Point me at the durable GSC unit that can achieve any objectives in the new 9th ed missions for gak.
Sure, they can do a couple secondaries easly like the table quarters one, but you already get tabled playing as GSC like 90% of the time.
Putting 30% fewer units on the table? Your gaks gonna be gone turn 3-4 every game against any kind of competent opponent. GSC troops are made of paper, their elites are made of paper, and their vehicles are made of paper. They just fething die no matter how you build them.
It isn't something I've tried. Just that I can see Ambush as something GW would work themselves up about.
For much the same reason 'elf stats' have been a bugbear since 3rd edition fantasy. Eldar still pay for those, even though they do jack/squat for them in current editions.
And they're still getting punished for 1st/2nd edition shuriken catapults.
Irbis wrote: Conclusion: by your own metric, Eradicators are underpowered and need buffing with additional rifle shot to actually do the 5-1 design target
You forgot the melee: on the charge, 27 attacks, kills 8 more, wiping the IG out. That's a 50 pts squad for 120 pts, which is actually dramatically overperformed.
Daedalus81 wrote: Probably, but that's a 30% chance to kill yourself.
2 * .5 * .666 * .833 = 0.55 wounding hits on an Eradicator (for example) - this results in a little better than 50% chance to put 2 damage on
1 * .5 * .666 = 0.33 wounding hits - 33% * 66% = 22% to kill an Eradicator outright
Lasguns might be a better paired finisher though if the PG goes through as they should be able to do 1 wound.
I might have the sums wrong,
But the issue is - in 12", ignoring the melta rule.
Melta: 66% chance to do nothing (miss, fail to wound). 5.5% chance to 1 damage, 5.5% chance to do 2 damage, 22% chance to kill an eradicator.
Plasma: I think with one shot your odds of doing nothing are 13/18. So the odds of doing *nothing* with both (13/18)^2, is about 52%.
So I think you have a 48% chance to do some damage - which works out as about 40.3% to do 2 damage, and about 7.7% to kill the eradicator by getting 2 hits through. (Obviously considering multiple guns hitting models with wounds missing complicates both guns value immensely.)
This might be a weird way of thinking about it, skewed by the fact shots will be wasted on wounded models, but:
Plasma:(2*0.403)+(3*0.077)=1.037 wounds.
Melta: (1*0.055)+(2*0.055)+(3*0.22)=0.82666 wounds.
Melta in melta range: (1*1/108)+(2*3/108)+(3*32/108)=0.953 wounds.
And this I think is where the agro starts to kick in. Because the odds of getting *nothing* from firing 2 plasma guns, is 52%*52%=27%. Whereas 2 meltas is 66%*66%=43.5%.
With 3 its 14% chance of nothing from the plasma compared with 29% on the meltas. If you think that's a critical failure point - its happening twice as often.
So do you want to have a gun which can run hot or cold, or do you want something to more consistently chip away, knowing you can also chip with other units as necessary? Generally points being equal the second is better, because you lose games by having unlucky streaks - and you lose tournaments by losing games.
But then there is a question of whether 40k should be balanced in the context of an individual game or say 6 games - because dice will be lucky/unlucky some times - and that's always going to be an issue with different probability curves.
The absolute shambles of what went up and what didn't in the CWE list is the best illustration of what a joke of a points update this was, though it's certainly not the only one.
It's super evident that aside from space marines, almost every other faction just got the blanket algorithm treatment for 99% of its units - the ones they didn't screw up completely due to some sort of oversight, that is (e.g. Warp Talons). Even the worst elite infantry, like Striking Scorpions, went up 3 points, even if it makes them into an even bigger joke than before, because that's what their algorithm did and they were too lazy to take even a tiny bit of time to verify that the algorithm was producing vaguely valid results.
This lack of attention to non-Space Marine factions also explains some weird things like Space Marine indirect going up hugely, while almost all other indirect in the game remains similar. IG indirect didn't get nerfed because they just didn't even bother to look at the IG list and figure out what was indirect and what wasn't.
Irbis wrote: Conclusion: by your own metric, Eradicators are underpowered and need buffing with additional rifle shot to actually do the 5-1 design target
You forgot the melee: on the charge, 27 attacks, kills 8 more, wiping the IG out. That's a 50 pts squad for 120 pts, which is actually dramatically overperformed.
They're not charging from 24" away though, if they get to charge range they risk losing 1 dude from a whole 24 rapid fire guardsmen (admittedly throwing some krak grenades etc would help out, as would specials).
The currently competitive units (the bikes, the acolytes, the kelermorph, and the achilles ridgerunner) all got fairly light points nerfs, while lesser used units got absolutely slam-dunked.
...Which is how it is for seemingly every faction. If the only person playtesting GSC had a currently meta tournament-competitive list, no way in hell did he provide any feedback about Purestrain Genestealers, Metamorphs, Goliath Rockgrinders, Cult Sentinels, etc.
Surprise surprise, which units in GSC got shat on the most?
Those ones.
It feels like there are biases towards certain aspects - vehicles shooting into combat, melee units having (what I feel) a strong influence on the game now, movement, etc.
I've been eyeballing Enlightened. I've always wanted to run the spears on them, but they went from 13 to 18 and I've *never* seen them used. It has always been exclusively bows and even then their limelight was brief. But the more I think on my previous games the more I want them.
I don't know if they'd work, but I can see the value in them.
yukishiro1 wrote: Even the worst elite infantry, like Striking Scorpions, went up 3 points,
To 12 points just like Kill Team. I wonder how many other points changes were telegraphed in Kill Team if anyone had bothered to look...NVM Chaos Cultists are 4 points in KT, Grots 3 points...
Irbis wrote: Conclusion: by your own metric, Eradicators are underpowered and need buffing with additional rifle shot to actually do the 5-1 design target
You forgot the melee: on the charge, 27 attacks, kills 8 more, wiping the IG out. That's a 50 pts squad for 120 pts, which is actually dramatically overperformed.
They're not charging from 24" away though, if they get to charge range they risk losing 1 dude from a whole 24 rapid fire guardsmen (admittedly throwing some krak grenades etc would help out, as would specials).
No, they're not, but you can't outright ignore their melee capability either. It is a tool in their toolbox. There are melee specialists with fewer attacks.
Irbis wrote: Conclusion: by your own metric, Eradicators are underpowered and need buffing with additional rifle shot to actually do the 5-1 design target
You forgot the melee: on the charge, 27 attacks, kills 8 more, wiping the IG out. That's a 50 pts squad for 120 pts, which is actually dramatically overperformed.
They're not charging from 24" away though, if they get to charge range they risk losing 1 dude from a whole 24 rapid fire guardsmen (admittedly throwing some krak grenades etc would help out, as would specials).
No, they're not, but you can't outright ignore their melee capability either. It is a tool in their toolbox. There are melee specialists with fewer attacks.
There are melee specialists with less than 1 S4 AP0 attack per 12 points?
Irbis wrote: Conclusion: by your own metric, Eradicators are underpowered and need buffing with additional rifle shot to actually do the 5-1 design target
You forgot the melee: on the charge, 27 attacks, kills 8 more, wiping the IG out. That's a 50 pts squad for 120 pts, which is actually dramatically overperformed.
They're not charging from 24" away though, if they get to charge range they risk losing 1 dude from a whole 24 rapid fire guardsmen (admittedly throwing some krak grenades etc would help out, as would specials).
No, they're not, but you can't outright ignore their melee capability either. It is a tool in their toolbox. There are melee specialists with fewer attacks.
There are melee specialists with less than 1 S4 AP0 attack per 12 points?
Did I say per point? Or are you putting words into my mouth to prove a point?
yukishiro1 wrote: It's super evident that aside from space marines, almost every other faction just got the blanket algorithm treatment for 99% of its units - the ones they didn't screw up completely due to some sort of oversight, that is
Although goonhammers shot at the algorithm is a guess it looks pretty spot on when you are looking for a 'why is this weaker / why is this stronger' exclamation. The pattern across all of the books is that they've bumped up/down a few units selectively and the remaining 90%+ is purely at the whims of an excel formula for anything from a discout through to a 500% price hike, based solely on where in that formula they happen to fall.
Irbis wrote: Conclusion: by your own metric, Eradicators are underpowered and need buffing with additional rifle shot to actually do the 5-1 design target
You forgot the melee: on the charge, 27 attacks, kills 8 more, wiping the IG out. That's a 50 pts squad for 120 pts, which is actually dramatically overperformed.
They're not charging from 24" away though, if they get to charge range they risk losing 1 dude from a whole 24 rapid fire guardsmen (admittedly throwing some krak grenades etc would help out, as would specials).
No, they're not, but you can't outright ignore their melee capability either. It is a tool in their toolbox. There are melee specialists with fewer attacks.
There are melee specialists with less than 1 S4 AP0 attack per 12 points?
Did I say per point? Or are you putting words into my mouth to prove a point?
You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.
Bolded text mine- I see nothing of the sort claimed. What I think Unit is getting at is that they get a pretty decent number of attacks, which helps them out against getting swarmed by chaff and represents a non-negligible capability that must be considered. You can't tie them up indefinitely just by throwing a 40pt Guardsman squad into combat with them, like you can with, say, a ranged-weapon-equipped Carnifex.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.
Bolded text mine- I see nothing of the sort claimed. What I think Unit is getting at is that they get a pretty decent number of attacks, which helps them out against getting swarmed by chaff and represents a non-negligible capability that must be considered. You can't tie them up indefinitely just by throwing a 40pt Guardsman squad into combat with them, like you can with, say, a ranged-weapon-equipped Carnifex.
^this
Comparing them to any tank, their melee capabilities are a big distinction that allows them to break out of a lot of the types of cheap tie-up units that could be used to stop a vehicle firing its melta or lascannon weaponry at its preferred target for a turn.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.
Bolded text mine- I see nothing of the sort claimed. What I think Unit is getting at is that they get a pretty decent number of attacks, which helps them out against getting swarmed by chaff and represents a non-negligible capability that must be considered. You can't tie them up indefinitely just by throwing a 40pt Guardsman squad into combat with them, like you can with, say, a ranged-weapon-equipped Carnifex.
Uh yeah you can. You barely kill 3 Infantry with 120 points of Eliminators.
You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.
what he ACTUALLY said
There are melee specialists with fewer attacks.
He is right - you are misrepresenting his argument .
Except I'm not. Having fewer attacks only matters if the points are the same. Trying to represent them as capable in melee AT ALL is a bad argument unless you're saying, for the first round of combat, 12 points per S4 attack is chaff clearing at all.
I think the original post said nothing about quality or attacks per point, just attacks per model. IG crusaders have 2 attacks and are dedicated melee specialists. Therefore the statement is technically correct (the best kind of correct)
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.
Bolded text mine- I see nothing of the sort claimed. What I think Unit is getting at is that they get a pretty decent number of attacks, which helps them out against getting swarmed by chaff and represents a non-negligible capability that must be considered. You can't tie them up indefinitely just by throwing a 40pt Guardsman squad into combat with them, like you can with, say, a ranged-weapon-equipped Carnifex.
Uh yeah you can. You barely kill 3 Infantry with 120 points of Eliminators.
You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.
what he ACTUALLY said
There are melee specialists with fewer attacks.
He is right - you are misrepresenting his argument .
Except I'm not. Having fewer attacks only matters if the points are the same. Trying to represent them as capable in melee AT ALL is a bad argument unless you're saying, for the first round of combat, 12 points per S4 attack is chaff clearing at all.
Ahh you still donlt understand the difference between nothing at ALL and mutiple S4 attacks. Mutiple S4 attacks is NOT zero - well maybe in your own wierd logic world.
Its just horribly sad how you have still not learnt that.
Also equally sad how you won't admit you lied about what he said.
Pyroalchi wrote: I think the original post said nothing about quality or attacks per point, just attacks per model. IG crusaders have 2 attacks and are dedicated melee specialists. Therefore the statement is technically correct (the best kind of correct)
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.
Bolded text mine- I see nothing of the sort claimed. What I think Unit is getting at is that they get a pretty decent number of attacks, which helps them out against getting swarmed by chaff and represents a non-negligible capability that must be considered. You can't tie them up indefinitely just by throwing a 40pt Guardsman squad into combat with them, like you can with, say, a ranged-weapon-equipped Carnifex.
Uh yeah you can. You barely kill 3 Infantry with 120 points of Eliminators.
You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.
what he ACTUALLY said
There are melee specialists with fewer attacks.
He is right - you are misrepresenting his argument .
Except I'm not. Having fewer attacks only matters if the points are the same. Trying to represent them as capable in melee AT ALL is a bad argument unless you're saying, for the first round of combat, 12 points per S4 attack is chaff clearing at all.
Ahh you still donlt understand the difference between nothing at ALL and mutiple S4 attacks. Mutiple S4 attacks is NOT zero - well maybe in your own wierd logic world.
Its just horribly sad how you have still not learnt that.
It might as well be zero at the price point. They're literally almost the cost of 10 Tactical Marines but I'm not seeing anyone saying they have anything more than bad combat ability. So the claim "they hit back!!!1!" is honestly ludicrous and honestly embarrassing for anyone to claim.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: Is there any indication what to do about points that weren't adjusted for units in Munitorum 2020? Should we be using Munitorum 2019 points?
Example = Stormhammer. Its weapons were added to the list of blast weapons in the erratum, but its points weren't updated.
We have no official word either way. Consensus seems to be leaning Legends with 2019 points, but I have a feeling we're looking at new Open/Narrative PL only like the other OOPFW models at the end of the FAQs.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.
Bolded text mine- I see nothing of the sort claimed. What I think Unit is getting at is that they get a pretty decent number of attacks, which helps them out against getting swarmed by chaff and represents a non-negligible capability that must be considered. You can't tie them up indefinitely just by throwing a 40pt Guardsman squad into combat with them, like you can with, say, a ranged-weapon-equipped Carnifex.
If we presume they get charged turn 3, which is most likely and the Eradicators are AP1 and they're not going to blow a CP on O/W you can see that they would be unable to kill the IS for the rest of the game. The only correct play, it would seem is to back out and take a mortal wound or two, if the IS are feeling cheeky, and then shoot them off.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.
Bolded text mine- I see nothing of the sort claimed. What I think Unit is getting at is that they get a pretty decent number of attacks, which helps them out against getting swarmed by chaff and represents a non-negligible capability that must be considered. You can't tie them up indefinitely just by throwing a 40pt Guardsman squad into combat with them, like you can with, say, a ranged-weapon-equipped Carnifex.
If we presume they get charged turn 3, which is most likely and the Eradicators are AP1 and they're not going to blow a CP on O/W you can see that they would be unable to kill the IS for the rest of the game. The only correct play, it would seem is to back out and take a mortal wound or two, if the IS are feeling cheeky, and then shoot them off.
Or maybe don't play dumb and use your LT or CM who's within 6 inches to heroic intervention or you know charge in your own turn.
Stop trying to downplay that primaris marines are going to be the army to beat still in 9th edition.
All hail the 1st anniversary of the glorious Chadmaris overlords, first they were black or Yellow of armour thencame the time of the Blue, GREEN AND white of armour. But all of them Chadmaris.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.
Bolded text mine- I see nothing of the sort claimed. What I think Unit is getting at is that they get a pretty decent number of attacks, which helps them out against getting swarmed by chaff and represents a non-negligible capability that must be considered. You can't tie them up indefinitely just by throwing a 40pt Guardsman squad into combat with them, like you can with, say, a ranged-weapon-equipped Carnifex.
If we presume they get charged turn 3, which is most likely and the Eradicators are AP1 and they're not going to blow a CP on O/W you can see that they would be unable to kill the IS for the rest of the game. The only correct play, it would seem is to back out and take a mortal wound or two, if the IS are feeling cheeky, and then shoot them off.
Or maybe don't play dumb and use your LT or CM who's within 6 inches to heroic intervention or you know charge in your own turn.
Stop trying to downplay that primaris marines are going to be the army to beat still in 9th edition.
All hail the 1st anniversary of the glorious Chadmaris overlords, first they were black or Yellow of armour thencame the time of the Blue, GREEN AND white of armour. But all of them Chadmaris.
It's nice and convenient for your argument that you get at minimum another 80 points on top of your 120 point squad compared to not getting equal points of stuff for our examples but okay.
Or maybe don't play dumb and use your LT or CM who's within 6 inches to heroic intervention or you know charge in your own turn.
Stop trying to downplay that primaris marines are going to be the army to beat still in 9th edition.
All hail the 1st anniversary of the glorious Chadmaris overlords, first they were black or Yellow of armour thencame the time of the Blue, GREEN AND white of armour. But all of them Chadmaris.
3" typically and irrelevant.
The claim was they had sufficient attacks to handle such threats. Now that we see that isn't true you have to bring a character in to save them. A character being protected by units with only 3 models.
See where the chain starts to unravel? Primaris will be great, I'm sure, because the skill requirement is low.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You said there were melee specialists with less attacks of that quality, so yeah you kinda need to prove your point.
Bolded text mine- I see nothing of the sort claimed. What I think Unit is getting at is that they get a pretty decent number of attacks, which helps them out against getting swarmed by chaff and represents a non-negligible capability that must be considered. You can't tie them up indefinitely just by throwing a 40pt Guardsman squad into combat with them, like you can with, say, a ranged-weapon-equipped Carnifex.
If we presume they get charged turn 3, which is most likely and the Eradicators are AP1 and they're not going to blow a CP on O/W you can see that they would be unable to kill the IS for the rest of the game. The only correct play, it would seem is to back out and take a mortal wound or two, if the IS are feeling cheeky, and then shoot them off.
Or maybe don't play dumb and use your LT or CM who's within 6 inches to heroic intervention or you know charge in your own turn.
Stop trying to downplay that primaris marines are going to be the army to beat still in 9th edition.
All hail the 1st anniversary of the glorious Chadmaris overlords, first they were black or Yellow of armour thencame the time of the Blue, GREEN AND white of armour. But all of them Chadmaris.
It's nice and convenient for your argument that you get at minimum another 80 points on top of your 120 point squad compared to not getting equal points of stuff for our examples but okay.
Well find me someone not playing marines around a CM and LT who are packing more than enough CC power to mince a guard squad etc.
But you just want to defend the indefensible broken units presumably because you need them in your army but whatever.
Or maybe don't play dumb and use your LT or CM who's within 6 inches to heroic intervention or you know charge in your own turn.
Stop trying to downplay that primaris marines are going to be the army to beat still in 9th edition.
All hail the 1st anniversary of the glorious Chadmaris overlords, first they were black or Yellow of armour thencame the time of the Blue, GREEN AND white of armour. But all of them Chadmaris.
3" typically and irrelevant.
The claim was they had sufficient attacks to handle such threats. Now that we see that isn't true you have to bring a character in to save them. A character being protected by units with only 3 models.
See where the chain starts to unravel? Primaris will be great, I'm sure, because the skill requirement is low.
Marines especially when played by what i consider competent players have CM & LT and Banners all the charictors doing so are all no slouches in CC against basic chaff.
You know what'll keep those charictors from being shot either a dreadnaught/vehical as it doesnt actually have to be the closest just within 3 while another unit is closer. (thank god Chaplin dreads are dead)
Also the age old screw you unit of 5 Agressors killing 3 of those to make the charictors targetable is no small matter. Especially with the Father of the Future FNP malarkey.
I've seen plenty of unit bounce of the insanity that marines can boast as defensive profiles. Only to have the model that was killed and shoot magically brought back to life.
It comes down to how we want to assess things. If Eradicators need characters and characters need dreadnoughts then the calculus of how Eradicators affect the table is a lot different than the mental image of 3 squads just rocking the socks off everything in sight.
More than likely other elements will be in front of Eradicators like Outriders. How it will all shake out, I don't know. No one seems to want to write a list. The tactics thread is practically dead.
Don't know if it was mentionned before but a trustworthy french youtuber rumored the Invader (the new primaris buggy) to be "80 points + 5 with a multi melta" [/endquote]
So first: hey new weapon option with the multimelta.
Second: If it's 85 with MM (25 points) then i assume 80 is with the onslaught gatling canon (20 points) and so it's base cost is 60 points.
Irbis wrote: Conclusion: by your own metric, Eradicators are underpowered and need buffing with additional rifle shot to actually do the 5-1 design target
You forgot the melee: on the charge, 27 attacks, kills 8 more, wiping the IG out. That's a 50 pts squad for 120 pts, which is actually dramatically overperformed.
??
There's not enough coffee in my system yet, so you'll have to explain how you get 27 melee attacks out of 3 Eradicators.
Not Online!!! wrote: with plasma beeing equal to melta i fail to see the place of normal melta though.
From my perspective, the maximum damage is higher, and it can be really handy for toasting character type models or single big that get near/into my lines. Playing UM tactics I wind up backing out of assaults and shooting at various units like the old Custodes Shield Captains or Daemon Princes, and having a couple short ranged, high damage output sorts of weapons is very useful, moreso as they don't kill my models on the overcharge with a -1 to hit. The -4 AP is under appreciated a bit I think, too. Completely negating a 3+ save or being able to ignore cover bonuses is good. Combi-Meltas will be especially useful on Pack Characters too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Psychocouac wrote: Don't know if it was mentionned before but a trustworthy french youtuber rumored the Invader (the new primaris buggy) to be "80 points + 5 with a multi melta" [/endquote]
So first: hey new weapon option with the multimelta.
Second: If it's 85 with MM (25 points) then i assume 80 is with the onslaught gatling canon (20 points) and so it's base cost is 60 points.
I'm thinking the assumption is three units of three eradicators. Although I'd think you'd have 30 attacks since the Sarge has a bonus attack.
Not Online!!! wrote: with plasma beeing equal to melta i fail to see the place of normal melta though.
From my perspective, the maximum damage is higher, and it can be really handy for toasting character type models or single big that get near/into my lines. Playing UM tactics I wind up backing out of assaults and shooting at various units like the old Custodes Shield Captains or Daemon Princes, and having a couple short ranged, high damage output sorts of weapons is very useful, moreso as they don't kill my models on the overcharge with a -1 to hit. The -4 AP is under appreciated a bit I think, too. Completely negating a 3+ save or being able to ignore cover bonuses is good. Combi-Meltas will be especially useful on Pack Characters too.
i can see where you are coming from, but these priced at the same point is still something i can't think off as making sense.
Irbis wrote: Conclusion: by your own metric, Eradicators are underpowered and need buffing with additional rifle shot to actually do the 5-1 design target
You forgot the melee: on the charge, 27 attacks, kills 8 more, wiping the IG out. That's a 50 pts squad for 120 pts, which is actually dramatically overperformed.
?? There's not enough coffee in my system yet, so you'll have to explain how you get 27 melee attacks out of 3 Eradicators.
Sorry, broke my math wrong and assumed 9*3 attacks, instead of 3*3 attacks (so I added an extra 3 in the multiplication).
Still far greater melee capability than it warrants for a specialist anti-tank unit. 5 Retributors with 4 MM are 10 pts more and have far far far fewer attacks, lower strength in melee, fewer shots, same range, less mobility, less durability, and less potential to be buffed.
Getting tagged in melee is one of their big weaknesses, since they can't fire in melee, unlike tank-mounted AT. The 9 attacks at S4 AP - they get don't begin to compare to a tank's ability to fire into something tagging it.
The fact that they compare well to other infantry AT in combat is just another case of Primaris being better than everything at everybody. But better doesn't mean good.
yukishiro1 wrote: Getting tagged in melee is one of their big weaknesses, since they can't fire in melee, unlike tank-mounted AT. The 9 attacks at S4 AP - they get don't begin to compare to a tank's ability to fire into something tagging it.
The thing i have not seen many people mention is that you have to wait for your own turn to fire in melee. Plus, you could easily be down a bracket from the combat and be hitting on 6s (Guard player). I don't thing that things like Heavy Bolters are really going to do much in combat. Now flamers, they may be worth taking...
Not Online!!! wrote: with plasma beeing equal to melta i fail to see the place of normal melta though.
From my perspective, the maximum damage is higher, and it can be really handy for toasting character type models or single big that get near/into my lines. Playing UM tactics I wind up backing out of assaults and shooting at various units like the old Custodes Shield Captains or Daemon Princes, and having a couple short ranged, high damage output sorts of weapons is very useful, moreso as they don't kill my models on the overcharge with a -1 to hit. The -4 AP is under appreciated a bit I think, too. Completely negating a 3+ save or being able to ignore cover bonuses is good. Combi-Meltas will be especially useful on Pack Characters too.
i can see where you are coming from, but these priced at the same point is still something i can't think off as making sense.
Requiring you to risk killing your own model to get high damage out of your Plasmagun is definitely part of that calculation. Costing the same or similar makes a lot of sense to me.
If you really want a headscratcher ask why the Grav Cannon costs the same as the Plasmagun and Meltagun. Like, are they nerfing it or something?
Irbis wrote: Conclusion: by your own metric, Eradicators are underpowered and need buffing with additional rifle shot to actually do the 5-1 design target
You forgot the melee: on the charge, 27 attacks, kills 8 more, wiping the IG out. That's a 50 pts squad for 120 pts, which is actually dramatically overperformed.
??
There's not enough coffee in my system yet, so you'll have to explain how you get 27 melee attacks out of 3 Eradicators.
Sorry, broke my math wrong and assumed 9*3 attacks, instead of 3*3 attacks (so I added an extra 3 in the multiplication).
Still far greater melee capability than it warrants for a specialist anti-tank unit. 5 Retributors with 4 MM are 10 pts more and have far far far fewer attacks, lower strength in melee, fewer shots, same range, less mobility, less durability, and less potential to be buffed.
Sergeant has an extra attack, so 10 total in the first round of CC.
yukishiro1 wrote: Getting tagged in melee is one of their big weaknesses, since they can't fire in melee, unlike tank-mounted AT. The 9 attacks at S4 AP - they get don't begin to compare to a tank's ability to fire into something tagging it.
The fact that they compare well to other infantry AT in combat is just another case of Primaris being better than everything at everybody. But better doesn't mean good.
But it does drop them in capability from Hyperspecialist to Specialist in my rating. So they should need a 5-1 advantage in points to wipe out a unit (meaning they should wipe out about 5 guardsmen a turn), which is about what they do between their own shooting and melee. Shooting + Melee for 240 points of Eradicators kills roughly 11 guardsmen, or 55 points. So they're very slightly too good at this to even be "Specialists". But the real problem is they're WAAAAAAAAAAY too good at shooting tanks to be considered generalists.
Really they're just too good at everything by my metric.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: Sergeant has an extra attack, so 10 total in the first round of CC.
A squad of three has a Sergeant? What is he sergeant of, two other people? Is each of them a corporal with his own fireteam of no-one? I guess that's par for the course for GW, I just forgot it.
Not Online!!! wrote: with plasma beeing equal to melta i fail to see the place of normal melta though.
From my perspective, the maximum damage is higher, and it can be really handy for toasting character type models or single big that get near/into my lines. Playing UM tactics I wind up backing out of assaults and shooting at various units like the old Custodes Shield Captains or Daemon Princes, and having a couple short ranged, high damage output sorts of weapons is very useful, moreso as they don't kill my models on the overcharge with a -1 to hit. The -4 AP is under appreciated a bit I think, too. Completely negating a 3+ save or being able to ignore cover bonuses is good. Combi-Meltas will be especially useful on Pack Characters too.
i can see where you are coming from, but these priced at the same point is still something i can't think off as making sense.
Requiring you to risk killing your own model to get high damage out of your Plasmagun is definitely part of that calculation. Costing the same or similar makes a lot of sense to me.
If you really want a headscratcher ask why the Grav Cannon costs the same as the Plasmagun and Meltagun. Like, are they nerfing it or something?
oh , it's just one of them i don't understand.
yeah the grav cannon is wierd, and why the lascannon went down, even though there was a lascannon spam list that worked surprisingly well is also a headscratcher.
Even worse for the flammer, GL and stubber?
lIke why?
but then again we now got brimstones, conscripts, grots at the same point as IS.
yukishiro1 wrote: Getting tagged in melee is one of their big weaknesses, since they can't fire in melee, unlike tank-mounted AT. The 9 attacks at S4 AP - they get don't begin to compare to a tank's ability to fire into something tagging it.
The fact that they compare well to other infantry AT in combat is just another case of Primaris being better than everything at everybody. But better doesn't mean good.
But it does drop them in capability from Hyperspecialist to Specialist in my rating.
Aye, they're not Dark Reapers (I don't know what they cost now). A 3W T4 3A is a model far more capable at defending itself than a 1W 1A T3 one.
Insectum7 wrote: Sergeant has an extra attack, so 10 total in the first round of CC.
A squad of three has a Sergeant? What is he sergeant of, two other people? Is each of them a corporal with his own fireteam of no-one? I guess that's par for the course for GW, I just forgot it.
Bike Squads do the same thing, if it makes you feel any better .
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It might as well be zero at the price point. They're literally almost the cost of 10 Tactical Marines but I'm not seeing anyone saying they have anything more than bad combat ability. So the claim "they hit back!!!1!" is honestly ludicrous and honestly embarrassing for anyone to claim.
Mea culpa- somewhere in this chain I mistook 3 attacks in the first round of combat for 3 attacks base like Aggressors, which put them pretty close to the same number of attacks as 8 Tacticals (same cost in 9th) in the first round, and actually more attacks in subsequent rounds.
Yeah, I agree that their melee ability is pretty bad. I still think their general vulnerability is being overstated, though. Even if they can't kill interdicting chaff units in melee, they don't really have to worry about Guardsmen clubbing them to death before they can fall back or Rapid Firing them off the board, which is more than you can say about Fire Dragons, Dark Reapers, Melta Scions, or even the tougher AT infantry like Retributors or Devastators.
Not Online!!! wrote: with plasma beeing equal to melta i fail to see the place of normal melta though.
From my perspective, the maximum damage is higher, and it can be really handy for toasting character type models or single big that get near/into my lines. Playing UM tactics I wind up backing out of assaults and shooting at various units like the old Custodes Shield Captains or Daemon Princes, and having a couple short ranged, high damage output sorts of weapons is very useful, moreso as they don't kill my models on the overcharge with a -1 to hit. The -4 AP is under appreciated a bit I think, too. Completely negating a 3+ save or being able to ignore cover bonuses is good. Combi-Meltas will be especially useful on Pack Characters too.
i can see where you are coming from, but these priced at the same point is still something i can't think off as making sense.
Marines aren't going to take either, tbf. You'll take Eradicators and Inceptors, you're not actually taking melta and plasma. The price of a plasma gun vs a melta gun is largely irrelevant as the only imperial forces who take a lot of them either always take plasma regardless because they're deepstriking in a way that negates the killing yourself drawback of plasma(scions) or always take melta because they don't have plasma(sisters).
Not Online!!! wrote: with plasma beeing equal to melta i fail to see the place of normal melta though.
From my perspective, the maximum damage is higher, and it can be really handy for toasting character type models or single big that get near/into my lines. Playing UM tactics I wind up backing out of assaults and shooting at various units like the old Custodes Shield Captains or Daemon Princes, and having a couple short ranged, high damage output sorts of weapons is very useful, moreso as they don't kill my models on the overcharge with a -1 to hit. The -4 AP is under appreciated a bit I think, too. Completely negating a 3+ save or being able to ignore cover bonuses is good. Combi-Meltas will be especially useful on Pack Characters too.
i can see where you are coming from, but these priced at the same point is still something i can't think off as making sense.
Marines aren't going to take either, tbf. You'll take Eradicators and Inceptors, you're not actually taking melta and plasma. The price of a plasma gun vs a melta gun is largely irrelevant as the only imperial forces who take a lot of them either always take plasma regardless because they're deepstriking in a way that negates the killing yourself drawback of plasma(scions) or always take melta because they don't have plasma(sisters).
I don't use Primaris so I'll be skipping Eradicators etc. Plasma and Melta for me.
yukishiro1 wrote: Getting tagged in melee is one of their big weaknesses, since they can't fire in melee, unlike tank-mounted AT. The 9 attacks at S4 AP - they get don't begin to compare to a tank's ability to fire into something tagging it.
The fact that they compare well to other infantry AT in combat is just another case of Primaris being better than everything at everybody. But better doesn't mean good.
But it does drop them in capability from Hyperspecialist to Specialist in my rating.
Aye, they're not Dark Reapers (I don't know what they cost now). A 3W T4 3A is a model far more capable at defending itself than a 1W 1A T3 one.
T5 (Gravis armor is +1W, +1T). 2A base, +1 for Sarge, +1 to each for being charged (or charging).
Reapers seem to be 35 points a model, so just about what they cost at the very beginning of 8th (5+31) in the index.
Not Online!!! wrote: with plasma beeing equal to melta i fail to see the place of normal melta though.
From my perspective, the maximum damage is higher, and it can be really handy for toasting character type models or single big that get near/into my lines. Playing UM tactics I wind up backing out of assaults and shooting at various units like the old Custodes Shield Captains or Daemon Princes, and having a couple short ranged, high damage output sorts of weapons is very useful, moreso as they don't kill my models on the overcharge with a -1 to hit. The -4 AP is under appreciated a bit I think, too. Completely negating a 3+ save or being able to ignore cover bonuses is good. Combi-Meltas will be especially useful on Pack Characters too.
i can see where you are coming from, but these priced at the same point is still something i can't think off as making sense.
Marines aren't going to take either, tbf. You'll take Eradicators and Inceptors, you're not actually taking melta and plasma. The price of a plasma gun vs a melta gun is largely irrelevant as the only imperial forces who take a lot of them either always take plasma regardless because they're deepstriking in a way that negates the killing yourself drawback of plasma(scions) or always take melta because they don't have plasma(sisters).
No, I assure you that my SW, DA, & Mentor forces will still be using the plasmas, meltas, & combi-plas/meltas I have modeled on them.
the_scotsman wrote: Everything that anybody used in a fething tournament you decided to increase WAY WAY LESS than units nobody fething uses!
As I've been saying, this is 40K: Tournament Edition.
Give it an edition or two and we'll have the "Casual Gaming Mafia" edition, where they eliminate points, PL and even objective scoring and have people roll-off to see who wins at the end of a game.
Dudeface wrote: Given how much mouth frothing there is over the eradicators and then we get "melta could be free and is still bad because it's not plasma" appreciate the context is slightly different, but it's a massive double standard.
Melta rifles have double the range though, which is a huge advantage. There is generally a 9" limit on how close you can deploy from away from an enemy from reserves. This really hurts things like melta scions, as they don't get the full advantage that melta provides. A 12" melta range fixes this.
Not at all, if I run Melta Scion squads, they will be in an Iotan Gorgonnes detachment so I can deploy them with Daring Descent, and setup 5" away from a target.
Alternatively I can run them with the Kappic Eagles detachment and have them inside a Valkyrie, then use the Grav Chute rule to disembark then move into range.
Slayer6 wrote: Not at all, if I run Melta Scion squads, they will be in an Iotan Gorgonnes detachment so I can deploy them with Daring Descent, and setup 5" away from a target.
Alternatively I can run them with the Kappic Eagles detachment and have them inside a Valkyrie, then use the Grav Chute rule to disembark then move into range.
Not Online!!! wrote: with plasma beeing equal to melta i fail to see the place of normal melta though.
From my perspective, the maximum damage is higher, and it can be really handy for toasting character type models or single big that get near/into my lines. Playing UM tactics I wind up backing out of assaults and shooting at various units like the old Custodes Shield Captains or Daemon Princes, and having a couple short ranged, high damage output sorts of weapons is very useful, moreso as they don't kill my models on the overcharge with a -1 to hit. The -4 AP is under appreciated a bit I think, too. Completely negating a 3+ save or being able to ignore cover bonuses is good. Combi-Meltas will be especially useful on Pack Characters too.
i can see where you are coming from, but these priced at the same point is still something i can't think off as making sense.
Requiring you to risk killing your own model to get high damage out of your Plasmagun is definitely part of that calculation. Costing the same or similar makes a lot of sense to me.
If you really want a headscratcher ask why the Grav Cannon costs the same as the Plasmagun and Meltagun. Like, are they nerfing it or something?
oh , it's just one of them i don't understand.
yeah the grav cannon is wierd, and why the lascannon went down, even though there was a lascannon spam list that worked surprisingly well is also a headscratcher.
Even worse for the flammer, GL and stubber?
lIke why?
but then again we now got brimstones, conscripts, grots at the same point as IS.
like wtf is going on?
The reason is simple. Conformity.
Minimum unit cost is 5. Doesn't matter how bad it is. Why 5? Because it multiplies well I guess.
Standardise guns. All the separate options for a squad are 5 points. But a grenade launcher isn't equal to a plasma gun? Doesn't matter. 5 points for everything.
5 point bolters/bolt pistols/storm bolters was apparently to much even for GW so they made them 2/3 points.
Don't think for even a moment that outside of a few key units (like maybe Thunderfire cannons ect) that any of the adjustments in 9th edition are done for balance.
Not Online!!! wrote: Well that i understand, but why go away from the pts value that gotten okay finetuned over 8th Edition , (ok ok somewhat) and then throw this out,?
When you look at the CA19 points costs you see that some of the changes from CA18 have been completely ignored. It seems that when someone does a new set of points, part of the process is forgetting about the previous points changes.
yukishiro1 wrote: Getting tagged in melee is one of their big weaknesses, since they can't fire in melee, unlike tank-mounted AT. The 9 attacks at S4 AP - they get don't begin to compare to a tank's ability to fire into something tagging it.
The fact that they compare well to other infantry AT in combat is just another case of Primaris being better than everything at everybody. But better doesn't mean good.
But it does drop them in capability from Hyperspecialist to Specialist in my rating.
Aye, they're not Dark Reapers (I don't know what they cost now). A 3W T4 3A is a model far more capable at defending itself than a 1W 1A T3 one.
Insectum7 wrote: Sergeant has an extra attack, so 10 total in the first round of CC.
A squad of three has a Sergeant? What is he sergeant of, two other people? Is each of them a corporal with his own fireteam of no-one? I guess that's par for the course for GW, I just forgot it.
Bike Squads do the same thing, if it makes you feel any better .
Fluffwise, units that field less than ten members in game still contain 10 off the field, the others are used to pilot vehicles and Invictors(if Primaris).
Not Online!!! wrote: Well that i understand, but why go away from the pts value that gotten okay finetuned over 8th Edition , (ok ok somewhat) and then throw this out,?
Does gw think we are too stupid to realise this? Or are we again used as playing Beta testers!
I think its simply a case of "screw it, they will buy it anyway and we will fix it later".
Now I don't have a problem with doing a rough pass on points and then tweaking it later when you get a ton of data from people actually playing with it. But I wouldn't charge people for that privilege.
Not Online!!! wrote: Well that i understand, but why go away from the pts value that gotten okay finetuned over 8th Edition , (ok ok somewhat) and then throw this out,?
When you look at the CA19 points costs you see that some of the changes from CA18 have been completely ignored. It seems that when someone does a new set of points, part of the process is forgetting about the previous points changes.
No i was Ware of that , mostly due to fw changes beeing reverted from 18 torwards 19 which Lead me to believe that they either list the doccument or habe a Drink intern work it.
yukishiro1 wrote: Getting tagged in melee is one of their big weaknesses, since they can't fire in melee, unlike tank-mounted AT. The 9 attacks at S4 AP - they get don't begin to compare to a tank's ability to fire into something tagging it.
The fact that they compare well to other infantry AT in combat is just another case of Primaris being better than everything at everybody. But better doesn't mean good.
But it does drop them in capability from Hyperspecialist to Specialist in my rating.
Aye, they're not Dark Reapers (I don't know what they cost now). A 3W T4 3A is a model far more capable at defending itself than a 1W 1A T3 one.
Insectum7 wrote: Sergeant has an extra attack, so 10 total in the first round of CC.
A squad of three has a Sergeant? What is he sergeant of, two other people? Is each of them a corporal with his own fireteam of no-one? I guess that's par for the course for GW, I just forgot it.
Bike Squads do the same thing, if it makes you feel any better .
And Suppressors and Eliminators. I hate the God awful setup of "you get three and that's it".
Not Online!!! wrote: Well that i understand, but why go away from the pts value that gotten okay finetuned over 8th Edition , (ok ok somewhat) and then throw this out,?
Does gw think we are too stupid to realise this? Or are we again used as playing Beta testers!
I think its simply a case of "screw it, they will buy it anyway and we will fix it later".
Now I don't have a problem with doing a rough pass on points and then tweaking it later when you get a ton of data from people actually playing with it. But I wouldn't charge people for that privilege.
Yeah, they'll "fix it later", when everyone gets their new 9th edition codex. Want good points and rules? Better buy that new codex! This is a way to reset everything back to index status without invalidating any existing books. Except loyalists of course. Even their fw units were escaped relatively unscathed.
The proof is that they released FAQS for the Forge World Indexes. Why would they release a FAQ for books that are no longer available and soon to be superseded by new ones? Because those FAQS are for playing those units with the old rules and these new points. Want good rules and points for your fw stuff? Better buy those new fw books.
These points have nothing to do with balance. They're just a way to reset everything back to index status so you want those new codexes when they are released.
These points have nothing to do with balance. They're just a way to reset everything back to index status so you want those new codexes when they are released.
I fail to see why someone wouldn't buy the codex when it comes out. For everyone else there's battlescribe. If they hadn't reset the points do you think people wouldn't have bought the codex? New units are what sells a book - good or bad.
FW got faq'd, because those are books that exist and can still be used until new ones arrived. Otherwise you're playing with rules that don't work correctly with the new edition.
These points have nothing to do with balance. They're just a way to reset everything back to index status so you want those new codexes when they are released.
Joke's on them, never bought a single 8th ed codex and probably wont bother with the 9th ed ones either
These points have nothing to do with balance. They're just a way to reset everything back to index status so you want those new codexes when they are released.
Joke's on them, never bought a single 8th ed codex and probably wont bother with the 9th ed ones either
And honestly it's fething scummy they're gonna charge full price for those codices with all the crap they just released for 8th that is only half compatible with 9th.
These points have nothing to do with balance. They're just a way to reset everything back to index status so you want those new codexes when they are released.
I fail to see why someone wouldn't buy the codex when it comes out. For everyone else there's battlescribe. If they hadn't reset the points do you think people wouldn't have bought the codex? New units are what sells a book - good or bad.
FW got faq'd, because those are books that exist and can still be used until new ones arrived. Otherwise you're playing with rules that don't work correctly with the new edition.
Of course you'll want a new codex when it is released, because if you want to play 9th edition then you need a 9th edition codex if it exists for your faction. But that new codex will be so much better because this points update isn't about balance, it's about resetting everything. Everyone starts over again even with their existing codexes. Do you actually think this is about balance? Meltas, plasma, and flamers the same price? Same for guardsmen, grots, and brimstones? No, it's a reset at the start of a new edition, same as the indexes were at the start of 8th, but you still have codexes. It's a reset that gives them room to bring things back down, that's why the 5 point minimum for almost everything.
No, it isn't a nefarious plot to get you to buy a new codex, you'd do that anyway. It's a reset until those codexes are released. It has nothing to do with balance. That's why it seems so insane. They don't care if it's balanced or not, as long as it gives them room to work with for the new codexes. That's why I'm no longer worried about discrepancies in individual units, it doesn't matter, these points were made just to be changed.
These points have nothing to do with balance. They're just a way to reset everything back to index status so you want those new codexes when they are released.
I fail to see why someone wouldn't buy the codex when it comes out. For everyone else there's battlescribe. If they hadn't reset the points do you think people wouldn't have bought the codex? New units are what sells a book - good or bad.
FW got faq'd, because those are books that exist and can still be used until new ones arrived. Otherwise you're playing with rules that don't work correctly with the new edition.
Of course you'll want a new codex when it is released, because if you want to play 9th edition then you need a 9th edition codex if it exists for your faction. But that new codex will be so much better because this points update isn't about balance, it's about resetting everything. Everyone starts over again even with their existing codexes. Do you actually think this is about balance? Meltas, plasma, and flamers the same price? Same for guardsmen, grots, and brimstones? No, it's a reset at the start of a new edition, same as the indexes were at the start of 8th, but you still have codexes. It's a reset that gives them room to bring things back down, that's why the 5 point minimum for almost everything.
No, it isn't a nefarious plot to get you to buy a new codex, you'd do that anyway. It's a reset until those codexes are released. It has nothing to do with balance. That's why it seems so insane. They don't care if it's balanced or not, as long as it gives them room to work with for the new codexes. That's why I'm no longer worried about discrepancies in individual units, it doesn't matter, these points were made just to be changed.
Which is fething gakky for sisters considering their codex is coming out 4 months before 10th hits and does it all again.
Charging money for rules is kind of outdated when you look at the rest of the tabletop games outside GW. One page rules is a thing too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also... I feel like detachments are about to become the new formations, as command benefits may tie into that. Refunding cp if your warlord is in the detachment can’t be everything they plan on doing with that slot...
These points have nothing to do with balance. They're just a way to reset everything back to index status so you want those new codexes when they are released.
I fail to see why someone wouldn't buy the codex when it comes out. For everyone else there's battlescribe. If they hadn't reset the points do you think people wouldn't have bought the codex? New units are what sells a book - good or bad.
FW got faq'd, because those are books that exist and can still be used until new ones arrived. Otherwise you're playing with rules that don't work correctly with the new edition.
Of course you'll want a new codex when it is released, because if you want to play 9th edition then you need a 9th edition codex if it exists for your faction. But that new codex will be so much better because this points update isn't about balance, it's about resetting everything. Everyone starts over again even with their existing codexes. Do you actually think this is about balance? Meltas, plasma, and flamers the same price? Same for guardsmen, grots, and brimstones? No, it's a reset at the start of a new edition, same as the indexes were at the start of 8th, but you still have codexes. It's a reset that gives them room to bring things back down, that's why the 5 point minimum for almost everything.
No, it isn't a nefarious plot to get you to buy a new codex, you'd do that anyway. It's a reset until those codexes are released. It has nothing to do with balance. That's why it seems so insane. They don't care if it's balanced or not, as long as it gives them room to work with for the new codexes. That's why I'm no longer worried about discrepancies in individual units, it doesn't matter, these points were made just to be changed.
Which is fething gakky for sisters considering their codex is coming out 4 months before 10th hits and does it all again.
SOB points will most likely be fixed once gw actually starts taking balance into consideration, probably in a FAQ or ca. But yeah, it's pretty gakky. There were better ways to do this. They could have raised everything equally across the board, though that would have been hard with models with points in the single digits. Or better yet, they could have actually taken balance into consideration, unfortunately it doesn't seem they did.
macluvin wrote:
Also... I feel like detachments are about to become the new formations, as command benefits may tie into that. Refunding cp if your warlord is in the detachment can’t be everything they plan on doing with that slot...
I think that's a good possibility. Special detachments could be introduced for factions in their codexes. Something like a Deathwing detachment for da that lets them load up on terminators without a cp penalty, or a mechanized guard detachment that does the same for heavy support. Not sure if I like the idea though.
I want armies to have their own unique detachments.
I also want them to do a "get you by" series of race-specific Crusade stuff, a bit like how they did some "get you by" stuff for un-updated Codices in CA2017, so that the custom Crusade stuff doesn't take forever to come out for everyone.
ERJAK wrote: Which is fething gakky for sisters considering their codex is coming out 4 months before 10th hits and does it all again.
I hope sisters get a turn at the spot light since they did in the trailer... watch them feth this edition up too and switch to 10th edition in 3 years, leaving some other poor sod behind (money is on Eldar or Orks...) and fething over whoever had the recent codex and supplement releases... marines will get some other gak nobody asked for that will shift the meta... Just like how 8th began, and just like 9th... as before, so long after... at least 8th reimbursed legions suckers
H.B.M.C. wrote: I want armies to have their own unique detachments.
Gladius V2! Now with Primaris!
That would be enough to make me threaten to quit the game for good, grumble for 2 weeks and go back to being GW’s gimp. Probably wouldn’t play any games with primarisigmarines like ever. “Hey look! Free repulsors for every troop!” >.<
Worse than they were before, or just 'still kinda screwed'?
Gsc is worse than before. We were flagging already, PA didn't really help at all, and then the extra costs added to some of our stuff is not helpful.
If you play melee GSC that is.
Shooty Cult makes off slightly better than the end of 8th, with -1 to hit cap, and access to guard vehicles/units.
IMO of course.
They never struck me as 'melee strong' in the first place. I always figured them as a 'shooting and harassing' army, and I've never seen them do well without guard vehicles.
Worse than they were before, or just 'still kinda screwed'?
Gsc is worse than before. We were flagging already, PA didn't really help at all, and then the extra costs added to some of our stuff is not helpful.
If you play melee GSC that is.
Shooty Cult makes off slightly better than the end of 8th, with -1 to hit cap, and access to guard vehicles/units.
IMO of course.
They never struck me as 'melee strong' in the first place. I always figured them as a 'shooting and harassing' army, and I've never seen them do well without guard vehicles.
Disagree. A lot of GSC armies leaned heavily on Acolytes (melee or hand flamers), Abberrants(melee), and Jackals (for short ranged shooting and occasional melee screen). After the codex dropped, the only guard units I ever saw in GSC armies were mortars and Russes sporadically.
Carnikang wrote: Disagree. A lot of GSC armies leaned heavily on Acolytes (melee or hand flamers), Abberrants(melee), and Jackals (for short ranged shooting and occasional melee screen). After the codex dropped, the only guard units I ever saw in GSC armies were mortars and Russes sporadically.
Never saw anyone use those outside of Necromunda. Just my experience. May be different metas.
Carnikang wrote: Disagree. A lot of GSC armies leaned heavily on Acolytes (melee or hand flamers), Abberrants(melee), and Jackals (for short ranged shooting and occasional melee screen). After the codex dropped, the only guard units I ever saw in GSC armies were mortars and Russes sporadically.
Never saw anyone use those outside of Necromunda. Just my experience. May be different metas.
Possibly. We have 4 GSC players locally, with Adepticon 3 hours away as the big draw. So moderately to mostly competitive lean, since a good few of our players go every year.
No one ever tried the bike spam list locally, though I really wanted to.
Carnikang wrote: Possibly. We have 4 GSC players locally, with Adepticon 3 hours away as the big draw. So moderately to mostly competitive lean, since a good few of our players go every year.
No one ever tried the bike spam list locally, though I really wanted to.
Lots of guard players here, but only a couple of them are competitive. Otherwise Marines of the loyalist and satan flavors, some Eldar and the like. A few Admech players that are pretty serious. Like one and a half sisters players.
Of course you'll want a new codex when it is released, because if you want to play 9th edition then you need a 9th edition codex if it exists for your faction. But that new codex will be so much better because this points update isn't about balance, it's about resetting everything. Everyone starts over again even with their existing codexes. Do you actually think this is about balance? Meltas, plasma, and flamers the same price? Same for guardsmen, grots, and brimstones? No, it's a reset at the start of a new edition, same as the indexes were at the start of 8th, but you still have codexes. It's a reset that gives them room to bring things back down, that's why the 5 point minimum for almost everything.
No, it isn't a nefarious plot to get you to buy a new codex, you'd do that anyway. It's a reset until those codexes are released. It has nothing to do with balance. That's why it seems so insane. They don't care if it's balanced or not, as long as it gives them room to work with for the new codexes. That's why I'm no longer worried about discrepancies in individual units, it doesn't matter, these points were made just to be changed.
Your logic seems circular. They changed the points so they can change the points. Why was a reset needed? Why couldn't they have used CA19 points and left them in that state and fumbled around as codexes popped out? How would that have been different from your proposed view?
Why separate infantry from vehicle costs if balance was not intended?
Why heavily target specific units if balance was not intended?
Of course points will change, but you need a level field to work from. What I see is that they've banded certain things. There is a ton of ambiguity about how units will really perform and be used under the new missions and banding will help isolate parts of the game. People have noticed how they folded weapon costs into the body for a lot of units. Why? It seems to me like they wanted to assess the whole model rather than just the body. Viewing the value of the body without weapons creates a difficult balance point - cheap bodies with lots of special weapons say hello.
Now you'll mentally assess an Immortal at 18 points instead of 8 when a warrior was 11. You can immediately determine that the Immortal must have some edge over a Necron Warrior without looking at a datasheet, right?
When melta was 14 and plasma was 11 what did you say? "Well, plasma is better and melta certainly isn't worth more than plasma. I have made an intelligent choice." Then you go out on the table, encounter a scenario where melta would have been nice, but you reassure yourself that plasma was the only smart option. What if instead the options were the same price? Then you're choosing the weapon for the role and not for the cost. You go out to the table and think, well, maybe it wouldn't be bad to have some melta. They are all the same cost after all.
Then at the same time GW can take that unit with folded weapon costs and assess their impact knowing that despite the player choices the cost won't deviate from X+5.
Of course I could be absolutely wrong, but time will tell.
Disagree. A lot of GSC armies leaned heavily on Acolytes (melee or hand flamers), Abberrants(melee), and Jackals (for short ranged shooting and occasional melee screen). After the codex dropped, the only guard units I ever saw in GSC armies were mortars and Russes sporadically.
The game just doesn't play the same. I can't stress that enough.
I don't play GSC so I can't assume I know how they'll do, but if I were allowed a guess - the ability to put large or strong units right into the face of your opponent on objectives makes for a potentially strong counter-play army.
We're moving to 2K this weekend. Hopefully the tournament missions leak on Friday.
These points have nothing to do with balance. They're just a way to reset everything back to index status so you want those new codexes when they are released.
I fail to see why someone wouldn't buy the codex when it comes out. For everyone else there's battlescribe. If they hadn't reset the points do you think people wouldn't have bought the codex? New units are what sells a book - good or bad.
FW got faq'd, because those are books that exist and can still be used until new ones arrived. Otherwise you're playing with rules that don't work correctly with the new edition.
Of course you'll want a new codex when it is released, because if you want to play 9th edition then you need a 9th edition codex if it exists for your faction. But that new codex will be so much better because this points update isn't about balance, it's about resetting everything. Everyone starts over again even with their existing codexes. Do you actually think this is about balance? Meltas, plasma, and flamers the same price? Same for guardsmen, grots, and brimstones? No, it's a reset at the start of a new edition, same as the indexes were at the start of 8th, but you still have codexes. It's a reset that gives them room to bring things back down, that's why the 5 point minimum for almost everything.
No, it isn't a nefarious plot to get you to buy a new codex, you'd do that anyway. It's a reset until those codexes are released. It has nothing to do with balance. That's why it seems so insane. They don't care if it's balanced or not, as long as it gives them room to work with for the new codexes. That's why I'm no longer worried about discrepancies in individual units, it doesn't matter, these points were made just to be changed.
So problem solved. Run your forces using their final 8th ed costs. New units? Well, those use their 9th ed costs. When new codex arrives, all your units in that force now use their "real" (for the moment) pt cost.
yukishiro1 wrote: Getting tagged in melee is one of their big weaknesses, since they can't fire in melee, unlike tank-mounted AT. The 9 attacks at S4 AP - they get don't begin to compare to a tank's ability to fire into something tagging it.
The fact that they compare well to other infantry AT in combat is just another case of Primaris being better than everything at everybody. But better doesn't mean good.
But it does drop them in capability from Hyperspecialist to Specialist in my rating.
Aye, they're not Dark Reapers (I don't know what they cost now). A 3W T4 3A is a model far more capable at defending itself than a 1W 1A T3 one.
Insectum7 wrote: Sergeant has an extra attack, so 10 total in the first round of CC.
A squad of three has a Sergeant? What is he sergeant of, two other people? Is each of them a corporal with his own fireteam of no-one? I guess that's par for the course for GW, I just forgot it.
Bike Squads do the same thing, if it makes you feel any better .
And Suppressors and Eliminators. I hate the God awful setup of "you get three and that's it".
Solution is easy: Don't play Primaris! Bike Squads get up to nine models.
Drukhari were good for the first time in a long time in 8th, were part of some unpleasant Aeldari soup lists, and then after those got broken up were still good and fun as a standalone. Now Kabalites have gone up by 50%, and Venoms are more expensive than Quin Starweavers, so you will likely only see Covens and the board clogged with beast packs.
These points have nothing to do with balance. They're just a way to reset everything back to index status so you want those new codexes when they are released.
Joke's on them, never bought a single 8th ed codex and probably wont bother with the 9th ed ones either
How about the PA books for your faction, or the yearly Chapter Approved updates?
More importantly, did you use any of the material from any of these books?
a fat guy wrote: I got the impression that everything was just going up, but they clearly tried to balance things again and messed it up badly for non-primaris.
The vast majority of changes are not rebalancing - they are a formula that has been run across the entire line which, depending on unit and wargear combination, means anything from a discount to a 100%+ increase. These changes are not in any way connected to the strength of the unit and could very broadly be described as 'rounding errors'.
a fat guy wrote: I got the impression that everything was just going up, but they clearly tried to balance things again and messed it up badly for non-primaris.
The vast majority of changes are not rebalancing - they are a formula that has been run across the entire line which, depending on unit and wargear combination, means anything from a discount to a 100%+ increase. These changes are not in any way connected to the strength of the unit and could very broadly be described as 'rounding errors'.
Yeah, so they rebalanced the game.
Just stupidly.
In a way that has affected primaris less than everyone else.
a fat guy wrote: Can we not just rely on the 2019 chapter approved if everyone hates the 2020 version so much?
I got the impression that everything was just going up, but they clearly tried to balance things again and messed it up badly for non-primaris.
yesn't .
See the issue is, that most players are in agreement, atleast locally over here, that a general increase in pts for all units would be a good thing in order to finally solve low pts and high pts issues with granularity.
What we got instead is this abomination, of as A.T. put it, Rounding errors.
a fat guy wrote: Can we not just rely on the 2019 chapter approved if everyone hates the 2020 version so much?
I got the impression that everything was just going up, but they clearly tried to balance things again and messed it up badly for non-primaris.
yesn't .
See the issue is, that most players are in agreement, atleast locally over here, that a general increase in pts for all units would be a good thing in order to finally solve low pts and high pts issues with granularity.
What we got instead is this abomination, of as A.T. put it, Rounding errors.
Is this literally just because they decided to round up by one on horde units that naturally will cost less, making that "one" a bigger piece of the points pie in an army, overall?
No wonder I've been hearing people say that custodes and primaris got massive boosts, they don't care about the rounding...
For the most part, the point changes are ... ok. But there are individual point changes for selected units that ,,, irks people. Maybe because they probably didn't look at every single unit, and instead, applied a broad formula across the board and then tweaked selected units specifically.
The meme style changes if IS 5ppm with grots,brims whike Kabalite, Skitari, FireWarriors, Guardians (I think boys too)all got blanket jumped to 9ppm is really off.
Can't say I've seen anything so far in the games I've seen of 9th that justified such flat values.
Fast jumpack units and transports sort of make sense with the changes to terrain and vehicals with no penelty to move and shoot.
But the infantry and wargear choices just baffle me, if it wasn't as suspected a blanket rounding waste of time change.
Eldenfirefly wrote: For the most part, the point changes are ... ok. But there are individual point changes for selected units that ,,, irks people. Maybe because they probably didn't look at every single unit, and instead, applied a broad formula across the board and then tweaked selected units specifically.
I'll be honest, I haven't looked at the point changes yet but I keep seeing people claim this. Is there any sort of visible pattern in the changes that supports this or is it complete speculation?
Because even with individual units getting that personalized GW touch there should still be some remnant of a pattern if this largely being done formulaically.
yukishiro1 wrote: Getting tagged in melee is one of their big weaknesses, since they can't fire in melee, unlike tank-mounted AT. The 9 attacks at S4 AP - they get don't begin to compare to a tank's ability to fire into something tagging it.
The fact that they compare well to other infantry AT in combat is just another case of Primaris being better than everything at everybody. But better doesn't mean good.
But it does drop them in capability from Hyperspecialist to Specialist in my rating.
Aye, they're not Dark Reapers (I don't know what they cost now). A 3W T4 3A is a model far more capable at defending itself than a 1W 1A T3 one.
Insectum7 wrote: Sergeant has an extra attack, so 10 total in the first round of CC.
A squad of three has a Sergeant? What is he sergeant of, two other people? Is each of them a corporal with his own fireteam of no-one? I guess that's par for the course for GW, I just forgot it.
Bike Squads do the same thing, if it makes you feel any better .
And Suppressors and Eliminators. I hate the God awful setup of "you get three and that's it".
Solution is easy: Don't play Primaris! Bike Squads get up to nine models.
Why would anyone want nine Bikers though? I just want the Aggressor setup for them.
Eldenfirefly wrote: For the most part, the point changes are ... ok. But there are individual point changes for selected units that ,,, irks people. Maybe because they probably didn't look at every single unit, and instead, applied a broad formula across the board and then tweaked selected units specifically.
I'll be honest, I haven't looked at the point changes yet but I keep seeing people claim this. Is there any sort of visible pattern in the changes that supports this or is it complete speculation?
Because even with individual units getting that personalized GW touch there should still be some remnant of a pattern if this largely being done formulaically.
Eldenfirefly wrote: For the most part, the point changes are ... ok. But there are individual point changes for selected units that ,,, irks people. Maybe because they probably didn't look at every single unit, and instead, applied a broad formula across the board and then tweaked selected units specifically.
I'll be honest, I haven't looked at the point changes yet but I keep seeing people claim this. Is there any sort of visible pattern in the changes that supports this or is it complete speculation?
Because even with individual units getting that personalized GW touch there should still be some remnant of a pattern if this largely being done formulaically.
Goonhammer cover it well, but there's a lot of "round to the nearest 5" or "if it has this sort of profile add 30 and round to the nearest 5" likewise they seem to have a few artificial floors on point costs such as 5 points for disposable mooks across the game, the issue being they aren't all worth the same value, or even 5 points creating obviously disparity.
Eldenfirefly wrote: For the most part, the point changes are ... ok. But there are individual point changes for selected units that ,,, irks people. Maybe because they probably didn't look at every single unit, and instead, applied a broad formula across the board and then tweaked selected units specifically.
I'll be honest, I haven't looked at the point changes yet but I keep seeing people claim this. Is there any sort of visible pattern in the changes that supports this or is it complete speculation?
Because even with individual units getting that personalized GW touch there should still be some remnant of a pattern if this largely being done formulaically.
This article does a pretty good job of breaking down the formula:
The WHC Downloads page is showing the Astreaus, Tiger-Shark and a few other units as being new today - but the datasheets linked still seem to be the old ones (with Power of the Machine Spirit and no Blast or Aircraft keyword).
Could be a glitch, or maybe they update the webpage before replacing the PDFs.
Dudeface wrote:Goonhammer cover it well, but there's a lot of "round to the nearest 5" or "if it has this sort of profile add 30 and round to the nearest 5" likewise they seem to have a few artificial floors on point costs such as 5 points for disposable mooks across the game, the issue being they aren't all worth the same value, or even 5 points creating obviously disparity.
Goonhammer did a review of the book and points cost and commented on the almost formulaic changes to the points, although opinions can vary.
This is just a wild hunch, but I'm reading the skeins of fate and they seem to be telling me "Go read Goonhammer, you grot!" I'm not quite sure what it means though...
The meme style changes if IS 5ppm with grots,brims whike Kabalite, Skitari, FireWarriors, Guardians (I think boys too)all got blanket jumped to 9ppm is really off.
Can't say I've seen anything so far in the games I've seen of 9th that justified such flat values.
Fast jumpack units and transports sort of make sense with the changes to terrain and vehicals with no penelty to move and shoot.
But the infantry and wargear choices just baffle me, if it wasn't as suspected a blanket rounding waste of time change.
yeah, from my first game testing the new point values...I don't get it. I included pretty minimal DE troops, but they just did diddly, like infantry in general and large units in general performed just fine, but the DE troops are absolutely going to be 3x5 min size units for me until their points are corrected, they're just bonkers. They die INSTANTLY to any kind of firepower, 110 points just poofed into nothing faster than any other unit you have.
Aow40k did an interview with a prominent playtester yesterday, Tony Kopach. He couldn't come up with any balance-based justification for any of the weird-looking point changes, either. On grots and cultists he said "it's probably because GW doesn't want you taking those units because they don't think they're fluffy" on kabalites it was "lol yeah, 9 point warriors is a thing, you'll probably have to look outside your codex for competitive success."
There is no secret genius plan here. It's just adjustments-by-spreadsheet without any regard for whether it produces a balanced game. Aside from that, a tiny minority of units actually got targeted nerfs, and an even smaller amount got targeted buffs. But it's most just spread-sheet based, even if it totally screws some stuff that didn't need to be screwed (striking scorpions, looking at you).
yukishiro1 wrote: Aow40k did an interview with a prominent playtester yesterday, Tony Kopach. He couldn't come up with any balance-based justification for any of the weird-looking point changes, either. On grots and cultists he said "it's probably because GW doesn't want you taking those units because they don't think they're fluffy" on kabalites it was "lol yeah, 9 point warriors is a thing, you'll probably have to look outside your codex for competitive success."
There is no secret genius plan here. It's just adjustments-by-spreadsheet without any regard for whether it produces a balanced game. Aside from that, a tiny minority of units actually got targeted nerfs, and an even smaller amount got targeted buffs. But it's most just spread-sheet based, even if it totally screws some stuff that didn't need to be screwed (striking scorpions, looking at you).
You know, it's funny, after playing my test game it was Striking Scorpions that I thought to myself had just earned a nearly permanent place in my games. Stupid obnoxious to kill tiny infantry keyword unit that has native deep strike is extremely strong in the new missions. 65 points for a squad that gets -1 to hit if it claims any cover and starts at a 3+ save? Love it. They'll never attack anything, they'll just show up whenever I need to keep scoring table quarters and start performing an action. Basically guaranteed 4 points and an extra 5 points if my opponent doesn't turn around and kill the fethers - lol, enjoy. What, do you have light infantry units screening your backfield? in 9th ed?
yukishiro1 wrote: Aow40k did an interview with a prominent playtester yesterday, Tony Kopach. He couldn't come up with any balance-based justification for any of the weird-looking point changes, either. On grots and cultists he said "it's probably because GW doesn't want you taking those units because they don't think they're fluffy" on kabalites it was "lol yeah, 9 point warriors is a thing, you'll probably have to look outside your codex for competitive success."
There is no secret genius plan here. It's just adjustments-by-spreadsheet without any regard for whether it produces a balanced game. Aside from that, a tiny minority of units actually got targeted nerfs, and an even smaller amount got targeted buffs. But it's most just spread-sheet based, even if it totally screws some stuff that didn't need to be screwed (striking scorpions, looking at you).
You know, it's funny, after playing my test game it was Striking Scorpions that I thought to myself had just earned a nearly permanent place in my games. Stupid obnoxious to kill tiny infantry keyword unit that has native deep strike is extremely strong in the new missions. 65 points for a squad that gets -1 to hit if it claims any cover and starts at a 3+ save? Love it. They'll never attack anything, they'll just show up whenever I need to keep scoring table quarters and start performing an action. Basically guaranteed 4 points and an extra 5 points if my opponent doesn't turn around and kill the fethers - lol, enjoy. What, do you have light infantry units screening your backfield? in 9th ed?
Eldenfirefly wrote: For the most part, the point changes are ... ok. But there are individual point changes for selected units that ,,, irks people. Maybe because they probably didn't look at every single unit, and instead, applied a broad formula across the board and then tweaked selected units specifically.
I'll be honest, I haven't looked at the point changes yet but I keep seeing people claim this. Is there any sort of visible pattern in the changes that supports this or is it complete speculation?
Because even with individual units getting that personalized GW touch there should still be some remnant of a pattern if this largely being done formulaically.
Hand flamers went up from 1pt to 5pts. Most things got rounded off to value of 5 whether or not there was any reason to do so. Vehicle mounted weapons got universal bumps regardless of whether or not that weapon was good(multi-melta) or even if it benefited from move and shoot(heavy flamer) except bafflingly Lascannons which went down for some unfathomable reason.
Combi-flamers, combi-melta, and combi-plasma are all the same price despite one of those things not being like the others.
yukishiro1 wrote: Aow40k did an interview with a prominent playtester yesterday, Tony Kopach. He couldn't come up with any balance-based justification for any of the weird-looking point changes, either. On grots and cultists he said "it's probably because GW doesn't want you taking those units because they don't think they're fluffy" on kabalites it was "lol yeah, 9 point warriors is a thing, you'll probably have to look outside your codex for competitive success."
There is no secret genius plan here. It's just adjustments-by-spreadsheet without any regard for whether it produces a balanced game. Aside from that, a tiny minority of units actually got targeted nerfs, and an even smaller amount got targeted buffs. But it's most just spread-sheet based, even if it totally screws some stuff that didn't need to be screwed (striking scorpions, looking at you).
You know, it's funny, after playing my test game it was Striking Scorpions that I thought to myself had just earned a nearly permanent place in my games. Stupid obnoxious to kill tiny infantry keyword unit that has native deep strike is extremely strong in the new missions. 65 points for a squad that gets -1 to hit if it claims any cover and starts at a 3+ save? Love it. They'll never attack anything, they'll just show up whenever I need to keep scoring table quarters and start performing an action. Basically guaranteed 4 points and an extra 5 points if my opponent doesn't turn around and kill the fethers - lol, enjoy. What, do you have light infantry units screening your backfield? in 9th ed?
Yeah, I play sisters. All my infantry does is screen.
yukishiro1 wrote: Aow40k did an interview with a prominent playtester yesterday, Tony Kopach. He couldn't come up with any balance-based justification for any of the weird-looking point changes, either. On grots and cultists he said "it's probably because GW doesn't want you taking those units because they don't think they're fluffy" on kabalites it was "lol yeah, 9 point warriors is a thing, you'll probably have to look outside your codex for competitive success."
There is no secret genius plan here. It's just adjustments-by-spreadsheet without any regard for whether it produces a balanced game. Aside from that, a tiny minority of units actually got targeted nerfs, and an even smaller amount got targeted buffs. But it's most just spread-sheet based, even if it totally screws some stuff that didn't need to be screwed (striking scorpions, looking at you).
You know, it's funny, after playing my test game it was Striking Scorpions that I thought to myself had just earned a nearly permanent place in my games. Stupid obnoxious to kill tiny infantry keyword unit that has native deep strike is extremely strong in the new missions. 65 points for a squad that gets -1 to hit if it claims any cover and starts at a 3+ save? Love it. They'll never attack anything, they'll just show up whenever I need to keep scoring table quarters and start performing an action. Basically guaranteed 4 points and an extra 5 points if my opponent doesn't turn around and kill the fethers - lol, enjoy. What, do you have light infantry units screening your backfield? in 9th ed?
As Guard, yeah, I have Infantry Squads and Mortars as backfield screens. As Tyranids, I have Hive Guard in one corner and Biovores in another, and minimum-sized broods of Termagants to cover gaps and hold objectives as needed. With terrain blocking LOS and imposing to-hit penalties a lot more, it's easier to keep those small squads alive way in the back.
I've found that with the reduced board size, screening is easier than ever. In my last game, my Imperial Fists opponent accidentally screened out his entire deployment zone with a Vindicator, a Rapier, and a squad of Devastators. I like this change- it makes Deep Strike feel less like a 'gotcha', and something even elite armies can screen against- but it does somewhat reduce the utility of units that exist solely to DS onto an objective or to charge an unprotected artillery unit.
These threads can get a bit heated, so I figured we could do with a laugh.
This is from GW's description of the new Munitorum Field Manual:
GW wrote:In addition, you'll also find a separate 56-page book – the Munitorum Field Manual – containing all the latest matched play points updates, painstakingly balanced and tuned in conjunction with major tournament organisers and our playtesters.
H.B.M.C. wrote: These threads can get a bit heated, so I figured we could do with a laugh.
This is from GW's description of the new Munitorum Field Manual:
GW wrote:In addition, you'll also find a separate 56-page book – the Munitorum Field Manual – containing all the latest matched play points updates, painstakingly balanced and tuned in conjunction with major tournament organisers and our playtesters.
I guess if you really don't know how to use excel spreadsheets, what they did might have been painstaking...
Tabletop Tactics just released a video on the points, where the very first thing they said was they had no input on the point values at all; they were fixed by GW long ago, before Tabletop Tactics was even involved in the playtesting, and no changes were made in response to feedback after they got involved (which was more than 6 months ago). Just another data point suggesting that these points values were done on a spreadsheet and then not really revised based on playtester feedback, at least not in 2020.
Probably also explains why so many of the values seem like they were derived from pre-CA 2019 values - it's possible they literally were. These points were done in 2019 and haven't been modified since.
yukishiro1 wrote: Tabletop Tactics just released a video on the points, where the very first thing they said was they had no input on the point values at all; they were fixed by GW long ago, before Tabletop Tactics was even involved in the playtesting, and no changes were made in response to feedback after they got involved (which was more than 6 months ago). Just another data point suggesting that these points values were done on a spreadsheet and then not really revised based on playtester feedback, at least not in 2020.
Probably also explains why so many of the values seem like they were derived from pre-CA 2019 values - it's possible they literally were. These points were done in 2019 and haven't been modified since.
The faq dates are from the end of last year/January I saw someone observe from the links. Again it suggests that 9th was started on very early into 8th, what we're seeing now is probably less what we had at the end of 8th but more what existed after the first CA.
yukishiro1 wrote: Tabletop Tactics just released a video on the points, where the very first thing they said was they had no input on the point values at all; they were fixed by GW long ago, before Tabletop Tactics was even involved in the playtesting, and no changes were made in response to feedback after they got involved (which was more than 6 months ago). Just another data point suggesting that these points values were done on a spreadsheet and then not really revised based on playtester feedback, at least not in 2020.
Probably also explains why so many of the values seem like they were derived from pre-CA 2019 values - it's possible they literally were. These points were done in 2019 and haven't been modified since.
I mentioned in another thread that I suspected this was the case- so many of the units showing pre-CA19 points, including hard reversals like Scions, Killa Kans and Deff Dreads, suggested less of a deliberate hike and more of a reversion.
Hey, what are the chances GW will release a points update soon? Surely they wouldn't just release an already-out-of-date product and leave it to languish for months? They'd never do that, right?
yukishiro1 wrote: Tabletop Tactics just released a video on the points, where the very first thing they said was they had no input on the point values at all; they were fixed by GW long ago, before Tabletop Tactics was even involved in the playtesting, and no changes were made in response to feedback after they got involved (which was more than 6 months ago). Just another data point suggesting that these points values were done on a spreadsheet and then not really revised based on playtester feedback, at least not in 2020.
Probably also explains why so many of the values seem like they were derived from pre-CA 2019 values - it's possible they literally were. These points were done in 2019 and haven't been modified since.
yukishiro1 wrote: Probably also explains why so many of the values seem like they were derived from pre-CA 2019 values - it's possible they literally were. These points were done in 2019 and haven't been modified since.
It would make some sense. 2020 has been a fethed-up year.
yukishiro1 wrote: Tabletop Tactics just released a video on the points, where the very first thing they said was they had no input on the point values at all; they were fixed by GW long ago, before Tabletop Tactics was even involved in the playtesting, and no changes were made in response to feedback after they got involved (which was more than 6 months ago). Just another data point suggesting that these points values were done on a spreadsheet and then not really revised based on playtester feedback, at least not in 2020.
Probably also explains why so many of the values seem like they were derived from pre-CA 2019 values - it's possible they literally were. These points were done in 2019 and haven't been modified since.
You talking the Iron Warriors v Eldar video?
No. It's a video on YouTube with Bbone and Chef specifically talking about the points and some other stuff. No game. I'd give you a link but for some reason YouTube links never work for me on dakka.
Gadzilla666 wrote: No. It's a video on YouTube with Bbone and Chef specifically talking about the points and some other stuff. No game. I'd give you a link but for some reason YouTube links never work for me on dakka.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Good show Trickstick! I salute your superior internet fu.
Do you code your youtube links when you try to use them? I just slap some {youtube}thing{/youtube} around it, just with [ instead.
No, I'll try that. Thanks.
@Daedalus: You should check out the video. They have some interesting things to say about the new points. Remember, TT didn't have any input on these points, they've been playtesting the new codexes.
yukishiro1 wrote: Tabletop Tactics just released a video on the points, where the very first thing they said was they had no input on the point values at all; they were fixed by GW long ago, before Tabletop Tactics was even involved in the playtesting, and no changes were made in response to feedback after they got involved (which was more than 6 months ago). Just another data point suggesting that these points values were done on a spreadsheet and then not really revised based on playtester feedback, at least not in 2020.
Probably also explains why so many of the values seem like they were derived from pre-CA 2019 values - it's possible they literally were. These points were done in 2019 and haven't been modified since.
I mentioned in another thread that I suspected this was the case- so many of the units showing pre-CA19 points, including hard reversals like Scions, Killa Kans and Deff Dreads, suggested less of a deliberate hike and more of a reversion.
Hey, what are the chances GW will release a points update soon? Surely they wouldn't just release an already-out-of-date product and leave it to languish for months? They'd never do that, right?
This just means they can sell CA2019 points to us twice.
yukishiro1 wrote: Tabletop Tactics just released a video on the points, where the very first thing they said was they had no input on the point values at all; they were fixed by GW long ago, before Tabletop Tactics was even involved in the playtesting, and no changes were made in response to feedback after they got involved (which was more than 6 months ago). Just another data point suggesting that these points values were done on a spreadsheet and then not really revised based on playtester feedback, at least not in 2020.
Probably also explains why so many of the values seem like they were derived from pre-CA 2019 values - it's possible they literally were. These points were done in 2019 and haven't been modified since.
I mentioned in another thread that I suspected this was the case- so many of the units showing pre-CA19 points, including hard reversals like Scions, Killa Kans and Deff Dreads, suggested less of a deliberate hike and more of a reversion.
Hey, what are the chances GW will release a points update soon? Surely they wouldn't just release an already-out-of-date product and leave it to languish for months? They'd never do that, right?
This just means they can sell CA2019 points to us twice.
like 
.
