Kanluwen wrote: That 'Titanic' restriction hurts a bit for Guard superheavy tanks.
Yeah, 6CP to bring 3 of those tanks feels a bit heavy. I'm wondering if they're going to lift the restriction on CP regeneration to no longer be one time a turn.
The wording of that rule feels awkward. Wouldn't it be easier to say that the detachment costs 3 CP then state in the rule "You must spend an additional 3 CP to include one or more titanic units"?
Mothman wrote: With these costs I can see alot of 2001 point tournaments to start at 18cp being popular. an imperium soup army bringing knight, 2 relics, chapter master, 2nd warlord trait is going to run dry of CP very fast.Or people will have to just adjust to very little CP once they hit the battlefield compared to how much they have been used to.
Eh. I suspect the normal values will end up being rigidly enforced to limit absurd levels of soup. That's rather the point- you can do the super-cheese list, but you have to dig deep into command points to pull it off.
Though depending on how tomorrow's 'refund rules' preview goes, it seems obvious that you'll build soup with the super-heavy detachment, get the refund and add other factions via patrols just to keep the CP cost down. Starting with another faction and bringing knights is pretty exorbitant.
ClockworkZion wrote: Yeah, 6CP to bring 3 of those tanks feels a bit heavy. I'm wondering if they're going to lift the restriction on CP regeneration to no longer be one time a turn.
Spare a thought for Tyranid players.
6 ain't worth it for Hierodules. 3 isn't either.
EnTyme wrote: The wording of that rule feels awkward.
ClockworkZion wrote: Yeah, 6CP to bring 3 of those tanks feels a bit heavy. I'm wondering if they're going to lift the restriction on CP regeneration to no longer be one time a turn.
Spare a thought for Tyranid players.
6 ain't worth it for Hierodules. 3 isn't either.
EnTyme wrote: The wording of that rule feels awkward.
Welcome to 9th, where brevity comes to die.
What about 3 Hyrophant Bio-Titans?
And I agree, the rules are a bit wordy. I'm a bit worried that in their attempt to patch all loopholes they can they lost the goal of clear and easy to understand language along the way.
They really need to get a rules template bible like AoS uses as well.
What about it? Rules need to scale. If 6 CP is "balanced" for 3 Hierophants, then that's great. Doesn't help anything smaller.
At least they had the presence of mine to factor in Titanic in the first place. I doubt Bobby G, Ghaz or any non titan-esque entity would see the table if you had to pay 6 CP to get 'em. Still horribly priced.
Mothman wrote: an imperium soup army bringing knight, 2 relics, chapter master, 2nd warlord trait is going to run dry of CP very fast
That's the entire point. The CP limit is to make you choose whether you want the toys or the strat flexibility instead of 8th's "have your cake and eat it too" style of CP arms race.
ClockworkZion wrote: Yeah, 6CP to bring 3 of those tanks feels a bit heavy. I'm wondering if they're going to lift the restriction on CP regeneration to no longer be one time a turn.
Spare a thought for Tyranid players.
6 ain't worth it for Hierodules. 3 isn't either.
And 3CP is definitely too much for a unit that's already priced almost twice what it should be. If those new fw books don't fix the points on the hellforged super heavys then my fellblade will see even less play in 9th than in 8th.
This along with the new terrain rules shows that super heavys are enemy number two in 9th, right behind light infantry which is enemy number one.
Knights and other titantic things were a mistake to bring into 40k, but they're here now. It's the same as primaris. The game has to make its peace with them.
Basically a 3 CP tax for me to bring Magnus. But that could be fair depending on how thins shake up. I was expecting this but can’t use WL to mitigate.
xeen wrote: Basically a 3 CP tax for me to bring Magnus. But that could be fair depending on how thins shake up
Was saying similar in DG tactics thread regarding Morty.
I wonder if it will be same cost if it is a knight in a IG army or will there be extra tax for being separate codex?
I can't help but feel it should be less for DG to take morty/ TS to take magnus than it is to parachute in from a separate codex.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Guess it’ll depend on what Titanic actually brings to the table in the greater context of a game.
Thats how Im looking at it.
And here I was hoping to field a small army of Hierodules out of the gate... course, still could probably for fun.
Still probably can, 6cp cost to get 5 of them down isn't horrific assuming they're not complete garbage still in the new book.
Yeah, that's a big concern. IMO, I think they should be at least comparable to knights (the regular kind, not the big bois), or slightly worse for cheaper. Not like now... not like now. Thats just me though.
I will say it does give a tax to bringing the big named characters that are LoW. Like Wakshaani said, perhaps we might see some units move over to a LoW slot.
xeen wrote: Basically a 3 CP tax for me to bring Magnus. But that could be fair depending on how thins shake up
Was saying similar in DG tactics thread regarding Morty.
I wonder if it will be same cost if it is a knight in a IG army or will there be extra tax for being separate codex?
I can't help but feel it should be less for DG to take morty/ TS to take magnus than it is to parachute in from a separate codex.
Wouldn't mind if Primarch LoWs got CP discount if whole army is matching legion, so bringing morty with a whole death guard force costs 1-2CP but 3CP if you wanted him in chaos soup, same with guillaman with UM vs imperium soup
xeen wrote: Basically a 3 CP tax for me to bring Magnus. But that could be fair depending on how thins shake up. I was expecting this but can’t use WL to mitigate.
Only if he _isn't_ your warlord.
If he is, its a 5 or 6 CP tax, since you won't get the 'command benefits' refund for your warlord being in your battalion or patrol detachment.
So rules-wise, the legion primarch leading the legion is a bad thing.
Though... the vague refund mentioned in the new article may apply to the auxiliary detachment as well. I guess? I'm at a loss why they didn't just list command benefits the same way as patrol and battalion.
We already know that are circumstances that allow a LoW Warlord, so why bury it in a separate rule at all?
xeen wrote: Basically a 3 CP tax for me to bring Magnus. But that could be fair depending on how thins shake up. I was expecting this but can’t use WL to mitigate.
That's assuming the Supreme Command Detachment isn't still around.
xeen wrote: Basically a 3 CP tax for me to bring Magnus. But that could be fair depending on how thins shake up. I was expecting this but can’t use WL to mitigate.
Only if he _isn't_ your warlord.
If he is, its a 5 or 6 CP tax, since you won't get the 'command benefits' refund for your warlord being in your battalion or patrol detachment.
So rules-wise, the legion primarch leading the legion is a bad thing.
I highly suspect they'll do something to make sure the Primarchs aren't CP'd out of the game.
Question will be if that'll be in the erratas on day one or not until they update those codexes.
yukishiro1 wrote: If I never see a magnus/morty list again, I'll be a happy camper.
Oh yeah, happy for that to be stopped outside of Apoc. Just hope they don't kill the legion being able to take their own primarch (Same for UM and Gulliman as mentioned above by others)
xeen wrote: Basically a 3 CP tax for me to bring Magnus. But that could be fair depending on how thins shake up
Was saying similar in DG tactics thread regarding Morty.
I wonder if it will be same cost if it is a knight in a IG army or will there be extra tax for being separate codex?
I can't help but feel it should be less for DG to take morty/ TS to take magnus than it is to parachute in from a separate codex.
Wouldn't mind if Primarch LoWs got CP discount if whole army is matching legion, so bringing morty with a whole death guard force costs 1-2CP but 3CP if you wanted him in chaos soup, same with guillaman with UM vs imperium soup
That would be really cool. Reward fluff over soup.
BrianDavion wrote: meanwhile you'll never see gulliman, he's not worth 3 CPs when you can get Calgar and have near the same performance
not to mention he grants an additional 2CP as warlord ontop of free detachment vrs G'man giving 3 but costing 3CP or more.
exactly. Gulliman is under these rules crap. why is the master of logistics hurting your logistics by simply being present?
He has been bad since codex 2.0 but that's never been a thing as 2.0 codex is so OP no-one noticed.
I'm just praying GW haven't missed the point with these changes as so far it looks like taking knights with Allies is less CP than actually adding in a in codex LoW.
It also goes against what Stu said about adding a Knight to admech costing 1-2CP.
At this point I really do hope they have added a CP cost to additional codex's.
Dark Eldar are not getting an immediate Codex like Necrons so its sadly unlikely till that happens
Given that every DE codex since 5th has added nothing and just torn out a bunch of pages, I can't say the prospect of a new codex would have me particularly hyped even if we were first.
The 3 in one Dark Eldar Codex is an interesting idea with some bad implemtation - if they had been Marines each would have its own Codex
That's the issue, though - there just isn't enough in our subfactions to fill individual codices. Hell, even combined there's barely enough for a single codex.
Not really. It's much more akin to the Dark Angels and how they have Greenwing, Deathwing and Ravenwing. Basically all three should be field-able as a single army without penalty but also have the ability to be taken En mass as their individual branch. What screws the Dark Eldar over currently is being penalized if I want to take a single detachment and play with all the units in my book, heck even with just 2/3 of the book. I think the idea would have been more sound had the army been more fleshed out, but having only a single HQ and troop slot or missing FA/Elite/Heavy in some combo for each just makes it odd. Space marines would actually have been the perfect codex to try something like that with their 75-100 entries or what ever absurdity it has ballooned to. Not that I advocate that.
Yeah, I think if they'd just given us the 3-patrols thing as a bonus rule, but without actually splitting up our army, it would have been fine.
I could be wrong but it seems like the concept was loosely based on the Coterie system 7th edition Corsairs used, where you could split the army into a number of tiny, patrol-like detachments.
However, there were some key differences with regard to how the system was implemented with Corsairs:
- The book wasn't split into different units, so you were free to mix and match.
- They had vastly more units to choose from in general (so you didn't generally end up with the DE situation of "which troop choice should I pick for my Kabal detachment - Kabalite Warriors or Kabalite Warriors?" or "Which Heavy Support should I pick for my Cult detachment? Silly question - there aren't any!").
- They also had vastly more customisation available to individual units, including the option of Jet Packs for every single infantry unit. - They had some very cheap HQs, so you weren't paying a huge tax for fielding several such detachments. The cheapest DEHQ is 50pts base, and until the most recent point changes the others were both 70+pts. Meanwhile, Corsairs had an HQ that was just 35pts.
- The army was themed around a central HQ (the Corsair Prince), who basically had his own special detachment that meant he could buff all the others. Compare that with the Archon - supposedly the overall leader but stuck only being able to buff Kabal units.
It just seemed that GW tried to apply that to DE, without having any clue why it actually worked for Corsairs.
Jidmah wrote: Oh, look, the stratagem for deep striking a stompa just went up to minimum investment of 11 CP
If it's just one Gargant you could take the SHA detachment yeah? It has no restrictions on Titanic as a cost, just that you can only bring one LoW and it costs 3 CP.
Jidmah wrote: Nope. The specialist detachment can only be used with a Super-Heavy Detachment, which will now cost 6CP if it has a stompa in it.
I'll be honest, I'm not up and up on the Ork build or anything for DS Gargant.
The tellyporta or whatever it is strat is part of a Specialist Detchament?
Couldn't you, in the new system, just bring a SHA and then put the Gartgant into Strategic reserves now (via strat)? Wouldn't that be mildly better? Probably also wont cost as many CP.
Jidmah wrote: Nope. The specialist detachment can only be used with a Super-Heavy Detachment, which will now cost 6CP if it has a stompa in it.
I'll be honest, I'm not up and up on the Ork build or anything for DS Gargant.
The tellyporta or whatever it is strat is part of a Specialist Detchament?
Couldn't you, in the new system, just bring a SHA and then put the Gartgant into Strategic reserves now (via strat)? Wouldn't that be mildly better? Probably also wont cost as many CP.
xeen wrote: Basically a 3 CP tax for me to bring Magnus. But that could be fair depending on how thins shake up. I was expecting this but can’t use WL to mitigate.
Previously -- Magnus plus a battalion got us 8 CP. Now Magnus in reserves leaves us with 6 CP and another 6 over the game. I imagine it could still be favorable since reserves will extend the number of viable turns.
I think the Outriders might come down to the gun they have on the front of that bike. Some have been saying that it looks like it could be something like the Inceptor's Assault Bolters.
ClockworkZion wrote: I think the Outriders might come down to the gun they have on the front of that bike. Some have been saying that it looks like it could be something like the Inceptor's Assault Bolters.
Meh. It's either 3 AP4 AP0 or 2 S4 AP1 plus a heavy bolt pistol.
The faction focus for knights didn't reveal anything that seemed to benefit knights at all. So, in shooting, they got nerfed, cos everyone can see them, but they can't see and shoot units hiding behind oscurring terrain.
Command points wise, it costs 6 CP to bring a detachment of 3 knights.
And thats it. Nothing else was revealed about any rules that have changed for knights, other than that we can put them in strategic reserves, which we can do so for any unit if we want to, so its not like its specific to knights.
Eldenfirefly wrote: The faction focus for knights didn't reveal anything that seemed to benefit knights at all. So, in shooting, they got nerfed, cos everyone can see them, but they can't see and shoot units hiding behind oscurring terrain.
Command points wise, it costs 6 CP to bring a detachment of 3 knights.
And thats it. Nothing else was revealed about any rules that have changed for knights, other than that we can put them in strategic reserves, which we can do so for any unit if we want to, so its not like its specific to knights.
If you look at the footnotes they mention Knights will have a way to get that CP back, but they aren't showing us until Sunday when the Chaos Knight article goes live.
xeen wrote: Basically a 3 CP tax for me to bring Magnus. But that could be fair depending on how thins shake up. I was expecting this but can’t use WL to mitigate.
Previously -- Magnus plus a battalion got us 8 CP. Now Magnus in reserves leaves us with 6 CP and another 6 over the game. I imagine it could still be favorable since reserves will extend the number of viable turns.
So I just spotted a rumor that has it the Outriders are 6PL, so about 40-45ppm.
Yep, that was my guess.
if that's the case they'll be almost autotake good
How do you figure? They're twice an Intercessor and twice (or more) the cost.
Since when did your intercessors have a 14 inch move a fixed 6 inch advance move and get to shoot as if they remained stationary always because bolter disipline. These lads have a 44 inch threat range on their shooting, a 20 inch charge range reliably.
And freedome to choose chapter tactics to buff this further.
Terrain rules becoming more interactive should also help with the issue bikers had in 8th of not interacting with ruins.
xeen wrote: Basically a 3 CP tax for me to bring Magnus. But that could be fair depending on how thins shake up. I was expecting this but can’t use WL to mitigate.
Previously -- Magnus plus a battalion got us 8 CP. Now Magnus in reserves leaves us with 6 CP and another 6 over the game. I imagine it could still be favorable since reserves will extend the number of viable turns.
So I just spotted a rumor that has it the Outriders are 6PL, so about 40-45ppm.
Yep, that was my guess.
if that's the case they'll be almost autotake good
How do you figure? They're twice an Intercessor and twice (or more) the cost.
Since when did your intercessors have a 14 inch move a fixed 6 inch advance move and get to shoot as if they remained stationary always because bolter disipline. These lads have a 44 inch threat range on their shooting, a 20 inch charge range reliably.
And freedome to choose chapter tactics to buff this further.
Terrain rules becoming more interactive should also help with the issue bikers had in 8th of not interacting with ruins.
At 120+ points for a total of 12 wounds of Marine, even if they can't interact with ruins, they still have plenty of use thanks to their mobility in the new edition based on what GW has shown us about the missions.
xeen wrote: Basically a 3 CP tax for me to bring Magnus. But that could be fair depending on how thins shake up. I was expecting this but can’t use WL to mitigate.
Previously -- Magnus plus a battalion got us 8 CP. Now Magnus in reserves leaves us with 6 CP and another 6 over the game. I imagine it could still be favorable since reserves will extend the number of viable turns.
So I just spotted a rumor that has it the Outriders are 6PL, so about 40-45ppm.
Yep, that was my guess.
if that's the case they'll be almost autotake good
How do you figure? They're twice an Intercessor and twice (or more) the cost.
Since when did your intercessors have a 14 inch move a fixed 6 inch advance move and get to shoot as if they remained stationary always because bolter disipline. These lads have a 44 inch threat range on their shooting, a 20 inch charge range reliably.
And freedome to choose chapter tactics to buff this further.
Terrain rules becoming more interactive should also help with the issue bikers had in 8th of not interacting with ruins.
At 120+ points for a total of 12 wounds of Marine, even if they can't interact with ruins, they still have plenty of use thanks to their mobility in the new edition based on what GW has shown us about the missions.
Because you know they have to be under pointed overpowered as with all Marines post Codex 2.0 "designed for 9th".
Like seriously how dang OP are necrons about to get if they have been balanced against the latest primaris
Seems like early 9th will be rough for a number of the older 8th edition codex's.
xeen wrote: Basically a 3 CP tax for me to bring Magnus. But that could be fair depending on how thins shake up. I was expecting this but can’t use WL to mitigate.
Previously -- Magnus plus a battalion got us 8 CP. Now Magnus in reserves leaves us with 6 CP and another 6 over the game. I imagine it could still be favorable since reserves will extend the number of viable turns.
So I just spotted a rumor that has it the Outriders are 6PL, so about 40-45ppm.
Yep, that was my guess.
if that's the case they'll be almost autotake good
How do you figure? They're twice an Intercessor and twice (or more) the cost.
Since when did your intercessors have a 14 inch move a fixed 6 inch advance move and get to shoot as if they remained stationary always because bolter disipline. These lads have a 44 inch threat range on their shooting, a 20 inch charge range reliably.
And freedome to choose chapter tactics to buff this further.
Terrain rules becoming more interactive should also help with the issue bikers had in 8th of not interacting with ruins.
At 120+ points for a total of 12 wounds of Marine, even if they can't interact with ruins, they still have plenty of use thanks to their mobility in the new edition based on what GW has shown us about the missions.
Because you know they have to be under pointed overpowered as with all Marines post Codex 2.0 "designed for 9th".
Like seriously how dang OP are necrons about to get if they have been balanced against the latest primaris
Seems like early 9th will be rough for a number of the older 8th edition codex's.
And here I was thinking of the advantages mobility brings for grabbing objectives...
Carnikang wrote: The tellyporta or whatever it is strat is part of a Specialist Detchament?
The stompa can't use the tellyporta, because it's capped at PL20. The only way to deep strike it is using the Stompa-Porta stratagem from the stompa mob specialst detachment for 4CP.
Couldn't you, in the new system, just bring a SHA and then put the Gartgant into Strategic reserves now (via strat)? Wouldn't that be mildly better? Probably also wont cost as many CP.
Putting the stompa from the codex in reserves is 8CP and the kustom stompa is 9CP. But the stompa is 7"-8" in diameter, so you can't have it walk on from a table edge anyways.
Like seriously how dang OP are necrons about to get if they have been balanced against the latest primaris
Seems like early 9th will be rough for a number of the older 8th edition codex's.
Willy you feel like sisters have been balanced against the latest primaris ?
The chatter from people who have been running them on TTS is they were pretty filthy and with the right choices went round for round against marines and steam rolled the codex's still awaiting PA books. (No personal experience 40k is supposed yo be about not staring at a screen)
At this point I haven't seen sisters personally and GW hasn't been half as bad at taking the lore and resculpting it with a lord of skulls as they have been with "Look a wizard did it Primaris".
xeen wrote: Basically a 3 CP tax for me to bring Magnus. But that could be fair depending on how thins shake up. I was expecting this but can’t use WL to mitigate.
Previously -- Magnus plus a battalion got us 8 CP. Now Magnus in reserves leaves us with 6 CP and another 6 over the game. I imagine it could still be favorable since reserves will extend the number of viable turns.
So I just spotted a rumor that has it the Outriders are 6PL, so about 40-45ppm.
Yep, that was my guess.
if that's the case they'll be almost autotake good
How do you figure? They're twice an Intercessor and twice (or more) the cost.
Since when did your intercessors have a 14 inch move a fixed 6 inch advance move and get to shoot as if they remained stationary always because bolter disipline. These lads have a 44 inch threat range on their shooting, a 20 inch charge range reliably.
And freedome to choose chapter tactics to buff this further.
Terrain rules becoming more interactive should also help with the issue bikers had in 8th of not interacting with ruins.
you forgot a squad of 3 apparently having 19 attacks on the charge
On the knights detachment thing I think it'll be a simple case of if you are running knights and your warlord is in the detachment you get the cp back like other armies do for battalions
Latro_ wrote: On the knights detachment thing I think it'll be a simple case of if you are running knights and your warlord is in the detachment you get the cp back like other armies do for battalions
with the difference that it won't be a Detachmant rule but a Codex Special rule for the Knight Warlord
or Knights get their own Detachment in the Codex exclusive for them with different rules
xeen wrote: Basically a 3 CP tax for me to bring Magnus. But that could be fair depending on how thins shake up. I was expecting this but can’t use WL to mitigate.
Previously -- Magnus plus a battalion got us 8 CP. Now Magnus in reserves leaves us with 6 CP and another 6 over the game. I imagine it could still be favorable since reserves will extend the number of viable turns.
So I just spotted a rumor that has it the Outriders are 6PL, so about 40-45ppm.
Yep, that was my guess.
if that's the case they'll be almost autotake good
How do you figure? They're twice an Intercessor and twice (or more) the cost.
Since when did your intercessors have a 14 inch move a fixed 6 inch advance move and get to shoot as if they remained stationary always because bolter disipline. These lads have a 44 inch threat range on their shooting, a 20 inch charge range reliably.
And freedome to choose chapter tactics to buff this further.
Terrain rules becoming more interactive should also help with the issue bikers had in 8th of not interacting with ruins.
At 120+ points for a total of 12 wounds of Marine, even if they can't interact with ruins, they still have plenty of use thanks to their mobility in the new edition based on what GW has shown us about the missions.
Because you know they have to be under pointed overpowered as with all Marines post Codex 2.0 "designed for 9th".
Like seriously how dang OP are necrons about to get if they have been balanced against the latest primaris
Seems like early 9th will be rough for a number of the older 8th edition codex's.
Why does this keep coming up? It's always been wrong. The only 2 units the primaris have that have EVER been considered 'OP' are intercessors and the Repulsor for the 2 weeks you could give it a 5++ and -1 damage super easily. Most primaris units have seen niche play AT BEST.
The ACTUAL OP marine units have been: Stormravens, Centurions, Assault Centurions, Leviathan Dreadnoughts, Chaplain Dreads, Thunderfire Cannons, Chapter Masters.
Like seriously how dang OP are necrons about to get if they have been balanced against the latest primaris
Seems like early 9th will be rough for a number of the older 8th edition codex's.
Willy you feel like sisters have been balanced against the latest primaris ?
The chatter from people who have been running them on TTS is they were pretty filthy and with the right choices went round for round against marines and steam rolled the codex's still awaiting PA books. (No personal experience 40k is supposed yo be about not staring at a screen)
At this point I haven't seen sisters personally and GW hasn't been half as bad at taking the lore and resculpting it with a lord of skulls as they have been with "Look a wizard did it Primaris".
Seems like you've got a lot unfounded bias there, the sisters book is a decent well rounded codex with potential, but it was never topping tournaments and its main components were a mix of subfaction battalions. Those just got hit with a nerf bat and when you're forced to try and stick to 1 order it gets a lot tougher for them.
Like seriously how dang OP are necrons about to get if they have been balanced against the latest primaris
Seems like early 9th will be rough for a number of the older 8th edition codex's.
Willy you feel like sisters have been balanced against the latest primaris ?
The chatter from people who have been running them on TTS is they were pretty filthy and with the right choices went round for round against marines and steam rolled the codex's still awaiting PA books. (No personal experience 40k is supposed yo be about not staring at a screen)
At this point I haven't seen sisters personally and GW hasn't been half as bad at taking the lore and resculpting it with a lord of skulls as they have been with "Look a wizard did it Primaris".
With doctrine APs all but gone, especially with the new codex, Sisters will ignore most of SMAP completely so they match up very well.
Ice_can wrote: The chatter from people who have been running them on TTS is they were pretty filthy and with the right choices went round for round against marines and steam rolled the codex's still awaiting PA books. (No personal experience 40k is supposed yo be about not staring at a screen)
At this point I haven't seen sisters personally and GW hasn't been half as bad at taking the lore and resculpting it with a lord of skulls as they have been with "Look a wizard did it Primaris".
The change to how CPs will leave them a bit worse off - but yeah, Valorous Heart blobs with Exorcists in the back mixed with a few Bloody Rose attacking units seems to be very good.
Really the problem with the game is becoming "here's some special rules because we like you".
In old money - sisters were pointed to be about where you'd expect.
But then you chuck on 2 extra abilities because we like you. Much like Marine's doctrines, this takes them way over where they should be (okay its a bit random - but still.)
I suspect Admech's super warlord traits (replacing... very little) and other buffs in Engine War will go a similar way.
If Necrons get something similar (which seems to be rumoured) - then yeah, you are going to see a clear divide between the codexes. In theory everything could be fixed with points - but I doubt GW will want to have some factions be really cheap, and then give them a big points hike when they get their special rules. So most likely they will just be weak until they get their random new mechanic.
xeen wrote: Basically a 3 CP tax for me to bring Magnus. But that could be fair depending on how thins shake up. I was expecting this but can’t use WL to mitigate.
Previously -- Magnus plus a battalion got us 8 CP. Now Magnus in reserves leaves us with 6 CP and another 6 over the game. I imagine it could still be favorable since reserves will extend the number of viable turns.
So I just spotted a rumor that has it the Outriders are 6PL, so about 40-45ppm.
Yep, that was my guess.
if that's the case they'll be almost autotake good
How do you figure? They're twice an Intercessor and twice (or more) the cost.
Since when did your intercessors have a 14 inch move a fixed 6 inch advance move and get to shoot as if they remained stationary always because bolter disipline. These lads have a 44 inch threat range on their shooting, a 20 inch charge range reliably.
And freedome to choose chapter tactics to buff this further.
Terrain rules becoming more interactive should also help with the issue bikers had in 8th of not interacting with ruins.
At 120+ points for a total of 12 wounds of Marine, even if they can't interact with ruins, they still have plenty of use thanks to their mobility in the new edition based on what GW has shown us about the missions.
Because you know they have to be under pointed overpowered as with all Marines post Codex 2.0 "designed for 9th".
Like seriously how dang OP are necrons about to get if they have been balanced against the latest primaris
Seems like early 9th will be rough for a number of the older 8th edition codex's.
Why does this keep coming up? It's always been wrong. The only 2 units the primaris have that have EVER been considered 'OP' are intercessors and the Repulsor for the 2 weeks you could give it a 5++ and -1 damage super easily. Most primaris units have seen niche play AT BEST.
The ACTUAL OP marine units have been: Stormravens, Centurions, Assault Centurions, Leviathan Dreadnoughts, Chaplain Dreads, Thunderfire Cannons, Chapter Masters.
\
because it's all part of the "GW makes new stuff powerful to sell new models" narrative that's bee, constantly, proven false
Like seriously how dang OP are necrons about to get if they have been balanced against the latest primaris
Seems like early 9th will be rough for a number of the older 8th edition codex's.
Willy you feel like sisters have been balanced against the latest primaris ?
The chatter from people who have been running them on TTS is they were pretty filthy and with the right choices went round for round against marines and steam rolled the codex's still awaiting PA books. (No personal experience 40k is supposed yo be about not staring at a screen)
At this point I haven't seen sisters personally and GW hasn't been half as bad at taking the lore and resculpting it with a lord of skulls as they have been with "Look a wizard did it Primaris".
Seems like you've got a lot unfounded bias there, the sisters book is a decent well rounded codex with potential, but it was never topping tournaments and its main components were a mix of subfaction battalions. Those just got hit with a nerf bat and when you're forced to try and stick to 1 order it gets a lot tougher for them.
As I said I'm going on the chatter from guys playing on TTS, how can I be biased when I clearly state it's second hand information.
In reference to what tournements have they won, how many have been run since the sisters range actually got fully released febuary/March? Most countries have been in some form of lockdown since then same with all the engine war and war of the spider content.
xeen wrote: Basically a 3 CP tax for me to bring Magnus. But that could be fair depending on how thins shake up. I was expecting this but can’t use WL to mitigate.
Previously -- Magnus plus a battalion got us 8 CP. Now Magnus in reserves leaves us with 6 CP and another 6 over the game. I imagine it could still be favorable since reserves will extend the number of viable turns.
So I just spotted a rumor that has it the Outriders are 6PL, so about 40-45ppm.
Yep, that was my guess.
if that's the case they'll be almost autotake good
How do you figure? They're twice an Intercessor and twice (or more) the cost.
Since when did your intercessors have a 14 inch move a fixed 6 inch advance move and get to shoot as if they remained stationary always because bolter disipline. These lads have a 44 inch threat range on their shooting, a 20 inch charge range reliably.
And freedome to choose chapter tactics to buff this further.
Terrain rules becoming more interactive should also help with the issue bikers had in 8th of not interacting with ruins.
At 120+ points for a total of 12 wounds of Marine, even if they can't interact with ruins, they still have plenty of use thanks to their mobility in the new edition based on what GW has shown us about the missions.
Because you know they have to be under pointed overpowered as with all Marines post Codex 2.0 "designed for 9th".
Like seriously how dang OP are necrons about to get if they have been balanced against the latest primaris
Seems like early 9th will be rough for a number of the older 8th edition codex's.
Why does this keep coming up? It's always been wrong. The only 2 units the primaris have that have EVER been considered 'OP' are intercessors and the Repulsor for the 2 weeks you could give it a 5++ and -1 damage super easily. Most primaris units have seen niche play AT BEST.
The ACTUAL OP marine units have been: Stormravens, Centurions, Assault Centurions, Leviathan Dreadnoughts, Chaplain Dreads, Thunderfire Cannons, Chapter Masters.
\
because it's all part of the "GW makes new stuff powerful to sell new models" narrative that's bee, constantly, proven false
Nah I never singled out primaris it's been marines since codex 2.0, when they are still returning 60% win rates + vrs any non marine army thats an issue
The Sisters Codex certainly doesn't feel particularly competitive, but there's a lot of external reasons for that. For one, most of what you'll be seeing competitively is Space Marines with a splash of Chaos and Tau. Then there's the worldwide lockdown that's been lingering over everything for the past few months.
Darsath wrote: The Sisters Codex certainly doesn't feel particularly competitive, but there's a lot of external reasons for that. For one, most of what you'll be seeing competitively is Space Marines with a splash of Chaos and Tau. Then there's the worldwide lockdown that's been lingering over everything for the past few months.
The sisters book is fine. It's about on par with the vanilla marine dex and Tau. It also has a pretty favorable matchup against ravenguard/IF style marine lists due to being immune to AP-2.
Sisters is a great codex, right about where it should be in terms of power, with a lot of originality and room for skill cap to show based on the mechanics and interactions.
If every codex was as well designed as the sisters one the game would be in a much better place.
xeen wrote: Basically a 3 CP tax for me to bring Magnus. But that could be fair depending on how thins shake up. I was expecting this but can’t use WL to mitigate.
Previously -- Magnus plus a battalion got us 8 CP. Now Magnus in reserves leaves us with 6 CP and another 6 over the game. I imagine it could still be favorable since reserves will extend the number of viable turns.
So I just spotted a rumor that has it the Outriders are 6PL, so about 40-45ppm.
Yep, that was my guess.
if that's the case they'll be almost autotake good
How do you figure? They're twice an Intercessor and twice (or more) the cost.
Since when did your intercessors have a 14 inch move a fixed 6 inch advance move and get to shoot as if they remained stationary always because bolter disipline. These lads have a 44 inch threat range on their shooting, a 20 inch charge range reliably.
And freedome to choose chapter tactics to buff this further.
Terrain rules becoming more interactive should also help with the issue bikers had in 8th of not interacting with ruins.
you forgot a squad of 3 apparently having 19 attacks on the charge
And then next round it's 10 attacks. White Scars are the only scary ones and i'll still shoot them easier than I can shoot Intercessors.
Who stays in combat for more than a round? Are you still playing 7th edition or something?
I mean if those bikes are staying in combat instead and only getting 10 attacks they are probably pretty happy with that, given the alternative is being blasted off the board and getting 0 attacks.
However, if your Warlord is in a Super-heavy Detachment and is a Titanic Knight, you’ll get those 6 Command points back, so you should still have 12 points to work with. Even if your Warlord is a War Dog (or Armiger, if you’re going loyal), you’ll get 3 Command points – enough to pay fully for a Super-heavy Detachment with no Titanic units. So, if you’re looking to assemble a deadly hunting pack of War Dogs, we’ve got you covered too.
Statwise those bikes compare very closely to a Heavy Bolter attack bike. They'll likely have one point more AP on the front weapons and gain those extra melee attacks instead of bringing the Str5 AP1 shooting, but it's as close as an equivalent we can get. That attack bike is 37 points in 8th.
Lemondish wrote: Statwise those bikes compare very closely to a Heavy Bolter attack bike. They'll likely have one point more AP on the front weapons and gain those extra melee attacks instead of bringing the Str5 AP1 shooting, but it's as close as an equivalent we can get. That attack bike is 37 points in 8th.
45 at the high end guess seems pretty close.
Sure and attack bikes don't vomit melee attacks, have a free leader, or number up to 9 models per unit. They also got dinked for having heavy weapons and even then they were actually much better then most folks gave credit, but rule of 3 and an expensive ANCIENT kit made their splash small.
The issue with the new bikes, or potential issue, is they can be taken in huge numbers. 9 in a unit is 36 wounds for example. Plus 36 shots and 55 more attacks that ALL benefit from stratagems. Attack bikes max out at 3 dudes.
We will see obviously, but they seem pretty auto include thus far. Which is never great, they should be on par with Inceptors or any other FA slot.
Lemondish wrote: Statwise those bikes compare very closely to a Heavy Bolter attack bike. They'll likely have one point more AP on the front weapons and gain those extra melee attacks instead of bringing the Str5 AP1 shooting, but it's as close as an equivalent we can get. That attack bike is 37 points in 8th.
45 at the high end guess seems pretty close.
Sure and attack bikes don't vomit melee attacks, have a free leader, or number up to 9 models per unit. They also got dinked for having heavy weapons and even then they were actually much better then most folks gave credit, but rule of 3 and an expensive ANCIENT kit made their splash small.
The issue with the new bikes, or potential issue, is they can be taken in huge numbers. 9 in a unit is 36 wounds for example. Plus 36 shots and 55 more attacks that ALL benefit from stratagems. Attack bikes max out at 3 dudes.
We will see obviously, but they seem pretty auto include thus far. Which is never great, they should be on par with Inceptors or any other FA slot.
I think you misheard Stu when he said you could bring 9. Was the unit size confirmed somewhere, because 3 units of 3 was what I took away from that.
So ignoring the fact we don't actually know for sure, I'd say losing your mind over this is a little premature.
So do you have a closer equivalent, or was your point that there is no close equivalent? It was hard to tell - you jumped around and talked about totally irrelevant things like model cost.
Lemondish wrote: Statwise those bikes compare very closely to a Heavy Bolter attack bike. They'll likely have one point more AP on the front weapons and gain those extra melee attacks instead of bringing the Str5 AP1 shooting, but it's as close as an equivalent we can get. That attack bike is 37 points in 8th.
45 at the high end guess seems pretty close.
Sure and attack bikes don't vomit melee attacks, have a free leader, or number up to 9 models per unit. They also got dinked for having heavy weapons and even then they were actually much better then most folks gave credit, but rule of 3 and an expensive ANCIENT kit made their splash small.
The issue with the new bikes, or potential issue, is they can be taken in huge numbers. 9 in a unit is 36 wounds for example. Plus 36 shots and 55 more attacks that ALL benefit from stratagems. Attack bikes max out at 3 dudes.
We will see obviously, but they seem pretty auto include thus far. Which is never great, they should be on par with Inceptors or any other FA slot.
I think you misheard Stu when he said you could bring 9. Was the unit size confirmed somewhere, because 3 units of 3 was what I took away from that.
So ignoring the fact we don't actually know for sure, I'd say losing your mind over this is a little premature.
So do you have a closer equivalent, or was your point that there is no close equivalent? It was hard to tell - you jumped around and talked about totally irrelevant things like model cost.
Why would you assume I am losing my mind? I'm engaging in civil discussion and speculating based on the limited information we all have at our disposal, same as you. Try not making things personal.
BTW how is model cost irrelevant to a discussion revolving around speculation of a models cost?
I don't think your example was a bad one btw, I was simply disagreeing with your conclusion. Or I should say, with the notion that 45ppm is balanced when comparing to an attack bike.
As an aside, I think there is concern from folks like minded with me, that they will be priced on the low end. Honestly, the bigger issue I have is the volume of attacks. It seems that the game, since it's based on d6 has the toughest time with units that hit the bell curve.
The new bikes just seem to be following the same path in design space GW has gone to already with dire consequences. Hopefully I am wrong but they seem to carry with them the same kind of volume and speed as things like Scatter laser wind riders.
yukishiro1 wrote: Who stays in combat for more than a round? Are you still playing 7th edition or something?
I mean if those bikes are staying in combat instead and only getting 10 attacks they are probably pretty happy with that, given the alternative is being blasted off the board and getting 0 attacks.
Yes, I'd probably feed them spawn and then counter-charge with a daemon engine. On average they can kill one spawn between melee and shooting. Scary.
Why do people keep thinking S4 attacks kills everything with ease?
However, if your Warlord is in a Super-heavy Detachment and is a Titanic Knight, you’ll get those 6 Command points back, so you should still have 12 points to work with. Even if your Warlord is a War Dog (or Armiger, if you’re going loyal), you’ll get 3 Command points – enough to pay fully for a Super-heavy Detachment with no Titanic units. So, if you’re looking to assemble a deadly hunting pack of War Dogs, we’ve got you covered too.
This discourages soup how? If there isn't a cost for bringing multiple codexes that they haven't showed us yet it costs the same CP to bring three knights and a battalion as it does to bring a battalion and one super heavy and a single super heavy from the same faction. That sucks for those of us who want to play a super heavy but remain mono faction but don't play a faction that gets a mono faction bonus.
However, if your Warlord is in a Super-heavy Detachment and is a Titanic Knight, you’ll get those 6 Command points back, so you should still have 12 points to work with. Even if your Warlord is a War Dog (or Armiger, if you’re going loyal), you’ll get 3 Command points – enough to pay fully for a Super-heavy Detachment with no Titanic units. So, if you’re looking to assemble a deadly hunting pack of War Dogs, we’ve got you covered too.
yukishiro1 wrote: Who stays in combat for more than a round? Are you still playing 7th edition or something?
I mean if those bikes are staying in combat instead and only getting 10 attacks they are probably pretty happy with that, given the alternative is being blasted off the board and getting 0 attacks.
Yes, I'd probably feed them spawn and then counter-charge with a daemon engine. On average they can kill one spawn between melee and shooting. Scary.
Why do people keep thinking S4 attacks kills everything with ease?
^and in White Scars those attacks are 2 dmg, in Iron Hands those 4 wounds have a 5+++, etc and regardless of which chapter they’re re-rolling all hits and 1’s to wound.
yukishiro1 wrote: Who stays in combat for more than a round? Are you still playing 7th edition or something?
I mean if those bikes are staying in combat instead and only getting 10 attacks they are probably pretty happy with that, given the alternative is being blasted off the board and getting 0 attacks.
Yes, I'd probably feed them spawn and then counter-charge with a daemon engine. On average they can kill one spawn between melee and shooting. Scary.
Why do people keep thinking S4 attacks kills everything with ease?
A regular bike is double the shooting and wounds as a regular tac marine. +1 toughness, high movement and always-on bolter discipline. The bike is less than the cost of two marines.
Why would the primaris bike being less than twice the cost of two primaris be so OP?
However, if your Warlord is in a Super-heavy Detachment and is a Titanic Knight, you’ll get those 6 Command points back, so you should still have 12 points to work with. Even if your Warlord is a War Dog (or Armiger, if you’re going loyal), you’ll get 3 Command points – enough to pay fully for a Super-heavy Detachment with no Titanic units. So, if you’re looking to assemble a deadly hunting pack of War Dogs, we’ve got you covered too.
This discourages soup how? If there isn't a cost for bringing multiple codexes that they haven't showed us yet it costs the same CP to bring three knights and a battalion as it does to bring a battalion and one super heavy and a single super heavy from the same faction. That sucks for those of us who want to play a super heavy but remain mono faction but don't play a faction that gets a mono faction bonus.
Because you pay 3cp for that battalion and it can't have your warlord on. Paying 3cp is dissuading you from taking allies. But not getting a mono faction bonus is, has and will be worse compared to having one. Not sure what your point is really?
Abaddon303 wrote: A regular bike is double the shooting and wounds as a regular tac marine. +1 toughness, high movement and always-on bolter discipline. The bike is less than the cost of two marines.
Why would the primaris bike being less than twice the cost of two primaris be so OP?
Because current bikes aren't rocking base Ap -1 on their bolters going to Ap-2 with bolter disipline. Also these units aren't playing 8th they are playing 9th so also get Ap-1 chainswords because reasons. Also killing a 4 wound model when I can thing of maybe 2 or 3 weapons that have a flat damage value of 4 makes it way more likely they will waste damage from multi damage weapons and 4 wounds is enough that even Lascannon etc won't even have good odds against them. And in squads of 5 or less they will be imune to blast weapons.
It's minor advantages here and there that all add up to a unit that is how do I kill them efficiently when they cost so little and do so much damage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Abaddon303 wrote: So if you want to take mortarion as your warlord in your death guard army it'll cost you 6CP?
No 3 CP unless Supreme comand is cheaper (doubt it) as he will be in a Super heavy Auxiliary detachment not a Super heavy detachment as it needs 3 LoW minimum.
Abaddon303 wrote: He'll be in a super heavy auxillary that I'll get my CP back for as he's my warlord. But then it'll cost me 6CP for my death guard battalion.
Only core Detachments have the CP refund for the warlord. SHAD don't get the refund.
Spoiler:
See, no refund. I for one am happy that they have made taking Primarchs non-viable in matched play. I am disappointed they gave knights special snowflake rules to avoid the downside.
Abaddon303 wrote: He'll be in a super heavy auxillary that I'll get my CP back for as he's my warlord. But then it'll cost me 6CP for my death guard battalion.
You can't get the cp back for a super heavy auxiliary, they explain patrol, battalion and brigade are the "core" detachments you get refunded if your warlord is in them.
A battalion costs 3cp, they've shown that too.
If you insist on having morty as a warlord then you'll need to pay 6cp total and none of it is free.
But intercessors have the -1ap too and that's what you're comparing them with. Killing a four wound unit is just as easy as killing 2 two wounds units. In fact it's easier because it is worth taking a punt with a D6 damage weapon.
A regular bike is not considered twice as good as a marine, so why should the primaris bike be considered twice as good as an intercessor?
Abaddon303 wrote: He'll be in a super heavy auxillary that I'll get my CP back for as he's my warlord. But then it'll cost me 6CP for my death guard battalion.
Only core Detachments have the CP refund for the warlord. SHAD don't get the refund.
Spoiler:
See, no refund. I for one am happy that they have made taking Primarchs non-viable in matched play. I am disappointed they gave knights special snowflake rules to avoid the downside.
Consider that perhaps they'll see a drop in points to compensate for the cp cost, they're certainly only non-viable if you want them as a warlord.
Abaddon303 wrote: He'll be in a super heavy auxillary that I'll get my CP back for as he's my warlord. But then it'll cost me 6CP for my death guard battalion.
Only core Detachments have the CP refund for the warlord. SHAD don't get the refund.
Spoiler:
See, no refund. I for one am happy that they have made taking Primarchs non-viable in matched play. I am disappointed they gave knights special snowflake rules to avoid the downside.
You'd rather peoples entire armiea and codex's were rendered unplayable trash would you?
Abaddon303 wrote: He'll be in a super heavy auxillary that I'll get my CP back for as he's my warlord. But then it'll cost me 6CP for my death guard battalion.
You can't get the cp back for a super heavy auxiliary, they explain patrol, battalion and brigade are the "core" detachments you get refunded if your warlord is in them.
A battalion costs 3cp, they've shown that too.
If you insist on having morty as a warlord then you'll need to pay 6cp total and none of it is free.
Ah okay, so long and short of it is it still costs 6CP for Mortarion to lead his own army in his own codex.
Abaddon303 wrote: He'll be in a super heavy auxillary that I'll get my CP back for as he's my warlord. But then it'll cost me 6CP for my death guard battalion.
How you get cp back? Patrol/bat/brigade gives back plus knights have own thing. Has there been dg leak i missea?
Abaddon303 wrote: He'll be in a super heavy auxillary that I'll get my CP back for as he's my warlord. But then it'll cost me 6CP for my death guard battalion.
You can't get the cp back for a super heavy auxiliary, they explain patrol, battalion and brigade are the "core" detachments you get refunded if your warlord is in them.
A battalion costs 3cp, they've shown that too.
If you insist on having morty as a warlord then you'll need to pay 6cp total and none of it is free.
Ah okay, so long and short of it is it still costs 6CP for Mortarion to lead his own army in his own codex.
No you just never take him as the warlord like a sane person and make one of the HQ's you have to take in the battalion your warlord.
Abaddon303 wrote: He'll be in a super heavy auxillary that I'll get my CP back for as he's my warlord. But then it'll cost me 6CP for my death guard battalion.
You can't get the cp back for a super heavy auxiliary, they explain patrol, battalion and brigade are the "core" detachments you get refunded if your warlord is in them.
A battalion costs 3cp, they've shown that too.
If you insist on having morty as a warlord then you'll need to pay 6cp total and none of it is free.
Ah okay, so long and short of it is it still costs 6CP for Mortarion to lead his own army in his own codex.
Abaddon303 wrote: He'll be in a super heavy auxillary that I'll get my CP back for as he's my warlord. But then it'll cost me 6CP for my death guard battalion.
You can't get the cp back for a super heavy auxiliary, they explain patrol, battalion and brigade are the "core" detachments you get refunded if your warlord is in them.
A battalion costs 3cp, they've shown that too.
If you insist on having morty as a warlord then you'll need to pay 6cp total and none of it is free.
Ah okay, so long and short of it is it still costs 6CP for Mortarion to lead his own army in his own codex.
Yup, not saying it's right, hopefully they allow him being able to refund himself but that will need to be in a day 1 faq
However, if your Warlord is in a Super-heavy Detachment and is a Titanic Knight, you’ll get those 6 Command points back, so you should still have 12 points to work with. Even if your Warlord is a War Dog (or Armiger, if you’re going loyal), you’ll get 3 Command points – enough to pay fully for a Super-heavy Detachment with no Titanic units. So, if you’re looking to assemble a deadly hunting pack of War Dogs, we’ve got you covered too.
This discourages soup how? If there isn't a cost for bringing multiple codexes that they haven't showed us yet it costs the same CP to bring three knights and a battalion as it does to bring a battalion and one super heavy and a single super heavy from the same faction. That sucks for those of us who want to play a super heavy but remain mono faction but don't play a faction that gets a mono faction bonus.
Because you pay 3cp for that battalion and it can't have your warlord on. Paying 3cp is dissuading you from taking allies. But not getting a mono faction bonus is, has and will be worse compared to having one. Not sure what your point is really?
Oh, right, guard and csm won't want to soup with knights because they'll lose their mono faction bonus. What are those mono faction bonuses they get again?
Makes complete sense that Eldar pay 3CP for a single wraithknight while those factions pay 3CP for three knights as well, as much as I hate taking up for Eldar.
Seems a real oversight so hopefully an errata coming as you say. At least Guilliman gives a CP boost already to mitigate the cost slightly.
Appreciate making the primarchs warlord is sub-optimal but not everybody plays 100% competitive. Don't think they deserve a further 6CP kick in the teeth for it on top...
Yup, not saying it's right, hopefully they allow him being able to refund himself but that will need to be in a day 1 faq
I won't be shocked if Primarchs get a FAQ update more or less like the Traitoris Lance rule. I'd personally like to see them discouraged, but I can't see GW putting the centerpiece models for the poster boys at such a cost.
You'll still have to pay some CP for the second detachment though, so at least there is some cost.
-----
As far as knights go, it seems clear that Knights will be the primary detachment with the warlord if you want multiple knights. Otherwise the CP cost is just too high.
If you have two identical armies, but one has a knight warlord and a guard/marine/AdMech patrol, that costs 2 CP (3 for battalion), whereas a guard/marine/AdMech warlord with knight detachment costs 6 CP, even if every model in the army is otherwise exactly the same.
However, if your Warlord is in a Super-heavy Detachment and is a Titanic Knight, you’ll get those 6 Command points back, so you should still have 12 points to work with. Even if your Warlord is a War Dog (or Armiger, if you’re going loyal), you’ll get 3 Command points – enough to pay fully for a Super-heavy Detachment with no Titanic units. So, if you’re looking to assemble a deadly hunting pack of War Dogs, we’ve got you covered too.
This discourages soup how? If there isn't a cost for bringing multiple codexes that they haven't showed us yet it costs the same CP to bring three knights and a battalion as it does to bring a battalion and one super heavy and a single super heavy from the same faction. That sucks for those of us who want to play a super heavy but remain mono faction but don't play a faction that gets a mono faction bonus.
Because you pay 3cp for that battalion and it can't have your warlord on. Paying 3cp is dissuading you from taking allies. But not getting a mono faction bonus is, has and will be worse compared to having one. Not sure what your point is really?
Oh, right, guard and csm won't want to soup with knights because they'll lose their mono faction bonus. What are those mono faction bonuses they get again?
Makes complete sense that Eldar pay 3CP for a single wraithknight while those factions pay 3CP for three knights as well, as much as I hate taking up for Eldar.
They don't have a mono faction bonus? They don't however get a knight for free, it costs them 3cp.
Also the eldar pay 3cp for a wraithknight.
The knights army pays 3cp for a battalion of guard.
The knight must have the warlord in, that means no guard warlord which is another pay off.
You're also grossly over valuing wanting 3 18+ targets that people can see from literally anywhere on the board.
Abaddon303 wrote: A regular bike is double the shooting and wounds as a regular tac marine. +1 toughness, high movement and always-on bolter discipline. The bike is less than the cost of two marines.
Why would the primaris bike being less than twice the cost of two primaris be so OP?
because its +2 wounds and the extra attacks an the charge rule...
Oguhmek wrote: So a Warbiker has the same statline except BS 5+ and a 4+ save with 2 wounds. With 2 attacks and 6 18" shots (at BS 5+), an Outrider should be worth more or less the same as two Warbikers. That's 46 points. Maybe add a few points for the better save and better leadership, that would put the Outrider at around 50 points, right?
Now watch GW put them at 40, and raise the cost of the Warbiker to 27 or so (because costs go up in 9th).
well seeing that a normal oldmarine biker already costs the same as an ork warbiker (balance blablablub )... a nob biker (+1w, +1s and +1attack) costs 10points more than a normal one... i am guessing 40 points for the primebike (+2w and +2a) including the 20% general increase in marinestuff...
tneva82 wrote: Seems 25.7 is streetday for 9th. Unless it goes to august. Next week preorders aos and bb
I'm slowly going from excited to annoyed with the time scales, I'm ready to crack on with it and the new box set but the 2 month drip feed seems excessive and designed to frustrate.
tneva82 wrote: Seems 25.7 is streetday for 9th. Unless it goes to august. Next week preorders aos and bb
I'm slowly going from excited to annoyed with the time scales, I'm ready to crack on with it and the new box set but the 2 month drip feed seems excessive and designed to frustrate.
Well i was there waiting 8th ed so have had same wait once before.
Mr Morden wrote: They might change who/what is a Lord of War to stop some of the centre piece models being less fielded?
I wondered if they have kept the brigade underwraps very tightly because it comes with 1 LoW slot in it. Would make the most sence as it allows 1 LoW to be added to an army but basically limits most factions to mono detachment at that point so no minmax etc.
Mr Morden wrote: They might change who/what is a Lord of War to stop some of the centre piece models being less fielded?
I wondered if they have kept the brigade underwraps very tightly because it comes with 1 LoW slot in it. Would make the most sence as it allows 1 LoW to be added to an army but basically limits most factions to mono detachment at that point so no minmax etc.
Would be extremely hard for most factions to meet brigade requirements with the points increases and including a LoW. You'd basically be stuck taking really cheap stuff in almost every other slot just to meet the requirements.
Ice_can wrote: You'd rather peoples entire armiea and codex's were rendered unplayable trash would you?
If they are Knights, then yes. They should be banished to Apoc.
Same for Primarchs and other LoW/Superheavies.
Then you might want to go play Killteam it sounds like it's more the game you want 40k to be.
No, I want 40k to be about Platoon level forces skirmishing like it was in 4th edition, not 3 Giant Robots roflstomping a bunch of infantry who can't hurt it.
Ice_can wrote: You'd rather peoples entire armiea and codex's were rendered unplayable trash would you?
If they are Knights, then yes. They should be banished to Apoc.
Same for Primarchs and other LoW/Superheavies.
Then you might want to go play Killteam it sounds like it's more the game you want 40k to be.
No, I want 40k to be about Platoon level forces skirmishing like it was in 4th edition, not 3 Giant Robots roflstomping a bunch of infantry who can't hurt it.
Have you considered finding a gaming group that was willing to play to those restrictions?
However, if your Warlord is in a Super-heavy Detachment and is a Titanic Knight, you’ll get those 6 Command points back, so you should still have 12 points to work with. Even if your Warlord is a War Dog (or Armiger, if you’re going loyal), you’ll get 3 Command points – enough to pay fully for a Super-heavy Detachment with no Titanic units. So, if you’re looking to assemble a deadly hunting pack of War Dogs, we’ve got you covered too.
This discourages soup how? If there isn't a cost for bringing multiple codexes that they haven't showed us yet it costs the same CP to bring three knights and a battalion as it does to bring a battalion and one super heavy and a single super heavy from the same faction. That sucks for those of us who want to play a super heavy but remain mono faction but don't play a faction that gets a mono faction bonus.
Because you pay 3cp for that battalion and it can't have your warlord on. Paying 3cp is dissuading you from taking allies. But not getting a mono faction bonus is, has and will be worse compared to having one. Not sure what your point is really?
Oh, right, guard and csm won't want to soup with knights because they'll lose their mono faction bonus. What are those mono faction bonuses they get again?
Makes complete sense that Eldar pay 3CP for a single wraithknight while those factions pay 3CP for three knights as well, as much as I hate taking up for Eldar.
They don't have a mono faction bonus? They don't however get a knight for free, it costs them 3cp.
Also the eldar pay 3cp for a wraithknight.
The knights army pays 3cp for a battalion of guard.
The knight must have the warlord in, that means no guard warlord which is another pay off.
You're also grossly over valuing wanting 3 18+ targets that people can see from literally anywhere on the board.
The knights are paying 3CP to soup in another codex. The Eldar are paying 3CP to field a unit from their own codex. You shouldn't be penalized for staying within your own codex.
And I am well aware of the detriments imposed on super heavys by the new terrain rules. That, along with the cost they now bring in CP means that they had better fare well in the new points costs errata.
ClockworkZion wrote:So 40k app this week, and a bat rep using the box set that reveals the rules for everything in the Indomitus are the big highlights for next week.
And something about stuff coming out "alongside" the Indomitus box.
Ice_can wrote: You'd rather peoples entire armiea and codex's were rendered unplayable trash would you?
If they are Knights, then yes. They should be banished to Apoc.
Same for Primarchs and other LoW/Superheavies.
Then you might want to go play Killteam it sounds like it's more the game you want 40k to be.
No, I want 40k to be about Platoon level forces skirmishing like it was in 4th edition, not 3 Giant Robots roflstomping a bunch of infantry who can't hurt it.
Yes you've made that quite clear and it's all very sweet. I want football to go back to the days before multimillion pound transfer fees and corporate sponsorships but the world moves on.
Fact of the matter is generally super heavies in 40k are already a liability so I'm not sure they deserve a further penalty.
For someone who normally takes such great pleasure in finding the flaws in GWs rules writing, it's interesting that you are happy to role with a rule change that has such a detrimental effect on army composition that sticks to the codex. My lord of skulls was subpar before, now it'll cost me 3CP for the pleasure. I'm not comfortable running Mortarion in my Death Guard army and not making him warlord.
These are things I can probably discuss with my gaming group but to be honest I'd rather not be put in that position.
I mean, even with it costing 3CP aren’t you going to have more CP than you did before typically? Even without having to get two battalions. Magnus and Morty are miles ahead now just from the fact they can reserve again. Used to easily spend 2 CP on that before it was errataed.
Also we don’t know what the restrictions will be for battalion composition, might be able to soup within the same detachment like you do now, just give up some rules. Want to keep all your rules? Pay the CP for it.
Ice_can wrote: You'd rather peoples entire armiea and codex's were rendered unplayable trash would you?
If they are Knights, then yes. They should be banished to Apoc.
Same for Primarchs and other LoW/Superheavies.
Then you might want to go play Killteam it sounds like it's more the game you want 40k to be.
No, I want 40k to be about Platoon level forces skirmishing like it was in 4th edition, not 3 Giant Robots roflstomping a bunch of infantry who can't hurt it.
Do you need to make every thread about your preferences? Just don’t play vs Knights then?
Funny thing is, 9th caters for platoon-level games and several other game modes besides so your complaint has no merit. 8th catered for it too. So you should be super happy. Others who don’t want to play that way can play to their preference. It’s not worth trying to derail a general thread complaining about something that isn’t even a problem if you and your opponent don’t want it to be. Because you’re several years late to be moaning about Knights.
However, if your Warlord is in a Super-heavy Detachment and is a Titanic Knight, you’ll get those 6 Command points back, so you should still have 12 points to work with. Even if your Warlord is a War Dog (or Armiger, if you’re going loyal), you’ll get 3 Command points – enough to pay fully for a Super-heavy Detachment with no Titanic units. So, if you’re looking to assemble a deadly hunting pack of War Dogs, we’ve got you covered too.
This discourages soup how? If there isn't a cost for bringing multiple codexes that they haven't showed us yet it costs the same CP to bring three knights and a battalion as it does to bring a battalion and one super heavy and a single super heavy from the same faction. That sucks for those of us who want to play a super heavy but remain mono faction but don't play a faction that gets a mono faction bonus.
Because you pay 3cp for that battalion and it can't have your warlord on. Paying 3cp is dissuading you from taking allies. But not getting a mono faction bonus is, has and will be worse compared to having one. Not sure what your point is really?
Oh, right, guard and csm won't want to soup with knights because they'll lose their mono faction bonus. What are those mono faction bonuses they get again?
Makes complete sense that Eldar pay 3CP for a single wraithknight while those factions pay 3CP for three knights as well, as much as I hate taking up for Eldar.
They don't have a mono faction bonus? They don't however get a knight for free, it costs them 3cp.
Also the eldar pay 3cp for a wraithknight.
The knights army pays 3cp for a battalion of guard.
The knight must have the warlord in, that means no guard warlord which is another pay off.
You're also grossly over valuing wanting 3 18+ targets that people can see from literally anywhere on the board.
The knights are paying 3CP to soup in another codex. The Eldar are paying 3CP to field a unit from their own codex. You shouldn't be penalized for staying within your own codex.
And I am well aware of the detriments imposed on super heavys by the new terrain rules. That, along with the cost they now bring in CP means that they had better fare well in the new points costs errata.
ClockworkZion wrote:So 40k app this week, and a bat rep using the box set that reveals the rules for everything in the Indomitus are the big highlights for next week.
And something about stuff coming out "alongside" the Indomitus box.
New Forge World books? Finally?
So you're thinking eldar shouldn't have to pay CP to get a wraithknight because it's mono faction. What about sisters for example who don't get access to any lords of war, why should eldar get free access to one when sisters don't?
A lord of skulls has synergy with my red corsairs, a chaos knight does not, but the chaos knight being from a different codex, costs more under your thinking despite not being able to be buffed etc.
Maybe a detachment from another codex will cost a premium, we dont know yet, it might be that the battalion of guard for a knights army costs double cp.
Leth wrote: So you argument is that it is unfair that taking from multiple books costs CP? Even if it’s as a result of multiple detachments?
Or is it that same book costs more and that is unfair? Detachments are detachments, I am failing to see the issue.
The issue is (I think) twofold, 3 knights can ally guard in for 3cp. But guard ally in 3 knights for 6cp.
Secondly that because some armies don't innately have access to a super heavy, them paying the same to gain access for no loss other than cp is 'less fair' than having to pay cp when the super heavy is the same faction.
Ice_can wrote: You'd rather peoples entire armiea and codex's were rendered unplayable trash would you?
If they are Knights, then yes. They should be banished to Apoc.
Same for Primarchs and other LoW/Superheavies.
Then you might want to go play Killteam it sounds like it's more the game you want 40k to be.
No, I want 40k to be about Platoon level forces skirmishing like it was in 4th edition, not 3 Giant Robots roflstomping a bunch of infantry who can't hurt it.
Yes you've made that quite clear and it's all very sweet. I want football to go back to the days before multimillion pound transfer fees and corporate sponsorships but the world moves on.
Fact of the matter is generally super heavies in 40k are already a liability so I'm not sure they deserve a further penalty.
For someone who normally takes such great pleasure in finding the flaws in GWs rules writing, it's interesting that you are happy to role with a rule change that has such a detrimental effect on army composition that sticks to the codex. My lord of skulls was subpar before, now it'll cost me 3CP for the pleasure. I'm not comfortable running Mortarion in my Death Guard army and not making him warlord.
These are things I can probably discuss with my gaming group but to be honest I'd rather not be put in that position.
I would put you in that position.
Named characters, LoW, superheavies, ... none of that belongs on a 40k table without prior arrangement.
But, the purpose of the game is different.
"Running Mortarian"? "Subpar"? I don't talk like this. The words show the purpose of the game.
Is the purpose the game, or is the game the purpose - I suppose this is the question to ask.
40k - especially on a smaller table - is better with fewer points/units, and restrictions on those per BCB's observation, above.
It is simply an objectively better game.
Some objective determinations:
More room to affect outcomes through foresight and some good fortune.
More 'balance'.
Sure, a bolter isn't a shuriken catapult, and it should not be, but the guardian is wounded more easily and can run away/fail/lose.
You should have to blow marines up to get them to go away, but their gunz are blessed because they are 10000 years old and the empire is failing.
Maybe that is the most realistic thing about reality - it is subpar, most of the time. Mostly nothing will do everything. And it shouldn't.
This is one reason why I will never own a flying restartes hover tank.
You want to use them - great.
You want to use two or 3 ... let me see what I have painted up to try to match it. I might do that once.
And maybe it is one thing that is charming about GW's rules. They are the face of the warp in the modern era, Stranger Things coming from the other side.
It made my nose bleed to fathom some of the serious idiocy in 8th ed.
The best games for me were when we had finished painting some things, and rules changed, and there were things to sort out.
That was fun, and the realism was a common touchstone that allowed us to discuss the game.
Those were endearing moments in my life, and beneficial I think.
So, I am a fan of wargames and hobbies like this one, generally.
*Sigh* One of the advantages of soup is that it allows a faction to make up for its inherent disadvantages by taking allies who make up for those disadvantages. Guard allies provide knights with screening units that are also good at scoring objectives, two things that knights lack. A faction that lacks super heavys makes up for that disadvantage by adding knights. This is one of the things that makes soup hard to balance. That's why soup should have an additional cost, which it may have but hasn't been revealed yet. Until such information is available we must assume that detachment costs are the price of soup.
Super heavys in factions whose codexes are already written with them being available in mind should be balanced with points, as they already are considering they are already expensive units. If gw insists on using cp to balance them then their points should be lower to compensate. Perhaps they've done this, as the new terrain rules are also a detriment to them. We don't know that either.
Ice_can wrote: You'd rather peoples entire armiea and codex's were rendered unplayable trash would you?
If they are Knights, then yes. They should be banished to Apoc.
Same for Primarchs and other LoW/Superheavies.
Then you might want to go play Killteam it sounds like it's more the game you want 40k to be.
No, I want 40k to be about Platoon level forces skirmishing like it was in 4th edition, not 3 Giant Robots roflstomping a bunch of infantry who can't hurt it.
Yes you've made that quite clear and it's all very sweet. I want football to go back to the days before multimillion pound transfer fees and corporate sponsorships but the world moves on.
Fact of the matter is generally super heavies in 40k are already a liability so I'm not sure they deserve a further penalty.
For someone who normally takes such great pleasure in finding the flaws in GWs rules writing, it's interesting that you are happy to role with a rule change that has such a detrimental effect on army composition that sticks to the codex. My lord of skulls was subpar before, now it'll cost me 3CP for the pleasure. I'm not comfortable running Mortarion in my Death Guard army and not making him warlord.
These are things I can probably discuss with my gaming group but to be honest I'd rather not be put in that position.
I would put you in that position.
Named characters, LoW, superheavies, ... none of that belongs on a 40k table without prior arrangement.
But, the purpose of the game is different.
"Running Mortarian"? "Subpar"? I don't talk like this. The words show the purpose of the game.
Is the purpose the game, or is the game the purpose - I suppose this is the question to ask.
40k - especially on a smaller table - is better with fewer points/units, and restrictions on those per BCB's observation, above.
It is simply an objectively better game.
Some objective determinations:
More room to affect outcomes through foresight and some good fortune.
More 'balance'.
Sure, a bolter isn't a shuriken catapult, and it should not be, but the guardian is wounded more easily and can run away/fail/lose.
You should have to blow marines up to get them to go away, but their gunz are blessed because they are 10000 years old and the empire is failing.
Maybe that is the most realistic thing about reality - it is subpar, most of the time. Mostly nothing will do everything. And it shouldn't.
This is one reason why I will never own a flying restartes hover tank.
You want to use them - great.
You want to use two or 3 ... let me see what I have painted up to try to match it. I might do that once.
And maybe it is one thing that is charming about GW's rules. They are the face of the warp in the modern era, Stranger Things coming from the other side.
It made my nose bleed to fathom some of the serious idiocy in 8th ed.
The best games for me were when we had finished painting some things, and rules changed, and there were things to sort out.
That was fun, and the realism was a common touchstone that allowed us to discuss the game.
Those were endearing moments in my life, and beneficial I think.
So, I am a fan of wargames and hobbies like this one, generally.
That's lovely, really poetic. Not really sure what the overall point of your post is is but I will counter one of your points. Don't mistake my language as me being a competitive player. I am far from it. I probably play about 20 games a year, I have an inquisition army.
But when I do play I want to play on a reasonably level playing field. I also don't want to have to discuss with my opponent how to make the game balanced and fudge rules to make it work.
It just feels in an entirely new edition it's a disappointing oversight to make same codex super heavies a casualty of anti soup rules. I'm actually still hopeful there are some erratas coming.
And yes, I may still end up with more CP than I would have this edition, but that 3CP cost isn't relative against this edition, it's relative against my opponents army.
ClockworkZion wrote: So 40k app this week, and a bat rep using the box set that reveals the rules for everything in the Indomitus are the big highlights for next week.
And something about stuff coming out "alongside" the Indomitus box.
The app, really? That's cool. I wonder if the army builder will be available.
ClockworkZion wrote: So 40k app this week, and a bat rep using the box set that reveals the rules for everything in the Indomitus are the big highlights for next week.
And something about stuff coming out "alongside" the Indomitus box.
The app, really? That's cool. I wonder if the army builder will be available.
Says we'll find out more about the app this week, nothing about it being released (starting at the 0:40 mark).
ClockworkZion wrote: So 40k app this week, and a bat rep using the box set that reveals the rules for everything in the Indomitus are the big highlights for next week.
And something about stuff coming out "alongside" the Indomitus box.
ClockworkZion wrote: So 40k app this week, and a bat rep using the box set that reveals the rules for everything in the Indomitus are the big highlights for next week.
And something about stuff coming out "alongside" the Indomitus box.
ohh god my poor wallet!
Some of it will be really mundane, kill team boards need to come back into stock sometime so id hazard a new range of card boards will be announced.
ClockworkZion wrote: So 40k app this week, and a bat rep using the box set that reveals the rules for everything in the Indomitus are the big highlights for next week.
And something about stuff coming out "alongside" the Indomitus box.
ohh god my poor wallet!
Some of it will be really mundane, kill team boards need to come back into stock sometime so id hazard a new range of card boards will be announced.
true my inital assumption was the other previewed marine stuff
ClockworkZion wrote: So 40k app this week, and a bat rep using the box set that reveals the rules for everything in the Indomitus are the big highlights for next week.
And something about stuff coming out "alongside" the Indomitus box.
ohh god my poor wallet!
Some of it will be really mundane, kill team boards need to come back into stock sometime so id hazard a new range of card boards will be announced.
true my inital assumption was the other previewed marine stuff
Maybe that little Primaris tank from the blurry pic of the BA Primaris bikes, that'd be nice.
ClockworkZion wrote: It is entirely possible we'll be seeing a shift in the way armies work that justifies the CP, or refunds the CP for certain thematic builds.
GW has pulled this a few times on us, showing the worst part of the rule only to back off and show us that it's not as bad as we think.
Yes, GW has often built up intricate systems of restrictions for the sake of balance, then made them meaningless with a bunch of loopholes for the sake of sales and whiny players being unable to cope with not having all their toys on the table at once. No dubt there will be dumb ways to unlock dumbgak combos without making any meaningful sacrifice this time too and so skewed netlists will continue to curbstomp fluffy and balanced lists.
Leth wrote: So you argument is that it is unfair that taking from multiple books costs CP? Even if it’s as a result of multiple detachments?
Or is it that same book costs more and that is unfair? Detachments are detachments, I am failing to see the issue.
The issue is (I think) twofold, 3 knights can ally guard in for 3cp. But guard ally in 3 knights for 6cp.
Secondly that because some armies don't innately have access to a super heavy, them paying the same to gain access for no loss other than cp is 'less fair' than having to pay cp when the super heavy is the same faction.
But when it is the same faction aren’t they getting the benefit of keeping their traits when adding a super heavy? Honestly when you are adding 3 knights it’s a little beyond “allies” since they are over half your army. It’s like claiming that because I do something stupid and put my warlord in my patrol instead of my battalion it costs me CP.
It just seems like detachments are detachments and the rules are standardized to make taking diverse detachments to cover your weakness come at a cost versus just being an all in benefit. I think it is good and while not perfect? Is pretty so,I’d way to do that while not saying “you can’t use this anymore”
ClockworkZion wrote: So 40k app this week, and a bat rep using the box set that reveals the rules for everything in the Indomitus are the big highlights for next week.
And something about stuff coming out "alongside" the Indomitus box.
ohh god my poor wallet!
Some of it will be really mundane, kill team boards need to come back into stock sometime so id hazard a new range of card boards will be announced.
But when it is the same faction aren’t they getting the benefit of keeping their traits when adding a super heavy? Honestly when you are adding 3 knights it’s a little beyond “allies” since they are over half your army. It’s like claiming that because I do something stupid and put my warlord in my patrol instead of my battalion it costs me CP.
It just seems like detachments are detachments and the rules are standardized to make taking diverse detachments to cover your weakness come at a cost versus just being an all in benefit. I think it is good and while not perfect? Is pretty so,I’d way to do that while not saying “you can’t use this anymore”
When you're "adding 3 knights" who also contain your warlord then you aren't adding knights. You're adding something to the knights.
But when it is the same faction aren’t they getting the benefit of keeping their traits when adding a super heavy? Honestly when you are adding 3 knights it’s a little beyond “allies” since they are over half your army. It’s like claiming that because I do something stupid and put my warlord in my patrol instead of my battalion it costs me CP.
It just seems like detachments are detachments and the rules are standardized to make taking diverse detachments to cover your weakness come at a cost versus just being an all in benefit. I think it is good and while not perfect? Is pretty so,I’d way to do that while not saying “you can’t use this anymore”
When you're "adding 3 knights" who also contain your warlord then you aren't adding knights. You're adding something to the knights.
ERJAK wrote: Just make your whole army immune to rend -2. Problem solved.
Do you mean that daemons counter the bikes?
The "just ignore -2" ignores # of shots you have. When you shoot over 100 shots with rerolls you wipe out tons of stuff anyway even if they ignore your asm...One squad of aggressors can basically wipe out 4 squads of VH sisters for exaple with couple bodies to spare. And having just faced marines even basic marines took out my sisters steadily(not helped that their heavy version basically ignored my 6+++ part of VH).
Ice_can wrote: You'd rather peoples entire armiea and codex's were rendered unplayable trash would you?
If they are Knights, then yes. They should be banished to Apoc.
Same for Primarchs and other LoW/Superheavies.
Then you might want to go play Killteam it sounds like it's more the game you want 40k to be.
No, I want 40k to be about Platoon level forces skirmishing like it was in 4th edition, not 3 Giant Robots roflstomping a bunch of infantry who can't hurt it.
Have you considered finding a gaming group that was willing to play to those restrictions?
Broodspawn! How dare you suggest sullying the experience with your "house rules."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: *Sigh* One of the advantages of soup is that it allows a faction to make up for its inherent disadvantages by taking allies who make up for those disadvantages. Guard allies provide knights with screening units that are also good at scoring objectives, two things that knights lack. A faction that lacks super heavys makes up for that disadvantage by adding knights. This is one of the things that makes soup hard to balance. That's why soup should have an additional cost, which it may have but hasn't been revealed yet. Until such information is available we must assume that detachment costs are the price of soup.
Super heavys in factions whose codexes are already written with them being available in mind should be balanced with points, as they already are considering they are already expensive units. If gw insists on using cp to balance them then their points should be lower to compensate. Perhaps they've done this, as the new terrain rules are also a detriment to them. We don't know that either.
This slow drip of information is aggravating.
Given that we do not know the rules for the Supreme Command detachment, and there could be a super heavy slot put in to other places (Brigade was mentioned) I would not be so quick to dismiss superheavies.
I'm 100% fine on there being a 3CP tax of sticking a superheavy, any superheavy, into a list with just 3 troops 2 HQs baseline. That has the potential to allow you to create an extreme skew list at around the 1k points level, and I think the cost of about 1/2 your CPs at that level makes sense.
I think people really heavily overstate the difficulty of getting a brigade going even in an elite faction. There are low-cost options for heavy support, fast attack and elites in pretty much any army that has an in-codex LOW. CSMs can currently get there for about 850-ish points taking low cost options under current points.
the_scotsman wrote: Broodspawn! How dare you suggest sullying the experience with your "house rules."
See, I know you're mocking me, but you're also not wrong. I play by the rules, and that unfortunately means I either play against Knights and have no fun whatsoever while my army is blasted off the board, or immediately concede and now my opponent has no fun. It's a lose-lose.
the_scotsman wrote: Broodspawn! How dare you suggest sullying the experience with your "house rules."
See, I know you're mocking me, but you're also not wrong. I play by the rules, and that unfortunately means I either play against Knights and have no fun whatsoever while my army is blasted off the board, or immediately concede and now my opponent has no fun. It's a lose-lose.
The rules have always been a toolbox, not a mandate, on how you can play the game though.
the_scotsman wrote: Broodspawn! How dare you suggest sullying the experience with your "house rules."
See, I know you're mocking me, but you're also not wrong. I play by the rules, and that unfortunately means I either play against Knights and have no fun whatsoever while my army is blasted off the board, or immediately concede and now my opponent has no fun. It's a lose-lose.
The rules have always been a toolbox, not a mandate, on how you can play the game though.
Aye, but i shouldn't need to replace the hammer handle after i just bought the set now should i?
the_scotsman wrote: Broodspawn! How dare you suggest sullying the experience with your "house rules."
See, I know you're mocking me, but you're also not wrong. I play by the rules, and that unfortunately means I either play against Knights and have no fun whatsoever while my army is blasted off the board, or immediately concede and now my opponent has no fun. It's a lose-lose.
The rules have always been a toolbox, not a mandate, on how you can play the game though.
yet some people claim that small games were impossible to play before 9th as the toolbox did not tell them in detail how to do it
the_scotsman wrote: Broodspawn! How dare you suggest sullying the experience with your "house rules."
See, I know you're mocking me, but you're also not wrong. I play by the rules, and that unfortunately means I either play against Knights and have no fun whatsoever while my army is blasted off the board, or immediately concede and now my opponent has no fun. It's a lose-lose.
The rules have always been a toolbox, not a mandate, on how you can play the game though.
Declaring the rules of a games a "toolbox" has the same ring to it as declaring a car as a "fun hobby project" though...
the_scotsman wrote: Broodspawn! How dare you suggest sullying the experience with your "house rules."
See, I know you're mocking me, but you're also not wrong. I play by the rules, and that unfortunately means I either play against Knights and have no fun whatsoever while my army is blasted off the board, or immediately concede and now my opponent has no fun. It's a lose-lose.
The rules have always been a toolbox, not a mandate, on how you can play the game though.
Declaring the rules of a games a "toolbox" has the same ring to it as declaring a car as a "fun hobby project" though...
Both are just an euphemism for piece of gak
I disagree, but I've always enjoyed homebrewed narrative games as well as RTT events so I have some.bias towards the fact GW has always tried to leave the door open for homebrew.
I have a feeling it'll be pretty painless to include a single LOW in a 2k list, whether that's thru a supreme command, a free slot in a brigade, or Batt+SH Aux for 3CP.
Like, woe is you, previously you could include a SH Aux+Batt and have 8CP, and now you *only* get 9CP+1 per turn! How awful!
You now get more CP than you previously did, and if you're playing that LOW+Batt list against an opponent that previously ran the standard double Batt or Brigade list setup, they end up with fewer CPs to start off. And this is a...nerf for lists that include a LOW, somehow?
the_scotsman wrote: I have a feeling it'll be pretty painless to include a single LOW in a 2k list, whether that's thru a supreme command, a free slot in a brigade, or Batt+SH Aux for 3CP.
Like, woe is you, previously you could include a SH Aux+Batt and have 8CP, and now you *only* get 9CP+1 per turn! How awful!
You now get more CP than you previously did, and if you're playing that LOW+Batt list against an opponent that previously ran the standard double Batt or Brigade list setup, they end up with fewer CPs to start off. And this is a...nerf for lists that include a LOW, somehow?
Probably true for most armies, I could see some exceptions being made for stuff like the Primarchs since being leader characters it doesn't fit to make them negatively impact the army's CP like they do under what we currently know of the rules.
They'll at least zero out the lost CP for their inclusion is my guess.
Thinking of CP, Calgar may not keep his rule as it currently exists. That pr characters who give free CP are likely to see a points hike for said free CP based on how the new edition works.
the_scotsman wrote: I have a feeling it'll be pretty painless to include a single LOW in a 2k list, whether that's thru a supreme command, a free slot in a brigade, or Batt+SH Aux for 3CP.
Like, woe is you, previously you could include a SH Aux+Batt and have 8CP, and now you *only* get 9CP+1 per turn! How awful!
You now get more CP than you previously did, and if you're playing that LOW+Batt list against an opponent that previously ran the standard double Batt or Brigade list setup, they end up with fewer CPs to start off. And this is a...nerf for lists that include a LOW, somehow?
Some armies could force that second battalion plus aux. They'll be at a loss, but I don't weep for that.
Non-Knight superheavies don't usually need a lot of CP (mostly because there isn't much to use on them) so taking one sort of alleviates needing stratagems for a quarter of the army.
UnitPL might be upset, but I'm so glad the cheaper triple superheavies are dead.
Thinking of CP, Calgar may not keep his rule as it currently exists. That pr characters who give free CP are likely to see a points hike for said free CP based on how the new edition works.
There's still going to be lots of CP in the game. The relics will be more relevant again. It's just that the CP isn't all front loaded to get dumped on turns 1 and 2.
I don't know if people recall this, but in the first videos about 9th edition Stu did mention that adding a single Imperial Knight to your Imperial Guard would cost around 1-2 CP.
Now whether that is true or not remains to be seen.
Eldarsif wrote: I don't know if people recall this, but in the first videos about 9th edition Stu did mention that adding a single Imperial Knight to your Imperial Guard would cost around 1-2 CP.
Now whether that is true or not remains to be seen.
I do recall. I figured that was him indicating the cost for "true soup" on top of detachment cost. But with the overwatch thing I think it could just be Stu misremembering some things.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Looks like today will possibly be the rules for models in the box.
ERJAK wrote: Just make your whole army immune to rend -2. Problem solved.
Do you mean that daemons counter the bikes?
The "just ignore -2" ignores # of shots you have. When you shoot over 100 shots with rerolls you wipe out tons of stuff anyway even if they ignore your asm...One squad of aggressors can basically wipe out 4 squads of VH sisters for exaple with couple bodies to spare. And having just faced marines even basic marines took out my sisters steadily(not helped that their heavy version basically ignored my 6+++ part of VH).
No they can't. A squad of 3 aggressors barely kills a full 5 girl squad with doubleshot on average, even with CM rerolls. Unless you're the kind of person that just leaves SoB out in the open it should have taken 6 aggressors to even kill your one chaff unit. (note, that's with the guns, the flamers kill slightly more on average but at that point they've locked themselves into a +3 range, infiltrate/run straight at your face build, which means it really doesn't matter how many they kill because they'll need to fully wipe multiple units to even have a chance to get their points back and considering they telegraph their deployment super hard...it's your fault more than theirs if they succeed.
100 shots with rerolls is 9 sisters per turn. That's 850 points of intercessors to kill 81 points of sisters.
And having just face marines, basic marines can't touch VH sisters of battle without HORRENDOUS save rolls, or ap-3. They'll shred the feth out of your vehicles and things that get out of the VH bubble, but your infantry are incredibly frustrating to take out.
Also, not for nothing but it was a tongue in cheek joke, not an explicit tactical recommendation. You should probably relax a little.
the_scotsman wrote: Broodspawn! How dare you suggest sullying the experience with your "house rules."
See, I know you're mocking me, but you're also not wrong. I play by the rules, and that unfortunately means I either play against Knights and have no fun whatsoever while my army is blasted off the board, or immediately concede and now my opponent has no fun. It's a lose-lose.
The rules have always been a toolbox, not a mandate, on how you can play the game though.
Declaring the rules of a games a "toolbox" has the same ring to it as declaring a car as a "fun hobby project" though...
Both are just an euphemism for piece of gak
I disagree, but I've always enjoyed homebrewed narrative games as well as RTT events so I have some.bias towards the fact GW has always tried to leave the door open for homebrew.
No, it's just them being lazy. Wanting to homebrew is fine, but making it mandatory essentially is bad rules writing. You don't NEED a toolbox that says "okay whatever", you need a toolbox that functions to begin with.
Otherwise, you can literally just make pewpew noises and whoever makes the best noises wins.
the_scotsman wrote: Broodspawn! How dare you suggest sullying the experience with your "house rules."
See, I know you're mocking me, but you're also not wrong. I play by the rules, and that unfortunately means I either play against Knights and have no fun whatsoever while my army is blasted off the board, or immediately concede and now my opponent has no fun. It's a lose-lose.
The rules have always been a toolbox, not a mandate, on how you can play the game though.
Declaring the rules of a games a "toolbox" has the same ring to it as declaring a car as a "fun hobby project" though...
Both are just an euphemism for piece of gak
I disagree, but I've always enjoyed homebrewed narrative games as well as RTT events so I have some.bias towards the fact GW has always tried to leave the door open for homebrew.
No, it's just them being lazy. Wanting to homebrew is fine, but making it mandatory essentially is bad rules writing. You don't NEED a toolbox that says "okay whatever", you need a toolbox that functions to begin with.
Otherwise, you can literally just make pewpew noises and whoever makes the best noises wins.
That's not what I said. No one said homebrew was mandatory, the statement was that homebrew was explicitly permitted so if you wanted to do something different than the core rules you had the permission in the rules to do so which keeps the "but the rules don't allow that!" crowd from having a valid arguement.
Over 6 men units need coherency to 2 models, means conga lines need to be 2 ranks. Coherency is 2" horizontal 5" vertical. On realism, I think 2 lines feels a bit more natural than 1 thin line will look a little less goofy.
You don't need two ranks. Just one line and a triangle in each end. So basically you 'lose' 2 models on a congaline. I appreciate the intent, the wording isn't very efficient though.
ClockworkZion wrote: I hate to tell GW but the new coherency rule, while good, doesn't stop congalines, it just makes them shorter and thicker as they work in two ranks.
It changes nothing really, the dude in the middle has a model 2" to it's left and 2" to it's right so complies with the rule, it's only the ones on the end that need to change
Could be wrong on... the rule.
But at least on the quick flash and bullet points - nah.
You will need to have 2 models at the *ends* of the conga - but in the current rules everyone except those at the end, is in coherency with 2 additional models.
Because (End)-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-(End). The X models should always within coherency of 2 other models.
Now you need a sort of tripod formation at the end - but otherwise its unchanged.
ClockworkZion wrote: I hate to tell GW but the new coherency rule, while good, doesn't stop congalines, it just makes them shorter and thicker as they work in two ranks.
Yes, with one model at each end 2" away from the others. Harder to pull off though.
Unit a 6+ models; must be in 2" coherency with 2 other models + 5" vertically.
Could you not still conga out and then have a triangle at the end?
I like the idea, but it's only going to slightly stop it
If you make conga lines with triangles to circumvent the rule, how are you managing the losses on the unit ?
You would be forced to lose movement and constantly rearrange the formation.
So, what all this doesn't answer for me, still, is:
Why, in 9th edition, would I ever ever ever ever ever ever willingly field a unit of 6 or more god damn models?
What is the point? What is the purpose? You're just signing yourself up for an unending pain train of getting utterly hosed by every single core rule in the game!
Lets say I play Tau. I want to screen my lines with fire warriors. I can either field 4 units of 5 fire warriors, or 1 unit of 20.
If I take 1 unit of 20, here's what I get:
1) Vulnerability to morale. To take a single morale casualty with my 5-man squads, I need to take 4 casualties, then roll SPECIFICALLY a 5 on the morale dice (thanks, Bonding Knife Ritual!).
2) Automatic full hits from every blast weapon.
3) I can only score 1 objective, potentailly giving up 100% of my shooting for the turn if I have to take an "Action" to do it. My 4 squads of 5 can score 4 objectives, or I can take an "action" with one squad and keep 75% of my firepower.
4) Now I have to adhere to the new unit coherency rules
5) A single model getting into engagement range shuts off my whole battle line. My 5-man squads do overwatch exactly the same, but then you only get to engage 1 of my 4 squads if you only have a couple units or say 1 dreadnought or something.
Why in the flying hell would I ever take a unit of 6 or more models in 9th ed? What's the point?
Could you not still conga out and then have a triangle at the end?
I like the idea, but it's only going to slightly stop it
If you make conga lines with triangles to circumvent the rule, how are you managing the losses on the unit ?
You would be forced to lose movement and constantly rearrange the formation.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eradicated double rap meltas if they all shoot the same target.
Not to get too salty here, but that sounds exactly like the kind of thing most other armies get as a stratagem and they get for free.
Obvious comparison would be Helbrute shoot twice stratagem (Where it has to be closest), but I am sure there are other examples
ClockworkZion wrote: Eradicated double rap meltas if they all shoot the same target.
This is insane. They have nerfed melta weapons to the ground when releasing 8th edition.
But for the new shiny primaris marines they want to sell more of, they make a bespoke assault melta gun that outshines multi-meltas.
Freaking overpowered.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eradicated double rap meltas if they all shoot the same target.
Not to get too salty here, but that sounds exactly like the kind of thing most other armies get as a stratagem and they get for free.
Obvious comparison would be Helbrute shoot twice stratagem (Where it has to be closest), but I am sure there are other examples
They have to shoot all three meltas at the same target so it comes in with a restriction. And it actually makes the melta not bad for once.
The Cryptothralls have a much more different stat line than I was expecting. They certainly don't look Strength and Toughness 5, never mind multiwound. The one thing I noticed is that they had both Living Metal and Reanimation Protocols. Can't think of any units that currently have both of these in the current codex.
Darsath wrote: The Cryptothralls have a much more different stat line than I was expecting. They certainly don't look Strength and Toughness 5, never mind multiwound. The one thing I noticed is that they had both Living Metal and Reanimation Protocols. Can't think of any units that currently have both of these in the current codex.
They are also Canoptek with Reanimation Protocols. The living metal leads me to believe that that rule is changing, as it doesn't make much sense on a 2W model as it is now.
Ghaz wrote: Have they covered casualty removal yet? Because if you can knock out the middle of that chain it collapses.
Which raises an interesting question, if you do that, and the unit just skips its move phase, does it matter?
Unit Coherency doesn't seem to matter if the unit never moves, so can you intentionally group up at ends of a conga line, take casualties from the middle of line and just functionally have two separate immobile firebases for the rest of the game?
Say you're trying to cover mutiple objectives or spread out across two pieces of cover, and you just eliminate the ones in the middle that aren't in cover as the unit takes casualties. Does the unit just not care as long as it doesn't move?
---
Usually when a game system dives this deep into unit coherency, they mention that a unit out of coherency must move at the soonest opportunity to restore it.
Why, in 9th edition, would I ever ever ever ever ever ever willingly field a unit of 6 or more god damn models?
What is the point? What is the purpose? You're just signing yourself up for an unending pain train of getting utterly hosed by every single core rule in the game!
Lets say I play Tau. I want to screen my lines with fire warriors. I can either field 4 units of 5 fire warriors, or 1 unit of 20.
If I take 1 unit of 20, here's what I get:
1) Vulnerability to morale. To take a single morale casualty with my 5-man squads, I need to take 4 casualties, then roll SPECIFICALLY a 5 on the morale dice (thanks, Bonding Knife Ritual!).
2) Automatic full hits from every blast weapon.
3) I can only score 1 objective, potentailly giving up 100% of my shooting for the turn if I have to take an "Action" to do it. My 4 squads of 5 can score 4 objectives, or I can take an "action" with one squad and keep 75% of my firepower.
4) Now I have to adhere to the new unit coherency rules
5) A single model getting into engagement range shuts off my whole battle line. My 5-man squads do overwatch exactly the same, but then you only get to engage 1 of my 4 squads if you only have a couple units or say 1 dreadnought or something.
Why in the flying hell would I ever take a unit of 6 or more models in 9th ed? What's the point?
I see where you're coming from, but i think the considerations for taking larger units will vary from faction to faction. I suspect that Orks will still get some sort of morale boost from larger units. Otherwise I think the following are the benefits to larger units:
1) new character targeting rules makes larger units better for character protection - more ablative wounds before the character is exposed.
2) larger units benefit from buffs stratagems more than smaller units.
3) larger units means less slots in the detachment, saving CPs if you can get everything into fewer detachments than taking the same number of models in MSU.
THat's all I've got really. Whether or not this out ways the downsides of large units I think will vary on a case by case basis.
Darsath wrote: 5 power for 3 Eradicators puts them at approx 100 points for 3, or a likely points value of 30-35 points per model.
Hahahahahahahahaahahah.
So, a fire dragon but
2x the range
2x the firepower
3x the wounds
+1T
+1Ld
ATSKNF Combat Doctrines
3x the melee attacks
+1S
for the same price
GW really has been loving the "let's totally invalidte aspect warriors' train recently.
This is really overpowered. How there is any interest in the game when the beloved factions get all the tools, is way better than anyone else, for similar or barely superior prices ?
Darsath wrote: 5 power for 3 Eradicators puts them at approx 100 points for 3, or a likely points value of 30-35 points per model.
Hahahahahahahahaahahah.
So, a fire dragon but
2x the range
2x the firepower
3x the wounds
+1T
+1Ld
ATSKNF Combat Doctrines
3x the melee attacks
+1S
for the same price
GW really has been loving the "let's totally invalidte aspect warriors' train recently.
I am going to make a little Chicken Little prediction: 9th wiill see the first Aspect miniatures phased out of the game. With the current boost on these and their current PL cost it seems Aeldari are about to become a horde army or some units will just be phased out.
Ghaz wrote: Have they covered casualty removal yet? Because if you can knock out the middle of that chain it collapses.
Which raises an interesting question, if you do that, and the unit just skips its move phase, does it matter?
Unit Coherency doesn't seem to matter if the unit never moves, so can you intentionally group up at ends of a conga line, take casualties from the middle of line and just functionally have two separate immobile firebases for the rest of the game?
Say you're trying to cover mutiple objectives or spread out across two pieces of cover, and you just eliminate the ones in the middle that aren't in cover as the unit takes casualties. Does the unit just not care as long as it doesn't move?
The following is a rule from Age of Sigmar, but it could easily be in 9th edition:
SPLIT UNITS At the end of each turn, you must remove models from any of the units in your army that are split up into two or more groups, until only one group of models from the unit remains in play. The models you remove count as having been slain.
Why, in 9th edition, would I ever ever ever ever ever ever willingly field a unit of 6 or more god damn models?
What is the point? What is the purpose? You're just signing yourself up for an unending pain train of getting utterly hosed by every single core rule in the game!
Lets say I play Tau. I want to screen my lines with fire warriors. I can either field 4 units of 5 fire warriors, or 1 unit of 20.
If I take 1 unit of 20, here's what I get:
1) Vulnerability to morale. To take a single morale casualty with my 5-man squads, I need to take 4 casualties, then roll SPECIFICALLY a 5 on the morale dice (thanks, Bonding Knife Ritual!).
2) Automatic full hits from every blast weapon.
3) I can only score 1 objective, potentailly giving up 100% of my shooting for the turn if I have to take an "Action" to do it. My 4 squads of 5 can score 4 objectives, or I can take an "action" with one squad and keep 75% of my firepower.
4) Now I have to adhere to the new unit coherency rules
5) A single model getting into engagement range shuts off my whole battle line. My 5-man squads do overwatch exactly the same, but then you only get to engage 1 of my 4 squads if you only have a couple units or say 1 dreadnought or something.
Why in the flying hell would I ever take a unit of 6 or more models in 9th ed? What's the point?
I see where you're coming from, but i think the considerations for taking larger units will vary from faction to faction. I suspect that Orks will still get some sort of morale boost from larger units. Otherwise I think the following are the benefits to larger units:
1) new character targeting rules makes larger units better for character protection - more ablative wounds before the character is exposed. 2) larger units benefit from buffs stratagems more than smaller units. 3) larger units means less slots in the detachment, saving CPs if you can get everything into fewer detachments than taking the same number of models in MSU.
THat's all I've got really. Whether or not this out ways the downsides of large units I think will vary on a case by case basis.
Also some units, specially horde ones, have bespoken bonuses for being larger.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eradicated double rap meltas if they all shoot the same target.
Not to get too salty here, but that sounds exactly like the kind of thing most other armies get as a stratagem and they get for free.
Obvious comparison would be Helbrute shoot twice stratagem (Where it has to be closest), but I am sure there are other examples
They have to shoot all three meltas at the same target so it comes in with a restriction. And it actually makes the melta not bad for once.
Yeah, not splitting fire is such a restriction for a 3 model unit.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eradicated double rap meltas if they all shoot the same target.
Not to get too salty here, but that sounds exactly like the kind of thing most other armies get as a stratagem and they get for free.
Obvious comparison would be Helbrute shoot twice stratagem (Where it has to be closest), but I am sure there are other examples
They have to shoot all three meltas at the same target so it comes in with a restriction. And it actually makes the melta not bad for once.
Yeah, not splitting fire is such a restriction for a 3 model unit.
Aye, not to mentiont that for not splitting the fire they get a free non-stratagem use ability that other factions have to cut into their strategic reserves
Ghaz wrote: Have they covered casualty removal yet? Because if you can knock out the middle of that chain it collapses.
Which raises an interesting question, if you do that, and the unit just skips its move phase, does it matter?
Unit Coherency doesn't seem to matter if the unit never moves, so can you intentionally group up at ends of a conga line, take casualties from the middle of line and just functionally have two separate immobile firebases for the rest of the game?
Say you're trying to cover mutiple objectives or spread out across two pieces of cover, and you just eliminate the ones in the middle that aren't in cover as the unit takes casualties. Does the unit just not care as long as it doesn't move?
The following is a rule from Age of Sigmar, but it could easily be in 9th edition:
SPLIT UNITS At the end of each turn, you must remove models from any of the units in your army that are split up into two or more groups, until only one group of models from the unit remains in play. The models you remove count as having been slain.
Yeah, that's the kind of thing I mean.
But you'd think that would be in the unit coherency rules themselves, rather than the odd asides about how movement happens in the movement phase, and a slice of the reinforcement rules.
ClockworkZion wrote: Eradicated double rap meltas if they all shoot the same target.
Not to get too salty here, but that sounds exactly like the kind of thing most other armies get as a stratagem and they get for free.
Obvious comparison would be Helbrute shoot twice stratagem (Where it has to be closest), but I am sure there are other examples
They have to shoot all three meltas at the same target so it comes in with a restriction. And it actually makes the melta not bad for once.
These guys are disgusting a MultiMelta is 22 points in 8th these guys are coming in at less points than a multi Melta tac marine in 8th FS with supposedly an avarage increase in points of 20%.
They also get assault not heavy weapons and get free second shot for shooting 3 mekta shots at 1 unit?
I'm sorry but the Marine powercreep is total at this point 12 +22 =34 +10%, 38 these guys are paying less thank a tac marine for a gravis statline.
So pl hints about 35pts. Sob multi melta retributor at 32 pts looks in envy. Half the shots, can't advance, 2 less wounds, 2 less t and bunch of other stats worse.
Only benefit sisters have is 10 pts ablative wounds if you face multidamage weapons
TFW you play GSC and their preview for your faction was how you're going to need to pay CPs to bring allied tyranids and guard, and now you're going to need to adhere to new squad coherency rules, and you pay more points for a stop sign for your aberrant squad leader than marines pay for a power armor wearing Grotesque with a pair of multi-meltas.
Fire Dragons have been crap for a long time, so I don't think they are a great comparison.
A better one is probably a multimelta retributor squad. In current points you get 4 MMs for 138 points I think.
Fire Dragons have been crap for a long time, so I don't think they are a great comparison.
A better one is probably a multimelta retributor squad. In current points you get 4 MMs for 138 points I think.
But who wants 4 shots when you can have 6?
And t5, and W3, and 3 S4 Ap- melee attacks instead of 1 S3 Ws4+ melee attack.
IanVanCheese wrote: Bare in mind points costs have gone up but PL looks unchanged, so these guys might be a bit steeper than 100 pts. They're still insanely good though.
Except they have updated pl's so unless formula changed comparable
People need to stop griping about powercreep. We don't know how PL translates into points for sure yat. I get you're looking for reasons to be mad, but winding up over assumptions seems a bit silly.
ClockworkZion wrote: People need to stop griping about powercreep. We don't know how PL translates into points for sure yat. I get you're looking for reasons to be mad, but winding up over assumptions seems a bit silly.
I do always wonder, do GW pay you for your service or is it a volunteer position?
If these chaps turn out to be cheaper but better than pretty much any of their non-Primaris equivalent anti-armour infantry I will not be surprised in the slightest.
Personally wish that these guys were either range 18-20" and that their double fire was tied to not moving or required them to be under half range, even without the current bonus id rarely split fire them anyway it hardly seems like a drawback.
Think with bikes and these if their PL is somewhat similar I could see marines still being very strong with turn 1 alpha strikes.
ClockworkZion wrote: People need to stop griping about powercreep. We don't know how PL translates into points for sure yat. I get you're looking for reasons to be mad, but winding up over assumptions seems a bit silly.
The WarCom article on Combat Patrol said that 25PL = 500pts, and several of the sample Combat Patrol armies show the same PL as their current cost. There's no reason, so far, to think that PL is changing.
ClockworkZion wrote: People need to stop griping about powercreep. We don't know how PL translates into points for sure yat. I get you're looking for reasons to be mad, but winding up over assumptions seems a bit silly.
Well... I'm afraid unit after unit after unit kind of drag people down.
We don't know what price everything is going to be in the new edition - but for the sake of argument, what price should this be in 8th?
Because as said - it seems you take retributors, and add at least 50% more to that. (You'd still be coming out ahead on toughness, 9 wounds to 7.5, melee potential etc - but ignoring that.)
138*1.5=207.
Divide by 3=69 points per model.
Now if each model was 69 points would we be saying these were overpowered? No, we'd probably be saying they are a bit crap. Too fragile, don't do much damage.
But that's the world comparable units are in.
But the odds of this unit being anything like 207 points seems... rather slim. Unless Power Level has been completely changed.
The suggestion is they could be about half that. Which is where the obnoxiousness comes in.
Fire Dragons, a unit of a NPC faction among others, have became a weak unit that is not even available for purchase from GW since at least five months.
This new eradicator marines are the final nail in the coffin.
ClockworkZion wrote: People need to stop griping about powercreep. We don't know how PL translates into points for sure yat. I get you're looking for reasons to be mad, but winding up over assumptions seems a bit silly.
25 PL is 500 points in 9th as pwr the combat patrol article.
500/25= 1PL=20 points or Less as you round up in PL Right now something about these Prumaris reveals is just either totally wrong, GW have set out to break the game or actually nobody else is actually seeing units go up in points as these guys cost less with more firepower and/or durability of every factions comparable units, (in pre increases 8th edition points)
ClockworkZion wrote: People need to stop griping about powercreep. We don't know how PL translates into points for sure yat. I get you're looking for reasons to be mad, but winding up over assumptions seems a bit silly.
I do always wonder, do GW pay you for your service or is it a volunteer position?
If these chaps turn out to be cheaper but better than pretty much any of their non-Primaris equivalent anti-armour infantry I will not be surprised in the slightest.
Funny. I mean not really, but at least you tried I guess. I have said more times than I care to count that there is always time to call GW out when we know they screwed up. But calling them out for things we assume are screw ups? A waste of time.
Melta was friggin awful in 8th. It was so bad people were arguing that heavy bolters were better anti tank. Doubling the number of shots at a single might be the only way to save it.
5 PL could be anything. It could be 100 points, or 150 points. We can assume that they'll cost roughly 33ppm, but we don't have evidence of that. Heck, we don't even know if they're adding wargear into PL anymore since they're messing with PL right now too.
Howl into the void about how you assume GW is screwing the game up, but don't be shocked if people get tired of listening to kneejerk reactions over assumptions.
I guess this is good news for anyone wanting the boxed set for the Necron models. It should be easy to recoup costs with the Primaris. Bad news for anyone wanting to play the game, though.
Ravajaxe wrote: Fire Dragons, a unit of a NPC faction among others, have became a weak unit that is not even available for purchase from GW since at least five months.
This new eradicator marines are the final nail in the coffin.
FFS GW isn't killing off the Aspects. I'd expect them to see the Banshee update with Ynarii heads before that.
I look forward to Fire Dragons costing 9-10 points per model after this in the new edition. Which probably means Defender Guardians are going to be 6-7 points. We can probably call them the Aeldari Militarum at this point.
I think the one thing that pushes Eradicators over the edge is their Double-shooting special ability. It should probably have some additional limitation (such as only vs Vehicles, or only in half range etc).
Ravajaxe wrote: Fire Dragons, a unit of a NPC faction among others, have became a weak unit that is not even available for purchase from GW since at least five months.
This new eradicator marines are the final nail in the coffin.
FFS GW isn't killing off the Aspects. I'd expect them to see the Banshee update with Ynarii heads before that.
I hope you're right and we do see the Xeno's adjusted somewhat, but it sure smarts to see a visually smaller, more puny version of a Multimelta outperform a multimelta.
ClockworkZion wrote: People need to stop griping about powercreep. We don't know how PL translates into points for sure yat. I get you're looking for reasons to be mad, but winding up over assumptions seems a bit silly.
I do always wonder, do GW pay you for your service or is it a volunteer position?
If these chaps turn out to be cheaper but better than pretty much any of their non-Primaris equivalent anti-armour infantry I will not be surprised in the slightest.
Funny. I mean not really, but at least you tried I guess. I have said more times than I care to count that there is always time to call GW out when we know they screwed up. But calling them out for things we assume are screw ups? A waste of time.
Melta was friggin awful in 8th. It was so bad people were arguing that heavy bolters were better anti tank. Doubling the number of shots at a single might be the only way to save it.
5 PL could be anything. It could be 100 points, or 150 points. We can assume that they'll cost roughly 33ppm, but we don't have evidence of that. Heck, we don't even know if they're adding wargear into PL anymore since they're messing with PL right now too.
Howl into the void about how you assume GW is screwing the game up, but don't be shocked if people get tired of listening to kneejerk reactions over assumptions.
They look like the AV version of aggressors (which have the same power level for a 3 man squad). Aggressors are 37pmm base so these guys are probably going to just as expensive I would guess, maybe more. Also 37pmm was not even aggressors original pt cost, they were 43pmm with the first codex in 8th. So these new models are probably going to be closer to 40+ pts per model especially since 9th is increasing pt costs across the board.
Did they take down the article people were getting these things from? I'm not seeing it on the warhammer community site.
On the power level thing, the only thing that makes sense is if that's the base power level for the unit without weapons, and that the melta rifle costs additional power level points. Now I have no idea why they would do that...but it's the only thing that makes sense.
I have been on the "GW deliberately overpowers things to sell models" train in the past, but 100 points for 3 of these would be absolutely ridiculous even for a GW release designed to sell models.
ClockworkZion wrote: People need to stop griping about powercreep. We don't know how PL translates into points for sure yat. I get you're looking for reasons to be mad, but winding up over assumptions seems a bit silly.
I do always wonder, do GW pay you for your service or is it a volunteer position?
If these chaps turn out to be cheaper but better than pretty much any of their non-Primaris equivalent anti-armour infantry I will not be surprised in the slightest.
Funny. I mean not really, but at least you tried I guess. I have said more times than I care to count that there is always time to call GW out when we know they screwed up. But calling them out for things we assume are screw ups? A waste of time.
Melta was friggin awful in 8th. It was so bad people were arguing that heavy bolters were better anti tank. Doubling the number of shots at a single might be the only way to save it.
5 PL could be anything. It could be 100 points, or 150 points. We can assume that they'll cost roughly 33ppm, but we don't have evidence of that. Heck, we don't even know if they're adding wargear into PL anymore since they're messing with PL right now too.
Howl into the void about how you assume GW is screwing the game up, but don't be shocked if people get tired of listening to kneejerk reactions over assumptions.
Meltas have been translated into a weak weapon in 8th for all the armies.
So is the solution to make one army SM primaris, have an access to a bespoke weapon with twice the range, twice the shots, for only 5 PL and call it a day ?
Because that's we have now.
Compare the Eradicators to Tau crisis (with 18" range meltas), for 12 PL, and you will understand there is something very wrong with GW's policy regarding primaris.
And they have previewed that the Patrol armies in the launch box amount for 25 PL, roughly 500 points.
So the ratio we alredy had for powerlevel seems unchanged : 1 PL = ~20 points.
Eldarsif wrote: I look forward to Fire Dragons costing 9-10 points per model after this in the new edition. Which probably means Defender Guardians are going to be 6-7 points. We can probably call them the Aeldari Militarum at this point.
good luck my cultists are 6 pts confirmed guardians are prob gonna be 12
ClockworkZion wrote: People need to stop griping about powercreep. We don't know how PL translates into points for sure yat. I get you're looking for reasons to be mad, but winding up over assumptions seems a bit silly.
I do always wonder, do GW pay you for your service or is it a volunteer position?
If these chaps turn out to be cheaper but better than pretty much any of their non-Primaris equivalent anti-armour infantry I will not be surprised in the slightest.
I appreciate both sides of the argument. There's still some stuff we don't know, but at the same time there seems to be little room to maneuver for these to make sense.
PL is still 20 points, so these guys are just too cheap. I get that it can be hard to balance a small unit - if I point my Armiger at them they're going to lose two models pretty easily, but double tap is a bit much. They kill any T7 vehicle (no rerolls even) without an invulnerable and that's just stupid good.
I subsequently cancelled my pre-order with my FLGS and sent an email to GW about it. I'll sit on my hands and wait for the rest to pop up before I commit money.
The PL for the eradictors does seem very low, but it could be that when the multipart models are released they have a different weapon option that’s cheaper in points. As we all know, PL doesn’t account for different options, so it might be that the points with the new melta guns is higher than the straight translation of PL x 20 = pts.
Eldarsif wrote: I look forward to Fire Dragons costing 9-10 points per model after this in the new edition. Which probably means Defender Guardians are going to be 6-7 points. We can probably call them the Aeldari Militarum at this point.
good luck my cultists are 6 pts confirmed guardians are prob gonna be 12
You are thinking too small. Obviously Guardians are superior ancient race so Guardians are probably going to be 20 points.
Aash wrote: The PL for the eradictors does seem very low, but it could be that when the multipart models are released they have a different weapon option that’s cheaper in points. As we all know, PL doesn’t account for different options, so it might be that the points with the new melta guns is higher than the straight translation of PL x 20 = pts.
No, the unit datasheet shows that there are no weapon options. Eradicators come with the bespoke melta rifle and cost only 5 PL, so ~100 points only for that profile.
ClockworkZion wrote: People need to stop griping about powercreep. We don't know how PL translates into points for sure yat. I get you're looking for reasons to be mad, but winding up over assumptions seems a bit silly.
I do always wonder, do GW pay you for your service or is it a volunteer position?
If these chaps turn out to be cheaper but better than pretty much any of their non-Primaris equivalent anti-armour infantry I will not be surprised in the slightest.
I appreciate both sides of the argument. There's still some stuff we don't know, but at the same time there seems to be little room to maneuver for these to make sense.
PL is still 20 points, so these guys are just too cheap. I get that it can be hard to balance a small unit - if I point my Armiger at them they're going to lose two models pretty easily, but double tap is a bit much. They kill any T7 vehicle (no rerolls even) without an invulnerable and that's just stupid good.
I subsequently cancelled my pre-order with my FLGS and sent an email to GW about it. I'll sit on my hands and wait for the rest to pop up before I commit money.
The main problem with the Eradicators if we want to nitpick is that they are prime targets for high damage weapons. With 3 wounds you are more likely to get your damage output's worth compared to shooting something that has 1 wound. If I shoot a dissie at a Defender Guardian I am more or less always losing out on inflicting 1 damage with each shot, whereas with these Eradijokers I lose 1 damage output on every 2 shots.
Again, this only applies if you want to find any fault at all with the unit.
Aash wrote: The PL for the eradictors does seem very low, but it could be that when the multipart models are released they have a different weapon option that’s cheaper in points. As we all know, PL doesn’t account for different options, so it might be that the points with the new melta guns is higher than the straight translation of PL x 20 = pts.
This is the only hope, but unfortunately I really doubt it is the case.
yukishiro1 wrote: Did they take down the article people were getting these things from? I'm not seeing it on the warhammer community site.
On the power level thing, the only thing that makes sense is if that's the base power level for the unit without weapons, and that the melta rifle costs additional power level points. Now I have no idea why they would do that...but it's the only thing that makes sense.
I have been on the "GW deliberately overpowers things to sell models" train in the past, but 100 points for 3 of these would be absolutely ridiculous even for a GW release designed to sell models.
GW knows PL needs to be tweaked as it didn't work long term in 8th due to never being rebalance. I sincerely hope they wised up and at put more levers into PL so it can see better adjustment.
ClockworkZion wrote: People need to stop griping about powercreep. We don't know how PL translates into points for sure yat. I get you're looking for reasons to be mad, but winding up over assumptions seems a bit silly.
I do always wonder, do GW pay you for your service or is it a volunteer position?
If these chaps turn out to be cheaper but better than pretty much any of their non-Primaris equivalent anti-armour infantry I will not be surprised in the slightest.
I appreciate both sides of the argument. There's still some stuff we don't know, but at the same time there seems to be little room to maneuver for these to make sense.
PL is still 20 points, so these guys are just too cheap. I get that it can be hard to balance a small unit - if I point my Armiger at them they're going to lose two models pretty easily, but double tap is a bit much. They kill any T7 vehicle (no rerolls even) without an invulnerable and that's just stupid good.
I subsequently cancelled my pre-order with my FLGS and sent an email to GW about it. I'll sit on my hands and wait for the rest to pop up before I commit money.
The main problem with the Eradicators if we want to nitpick is that they are prime targets for high damage weapons. With 3 wounds you are more likely to get your damage output's worth compared to shooting something that has 1 wound. If I shoot a dissie at a Defender Guardian I am more or less always losing out on inflicting 1 damage with each shot, whereas with these Eradijokers I lose 1 damage output on every 2 shots.
=
Again, this only applies if you want to find any fault at all with the unit.
The unit coherency rule is a total mess. Not only can you get around it with the two triangles...but it really cripples units of 6 with large bases, particularly if they have low movement values. Try playing around with it yourself on a table if you don't believe me. Maneuvering a unit of 6 40mm or especially 60mm models so that every one of them stays within 2" of another two is very difficult. It's not about conga-lining - just about moving them the way you'd normally like to move them, particularly if there's any terrain or especially enemy models limiting your options. You are frequently not going to be able to make the move you want to make because of the coherency rules. Threading between two enemy units becomes almost impossible, for example.
So the rule doesn't prevent what it's trying to prevent, while crippling units it shouldn't cripple.
All it really does is mean nobody will ever take units of 6 no matter what. Which weren't an issue for conga lines in the first place, so why they decided to set the limit at 6 models, I have no idea. Why not 11?
ClockworkZion wrote: People need to stop griping about powercreep. We don't know how PL translates into points for sure yat. I get you're looking for reasons to be mad, but winding up over assumptions seems a bit silly.
I do always wonder, do GW pay you for your service or is it a volunteer position?
If these chaps turn out to be cheaper but better than pretty much any of their non-Primaris equivalent anti-armour infantry I will not be surprised in the slightest.
Funny. I mean not really, but at least you tried I guess. I have said more times than I care to count that there is always time to call GW out when we know they screwed up. But calling them out for things we assume are screw ups? A waste of time.
Melta was friggin awful in 8th. It was so bad people were arguing that heavy bolters were better anti tank. Doubling the number of shots at a single might be the only way to save it.
5 PL could be anything. It could be 100 points, or 150 points. We can assume that they'll cost roughly 33ppm, but we don't have evidence of that. Heck, we don't even know if they're adding wargear into PL anymore since they're messing with PL right now too.
Howl into the void about how you assume GW is screwing the game up, but don't be shocked if people get tired of listening to kneejerk reactions over assumptions.
Meltas have been translated into a weak weapon in 8th for all the armies.
So is the solution to make one army SM primaris, have an access to a bespoke weapon with twice the range, twice the shots, for only 5 PL and call it a day ?
Because that's we have now.
Compare the Eradicators to Tau crisis (with 18" range meltas), for 12 PL, and you will understand there is something very wrong with GW's policy regarding primaris.
And they have previewed that the Patrol armies in the launch box amount for 25 PL, roughly 500 points.
So the ratio we alredy had for powerlevel seems unchanged : 1 PL = ~20 points.
And do we know if GW has left Fire Dragons out in the cold, or are we assuming things?
We know FAQs and points changes are coming. We don't know anything about what's in them.
yukishiro1 wrote: Did they take down the article people were getting these things from? I'm not seeing it on the warhammer community site.
On the power level thing, the only thing that makes sense is if that's the base power level for the unit without weapons, and that the melta rifle costs additional power level points. Now I have no idea why they would do that...but it's the only thing that makes sense.
I have been on the "GW deliberately overpowers things to sell models" train in the past, but 100 points for 3 of these would be absolutely ridiculous even for a GW release designed to sell models.
GW making things OP to sell models is like my biggest pet peeve argument. I think they just wanted something to make the unit special and forgot to check themselves.
On the power level thing, the only thing that makes sense is if that's the base power level for the unit without weapons, and that the melta rifle costs additional power level points.
Doesn't quite make sense. It could be possible that weapons are no longer considered in PL, but then....I don't know. Just doesn't make sense yet.
The main problem with the Eradicators if we want to nitpick is that they are prime targets for high damage weapons. With 3 wounds you are more likely to get your damage output's worth compared to shooting something that has 1 wound. If I shoot a dissie at a Defender Guardian I am more or less always losing out on inflicting 1 damage with each shot, whereas with these Eradijokers I lose 1 damage output on every 2 shots.
Again, this only applies if you want to find any fault at all with the unit.
But they will be in an army full of similar models, so it doesn't work like that. I get what you mean if they were part of an army full of 1w models, but they will be part of an army where 2 wounds is likely the minimum and bikes etc will be on 4 wounds.
I have been very positive about this 9th edition and I thin k the edition itself is looking great, but the Space Marines are looking very far from balanced compared to other factions
Aash wrote: The PL for the eradictors does seem very low, but it could be that when the multipart models are released they have a different weapon option that’s cheaper in points. As we all know, PL doesn’t account for different options, so it might be that the points with the new melta guns is higher than the straight translation of PL x 20 = pts.
That actually sounds about right. If they have heavy bolter and flamer equives it'd muck PL right up with how GW currently does it.
Aash wrote: The PL for the eradictors does seem very low, but it could be that when the multipart models are released they have a different weapon option that’s cheaper in points. As we all know, PL doesn’t account for different options, so it might be that the points with the new melta guns is higher than the straight translation of PL x 20 = pts.
No, the unit datasheet shows that there are no weapon options. Eradicators come with the bespoke melta rifle and cost only 5 PL, so ~100 points only for that profile.
This is probably the Datasheet included in the box. The Dark Imperium versions of the Intercessors, Inceptors, and Hellblasters didn't include their alternate weapon options either. The same was true for Eliminators and Infiltrators in Shadowspear.
Why would dissies get the blast rule? They aren't variable shots and never had templates. Only thing I expect to get the blast rule in Drukhari forces is the Shredder and Flyer missiles.
Aash wrote: The PL for the eradictors does seem very low, but it could be that when the multipart models are released they have a different weapon option that’s cheaper in points. As we all know, PL doesn’t account for different options, so it might be that the points with the new melta guns is higher than the straight translation of PL x 20 = pts.
This is the only hope, but unfortunately I really doubt it is the case.
Just a note - PLdid consider weapons. It just averaged the overall possible upgrades. Things like Deathwatch had a really low relative PL, because their base was cheap and they had a ton of potential upgrades.
The main problem with the Eradicators if we want to nitpick is that they are prime targets for high damage weapons. With 3 wounds you are more likely to get your damage output's worth compared to shooting something that has 1 wound. If I shoot a dissie at a Defender Guardian I am more or less always losing out on inflicting 1 damage with each shot, whereas with these Eradijokers I lose 1 damage output on every 2 shots.
Again, this only applies if you want to find any fault at all with the unit.
But they will be in an army full of similar models, so it doesn't work like that. I get what you mean if they were part of an army full of 1w models, but they will be part of an army where 2 wounds is likely the minimum and bikes etc will be on 4 wounds.
I have been very positive about this 9th edition and I thin k the edition itself is looking great, but the Space Marines are looking very far from balanced compared to other factions
I agree on every note. I am personally super pumped for 9th except with this little speed bump that was revealed. My earlier post was just me trying desperately to find fault even if that fault is very minimal compared to what they represent.
the_scotsman wrote: ....I do assume dissies won't get blast, because they aren't a random shot weapon.
What?
Maybe i'm a little rusty. I'm sure disintegrators used to have a template, so would would be more effective at larger unit groups. I was trying to make the point that those redundant blasts might be less of a problem in 9th. They'd be good vs the Primaris as well as lighter infantry.
ClockworkZion wrote: People need to stop griping about powercreep. We don't know how PL translates into points for sure yat. I get you're looking for reasons to be mad, but winding up over assumptions seems a bit silly.
Lol okay it's proven. You are just trolling trying to start a fight. Gw has already shown pl to point ratio stays same. There's no reason whatsoever. So either you are incapable of reading simple english and doing simple math or you are deliberately ignoring that just to start a fight.
the_scotsman wrote: ....I do assume dissies won't get blast, because they aren't a random shot weapon.
What?
Maybe i'm a little rusty. I'm sure disintegrators used to have a template, so would would be more effective at larger unit groups. I was trying to make the point that those redundant blasts might be less of a problem in 9th. They'd be good vs the Primaris as well as lighter infantry.
Must be long ago. At least as far back as fifth edition, they've just been 3 shots (though they used to be heavy). Fluff-wise, it's the Dark Eldar Plasma-Cannon.
ClockworkZion wrote: People need to stop griping about powercreep. We don't know how PL translates into points for sure yat. I get you're looking for reasons to be mad, but winding up over assumptions seems a bit silly.
Lol okay it's proven. You are just trolling trying to start a fight. Gw has already shown pl to point ratio stays same. There's no reason whatsoever. So either you are incapable of reading simple english and doing simple math or you are deliberately ignoring that just to start a fight.
Which it is?
Or a third option: I was so annoyed I posted without thinking because I saw stuff like "GW is going to get rid of aspect warriors" along with this mess.
As someone else pointed out: PL is an average of all options, which means these guys could still clock in over 40ppm with their meltas even if they average 33.333333333333333333ppm with whatever options not included on this sprue.
We lack a whole picture and I just got tired every single scrap of information being treated as a complete picture into the new edition and damning evidence that GW has ruined 40k.
There is always time to call GW when we have the full info in hand. Calling them put over assumptions though? Then we're just jumping at shadows.
The issue with pointing 3-damage weapons at Eradicators is that they can easily be supported by a Chief Apothecary or be Iron Hands.
If Iron Hands, a 3 damage weapon has just shy of a 60% chance of one-shotting them.
If supported by a Chief Apothecary, it drops to less than a 30% chance.
This new rule did quite literally nothing except prevent coherency from ground level to 2nd floor of standard 3" floor ruins.
Not true. It certainly makes AdMech players think hard about brining 6 Ballistari instead of 5
Yeah it's a massive mess of a rule that prevents 6 man units of stuff with large bases from moving in very natural ways, crippling those units compared to the same unit with 5 models instead.
I encourage everyone to put down some 40 or 60mm bases on a table and try moving them around with terrain and enemy models to limit your movement options, to realize just how much of a mess this rule is. There are all sorts of times you will want to make a completely normal move - nothing like a conga line - and simply not be able to do so because of the arbitrary nerf to coherency you take from a 6th model.
ClockworkZion wrote: People need to stop griping about powercreep. We don't know how PL translates into points for sure yat. I get you're looking for reasons to be mad, but winding up over assumptions seems a bit silly.
Lol okay it's proven. You are just trolling trying to start a fight. Gw has already shown pl to point ratio stays same. There's no reason whatsoever. So either you are incapable of reading simple english and doing simple math or you are deliberately ignoring that just to start a fight.
Which it is?
You clearly have anger issues. Are you angry at the unit cost, that someone is less angry than you, or something else in life?
ClockworkZion wrote: People need to stop griping about powercreep. We don't know how PL translates into points for sure yat. I get you're looking for reasons to be mad, but winding up over assumptions seems a bit silly.
Lol okay it's proven. You are just trolling trying to start a fight. Gw has already shown pl to point ratio stays same. There's no reason whatsoever. So either you are incapable of reading simple english and doing simple math or you are deliberately ignoring that just to start a fight.
Which it is?
Or a third option: I was so annoyed I posted without thinking because I saw stuff like "GW is going to get rid of aspect warriors" along with this mess.
As someone else pointed out: PL is an average of all options, which means these guys could still clock in over 40ppm with their meltas even if they average 33.333333333333333333ppm with whatever options not included on this sprue.
We lack a whole picture and I just got tired every single scrap of information being treated as a complete picture into the new edition and damning evidence that GW has ruined 40k.
There is always time to call GW when we have the full info in hand. Calling them put over assumptions though? Then we're just jumping at shadows.
I completely agree that criticising GW for something that may potentially happen is foolish and a waste of time. That said, the datasheet shows no options so has no potential for averaging. We can also compare 5PL of 9th with 5PL of 8th with the context of points increasing for 9th. One would expect in that context that the 5PL 9th unit be underpowered or equal to the 5PL 8th unit, but this is clearly not the case as has been evidenced several times in this thread.
I think it is fine to caveat that, as things stand these appear to be very powerful for their PL.
ClockworkZion wrote: People need to stop griping about powercreep. We don't know how PL translates into points for sure yat. I get you're looking for reasons to be mad, but winding up over assumptions seems a bit silly.
Lol okay it's proven. You are just trolling trying to start a fight. Gw has already shown pl to point ratio stays same. There's no reason whatsoever. So either you are incapable of reading simple english and doing simple math or you are deliberately ignoring that just to start a fight.
Which it is?
Or a third option: I was so annoyed I posted without thinking because I saw stuff like "GW is going to get rid of aspect warriors" along with this mess.
As someone else pointed out: PL is an average of all options, which means these guys could still clock in over 40ppm with their meltas even if they average 33.333333333333333333ppm with whatever options not included on this sprue.
We lack a whole picture and I just got tired every single scrap of information being treated as a complete picture into the new edition and damning evidence that GW has ruined 40k.
There is always time to call GW when we have the full info in hand. Calling them put over assumptions though? Then we're just jumping at shadows.
I completely agree that criticising GW for something that may potentially happen is foolish and a waste of time. That said, the datasheet shows no options so has no potential for averaging. We can also compare 5PL of 9th with 5PL of 8th with the context of points increasing for 9th. One would expect in that context that the 5PL 9th unit be underpowered or equal to the 5PL 8th unit, but this is clearly not the case as has been evidenced several times in this thread.
I think it is fine to caveat that, as things stand these appear to be very powerful for their PL.
GW has withheld information before.
Heck Eliminators had a gun option missing when they came out in the original set, but the PL already reflected their full options AFAIK.
I really am curious as to what there will be to encourage anyone from going to a 6-man squad from a 5-man squad.
Right now, it seems like GW has created yet another one of their trademark weird break points like the ~300 point "you're a superheavy now so you can ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY SLAM DUNK on anything that costs 299 points" from 7th ed or "You're a Character with 10 wounds so now you get INSTANTLY HOSED TURN 1" from 8th.
"Hey there little jimmy, hows your space marine collection coming?"
"Pwetty good mister GW, I'm just thinking I'll take my skwad of terminatows and add just oooone moooore moooodel..."
"Oh no, little jimmy, looks like you've added a sixth member to your squad! Now you give up double the PL in our new Kill Points system, you have to keep your unit bunched up, blast weapons get automatic 3 shots on you, your unit costs twice as much to place into reserves, and our newest previewed rule comes into effect: Smash The Enemy Hordes! That means your opponent is allowed to take a hammer and smash your models into little bits if they successfully destroy your whole squad of 6 or more models!"
Latro_ wrote: not sure what cryptothralls are trying to be? meh CC troops and a support unit for a character you prob dont want in combat..
They're pretty damn good at melee. And that's probably the point - you have them so he isn't in combat.
Yeah, 40 points is pretty cheap to protect a character... assuming the character itself is worth protecting. It rides on how worth it cryptkes/plamancers are, but so far these seem like pretty effiecient little murderbots. 6 attacks is already more than any current necron model has.
you 
