Yea Asuryani is going to Ynnari / DE / CW / Harlies. It's a category that is probably under performing at the moment until someone finds just the right combination of soup.
Assuming there is one. The Ynarri rules may nerf the Harlequins too much, or Craftworlds could be too big of a drag. 71/33/32 vs Custodes. 71/22/43 vs Tau.
Dysartes wrote: You still need to fix your methodology, Daed - when discussing WinRate%, a draw shouldn't be considered half a win.
WR% of 50% from 3 games or 75% from 6 games, for example, prove there is a problem with the method.
Aside from that, and I appreciate the small sample size, but I wouldn't've picked Daemons as causing so much trouble for Harliequins.
What would a draw be then? Surely I should not dump out draws?
By definition, a draw is not a win. IIRC, your dataset has wins as 2, draws (generally) as 1, and losses as 0?
Your Win Rate% should be the number results of a 2 divided by number of games - that's a true value.
Depending on how many draws there are, you could consider a Draw Rate% column as well, by capturing the number of results of a 1. Assuming a draw is strictly a VP tie, I can't imagine there are huge numbers of these.
I seem to remember a couple of oddball results of 0-0 the last time this came up - not sure whether that's officially a draw or a double loss, but they'd end up as your only edge cases.
I guess what's the philosophical premise behind this? In my head a draw is representative of the competitive value of that game. Making that draw a loss removes that value and offers a skewed perspective wouldn't it?
In a horrible example - if you won one game and tied two your win rate would be 33% even if your two ties were 90-90.
I'm not disagreeing and I can change the formula, but I'm just curious as these seems a little too binary. Draws are fairly uncommon so it doesn't cause too much havoc overall, I suppose.
I think counting a draw as 0.5/50% is the right thing.
What we're looking at the win/loss ratio to tell us is how relatively powerful armies are against each other.
A "perfect" win/loss ratio for the game is exactly 50% all round.
A draw tells us in that match the two armies were perfectly even and neither could get an advantage (such as it can given the swings of individual games).
This is every bit "on the ideal" as win-one-lose-one would be.
Hence setting a draw as 50% accurately depicts what it tells us.
I agree that a draw should be worth half of a win. It's the only sensible way to track things and removing draws only creates more work for no gain in clarity.
Daedalus81 wrote: I guess what's the philosophical premise behind this? In my head a draw is representative of the competitive value of that game. Making that draw a loss removes that value and offers a skewed perspective wouldn't it?
But this data isn't making a prediction of what will happen, it is what is reporting what has happened. If I play three games, I can't win 50% of them - I can only win 3, 2, 1, or 0.
1.5 is right out.
If you're reporting on the actual win rate across these events - as your post claimed to do - then it needs to report the actual wins. After all, trying to say that Harlies won 75% of their 6 games against Orks makes absolutely no sense. On a 2/1/0 point split for W/D/L, they could've won 4 & drawn 1, or won 3 & drawn 3 to get that result - and those two patterns tell quite different stories about their performances.
Daedalus81 wrote: In a horrible example - if you won one game and tied two your win rate would be 33% even if your two ties were 90-90.
Yes, that's exactly what my win rate would be. I'd have a 1-0-2 (or 1-2-0, depending on W-L-D or W-D-L) record. In your theoretical example where a D is worth half a win, you're claiming my 1-0-2 is as good as a 2-1-0, despite my inability to close out two of the games.
Let's take your example a step further - I draw all three games 99-99, and therefore win none of them. Your current system reports that I won 50% of my games, when I failed to win any of them.
(Yes, I fully accept that managing three draws across three rounds of a tournament is supremely unlikely, but hopefully you get the point).
Daedalus81 wrote: I'm not disagreeing and I can change the formula, but I'm just curious as these seems a little too binary. Draws are fairly uncommon so it doesn't cause too much havoc overall, I suppose.
As I note in the initial part of the post, draws should be highlighted as their own thing when they occur. That could be adding a draw % column, or adding a column to confirm the W/L/D (or W/D/L) record. In the case of Harlies vs. Orks, a 4-1-1 record and a 3-0-3 record tell us different things that we can't see if you roll them all into a 75% "win" rate.
If you're reporting on the actual win rate across these events
Statistics are nothing without a purpose or context.
Daed is not claiming to be reporting how many wins a certain faction got.
He is claiming to be reporting how successful a certain faction got.
That's close enough to 'wins' as to be almost synonymous, but they are not quite the same. Reporting draws simply as losses (ie not-wins) would be inaccurate for portraying what he intends to portray.
...a table showing the number of games played against a given opponent across n events, with a column showing their WR% (also known as a Win Rate %) isn't reporting how many wins a faction got in that pairiing?
I'd enter those gymnastics in the next World Championships, if I were you.
brainpsyk wrote: Daed - Much better ( ), but I think we can go even farther.
Do you have the VPs scored in all of those games for both sides?
I'm thinking it's not just the win rate, as a win by 90-to-89 is very different than wins of 90-0.
I sure do!
Is this what you think it should look like -- average differential for wins and losses? I have to build some logic to handle tournaments who don't do 0-100 scoring as will be apparent in one of the figures.
brainpsyk wrote: Daed - Much better ( ), but I think we can go even farther.
Do you have the VPs scored in all of those games for both sides?
I'm thinking it's not just the win rate, as a win by 90-to-89 is very different than wins of 90-0.
He probably get the data from BCP and BCP is a mess. My list for instance was mixed CWE/HARL, but my organizer listed it like pure harlequins. I played 2 games vs TS and i`m 50% WR vs them and the second game i won just because my opponent misplayed. I won vs totally new Admech player and vs drukhari player who was in a hurry and tried some interesting but bad strategy. My list was also skewed, because i knew i would probably not face nids or greater daemons, so it was optimized to have better matchups vs Tao/Custodes and i did not play single game vs them. Those small tournament statistics are interesting, but until big events happen we will not be sure about the actual WR.
My list was not very good, but still in all my games the opponent could have won them with better play. Compared to that custodes/tao won their games for 1/1.5 hours, they had only one long game when they play vs each other.
Eihnlazer wrote: LMAO nid dex leaks just dropped and they are gonna blow everything out of the water.
The Nid codex is probably what would have brought me back to 40k but from the leaks about Hive Adaptions and once-per-game synapse powers on all synapse units its like they did their level best to double down on what I dislike about 9th.
Eihnlazer wrote: LMAO nid dex leaks just dropped and they are gonna blow everything out of the water.
The Nid codex is probably what would have brought me back to 40k but from the leaks about Hive Adaptions and once-per-game synapse powers on all synapse units its like they did their level best to double down on what I dislike about 9th.
I'd look at the Eldar Leaks, and the Eldar reality before I took the Nid Leaks too seriously.
Eihnlazer wrote: LMAO nid dex leaks just dropped and they are gonna blow everything out of the water.
The Nid codex is probably what would have brought me back to 40k but from the leaks about Hive Adaptions and once-per-game synapse powers on all synapse units its like they did their level best to double down on what I dislike about 9th.
I'd look at the Eldar Leaks, and the Eldar reality before I took the Nid Leaks too seriously.
eldar leaks weren't far off from the final release, scorpions got nerfed and thats the main difference
Eihnlazer wrote: LMAO nid dex leaks just dropped and they are gonna blow everything out of the water.
The Nid codex is probably what would have brought me back to 40k but from the leaks about Hive Adaptions and once-per-game synapse powers on all synapse units its like they did their level best to double down on what I dislike about 9th.
I'd look at the Eldar Leaks, and the Eldar reality before I took the Nid Leaks too seriously.
eldar leaks weren't far off from the final release, scorpions got nerfed and thats the main difference
And banshees, and warp spiders, and probably shroud runners, and and and... there was definitely more toning down than just Scorps. Eldar may still be crazy but I think it'll be like in 8th, where the absolute OP cheese is limited to several datasheets. But I could be wrong.
Eihnlazer wrote: LMAO nid dex leaks just dropped and they are gonna blow everything out of the water.
Could you give your insight as to why you think this? I don't think they're going to be any better than Tau or Custodes at the very least, but I haven't full processed the book.
Eihnlazer wrote: LMAO nid dex leaks just dropped and they are gonna blow everything out of the water.
Could you give your insight as to why you think this? I don't think they're going to be any better than Tau or Custodes at the very least, but I haven't full processed the book.
I think if they keep Crusher Stampede, the monsters and especially the strats for the monsters are probably just too good/cheap/durable. I don't know that they will be head and shoulders above the rest of the S tier, but I'm worried. To me, the datasheets look really nice and then there are just certain things in the book (Leviathan transnid, some of the synaptic links and strats) that just push certain pieces over the edge, kind of like Custodes.
Eihnlazer wrote: LMAO nid dex leaks just dropped and they are gonna blow everything out of the water.
The Nid codex is probably what would have brought me back to 40k but from the leaks about Hive Adaptions and once-per-game synapse powers on all synapse units its like they did their level best to double down on what I dislike about 9th.
I'd look at the Eldar Leaks, and the Eldar reality before I took the Nid Leaks too seriously.
eldar leaks weren't far off from the final release, scorpions got nerfed and thats the main difference
I think with Eldar you had "that's good" and then "but that's quite a lot of points".
With quite a few units in this book (unless the leaks are false etc) it just feels like "that's good, oh and quite a bit cheaper than comparable things in earlier books". Which is usually the first step on the road to power.
Yeah I think the biggest thing with the Nid codex is that we have points.
And while we saw the Eldar units being very powerful we didn't see the pricetag they came with.
I would be shocked if Nids don't turn out S tier. Maybe not Tau levels of broken, but they won't be far off.
Eihnlazer wrote: LMAO nid dex leaks just dropped and they are gonna blow everything out of the water.
The Nid codex is probably what would have brought me back to 40k but from the leaks about Hive Adaptions and once-per-game synapse powers on all synapse units its like they did their level best to double down on what I dislike about 9th.
I'd look at the Eldar Leaks, and the Eldar reality before I took the Nid Leaks too seriously.
eldar leaks weren't far off from the final release, scorpions got nerfed and thats the main difference
the 30pts exarch power that let him do mortals on 5+ used to apply to the whole squad, got changed to exarch only (and kept the ridiculous pts cost)
I was wondering why this power coast 30 pts, having mortals on 5++ seem insane for me, but 30 pts for the exarch is overpriced by a mile. They could have atleast made it like 10-15 pts, so atlest someone took it.
If you have come to the point where you are centering your concerned about w/l ratio/power level percentage charts, i think you have entirely missed the point about what 40K is/was meant to be.
(current GW has already gotten there)
It has taken a very fun social past time and turned it into a stressful sporting or gambling event.
aphyon wrote: If you have come to the point where you are centering your concerned about w/l ratio/power level percentage charts, i think you have entirely missed the point about what 40K is/was meant to be.
(current GW has already gotten there)
It has taken a very fun social past time and turned it into a stressful sporting or gambling event.
That's not the point of those numbers.
The numbers give us a sense for what other people are feeling when they play. They don't have to be perfect, but they can't be this out of whack for 40K to be a "pickup" style game let alone competitive.
When my Tau are blitzing the enemy off the table turn 1 such that they concede and go home, the state of 40k win/loss is actively depriving me of my fun social past time.
It's not even that I'm trying to be competitive, it's the same army I made in 5th edition, comprised of the units I think are coolest.
It just so happens that aligns with the flavour of the month.
Balance is extremely relevant to fun games as well.
so far from the glance-over on the nid codex i had, i've seen 2 actual nerfs, and a ton of buffs.
rippers no longer count as filling troop slots in your deployment (nerf).
Impaler cannons went down to str6 and 24" range, but gained a shot (nerf overall).
Synaptic buffs are once per game, but are overall mostly better than they used to be. All the big bugs got the buffs.
Small bugs got alot more deadly (alot).
Hive fleet adaptations are alot more even in power now (no longer just kraken or leviathan) and are far more flexable (but no more custom fleets).
No more crusher swarm, but you can run something similar.
Nuerothropes are beast, getting +1str/T/W and keeping the 3++. +1 to cast instead of reroll 1's. Heal damage for every mortal dealt instead of models killed. Synaptic hands out invun to other unit.
Zoans now do +1 mortal per model (caps at +3) on their smite which means you dont need to run big bricks of 6 anymore. They did loose their 3++ though (down to a 4++).
Tyranid prime is actually decent now, being able to pack a venom cannon and potentially being slotless.
Broodlord got cheaper and is mostly unchanged.
Stealers got ap-3 permanently and a 4++ in melee but got reduced in unit size.
All the gaunts went down to 20 max unit size but got a huge increase in base lethality.
All the spore units (harpies, biovores) changed so that you either deal mortals or you spawn, but the strength of output went up.
Pyrovores got a huge glowup, having 2 firing modes for its flamer.
Lictors are scary again. Mawlocks dont just pop up anymore (14 attacks at str7 ap-2 hitting on 3+).
Points costs were mostly reduced across the board.
aphyon wrote: If you have come to the point where you are centering your concerned about w/l ratio/power level percentage charts, i think you have entirely missed the point about what 40K is/was meant to be.
(current GW has already gotten there)
It has taken a very fun social past time and turned it into a stressful sporting or gambling event.
Eldar Guardians have the same armor as Necron Warriors
Fleshborers are stronger than Bolters
Gants (the swarm of swarms) are max unit size 20
Space Marines are more resilient to small arms than Immortals
Primaris
Lasguns can hurt Land Raiders
Not sure why any of these are a problem.
Necrons are more durable than Eldar guardians.
Guardians are up from a historic 5+ whereas warriors are down from a historic 3+
Why shouldn't fleshborers be stronger?
Again, historically they were assault 1 12" bolters, could be buffed to S5 in some editions. That parity is now lost for no real reason.
You can still have loads of gants, including in multiple squads...
Fine by me
Why should immortals be more resilient to small arms than SM? They are durable in different ways...
You're seeing a pattern here, historically an immortal was 1w t5 3+ with We'll Be Back (resurrection protocols of a sort). A marine was 1w t4 3+ and that was it.
Lasguns can hurt land raiders? and?
Meh I get both sides of this, it does kinda seem unrealistic having guardsmen drop titans with lasguns, but I also get that they want to avoid "oh this unit can't do anything, might as well go home" moments.
Eldar Guardians have the same armor as Necron Warriors
Fleshborers are stronger than Bolters
Gants (the swarm of swarms) are max unit size 20
Space Marines are more resilient to small arms than Immortals
Primaris
Lasguns can hurt Land Raiders
Not sure why any of these are a problem.
Necrons are more durable than Eldar guardians.
Why shouldn't fleshborers be stronger?
You can still have loads of gants, including in multiple squads...
Why should immortals be more resilient to small arms than SM? They are durable in different ways...
Lasguns can hurt land raiders? and?
Some of you just work yourself up so much....
You forgot so-called “primaris” …
And tho I see the two side to lasguns hurting land raiders, only one of them matters. So your guardsmen can’t do anything. Yup. Either hide or run, or find an objective to score… ideally with smart movement and placement, you can keep the tank from killing your dudes until you fulfill your mission. Else, run, or hide. Tough. It’s is a war game, not a card game… for me, this is the most ridiculous change to the system since free stuff for army composition.
Its a beetle fired via a muscle spasm vs a self-propelled explosive bullet. You tell me.
You know I am glad that my gaunts will be more than glorified wound counters for objective control but even I am searching for a reason for them to be S5 Ap-1...
It is cool, I am gonna enjoy it, but this power creep is getting ludicrous. I mean, it always was but I feel like my tipping point is now the fact that my favorite factions "las gun" is now S5 Ap-1.
Hive fleet adaptations are alot more even in power now (no longer just kraken or leviathan) and are far more flexable (but no more custom fleets)
Just as an addendum to this, it looks like custom hive fleets do exist (pages 60-61 of the codex from the leaks I am seeing) but the way to create them is different. Honestly I am not a tyranid player and don't ever expect to be, but always interested in the new stuff. Looks like you choose two traits but similar to Tau, they have to be in a certain order or something or picked from two different tables. I am in the midst of reading it now, but the custom fleets are definitely there at least.
Termagants and Hormagaunts can still come in units of 30. It's Gargoyles that are capped at 20, which means I suddenly have 4 full units. Or 3 and a half. Not sure.
I didn't realise the Prime can have heavy weapons. That's... interesting.
The Genestealer rules are baffling. Why'd we lose Advance/Charge?
Its a beetle fired via a muscle spasm vs a self-propelled explosive bullet. You tell me.
You know I am glad that my gaunts will be more than glorified wound counters for objective control but even I am searching for a reason for them to be S5 Ap-1...
It is cool, I am gonna enjoy it, but this power creep is getting ludicrous. I mean, it always was but I feel like my tipping point is now the fact that my favorite factions "las gun" is now S5 Ap-1.
I'm kind of sad for myself that what might be the best Tyranid codex in 20+ years is locked away behind an edition I hate playing.
The new 'Nid book is a case study in what people mean when they say they're sick of the bloat and also how "bespoke" rules haven't helped anything.
What do I mean by this? Well let's look at the humble Scything Talon, a staple of the Tyranids since their re-imagining in 3rd Edition 40k where Boneswords were adapted from held weapons to elongated claws (Boneswords would eventually return as a separate thing, confusing everything, but that's a different topic).
In this book, what is a Scything Talon?
Well the Hive Tyrant and the Winged Hive Tyrant have Monstrous Scything Talons, but the Winged Hive Tyrant also has 'Tyrant Claws', which are very similar but not quite the same. The Tyranid Prime has Scything Talons. The Tervigon has Massive Scything Talons. The Trygon Prime has Trygon Scything Talons, which are Scything Talons yet don't have the same rules. Old One Eye is back to Monstrous Scything Talons. Tyranid Warriors, like the Prime, get regular Scything Talons. Hormagaunts have... Hormagaunt Talons. Sure! Why not? Let's add another weapon type. But we're not done. Tyrant Guard have Scything Talons. Lictors/Deathleapers have 'Lictor Claws and Talons' rather than actual distinct weapons now. So Talons, but more differenter Talons. Maleceptor has those Massive Scything Talons. The Scything Talons Genestealers used to get have been folded into their regular weapons like Lictors. Raveners have 2 Scything Talons and something called Ravener Claws (not to be confused with Rending Claws, which they can also get!), which are the smaller Talons that now aren't actually Talons. Totally not confusing. We don't have the page for Trygons, but given the Prime, we can easily presume he'll have Trygon Scything Talons. The Mawloc has Mawloc Scything Talons, which are different to all the other Scything Talons. The Exocrine, a model that very clearly has smaller Scything Talons, has 'Powerful Limbs'. What's visual consistency anyway? Carnifex has Carnifex Scything Talons. Screamer Killers have Screamer Killer Scything Talons. Thornbacks have... Thornback Scything Talons? No! Wrong! They also have Carnifex Scything Talons, because that makes total sense and is completely consistent, right?
I'm convinced that different people wrote different entries in this book and at no point talked to one another.
Arbiter_Shade wrote: You know I am glad that my gaunts will be more than glorified wound counters for objective control but even I am searching for a reason for them to be S5 Ap-1...
It is cool, I am gonna enjoy it, but this power creep is getting ludicrous. I mean, it always was but I feel like my tipping point is now the fact that my favorite factions "las gun" is now S5 Ap-1.
I mean before the inevitable list of possible buffs, you were doing 19.4% damage for your points into Intercessors with Fleshborers (given enough to maintain the reroll 1 to wound)... and now thats 23.8%. Not great. Equally you've gone up 40% in points to gain 1 extra armour save. Which is a bad exchange.
It fits GW's "we need everything to be more glass cannon" - but as said, not convinced it will be great. But they clearly decided they didn't want them sitting at 5 points being wound counters so needed to move fleshborers up in the world.
Its a bit like people looking at buffed up Hormagaunts. Yes its nice they can be choppy now (as opposed to being near completely pointless). But you are paying 8-11 points for something with a Guardsman's defensive profile. I feel they are going to die when things look in their direction - and at that points level you are going to notice.
The new 'Nid book is a case study in what people mean when they say they're sick of the bloat and also how "bespoke" rules haven't helped anything.
What do I mean by this? Well let's look at the humble Scything Talon, a staple of the Tyranids since their re-imagining in 3rd Edition 40k where Boneswords were adapted from held weapons to elongated claws (Boneswords would eventually return as a separate thing, confusing everything, but that's a different topic).
In this book, what is a Scything Talon?
Well the Hive Tyrant and the Winged Hive Tyrant have Monstrous Scything Talons, but the Winged Hive Tyrant also has 'Tyrant Claws', which are very similar but not quite the same.
The Tyranid Prime has Scything Talons.
The Tervigon has Massive Scything Talons.
The Trygon Prime has Trygon Scything Talons, which are Scything Talons yet don't have the same rules.
Old One Eye is back to Monstrous Scything Talons.
Tyranid Warriors, like the Prime, get regular Scything Talons.
Hormagaunts have... Hormagaunt Talons. Sure! Why not? Let's add another weapon type. But we're not done.
Tyrant Guard have Scything Talons.
Lictors/Deathleapers have 'Lictor Claws and Talons' rather than actual distinct weapons now. So Talons, but more differenter Talons. Maleceptor has those Massive Scything Talons.
The Scything Talons Genestealers used to get have been folded into their regular weapons like Lictors.
Raveners have 2 Scything Talons and something called Ravener Claws (not to be confused with Rending Claws, which they can also get!), which are the smaller Talons that now aren't actually Talons. Totally not confusing.
We don't have the page for Trygons, but given the Prime, we can easily presume he'll have Trygon Scything Talons.
The Mawloc has Mawloc Scything Talons, which are different to all the other Scything Talons.
The Exocrine, a model that very clearly has smaller Scything Talons, has 'Powerful Limbs'. What's visual consistency anyway?
Carnifex has Carnifex Scything Talons.
Screamer Killers have Screamer Killer Scything Talons.
Thornbacks have... Thornback Scything Talons? No! Wrong! They also have Carnifex Scything Talons, because that makes total sense and is completely consistent, right?
I'm convinced that different people wrote different entries in this book and at no point talked to one another.
Oh, sounds like I'm playing AoS - everyones sword/spear/lance/axe/hammer/bow/xbow/claw/fang/shield/etc is a specific thing - each of wich might function the same or completely differently. Long gone are units armed with the good old "hand weapon".
Eldar Guardians have the same armor as Necron Warriors
Fleshborers are stronger than Bolters
Gants (the swarm of swarms) are max unit size 20
A Bolter is no better at killing an Ork than a Lasgun
Space Marines are more resilient to small arms than Immortals
CSM have 1W while Loyalists have 2
Primaris
Lasguns can hurt Land Raiders
And a Land Raider Crusader costs $110, while the traditional one is $85.
I mean, I'm happy the Nids and Eldar are getting some nice buffs, but holy hell modern GW is a mess.
Which makes me think that GW is starting to believe their own lore. For instance, the insinuation that their poster children AREN'T the most powerful version is basically heresy.
The same hand weapon that is as effective as a chainsaw sword. Forgetting for a moment that a chainsaw is a horrible weapon, why does my ten thousand year old science experiment use what amounts to a Skaven spear in close combat?
Arbiter_Shade wrote: You know I am glad that my gaunts will be more than glorified wound counters for objective control but even I am searching for a reason for them to be S5 Ap-1...
It is cool, I am gonna enjoy it, but this power creep is getting ludicrous. I mean, it always was but I feel like my tipping point is now the fact that my favorite factions "las gun" is now S5 Ap-1.
I mean before the inevitable list of possible buffs, you were doing 19.4% damage for your points into Intercessors with Fleshborers (given enough to maintain the reroll 1 to wound)... and now thats 23.8%. Not great. Equally you've gone up 40% in points to gain 1 extra armour save. Which is a bad exchange.
It fits GW's "we need everything to be more glass cannon" - but as said, not convinced it will be great. But they clearly decided they didn't want them sitting at 5 points being wound counters so needed to move fleshborers up in the world.
Its a bit like people looking at buffed up Hormagaunts. Yes its nice they can be choppy now (as opposed to being near completely pointless). But you are paying 8-11 points for something with a Guardsman's defensive profile. I feel they are going to die when things look in their direction - and at that points level you are going to notice.
I feel like you are overstating things a bit when you put numbers out like "40% point increase" when that equals 60 points for an entire 30 gant squad. A 5+ save goes to a 4+ in cover, let alone the fact that with the abundance of AP-1 weapons you actually get a save at all now. I am by no means saying that gants are the new meta but it is very strange to see something that used to be a super basic infantry weapon into something on level with the Necrons base weapon.
I don't know how many more steps GW can take in this race to the bottom for lethality. I half expect guardsmen to be able to get 4 shots a piece at S4 Ap-1 at this point when their codex comes out. They gave marines 2W's to make them feel more like a powerful force on the table, which was a good idea IMO. But now they have countered that change by increasing everything's lethality to a level unseen even in 7th.
EDIT: Corrected the point difference. No idea where I was pulling the original 20 from. I blame lack of sleep.
Arbiter_Shade wrote: You know I am glad that my gaunts will be more than glorified wound counters for objective control but even I am searching for a reason for them to be S5 Ap-1...
It is cool, I am gonna enjoy it, but this power creep is getting ludicrous. I mean, it always was but I feel like my tipping point is now the fact that my favorite factions "las gun" is now S5 Ap-1.
I mean before the inevitable list of possible buffs, you were doing 19.4% damage for your points into Intercessors with Fleshborers (given enough to maintain the reroll 1 to wound)... and now thats 23.8%. Not great. Equally you've gone up 40% in points to gain 1 extra armour save. Which is a bad exchange.
It fits GW's "we need everything to be more glass cannon" - but as said, not convinced it will be great. But they clearly decided they didn't want them sitting at 5 points being wound counters so needed to move fleshborers up in the world.
Its a bit like people looking at buffed up Hormagaunts. Yes its nice they can be choppy now (as opposed to being near completely pointless). But you are paying 8-11 points for something with a Guardsman's defensive profile. I feel they are going to die when things look in their direction - and at that points level you are going to notice.
I feel like you are overstating things a bit when you put numbers out like "40% point increase" when that equals 20 points for an entire 30 gant squad.
It's a 60 point increase for a 30 gant squad. Not 20 points.
The new 'Nid book is a case study in what people mean when they say they're sick of the bloat and also how "bespoke" rules haven't helped anything.
What do I mean by this? Well let's look at the humble Scything Talon, a staple of the Tyranids since their re-imagining in 3rd Edition 40k where Boneswords were adapted from held weapons to elongated claws (Boneswords would eventually return as a separate thing, confusing everything, but that's a different topic).
In this book, what is a Scything Talon?
Well the Hive Tyrant and the Winged Hive Tyrant have Monstrous Scything Talons, but the Winged Hive Tyrant also has 'Tyrant Claws', which are very similar but not quite the same.
The Tyranid Prime has Scything Talons.
The Tervigon has Massive Scything Talons.
The Trygon Prime has Trygon Scything Talons, which are Scything Talons yet don't have the same rules.
Old One Eye is back to Monstrous Scything Talons.
Tyranid Warriors, like the Prime, get regular Scything Talons.
Hormagaunts have... Hormagaunt Talons. Sure! Why not? Let's add another weapon type. But we're not done.
Tyrant Guard have Scything Talons.
Lictors/Deathleapers have 'Lictor Claws and Talons' rather than actual distinct weapons now. So Talons, but more differenter Talons. Maleceptor has those Massive Scything Talons.
The Scything Talons Genestealers used to get have been folded into their regular weapons like Lictors.
Raveners have 2 Scything Talons and something called Ravener Claws (not to be confused with Rending Claws, which they can also get!), which are the smaller Talons that now aren't actually Talons. Totally not confusing.
We don't have the page for Trygons, but given the Prime, we can easily presume he'll have Trygon Scything Talons.
The Mawloc has Mawloc Scything Talons, which are different to all the other Scything Talons.
The Exocrine, a model that very clearly has smaller Scything Talons, has 'Powerful Limbs'. What's visual consistency anyway?
Carnifex has Carnifex Scything Talons.
Screamer Killers have Screamer Killer Scything Talons.
Thornbacks have... Thornback Scything Talons? No! Wrong! They also have Carnifex Scything Talons, because that makes total sense and is completely consistent, right?
I'm convinced that different people wrote different entries in this book and at no point talked to one another.
Because one model has a talon, which gives +1 attack and that model can switch it out for something else.
Another model also has a talon but it doesn't have weapon options so they bake the extra attacks into the profile, but then you need a different weapon because it no long should give +1 attack
And then there is another model that visually clearly has a talon, but for X reason you want it to have a different AP or D or whatever. So now you need another profile.
And the idea is that it gives you a dozen different knobs you can turn and tune. Changing on weapon without it cascading through the army. But since that is a knob that is generally rusted stuck and weapon profiles don't get balance changes its pointless bloat.
Arbiter_Shade wrote: You know I am glad that my gaunts will be more than glorified wound counters for objective control but even I am searching for a reason for them to be S5 Ap-1...
It is cool, I am gonna enjoy it, but this power creep is getting ludicrous. I mean, it always was but I feel like my tipping point is now the fact that my favorite factions "las gun" is now S5 Ap-1.
I mean before the inevitable list of possible buffs, you were doing 19.4% damage for your points into Intercessors with Fleshborers (given enough to maintain the reroll 1 to wound)... and now thats 23.8%. Not great. Equally you've gone up 40% in points to gain 1 extra armour save. Which is a bad exchange.
It fits GW's "we need everything to be more glass cannon" - but as said, not convinced it will be great. But they clearly decided they didn't want them sitting at 5 points being wound counters so needed to move fleshborers up in the world.
Its a bit like people looking at buffed up Hormagaunts. Yes its nice they can be choppy now (as opposed to being near completely pointless). But you are paying 8-11 points for something with a Guardsman's defensive profile. I feel they are going to die when things look in their direction - and at that points level you are going to notice.
I feel like you are overstating things a bit when you put numbers out like "40% point increase" when that equals 20 points for an entire 30 gant squad.
It's a 60 point increase for a 30 gant squad. Not 20 points.
The new 'Nid book is a case study in what people mean when they say they're sick of the bloat and also how "bespoke" rules haven't helped anything.
What do I mean by this? Well let's look at the humble Scything Talon, a staple of the Tyranids since their re-imagining in 3rd Edition 40k where Boneswords were adapted from held weapons to elongated claws (Boneswords would eventually return as a separate thing, confusing everything, but that's a different topic).
In this book, what is a Scything Talon?
Well the Hive Tyrant and the Winged Hive Tyrant have Monstrous Scything Talons, but the Winged Hive Tyrant also has 'Tyrant Claws', which are very similar but not quite the same.
The Tyranid Prime has Scything Talons.
The Tervigon has Massive Scything Talons.
The Trygon Prime has Trygon Scything Talons, which are Scything Talons yet don't have the same rules.
Old One Eye is back to Monstrous Scything Talons.
Tyranid Warriors, like the Prime, get regular Scything Talons.
Hormagaunts have... Hormagaunt Talons. Sure! Why not? Let's add another weapon type. But we're not done.
Tyrant Guard have Scything Talons.
Lictors/Deathleapers have 'Lictor Claws and Talons' rather than actual distinct weapons now. So Talons, but more differenter Talons. Maleceptor has those Massive Scything Talons.
The Scything Talons Genestealers used to get have been folded into their regular weapons like Lictors.
Raveners have 2 Scything Talons and something called Ravener Claws (not to be confused with Rending Claws, which they can also get!), which are the smaller Talons that now aren't actually Talons. Totally not confusing.
We don't have the page for Trygons, but given the Prime, we can easily presume he'll have Trygon Scything Talons.
The Mawloc has Mawloc Scything Talons, which are different to all the other Scything Talons.
The Exocrine, a model that very clearly has smaller Scything Talons, has 'Powerful Limbs'. What's visual consistency anyway?
Carnifex has Carnifex Scything Talons.
Screamer Killers have Screamer Killer Scything Talons.
Thornbacks have... Thornback Scything Talons? No! Wrong! They also have Carnifex Scything Talons, because that makes total sense and is completely consistent, right?
I'm convinced that different people wrote different entries in this book and at no point talked to one another.
That could've been solved with "Small Scything Talons", "Medium Scything Talons", and "Large Scything Talons".
However GW wouldn't like that because I don't have the proper attitude to make them all different names.
And the idea is that it gives you a dozen different knobs you can turn and tune. Changing on weapon without it cascading through the army. But since that is a knob that is generally rusted stuck and weapon profiles don't get balance changes its pointless bloat.
Totally. Like I get the theory, but in the end it's just so barftastic. All the minutiae just hurts the gaming experience.
Hecaton wrote: Necron Warriors should honestly be T4 2w 3+ save.
A CSM player recently beat Tau and Custodes going 5-1 using 2x7 Talons, 5 Chosen, 5 Havocs, 30 Cultists, etc. W2 isn't the be all end all of durability metrics and Crons could be quite brutal on resurrection with that profile.
The new 'Nid book is a case study in what people mean when they say they're sick of the bloat and also how "bespoke" rules haven't helped anything.
What do I mean by this? Well let's look at the humble Scything Talon, a staple of the Tyranids since their re-imagining in 3rd Edition 40k where Boneswords were adapted from held weapons to elongated claws (Boneswords would eventually return as a separate thing, confusing everything, but that's a different topic).
In this book, what is a Scything Talon?
Well the Hive Tyrant and the Winged Hive Tyrant have Monstrous Scything Talons, but the Winged Hive Tyrant also has 'Tyrant Claws', which are very similar but not quite the same.
The Tyranid Prime has Scything Talons.
The Tervigon has Massive Scything Talons.
The Trygon Prime has Trygon Scything Talons, which are Scything Talons yet don't have the same rules.
Old One Eye is back to Monstrous Scything Talons.
Tyranid Warriors, like the Prime, get regular Scything Talons.
Hormagaunts have... Hormagaunt Talons. Sure! Why not? Let's add another weapon type. But we're not done.
Tyrant Guard have Scything Talons.
Lictors/Deathleapers have 'Lictor Claws and Talons' rather than actual distinct weapons now. So Talons, but more differenter Talons. Maleceptor has those Massive Scything Talons.
The Scything Talons Genestealers used to get have been folded into their regular weapons like Lictors.
Raveners have 2 Scything Talons and something called Ravener Claws (not to be confused with Rending Claws, which they can also get!), which are the smaller Talons that now aren't actually Talons. Totally not confusing.
We don't have the page for Trygons, but given the Prime, we can easily presume he'll have Trygon Scything Talons.
The Mawloc has Mawloc Scything Talons, which are different to all the other Scything Talons.
The Exocrine, a model that very clearly has smaller Scything Talons, has 'Powerful Limbs'. What's visual consistency anyway?
Carnifex has Carnifex Scything Talons.
Screamer Killers have Screamer Killer Scything Talons.
Thornbacks have... Thornback Scything Talons? No! Wrong! They also have Carnifex Scything Talons, because that makes total sense and is completely consistent, right?
I'm convinced that different people wrote different entries in this book and at no point talked to one another.
There's two major groups of talons. Those that offer a benefit and those that do not. Within those groups there's big and little versions, basically.
The crime here is that units like Screamer Killers could have received Carnifex Talons and put the profile to 6A, but judging by how horny people get looking at 10 attacks on the profile it seems like GW knew their audience. All the weapons that buck the trends are on super high attack models or those where they just didn't want to grant extra attacks and opted to instead put them on the profile. Those units are all units that have no option to trade their talons off, either.
Daedalus81 wrote: There's two major groups of talons. Those that offer a benefit and those that do not. Within those groups there's big and little versions, basically.
Ok, stop. Don't try to minimise this nonsense, or act like it's not right there in front of you. There are no "major groups" or whatever else you've invented in your attempt to make it out like this isn't a bloated mess.
There are seven different types of Scything Talons in the book:
And then you work out how many total attacks you want your big monster to have, and equip them correctly. So if they wanted the Screamer Killer to have 10 attacks, then they should have given it 4 Monstrous Scything Talons and A6. Then it gets +1A for each of the four, bringing it to 10. It didn't need to be a separate profile.
Having the option (or not) to trade off the talons is irrelevant. We didn't need 7 Scything Talon profiles that all do slightly different things. This isn't rocket science.
*And then three types of Rending Claws (Rending, Monstrous and Massive) and Crushing Claws (ditto for all three). Standardisation and codification would have made this SO much easier and not lead to inane nonsense like two types of Scything Talons for 3 types of Carnifex/Trygon, an units with Scything Talons and not-Scything Talons-that-are-still-obviously-talons (Raveners).
Hecaton wrote: Necron Warriors should honestly be T4 2w 3+ save.
A CSM player recently beat Tau and Custodes going 5-1 using 2x7 Talons, 5 Chosen, 5 Havocs, 30 Cultists, etc. W2 isn't the be all end all of durability metrics and Crons could be quite brutal on resurrection with that profile.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah D's right. The way Res Protocols punish models with multiple wounds, I'd be careful about wanting more units to have W2 or higher.
It's less about game balance and more about stats representing what (IMO) the fluff is (or should be). Obviously if the statline of the core units changed to that degree the codex would have to be rebalanced around it.
Daedalus81 wrote: There's two major groups of talons. Those that offer a benefit and those that do not. Within those groups there's big and little versions, basically.
Ok, stop. Don't try to minimise this nonsense, or act like it's not right there in front of you. There are no "major groups" or whatever else you've invented in your attempt to make it out like this isn't a bloated mess.
There are seven different types of Scything Talons in the book:
And then you work out how many total attacks you want your big monster to have, and equip them correctly. So if they wanted the Screamer Killer to have 10 attacks, then they should have given it 4 Monstrous Scything Talons and A6. Then it gets +1A for each of the four, bringing it to 10. It didn't need to be a separate profile.
Having the option (or not) to trade off the talons is irrelevant. We didn't need 7 Scything Talon profiles that all do slightly different things. This isn't rocket science.
*And then three types of Rending Claws (Rending, Monstrous and Massive) and Crushing Claws (ditto for all three). Standardisation and codification would have made this SO much easier and not lead to inane nonsense like two types of Scything Talons for 3 types of Carnifex/Trygon, an units with Scything Talons and not-Scything Talons-that-are-still-obviously-talons (Raveners).
And this is laborious how? The info is all on the sheet. They absolutely could have done it in a more concise manner and it just doesn't matter.
Hecaton wrote: Necron Warriors should honestly be T4 2w 3+ save.
A CSM player recently beat Tau and Custodes going 5-1 using 2x7 Talons, 5 Chosen, 5 Havocs, 30 Cultists, etc. W2 isn't the be all end all of durability metrics and Crons could be quite brutal on resurrection with that profile.
Yeah and that's happened how many times so far?
I guess we'll find out when he plays again ( hasn't yet ), but you don't generally just casually beat Tau and Custodes. Broader point being he won 5 games with a lot of W1 models.
For the reasons already stated: It's unnecessary. Its adds nothing to the game. There was no reason to make 7 versions and 6 pseudo-versions of the same weapon. Why is this so hard to fathom?
Daedalus81 wrote: They absolutely could have done it in a more concise manner and it just doesn't matter.
"Yeah, well, you're probably right but... umm... it doesn't matter! So there!" Your arms got real strong moving all them goal posts.
Daedalus81 wrote: There's two major groups of talons. Those that offer a benefit and those that do not. Within those groups there's big and little versions, basically.
Ok, stop. Don't try to minimise this nonsense, or act like it's not right there in front of you. There are no "major groups" or whatever else you've invented in your attempt to make it out like this isn't a bloated mess.
There are seven different types of Scything Talons in the book:
And then you work out how many total attacks you want your big monster to have, and equip them correctly. So if they wanted the Screamer Killer to have 10 attacks, then they should have given it 4 Monstrous Scything Talons and A6. Then it gets +1A for each of the four, bringing it to 10. It didn't need to be a separate profile.
Having the option (or not) to trade off the talons is irrelevant. We didn't need 7 Scything Talon profiles that all do slightly different things. This isn't rocket science.
*And then three types of Rending Claws (Rending, Monstrous and Massive) and Crushing Claws (ditto for all three). Standardisation and codification would have made this SO much easier and not lead to inane nonsense like two types of Scything Talons for 3 types of Carnifex/Trygon, an units with Scything Talons and not-Scything Talons-that-are-still-obviously-talons (Raveners).
And this is laborious how? The info is all on the sheet. They absolutely could have done it in a more concise manner and it just doesn't matter.
Its laborious because its more to keep track of and it isn't consistent. Yes, its all on the sheet. And if you want your games of 40k to be about double-checking datasheets for which of 13 variants apply, then fine. More power to you, I guess.
But its really obviously a lot less laborious just to have three types and not have the workload. Or trivial stuff like ravener scytals (and their additional attacks) are AP1, but ravener talons are the same thing but the attacks are built in and AP2. Because reasons. Just roll 7 dice with the same stats and move on- because it isn't just about what's on the sheet. Its also a matter of separating dice and mucking about, briefing baffled opponents as to why the big scythe limb is slightly different from that other big scythe limb and why you really do have 7 or 10 or 16 attacks instead of 3 or 6 or 12. Or 13, because the bloody rattle, sorry- the spike, is the exact same statline as a trygon scything talon, but can't just be +1 attack on the profile.
There are at least three different approaches to game design for these datasheets, and sometimes all three are fighting a war on same one. Its an increased load for no point or purpose.
Hecaton wrote: Necron Warriors should honestly be T4 2w 3+ save.
Or...and hear me out here...If introducing 2W Troops has power creeped the game to the point that Troops aren't valuable unless they're 2W...is it possible...even slightly...that 2W Troops were a bad idea in the first place?
Hecaton wrote: Necron Warriors should honestly be T4 2w 3+ save.
Or...and hear me out here...If introducing 2W Troops has power creeped the game to the point that Troops aren't valuable unless they're 2W...is it possible...even slightly...that 2W Troops were a bad idea in the first place?
It's not about viability. It's about how, in my opinion, Necron warriors should rival Astartes in terms of durability to represent the fluff.
For the reasons already stated: It's unnecessary. Its adds nothing to the game. There was no reason to make 7 versions and 6 pseudo-versions of the same weapon. Why is this so hard to fathom?
Daedalus81 wrote: They absolutely could have done it in a more concise manner and it just doesn't matter.
"Yeah, well, you're probably right but... umm... it doesn't matter! So there!" Your arms got real strong moving all them goal posts.
They wanted different units with different stats to be able to they're damage output unique and modifiable. In reality they could have just written "melee profile" over the names of them all and it wouldn't matter. Either you're asking for all your creatures to have the exact same melee profiles and granularity be damned, or its a none issue and being a stickler over the name.
Hecaton wrote: Necron Warriors should honestly be T4 2w 3+ save.
Or...and hear me out here...If introducing 2W Troops has power creeped the game to the point that Troops aren't valuable unless they're 2W...is it possible...even slightly...that 2W Troops were a bad idea in the first place?
They weren't a bad idea, they just needed to not introduce mindless increases in damage output. Increasing durability is pointless if you immediately invalidate it.
Dudeface wrote: They wanted different units with different stats to be able to they're damage output unique and modifiable. In reality they could have just written "melee profile" over the names of them all and it wouldn't matter. Either you're asking for all your creatures to have the exact same melee profiles and granularity be damned, or its a none issue and being a stickler over the name.
But this isn't granularity. This is meaningless bloat and, worse, inconsistent.
Trygon gets Trygon Scything Talons
Mawloc gets Mawloc Scything Talons
Trygon Prime gets... also Trygon Scything Talons
Why do these 6 units need 4 different versions of the same weapon, and on top of the ones that Hive Tyrants can get (and their weird pseudo version on the Flyrant). Why do Tyranid Warriors get up to 4 Scytals, but Raveners get just two, and then "Ravener Claws" when they're clearly all Scytals. Why are Hormagaunts not getting Scytals and getting a new pseudo-ScyTal.
Again: This isn't granularity. This is making things complicated for no actual gain.
Dudeface wrote: They wanted different units with different stats to be able to they're damage output unique and modifiable. In reality they could have just written "melee profile" over the names of them all and it wouldn't matter. Either you're asking for all your creatures to have the exact same melee profiles and granularity be damned, or its a none issue and being a stickler over the name.
But this isn't granularity. This is meaningless bloat and, worse, inconsistent.
Trygon gets Trygon Scything Talons
Mawloc gets Mawloc Scything Talons
Trygon Prime gets... also Trygon Scything Talons
Why do these 6 units need 4 different versions of the same weapon, and on top of the ones that Hive Tyrants can get (and their weird pseudo version on the Flyrant). Why do Tyranid Warriors get up to 4 Scytals, but Raveners get just two, and then "Ravener Claws" when they're clearly all Scytals. Why are Hormagaunts not getting Scytals and getting a new pseudo-ScyTal.
Again: This isn't granularity. This is making things complicated for no actual gain.
Screamer killer - the attacks are baked into the profile so the weapon rule needed to be different (not sure why they chose to do that)
The rest is so if they need to change the carnifex melee profile they can do it without changing a screamer killer, trygon or tyrant.
Like I said, of they all were called floppy bunny whacker regardless of stats, the naming convention wouldn't matter. Separate the naming convention from the weapon profiles.
Dudeface wrote: Screamer killer - the attacks are baked into the profile so the weapon rule needed to be different (not sure why they chose to do that)
That's the point, it's bad design.
The rest is so if they need to change the carnifex melee profile...
They never need to change a profile between codexes, they might want to but it's a bad idea.
Dudeface wrote: Screamer killer - the attacks are baked into the profile so the weapon rule needed to be different (not sure why they chose to do that)
That's the point, it's bad design.
The rest is so if they need to change the carnifex melee profile...
They never need to change a profile between codexes, they might want to but it's a bad idea.
In that case I expect you to be complaining about devourers as well.
2 profiles with the same name that differ based on what's carrying it.
Dudeface wrote: Screamer killer - the attacks are baked into the profile so the weapon rule needed to be different (not sure why they chose to do that)
That's the point, it's bad design.
The rest is so if they need to change the carnifex melee profile...
They never need to change a profile between codexes, they might want to but it's a bad idea.
In that case I expect you to be complaining about devourers as well.
2 profiles with the same name that differ based on what's carrying it.
I don't complain about S User weapons if that's what they are, Assault X with shots equal to the number of Attacks the model has is fine as well, even more interesting if you have buffs that add Strength or Attacks, something usually only useful in melee, but suddenly useful at range with a weapon with this sort of ability. It's also really fitting for Tyranids because it makes them sort of weird and alien and helps signify how their weapons are living organisms rather than guns.
The rest is so if they need to change the carnifex melee profile they can do it without changing a screamer killer, trygon or tyrant.
If they need to change the profile for a particular creature. . . Why not change the actual profile of the creature, using any one of three melee related options available, WS S or A?
Dudeface wrote: Screamer killer - the attacks are baked into the profile so the weapon rule needed to be different (not sure why they chose to do that)
That's the point, it's bad design.
The rest is so if they need to change the carnifex melee profile...
They never need to change a profile between codexes, they might want to but it's a bad idea.
In that case I expect you to be complaining about devourers as well.
2 profiles with the same name that differ based on what's carrying it.
I don't complain about S User weapons if that's what they are, Assault X with shots equal to the number of Attacks the model has is fine as well, even more interesting if you have buffs that add Strength or Attacks, something usually only useful in melee, but suddenly useful at range with a weapon with this sort of ability. It's also really fitting for Tyranids because it makes them sort of weird and alien and helps signify how their weapons are living organisms rather than guns.
Devourers are assault 5 on raveners (5A) and warriors (3A) then assault 2 on gaunts (1A).
The rest is so if they need to change the carnifex melee profile they can do it without changing a screamer killer, trygon or tyrant.
If they need to change the profile for a particular creature. . . Why not change the actual profile of the creature, using any one of three melee related options available, WS S or A?
What they've done is absolutely unnecessary.
Because if the Scything Talons grant extra attacks, that's the trade off against the higher strength of the crushing claws for a carnifex. If they baked the attacks into the profile, when would you ever take the talons?
If you increased the base strength it interacts differently with the multiplication (Edit: I've just seen they don't multiply anymore, so fair point) on the crushing claws.
If you alter base WS the they're either hitting on a 4+ or 2+ for a carnifex, which is a much bigger swing.
Come on, I'm an idiot and can see why they are as they are.
Its a beetle fired via a muscle spasm vs a self-propelled explosive bullet. You tell me.
You know I am glad that my gaunts will be more than glorified wound counters for objective control but even I am searching for a reason for them to be S5 Ap-1...
It is cool, I am gonna enjoy it, but this power creep is getting ludicrous. I mean, it always was but I feel like my tipping point is now the fact that my favorite factions "las gun" is now S5 Ap-1.
So you don't mind bolters being S5 -2 then?
Horror marines having not just wound counters. Or is it "my army got buffed so it's fine"
Daedalus81 wrote: There's two major groups of talons. Those that offer a benefit and those that do not. Within those groups there's big and little versions, basically.
Ok, stop. Don't try to minimise this nonsense, or act like it's not right there in front of you. There are no "major groups" or whatever else you've invented in your attempt to make it out like this isn't a bloated mess.
There are seven different types of Scything Talons in the book:
And then you work out how many total attacks you want your big monster to have, and equip them correctly. So if they wanted the Screamer Killer to have 10 attacks, then they should have given it 4 Monstrous Scything Talons and A6. Then it gets +1A for each of the four, bringing it to 10. It didn't need to be a separate profile.
Having the option (or not) to trade off the talons is irrelevant. We didn't need 7 Scything Talon profiles that all do slightly different things. This isn't rocket science.
*And then three types of Rending Claws (Rending, Monstrous and Massive) and Crushing Claws (ditto for all three). Standardisation and codification would have made this SO much easier and not lead to inane nonsense like two types of Scything Talons for 3 types of Carnifex/Trygon, an units with Scything Talons and not-Scything Talons-that-are-still-obviously-talons (Raveners).
But customizability bad, you know.
God i miss the times where we could buy upgrades for squads.
This also makes me miss the good old nid dex in which we players could customize everything. Those were the times.
Dudeface wrote: They wanted different units with different stats to be able to they're damage output unique and modifiable. In reality they could have just written "melee profile" over the names of them all and it wouldn't matter. Either you're asking for all your creatures to have the exact same melee profiles and granularity be damned, or its a none issue and being a stickler over the name.
But this isn't granularity. This is meaningless bloat and, worse, inconsistent.
Trygon gets Trygon Scything Talons
Mawloc gets Mawloc Scything Talons
Trygon Prime gets... also Trygon Scything Talons
Why do these 6 units need 4 different versions of the same weapon, and on top of the ones that Hive Tyrants can get (and their weird pseudo version on the Flyrant). Why do Tyranid Warriors get up to 4 Scytals, but Raveners get just two, and then "Ravener Claws" when they're clearly all Scytals. Why are Hormagaunts not getting Scytals and getting a new pseudo-ScyTal.
Again: This isn't granularity. This is making things complicated for no actual gain.
The rest is so if they need to change the carnifex melee profile they can do it without changing a screamer killer, trygon or tyrant.
You'd think that but GW almost never leverages this system when releasing erratas or FAQs. Back in 8th I defended the system as being a great tool for making fine adjustments to the game and as time wore on and GW continued to just shuffle points around instead of changing rules I realised that they will never use the system they have for its singular purpose for existing.
Dudeface wrote: They wanted different units with different stats to be able to they're damage output unique and modifiable. In reality they could have just written "melee profile" over the names of them all and it wouldn't matter. Either you're asking for all your creatures to have the exact same melee profiles and granularity be damned, or its a none issue and being a stickler over the name.
But this isn't granularity. This is meaningless bloat and, worse, inconsistent.
Trygon gets Trygon Scything Talons
Mawloc gets Mawloc Scything Talons
Trygon Prime gets... also Trygon Scything Talons
Why do these 6 units need 4 different versions of the same weapon, and on top of the ones that Hive Tyrants can get (and their weird pseudo version on the Flyrant). Why do Tyranid Warriors get up to 4 Scytals, but Raveners get just two, and then "Ravener Claws" when they're clearly all Scytals. Why are Hormagaunts not getting Scytals and getting a new pseudo-ScyTal.
Again: This isn't granularity. This is making things complicated for no actual gain.
The rest is so if they need to change the carnifex melee profile they can do it without changing a screamer killer, trygon or tyrant.
You'd think that but GW almost never leverages this system when releasing erratas or FAQs. Back in 8th I defended the system as being a great tool for making fine adjustments to the game and as time wore on and GW continued to just shuffle points around instead of changing rules I realised that they will never use the system they have for its singular purpose for existing.
I'm inclined to agree, they're very hands off with making changes, the intent of the system is both good and clear. Still, people seemingly disagree that the potential this system has is useful as demonstrated.
Dudeface wrote: Screamer killer - the attacks are baked into the profile so the weapon rule needed to be different (not sure why they chose to do that)
That's the point, it's bad design.
The rest is so if they need to change the carnifex melee profile...
They never need to change a profile between codexes, they might want to but it's a bad idea.
In that case I expect you to be complaining about devourers as well.
2 profiles with the same name that differ based on what's carrying it.
I don't complain about S User weapons if that's what they are, Assault X with shots equal to the number of Attacks the model has is fine as well, even more interesting if you have buffs that add Strength or Attacks, something usually only useful in melee, but suddenly useful at range with a weapon with this sort of ability. It's also really fitting for Tyranids because it makes them sort of weird and alien and helps signify how their weapons are living organisms rather than guns.
Devourers are assault 5 on raveners (5A) and warriors (3A) then assault 2 on gaunts (1A).
I am going to go find a sad story to cry to, I feel like I need it.
Dudeface wrote: I'm inclined to agree, they're very hands off with making changes, the intent of the system is both good and clear. Still, people seemingly disagree that the potential this system has is useful as demonstrated.
The potential is only relevant if its used. If its not used it becomes just bloat. And that is the issue, GW doesn't even use their own system.
Other games use bespoke weapons for each unit, including my one of my favourite games - Star Wars Legion.
Star Wars Legion goes so far as to have explictly the same weapon be very different in different user's hands. "B1 E-5 blaster" is half as effective as "BX E-5 blaster" for example.
This is quite reasonable for a few reasons.
- armies tend to be smaller with fewer unique units, there's less to memorise in any given battle.
- weapons are simpler, effectively they're just 1 stat and maybe some special rules. Essentially, they've crunched ballistic skill directly into the weapon and condensed it all into one overall attack stat.
- Every box gives you a reference card for the unit to lay out during games.
40k currently has none of those mitigations, so slapping every model with a unique weapon with ~4 relevant stats on top of every model's unique statline with it's own ~3 relevant stats is just adding pointless bloat.
It's clear that they don't consider the whole. They look at one datasheet and write it. Then they look at another and write it. This is why you get nonsense like Screamer Killers getting their own bespoke talons.
I'm inclined to agree, they're very hands off with making changes, the intent of the system is both good and clear. Still, people seemingly disagree that the potential this system has is useful as demonstrated.
We've had two editions with this system (it existed in some form previously but 8th is when things got really out of hand). Not once that I can remember has GW used this granularity to do what you're suggesting. It's the same reason people give to defend bespoke special rules over USRs: "but now they can change one rule without affecting all the others". Except GW have never done that either. In fact, when they needed to change all the FNP rules at the start of 8th their system made it more difficult. I think we can convincingly show the current system has never proven to have any advantages.
Someone already pointed out we have WS, S and A to modify a unit's effectiveness in close combat, as well as their weapons. We don't need 7 different weapons that all do more or less the same thing in order to allow more granularity for changing effectiveness. I'd argue having fewer, but more distinct, weapon options allows for more effective levers to pull in combination with the base stats.
As for why this is bad since all the info is on the datasheet? I used to be able to play games of 40k without checking my Codex once. I knew all my unit and weapon stats, because the number of each was much lower than it is now. I even knew most of my regular opponents' stats. Now? Barely a phase goes by without having to check my own stats and special rules or query my opponent's.
kirotheavenger wrote: Other games use bespoke weapons for each unit, including my one of my favourite games - Star Wars Legion.
Star Wars Legion goes so far as to have explictly the same weapon be very different in different user's hands. "B1 E-5 blaster" is half as effective as "BX E-5 blaster" for example.
This is quite reasonable for a few reasons.
- armies tend to be smaller with fewer unique units, there's less to memorise in any given battle.
- weapons are simpler, effectively they're just 1 stat and maybe some special rules. Essentially, they've crunched ballistic skill directly into the weapon and condensed it all into one overall attack stat.
- Every box gives you a reference card for the unit to lay out during games.
40k currently has none of those mitigations, so slapping every model with a unique weapon with ~4 relevant stats on top of every model's unique statline with it's own ~3 relevant stats is just adding pointless bloat.
It's clear that they don't consider the whole. They look at one datasheet and write it. Then they look at another and write it. This is why you get nonsense like Screamer Killers getting their own bespoke talons.
Lets be real, if GW streamlined weapons down like that (and lets be clear, that basically means doing away with the WS/BS stats and completely reworking the games existing resolution mechanic) there would be mass outrage and complaints about them "dumbing down" the game.
Its a beetle fired via a muscle spasm vs a self-propelled explosive bullet. You tell me.
You know I am glad that my gaunts will be more than glorified wound counters for objective control but even I am searching for a reason for them to be S5 Ap-1...
It is cool, I am gonna enjoy it, but this power creep is getting ludicrous. I mean, it always was but I feel like my tipping point is now the fact that my favorite factions "las gun" is now S5 Ap-1.
So you don't mind bolters being S5 -2 then?
Horror marines having not just wound counters. Or is it "my army got buffed so it's fine"
I mean, you have Heavy Intercessors so...you kind of already do?
Also, did you even read my post? I think it is silly that fleshborers are S5 AP-1 now but it's not like anything I say or do will change GW at this point so I am just gonna roll with it.
I'm inclined to agree, they're very hands off with making changes, the intent of the system is both good and clear. Still, people seemingly disagree that the potential this system has is useful as demonstrated.
We've had two editions with this system (it existed in some form previously but 8th is when things got really out of hand). Not once that I can remember has GW used this granularity to do what you're suggesting. It's the same reason people give to defend bespoke special rules over USRs: "but now they can change one rule without affecting all the others". Except GW have never done that either. In fact, when they needed to change all the FNP rules at the start of 8th their system made it more difficult. I think we can convincingly show the current system has never proven to have any advantages.
Someone already pointed out we have WS, S and A to modify a unit's effectiveness in close combat, as well as their weapons. We don't need 7 different weapons that all do more or less the same thing in order to allow more granularity for changing effectiveness. I'd argue having fewer, but more distinct, weapon options allows for more effective levers to pull in combination with the base stats.
As for why this is bad since all the info is on the datasheet? I used to be able to play games of 40k without checking my Codex once. I knew all my unit and weapon stats, because the number of each was much lower than it is now. I even knew most of my regular opponents' stats. Now? Barely a phase goes by without having to check my own stats and special rules or query my opponent's.
Just because they don't use it to their advantage it doesn't suddenly make the system in place bad. Their handling of USR's was just as hamfisted and poorly thought out as their inability to tweak the granular system to their advantage. The current system has advantages, they're just not using them. Note that doesn't make it better either, just different.
To take an example in hand for the different weapon stats, looking at the hive tyrant:
Base (because it can be equipped with no CC weapon) WWS2+, S7, 5A - already you can't buff WS Monstrous Scy talons - S:user AP-3 D2 an extra attack with each talon. It can have 2 of these but you want the make different weapons have different roles, so you don't want an unarmed tyrant with 7A and also because:
Bonesword - S+4 AP-3 D3 - if you increase attacks this becomes the "better option by default" and the talons cease to have a purpose if you don't remove them. Can't bake the strength into the unit because it incidentally buffs the base model and scy talons
To apply the logic of what happens when you apply these to a trygon prime:
Currently it has the attacks baked in as requested (12 attacks) but same profile otherwise. When and why is this relevant - if there are abilities that target the models attack stat, disable weapons, limit to attacking with one weapon etc. the trygon interacts differently. If they had base 6 attacks with 6 monstrous scything talons you have the same output profile but with different interactions with other game rules and mechanics. I'm not saying GW use or leverage all of this, it's just to highlight situations where the granularity can factor in.
I understand and fondly remember the "every power weapon does the same thing" days, but there are pros and cons to both states and GW needs to leverage them better.
kirotheavenger wrote: Other games use bespoke weapons for each unit, including my one of my favourite games - Star Wars Legion.
Star Wars Legion goes so far as to have explictly the same weapon be very different in different user's hands. "B1 E-5 blaster" is half as effective as "BX E-5 blaster" for example.
This is quite reasonable for a few reasons.
- armies tend to be smaller with fewer unique units, there's less to memorise in any given battle.
- weapons are simpler, effectively they're just 1 stat and maybe some special rules. Essentially, they've crunched ballistic skill directly into the weapon and condensed it all into one overall attack stat.
- Every box gives you a reference card for the unit to lay out during games.
40k currently has none of those mitigations, so slapping every model with a unique weapon with ~4 relevant stats on top of every model's unique statline with it's own ~3 relevant stats is just adding pointless bloat.
It's clear that they don't consider the whole. They look at one datasheet and write it. Then they look at another and write it. This is why you get nonsense like Screamer Killers getting their own bespoke talons.
Lets be real, if GW streamlined weapons down like that (and lets be clear, that basically means doing away with the WS/BS stats and completely reworking the games existing resolution mechanic) there would be mass outrage and complaints about them "dumbing down" the game.
Isn't this the perpetual catch 22 of this community "I want my unit to feel unique and powerful, has options and a defined purpose" immediately followed by "god why do intercessors have 3 different bolt weapons for 3 different roles?" or "why don't all my units share the same CCW making it crap on some of them and a default pick on others but easy to remember?"
i mean, fly *should* give an advantage over being on foot
Should give a mobility advantage but a survivability disadvantage. In most sci fi settings predictable short flight plans in small arms range are death for the unfortunate flying creature.
I'm inclined to agree, they're very hands off with making changes, the intent of the system is both good and clear. Still, people seemingly disagree that the potential this system has is useful as demonstrated.
We've had two editions with this system (it existed in some form previously but 8th is when things got really out of hand). Not once that I can remember has GW used this granularity to do what you're suggesting. It's the same reason people give to defend bespoke special rules over USRs: "but now they can change one rule without affecting all the others". Except GW have never done that either. In fact, when they needed to change all the FNP rules at the start of 8th their system made it more difficult. I think we can convincingly show the current system has never proven to have any advantages.
Someone already pointed out we have WS, S and A to modify a unit's effectiveness in close combat, as well as their weapons. We don't need 7 different weapons that all do more or less the same thing in order to allow more granularity for changing effectiveness. I'd argue having fewer, but more distinct, weapon options allows for more effective levers to pull in combination with the base stats.
As for why this is bad since all the info is on the datasheet? I used to be able to play games of 40k without checking my Codex once. I knew all my unit and weapon stats, because the number of each was much lower than it is now. I even knew most of my regular opponents' stats. Now? Barely a phase goes by without having to check my own stats and special rules or query my opponent's.
Just because they don't use it to their advantage it doesn't suddenly make the system in place bad. Their handling of USR's was just as hamfisted and poorly thought out as their inability to tweak the granular system to their advantage. The current system has advantages, they're just not using them. Note that doesn't make it better either, just different.
To take an example in hand for the different weapon stats, looking at the hive tyrant:
Base (because it can be equipped with no CC weapon) WWS2+, S7, 5A - already you can't buff WS Monstrous Scy talons - S:user AP-3 D2 an extra attack with each talon. It can have 2 of these but you want the make different weapons have different roles, so you don't want an unarmed tyrant with 7A and also because:
Bonesword - S+4 AP-3 D3 - if you increase attacks this becomes the "better option by default" and the talons cease to have a purpose if you don't remove them. Can't bake the strength into the unit because it incidentally buffs the base model and scy talons
To apply the logic of what happens when you apply these to a trygon prime:
Currently it has the attacks baked in as requested (12 attacks) but same profile otherwise. When and why is this relevant - if there are abilities that target the models attack stat, disable weapons, limit to attacking with one weapon etc. the trygon interacts differently. If they had base 6 attacks with 6 monstrous scything talons you have the same output profile but with different interactions with other game rules and mechanics. I'm not saying GW use or leverage all of this, it's just to highlight situations where the granularity can factor in.
I understand and fondly remember the "every power weapon does the same thing" days, but there are pros and cons to both states and GW needs to leverage them better.
kirotheavenger wrote: Other games use bespoke weapons for each unit, including my one of my favourite games - Star Wars Legion.
Star Wars Legion goes so far as to have explictly the same weapon be very different in different user's hands. "B1 E-5 blaster" is half as effective as "BX E-5 blaster" for example.
This is quite reasonable for a few reasons.
- armies tend to be smaller with fewer unique units, there's less to memorise in any given battle.
- weapons are simpler, effectively they're just 1 stat and maybe some special rules. Essentially, they've crunched ballistic skill directly into the weapon and condensed it all into one overall attack stat.
- Every box gives you a reference card for the unit to lay out during games.
40k currently has none of those mitigations, so slapping every model with a unique weapon with ~4 relevant stats on top of every model's unique statline with it's own ~3 relevant stats is just adding pointless bloat.
It's clear that they don't consider the whole. They look at one datasheet and write it. Then they look at another and write it. This is why you get nonsense like Screamer Killers getting their own bespoke talons.
Lets be real, if GW streamlined weapons down like that (and lets be clear, that basically means doing away with the WS/BS stats and completely reworking the games existing resolution mechanic) there would be mass outrage and complaints about them "dumbing down" the game.
Isn't this the perpetual catch 22 of this community "I want my unit to feel unique and powerful, has options and a defined purpose" immediately followed by "god why do intercessors have 3 different bolt weapons for 3 different roles?" or "why don't all my units share the same CCW making it crap on some of them and a default pick on others but easy to remember?"
If you go to a restaurant and you got a menu without separate starters, main courses and deserts but had 12 pages listing all the possible combinations as single choices you would say its a bad menu despite the system of starter/main/desert allowing different combinations of dinner being a generally recognised good thing.
A granular system isn't bad in and of itself, GW's system is bad because it isn't used.
Yes GW could leverage it better, but that is the essence of the complaint. They aren't. And if they aren't doing that then the system is more trouble then its worth.
As for your other point, the game did fine for decades without 60 different bolt weapons and 28 bespoke, mostly similar but slightly different special rules.
You can have powerful, unique and purposeful units without the bloat. We know its possible, because we already had it.
ccs wrote: Upcoming codex must be relatively fine if all you've got to complain about for several pages is how many names they've given talons/scathing talons.
ccs wrote: Upcoming codex must be relatively fine if all you've got to complain about for several pages is how many names they've given talons/scathing talons.
Honestly, besides the fact that the book may be too strong, as others have put it, this is the best codex that Nids have gotten in 20+ years. Yeah, you may be pissed about your Flyrant or your nerfed Hive Guard, but that's par for the course. Everything being generally usable is a huge, huge win and in the balance of things, Nids players seem to be very happy (edit: I know I am!)
ccs wrote: Upcoming codex must be relatively fine if all you've got to complain about for several pages is how many names they've given talons/scathing talons.
Probably the best observation of anyone for 2-3 pages.
Daedalus81 wrote: There's two major groups of talons. Those that offer a benefit and those that do not. Within those groups there's big and little versions, basically.
Ok, stop. Don't try to minimise this nonsense, or act like it's not right there in front of you. There are no "major groups" or whatever else you've invented in your attempt to make it out like this isn't a bloated mess.
There are seven different types of Scything Talons in the book:
And then you work out how many total attacks you want your big monster to have, and equip them correctly. So if they wanted the Screamer Killer to have 10 attacks, then they should have given it 4 Monstrous Scything Talons and A6. Then it gets +1A for each of the four, bringing it to 10. It didn't need to be a separate profile.
Having the option (or not) to trade off the talons is irrelevant. We didn't need 7 Scything Talon profiles that all do slightly different things. This isn't rocket science.
*And then three types of Rending Claws (Rending, Monstrous and Massive) and Crushing Claws (ditto for all three). Standardisation and codification would have made this SO much easier and not lead to inane nonsense like two types of Scything Talons for 3 types of Carnifex/Trygon, an units with Scything Talons and not-Scything Talons-that-are-still-obviously-talons (Raveners).
But customizability bad, you know.
God i miss the times where we could buy upgrades for squads.
This also makes me miss the good old nid dex in which we players could customize everything. Those were the times.
Absolutely on point.
Rather than allowing hobbyists to craft their own dudes, GW needs us to buy and play with their monopose meh dudes, …
No model no rules => rigid rules for every permutation of model
Another reason earliest editions with some house rules were so much better.
Dudeface wrote: Isn't this the perpetual catch 22 of this community "I want my unit to feel unique and powerful, has options and a defined purpose" immediately followed by "god why do intercessors have 3 different bolt weapons for 3 different roles?" or "why don't all my units share the same CCW making it crap on some of them and a default pick on others but easy to remember?"
It's only a Catch-22 if you don't see any difference between role-defining options, trap options, and redundant options.
I like the different weapons on the Tyrannofex. There's a long-range tank-buster, a short-range auto-hit spray attack that melts armor and kills heavy infantry, and a medium-range high-volume dakka gun for killing chaff. They all do very different things.
I don't like how the melee weapons on Tyranid Warriors boil down to 'take Boneswords or you're wrong', because they're by far the best choice and cost the same as the others.
I like how Firstborn units have options for different special and heavy weapons that give them specific capabilities. A unit of Devastators with Heavy Bolters has a very different role from a unit of Devastators with Multi-Meltas.
I don't like how Primaris units have options for three different primary weapons that are all ultimately redundant to one another, because they all do the same thing with minor variation. A unit of Eradicators isn't particularly different whether they're armed with Melta Rifles, Heavy Melta Rifles, or Multi-Meltas. They're all S8/AP-4 24" melta weapons, they all fulfill the same role.
It's not a binary options good/options bad. Meaningful options that give a unit a distinct role are good. Options that provide only minor variation within a defined role, or consist of objectively right and wrong choices, are bad.
Edit: And also, HBMC is completely right about how the cognitive burden of this new 'Nids codex could be reduced, and that gets into the other issue with a lot of the options GW is giving lately. Firstborn Marines having a limited roster of weapons allowed Tacticals and Devastators to share the same set of weapons and yet fulfill very different roles through basic composition and abilities. Having three usually bespoke weapons for each Primaris unit gives you a lot more to remember, and leads directly into the 'more bolt weapons than the old codices had weapons' issue.
Similarly, the Tyranids codex often had units sharing the same weapon profile. Devourers on Termagants were essentially a heavy weapon, while Devourers on Warriors were your default starting loadout. Spinefists had the same profile on Warriors, Termagants, and Raveners, but the number of shots was tied to their attacks so they didn't all perform the same. These provided options without massive cognitive burden, because you only had one statline to remember. In the new codex, each of these has a bespoke weapon profile- Devourers on Termagants have completely different stats from Devourers on Warriors. There's a lot more to remember and keep track of, but it isn't providing more options.
Dudeface wrote: ...Isn't this the perpetual catch 22 of this community "I want my unit to feel unique and powerful, has options and a defined purpose" immediately followed by "god why do intercessors have 3 different bolt weapons for 3 different roles?" or "why don't all my units share the same CCW making it crap on some of them and a default pick on others but easy to remember?"
The perpetual catch-22 is the community wanting their units to feel unique and powerful, like they have options and a defined purpose, followed by GW giving us 'options' where one is better than the others 97% of the time, writing more unique names for identical or almost-identical profiles, and completely throwing out fifteen years of progress on fixing that exact shared-CCW balance problem you're talking about there with differential pricing depending on units' Attacks stat in favor of writing a bunch of slightly different weapon profiles.
For the reasons already stated: It's unnecessary. Its adds nothing to the game. There was no reason to make 7 versions and 6 pseudo-versions of the same weapon. Why is this so hard to fathom?
Daedalus81 wrote: They absolutely could have done it in a more concise manner and it just doesn't matter.
"Yeah, well, you're probably right but... umm... it doesn't matter! So there!" Your arms got real strong moving all them goal posts.
*shrug* I just literally don't have such a problem with it. Games will not be slowed down. All Carnifex types will be AP3 D3. Trygon Talons are different from Mawloc Talons - so both Trygons got Trygon Talons and Mawloc got Mawloc...the humanity.
I'm also fairly certain they didn't want to give the Trygon Prime access to the relic talons when it already has 12 attacks. The Mawloc is the same type as regular scything talons ( AP1 D1 ) so they could have counted its arms, say it was equipped with 6 scything talons, but then it would be affected by any rules that would affect scything talons if they were to write those in some supplement.
Isn't this the perpetual catch 22 of this community "I want my unit to feel unique and powerful, has options and a defined purpose" immediately followed by "god why do intercessors have 3 different bolt weapons for 3 different roles?" or "why don't all my units share the same CCW making it crap on some of them and a default pick on others but easy to remember?"
At this point I am increasingly convinced the 2 marine armies (tinys and primaris) need to be split off from each other. The Primaris range is big enough now. Throw in some fluff about chapters that haven't been able to upgrade, and Rob saying tactical operations should be one or the other, and you can balance things and and have two sanely sized Codex.
Are people really complaining about the three Bolt weapons Intercessors get and then saying "ackchually Tactical plethora of weapons fine"? That's not the problem. The problem is Heavy Intercessors being given those weapons but S5 just because. Both Tacticool Marines are separate entries and have different weapons just because.
The rest is so if they need to change the carnifex melee profile they can do it without changing a screamer killer, trygon or tyrant.
If they need to change the profile for a particular creature. . . Why not change the actual profile of the creature, using any one of three melee related options available, WS S or A?
What they've done is absolutely unnecessary.
Because if the Scything Talons grant extra attacks, that's the trade off against the higher strength of the crushing claws for a carnifex. If they baked the attacks into the profile, when would you ever take the talons?
If you increased the base strength it interacts differently with the multiplication (Edit: I've just seen they don't multiply anymore, so fair point) on the crushing claws.
If you alter base WS the they're either hitting on a 4+ or 2+ for a carnifex, which is a much bigger swing.
Come on, I'm an idiot and can see why they are as they are.
Huh? I'm not saying that the Talons can't grant extra attacks. I'm saying that if a generic Talons isn't cutting it, then you modify the base model instead. If that makes Claws more nasty, then you can also modify the points for the Claws to make sense, or modify the models base cost. There are enough places to make modifications while still using generic/universally designed weapons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rihgu wrote: Granularity is great, except for when it's bad. Hrmm.
Correct, because you can do it well, but you can also do it dumb.
I don't like how Primaris units have options for three different primary weapons that are all ultimately redundant to one another, because they all do the same thing with minor variation. A unit of Eradicators isn't particularly different whether they're armed with Melta Rifles, Heavy Melta Rifles, or Multi-Meltas. They're all S8/AP-4 24" melta weapons, they all fulfill the same role.
It's not a binary options good/options bad. Meaningful options that give a unit a distinct role are good. Options that provide only minor variation within a defined role, or consist of objectively right and wrong choices, are bad.
Stalker Bolt Rifles hang back and snipe and don't like to move.
Auto Bolt Rifles want to move forward.
Bolt Rifles sit in between those.
I am building an IF army using Heavy Intercessors with the Auto Bolt Rifle version, because I want to max shots and leverage explosions as much as I can. I want to be in melee where I can turn those into pistol shots and lean into the durability by using Shield Unwavering for +1Sv and +1A.
That unit would operate a little differently than Heavy Intercessors in Iron Hands who might opt for the heavy versions and sit back with a 5++/5+++.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote: Are people really complaining about the three Bolt weapons Intercessors get and then saying "ackchually Tactical plethora of weapons fine"? That's not the problem. The problem is Heavy Intercessors being given those weapons but S5 just because. Both Tacticool Marines are separate entries and have different weapons just because.
Heavy Intercessors have S5, because if they didn't they'd be pretty anemic and there would be no point to having them other than just being a durability upgrade.
I keep having flashbacks to how heavy intercessors were going to be S5 because it would be "necessary" to counter T5 Orks. (Brilliant GW, you've done it again, oh wait no heavy intercessors were dreadful from the moment their stat line was leaked and nothing has been done to change that.)
Generally speaking, you want a rough balance of offense and defense. Unfortunately GW has completely abandoned that to all in on offense upgrades - so basically any assault unit worth taking now gets 100%+ returns, and shooting is around 50-70%.
Daedalus81 wrote: Heavy Intercessors have S5, because if they didn't they'd be pretty anemic and there would be no point to having them other than just being a durability upgrade.
So the unit should not exist in the first place. I think you will find a lot of people who would agree with that.
A sculptor made both the normal and the heavy primaris look to give the boss choice to pick and the boss said, great make em both. Causing the rules writer to face palm as he now has to figure out a use for a completely redundant unit.
I don't like how Primaris units have options for three different primary weapons that are all ultimately redundant to one another, because they all do the same thing with minor variation. A unit of Eradicators isn't particularly different whether they're armed with Melta Rifles, Heavy Melta Rifles, or Multi-Meltas. They're all S8/AP-4 24" melta weapons, they all fulfill the same role.
It's not a binary options good/options bad. Meaningful options that give a unit a distinct role are good. Options that provide only minor variation within a defined role, or consist of objectively right and wrong choices, are bad.
Stalker Bolt Rifles hang back and snipe and don't like to move.
Auto Bolt Rifles want to move forward.
Bolt Rifles sit in between those.
All of which provide less variation in capability than the heavy/special options granted to a Tac squad.
In fact with Bolter discipline, the difference between heavy bolt rifle and plain bolt rifle get pretty minimal.
Daedalus81 wrote: Heavy Intercessors have S5, because if they didn't they'd be pretty anemic and there would be no point to having them other than just being a durability upgrade.
So the unit should not exist in the first place. I think you will find a lot of people who would agree with that.
A sculptor made both the normal and the heavy primaris look to give the boss choice to pick and the boss said, great make em both. Causing the rules writer to face palm as he now has to figure out a use for a completely redundant unit.
I mean you're not wrong, but they're going to find angles to make new space marines regardless.
ccs wrote: Upcoming codex must be relatively fine if all you've got to complain about for several pages is how many names they've given talons/scathing talons.
Honestly, besides the fact that the book may be too strong, as others have put it, this is the best codex that Nids have gotten in 20+ years. Yeah, you may be pissed about your Flyrant or your nerfed Hive Guard, but that's par for the course. Everything being generally usable is a huge, huge win and in the balance of things, Nids players seem to be very happy (edit: I know I am!)
Yeah, while I wish I wasn't limited to 0-1 HT per detachment (And the swarmlord not being a Supreme commander for whatever reason) There are so many models and configurations that I am excited to put on the table.
I love that there are people in this thread arguing that we either only get options the terrible way GW does them or none at all. There's no inbetween that could possibly exist.
Daedalus81 wrote: Heavy Intercessors have S5, because if they didn't they'd be pretty anemic and there would be no point to having them other than just being a durability upgrade.
So the unit should not exist in the first place. I think you will find a lot of people who would agree with that.
A sculptor made both the normal and the heavy primaris look to give the boss choice to pick and the boss said, great make em both. Causing the rules writer to face palm as he now has to figure out a use for a completely redundant unit.
The unit can exist, it just doesn't need S5 guns because. They're not "anemic", and paying for the durability alone is fine.
Sim-Life wrote: I love that there are people in this thread arguing that we either only get options the terrible way GW does them or none at all. There's no inbetween that could possibly exist.
So much this. Especially when we have cases in the past where GW did better.
I fact we have cases right now that are better, you only have to look at firstborn units. Normal, every day, run-of-the-mill, holy, Bolters, and then a menu of Special/Heavies shared by every unit.
Sim-Life wrote: I love that there are people in this thread arguing that we either only get options the terrible way GW does them or none at all. There's no inbetween that could possibly exist.
So much this. Especially when we have cases in the past where GW did better.
I fact we have cases right now that are better, you only have to look at firstborn units. Normal, every day, run-of-the-mill, holy, Bolters, and then a menu of Special/Heavies shared by every unit.
Daedalus81 wrote: Stalker Bolt Rifles hang back and snipe and don't like to move.
Auto Bolt Rifles want to move forward.
Bolt Rifles sit in between those.
Sure.
But when a Stalker Bolt Rifle on the move does the exact same damage to MEQs as an Auto Bolt Rifle, an Auto Bolt Rifle staying stationary can still hit anything that leaves the opponent's deployment zone, the basic Bolt Rifle has a stronger stay-stationary-far-away incentive than the Stalker, and the shortest-ranged 'assault' option has 2/3 the range of the 'sniping' weapon, the choice of weapon doesn't really dictate the role of the unit, it just tweaks some of the optimizations.
You could remove the Stalker Bolt Rifle and Auto Bolt Rifle entirely, have them all just be treated as different visual variants of Bolt Rifle (like we've done with various marks of regular bolters or lasguns for decades now), and it wouldn't affect all that much. That weapon option doesn't have nearly the impact that choosing to take a lascannon or omit a heavy weapon entirely does for Tacticals.
Meanwhile Heavy Intercessors have five unique weapons in addition to the (surprisingly) normal and reused heavy bolter, but ultimately they're just Intercessors+. If you stripped out all of those options and reduced them to just a Gravis squad all carrying heavy bolters, they'd be more distinct as a unit despite the loss of options.
Options aren't inherently good or bad, it all depends on how much you're actually getting in return for the increase in complexity.
Daedalus81 wrote: There's two major groups of talons. Those that offer a benefit and those that do not. Within those groups there's big and little versions, basically.
Ok, stop. Don't try to minimise this nonsense, or act like it's not right there in front of you. There are no "major groups" or whatever else you've invented in your attempt to make it out like this isn't a bloated mess.
There are seven different types of Scything Talons in the book:
And then you work out how many total attacks you want your big monster to have, and equip them correctly. So if they wanted the Screamer Killer to have 10 attacks, then they should have given it 4 Monstrous Scything Talons and A6. Then it gets +1A for each of the four, bringing it to 10. It didn't need to be a separate profile.
Having the option (or not) to trade off the talons is irrelevant. We didn't need 7 Scything Talon profiles that all do slightly different things. This isn't rocket science.
*And then three types of Rending Claws (Rending, Monstrous and Massive) and Crushing Claws (ditto for all three). Standardisation and codification would have made this SO much easier and not lead to inane nonsense like two types of Scything Talons for 3 types of Carnifex/Trygon, an units with Scything Talons and not-Scything Talons-that-are-still-obviously-talons (Raveners).
But customizability bad, you know.
God i miss the times where we could buy upgrades for squads.
This also makes me miss the good old nid dex in which we players could customize everything. Those were the times.
Absolutely on point. Rather than allowing hobbyists to craft their own dudes, GW needs us to buy and play with their monopose meh dudes, … No model no rules => rigid rules for every permutation of model Another reason earliest editions with some house rules were so much better.
Yeah, because I love needing to buy a bunch of other random crap and spend hours playing arts and crafts on top of the cleaning and assembly we're ALREADY stuck with, just to be able to actually USE the obscenely expensive kit I already bought.
Just get rid of the options. Get rid of every weapon but the generic CQC profile. Then you can model whatever the hell you want without impacting gameplay at all.
The rest is so if they need to change the carnifex melee profile they can do it without changing a screamer killer, trygon or tyrant.
If they need to change the profile for a particular creature. . . Why not change the actual profile of the creature, using any one of three melee related options available, WS S or A?
What they've done is absolutely unnecessary.
Because if the Scything Talons grant extra attacks, that's the trade off against the higher strength of the crushing claws for a carnifex. If they baked the attacks into the profile, when would you ever take the talons?
If you increased the base strength it interacts differently with the multiplication (Edit: I've just seen they don't multiply anymore, so fair point) on the crushing claws.
If you alter base WS the they're either hitting on a 4+ or 2+ for a carnifex, which is a much bigger swing.
Come on, I'm an idiot and can see why they are as they are.
Huh? I'm not saying that the Talons can't grant extra attacks. I'm saying that if a generic Talons isn't cutting it, then you modify the base model instead. If that makes Claws more nasty, then you can also modify the points for the Claws to make sense, or modify the models base cost. There are enough places to make modifications while still using generic/universally designed weapons.
The weirdest part of this is they also do that, especially for carnifexes, which can take adrenal glands (+1 S and M), enhanced senses (BS) and/or chitin thorns (better AP for all melee attacks).
But of those three, Screamer Killers can only take adrenals, and Thornbacks just get chitin thorns innately but can also pick the other two, but lose a slew of weapon options, including 4 devourers or deathspitters.
Some of these units (warriors and base carnifex) are designed for maximum player choice, others (venomthropes, exocrines, toxicrene) are design for a singular role with no choices whatsoever, and other things (like the raveners, mawloc and a couple other things) look like the singular role designer had something really specific in mind but had to back down for the options in the kit. And the termagant/gargoyle designer was just drunk. The Hormagaunt writer decided that 2 scything talons and the additional attacks ability was too much to be bothered to write so he just scribbled a 3 under the attacks characteristic and called it a day.
Sim-Life wrote: I love that there are people in this thread arguing that we either only get options the terrible way GW does them or none at all. There's no inbetween that could possibly exist.
So much this. Especially when we have cases in the past where GW did better.
I fact we have cases right now that are better, you only have to look at firstborn units. Normal, every day, run-of-the-mill, holy, Bolters, and then a menu of Special/Heavies shared by every unit.
That nobody uses any more
Even when they did use them, only 1 or 2 saw play.
All options should be removed, we should only have 1 W models with no save, bolters, and basic CQC weapons. Only then will the game reach it's pinnacle.
Dudeface wrote: Isn't this the perpetual catch 22 of this community "I want my unit to feel unique and powerful, has options and a defined purpose" immediately followed by "god why do intercessors have 3 different bolt weapons for 3 different roles?" or "why don't all my units share the same CCW making it crap on some of them and a default pick on others but easy to remember?"
*Storm bolters instead of primadonna bolters.
*Flamers instead of runny bolters.
*Heavy bolters instead of heavy but not that heavy bolters.
There is no such thing as a CCW that is crap on some and a default pick on others for any reason except the pts on options being off. If devourers aren't fun to use on Tyranid Warriors because they don't deal enough damage relative to how durable Warriors are or the damage output being wimpy for the size of the model then there might be a problem, you could just have it be A+2 and have Warriors and Raveners both have 3A base. Effectively you get a 5 shot devourer on Warriors and a 3 shot devourer on Termagants, but you only have 1 weapon profile.
Changing weapons around between codexes is a really bad idea, outside of times when it is necessary like in the case of Imperium weapons needing an update, releasing new codexes for every Imperium faction and every faction that uses Imperium weapon profiles is too big an ask, but for a stand-alone faction like Tyranids, Necrons or Tau Empire? Weapon profiles should not be changed, it's too much hassle, just fix it as much as possible with points.
EviscerationPlague wrote: The unit can exist, it just doesn't need S5 guns because. They're not "anemic", and paying for the durability alone is fine.
It isn't though. Either the durability it worth it or it is not. There isn't going to be an in-between.
It could depend on the list, you could have 3-bug devourer Warriors be good for holding objectives and 30 bug Termagants with 15 devourers be an efficient and relatively tanky damage dealer when supported by a Tervigon and 30 devourer Termagants be the ultimate in terms of damage output with the downside of lack of survivability and needing a Trygon for transport. Even if the points are off and in whatever meta is played in tournaments only the devourer Warriors are viable, the mixed Termagants and the full devourer Termagants could still have upsides in some cases that might make them viable in certain uncommon basement metas or even just under non-standard mission and terrain conditions. Whether Warriors have extra durability or extra durability and extra damage output you're still likely to see one option being inferior in most contexts.
There is no such thing as a CCW that is crap on some and a default pick on others for any reason except the pts on options being off. If devourers aren't fun to use on Tyranid Warriors because they don't deal enough damage relative to how durable Warriors are or the damage output being wimpy for the size of the model then there might be a problem, you could just have it be A+2 and have Warriors and Raveners both have 3A base. Effectively you get a 5 shot devourer on Warriors and a 3 shot devourer on Termagants, but you only have 1 weapon profile.
Of course there are occasions when a weapon is bad on one platform and not another. I seem to recall all guard officers used to never have power swords because even if they were free the strength boost of the other weapons made them better by default.
With regards the devourers, what if they want or need raveners to have higher attack stat (again there are rules that interact with the stat that are relevant)? What if assault x+2 is too strong on a gaunt but you can't reduce the shots without giving warrior an attack which throws their balance off. I understand why they have fixed profiles now even if it's less fun.
Sim-Life wrote: I love that there are people in this thread arguing that we either only get options the terrible way GW does them or none at all. There's no inbetween that could possibly exist.
So much this. Especially when we have cases in the past where GW did better.
I fact we have cases right now that are better, you only have to look at firstborn units. Normal, every day, run-of-the-mill, holy, Bolters, and then a menu of Special/Heavies shared by every unit.
That nobody uses any more
Even when they did use them, only 1 or 2 saw play.
All options should be removed, we should only have 1 W models with no save, bolters, and basic CQC weapons. Only then will the game reach it's pinnacle.
Seems that way, peak of competitive balance. That way there won't be options people ask to have access to then complain because they're not good enough or balanced correctly or simply never see play.
vict0988 wrote: It could depend on the list, you could have 3-bug devourer Warriors be good for holding objectives and 30 bug Termagants with 15 devourers be an efficient and relatively tanky damage dealer when supported by a Tervigon and 30 devourer Termagants be the ultimate in terms of damage output with the downside of lack of survivability and needing a Trygon for transport. Even if the points are off and in whatever meta is played in tournaments only the devourer Warriors are viable, the mixed Termagants and the full devourer Termagants could still have upsides in some cases that might make them viable in certain uncommon basement metas or even just under non-standard mission and terrain conditions. Whether Warriors have extra durability or extra durability and extra damage output you're still likely to see one option being inferior in most contexts.
You're talking something altogether different than Intercessors and Heavy Intercessors.
On a semi-related note. Something that really gets me about GW's process...they had the idea to make Nids need spotters for artillery, but not for Tau who must have been written close to each other. Couldn't they have written something to the effect of needing a markerlight to shoot a unit ooLOS?
They're so frustratingly close to getting it and just keep fumbling the ball. *sigh* maybe in 2 to 5 months...
Dudeface wrote: Of course there are occasions when a weapon is bad on one platform and not another. I seem to recall all guard officers used to never have power swords because even if they were free the strength boost of the other weapons made them better by default.
Power swords are 1 pt, power axe 99 pts, power maul 99 pts. "power axes need more AP OMG everyone always just takes power swords because of the amazing AP." Bleh.
With regards the devourers, what if they want or need raveners to have higher attack stat (again there are rules that interact with the stat that are relevant)? What if assault x+2 is too strong on a gaunt but you can't reduce the shots without giving warrior an attack which throws their balance off. I understand why they have fixed profiles now even if it's less fun.
What rules are relevant when it comes to the attack stat and Raveners that requires they have a higher Attacks stat than Warriors? Something that hasn't been necessary ever as far as I'm aware, the units started out as the same unit entry unless I am mistaken.
If Assault x+2 turns out to be stronger than anticipated on Termagants then the points cost can be increased.
Seems that way, peak of competitive balance. That way there won't be options people ask to have access to then complain because they're not good enough or balanced correctly or simply never see play.
Peak GW apologia /sarcasm. It would have taken the designers a minute to figure out the grav cannon with grav amp was going to be way too insane for its cost in 7th. They just need to not be lazy inept gits charging heaven and earth for a hellishly unbalanced and badly designed product.
Dudeface wrote: Of course there are occasions when a weapon is bad on one platform and not another. I seem to recall all guard officers used to never have power swords because even if they were free the strength boost of the other weapons made them better by default.
Power swords are 1 pt, power axe 99 pts, power maul 99 pts. "power axes need more AP OMG everyone always just takes power swords because of the amazing AP." Bleh.
With regards the devourers, what if they want or need raveners to have higher attack stat (again there are rules that interact with the stat that are relevant)? What if assault x+2 is too strong on a gaunt but you can't reduce the shots without giving warrior an attack which throws their balance off. I understand why they have fixed profiles now even if it's less fun.
What rules are relevant when it comes to the attack stat and Raveners that requires they have a higher Attacks stat than Warriors? Something that hasn't been necessary ever as far as I'm aware, the units started out as the same unit entry unless I am mistaken.
If Assault x+2 turns out to be stronger than anticipated on Termagants then the points cost can be increased.
Seems that way, peak of competitive balance. That way there won't be options people ask to have access to then complain because they're not good enough or balanced correctly or simply never see play.
Peak GW apologia /sarcasm. It would have taken the designers a minute to figure out the grav cannon with grav amp was going to be way too insane for its cost in 7th. They just need to not be lazy inept gits charging heaven and earth for a hellishly unbalanced and badly designed product.
There isn't a certain reason for them needing higher base attacks on raveners that I know of, but as mentioned elsewhere, there are some abilities that trigger off a units attack stat likewise (no idea if they still exist) disarm abilities or mind control that limit you to 1 weapon etc. Will interact differently.
Again I'm not saying it's some well thought out master plan but 5 attacks isn't the same as 3+2 in some places in this game.
Regards the guard weapons it's taken an extreme example to get the point across, but I'm curious when you'd take a power sword over a free chainsword of you don't aim to have much melee impact. They'd have to be free or a filler choice.
Fair play on that last point, all these sorts of thread and debates vanish with some better quality out the gate.
Why should power swords be a viable option for units that do not engage in melee? It should be an option that is viable if your strategy involves Guardsmen getting locked in melee with heavily armoured foes. Maybe you use support characters to buff the damage output of your Guardsmen and charge in or you play against Space Marines a lot and your Blast-y Vehicles need a Guardsmen screen so you might as well pick up a cheap power sword.
I think the +1 S to power weapons was a good idea, but I think Astartes Veteran power swords, Astartes Veteran power axes and Astartes Veteran power mauls available to ULTRAMARINE VETERANS would have been a bad idea.
Sim-Life wrote: I love that there are people in this thread arguing that we either only get options the terrible way GW does them or none at all. There's no inbetween that could possibly exist.
So much this. Especially when we have cases in the past where GW did better.
I fact we have cases right now that are better, you only have to look at firstborn units. Normal, every day, run-of-the-mill, holy, Bolters, and then a menu of Special/Heavies shared by every unit.
That nobody uses any more
IircDevs and Vanguard remained common competetive options. And I'll fight anyone who thinks Intercessors are better than Tacs.
Sim-Life wrote: I love that there are people in this thread arguing that we either only get options the terrible way GW does them or none at all. There's no inbetween that could possibly exist.
So much this. Especially when we have cases in the past where GW did better.
I fact we have cases right now that are better, you only have to look at firstborn units. Normal, every day, run-of-the-mill, holy, Bolters, and then a menu of Special/Heavies shared by every unit.
That nobody uses any more
I happen to like my FB Salamander list and it does what I want it to.
Arbiter_Shade wrote: You know I am glad that my gaunts will be more than glorified wound counters for objective control but even I am searching for a reason for them to be S5 Ap-1...
It is cool, I am gonna enjoy it, but this power creep is getting ludicrous. I mean, it always was but I feel like my tipping point is now the fact that my favorite factions "las gun" is now S5 Ap-1.
I mean before the inevitable list of possible buffs, you were doing 19.4% damage for your points into Intercessors with Fleshborers (given enough to maintain the reroll 1 to wound)... and now thats 23.8%. Not great. Equally you've gone up 40% in points to gain 1 extra armour save. Which is a bad exchange.
It fits GW's "we need everything to be more glass cannon" - but as said, not convinced it will be great. But they clearly decided they didn't want them sitting at 5 points being wound counters so needed to move fleshborers up in the world.
Its a bit like people looking at buffed up Hormagaunts. Yes its nice they can be choppy now (as opposed to being near completely pointless). But you are paying 8-11 points for something with a Guardsman's defensive profile. I feel they are going to die when things look in their direction - and at that points level you are going to notice.
I feel like you are overstating things a bit when you put numbers out like "40% point increase" when that equals 20 points for an entire 30 gant squad.
It's a 60 point increase for a 30 gant squad. Not 20 points.
Which really isn't a lot
20 gants used to cost 100pts, They now cost 140. That is a 40pt increase or 40%. That is a LOT, and if you don't think 40% isn't a lot than you don't understand statistics. In a 2k point game, 40pts is 2% of your list. So if you were taking 3 mobz of 20, your list just got 6% smaller just by this 1 nerf. Whether or not Gants got better to the point where the price increase is warranted has yet to be discovered. But to argue that a 40% increase in price isn't massive is disingenuous at best.
Rihgu wrote: Granularity is great, except for when it's bad. Hrmm.
ccs wrote: Upcoming codex must be relatively fine if all you've got to complain about for several pages is how many names they've given talons/scathing talons.
Tell me you don't understand the conversation without telling me you don't understand the conversation.
vict0988 wrote: It could depend on the list, you could have 3-bug devourer Warriors be good for holding objectives and 30 bug Termagants with 15 devourers be an efficient and relatively tanky damage dealer when supported by a Tervigon and 30 devourer Termagants be the ultimate in terms of damage output with the downside of lack of survivability and needing a Trygon for transport. Even if the points are off and in whatever meta is played in tournaments only the devourer Warriors are viable, the mixed Termagants and the full devourer Termagants could still have upsides in some cases that might make them viable in certain uncommon basement metas or even just under non-standard mission and terrain conditions. Whether Warriors have extra durability or extra durability and extra damage output you're still likely to see one option being inferior in most contexts.
You're talking something altogether different than Intercessors and Heavy Intercessors.
On a semi-related note. Something that really gets me about GW's process...they had the idea to make Nids need spotters for artillery, but not for Tau who must have been written close to each other. Couldn't they have written something to the effect of needing a markerlight to shoot a unit ooLOS?
They're so frustratingly close to getting it and just keep fumbling the ball. *sigh* maybe in 2 to 5 months...
Because your attributing to much competence to the designers. Hive Guard were to good, the designers know this from data therefor they had to be made worse. Ergo all the changes.
Airbursts were not considered 'to good'. They were not getting spammed so they didn't need to get nerfed and actually got buffed.
The notion that non-LoS shooting is actually a problem never entered into the mind of whoever wrote the Tau codex. Despite all the other non-LoS shooting weapons that have previously causes problems.
Arbiter_Shade wrote: You know I am glad that my gaunts will be more than glorified wound counters for objective control but even I am searching for a reason for them to be S5 Ap-1...
It is cool, I am gonna enjoy it, but this power creep is getting ludicrous. I mean, it always was but I feel like my tipping point is now the fact that my favorite factions "las gun" is now S5 Ap-1.
I mean before the inevitable list of possible buffs, you were doing 19.4% damage for your points into Intercessors with Fleshborers (given enough to maintain the reroll 1 to wound)... and now thats 23.8%. Not great. Equally you've gone up 40% in points to gain 1 extra armour save. Which is a bad exchange.
It fits GW's "we need everything to be more glass cannon" - but as said, not convinced it will be great. But they clearly decided they didn't want them sitting at 5 points being wound counters so needed to move fleshborers up in the world.
Its a bit like people looking at buffed up Hormagaunts. Yes its nice they can be choppy now (as opposed to being near completely pointless). But you are paying 8-11 points for something with a Guardsman's defensive profile. I feel they are going to die when things look in their direction - and at that points level you are going to notice.
I feel like you are overstating things a bit when you put numbers out like "40% point increase" when that equals 20 points for an entire 30 gant squad.
It's a 60 point increase for a 30 gant squad. Not 20 points.
Which really isn't a lot
20 gants used to cost 100pts, They now cost 140. That is a 40pt increase or 40%. That is a LOT, and if you don't think 40% isn't a lot than you don't understand statistics. In a 2k point game, 40pts is 2% of your list. So if you were taking 3 mobz of 20, your list just got 6% smaller just by this 1 nerf. Whether or not Gants got better to the point where the price increase is warranted has yet to be discovered. But to argue that a 40% increase in price isn't massive is disingenuous at best.
You're lying with said statistics. A unit that cost 2 points but went up 50% would be 3 points after all. 6% of a list is NOT a lot, especially for a swarm like that, so trying to spin it as such is just silly on your end.
EviscerationPlague wrote: You're lying with said statistics. A unit that cost 2 points but went up 50% would be 3 points after all. 6% of a list is NOT a lot, especially for a swarm like that, so trying to spin it as such is just silly on your end.
AdMech took a massive win rate dive with a modest increase in points cost. A unit going from 2 pts to 3 pts is a big deal, do you have any idea how OP 2pt Brims were?
Rihgu wrote: Granularity is great, except for when it's bad. Hrmm.
ccs wrote: Upcoming codex must be relatively fine if all you've got to complain about for several pages is how many names they've given talons/scathing talons.
Tell me you don't understand the conversation without telling me you don't understand the conversation.
Oh I hear your complaint. I've been playing Age of Sigmar since it launched. EVERY. SINGLE. UNIT. has it's own name & profile for the weapons/attack/armor/shield it has.
Meanwhile every Primaris SM has its own type of bolt gun & bolt pistol.
Sure, it's an annoyance to read.
But it ultimately doesn't really affect anything so it's not worth more than an eye-roll & a sigh. And certainly not worth the pages & pages of bitching some of you are dedicating to it.
Like I said, Codex must be pretty good if the biggest thing you can hold against it is the # of different types of talons....
But it ultimately doesn't really affect anything so it's not worth more than an eye-roll & a sigh. And certainly not worth the pages & pages of bitching some of you are dedicating to it.
Always love 'shut up and don't complain'
Like I said, Codex must be pretty good if the biggest thing you can hold against it is the # of different types of talons....
Well, that and the active trap weapon options (for example, you can take 4 carnifex crushing claws. It doesn't give you any benefit, but you have to pay points for each one! Reasonably for 2, but it isn't actually worded that way).
And the autotake options.
And the units that probably just aren't worth taking because other units can be stacked up to do everything. In particular the big melee monsters, which come across as really pillowfisted compared to other options.
A full three relics are hive tyrant only. This seems extraordinarily petty since tyrants are now 0-1 (and it doesn't actually say that, but they're the only Characters with the right weapons to swap). And yes, one is a talon, so the trygon prime specifically can't use it, because special trygon talons. And neither can the tervigon because monstrous is different than massive. Because feth you, that's why. Old One Eye actually has the right type of talon, but its a 'named character,' so can't. [This isn't unusual, but the term 'named character' just seems weird, and the only way to know they're named characters is if you look under warlord traits for the callout box about which WT they have to have. Its what actually identifies the term as game information. Their datasheets just say you can't have more than one of the model]
Also some things don't work as written. The Spore Nodes secondary objective is a good example. You CAN use it while within 6" of the enemy deployment zone. But you have to place the marker wholly within the deployment zone AND within 1" of the unit that completed the action. There's a very strange dead space there where you can take the action but aren't actually close enough to place the marker.
----
The balance between hive fleets is very much not good:
Behemoth and Leviathan win. Full stop, they're just... great.
Kraken seems workable, but not as strong as the other two. But your army can and will get into melee fast, and this book largely wants to do that, so its pretty much fine. But the fast advance bit is the adaptive trait which...hard choice. Not sure -1AP on the charge is enough.
Gorgon... if you build around hormagaunts and specifically not taking fleshborers on gants, and still want to use rippers for some reason, you can make something of it. But nothing else in the army cares about wounding on 4+ against non-vehicles, because almost everything else is S5 or more, even stuff like Zoanthropes and Venomthropes. This codex punches down hard on T4 or less and is generally 4+ or better against T5, so wounding on a 4+ against infantry is kind of a joke. If you've got 180 hormagaunts and spinefist gants (or are willing to pay and pay more for devilgaunts), go nuts, I guess.
People that really want to can probably build something on Jormungandr and Kronos, but good luck staying far away? The best bits of this army really don't want to do that, even if your opponent will let you.
Hydra is built on outnumbering enemies in melee for +1 to hit. But the stuff that carries melee won't be outnumbering much of anything, except by accident or already winning. So... just... what the hell? The relic, trait and psychic power is a random gift bag of... stuff. Barring some kind of Eureka moment, this fleet is made of garbage and failure.
Pure custom fleets are kind of a loss. You give up a lot (traits, relics, powers, etc) plus you can only adapt from one list rather than two.
Splinter fleets get everything except the horrible studio color schemes, and I think the relic? I've never quite figured out this particular quirk of the custom rules, other than 'expect people to be jerks who will argue about your color scheme and this officially tells them not to.'
A full three relics are hive tyrant only. This seems extraordinarily petty since tyrants are now 0-1 (and it doesn't actually say that, but they're the only Characters with the right weapons to swap). And yes, one is a talon, so the trygon prime specifically can't use it, because special trygon talons. And neither can the tervigon because monstrous is different than massive. Because feth you, that's why.
Just picking this part out, "massive" and "monstrous" talons are separated due to one having a totally different profile than the other, so the user can have a sweep or smash attack option. So not for no reason, unless you're suggesting every tyranid MC has those options ofc.
A full three relics are hive tyrant only. This seems extraordinarily petty since tyrants are now 0-1 (and it doesn't actually say that, but they're the only Characters with the right weapons to swap). And yes, one is a talon, so the trygon prime specifically can't use it, because special trygon talons. And neither can the tervigon because monstrous is different than massive. Because feth you, that's why.
Just picking this part out, "massive" and "monstrous" talons are separated due to one having a totally different profile than the other, so the user can have a sweep or smash attack option. So not for no reason, unless you're suggesting every tyranid MC has those options ofc.
That would be fine.
Powerfists are available for squad members, sergeants, all the way up to super-duper captain marines. The Powerfist still does the same thing though. Just pick a weapon behavior and give it to everybody capable of taking it. Standardize.
vict0988 wrote: It could depend on the list, you could have 3-bug devourer Warriors be good for holding objectives and 30 bug Termagants with 15 devourers be an efficient and relatively tanky damage dealer when supported by a Tervigon and 30 devourer Termagants be the ultimate in terms of damage output with the downside of lack of survivability and needing a Trygon for transport. Even if the points are off and in whatever meta is played in tournaments only the devourer Warriors are viable, the mixed Termagants and the full devourer Termagants could still have upsides in some cases that might make them viable in certain uncommon basement metas or even just under non-standard mission and terrain conditions. Whether Warriors have extra durability or extra durability and extra damage output you're still likely to see one option being inferior in most contexts.
You're talking something altogether different than Intercessors and Heavy Intercessors.
On a semi-related note. Something that really gets me about GW's process...they had the idea to make Nids need spotters for artillery, but not for Tau who must have been written close to each other. Couldn't they have written something to the effect of needing a markerlight to shoot a unit ooLOS?
They're so frustratingly close to getting it and just keep fumbling the ball. *sigh* maybe in 2 to 5 months...
Because your attributing to much competence to the designers. Hive Guard were to good, the designers know this from data therefor they had to be made worse. Ergo all the changes.
Airbursts were not considered 'to good'. They were not getting spammed so they didn't need to get nerfed and actually got buffed.
The notion that non-LoS shooting is actually a problem never entered into the mind of whoever wrote the Tau codex. Despite all the other non-LoS shooting weapons that have previously causes problems.
LOS is not real problem. Spamable cheap LOS with good AP and rerolls is a problem.
Marin wrote: LOS is not real problem. Spamable cheap LOS with good AP and rerolls is a problem.
I agree and disagree.
GW does have blinders as does the community. We tend to focus only on the things in front of us and when you clear that problem new ones arise - look at DE.
The ooLOS in Tau is crazy, because of the rerolls and AP. ooLOS overall is a problem, because it ignores crucial terrain rules for absolutely no downside and no appreciable cost for doing so. The only such unit to take a hit in that regard so far has been the Squigbuggy.
No I'm saying in the picture links for the Aeldari Codex the Avatar was shown as a LOW, and he's.... not. So leaks should have be taken with a grain of salt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Termagants and Hormagaunts can still come in units of 30. It's Gargoyles that are capped at 20, which means I suddenly have 4 full units. Or 3 and a half. Not sure.
I didn't realise the Prime can have heavy weapons. That's... interesting.
The Genestealer rules are baffling. Why'd we lose Advance/Charge?
It feels like that's been a trend with the board shrinking. Infiltrate/Scout/Deepstrike aren't going away, but its getting less common. Daisychaining multiple Moves too. I'd expect to see an Advance/fallback and Charge strat though.
Powerfists are available for squad members, sergeants, all the way up to super-duper captain marines. The Powerfist still does the same thing though. Just pick a weapon behavior and give it to everybody capable of taking it. Standardize.
That works fine when you're paying 80 to 100 points for a model. Marine HQs have as many attacks as a Hive Tyrant. It wouldn't be quite right to pay twice as much or more to be still swinging with a powerfist and have no character protection to boot.
I'm convinced that different people wrote different entries in this book and at no point talked to one another.
Oh, sounds like I'm playing AoS - everyones sword/spear/lance/axe/hammer/bow/xbow/claw/fang/shield/etc is a specific thing - each of wich might function the same or completely differently. Long gone are units armed with the good old "hand weapon".
It reminds me of the Heavy Intercessors and the copy-pasta screwup on their Auto/Stalker/etc upgrade failures.
No I'm saying in the picture links for the Aeldari Codex the Avatar was shown as a LOW, and he's.... not. So leaks should have be taken with a grain of salt.
Spoiler:
is that legit what people were considering a leak? It looks like an older edition's codex lol. This is obviously NOT a 9th edition codex picture
20 gants used to cost 100pts, They now cost 140. That is a 40pt increase or 40%. That is a LOT, and if you don't think 40% isn't a lot than you don't understand statistics. In a 2k point game, 40pts is 2% of your list. So if you were taking 3 mobz of 20, your list just got 6% smaller just by this 1 nerf. Whether or not Gants got better to the point where the price increase is warranted has yet to be discovered. But to argue that a 40% increase in price isn't massive is disingenuous at best.
You're lying with said statistics. A unit that cost 2 points but went up 50% would be 3 points after all. 6% of a list is NOT a lot, especially for a swarm like that, so trying to spin it as such is just silly on your end.
A unit going up from 5pts to 7pts is a big hit. And yes 40pts is a lot and yes your list randomly going up 6% is a big deal. My Alphork strike list just went up and down in a few places thanks to GW not understanding how they do orkz. My Kommandos just went up 20% 10 of them went from 100pts to 120pts. I used to run them with Distraction Grots and Bomb squigs, thanks to this 20% nerf I had to cut their costs by not taking those upgrades. But even without taking those upgrades they now cost 5pts more per mob and have lost a lot of versatility and the ability to dish out mortal wounds. That nerf has drastically changed my entire list, going from 3 detachments to 2 and losing an entire unit of Trukk Boyz to compensate for the difference in costs. So if you think that points cost is minor and i'm lying with statistics you haven't built competitive lists before.
Isn't this the perpetual catch 22 of this community "I want my unit to feel unique and powerful, has options and a defined purpose" immediately followed by "god why do intercessors have 3 different bolt weapons for 3 different roles?" or "why don't all my units share the same CCW making it crap on some of them and a default pick on others but easy to remember?"
The Primaris range is big enough now.
Nah, there's still holes in the range. No Aircraft, No Anti-Aircraft, No Rhino (i.e. small 10+ Transport), No Drop Pod- No Vanguard Vet. No Melee Jump Pack at all.
Throw in some fluff about chapters that haven't been able to upgrade, and Rob saying tactical operations should be one or the other, and you can balance things and and have two sanely sized Codex.
They also need to figure out what to do with the special characters. I'm pretty sure the original plan was to squat the firstborn. I'm pretty sure not all the Special Characters were going to survive. I'm also pretty sure they chickened out and are coasting through limbo while they reevaluate.
Isn't this the perpetual catch 22 of this community "I want my unit to feel unique and powerful, has options and a defined purpose" immediately followed by "god why do intercessors have 3 different bolt weapons for 3 different roles?" or "why don't all my units share the same CCW making it crap on some of them and a default pick on others but easy to remember?"
The Primaris range is big enough now.
Nah, there's still holes in the range. No Aircraft, No Anti-Aircraft, No Rhino (i.e. small 10+ Transport), No Drop Pod- No Vanguard Vet. No Melee Jump Pack at all.
Throw in some fluff about chapters that haven't been able to upgrade, and Rob saying tactical operations should be one or the other, and you can balance things and and have two sanely sized Codex.
They also need to figure out what to do with the special characters. I'm pretty sure the original plan was to squat the firstborn. I'm pretty sure not all the Special Characters were going to survive. I'm also pretty sure they chickened out and are coasting through limbo while they reevaluate.
Powerfists are available for squad members, sergeants, all the way up to super-duper captain marines. The Powerfist still does the same thing though. Just pick a weapon behavior and give it to everybody capable of taking it. Standardize.
That works fine when you're paying 80 to 100 points for a model. Marine HQs have as many attacks as a Hive Tyrant. It wouldn't be quite right to pay twice as much or more to be still swinging with a powerfist and have no character protection to boot.
Wat?
Post is about weapon profile standardization within a codex. Wtf does Hive Tyrant protecction have to do with anything?
Powerfists are available for squad members, sergeants, all the way up to super-duper captain marines. The Powerfist still does the same thing though. Just pick a weapon behavior and give it to everybody capable of taking it. Standardize.
That works fine when you're paying 80 to 100 points for a model. Marine HQs have as many attacks as a Hive Tyrant. It wouldn't be quite right to pay twice as much or more to be still swinging with a powerfist and have no character protection to boot.
Wat?
Post is about weapon profile standardization within a codex. Wtf does Hive Tyrant protecction have to do with anything?
You're talking about standardizing when a Hive Tyrant can't standardize. It's an entirely different kind of model. Unless either you think the Hive Tyrant should have weapons the same as Warriors or vice versa?
Powerfists are available for squad members, sergeants, all the way up to super-duper captain marines. The Powerfist still does the same thing though. Just pick a weapon behavior and give it to everybody capable of taking it. Standardize.
That works fine when you're paying 80 to 100 points for a model. Marine HQs have as many attacks as a Hive Tyrant. It wouldn't be quite right to pay twice as much or more to be still swinging with a powerfist and have no character protection to boot.
Wat?
Post is about weapon profile standardization within a codex. Wtf does Hive Tyrant protecction have to do with anything?
You're talking about standardizing when a Hive Tyrant can't standardize. It's an entirely different kind of model. Unless either you think the Hive Tyrant should have weapons the same as Warriors or vice versa?
Almost it came from a complaint that tervigons and tyrants have different "big talons" for apparently no reason.
No I'm saying in the picture links for the Aeldari Codex the Avatar was shown as a LOW, and he's.... not. So leaks should have be taken with a grain of salt.
Spoiler:
is that legit what people were considering a leak? It looks like an older edition's codex lol. This is obviously NOT a 9th edition codex picture
Yeah that's 100% a picture from either the 6th or 7th edition codex. BS10, WS10 and an Initiative value are a dead giveaway even if you were to assume that GW suddenly changed the codex layout from the existing 9th Ed codexes
Powerfists are available for squad members, sergeants, all the way up to super-duper captain marines. The Powerfist still does the same thing though. Just pick a weapon behavior and give it to everybody capable of taking it. Standardize.
That works fine when you're paying 80 to 100 points for a model. Marine HQs have as many attacks as a Hive Tyrant. It wouldn't be quite right to pay twice as much or more to be still swinging with a powerfist and have no character protection to boot.
Wat?
Post is about weapon profile standardization within a codex. Wtf does Hive Tyrant protecction have to do with anything?
You're talking about standardizing when a Hive Tyrant can't standardize. It's an entirely different kind of model. Unless either you think the Hive Tyrant should have weapons the same as Warriors or vice versa?
Almost it came from a complaint that tervigons and tyrants have different "big talons" for apparently no reason.
Wow, ok. If you really want to keep picking at that nit, I'll explain.
The actual complaint was that several of the relics are tyrant only by default. The talon relic is the most egregious because had the base model and weapon design been better, it wouldn't have been. It could have been usable by the trygon prime and tervigon as well.
Yes, really obviously (because I apparently need to clarify this just for you), the tervigon's massive scything talons are different from monstrous scything talons. But it still could have been an option to replace for the relic, because giving up the strike attack (double strength) for better base attacks is actually an interesting player decision whereas scrawling an implied NOPE across the relic isn't. There is zero reason that this specific 'scythes of tyran' has to replace a very specific set of gear- they're magic blade arms for giant bug aliens.
Fun fact: a walking tyrant with 4 scything talons can't take this relic either. Because that's how bad the design principles are. They didn't want to think about what might happen if you had multiple sets, so the requirement for the relic is specifically 2 massive scything talons.
-----
Yeah, I'm confused by the Avatar digression. That obviously wasn't a leak from the new codex, and I can't remember anyone claiming it was. Its just the german codex from a couple editions ago.
Nah, there's still holes in the range. No Aircraft, No Anti-Aircraft, No Rhino (i.e. small 10+ Transport), No Drop Pod- No Vanguard Vet. No Melee Jump Pack at all.
I suspect they plan to keep the current lot and not do new ones for aircraft, buff 1+ of the existing vehicles to have an AA and don't intend to do a Rhino equivalent (just stick with the existing 10 and 6 transport option floating boxes). I wonder if they are going to do jump packs for their assault marines. They might have though the relaxed looking chaps with packs were enough.
A quick gander at their options shows a full range. They don't need analogues of everything tiny marines had.
Ignoring forgeworld they 'merely' have
HQ Captains
Librarians
Lieutenants
Chaplains
Techmarines
They almost certainly will given Space Marine 2 has a Primaris Jump Pack option (with a different design than the Suppressors?) for Lt. Titus to go ham in melee with.
Almost it came from a complaint that tervigons and tyrants have different "big talons" for apparently no reason.
Tervigons don't have weapon options like the Tyrant - it's either talons or claws. To represent some degree of power lost from not being able to fly or sport an HVC they got special talons.
Powerfists are available for squad members, sergeants, all the way up to super-duper captain marines. The Powerfist still does the same thing though. Just pick a weapon behavior and give it to everybody capable of taking it. Standardize.
That works fine when you're paying 80 to 100 points for a model. Marine HQs have as many attacks as a Hive Tyrant. It wouldn't be quite right to pay twice as much or more to be still swinging with a powerfist and have no character protection to boot.
Wat?
Post is about weapon profile standardization within a codex. Wtf does Hive Tyrant protecction have to do with anything?
You're talking about standardizing when a Hive Tyrant can't standardize. It's an entirely different kind of model. Unless either you think the Hive Tyrant should have weapons the same as Warriors or vice versa?
Yeah. I don't see a problem with that. Generic Talons, S+1 AP-1, extra attack. Give to Tyrant, Trygon, Warriors, Hormagaunts, whatever. Same weapon, but results vary based on the model because the model starts with different S, WS, A, etc.
Powerfists are available for squad members, sergeants, all the way up to super-duper captain marines. The Powerfist still does the same thing though. Just pick a weapon behavior and give it to everybody capable of taking it. Standardize.
That works fine when you're paying 80 to 100 points for a model. Marine HQs have as many attacks as a Hive Tyrant. It wouldn't be quite right to pay twice as much or more to be still swinging with a powerfist and have no character protection to boot.
Wat?
Post is about weapon profile standardization within a codex. Wtf does Hive Tyrant protecction have to do with anything?
You're talking about standardizing when a Hive Tyrant can't standardize. It's an entirely different kind of model. Unless either you think the Hive Tyrant should have weapons the same as Warriors or vice versa?
Almost it came from a complaint that tervigons and tyrants have different "big talons" for apparently no reason.
Wow, ok. If you really want to keep picking at that nit, I'll explain.
The actual complaint was that several of the relics are tyrant only by default. The talon relic is the most egregious because had the base model and weapon design been better, it wouldn't have been. It could have been usable by the trygon prime and tervigon as well.
Yes, really obviously (because I apparently need to clarify this just for you), the tervigon's massive scything talons are different from monstrous scything talons. But it still could have been an option to replace for the relic, because giving up the strike attack (double strength) for better base attacks is actually an interesting player decision whereas scrawling an implied NOPE across the relic isn't. There is zero reason that this specific 'scythes of tyran' has to replace a very specific set of gear- they're magic blade arms for giant bug aliens.
Fun fact: a walking tyrant with 4 scything talons can't take this relic either. Because that's how bad the design principles are. They didn't want to think about what might happen if you had multiple sets, so the requirement for the relic is specifically 2 massive scything talons.
-----
Yeah, I'm confused by the Avatar digression. That obviously wasn't a leak from the new codex, and I can't remember anyone claiming it was. Its just the german codex from a couple editions ago.
no, you said:
A full three relics are hive tyrant only. This seems extraordinarily petty since tyrants are now 0-1 (and it doesn't actually say that, but they're the only Characters with the right weapons to swap). And yes, one is a talon, so the trygon prime specifically can't use it, because special trygon talons. And neither can the tervigon because monstrous is different than massive. Because feth you, that's why.
Implying they were different for no purpose, Insectum then stated they had no issue with the profiles being standardised across them all. As per usual this is 2 half conversations crossing paths.
Regards the rest, the scythes of tyran is a fair point, that's a decision that could be made.
Also a fun fact: You cannot however have a tyrant with 4 scything talons however, base loadout is sword, whip and 2 talons, you may replace the sword & whip with a gun and/or the talons with a gun, that's it.
Wow, ok. If you really want to keep picking at that nit, I'll explain.
The actual complaint was that several of the relics are tyrant only by default. The talon relic is the most egregious because had the base model and weapon design been better, it wouldn't have been. It could have been usable by the trygon prime and tervigon as well.
Yes, really obviously (because I apparently need to clarify this just for you), the tervigon's massive scything talons are different from monstrous scything talons. But it still could have been an option to replace for the relic, because giving up the strike attack (double strength) for better base attacks is actually an interesting player decision whereas scrawling an implied NOPE across the relic isn't. There is zero reason that this specific 'scythes of tyran' has to replace a very specific set of gear- they're magic blade arms for giant bug aliens.
Fun fact: a walking tyrant with 4 scything talons can't take this relic either. Because that's how bad the design principles are. They didn't want to think about what might happen if you had multiple sets, so the requirement for the relic is specifically 2 massive scything talons.
-----
Yeah, I'm confused by the Avatar digression. That obviously wasn't a leak from the new codex, and I can't remember anyone claiming it was. Its just the german codex from a couple editions ago.
You can't possibly think that Trygon Prime getting that relic would be a good idea do you?
And the Tervigon gets 8 attacks with it's sweep. -2A +1AP +1D doesn't seem like a terribly interesting choice when S will be 8 anyway. Maybe if you really wanted to push on T5, but if you were doing that 2D3 damage is probably better consider the units out there right now.
Powerfists are available for squad members, sergeants, all the way up to super-duper captain marines. The Powerfist still does the same thing though. Just pick a weapon behavior and give it to everybody capable of taking it. Standardize.
That works fine when you're paying 80 to 100 points for a model. Marine HQs have as many attacks as a Hive Tyrant. It wouldn't be quite right to pay twice as much or more to be still swinging with a powerfist and have no character protection to boot.
Wat?
Post is about weapon profile standardization within a codex. Wtf does Hive Tyrant protecction have to do with anything?
You're talking about standardizing when a Hive Tyrant can't standardize. It's an entirely different kind of model. Unless either you think the Hive Tyrant should have weapons the same as Warriors or vice versa?
Yeah. I don't see a problem with that. Generic Talons, S+1 AP-1, extra attack. Give to Tyrant, Trygon, Warriors, Hormagaunts, whatever. Same weapon, but results vary based on the model because the model starts with different S, WS, A, etc.
In this example the tyant gets ap-3 or ap-4 weapons baked in, so if you want to lower the talons to ap-1 I'm not sure how you'd tackle it. make the model base S6 instead of 7, make it a lot cheaper, make talons cheap then the bonesword and lashwhip a lot more expensive, then repeat across warriors etc.
Insectum7 wrote: Yeah. I don't see a problem with that. Generic Talons, S+1 AP-1, extra attack. Give to Tyrant, Trygon, Warriors, Hormagaunts, whatever. Same weapon, but results vary based on the model because the model starts with different S, WS, A, etc.
I can't really agree. 6 S8 AP1 D1 attacks doesn't really do much at all on an expensive model. Why would you pay 75+ points more to be a chainsword with extra strength?
For someone who values fluff I would think you'd find it quite immersion breaking for a monster like that to hit so lightly.
Wow, ok. If you really want to keep picking at that nit, I'll explain.
The actual complaint was that several of the relics are tyrant only by default. The talon relic is the most egregious because had the base model and weapon design been better, it wouldn't have been. It could have been usable by the trygon prime and tervigon as well.
Yes, really obviously (because I apparently need to clarify this just for you), the tervigon's massive scything talons are different from monstrous scything talons. But it still could have been an option to replace for the relic, because giving up the strike attack (double strength) for better base attacks is actually an interesting player decision whereas scrawling an implied NOPE across the relic isn't. There is zero reason that this specific 'scythes of tyran' has to replace a very specific set of gear- they're magic blade arms for giant bug aliens.
Fun fact: a walking tyrant with 4 scything talons can't take this relic either. Because that's how bad the design principles are. They didn't want to think about what might happen if you had multiple sets, so the requirement for the relic is specifically 2 massive scything talons.
-----
Yeah, I'm confused by the Avatar digression. That obviously wasn't a leak from the new codex, and I can't remember anyone claiming it was. Its just the german codex from a couple editions ago.
You can't possibly think that Trygon Prime getting that relic would be a good idea do you?
And the Tervigon gets 8 attacks with it's sweep. -2A +1AP +1D doesn't seem like a terribly interesting choice when S will be 8 anyway. Maybe if you really wanted to push on T5, but if you were doing that 2D3 damage is probably better consider the units out there right now.
I don't think the point is whether you should do it, just whether you should be able to for the sakes of it.
Insectum7 wrote: Yeah. I don't see a problem with that. Generic Talons, S+1 AP-1, extra attack. Give to Tyrant, Trygon, Warriors, Hormagaunts, whatever. Same weapon, but results vary based on the model because the model starts with different S, WS, A, etc.
I can't really agree. 6 S8 AP1 D1 attacks doesn't really do much at all on an expensive model. Why would you pay 75+ points more to be a chainsword with extra strength?
For someone who values fluff I would think you'd find it quite immersion breaking for a monster like that to hit so lightly.
Then take a page from either 2nd ed: Weapons can have AP based on their Strength, and therefore the Talons at S6 wind up at AP -2 or -3
Or take a page from 3-7, where being a Monster automatically brings an AP bonus with it.
Insectum7 wrote: Yeah. I don't see a problem with that. Generic Talons, S+1 AP-1, extra attack. Give to Tyrant, Trygon, Warriors, Hormagaunts, whatever. Same weapon, but results vary based on the model because the model starts with different S, WS, A, etc.
I can't really agree. 6 S8 AP1 D1 attacks doesn't really do much at all on an expensive model. Why would you pay 75+ points more to be a chainsword with extra strength?
For someone who values fluff I would think you'd find it quite immersion breaking for a monster like that to hit so lightly.
Then take a page from either 2nd ed: Weapons can have AP based on their Strength, and therefore the Talons at S6 wind up at AP -2 or -3
Or take a page from 3-7, where being a Monster automatically brings an AP bonus with it.
Standardize.
Or we just have entries for small, medium, and large Talons and call it a day.
Insectum7 wrote: Then take a page from either 2nd ed: Weapons can have AP based on their Strength, and therefore the Talons at S6 wind up at AP -2 or -3
Or take a page from 3-7, where being a Monster automatically brings an AP bonus with it.
Standardize.
Sure, but that was then. This now. We have W1/2/3/4/5 models now all of which are quite common. Mortals, transhuman, blast, -1D, swarming, artillery spotting, obsec removal, crossfire, nydus canals ( infestation node ), etc...
Insectum7 wrote: Then take a page from either 2nd ed: Weapons can have AP based on their Strength, and therefore the Talons at S6 wind up at AP -2 or -3
Or take a page from 3-7, where being a Monster automatically brings an AP bonus with it.
Standardize.
Sure, but that was then. This now. We have W1/2/3/4/5 models now all of which are quite common. Mortals, transhuman, blast, -1D, swarming, artillery spotting, obsec removal, crossfire, nydus canals ( infestation node ), etc...
Insectum7 wrote: Yeah. I don't see a problem with that. Generic Talons, S+1 AP-1, extra attack. Give to Tyrant, Trygon, Warriors, Hormagaunts, whatever. Same weapon, but results vary based on the model because the model starts with different S, WS, A, etc.
I can't really agree. 6 S8 AP1 D1 attacks doesn't really do much at all on an expensive model. Why would you pay 75+ points more to be a chainsword with extra strength?
For someone who values fluff I would think you'd find it quite immersion breaking for a monster like that to hit so lightly.
Then take a page from either 2nd ed: Weapons can have AP based on their Strength, and therefore the Talons at S6 wind up at AP -2 or -3
Or take a page from 3-7, where being a Monster automatically brings an AP bonus with it.
Insectum7 wrote: Yeah. I don't see a problem with that. Generic Talons, S+1 AP-1, extra attack. Give to Tyrant, Trygon, Warriors, Hormagaunts, whatever. Same weapon, but results vary based on the model because the model starts with different S, WS, A, etc.
I can't really agree. 6 S8 AP1 D1 attacks doesn't really do much at all on an expensive model. Why would you pay 75+ points more to be a chainsword with extra strength?
For someone who values fluff I would think you'd find it quite immersion breaking for a monster like that to hit so lightly.
Then take a page from either 2nd ed: Weapons can have AP based on their Strength, and therefore the Talons at S6 wind up at AP -2 or -3
Or take a page from 3-7, where being a Monster automatically brings an AP bonus with it.
Standardize.
That's not "always arguing that the game should be what it used to be". That's pointing out that a past mechanic could be brought forward into the current paradigm. These are not the same.
Wow, ok. If you really want to keep picking at that nit, I'll explain.
The actual complaint was that several of the relics are tyrant only by default. The talon relic is the most egregious because had the base model and weapon design been better, it wouldn't have been. It could have been usable by the trygon prime and tervigon as well.
Yes, really obviously (because I apparently need to clarify this just for you), the tervigon's massive scything talons are different from monstrous scything talons. But it still could have been an option to replace for the relic, because giving up the strike attack (double strength) for better base attacks is actually an interesting player decision whereas scrawling an implied NOPE across the relic isn't. There is zero reason that this specific 'scythes of tyran' has to replace a very specific set of gear- they're magic blade arms for giant bug aliens.
Fun fact: a walking tyrant with 4 scything talons can't take this relic either. Because that's how bad the design principles are. They didn't want to think about what might happen if you had multiple sets, so the requirement for the relic is specifically 2 massive scything talons.
-----
Yeah, I'm confused by the Avatar digression. That obviously wasn't a leak from the new codex, and I can't remember anyone claiming it was. Its just the german codex from a couple editions ago.
You can't possibly think that Trygon Prime getting that relic would be a good idea do you?
And the Tervigon gets 8 attacks with it's sweep. -2A +1AP +1D doesn't seem like a terribly interesting choice when S will be 8 anyway. Maybe if you really wanted to push on T5, but if you were doing that 2D3 damage is probably better consider the units out there right now.
Repeating myself: The talon relic is the most egregious because had the base model and weapon design been better,
I'm getting uncertain how many times people have to explain to you that the pile of 'bespoke' talons and different approaches to base attacks in the profiles rather than attacks as part of the weapons are the problem.
If all three monstrous characters were designed according to the same principles, it wouldn't be an issue. The trygon prime wouldn't be getting base 12 attacks with the relic, and the tervigon wouldn't be relying on multipliers.
Also a fun fact: You cannot however have a tyrant with 4 scything talons however, base loadout is sword, whip and 2 talons, you may replace the sword & whip with a gun and/or the talons with a gun, that's it.
Right, of course. I didn't check to see if the Loss of Options Tyrant went that far.
Guess I have some work to do on my metal/plastic tyrants on foot if I ever want to use them again.
Insectum7 wrote: I don't see any reason why that couldn't be investigated and implemented if meritable.
"Always with you what cannot be done."
Just because I don't need to force something to be simpler like the good old days doesn't mean that I think it can't be done. I just think it's unnecessary and much less interesting.
AP doesn't address units with high invulnerable saves or additional wounds. It offers little extra in context for a model that will pay the same points as 6 Warriors and fight hardly any better. If you were to give scytals and vcs sclaing for AP then Warriors would fight about three times as hard and shoot almost twice as hard as a Tyrant, but a little less AP for the same points. Considering Warriors can get cover and move through buildings they're a lot more flexible. And then you'd have to deal with the rules that provide extra strength.
It would be such a hamfisted change for little benefit.
Strats could use a tone down, but the stuff in this book is absolutely great -- especially exemplifying the mutability of tyranids through their traits -- and I welcome that "bloat".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote: Repeating myself: The talon relic is the most egregious because had the base model and weapon design been better,
I'm getting uncertain how many times people have to explain to you that the pile of 'bespoke' talons and different approaches to base attacks in the profiles rather than attacks as part of the weapons are the problem.
If all three monstrous characters were designed according to the same principles, it wouldn't be an issue. The trygon prime wouldn't be getting base 12 attacks with the relic, and the tervigon wouldn't be relying on multipliers.
*sigh*
So make everything the same so that you can do the same thing with every model and bring everything down to the lowest bar so that you don't break something. Sorry. Boring.
I much prefer units to interact with light/medium/heavy/super heavy infantry in different ways so that their battlefield role isn't homogenous.
Daedalus81 wrote: AP doesn't address units with high invulnerable saves or additional wounds. It offers little extra in context for a model that will pay the same points as 6 Warriors and fight hardly any better. If you were to give scytals and vcs sclaing for AP then Warriors would fight about three times as hard and shoot almost twice as hard as a Tyrant, but a little less AP for the same points. Considering Warriors can get cover and move through buildings they're a lot more flexible. And then you'd have to deal with the rules that provide extra strength.
Why not leverage the differences between units?
Set normal STs at S+1, AP-1, D1, and two attacks per Attack on the user's profile, and Monstrous STs at S+1, AP-2, D2, and still two attacks. Then the bearer's S and A drive the performance of the weapon.
Give Hormagaunts one attack on their profile, and that puts them at 2 attacks at S4 AP-1. Warriors meanwhile have 6 attacks at S6 AP-1. Give Hive Tyrants four attacks base, so that makes 8 attacks at S8 AP-2 D2.
That gives a grand total of two profiles to remember (as it was in 8th); not bespoke implementations for each type of monstrous creature. Is that really not enough differentiation?
Daedalus81 wrote: So make everything the same so that you can do the same thing with every model and bring everything down to the lowest bar so that you don't break something. Sorry. Boring.
I much prefer units to interact with light/medium/heavy/super heavy infantry in different ways so that their battlefield role isn't homogenous.
There comes a point where minor differences between units that don't actually affect how you use them add little to gameplay.
Construing the proposals that have been made so far as 'make everything the same so that you can do the same thing with every model' is quite the straw man.
There comes a point where minor differences between units that don't actually affect how you use them add little to gameplay.
Construing the proposals that have been made so far as 'make everything the same so that you can do the same thing with every model' is quite the straw man.
That's pretty much what the efforts here are trying to do - minimize the difference between units so it's easier to remember. Acting like AP3 hitting a 3+/4++ is better than AP1 when they're both the same damage?
It absolutely matters what your units can do and homogenizing them means it doesn't usually matter what I throw at them.
I dunno. We'll agree to disagree as we've spent entirely too much time on this super tiny part of a book.
I fimd it kind of funny that Daed is arguing that multiple different talons makes the game more "fun" when having to check codexes every few minutes is exactly one of the thing dragging 40k down for a lot of people.
The reason I preferred older editions was the "sameyness" you think is so bad. It was easier to remember so less time was spent looking up rules and more time playing the game or (God forbid) talking to your opponent.
Insectum7 wrote: I don't see any reason why that couldn't be investigated and implemented if meritable.
"Always with you what cannot be done."
Just because I don't need to force something to be simpler like the good old days doesn't mean that I think it can't be done. I just think it's unnecessary and much less interesting.
AP doesn't address units with high invulnerable saves or additional wounds. It offers little extra in context for a model that will pay the same points as 6 Warriors and fight hardly any better. If you were to give scytals and vcs sclaing for AP then Warriors would fight about three times as hard and shoot almost twice as hard as a Tyrant, but a little less AP for the same points. Considering Warriors can get cover and move through buildings they're a lot more flexible. And then you'd have to deal with the rules that provide extra strength.
It would be such a hamfisted change for little benefit.
The above post makes so many assumptions it's not worth the time to bother untangling them. Do points costs remain the same? Is AP the only thing that's different between the weapons? Are there no other ways to make the HT more competetive in response to Warriors? Really Daed, this is just foot-dragging.
Calling "hamfisted" after HBMC layed out the absolutely horrendous array of various Talons is particularly silly.
Out of curiosity, does the current big VC do anything to address units with invuln saves? What's the difference between the two guns currently, that makes them so "interesting".
Daedalus81 wrote: That's pretty much what the efforts here are trying to do - minimize the difference between units so it's easier to remember.
No, they're not. That is a straw man.
They/we are trying to construct comparable distinctions between units within a simpler rules framework. Achieve the same general outcome while reducing cognitive burden. We don't actually care about the specific interrelation of numbers that comprise the mechanics as long as the output is approximately correct. In programming terms this is called 'refactoring'.
It is entirely possible to make Scything Talons on big creatures function differently from Scything Talons on small creatures, and make Scything Talons on Carnifexes function differently from Scything Talons on Hive Tyrants, without creating a half dozen different weapon profiles with minute and ultimately pointless differences.
And this is not a tiny part of the book; GW's dogged insistence on adding more minutiae and more complexity and more crap to remember in lieu of actual depth is a recurring problem. It's a core issue with how they approach design and the result is an unwieldy, bloated mess.
Daedalus81 wrote: That's pretty much what the efforts here are trying to do - minimize the difference between units so it's easier to remember.
No, they're not. That is a straw man.
They/we are trying to construct comparable distinctions between units within a simpler rules framework. Achieve the same general outcome while reducing cognitive burden. We don't actually care about the specific interrelation of numbers that comprise the mechanics as long as the output is approximately correct. In programming terms this is called 'refactoring'.
It is entirely possible to make Scything Talons on big creatures function differently from Scything Talons on small creatures, and make Scything Talons on Carnifexes function differently from Scything Talons on Hive Tyrants, without creating a half dozen different weapon profiles with minute and ultimately pointless differences.
And this is not a tiny part of the book; GW's dogged insistence on adding more minutiae and more complexity and more crap to remember in lieu of actual depth is a recurring problem. It's a core issue with how they approach design and the result is an unwieldy, bloated mess.
Literally all the other suggestions thus far revolve around making weapon profiles exactly the same for all models or with scaling AP. So, no, it isn't a strawman.
But feel free to write those rules that make those weapons distinct across multiple models and use the same weapon profile without making it simply rearranging the chairs on the titanic.
I was in favour of ScyTals/Monstrous ScyTals/Massive ScyTals.
That lets you cover normal bugs (up to Warrior/Ravener size), the big things (Tyrants, Trygons, Carnifexes) and the really big things (Tervitons, Maleceptor, hell even Hierodules).
Literally all the other suggestions thus far revolve around making weapon profiles exactly the same for all models or with scaling AP. So, no, it isn't a strawman.
Mmm. . . No. Tiers of generic weapons were suggested as well. Possible interaction with other keywords, such as Monster, was also implied. There are all sorts of ways to tackle it, it's not rocket science.
And any of these solutions would be better than 13 separate weapon profiles (applied in an inconsistent and often contradictory or illogical manner) to all achieve roughly the same result.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And any of these solutions would be better than 13 separate weapon profiles (applied in an inconsistent and often contradictory or illogical manner) to all achieve roughly the same result.
Daedalus81 wrote: Literally all the other suggestions thus far revolve around making weapon profiles exactly the same for all models
Some people have suggested consolidated profiles, but that doesn't mean identical actual melee output. Nobody's saying a Hormagaunt should have identical melee output to a Hive Tyrant.
What people are actually suggesting are a combination of consolidated profiles (like we had last edition- hands up Tyranids players, who felt that our weapon choices were boring and the fix was to add pointless bespoke variants?) and adjusting base model stats so that two models with the same weapon have different actual performance.
That accomplishes the desired end state of giving different units different roles and different capabilities while reducing cognitive burden and improving learnability.
Do you also feel that Chaplains and Chapter Masters need different powerfist profiles to avoid it being 'boring', or is it okay that they can use the same weapon in different ways?
Crozius Arcanum Terminator Crozius Arcanum Primaris Crozius Arcanum And then, to make it fit with what they did with ScyTals, the Primaris Biker Chaplain has a Terminator Crozius Arcanum!
H.B.M.C. wrote: Crozius Arcanum
Terminator Crozius Arcanum
Primaris Crozius Arcanum
And then, to make it fit with what they did with ScyTals, the Primaris Biker Chaplain has a Terminator Crozius Arcanum!
I don't know why - but I like the aesthetical concept of Gorgon/Hydra rules, as compared with say Eldar where it feels very much "crunch" all the way down. And if the crunch is inferior, the chapter is dead to me.
I'm sure someone else would interpret it differently "no you see Iyanden is tougher, and Saim Hann is faster" but... yeah. Can't believe the 170 Hormagaunt builds will work, but go nuts.
Daedalus81 wrote: That's pretty much what the efforts here are trying to do - minimize the difference between units so it's easier to remember.
No, they're not. That is a straw man.
They/we are trying to construct comparable distinctions between units within a simpler rules framework. Achieve the same general outcome while reducing cognitive burden. We don't actually care about the specific interrelation of numbers that comprise the mechanics as long as the output is approximately correct. In programming terms this is called 'refactoring'.
It is entirely possible to make Scything Talons on big creatures function differently from Scything Talons on small creatures, and make Scything Talons on Carnifexes function differently from Scything Talons on Hive Tyrants, without creating a half dozen different weapon profiles with minute and ultimately pointless differences.
And this is not a tiny part of the book; GW's dogged insistence on adding more minutiae and more complexity and more crap to remember in lieu of actual depth is a recurring problem. It's a core issue with how they approach design and the result is an unwieldy, bloated mess.
Literally all the other suggestions thus far revolve around making weapon profiles exactly the same for all models or with scaling AP. So, no, it isn't a strawman.
If its not a strawman, then you're willingly or unwillingly not comprehending anything anyone is saying to you. Because even 'figurative literal' is hanging its head in shame at that assertion.
Literally all the other suggestions thus far revolve around making weapon profiles exactly the same for all models or with scaling AP. So, no, it isn't a strawman.
Mmm. . . No. Tiers of generic weapons were suggested as well. Possible interaction with other keywords, such as Monster, was also implied. There are all sorts of ways to tackle it, it's not rocket science.
Right - tiers, which as stated wasn't practical, because things like the Trygon Prime can't be allowed to have the relic among other points made.
If you add keywords that change the way the weapon works and then you have to look at the datasheet...what is even the benefit? You'd otherwise have to write a literal paragraph on the weapon entry otherwise, which doesn't really sound great.
Right - tiers, which as stated wasn't practical, because things like the Trygon Prime can't be allowed to have the relic among other points made.
Surely one can come up with a way to restrict Relics from Trygon Primes if it is such a problem. "A Trygon Prime may not be given a Relic." Or, just allow it anyways. Why not?
If you add keywords that change the way the weapon works and then you have to look at the datasheet...what is even the benefit? You'd otherwise have to write a literal paragraph on the weapon entry otherwise, which doesn't really sound great.
Do you have to look at the datasheet to remind yourself that a Hive Tyrant is a Monster?
"Literal paragraph"? Or like, just a single sentence? I can do it with one!
"Models armed with a Venom Cannon with the MONSTER keyword roll an extra D3 for damage, three Mortal Wounds, plus 4 strength and whatever else Daedelus requires for it to be 'interesting'."
catbarf wrote: Nobody's saying a Hormagaunt should have identical melee output to a Hive Tyrant.
No, but it was stated at some point that the weapon profile should be AP1 D1 for Scytals on all models and they just benefit from strength.
Do you also feel that Chaplains and Chapter Masters need different powerfist profiles to avoid it being 'boring', or is it okay that they can use the same weapon in different ways?
Slightly confused. Chaplains don't have power fists. Did the Primaris Chaplain need the Absolvor Bolt Pistol? Absolutely not ( despite bolt pistols being about the most pointless gun in the game ), but it doesn't define the unit. A Chaplain can pray all day from safety. A Hive Tyrant needs to be out there fighting since one psychic power and reroll 1s is not an effective use of those points.
"Models armed with a Venom Cannon with the MONSTER keyword roll an extra D3 for damage, three Mortal Wounds, plus 4 strength and whatever else Daedelus requires for it to be 'interesting'."[/i]
Right --
You'd otherwise have to write a literal paragraph on the weapon entry otherwise, which doesn't really sound great.
You're going to be looking at the datasheet at some point anyway. Especially during initial games. I really don't think the current rules are outside the cognitive capabilities of most people.
Anyway...we could go in circles all day and I need to get some painting done. I concede.
Daedalus81 wrote: No, but it was stated at some point that the weapon profile should be AP1 D1 for Scytals on all models and they just benefit from strength.
Ok, and? One person said that, and you're making it out as if that's the entire discussion.
As Carbarf has being saying: That's a strawman.
Daedalus81 wrote: Slightly confused. Chaplains don't have power fists.
Now you're being intentionally disingenuous and, dare I say it, arguing in bad faith. The point isn't whether Chaplains can or cannot have Power Fists (and, as an aside, they actually can!), its whether the (hypothetical or otherwise) Power Fist on a Chaplain should be different in some way to the Power Fist on a Captain.
Insectum7 wrote: Firstborn (true) Chaplains can have Powerfists.
Primaris Chaplains have the Pimp Cane Crozius. I consider that more important.
Well it better be good because ITS ALL THEY CAN GET.
Just wait until they get the 'Primaris Chaplain with Swords Now' model, like the BRAND NEW and TOTALLY DIFFERENT Standard Bearer and Captain. They can sneak in a bonus dual wielded Cawlicious Crozius like the bonus power fist for the model that already has a weapon that's basically a power fist.
I suspect they plan to keep the current lot and not do new ones for aircraft,
So do I, But I also think they're going to either squat the firstborn, or get rid of the segregation entirely.
buff 1+ of the existing vehicles to have an AA and don't intend to do a Rhino equivalent (just stick with the existing 10 and 6 transport option floating boxes).
The Impulsor has an AA option, but its not very good, just like it has a half Whirlwind and Half Razorback option. And none of that will hold up if or more likely when we go back to mechanized infantry hammer and/or free Transports. Free Repulsors would be problematic.
I wonder if they are going to do jump packs for their assault marines. They might have though the relaxed looking chaps with packs were enough.
I think they'll have to eventually but they aren't ready to yet. I think it became a foregone conclusion when Shrike "crossed the Rubicon".
A quick gander at their options shows a full range. They don't need analogues of everything tiny marines had.
Sure they could torque off their customers if they want. Blood Angels are fluffed around the Jump Pack - and already have ground pounder Primaris Death Company when I suspect they were going to phase out Death Company - remember originally it was claimed Primaris don't suffer from the flaws. Now they do. Next they'll get to fly plus we should see some Primaris Sanguinary Guard, and Vanguard Vets.
Ignoring forgeworld they 'merely' have
HQ
No Captain or Lieutenant for Ravenwing or White Scar biker equivalents.
No Assault/Vanguard Marine equivalents(FLY JUMPPACK) for Blood Angels or Ravenguard. Wolf Guard will be problematic as well.
No Bodyguard Rule unit outside of one Chapter Specific.
No Company/Chapter Champion - no command on bikes at all for Ravenwing/WhiteScars
No Shoot-inator equivalent for Deathwing/WolfGuard - Aggressors/Gravis are close but missing the Deep Strike and Veteran aspects- as well as Gravis LT, Gravis Librarian, Gravis Chaplain
No Flying/Aircraft Transport
Let we forget, that one codex feeds into what 8? supplements that all push out a different flavor and need the units to continue that flavor.
Sim-Life wrote: I fimd it kind of funny that Daed is arguing that multiple different talons makes the game more "fun" when having to check codexes every few minutes is exactly one of the thing dragging 40k down for a lot of people.
The reason I preferred older editions was the "sameyness" you think is so bad. It was easier to remember so less time was spent looking up rules and more time playing the game or (God forbid) talking to your opponent.
Additionally, when weapons and units have less variation between them, the variations they have actually matter more, even if those variations are quite small. For example, long-ranged anti-tank in 9th has a base statline somewhere around S8/9 AP-3/-4 Dd6. Better weapons then get Dd3+3 and really, really good weapons might have Dd6+3. Then GW think that's not good enough and the proliferation of invulnerables and damage reduction means we end up jumping straight to the HH Railgun doing massive damage at ridiculous strength, ignoring invulns and adding MW too just for the hell of it.
With less variation you can easily make the railgun stand out through fairly simple and minor changes. Damage 2d3+4, for example, makes it much more consistent than other premier anti-tank but doesn't take it completely out of line compared to everything else. That also requires GW to have a consistent approach to profiles, abilities, saves and so on.
The idea that having weapons have the same statline makes the game boring is bizarre to me. It ignores the obvious fact that there are more differences between a Hormagaunt and a Hive Tyrant than just their weapons. WS, S, A, mobility, potential WL traits and Relics are all things that can mean a weapon profile of S User Ap-1 D1 works very differently depending on the model using it. I think we can tell from the Chaplain powerfist example that Daed long ago stopped arguing in good faith though.
I could be in the minority here, but I quite like the profiles on the new nid dex.
I don't think I will have problems remembering them after a couple of games, and they make it so all models have a very specific profile, which honestly didn't happen in the previous dex.
The powerfist comparison is also hardly applicable, because all powerfists have the same model.
Talons are differently represented on each model. They have different shapes and sizes. The ones on a HT are not the same ones on a Trygon or on a Maleceptor. The ones on a hormagaunt are not the ones on a ravener. Since the models are different, it stands to reason that the rules are different.
Spoletta wrote: I could be in the minority here, but I quite like the profiles on the new nid dex.
I don't think I will have problems remembering them after a couple of games, and they make it so all models have a very specific profile, which honestly didn't happen in the previous dex.
The powerfist comparison is also hardly applicable, because all powerfists have the same model.
Talons are differently represented on each model. They have different shapes and sizes. The ones on a HT are not the same ones on a Trygon or on a Maleceptor. The ones on a hormagaunt are not the ones on a ravener. Since the models are different, it stands to reason that the rules are different.
Okay, so why isn't the difference in WS, strength and number of attacks not enough to represent that?
Spoletta wrote: I could be in the minority here, but I quite like the profiles on the new nid dex.
I don't think I will have problems remembering them after a couple of games, and they make it so all models have a very specific profile, which honestly didn't happen in the previous dex.
The powerfist comparison is also hardly applicable, because all powerfists have the same model.
Talons are differently represented on each model. They have different shapes and sizes. The ones on a HT are not the same ones on a Trygon or on a Maleceptor. The ones on a hormagaunt are not the ones on a ravener. Since the models are different, it stands to reason that the rules are different.
Okay, so why isn't the difference in WS, strength and number of attacks not enough to represent that?
Because that will create easy "best in slot" units. People want breakpoints, a creature at S7 will take the backseat to one at S8 unless the pricing is so competitive that it doesn't matter, but then you still have a "best melee creature". Weapons having different damage etc and more attack modes gives creature more niches they can use than "hits exactly like that other unit but lower strength for more attacks".
Regards WS, people constantly want everything that's meant to do anything to do it on a 3+, there's a reason the carnifex hit's on 3's now, all the MC's hit on 3's come to think of it. There's a reason people dislike the Orks hitting on 5+ and consider it an archaic system, there's a reason tau players wanted increased BS on crisis suits etc. reliability over flavour.
Spoletta wrote: I could be in the minority here, but I quite like the profiles on the new nid dex.
I don't think I will have problems remembering them after a couple of games, and they make it so all models have a very specific profile, which honestly didn't happen in the previous dex.
The powerfist comparison is also hardly applicable, because all powerfists have the same model.
Talons are differently represented on each model. They have different shapes and sizes. The ones on a HT are not the same ones on a Trygon or on a Maleceptor. The ones on a hormagaunt are not the ones on a ravener. Since the models are different, it stands to reason that the rules are different.
Okay, so why isn't the difference in WS, strength and number of attacks not enough to represent that?
You could do that if the model had only that one single option.
Take a fex. If the melee capabilities of a fex were in his stats, then I could equip a fex with ranged weapons and still be a melee monstruosity.
No, the current profiles work much better.
Spoletta wrote: I could be in the minority here, but I quite like the profiles on the new nid dex.
I don't think I will have problems remembering them after a couple of games, and they make it so all models have a very specific profile, which honestly didn't happen in the previous dex.
The powerfist comparison is also hardly applicable, because all powerfists have the same model.
Talons are differently represented on each model. They have different shapes and sizes. The ones on a HT are not the same ones on a Trygon or on a Maleceptor. The ones on a hormagaunt are not the ones on a ravener. Since the models are different, it stands to reason that the rules are different.
Okay, so why isn't the difference in WS, strength and number of attacks not enough to represent that?
You could do that if the model had only that one single option.
Take a fex. If the melee capabilities of a fex were in his stats, then I could equip a fex with ranged weapons and still be a melee monstruosity.
No, the current profiles work much better.
Is that bad? A Carnifex is basically a Dread equivalent and many factions have similar units that are good at both CC and shooting. Redemptor Dreads can carry some pretty potent shooting and punch really hard in close combat, for example.
High strength alone doesn't really equate to good melee.
Requiring melee weapons to have AP and damage would absolutely make melee weapons far more effective than none.
I like the suggestion earlier to make scythes double attacks, S+1, and say AP1.
There should be small medium and large.
Small AP1 D1, medium AP2 D2, large AP3 D3.
Spoletta wrote: I could be in the minority here, but I quite like the profiles on the new nid dex.
I don't think I will have problems remembering them after a couple of games, and they make it so all models have a very specific profile, which honestly didn't happen in the previous dex.
The powerfist comparison is also hardly applicable, because all powerfists have the same model.
Talons are differently represented on each model. They have different shapes and sizes. The ones on a HT are not the same ones on a Trygon or on a Maleceptor. The ones on a hormagaunt are not the ones on a ravener. Since the models are different, it stands to reason that the rules are different.
Okay, so why isn't the difference in WS, strength and number of attacks not enough to represent that?
You could do that if the model had only that one single option.
Take a fex. If the melee capabilities of a fex were in his stats, then I could equip a fex with ranged weapons and still be a melee monstruosity.
No, the current profiles work much better.
Is that bad? A Carnifex is basically a Dread equivalent and many factions have similar units that are good at both CC and shooting. Redemptor Dreads can carry some pretty potent shooting and punch really hard in close combat, for example.
We can argue about this, sure, but the point stands.
Ok so if we do (theoretical stats, i don't know gak about the statblocks of nids)
Gaunt (Scything talon)
3A, 5+, S3, -1, 1
Fex (Scything talon)
6A, 4+, S7, -1, 1
Hive Tyrant (Scything talon)
10A, 3+, S7, -1, 1
How are all these "the same" with "an obvious better pick" You get 1 statline for your talons (USER, -1, 1) and you get various units with different effectiveness with them. Then you get rid of all the alphabits word salad that is the list of talons that was highlighted earlier. Clean, memorizable, simple.
And no, if your fex has 6A, S7, 0, 1 attacks base even if you load him with guns, it doesnt make it a "melee monster"
VladimirHerzog wrote: Ok so if we do (theoretical stats, i don't know gak about the statblocks of nids)
Gaunt (Scything talon)
3A, 5+, S3, -1, 1
Fex (Scything talon)
6A, 4+, S7, -1, 1
Hive Tyrant (Scything talon)
10A, 3+, S7, -1, 1
How are all these "the same" with "an obvious better pick" You get 1 statline for your talons (USER, -1, 1) and you get various units with different effectiveness with them. Then you get rid of all the alphabits word salad that is the list of talons that was highlighted earlier. Clean, memorizable, simple.
And no, if your fex has 6A, S7, 0, 1 attacks base even if you load him with guns, it doesnt make it a "melee monster"
Easy, you don't take the hormagaunts because they're accomplishing jack all hitting on a 5+ (assuming that's what it means) when you have the fleshborers available on gants.
You don't bother taking talons on the tyrant because with 10A base the other melee options would win out by default and the carnifex you'd swap for guns since S7 isn't a great breakpoint and at ap-1 d1 you might as well not have a melee weapon.
Okay, so you're falling back on pedantry over someone's off the cuff example and ignoring battlefield roles in favor of pure damage.
In the past Scything Talons also granted extra attacks and Crushing Claws were power fists and rending talons gave rending. They all had their own uses and we didn't need to have a dozen varients of each and the game was still fun. Why is that suddenly different?
If the difference between the melee and non melee version is just a +1S and -1 AP, the system you are proposing is highly flawed.
Number of attacks would change too, forgot to add the talons extra attacks to the number they each get so 5 for gaunts, 10 for fex, 14 for hive tyrant.
what if the purpose ISNT to make it a melee monster. Lets say giving any other weapon to the tyrant costs 100pts, then taking the talons gives you AP1 and keeps your tyrant cheap.
I'd say that if carrying different weapons is the only thing that differentiates two units, such that there is always a clear winner and a clear loser between two units that carry the same weapons, you have a massive problem with game depth (specifically, lack thereof).
But in any case, I don't actually think 40K is there. Raveners and Warriors both carry Deathspitters and are going to play completely differently on the tabletop. Same gun, different purpose. You don't need Primaris-esque bespoke gun variants for every single unit just to give them different roles.
In 8th Ed, both Termagants and Warriors could carry the same Devourer. That's two very different sizes of creature with the same weapon. For Termagants, you spent points on a Devourer to make them a credible shooting threat en-masse. It was essentially a heavy weapon. For Warriors, it was the cheaper alternative to a Deathspitter. It was how you gave them some shooting while keeping them inexpensive. Same weapon, two very different platforms, two very different roles.
If someone is seriously going to argue that Hive Tyrants and Carnifexes using the same Scything Talon profile would mean you'd only ever see one or the other on the tabletop, they either haven't read the rules or they're being extremely disingenuous.
Sim-Life wrote: Okay, so you're falling back on pedantry over someone's off the cuff example and ignoring battlefield roles in favor of pure damage.
In the past Scything Talons also granted extra attacks and Crushing Claws were power fists and rending talons gave rending. They all had their own uses and we didn't need to have a dozen varients of each and the game was still fun. Why is that suddenly different?
Why does having homogeneous weapon entries across an army make an army more fun? The entire debate is pedantry, the unit is what it is, read the entry in the book, learn it over a few uses and job done.
Sim-Life wrote: Okay, so you're falling back on pedantry over someone's off the cuff example and ignoring battlefield roles in favor of pure damage.
In the past Scything Talons also granted extra attacks and Crushing Claws were power fists and rending talons gave rending. They all had their own uses and we didn't need to have a dozen varients of each and the game was still fun. Why is that suddenly different?
Why does having homogeneous weapon entries across an army make an army more fun? The entire debate is pedantry, the unit is what it is, read the entry in the book, learn it over a few uses and job done.
Quick! Without looking at the book, tell me what the difference is between
Executor bolt rifle
executor heavy bolt rifle
heavy bolt rifle
Heavy bolter
hellstorm bolt rifle
hellstorm heavy bolter
Now repeat that for all the units in your codex.
40k Games already take way too long, adding the "oh lemme check, i'm not sure on what stat the +1 is for that gun" slows it down even more.
Sim-Life wrote: Okay, so you're falling back on pedantry over someone's off the cuff example and ignoring battlefield roles in favor of pure damage.
In the past Scything Talons also granted extra attacks and Crushing Claws were power fists and rending talons gave rending. They all had their own uses and we didn't need to have a dozen varients of each and the game was still fun. Why is that suddenly different?
Why does having homogeneous weapon entries across an army make an army more fun? The entire debate is pedantry, the unit is what it is, read the entry in the book, learn it over a few uses and job done.
Quick! Without looking at the book, tell me what the difference is between
Executor bolt rifle
executor heavy bolt rifle
heavy bolt rifle
Heavy bolter
hellstorm bolt rifle
hellstorm heavy bolter
Now repeat that for all the units in your codex.
40k Games already take way too long, adding the "oh lemme check, i'm not sure on what stat the +1 is for that gun" slows it down even more.
I don't have the marine book so here goes:
Executor bolt rifle - heavy 1 42" S5 Ap-2 D2
executor heavy bolt rifle - Heavy 42" 1 40" S6 Ap-3 D3
heavy bolt rifle - Rapid fire 36" S5 AP-1 D1
Heavy bolter - Heavy 3 36" S5 AP-1 D2
hellstorm bolt rifle - Assault 3 24" S5 AP- D1
hellstorm heavy bolter - Heavy 4 24" S5 AP- D2
How did I do?
Edited because I realised 40" isn't a multiple of 6, so changed the ranges to 42"
Sim-Life wrote: Okay, so you're falling back on pedantry over someone's off the cuff example and ignoring battlefield roles in favor of pure damage.
In the past Scything Talons also granted extra attacks and Crushing Claws were power fists and rending talons gave rending. They all had their own uses and we didn't need to have a dozen varients of each and the game was still fun. Why is that suddenly different?
Why does having homogeneous weapon entries across an army make an army more fun? The entire debate is pedantry, the unit is what it is, read the entry in the book, learn it over a few uses and job done.
I already told you. Less time flipping through the codex, more time in the game.
Sim-Life wrote: Okay, so you're falling back on pedantry over someone's off the cuff example and ignoring battlefield roles in favor of pure damage.
In the past Scything Talons also granted extra attacks and Crushing Claws were power fists and rending talons gave rending. They all had their own uses and we didn't need to have a dozen varients of each and the game was still fun. Why is that suddenly different?
Why does having homogeneous weapon entries across an army make an army more fun? The entire debate is pedantry, the unit is what it is, read the entry in the book, learn it over a few uses and job done.
I already told you. Less time flipping through the codex, more time in the game.
So if it's a new book do you not need to look at the codex to see the stats of the model anyway? You know the same page with the weapons on?
Sim-Life wrote: Okay, so you're falling back on pedantry over someone's off the cuff example and ignoring battlefield roles in favor of pure damage.
In the past Scything Talons also granted extra attacks and Crushing Claws were power fists and rending talons gave rending. They all had their own uses and we didn't need to have a dozen varients of each and the game was still fun. Why is that suddenly different?
Why does having homogeneous weapon entries across an army make an army more fun? The entire debate is pedantry, the unit is what it is, read the entry in the book, learn it over a few uses and job done.
I already told you. Less time flipping through the codex, more time in the game.
So if it's a new book do you not need to look at the codex to see the stats of the model anyway? You know the same page with the weapons on?
It's not about whether it's new or not. I'm still doing it over a year after some of my armies were released, as are my opponents. The sheer number of weapons that are almost the same but pointlessly different is mind-boggling. Quite often unit stats are fixed across unit types. SM, for example, have a basic Firstborn, Primaris and Gravis statline that doesn't vary much, especially for the Primaris and Gravis models, but the ludicrous number of bolt weapons means I constantly have to check to make sure I'm not cheating my opponent.
Having to explain why having less stuff to remember makes a game easier to play is peak DakkaDakka.
Sometimes I think if War For North Africa had chainswords, there'd be a vocal fanbase insisting that requiring Italian troops to expend more water tokens on upkeep is essential to distinguishing the nations of WW2.
catbarf wrote: Having to explain why having less stuff to remember makes a game easier to play is peak DakkaDakka.
Sometimes I think if War For North Africa had chainswords, there'd be a vocal fanbase insisting that requiring Italian troops to expend more water tokens on upkeep is essential to distinguishing the nations of WW2.
I know right and some people want more new units invented for every army then wish for extra spicy chapter traits, warlord traits, strats and army rules then some complain there's too many weapons.
catbarf wrote: Having to explain why having less stuff to remember makes a game easier to play is peak DakkaDakka.
Sometimes I think if War For North Africa had chainswords, there'd be a vocal fanbase insisting that requiring Italian troops to expend more water tokens on upkeep is essential to distinguishing the nations of WW2.
40k will never be thematic as long as Tallarn vehicles don't have rules for their differently shaped oil cans.
Not bad since I've never played against them, owned them nor have the codex, can't be that hard then can it?
you got half of them wrong.....
theres usually 6-7 different datasheet in a list.....
Its not impossible to remember them all, its just taxing for marginal reasons......
One of the 3 you got right is the heavy bolter, wanna know why? Because its STANDARDIZED across factions.
Is the difference between the STATS of a power maul/sword/axe really important? Do we NEED these distinctions?
It also doesn't particularly matter how well you do.
Some people sre extremely good at memorising numbers and values. Other people are less good.
It might not be that hard to memorise all this minutia for you, but for other's it isn't so easy.
I know I can't speak fo so other's, but I can speak for myself. I've never yet played a game of 40k where both myself and my opponent haven't gone scrambling for our codex several times to check up whether this unit got an extra AP or that unit got an extra strength.
When I was playing 7th I remember not even bringing my codex because I knew the entire thing by heart.
Now I bring an A4 sheet I made with all my unit stats, weapon stats, abilities, and strategems on it (written in short form) to remind me.
Not bad since I've never played against them, owned them nor have the codex, can't be that hard then can it?
you got half of them wrong.....
theres usually 6-7 different datasheet in a list.....
Its not impossible to remember them all, its just taxing for marginal reasons......
One of the 3 you got right is the heavy bolter, wanna know why? Because its STANDARDIZED across factions.
Is the difference between the STATS of a power maul/sword/axe really important? Do we NEED these distinctions?
*me playing a game
"Ok I am shooting you with the Heavy Intercessors"
* rolls hits
"You're T5, right? Ok wounds on 4s because I'm S5"
*rolls wounds
"That's 10 wounds - regular saves. Right, no modifier. Alright now I'll do the special bolter that is D2."
"How many wounds? How are those AP2? Right ok AP1 plus Montka. Dirty."
*me playing a game
"Ok I am shooting you with the Heavy Intercessors"
* rolls hits
"You're T5, right? Ok wounds on 4s because I'm S5"
*rolls wounds
"That's 10 wounds - regular saves. Right, no modifier. Alright now I'll do the special bolter that is D2."
"How many wounds? How are those AP2? Right ok AP1 plus Montka. Dirty."
Daedalus81 wrote: *me playing a game
"Ok I am shooting you with the Heavy Intercessors"
* rolls hits
"You're T5, right? Ok wounds on 4s because I'm S5"
*rolls wounds
"That's 10 wounds - regular saves. Right, no modifier. Alright now I'll do the special bolter that is D2."
"How many wounds? How are those AP2? Right ok AP1 plus Montka. Dirty."
Not sure if its because I went on a binge of youtube 40k battle reports where they tend to do this for the audience's sake, but I've picked up a tendency (possibly annoying tbh) of doing this through a game. I find it useful to me and my opponent to explain what I'm doing and why.
But then I also don't really mind checking the book unless you disappear for 5 minutes.
Daedalus81 wrote: *me playing a game
"Ok I am shooting you with the Heavy Intercessors"
* rolls hits
"You're T5, right? Ok wounds on 4s because I'm S5"
*rolls wounds
"That's 10 wounds - regular saves. Right, no modifier. Alright now I'll do the special bolter that is D2."
"How many wounds? How are those AP2? Right ok AP1 plus Montka. Dirty."
Not sure if its because I went on a binge of youtube 40k battle reports where they tend to do this for the audience's sake, but I've picked up a tendency (possibly annoying tbh) of doing this through a game. I find it useful to me and my opponent to explain what I'm doing and why.
But then I also don't really mind checking the book unless you disappear for 5 minutes.
All my games are pretty verbose, which might be why I don't perceive games as having big gaps when it isn't my turn.
kirotheavenger wrote: It also doesn't particularly matter how well you do.
Some people sre extremely good at memorising numbers and values. Other people are less good.
It might not be that hard to memorise all this minutia for you, but for other's it isn't so easy.
I know I can't speak fo so other's, but I can speak for myself. I've never yet played a game of 40k where both myself and my opponent haven't gone scrambling for our codex several times to check up whether this unit got an extra AP or that unit got an extra strength.
When I was playing 7th I remember not even bringing my codex because I knew the entire thing by heart.
Now I bring an A4 sheet I made with all my unit stats, weapon stats, abilities, and strategems on it (written in short form) to remind me.
My wife lost interest in 40K entirely on account of how much you need to remember. Unit stats are bad enough but at least you can reference those as needed; having to remember all her stratagems and when they're relevant is another matter entirely.
The people who really do struggle to keep up with the avalanche of raw numerical and syntactical data that 40K dumps on them aren't posting to DakkaDakka and they probably aren't playing 40K at all.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Ok so if we do (theoretical stats, i don't know gak about the statblocks of nids)
Gaunt (Scything talon)
3A, 5+, S3, -1, 1
Fex (Scything talon)
6A, 4+, S7, -1, 1
Hive Tyrant (Scything talon)
10A, 3+, S7, -1, 1
Don't the A from the scything talons stack? Because nothing in the codex doesn't say they don't and each time GW decided that a pair of +1A weapons don't give +2 it had to be errated, so a fex running around with maxed out talons should have more attacks then just 6.
Dudeface wrote: I know right and some people want more new units invented for every army then wish for extra spicy chapter traits, warlord traits, strats and army rules then some complain there's too many weapons.
Bit of apples and oranges there.
Rules that you can read at home, build your list from, and then ignore all the irrelevant stuff is generally pretty easy on cognitive load. You can read through three dozen chapter traits, WLTs, and relics, pick the ones you want, and then make note of those specific ones or make reference cards for yourself.
But every weapon that is going to be present in your army needs to be tracked. Every stratagem you have access to has to be remembered. When that's a significant number of either, you start running into memorization problems.
Case in point, one of the suggestions for stratagems that I've heard is to have you pick (X) number before the start of the game and those are the only ones you can use. That's not actually reducing the complexity of the game space- all those stratagems are still in the game and still available. But it cuts down the number you have to remember from all of them to just X.
Similarly, while the new Tyranid hive fleet trait system has its own in-built complexity with static and adaptive traits and different lists, all it really comes down to at game time is 'my army's traits are X and Y', whereas you need a flowchart to keep track of Custodes.
Now, in general, I tend to prefer a design space that uses fewer but more impactful effects to distinguish factions and am not really a fan of the current plethora of options (particularly as many are redundant, repeated across factions, or downright useless and amount to false choice). But complexity that can be left behind at the listbuilding stage is preferable to complexity that is carried forward into gameplay.
My wife lost interest in 40K entirely on account of how much you need to remember. Unit stats are bad enough but at least you can reference those as needed; having to remember all her stratagems and when they're relevant is another matter entirely.
The people who really do struggle to keep up with the avalanche of raw numerical and syntactical data that 40K dumps on them aren't posting to DakkaDakka and they probably aren't playing 40K at all.
That happens to a lot of people. When they go through the need multiple books to play, good army starts at over 800$. When you start explaing the fight phase, they just drop out, specially when you start going in to how other armies can modify it. Seen a 30+ year old dude go through 1000pts game and an explanation what harlis do in engagment phase and he just packed his models and went home. the new rule set is a good rule set tournament players, who like complexity, and who can levarage the ability to deal with it over other players. But I ain't mad about this one peculiar thing from GW design team. They get info from two sources, wierd in house players, who play the game like never I have ever seen play it and playtesters who are tournament players. So they end up like gaming companies, that make games based on the info they get from rank one pvpers and race for world 1st players, and soon they start making games not for the majority of players but for a super small minority.
My wife lost interest in 40K entirely on account of how much you need to remember. Unit stats are bad enough but at least you can reference those as needed; having to remember all her stratagems and when they're relevant is another matter entirely.
The people who really do struggle to keep up with the avalanche of raw numerical and syntactical data that 40K dumps on them aren't posting to DakkaDakka and they probably aren't playing 40K at all.
had the same thing happen to me, my SO loves the concept but actually playing the game is too taxing. Introduced her to OnePageRules and now we're playing weekly games at her request.
Don't the A from the scything talons stack? Because nothing in the codex doesn't say they don't and each time GW decided that a pair of +1A weapons don't give +2 it had to be errated, so a fex running around with maxed out talons should have more attacks then just 6.
yeah, i mentionned it in one of my following comments (i forgot talons gave extra attacks since i dont play the faction and i think i played against it like 3 times)
i agree with your overall statement but what makes harlequins particularly complex in combat? theyre pretty straightforward no?
now I was just seeing the game from the side, as I was playing a table further, at our store. The guy had a DG army of the you should not play with it kind. PMs & rhinos and the harlis player devastated his tanks turn one. he set up in the middle with a block of PMs and 2 rhinos. The harlis charged the rhinos and then heroiced in to his squads. And then the eldar player started to explain to him how his dudes bounce from the rhinos in to the PMs in to the DG. There was multiple rules mentioned, multiple stratagems used with the obligatory, point at part of the codex saying , see I can do that, only to flip to another rule to explain why he can do something else. Even if the eldar dude cheated I don't think it would have mattered. Mind you I have seen people leave the game turn 1-2. The very same day I got, more or less tabled, by tau end of his turn 2, start of my 2ed turn. But there is a difference between losing, but still staying at the store to play one more game or chatting with people. I don't do the second, but I know other people do. This dude just said, something kin to aha, asked how much dmg the eldar will do to him next turn. Got the anwser . I will probably table you. So he paid for the game, packed his stuff and went home. That was one not happy about the game guy, if I ever saw one. And he is twice my age.
They get info from two sources, wierd in house players, who play the game like never I have ever seen play it and playtesters who are tournament players. So they end up like gaming companies, that make games based on the info they get from rank one pvpers and race for world 1st players, and soon they start making games not for the majority of players but for a super small minority.
This is really observant and probably going to fly under the radar for this thread.
That happens to a lot of people. When they go through the need multiple books to play, good army starts at over 800$. When you start explaing the fight phase, they just drop out, specially when you start going in to how other armies can modify it. Seen a 30+ year old dude go through 1000pts game and an explanation what harlis do in engagment phase and he just packed his models and went home.
+1
This is why our group all went back to playing 5th ed and are having fun doing so. standardized rules across the entire game in the form of comparatively few (22) USRs, fixed rules for unit movement by type etc... doesn't leave us digging through 3 or 5 supplemental books to find out what to do.
If i want that kind of detail/crunch in a game i will play one with a much lower model count like classic battletech with 4-5 minis, or infinity with an average of one squad of 10, or even warmachine where we usually have around 20 models on average or sometimes less. with all these games every bit of info you need to play the units are right on the unit data sheet. so even there there is no digging needed for rules clarifications.
They get info from two sources, wierd in house players, who play the game like never I have ever seen play it and playtesters who are tournament players. So they end up like gaming companies, that make games based on the info they get from rank one pvpers and race for world 1st players, and soon they start making games not for the majority of players but for a super small minority.
This is really observant and probably going to fly under the radar for this thread.
I mean you gotta balance for the top but I'm guessing that these playtesters are feeding GW biased info, given what happened with Custodes.
Hecaton wrote: I mean you gotta balance for the top but I'm guessing that these playtesters are feeding GW biased info, given what happened with Custodes.
I thought we had some (possibly false) claims on this?
Ultimately if playtesters were told to play Custodes, Tau, GSC, CWE & Harlequins and now Tyranids together - then things are probably not a million miles away. (I mean GSC probably drew the short straw of that round but... its not dreadful exactly). CSM might be in the same pool.
But the idea these books were written with the same mentality as say Necrons is clearly nonsense.
They get info from two sources, wierd in house players, who play the game like never I have ever seen play it and playtesters who are tournament players. So they end up like gaming companies, that make games based on the info they get from rank one pvpers and race for world 1st players, and soon they start making games not for the majority of players but for a super small minority.
Nope.
cvtuttle wrote:I run The Independent Characters Podcast - arguably one of the largest Podcasts for Warhammer 40k out there. Our focus is playing the game in a variety of ways, but in particular we focus on narrative and campaign play. As a result I received an invite and put together a team of play testers now called The Infinity Circuit (check the front of your codex and other books in the credits page).
Our focus for play testing is different that the folks from The Mournival (the matched play testers - again, check the opening pages of your codexes). We focus on ensuring the rules represent the flavor of the lore. Meaning - we give feedback to make sure that units that are described one way - feel like they play that way on the table.
Games Workshop isn't really accepting play testers who are volunteering. They are looking for folks who are heavily invested in the game, the lore, and the community and then tapping them as they see fit. I'll be honest, it's not a lot of fun. It's actually quite a bit of work and we find ourselves pushing to find time to play test before deadlines.
GW rewrites rules and stats in the middle of receiving feedback from competitive playtesters and sometimes starts playtesting after they start printing. It's a flustercluck.
GW rewrites rules and stats in the middle of receiving feedback from competitive playtesters and sometimes starts playtesting after they start printing. It's a flustercluck.
As I said wierd ways practically no one plays and tournament play. GW is a game where even the simplest design questions can not be awsered, and probably never will. But it is clear that you have a book like DE or Custodes or even the pre nerf GK , someone cleary fist build a list, in case of some books one list per entire codex, and the work on it was done. DE were so perfect in how they fitted in to 2000pts , even regarding secondaries they could take, that there is no way it was writen like that at random. There is clearly armies that the studio, or someone at the studio likes to play, and there for has a vision and it should play, and then there is armies where they just add the new models or model, and are done with it. Without any indepth vision on how it should work, specially post nerfs. DE were write so well, same way Inari were, that by the time the nerfs to them came, people have already moved to a different style of build and the nerfs not only didn't effect them, but actually buffed them back again to spot number 1.
Sim-Life wrote: But even then, a unit FEELING like it plays right is very vauge and very subjective.
And strangely only comes from people already 'very invested' in the game. Ie, likely to agree with GW. Even if they're not, it sounds very conflict-of-interest.
It is hard to not be invested in to w40k when an regular army cots 800$ or more. When something costs two of your parents monthly salaries, it becomes a very serious thing, you feel very invested in. And any nerfs to how the army works or plays is often expiriance as a personal attack from GW on the person who bought the army.
I think that Carl Tuttle thinks that he is more invested than most, and if anyone has ever listened to his pov on his Indy characters podcast, it is pretty clear where his sentiments lie… I recall him often simply discounting any voices critical of GW’s corporate direction. He is a company man, and a cop or similar iirc so an authority with authority and a fan thereof. Definitely, Voss got this one dead right.
Yeeehhh.....I checked, and both "The Mournival" and the "Infinity Circuit" are in the credits for the Imperial Armour Compendium. And if the "Infinity Circuit" thinks that the rules for the Chaos units in there represent the "flavor of the lore" for Chaos, then they're probably a bunch of Imperial/Xenos players. They're just copy-pastes of the loyalist units in the same book, with "Chaos" and "Hellforged" written here and there. Where's my Machine Malifica? Where's my Legacies of Ruin? Where's my Butcher Cannons?
jeff white wrote: I think that Carl Tuttle thinks that he is more invested than most, and if anyone has ever listened to his pov on his Indy characters podcast, it is pretty clear where his sentiments lie… I recall him often simply discounting any voices critical of GW’s corporate direction. He is a company man, and a cop or similar iirc so an authority with authority and a fan thereof. Definitely, Voss got this one dead right.
Who is he exactly? Is he a playtester? Not the same as the Jesus freak, I'm sure...
I remember play-testing for Fantasy Flight Games, mostly with their Deathwatch product line, but also lots of others.
Our feedback had them shelve entire book sections and rethink entire products. Hell they even asked me once where I think the product line should go moving forward. I doubt anything the GW play-testers have done comes even close to that.
And the collective view on the book seemed to be "quite toned down really, bordering on nothing to see here". From the position today though CWE+Harlequins seem to clearly be Custodes/Tau level, if not superior. We had some people here mention that Harlequins looked busted - see Salt Donkey in this thread in late February:
Salt donkey wrote: However, Harlequins look absurd. Light in particular gives me custodes vibes with their needing 4+ to be hit at over 12 inches away (which can be 6 inches and allow no re-rolls with certain buffs). All their units also got cheaper and better as well. And the only real nerfs they got where losing charges after double move power and only 2 fusion pistols per squad. I bet they compete better than craftworlds with custodes and Tau. Additionally, I also think they make drukhari viable again due being a “free” add.
and so it would seem to have proven. I think 4 rounds into Adepticon and 7 of the undefeated 16 lists are from this book.
This isn't really to pick on the goonhammer guys. Calculating how power levels will interact is famously difficult across all game systems. Perhaps because its a very different skillset and way of thinking to just being really good at games. But it leaves me wondering how you get a more balanced 40k.
I'm not hooked in closely enough to Adepticon, but I'm not convinced the Craftworlds section is too good. They could be, but I'm not sure the data's there yet.
Harlequins on the other hand... I didn't think they'd dominate as they have, I figured the loss of fusion spam and S4 in melee would hurt more, but clearly I was wrong.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: I'm not hooked in closely enough to Adepticon, but I'm not convinced the Craftworlds section is too good. They could be, but I'm not sure the data's there yet.
Harlequins on the other hand... I didn't think they'd dominate as they have, I figured the loss of fusion spam and S4 in melee would hurt more, but clearly I was wrong.
voidweavers more than make up for fusion spam being gone. Theyre so hard to kill or little "fragile" boats.
And the collective view on the book seemed to be "quite toned down really, bordering on nothing to see here". From the position today though CWE+Harlequins seem to clearly be Custodes/Tau level, if not superior. We had some people here mention that Harlequins looked busted - see Salt Donkey in this thread in late February:
Salt donkey wrote: However, Harlequins look absurd. Light in particular gives me custodes vibes with their needing 4+ to be hit at over 12 inches away (which can be 6 inches and allow no re-rolls with certain buffs). All their units also got cheaper and better as well. And the only real nerfs they got where losing charges after double move power and only 2 fusion pistols per squad. I bet they compete better than craftworlds with custodes and Tau. Additionally, I also think they make drukhari viable again due being a “free” add.
and so it would seem to have proven. I think 4 rounds into Adepticon and 7 of the undefeated 16 lists are from this book.
This isn't really to pick on the goonhammer guys. Calculating how power levels will interact is famously difficult across all game systems. Perhaps because its a very different skillset and way of thinking to just being really good at games. But it leaves me wondering how you get a more balanced 40k.
Yea I haven't bothered much since it's pretty clear this is going to be whack-a-mole for a while yet. By the time Nids are out and in the field for a couple weeks we'll almost be at the dataslate - perhaps Knights not being too far from that timeline as well.
Just....so many effin' books so fast.
I am very curious to hear people's experiences playing Harlies and what else makes them over the top. It is just the durability? Where are they pushing the most damage? I don't have the book and I haven't had the "opportunity" to play them yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: voidweavers more than make up for fusion spam being gone. Theyre so hard to kill or little "fragile" boats.
Oh and you can't hide against a harlequins
So it's that stupid haywire profile pushing all their damage? I felt my stomach drop when I saw that.
Yea I haven't bothered much since it's pretty clear this is going to be whack-a-mole for a while yet. By the time Nids are out and in the field for a couple weeks we'll almost be at the dataslate - perhaps Knights not being too far from that timeline as well.
Just....so many effin' books so fast.
I am very curious to hear people's experiences playing Harlies and what else makes them over the top. It is just the durability? Where are they pushing the most damage? I don't have the book and I haven't had the "opportunity" to play them yet.
its their mobility and durability mostly (and the fact everything is undercosted too). Voidweavers are absolutely insane long range firepower, troupes are so cheap that even trading 1 for 1 feels bad.
If they happen to play dark and you're on a melee-centric army, its pretty much non-interactive
its their mobility and durability mostly (and the fact everything is undercosted too). Voidweavers are absolutely insane long range firepower, troupes are so cheap that even trading 1 for 1 feels bad.
If they happen to play dark and you're on a melee-centric army, its pretty much non-interactive
Thanks for the insight. So now all we have to do is wait for GW to FAQ CORE into Troupes.
its their mobility and durability mostly (and the fact everything is undercosted too). Voidweavers are absolutely insane long range firepower, troupes are so cheap that even trading 1 for 1 feels bad.
If they happen to play dark and you're on a melee-centric army, its pretty much non-interactive
Thanks for the insight. So now all we have to do is wait for GW to FAQ CORE into Troupes.
well most people play it with them having core otherwise the codex just doesnt function
Yea I haven't bothered much since it's pretty clear this is going to be whack-a-mole for a while yet. By the time Nids are out and in the field for a couple weeks we'll almost be at the dataslate - perhaps Knights not being too far from that timeline as well.
Just....so many effin' books so fast.
I am very curious to hear people's experiences playing Harlies and what else makes them over the top. It is just the durability? Where are they pushing the most damage? I don't have the book and I haven't had the "opportunity" to play them yet.
Voidweavers push out insane levels of dmg against vehicles and elite infantry. They have a 70pt character (Death Jester) who has effectively a 6 hit sniper rifle that ignores Look out Sir and is AP-2 2dmg Its also shuriken so if you roll a 6 to wound its AP-4 They have their shadowseers who for 100pts is a Psyker level 2 who will always use Mirror of Minds which averages 3mortal wounds a turn and with bad rolls can go up to 9.
Everything is mounted in transports or is a vehicle which means everything is -1 to hit, if that same shadowseer is out of his vehicle they are also -1 to wound. The entire army has a 4+ invuln save
And of course the #1 problem. They are Harlequins and therefore they don't have to follow "rules". Move, advance, shoot, charge, fall back from combat, repeat. Charge into combat, hit and then jump in a vehicle before getting hit back etc etc etc.
Honestly, its just an exercise in frustration to play against them because they have strats or rules that let them violate core rules on a regular basis.
Note: Mirror of Minds does not average 3 wounds, and it also casts on a 7, so you should say "if it casts, it averages X wounds" where X is 2 (avg of d3) + 21/36 (likelihood of winning/tying the roll off). So if cast, Mirror of Minds averages ~2.6 MW.
...but given that it casts on a 7, I don't get how this is a boogieman at all.
ETA: Ugh I'm wrong and didn't account for the telescoping damage from multiple wins of the dice roll-off. It is actually a little more than 3 MW. I still don't get how that's that crazy degenerate when compared to smite though. If you're going to complain about OP stuff in that book, I don't think that's a great example.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: Note: Mirror of Minds does not average 3 wounds, and it also casts on a 7, so you should say "if it casts, it averages X wounds" where X is 2 (avg of d3) + 21/36 (likelihood of winning/tying the roll off). So if cast, Mirror of Minds averages ~2.6 MW.
...but given that it casts on a 7, I don't get how this is a boogieman at all.
ETA: Ugh I'm wrong and didn't account for the telescoping damage from multiple wins of the dice roll-off. It is actually a little more than 3 MW. I still don't get how that's that crazy degenerate when compared to smite though. If you're going to complain about OP stuff in that book, I don't think that's a great example.
Why? because its 100pts for a Psyker lvl 2 who has a pistol, D3 Mortal wound grenade Launcher, 5 wounds, 4+ invuln and a host of special rules including an aura which gives -1 to wound to harlequins within 6' of him. ...which includes himself.
I can take a weirdboy for 70pts who gets a 6+ save, no ranged weapon and is significantly slower...and hes Psyker lvl 1. And no, the "Waaagh! Energy" rule does not give him Psyker 2 because ork infantry units are so terrible they never benefit from it.
As far as compared to smite...Smite casts on a 5 and does D3 mortal wounds. So i averages 2. And again, its a Psyker lvl 2 so it can do both
shocking a 90 point vehicle with -1 hit, 4++, transhuman on hits AND an amazing gun that does both anti tank and anti infantry taken in squadrons of 3 breaks the game.
Who could have seen this coming....
If a Ridgerunner is 80 points, how in the Four Armed Emperors name can a voidweaver be 90.
Increase Voidweavers by 30 points and you may well 'fix' the Harlequin army.
The Voidweaver is clearly head and shoulders over any comparable unit. 120 points might be getting a bit much on a 6 wound frame - but the firepower is broken given the flexibility, fly, Harlequin defences etc. I feel like they just forgot it also has 2 shuriken cannons.
But then I suspect this is because they decided Starweavers should only be 80 points. At that price they are the best transports in the game. I think they could be 90.
Its the usual debate really - the same applies to Custodes and Tau. There's nerfs to bring them down to say a 60% win rate (i.e. still top but not so clearly broken) and nerfs to 50%/where the bulk of books are.
Tyel wrote: The Voidweaver is clearly head and shoulders over any comparable unit. 120 points might be getting a bit much on a 6 wound frame - but the firepower is broken given the flexibility, fly, Harlequin defences etc. I feel like they just forgot it also has 2 shuriken cannons.
But then I suspect this is because they decided Starweavers should only be 80 points. At that price they are the best transports in the game. I think they could be 90.
Its the usual debate really - the same applies to Custodes and Tau. There's nerfs to bring them down to say a 60% win rate (i.e. still top but not so clearly broken) and nerfs to 50%/where the bulk of books are.
Starweaver 80pts
M16, auto 6' advance, T5 6W 4+ save/invuln -1 to hit, no re-rolls. BS3+ 6 S6 -1AP 2dmg shuriken shots.
Trukk 70pts
M12, T6 10W 4+ save/NO invuln, BS5+ 3 S5 0AP 1dmg shots. (Ramshackle -1dmg on S7 and below).
Against S7 and below multi-dmg weapons the Trukk is definitely more durable. As soon as you start getting into S8+ it swings to the Starweaver. As far as dmg output...its totally one sided. A trukk does 3 shots, 1 hit 0.6 wounds and 0.2 dmg to a Marine. The Starweaver does 6 shots, 4 hits, 2.66 wounds for 1.33 failed saves for 2.66dmg to a Marine...or 13x more dmg
also...somehow the Starweaver is better in CC than the trukk....figure that out.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Put it this way, the new Shuriken Cannon is equivalent to a heavy bolter, but its significantly better. S6 as opposed to S5 and of course its got the Shuriken key word so 6s to wound are AP-3.
So a heavy bolter is a 10pt upgrade right now. I would argue that with those rules the Shuriken cannon is under priced at 10pts but lets use that as a metric.
The Voidweaver has 2 of them, so 20pts, its main gun is easily equivalent to a duel lascannon, and at S12...its clearly better. So lets say its 10pts more expensive so 30pts.
That means that 50pts of its 90pt cost are tied up in just those 3 guns. And realistically you could easily argue that the Shuriken cannon should be 15pts.
But lets be conservative and say 50pts. So that means that 40pts is tied up in the actual model itself which has a 4+ invuln, -1 to hit, no re-rolls allowed, 16' movement, fly and auto 6' advane. Does that sound like a good unit at just 40pts?
I don't believe this was playtested - and if it was and they went "seems fine to me" the whole process is clearly bugged to being pointless.
People think this is to sell models - but I really think GW just go "we thought this was fine but you all thought it sucked. Here's a massive glow up, hope you like it" - and the result it just ludicrous.
You could argue bias against Orks - but 10th edition, Flash Gits are going to have 4 wounds, and an assault 5, S6 AP-4 3 damage weapon for say 20 points. Because why not?
I don't believe this was playtested - and if it was and they went "seems fine to me" the whole process is clearly bugged to being pointless.
People think this is to sell models - but I really think GW just go "we thought this was fine but you all thought it sucked. Here's a massive glow up, hope you like it" - and the result it just ludicrous.
You could argue bias against Orks - but 10th edition, Flash Gits are going to have 4 wounds, and an assault 5, S6 AP-4 3 damage weapon for say 20 points. Because why not?
I think the problem is that most of the "glow ups" come for free, or for such a small points increase that they might as well be. Gw just keeps making things too cheap.
Starweaver 80pts
M16, auto 6' advance, T5 6W 4+ save/invuln -1 to hit, no re-rolls. BS3+ 6 S6 -1AP 2dmg shuriken shots.
Hmm...I think the -1 to hit only hurts BS2 if they're in Dark, right? It is 90 points, but that isn't much solace.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: People think this is to sell models - but I really think GW just go "we thought this was fine but you all thought it sucked. Here's a massive glow up, hope you like it" - and the result it just ludicrous.
Yea if it was the whole book we'd see those Eldrad die-hards running around, but it seems partially contained to Harlies at the moment.
Starweaver 80pts
M16, auto 6' advance, T5 6W 4+ save/invuln -1 to hit, no re-rolls. BS3+ 6 S6 -1AP 2dmg shuriken shots.
Hmm...I think the -1 to hit only hurts BS2 if they're in Dark, right? It is 90 points, but that isn't much solace.
Nope its "Subtract 1 from that attacks hit roll and that attack's hit roll cannot be re-rolled" nothing about BS2 and nothing about dark or light. its also in CC AND in Ranged combat and its 80pts not 90 You are thinking of the Voidweaver which is the HS choice.
Ironically, if GW made Flashgitz 20ppm gave them all those buffs you mentioned they would add a caveat "Only 3 models per army" and then everything would be dramatically over priced to compensate for your 3 good models
Starweaver 80pts
M16, auto 6' advance, T5 6W 4+ save/invuln -1 to hit, no re-rolls. BS3+ 6 S6 -1AP 2dmg shuriken shots.
Hmm...I think the -1 to hit only hurts BS2 if they're in Dark, right? It is 90 points, but that isn't much solace.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: People think this is to sell models - but I really think GW just go "we thought this was fine but you all thought it sucked. Here's a massive glow up, hope you like it" - and the result it just ludicrous.
Yea if it was the whole book we'd see those Eldrad die-hards running around, but it seems partially contained to Harlies at the moment.
-1 hit doesn't do much against Bs3+ armies in Light yes but it still works if your within 12" or in combat.
And it also disables re-rolls, because reasons.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: What happened to all the people saying Vertus Praetors were broken at 85ppm?
Oh, we still think that they are, we just have new busted things to talk about. Don't worry, we still remember all of the ridiculously underpriced things available to The Golden Boys.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Yeeehhh.....I checked, and both "The Mournival" and the "Infinity Circuit" are in the credits for the Imperial Armour Compendium. And if the "Infinity Circuit" thinks that the rules for the Chaos units in there represent the "flavor of the lore" for Chaos, then they're probably a bunch of Imperial/Xenos players. They're just copy-pastes of the loyalist units in the same book, with "Chaos" and "Hellforged" written here and there. Where's my Machine Malifica? Where's my Legacies of Ruin? Where's my Butcher Cannons?
The Infinity Circuit guy plays Eldar. I don't think he's the only one who does narrative playtesting and I'm almost certain the comp playtesters are also more than a single group. I've heard mention of playtester discords a few times in podcasts in the past too.
Not sure if that's helpful info, especially a week or so late but I was too busy with work this last week to keep up with the internet hub-bub.
I don't believe this was playtested - and if it was and they went "seems fine to me" the whole process is clearly bugged to being pointless.
People think this is to sell models - but I really think GW just go "we thought this was fine but you all thought it sucked. Here's a massive glow up, hope you like it" - and the result it just ludicrous.
You could argue bias against Orks - but 10th edition, Flash Gits are going to have 4 wounds, and an assault 5, S6 AP-4 3 damage weapon for say 20 points. Because why not?
I think the problem is that most of the "glow ups" come for free, or for such a small points increase that they might as well be. Gw just keeps making things too cheap.
Agree with the last part completely. Points are supposed to be the more granular balancing option but GW seems intent on cramming everything down way lower than they have any right being. There's this constant race to the bottom the design team seems to keep engaging with in an effort to cram more models onto the table at every points level even if it's not always the healthiest thing to do for the game.
Starweaver 80pts
M16, auto 6' advance, T5 6W 4+ save/invuln -1 to hit, no re-rolls. BS3+ 6 S6 -1AP 2dmg shuriken shots.
Hmm...I think the -1 to hit only hurts BS2 if they're in Dark, right? It is 90 points, but that isn't much solace.
Nope its "Subtract 1 from that attacks hit roll and that attack's hit roll cannot be re-rolled" nothing about BS2 and nothing about dark or light. its also in CC AND in Ranged combat and its 80pts not 90 You are thinking of the Voidweaver which is the HS choice.
Ironically, if GW made Flashgitz 20ppm gave them all those buffs you mentioned they would add a caveat "Only 3 models per army" and then everything would be dramatically over priced to compensate for your 3 good models
Sorry I think I worded that wrong.
Dark is unmod 1-3 fails.
So, if I hit on 3s the -1 takes me to 4s and there is no effect since the 3s miss anyway.
Well...to revise my statement - it doesn't hurt BS2/3 any, but it still hurts BS4/5. Does that make sense? Or am I losing my mind?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Yeeehhh.....I checked, and both "The Mournival" and the "Infinity Circuit" are in the credits for the Imperial Armour Compendium. And if the "Infinity Circuit" thinks that the rules for the Chaos units in there represent the "flavor of the lore" for Chaos, then they're probably a bunch of Imperial/Xenos players. They're just copy-pastes of the loyalist units in the same book, with "Chaos" and "Hellforged" written here and there. Where's my Machine Malifica? Where's my Legacies of Ruin? Where's my Butcher Cannons?
The Infinity Circuit guy plays Eldar. I don't think he's the only one who does narrative playtesting and I'm almost certain the comp playtesters are also more than a single group. I've heard mention of playtester discords a few times in podcasts in the past too.
Not sure if that's helpful info, especially a week or so late but I was too busy with work this last week to keep up with the internet hub-bub.
More information is always helpful, and I thank you for it. But it unfortunately still doesn't explain why the "fluff" playtestors signed off on all of the Chaos units in the Compendium losing all of their "fluffy" rules. I can only assume that either they didn't know enough about them to know that they were gone, didn't get to actually see them, or that they did say something but gw ignored them for whatever reason, probably expedience, as I doubt anyone thought that things like Machine Malifica were breaking the game.
I don't believe this was playtested - and if it was and they went "seems fine to me" the whole process is clearly bugged to being pointless.
People think this is to sell models - but I really think GW just go "we thought this was fine but you all thought it sucked. Here's a massive glow up, hope you like it" - and the result it just ludicrous.
You could argue bias against Orks - but 10th edition, Flash Gits are going to have 4 wounds, and an assault 5, S6 AP-4 3 damage weapon for say 20 points. Because why not?
I think the problem is that most of the "glow ups" come for free, or for such a small points increase that they might as well be. Gw just keeps making things too cheap.
Agree with the last part completely. Points are supposed to be the more granular balancing option but GW seems intent on cramming everything down way lower than they have any right being. There's this constant race to the bottom the design team seems to keep engaging with in an effort to cram more models onto the table at every points level even if it's not always the healthiest thing to do for the game.
I'm not sure if they're doing it specifically to increase the model counts in games. If that was their goal, then I'd think they'd be cutting points more for older codexes. I think it might be more of a case of them playtesting the newer codexes against each other, instead of the ones that came out earlier in 9th. That would explain why the power levels keep increasing.
@Daedalus: I think you've gotten it right, except I think you might have the "traits" mixed up. I believe "Light" is the one that prevents you hitting on unmodified rolls of 1-3, while "Dark" is Fight on Death.
Tyel wrote: The Voidweaver is clearly head and shoulders over any comparable unit. 120 points might be getting a bit much on a 6 wound frame - but the firepower is broken given the flexibility, fly, Harlequin defences etc. I feel like they just forgot it also has 2 shuriken cannons.
But then I suspect this is because they decided Starweavers should only be 80 points. At that price they are the best transports in the game. I think they could be 90.
Its the usual debate really - the same applies to Custodes and Tau. There's nerfs to bring them down to say a 60% win rate (i.e. still top but not so clearly broken) and nerfs to 50%/where the bulk of books are.
Starweaver 80pts
M16, auto 6' advance, T5 6W 4+ save/invuln -1 to hit, no re-rolls. BS3+ 6 S6 -1AP 2dmg shuriken shots.
Trukk 70pts
M12, T6 10W 4+ save/NO invuln, BS5+ 3 S5 0AP 1dmg shots. (Ramshackle -1dmg on S7 and below).
Against S7 and below multi-dmg weapons the Trukk is definitely more durable. As soon as you start getting into S8+ it swings to the Starweaver. As far as dmg output...its totally one sided. A trukk does 3 shots, 1 hit 0.6 wounds and 0.2 dmg to a Marine. The Starweaver does 6 shots, 4 hits, 2.66 wounds for 1.33 failed saves for 2.66dmg to a Marine...or 13x more dmg
also...somehow the Starweaver is better in CC than the trukk....figure that out.
I think the Starweaver profile is appropriate, except the points cost. Harlequins are supposed to be an elite army, with low body count but badass models. So yeah, they should be amazing, even transports, but not cheap. A starweaver should cost like a razorback, 100-120 points, not 80.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: Note: Mirror of Minds does not average 3 wounds, and it also casts on a 7, so you should say "if it casts, it averages X wounds" where X is 2 (avg of d3) + 21/36 (likelihood of winning/tying the roll off). So if cast, Mirror of Minds averages ~2.6 MW.
...but given that it casts on a 7, I don't get how this is a boogieman at all.
ETA: Ugh I'm wrong and didn't account for the telescoping damage from multiple wins of the dice roll-off. It is actually a little more than 3 MW. I still don't get how that's that crazy degenerate when compared to smite though. If you're going to complain about OP stuff in that book, I don't think that's a great example.
Why? because its 100pts for a Psyker lvl 2 who has a pistol, D3 Mortal wound grenade Launcher, 5 wounds, 4+ invuln and a host of special rules including an aura which gives -1 to wound to harlequins within 6' of him. ...which includes himself.
I can take a weirdboy for 70pts who gets a 6+ save, no ranged weapon and is significantly slower...and hes Psyker lvl 1. And no, the "Waaagh! Energy" rule does not give him Psyker 2 because ork infantry units are so terrible they never benefit from it.
As far as compared to smite...Smite casts on a 5 and does D3 mortal wounds. So i averages 2. And again, its a Psyker lvl 2 so it can do both
Okay, all of that is true, but none of it has to do with Mirror of Minds. Are Shadowseers too good? Yeah. Is that power anything to write home about? No.
I think 120 would be pushing it for a starweaver. Its only got 6 wounds.
If you compare with say a 75/85 point Venom (which I'd say is neither obviously terrible or overpowered), I think 95-100 is probably a fair price . 80 is however clearly a steal when you get better guns*, a 4++ over a 5++, auto-advance 6 if you need it, and no rerolls to hit against you.
*There are certain situations where splinter cannons beat shuriken cannons by a little bit - but there are far more when Shuriken is dramatically better.
I also think CWE have the legs - but its much easier to build a "bad" (or non-synergistic) list, or rather just make a lot of mistakes with it. If you've got say one unit of banshees, one unit of scorpions, one unit of spears, one unit of shroud runners, one unit of hawks etc etc you've got to make a lot of choices about which unit is going to do what. There isn't the same redundancy - and units can't automatically cover each other on a 1 to 1 basis. Its a bit more... fiddly than when you've got 3 units of X, 3 units of Y and 2 units of Z. (Nothing admittedly stops you building a list like that, but exarch powers etc make it probably not optimal.) I'd say 2 Farseers, a load of support weapons and maybe a Nightspinner seems to be winning out as a sort of standard.
Okay, all of that is true, but none of it has to do with Mirror of Minds. Are Shadowseers too good? Yeah. Is that power anything to write home about? No.
While you pile up stuff for free on models or units which are already good, it very much is something to write about.
That's the nonsense of it all. If you have a smaller surface - like you have GW's odd-sized boards or bought one of the smaller mats - then use the smaller surface. Fine. No big deal. But to actually take a 6x4 mat and tape off part of it to make it smaller is lunacy.
The game is so broken right now since the launch of Custodes, CWE, Quins and T'au I don't even know where to start.
I played a GT test game earlier using an Ork board pressure list, Some Trukks because there is too much indirect fire, triple warboss mostly durability buffs, Some Stormboyz & Kommando's for secondaries into a CWE match. His list not even particularly tuned. It didn't even feel like we were playing the same game system.
It's just laughable the disparity level between the codexes. Strands of Fate and Luck of the Laughing god are two of the most straight up busted, ill thought out. dumb army wide rules I can ever remember.
T'au are just as oppressive with unkillable crisis suit bombs and ridiculous amounts of indirect fire.
Basically armies that you cannot meaningfully interact with.
I could have had another 500 points in my list and it still wouldn't have been a battle.
As people have already pointed out, some of the points costs are laughable. A farseer at 90 points vs. an Ork Weirdboy at 70. Starweavers at 80 vs Trukks at 70.
The game is utterly broken.
I don't even know where to start to balance these new codexes to bring the older codexes remotely onto an even footing.
It makes the bevvy of Ork nerfs look even more ridiculous, When they made all those ork nerfs theGW rules writers were armed with all of the information and knew that the Asuryani & T'au codexes were about to land, and the power levels of those books and they still went ahead and nerfed Orks (a codex with terrible internal balance that was surviving off 1-2 power builds into the dirt)
Just boggles the mind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sasori wrote: I suspect we are going to see Starweavers go up 5 PPM and Voidweavers 10 PPM, with a possible +5 points to the prism cannon.
Pickled_egg wrote: The game is so broken right now since the launch of Custodes, CWE, Quins and T'au I don't even know where to start.
I played a GT test game earlier using an Ork board pressure list, Some Trukks because there is too much indirect fire, triple warboss mostly durability buffs, Some Stormboyz & Kommando's for secondaries into a CWE match. His list not even particularly tuned. It didn't even feel like we were playing the same game system.
It's just laughable the disparity level between the codexes. Strands of Fate and Luck of the Laughing god are two of the most straight up busted, ill thought out. dumb army wide rules I can ever remember.
T'au are just as oppressive with unkillable crisis suit bombs and ridiculous amounts of indirect fire.
Basically armies that you cannot meaningfully interact with.
I could have had another 500 points in my list and it still wouldn't have been a battle.
As people have already pointed out, some of the points costs are laughable. A farseer at 90 points vs. an Ork Weirdboy at 70. Starweavers at 80 vs Trukks at 70.
The game is utterly broken.
I don't even know where to start to balance these new codexes to bring the older codexes remotely onto an even footing.
It makes the bevvy of Ork nerfs look even more ridiculous, When they made all those ork nerfs theGW rules writers were armed with all of the information and knew that the Asuryani & T'au codexes were about to land, and the power levels of those books and they still went ahead and nerfed Orks (a codex with terrible internal balance that was surviving off 1-2 power builds into the dirt)
Just boggles the mind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sasori wrote: I suspect we are going to see Starweavers go up 5 PPM and Voidweavers 10 PPM, with a possible +5 points to the prism cannon.
Just so I understand your point, is the game broken because you can't beat the new factions with your Ork lists, or is it broken because they are too powerful? Because that is two very different statements.
One you are advocating for Orks to be as strong as the current meta, which is funny, because they are doing fine currently. Let's not make orks out to be Guard or Daemons.
I admit fully that the current meta has so far eclipsed the older factions as to be literally a joke. But that is not even a point. You are just screaming the game is unbalanced. No one ever promised anyone a balanced game. Ever. They claim they make efforts to "increase" balance, but never achieve complete balance. Because that would be chess, and even that is inherently unbalanced because of who goes first.
Point cost is not the way to balance this game. It's the way to ruin it. Just make all weapons USR, Bolters are Bolters, Melta are Melta, Melee is Melee. Going back to the AV system. Look at the way OPR does it. FAR more balanced, but you have no standout pieces. Everything is roughly similar, compared to 40k.
Pickled_egg wrote: The game is so broken right now since the launch of Custodes, CWE, Quins and T'au I don't even know where to start.
I played a GT test game earlier using an Ork board pressure list, Some Trukks because there is too much indirect fire, triple warboss mostly durability buffs, Some Stormboyz & Kommando's for secondaries into a CWE match. His list not even particularly tuned. It didn't even feel like we were playing the same game system.
It's just laughable the disparity level between the codexes. Strands of Fate and Luck of the Laughing god are two of the most straight up busted, ill thought out. dumb army wide rules I can ever remember.
T'au are just as oppressive with unkillable crisis suit bombs and ridiculous amounts of indirect fire.
Basically armies that you cannot meaningfully interact with.
I could have had another 500 points in my list and it still wouldn't have been a battle.
As people have already pointed out, some of the points costs are laughable. A farseer at 90 points vs. an Ork Weirdboy at 70. Starweavers at 80 vs Trukks at 70.
The game is utterly broken.
I don't even know where to start to balance these new codexes to bring the older codexes remotely onto an even footing.
It makes the bevvy of Ork nerfs look even more ridiculous, When they made all those ork nerfs theGW rules writers were armed with all of the information and knew that the Asuryani & T'au codexes were about to land, and the power levels of those books and they still went ahead and nerfed Orks (a codex with terrible internal balance that was surviving off 1-2 power builds into the dirt)
Just boggles the mind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sasori wrote: I suspect we are going to see Starweavers go up 5 PPM and Voidweavers 10 PPM, with a possible +5 points to the prism cannon.
Just so I understand your point, is the game broken because you can't beat the new factions with your Ork lists, or is it broken because they are too powerful? Because that is two very different statements.
One you are advocating for Orks to be as strong as the current meta, which is funny, because they are doing fine currently. Let's not make orks out to be Guard or Daemons.
I admit fully that the current meta has so far eclipsed the older factions as to be literally a joke. But that is not even a point. You are just screaming the game is unbalanced. No one ever promised anyone a balanced game. Ever. They claim they make efforts to "increase" balance, but never achieve complete balance. Because that would be chess, and even that is inherently unbalanced because of who goes first.
Point cost is not the way to balance this game. It's the way to ruin it. Just make all weapons USR, Bolters are Bolters, Melta are Melta, Melee is Melee. Going back to the AV system. Look at the way OPR does it. FAR more balanced, but you have no standout pieces. Everything is roughly similar, compared to 40k.
Uhhh......you do know that Grimdark Future uses points as a balancing mechanism between units/armies/optional wargear, right? So, apparently, OPR does think that "points cost is a way to balance a game". Units and optional wargear should be priced according to their relative stats/abilities compared to other units/wargear in the game.
Yeeesh. Maybe the TO wanted to make a statement about lethality?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: No one ever promised anyone a balanced game. Ever. They claim they make efforts to "increase" balance, but never achieve complete balance. Because that would be chess, and even that is inherently unbalanced because of who goes first.
Point cost is not the way to balance this game. It's the way to ruin it. Just make all weapons USR, Bolters are Bolters, Melta are Melta, Melee is Melee. Going back to the AV system. Look at the way OPR does it. FAR more balanced, but you have no standout pieces. Everything is roughly similar, compared to 40k.
Kind of a weird take. No one promised perfect balance, but we weren't led to believe that they would position things this out of whack.
I understand how they got to this place, but they need to take steps. Not all of it will be points, but points are crucial regardless. OPR just homogenizes everything so it's all kind of roughly similar, but there's definitely places it can be exploited.
Butcher Cannons? 
