On one hand, it took them a year to sort their gak out with AoS, but they did with flying colours. I almost want to give them a year under that assumption.
On the other hand, they keep making the same mistakes they made in the past, while seemingly ignoring everything they did right for AoS, so it doesn't really go to inspire much hope. I mean, why are we having to wait for GW to figure out the stuff that they already got on lock before?
Arachnofiend wrote: Are you referring to Tzeentch's Firestorm? That actually got math'd out to do less damage-per-cast than even the gakky rubric smite because of the awful WC 7. Also I'm pretty sure you can't replace smite with it so rubrics wouldn't be able to take it anyways.
Look it up in CA, the rules actually say you can replace your Smite power with their 9 dice version of smite before a game. Most forms of smite spam would be nerfed, but not thousand sons.
Look again. Before the battle, a THOUSAND SONS PSYKER can replace a psychic power (not Smite) with the following: Tzeentch's Firestorm
Fafnir wrote: You don't take Celestine without the Geminae, she's just not survivable enough without them (and since they're not named characters, one of them can take that shiny new relic sword, making it a significant buff for Celestine). Basically, they just gave you even more reason to run her with everything in the box. Most of the people that ran her aren't going to see much difference because of that.
This is demonstrably untrue. The top (Guard) lists that were taking Celestine were running her by herself as a suicide assassin. It's really only Sisters armies that were ever running her with the Geminae.
At that point though, I'd rather just take a bunch of Eversors.
Two Eversors can't move 24" across the board, jump over chaff screens to get to the good stuff, or claim/contest objectives. Nor can they give Bullgryns the potential to get a 2++ after strats/buffs. She was an absolute steal by herself at 150 points and could be crammed into any list without sacrificing much of anything.
I mean, Celestine's definitely hella good, and offers plenty to IG (more than she does Sisters), you've outlined more than I'd originally considered, but I'd argue that at least one Geminae is needed to maximize her efficiency, even before the nerf. The overall increased durability, combined with the ability for her to die and come back without having to be repositioned allows her to hold onto key points and lock up key units better. And now that the Geminae of access to a relic, they increase her damage output considerably too.
Even with an increase to her base cost, I seriously doubt anyone who was running her for their IG before will be changing their minds about her. They'll just be considering the option of bringing a regenerating girlfriend who gives an extra 3 S5/AP-3/D3 attacks with her.
I'veactually heard the argument that you want to be able to reposition her because you aren't using her to control key points so it is super powerful to be able to place her anywhere on the table. Also if they bring a girlfriend now they will be paying 75 points more than they were with just her at 150. So if sisters players were always bringing her friends and soup player were not, this seems like a good change because it hurts the soup players but not those sister players.
Except the girlfriend got a pretty big buff with the relic weapon, so there's now an offensive reason to actually take her.
I always take her with at least one girl in my soup army just because she's such a resilient magnet with them. But then again, my soup army runs a decent amount of Admech and relies on janky Dragoon shenanigans, so take of that what you will.
Fafnir wrote: Except the girlfriend got a pretty big buff with the relic weapon, so there's now an offensive reason to actually take her.
I always take her with at least one girl in my soup army just because she's such a resilient magnet with them. But then again, my soup army runs a decent amount of Admech and relies on janky Dragoon shenanigans, so take of that what you will.
Buff or not, paying 50-100 more points is paying a significant amount more points than most high end lists were spending previously. If you combine that with some of the other increases (Conscripts) A list that was taking say 100 conscripts and Celestine now has 150-200 points less to spend elsewhere in their army. If she was running in a Rowboat 6 razorback gunline, with a 100 conscript wall, that was 1410 points, now its 1669. So to pretend that there was no change is simply untrue. You mentioned eversors, Celestine was worth 2 eversors of points (more or less) before, now she costs almost 3.
I'm not saying you are wrong that people will add a friend to her now, but even in that case it is a significant change in points.
Fafnir wrote: ...but Assault Marines are bad. Like... really, really bad. It's not a good comparison, because you're comparing them to crap. You're not just comparing them to units from another codex, which is already difficult, but you're comparing it to a unit that is widely accepted as being terrible.
They're tougher than marines.
They cost less than marines.
They are more flexible than marines.
Also, it's 10 points per model, not just to the unit. Spectres are now 33 points per man.
There's a problem when you set your baseline at the clearly undercosted value and set your expectations from there.
It was 10 points more than the other unit in my hypothetical.
So let me repose it in the language of op.
Scions are 9 points. T3 with a 4+, LD7, and can deepstrike.
Spectres are 8 points, T3 with a 4+, LD7, have a -1 to be hit, fly, the morale ability, and a second wound on the exarch.
They're either taking a melta gun at 17 points or a plasma gun at 13.
At 18" their plasma gun kills 1.73 spectres (60 points). The spectres kill 5.8 scions (128 points).
At 12" scions score 3.5 (120 points). spectres would still do 5.8.
At 8" scions are the same and spectres are at 7.8 (172 points).
In scions are charged they kill 1.2 and spectres do 7.8.
So from 18" to 24" scions are "better", but can't fly, move at half the speed, and can't affect morale. Spectres are a bit worse at hurting tanks and don't do 2 damage, but more than make up for it in hits.
Now could spectres be a little overcosted? Sure if we've valued flamer style weapons incorrectly, but there not too damned far from the mark.
If you compare them to units in the codex, Reapers and Spears were still better before the nerf.
Those are completely different units in completely different roles. Nor is it a valid point to compare to something that potentially needs a nerf.
And neither of those easily get -2 to be hit.
Shadow Spectres are ForgeWorld; that's the only reason for the price hike.
If it's FW, it got nuked to orbit (minus like one imperial flyer, which got decreased/buffed).
So there couldn't possibly be any other reason? None at all? They changed all those things that people thought were strong except one of them and all you have is BECUZ FAWGEWERLD!
Fafnir wrote: ...but Assault Marines are bad. Like... really, really bad. It's not a good comparison, because you're comparing them to crap. You're not just comparing them to units from another codex, which is already difficult, but you're comparing it to a unit that is widely accepted as being terrible.
They're tougher than marines.
They cost less than marines.
They are more flexible than marines.
And marines are tougher than servitors, cost less than servitors, and are more flexible than servitors. Your point? Because if we're going to arbitrarily compare everything to units that are widely known as being terrible, we might as well just bring ourselves down to the worst and most useless unit in the game. Assault marines have no viable role in the game, they're poorly performing and overcosted. To make any comparison justifying the nerf of another unit is pointless, since assault marines themselves are badly in need of a redesign.
Also, it's 10 points per model, not just to the unit. Spectres are now 33 points per man.
There's a problem when you set your baseline at the clearly undercosted value and set your expectations from there.
It was 10 points more than the other unit in my hypothetical.
The unit in your hypothetical was silly.
So let me repose it in the language of op.
Scions are 9 points. T3 with a 4+, LD7, and can deepstrike.
Spectres are 8 points, T3 with a 4+, LD7, have a -1 to be hit, fly, the morale ability, and a second wound on the exarch.
They're either taking a melta gun at 17 points or a plasma gun at 13.
Scions are always taking plasma, melta is awful.
At 18" their plasma gun kills 1.73 spectres (60 points). The spectres kill 5.8 scions (128 points).
At 12" scions score 3.5 (120 points). spectres would still do 5.8.
At 8" scions are the same and spectres are at 7.8 (172 points).
In scions are charged they kill 1.2 and spectres do 7.8.
Why are scions targetting spectres? That's a terrible idea, and this is a terrible comparison.
Scions will deepstrike after whatever it is they want to kill, pop it, and die a glorious death for the emperor. They should almost always make their points back (and often several times over).
Assuming no modifiers (and you can in this case, because Scions will always pick their target appropriately, that's their freaking job), command squad of 4 scions deepstriking into rapid fire range (because why the hell wouldn't you?) with their commander letting them reroll 1s to hit is going to put out 7.2 S8/AP-3/D2 hits. This costs 128 points.
Assuming no modifiers, a 4 man squad of Spectres within 18" firing with their Prism rifles on concentrated will put out 5.6 S8/AP-3/D1 hits. This unit costs 132 points (137 with exarch, because Spectres need to pay for theirs, unlike every other aspect warrior).
Even if the Spectres get into flamer range, a unit of 4 Spectres within 8" firing their diffuse beam will put out 14 S5/AP-1/D1 hits.
So even in flamer range, short of gaunts/boyz/guardsmen, all units that are far too point inefficient for Spectres to go after now, Scions will always be much more point efficient in their damage output.
The leadership aura is only effective in an extremely close range where you typically don't want anything left alive anyway, and flight and movement in general isn't important for Scions since they're a point-and-click mini-exterminatus anyway.
Now could spectres be a little overcosted? Sure if we've valued flamer style weapons incorrectly, but there not too damned far from the mark.
Flamers are trash, outside of a few gimmicky exceptions. The high new cost of Spectres has ensured that they are not an exception.
If you compare them to units in the codex, Reapers and Spears were still better before the nerf.
Those are completely different units in completely different roles. Nor is it a valid point to compare to something that potentially needs a nerf.
And neither of those easily get -2 to be hit.
Reapers are different roles (in that they just kill everything with abandon), but Spears outdo them in pretty much everything that you'd take Spectres for now. The only thing Spectres might beat Spears in is sitting back on objectives, but if you're doing that, you might as well take Rangers, who manage to do that better for a little more than a third of the price.
Also, both of those can easily get -2 to be hit with Alaitoc and Conceal.
Buff or not, paying 50-100 more points is paying a significant amount more points than most high end lists were spending previously. If you combine that with some of the other increases (Conscripts) A list that was taking say 100 conscripts and Celestine now has 150-200 points less to spend elsewhere in their army. If she was running in a Rowboat 6 razorback gunline, with a 100 conscript wall, that was 1410 points, now its 1669. So to pretend that there was no change is simply untrue. You mentioned eversors, Celestine was worth 2 eversors of points (more or less) before, now she costs almost 3.
I'm not saying you are wrong that people will add a friend to her now, but even in that case it is a significant change in points.
Though those conscripts will now have better ld, ws, bs, orders and ability togo to multiple places more freely.
But their original cost was overpowered as hell, and it took about 5 minutes for a consensus to be formed among eldar players that they are the best unit in the "codex" due to having both sheer nearly unmatched damage efficiency, great flexibility, high mobility, good durability AND niche tricks up their sleeves.
Post nerf, honestly they still look pretty decent.
I'm not quite sure I understand the FW issue here. A lot of these units screamed Apocalypse, and now they're tailor made for it (since iirc the rules suggest using power level, not points, and those didn't change much for those units). Seems like a rousing success to me.
Lemondish wrote: I'm not quite sure I understand the FW issue here. A lot of these units screamed Apocalypse, and now they're tailor made for it (since iirc the rules suggest using power level, not points, and those didn't change much for those units). Seems like a rousing success to me.
Definitely.
I believe the move intended to sideline Apoc units to achieve balance faster and it's clearly working.
None of these units can break the balance of matched play anytime soon.
Lemondish wrote: I'm not quite sure I understand the FW issue here. A lot of these units screamed Apocalypse, and now they're tailor made for it (since iirc the rules suggest using power level, not points, and those didn't change much for those units). Seems like a rousing success to me.
even if we discount the superheavy stuff, there was lots of incomprehensible changes to smaller units. Earthshaker platforms being made more expensive than their more resilient and mobile Basilisk counterparts, Griffons and Rapiers and Heavy Mortars and Thudd Guns going up, Fire Raptors going *down* 60pts, etc.
There appears to largely be little rhyme or reason to the changes, and certainly lots of dramatic overswings.
Lemondish wrote: I'm not quite sure I understand the FW issue here. A lot of these units screamed Apocalypse, and now they're tailor made for it (since iirc the rules suggest using power level, not points, and those didn't change much for those units). Seems like a rousing success to me.
even if we discount the superheavy stuff, there was lots of incomprehensible changes to smaller units. Earthshaker platforms being made more expensive than their more resilient and mobile Basilisk counterparts, Griffons and Rapiers and Heavy Mortars and Thudd Guns going up, Fire Raptors going *down* 60pts, etc.
There appears to largely be little rhyme or reason to the changes, and certainly lots of dramatic overswings.
Then show us a list where there is an actual majority of actual mistakes, rather than mentioning a few things and ignoring all the right calls that were made.
I haven't even read the damn book and I already know about more good calls than what you seem to consider bad calls.
But here's the thing, you might be wrong about some of them.
Maybe it's a good thing that Imperial soup doesn't have access to 3 point conscripts anymore.
Maybe the very fact that you could get a warm body for 3 points was a problem of balance in a game where most factions pay at least double that for their cheapest screening units.
Maybe not... who knows. The thing is, there are at least as many people who believe that fix was a good thing as there are people who think it was unnecessary overkill.
Earthshaker IS a good fix, even if it makes them more expensive than Basilisks.
The day Basilisks are a problem by themselves, they'll get more expensive.
If Earthshakers completely disappear from the face of competitive gaming, they'll get slight point drops at a later date, that's how it works.
Overall, I think there is very little overswing, I wouldn't even count Earthshakers and Malefic Lords as overswing tbh, neither were meant to be list-dominating options and both will still be taken in less competitive metas.
Lemondish wrote: I'm not quite sure I understand the FW issue here. A lot of these units screamed Apocalypse, and now they're tailor made for it (since iirc the rules suggest using power level, not points, and those didn't change much for those units). Seems like a rousing success to me.
even if we discount the superheavy stuff, there was lots of incomprehensible changes to smaller units. Earthshaker platforms being made more expensive than their more resilient and mobile Basilisk counterparts, Griffons and Rapiers and Heavy Mortars and Thudd Guns going up, Fire Raptors going *down* 60pts, etc.
There appears to largely be little rhyme or reason to the changes, and certainly lots of dramatic overswings.
Then show us a list where there is an actual majority of actual mistakes, rather than mentioning a few things and ignoring all the right calls that were made.
I haven't even read the damn book and I already know about more good calls than what you seem to consider bad calls.
I was addressing specifically the FW stuff with the post above, not everything, however I neither have the book on hand right at this moment nor feel the need to sit there counting out a ratio of good calls to bad calls, there's more than enough terrible calls to undermine my faith in GW's ability and the effort they put in.
But I'm glad that you can be so confident without even having read it. Thats a strong position to debate from...
But here's the thing, you might be wrong about some of them.
Maybe it's a good thing that Imperial soup doesn't have access to 3 point conscripts anymore.
I wasnt addressing conscripts in my post about FW above.
however if we want to get into that, we have no idea what the justification is for the further conscript nerf. If theyre balancing it for soup lists, its about the only unit being looked at in such a manner seemingly, because armies as a whole are certainly not balanced that way by GW and it certainly wasnt for internal balance reasons because Infantry squads are a no brainer alternative at the same cost and better in every other way. Functionally, they might as well have just deleted them from thr game from a competitive aspect, it would have the same effect, the only advantage Conscripts have is squad size, which isn't enough to really matter and which IG have Stratagems to address in other ways if need be. They were already dramatically less popular with the codex than the index.
Earthshaker IS a good fix, even if it makes them more expensive than Basilisks.
The day Basilisks are a problem by themselves, they'll get more expensive.
That's a hell of an assumption. GW just had their 3rd chance to cost the Basilisk in the last 6 months, and chose not to do so.
If Earthshakers completely disappear from the face of competitive gaming, they'll get slight point drops at a later date, that's how it works.
In theory? Sure. Given GW's decades long track record, including this update, anyone holding their breath may be disappointed.
Overall, I think there is very little overswing, I wouldn't even count Earthshakers and Malefic Lords as overswing tbh, neither were meant to be list-dominating options and both will still be taken in less competitive metas.
the issue isnt that they got nerfed, its that they got nerfed into oblivion, there is no point to taking either, they might as well have just deleted them from the game, it would have the same effect on the competitive scene.
Im certainly not seeing where Griffons, Heavy Mortars, Quad Launchers, Rapiers, Medusas, etc all needed price hikes, these weren't exactly popular competitive units. Not sure why Fire Raptors needed to be monstrously cheaper (though my Iron Warriors may be happy about it).
Lemondish wrote: I'm not quite sure I understand the FW issue here. A lot of these units screamed Apocalypse, and now they're tailor made for it (since iirc the rules suggest using power level, not points, and those didn't change much for those units). Seems like a rousing success to me.
Definitely.
I believe the move intended to sideline Apoc units to achieve balance faster and it's clearly working.
None of these units can break the balance of matched play anytime soon.
Are you seriously stating that is the Apoc units that threatened balance in the current edition? Come on.
Also, as a general observation, to people that maintain that CA did a fantastic job in the right direction. I ask: is nerfing thing to uselessness the right answer, and sign of the new, fantastic times? Because this is what GW used to do before, it just took more time because of the way the codices were produced.
Lemondish wrote: I'm not quite sure I understand the FW issue here. A lot of these units screamed Apocalypse, and now they're tailor made for it (since iirc the rules suggest using power level, not points, and those didn't change much for those units). Seems like a rousing success to me.
Definitely.
I believe the move intended to sideline Apoc units to achieve balance faster and it's clearly working.
None of these units can break the balance of matched play anytime soon.
Are you seriously stating that is the Apoc units that threatened balance in the current edition?
Come on.
I'm fairly sure the team responsible for CA was told that some of the Apoc units were clearly undercosted.
Since they don't have infinite time for balancing, their conclusion was that the best thing would be to effectively remove those units from competitive play, as they're rarely ever played there anyway.
Now the only people who are going to play with them are people who are relaxed and mature enough to not give a gak if the PLs are slightly off.
Also, as a general observation, to people that maintain that CA did a fantastic job in the right direction.
I ask: is nerfing thing to uselessness the right answer, and sign of the new, fantastic times? Because this is what GW used to do before, it just took more time because of the way the codices were produced.
This is exactly why Guilliman and Assbacks only received a minor points buff.
I think 2017 is a bad time for points adjustments. All the books are not out, there hasn't been much time for everyone who plays to really figure things out let alone GW. 2018 chapter approved should be the really good point adjustment book..
I'm fairly sure the team responsible for CA was told that some of the Apoc units were clearly undercosted. Since they don't have infinite time for balancing, their conclusion was that the best thing would be to effectively remove those units from competitive play, as they're rarely ever played there anyway. Now the only people who are going to play with them are people who are relaxed and mature enough to not give a gak if the PLs are slightly off.
The fact that you consider this ok is an example of why GW can keep getting away with such sloppiness. Also, nice strawman with the maturity. People play with point and at a certain point level, and GW advertised the game in a way that "everything goes". If they really wanted to put limits (thing that I endorse) for primarchs and super-heavy there should be a 3k-4k points minimum for this kind of unit. That I would love - but is not what happened. This is an horrible middle ground. The way was done, you end with 1 fell blade every 2 baneblades an an high point game. You cannot defend this and being intellectually honest. Is one of the two.
This is exactly why Guilliman and Assbacks only received a minor points buff.
So, to Counter my argument, you are bringing up Gulliman, that instead of being over-nerfed, is still under-costed. Well, sure thing you told me about the right direction taken by CA!
Read through it today.
Decidedly underwhelmed Im afraid.
Some of the new missions do seem well thought out and the inclusion of PS, Apoc and SA along with a decent helping of terrain rules is appreciated.
But the points changes, new stratagems and army updates were sorely lacking and some bordering on pointless imo.
The ladder campaign and LR make yer own rules were similar White Dwarf Lite filler.
I actually enjoyed the make your own objective markers most
After reading it, surely the make your own, obj markers, ladder campaign etc could have been WD articles with the points updates for free and then a mini suppliment for those that want/like PS, SA and Apoc?
Felt like a bit of a cheap cash grab :(
The way was done, you end with 1 fell blade every 2 baneblades an an high point game.
I'm not sure what you're saying there.
So, to Counter my argument, you are bringing up Gulliman, that instead of being over-nerfed, is still under-costed.
Well, sure thing you told me about the right direction taken by CA!
RG got a modest increase. Suddenly jumping him by 100 points tells them nothing about the balance even if you FEEL differently.
When you want to find at which price a customer stops buying a product you increase the price incrementally until you see it drop off. Then you dial it back.
And with 25 points to RG plus 12 per Asscan RB a list with 5 RBs is now 85 points too expensive, which is enough to shift a full RB off the table.
I could have read the points wrong, people will correct me I guess.
RG got a modest increase. Suddenly jumping him by 100 points tells them nothing about the balance even if you FEEL differently. When you want to find at which price a customer stops buying a product you increase the price incrementally until you see it drop off. Then you dial it back.
So why cannot they do the same with FW? This is a huge contradiction. You are using 2 different standards for the huge increase in points for FW and the little increment for GW stuff that was too strong.
And with 25 points to RG plus 12 per Asscan RB a list with 5 RBs is now 85 points too expensive, which is enough to shift a full RB off the table.
Is not only a matter of tournament lists. Also, this is a good judgement for the Razorbacks, less for RG.
So why cannot they do the same with FW? This is a huge contradiction.
You are using 2 different standards for the huge increase in points for FW and the little increment for GW stuff that was too strong.
Because a lot of those super heavies needed that sort of cost increase. The math proves it out - at least into the realm of reason.
So why cannot they do the same with FW? This is a huge contradiction.
You are using 2 different standards for the huge increase in points for FW and the little increment for GW stuff that was too strong.
Because a lot of those super heavies needed that sort of cost increase. The math proves it out - at least into the realm of reason.
I don't think so tbh, those recosts are completely crazy, most of the Titans should probably be cheaper now rather than more expensive, given how much they lost.
The thing is GW just acted like this: we can't deal with this now, so it's off-limits when playing points, we'll balance FW stuff later when the core game seems stable and until then, you can still play all of that with PL.
I love Apoc, and that change by GW has finally convinced me that PL is the way to go for Apoc.
I really like the idea of less min/maxing and more rough estimates of value in that context.
I feel that overall, it's tying those awesome models with PL, which is intended for less competition and more enjoying miniatures, which makes perfect sense since none of that FW stuff ever won a GT anyway.
We might even see a day where people who don't care for competition all play PL and there's less misunderstandings between fluff bunnies and competitive gamers because they were offered game types that suit them.
I don't think so tbh, those recosts are completely crazy, most of the Titans should probably be cheaper now rather than more expensive, given how much they lost.
The thing is GW just acted like this: we can't deal with this now, so it's off-limits when playing points, we'll balance FW stuff later when the core game seems stable and until then, you can still play all of that with PL.
I love Apoc, and that change by GW has finally convinced me that PL is the way to go for Apoc.
I really like the idea of less min/maxing and more rough estimates of value in that context.
I feel that overall, it's tying those awesome models with PL, which is intended for less competition and more enjoying miniatures, which makes perfect sense since none of that FW stuff ever won a GT anyway.
We might even see a day where people who don't care for competition all play PL and there's less misunderstandings between fluff bunnies and competitive gamers because they were offered game types that suit them.
I'm talking the intermediaries that you can still take in a normal game. The things they set cost to 2,000 points they clearly wanted out. So, yes, 2000 isn't likely the "right" price, but it isn't likely to matter much right now either, because they'll still wind up being almost the only model on the table in a 2K game.
BoomWolf wrote: I really don't understand the specter moaning.
Are they overpriced now? maybe, just maybe.
But their original cost was overpowered as hell, and it took about 5 minutes for a consensus to be formed among eldar players that they are the best unit in the "codex" due to having both sheer nearly unmatched damage efficiency, great flexibility, high mobility, good durability AND niche tricks up their sleeves.
Post nerf, honestly they still look pretty decent.
Spears were capable of higher damage efficiency in general and situationally better durability pre nerf, and Reapers were more efficient against multi-wound targets. They were still behind these two units (and hemlocks, IMO) before the nerf. Spectres were undercosted, but they did not deserve to get nerfed as badly as they did. 28 points would have removed them from the top competitive Eldar units, but would have at least made them viable in their role. As it stands, 33 points for a 1W model is just too much, especially considering that they'll never really be able to make their costs back against their intended targets. At their current price point, there's nothing in the game that jumps out as being a unit you'd want to put them up against.
8th ed seems to be this mythical "just wait for X" from get-go. It's always "wait for X to fix things". Well actually screw 8th. It's been always in 40k. Never happened, never will. 40k won't be even near balanced even with codexes are all out. What's going to be next "just wait for X. It's going to make all the difference?"
Yeah, I'm regretting jumping into 8e with both feet, that's for sure
So while this thread is mostly to do with people being annoyed by the points adjustments, has anyone looked at the new matched play missions? They are really cool. I really like the Scorched Earth and Accession missions. I played Scorched Earth the other day and it was really fun, and made for a compelling game.
on the points issue, it is annoying that the still have not listed the aspiring sorcerer with a points cost in CSM. At this point I am just assuming that is intentional and he is a free unit champ upgrade like everyone else gets (I think Exarch in the Eldar, yes Eldar, book are free right?).
Every exarch except for the Shadow Specter exarch is a free upgrade to a squad of aspect warriors. They just replace a normal warrior at no additional cost. I imagine you'd do the same for your aspiring sorcerer then.
Lemondish wrote: I'm not quite sure I understand the FW issue here. A lot of these units screamed Apocalypse, and now they're tailor made for it (since iirc the rules suggest using power level, not points, and those didn't change much for those units). Seems like a rousing success to me.
They only scream apocalypse because they are made from less profitable(for GW) resin. GW plastic super heavies are however just fine as GW wants you to buy lots of them! Resin however they aren't that interested in selling lots. One for collector. Gamers they want you to invest that money into plastic for more profits for GW.
It has 0% to do with balance or "apoc unit" or whatever. It's all about directing gamers to buy GW plastic which gives higher profits than resin.
Fafnir wrote: Every exarch except for the Shadow Specter exarch is a free upgrade to a squad of aspect warriors. They just replace a normal warrior at no additional cost. I imagine you'd do the same for your aspiring sorcerer then.
The weirdness comes from the fact that the Rubric Aspiring Sorcerer used to specifically cost extra in the Index. That's no longer the case in the CSM Codex. But the Scarab Occult Sorcerer (the same thing but for the terminators) it still uses the Index cost because they're not in the CSM codex, so you still have to pay a premium for the SOS.
So I've read all 22 pages of this chapter approved thread and there have only been a couple of mentions of the new missions and no discussion at all of the apocalypse, planet strike, stronghold assault and VDR stuff. This book has been dismissed as a lazy effort by many here. Is this just about the points or is the other stuff considered to be bad as well?
If so, why is this content bad?
I could understand that the land raider VDR is very limited but by ignoring it, you ensure that GW never expands it in the future. (this was pitched as a pilot programme)
Does noone play open or narrative?
If you do only play matched, what is wrong with the new missions? Are they not well designed or do people simply not want different ways to play the game?
I have read and listened to and read a few 'reviews' but they have all just been summaries of the content and a lot of batching about the points.
Even with regards to the points, I have seen lots of complaints that gw's points are wrong but no-one stating what they think the points should be.
Why not do a poll to pick the top ten over and underpointed units, agree some changes and submit the whole thing to GW as the official dakka opinion about points?
Fafnir wrote: Every exarch except for the Shadow Specter exarch is a free upgrade to a squad of aspect warriors. They just replace a normal warrior at no additional cost. I imagine you'd do the same for your aspiring sorcerer then.
The weirdness comes from the fact that the Rubric Aspiring Sorcerer used to specifically cost extra in the Index. That's no longer the case in the CSM Codex. But the Scarab Occult Sorcerer (the same thing but for the terminators) it still uses the Index cost because they're not in the CSM codex, so you still have to pay a premium for the SOS.
Yea I still pay for the scarab sorcerer. It stinks because while I think we have the best terminators, all terminators are pretty over priced and then adding another like 20 points for one more attack and mini-smite stinks. Hopefully they will reduce the cost or eliminate it in the codex for the scarab sorcerer (pretty sure they are not reducing points for any terminator units at this point).
Chikout wrote: So I've read all 22 pages of this chapter approved thread and there have only been a couple of mentions of the new missions and no discussion at all of the apocalypse, planet strike, stronghold assault and VDR stuff. This book has been dismissed as a lazy effort by many here. Is this just about the points or is the other stuff considered to be bad as well?
If so, why is this content bad?
I could understand that the land raider VDR is very limited but by ignoring it, you ensure that GW never expands it in the future. (this was pitched as a pilot programme)
Does noone play open or narrative?
If you do only play matched, what is wrong with the new missions? Are they not well designed or do people simply not want different ways to play the game?
I have read and listened to and read a few 'reviews' but they have all just been summaries of the content and a lot of batching about the points.
Even with regards to the points, I have seen lots of complaints that gw's points are wrong but no-one stating what they think the points should be.
Why not do a poll to pick the top ten over and underpointed units, agree some changes and submit the whole thing to GW as the official dakka opinion about points?
I would love to build some custom land raiders. I would love to support the VDR. Unfortunately noone in my meta has ever been able to get a game of open play in, so it wouldn't get anywhere. It's probably one of the more frustrating aspects - taht and Land raiders are only available for SM related factions
The apoc players seem to like the changes but there are mostly just common sense ones, nothing ground breaking. It really could have been a white dwarf article and would have been just as good. I liked the idea of bidding on deployment time in the first mission.
It's not that the content is bad, but it is all stuff that is pretty situational. I think 90% of players could skip everything but the point changes and the little half page to matched play changes. It definitely felt like it didn't meet GW's hype they sold me on.
Indeed the vast swathe of players that play 40k are not interested in anything but matched play.
Remove the matched play components from Chapter Approved and you have a book that wouldn't move at all.
Just like the AOS books didn't move until the Generals Handbook brought in matched play.
Because the playerbase is by a great degree matched-play-or-nothing. Narrative games are a tiny tiny niche that don't have any financial viability in terms of commercial success barring a fluke or crazy miracle.
Which is why they would have been better off releasing a campaign book for those that want some narrative options built for them, and then wait on a book that could be built around matched play until they had enough freaking content to justify it. And maybe by then, someone would have 20 minutes to take a second look at the point adjustments too.
Daedalus81 wrote: Because a lot of those super heavies needed that sort of cost increase. The math proves it out - at least into the realm of reason.
In a lot of cases it really, really doesn’t. Take for example the four Space Marine superheavies- the Typhon, Fellblade, Falchion and (I think) Cerberus. Each one was overcosted to begin with, and each one got smacked with a 200pt increase. These aren’t Titans that get brought out once every two years for a bit Apoc game, these are the Marines’ direct equivalent of the Baneblade chassis. I did a comparison of the maths for 3 of those tanks in a similar thread:
Spoiler:
kombatwombat wrote: The first thing I want to point out is that if any weapons are part of a unit’s base cost (such as the primary weapon of the tanks we’re considering), you cannot simply say a 25% increase in durability should translate to a 25% increase in cost. Rather, a 25% in cost would require a 25% increase in both durability and firepower. Even then, it still shouldn’t be worth 25% more as stacking more durability on a single model and more firepower on a single weapon is less efficient due to the possibility of overkill and the common existence of Mortal Wounds which subvert durability completely. Overall I think a model with a single weapon with 100% durability and 100% more firepower on the main weapon should be something like 95% more expensive to make it justifiable over just taking two of the cheaper model and splitting your risk. I think your reasoning shows you have somewhat similar thinking, but I think you go quite deep into an apples to oranges comparison.
A far better comparison IMO would be to compare the Typhon to the Hellhammer. Their statlines and main weapons are very similar, much moreso than a Knight or Baneblade’s.
For these comparisons, I’ll only consider the base costs. The tanks have different auxiliary weapon options, but for vehicles this large capable of firing all weapons to full effect, I think it’s fair to say the difference between a Typhon’s Lascannon and a Hellhammer’s Lascannon is built into the cost of the weapon. Well, not quite, if a BS4 weapon is 20 points a BS3 weapon should be 26-27 not 25, but near enough.
The Dreadhammer cannon has a range of 48” if stationary, 24” if mobile, while the Hellhammer cannon has a fixed 36”. That’s probably a fair trade. They have the same Strength and Damage. The Dreadhammer has AP-5 to the Hellhammer’s -4 with Ignores Cover. The only time this will matter is against a 2+ armour model, with no Invulnerable save, not in cover - a rare case that oddly enough seems most common in heavy Space Marine tanks. In this edge case it is 20% more efficient. The Hellhammer averages 5.25 hits to the Dreadhammer’s 4.67. So one is 12% more efficient at all times, but the other is 11% more efficient in a certain uncommon circumstance (20% more effective but 12.5% less shots). Overall, I’d think it’s fair to say a BS3 Dreadhammer vs a BS4 Hellhammer cannon is a wash.
The Hellhammer has 26 wounds to the Typhon’s 22, an 18% increase. The Typhon has a 2+ save. Against anti-tank weapons - generally AP -3 and -4 - the Typhon is 25% and 20% tougher respectively (4/6 shots going through vs 5/6 and 5/6 vs 6/6). Against heavy armour penetrating weapons - AP-5, the sorts of weapons designed to kill these things - the Typhon is no tougher at all. So the Typhon is generally 25%, 20% or 0% tougher due to its save, but the Hellhammer is 18% tougher due to wound count. This is pretty close, though the Typhon edges it by a few percent.
The Typhon is Toughness 9 to the Hellhammer’s 8. This is irrelevant against most weaponry (Strengths 1-7, 10-15, 18+). Against S8 and 9, the most common anti-tank weaponry, it is 50% and 33% more durable (3/6 successful wounds vs 2/6, and 4/6 vs 3/6). Against heavy anti-tank weaponry - S10-15 - it is 0% tougher. Against super-heavy anti-tank weaponry -S16 - it is 25% tougher (5/6 vs 4/6 successful wounds). So variously 0%, 25%, 33% and 50% tougher. I think it’d be fair to use the 33% value.
There are also two smaller incidental differences that will rarely have a big effect: the Hellhammer is better in close combat, and the Typhon’s 2+ save helps against small arms. The Hellhammer has access to better Stratagems, but the Typhon has easier acces to rerolls. I’d say the net tradeoff here is insignificant. However, the Hellhammer has Regimental Traits.
So we’ve got that the two have effectively the same firepower (remember, only talking about the main gun included in the base cost), some slight incidental advantages and disadvantages, the Typhon’s 2+ save is slightly better than the Hellhammer’s extra wounds but the Hellhammer gets Regimental Traits. All of that really comes to a wash, so the only noteable difference is the Typhon’s extra 33% toughness due to T9. Now, you can’t just say the Typhon should therefore be 33% more expensive for the reasons at the top of this post. As a guess that half of the tank’s points value is in its profile and half in its weapon, you could say that the Typhon should be 17-ish % more expensive. You can debate the accuracy of that last bit but let’s just say it’s in the ballpark of say 20%. If the Hellhammer’s base cost is 410, that puts the Typhon in the upper 400s. Its Index cost was 520, so it needed a drop of something like 25-50 points. Instead, it got a raise by 200.
Fellblade vs Baneblade:
Similar, but the Fellblade catches up to the Baneblade’s close combat ability, which levels off the Regimental Traits advantage the Hellhammer showed over the Typhon. It also has the full 26 wounds, so the 20% durability increase of the 2+ is no longer offset by wound count. So far, the Fellblade has a 20% durability advantage over the Baneblade due to the 2+ Sv, and the same 33% due to T9 that the Typhon showed over the Hellhammer. A net 60% durability advantage to the Fellblade.
For firepower, there are two firing modes for the Fellblade - AE and HE. HE is simple - it averages 7 shots at BS3 for 4.67 hits, to the Baneblade’s 10.5 at BS4 for 5.25 - so 12.5% more firepower for the Baneblade. The extra damage point on the Baneblade also gives it an additional 100% efficiency boost against 3 wound targets by only needing one shot, and advantage the Fellblade can’t replicate on 2 wound models since the Baneblade also kills those in one shot. So for small targets, the Baneblade is 12.5% more efficient, and sometimes 125% more.
For the AE shell, vs:
T6 4+ Sv - 2 x 2/3 x 5/6 x 6/6 x 6 = 6.67 wounds for the Fellblade vs 10.5 x 3/6 x 4/6 x 6/6 x 3 = 10.5 for the Baneblade, a 57.5% advantage.
T7 or T8 3+ Sv - 2 x 2/3 x 4/6 x 6/6 x 6 = 5.33 vs 10.5 x 3/6 x 4/6 x 5/6 x 3 = 8.75, a 64.1% advantage
T8 2+ Sv - 2 x 2/3 x 4/6 x 5/6 x 6 = 4.44 vs 10.5 x 3/6 x 4/6 x 4/6 x 3 = 7, a 57.5% advantage
T9 2+ Sv - 2 x 2/3 x 4/6 x 5/6 x 6 = 4.44 vs 10.5 x 3/6 x 3/6 x 4/6 x 3 = 5.25, an 18.1% advantage
So the Baneblade is something like 55% more effective than the AE shell, and 12.5% or occasionally 125% better than the HE shell. Call that something like 25% better overall.
So the Fellblade is 60% tougher but it’s main weapon is 25% less efficient than the Baneblade’s. Using the same system as above, the Fellblade should have dropped by 10-15% but increased by 30ish %, a net of say 20% increase over the Baneblade. Compared to the Baneblade’s 390 base cost, the Fellblade should end up somewhere a bit under 500 points base. Its Index base cost was 540, so it needed something like a 25-50 point drop too, and it also got a 200pt increase.
Falchion vs Shadowsword:
Easy, same 60% durability advantage as the Fellblade has, and same profile gun. The Falchion averages 4.67 hits to the Shadowsword’s 3, a 56% increase. So the Falchion is something like 58% ‘better’ by this metric, so it should be something like 50% more expensive than the Shadowsword’s 390 - landing around 600 points. It’s index cost was 640 base, so it also needed a 25-50 point drop but got a 200pt increase. Seeing a pattern yet?
You’re welcome to fiddle around with my figures there, but I’m interested to see you come up with something that challenges the conclusion that, based on the costs of their most direct competitors, the SM superheavies should have dropped a bit or stayed the same, not raised by 200.
I’m also vehemently against the idea of ‘just blow their points out to oblivion, people can just use power level if they want to take a Typhon’. Some of us - I dare say a lot of us - like using points rather than power level in bigger games. If my opponent and I agreed to a 4000pt game, and I turned up saying ‘well I got to 4000 points but I really really wanted to take another quad-las Predator as well but I didn’t want to sacrifice anything else in my list to fit it in so I just took it on top kthx’, my opponent would be well within their rights to tell me to cram that Predator where the sun don’t shine. And a fully kitted Predator actually fits in Power Level’s margin of error.
auticus wrote: Indeed the vast swathe of players that play 40k are not interested in anything but matched play.
Remove the matched play components from Chapter Approved and you have a book that wouldn't move at all.
Just like the AOS books didn't move until the Generals Handbook brought in matched play.
Because the playerbase is by a great degree matched-play-or-nothing. Narrative games are a tiny tiny niche that don't have any financial viability in terms of commercial success barring a fluke or crazy miracle.
I must admit I find this baffling. I understand that matched play is very popular, but as many have said there are other games by other companies that do fair, competitive games much better.
For me the area in which GW games have always excelled is the narrative side. GW games take place in unique expansive settings with a great deal of detail which creates great story telling opportunities.
Unbalanced sides (so long as you know which side is weaker before playing) only add to the possibilities of the game.
Straight up,kill the other guy, matched play has always been the most boring aspect of the game for me.
It is clear that I am an outlier but I really don't understand why that is.
auticus wrote: Indeed the vast swathe of players that play 40k are not interested in anything but matched play.
Remove the matched play components from Chapter Approved and you have a book that wouldn't move at all.
Just like the AOS books didn't move until the Generals Handbook brought in matched play.
Because the playerbase is by a great degree matched-play-or-nothing. Narrative games are a tiny tiny niche that don't have any financial viability in terms of commercial success barring a fluke or crazy miracle.
I must admit I find this baffling. I understand that matched play is very popular, but as many have said there are other games by other companies that do fair, competitive games much better.
For me the area in which GW games have always excelled is the narrative side. GW games take place in unique expansive settings with a great deal of detail which creates great story telling opportunities.
Unbalanced sides (so long as you know which side is weaker before playing) only add to the possibilities of the game.
Straight up,kill the other guy, matched play has always been the most boring aspect of the game for me.
It is clear that I am an outlier but I really don't understand why that is.
Matched play isn't just about killing the other person anymore though. You can get slaughtered and win on objective.
That said I just don't find games that aren't competitive to a degree fun. I don't bring cheesey net lists or anything but I do try to optimise my lists and I play to win.
auticus wrote: Indeed the vast swathe of players that play 40k are not interested in anything but matched play.
Remove the matched play components from Chapter Approved and you have a book that wouldn't move at all.
Just like the AOS books didn't move until the Generals Handbook brought in matched play.
Because the playerbase is by a great degree matched-play-or-nothing. Narrative games are a tiny tiny niche that don't have any financial viability in terms of commercial success barring a fluke or crazy miracle.
I must admit I find this baffling. I understand that matched play is very popular, but as many have said there are other games by other companies that do fair, competitive games much better.
For me the area in which GW games have always excelled is the narrative side. GW games take place in unique expansive settings with a great deal of detail which creates great story telling opportunities.
Unbalanced sides (so long as you know which side is weaker before playing) only add to the possibilities of the game.
Straight up,kill the other guy, matched play has always been the most boring aspect of the game for me.
It is clear that I am an outlier but I really don't understand why that is.
The area that GW excels above all other games is it's player base. If you want to play a miniatures game 40k is far and away the easiest one to find games for. I love malifaux as a competitive game, there are maybe 3 players within an hour of me that play on any regular basis, I can go to 3 stores within 20 mins of me and find 3 players playing 40k on any given day. I might be able to find Some privateer press games at one of those stores but even that is less common these days. As someone with kids and a job I don't find that I really have the time to spend growing a community from scratch these days, and I would rather spend my time playing games than running demos all over the place. As such 40k is the easy choice despite the fact that other games with better competitive balance may exist.
auticus wrote: Indeed the vast swathe of players that play 40k are not interested in anything but matched play.
Remove the matched play components from Chapter Approved and you have a book that wouldn't move at all.
Just like the AOS books didn't move until the Generals Handbook brought in matched play.
Because the playerbase is by a great degree matched-play-or-nothing. Narrative games are a tiny tiny niche that don't have any financial viability in terms of commercial success barring a fluke or crazy miracle.
I must admit I find this baffling. I understand that matched play is very popular, but as many have said there are other games by other companies that do fair, competitive games much better.
For me the area in which GW games have always excelled is the narrative side. GW games take place in unique expansive settings with a great deal of detail which creates great story telling opportunities.
Unbalanced sides (so long as you know which side is weaker before playing) only add to the possibilities of the game.
Straight up,kill the other guy, matched play has always been the most boring aspect of the game for me.
It is clear that I am an outlier but I really don't understand why that is.
The area that GW excels above all other games is it's player base. If you want to play a miniatures game 40k is far and away the easiest one to find games for. I love malifaux as a competitive game, there are maybe 3 players within an hour of me that play on any regular basis, I can go to 3 stores within 20 mins of me and find 3 players playing 40k on any given day. I might be able to find Some privateer press games at one of those stores but even that is less common these days. As someone with kids and a job I don't find that I really have the time to spend growing a community from scratch these days, and I would rather spend my time playing games than running demos all over the place. As such 40k is the easy choice despite the fact that other games with better competitive balance may exist.
That is regional though, you would be driving 30 minutes to find a store around here that has 40k and that is the broom closet GW, whereas you can go anywhere except the GW and play either xwing or IK any day of the week.
The area that GW excels above all other games is it's player base. If you want to play a miniatures game 40k is far and away the easiest one to find games for. I love malifaux as a competitive game, there are maybe 3 players within an hour of me that play on any regular basis, I can go to 3 stores within 20 mins of me and find 3 players playing 40k on any given day. I might be able to find Some privateer press games at one of those stores but even that is less common these days. As someone with kids and a job I don't find that I really have the time to spend growing a community from scratch these days, and I would rather spend my time playing games than running demos all over the place. As such 40k is the easy choice despite the fact that other games with better competitive balance may exist.
IK? X-wing is the other game that tends to be easy to find, but that game is as close to MTG as it seems is to most other minis games. Event size and forum usage suggest that you are wrong on a general scale. I hike regionally some games may flourish if I were to move finding GW games would most be often than not be able easier.
auticus wrote: Indeed the vast swathe of players that play 40k are not interested in anything but matched play.
Remove the matched play components from Chapter Approved and you have a book that wouldn't move at all.
Just like the AOS books didn't move until the Generals Handbook brought in matched play.
Because the playerbase is by a great degree matched-play-or-nothing. Narrative games are a tiny tiny niche that don't have any financial viability in terms of commercial success barring a fluke or crazy miracle.
I must admit I find this baffling. I understand that matched play is very popular, but as many have said there are other games by other companies that do fair, competitive games much better.
For me the area in which GW games have always excelled is the narrative side. GW games take place in unique expansive settings with a great deal of detail which creates great story telling opportunities.
Unbalanced sides (so long as you know which side is weaker before playing) only add to the possibilities of the game.
Straight up,kill the other guy, matched play has always been the most boring aspect of the game for me.
It is clear that I am an outlier but I really don't understand why that is.
It's mostly because GW equates narrative with a lack of balance or at least a low priority. People don't usually play games for fun like that. Look at most RPGs out there. They either have a crunchy system where balance is cooked in or rely on a GM to supply the necessary ingredients. Would you waste your time playing a DnD campaign designed for level 20 characters with level 2s? As someone who actually really enjoys "narrative" tabletop games and scenarios, it's actually really hard to do well with GWs systems. The better balanced the base rules the easier it is to create your own stories, especially since there's no GM here. Just my 2c.
Breng77 wrote: IK? X-wing is the other game that tends to be easy to find, but that game is as close to MTG as it seems is to most other minis games. Event size and forum usage suggest that you are wrong on a general scale. I hike regionally some games may flourish if I were to move finding GW games would most be often than not be able easier.
Ik is just warmahordes and CoI, forum usage is meaningless and event size? so what on that, we regularly see 50+ people at one of our flgs for Btech again in an area where noone plays gw.
auticus wrote: Indeed the vast swathe of players that play 40k are not interested in anything but matched play.
Remove the matched play components from Chapter Approved and you have a book that wouldn't move at all.
Just like the AOS books didn't move until the Generals Handbook brought in matched play.
Because the playerbase is by a great degree matched-play-or-nothing. Narrative games are a tiny tiny niche that don't have any financial viability in terms of commercial success barring a fluke or crazy miracle.
I must admit I find this baffling. I understand that matched play is very popular, but as many have said there are other games by other companies that do fair, competitive games much better.
For me the area in which GW games have always excelled is the narrative side. GW games take place in unique expansive settings with a great deal of detail which creates great story telling opportunities.
Unbalanced sides (so long as you know which side is weaker before playing) only add to the possibilities of the game.
Straight up,kill the other guy, matched play has always been the most boring aspect of the game for me.
It is clear that I am an outlier but I really don't understand why that is.
It's mostly because GW equates narrative with a lack of balance or at least a low priority. People don't usually play games for fun like that. Look at most RPGs out there. They either have a crunchy system where balance is cooked in or rely on a GM to supply the necessary ingredients. Would you waste your time playing a DnD campaign designed for level 20 characters with level 2s? As someone who actually really enjoys "narrative" tabletop games and scenarios, it's actually really hard to do well with GWs systems. The better balanced the base rules the easier it is to create your own stories, especially since there's no GM here. Just my 2c.
I dont think GW knows what "narrative" is or if they do, they just suck badly at it. about the only game that I consider truly capable of narrative is malifaux.
In a lot of cases it really, really doesn’t. Take for example the four Space Marine superheavies- the Typhon, Fellblade, Falchion and (I think) Cerberus. Each one was overcosted to begin with, and each one got smacked with a 200pt increase. These aren’t Titans that get brought out once every two years for a bit Apoc game, these are the Marines’ direct equivalent of the Baneblade chassis. I did a comparison of the maths for 3 of those tanks in a similar thread:
You again! Well, straight away I’m going to attack the basis of your comparison again - you’re still comparing the Baneblade to the Typhon, when a much more apples to apples comparison would be between the Typhon and the Hellhammer. Would you be willing to run the last two simulations again supplanting the Hellhammer for the Baneblade?
I really dislike that the fortifications that are _mandatory_ for Planet Strike and Stronghold Assault don't have points values.
Fine, I get it. You _really_ really really want me to user power level. I don't. Would it have been so hard to assign half a dozen points values to the datasheets included? Likewise with the Landraider VDR. Would it really have been that hard to give them some points values?
[The VR rules are a joke too! Get Landraider. Stick guns on it. Depending on guns, it now has a transport capacity. Ta Da. Now you have a landraider. What? Points? Power Level? No, you've got your landraider now, what more do you want? I don't need five pages to tell me that if I stick 7 lascannons on a landraider, it would be reasonable to lower it's transport capacity.]
I don't think so tbh, those recosts are completely crazy, most of the Titans should probably be cheaper now rather than more expensive, given how much they lost.
The thing is GW just acted like this: we can't deal with this now, so it's off-limits when playing points, we'll balance FW stuff later when the core game seems stable and until then, you can still play all of that with PL.
I love Apoc, and that change by GW has finally convinced me that PL is the way to go for Apoc.
I really like the idea of less min/maxing and more rough estimates of value in that context.
I feel that overall, it's tying those awesome models with PL, which is intended for less competition and more enjoying miniatures, which makes perfect sense since none of that FW stuff ever won a GT anyway.
We might even see a day where people who don't care for competition all play PL and there's less misunderstandings between fluff bunnies and competitive gamers because they were offered game types that suit them.
I'm talking the intermediaries that you can still take in a normal game. The things they set cost to 2,000 points they clearly wanted out. So, yes, 2000 isn't likely the "right" price, but it isn't likely to matter much right now either, because they'll still wind up being almost the only model on the table in a 2K game.
That's all the same bag: don't want to bother with optimizing a thousand seldom played FW models, so they move them out of matched play temporarily.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AdmiralHalsey wrote: I really dislike that the fortifications that are _mandatory_ for Planet Strike and Stronghold Assault don't have points values.
Fine, I get it. You _really_ really really want me to user power level. I don't. Would it have been so hard to assign half a dozen points values to the datasheets included? Likewise with the Landraider VDR. Would it really have been that hard to give them some points values?
[The VR rules are a joke too! Get Landraider. Stick guns on it. Depending on guns, it now has a transport capacity. Ta Da. Now you have a landraider. What? Points? Power Level? No, you've got your landraider now, what more do you want? I don't need five pages to tell me that if I stick 7 lascannons on a landraider, it would be reasonable to lower it's transport capacity.]
I don't get this mindset.
On the one hand, people claim they want balance.
On the other, they absolutely hate on every attempt to improve balance by decreasing the number of permutations to take into account.
If you want balance with all existing models plus the LR variants, it's going to take ages, so it's probably better to accept that, cryofreeze yourself, and come back in a thousand years when it's done .... or gone.
The fact of the matter is that PL is perfect when people are not trying hard to write the most competitive list, which means people who already think like that would see benefits from switching over to PL - not that you can't optimize for PLs, but the lack of granularity dulls a lot of the optimization.
It makes total sense that GW would move all new fun&fluffy additions, like BYOLR, to the fun&fluffy game mode.
Either way, it will take ages for people to forget about the past, give it a try and finally understand which game mode suits them better - might be points, but I'd wager the vast majority of players have a tendency towards PL.
I don't think so tbh, those recosts are completely crazy, most of the Titans should probably be cheaper now rather than more expensive, given how much they lost.
The thing is GW just acted like this: we can't deal with this now, so it's off-limits when playing points, we'll balance FW stuff later when the core game seems stable and until then, you can still play all of that with PL.
I love Apoc, and that change by GW has finally convinced me that PL is the way to go for Apoc.
I really like the idea of less min/maxing and more rough estimates of value in that context.
I feel that overall, it's tying those awesome models with PL, which is intended for less competition and more enjoying miniatures, which makes perfect sense since none of that FW stuff ever won a GT anyway.
We might even see a day where people who don't care for competition all play PL and there's less misunderstandings between fluff bunnies and competitive gamers because they were offered game types that suit them.
I'm talking the intermediaries that you can still take in a normal game. The things they set cost to 2,000 points they clearly wanted out. So, yes, 2000 isn't likely the "right" price, but it isn't likely to matter much right now either, because they'll still wind up being almost the only model on the table in a 2K game.
That's all the same bag: don't want to bother with optimizing a thousand seldom played FW models, so they move them out of matched play temporarily.
Which would be a hell of a lot more digestable if they came out and actually said that.
Breng77 wrote: IK? X-wing is the other game that tends to be easy to find, but that game is as close to MTG as it seems is to most other minis games. Event size and forum usage suggest that you are wrong on a general scale. I hike regionally some games may flourish if I were to move finding GW games would most be often than not be able easier.
Ik is just warmahordes and CoI, forum usage is meaningless and event size? so what on that, we regularly see 50+ people at one of our flgs for Btech again in an area where noone plays gw.
.
I'm not suggesting areas like yours don't exist, however given that 40k has a larger internet presence than any other game (and it isn't very close), and all the largest wargaming events in the world have 40k as the largest or one of the largest aspects, suggests that it has the largest player base (which makes sense since GW is the oldest company in this space) and so in general you are more likely to be able to find players for 40k than for other miniatures games, whose following tends to be more regional. IN certain regions those other games may outnumber 40k but that is atypical.
IT is like saying if you want to play a CCGMTG is going to be the easiest to find games for. There may be areas where Pokemon is huge, and it is easier to find games for that system, but that isn't the norm.
Daedalus81 wrote: Because a lot of those super heavies needed that sort of cost increase. The math proves it out - at least into the realm of reason.
In a lot of cases it really, really doesn’t. Take for example the four Space Marine superheavies- the Typhon, Fellblade, Falchion and (I think) Cerberus. Each one was overcosted to begin with, and each one got smacked with a 200pt increase. These aren’t Titans that get brought out once every two years for a bit Apoc game, these are the Marines’ direct equivalent of the Baneblade chassis. I did a comparison of the maths for 3 of those tanks in a similar thread:
Spoiler:
kombatwombat wrote: The first thing I want to point out is that if any weapons are part of a unit’s base cost (such as the primary weapon of the tanks we’re considering), you cannot simply say a 25% increase in durability should translate to a 25% increase in cost. Rather, a 25% in cost would require a 25% increase in both durability and firepower. Even then, it still shouldn’t be worth 25% more as stacking more durability on a single model and more firepower on a single weapon is less efficient due to the possibility of overkill and the common existence of Mortal Wounds which subvert durability completely. Overall I think a model with a single weapon with 100% durability and 100% more firepower on the main weapon should be something like 95% more expensive to make it justifiable over just taking two of the cheaper model and splitting your risk. I think your reasoning shows you have somewhat similar thinking, but I think you go quite deep into an apples to oranges comparison.
A far better comparison IMO would be to compare the Typhon to the Hellhammer. Their statlines and main weapons are very similar, much moreso than a Knight or Baneblade’s.
For these comparisons, I’ll only consider the base costs. The tanks have different auxiliary weapon options, but for vehicles this large capable of firing all weapons to full effect, I think it’s fair to say the difference between a Typhon’s Lascannon and a Hellhammer’s Lascannon is built into the cost of the weapon. Well, not quite, if a BS4 weapon is 20 points a BS3 weapon should be 26-27 not 25, but near enough.
The Dreadhammer cannon has a range of 48” if stationary, 24” if mobile, while the Hellhammer cannon has a fixed 36”. That’s probably a fair trade. They have the same Strength and Damage. The Dreadhammer has AP-5 to the Hellhammer’s -4 with Ignores Cover. The only time this will matter is against a 2+ armour model, with no Invulnerable save, not in cover - a rare case that oddly enough seems most common in heavy Space Marine tanks. In this edge case it is 20% more efficient. The Hellhammer averages 5.25 hits to the Dreadhammer’s 4.67. So one is 12% more efficient at all times, but the other is 11% more efficient in a certain uncommon circumstance (20% more effective but 12.5% less shots). Overall, I’d think it’s fair to say a BS3 Dreadhammer vs a BS4 Hellhammer cannon is a wash.
The Hellhammer has 26 wounds to the Typhon’s 22, an 18% increase. The Typhon has a 2+ save. Against anti-tank weapons - generally AP -3 and -4 - the Typhon is 25% and 20% tougher respectively (4/6 shots going through vs 5/6 and 5/6 vs 6/6). Against heavy armour penetrating weapons - AP-5, the sorts of weapons designed to kill these things - the Typhon is no tougher at all. So the Typhon is generally 25%, 20% or 0% tougher due to its save, but the Hellhammer is 18% tougher due to wound count. This is pretty close, though the Typhon edges it by a few percent.
The Typhon is Toughness 9 to the Hellhammer’s 8. This is irrelevant against most weaponry (Strengths 1-7, 10-15, 18+). Against S8 and 9, the most common anti-tank weaponry, it is 50% and 33% more durable (3/6 successful wounds vs 2/6, and 4/6 vs 3/6). Against heavy anti-tank weaponry - S10-15 - it is 0% tougher. Against super-heavy anti-tank weaponry -S16 - it is 25% tougher (5/6 vs 4/6 successful wounds). So variously 0%, 25%, 33% and 50% tougher. I think it’d be fair to use the 33% value.
There are also two smaller incidental differences that will rarely have a big effect: the Hellhammer is better in close combat, and the Typhon’s 2+ save helps against small arms. The Hellhammer has access to better Stratagems, but the Typhon has easier acces to rerolls. I’d say the net tradeoff here is insignificant. However, the Hellhammer has Regimental Traits.
So we’ve got that the two have effectively the same firepower (remember, only talking about the main gun included in the base cost), some slight incidental advantages and disadvantages, the Typhon’s 2+ save is slightly better than the Hellhammer’s extra wounds but the Hellhammer gets Regimental Traits. All of that really comes to a wash, so the only noteable difference is the Typhon’s extra 33% toughness due to T9. Now, you can’t just say the Typhon should therefore be 33% more expensive for the reasons at the top of this post. As a guess that half of the tank’s points value is in its profile and half in its weapon, you could say that the Typhon should be 17-ish % more expensive. You can debate the accuracy of that last bit but let’s just say it’s in the ballpark of say 20%. If the Hellhammer’s base cost is 410, that puts the Typhon in the upper 400s. Its Index cost was 520, so it needed a drop of something like 25-50 points. Instead, it got a raise by 200.
Fellblade vs Baneblade:
Similar, but the Fellblade catches up to the Baneblade’s close combat ability, which levels off the Regimental Traits advantage the Hellhammer showed over the Typhon. It also has the full 26 wounds, so the 20% durability increase of the 2+ is no longer offset by wound count. So far, the Fellblade has a 20% durability advantage over the Baneblade due to the 2+ Sv, and the same 33% due to T9 that the Typhon showed over the Hellhammer. A net 60% durability advantage to the Fellblade.
For firepower, there are two firing modes for the Fellblade - AE and HE. HE is simple - it averages 7 shots at BS3 for 4.67 hits, to the Baneblade’s 10.5 at BS4 for 5.25 - so 12.5% more firepower for the Baneblade. The extra damage point on the Baneblade also gives it an additional 100% efficiency boost against 3 wound targets by only needing one shot, and advantage the Fellblade can’t replicate on 2 wound models since the Baneblade also kills those in one shot. So for small targets, the Baneblade is 12.5% more efficient, and sometimes 125% more.
For the AE shell, vs:
T6 4+ Sv - 2 x 2/3 x 5/6 x 6/6 x 6 = 6.67 wounds for the Fellblade vs 10.5 x 3/6 x 4/6 x 6/6 x 3 = 10.5 for the Baneblade, a 57.5% advantage.
T7 or T8 3+ Sv - 2 x 2/3 x 4/6 x 6/6 x 6 = 5.33 vs 10.5 x 3/6 x 4/6 x 5/6 x 3 = 8.75, a 64.1% advantage
T8 2+ Sv - 2 x 2/3 x 4/6 x 5/6 x 6 = 4.44 vs 10.5 x 3/6 x 4/6 x 4/6 x 3 = 7, a 57.5% advantage
T9 2+ Sv - 2 x 2/3 x 4/6 x 5/6 x 6 = 4.44 vs 10.5 x 3/6 x 3/6 x 4/6 x 3 = 5.25, an 18.1% advantage
So the Baneblade is something like 55% more effective than the AE shell, and 12.5% or occasionally 125% better than the HE shell. Call that something like 25% better overall.
So the Fellblade is 60% tougher but it’s main weapon is 25% less efficient than the Baneblade’s. Using the same system as above, the Fellblade should have dropped by 10-15% but increased by 30ish %, a net of say 20% increase over the Baneblade. Compared to the Baneblade’s 390 base cost, the Fellblade should end up somewhere a bit under 500 points base. Its Index base cost was 540, so it needed something like a 25-50 point drop too, and it also got a 200pt increase.
Falchion vs Shadowsword:
Easy, same 60% durability advantage as the Fellblade has, and same profile gun. The Falchion averages 4.67 hits to the Shadowsword’s 3, a 56% increase. So the Falchion is something like 58% ‘better’ by this metric, so it should be something like 50% more expensive than the Shadowsword’s 390 - landing around 600 points. It’s index cost was 640 base, so it also needed a 25-50 point drop but got a 200pt increase. Seeing a pattern yet?
You’re welcome to fiddle around with my figures there, but I’m interested to see you come up with something that challenges the conclusion that, based on the costs of their most direct competitors, the SM superheavies should have dropped a bit or stayed the same, not raised by 200.
I’m also vehemently against the idea of ‘just blow their points out to oblivion, people can just use power level if they want to take a Typhon’. Some of us - I dare say a lot of us - like using points rather than power level in bigger games. If my opponent and I agreed to a 4000pt game, and I turned up saying ‘well I got to 4000 points but I really really wanted to take another quad-las Predator as well but I didn’t want to sacrifice anything else in my list to fit it in so I just took it on top kthx’, my opponent would be well within their rights to tell me to cram that Predator where the sun don’t shine. And a fully kitted Predator actually fits in Power Level’s margin of error.
Honestly at 4000 points if you want an extra pred to be at 4200 points I'm not sure I care because it isn't going to swing the game, and if I'm playing 4k points I'm not interested in being super competitive. Even before the APOC rules came out I would never have wanted to use points for super big games, those games were always terrible for competition, PL keeps you in a ballpark for balance that is largely good enough for APOC.
Overall, the book was a disappointment for me. I bought it mostly for the Land Raider, Apocalypse and Points changes (and faction rules, to help my friends out who dont have codexes yet).
Land Raiders were an absolute joke if you were playing Chaos. You have maybe 1/3rd of the options Imperium does, and those options are barely even worth taking. Additionally, open play is played so infrequently, it's not even worth it to build a custom raider for it. May as well just counts as all that custom stuff.
Apocalypse was good, I like the rules for it this edition.
Points were...Okay? It reduced a lot of stuff across the board, and increased stuff in weird ways. Stuff like the M-Lord from Forgeworld was just bogus, there was NO reason to bump it up a whooping 50 points, and stuff like the Gulliman points hike was too small to really make anybody care about it.
Overall, this book wasn't worth the money. Im just glad I put it towards a Store Anniversery for those extra rewards.
Land Raiders were an absolute joke if you were playing Chaos. You have maybe 1/3rd of the options Imperium does, and those options are barely even worth taking. Additionally, open play is played so infrequently, it's not even worth it to build a custom raider for it. May as well just counts as all that custom stuff.
You again! Well, straight away I’m going to attack the basis of your comparison again - you’re still comparing the Baneblade to the Typhon, when a much more apples to apples comparison would be between the Typhon and the Hellhammer. Would you be willing to run the last two simulations again supplanting the Hellhammer for the Baneblade?
Dun dun duuuun!
I can do that. I'm giving it a bit of a rewrite so that I can "fire a platform" all at once along with some other features so it maybe be a day or so.
Chikout wrote: So I've read all 22 pages of this chapter approved thread and there have only been a couple of mentions of the new missions and no discussion at all of the apocalypse, planet strike, stronghold assault and VDR stuff. This book has been dismissed as a lazy effort by many here. Is this just about the points or is the other stuff considered to be bad as well?
If so, why is this content bad?
I could understand that the land raider VDR is very limited but by ignoring it, you ensure that GW never expands it in the future. (this was pitched as a pilot programme)
Does noone play open or narrative?
If you do only play matched, what is wrong with the new missions? Are they not well designed or do people simply not want different ways to play the game?
I have read and listened to and read a few 'reviews' but they have all just been summaries of the content and a lot of batching about the points.
Even with regards to the points, I have seen lots of complaints that gw's points are wrong but no-one stating what they think the points should be.
Why not do a poll to pick the top ten over and underpointed units, agree some changes and submit the whole thing to GW as the official dakka opinion about points?
This is one of the best posts in this thread.
I couldn't care less about the new points costs, they'll be available via battlescribe anyway. And the outliers will be fixed by the next FaQ, Codex or whatever.
The scenarios/ missions are where it gets interesting. And personally, scenario play is the best aspect of 40K. This game won't be balanced, then at least take it for what it is and play some cool scenarios. In our group we usually play narrative games based on points costs and some of the matched play restrictions. Even in a scenario it gets a bit silly if you summon 30Plague bearers every round with no drawbacks...
And if you build a cool Land raider with all the goodies I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to use it, even in matched play. There are points costs for all these Lascannons...
And if you build a cool Land raider with all the goodies I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to use it, even in matched play. There are points costs for all these Lascannons...
Because that doesn't work. The ability to take more weapons is worth something, otherwise you can improve almost any unit by throwing more guns at it.
Likewise, better toughness, wounds and armour is worth more as the payload increases in value.
There is an easy way to test this - tell your local gaming group that they can stick extra weapons on units for just the cost of the weapons and watch as un-upgraded units become worthless.
And if you build a cool Land raider with all the goodies I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to use it, even in matched play. There are points costs for all these Lascannons...
Because that doesn't work. The ability to take more weapons is worth something, otherwise you can improve almost any unit by throwing more guns at it.
Likewise, better toughness, wounds and armour is worth more as the payload increases in value.
There is an easy way to test this - tell your local gaming group that they can stick extra weapons on units for just the cost of the weapons and watch as un-upgraded units become worthless.
They can use their custom Land Raiders in matched play - when I get the old Looted Vehicle rules back, so I can turn it around and run it with my Orks
I'll be the odd one out here and say that I'm not dissappointed with my purchase. Points adjustments were sensible (where it really mattered) if not perfect and I'm reasonably confident that they will get better for everyone with some time. Get all the codexes out, test things out a bit and so forth. Closer look at finetuning the balance between all the things is something I don't expect before early 2019.
But, this book here I dig for the missions. Sure I could've gone and just wrote some myself, but these are pretty nice and will see some use with me. Planetstrike and Stronghold Assault especially, 'cause do I not like me some sweet siege brutality, mh-mmh. Having them in a GW book helps a bit with convincing some not-yet-too-keen-on-narrative folks try them out, too.
Of course it isn't the best thing ever, I can certainly spot things there I'd personally done otherwise. Perhaps even will, it's a game after all. Still, I feel it's moving to a direction I can finally support monetarily and hope to get more, and better, of in the future.
And if you build a cool Land raider with all the goodies I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to use it, even in matched play. There are points costs for all these Lascannons...
Because that doesn't work. The ability to take more weapons is worth something, otherwise you can improve almost any unit by throwing more guns at it.
Likewise, better toughness, wounds and armour is worth more as the payload increases in value.
There is an easy way to test this - tell your local gaming group that they can stick extra weapons on units for just the cost of the weapons and watch as un-upgraded units become worthless.
Dial it up to 11 for fun and profit with stacking tons of 0 cost guns?
And if you build a cool Land raider with all the goodies I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to use it, even in matched play. There are points costs for all these Lascannons...
Because that doesn't work. The ability to take more weapons is worth something, otherwise you can improve almost any unit by throwing more guns at it.
Likewise, better toughness, wounds and armour is worth more as the payload increases in value.
There is an easy way to test this - tell your local gaming group that they can stick extra weapons on units for just the cost of the weapons and watch as un-upgraded units become worthless.
Dial it up to 11 for fun and profit with stacking tons of 0 cost guns?
A fast vehicle with 100 bolters would be just fine. 5 man tac squads with 15 meltaguns per squad would be entertaining.
You again! Well, straight away I’m going to attack the basis of your comparison again - you’re still comparing the Baneblade to the Typhon, when a much more apples to apples comparison would be between the Typhon and the Hellhammer. Would you be willing to run the last two simulations again supplanting the Hellhammer for the Baneblade?
Dun dun duuuun!
I can do that. I'm giving it a bit of a rewrite so that I can "fire a platform" all at once along with some other features so it maybe be a day or so.
The previous durability valuations still stand obviously.
Here are the cannons. vs a BB chassis it's 73 vs 60 - edge to Hellhammer. vs a Typhon its 72 vs 64 - edge to Typhon. And this makes perfect sense. The HH will perform better where the Typhon's AP5 is wasted - the Typhon has to pay for that after all. Having 7 BS3 (4.7) shots is reasonably close to 10.5 BS4 (5.25) shots.
The Hellhammer cannon is worth 20 points more than the BB. Since the HH is roughly equal to the Dreadhammer it stands to reason that they should come in at the same cost. The Dreadhammer is 48", but it has to stay stationary. Hellhammer is 36", but it can move and shoot without penalty so no real difference there. Previously I stated the BBC should be between 120 and 180.
It's hard to know what the cannons are worth since all those big weapons are built into the base cost and the only other option is FW points, which have been pretty unreliable. The closest thing is a Rapid Fire Battle Cannon. A regular BC hits on 4+ and is 22 points. A twin of such a weapon would be 44 points. The RFBC hits on a 3+, but I think it needs a point drop, because there is no way it is more than twice as good as a (twin) BC. A hellhammer is substantially better than a triple BC if it were to exist.
Let's compare the Hellhammer to a 9 Battle Cannons (198 points) and a 5 Demolisher Cannons (200 points), and 10 Lascannons (200 points) - all at BS4.
The 1 to 3 turn kill rate is as follows:
And the chart. Battle Cannon busting it's way to the top. It's a gun that doesn't have a lot of alternate mounting options so to take 9 of them is pretty exorbitant - it could perhaps be considered undercosted. Lascannons on the other hand are ubiquitous. The Demolisher Cannon under performs here likely due to the ability to increase it's shots against larger units.
This places the HH around 210 points. With the Dreadhammer being similar in performance it too should be 210. In the previous thread I has costed it at 225. At 210 the base cost of the HH/BB chassis is 200 points. The Typhon was stated to be twice as durable to common weapons placing it's cost at 400 (I had previously rough it in at 480). The total cost of a Typhon should technically be 610 points or about 110 cheaper than current. But this all really depends how they value the weapons. Clearly the Battle Cannon has some sort of discount likely for being a main cannon. Does the HH have that as well?
A Land Raider is 239 points. If we assume that is the correct price and that a Typhon is 150% of that we're at 360 points. It isn't a stretch to consider the titan abilities and T9 take it to 400 points and beyond.
So GW could be off by 50 or 100 points, but they're in the ball park, because even while the HH cannon performs as well the Typhon is a tough SOB.
This one dude has a flag and you have to stand him on an objective for two turns to win? What kind of infantry unit am I not able to kill in two turns with any list?
You get three squads of infantry _And nothing else_ on the table at the start of the game, and my win condition is to kill those three squads of infantry, and I get first turn?
This one dude has a flag and you have to stand him on an objective for two turns to win? What kind of infantry unit am I not able to kill in two turns with any list?
You get three squads of infantry _And nothing else_ on the table at the start of the game, and my win condition is to kill those three squads of infantry, and I get first turn?
Wut?
Are you talking about the narrative mission Last Stand?
This one dude has a flag and you have to stand him on an objective for two turns to win? What kind of infantry unit am I not able to kill in two turns with any list?
You get three squads of infantry _And nothing else_ on the table at the start of the game, and my win condition is to kill those three squads of infantry, and I get first turn?
Wut?
Are you talking about the narrative mission Last Stand?
Urgh.
In narrative Forlorn Hope: the banner, that can be picked up by others after the bearer is slain, needs to be planted and stays thus even if the bearer is slain until picked up. And there is no need for it to be that way for two turns anyway, just at the end of the game: the two turn limit ends the game before it would normally end, as the attacker clearly has shown their dominance. How about protecting the VERY IMPORTANT banner with other units while that happens, as any single unit can indeed be blown off the table?
In narrative Last Stand: three infantry squads that can freely start the game in bunkers and forts the enemy has to destroy before even touching them. sarcasm/ Gee, eating through 40-60 T9 wounds with 3+ save sounds like a piece of cake in my first turn. With whatever amount of troops we decided to bring that evening, which could just as well be like a 1000 points worth. Yeah, total train wreck. /sarcasm
How hard can it be to actually read the missions before complaining?
