solkan wrote: I'm not sure whether the complaining would be louder if the rule were something like "makes an attack with a weapon other than a Lasgun", or "if a unit other than the standard trooper squad makes an attack" for the Imperial Guard rule.
How much clunkier (more specific) would it have to be for that complaining to equal the current complaining?
It doesn’t make sense with Autoguns, or Autocannons, or Plasma guns, or Multilasers, or Lascannons… should I go on?
Yeah. Please do. I want to see what you think the rule should have been. You've got one paragraph of text to specify the rule. That's the goal post.
Simply, a lot of us don't think the rule should have been at all. Guard need help that much is true, but this rule is not the way to do it, it's whole concept is just silly.
Eonfuzz wrote: lmfao what is this garbage? Next balance slate we will see orks get a rule that makes them automatically pass armor saves on a 6+. Or something.
Just more rules bloat to remember. And more "Feth You" to those that aren't playing a Mehriiien faction. Next!
chaos0xomega wrote: I want them to roll back the to-wound table just as much as you do, but clutching your pearls over *this* when GW lets any weapon wound anything on a 6+ is kinda silly.
Well, if you know it is wrong, why would you say this:
chaos0xomega wrote: Yeah I can dig out black library novels that have examples of massed lasgun fire punching clean through power armor and disabling tanks, so saying guardsmen with lasguns "shouldn't" be able to do something "because fluff", when the fluff demonstrates and justifies the exact thing you're claiming is unfluffy, doesn't seem like a solid argument.
Because that seems to imply the mechanic is totally right. Oh, and still waiting for those examples btw.
Because I dont enjoy vehicles being plinked away by small arms fire as a valid gameplay strategy, I prefer my armoured vehicles hard to kill and my anti-tank weapons being devastatingly powerful in the right applications. Today the game has neither and I don't particularly care for the "death by a thousand cuts" approach the game currently allows for. But that being the prevalent design paradigm of the day, I have to live with it, so that being the case Im on board with gusrd having the ability to do something which helps balance them while also being congruent with established fluff. *Should* a standard-isdue low-end rifle be able to pumch a hole through a leman russ? Probably not, but 40k fluff is filled with silly and inconsistent things like that, because the writers have no sense of scale, it is what it is.
You already got examples from another poster, im not going to be bothered to dig up more examples for you, they are very clearly there as he detailed and we both know that Rick Priestly, Gav Thorpe, and Andy Chambers themselves could descend from the heavens and show you passages affirming as such, and you would still argue against it
solkan wrote: I'm not sure whether the complaining would be louder if the rule were something like "makes an attack with a weapon other than a Lasgun", or "if a unit other than the standard trooper squad makes an attack" for the Imperial Guard rule.
How much clunkier (more specific) would it have to be for that complaining to equal the current complaining?
the rule should be :
"An unmodified hit roll of 6 automatically wounds INFANTRY, BIKES, SWARMS and BEASTS. If the attack has a strength of 5 or more, it also automatically wounds vehicles and monsters"
No effect on CAVALRY and CHARIOTS? (You'd be surprised how many minor keywords there are, if what you're trying to do is make the rule not auto-wound knights and titans without saying so...)
GW forgets that chariots exist, so the rule would be consistent with their writing stype. It's always funny when my opponent tries to use a rule that works vs Vehicles and I have to inform them that Daemon Chariots aren't Vehicles. So many confused looks.
Voss wrote: Daemons are either perfectly fine or non-existent to GW, can't tell.
As a Daemons player, I suspect that the eventual 9th Ed codex will be disappointing.
Oh no, it'll be pure awesomeness. It'll be everything you ever wanted it to be. You'll see.
UNFORTUNATELY..... You'll only have around 3-5 weeks to enjoy it in its proper glory. Then it'll be nerfed back beyond its present state. And 5 months later 10e will roll out dooming you to another 3 years of complete silence concerning the force.
At best you'll be collaterall damage by catching a few more random nerfs aimed at other forces.
chaos0xomega wrote: I want them to roll back the to-wound table just as much as you do, but clutching your pearls over *this* when GW lets any weapon wound anything on a 6+ is kinda silly.
Well, if you know it is wrong, why would you say this:
chaos0xomega wrote: Yeah I can dig out black library novels that have examples of massed lasgun fire punching clean through power armor and disabling tanks, so saying guardsmen with lasguns "shouldn't" be able to do something "because fluff", when the fluff demonstrates and justifies the exact thing you're claiming is unfluffy, doesn't seem like a solid argument.
Because that seems to imply the mechanic is totally right. Oh, and still waiting for those examples btw.
Because I dont enjoy vehicles being plinked away by small arms fire as a valid gameplay strategy, I prefer my armoured vehicles hard to kill and my anti-tank weapons being devastatingly powerful in the right applications. Today the game has neither and I don't particularly care for the "death by a thousand cuts" approach the game currently allows for. But that being the prevalent design paradigm of the day, I have to live with it, so that being the case Im on board with gusrd having the ability to do something which helps balance them while also being congruent with established fluff. *Should* a standard-isdue low-end rifle be able to pumch a hole through a leman russ? Probably not, but 40k fluff is filled with silly and inconsistent things like that, because the writers have no sense of scale, it is what it is.
You already got examples from another poster, im not going to be bothered to dig up more examples for you, they are very clearly there as he detailed and we both know that Rick Priestly, Gav Thorpe, and Andy Chambers themselves could descend from the heavens and show you passages affirming as such, and you would still argue against it
So instead of trying to fix the problem, you will just suffer, nice.
As for what the other poster gave as examples, he was talking about sniping the crew by a regiment known for its snipers like Mkoll and Larkin. That is considerably different from regular Conscript hordes crippling a tank with a volley of rifle fire.
And no, if that happened I probably wouldn't fight it - I would just go play Battletech where the tanks are better and make more logical sense. So, uh, good talk I guess?
One argument that could be used for lasguns in particular is that they have way, way more ammo than anyone else. A marine carries what, a few hundred rounds at most? A guardsman however has, in comparison, nearly infinite ammunition which means that they can really spray and pray.
Not that it makes any more sense. And what I find really hilarious is that it probably won't even make them do all that much better in the game either.
Dolnikan wrote: One argument that could be used for lasguns in particular is that they have way, way more ammo than anyone else. A marine carries what, a few hundred rounds at most? A guardsman however has, in comparison, nearly infinite ammunition which means that they can really spray and pray.
Not that it makes any more sense. And what I find really hilarious is that it probably won't even make them do all that much better in the game either.
Guard carry more ammo than marines/ have fewer logistical issues and therefore can use volume fire. That might be unique for human/ Imperial factions but I don't see eldar, necrons or nids running low on ammo either.
Dolnikan wrote: One argument that could be used for lasguns in particular is that they have way, way more ammo than anyone else. A marine carries what, a few hundred rounds at most? A guardsman however has, in comparison, nearly infinite ammunition which means that they can really spray and pray.
Not that it makes any more sense. And what I find really hilarious is that it probably won't even make them do all that much better in the game either.
Guard carry more ammo than marines/ have fewer logistical issues and therefore can use volume fire. That might be unique for human/ Imperial factions but I don't see eldar, necrons or nids running low on ammo either.
I wasn't saying that it would be the best argument. But I would assume that they carry more than most given the logistics of lasguns compared to say Tyranid weapons. That said, other energy weapons have the same thing going for them. But it's some kind of argument at least compared to just instating it as a blanket rule.
Generally though, it feels like GW has little to no idea on how to balance their game. The indirect fire thing kind of makes sense in most cases, but aside from that, the armour of contempt thing also is weird (why doesn't it work for anything else?)
Only on Dakka do you get 2 pages of complains about lasguns potentially hurting tanks despite it never actually being a factor on the tabletop.
"Oh no, 200 lasguns can kill a tank, the game is dying!!".
yes its a dumb rule, its a bandaid to give a faction that is completely in the gutter with an old codex, and unlikely to see a new one any time soon by the looks of it, a quick an dirty leg up.
Be happy they get something
In this case it's only 40ish lasguns to kill a tank.
40 infantrymen (240 points) with FRFSRF and 0 other buffs (including not using their free weapons from the Dataslate) kill a 12 wound 3+ save tank on average.
Ordana wrote: Only on Dakka do you get 2 pages of complains about lasguns potentially hurting tanks despite it never actually being a factor on the tabletop.
and the complains are about, why GW think this is a solution to the problem IG armies have
This dataslate is absolutely fantastic. One of the best publications we had from the GW in years, perfectly responding to the current issues of the game... and in here it is threated like the advent of another dark crusade...
In this dataslate:
-the lethality of the game nosedives
- the AP gets more important
- the AP0 weapons are given a new role
- the invulnerability saves are made less relevant
- the power armor factions get a boost
- the bodyguard rule and indirect fire rules are fixed
- the worst offenders of the meta are brought back in line
- the worst faction in the game gets a big boost
...
Seriously, when did this board become like this? You really suck the joy out of everything.
Give praise where praise is do.
This dataslate was a spectacular job from GW and we should give praise so that the next time, they know what we want.
40 infantrymen (240 points) with FRFSRF and 0 other buffs (including not using their free weapons from the Dataslate) kill a 12 wound 3+ save tank on average.
Yeah, but it's also super easy to kill those squishy footslogging infantrymen and they have to get in range to kill that tank.
H.B.M.C. wrote: So what if they are easy to kill? Guardsmen shouldn't be able to auto-wound everything.
Well, as I was told when I suggested orks shouldn't be base bs4+ army wide, its an abstraction, the numbers on a datasheet mean whatever you want them to mean and it's better to roll fewer dice.
As shown in these threads, every guardsman is clearly a sniper able to hit eye lenses and vision slits, the bs4+ here is a mechanical arrangement to produce some arbitrary stats unrelated from the fluff for game balance. /s
40 infantrymen (240 points) with FRFSRF and 0 other buffs (including not using their free weapons from the Dataslate) kill a 12 wound 3+ save tank on average.
160 shots, 80 hits of which 13 auto wound. the remaining 67 hits wound 11, 24 saves = 8 wounds.
How are you getting 12 wounds?
Also why did I let you walk 40 guardsman to within 12" of my tank without killing them with a stiff breeze?
40 infantrymen (240 points) with FRFSRF and 0 other buffs (including not using their free weapons from the Dataslate) kill a 12 wound 3+ save tank on average.
160 shots, 80 hits of which 13 auto wound. the remaining 67 hits wound 11, 24 saves = 8 wounds.
How are you getting 12 wounds?
Also why did I let you walk 40 guardsman to within 12" of my tank without killing them with a stiff breeze?
160 shots is 27 wounds (1/6th) automatically before the normal roll to wound.
1/3rd will hit without wounding (about 53) 1/6th of which will go on to wound (another 9). So about 36 wounds total before saves.
And you were busy dealing with the other 80 guardsmen that are less than 25% of my list?or maybe the other 200 guardsmen that are like 1200 points?
40 infantrymen (240 points) with FRFSRF and 0 other buffs (including not using their free weapons from the Dataslate) kill a 12 wound 3+ save tank on average.
160 shots, 80 hits of which 13 auto wound. the remaining 67 hits wound 11, 24 saves = 8 wounds.
How are you getting 12 wounds?
Also why did I let you walk 40 guardsman to within 12" of my tank without killing them with a stiff breeze?
160 shots is 27 wounds (1/6th) automatically before the normal roll to wound.
And you were busy dealing with the other 80 guardsmen that are less than 25% of my list?or maybe the other 200 guardsmen that are like 1200 points?
Nah I just quit because it was the still turn 2 after 3 hours of playing.
40 infantrymen (240 points) with FRFSRF and 0 other buffs (including not using their free weapons from the Dataslate) kill a 12 wound 3+ save tank on average.
160 shots, 80 hits of which 13 auto wound. the remaining 67 hits wound 11, 24 saves = 8 wounds.
How are you getting 12 wounds?
Also why did I let you walk 40 guardsman to within 12" of my tank without killing them with a stiff breeze?
160 shots is 27 wounds (1/6th) automatically before the normal roll to wound.
And you were busy dealing with the other 80 guardsmen that are less than 25% of my list?or maybe the other 200 guardsmen that are like 1200 points?
Nah I just quit because it was the still turn 2 after 3 hours of playing.
Spoletta wrote: Now I remember why I rarely visit this board.
This dataslate is absolutely fantastic. One of the best publications we had from the GW in years, perfectly responding to the current issues of the game... and in here it is threated like the advent of another dark crusade...
In this dataslate:
-the lethality of the game nosedives
- the AP gets more important
- the AP0 weapons are given a new role
- the invulnerability saves are made less relevant
- the power armor factions get a boost
- the bodyguard rule and indirect fire rules are fixed
- the worst offenders of the meta are brought back in line
- the worst faction in the game gets a big boost
...
Seriously, when did this board become like this? You really suck the joy out of everything.
Give praise where praise is do.
This dataslate was a spectacular job from GW and we should give praise so that the next time, they know what we want.
Yeah, it's not perfect but it's very good...apart from nids...who are about to go nom nom nom.
40 infantrymen (240 points) with FRFSRF and 0 other buffs (including not using their free weapons from the Dataslate) kill a 12 wound 3+ save tank on average.
160 shots, 80 hits of which 13 auto wound. the remaining 67 hits wound 11, 24 saves = 8 wounds.
How are you getting 12 wounds?
Also why did I let you walk 40 guardsman to within 12" of my tank without killing them with a stiff breeze?
160 shots is 27 wounds (1/6th) automatically before the normal roll to wound.
1/3rd will hit without wounding (about 53) 1/6th of which will go on to wound (another 9). So about 36 wounds total before saves.
And you were busy dealing with the other 80 guardsmen that are less than 25% of my list?or maybe the other 200 guardsmen that are like 1200 points?
doh, yeah did 1/6 of the shots, not the hits auto wounds.
I need more coffee it seems.
Still, like every other "X, guards can in theory kill a vehicle" complaint. It exists only on paper, its never been a problem on the actual table.
Feel free to win a tournament with 200+ guardsmen to prove me wrong.
In this dataslate:
-the lethality of the game nosedives
Only if you're a Space Marine or Sister, otherwise get fethed.
- the AP gets more important
Unless it's AP1, which can get fethed
- the AP0 weapons are given a new role
Ah yeah, low power weaponary, famous for being the marine-killers the galaxy over. Heavy bolters? Why are you pointing that at a Space Marine? A lasgun is all you need son!
- the invulnerability saves are made less relevant
Unless you're not an Astartes or Sister of Battle (I said Sisters before, but actually Sisters of Silence can get fethed too).
- the power armor factions get a boost
Neat.
I always felt Dark Angels, Deathguard, and Thousand Sons were just too damned squishy.
- the bodyguard rule and indirect fire rules are fixed
Neat.
Unless you're Imperial Guard, because Atkins with his metal tube is more accurate than advanced xenos self-tracking ammunition.
- the worst offenders of the meta are brought back in line
40 infantrymen (240 points) with FRFSRF and 0 other buffs (including not using their free weapons from the Dataslate) kill a 12 wound 3+ save tank on average.
160 shots, 80 hits of which 13 auto wound. the remaining 67 hits wound 11, 24 saves = 8 wounds.
How are you getting 12 wounds?
Also why did I let you walk 40 guardsman to within 12" of my tank without killing them with a stiff breeze?
160 shots is 27 wounds (1/6th) automatically before the normal roll to wound.
1/3rd will hit without wounding (about 53) 1/6th of which will go on to wound (another 9). So about 36 wounds total before saves.
And you were busy dealing with the other 80 guardsmen that are less than 25% of my list?or maybe the other 200 guardsmen that are like 1200 points?
doh, yeah did 1/6 of the shots, not the hits auto wounds.
I need more coffee it seems.
Still, like every other "X, guards can in theory kill a vehicle" complaint. It exists only on paper, its never been a problem on the actual table.
Feel free to win a tournament with 200+ guardsmen to prove me wrong.
I am not arguing it is unbalanced. I am arguing it is immersion-breaking....
My group came up with a strong justification for the auto-wounding thing.
See, the Imperial Guard is such a vast organisation the battle isn't one battle, the enemy's been fighting this battle for days against waves and waves of Guard - of which this is just the most recent wave.
These days of constant fighting has left your enemy extremely fatigued and vulnerable to damage.
Yes that's right, your tank needs a nap, that's why.
Spoletta wrote: Now I remember why I rarely visit this board.
This dataslate is absolutely fantastic. One of the best publications we had from the GW in years, perfectly responding to the current issues of the game... and in here it is threated like the advent of another dark crusade...
In this dataslate:
-the lethality of the game nosedives
- the AP gets more important
- the AP0 weapons are given a new role
- the invulnerability saves are made less relevant
- the power armor factions get a boost
- the bodyguard rule and indirect fire rules are fixed
- the worst offenders of the meta are brought back in line
- the worst faction in the game gets a big boost
...
Seriously, when did this board become like this? You really suck the joy out of everything.
Give praise where praise is do.
This dataslate was a spectacular job from GW and we should give praise so that the next time, they know what we want.
mostly right. though it basically neutered the ork book, weakened GSC and necrons. Overall I think the changes are good for the game as a whole, I just wish GW had given these armies something to compensate enough. Marines and Orks were pretty close before this and it made for some good fun games where the two were evenly matched. that is no longer the case,
Eonfuzz wrote: lmfao what is this garbage? Next balance slate we will see orks get a rule that makes them automatically pass armor saves on a 6+. Or something.
Haha, silly you. Orks won't get feth.
Though there was another guy winning a GT with kill rigs in their lists, so maybe those get another +20 points and limited to 1 per list.
Eonfuzz wrote: lmfao what is this garbage? Next balance slate we will see orks get a rule that makes them automatically pass armor saves on a 6+. Or something.
Haha, silly you. Orks won't get feth.
Though there was another guy winning a GT with kill rigs in their lists, so maybe those get another +20 points and limited to 1 per list.
The next dataslate will prevent Orks from taking units with the letters O, K or G, as all of those units are wholly too powerful. Long live the Deff Dread only lists of Winter 2022.
Spoletta wrote: Now I remember why I rarely visit this board.
This dataslate is absolutely fantastic. One of the best publications we had from the GW in years, perfectly responding to the current issues of the game... and in here it is threated like the advent of another dark crusade...
In this dataslate:
-the lethality of the game nosedives
- the AP gets more important
- the AP0 weapons are given a new role
- the invulnerability saves are made less relevant
- the power armor factions get a boost
- the bodyguard rule and indirect fire rules are fixed
- the worst offenders of the meta are brought back in line
- the worst faction in the game gets a big boost
...
Seriously, when did this board become like this? You really suck the joy out of everything.
Give praise where praise is do.
This dataslate was a spectacular job from GW and we should give praise so that the next time, they know what we want.
Spoletta wrote: Now I remember why I rarely visit this board.
This dataslate is absolutely fantastic. One of the best publications we had from the GW in years, perfectly responding to the current issues of the game... and in here it is threated like the advent of another dark crusade...
In this dataslate:
-the lethality of the game nosedives
- the AP gets more important
- the AP0 weapons are given a new role
- the invulnerability saves are made less relevant
- the power armor factions get a boost
- the bodyguard rule and indirect fire rules are fixed
- the worst offenders of the meta are brought back in line
- the worst faction in the game gets a big boost
...
Seriously, when did this board become like this? You really suck the joy out of everything.
Give praise where praise is do.
This dataslate was a spectacular job from GW and we should give praise so that the next time, they know what we want.
Woah!!! someone with a sense of perspesctive!!!
Are you sure you are on the right forum???
Confirmation bias isn't the same as " a sense of perspective".
Spoletta wrote: Now I remember why I rarely visit this board.
This dataslate is absolutely fantastic. One of the best publications we had from the GW in years, perfectly responding to the current issues of the game... and in here it is threated like the advent of another dark crusade...
In this dataslate:
-the lethality of the game nosedives
- the AP gets more important
- the AP0 weapons are given a new role
- the invulnerability saves are made less relevant
- the power armor factions get a boost
- the bodyguard rule and indirect fire rules are fixed
- the worst offenders of the meta are brought back in line
- the worst faction in the game gets a big boost
...
Seriously, when did this board become like this? You really suck the joy out of everything.
Give praise where praise is do.
This dataslate was a spectacular job from GW and we should give praise so that the next time, they know what we want.
Look, I get what you're saying -- the dataslate will make the competitive meta healthier, and that was needed. But do you really not see why people are upset about this incredibly immersion-breaking Guard change? It just throws everything off kilter. Yeah, the game will survive, but we've piled one more crappy, unrealistic rule on top of the pile and continue to diverge from any sort of consistency. I think it's very telling that Unit and CatBarf, both Guard fans, are not happy with this. They're also students of game design, and this is just bad game design. It's okay to grouse about that, especially since it seems like many of the other common places to discuss this (i.e. reddit) aren't noticing this change.
I would also bet you a large sum of money that, a year from now, people will look back on this change to Guard in the dataslate and trash it. Just like people were initially very happy about the change of the AP mechanic from 7th to 8th, and the change of the wound chart from 7th to 8th, and the removal of initiative from 7th to 8th, etc. etc.
Ordana wrote: Only on Dakka do you get 2 pages of complains about lasguns potentially hurting tanks despite it never actually being a factor on the tabletop.
"Oh no, 200 lasguns can kill a tank, the game is dying!!".
yes its a dumb rule, its a bandaid to give a faction that is completely in the gutter with an old codex, and unlikely to see a new one any time soon by the looks of it, a quick an dirty leg up.
Be happy they get something
In the same dataslate they got free equipment upgrades for their squads. They already got something.
It's a dumb and unnecessary rule.
Also the light weapons doing significant damage to vehicles is totally a thing in my exp.
In this dataslate:
-the lethality of the game nosedives
- the AP gets more important
- the AP0 weapons are given a new role
- the invulnerability saves are made less relevant
- the power armor factions get a boost
- the bodyguard rule and indirect fire rules are fixed
- the worst offenders of the meta are brought back in line
- the worst faction in the game gets a big boost
Well... power armor factions get a boost, yeah. The rest... those rules did change and the harlequin vehicles got a points hike. Whether that's enough or if anything is 'fixed' is up in the air
Lethality isn't fixed at all (specific power armor factions get a minor bump), AP isn't any more or less important, AP0 doesn't change and invulnerables still matter (and nothing about AP and saves changes a jot for non-SM/Sisters)
Give praise where praise is do.
This dataslate was a spectacular job from GW and we should give praise so that the next time, they know what we want.
I'm not going to praise this. The design approach to these (dubious) fixes is actively terrible. They're flailing at self-created problems with more bloat, more favoritism and temporary patches for guard that makes no sense at all.
The fact that they're patching 9th with pieces of 3rd-6th is just hilarious. Especially since bodyguard is now a USR that is just a pointer to another (effective) USR (Look out sir), decrees a few exceptions (tyranids) and calls it a day.
Look, I get what you're saying -- the dataslate will make the competitive meta healthier, and that was needed. But do you really not see why people are upset about this incredibly immersion-breaking Guard change?
Actually? Truly?
Yes, I do see. It's the MAGNITUDE of their outrage at the rule that I don't understand, lol.
Why is my battlefield limited to this darned table?! I should be able to drive my tank into the living room! Why is my tank only able to shoot the scale equivalent of across a city block???!!?! MUH ImMuRsIoN!!!
People on this forum just pick the most BIZARRE hills to die on or lines in sand to draw.
I can find a fluffy explaination for this guard rule: volume of fire and faith in the god-emperor. Think of it like an inverse shield of faith. Boom, fluff!
Spend less time being upset about this rule, and more time being upset that GW is still trickling out rules to you with overpriced dead trees that are so heavily errata'd within 6 months as to be unrecognizable.
I mean holy cow they are finally actually trying to balance factions every three months with a free digitally available thing and people are upset at THIS?
Spoletta wrote: Now I remember why I rarely visit this board.
This dataslate is absolutely fantastic. One of the best publications we had from the GW in years, perfectly responding to the current issues of the game... and in here it is threated like the advent of another dark crusade...
In this dataslate:
-the lethality of the game nosedives
- the AP gets more important
- the AP0 weapons are given a new role
- the invulnerability saves are made less relevant
- the power armor factions get a boost
- the bodyguard rule and indirect fire rules are fixed
- the worst offenders of the meta are brought back in line
- the worst faction in the game gets a big boost
...
Seriously, when did this board become like this? You really suck the joy out of everything.
Give praise where praise is do.
This dataslate was a spectacular job from GW and we should give praise so that the next time, they know what we want.
You're right, praise should be given when due. This isn't that time.
I'm just happy they're quickly addressing issues instead of the old way of doing things where a codex would be broken for 2-3 years. Even if they don't get every change exactly perfect to please everyone and balance the game like chess, this is still progress. Guard needed some kind of band aid to get them by until their codex. Obviously the one they got isn't perfect but it will at least bump them to a bit more competitive.
This being the 2nd Balance Dataslate, I believe I see more clearly what GW is trying to accomplish and I'm now thinking that their intensions behind this is being misunderstood.
What the Balance Dataslate is... It is intended to shift around faction power dynamics by intentionally nerfing and buffing.
What the Balance Dataslate is NOT... It is not intended to fix / amend game mechanics. If it were, the information would be put into the FAQ's.
This ^; is the only way I can make any sense of the utter nonsense, the complete lack of forethought, the superficial patchwork of the Balance Dataslate.
Voss wrote: (specific power armor factions get aminorbump)
Ok that's it.
You are so removed from reality that there is no reason to say anything any more.
I have no idea why I still check this board...
You're moving the armor save dice a single pip. Yes, it changes the death statistics. Yes, it makes those specific factions 'better.'
If you want to math it out and demonstrate exactly how 'game changing' it is and then frame an argument about how it makes the _overall_ game of 40k better (especially any game that doesn't involve marines at all), feel free.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oni wrote: This being the 2nd Balance Dataslate, I believe I see more clearly what GW is trying to accomplish and I'm now thinking that their intensions behind this is being misunderstood.
What the Balance Dataslate is... It is intended to shift around faction power dynamics by intentionally nerfing and buffing.
What the Balance Dataslate is NOT... It is not intended to fix / amend game mechanics. If it were, the information would be put into the FAQ's.
This ^; is the only way I can make any sense of the utter nonsense, the complete lack of forethought, the superficial patchwork of the Balance Dataslate.
Yeah, but it is specifically trying to fix/amend game mechanics- both IF and bodyguard, and adding yet another rule to marines and sisters If its not for that, why is it trying to do that?
Ordana wrote: Only on Dakka do you get 2 pages of complains about lasguns potentially hurting tanks despite it never actually being a factor on the tabletop.
"Oh no, 200 lasguns can kill a tank, the game is dying!!".
yes its a dumb rule, its a bandaid to give a faction that is completely in the gutter with an old codex, and unlikely to see a new one any time soon by the looks of it, a quick an dirty leg up.
Be happy they get something
Only on Dakka can you have multiple people jump into a thread and declare something that is quite literally not what is being argued...
IT. IS. NOTHING. TO. DO. WITH. BALANCE. OR. ANY. META. RUBBISH. THAT. YOU. WANT. TO. SPURT. OUT. HOW. MANY. TIMES. DOES. THIS. NEED. TO. BE. SAID?
Effectively getting a blanket +1 save vs most actually dangerous weapons is not a minor buff. This is a huge change that will almost certainly cause unexpected problems in certain cases.
kirotheavenger wrote: My group came up with a strong justification for the auto-wounding thing.
See, the Imperial Guard is such a vast organisation the battle isn't one battle, the enemy's been fighting this battle for days against waves and waves of Guard - of which this is just the most recent wave.
These days of constant fighting has left your enemy extremely fatigued and vulnerable to damage.
Yes that's right, your tank needs a nap, that's why.
I feel like the only correct answer to me (or at least to make me laugh) would be "through faith in the emperor all things are possible"
Good lord, these last few pages have been dispiriting and somehow simultaneously hilarious. Like, I love the absolutely bombastic takes. I love the attacking each other with "yeah it is a good rule, but it feels bad". Let's acknowledge that mechanically GW did something useful, but still dogpile them for whatever perceived slight we can come up with.
I think the only people that REALLY deserve to be upset right now are Ork players... and maybe Custodes players, too, because maybe the totality of buffs to similar armies around them coupled with the gnarly hits they took gives them a bit of cause to gripe. I'd be careful with those gripes, though, because some armies have been paying for their sins for YEARS (5th/6th GK come to mind). Ork players, yeah... bring your salt out. You guys... like shaking my head at how Orks are being treated the same as when someone mentions CSM are still at 1W. It's bad, you guys get your soapbox.
I've been playing Valorous Heart for awhile, and I've absolutely enjoyed the AP reduction, especially coupled with rules like cover. Rets with HBs in cover are 2+ vs massed AP -1? It has not been bad. I think this getting rolled out to on a broader scale to armies EVERYONE has been kicking around lately is not a bad thing. Heck, you may even see vehicles now, too. Sure, your 40+ guardsman within 12" and able to receive Orders can pump out enough wounds to kill a 3+ tank, but those SM tanks are likely 2+ against it. Edit: That's not right, go ahead and murder me for it and ignore everything else said. I know you'll do it and want to I acknowledge this was wrong before even seeing a reply Move on!
AP has been out of control for awhile, and some of the softer armies have been skewing into arms race tactics to mitigate that... which largely makes the armor stat pointless... and many of those paper armies have revival, mitigation, or invulnerable tactics to use in place of the armor stat (sorry Orks, still feeling for you guys). Even guard can counter with mass of models against the AP environment to maintain their presence throughout the game. Like I don't get why people are so scared of armored factions getting an armor buff in an edition and environment that actively makes armor saves ridiculous and rare. God forbid someone make a roll for the stat they already paid a premium for.
Purifying Tempest wrote: Good lord, these last few pages have been dispiriting and somehow simultaneously hilarious. Like, I love the absolutely bombastic takes. I love the attacking each other with "yeah it is a good rule, but it feels bad". Let's acknowledge that mechanically GW did something useful, but still dogpile them for whatever perceived slight we can come up with.
I think the only people that REALLY deserve to be upset right now are Ork players... and maybe Custodes players, too, because maybe the totality of buffs to similar armies around them coupled with the gnarly hits they took gives them a bit of cause to gripe. I'd be careful with those gripes, though, because some armies have been paying for their sins for YEARS (5th/6th GK come to mind). Ork players, yeah... bring your salt out. You guys... like shaking my head at how Orks are being treated the same as when someone mentions CSM are still at 1W. It's bad, you guys get your soapbox.
I've been playing Valorous Heart for awhile, and I've absolutely enjoyed the AP reduction, especially coupled with rules like cover. Rets with HBs in cover are 2+ vs massed AP -1? It has not been bad. I think this getting rolled out to on a broader scale to armies EVERYONE has been kicking around lately is not a bad thing. Heck, you may even see vehicles now, too. Sure, your 40+ guardsman within 12" and able to receive Orders can pump out enough wounds to kill a 3+ tank, but those SM tanks are likely 2+ against it. Edit: That's not right, go ahead and murder me for it and ignore everything else said. I know you'll do it and want to I acknowledge this was wrong before even seeing a reply Move on!
AP has been out of control for awhile, and some of the softer armies have been skewing into arms race tactics to mitigate that... which largely makes the armor stat pointless... and many of those paper armies have revival, mitigation, or invulnerable tactics to use in place of the armor stat (sorry Orks, still feeling for you guys). Even guard can counter with mass of models against the AP environment to maintain their presence throughout the game. Like I don't get why people are so scared of armored factions getting an armor buff in an edition and environment that actively makes armor saves ridiculous and rare. God forbid someone make a roll for the stat they already paid a premium for.
But salt on dakka.
Hot take, its a trash rule that does not fix anything thats actually wrong with the army and is at best superficially a buff, at worst its a half arsed attempt to buff them.
We can math hammer all day and show the statistics of it, but the rule feels bad and is bad because dice rolls in a game never feel statistically average. This "Buff" is dumpster if you go the whole game and you only roll a handfull of 6s through out the entire match, which happens all the time.
Grimtuff wrote: IT. IS. NOTHING. TO. DO. WITH. BALANCE. OR. ANY. META. RUBBISH. THAT. YOU. WANT. TO. SPURT. OUT. HOW. MANY. TIMES. DOES. THIS. NEED. TO. BE. SAID?
Just one more time, Miss Swan.
Seriously, every time someone comes back with "But mathmathmath!" or "It won't really impact the meta!" I wonder if they're even reading our posts...
oni wrote: This being the 2nd Balance Dataslate, I believe I see more clearly what GW is trying to accomplish and I'm now thinking that their intensions behind this is being misunderstood.
What the Balance Dataslate is... It is intended to shift around faction power dynamics by intentionally nerfing and buffing.
What the Balance Dataslate is NOT... It is not intended to fix / amend game mechanics. If it were, the information would be put into the FAQ's.
This ^; is the only way I can make any sense of the utter nonsense, the complete lack of forethought, the superficial patchwork of the Balance Dataslate.
Yeah, but it is specifically trying to fix/amend game mechanics- both IF and bodyguard, and adding yet another rule to marines and sisters If its not for that, why is it trying to do that?
Nah, you're getting it twisted. A rule, stratagem, point value, etc. can be changed with the sole intention to adjust faction power level in an effort to shift faction power dynamic / adjust the meta. These types of changes do not have to be mutually exclusive to fixing / amending game mechanics.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's not an effort to fix what is broken, but rather to push around the meta in an effort to level out faction win rates. That's why the content of the Balance Dataslate feels so odd. GW's intention isn't to fix things with this. They're looking at what factions win and what factions lose and then buff or de-buff to level out win rates.
oni wrote: This being the 2nd Balance Dataslate, I believe I see more clearly what GW is trying to accomplish and I'm now thinking that their intensions behind this is being misunderstood.
What the Balance Dataslate is... It is intended to shift around faction power dynamics by intentionally nerfing and buffing.
What the Balance Dataslate is NOT... It is not intended to fix / amend game mechanics. If it were, the information would be put into the FAQ's.
This ^; is the only way I can make any sense of the utter nonsense, the complete lack of forethought, the superficial patchwork of the Balance Dataslate.
Yeah, but it is specifically trying to fix/amend game mechanics- both IF and bodyguard, and adding yet another rule to marines and sisters If its not for that, why is it trying to do that?
Nah, you're getting it twisted. A rule, stratagem, point value, etc. can be changed with the sole intention to adjust faction power level in an effort to shift faction power dynamic / adjust the meta. These types of changes do not have to be mutually exclusive to fixing / amending game mechanics.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's not an effort to fix what is broken, but rather to push around the meta in an effort to level out faction win rates.
You've lost me. How does writing a universal special rule for bodyguard 'push the meta around?'
How does hammering the hive guard with nerfs, then further nerfing Indirect Fire (nigh)universally before the codex even comes out, affect faction win rates? We don't even have numbers for new nids yet, but turns out there was a trap door in the hive guard's new anticipated position (on the shelf).
And tyrant guard weren't exactly busting up the meta, nor were they poised to do so, regardless of their new rules or the outside-the-book changes to their actual job.
I just don't get how you arrive at the idea a document that is primarily amendments (regardless of their quality) to game mechanics isn't actually for that.
oni wrote: This being the 2nd Balance Dataslate, I believe I see more clearly what GW is trying to accomplish and I'm now thinking that their intensions behind this is being misunderstood.
What the Balance Dataslate is... It is intended to shift around faction power dynamics by intentionally nerfing and buffing.
What the Balance Dataslate is NOT... It is not intended to fix / amend game mechanics. If it were, the information would be put into the FAQ's.
This ^; is the only way I can make any sense of the utter nonsense, the complete lack of forethought, the superficial patchwork of the Balance Dataslate.
Yeah, but it is specifically trying to fix/amend game mechanics- both IF and bodyguard, and adding yet another rule to marines and sisters If its not for that, why is it trying to do that?
Nah, you're getting it twisted. A rule, stratagem, point value, etc. can be changed with the sole intention to adjust faction power level in an effort to shift faction power dynamic / adjust the meta. These types of changes do not have to be mutually exclusive to fixing / amending game mechanics.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's not an effort to fix what is broken, but rather to push around the meta in an effort to level out faction win rates.
You've lost me. How does writing a universal special rule for bodyguard 'push the meta around?'
How does hammering the hive guard with nerfs, then further nerfing Indirect Fire (nigh)universally before the codex even comes out, affect faction win rates? We don't even have numbers for new nids yet, but turns out there was a trap door in the hive guard's new anticipated position (on the shelf).
And tyrant guard weren't exactly busting up the meta, nor were they poised to do so, regardless of their new rules or the outside-the-book changes to their actual job.
Let me put it like this... If the Balance Dataslate's intention is to fix broken game mechanics... What was it about AM that was OP broken and needed 'fixed' with auto-wound 6's, Russ 2+ saves, etc.? Why change Indirect Fire, but then give AM an exemption? AM was not OP, they were lack luster, they needed help; TO WIN games. Same for C:SM's; same for Necrons, etc., etc. Harlequins... They're winning to easily, so they need to be taken down a peg or two or three. Custodes needed to be taken down a peg. What specifically is or is not changed doesn't matter. Everything presented in the Balance Dataslate is solely an effort to lift or lower a factions win rate.
The point is for most people 40k isn't solely about winning and losing.
It's about fighting battles in the 41st millenium.
So mechanics who's sole purpose is to fix competitive balance are neat, but when they come at a direct cost of representing battles in the 41st millenium they do more harm than good for those people.
Unrealistic gamey mechanics is a complaint you might have seen crop up a couple of times already on this forum.
This rebalance dived right in on more of those.
The changes to IF and bodyguard literally can't push the meta to change win rates- they affect under-performing and over-performing factions the same way. And some factions not at all, because they don't have those things (or aren't worth using so they aren't even part of the meta problems).
And, yes, broken by underpowered is just as bad as broken by overpowered. Both need fixing.
Yes, some rules changes are going to change win rates. But there's a lot of the game outside 'the meta,' and these changes still have an effect if Timmy and Sally are just knocking their 500 pt starter armies together.
kirotheavenger wrote: The point is for most people 40k isn't solely about winning and losing.
It's about fighting battles in the 41st millenium.
So mechanics who's sole purpose is to fix competitive balance are neat, but when they come at a direct cost of representing battles in the 41st millenium they do more harm than good for those people.
Unrealistic gamey mechanics is a complaint you might have seen crop up a couple of times already on this forum.
This rebalance dived right in on more of those.
In the 9th edition game design team, there is only competitive…
40k in 9th is just pure unfluffy numbers, once you accept that it gets mildly more palatable. I’d like to have cool narrative missions and fluffy internally balanced army lists, but we don’t, and guard sucks.
Bring on the band aid buffs.
Purifying Tempest wrote: AP has been out of control for awhile, and some of the softer armies have been skewing into arms race tactics to mitigate that... which largely makes the armor stat pointless... and many of those paper armies have revival, mitigation, or invulnerable tactics to use in place of the armor stat (sorry Orks, still feeling for you guys). Even guard can counter with mass of models against the AP environment to maintain their presence throughout the game. Like I don't get why people are so scared of armored factions getting an armor buff in an edition and environment that actively makes armor saves ridiculous and rare. God forbid someone make a roll for the stat they already paid a premium for.
Well, yeah, you've identified the underlying problem, too much AP. But why just fix certain factions? I get that power armor factions aren't exactly the meta hotness, but excessive lethality and needing to rely on invulns is still a problem for everyone else. Look at Tyranid monsters having to get invulns in order to have any durability. Look at Tau vs anyone. Good saves being overvalued and ineffective is a game-wide problem that is just more obvious for factions that have across-the-board good saves.
It's also a bit frustrating for units that have received weapon adjustments and pay for AP that now in most games they will not benefit from. Multiple factions have paid for buffs to their basic weapons with increased model costs. Meanwhile Marines will still be hitting at AP-2 with their basic rifles, so Termagants or Guardians getting an extra point to their save isn't all that useful.
It wouldn't have been much of a stretch to just say 'all weapons in the game reduce their AP by 1'. At least then it would be consistent, addressing the underlying issue game-wide, and still benefit elite armies more than chaff ones on account of the math involved.
Then the fact that this fix is being delivered alongside a new mechanic for Guard that both increases their lethality and particularly weakens elite armies is just kinda funny. I don't imagine armored factions are going to feel particularly tough when a 60pt squad of Guardsmen can blow away 3/4 of their cost in Intercessors in a single round of shooting.
It all just seems half-assed. Well-intentioned and recognizing legitimate problems, but half-assed.
Honestly, just structure ap like they do for orks. Most everything is ap0, some nicer stuff is ap1, anti tank is -2 or maybe 3, and your real special stuff might be -4.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Honestly, just structure ap like they do for orks. Most everything is ap0, some nicer stuff is ap1, anti tank is -2 or maybe 3, and your real special stuff might be -4.
Orks in particular and some of the earlier books represent the game that should have been now I think.
The ork book feels like it fits in with an 8th ed meta maybe, possibly even evoking the feel of 5th (which I consider a good thing). Sadly that's a continent or so away from the current methodology and design space. Strip the marine specific rules off marines (doctrines, armour, bolter discipline etc) and they'd be the same.
Voss wrote: @Oni
The changes to IF and bodyguard literally can't push the meta to change win rates- they affect under-performing and over-performing factions the same way.
No one is complaining about AM mortars. Hive Guard on the other hand; plenty of complaints there. So it definitely impacts factions differently.
Voss wrote: @Oni
Yes, some rules changes are going to change win rates. But there's a lot of the game outside 'the meta,' and these changes still have an effect if Timmy and Sally are just knocking their 500 pt starter armies together.
There's a reason the Balance Dataslate is its own document and its content not put into the FAQ's. It's intended to even out win rates for Matched Play. Game fixes go into the FAQ's so it can apply to Open Play, Narrative Play and Matched Play. The Balance Datastale only applies to Matched Play.
oni wrote: Hive Guard on the other hand; plenty of complaints there.
Yeah, plenty of complaints that their indirect fire Impaler Cannons have been made worthless in the new codex. Then the new rule is nerfing them further.
It's a straight nerf to every indirect fire unit in the game that isn't Guard, whether those factions and units need the nerf or not. So, yeah, Voss is right- it's not a targeted change for anyone but Guard; it's a game-wide sledgehammer solution to specific mechanics.
Previously an AM mortar squad ran 60 points (10 infantry, no upgrades but mortar). Currently, an AM mortar squad runs 60 points and besides getting a few more wargear options at that price has the same exact rules.
Unless the thing stopping AM mortars from prevalence was other indirect fire, an AM list was exactly as capable of doing it before as they are now with 0 rules changes.
Mortars also come in Heavy Weapon Squads, which give you 3 mortars for (I believe) 50 pts. Mostly I'm remembering how well-liked mortar pits (ie. multiple mortar HWS hiding out of LoS with a nearby Company/Platoon Commander to throw Orders at them) were back in 8e and wondering how well they'll be liked now that they can fish for crits as well.
If you wanted mortars you'd be buying mortar heavy weapon squads, giving you a squad of 3 mortars for 50pts.
The change to indirect fire certainly isn't a buff to Imperial Guard indirect fire.
But it's a nerf to everyone else's - many of whom didn't need the nerf.
Additionally, it's a loss for game realism. Why is Atkins with a metal tube more accurate than any advanced xenos sensors with intelligent seeking ammunition?
Voss wrote: @Oni
The changes to IF and bodyguard literally can't push the meta to change win rates- they affect under-performing and over-performing factions the same way.
No one is complaining about AM mortars. Hive Guard on the other hand; plenty of complaints there. So it definitely impacts factions differently.
Catbarf covered this fairly well, but too reiterate- HG are getting a big nerf this weekend. Nerfing them more before that even comes out makes zero sense. And doesn't affect 'the meta' because the new Nid book HAS no meta.
And then there is the other IF stuff: When was the last time you saw marine players ripping up 'the meta' with Whirlwinds and Thunderfires? 7th edition? 6th?
@Oni
Yes, some rules changes are going to change win rates. But there's a lot of the game outside 'the meta,' and these changes still have an effect if Timmy and Sally are just knocking their 500 pt starter armies together.
There's a reason the Balance Dataslate is its own document and its content not put into the FAQ's. It's intended to even out win rates for Matched Play. Game fixes go into the FAQ's so it can apply to Open Play, Narrative Play and Matched Play. The Balance Datastale only applies to Matched Play.
Sorry, never met anyone who made that distinction. I've met people who claim to play with no FAQs (unless there are positive changes to their faction) and Timmy and Sally might fall into that category, but everyone I've ever played games with apply all the updates.
Its enough of a pain to keep up to date. No one has time for someone sorting out 'this but not that, 'don't want to use those rules' or whatever. They just want to play a game
So, no. The reason they're in the dataslate and not the FAQs is because they're universal (or multifaction) updates and its simply easier.
(Because USRs are always going to be easier to update than special snowflake rules on a unit by unit basis).
kirotheavenger wrote: If you wanted mortars you'd be buying mortar heavy weapon squads, giving you a squad of 3 mortars for 50pts.
The change to indirect fire certainly isn't a buff to Imperial Guard indirect fire.
But it's a nerf to everyone else's - many of whom didn't need the nerf.
Additionally, it's a loss for game realism. Why is Atkins with a metal tube more accurate than any advanced xenos sensors with intelligent seeking ammunition?
Why is Atkins' tank able to shoot twice when driving slow, when advanced xenos platforms can only shoot once?
Why does Atkins' tank have better armor than advanced xenos wraithbone or living metal or etc.?
I can do this all day.
My point is to not get hung up on pretty trivial stuff when the real boogeyman is the process that brings us these weird balance passes.
kirotheavenger wrote: If you wanted mortars you'd be buying mortar heavy weapon squads, giving you a squad of 3 mortars for 50pts.
The change to indirect fire certainly isn't a buff to Imperial Guard indirect fire.
But it's a nerf to everyone else's - many of whom didn't need the nerf.
Additionally, it's a loss for game realism. Why is Atkins with a metal tube more accurate than any advanced xenos sensors with intelligent seeking ammunition?
Why is Atkins' tank able to shoot twice when driving slow, when advanced xenos platforms can only shoot once?
Why does Atkins' tank have better armor than advanced xenos wraithbone or living metal or etc.?
Because the designers have removed game mechanics that were more interesting and better at differentiating units, so all we have is MOAR DAKKA or MOAR TUFF. This further patch is still just a further "fix" on top of the underlying problems.
kirotheavenger wrote: If you wanted mortars you'd be buying mortar heavy weapon squads, giving you a squad of 3 mortars for 50pts.
The change to indirect fire certainly isn't a buff to Imperial Guard indirect fire.
But it's a nerf to everyone else's - many of whom didn't need the nerf.
Additionally, it's a loss for game realism. Why is Atkins with a metal tube more accurate than any advanced xenos sensors with intelligent seeking ammunition?
Why is Atkins' tank able to shoot twice when driving slow, when advanced xenos platforms can only shoot once?
Why does Atkins' tank have better armor than advanced xenos wraithbone or living metal or etc.?
I can do this all day.
My point is to not get hung up on pretty trivial stuff when the real boogeyman is the process that brings us these weird balance passes.
Because the man in charge of the rules has a notorius bias for IG.
To be fair to the game designers, having a lower rate of fire for a tank's main gun as it's rate of speed increases is a fairly common abstraction for unstabilised World War 2 tank combat in at least 3 games I can think of. Of course, 40k's implementation is strange and oddly confusing but I get it.
Same with the Wraithbone stuff - materials science is a helluva thing. In the old FW imperial armor books, Eldar tanks had 10-12mm of armor. Looking at it from that perspective, Wraithbone is freakishly strong.
That's stuff I have had to come to terms with across editions.
kirotheavenger wrote: If you wanted mortars you'd be buying mortar heavy weapon squads, giving you a squad of 3 mortars for 50pts.
The change to indirect fire certainly isn't a buff to Imperial Guard indirect fire.
But it's a nerf to everyone else's - many of whom didn't need the nerf.
Additionally, it's a loss for game realism. Why is Atkins with a metal tube more accurate than any advanced xenos sensors with intelligent seeking ammunition?
Why is Atkins' tank able to shoot twice when driving slow, when advanced xenos platforms can only shoot once?
Why does Atkins' tank have better armor than advanced xenos wraithbone or living metal or etc.?
I can do this all day.
My point is to not get hung up on pretty trivial stuff when the real boogeyman is the process that brings us these weird balance passes.
Because the man in charge of the rules has a notorius bias for IG.
Right, that's why IG are doing so good right now, the man in charge loves them /s
Furthermore Gaurd are an 8th edition book, and in 8th (but not 9th) giving a main battletank double shots at half speed wasn't too uncommon (Predators and Fire Prisms also had it). The reason they still have it and others don't could easily be chalked up to design changes between editions (at least until Guard get a new codex that has the shoot twice rule).
EviscerationPlague wrote: All indirect fire should've had a penalty to hit, period. It just makes sense that way.
Oh I agree, in general I think it's a great rule and should just be the default for indirect fire - meaning units should have been priced accordingly.
Although the exclusion for Imperial Guard is ridiculous and undermines the whole narrative argument for it.
Unit1126PLL wrote: To be fair to the game designers, having a lower rate of fire for a tank's main gun as it's rate of speed increases is a fairly common abstraction for unstabilised World War 2 tank combat in at least 3 games I can think of. Of course, 40k's implementation is strange and oddly confusing but I get it.
Same with the Wraithbone stuff - materials science is a helluva thing. In the old FW imperial armor books, Eldar tanks had 10-12mm of armor. Looking at it from that perspective, Wraithbone is freakishly strong.
That's stuff I have had to come to terms with across editions.
There's also the idea about the stability of abstractions. When you get a core rule set, it lays out your basic set of abstractions within which it frames everything else. Ideally everything down the road will try to fit within those first abstractions layed down in the core rules. When they have to keep tacking on additional mechanics, interactions or even further abstractions, it really starts to show one of two things:
1: Either the designers didn't have the discipline to stick with their core abstractions.
or
2: The core abstractions weren't robust enough in the first place.
kirotheavenger wrote: If you wanted mortars you'd be buying mortar heavy weapon squads, giving you a squad of 3 mortars for 50pts.
The change to indirect fire certainly isn't a buff to Imperial Guard indirect fire.
But it's a nerf to everyone else's - many of whom didn't need the nerf.
Additionally, it's a loss for game realism. Why is Atkins with a metal tube more accurate than any advanced xenos sensors with intelligent seeking ammunition?
Because Atkins with a metal tube isn't aiming for a dude trying to hide. Atkins with the metal tube is aiming for the area where the dude is hiding.
Smart-Missile Systems are actively seeking a target.
kirotheavenger wrote: If you wanted mortars you'd be buying mortar heavy weapon squads, giving you a squad of 3 mortars for 50pts.
The change to indirect fire certainly isn't a buff to Imperial Guard indirect fire.
But it's a nerf to everyone else's - many of whom didn't need the nerf.
Additionally, it's a loss for game realism. Why is Atkins with a metal tube more accurate than any advanced xenos sensors with intelligent seeking ammunition?
Because Atkins with a metal tube isn't aiming for a dude trying to hide. Atkins with the metal tube is aiming for the area where the dude is hiding.
Smart-Missile Systems are actively seeking a target.
Because Smart Missile Systems are the only other weaponary with indirect fire? Atkins is unique in "aiming for an area"?
Not Whirlwinds, not Airburst Fragmentation Projectors, or anything like that?
Whirlwinds aren't "advanced xenos sensors with intelligent seeking ammunition".
Nor are Airburst Fragmentation Launchers.
If you want to argue that there should be different classifications of Indirect Fire weapons? I'm game. But don't pretend that mortars are the same thing as Smart Missile Systems or Seeker Missiles.
kirotheavenger wrote: Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you genuinely not understand the core point being made?
That you're upset that Guardsmen aren't affected by this change, I get it.
I just don't care. Indirect Fire is supposed to be a hallmark of Guard as a faction, not every random unit out there that can take an indirect fire weapon.
If you want to argue that there should be some kind of item that bolsters it or whatever? Go for it. But simply being salty over it means nothing.
Oh, and for the record, I'm 100% fine with Indirect Fire going back to being an upgrade on Basilisks.
Besides that, Airburst Fragmentation Launchers do use intelligent ammunition.
This weapon scatters pragmentation bomblets over a wide area, at a height calculated by a simple AI within each warhead to cause optimum damage. The weapon sufers no penalties for moving and firing, and may not benefit from Markerlight hits.
Additionally, when it first debuted? It wasn't really propped up as an "indirect fire" piece.
Guardsmen aren't known for being the best shots (yes, they're well-trained as all hell from Earth standards, but they're not better or even usually as good as a Marine or other outright superhuman factions). They're not known for having the best tech. But for some reason, they get to ignore the penalties for indirect fire because... Why? Not from a mechanical PoV. From an in-universe one.
I don't argue "Guard is fine! They don't need anything," because that's blatantly untrue.
But the changes they get should be lore-appropriate and a hell of a lot more than just this.
Kanluwen wrote: Training and familiarity with the equipment isn't a terrible reason to think of, off the top of my head.
Because Space Marines famously never train on any of their equipment.
The techmarine just rolls out of bed and starts smacking buttons on their Whirlwinds and Thunderfire Cannons to see what happens.
Kanluwen wrote: Training and familiarity with the equipment isn't a terrible reason to think of, off the top of my head.
Why would that apply to Guard alone?
Do Marines not train with Whirlwinds, if they're gonna be piloting one?
Techmarines don't practice with Thunderfire Cannons?
I could see the argument for militia Eldar who man Support Batteries, but what about a Dark Reaper Exarch?
The question isn't "why might Guard ignore this penalty" because we can sit here all day coming up with reasons.
The question is "why might Guard alone ignore this penalty".
When, tbh, after Orks; Guard are the last faction that should be ignoring this penalty from a lore point of view.
I know exactly why they did it, it's because of balance. Guard aren't very good and rely a lot on indirect fire to compete. But we're not debating the balance PoV here so it's redundant.
I know exactly why they did it, it's because of balance.
Eh. I don't really think this solves any balance problems.
I think its just a quiet admission (without really admitting it) that the guard codex is months off, and they want people to shut up for a while. Take your 'get-you-by' garbage and like it.
I don't think they're going to get the reaction they want, as they've raised to many hackles with this particular set of handwaves.
I think its just a quiet admission (without really admitting it) that the guard codex is months off, and they want people to shut up for a while. Take your 'get-you-by' garbage and like it.
More words than I used but I think we had the same meaning
Kanluwen wrote: Training and familiarity with the equipment isn't a terrible reason to think of, off the top of my head.
It really is.
Of all the factions in the game, only Orks receive less training than a Guardsman.
A Space Marine has decades of training, an Eldar may have centuries, a Tyranid is literally designed for one purpose. A guardsman will receive formal training before deployment, but this is measured in months at best,
The idea that training is the secret sauce that allows a Guardsman to outperform SM or Eldar in a particular speciality is ludicrous.
Having said that, the general direction of GW in recent editions has been that lore and background is of no import when attempting to balance one more jenga block on the tower of bloated rules that 40k has become. The pseudo competitive crowd it's attracted laps it up, so I think it will continue for some time.
I think the issue with indirect fire is just that you effectively end up with 2 modes - and you need to price the unit accordingly and I suspect that's going to be very difficult.
In the old system for balance you wanted them to be somewhat inefficient in direct fire mode (because otherwise why take units without an ignore LOS ability). (This didn't happen with say Tau & Eldar and imo anyway 90 point Squigbuggies, but should have been the intention).
The danger is that now you should still want the unit to be inefficient in direct fire mode (because otherwise why not take this over any comparable shooting unit in your codex) - but with BS-1 and +1 SV, its always going to be very inefficient in indirect fire mode as well.
And if you have a unit which is just bad in both modes, then it won't see play.
I guess the question remains "how valuable is indirect fire". But say, a Squigbuggy (in Speedwaaagh) now kills 1 marine outside of LOS. What is that worth? Not 110 points - or at least not obviously.
Maybe picking on Marines is a bit unfair - due to them ignoring that point of AP as well - but I think you'd now need 270 SMS shots (without a markerlight or any other buffs) to clear out 5 Intercessors. Before these changes you needed just 60. It is a dramatic swing in relative efficiency.
(270*1/3=90 hits. 90*2/3=60 wounds. 60 into 2+ save=10 wounds.
60*1/2=30 hits. 30*2/3=20 wounds. 20 into a 4+ save=10 wounds.)
kirotheavenger wrote: The question isn't "why might Guard ignore this penalty" because we can sit here all day coming up with reasons.
The question is "why might Guard alone ignore this penalty".
When, tbh, after Orks; Guard are the last faction that should be ignoring this penalty from a lore point of view.
Really? Because they 100% are the first faction that should be ignoring the penalty from a lore POV.
I know exactly why they did it, it's because of balance. Guard aren't very good and rely a lot on indirect fire to compete. But we're not debating the balance PoV here so it's redundant.
They "rely a lot on indirect fire to compete" because a lot of their better boardsweeper pieces just happen to have IF baked in.
If we want to argue it from a balance POV, I've redesigned the whole mechanisms years ago. I'm not bothering to do it again.
Kanluwen wrote: Training and familiarity with the equipment isn't a terrible reason to think of, off the top of my head.
Because Space Marines famously never train on any of their equipment.
The techmarine just rolls out of bed and starts smacking buttons on their Whirlwinds and Thunderfire Cannons to see what happens.
Kanluwen wrote: Training and familiarity with the equipment isn't a terrible reason to think of, off the top of my head.
It really is.
Of all the factions in the game, only Orks receive less training than a Guardsman.
Cite a source.
Because this is just blatant fanwank.
A Space Marine has decades of training,
Decades of training, none of it truly specialized. Remember that Marines are rotated from Company to Company. The only truly specialized ones are the gents who end up being in charge of squads or the Companies themselves.
an Eldar may have centuries,
Of which, it's generalized militia training--unless they end up being stuck on a Path that specializes them.
a Tyranid is literally designed for one purpose.
And what, praytell, is an Ork?
Y'know, the species known for intuitively being able to do things?
A guardsman will receive formal training before deployment, but this is measured in months at best,
Cite. A. Source.
That training you're talking about that lasts "months at best"? That's the training specific to a warzone they're going to. Which, by the by, unless they die...they're basically doing their whole lives.
You want to say that maybe there are poorly trained Regiments? Cool. There probably are! But there's also regiments where the training level is ridiculous, starting at an exceedingly young age.
And that's not even mentioning the literally born-for-it folks or the Schola Progenium ilk.
The idea that training is the secret sauce that allows a Guardsman to outperform SM or Eldar in a particular speciality is ludicrous.
The idea that a Space Marine or Eldar is in a particular specialty at all times is far, far more ludicrous.
Having said that, the general direction of GW in recent editions has been that lore and background is of no import when attempting to balance one more jenga block on the tower of bloated rules that 40k has become. The pseudo competitive crowd it's attracted laps it up, so I think it will continue for some time.
Says the person who thinks that Orks, a race known for their intuitive nature and basically being born for one specific task, are not specialized. Says the person who chose to use Guard, a faction known for the wide breadth of the worlds recruited from, as another example of a "poorly trained" faction.
Eldarsif wrote: I would have thought people were happy with the idea that GW have effectively introduced more USR into the game.
I'm amused by it, if that counts for happy.
But for bodyguard, they did it in the bad 6th edition way: the USR is just a pointer to another special rule (look out sir) and has exceptions.
For IF, its bringing the hammer down on the entire class of weapons because _specific_ weapons X, Y and Z were being spammed. Other than the tau 'whatever whatever' gun, I'm not even sure what they are. But there wasn't any reason to push whirlwinds and others even further back on the shelf. Its another over-reaction that has very little to do with the specific problem.
USRs are the thing you set up in advance, make them scalable, and think about how they'll be applied to each faction so that you can consolidate and codify certain rules. This helps to future proof them so that, with any luck, you don't have to make many more as your game goes forward.
But GW writes books in a vacuum, with paradigm shifts (sometimes massive ones) in design ethos between groups of books, so they are simply incapable of doing this. It's why they talk up "bespoke" rules so much, as it's their fancy way of abdicating any responsibility to writing consistent rules.
kirotheavenger wrote: Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you genuinely not understand the core point being made?
Hey now; it can be both!
But Kan will defend this to the hilt because it makes his precious Guard better, so he won't listen to any argument to the contrary.
I personally like "Well the guy with the tube isn't targeting someone who's hiding like an SMS, so of course the SMS will have a harder time hitting!". Wonderful stuff. Utterly nonsensical, but so much fun.
I, for one, welcome the idea that Guardsmen are better trained than Marines, but only when it comes to one specific type of weapon, and nothing else. Guardsmen who train with direct fire weapons aren't as good, but indirect is all the rage in the Scholas I hear.
Eldarsif wrote: I would have thought people were happy with the idea that GW have effectively introduced more USR into the game.
The idea behind USRs in to reduce bloat, not add.
And yet, all they did was add bloat.
Very untrue. They were great until they were overused and got stupid. Use them, just don't go overboard. Moderation in all things.
Frankly, USRs were lazy.
There's a reason why the Forge World iteration of the Hydra was a far, far, far more interesting and useful vehicle. Because it used bespoke rules to showcase how its anti-aircraft capabilities functioned, not "lol it's Skyfire bruh".
Eldarsif wrote: I would have thought people were happy with the idea that GW have effectively introduced more USR into the game.
I'm amused by it, if that counts for happy.
But for bodyguard, they did it in the bad 6th edition way: the USR is just a pointer to another special rule (look out sir) and has exceptions.
For IF, its bringing the hammer down on the entire class of weapons because _specific_ weapons X, Y and Z were being spammed. Other than the tau 'whatever whatever' gun, I'm not even sure what they are. But there wasn't any reason to push whirlwinds and others even further back on the shelf. Its another over-reaction that has very little to do with the specific problem.
Realistically, the issue isn't just that it is another over-reaction, it's that specific Indirect Fire weapons are overperforming and there is not really nuance as to what constitutes those types of weapons. Tau weren't spamming Seeker Missiles, it was the Smart Missile System(which is readily available on Broadsides, Riptides, Stormsurge, Devilfish+Hammerheads, and as a turret from a Fire Warrior team) that was a big offender alongside the Airbursting Fragmentation Projector(which is on Crisis+Commander suits, and even has a prototype systems version).
Frankly, I'd have done it as a harsher penalty for everyone involved. -1 to hit with them(and yes, that includes for Guard) when firing indirectly but also a -1 to saves for units suffering wounds from those weapons when fired without LOS.
If firing at a unit in LOS, standard rules apply. No -1 for either person.
Nah I just quit because it was the still turn 2 after 3 hours of playing.
To be fair here...having played against Custards and other "elite" armies...their phases take longer than my "Horde" orky army does. My shooting phase for a 150pts of Deffkoptas goes roll 6 dice, add them up (D3 for each) roll those to hit, roll those to wound, roll armor saves. Remove models. All told takes about 30 seconds at absolute most. A unit of Tau Battlesuits will roll 10D6, add those together, roll that many dice, re-roll 1s or all of them because rules, roll to wound, re-roll 1s or all because rules, apply modifiers from more rules, oops, we forgot about the marker light, etc etc etc. So yeah no, just because its a lot of dice doesn't mean its slower than the re-roll everything mechanics which are prevalent in a lot of top armies.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Honestly, just structure ap like they do for orks. Most everything is ap0, some nicer stuff is ap1, anti tank is -2 or maybe 3, and your real special stuff might be -4.
Orks in particular and some of the earlier books represent the game that should have been now I think.
The ork book feels like it fits in with an 8th ed meta maybe, possibly even evoking the feel of 5th (which I consider a good thing). Sadly that's a continent or so away from the current methodology and design space. Strip the marine specific rules off marines (doctrines, armour, bolter discipline etc) and they'd be the same.
No, Orkz came out AFTER Ad-Mech and Drukhari. Orkz were a terrible book in hindsight when compared to those two armies. The hope was that this would be a toning down of the newer armies, they did make the mistake of giving orkz 1 really competitive build involving squigbuggies, but don't worry, they've nerfed them 3 times now to the point where they isn't a point in taking them anymore. But what happened after the "toning down" army came out? We got custards, Tau, Crusher Stampede, Harlequins, Eldar and now new Nidz which are looking like they might be the new hotness.
Sadly, and you think we would have learned by now, its not that the Ork codex is meant to tone down the meta, its just that GW sucks at writing ork codex's and therefore they suck.
Also, as far as durability for Marines go and how losing -1AP isn't that big a deal...lets break into some numbers. At the moment, if an idiotic ork player takes boyz, it takes 12 attacks from boyz to kill 1 Marine. That works out to 4 boyz. So 4 boyz is 12 attacks, 8 hits, 4 wounds and at -1AP its 2dmg and 1 dead Marine. POST Marine buff its now 18 attacks to kill 1 Marine. So now instead of 4 Orkz its 6. So now instead of 36pts of Ork boyz killing 20pts of Marine its 54pts to kill 20pts of Marine. Which in the shooting phase would be fine, but since this is the CC phase....its not good. If you have to ask why, remember, shooting phase you can usually do turn 1, and with rare exceptions CC doesn't even start until Turn 2.
In fact, a unit of bog standard Intercessors are now...again, trading equally with Orkz in the CC phase point for point. Good job GW.
Eldarsif wrote: I would have thought people were happy with the idea that GW have effectively introduced more USR into the game.
The idea behind USRs in to reduce bloat, not add.
And yet, all they did was add bloat.
Very untrue. They were great until they were overused and got stupid. Use them, just don't go overboard. Moderation in all things.
Frankly, USRs were lazy.
There's a reason why the Forge World iteration of the Hydra was a far, far, far more interesting and useful vehicle. Because it used bespoke rules to showcase how its anti-aircraft capabilities functioned, not "lol it's Skyfire bruh".
This may amaze you, but I don't advocate for a binary approach. Bespoke rules can be better for some circumstances. A mix is ideal.
But also, just because Skyfire may not have been to your liking, doesn't mean there couldn't have been a better USR in it's place.
Eldarsif wrote: I would have thought people were happy with the idea that GW have effectively introduced more USR into the game.
The idea behind USRs in to reduce bloat, not add.
And yet, all they did was add bloat.
Very untrue. They were great until they were overused and got stupid. Use them, just don't go overboard. Moderation in all things.
Frankly, USRs were lazy.
There's a reason why the Forge World iteration of the Hydra was a far, far, far more interesting and useful vehicle. Because it used bespoke rules to showcase how its anti-aircraft capabilities functioned, not "lol it's Skyfire bruh".
This may amaze you, but I don't advocate for a binary approach. Bespoke rules can be better for some circumstances. A mix is ideal.
But also, just because Skyfire may not have been to your liking, doesn't mean there couldn't have been a better USR in it's place.
I see your binary and raise you a decimal version. Or in GW's case, Hexadecimal.
Not sure why people think Harlequins got slapped into oblivion. They are still good. even with the points increase, voidweavers are still hard to kill. Serious question here. Can't you still fit 9 voidweavers into a 2000 point list? Sure you have to cut some other stuff to fit that in. But you surely can right? And from what I see, 9 void weavers remain just as hard to kill now as they were before this balance slate.
BTW, I am loving armor of contempt. This buffs so much stuff its crazy.
kirotheavenger wrote: If you wanted mortars you'd be buying mortar heavy weapon squads, giving you a squad of 3 mortars for 50pts.
The change to indirect fire certainly isn't a buff to Imperial Guard indirect fire.
But it's a nerf to everyone else's - many of whom didn't need the nerf.
Additionally, it's a loss for game realism. Why is Atkins with a metal tube more accurate than any advanced xenos sensors with intelligent seeking ammunition?
Because Atkins with a metal tube isn't aiming for a dude trying to hide. Atkins with the metal tube is aiming for the area where the dude is hiding.
Smart-Missile Systems are actively seeking a target.
Yes, the ground....
Now why is BS4 Atkins now more accurate at hitting ground he can't see with his metal tube than my BS4 Grot with his own metal tube (aka: a Lobba, rof:d6, S5, AP0, D1)?
The way I see it the whole no-LoS-shooting issue is a product of how woefully insufficient the line of sight rules for 40k are. As long as that is not addressed there will not be an adequate solution.
Eldenfirefly wrote: Not sure why people think Harlequins got slapped into oblivion. They are still good. even with the points increase, voidweavers are still hard to kill. Serious question here. Can't you still fit 9 voidweavers into a 2000 point list? Sure you have to cut some other stuff to fit that in. But you surely can right? And from what I see, 9 void weavers remain just as hard to kill now as they were before this balance slate.
BTW, I am loving armor of contempt. This buffs so much stuff its crazy.
This.
Harlies are still a contender and armor of contempt was an excellent idea.
Harlies can adapt, I think the alternative builds are tougher to play but don't lose a lot in power.
But I'll be surprised if anyone will be complaining about them once nids hit the tabletop. They look, potentially, the most oppressive book released so far, hopefully gw will be ready to address them if they are as crazy as they look.
Akshully, the sky is black half the time, and the blue skyers are clearly gatekeepers who don't even know the fluff of the aerial realm properly.
The real problem is that we hardly ever see red skies, so clearly they need a buff.
On the whole subject of this "Major balance update". Anyone who was stupid enough to buy a book which was already a little out of date 2 weeks after release - your book is pretty much useless now.
Welcome to the true GW scam and given all of these updates - they need to start providing digital copies for free when you buy the book AND update those digital copies.
Sumilidon wrote: On the whole subject of this "Major balance update". Anyone who was stupid enough to buy a book which was already a little out of date 2 weeks after release - your book is pretty much useless now.
Welcome to the true GW scam and given all of these updates - they need to start providing digital copies for free when you buy the book AND update those digital copies.
Even better, stop selling bloody books.
Or they could just balance the books sufficiently at publication that multiple updates per year aren't 'necessary'.
The problem isn't the format of pressing ink onto bits of dead tree - it's that GW is incompetent when it comes to writing rules.
Sumilidon wrote: On the whole subject of this "Major balance update". Anyone who was stupid enough to buy a book which was already a little out of date 2 weeks after release - your book is pretty much useless now.
Welcome to the true GW scam and given all of these updates - they need to start providing digital copies for free when you buy the book AND update those digital copies.
Even better, stop selling bloody books.
They do? Your digital rules in the app update for free. Also the fluff, artwork, crusade, most of the unit entries, wargear and relic entries don't change so printed books are hardly useless. They also doesn't run out of charge, screen lock or require you passing an expensive device to your opponent to read something.
It needs to be expanded to Custodes and Sisters of Silence. I'm a bit bitter that a 28 point Heavy Intercessor is just as hard to remove, arguably harder depending on faction, than a 50 point Custodes. I'm not saying Marines aren't elite and are too good, only that they are too close to Custodes now, who have far, far fewer toys and options.
It needs to be expanded to Custodes and Sisters of Silence. I'm a bit bitter that a 28 point Heavy Intercessor is just as hard to remove, arguably harder depending on faction, than a 50 point Custodes. I'm not saying Marines aren't elite and are too good, only that they are too close to Custodes now, who have far, far fewer toys and options.
Just more confirmation that Orks are GWs punching bag faction and are never actually supposed to compete.
Most of our weapons struggle for AP at the best of times, and we were even given AP on our choppas as a sort of compensation, but now we've lost even more of our damage output across the board against half the factions in the game.
The Squigbuggy got inexplicably nerfed for a third time. It was good when you could have nine of them, yes. But now it functionally is a S5 AP0 D1 weapon against most of the game and isn't worth the plastic it's made from.
Even our go-to anti armour weapon, the rokkit, is functionally dead now. Everything is realistically going to be either in cover or wearing power armour most of the time, so best case scenario we get AP1, if not 0. How are we supposed to deal with armour now? Can't use massed boys and klaws like the old days because boys are awful and klaws bounce off. Can't use buggies or Wazboms, they'll just get further nerfed and taken away from us. At this point we're pretty much relying on good will from our opponent.
We weren't given a great book on release, and it seems that after a week or so of good tournament results Orks have had all the limelight they're allowed to have.
I understand that certain factions are overtuned and need bringing down a bit. But can we please do that in a sensible and nuanced way rather than saying "Harlequins are performing very well, best give the Ork players another kicking".
I also understand that certain factions are at death's door and are screaming out for a new codex. But again, we can be sensible with their buffs without giving them a rule that doesn't make sense (conscripts shouldn't be chasing off knights with massed lasgun fire. I don't care how much faith in the Emperor you have, this is unreasonable), and without nerfing everyone else.
At this point, GW either need to pull their finger out and release a book with well thought out set of major balance shifts across the board rather than knee jerk reactions, or accept that 9th is dead and start over with 10th and we go back to indexes that have been reset to a base power level.
It needs to be expanded to Custodes and Sisters of Silence. I'm a bit bitter that a 28 point Heavy Intercessor is just as hard to remove, arguably harder depending on faction, than a 50 point Custodes. I'm not saying Marines aren't elite and are too good, only that they are too close to Custodes now, who have far, far fewer toys and options.
They'd need a massive points hike then, though.
Armor of contempt was just a patch to help some low-mid tier factions being a bit more resilient, while custodes were already extremely resilient and top tier.
Afrodactyl wrote: Just more confirmation that Orks are GWs punching bag faction and are never actually supposed to compete.
Most of our weapons struggle for AP at the best of times, and we were even given AP on our choppas as a sort of compensation, but now we've lost even more of our damage output across the board against half the factions in the game.
The Squigbuggy got inexplicably nerfed for a third time. It was good when you could have nine of them, yes. But now it functionally is a S5 AP0 D1 weapon against most of the game and isn't worth the plastic it's made from.
Even our go-to anti armour weapon, the rokkit, is functionally dead now. Everything is realistically going to be either in cover or wearing power armour most of the time, so best case scenario we get AP1, if not 0. How are we supposed to deal with armour now? Can't use massed boys and klaws like the old days because boys are awful and klaws bounce off. Can't use buggies or Wazboms, they'll just get further nerfed and taken away from us. At this point we're pretty much relying on good will from our opponent.
We weren't given a great book on release, and it seems that after a week or so of good tournament results Orks have had all the limelight they're allowed to have.
I understand that certain factions are overtuned and need bringing down a bit. But can we please do that in a sensible and nuanced way rather than saying "Harlequins are performing very well, best give the Ork players another kicking".
I also understand that certain factions are at death's door and are screaming out for a new codex. But again, we can be sensible with their buffs without giving them a rule that doesn't make sense (conscripts shouldn't be chasing off knights with massed lasgun fire. I don't care how much faith in the Emperor you have, this is unreasonable), and without nerfing everyone else.
At this point, GW either need to pull their finger out and release a book with well thought out set of major balance shifts across the board rather than knee jerk reactions, or accept that 9th is dead and start over with 10th and we go back to indexes that have been reset to a base power level.
bEsPoKe RuLeS aRe GrEaT bEcAuSe Gw CaN fIx ThEm InDiViDuAlLy, RaThEr ThAn MaKiNg SwEePiNg ChAnGeS...
I know exactly why they did it, it's because of balance.
Eh. I don't really think this solves any balance problems.
I think its just a quiet admission (without really admitting it) that the guard codex is months off, and they want people to shut up for a while. Take your 'get-you-by' garbage and like it.
I don't think they're going to get the reaction they want, as they've raised to many hackles with this particular set of handwaves.
I imagine that guard need such a complete overhaul that their book has a ways to go to be finished for this edition.
We could maybe make some handwaves up about disciplined weight of fire but honestly it's a mechanical decision to not kick an army that's already down.
It needs to be expanded to Custodes and Sisters of Silence. I'm a bit bitter that a 28 point Heavy Intercessor is just as hard to remove, arguably harder depending on faction, than a 50 point Custodes. I'm not saying Marines aren't elite and are too good, only that they are too close to Custodes now, who have far, far fewer toys and options.
Marines have needed such a buff to be back in the game.
Marine players have shelved their army and can now think about rallying their Marines again.
It needs to be expanded to Custodes and Sisters of Silence. I'm a bit bitter that a 28 point Heavy Intercessor is just as hard to remove, arguably harder depending on faction, than a 50 point Custodes. I'm not saying Marines aren't elite and are too good, only that they are too close to Custodes now, who have far, far fewer toys and options.
Marines have needed such a buff to be back in the game.
Marine players have shelved their army and can now think about rallying their Marines again.
Yup. That said I wouldn't mind Sisters of Silence getting it, but I don't think Custodes need a durability buff.
It needs to be expanded to Custodes and Sisters of Silence. I'm a bit bitter that a 28 point Heavy Intercessor is just as hard to remove, arguably harder depending on faction, than a 50 point Custodes. I'm not saying Marines aren't elite and are too good, only that they are too close to Custodes now, who have far, far fewer toys and options.
Marines have needed such a buff to be back in the game.
Marine players have shelved their army and can now think about rallying their Marines again.
I agree. I don't see any of the Armor of Contempt factions automatically jumping to the winner podium with this change. However, I do see them moving from the bottom of the fat middle to possibly the top of the fat middle of factions with occasional overall tournament wins.
On the casual side, I see this change allowing marine armies to go the distance much more often, making it to Turn 5 or even actually finishing games instead of being tabled. Which I only see as a good thing. Doubly so as space marines are largely a new player army in my experience. I don't care so much about firepower with my marines (spikey or loyal) as much as I want them to be durable. Because being durable allows new players to make mistakes and allows seasoned players to leverage both shooting and melee out of them. Which is how I believe marines should handle having relatively average offensive capabilities.
I suspect that GW still has much work to be done for Necrons and Orks. I think they both may continue to slip until GW can figure out how they want to work.
@Cuda1179
Regular Custodian Guard vs. Heavy Intercessors, have a 17pt difference. This covers the +1 M", WS/BS 2+, +1 S, +3 Ld, more Attacks, Save 2+ (which is still more universal than Save 3+ (ignore 1 AP, read page 364 in BRB if you haven't already), a 4+ Invul, a 6+ MW Save for the Custodes. Even more offenseive ability if you are talking about the 50pt version.
Just eyeballing it, Heavy Intercessors are pretty close to Custodian Guard (the 45pt version, the 55pt version blows Heavy Intercessors away) at range, but clearly not as good in melee by a wide margin. Note, +1" Move is a melee buff as it can allow easier charges among other things. Additionally, Custodian Guard are still notably more durable than Heavy Intercessors, regardless of the enemy faction. There might be an argument that the points gap between Custodian Guard and Heavy Intercessors should be narrowed. Likely with Heavy Intercessors going up 2 points, but I don't see anything between them that demonstrates an obvious power discrepancy that you are concerned about. Especially not in terms of durability.
Note, I have never considered unit depth (i.e. number of options available) as something that changes points balance. Especially in a game that doesn't have a sideboard. Because it doesn't make sense to me that a faction such a Harlequins should always be overpowered because of lack of choice, any more than a faction such as space marines should be always be underpowered due to bloat of choice. 100 poor unit options isn't going to equal 1 good one.
Dakkites - "Gw NeEdS tO fIx ThIs GaMeS bAlAnCe IsSuEs"
GW - *releases great balance dataslate which fixes a huge number of issues*
Dakkites - "No, not like that."
Pretty telling that the vast majority of other online social media sources, as well as my in person interactions with other 40k players have been overwhelmingly positive on the balance dataslate. Im beginning to suspect that most of the people bitching in this thread don't actually play the game.
All this "bUt mAh ImMeRsIoN~~" pearl-clutching is pretty silly. Lasguns were already able to wound and destroy tanks, you just needed a few more of them than you do now (about 53% more by my math), the game and setting is already filled with all sorts of inconsistencies, etc. Recalibrate your disbelief suspension systems and your abstraction comprehension filters and move on. Theres a million and one immersive ways to spin or justify the changes, you're choosing not to accept them for arbitrary reasons. Arguments that this is unfluffy or immersion breaking really have no leg to stand on (though I know you believe they do, but your belief isnt a justifiable basis for an argument).
Spoletta wrote: Now I remember why I rarely visit this board.
This dataslate is absolutely fantastic. One of the best publications we had from the GW in years, perfectly responding to the current issues of the game... and in here it is threated like the advent of another dark crusade...
In this dataslate:
-the lethality of the game nosedives
- the AP gets more important
- the AP0 weapons are given a new role
- the invulnerability saves are made less relevant
- the power armor factions get a boost
- the bodyguard rule and indirect fire rules are fixed
- the worst offenders of the meta are brought back in line
- the worst faction in the game gets a big boost
...
Seriously, when did this board become like this? You really suck the joy out of everything.
Give praise where praise is do.
This dataslate was a spectacular job from GW and we should give praise so that the next time, they know what we want.
Agreed. Just wish they had given Tyranids a pre-emptive nerf by dq'ing Crusher Stampede
Look, I get what you're saying -- the dataslate will make the competitive meta healthier, and that was needed. But do you really not see why people are upset about this incredibly immersion-breaking Guard change?
Actually? Truly?
Yes, I do see. It's the MAGNITUDE of their outrage at the rule that I don't understand, lol.
Why is my battlefield limited to this darned table?! I should be able to drive my tank into the living room! Why is my tank only able to shoot the scale equivalent of across a city block???!!?! MUH ImMuRsIoN!!!
People on this forum just pick the most BIZARRE hills to die on or lines in sand to draw.
I can find a fluffy explaination for this guard rule: volume of fire and faith in the god-emperor. Think of it like an inverse shield of faith. Boom, fluff!
Spend less time being upset about this rule, and more time being upset that GW is still trickling out rules to you with overpriced dead trees that are so heavily errata'd within 6 months as to be unrecognizable.
I mean holy cow they are finally actually trying to balance factions every three months with a free digitally available thing and people are upset at THIS?
PREACH. Some of the posters in this thread (as well as the guys in the "lets call a time of death for 40k" thread -- SHEESH) really need to grow the feth up, go outside and touch some grass, and I suspect some of them need to actually pick up some dice and play a game or two - preferably against someone who isn't a regular opponent, because it seems some of them have a myopic and skewed perspective on the state of game balance that I can only explain as being the result of limited experience and exposure to other players and the broader meta/community.
I've yet to hear a decent lore justification for why Imperial Guard auto-wound on 6s, or why they alone ignore indirect fire penalities.
At least not one that doesn't fall apart upon the most skin level thought.
Perhaps it's a difference of priorities. I don't much care for balance, for me this game is about simulating battles in the 41st millenium. Balance only matters in so far as it supports that.
So a balance datasheet with actively hurts how well the game simulates real battles is a bad thing in my eyes.
And no I don't care that there already exists some other small mechanic somewhere else that's also unrealistic.
Chances are you won't find me praising that rule anywhere, so I don't see the relevance!
kirotheavenger wrote: I've yet to hear a decent lore justification for why Imperial Guard auto-wound on 6s, or why they alone ignore indirect fire penalities.
At least not one that doesn't fall apart upon the most skin level thought.
Perhaps it's a difference of priorities. I don't much care for balance, for me this game is about simulating battles in the 41st millenium. Balance only matters in so far as it supports that.
So a balance datasheet with actively hurts how well the game simulates real battles is a bad thing in my eyes.
And no I don't care that there already exists some other small mechanic somewhere else that's also unrealistic.
Chances are you won't find me praising that rule anywhere, so I don't see the relevance!
There is no lore justification because there doesn't need to be one. This is an emergency attempt to prop up a faction that is doing horribly and likely won't get a new book for some time.
If you want to play 'real' battles you honestly should not be playing 40k to begin with.
If this is deeply troubling to you then feel free to play without these crutches.
Ordana wrote: There is no lore justification because there doesn't need to be one. This is an emergency attempt to prop up a faction that is doing horribly and likely won't get a new book for some time.
I agree, yet it's rushed and hamfisted. There's so many things they could have gone for that didn't piss all over the similitude like this.
Not to mention this is in no way mutually exclusive to the point people are making. If you're responding negatively to or otherwise contradicting people who are saying they don't like the anti-lore aspect of these rules, you need to come up with a retort better than "you're wrong because it personally doesn't bother me"
If you want to play 'real' battles you honestly should not be playing 40k to begin with.
Why not? 40k's always been about recreating battles in the 41st millenium. People are always going on about telling their narrative and such.
Just because it's not a realistic recreation of real warfare doesn't mean it can't be a 'realistic' creation of fictional warfare - fiction has it's own internal realism.
If this is deeply troubling to you then feel free to play without these crutches.
"Oh hey buddy Imperial Guard player, I don't like that you get to auto-wound on 6s, mind not using that rule?" "no, you want to use that powerful buff you got?"
Hmm, maybe I'm not so free to do what I want in a multi-player game then.
Also, define how deeply troubling this is to me? The bar for "chatting on the internet when I'm bored" is pretty low for me.
Why not? 40k's always been about recreating battles in the 41st millenium. People are always going on about telling their narrative and such.
Just because it's not a realistic recreation of real warfare doesn't mean it can't be a 'realistic' creation of fictional warfare - fiction has it's own internal realism.
40k has never been more realistic than how already is.
It's perfectly fine to prefer some old mechanics in the name of immersion or whatever, but immersion doesn't always mean realism. Templates and blasts for example were not more realistic than D6 or 2D6 shots but for some people were fun.
Shooting across units used to give 5+ cover for the targets, instead of a much more logical -1 to hit. Of course units in bewteen that were screening or caught in the crossfire didn't lose any casualties for each successful cover save that was rolled, which is also something that didn't make any sense unless justifying it as an abstraction.
Battles that were won on Kill Points rather than actual points of killed stuff, or other mechanics, didn't make any sense at all (I kill 500 points of cheap stuff for 6VPs, you kill 1500 points of more expensive units but only worthy of 5VPs and lose) and yet for some people 5th edition is much more fun and immersive than 9th.
Etc... there are tons of example like that for older edition mechanics that were completely unrealistic.
Your example for why 40k has never been more realistic than "Imperial Guard auto-wound titans with lasguns" is "you used to get a cover save for shooting through units".
Surely I don't need to elaborate on why I would be entirely unconvinced by that argument.
Of course the game wasn't a completely accurate rendition of every little detail. But everything at least made some degree of sense. Blasts were an actual explosion on the battlefield, cover was cover, killing stuff was good...
Cover providing a 5+ invulnerable is an abstraction, it's a rough but imperfect rules approximation of a real thing.
The point is these recent 'abstractions' aren't abstractions of anything, they're just flat out bare-faced game-isms.
An "abstraction" is a reasonable accommodation for things that can't easily be modeled (e.g. explosions - both templates and the d6 hit attempts are abstractions). One abstraction can be different from another and people can think one is better than another (some people prefer templates, some people prefer d6s). I don't want to get into THAT argument again, but it is a useful example.
Other mechanics can exist that AREN'T abstractions at all. Whilst one can argue about the quality or not of an abstraction, at least SOMETHING "real" (in the context of the setting) is being modeled, to whatever degree of quality.
Auto-wounding on 6s to hit is NOT an abstraction of anything. My argument has always been that the quality of GW's abstractions have been decreasing - which is contestable.
But this rule is a difference in KIND, rather than merely DEGREE. It fully exists purely as a mechanic without any abstraction behind it whatsoever - and in my opinion, is the epitome of "the game doesn't have to follow the fluff" argument. It is the end-state of Balance Uber Alles mixed with lazy rules writing.
As someone who prefers narrative games, I hope people can understand why this additional step - moving away from abstraction altogether and stepping into pure gameness - is alarming. In addition, and as a separate claim, I would argue that the community has been desensitized to this loss of verisimilitude by the increasingly low quality of abstraction already present - after all, if the abstractions are gakky, them why bother with them at all?
Hence why most of the abstractions of 8th have always rubbed me the wrong way, and will continue to do so if they are pursued into 10th.
chaos0xomega wrote: Pretty telling that the vast majority of other online social media sources, as well as my in person interactions with other 40k players have been overwhelmingly positive on the balance dataslate. Im beginning to suspect that most of the people bitching in this thread don't actually play the game
Yeah, the local tournament group is also habby, while the casual group will ignore it
The patch helps, but it the main problem is that it adds additional rules to balance factions instead of addressing the issues of 9th.
That said, the casual players are all older who already played during 3rd/4th so those have a different view on such changes
For me, the arguments on Dakka are entertaining, the change for Guard is at the same time the one thing the army needed while it has no real impact on the tabletop as well
Also funny that those people who usually are from "need extensive testig first before you can say it is bad balanced" are now sure that everything is fine just by reading the rules
That social medias are all now hyped because this time GW did listen and made something good was already there with Squats and now they are praising that the game is changing again (without anyone can be sure that the development is going into a positive direction as no one has had games with the new rules yet)
Dakkites - "Gw NeEdS tO fIx ThIs GaMeS bAlAnCe IsSuEs"
GW - *releases great balance dataslate which fixes a huge number of issues*
Dakkites - "No, not like that."
Pretty telling that the vast majority of other online social media sources, as well as my in person interactions with other 40k players have been overwhelmingly positive on the balance dataslate. Im beginning to suspect that most of the people bitching in this thread don't actually play the game.
All this "bUt mAh ImMeRsIoN~~" pearl-clutching is pretty silly. Lasguns were already able to wound and destroy tanks, you just needed a few more of them than you do now (about 53% more by my math), the game and setting is already filled with all sorts of inconsistencies, etc. Recalibrate your disbelief suspension systems and your abstraction comprehension filters and move on. Theres a million and one immersive ways to spin or justify the changes, you're choosing not to accept them for arbitrary reasons. Arguments that this is unfluffy or immersion breaking really have no leg to stand on (though I know you believe they do, but your belief isnt a justifiable basis for an argument).
Spoletta wrote: Now I remember why I rarely visit this board.
This dataslate is absolutely fantastic. One of the best publications we had from the GW in years, perfectly responding to the current issues of the game... and in here it is threated like the advent of another dark crusade...
In this dataslate:
-the lethality of the game nosedives
- the AP gets more important
- the AP0 weapons are given a new role
- the invulnerability saves are made less relevant
- the power armor factions get a boost
- the bodyguard rule and indirect fire rules are fixed
- the worst offenders of the meta are brought back in line
- the worst faction in the game gets a big boost
...
Seriously, when did this board become like this? You really suck the joy out of everything.
Give praise where praise is do.
This dataslate was a spectacular job from GW and we should give praise so that the next time, they know what we want.
Agreed. Just wish they had given Tyranids a pre-emptive nerf by dq'ing Crusher Stampede
Look, I get what you're saying -- the dataslate will make the competitive meta healthier, and that was needed. But do you really not see why people are upset about this incredibly immersion-breaking Guard change?
Actually? Truly?
Yes, I do see. It's the MAGNITUDE of their outrage at the rule that I don't understand, lol.
Why is my battlefield limited to this darned table?! I should be able to drive my tank into the living room! Why is my tank only able to shoot the scale equivalent of across a city block???!!?! MUH ImMuRsIoN!!!
People on this forum just pick the most BIZARRE hills to die on or lines in sand to draw.
I can find a fluffy explaination for this guard rule: volume of fire and faith in the god-emperor. Think of it like an inverse shield of faith. Boom, fluff!
Spend less time being upset about this rule, and more time being upset that GW is still trickling out rules to you with overpriced dead trees that are so heavily errata'd within 6 months as to be unrecognizable.
I mean holy cow they are finally actually trying to balance factions every three months with a free digitally available thing and people are upset at THIS?
PREACH. Some of the posters in this thread (as well as the guys in the "lets call a time of death for 40k" thread -- SHEESH) really need to grow the feth up, go outside and touch some grass, and I suspect some of them need to actually pick up some dice and play a game or two - preferably against someone who isn't a regular opponent, because it seems some of them have a myopic and skewed perspective on the state of game balance that I can only explain as being the result of limited experience and exposure to other players and the broader meta/community.
I'll tell you why it's being recievd positively elsewhere: Armor of Contempt is total Marine fanwank, and lots of people have Marines. It's like a tragedy of the commons.
Marines not tough enough? Add a wound!
Still not working? Ignore a point of AP!
Meanwhile Necron Warriors be like: Remember when we were tougher than Marines? Anybody?
IMHO, they should just reduce AP by 1 across the board, and lower points for the weapons hurt by that.
Now, if you want something to ignore Imperial Guard Flak Armor but not drop Marines to a 5+, you would have to implement some kind of all-or-nothing system, where a weapon has the penetrating power to ignore Flak but cannot penetrate Power Armor... some kind of system like that.
Small arms being AP 0 is something I know I've argued for, but I know that hasn't been entirely popular.
As for some of the calls to change "the fundamental problems with 9th" that is not as straightforward as correcting the obvious symptoms. It takes time to find the source of the problem (and it's easy to point fingers at things and claim that the source of the problem is X but sometimes the problem is Y or Z instead and X is a symptom of the actual problem) and then even more time to playtest a solution. If that is being done I'd expect it's being done to make corrections going into 10th edition over them trying to rework the framework that this edition is built on.
With how GW uses theit games to try out new ideas for other games I imagine both AoS and HH have been playtesting new ideas for 40k. It'll be interesting to see what DNA in those games will make it into 40k.
kirotheavenger wrote: Your example for why 40k has never been more realistic than "Imperial Guard auto-wound titans with lasguns" is "you used to get a cover save for shooting through units".
Surely I don't need to elaborate on why I would be entirely unconvinced by that argument.
To me it definitely looks much more absurd my cover save example. I mean a successful cover save litterally means that the shot hits the cover rather than the target but in the old mechanics those saved shots didn't hit the cover, aka the other unit. They were simply shrugged off. Think about gretchins' ability to shield units: they grant an invuln to a unit that is behind them but any successful roll results in a casualty on the gretchin squad. That is something immersive, not the old silly cover save granted by shooting through units.
So yeah, super lucky lasgun shots wounding a titan seems comparable to me, if not even more realistic and immersive . We've seen plenty of movies in which a lucky or extremely precise shot destroys something heavily armoured or a single arrow takes down a gigantic creature.
That's called an abstraction. We don't bother resolving successful cover saves in that instance because it's not worth the time to do so.
If "6s to hit autowound" was a general rule, I'd file it under abstraction. One I sincerely didn't like, but at least it'd be there. For a start I'd argue the "golden BB" is already represented in the abstract "a 6 to wound automatically wounds", hence a lasgun can even hurt a titan at all.
But it's not a general rule, you need to justify why Sgt Atkins with his boltgun is putting damage on titans (or battletanks) more effectively than a Space Marine.
Ive been calling for Armour of Contempt since very early in 8th. Im not a marine fanboy and only recently started playing TSons (last week in fact, first time ive touched marines in 20 years), but it never sat right with me that their armor was now so easily negated. Yonow, it was unfluffy and immersion breaking.
Frankly "Armour Quality" should be a stat alongside armour save, where quality = the amount of AP that the model can offset before it impacts their save.
IE AQ2 , Sv 3+ means the model gets a 3+ save vs AP0, AP1, and AP2, and 4+ save vs AP3, etc.
It opens up a ton of design space in terms of both weapons and model characteristics and allows for much greater differentiation than is otherwise possible
chaos0xomega wrote: Well, they could just go back to the old AP system and then they wouldn't need to, but seems a lot of people wanted armor modifiers
I like AP values because a binary AP system never sat right with me on the immersion scale.
Now that's not to say that it can't be done better. Maybe AP negation could use the Toughness value giving that stat two purposes when trying to wound models (like maybe you negate AP equal to half your Toughness rounded down).
There are interesting ways to apply AP, I just don't know if GW has found the one that works best yet.
chaos0xomega wrote: Well, they could just go back to the old AP system and then they wouldn't need to, but seems a lot of people wanted armor modifiers
That's because the all-or-nothing system was garbage. It stopped entire statlines of weapons being useful. You either needed high strength and/or AP2.
Armor mods was the best thing to have been added to the game for making sure your weapons weren't useless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: Because armour modification is better
But people still fall for the trap no matter how good the idea is, GWs implementation is worse as the previous system was
And this is true. I am one of the only people I know that was okay with the removal of the Initiative stat to a degree. However having to choose who fights is super silly for prolonged melee engagements.
And yet nobody ever complained about the game being "too lethal" when it was all or nothing.
If you want AP mods then you need to accept the idea that the vast majority of weapons should be AP0, with some weapons being AP-1 and a select few AP-2. Anything more than that should be so exceptionslly rare as to be unheard of.
But then you would complain that there isn't enough differentiation between weapons or that it doesn't make sense that a lasgun, a bolter,a heavy bolter, and an autocannon all have the same AP mod, etc.
Now that's not to say that it can't be done better. Maybe AP negation could use the Toughness value giving that stat two purposes when trying to wound models (like maybe you negate AP equal to half your Toughness rounded down).
hmm, that might have some legs but T4/5 would negate 2 points of AP off the bat which is even more extreme than what armour of contempt does. Maybe if they made AP negation a factor of the difference between toughness and weapon strength instead (i.e. S4 v T5 = negate 1 pt of AP), but that would require profile adjustments to a number of weapons but wouldn't turn the game on its head either.
chaos0xomega wrote: And yet nobody ever complained about the game being "too lethal" when it was all or nothing.
Yes we did, in fact we constantly complained about the game being too lethal when it was all or nothing.
Codex creep is not some new illness of the 9th edition, it has been an issue of GW's rules writing since the days of Rogue Trader. Under the old binary system we saw a constant creep towards AP2 large blast weapons, and eventually we saw the introduction of Grav weapons and D weapons.
If you want AP mods then you need to accept the idea that the vast majority of weapons should be AP0, with some weapons being AP-1 and a select few AP-2. Anything more than that should be so exceptionslly rare as to be unheard of.
But then you would complain that there isn't enough differentiation between weapons or that it doesn't make sense that a lasgun, a bolter,a heavy bolter, and an autocannon all have the same AP mod, etc.
Personally I would prefer an overal buff to armor saves so AP modifiers have the space to be different without being overpowering. Better yet move to a D12 system for greater granularity.
chaos0xomega wrote: Well, they could just go back to the old AP system and then they wouldn't need to, but seems a lot of people wanted armor modifiers
Armor modifiers are a better system, but it means that Marine players need to accept that their infantry shouldn't be indestructible. Unfortunately that's been a hard sell.
chaos0xomega wrote: Ive been calling for Armour of Contempt since very early in 8th. Im not a marine fanboy and only recently started playing TSons (last week in fact, first time ive touched marines in 20 years), but it never sat right with me that their armor was now so easily negated. Yonow, it was unfluffy and immersion breaking.
Frankly "Armour Quality" should be a stat alongside armour save, where quality = the amount of AP that the model can offset before it impacts their save.
IE AQ2 , Sv 3+ means the model gets a 3+ save vs AP0, AP1, and AP2, and 4+ save vs AP3, etc.
It opens up a ton of design space in terms of both weapons and model characteristics and allows for much greater differentiation than is otherwise possible
Credit where credit is due, chaos. That is an interesting idea and I'll definitely think about that one. The major problem right now is that Marines are just far outpacing other infantry in durability against small arms in places they really shouldn't. Shuriken Catapults just got their much needed boost, finally, and then they're thrown back to square one after a month. It's tiresome, and I say this as a marine player who doesn't play Eldar.
. . .
As for the old vs. New armor debate: The immediate and obvious thing to note for both the old AP system and the current mod system is that both systems failed in the same way. Designers couldn't restrain themselves and handed out far too much AP.
Part of the issue is the fact the Marine pays for durability that it doesn't get to use in a game where it's being knocked down a bit. Either Marines need to get cheaper (boo) or everything needs to go.up in points, we shrink the model count a fair bit and the points they pay doesn't feel so far out of bounds when they should expect to be saving on a 4+ or worse in practice.
ClockworkZion wrote: Part of the issue is the fact the Marine pays for durability that it doesn't get to use in a game where it's being knocked down a bit. Either Marines need to get cheaper (boo) or everything needs to go.up in points, we shrink the model count a fair bit and the points they pay doesn't feel so far out of bounds when they should expect to be saving on a 4+ or worse in practice.
Surely it depends what's shooting at them?
As an example, in 8th it took 9 splinter shots to kill a single Marine. That's 54pts of Kabalites at 24" or 27pts (more like 30 as you can't have half a Kabalite) if they can get into rapid-fire range.
Now it takes 18 splinter shots to down a Marine and Kabalies have gone up in price, such that it now takes 144pts of Kabalites to kill a single Marine at 24", or 72pts of Kabalites in rapid-fire range.
That's almost three times as many points as in the previous edition. And heaven help you if the Marines are in cover.
The AP system worked because in 8th a "normal" damage line was S4 AP-.
Unfortunately with the 9th codexes its probably closer to S5 AP-2 2 damage. (Its also why I think Ork's T5 is such a non-issue.)
You look for example through those Harlequin lists - I think literally everything has at least one point AP. And vast amounts of AP-2, -3 and -4. Eldar, Tau, Custodes its all the same thing.
So something did need to be done - but it screws over anyone who was legitimately paying for their AP.
The problem is this is probably a swing too far - although it will be fun to see some tournaments to prove it. I think the Goonhammer guys for example are being far to conservative on the impact of Armour of Contempt change.
I think Tau for example might really be quite screwed. Before you'd a shoot a 3+ "power armour unit" with say AP-1 (plenty of options). Then get another from Mont'ka. Now that marine is on a 5+ save and they die in droves. Now however you don't the bonus from Mont'ka and they ignore one point of AP so its a 3+ save. So they can expect to take twice as many shots before dying. Which isn't a small change, its a massive change.
I can't say I'm weeping over the death of SMS & Airbursts - but a gun which may have been giving you only a 5+ save now giving your power armoured factions a 2+ save is for all intents and purposes dead. Combined with the -1 BS the odds are just catastrophic.
chaos0xomega wrote: And yet nobody ever complained about the game being "too lethal" when it was all or nothing.
You clearly haven't met many veteran marine players then. Constant complaining about power armour and terminator dudes being killed like flies has been their mantra for ages. To the point that GW tried to compensate them but letting them play with 300+ points of free tanks.
Yea. There have definitely been lethality problems in past edition. In fact, every edition since 4th has had armies that were significantly more lethal than was warranted.
Tyel wrote: The AP system worked because in 8th a "normal" damage line was S4 AP-.
Unfortunately with the 9th codexes its probably closer to S5 AP-2 2 damage. (Its also why I think Ork's T5 is such a non-issue.)
You look for example through those Harlequin lists - I think literally everything has at least one point AP. And vast amounts of AP-2, -3 and -4. Eldar, Tau, Custodes its all the same thing.
I'm sure no one wants to hear this but I'm 99% sure the reason for all the extra AP and damage is because Marines were given an extra wound with zero thought for the wider impact.
But it's fine - I'm sure letting all Marines also ignore a point of AP will definitely, definitely not cause any further escalation in future codices and supplements.
Tyel wrote: The AP system worked because in 8th a "normal" damage line was S4 AP-.
Unfortunately with the 9th codexes its probably closer to S5 AP-2 2 damage. (Its also why I think Ork's T5 is such a non-issue.)
You look for example through those Harlequin lists - I think literally everything has at least one point AP. And vast amounts of AP-2, -3 and -4. Eldar, Tau, Custodes its all the same thing.
I'm sure no one wants to hear this but I'm 99% sure the reason for all the extra AP and damage is because Marines were given an extra wound with zero thought for the wider impact.
But it's fine - I'm sure letting all Marines also ignore a point of AP will definitely, definitely not cause any further escalation in future codices and supplements.
Who knows, maybe 10th will take the game in a new direction and bring back Instant Death mechanics so 2 wound Marines will die instantly to S8+ weaponry again.
Tyel wrote: The AP system worked because in 8th a "normal" damage line was S4 AP-.
Unfortunately with the 9th codexes its probably closer to S5 AP-2 2 damage. (Its also why I think Ork's T5 is such a non-issue.)
You look for example through those Harlequin lists - I think literally everything has at least one point AP. And vast amounts of AP-2, -3 and -4. Eldar, Tau, Custodes its all the same thing.
I'm sure no one wants to hear this but I'm 99% sure the reason for all the extra AP and damage is because Marines were given an extra wound with zero thought for the wider impact.
But it's fine - I'm sure letting all Marines also ignore a point of AP will definitely, definitely not cause any further escalation in future codices and supplements.
Who knows, maybe 10th will take the game in a new direction and bring back Instant Death mechanics so 2 wound Marines will die instantly to S8+ weaponry again.
Tyel wrote: The AP system worked because in 8th a "normal" damage line was S4 AP-.
Unfortunately with the 9th codexes its probably closer to S5 AP-2 2 damage. (Its also why I think Ork's T5 is such a non-issue.)
You look for example through those Harlequin lists - I think literally everything has at least one point AP. And vast amounts of AP-2, -3 and -4. Eldar, Tau, Custodes its all the same thing.
I'm sure no one wants to hear this but I'm 99% sure the reason for all the extra AP and damage is because Marines were given an extra wound with zero thought for the wider impact.
But it's fine - I'm sure letting all Marines also ignore a point of AP will definitely, definitely not cause any further escalation in future codices and supplements.
Who knows, maybe 10th will take the game in a new direction and bring back Instant Death mechanics so 2 wound Marines will die instantly to S8+ weaponry again.
I'm sure no one wants to hear this but I'm 99% sure the reason for all the extra AP and damage is because Marines were given an extra wound with zero thought for the wider impact.
Yes and no. With more AP -1 coming into the game we did see quite a few units improve their save by one to count for the proliferation of the extra AP. Saw it at least with Drukhari and Aeldari, but not existing power armor who usually got the extra wound instead(except for sisters).
At this point I do wonder if GW tends to look at army size as a holy number. When I mean army size I am not referring to the point size, but how many bodies they expect in a single force. It does feel like their reluctance to give out pure point updates for balancing stems from the idea that they want 2000 points to have X amount of marines and so on.
I'm sure no one wants to hear this but I'm 99% sure the reason for all the extra AP and damage is because Marines were given an extra wound with zero thought for the wider impact.
Yes and no. With more AP -1 coming into the game we did see quite a few units improve their save by one to count for the proliferation of the extra AP. Saw it at least with Drukhari and Aeldari, but not existing power armor who usually got the extra wound instead(except for sisters).
At this point I do wonder if GW tends to look at army size as a holy number. When I mean army size I am not referring to the point size, but how many bodies they expect in a single force. It does feel like their reluctance to give out pure point updates for balancing stems from the idea that they want 2000 points to have X amount of marines and so on.
Honestly I can believe it. Part of the game's appeal is the visual aspect and I'm sure that model count is considered as part of that.
Insectum7 wrote: Well they're apparently aiming for "no Boyz" in an Ork army so I think their thinking is somewhat off.
I doubt that's their intent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Anyone want to comment on how unwaveringly stupid and broken the Nids codex is now on release? 2 days after this "BALANCE" patch?
I wonder if they'll lose some teeth because of the Armour of Contempt rule and Marines being such a meta staple, but I'm not jumping to conclusions either way.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Anyone want to comment on how unwaveringly stupid and broken the Nids codex is now on release? 2 days after this "BALANCE" patch?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Anyone want to comment on how unwaveringly stupid and broken the Nids codex is now on release? 2 days after this "BALANCE" patch?
Please elaborate, how are they broken?
Probably best for its own thread. The only thing really (further) broken (and NOT in an OP way) by the balance sheet is the poor Hive Guard, punished for prior sins despite a hefty nerf AND now requiring a synapse spotter to do IF in the first place.
The main thing that jumps out is some of the point costs seem really odd (especially warriors). And not just in a 'too low' way (gants are too high, especially devourers), and some things got shuffled in and out troops based on 'GW thinks that people who play that way are WRONG'
OR the HQ Psyker unit that can do upwards of 20MWs per turn. Or their leviathan group that can spam just Heavy Monstrosity units like popcorn. Auspex Tactics has a whole 15 minute video about how stupid the new codex is.
chaos0xomega wrote: Ive been calling for Armour of Contempt since very early in 8th. Im not a marine fanboy and only recently started playing TSons (last week in fact, first time ive touched marines in 20 years), but it never sat right with me that their armor was now so easily negated.
This is why I liked 3rd-7th's AP system.
I've said this on numerous occasions, but as a long-time 2nd Ed player, when I finally saw 3rd Ed for the first time at a demo game in a GW store I was absolutely shocked that Marines actually got to take 3+ saves. From my perspective it was such a rare thing to see (like Gretchin Autoguns let Marines have 3+ saves, but almost everything else took them to at best a 4+).
Now there are a lot of arguments against the AP system, but GW have never found a balance between showing the dominance of power armour, whilst also allowing for a modifier system. It was all or nothing, or what we have now, where 3+ saves are what you need minimum to maybe get a 4+ or 5+ save.
Armour of Contempt is a massively clunky and bloated way of fixing this, with built-in exceptions to exceptions that are there for balance reasons but don't make conceptual sense (why would having a Storm Shield make your somehow less durable?) but it is better than the system that existed before it. Of course, if they just reduced the AP of most weapons by 1, and made basic weapons having AP-1 something special (like for ShuriCats), then that would be a far more elegant solution that didn't involve a layer of rules on top of an existing layer of rules.
Kanluwen wrote: People keep wanting USRs so badly. Armor Quality is a great place to bring them in!
In chaos' proposal that would be a stat, not a USR.
Your completely unfounded hate-boner for USRs really is based on a complete lack of understanding on how they work, isn't it? Or, more likely, your only exposure to a USR system is that one GW had in previous editions, and because they didn't do it right, and your only frame of reference is GW, you assume that it can't ever be done right.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Anyone want to comment on how unwaveringly stupid and broken the Nids codex is now on release? 2 days after this "BALANCE" patch?
The only real broken thing I see about tyranids is their army of renown, which isn't included in their codex or even in some expansion. It's a White Dwarf thing.
Why would the Nid's Army of Renown be considered valid? It's for a book that has been superseded. GW would have to FAQ it otherwise for it to be valid again (such as the 8th Ed SM Supplements)
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Anyone want to comment on how unwaveringly stupid and broken the Nids codex is now on release? 2 days after this "BALANCE" patch?
The only real broken thing I see about tyranids is their army of renown, which isn't included in their codex or even in some expansion. It's a White Dwarf thing.
So? What difference does that make?
It's just one more GW source.
It needs to be expanded to Custodes and Sisters of Silence. I'm a bit bitter that a 28 point Heavy Intercessor is just as hard to remove, arguably harder depending on faction, than a 50 point Custodes. I'm not saying Marines aren't elite and are too good, only that they are too close to Custodes now, who have far, far fewer toys and options.
They'd need a massive points hike then, though.
Armor of contempt was just a patch to help some low-mid tier factions being a bit more resilient, while custodes were already extremely resilient and top tier.
After a quick spike they fell back down to a 54% win percentage, and that's before they lost ObSec on a lot of units, Jetbikes got beat to death with a nerf bat, and strats got limited severely. With Custodes getting a nerf and a majority of other factions getting a buff I doubt they'll see a 50% win rate. My bet is more like 46%. Armor of Contempt would only bring them back up to average status.
JakeSiren wrote: Why would the Nid's Army of Renown be considered valid? It's for a book that has been superseded. GW would have to FAQ it otherwise for it to be valid again (such as the 8th Ed SM Supplements)
Crusher stamped is valid, it was released just 5 months ago.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Anyone want to comment on how unwaveringly stupid and broken the Nids codex is now on release? 2 days after this "BALANCE" patch?
The only real broken thing I see about tyranids is their army of renown, which isn't included in their codex or even in some expansion. It's a White Dwarf thing.
So? What difference does that make?
It's just one more GW source.
My point is that it isn't the tyranid codex to be stupid and broken, but that expansion. Only that.
Crusher stamped is valid, it was released just 5 months ago.
The problem is that the book and White Dwarf people are talking about are no longer available, making these things rather hard to use for people entering the hobby.
Dallas Open has already released a statement that the Leviathan and the Crusher supplements will not be allowed.
But this is the normal take for GW, essential parts of the rules are only available for a short time, so don't miss them
That tournaments do not allow them does not make them less valid, this just means we see the comeback of house rules o tournaments and that the game played is not the game "tested" by GW
vipoid wrote: I'm sure no one wants to hear this but I'm 99% sure the reason for all the extra AP and damage is because Marines were given an extra wound with zero thought for the wider impact.
But it's fine - I'm sure letting all Marines also ignore a point of AP will definitely, definitely not cause any further escalation in future codices and supplements.
I think this is right line of thinking - but wrong target.
Marines going to 2 wounds doesn't matter. They pay for it in their points. No one was winning tournaments by spamming tactical marines.
The issues I think are the rise of the 2+ save. Most "power armour armies" can essentially run a 2+/4++ save army (or at least have this defensive profile represent a chunk of their points).
Marines don't typically run a lot of basic T4 3+ 2 wound guys. When in late 8th and the Intercessor was the best troop unit in the game they did - but not so much now. They have the 1-3 obligated troops unit(s) and that's often it. You have been much more likely to see VV with storm shields, Blade Guard, in some cases even Terminators. Or dreadnoughts etc. And this is sort of true elsewhere. DG typically run a lot of Terminators. Thousand sons run a lot of Terminators. Custodes are a 2+/4++ faction. Even Sisters are getting in on the act with mass Sacresants (and Paragon Warsuits will eventually get cheap enough to be good). GK usually don't run Terminators (although clearly they can - and may want to look again with this new buff) - but they have tricks to help their "MEQ" bodies (and obviously, Dread Knights with a 2+ save).
And the problem with 2+ saves (which GW is potentially further adding to Tyranid monsters, and almost certainly will keep on Leman Russ etc when Guard get a new book) is they make AP- attacks borderline pointless. Gone are the days when you can shoot a bunch of terminators and expect some 1s. With some licence (since I can't remember exact points and am too lazy to try and find them) - back in ye olden days every 1 rolled cost you a 30-40 point model. Now its 1 wound on a 40-50 point model who has 3. You do no damage so they maintain position on the board - and then in their turn they kill you.
The problem I think is in the maths that 3+->2+ is either halving damage, or, going from 2+->3+ is doubling damage. Which is a massive swing in efficiency. Its a bit like how ork shooting has the problem that BS5+->6+ is double the nerf of 3+->4+.
As you like to say - shooting kabalites into 3+ save marines feels borderline pointless. Well into 2+ save its twice as pointless. 20 shots gets you maybe 1 wound.
So the obvious solution in DE 10th edition will be to give kabalites AP-1. And unless DE get dumpstered because of the crimes of 9th, I'd expect this to happen.
But really that will be sort of incidental to the game. DE have obviously been very successful - and partly at least that's because they can bring a bucket of AP to the table on units that aren't kabalites (who continue to just be blaster caddies). With blade artists anything with AP-1 in combat is throwing out a significant number of AP-2 wounds - never mind anything a bit more punchy.
I feel its a cycle:
Power Armour Player: "I'm bringing a lot of 2+ save stuff"
Opponents: "Okay I'm bringing a lot of AP-2, -3, -4 stuff because my AP- does nothing, and since GW know that they give it to me in my codex"
Power Armour Player: "Noooo... all my stuff dies fast now."
GW: "Okay ignore a point of AP on everything."
Power Armour Player: "haha, I love playing best looked after faction"
Opponents: "Okay... but now I'm *really* having to double down on bringing AP-2, -3, -4 etc, because AP- and AP-1 does nothing*
Power Armour Player: "wait a second..."
Nids look like they will be going straight to the top of the rankings.
It's a very strong codex with some insane mortal wound output, extremely good durability, shooting and melee on very aggressively pointed units.
I wonder how long it will be before gw need to do another emergency balance patch...
JakeSiren wrote: Why would the Nid's Army of Renown be considered valid? It's for a book that has been superseded. GW would have to FAQ it otherwise for it to be valid again (such as the 8th Ed SM Supplements)
Crusher stamped is valid, it was released just 5 months ago.
And? Just look at Saga of the Beast. That was valid for 7 months until the SM codex dropped and invalidated the Space Wolf half of it. What do you think makes Crusher the exception?
JakeSiren wrote: Why would the Nid's Army of Renown be considered valid? It's for a book that has been superseded. GW would have to FAQ it otherwise for it to be valid again (such as the 8th Ed SM Supplements)
Crusher stamped is valid, it was released just 5 months ago.
And? Just look at Saga of the Beast. That was valid for 7 months until the SM codex dropped and invalidated the Space Wolf half of it. What do you think makes Crusher the exception?
Because Saga of the Beast was released in 8th, near the end of the edition, then GW released a new edition and a new codex. But the ork half was legit for an additional year in 9th, until also their codex dropped.
Crusher stampede was released during 9th edition with the upcoming codex in mind. This is no exception, it's something clear and intended.
In the case of SotB and the 9th SW codex GW explicitly said the the codex would have overwritten the expansion as it had some conflicts with 9th edition mechanics (lack of keywords, different keywords, different stats for shared stuff, etc...), but in the Crasher stampede case they didn't, they had no reason to do it.
I don't think its a bad thing for the competitive scene to go "no GW, don't be stupid" - but if GW didn't want these things to be valid, they'd say so.
It needs to be expanded to Custodes and Sisters of Silence. I'm a bit bitter that a 28 point Heavy Intercessor is just as hard to remove, arguably harder depending on faction, than a 50 point Custodes. I'm not saying Marines aren't elite and are too good, only that they are too close to Custodes now, who have far, far fewer toys and options.
They'd need a massive points hike then, though.
Armor of contempt was just a patch to help some low-mid tier factions being a bit more resilient, while custodes were already extremely resilient and top tier.
After a quick spike they fell back down to a 54% win percentage, and that's before they lost ObSec on a lot of units, Jetbikes got beat to death with a nerf bat, and strats got limited severely. With Custodes getting a nerf and a majority of other factions getting a buff I doubt they'll see a 50% win rate. My bet is more like 46%. Armor of Contempt would only bring them back up to average status.
Custodes win % fell because Tau and Clowns beat them, not because other factions started to beat them. Same with Tau win % trending down because of Clowns beating them.
Eldarsif wrote: Dallas Open has already released a statement that the Leviathan and the Crusher supplements will not be allowed.
Forgetting the Crusher thingy for a moment, will the Dallas Open be allowing other supplements (the Sisters one, the AdMech one, the Dark Eldar one, etc.)?
kingheff wrote: Nids look like they will be going straight to the top of the rankings.
It's a very strong codex with some insane mortal wound output, extremely good durability, shooting and melee on very aggressively pointed units.
I wonder how long it will be before gw need to do another emergency balance patch...
Historically Nids codexes have always looked good at release but never quite played out as well as people think they would, so we'll see.
JakeSiren wrote: Why would the Nid's Army of Renown be considered valid? It's for a book that has been superseded. GW would have to FAQ it otherwise for it to be valid again (such as the 8th Ed SM Supplements)
Crusher stamped is valid, it was released just 5 months ago.
And? Just look at Saga of the Beast. That was valid for 7 months until the SM codex dropped and invalidated the Space Wolf half of it. What do you think makes Crusher the exception?
Because Saga of the Beast was released in 8th, near the end of the edition, then GW released a new edition and a new codex. But the ork half was legit for an additional year in 9th, until also their codex dropped.
Crusher stampede was released during 9th edition with the upcoming codex in mind. This is no exception, it's something clear and intended.
In the case of SotB and the 9th SW codex GW explicitly said the the codex would have overwritten the expansion as it had some conflicts with 9th edition mechanics (lack of keywords, different keywords, different stats for shared stuff, etc...), but in the Crasher stampede case they didn't, they had no reason to do it.
I actually don't recall GW making that statement, so I will have to take your word on it. Having owned the SotB book, and subsequent Codex / Supplement, there wasn't any change that would have prevented the rules from SotB working as they did previously. So I find the concept of "conflicts" likely to be marketing talk (hey, here is a reason why the book you spent $$ on months ago is irrelevant, please don't be mad)
Regardless, historically, if the codex that a supplement is referring to is superseded, then that supplement (or that part of the supplement) is considered invalid unless explicitly expressed otherwise. Your "it was released just 5 months ago" is, by in large, irrelevant. Where would someone even consider drawing the line on how old rules must be before they can't be carried by "it was released just X months ago" anymore?
Eldarsif wrote: Dallas Open has already released a statement that the Leviathan and the Crusher supplements will not be allowed.
Forgetting the Crusher thingy for a moment, will the Dallas Open be allowing other supplements (the Sisters one, the AdMech one, the Dark Eldar one, etc.)?
Don't know as they haven't released the final FAQ for the tournament.
I doubt they will disallow them even if they should. I have always been of the opinion that the campaign supplements are like pre-Alpha releases that have never been tested once, not even by the designers themselves. Fine for narrative/Crusade but not something that should be used in tournaments. That is, however, just my humble opinion.
I would also add that since Crusher Stampede was a White Dwarf update the new rules should invalidate them, much like we are already seeing with Tome Celestials in Age of Sigmar. Leviathan is technically the odd faction out and something that GW really needs to address if it is to be allowed or not.
JakeSiren wrote: Why would the Nid's Army of Renown be considered valid? It's for a book that has been superseded. GW would have to FAQ it otherwise for it to be valid again (such as the 8th Ed SM Supplements)
Crusher stamped is valid, it was released just 5 months ago.
And? Just look at Saga of the Beast. That was valid for 7 months until the SM codex dropped and invalidated the Space Wolf half of it. What do you think makes Crusher the exception?
Because Saga of the Beast was released in 8th, near the end of the edition, then GW released a new edition and a new codex. But the ork half was legit for an additional year in 9th, until also their codex dropped.
Crusher stampede was released during 9th edition with the upcoming codex in mind. This is no exception, it's something clear and intended.
In the case of SotB and the 9th SW codex GW explicitly said the the codex would have overwritten the expansion as it had some conflicts with 9th edition mechanics (lack of keywords, different keywords, different stats for shared stuff, etc...), but in the Crasher stampede case they didn't, they had no reason to do it.
I actually don't recall GW making that statement, so I will have to take your word on it. Having owned the SotB book, and subsequent Codex / Supplement, there wasn't any change that would have prevented the rules from SotB working as they did previously. So I find the concept of "conflicts" likely to be marketing talk (hey, here is a reason why the book you spent $$ on months ago is irrelevant, please don't be mad)
Regardless, historically, if the codex that a supplement is referring to is superseded, then that supplement (or that part of the supplement) is considered invalid unless explicitly expressed otherwise. Your "it was released just 5 months ago" is, by in large, irrelevant. Where would someone even consider drawing the line on how old rules must be before they can't be carried by "it was released just X months ago" anymore?
You're right about the 5 months ago thing.
It's not the actual age of the rules that matters, but their context. That's what I meant.
In terms of the Crusher Stamped (and correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm going off what I've seen others mention), but doesn't it have rules conflicts/issues with the new codex? If that's the case, then it would be another reason to consider it invalid until FAQ'd otherwise.
Eldarsif wrote: I doubt they will disallow them even if they should. I have always been of the opinion that the campaign supplements are like pre-Alpha releases that have never been tested once, not even by the designers themselves. Fine for narrative/Crusade but not something that should be used in tournaments. That is, however, just my humble opinion.
Why would they allow those other ones but single out the Leviathan supplement?
Eldarsif wrote: I doubt they will disallow them even if they should. I have always been of the opinion that the campaign supplements are like pre-Alpha releases that have never been tested once, not even by the designers themselves. Fine for narrative/Crusade but not something that should be used in tournaments. That is, however, just my humble opinion.
Why would they allow those other ones but single out the Leviathan supplement?
in an attempt to stop the top 20 of their tournament being 90% Nids?
I think this is right line of thinking - but wrong target.
Marines going to 2 wounds doesn't matter. They pay for it in their points. No one was winning tournaments by spamming tactical marines.
I would have to disagree here. Marines absolutely *didn't* pay for the extra wound in points. It made them twice as durable against most weapons, and the actual point increase they paid did not reflect that in the slightest.
You are correct that most tournament lists probably weren't spamming tactical marines (though I believe they have made heavy use of other 2-wound troops at times). However, this does not mean that the *rules* were not affected by the change to Marine statlines.
Remember, many of the books would have been written with no knowledge of what the tournament scene would look like after Marines dropped (to say nothing of the fact that GW plays a different game to the rest of the world).
The issues I think are the rise of the 2+ save. Most "power armour armies" can essentially run a 2+/4++ save army (or at least have this defensive profile represent a chunk of their points).
Marines don't typically run a lot of basic T4 3+ 2 wound guys. When in late 8th and the Intercessor was the best troop unit in the game they did - but not so much now. They have the 1-3 obligated troops unit(s) and that's often it. You have been much more likely to see VV with storm shields, Blade Guard, in some cases even Terminators. Or dreadnoughts etc. And this is sort of true elsewhere. DG typically run a lot of Terminators. Thousand sons run a lot of Terminators. Custodes are a 2+/4++ faction. Even Sisters are getting in on the act with mass Sacresants (and Paragon Warsuits will eventually get cheap enough to be good). GK usually don't run Terminators (although clearly they can - and may want to look again with this new buff) - but they have tricks to help their "MEQ" bodies (and obviously, Dread Knights with a 2+ save).
And the problem with 2+ saves (which GW is potentially further adding to Tyranid monsters, and almost certainly will keep on Leman Russ etc when Guard get a new book) is they make AP- attacks borderline pointless. Gone are the days when you can shoot a bunch of terminators and expect some 1s. With some licence (since I can't remember exact points and am too lazy to try and find them) - back in ye olden days every 1 rolled cost you a 30-40 point model. Now its 1 wound on a 40-50 point model who has 3. You do no damage so they maintain position on the board - and then in their turn they kill you.
This is a very good point but part of it still goes back to the whole wound-inflation aspect I mentioned. I know referred to Marines getting a second wound, but it actually goes beyond that as other Marines units were also given extra wounds to maintain the difference in durability.
Terminators had 2 wounds back in 8th. Now, as you say, they have 3 wounds apiece. This makes them 50% more durable against basic weapons and twice as durable against D2 weapons like Plasmaguns. Unless I'm mistaken, their cost did not increase substantially when they got that extra wound.
As you say, basic weapons continue to fall further and further behind. We're already at the point where it takes about 300pts of Guardsmen rapid-firing to kill a single terminator.
The problem I think is in the maths that 3+->2+ is either halving damage, or, going from 2+->3+ is doubling damage. Which is a massive swing in efficiency. Its a bit like how ork shooting has the problem that BS5+->6+ is double the nerf of 3+->4+.
I hadn't quite looked at it that way but that's a very good point.
As you like to say - shooting kabalites into 3+ save marines feels borderline pointless. Well into 2+ save its twice as pointless. 20 shots gets you maybe 1 wound.
So the obvious solution in DE 10th edition will be to give kabalites AP-1. And unless DE get dumpstered because of the crimes of 9th, I'd expect this to happen.
Except that this doesn't actually work because AP-1 is AP0 vs Marines. So the only way for Kabalites to have an impact would be for their weapons to be AP-2.
Yes, this would be an absurd increase in power but it's what happens when you have absurd increases in durability.
But really that will be sort of incidental to the game. DE have obviously been very successful - and partly at least that's because they can bring a bucket of AP to the table on units that aren't kabalites (who continue to just be blaster caddies). With blade artists anything with AP-1 in combat is throwing out a significant number of AP-2 wounds - never mind anything a bit more punchy.
What you mean is that it will be incidental to the tournament game. Because there do in fact exist people who would like to play lists that aren't just spamming Ravagers or whatever is worthwhile in the meta, whilst the troops that once formed the backbone of the army now gather dust on the shelves.
If anything, I think this is the danger of listening only to the tournament crowd, because an army is considered great if it has one really good build, even if it's a flavourless puddle of slurry and everything outside of that one good build is absolute gak. I think there are at least as many players who would rather be able to play what they like and not have it be utter trash because GW is desperately trying to cater to the bolter-porn crowd.
I feel its a cycle:
Power Armour Player: "I'm bringing a lot of 2+ save stuff"
Opponents: "Okay I'm bringing a lot of AP-2, -3, -4 stuff because my AP- does nothing, and since GW know that they give it to me in my codex"
Power Armour Player: "Noooo... all my stuff dies fast now."
GW: "Okay ignore a point of AP on everything."
Power Armour Player: "haha, I love playing best looked after faction"
Opponents: "Okay... but now I'm *really* having to double down on bringing AP-2, -3, -4 etc, because AP- and AP-1 does nothing*
Power Armour Player: "wait a second..."
JakeSiren wrote: In terms of the Crusher Stamped (and correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm going off what I've seen others mention), but doesn't it have rules conflicts/issues with the new codex? If that's the case, then it would be another reason to consider it invalid until FAQ'd otherwise.
No, Crusher Stampede works well with new codex as far as rules interactions are concerned.
The one with rule conflicts/issues is the Leviathan supplement, that one does need a FAQ.
Eldarsif wrote: I doubt they will disallow them even if they should. I have always been of the opinion that the campaign supplements are like pre-Alpha releases that have never been tested once, not even by the designers themselves. Fine for narrative/Crusade but not something that should be used in tournaments. That is, however, just my humble opinion.
Why would they allow those other ones but single out the Leviathan supplement?
As I am not TO of Dallas Open I am unable to answer that. Maybe when they release the final FAQ there will be a clear answer from them why.
On an interesting note I saw this comment on r/warhammercompetitive. Now whether there is any validity to it I do not know.
kattahn wrote:Played in a GT today and the TO there(who is going to TO an upcoming major/supermajor) said the word they've had from GW so far is that crusher is legal but leviathan is not, but he also said he doesn't trust what they said because its hard to get an actual accurate answer from GW about things like this. What you get told depends more on which person you talk to that day than what the actual ruling is.
kingheff wrote: Nids look like they will be going straight to the top of the rankings.
It's a very strong codex with some insane mortal wound output, extremely good durability, shooting and melee on very aggressively pointed units.
I wonder how long it will be before gw need to do another emergency balance patch...
Historically Nids codexes have always looked good at release but never quite played out as well as people think they would, so we'll see.
I think it's up in the air to an extent of course, there's no doubt that they look incredible on paper but the rubber is yet to truly hit the road.
Harlies gun boats getting nerfed into the ground definitely helps but T'au are still very strong and if they pivot to heavier load outs because of the indirect nerfs and the armour of contempt changes it could be bad for nids. But anything that wants to compete in the midboard looks like it will struggle big time into nids.
It does feel like their reluctance to give out pure point updates for balancing stems from the idea that they want 2000 points to have X amount of marines and so on.
I feel its a cycle:
Power Armour Player: "I'm bringing a lot of 2+ save stuff"
Opponents: "Okay I'm bringing a lot of AP-2, -3, -4 stuff because my AP- does nothing, and since GW know that they give it to me in my codex"
Power Armour Player: "Noooo... all my stuff dies fast now."
GW: "Okay ignore a point of AP on everything."
Power Armour Player: "haha, I love playing best looked after faction"
Opponents: "Okay... but now I'm *really* having to double down on bringing AP-2, -3, -4 etc, because AP- and AP-1 does nothing*
Power Armour Player: "wait a second..."
Yeah this is it. People bring weapons for the target they're most likely to see, and those players complain that it's unfair that when people build against them their armies fold.
I think the AOC rule is a good change in response to the massive increase in AP that has haunted 9th edition. I’m sure there will be some negative by products of units with equivalent armour but don’t get the rule because they are not marines/sisters.
For a while now, the weapons of choice have been high ROFAP -1 and -2 to drop power armour, and now that won’t be as reliable, meaning you will likely need to bring some actual anti armour weaponry to drop marines, for example the star cannon, which has been completely ignored so far due to shuricannon stats.
As for issues with recent change to shuricats, most Eldar players just wanted more range, not added lethality.
I haven’t done a thorough analysis of how this effects all weapons yet, but krak missiles look terrible now vs anything armoured with AOC (it wasn’t great before).
Vehicle durability increases will be an interesting result of this change, affecting everything from landspeeders, through dreads, up to even land raiders. The space marine tanks with 2+ saves may be worth looking at now that they will be getting even a 5+ save vs melta and dark/bright weapons.
I’m just hoping that the next few major tournaments show a more varied field in the top 10, although I’m thinking we are just going to see a plethora of nids instead as the new boogeymen.
Given the change with AoC, I hope people start focusing on higher AP weapons. My Daemons don't do too well with the number of shots flying around, and won't mind if people invest in higher AP at less shots.
I think it's difficult to make MEQ players happy to be honest.
In previous editions I had Marine players bemoan the 3+ saves of both my Necron Warriors and Sisters of Battle; who were shooting back at them with effectively identical weapons.
I also used to get complaints about the two Blasters in my eighteen model Dark Eldar Warrior squads. Those blasters were there because the other sixteen folks rapid-firing squad would be high-fiving each other if they lucked out and killed a single Marine.
Today, in my current group, the Marine and Sisters players complain about the standard Bolt Gun's lack of punch; but then want Powered Armour to be better.
Am I misinterpreting things or does it really come down to 'Xenos shouldn't be killing Marines'?
I understand MEQ armies carrying weapons that can punch through powered armour if that's the thing that gives them the most issue.
Well it is a problem, when you get an identical save, removed by identical heavy or special weapons, while your guys have the same bolters with same BS, but your models costs fewer points, because they don't have to pay for stuff you don't want them to use.
And yeah xenos and other armies are kill marines very easily with what is considered to be the basic weapons for some armies. And when at the same time marines don't have an option to always reach and win the melee engagment they are not happy about it. Who would be happy about spending the same money as someone else, and then getting farmed, because the DT decided to make other books more optimised.
I would have to disagree here. Marines absolutely *didn't* pay for the extra wound in points. It made them twice as durable against most weapons, and the actual point increase they paid did not reflect that in the slightest.
You are correct that most tournament lists probably weren't spamming tactical marines (though I believe they have made heavy use of other 2-wound troops at times). However, this does not mean that the *rules* were not affected by the change to Marine statlines.
Remember, many of the books would have been written with no knowledge of what the tournament scene would look like after Marines dropped (to say nothing of the fact that GW plays a different game to the rest of the world).
Marine players after their codex came out found out three things. Firs that their troops no longer kill stuff, so taking anything but the most minimal number of them makes no sense. The other armies beat them in shoting and melee even with 2W on each regular marine. And the last one that even if they spam attack bikes and venguard vets their lack of resiliance means that they are too slow to beat armies like Harlequins or Custodes. WS were the exeption out of all the marine books, because their whole chapter special rule was being based around being able to move faster then other marines. Which showed in armies like SW or BA, technically better in melee, with technically better utility , like making others strike last etc, be worse then then WS. After codex necron each new book was showing how low the damage on regular marines are, focusing them more and more in to blade guard and venguard veteran builds. And then as soon as we started getting books that could ignore storm shields or make them not work through how many shots their generated , like ad mecha did, suddenly even marines with rules that seemed mind blowing good had no impact on the meta. It took BT armies with their flat inv for regular dudes and GK , where the basic marine was an NDK, to make marines "good".
After a couple of days chewing it over, I think I've worked out what it is that bugs me about the Guard changes: it's that the rules don't exist in the interests of representing anything and are purely there to paper over the fact that Guard are in a bad way as a faction – it's basically a big flashing light attracting attention to 9th being a half-finished game (see also: c. two years of Chaos Marines only having 1 wound when supposedly-equivalent loyalists have 2, not for any in-universe representational reason, but purely because the book's not ready yet).
Souleater wrote: I think it's difficult to make MEQ players happy to be honest.
In previous editions I had Marine players bemoan the 3+ saves of both my Necron Warriors and Sisters of Battle; who were shooting back at them with effectively identical weapons.
I also used to get complaints about the two Blasters in my eighteen model Dark Eldar Warrior squads. Those blasters were there because the other sixteen folks rapid-firing squad would be high-fiving each other if they lucked out and killed a single Marine.
Today, in my current group, the Marine and Sisters players complain about the standard Bolt Gun's lack of punch; but then want Powered Armour to be better.
Am I misinterpreting things or does it really come down to 'Xenos shouldn't be killing Marines'?
I understand MEQ armies carrying weapons that can punch through powered armour if that's the thing that gives them the most issue.
Eh, if people were complaining about Warriors and SoB getting 3+ saves and Blasters killing their Marines, I'd say it "really comes down to" them just being Big Whiners. SoB are in power armour, same as Marines, and Necron Warriors are solid metal, they should have good saves, same as Marines. And Blasters should be good at killing Marines. If people can't handle that, then they need to reassess their expectations. Most Marine players get those things.
JakeSiren wrote: Why would the Nid's Army of Renown be considered valid? It's for a book that has been superseded. GW would have to FAQ it otherwise for it to be valid again (such as the 8th Ed SM Supplements)
Crusher stamped is valid, it was released just 5 months ago.
And? Just look at Saga of the Beast. That was valid for 7 months until the SM codex dropped and invalidated the Space Wolf half of it. What do you think makes Crusher the exception?
Was saga of wolf specifically said to be overwritten? Is crusher specifically said?
Gw has history of not invalidating by default rules from supplement when rdentical named supplement comes.
Souleater wrote: I think it's difficult to make MEQ players happy to be honest.
In previous editions I had Marine players bemoan the 3+ saves of both my Necron Warriors and Sisters of Battle; who were shooting back at them with effectively identical weapons.
I also used to get complaints about the two Blasters in my eighteen model Dark Eldar Warrior squads. Those blasters were there because the other sixteen folks rapid-firing squad would be high-fiving each other if they lucked out and killed a single Marine.
Today, in my current group, the Marine and Sisters players complain about the standard Bolt Gun's lack of punch; but then want Powered Armour to be better.
Am I misinterpreting things or does it really come down to 'Xenos shouldn't be killing Marines'?
I understand MEQ armies carrying weapons that can punch through powered armour if that's the thing that gives them the most issue.
Eh, if people were complaining about Warriors and SoB getting 3+ saves and Blasters killing their Marines, I'd say it "really comes down to" them just being Big Whiners. SoB are in power armour, same as Marines, and Necron Warriors are solid metal, they should have good saves, same as Marines. And Blasters should be good at killing Marines. If people can't handle that, then they need to reassess their expectations. Most Marine players get those things.
Plus part of the reason Sisters are cheaper is that most of their stats are worse meaning they're easier to wound and grind down in assualt.
What is that, because the stuff I found after googling definitly is not ment to be used with table top gaming.
I mean people think that marines should be the army to be farmed by other? I mean in game they are most of the time, specially if someone does play specific builds and factions. But to expect that marines player would think it is a good state to be in, seems kind of a odd.
How do people think this should work, most armies and most players are marines. How often should they be good? In way the dediction that marine players have for their armies is rather stuning as most of the time they are not the army to play, if you win and have the biggest turn over of units between editions and codex.
The idea is that nobody should be the army "farmed by others". Space Marines should be good as often as other armies are good, and I'd say the reliability with which GW releases new toys/rules for Space Marines means that the dedication of their fans is...overall less meaningful, I guess? SM rarely go a full year (much less a full edition) without something nice, whereas many other codices have to wait as long or longer to get something.
JakeSiren wrote: Why would the Nid's Army of Renown be considered valid? It's for a book that has been superseded. GW would have to FAQ it otherwise for it to be valid again (such as the 8th Ed SM Supplements)
Crusher stamped is valid, it was released just 5 months ago.
And? Just look at Saga of the Beast. That was valid for 7 months until the SM codex dropped and invalidated the Space Wolf half of it. What do you think makes Crusher the exception?
Was saga of wolf specifically said to be overwritten? Is crusher specifically said?
Gw has history of not invalidating by default rules from supplement when rdentical named supplement comes.
I don't believe it was explicitly said, but my experience has been that GW doesn't announce or publish when a specific book or publication is no longer valid.
If you don't consider a supplement invalid when the codex it's referencing is updated, what has to occur for you to consider it invalid?
waefre_1 wrote: The idea is that nobody should be the army "farmed by others". Space Marines should be good as often as other armies are good, and I'd say the reliability with which GW releases new toys/rules for Space Marines means that the dedication of their fans is...overall less meaningful, I guess? SM rarely go a full year (much less a full edition) without something nice, whereas many other codices have to wait as long or longer to get something.
I don't get what nice means. Marines get model updates, but unles the nice is related to painting, I do not know what you mean. Heavy intercessors were pushed back so far in their release, that by the time they did arrive at the stores there was no place for them in the lists. Marines characters, with sole exeption of the chaplain, are all not worth taking when regular marine versions with bikes and jet packs exist. In 8th, when the primaris line was given to marine players, it was not worth to take any of those units up until 2.0 books came in. Dead or trap options are not good, and having more of them given, even if the models look nice doesn't help a player much.
JakeSiren wrote: Why would the Nid's Army of Renown be considered valid? It's for a book that has been superseded. GW would have to FAQ it otherwise for it to be valid again (such as the 8th Ed SM Supplements)
Crusher stamped is valid, it was released just 5 months ago.
And? Just look at Saga of the Beast. That was valid for 7 months until the SM codex dropped and invalidated the Space Wolf half of it. What do you think makes Crusher the exception?
Was saga of wolf specifically said to be overwritten? Is crusher specifically said?
Gw has history of not invalidating by default rules from supplement when rdentical named supplement comes.
I don't believe it was explicitly said, but my experience has been that GW doesn't announce or publish when a specific book or publication is no longer valid.
If you don't consider a supplement invalid when the codex it's referencing is updated, what has to occur for you to consider it invalid?
Aren't most Space Marines Chapters still running around with 8th edition supplements?
JakeSiren wrote: Why would the Nid's Army of Renown be considered valid? It's for a book that has been superseded. GW would have to FAQ it otherwise for it to be valid again (such as the 8th Ed SM Supplements)
Crusher stamped is valid, it was released just 5 months ago.
And? Just look at Saga of the Beast. That was valid for 7 months until the SM codex dropped and invalidated the Space Wolf half of it. What do you think makes Crusher the exception?
Was saga of wolf specifically said to be overwritten? Is crusher specifically said?
Gw has history of not invalidating by default rules from supplement when rdentical named supplement comes.
I don't believe it was explicitly said, but my experience has been that GW doesn't announce or publish when a specific book or publication is no longer valid.
If you don't consider a supplement invalid when the codex it's referencing is updated, what has to occur for you to consider it invalid?
Aren't most Space Marines Chapters still running around with 8th edition supplements?
GW has active FAQs saying that those supplements are considered legal. Which makes them the exception rather than the rule.
I don't get what nice means. Marines get model updates, but unles the nice is related to painting, I do not know what you mean. Heavy intercessors were pushed back so far in their release, that by the time they did arrive at the stores there was no place for them in the lists. Marines characters, with sole exeption of the chaplain, are all not worth taking when regular marine versions with bikes and jet packs exist. In 8th, when the primaris line was given to marine players, it was not worth to take any of those units up until 2.0 books came in. Dead or trap options are not good, and having more of them given, even if the models look nice doesn't help a player much.
"Nice" doesn't mean OP stuff, it means cool new units. Heavy intercessors might not be OP but theyre really cool and lets you bring a whole army of heavy marines. Lots of players locally focused on them.
And even if the models are trash, getting a new model every 6 months is a good way to keep interest in your army.
People gak on the Heavy intercessors/gladiators and stuff but at least theyre new models.
My factions get one new model per codex if any.
I don't get what nice means. Marines get model updates, but unles the nice is related to painting, I do not know what you mean. Heavy intercessors were pushed back so far in their release, that by the time they did arrive at the stores there was no place for them in the lists. Marines characters, with sole exeption of the chaplain, are all not worth taking when regular marine versions with bikes and jet packs exist. In 8th, when the primaris line was given to marine players, it was not worth to take any of those units up until 2.0 books came in. Dead or trap options are not good, and having more of them given, even if the models look nice doesn't help a player much.
"Nice" doesn't mean OP stuff, it means cool new units. Heavy intercessors might not be OP but theyre really cool and lets you bring a whole army of heavy marines. Lots of players locally focused on them.
And even if the models are trash, getting a new model every 6 months is a good way to keep interest in your army.
People gak on the Heavy intercessors/gladiators and stuff but at least theyre new models.
My factions get one new model per codex if any.
Also of note on heavy intercessors, they are not the most powerful unit but they have a place in some lists. heavier backfield troops +1 toughness, +1 W, better rifle, and can take a heavy bolter. with the new AoC they sit back on objectives with effectively a 1+ save in cover shooting at anything in 36 inches while not being a zero threat in melee. I think post aoc you will see 1-2 squads of heavy intercessors in some chapters competitive lists locking down the back field and working secondaries whiel not being completely uselss to the overall game
Also of note on heavy intercessors, they are not the most powerful unit but they have a place in some lists. heavier backfield troops +1 toughness, +1 W, better rifle, and can take a heavy bolter. with the new AoC they sit back on objectives with effectively a 1+ save in cover shooting at anything in 36 inches while not being a zero threat in melee. I think post aoc you will see 1-2 squads of heavy intercessors in some chapters competitive lists locking down the back field and working secondaries whiel not being completely uselss to the overall game
Exactly, even if they were totally bad, they brought a new option for space marines (resilient backfield holders with obsec)
Also of note on heavy intercessors, they are not the most powerful unit but they have a place in some lists. heavier backfield troops +1 toughness, +1 W, better rifle, and can take a heavy bolter. with the new AoC they sit back on objectives with effectively a 1+ save in cover shooting at anything in 36 inches while not being a zero threat in melee. I think post aoc you will see 1-2 squads of heavy intercessors in some chapters competitive lists locking down the back field and working secondaries whiel not being completely uselss to the overall game
Exactly, even if they were totally bad, they brought a new option for space marines (resilient backfield holders with obsec)
I am glad they are finally useful, I liked the model enough that i got 60 of them, painted up 20 so far and others in various steps of sub assembly for painting. I need an excuse for a narrative event to run the whole group of them, i just thought an all gravis marine army would look cool on the field.
I feel its a cycle:
Power Armour Player: "I'm bringing a lot of 2+ save stuff"
Opponents: "Okay I'm bringing a lot of AP-2, -3, -4 stuff because my AP- does nothing, and since GW know that they give it to me in my codex"
Power Armour Player: "Noooo... all my stuff dies fast now."
GW: "Okay ignore a point of AP on everything."
Power Armour Player: "haha, I love playing best looked after faction"
Opponents: "Okay... but now I'm *really* having to double down on bringing AP-2, -3, -4 etc, because AP- and AP-1 does nothing*
Power Armour Player: "wait a second..."
Yeah this is it. People bring weapons for the target they're most likely to see, and those players complain that it's unfair that when people build against them their armies fold.
I feel like a broken record at this point, but I stand by the assertion that in a game with rock-paper-scissors weapon/armor balance, Marines will never, ever feel durable so long as they are the most likely defensive profile to encounter on the tabletop. A 'take-all-comers' list is an anti-MEQ list. In a lot of ways this was made worse when they got their second wound, as while it made small arms even more useless at anti-Marine duty, it made D2 weapons much more useful. So of course everyone spams D2 weapons, and GW gave more factions D2 weapons so they have options.
The tougher Marines are made, and the more buffs they get, the more they're represented in the general meta, and the more TAC lists double down on anti-MEQ wargear. If you want Marines to feel tough, their defensive profile needs to either be an actual outlier (making them skew), not the default against which everything else is judged, or deliberately engineered such that everything is more or less equally efficient against them so there is no leaning into anti-MEQ.
Even then, there has to be an acceptance that this is a wargame, not a power fantasy, so everything has to average out at the end. If you want your army as a whole to feel tough, they have to pay for it elsewhere.
kirotheavenger wrote: The question isn't "why might Guard ignore this penalty" because we can sit here all day coming up with reasons.
The question is "why might Guard alone ignore this penalty".
When, tbh, after Orks; Guard are the last faction that should be ignoring this penalty from a lore point of view.
I know exactly why they did it, it's because of balance. Guard aren't very good and rely a lot on indirect fire to compete. But we're not debating the balance PoV here so it's redundant.
Lore, sure it might not work. Ruleswise, negatives to hit are worse the lower your ballistic skill. Ork lobbas hit on 6’s now and give +1 to save. So many weapons in guard are non los and non offenders in the meta that nerfing them would just be terrible.
I mean people think that marines should be the army to be farmed by other?
Not at all! Nobody should be thinking that of other folks armies.
The problem I was trying to describe is difference between me being a gamesmaster running a game of D&D and me as a player in 40K
If I am the GM my goal is to create and run an interesting, challenging encounter for my players. I'm neutral towards the monsters. The monsters are there to be defeated by the heroes of the story i.e. the players.
However, in a game of 40k we are both the heroes of our story. I want both folks to have fun, but I'm not just there to run the non-player character monsters for other people's entertainment.
Unfortunately, I tend to run into players (it's almost invariably Imperial Marines) who think that because I play Xenos armies I'm just there to be a GM while they play out their favourite Black Library novel.
I don't believe it was explicitly said, but my experience has been that GW doesn't announce or publish when a specific book or publication is no longer valid.
Interestingly enough that's what they kind of did in the last General's Handbook for AoS. There they listed all existing publications that would remain legal throughout the next season and said that any books coming after this publication would be legal unless otherwise stated. I am actually looking forward to the next GHB to see if they continue with that small article in the book.
Flat out buff to power armor seem to yolo, that is not calculated move, it`s more like led`s do it and see what is going to happen. There are to many power armor units and i`m 100% sure GW did not check all of them to see what is fine with that rule. Also they flat out ignored all other armies units with the some characteristic, it`s again imperial melta is the best melta or the imperial marines have 1 more wound problem. It does not fix anything, it just create other problem. Giving it in melee seems even more cringe.
Marin wrote: Flat out buff to power armor seem to yolo, that is not calculated move, it`s more like led`s do it and see what is going to happen. There are to many power armor units and i`m 100% sure GW did not check all of them to see what is fine with that rule. Also they flat out ignored all other armies units with the some characteristic, it`s again imperial melta is the best melta or the imperial marines have 1 more wound problem. It does not fix anything, it just create other problem. Giving it in melee seems even more cringe.
I really don't think the -1 ap rule will prove to throw the bathwater out with the baby, it'll maybe shift some list drafting, but that's it. DG are looking good but more due to obsec termites in conjunction with this.
Unfortunately, I tend to run into players (it's almost invariably Imperial Marines) who think that because I play Xenos armies I'm just there to be a GM while they play out their favourite Black Library novel.
Well w40k is a zero sum game. Either you win or you lose. In general I find the point view an odd one, as most marines armies are weaker then non marine armies through spans of an edition. I can imaigne that at a specific time, a non marine player may think that playing vs marines is not fun. But at the same time I have no idea what they would think, if they were to play vs top tau, tyranids or what ever is the good armies at given moments. Marines are lucky if they are mid tier on avarge. Over the years I did learn a few things about w40k and its community. people claim to not care about winning or power, and then we get 60+pages threats about powerful armies. Everyone claims to care about balance, up until their army gets the power bust, and then it turns in to wait and see, adjust to the meta, it ain't that bad and I don't play the OP stuff etc talk. In the end when someone plays w40k, they should be happy if they get a few months of fun playing every few years. I think only eldar are the faction that always gets to meta shift and stay relevant for longer time. Some armies , like GSC for example or 1ksons, don't even make a splash as far as the meta goes.
. Everyone claims to care about balance, up until their army gets the power bust, and then it turns in to wait and see, adjust to the meta, it ain't that bad and I don't play the OP stuff etc talk.
Not everyone, most people at my LGS that had armies that became OP in 9th stopped playing them because clubbing people isnt fun for them. i know of two Drukhari players that stopped playing them and a few (myself included) stopped playing Admech completely because they were too good.
Some armies , like GSC for example or 1ksons, don't even make a splash as far as the meta goes.
the competitive meta doesnt matter when you're playing at your LGS. Most players arent pro-level so even playing an OP army doesnt net them the crazy winrates you seem to think they would get.
Same with armies that underperform competitively. Thousand Sons has a great winrate at my LGS (its actually the top faction). Can't comment on GSC since no one seems to play them because theyre so strange
Marin wrote: Flat out buff to power armor seem to yolo, that is not calculated move, it`s more like led`s do it and see what is going to happen. There are to many power armor units and i`m 100% sure GW did not check all of them to see what is fine with that rule. Also they flat out ignored all other armies units with the some characteristic, it`s again imperial melta is the best melta or the imperial marines have 1 more wound problem. It does not fix anything, it just create other problem. Giving it in melee seems even more cringe.
Umm, which armies have units with the same "characteristic"? And what is that "characteristic"? From what I can tell, it's "anything that's an Astartes or Sororitas", so, stuff armored with Ceramite?
Marin wrote: Flat out buff to power armor seem to yolo, that is not calculated move, it`s more like led`s do it and see what is going to happen. There are to many power armor units and i`m 100% sure GW did not check all of them to see what is fine with that rule. Also they flat out ignored all other armies units with the some characteristic, it`s again imperial melta is the best melta or the imperial marines have 1 more wound problem. It does not fix anything, it just create other problem. Giving it in melee seems even more cringe.
Umm, which armies have units with the same "characteristic"? And what is that "characteristic"? From what I can tell, it's "anything that's an Astartes or Sororitas", so, stuff armored with Ceramite?
Oh yeah the tournament meta doesn't matter. Awesome argument. How do you think an army like harlequin or custodes scales down in to a casual meta? Or any army that get a huge power bust. One day they play the most casual of list, like pre 2.0 IH with primaris in it, and next day they are the WAAC meta chaser. Even if one entertains the though of people never picking units for power and only for looks or esthetics, what happens if they like how tau suits look like or they like the pirate ship feel of DE. Or the army they picked has a limited number of units to pick from and thanks to GW it is extremly hard to impossible to not build a powerful tournament level army with what they have? You want to tell me that all "casual" custodes players are actually SoS players.
If at the top level some armies reach 65%+ win rates, then when the same armies go down the ladder they get only more powerful. Specially when they have a point and click style of game play. Which is most armies in w40k right now.
The big power imbalances are worse at the non tournament level, because if you play events the advice to pick a good army or a good build is a sound one. What are you going to tell an IG player facing tau, that he should feel good, because the tau isn't 100% carbon copy of a tournament list? And maybe it is just a 75% copy?
Karol wrote: Oh yeah the tournament meta doesn't matter. Awesome argument. How do you think an army like harlequin or custodes scales down in to a casual meta? Or any army that get a huge power bust. One day they play the most casual of list, like pre 2.0 IH with primaris in it, and next day they are the WAAC meta chaser. Even if one entertains the though of people never picking units for power and only for looks or esthetics, what happens if they like how tau suits look like or they like the pirate ship feel of DE. Or the army they picked has a limited number of units to pick from and thanks to GW it is extremly hard to impossible to not build a powerful tournament level army with what they have? You want to tell me that all "casual" custodes players are actually SoS players.
If at the top level some armies reach 65%+ win rates, then when the same armies go down the ladder they get only more powerful. Specially when they have a point and click style of game play. Which is most armies in w40k right now.
The big power imbalances are worse at the non tournament level, because if you play events the advice to pick a good army or a good build is a sound one. What are you going to tell an IG player facing tau, that he should feel good, because the tau isn't 100% carbon copy of a tournament list? And maybe it is just a 75% copy?
They scale out great as long as people are moderately not powergamers. bringing one squad of voidweavers instead of 3, bringin one squad of crissi instead of 3, bringing 1 squad of jetbikes instead of 3, hmmm seems like i found the problem : spamming overly strong datasheet. Good thing most people i know don't max out on a datasheet because they don't want to play an army with no variation in it or paint a ton of the same model..
and i'm not a good player, i don't play optimised lists yet i've won against Tau/Custodes/Harlequins with armies like CSM, Thousand Sons and demons
yeah. only power gaming can happen without any choice of your own. If GW decides tomorrow that terminators are to be death machines of w40k , I go from the most casual of casual GK players to WAAC over night. And I have seen it happen. I told this story a lot, I have seen a guy play an IH army based around dark empire, some primaris dreads and Kno no Fear boxs for the entire 8th ed. Dude got man handled, by more or less everyone. then 2.0 came out, and suddenly 2 dreads and 40 intercessors was the most OP of OP armies in the game.
And the spaming thing. Well try playing a limited option without spaming at 2000pts. Try harlequins or DE without transports, no meat mountain, harlequins without transports and no voids. Or GK without interceptors and NDKs. Does armies aren't just a bit worse, then the real deal. They are borderline unfun to play, and in some cases you risk getting tabled, if you run something else. Drone farm was a horrible, boring, but efficient list for tau in 8th. Yet every tau played it. Why? because no spaming shield drones, trying to play suits etc ment you had a really bad time.
And also if it was true that people weren't running and maxing out the good option, then the reaction to 70%+ harli win rates, 60% DE, old 65% harli win rates would be a non reaction. Because no one would care. Same with 2.0 marines, cutodes, ork buggies etc There would be no threads, no talk about it on forums, aside for maybe those specific closed groups were real tournament players prep for events.
Marin wrote: Flat out buff to power armor seem to yolo, that is not calculated move, it`s more like led`s do it and see what is going to happen. There are to many power armor units and i`m 100% sure GW did not check all of them to see what is fine with that rule. Also they flat out ignored all other armies units with the some characteristic, it`s again imperial melta is the best melta or the imperial marines have 1 more wound problem. It does not fix anything, it just create other problem. Giving it in melee seems even more cringe.
Umm, which armies have units with the same "characteristic"? And what is that "characteristic"? From what I can tell, it's "anything that's an Astartes or Sororitas", so, stuff armored with Ceramite?
i'm guessing they mean Necrons
And, what "characteristic" do Necrons share with Astartes and Sororitas, exactly?
Marin wrote: Flat out buff to power armor seem to yolo, that is not calculated move, it`s more like led`s do it and see what is going to happen. There are to many power armor units and i`m 100% sure GW did not check all of them to see what is fine with that rule. Also they flat out ignored all other armies units with the some characteristic, it`s again imperial melta is the best melta or the imperial marines have 1 more wound problem. It does not fix anything, it just create other problem. Giving it in melee seems even more cringe.
Umm, which armies have units with the same "characteristic"? And what is that "characteristic"? From what I can tell, it's "anything that's an Astartes or Sororitas", so, stuff armored with Ceramite?
i'm guessing they mean Necrons
And, what "characteristic" do Necrons share with Astartes and Sororitas, exactly?
3+ WS 3+ BS 4 Str 4 Tough
4+ on warriors now, but Immortals and others kept the 3+
Necrons just feel like they are in a weird space - because they seem like they should be trash, and yet seemingly often (although I may be overcounting) someone will place with them in a way that isn't happening with the other bad factions.
Voss wrote:I assume a 3+ save, but they may not know that wandered off for warriors (and flayed ones) a couple editions back.
And I suspect GW considered it, but decided reanimation was enough (whether that's true or not...).
Well, if I was trying to make Necrons more durable, that's where I'd start: make Reanimation Protocols better. They used to get back up on 4s. Should probably give Warriors back their 3+ as well.
Marin wrote: Flat out buff to power armor seem to yolo, that is not calculated move, it`s more like led`s do it and see what is going to happen. There are to many power armor units and i`m 100% sure GW did not check all of them to see what is fine with that rule. Also they flat out ignored all other armies units with the some characteristic, it`s again imperial melta is the best melta or the imperial marines have 1 more wound problem. It does not fix anything, it just create other problem. Giving it in melee seems even more cringe.
Umm, which armies have units with the same "characteristic"? And what is that "characteristic"? From what I can tell, it's "anything that's an Astartes or Sororitas", so, stuff armored with Ceramite?
i'm guessing they mean Necrons
And, what "characteristic" do Necrons share with Astartes and Sororitas, exactly?
3+ WS 3+ BS 4 Str 4 Tough
4+ on warriors now, but Immortals and others kept the 3+
Voss wrote:I assume a 3+ save, but they may not know that wandered off for warriors (and flayed ones) a couple editions back.
And I suspect GW considered it, but decided reanimation was enough (whether that's true or not...).
Well, if I was trying to make Necrons more durable, that's where I'd start: make Reanimation Protocols better. They used to get back up on 4s. Should probably give Warriors back their 3+ as well.
Karol wrote: Oh yeah the tournament meta doesn't matter. Awesome argument. How do you think an army like harlequin or custodes scales down in to a casual meta? Or any army that get a huge power bust. One day they play the most casual of list, like pre 2.0 IH with primaris in it, and next day they are the WAAC meta chaser. Even if one entertains the though of people never picking units for power and only for looks or esthetics, what happens if they like how tau suits look like or they like the pirate ship feel of DE. Or the army they picked has a limited number of units to pick from and thanks to GW it is extremly hard to impossible to not build a powerful tournament level army with what they have? You want to tell me that all "casual" custodes players are actually SoS players.
If at the top level some armies reach 65%+ win rates, then when the same armies go down the ladder they get only more powerful. Specially when they have a point and click style of game play. Which is most armies in w40k right now.
The big power imbalances are worse at the non tournament level, because if you play events the advice to pick a good army or a good build is a sound one. What are you going to tell an IG player facing tau, that he should feel good, because the tau isn't 100% carbon copy of a tournament list? And maybe it is just a 75% copy?
They scale out great as long as people are moderately not powergamers. bringing one squad of voidweavers instead of 3, bringin one squad of crissi instead of 3, bringing 1 squad of jetbikes instead of 3, hmmm seems like i found the problem : spamming overly strong datasheet. Good thing most people i know don't max out on a datasheet because they don't want to play an army with no variation in it or paint a ton of the same model..
and i'm not a good player, i don't play optimised lists yet i've won against Tau/Custodes/Harlequins with armies like CSM, Thousand Sons and demons
You're completely missing the point that not everyone has a lot of crisis suits just because they're OP, and they might not have the other models to swap for. If someone likes crisis so they buy an army full, then a year later crisis are buffed to the moon and the only way they can play a 2k game is using a bunch of crisis suits, what are they supposed to do? Is it their fault nobody will play with them because the models they happened to like a few years ago when they got into the hobby are now OP and they don't have a huge collection so they can't swap for less powerful units?
I don't believe it was explicitly said, but my experience has been that GW doesn't announce or publish when a specific book or publication is no longer valid.
Interestingly enough that's what they kind of did in the last General's Handbook for AoS. There they listed all existing publications that would remain legal throughout the next season and said that any books coming after this publication would be legal unless otherwise stated. I am actually looking forward to the next GHB to see if they continue with that small article in the book.
I don't play AoS, but that is awesome. I don't see any reason why they couldn't maintain a similar list for 40k. It would unambiguously let players know what is and is not currently game legal.
And the spaming thing. Well try playing a limited option without spaming at 2000pts. Try harlequins or DE without transports, no meat mountain, harlequins without transports and no voids. Or GK without interceptors and NDKs. Does armies aren't just a bit worse, then the real deal. They are borderline unfun to play, and in some cases you risk getting tabled, if you run something else. Drone farm was a horrible, boring, but efficient list for tau in 8th. Yet every tau played it. Why? because no spaming shield drones, trying to play suits etc ment you had a really bad time.
Yeah, calling hard BS right here. Super easy to run harlies without spamming. HQs, jester, solitaire, troupes in transports, sky weavers, a couple voidweavers, done.
That’s the same with any army, including grey knights. Spamming is a conscious choice, not a forced result.
kingheff wrote: Wraithbone is tougher than ceramite as far as I'm aware so fire dragons and dark reapers should be prime candidates for a similar buff right?
I think at this point it's safe to assume that game balance is separate from fluff since a bunch of flashlights can down a warlord titan
Voss wrote:I assume a 3+ save, but they may not know that wandered off for warriors (and flayed ones) a couple editions back.
And I suspect GW considered it, but decided reanimation was enough (whether that's true or not...).
Well, if I was trying to make Necrons more durable, that's where I'd start: make Reanimation Protocols better. They used to get back up on 4s. Should probably give Warriors back their 3+ as well.
Reanimation protocols should be a FNP type roll.
Disagree. Necrons should just have a FNP type roll on top of resurrection
Voss wrote:I assume a 3+ save, but they may not know that wandered off for warriors (and flayed ones) a couple editions back.
And I suspect GW considered it, but decided reanimation was enough (whether that's true or not...).
Well, if I was trying to make Necrons more durable, that's where I'd start: make Reanimation Protocols better. They used to get back up on 4s. Should probably give Warriors back their 3+ as well.
Reanimation protocols should be a FNP type roll.
Disagree. Necrons should just have a FNP type roll on top of resurrection
To be honest, I think this is something GW has consistently struggled with.
- Making RPs a FNP save has been tried before (back in 7th). It was highly effective but also very, very dull. It didn't have the right feel, given what it was supposed to be representing, and just made Necrons feel like Robotic Plage Marines.
- On the other hand, the more traditional method of having models revive at the end of a phase or the start of each turn feels much more thematically appropriate but is much harder to pull of mechanically. Depending on implementation, you either have issues with units being immortal (if they can revive after the entire unit is wiped out) or else the ability rarely even seeing play (if they can't revive after the entire unit is wiped out).
5th edition actually had an interesting solution, which revolved around an interesting interaction between units and Lords/Crypteks. During deployment, you could split off Crypteks and Lords from the Royal Court and attach them to units. They weren't characters and instead acted more like sergeants for those units. Now, in 5th, Necron units couldn't revive if the entire unit had been killed. But Crypteks and Lords were an exception to this and could still make RP rolls even if their entire unit had been wiped.
So let's say you attached a Cryptek to a unit of 5 Immortals. After a bad shooting phase, the Cryptek and all the Immortals are slain. You can choose to first make the RP roll for the Cryptek. If it succeeds then, because it counts as part of the Immortal unit, the Immortals are now also eligible to make RP rolls.
I don't know if this would necessarily work in 9th but I do think it offers a good example of a compromise that worked quite well in the past.
Tbh, I find myself wondering whether RPs should work in a similar manner to Miracle Dice - wherein the Necron player rolls a set amount of dice at the start of his turns and can spend those dice to revive a number of wounds of destroyed models (perhaps spending extra to revive models whose entire units have been wiped out, if certain other conditions are also met), rather than rolling for every destroyed model individually.
You're completely missing the point that not everyone has a lot of crisis suits just because they're OP, and they might not have the other models to swap for. If someone likes crisis so they buy an army full, then a year later crisis are buffed to the moon and the only way they can play a 2k game is using a bunch of crisis suits, what are they supposed to do? Is it their fault nobody will play with them because the models they happened to like a few years ago when they got into the hobby are now OP and they don't have a huge collection so they can't swap for less powerful units?
oh i understand the point, i get that "old bad model suddenly becomes OP".
I'm just stating that you don't HAVE to run all crisis, and nobody i know that plays the game only has exactly 2k pts to play. I'm not saying it's the players fault, it 100% is on GW but there are ways to make it less gak.
It needs to be expanded to Custodes and Sisters of Silence. I'm a bit bitter that a 28 point Heavy Intercessor is just as hard to remove, arguably harder depending on faction, than a 50 point Custodes. I'm not saying Marines aren't elite and are too good, only that they are too close to Custodes now, who have far, far fewer toys and options.
Marines have needed such a buff to be back in the game.
Marine players have shelved their army and can now think about rallying their Marines again.
Yup. That said I wouldn't mind Sisters of Silence getting it, but I don't think Custodes need a durability buff.
I mean, they do now considering the just nerfed custodes from one of the best to one of the worst 9th codexes in the game.
Dakkites - "Gw NeEdS tO fIx ThIs GaMeS bAlAnCe IsSuEs"
GW - *releases great balance dataslate which fixes a huge number of issues*
Dakkites - "No, not like that."
Pretty telling that the vast majority of other online social media sources, as well as my in person interactions with other 40k players have been overwhelmingly positive on the balance dataslate. Im beginning to suspect that most of the people bitching in this thread don't actually play the game.
All this "bUt mAh ImMeRsIoN~~" pearl-clutching is pretty silly. Lasguns were already able to wound and destroy tanks, you just needed a few more of them than you do now (about 53% more by my math), the game and setting is already filled with all sorts of inconsistencies, etc. Recalibrate your disbelief suspension systems and your abstraction comprehension filters and move on. Theres a million and one immersive ways to spin or justify the changes, you're choosing not to accept them for arbitrary reasons. Arguments that this is unfluffy or immersion breaking really have no leg to stand on (though I know you believe they do, but your belief isnt a justifiable basis for an argument).
Spoletta wrote: Now I remember why I rarely visit this board.
This dataslate is absolutely fantastic. One of the best publications we had from the GW in years, perfectly responding to the current issues of the game... and in here it is threated like the advent of another dark crusade...
In this dataslate:
-the lethality of the game nosedives
- the AP gets more important
- the AP0 weapons are given a new role
- the invulnerability saves are made less relevant
- the power armor factions get a boost
- the bodyguard rule and indirect fire rules are fixed
- the worst offenders of the meta are brought back in line
- the worst faction in the game gets a big boost
...
Seriously, when did this board become like this? You really suck the joy out of everything.
Give praise where praise is do.
This dataslate was a spectacular job from GW and we should give praise so that the next time, they know what we want.
Agreed. Just wish they had given Tyranids a pre-emptive nerf by dq'ing Crusher Stampede
Look, I get what you're saying -- the dataslate will make the competitive meta healthier, and that was needed. But do you really not see why people are upset about this incredibly immersion-breaking Guard change?
Actually? Truly?
Yes, I do see. It's the MAGNITUDE of their outrage at the rule that I don't understand, lol.
Why is my battlefield limited to this darned table?! I should be able to drive my tank into the living room! Why is my tank only able to shoot the scale equivalent of across a city block???!!?! MUH ImMuRsIoN!!!
People on this forum just pick the most BIZARRE hills to die on or lines in sand to draw.
I can find a fluffy explaination for this guard rule: volume of fire and faith in the god-emperor. Think of it like an inverse shield of faith. Boom, fluff!
Spend less time being upset about this rule, and more time being upset that GW is still trickling out rules to you with overpriced dead trees that are so heavily errata'd within 6 months as to be unrecognizable.
I mean holy cow they are finally actually trying to balance factions every three months with a free digitally available thing and people are upset at THIS?
PREACH. Some of the posters in this thread (as well as the guys in the "lets call a time of death for 40k" thread -- SHEESH) really need to grow the feth up, go outside and touch some grass, and I suspect some of them need to actually pick up some dice and play a game or two - preferably against someone who isn't a regular opponent, because it seems some of them have a myopic and skewed perspective on the state of game balance that I can only explain as being the result of limited experience and exposure to other players and the broader meta/community.
The power armor buffs are good (Though is really shouldn't apply to dudes not actually in armor like heretics). Custodes nerfs are bad. Harley and Tau nerfs are good. Bodyguard and indirect nerfs are good.
It's mostly a good balance unless you were invested in 9 voidweavers or 20 frag launchers like a jack ass. Or if you played custodes at all, it really sucks to be a custodes player, they didn't just nerf the overperforming good stuff like they did tau and harleys, they nerfed the entire army, while handing out no reroll rules like candy and stripping it from the army that has always needed it most.
kingheff wrote: Wraithbone is tougher than ceramite as far as I'm aware so fire dragons and dark reapers should be prime candidates for a similar buff right?
I think at this point it's safe to assume that game balance is separate from fluff since a bunch of flashlights can down a warlord titan
Given Grots have always been able to take down Terminators even with some difficulty. This has always been the case. Fluff influences game balance. It should not dictate it.
stratigo wrote: I mean, they do now considering the just nerfed custodes from one of the best to one of the worst 9th codexes in the game.
One of the worst books my friggin foot. At WORST they got nerfed down to the fat middle, not below it. Friggin' bunch of reactionary bullcrap everytime a book is knocked out of S-tier that it's suddenly "worthless".
Kanluwen wrote: Frankly, Armour of Contempt is long overdue. It should be expanded to a few other faction units though.
Necrons could benefit from it on their "elite" units for sure.
At that point, you're better off just shifting all the AP1 weapons to AP0.
Yes, but the only way GW seems to know how to do this is 1 faction at a time, and people would LOSE THEIR MINDS if theirs was the first codex in the list to be nerfed like this.
So GW keeps layering rules that exist to counter the rules they already added, until they need a counter to that counter, in an infinite spiral until we get back to the sludge of 7th and they 0 out the game again and start over.
stratigo wrote: I mean, they do now considering the just nerfed custodes from one of the best to one of the worst 9th codexes in the game.
One of the worst books my friggin foot. At WORST they got nerfed down to the fat middle, not below it. Friggin' bunch of reactionary bullcrap everytime a book is knocked out of S-tier that it's suddenly "worthless".
They are absolutely one of the worst 9th books. That makes them better then, like, the 5 remaining 8th books, but those books are mercilessly bad and getting replaced fast, Custodes aren't gonna be getting a new book for about 2-3 years. Right now custodes are worse then, uh, marines (all of them), tau, all eldar, nids, admech, sisters. They are boogeying with orks now. I don't think I'm forgetting anyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kirotheavenger wrote: That's called an abstraction. We don't bother resolving successful cover saves in that instance because it's not worth the time to do so.
If "6s to hit autowound" was a general rule, I'd file it under abstraction. One I sincerely didn't like, but at least it'd be there. For a start I'd argue the "golden BB" is already represented in the abstract "a 6 to wound automatically wounds", hence a lasgun can even hurt a titan at all.
But it's not a general rule, you need to justify why Sgt Atkins with his boltgun is putting damage on titans (or battletanks) more effectively than a Space Marine.
6s to hit autowounding is under the abstraction that whoever is shooting is dedicated to dumping that much weight of fire doctrinally. It feels very guard. It's one of about a dozen rules GW uses to reflect this particular abstraction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote: Well, they could just go back to the old AP system and then they wouldn't need to, but seems a lot of people wanted armor modifiers
Armor modifiers are superior to a yes/no ap value.
but if you are gonna use modifiers, you should use MODIFIERS and not ignore the modifiers. I think there's getting to be too many rules that exist to ignore rules they put in the game.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Anyone want to comment on how unwaveringly stupid and broken the Nids codex is now on release? 2 days after this "BALANCE" patch?
Please elaborate, how are they broken?
30 mortal wounds in a turn trivially. Without sacrificing the ability to stomp hardcore in combat and still hold their own in shooting.
JakeSiren wrote: Why would the Nid's Army of Renown be considered valid? It's for a book that has been superseded. GW would have to FAQ it otherwise for it to be valid again (such as the 8th Ed SM Supplements)
Crusher stamped is valid, it was released just 5 months ago.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Anyone want to comment on how unwaveringly stupid and broken the Nids codex is now on release? 2 days after this "BALANCE" patch?
The only real broken thing I see about tyranids is their army of renown, which isn't included in their codex or even in some expansion. It's a White Dwarf thing.
So? What difference does that make?
It's just one more GW source.
My point is that it isn't the tyranid codex to be stupid and broken, but that expansion. Only that.
There is absolutely no question among anyone competing in this game that nids are far and away the best codex right now without crusher stampede. Crusher stampede just allows nids to look at the 9 void weaver winrate and go "Amateurs"
Well, that's a hot take all right. So hot I think it's melted.
Something melted. I think it was my brain trying to comprehend how they're now worse than Orks, Genestealer Cult, and Necrons at minimum, much less the other below-top-tier armies.
Well, that's a hot take all right. So hot I think it's melted.
Something melted. I think it was my brain trying to comprehend how they're now worse than Orks, Genestealer Cult, and Necrons at minimum, much less the other below-top-tier armies.
Ha, I did forget something. They're about GSC level. Likely worse then Necrons now. Necrons suffer badly from AoC (but, so do custodes)
Orks, GSC, Custodes form the bottom of the pyramid of 9th edition books.
If 3 stratagems nerfs and losing access to objective secured outside troops was enough to put Custodes at the bottom of 9th, then 9th is way better balanced that I was giving it credit.
Tyran wrote: If 3 stratagems nerfs and losing access to objective secured outside troops was enough to put Custodes at the bottom of 9th, then 9th is way better balanced that I was giving it credit.
Custodes don't have much depth as an army. They were good because they had a couple things going for them. Note that their transhuman was ALSO nerfed (can't use it on bikes. Oh by the way big nids get it always on in leviathen) and, sadly, Custodes took the largest advantage of bodyguard BS in the game, which is now also gone. And Custodes were one of the few armies that DIDN'T care about indirect fire spam, so that nerf doesn't boost them at all.
Emperor's auspice and obsec were the pillars the army rested on. Amalgamation and martial discipline were nice, but not key. Auspice is why custodes were survivable. Auspice was it, Auspice was the boost of the army. It doubled unit survivability when used. Obsec was why they could score and outgrind other top armies. Now custodes will just die.
You know, it'd be fine, turning off rerolls is a STRONG effect that is tough to balance, if GW didn't proceed to start giving fething everyone the ability to turn off rerolls, often for free, and do so while stacking negatives on that stuff you can't reroll.
The stuff the nerf would have kicked custodes to the level of, marines, (of all flavors, includin tsons and deathguard) got dramatically better with AoC. Leaving the list of weak armies with 9th codexes actually quite thin. Orks, GSC, Necrons. Orks get to suffer from further nerfs to one of their performing units and there isn't an army in the game that is hurt as much by AoC then orks. GSC is just, iunno, I keep feeling like there should be SOMETHING there with all their combos, but they never turn out. Crons are also massively hurt by AoC, making their one build a lot less reliable. I'm not sure you can build a cron army to go into marines any more. But you definitely can build one that goes into custodes quite well. And I don't think they have trouble with orks or GSC either.
kingheff wrote: Wraithbone is tougher than ceramite as far as I'm aware so fire dragons and dark reapers should be prime candidates for a similar buff right?
I think at this point it's safe to assume that game balance is separate from fluff since a bunch of flashlights can down a warlord titan
Given Grots have always been able to take down Terminators even with some difficulty. This has always been the case. Fluff influences game balance. It should not dictate it.
Umm… yeah, the fluff there was terminators getting over run, grots tugging at wires, twisting sensors, grots brains exploding into joints and gumming up parts, shooting point blank into crevices and vents, using weapons as powerful as lasguns, whereas lasguns from distance attacking a terminator scaled up in every way to the dimensions of a four story building ummm… a bit different.
kingheff wrote: Wraithbone is tougher than ceramite as far as I'm aware so fire dragons and dark reapers should be prime candidates for a similar buff right?
I think at this point it's safe to assume that game balance is separate from fluff since a bunch of flashlights can down a warlord titan
Sorry, was just being facetious to make a point to certain power armour fanboys. I forgot to add a to make it more obvious.
kingheff wrote: Wraithbone is tougher than ceramite as far as I'm aware so fire dragons and dark reapers should be prime candidates for a similar buff right?
I think at this point it's safe to assume that game balance is separate from fluff since a bunch of flashlights can down a warlord titan
Given Grots have always been able to take down Terminators even with some difficulty. This has always been the case. Fluff influences game balance. It should not dictate it.
Umm… yeah, the fluff there was terminators getting over run, grots tugging at wires, twisting sensors, grots brains exploding into joints and gumming up parts, shooting point blank into crevices and vents, using weapons as powerful as lasguns, whereas lasguns from distance attacking a terminator scaled up in every way to the dimensions of a four story building ummm… a bit different.
There are some that would argue that given that a terminator managed to survive being stomped by a Titan in one of the books, but would not be supported by game balance as a result (3-7th had instant death mechanics should one have stomped them.. I am actually not clear on 8th and above rules for titans)
It's mostly that there is some aspect of fluff you can argue is unrealistic for the game balance. God knows Chaos has felt it for the longest time ever since they were unsure how to progress the CSM book forward since 3.5. The idea that you can shoot out the icon of a squad and they lose their marks was such a strange thing in 4th edition.
And the spaming thing. Well try playing a limited option without spaming at 2000pts. Try harlequins or DE without transports, no meat mountain, harlequins without transports and no voids. Or GK without interceptors and NDKs. Does armies aren't just a bit worse, then the real deal. They are borderline unfun to play, and in some cases you risk getting tabled, if you run something else. Drone farm was a horrible, boring, but efficient list for tau in 8th. Yet every tau played it. Why? because no spaming shield drones, trying to play suits etc ment you had a really bad time.
Yeah, calling hard BS right here. Super easy to run harlies without spamming. HQs, jester, solitaire, troupes in transports, sky weavers, a couple voidweavers, done.
That’s the same with any army, including grey knights. Spamming is a conscious choice, not a forced result.
Not to mention that more than 3 voidweavers have always been illegal before this codex.
Blackie wrote: Yes, they're the ugliest army in 40k, both models wise and rules wise, not considering knights of course (they are on their own league of ugliness).
I don't see what this wildly subjective comment on aesthetics has to do with anything...
And the spaming thing. Well try playing a limited option without spaming at 2000pts. Try harlequins or DE without transports, no meat mountain, harlequins without transports and no voids. Or GK without interceptors and NDKs. Does armies aren't just a bit worse, then the real deal. They are borderline unfun to play, and in some cases you risk getting tabled, if you run something else. Drone farm was a horrible, boring, but efficient list for tau in 8th. Yet every tau played it. Why? because no spaming shield drones, trying to play suits etc ment you had a really bad time.
Yeah, calling hard BS right here. Super easy to run harlies without spamming. HQs, jester, solitaire, troupes in transports, sky weavers, a couple voidweavers, done.
That’s the same with any army, including grey knights. Spamming is a conscious choice, not a forced result.
Not to mention that more than 3 voidweavers have always been illegal before this codex.
Blackie wrote: Yes, they're the ugliest army in 40k, both models wise and rules wise, not considering knights of course (they are on their own league of ugliness).
I don't see what this wildly subjective comment on aesthetics has to do with anything...
Nothing to be honest, just a response to another subjective comment which I though it was agreeing with my feelings .
In what other sense did you mean "worst" 9th book?
If you can't say anything nice etc - but the take away of the last few months is just that Custodes players are utterly deluded about how powerful their book was.
Yeah, calling hard BS right here. Super easy to run harlies without spamming. HQs, jester, solitaire, troupes in transports, sky weavers, a couple voidweavers, done.
That’s the same with any army, including grey knights. Spamming is a conscious choice, not a forced result.
So the difference between that and a tournament list is the 3 to 6 void weavers. As I said people either under estimate what bad armies play like, they are super protective of their own armies power or all of the above at the same time. As I said the difference between your army and a tournament lists is minimal. Which means the list would be weaker vs an optimised tournament list from other factions. BUT if I were to believe that does are only played in tournaments , we get a situation where johny space marine is going to have great fun with his non optimised marine army playing vs a 75-80% full power tournament harli list.
And yeah spamming is a concious choice, only other choice is to play open and pick units at random. Try playing GK without spamming NDKs and interceptors, or even a mix, each game your are going to be thinking why do I take a lets say a dreadnought, when for practicaly no extra points I can run a more deadly, faster, more resilient NDK? not enough points to run him, let cut those 200pts per 5 termintors from the list and replace them with a cheaper unit of strikes, which is point for point, more resilient, better in melee, better in shoting etc And when you do run the strikes, soon you find out that for again little extra points you can run interceptors instead of strikes and get the same thing, but double the movment. People don't spam stuff only if either they are somehow forced in to playing highlander or if their codex actually has multiple options valid per slot. But for many armies this ain't the case, and for armies like knights, custodes, GK, harlis etc even more so.
Not at all, they needed a strong nerf. They just don't auto win now, but they're still top tiers. Just like tau and harlequins.
But they weren't auto win. they had lower win rates then harlis, and had bad match ups in to tau, eldar and tyranids.
Blackie wrote: Yes, they're the ugliest army in 40k, both models wise and rules wise, not considering knights of course (they are on their own league of ugliness).
I don't see what this wildly subjective comment on aesthetics has to do with anything...
Nothing to be honest, just a response to another subjective comment which I though it was agreeing with my feelings .
In what other sense did you mean "worst" 9th book?
Lol, literally every competitive player in the game looked at the nerfs and went "These guys are out of the meta". There wasn't a single dissenting voice, everyone agrees they're done.
Lol, literally every competitive player in the game looked at the nerfs and went "These guys are out of the meta". There wasn't a single dissenting voice, everyone agrees they're done.
You: "They still top tier lul!"
They are not even mid tier now.
Typical custodes (or SM) player response. If they can't autowin against at least most of the factions their army sucks. Really, what's better than custodes? Tau, Aeldari, Drukhari, Tyranids. Nothing else.
And I'd really like to know those competitive players, I bet they're the same ones who said orks were going to be OP due their T5 and Ap-1 choppas .
Lol, literally every competitive player in the game looked at the nerfs and went "These guys are out of the meta". There wasn't a single dissenting voice, everyone agrees they're done.
You: "They still top tier lul!"
They are not even mid tier now.
Typical custodes (or SM) player response. If they can't autowin against at least most of the factions their army sucks. Really, what's better than custodes? Tau, Aeldari, Drukhari, Tyranids. Nothing else.
And I'd really like to know those competitive players, I bet they're the same ones who said orks were going to be OP due their T5 and Ap-1 choppas .
I think Goonhammer's predictions on the meta so far in 2022 have not been great. But maybe they have more clarity on this.
Custodes were a 70%~ win rate faction except versus the 2022 codexes. They needed significant nerfs - not a minor knock and "don't worry, we expect everyone who isn't playing Custodes to run pointy ears, Tau and Tyranids."
To edit. The problem is - as we see throughout these discussions. At least for me, "Middle of the pack" is the desirable result of balance changes. Not "okay that 65% win rate is a bit much... we really think it should be something sensible. Like 60%". Such motivations are why DE were top tier for the best part of a year. GW thinking "oh don't worry, in a few months time we'll release books that make DE look tame by comparison" isn't great for the game.
Tyel wrote: Roll on the weekend and we can find out.
I think Goonhammer's predictions on the meta so far in 2022 have not been great. But maybe they have more clarity on this.
Custodes were a 70%~ win rate faction except versus the 2022 codexes. They needed significant nerfs - not a minor knock and "don't worry, we expect everyone who isn't playing Custodes to run pointy ears, Tau and Tyranids."
To edit. The problem is - as we see throughout these discussions. At least for me, "Middle of the pack" is the desirable result of balance changes. Not "okay that 65% win rate is a bit much... we really think it should be something sensible. Like 60%". Such motivations are why DE were top tier for the best part of a year. GW thinking "oh don't worry, in a few months time we'll release books that make DE look tame by comparison" isn't great for the game.
Exactly right, all codexes should be as close to 50% as possible. It's never going to be possible to achieve perfect balance with so many overlapping/conflicting rules between armies and units but, ideally everyone should be in the 45-55% range.
no other faction whines quite like Custodes. Yes its a big nerf, yes it might be a little more then was needed. But there is no way in hell Custodes is one of the worst books of 9th.
And trying to claim that Custodes are not auto-win because they had lower win rates then Harlequins is just hilarious. So because you lose vs 1, struggle with a 2nd and auto-win against almost everything else you didn't need to get slapped by a serious nerf?
kingheff wrote: Wraithbone is tougher than ceramite as far as I'm aware so fire dragons and dark reapers should be prime candidates for a similar buff right?
I think at this point it's safe to assume that game balance is separate from fluff since a bunch of flashlights can down a warlord titan
Sorry, was just being facetious to make a point to certain power armour fanboys. I forgot to add a to make it more obvious.
Fair point. Wraithbone is supposed to be stronger than Ceramite and adamantium, and despite the "heavy" Aspects being less bulky than a Marine, they still had the same save in previous editions to represent that. But they don't have the same save as Marine anymore, do they? Marines have a 3+, while the heavy Aspects have a 3+ 5++ now. So, drop the 5++ and give the heavy Aspects AoC, so they have the "same" save as a Marine again?
Ordana wrote: no other faction whines quite like Custodes. Yes its a big nerf, yes it might be a little more then was needed. But there is no way in hell Custodes is one of the worst books of 9th.
And trying to claim that Custodes are not auto-win because they had lower win rates then Harlequins is just hilarious. So because you lose vs 1, struggle with a 2nd and auto-win against almost everything else you didn't need to get slapped by a serious nerf?
Custodes are crybabies.
If you ain't first, you're last.
Sounds like something you'd put on a bumper sticker.
Edit: this is what competitive Warhammer has become, btw.
Ordana wrote: no other faction whines quite like Custodes. Yes its a big nerf, yes it might be a little more then was needed. But there is no way in hell Custodes is one of the worst books of 9th.
And trying to claim that Custodes are not auto-win because they had lower win rates then Harlequins is just hilarious. So because you lose vs 1, struggle with a 2nd and auto-win against almost everything else you didn't need to get slapped by a serious nerf?
Custodes are crybabies.
I wouldn't say all Custodes players are. Canhammer has competetive Custodes players and they are much more relaxed about it and mostly point at it making more builds look interesting in the book (one of them mentioned Solar Watch looking more interesting).
I for one was super glad we got nerfed. It was that or continue listening to all you theory crafters complain about how hard the competitive scene was taking it from the Golden Horrors. Now? Literally silence about the other elephants in the room.
I think, unpopular opinion as it is, we need to see how things pan out after the changes.
Until some actual data comes out it's all untested theories and speculation.
Ordana wrote: no other faction whines quite like Custodes.
Are there Custodes players in this thread "whining"?
There's Strat, who seems to have gone snooker loopy claiming that they're trash-tier, but who else is crying about the golden boys?
Kind of more the forum (and beyond) than this thread specifically. But even before Harlequins, when Custodes were proudly standing there with Tau as "best faction" with a 65%~ win rate (above 70% taking out mirrors and games versus Tau) we had people going "no you can't nerf them, they'll be terrible if you change literally anything. I can just... just... about see my way to Trajann being 180~ points. Maybe. Really the problem though is that [literally every other character in the game] sucks."
By contrast, while I'm sure they are out there, I've not encountered "no, we needed near army-wide LOS ignoring shooting with infinite AP" from Tau players. Quite how badly they are impacted by the changes seems to be producing debate - with some players still going through Marines like they aren't there, others bouncing quite badly and others having a much more neutral and closer game. Which, realistically, is probably what you'd expect from a dice game where the odds are somewhat fair.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I for one was super glad we got nerfed. It was that or continue listening to all you theory crafters complain about how hard the competitive scene was taking it from the Golden Horrors. Now? Literally silence about the other elephants in the room.
The numbers spoke for themselves. Custodes winrate was oppressively high, only for GW to masterfully one-up themselves with Harlequins. The reason there's no complaining about specific factions being too strong right now is because we have no data. The changes haven't been used in enough tournaments yet to get a good idea of what they've done to the tournament meta, and the same can be said of Tyranids not being out long enough yet.
I know you love your kneejerk reactions and hyperbole, but blaming others for taking a more measured approach only leaves you looking even more ridiculous.
Move on!
to make it more obvious.
