B.
So the rule doesn't actually encourage the player to use the transport as a transport, it doesn't stop venom spam, it just adds more busy work to the game.
It's an arbitrary rule that doesn't fix what it's supposed to fix. It's just a bad rule.
How about changing dedicated transport back to being purchased for a specific unit with the caveat that they must be deployed inside that unit? Removes the 1 character in a transport jank, stops the empty transport objective cheesing, stops the deployment fiddling and means that transports actually transport something for at least a tiny fraction of the game.
And no it not being "narratively accurate to contemporary human warfare" isn't a problem for a tournament play science fiction setting, as you're not obliged to use the tournament missions for narrative play.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: But they're not being used as a transport though? If a unit disembarks from a vehicle before it even moves, then it's still not transporting anything, now is it? The point of a transport is to go from A to B. If you get in and then get out of a stationary care, you aren't going to point B.
So the rule doesn't actually encourage the player to use the transport as a transport, it doesn't stop venom spam, it just adds more busy work to the game.
It's an arbitrary rule that doesn't fix what it's supposed to fix. It's just a bad rule.
How about changing dedicated transport back to being purchased for a specific unit with the caveat that they must be deployed inside that unit? Removes the 1 character in a transport jank, stops the empty transport objective cheesing, stops the deployment fiddling and means that transports actually transport something for at least a tiny fraction of the game.
And no it not being "narratively accurate to contemporary human warfare" isn't a problem for a tournament play science fiction setting, as you're not obliged to use the tournament missions for narrative play.
It still won't be "transporting" anything though, unless you mandate a rule that states that the transport must move before disembarking the passengers. Which is kind of arbitrary? It also means that ghost arks effectively become useless as they'd need to buy an additional warrior squad, and they aren't exactly cheap to begin with. Were ghost arks a problem in tournaments? How would such a rule stop empty transport objective cheesing? The passengers aren't always going to be in the vehicle, you know.
Here's how I would do it, based on feedback from threads - - The transport must be assigned to a non-character infantry unit that it can transport. (This catches the LSS and character problem)
- The assigned unit must either start in the transport or be deployed within 6" of the transport. The former requirement is waived if the transport is in reserve, but the assigned unit must still be deployed in proximity to the transport when it arrives. (This catches the hades drill problem, and grants players the freedom to deploy how they want. Logically, if the transport arrives then the unit would either have to walk from the table edge with it or ride in it. If it deep strikes in the middle of the field then the unit has to be in the transport, unless you somehow want to land it right on the edge of the table.)
- The transport is deployed at the same time as the assigned unit. (This catches the multiple drop problem)
- The transport must remain within 12" of the unit at all times. If it is not within 12" at the start of its movement phase, then it must attempt to move within range, much like with the unit coherency rules. (This is to reflect the "dedicated" aspect of the transport. I'm not sure mechanized infantry would want to get too far from their ride either. 12" is because 6" seemed really restrictive, especially for assault units.)
CthuluIsSpy wrote: But they're not being used as a transport though? If a unit disembarks from a vehicle before it even moves, then it's still not transporting anything, now is it? The point of a transport is to go from A to B. If you get in and then get out of a stationary car, you aren't going to point B. You're still at point A.
So the rule doesn't actually encourage the player to use the transport as a transport, it doesn't stop venom spam, it adds more busy work to the game, limits deployment options and kills the hades drill.
It's an arbitrary rule that doesn't fix what it's supposed to fix. It's just a bad rule.
As I previously said, I don't really care that much one way or the other, but I certainly don't have any major problem with something that nudges transports towards being used for their intended purpose. But carry on getting as mad (about something that's already been printed and won't be changed no matter how mad about it you get on the internet) as you like I guess.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: But they're not being used as a transport though? If a unit disembarks from a vehicle before it even moves, then it's still not transporting anything, now is it? The point of a transport is to go from A to B. If you get in and then get out of a stationary care, you aren't going to point B.
So the rule doesn't actually encourage the player to use the transport as a transport, it doesn't stop venom spam, it just adds more busy work to the game.
It's an arbitrary rule that doesn't fix what it's supposed to fix. It's just a bad rule.
How about changing dedicated transport back to being purchased for a specific unit with the caveat that they must be deployed inside that unit? Removes the 1 character in a transport jank, stops the empty transport objective cheesing, stops the deployment fiddling and means that transports actually transport something for at least a tiny fraction of the game.
And no it not being "narratively accurate to contemporary human warfare" isn't a problem for a tournament play science fiction setting, as you're not obliged to use the tournament missions for narrative play.
It still won't be "transporting" anything though, unless you mandate a rule that states that the transport must move before disembarking the passengers.
Which is kind of arbitrary?
It also means that ghost arks effectively become useless as they'd need to buy an additional warrior squad, and they aren't exactly cheap to begin with. Were ghost arks a problem in tournaments?
How would such a rule stop empty transport objective cheesing? The passengers aren't always going to be in the vehicle, you know.
Ghost arks need to stop being a dedicated transport or have a rewrite tbh, having to deploy with the unit doesn't reduce the objective manipulation I guess, you're correct. It would alleviate some of the issues with deployment shenanigans though.
Maybe transports should have further limitations or alternatively a bonus for being occupied as well.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: But they're not being used as a transport though? If a unit disembarks from a vehicle before it even moves, then it's still not transporting anything, now is it? The point of a transport is to go from A to B. If you get in and then get out of a stationary care, you aren't going to point B.
So the rule doesn't actually encourage the player to use the transport as a transport, it doesn't stop venom spam, it just adds more busy work to the game.
It's an arbitrary rule that doesn't fix what it's supposed to fix. It's just a bad rule.
How about changing dedicated transport back to being purchased for a specific unit with the caveat that they must be deployed inside that unit? Removes the 1 character in a transport jank, stops the empty transport objective cheesing, stops the deployment fiddling and means that transports actually transport something for at least a tiny fraction of the game.
And no it not being "narratively accurate to contemporary human warfare" isn't a problem for a tournament play science fiction setting, as you're not obliged to use the tournament missions for narrative play.
It still won't be "transporting" anything though, unless you mandate a rule that states that the transport must move before disembarking the passengers. Which is kind of arbitrary? It also means that ghost arks effectively become useless as they'd need to buy an additional warrior squad, and they aren't exactly cheap to begin with. Were ghost arks a problem in tournaments? How would such a rule stop empty transport objective cheesing? The passengers aren't always going to be in the vehicle, you know.
Ghost arks need to stop being a dedicated transport or have a rewrite tbh, having to deploy with the unit doesn't reduce the objective manipulation I guess, you're correct. It would alleviate some of the issues with deployment shenanigans though.
Maybe transports should have further limitations or alternatively a bonus for being occupied as well.
Probably. I never liked the GA as a transport, tbh. Never seemed right to me. Especially when per the model, there's actually no way it can have passengers It should probably be a fast attack choice? Or just an upgrade for a warrior squad that doesn't actually follow the FOC.
Nazrak wrote: But carry on getting as mad (about something that's already been printed and won't be changed no matter how mad about it you get on the internet) as you like I guess.
Nazrak wrote: But carry on getting as mad (about something that's already been printed and won't be changed no matter how mad about it you get on the internet) as you like I guess.
The Autarch says hi, btw.
Hm, fair point. Although probably an email to GW's gonna be a lot more effective than page upon page of posting on here.
If enough people complain they'll always think about it.
The transport change doesn't bother me. I continue to feel there's going to be a lot more... hostility, to paying CP for the first WLT/Relic. Maybe people will get used to it. (But it does feel daft to have these ever expanding lists of options no one will ever use.)
Nazrak wrote: But carry on getting as mad (about something that's already been printed and won't be changed no matter how mad about it you get on the internet) as you like I guess.
The Autarch says hi, btw.
Hm, fair point. Although probably an email to GW's gonna be a lot more effective than page upon page of posting on here.
Points updates are on the official app. Orks changes match the Twisted Dice video (including 8pt boyz), no changes to GSC.
Tyranids mostly match the leaks with a couple of exceptions:
Tyranid Broodlords remain the same
Tyrannofexes base cost didn't change (that was definitely a typo) but the Acid Spray option is +20pts instead of +5
Harpies pay 15pts per HVC, so 215pts total with two.
So, any information on things other than Tyranids, Orks, and las fusils for those of us that don't currently have access to the app? ( I can't currently get logged on, and have yet to get an email response from the app support team)
Gadzilla666 wrote: So, any information on things other than Tyranids, Orks, and las fusils for those of us that don't currently have access to the app? ( I can't currently get logged on, and have yet to get an email response from the app support team)
Gadzilla666 wrote: So, any information on things other than Tyranids, Orks, and las fusils for those of us that don't currently have access to the app? ( I can't currently get logged on, and have yet to get an email response from the app support team)
No updates to CSM.
Obviously none for any of our codex units. I was wondering about our fw stuff. Custodes got some significant drops on theirs just prior to their codex release. I can dream, right?
Imperial Guard player here. I started my last match with most of my chimeras empty. I was playing an emperor's blade assault company (they get a 1cp strat where chimeras can overwatch if an infantry unit was charged and so was using my infantry to screen my chimeras ). Guess I'll just have to pop the hatch first turn if I feel the need to do that again. Then again, we don't play tourney legal (hence being able to take a specialist detachment), so we'll see if we even adopt that rule. I suspect we'll be passing on at least part of the new CP rules, although we'll probably play a match with them just to see how they change things.
Edit:. Did they change Deathstike Missile launcher to cost negative points? Not sure if I'd take it even then heh
The Phazer wrote: I remain baffled as to why GW believe Aberrants are worth so much.
probably they justify it with faction design.
GSC need to be squishy mostly, therefore tough infantry should pay premium.
of course that isn't really working and with all the deepstriking and moevement shenanigans i can understand a certain degree of conservative behaviur in regards to GSC points.
The downside of this is that Thousand Sons and Death Guard land raiders are 245 points while CSM land raiders are going to be 265 points. This implies that TS and DG are not getting T9 land raiders (and likewise the achilles will not be getting T9 either).
" stay tuned for the latest Balance Dataslate, which drops tomorrow with a bundle of fresh tweaks to keep things competitive"
That seems fast. Just two months since the last one- doesn't seem like enough time to collect and analyze data, adjust things and test them.
Does help add to the impression that the game is constant in flux and putting stuff down on a table and playing feels like Zeno's paradox. The game you left the house to play isn't the game that exists when you arrived at the store/club/whatever.
Interesting things to note for the Guard. It seems command squads now have free medics, voxes and standards, as do Stormtrooper command squads and free voxes for Stormtroopers and Veterans
Special Weapons squads have no cost to weapons.
Officers have free power weapons, as do Veteran Sgts and Stormtrooper Sgts. Veteran Squads also now have free heavy weapons.
Bullgryns are 5pts cheaper.
Heavy Weapons Squads all cost the same.
Baneblades have had the cost of a lascannon sponsoon decreased to 30pts. So a total of a 60pt saving for the pair.
LunarSol wrote: Really wish they'd highlight what changed :(
Yeah. I've got the old doc on my computer at home, but I doubt I'll want to do the work at that point. (far, far too much other stuff going on)
In general, the inconsistencies make me itch. Even in the same faction, '+0 for this unit but +5/10/15 for that unit' feels real bad. A veteran guard squad vs a guard squad accelerates to 'this is not worth it' real fast.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I've yet to use my Primaris army, so let me ask you this question:
As Las-Fusil's better weapons than Bolt Sniper Rifles?
They do a different job. They are light anti-tank and elite infantry weapons. Flat 3 Damage is great vs Termies, Custodes, Wraithguard etc and pretty good for the points vs T7 vehicles. They lose the ability to snipe Characters though so they work more like infiltrating Devastators than snipers.
For 75 points though, the Las Fusils look kinda hard to turn down.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I've yet to use my Primaris army, so let me ask you this question:
As Las-Fusil's better weapons than Bolt Sniper Rifles?
They do a different job. They are light anti-tank and elite infantry weapons. Flat 3 Damage is great vs Termies, Custodes, Wraithguard etc and pretty good for the points vs T7 vehicles. They lose the ability to snipe Characters though so they work more like infiltrating Devastators than snipers.
For 75 points though, the Las Fusils look kinda hard to turn down.
Especially 5 of them as obsec shooters in a Deathwatch list
EviscerationPlague wrote: Sounds like there's no point decreases for Loyalist Marines outside named Characters chapter specific units. That's a damned shame.
Outriders -5ppm, a bunch of HS vehicles are reduced by 10-35pts, plus things like wargear for Centurions and Eliminators.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I've yet to use my Primaris army, so let me ask you this question:
As Las-Fusil's better weapons than Bolt Sniper Rifles?
It's kinda apples and oranges between the two. Sniper Rifles are kinda like marine missile launchers in they provide some flexibility toward damaging several kinds infantry-type targets. Whereas the Las Fusils dip into anti-vehicle while feeling generally more consistent even with just one firing mode. Which, if going all Primaris, anti-vehicle can sometimes be lacking.
Ultimately, as much as I like running a lot of Phobos marines and as efficient as the mathhammer comes out on Eliminators, the fact that is just 3 rifles are taking up a whole Heavy Support slot always leaves me quite unimpressed. I don't think I have had a single game where either type of Eliminator squad has done even 9 damage all game long. Even with Capt/Lt. support. They tend to be better at just being in cover to be annoyingly hard to destroy more than anything else. However, I could be rolling particularly poorly with them, coloring my perception.
Even if my opponent has them in their army, if I pay them any mind at all, I try to remove one early game. This is usually enough to leave them crippled enough that I don't have to worry about them (with bolt rifles) sniping any of my characters.
Daedalus81 wrote: Landraiders went down, which means CSM will be the only T9 in town. Here's hoping the demolisher makes the jump.
Doesn't look like it. CSM Vindicators are +10 PPM compared to everyone else's. And, interestingly, CSMPredators are more expensive than anyone else's. Wonder what they did with those?
Daedalus81 wrote: Landraiders went down, which means CSM will be the only T9 in town. Here's hoping the demolisher makes the jump.
Doesn't look like it. CSM Vindicators are +10 PPM compared to everyone else's. And, interestingly, CSMPredators are more expensive than anyone else's. Wonder what they did with those?
jaredb wrote: I don't think so, they have different roles.
Karhedron wrote: They do a different job. They are light anti-tank and elite infantry weapons.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: It's kinda apples and oranges between the two. Sniper Rifles are kinda like marine missile launchers in they provide some flexibility toward damaging several kinds infantry-type targets. Whereas the Las Fusils dip into anti-vehicle while feeling generally more consistent even with just one firing mode. Which, if going all Primaris, anti-vehicle can sometimes be lacking.
Thanks for the answers. In that case, removing their cost makes sense to me.
Eldarsif wrote: So according to this the Plague Marine loadouts are free. That is actually good news for PM.
Dirk Reinecke wrote: ... command squads now have free medics, voxes and standards, as do Stormtrooper command squads and free voxes for Stormtroopers and Veterans ... Special Weapons squads have no cost to weapons ... Officers have free power weapons, as do Veteran Sgts and Stormtrooper Sgts. Veteran Squads also now have free heavy weapons ... Heavy Weapons Squads all cost the same ...
They are slowly eroding the purpose (and efficacy) of points.
I imagine 10th will be PL only.
This is why these big points updates are free, 'cause they're not going to be a thing in the future.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Sounds like there's no point decreases for Loyalist Marines outside named Characters chapter specific units. That's a damned shame.
Outriders -5ppm, a bunch of HS vehicles are reduced by 10-35pts, plus things like wargear for Centurions and Eliminators.
Eh, until Centurions get CORE again it won't matter what they decrease for them.
Oh well, was hoping to make at least 50 points in my current Templar list to fit a couple more weapons but I guess not.
jaredb wrote: I don't think so, they have different roles.
Karhedron wrote: They do a different job. They are light anti-tank and elite infantry weapons.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: It's kinda apples and oranges between the two. Sniper Rifles are kinda like marine missile launchers in they provide some flexibility toward damaging several kinds infantry-type targets. Whereas the Las Fusils dip into anti-vehicle while feeling generally more consistent even with just one firing mode. Which, if going all Primaris, anti-vehicle can sometimes be lacking.
Thanks for the answers. In that case, removing their cost makes sense to me.
Eldarsif wrote: So according to this the Plague Marine loadouts are free. That is actually good news for PM.
Dirk Reinecke wrote: ... command squads now have free medics, voxes and standards, as do Stormtrooper command squads and free voxes for Stormtroopers and Veterans ... Special Weapons squads have no cost to weapons ... Officers have free power weapons, as do Veteran Sgts and Stormtrooper Sgts. Veteran Squads also now have free heavy weapons ... Heavy Weapons Squads all cost the same ...
They are slowly eroding the purpose (and efficacy) of points.
I imagine 10th will be PL only.
This is why these big points updates are free, 'cause they're not going to be a thing in the future.
Realisitcally, they can't go straight up power level without potentially kicking open a hornet's nest. As much as Dakka people like to pretend it never happened and can never happen(because everybody who likes 40k is sheeps or w/e), people WERE abandoning 40k in droves in 7th edition because they finally pushed people over the edge, ruleswise.
If they're going to change the way points work to be more like powerlevel, it'll almost certainly be Sigmar's point system. It has the 'we don't have to make more than one good loadout' bonus of powerlevel while also being more granular.
This has all the changes that are pretty easy to read.
Some nutty points cuts to crons and Deathguard. Most everyone got something.
Ad mech are likely still in a bad place.
Expect Sisters, Deathguard and Harlequins to be pretty strong with these changes, though we'll see if the Dataslate changes anything.
It really depends on the Balance slate. All the drops Sisters got get more than canceled out if they lose AoC (especially if they're the ONLY ones who lose AoC) and Harlies are almost certainly getting knocked down with how little they got touched.
ERJAK wrote: Realisitcally, they can't go straight up power level without potentially kicking open a hornet's nest. As much as Dakka people like to pretend it never happened and can never happen(because everybody who likes 40k is sheeps or w/e), people WERE abandoning 40k in droves in 7th edition because they finally pushed people over the edge, ruleswise.
If they're going to change the way points work to be more like powerlevel, it'll almost certainly be Sigmar's point system. It has the 'we don't have to make more than one good loadout' bonus of powerlevel while also being more granular.
I see where people think that this is an AoS-ification, but that feels like jumping the gun. I highly doubt we'll get to the point where Rubrics are walking around with flamers for free. It's cases where the unit itself needed a point adjustment, but not one that make a naked squad too cheap where spamming bodies becomes more useful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK wrote: It really depends on the Balance slate. All the drops Sisters got get more than canceled out if they lose AoC (especially if they're the ONLY ones who lose AoC) and Harlies are almost certainly getting knocked down with how little they got touched.
I can't imagine why they might do to Harlies in the slate though? Unless they punch Light?
ERJAK wrote: Realisitcally, they can't go straight up power level without potentially kicking open a hornet's nest. As much as Dakka people like to pretend it never happened and can never happen(because everybody who likes 40k is sheeps or w/e), people WERE abandoning 40k in droves in 7th edition because they finally pushed people over the edge, ruleswise.
If they're going to change the way points work to be more like powerlevel, it'll almost certainly be Sigmar's point system. It has the 'we don't have to make more than one good loadout' bonus of powerlevel while also being more granular.
I see where people think that this is an AoS-ification, but that feels like jumping the gun. I highly doubt we'll get to the point where Rubrics are walking around with flamers for free. It's cases where the unit itself needed a point adjustment, but not one that make a naked squad too cheap where spamming bodies becomes more useful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK wrote: It really depends on the Balance slate. All the drops Sisters got get more than canceled out if they lose AoC (especially if they're the ONLY ones who lose AoC) and Harlies are almost certainly getting knocked down with how little they got touched.
I can't imagine why they might do to Harlies in the slate though? Unless they punch Light?
That's my guess. Light Saedath isn't that much stronger in terms of pure performance but DOES create the most 'un-fun' play pattern. They might still hit dark in some way, but I expect Light to be significantly different (and significantly worse).
Could theoretically also see data sheet changes. If they pull the -1 to hit off of mirage launchers, that would be a pretty significant dent in their durability.
It really depends on the Balance slate. All the drops Sisters got get more than canceled out if they lose AoC (especially if they're the ONLY ones who lose AoC) and Harlies are almost certainly getting knocked down with how little they got touched.
The biggest marine points changes seem to be focused on vehicles. AoC changing to infantry only perhaps?
bullyboy wrote: Do we have any clue what they are planning to target in next dataslate coming tomorrow?
Miguelsan wrote: It wouldn't surprise me if the change were due to the people in GWHQ getting roll stomped by somebody with a transport list in a test game or two.
It was rumored at the time that the changes to a less lethal Bloodbowl edition happened after somebody taught Jervis and Co how people played in the wild.
M.
That was fouling. 3rd? edition I believe. A chap joined the studio league and slaughtered everyone with fouling. Before then they didn't really foul much. This led to the IGMEOY rule and has ended up being the sent off on doubles rule today.
I'm surprised we didn't see the Ork Boyz 'eavy weapons get folded into the overall cost, given how minimally effective they're generally thought to be.
Tau got some pretty hefty nerfs so they are likely dead in the water unless they get some datasheet buffs. The average competitive list went up 150-300 points depending on loadout.
DominayTrix wrote: Tau got some pretty hefty nerfs so they are likely dead in the water unless they get some datasheet buffs. The average competitive list went up 150-300 points depending on loadout.
I mean...the 150pts side of that just puts them in line with other factions.
Ahh yes, that doesn't exist in the UK so she's functionally oop from a UK perspective.
You guys don't have ebay?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK wrote: MY favorite part is how they cut us down by 8CP in the pregame and then try to pretended like worthless round 4 or round 5 CP 'balances it out' like we don't know how the game works.
I'd trade 20 round 5 CP for even just your first warlord trait to be free.
Good! I don't like stratagems, they further unbalance the game by widening the rift between haves and have nots, and I would love to see less of them played overall. Remembering 700 stratagems so I don't get hit with a gotcha mechanic is not my idea of beer and pretzels fun. I don't even think it's good for competitive play because of how unbalanced they can be.
That's just mental!
... the rest of the buff nerf instruments start damage and sizewise at the sledgehammer and only go bigger...
