We seem to have had enough time to sort out some of the strongest units in 8th now. Please vote for the TOP THREE strongest units FOR THEIR POINTS COST.and we'll see what dakka thinks!
I've tried to include at least something from each faction, and have been largely led by what people are spamming in the ETC. I've grouped a couple of units with similar battlefield roles or are usually found together. I'm afraid I'm not going to include forgeworld in this, as I'm not familiar with many of the models outside the guard ones.
I'm sure I'll have left some strong options out, so let me know if I have. Necrons seem pretty well balanced to me - I wasn't sure of any standout units for them!
Tau Commander, gun drones, and gulliman. Look at the bao day 1 results. Tau commanders for days. In this case I do approve a nerf to them, but on the flip side I want to see some buffs put out to the other non-viable anti-tank units in our army and rejiggering.
I'll wait until the BAO is completely over before giving my final judgements on what I think needs to happen for Tau balance. Probably not as crazy as everyone thinks either.
Well conscripts, guilliman and stormravens are nosing ahead as the most undercosted units in the game.
It's a bit depressing that GW had the option to adjust 2/3 of these in the last codex and chose not to. I know they vetoed full armies of stormravens, but it doesn't stop people using a LOT of them in a list.
These are the only real OP things in 8th edition. Maybe brimstones too, but there aren't many tzeentch players and if you use only original models I don't think there will be a huge spam of this little guys since they are very expensive in masses and not that common in the used market.
Why is Harker up there?
Is his +1 AP Assault Heavy Bolter REALLY that broken?
Even if it is a little above the curve, it's not like he can do THAT much in 5-6 turns.
Why is Harker up there?
Is his +1 AP Assault Heavy Bolter REALLY that broken?
Even if it is a little above the curve, it's not like he can do THAT much in 5-6 turns.
People use him as a source of reroll 1 for everything in AM armies.
Because conscripts or commissars on their own aren't that strong, and you're unlikely to see conscripts without a commissar. If there's any other similar combos out there then I'd include them too.
Harker can give re rolling ones to a huge amount of artillery at a time. Ive seen a bunch of competitive lists use him. He is particularly well with manticores and other artillery tanks. His heavy bolter is just a small bonus.
Conscripts - They do everything you need troops to do, cheaper, more efficiently, with more wounds, and the moment you add a commissar to them (which you will), they do it more effectively.
Securing Objectives? Bodies
Taking hits? Wounds
Not running from battleshock? Commissar.
Prevent Deepstrike? Huge board presence.
Overwatch? Same BS as any other troops in overwatch, but more bullets.
Add Psychic barrier to their mix, and Celestine as an HQ, and now they do all that stuff they do the best, even better.
Guilliman - His stat line is amazing (He is a primarch). He gives you the same command points as a Battalion, so just taking him solo is often cost efficient. His invuln is off the chart. His weapons somehow got gene-seeded themselves to be that pimp.
Not just his own stats and CP, but his force multiplication is fething incredible, rerolls for days, oh and if you don't feel like shooting, than just go ahead and get more rerolls for assault troops.
And they squeaked him in at 9 wounds to get him around being targetted. Oh, everything somehow went perfect, and he failed 9 saves on a 2+/3++, after you spent most of your army trying to move to a place you could actually shoot him?? Annnnd... he's Celestine. No Slay the Warlord for you.
So, a statline of a stumpy Imperial Knight, including weapons, with better saves. Can't be directly targeted with proper positioning, re-rolling shooting, re-rolling assault, and re-rolling morale for pretty much everyone around him, and resurrects.... gotta be damn near 500 pts right?
Nope. 360.
The last one was a tossup between Stormraven and Brimstone for me. I put Stormraven for now, because I don't think the Flyer FAQ really solved the problem they presented of incredible mobility, more guns than god, and penalties to being shot at. But there's a good case for Brimstone spam providing many of the same benefits as Conscripts... but with smite.
DoomMouse wrote: Well conscripts, guilliman and stormravens are nosing ahead as the most undercosted units in the game.
It's a bit depressing that GW had the option to adjust 2/3 of these in the last codex and chose not to. I know they vetoed full armies of stormravens, but it doesn't stop people using a LOT of them in a list.
I think that's because people are voting based on early experience with Storm Ravens or just the fact that the campaign and codex drop is making Space Marines more prominent.
But Brimstone Horrors should definitely be in the top 3 instead, not 4th. It's 2 pts for a model that has a 4+ invuln save. With Changeling making them hard to shoot at and Daemon Prince making them shoot better. Not bad for a unit that can spam full strength Smites 1/3 of the time.
Barring the HQ tax (lol, HQ tax... serious) I can run like 1500 points of Brimstones. If I wanted to focus just on how broken the Brimstones are then let's leave out the Blue Horror casters for now (they don't explode casting smite).
10-model units of Brimstones are 20 pts each. I can field 75 squads of them. Sure, they explode when casting smite, but I have 10 in each squad and their saves are amazing.
75 squads can cast Smite an average of 25 times in a single turn at the cost of a 2pt model each.
That Smite will do an average of 2 MORTAL wounds each and probably kill back its points easily (even against OTHER BRIMSTONES).
25 * 2 = 50 no save automatic wounds spread across your army, albeit at whatever happens to be the closest model at the time of each casting (but with 25 castings... who cares?)
I'd probably go with Girlyman as the main offender.
I'm reluctant to call Conscripts "most powerful", because they're really not.
Don't get me wrong - I think that with Commissar and Commander support they bring a bit too much to the table for their cost.
However, one thing they really don't bring is actual power. All they really bring is a lot of cheap bodies to protect the units in your army that actually do the work.
I don't really need to explain Conscripts and Brimstones, but I want to actually bring up Cawl.
Not only is he a better purchase than the regular priest based in durability alone, his aura is so much better and he basically lets you choose your Canticles. It doesn't seem too powerful until you realize AdMech armies crumble without him. Does that make all those things overcosted, or is Cawl just too good? Time will tell.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I don't really need to explain Conscripts and Brimstones, but I want to actually bring up Cawl.
Not only is he a better purchase than the regular priest based in durability alone, his aura is so much better and he basically lets you choose your Canticles. It doesn't seem too powerful until you realize AdMech armies crumble without him. Does that make all those things overcosted, or is Cawl just too good? Time will tell.
Cawl constantly seems like for 250 pt's, he's a decently fair HQ (the Tech Dom's are overpriced tax, so Cawl becomes pretty mandatory).
The issue is, Ad Mech armies crumble without him, because Ad Mech armies are just Cawl, Kastelan, and Onagers sitting in a pile. No other units are really worthwhile to take at all over just subbing things in from other Armies.
Without him, Kastelan and Onagers are above average in strength, for sure, but can't really carry a game by themselves as they sit in one spot the whole time.
Which makes me think that Cawl's not "too good". The rest of the army is just "not good", and his multiplier added to two units that can take advantage of it is the only thing keeping the whole army out of the garbage.
I voted for Scions, Daemon Princes and Stormravens.
Scions: They get a "Deep Strike" rule that puts them within double tap range of a plasmagun with no risk, and said plasmaguns only cost 7 points and shoot just as accurately as those of Space Marines. Crazy.
Daemon Princes: 180 points gets you a 12" moving, Smite-throwing powerhouse that gets a huge number of high-strength attacks and gets to reroll not only his own attacks but those of other units nearby. Just nuts. They wouldn't be as good if they weren't so easily spammable though.
Stormravens: Probably not as good with the rule change for flyers and tabling, but still very very nasty for their points.
Storm Raven is a given, a proper high power beat stick with huge amounts of dakka and is still powerful after the Nerf that really only stopped them being spammed. The problem is that they are too powerful for the points. Upping their base points (or making their guns cost more) would be more beneficial.
Castellian Robots are HILARIOUSLY undercosted for their points. 18 S6 -2AP ignore cover shots? How is that even remotely balanced? Add in the fact that it's only just over 100pts for this, you'll soon see this stuff spammed until the end of time.
Cawl. Simply put, the best all round HQ in the game. Offers so much and gives it aplenty. Girlyman is powerful. But Cawl is simply better at synergy. Add in the fact Cawl can use transports and is much easier to hide (I.e. isn't such a beacon of attracting Lascannon shots) you end up with a beastly HQ.
Freddy Kruger wrote: Cawl. Simply put, the best all round HQ in the game. Offers so much and gives it aplenty. Girlyman is powerful. But Cawl is simply better at synergy. Add in the fact Cawl can use transports and is much easier to hide (I.e. isn't such a beacon of attracting Lascannon shots) you end up with a beastly HQ.
They are both characters with below 10 wounds so they shouldn't be targetable by lascannons as long as you put another unit in front of them, which should be always.
What transport can Cawl legally enter that doesn't prevent it due to his Keywords (the same as the rest of the Ad Mech army that is currently transportless due to other armies transports specifically restricting their carrying capacity to keywords)
I'd also like to nominate another unit for the list that should have been there from the start.
Malefic Lord. The stats really don't matter. It's a 30pt psyker who can cast Smite and has a 4+ invulnerable. Plus when he perils he becomes as fighty as a Daemon Prince.
There's even a detachment of only HQs. You can field as many of these guys as you want and call it an army while getting REWARDED FOR IT with tons of command points. The ones that peril will become your melee death machines.
Sorry, as stated in OP I'm not going to include forge world in this. Maybe in another thread at a later date, but I just can't be bothered to trawl every single miscosted forgeworld abomination. Just out of guard I'd have to include vultures, cyclops vehicles, earthshaker batteries and death corps engineers off the top of my head. Most people have never played against them so I don't think they'd score particularly highly either.
BAO's first three rounds resulted in the following undefeated players/lists:
Your Top 15 undefeated factions and players: I decided to list the style of list instead of just the faction. There are a lot more intricacies to a lot of these lists, but most people condense a well-tuned list into one easy to understand concept anyways. So I did it for you guys.
Dustin Lane (9 Commander Suit Tau)
Doug Johnson (Imperium Soup)
Brandon Grant (Astra Militarum Hoard Guard)
Tony Myers (Space Marine Flyers and Guilliman)
Aaron Hayden (Renegane Knights + Magnus + Brimstones)
Adam Gati (Craftworld Ynnari)
Anthony Villa (5 Commanders + Yvarha)
Domagoj Mitrovic (Chaos Daemons, List not posted)
Paul Mckelvey ( The PM Special, + 4 Commanders)
John McCool (Like, a Billion Stormboyz and a Giant Squiggoth)
Kyle Watson (Dark Angel Dreadnoughts and 2 Fire Raptors)
Matt Barlow (Hoard Guard with not just Conscripts)
Phi Tracy (Guilliman + Whirlwinds and Stalkers)
Mitch Pelham (Stormlord + Drop Troopers)
Brian Hart (Militarum Tempestus + a Guard Firebase)
If they're not to be included for whatever reason, I'd say that, after the flyer nerf, Razorbacks, Dominions, and Genestealers are the top three units atm.
They are good, but they are hardly in the top five asssault infantry units right now. Unlike, Gurliman, Stormravens, Brimstones, Knights, Commanders, Conscripts and Scion-spam, bezerkers are not really topping the competetive meta. Or at least that is not my impression.
It's a bit depressing that GW had the option to adjust 2/3 of these in the last codex and chose not to..
What?
Index books have been out for what ... 4 weeks?
A week or two minimum for the Nottingham team writing the Space Marines codex, sending files to China, a few weeks of printing, a month or two to ship the printed codex to logistic centers around the world, another month safety buffer in case things go wrong.
The 8th Ed. Space Marines Codex was probably finished, at least as content and point values from the Nottingham team goes, before the Guilliman miniature was released (with 7th Ed. rules) in February earlier this year.
I don't understand how Magnus hasn't has more votes.
Magnus is pricey and can be shot to death easily. Guilliman can hide behind his troops and actually gains you points just by including him in the army due to his force multiplier effect.
He may or may not be undercosted but since he's around what a Lord of Skulls costs... I'm going with no. The LoS will murder an entire field of things solo while Magnus is dead by turn 2 or 3.
SemperMortis wrote: Can I just point out and laugh that 3% think a 6+ save,T4 model with 1 wound and 2 base attacks is "Top three most powerful units"
Yeah. It's almost as if people didn't like the fact the 'whipping boyz' of the last edition actually became viable and they can't use their precious 'detatchments' to auto-win against them...
Some top quality salt shown in this thread by people who REALLY should know better.
The 8th Ed. Space Marines Codex was probably finished, at least as content and point values from the Nottingham team goes, before the Guilliman miniature was released (with 7th Ed. rules) in February earlier this year.
I don't think so. There are several point cost changes between the codex and the index. Why release the index with a unit costing X points and the codex with the same unit costing Y points, if the codex was ready alongside the index (or even earlier)?
The codex has no indication it was printed in China, also.
The 8th Ed. Space Marines Codex was probably finished, at least as content and point values from the Nottingham team goes, before the Guilliman miniature was released (with 7th Ed. rules) in February earlier this year.
I don't think so. There are several point cost changes between the codex and the index. Why release the index with a unit costing X points and the codex with the same unit costing Y points, if the codex was ready alongside the index (or even earlier)?
The codex has no indication it was printed in China, also.
Even if the Codex was printed in the UK, it would not work out.
Index books were in people's hand June 17th.
Codex was visible, fully printed and all, in YouTube videos and all as early as July 20th or so. A day or two before pre-orders.
So how did GW do their process? How long did they "watch the Index" among players to gather info on adjusting points? The first week only (until June 24th)? Two weeks (until July 1st)? Meetings to get a consensus to change points. Edit the files for printing. Send them to a UK printer. Print thousands of books. Ship them across the world to be in stores everywhere from Tokyo to Chicago to Cape Town (which again takes weeks, even if its not originally from China). Or did they airlift to all their stores worldwide, basically blowing all profits this year to have a few point adjustments based on people playing with the Index?
What if the printer would've been down for a week? Take that risk and cut it this close?
All that crazy process despite knowing that, for the first time in 40K history, there will be a General's Handbook style book to actually do adjust points based on the evolving meta?
If GW hardcover books are still printed in China, and the Index as a softcover is, as printed on the back, printed in the UK, it's likely the Index books were printed AFTER the Codex and some point adjustments were made, perhaps to account for lack of Chapter Tactics and a few other things.
Even if the Codex was printed in the UK, it would not work out.
Index books were in people's hand June 17th.
Codex was visible, fully printed and all, in YouTube videos and all as early as July 20th or so. A day or two before pre-orders.
So how did GW do their process? How long did they "watch the Index" among players to gather info on adjusting points? The first week only (until June 24th)? Two weeks (until July 1st)? Meetings to get a consensus to change points. Edit the files for printing. Send them to a UK printer. Print thousands of books. Ship them across the world to be in stores everywhere from Tokyo to Chicago to Cape Town (which again takes weeks, even if its not originally from China). Or did they airlift to all their stores worldwide, basically blowing all profits this year to have a few point adjustments based on people playing with the Index?
What if the printer would've been down for a week? Take that risk and cut it this close?
All that crazy process despite knowing that, for the first time in 40K history, there will be a General's Handbook style book to actually do adjust points based on the evolving meta?
If GW hardcover books are still printed in China, and the Index as a softcover is, as printed on the back, printed in the UK, it's likely the Index books were printed AFTER the Codex and some point adjustments were made, perhaps to account for lack of Chapter Tactics and a few other things.
But this is so weird. It would mean that people asking for changes wouldn't matter at all...
Even if the Codex was printed in the UK, it would not work out.
Index books were in people's hand June 17th.
Codex was visible, fully printed and all, in YouTube videos and all as early as July 20th or so. A day or two before pre-orders.
So how did GW do their process? How long did they "watch the Index" among players to gather info on adjusting points? The first week only (until June 24th)? Two weeks (until July 1st)? Meetings to get a consensus to change points. Edit the files for printing. Send them to a UK printer. Print thousands of books. Ship them across the world to be in stores everywhere from Tokyo to Chicago to Cape Town (which again takes weeks, even if its not originally from China). Or did they airlift to all their stores worldwide, basically blowing all profits this year to have a few point adjustments based on people playing with the Index?
What if the printer would've been down for a week? Take that risk and cut it this close?
All that crazy process despite knowing that, for the first time in 40K history, there will be a General's Handbook style book to actually do adjust points based on the evolving meta?
If GW hardcover books are still printed in China, and the Index as a softcover is, as printed on the back, printed in the UK, it's likely the Index books were printed AFTER the Codex and some point adjustments were made, perhaps to account for lack of Chapter Tactics and a few other things.
But this is so weird. It would mean that people asking for changes wouldn't matter at all...
Best part is, they can still do changes...
AND screw the people who buy physical copies!
Best part is, they can still do changes...
AND screw the people who buy physical copies!
Kind of like what they did with the Index already. Age of Sigmar, they gave everyone free rules to use. 40k, we buy books that are obsolete in two weeks.
Granted genestealers are on the list but the cult stealers with the patriarch are insane. Combined they are 350 points. Pat let's the stealers auto pass morale and gain 1 WS. If the Pat takes might from beyond the stealers can get +1 strength and attack. How does 100 attacks at strength 5, hitting on 2s, from the stealers alone? Not to mention (most likely) not having to footslog across the board.
OP is used very loosely around here i dont think there is anything nearly as OP as in 7th Girlyman for me is the closest as he can hide in squads and is a huge force multiplier. I think in 8th there is a much smaller amount of insta loss because of lists than there was in 7th which is awesome, some units are more powerful than others but with millions of different combinations, it would be impossible to have diversity and balance. I think so far we have a better game with more options and fewer auto includes.
Ubl1k wrote:OP is used very loosely around here i dont think there is anything nearly as OP as in 7th Girlyman for me is the closest as he can hide in squads and is a huge force multiplier. I think in 8th there is a much smaller amount of insta loss because of lists than there was in 7th which is awesome, some units are more powerful than others but with millions of different combinations, it would be impossible to have diversity and balance. I think so far we have a better game with more options and fewer auto includes.
I agree - I usually try and say 'powerful for the points cost' rather than 'OP' whenever I'm talking about strong units as I feel that's that what matters, and some people have weird views when it comes to what 'OP' does or doesn't mean.
CovenantGuardian wrote:A lot of votes is simply based on what people play against not based the rules obviously.
Top three is Brimstone Horrors, Conscript-Commissar, Guilleman
in that order.
Stormraven is not even in my top 10 i think, especially with the all flier lists shut down.
I also agree with that. It's going to be skewed towards what people see on the table most. I voted conscripts, storms + guilliman when I made the poll, but brims are also ridiculous. In hindsight I guess I'd rather face 1500pts of stormravens than 1500pts of brims so maybe I voted wrong myself haha.
One army I think is under represented here is sisters of battle. I keep hearing they're good, but have personally never seen them played as a standalone force so can't really comment on their effectiveness.
On a one on one base the conscript by himself is not undercosted, a guardsman costs 25% more but brings 50% more damage output.
What makes conscripts so strong is that
- now every weapon can hurt anything
- the rate of fire for better/elite units can´t keep up with theirs. Increasing the assault cannons from 4 to 6 shots and doubling the shots from twin-linked weapons can´t compensate it as you have to pay more for the last ones.
- you can take up to 50 in one unit all benefitting from single commissar and a single order.
Cap the max size of conscripts at 20 or a little above, but definatly not more than 30. And they won´t need any further change.
Firefox1 wrote: On a one on one base the conscript by himself is not undercosted, a guardsman costs 25% more but brings 50% more damage output.
What makes conscripts so strong is that
- now every weapon can hurt anything
- the rate of fire for better/elite units can´t keep up with theirs. Increasing the assault cannons from 4 to 6 shots and doubling the shots from twin-linked weapons can´t compensate it as you have to pay more for the last ones.
- you can take up to 50 in one unit all benefitting from single commissar and a single order.
Cap the max size of conscripts at 20 or a little above, but definatly not more than 30. And they won´t need any further change.
Everyone hates on guard with conscript squads but Orks and Nids can do the same things, right?
usmcmidn wrote: Everyone hates on guard with conscript squads but Orks and Nids can do the same things, right?
Conscripts are 3pts per model though (I think the cheapest nid and ork ones are about 5 or 6).
The thing is though, i think it's less about the conscripts themselves and more about them blocking assaults and deep-strikes to the powerful IG artillery.
According to this, #4 on the list, brimstone horrors are getting a points increase. I wonder whether it'll be three or four. Is suspect three, and I think they'll definitely still be worth taking for that!
According to this, #4 on the list, brimstone horrors are getting a points increase. I wonder whether it'll be three or four. Is suspect three, and I think they'll definitely still be worth taking for that!
It is three. Pinks are 8, Blues are 5, Brimstones are 3. Horrors also no longer do d3 Smites so they aren't quite the cheap stupid amounts of mortal wounds spam army as before.
I don't know if we can safely knock them off the list entirely but at the very least they're just conscripts with no shooting and a 4++ invuln.
According to this, #4 on the list, brimstone horrors are getting a points increase. I wonder whether it'll be three or four. Is suspect three, and I think they'll definitely still be worth taking for that!
It is three. Pinks are 8, Blues are 5, Brimstones are 3. Horrors also no longer do d3 Smites so they aren't quite the cheap stupid amounts of mortal wounds spam army as before.
I don't know if we can safely knock them off the list entirely but at the very least they're just conscripts with no shooting and a 4++ invuln.
Yuber wrote: It never occurred to me for the Stormraven to be OP. Can someone enlighten me further as to how this happened?
It's highly mobile, gives a -1 to hit it because it's a flyer, has a lot of firepower, and is hard to take down. Of course it's also about as expensive as a land raider crusader, while not being quite as durable, but it more than makes up for that in superior firepower (it has the hurricane bolters and assault cannons, but also adds heavy bolters and stormstrikes, exchanging the twin HBs and ACs for twin LCs and a typhoon launcher makes it a decent anti-tank unit as well for less points than a normal quad-las land raider; compare 4 S8 attacks and 2 S9 vs the raider's 4 S9 attacks).
I'd argue though that right now, the stormraven is approaching balance, because flyer units can't hold objectives and don't count for the purpose of determining if you have any models on the table. So you're paying ~270 points for a model that has a lot of mobility and firepower, but that's 270 points of stuff the opponent doesn't have to kill to table you. Whereas if you take a land raider, they DO have to remove that to table you.
Yuber wrote: It never occurred to me for the Stormraven to be OP. Can someone enlighten me further as to how this happened?
It's highly mobile, gives a -1 to hit it because it's a flyer, has a lot of firepower, and is hard to take down. Of course it's also about as expensive as a land raider crusader, while not being quite as durable, but it more than makes up for that in superior firepower (it has the hurricane bolters and assault cannons, but also adds heavy bolters and stormstrikes, exchanging the twin HBs and ACs for twin LCs and a typhoon launcher makes it a decent anti-tank unit as well for less points than a normal quad-las land raider; compare 4 S8 attacks and 2 S9 vs the raider's 4 S9 attacks).
I'd argue though that right now, the stormraven is approaching balance, because flyer units can't hold objectives and don't count for the purpose of determining if you have any models on the table. So you're paying ~270 points for a model that has a lot of mobility and firepower, but that's 270 points of stuff the opponent doesn't have to kill to table you. Whereas if you take a land raider, they DO have to remove that to table you.
At best that rule change just makes it harder to spam the Storm Raven, it's still broken.
If I had a 300 point 'Off Table' Nuke option that let me dominate and wreck my enemies army, I (and I'm pretty sure; everyone) would use it.
They really should have introduced a few hard nerfs, even if it was like a 40 point cost increase or a toughness decrease.
A 300-point "off-map" option wouldn't be able to be destroyed... because it'd be off-map. The Stormraven by comparison can be destroyed
Yes, it costs about as much as a land raider but is easier to destroy (for anything S8 and lower, the Raider's higher T value makes up for the raven being harder to hit, and has fewer wounds) and has less carry capacity. It could probably use a nerf. But the rule change made it a very risky tool to use. Like with most powerful options, if you use just one of them the enemy can focus fire and take it down pretty quickly.
Melissia wrote: A 300-point "off-map" option wouldn't be able to be destroyed... because it'd be off-map. The Stormraven by comparison can be destroyed
Yes, it costs about as much as a land raider but is easier to destroy (for anything S8 and lower, the Raider's higher T value makes up for the raven being harder to hit, and has fewer wounds) and has less carry capacity. It could probably use a nerf. But the rule change made it a very risky tool to use. Like with most powerful options, if you use just one of them the enemy can focus fire and take it down pretty quickly.
Not for Orks. For Orks killing three landraiders is a LOT easier than killing a single stormraven. Not that it really matters. With the FAQ you can just ignore the stormraven and grab objectives.
Ok.... Harlequins in a Starweaver SHOULD NOT be up there, are they strong? sure, is the starweaver effective? yes
but together "Are they OP for total points?" heck no.
The average cost of a 5man unit in a starweaver is 230pts.
If you look at spam lists and think this is spam and you take the maximum of these (but still have 2 Shadowseers, at least 1 Troupe Master and a Solitaire).
In an 1850 pts army your looking at 6 Drops (6 Starweavers and troupes with the HQ's and elite in them).
Are 6 units of starweavers/troupes scary? sure, are they op? not at all, Harlequins have huge weaknesses, 1 being Anti-Tanks/T8 units, 2 Huge hordes and mass shooting.
S: Im a Harlequin Player and i have to ally in either Eldar Fliers or DE Ravagers for dedicated AT.
Also Sisters: Exorcist is not very good at all for the points.
Repressors with Dominions are the OP thing (or Retributors with HB's) you can push out insane damage with a (basically open top Rhino) and when the Repressor's finally die, if you dont dedicate and kill the squads they will just shoot you twice (AoF).
The few games i played with them, i was able to kill 3 Storm Ravens in turn after he volleyed and killed 2 vehicles (out of 7) and the 2 units that fell out.
I road up and literally had no problem killing them, on turn 3 i tabled him b.c he didnt have enough damage to kill my vehicles and the SoB squads inside so at the start of my turn i AoF killed 1 more, then finished off the rest of the army.
Other than the ones everyone knows about, i Vote for SOB Fast/Heavy units in Repressors.
You can have 2 units in them (6 Fire points), take 2x5 man units with 3 weapons each, do this 6-7x to try and go 1st, the Repressor it self can have 2 SB's and a HF also. If you do this 6x with HB's, thats 108 shots turn 1 from HB's.
You can out range for 2 turns vs Conscripts if you play well, picking all that off and LoS away from the big guns as much as you can to win the attrition war
(I have not tested this out yet, b.c no one at my local likes to play this way nor has the models)
To be honest, Sisters don't need to outrange conscripts. They just need to get safely within rapid fire range with a fethton of cheap storm bolters. With dominion spam, they can boltershock most infantry in to submission.
I'd argue though that right now, the stormraven is approaching balance, because flyer units can't hold objectives and don't count for the purpose of determining if you have any models on the table. So you're paying ~270 points for a model that has a lot of mobility and firepower, but that's 270 points of stuff the opponent doesn't have to kill to table you. Whereas if you take a land raider, they DO have to remove that to table you.
Flyers can't hold objectives? Was that also in the FAQ?
Melissia wrote: A 300-point "off-map" option wouldn't be able to be destroyed... because it'd be off-map. The Stormraven by comparison can be destroyed
Yes, it costs about as much as a land raider but is easier to destroy (for anything S8 and lower, the Raider's higher T value makes up for the raven being harder to hit, and has fewer wounds) and has less carry capacity. It could probably use a nerf. But the rule change made it a very risky tool to use. Like with most powerful options, if you use just one of them the enemy can focus fire and take it down pretty quickly.
I suppose I did leave that argument open, however the Raven is only slightly less durable than the LR against BS3 Lascannons. The ability to reduce accuracy is absolutely massive.
It's also vastly more mobile and provides a great amount more Fire Power.
The rule change made it risky to over-use it. Using a small amount of them is still completely viable, and still fairly safe.
Considering it's ALMOST as Survivable as a Land Raider, arguably more Survivable against many options... Forcing the opponent to focus it down is still a win.
Yuber wrote: It never occurred to me for the Stormraven to be OP. Can someone enlighten me further as to how this happened?
It's highly mobile, gives a -1 to hit it because it's a flyer, has a lot of firepower, and is hard to take down. Of course it's also about as expensive as a land raider crusader, while not being quite as durable, but it more than makes up for that in superior firepower (it has the hurricane bolters and assault cannons, but also adds heavy bolters and stormstrikes, exchanging the twin HBs and ACs for twin LCs and a typhoon launcher makes it a decent anti-tank unit as well for less points than a normal quad-las land raider; compare 4 S8 attacks and 2 S9 vs the raider's 4 S9 attacks).
I'd argue though that right now, the stormraven is approaching balance, because flyer units can't hold objectives and don't count for the purpose of determining if you have any models on the table. So you're paying ~270 points for a model that has a lot of mobility and firepower, but that's 270 points of stuff the opponent doesn't have to kill to table you. Whereas if you take a land raider, they DO have to remove that to table you.
That doesn't always make a difference though, because when something hurts you really bad, you do have to remove it if you don't want to be tabled
One of the major advantages of a flyer over a tank is that it can get anywhere pretty quickly, allowing for both easy dodge and focus.
SemperMortis wrote: Is anybody else not even remotely surprised that the top 3 broken combos are all imperium
Only if you missed the last two editions. Plus, this poll is full of insanity. Rowboat getting more votes than conscripts? Okay...
Conscripts aren't scary, they are just the worlds cheapest tarpit and bubblewrap. Girlyman turns amazing Space marine shooting into ridiculous levels of SM shooting. Team it with a Banner and an apothecary and just spam heavy weapons and rapid fire weapons for one of this editions best gun lines.
As for the last 2 editions, SMs still had the most broken combos, Or did you forget about Super Friends and psychic shenanigans? Yeah eldar were right up there as well and Tau with their Anime style robots were good, but SMs were still king of the Hill after they got their buffs. And no martel I am not referring to all SMs just Smurfs and generic, I am well aware that your blood angels are still craptastic.
SemperMortis wrote: Is anybody else not even remotely surprised that the top 3 broken combos are all imperium
Only if you missed the last two editions. Plus, this poll is full of insanity. Rowboat getting more votes than conscripts? Okay...
Conscripts aren't scary, they are just the worlds cheapest tarpit and bubblewrap. Girlyman turns amazing Space marine shooting into ridiculous levels of SM shooting. Team it with a Banner and an apothecary and just spam heavy weapons and rapid fire weapons for one of this editions best gun lines.
As for the last 2 editions, SMs still had the most broken combos, Or did you forget about Super Friends and psychic shenanigans? Yeah eldar were right up there as well and Tau with their Anime style robots were good, but SMs were still king of the Hill after they got their buffs. And no martel I am not referring to all SMs just Smurfs and generic, I am well aware that your blood angels are still craptastic.
Eldar were still better than than the marines, I think. But my point is that Xenos were plenty broken in 7th. The Imperium has the most units, so statistically, they are most likely to get the broken ones. Don't forget chaos demons. They straight up beat death stars via 40 denial dice.
Space marines don't have amazing shooting in 8th. They have too few models for that. A Rowboat list will struggle in an objective-based scenario because they have to, you know, move. And it straight up loses to an IG conscript list. Even Rowboat fails to make marines efficient vs IG. Without the stupid gladius/deathstar shenanigans, marines are busted down to where they were in 5th.. mediocre at best.
SemperMortis wrote: Is anybody else not even remotely surprised that the top 3 broken combos are all imperium
Only if you missed the last two editions. Plus, this poll is full of insanity. Rowboat getting more votes than conscripts? Okay...
Conscripts aren't scary, they are just the worlds cheapest tarpit and bubblewrap. Girlyman turns amazing Space marine shooting into ridiculous levels of SM shooting. Team it with a Banner and an apothecary and just spam heavy weapons and rapid fire weapons for one of this editions best gun lines.
As for the last 2 editions, SMs still had the most broken combos, Or did you forget about Super Friends and psychic shenanigans? Yeah eldar were right up there as well and Tau with their Anime style robots were good, but SMs were still king of the Hill after they got their buffs. And no martel I am not referring to all SMs just Smurfs and generic, I am well aware that your blood angels are still craptastic.
Eldar were still better than than the marines, I think. But my point is that Xenos were plenty broken in 7th. The Imperium has the most units, so statistically, they are most likely to get the broken ones.
Space marines don't have amazing shooting in 8th. A Rowboat list will struggle in an objective-based scenario because they have to, you know, move. And it straight up loses to an IG conscript list. Even Rowboat fails to make marines efficient vs IG.
If you go back to a Divided Imperium and keep Narrative Play in the Narrative Play section of the book...
Then they won't really have the most units huh?
(Actually, I bet some sections would probably still have among the highest amount of units, but it would still drastically reduce the amount)
Eldar were still better than than the marines, I think. But my point is that Xenos were plenty broken in 7th. The Imperium has the most units, so statistically, they are most likely to get the broken ones. Don't forget chaos demons. They straight up beat death stars via 40 denial dice.
Space marines don't have amazing shooting in 8th. They have too few models for that. A Rowboat list will struggle in an objective-based scenario because they have to, you know, move. And it straight up loses to an IG conscript list. Even Rowboat fails to make marines efficient vs IG. Without the stupid gladius/deathstar shenanigans, marines are busted down to where they were in 5th.. mediocre at best.
100pts for a Razorback with Twin Assault Cannons, 360(?)pts for Girlyman for 1060 you can field 6 Razorbacks and girlyman which puts out 72 S6 -1AP shots a turn. spend another 12pts and add on another 12 S4 shots at 24in and 24 shots at 12. worried about your opponent having vehicles? put 2 Pred annihilators in range of him as well, theres another 408pts. so now your army is 1468pts leaving you with 532pts for troops, what can you do with that? well lets see. 280pts nets you 2 tac squads with a Heavy bolter each and another 90pts gets you 5 scout snipers, more then enough points to grab you the HQs you need to field all this. So what is your level of dakka?
Razorbacks = 72 S6 -1AP shots and 12-24 S4 shots a turn
Preds = 8 S9 -3AP D6 damage shots and 4-8 S4 shots a turn
Tacts = 18-36 S4 shots and 6 S5-1AP shots a turn
Scouts = 5 S4 sniper shots a turn
And ALL of that is re-rolling hits and wounds because girlyman. And if you don't think you can cram that into his little bubble I can tell you that yes you can because I can cram 150 models into a KFF bubble without a problem.
So those scary Conscript bubbles you are so worried about? your 5 snipers with all those rerolls will statistically kill a commissar every turn (hitting on 3s rerolling and wounding on 3s rerolling, VS 5+ save) then use all those Razborbacks to annihilate conscripts from afar, if you kill 25 they will statistically wipe themselves out with morale. and if 25 seems hard to do, a razorback with rerolls is killing about 9 or 10 a turn. (hits on 3s rerolling and wounds on 2s rerolling with -1 armor) So with 6 you can wipe out 2 blobs of 50 without a problem (That isn't even counting the Stormbolters) so boom you have wiped out bubblewrap turn 1 and killed about 300pts worth of chaff. OF course you don't even need to kill them because you have range advantage on them so you can just start slaying their vehicles, keep in mind you have 8 TL Lascannons that reroll wounds. Against a T7 vehicles you will likely kill 2 vehicles a turn just with the Annihilators, add in those Razorbacks if you want and you are decimating IG opponents. Yeah I would take girlyman over conscripts.
Melissia wrote: A 300-point "off-map" option wouldn't be able to be destroyed... because it'd be off-map. The Stormraven by comparison can be destroyed
Yes, it costs about as much as a land raider but is easier to destroy (for anything S8 and lower, the Raider's higher T value makes up for the raven being harder to hit, and has fewer wounds) and has less carry capacity. It could probably use a nerf. But the rule change made it a very risky tool to use. Like with most powerful options, if you use just one of them the enemy can focus fire and take it down pretty quickly.
The nerf needs to come with a price increase to hurricane bolters. They are a 15 point weapon at least on a vehical.
Id say conscripts, brimstones, stormravens. Saying that, having played againdt the new grey knights. I think we'll be seeing them enter some units to this list.
Im surprised tau commanders would be voted for. Its not that theyre exceptionally good, its more that crisis suits (and most of the tau army not including fire warriors, gun drones, longstrike and pathfinders) are mediocre or overcosted. Same thing with cawl really, its not that hes super OP its more that admech in general are a bit meh (barring dunecrawlers and kastellans)
Eldar were still better than than the marines, I think. But my point is that Xenos were plenty broken in 7th. The Imperium has the most units, so statistically, they are most likely to get the broken ones. Don't forget chaos demons. They straight up beat death stars via 40 denial dice.
Space marines don't have amazing shooting in 8th. They have too few models for that. A Rowboat list will struggle in an objective-based scenario because they have to, you know, move. And it straight up loses to an IG conscript list. Even Rowboat fails to make marines efficient vs IG. Without the stupid gladius/deathstar shenanigans, marines are busted down to where they were in 5th.. mediocre at best.
100pts for a Razorback with Twin Assault Cannons, 360(?)pts for Girlyman for 1060 you can field 6 Razorbacks and girlyman which puts out 72 S6 -1AP shots a turn. spend another 12pts and add on another 12 S4 shots at 24in and 24 shots at 12. worried about your opponent having vehicles? put 2 Pred annihilators in range of him as well, theres another 408pts. so now your army is 1468pts leaving you with 532pts for troops, what can you do with that? well lets see. 280pts nets you 2 tac squads with a Heavy bolter each and another 90pts gets you 5 scout snipers, more then enough points to grab you the HQs you need to field all this. So what is your level of dakka?
Razorbacks = 72 S6 -1AP shots and 12-24 S4 shots a turn
Preds = 8 S9 -3AP D6 damage shots and 4-8 S4 shots a turn
Tacts = 18-36 S4 shots and 6 S5-1AP shots a turn
Scouts = 5 S4 sniper shots a turn
And ALL of that is re-rolling hits and wounds because girlyman. And if you don't think you can cram that into his little bubble I can tell you that yes you can because I can cram 150 models into a KFF bubble without a problem.
So those scary Conscript bubbles you are so worried about? your 5 snipers with all those rerolls will statistically kill a commissar every turn (hitting on 3s rerolling and wounding on 3s rerolling, VS 5+ save) then use all those Razborbacks to annihilate conscripts from afar, if you kill 25 they will statistically wipe themselves out with morale. and if 25 seems hard to do, a razorback with rerolls is killing about 9 or 10 a turn. (hits on 3s rerolling and wounds on 2s rerolling with -1 armor) So with 6 you can wipe out 2 blobs of 50 without a problem (That isn't even counting the Stormbolters) so boom you have wiped out bubblewrap turn 1 and killed about 300pts worth of chaff. OF course you don't even need to kill them because you have range advantage on them so you can just start slaying their vehicles, keep in mind you have 8 TL Lascannons that reroll wounds. Against a T7 vehicles you will likely kill 2 vehicles a turn just with the Annihilators, add in those Razorbacks if you want and you are decimating IG opponents. Yeah I would take girlyman over conscripts.
Sure. Your losses.
I stopped reading at snipers for full disclosure. Snipers kill zero commisars in practice.
I stopped reading at snipers for full disclosure. Snipers kill zero commisars in practice.
Snipers hit on 3s with rerolls. on the first batch you should statistically hit 10/3 times the rerolls will net you another 4/3 minimum, so you are looking at better then 4 hits on average. So lets roll with 5 because that is more likely with all those rerolls. 5 wounding on 3s with rerolls. Lets say 1 doesn't go through to make things about right with the hits/wounds. So 4 wounds. you have a 2/3rd chance to roll a 6 which inflicts an automatic Mortal wound ON TOP OF inflicting a normal wound. So the chances are again likely you will inflict 4 regular wounds and 1 Mortal wound which means he needs to save 3 of the sniper shots on a 5+ to keep his character alive. SO yes, statistically you will kill a commissar every turn with 5 Scout snipers, but if you really want to beat the chance game you can always add in another sniper for 18pts (Camo Cloak) and then ensure you kill that one Commissar. OR really conservatively, take out 1 tac squad and bring 3 units of 5 snipers and really ensure you remove your target, it doesn't matter all that much and since scouts can take a heavy bolter it doesn't even effect your loss of S5 -1AP shooting. So what is the next point you wish to argue because I have now shown without a shadow of a doubt that a handful of scouts can destroy the entire commissar/conscript combo.
I stopped reading at snipers for full disclosure. Snipers kill zero commisars in practice.
Snipers hit on 3s with rerolls. on the first batch you should statistically hit 10/3 times the rerolls will net you another 4/3 minimum, so you are looking at better then 4 hits on average. So lets roll with 5 because that is more likely with all those rerolls. 5 wounding on 3s with rerolls. Lets say 1 doesn't go through to make things about right with the hits/wounds. So 4 wounds. you have a 2/3rd chance to roll a 6 which inflicts an automatic Mortal wound ON TOP OF inflicting a normal wound. So the chances are again likely you will inflict 4 regular wounds and 1 Mortal wound which means he needs to save 3 of the sniper shots on a 5+ to keep his character alive. SO yes, statistically you will kill a commissar every turn with 5 Scout snipers, but if you really want to beat the chance game you can always add in another sniper for 18pts (Camo Cloak) and then ensure you kill that one Commissar. OR really conservatively, take out 1 tac squad and bring 3 units of 5 snipers and really ensure you remove your target, it doesn't matter all that much and since scouts can take a heavy bolter it doesn't even effect your loss of S5 -1AP shooting. So what is the next point you wish to argue because I have now shown without a shadow of a doubt that a handful of scouts can destroy the entire commissar/conscript combo.
Prepare for the "Commissar is never in Line of Sight" retort. Because, don'tchaknow, there's never ever been a game of 8th edition where the opponent could see a IG commissar. In fact, I could forgive most non-IG players for wondering if there even is a commissar model, what with how rarely they are seen...
Good IG players will never give you a shot on the commissar. Because they know that's the only way to stop it.
Snipers are awful in general, unfortunately.
I haven't played against Rowboat yet, but I don't understand the problem with killing the stuff he's buffing and ignoring the stuff that has to move out of buff range to score points. The list has a tiny footprint and surrenders all board control.
So those scary Conscript bubbles you are so worried about? your 5 snipers with all those rerolls will statistically kill a commissar every turn (hitting on 3s rerolling and wounding on 3s rerolling, VS 5+ save) then use all those Razborbacks to annihilate conscripts from afar, if you kill 25 they will statistically wipe themselves out with morale. and if 25 seems hard to do, a razorback with rerolls is killing about 9 or 10 a turn. (hits on 3s rerolling and wounds on 2s rerolling with -1 armor) So with 6 you can wipe out 2 blobs of 50 without a problem (That isn't even counting the Stormbolters) so boom you have wiped out bubblewrap turn 1 and killed about 300pts worth of chaff. OF course you don't even need to kill them because you have range advantage on them so you can just start slaying their vehicles, keep in mind you have 8 TL Lascannons that reroll wounds. Against a T7 vehicles you will likely kill 2 vehicles a turn just with the Annihilators, add in those Razorbacks if you want and you are decimating IG opponents. Yeah I would take girlyman over conscripts.
Not that I want to get back into the whole conscript debate, but the assumption that you'll be able to shoot at the commissar (and that there would be only one) is not a good one. But otherwise the math is good, the Razorbacks can kill 50-ish conscripts a turn.
Can you get that many razors in range and within buff range of Rowboat? Also, that's heavily list tailoring because you crippled yourself against something like Mechdar. And you are still spending 900+ points to clear out 150. IG is still ahead.
LOS is measured from anywhere on the vehicle though, the G buffs at 6" I think. It's actually really easy to get if you clump them up. I played against a similar DA list with Azrael.
Insectum7 wrote: LOS is measured from anywhere on the vehicle though, the G buffs at 6" I think. It's actually really easy to get if you clump them up. I played against a similar DA list with Azrael.
I guess that's true. That will make for incredibly valuable "explodes" results And you are still spending 900 pts to kill 150. I wish I could force people to do that with BA.
Insectum7 wrote: LOS is measured from anywhere on the vehicle though, the G buffs at 6" I think. It's actually really easy to get if you clump them up. I played against a similar DA list with Azrael.
I guess that's true. That will make for incredibly valuable "explodes" results And you are still spending 900 pts to kill 150. I wish I could force people to do that with BA.
6 Razors is about 700 points, but if they have better targets they could shoot something else instead. Conscripts ain't too good at shooting back. The point's-to-kill-points is not a great measure anyways, arguably the conscripts lasting for 3-4 turns instead of 1 or 2 could be completely damning in a strategic sense, depending on what else is happening.
Martel732 wrote: You forgot Bobby G for the buffs. That's over half a 2K list to mow down 150. I lose more than 150 out of my BA lists to a stiff breeze now.
Guilliman isn't killing, the Razorbacks are. Be consistent. If the commissars weren't around, the six Razorbacks could wipe out 100 conscripts in a turn as SemperMortis suggested.
Anyways, this is going OT, so if you want to do the conscript thing again, you should probably take it to one of the threads specifically about conscripts.
Not really. People either accept it or they don't. They're both really good, and Rowboat should probably have gotten a price increase, but he doesn't turn off my entire army by standing there.
6 razors doesn't even come close to wiping 50 conscripts rerolling hits and wounds. You know why? Because they had to move to get into range.
That means they are -1 hit. Since they can't reroll the 3's the and half the shots miss in each of the rerolls you don't even average 50 hits. You only average 48. You wll average somewhere in the realm of 35-40 kills...or about 120 points worth of conscripts. I assure you vs an IG list - you are losing 3 razors a tun to their artillery.
Comparing the most OP options is best left to the tournaments. Unfortunately Guilliman and conscripts are both Imperium choices so the tournament players might just bring both.
With your assault cannons that you are all-in on? Let me know how that works out for you. Also, half the time, you can't even see the artillery.
Or with the Predator Annihilators i put in that list which are in range for Girlyman rerolls. And again, 4 Lascannons hitting on 3s rerolling usually = 4 hits, 4 hits wounding on 3s rerolling usually = 4 wounds, but lets play devils advocate and give them 3 wounds. Against a Similar Tank that will almost be enough to kill 1 by itself (Averaging 10-11 damage total) If nothing else you are reducing its capabilities to their lowest setting prior to dying, throw in those razorbacks as mentioned and poof you have easily eliminated 2 enemy vehicles a turn. As for the Razorbacks moving forward and being -1 to hit. Ohh well? 4+ to hit = 6 hits +3 on the reroll so 9 hits, wounding on 2s rerolling = 9 wounds EACH. 9 x 6 = 54 wounds at -1 AP gives them a 6+ save = 48 dead conscripts. Ohh and they also put out 12 S4 shots so 9 hits there and 6 wounds against a 5+ = 4 more dead models. So, more then enough to kill an entire blob on turn 1 but again, you don't even need to because if you are worried about his artillery you can liquidate at least 2 of his vehicles/guns a turn with annihilators and supporting fire from a Razorback.
As for not being able to see the commissar, how so? Scouts get to infiltrate anywhere on the map more then 9in from the enemy so they should easily be able to get LOS shot at him, yeah they lose the rerolls but you get rid of that guy and the conscripts melt away.
And lastly, that isn't list tailoring, that is actually a TAC list. you have anti tank, you have anti infantry, you have anti flyer the only thing lacking is anti-psyker but your snipers can do work on them if they absolutely need to. This is just a solid all around list because girlyman just about doubles damage output for units in his bubble and with the way the rule is written he just needs to touch the unit not every model.
Oh boy, here we go again.
Marine players whining because the Imperial Guard got what the Marine players wanted them too and now deleting the Guard army is not as simple as it used to be.
Please stop, I just need to grab my popcorn.
master of ordinance wrote: Oh boy, here we go again.
Marine players whining because the Imperial Guard got what the Marine players wanted them too and now deleting the Guard army is not as simple as it used to be.
Please stop, I just need to grab my popcorn.
IG are going to suffer the same fate as Green tide did last edition. They look scary but they are ignorable. as soon as these Marine players figure that out and focus on your guns its going to be GG :(
master of ordinance wrote: Oh boy, here we go again.
Marine players whining because the Imperial Guard got what the Marine players wanted them too and now deleting the Guard army is not as simple as it used to be.
Please stop, I just need to grab my popcorn.
IG are going to suffer the same fate as Green tide did last edition. They look scary but they are ignorable. as soon as these Marine players figure that out and focus on your guns its going to be GG :(
But they can never see the guns. In fact, I could forgive Marine players for wondering if Manticore or Wyvern models existed; after all, they've never been seen by a single one in any game...
master of ordinance wrote: Oh boy, here we go again.
Marine players whining because the Imperial Guard got what the Marine players wanted them too and now deleting the Guard army is not as simple as it used to be.
Please stop, I just need to grab my popcorn.
IG are going to suffer the same fate as Green tide did last edition. They look scary but they are ignorable. as soon as these Marine players figure that out and focus on your guns its going to be GG :(
But they can never see the guns. In fact, I could forgive Marine players for wondering if Manticore or Wyvern models existed; after all, they've never been seen by a single one in any game...
Well you see, the table they're playing on its actually a Chaos-tainted, shape-shifting table.
Here's what it looks like during the Imperial Guard's turn:
Spoiler:
Here's what it looks like during the Marines' turn:
Spoiler:
So you see, their opponent never has any trouble at all moving and shooting how they please but the marines are perpetually foiled by dense urban terrain.
But that's why you shouldn't let Tzeentch set up your table.
wuestenfux wrote: We have a trend:
1. Conscripts/Commissar
2. Guilliman
3. Stormraven
4. Brimstone Horrors
The rest not so much.
1. Imperium Girlyman
2. Imperium Conscripts
3. Imperium Stormraven
4. Chaos Brimstone Horrors <-- Getting massive nerfs
5. Imperium Scions
6. Imperium Celestine
I find it hilarious that people don't think Scions are more powerful than conscripts. Well, just goes to show people don't really know all that much about how Astra Militaritum works right now.
Melissia wrote: I find it hilarious that people don't think Scions are more powerful than conscripts. Well, just goes to show people don't really know all that much about how Astra Militaritum works right now.
I can't agree with conscripts being on any of these lists, because it's not the conscripts that are strong it's the commissar that enables the conscripts to be strong. If conscripts were allowed to be vulnerable to morale, they would instantly go from being amazing to being merely decent.
BlaxicanX wrote: I can't agree with conscripts being on any of these lists, because it's not the conscripts that are strong it's the commissar that enables the conscripts to be strong. If conscripts were allowed to be vulnerable to morale, they would instantly go from being amazing to being merely decent.
I think the combo is listed. Obviously commissars and conscripts are useless without each other.
Fair, but that's not really a unit anymore. Its conscripts plus, SAR, why not make it conscripts + commissar + guilliman. Maybe it's just splitting hairs though.
Conscripts on their own are hilariously easy to crush, actually they're easier than most tanks are.
Which means, if you think commissar+conscripts are tough, the true power is the commissar. A cheap unit capable of protecting a mediocre unit from damage, thus causing it to become (in your view) omgwftbbqop.
Melissia wrote: Conscripts on their own are hilariously easy to crush, actually they're easier than most tanks are.
Which means, if you think commissar+conscripts are tough, the true power is the commissar. A cheap unit capable of protecting a mediocre unit from damage, thus causing it to become (in your view) omgwftbbqop.
Does it really matter whether the commissar or the conscripts are OP? Both of them would not make this list when separated from one another. When people say that conscripts are OP they are referring to the synergy with the implied commissar as well as the inherent strengths of the unit. You are going to bizarre lengths to justify the idea that conscripts aren't OP. It's ok to be wrong about the viability of a unit.
Melissia wrote: I find it hilarious that people don't think Scions are more powerful than conscripts. Well, just goes to show people don't really know all that much about how Astra Militaritum works right now.
I agree, scions command squads are by far the most OP unit in 8th edition with stormravens and guilliman. Conscripts are tough and certainly a competitive choice but they're basically a semi immortal unit that doesn't kill anything while all the other OP units can throw a huge amount of firepower, smite spam or they buff other shooty stuff like that silly primarch does. Low range S3 shots on BS5+ T3 1W and 5+ save models shouldn't be that scary, even with 200 bodies and buffs.
The reason why people consider conscripts+commissars more OP than scions is probably because almost every AM player has 150+ little soldiers while scions are still more uncommon as they're recent models and not very popular in 7th edition.
Melissia wrote: I find it hilarious that people don't think Scions are more powerful than conscripts. Well, just goes to show people don't really know all that much about how Astra Militaritum works right now.
I agree, scions command squads are by far the most OP unit in 8th edition with stormravens and guilliman. Conscripts are tough and certainly a competitive choice but they're basically a semi immortal unit that doesn't kill anything while all the other OP units can throw a huge amount of firepower, smite spam or they buff other shooty stuff like that silly primarch does. Low range S3 shots on BS5+ T3 1W and 5+ save models shouldn't be that scary, even with 200 bodies and buffs.
The reason why people consider conscripts+commissars more OP than scions is probably because almost every AM player has 150+ little soldiers while scions are still more uncommon as they're recent models and not very popular in 7th edition.
Keep in mind, Orkz best unit right now is a model that is twice as expensive as those Conscripts but lacks ranged weapons, has worse armor but more S/T/Attacks
Scion Command Squads make some impressions when they are deployed and shoot. But as fast as they appear as fast they are vanished.
So they are quite a single shot unit.
And remember statistically they can´t one-shoot a rhino chassis. (8 shots at 3+ with reroll 1s = 7,11 hits; vs. T7 =4,74 wounds; the 6+ save leaving 3,95; with 2 damage each they do 7,9 damage)
The plasma pistol Prime would add 0,37 damage on overcharge to that. Still not enough.
The asscan-razorback would kill them (12 shots at 3+ = 8 hits; vs. T3 = 6,67 wounds; the 5+ save leaving 4,44)
Yes they are a use- and powerful unit but far from OP. Or at least only as OP as an asscan-razorback.
If they can drop in range of devastators/centurions they will get more out of it. If they can´t because of units screening the expensive units, they will be worse.
Conscripts simply benefit from their cost efficency when it comes to combos. 1 commissar/commander per 50 models and up to 100 if you keep a second unit close, though that sounds extreme. So the "fearless"-upgrade costs is 0,31-0,62 points per conscript. The order a further 0,3 (company commander per 2 units) - 0,4 points (platoon commander). Effective points per conscript 3,61-4,02.
Dropping the max size from 50 to 20 would reduce that efficeny a lot. Fearless 0,775-1,55 and the order 0,75-1. Effective points per conscript 4,525-5,55. That´s a point increase of 25%-38%.
If that can´t cure the conscript-"problem" then i guess we have a serious problem.
Well quick math tells me that even with overcharging the plasma, 2 Scion command squads wont remove a Tac squad (but maybe I am wrong there), which makes sense because they're cheaper than said squad, but eeeeeeh. I dunno, don't see. Maybe because I don't run plasma command squads.
I think if plasma goes up by a few points, Scions and Scion Command Squads will be fine.
Let's be honest here - cheap plasma is the only problem with them. No one is losing to armies of deep-striking Scions with Grenade Launchers or Flamers.
A single 4 men squad can cause almost 8 W to a T7 vehicle and you consider it not impressive? Scions command squads can be spammed since they are very cheap for what they do.
Yes, they're a sort of suicide unit but if you bring a significant number of them you can melt the most powerful enemies units. Many vehicles or walkers can be almost invalidated even if they have some wounds left. One razorback can be screwed by a single scions command squad, imagine 3-4 or them and basically every SM vehicle down in turn 1. Now the conscripts can really do some damage with their S3 shooting.
Conscripts can be avoided quite easily instead, since they lack range and speed. They can only bubble wrap vehicles (which you may want to shoot at anyway with your anti tank if you're not a close combat oriented army) and sit on objectives. But they won't kill anything valuable in the entire game, maybe other cheap hordes.
By the way the twin assault cannon razorback is another OP unit I always take 3 of them with my SWs.
Melissia wrote: I find it hilarious that people don't think Scions are more powerful than conscripts. Well, just goes to show people don't really know all that much about how Astra Militaritum works right now.
This so much. Scions are so good right now, they can snatch losses into draw, or worse, outright win the game in a single turn.
vipoid wrote:I think if plasma goes up by a few points, Scions and Scion Command Squads will be fine.
Let's be honest here - cheap plasma is the only problem with them. No one is losing to armies of deep-striking Scions with Grenade Launchers or Flamers.
And to be honest they fixed Scion Command Squads by having them require a Prime. Reducing the cost efficency from 8 points per rapid firing plasma shot to 12,11 (inc. a plasma pistol shot from the Prime) points.
Making the shots 50% more expensive. The order to reroll 1s will reduce the expense to a certain point.
But let´s face it, with the update v1.1 GW has reacted to the use of SCS. And i´m convinced they were aware of their armament and would have changed something about it.
Concering the GL and Flamer, not every weapon is as useful for every unit. But that fits. I see the weapons choice connected to the task of the unit.
For me Scions are more (only one use; i must admit) scalpels than brute hammers. For the task of fighting Terminators i choose them and would give them plasma, vs. vehicles it´s melta. Vs. the Mob of 30 Orks i wouldn´t think of wasting them against them. There are simply other units better suited to fight masses.
And yes the Flamers lack 4" range and the Grenade Launcher 1 point of strength.
Spoiler:
Blackie wrote:A single 4 men squad can cause almost 8 W to a T7 vehicle and you consider it not impressive? Scions command squads can be spammed since they are very cheap for what they do.
Yes, they're a sort of suicide unit but if you bring a significant number of them you can melt the most powerful enemies units. Many vehicles or walkers can be almost invalidated even if they have some wounds left. One razorback can be screwed by a single scions command squad, imagine 3-4 or them and basically every SM vehicle down in turn 1. Now the conscripts can really do some damage with their S3 shooting.
Conscripts can be avoided quite easily instead, since they lack range and speed. They can only bubble wrap vehicles (which you may want to shoot at anyway with your anti tank if you're not a close combat oriented army) and sit on objectives. But they won't kill anything valuable in the entire game, maybe other cheap hordes.
By the way the twin assault cannon razorback is another OP unit I always take 3 of them with my SWs.
If that was meant towards me. I do say they are good, but no they are not OP. But remember the Razorback is about the same points, so in extreme there is one razorback for each SCS+Prime. And yes you can cripple them but your SCS will be gone afterwards. So it´s about a trade of 1 on 1.
And btw i didn´t find the twin assault cannon OP. It was way about time to increase the firepower by changing twin-linked from a reroll to real shots and add shots to the assault cannon. The firepower (and esp. the assault cannon) suffered so much from 2nd to 3rd edition it was really laughable. But that is another story.
Now that anything can damage everything (even if it is only on a 6) cheap low tier units are more viable than before. Not sure on whom i shall place my bet when a cybot has to fight against ork boyz for the same costs. Guess the orks would get it, esp. in CC.
Spoiler:
Bobthehero wrote:Well quick math tells me that even with overcharging the plasma, 2 Scion command squads wont remove a Tac squad (but maybe I am wrong there), which makes sense because they're cheaper than said squad, but eeeeeeh. I dunno, don't see. Maybe because I don't run plasma command squads.
You are right. Incl. the prime, with 9 shots they can kill a max. of 9 marines. So they killed 8 points more than they costs but only at the best possible result.
And yes you can cripple them but your SCS will be gone afterwards. So it´s about a trade of 1 on 1.
The point with that 1-1 trade is that a unit that is meant to be a sucide squad kills a unit that shouldn't be dead in turn 1 in the opponent's mind. With several scions command squads the AM can cripple the most powerful threats only sacrifying units that have that precise role. Scions kill the vehicles and the anti infantry AM weapons kill the crew inside. Without plasma scions that anti infantry shooting could be wasted. So this is not really a trade of 1 and 1.
And all the anti-infantry firepower taken by the scions saves several wounds to the semi-immortal super scary blob of conscripts which can become a real problem if it's left untouched by turn 2. They kill some valuable units and, in the subsequent turn, soak the firepower that can cripple one of more units that you want to be effective at full numbers. Unless that AM list faces a green tide ork army with only boyz and characters that can't be targeted by scions, or something similar, that tactics is way OP.
Plasma guns should cost 13 points, like the SM ones. And scions should probably be limited to a single command squad and two regular squads unless you go full scions.
Blackie wrote: Plasma guns should cost 13 points, like the SM ones.
I think 10pts would be more reasonable. Scions shouldn't be paying SM weapon prices when they're significantly less durable than said SMs.
Also, I'd argue that 7pts is about right for regular guardsmen (given that they're even less durable and only have BS4+).
They can deep strike in significant numbers though, and with a blob of buffed conscripts plus their tanks their lists are way more durable than SM ones overall. An ork rokkit is 12 points and it's fired at BS 5+ by 6+ save models. How can plasma guns be cheaper (almost half the price) than orks' rokkits??
Plasma is not too cheap, not for everyone. I wouldn't consider it too cheap on my RW biker...it's still a hard decision between the special weapons. I'm not going to risk over charging it (especially black knights) without a reroll.
The problem is the mechanic of overcharge. You die no matter if you are a cheap guardsman, scion or if you are Sammael himself. Personally I would have preferred if it were simply a mortal wound on a to hit roll less than your armour save. 2 wound models are not auto killed, 4+ and 5+ save models are really at risk of dying and 3+ save marines have a decent chance of dying too.
Blackie wrote: They can deep strike in significant numbers though, and with a blob of buffed conscripts plus their tanks their lists are way more durable than SM ones overall.
You can't compare the durability of a model to the durability of a list and then use the latter to dictate the price of the former.
If you want to discuss the individual elements of that list, then I'm happy to do that (most people seem to consider Conscripts too durable for their points, for example). However, you can't base the durability of a particular model on the durability of a list that includes not only many other models but many types of model.
Blackie wrote: An ork rokkit is 12 points and it's fired at BS 5+ by 6+ save models. How can plasma guns be cheaper (almost half the price) than orks' rokkits??
Better range? Damage 3? S8 without killing the user?
Honestly though, I'm not sure I'd consider anything in the Ork codex to be a good reference point. Isn't it chock-full of overcosted stuff?
bullyboy wrote: The problem is the mechanic of overcharge. You die no matter if you are a cheap guardsman, scion or if you are Sammael himself. Personally I would have preferred if it were simply a mortal wound on a to hit roll less than your armour save. 2 wound models are not auto killed, 4+ and 5+ save models are really at risk of dying and 3+ save marines have a decent chance of dying too.
I don't think it should hurt you on a to-hit roll less than your armour save. However, I can definitely get behind it being a mortal wound rather than a dead model. Especially when it comes to plasma weapons on vehicles.
vipoid wrote: You can't compare the durability of a model to the durability of a list and then use the latter to dictate the price of the former.
Likewise though, do we really want models with half-cost plasma running about when they're mildly less durable than a standard marine? 3+ save isn't the be-all when AP is being hurled about, especially that very same plasma, and everyone dies equally on a 1 (or more often too).
Let's say I have a model that dies to a warm summer's breeze. It has no save whatsoever, can't move at all, has a Toughness of 1, and isn't a character. But I can pay 5 pts to give it a Lascannon.
Oh and this is before considering that this edition we get to choose which model in a unit dies. So let me just bring my mostly plasma squad with a few throwaway extra wounds.
Likewise though, do we really want models with half-cost plasma running about when they're mildly less durable than a standard marine? 3+ save isn't the be-all when AP is being hurled about, especially that very same plasma, and everyone dies equally on a 1 (or more often too).
Bear in mind that it's not just the lack of the 3+ save - it's also that they're T3.
Regardless, I already suggested an increase in the price of plasma for Scions from 7pts to 10pts. I just don't think they should be paying full Marine prices.
Let's say I have a model that dies to a warm summer's breeze. It has no save whatsoever, can't move at all, has a Toughness of 1, and isn't a character. But I can pay 5 pts to give it a Lascannon.
Well, I imagine that it would depend on the model's initial cost and its BS.
If it costs 5pts and has BS 3+ then yeah, that'll be too good. If the model costs 50pts and has BS6+ . . . not so much.
Oh and this is before considering that this edition we get to choose which model in a unit dies. So let me just bring my mostly plasma squad with a few throwaway extra wounds.
You say that but there are only two Scion units and one of them has 0 excess models. Excess models are also of no use if your plasmagun rolls a 1.
That said, did you not have excess wounds in prior editions? You had to micromanage their positions a bit more, sure, but those excess wounds were still there.
Bobthehero wrote:Well quick math tells me that even with overcharging the plasma, 2 Scion command squads wont remove a Tac squad (but maybe I am wrong there), which makes sense because they're cheaper than said squad, but eeeeeeh. I dunno, don't see. Maybe because I don't run plasma command squads.
You are right. Incl. the prime, with 9 shots they can kill a max. of 9 marines. So they killed 8 points more than they costs but only at the best possible result.
In fact I forgot to include the cost of the Primes myself in this, it makes the two squads more expensive than the Tac Marines, oh well.
You can't compare the durability of a model to the durability of a list and then use the latter to dictate the price of the former.
If you want to discuss the individual elements of that list, then I'm happy to do that (most people seem to consider Conscripts too durable for their points, for example). However, you can't base the durability of a particular model on the durability of a list that includes not only many other models but many types of model.
I disagree about that since I don't care about a single model or unit, I only care about the list overall. It's all about balance, I can accept an extremely strong deep striking suicide unit in an army that doesn't have other powerful tools, I can't accept it if overall the army becomes almost invincile. And plasma scions are the most contributing factor to the OPness of AM.
SM plasma equivalent can't deep strike and can't be spammed in the same numbers, in terms of effectiveness scions' plasma guns should cost more than SM ones. Just like orks' burnas, since they can be equipped in large units those flamers are only D3 damage. Why's that? Because you can't have a unit of 15 marines with flamers. For the same reason scions' plasmas should cost more than SM ones or lesser effective in terms of S, AP and D. Maybe assault 1 instead of rapid fire 1 for 7 points?
Better range? Damage 3? S8 without killing the user?
Better range? Since you can deep strike plasma guns have better range. Damage 3 is nice but even with 20 tankbustas you won't get the same damage as the equivalent in terms of points of scions command squads. Killing the users? The standard profile of plasma guns doesn't kill you anymore, against T5-6 S7-8 are the same, and if you have access to re-rolls of 1s you can even overcharge safely. But suicide squads can even afford to lose some models overcharging, they're going to die next turn anyway, losing one model in a unit of four dudes that is dead next turn is irrelevant.
Scions command squads will never fire against tac squads unless the AM player doesn't how his/her army works, what's the reason of this specific and unrealistic example?
I disagree about that since I don't care about a single model or unit, I only care about the list overall.
Fine, but then you still have to look at each element in the list separately (save for combinations like Conscripts and Commissars). You can't just point to a vehicle and say 'look, this vehicle is durable and it's in the same list as infantry, therefore those infantry are as durable as this vehicle'.
Blackie wrote: And plasma scions are the most contributing factor to the OPness of AM.
As I've said before, I think increasing in the cost of plasmaguns for scions from 7pts to 10pts would be enough. At the very least, I'd suggest that is tried before basically doubling the cost of plasma (which seems like a severe overreaction to me).
SM plasma equivalent can't deep strike and can't be spammed in the same numbers, in terms of effectiveness scions' plasma guns should cost more than SM ones.
So what you really want is for Scions to be unusable. Gotcha.
Blackie wrote: Just like orks' burnas, since they can be equipped in large units those flamers are only D3 damage. Why's that? Because you can't have a unit of 15 marines with flamers. For the same reason scions' plasmas should cost more than SM ones or lesser effective in terms of S, AP and D. Maybe assault 1 instead of rapid fire 1 for 7 points?
Forgive me but how often are Burnas taken in 8th?
If the answer is 'they're not' or 'barely ever', then I'd suggest that perhaps we shouldn't be modelling other units on them.
Better range? Since you can deep strike plasma guns have better range. Damage 3 is nice but even with 20 tankbustas you won't get the same damage as the equivalent in terms of points of scions command squads. Killing the users? The standard profile of plasma guns doesn't kill you anymore, against T5-6 S7-8 are the same, and if you have access to re-rolls of 1s you can even overcharge. And suicide squads can even afford to lose some models risking the overcharge, they're going to die next turn anyway, losing one model in a unit of four dudes that is dead next turn is irrelevant.
You seem desperate to use the weakest codex as a point of comparison. Why? Are you that desperate that IG be nerfed into the ground for the third edition running?
vipoid wrote: You can't compare the durability of a model to the durability of a list and then use the latter to dictate the price of the former.
Likewise though, do we really want models with half-cost plasma running about when they're mildly less durable than a standard marine? 3+ save isn't the be-all when AP is being hurled about, especially that very same plasma, and everyone dies equally on a 1 (or more often too).
Let's say I have a model that dies to a warm summer's breeze. It has no save whatsoever, can't move at all, has a Toughness of 1, and isn't a character. But I can pay 5 pts to give it a Lascannon.
Oh and this is before considering that this edition we get to choose which model in a unit dies. So let me just bring my mostly plasma squad with a few throwaway extra wounds.
Throw away guns after hotshot lasguns too...which are ap-2. LOL.
It's essentially a half priced sterngard unit that can deep-strike for free.
I voted for Harliquen troops but in reality the most busted thing is the troop master. It's like 74 points (with caress and fusion) and has a ridicules stat line and buff for it's points.
Hit's on 2's with a fusion pistol that he can run shoot and charge with after an 8" move. He's got a 4++ and 5 wounds. Hits at str 5 with his weapon with 5 attacks ap-2.
gives out a 6" reroll wounds in CC buff.
For each Guiliman you can take 4 of these.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bobthehero wrote: They'll fire a single shot, at str 3, its basically a throwaway gun.
Blackie wrote: Plasma guns should cost 13 points, like the SM ones.
I think 10pts would be more reasonable. Scions shouldn't be paying SM weapon prices when they're significantly less durable than said SMs.
Also, I'd argue that 7pts is about right for regular guardsmen (given that they're even less durable and only have BS4+).
I disagree with your disagreement
The person holding the weapon shouldn't affect the weapon's cost.
Doing so, especially when weapon costs have become blanket default just creates issues in where if a army has multiple models of varying skill or toughness carrying the same weapon, then those models have can vastly different efficiencies with the weapon.
1 cost for a weapon, then price the model based around their ability and/or inability.
Blackie wrote: Plasma guns should cost 13 points, like the SM ones.
I think 10pts would be more reasonable. Scions shouldn't be paying SM weapon prices when they're significantly less durable than said SMs.
Also, I'd argue that 7pts is about right for regular guardsmen (given that they're even less durable and only have BS4+).
I disagree with your disagreement
The person holding the weapon shouldn't affect the weapon's cost.
Doing so, especially when weapon costs have become blanket default just creates issues in where if a army has multiple models of varying skill or toughness carrying the same weapon, then those models have can vastly different efficiencies with the weapon.
1 cost for a weapon, then price the model based around their ability and/or inability.
What is your thought on Strength based melee weapons like Power Fists - currently STR 3 models pay more than (Some/all?)) Space Marines using their STR 4 ones? Surely that can;t be right?
Mr Morden wrote: What is your thought on Strength based melee weapons like Power Fists - currently STR 3 models pay more than (Some/all?)) Space Marines using their STR 4 ones? Surely that can;t be right?
1 cost for a weapon
Weapon costs represent the weapon
Adjust the cost of the model for being stronger, not the cost of the weapon for a model being weaker.
The person holding the weapon shouldn't affect the weapon's cost.
Doing so, especially when weapon costs have become blanket default just creates issues in where if a army has multiple models of varying skill or toughness carrying the same weapon, then those models have can vastly different efficiencies with the weapon.
1 cost for a weapon, then price the model based around their ability and/or inability.
The reason that doesn't work is that models differ in cost for a reason. If you force cheap models to pay the same price for their weapons as more elite/expensive models, then those cheap models quickly become far too expensive to justify their statlines. Because their expensive weapons quickly eclipse the initial differences in cost. So you end up with models that have vastly worse statlines than elite models but cost just marginally less.
The person holding the weapon shouldn't affect the weapon's cost.
Doing so, especially when weapon costs have become blanket default just creates issues in where if a army has multiple models of varying skill or toughness carrying the same weapon, then those models have can vastly different efficiencies with the weapon.
1 cost for a weapon, then price the model based around their ability and/or inability.
The reason that doesn't work is that models differ in cost for a reason. If you force cheap models to pay the same price for their weapons as more elite/expensive models, then those cheap models quickly become far too expensive to justify their statlines. Because their expensive weapons quickly eclipse the initial differences in cost. So you end up with models that have vastly worse statlines than elite models but cost just marginally less.
It's even worse with melee weapons.
Your point is valid with melle weapons - with shooting weapons it is not. Shooting weapons scale off 1 stat. BS. BS should determine the cost of a weapon - not what army you are in.
The person holding the weapon shouldn't affect the weapon's cost.
Doing so, especially when weapon costs have become blanket default just creates issues in where if a army has multiple models of varying skill or toughness carrying the same weapon, then those models have can vastly different efficiencies with the weapon.
1 cost for a weapon, then price the model based around their ability and/or inability.
It's even worse with melee weapons.
Your point is valid with melle weapons - with shooting weapons it is not. Shooting weapons scale off 1 stat. BS. BS should determine the cost of a weapon - not what army you are in.
That's not true at all. Durability affects shooting power, because you can't shoot if you're dead.
A T4 3+ model with a plasma gun will get to shoot for more turns than a T3 5+ model with a plasma gun, and therefore inflict more shooting damage with exactly the same weapon.
The reason that doesn't work is that models differ in cost for a reason. If you force cheap models to pay the same price for their weapons as more elite/expensive models, then those cheap models quickly become far too expensive to justify their statlines. Because their expensive weapons quickly eclipse the initial differences in cost. So you end up with models that have vastly worse statlines than elite models but cost just marginally less.
The person holding the weapon shouldn't affect the weapon's cost.
Doing so, especially when weapon costs have become blanket default just creates issues in where if a army has multiple models of varying skill or toughness carrying the same weapon, then those models have can vastly different efficiencies with the weapon.
1 cost for a weapon, then price the model based around their ability and/or inability.
The reason that doesn't work is that models differ in cost for a reason. If you force cheap models to pay the same price for their weapons as more elite/expensive models, then those cheap models quickly become far too expensive to justify their statlines. Because their expensive weapons quickly eclipse the initial differences in cost. So you end up with models that have vastly worse statlines than elite models but cost just marginally less.
It's even worse with melee weapons.
Not really, and we can use the classic 'sleep with me for $1mil joke"
Would a special weapon be OP on a Standard Space Marine if that Space Marine costed 1000 points per model, and the weapon costed 15? No, of course not Would a special weapon be OP on a Standard Guardsman that can deep strike was BS+2 and costed 1 point per model, and the weapon costed 15? Yes, of course it would be
Now that we agree that you can have circumstances in which exact same costs on a Guardsman Toughness could be OP, and a Space Marine Toughness could be UP that means that there will exist a value for both models in which it will be roughly balanced despite the cost of the weapon remaining static.
The person holding the weapon shouldn't affect the weapon's cost.
Doing so, especially when weapon costs have become blanket default just creates issues in where if a army has multiple models of varying skill or toughness carrying the same weapon, then those models have can vastly different efficiencies with the weapon.
1 cost for a weapon, then price the model based around their ability and/or inability.
The reason that doesn't work is that models differ in cost for a reason. If you force cheap models to pay the same price for their weapons as more elite/expensive models, then those cheap models quickly become far too expensive to justify their statlines. Because their expensive weapons quickly eclipse the initial differences in cost. So you end up with models that have vastly worse statlines than elite models but cost just marginally less.
It's even worse with melee weapons.
Not really, and we can use the classic 'sleep with me for $1mil joke"
Would a special weapon be OP on a Standard Space Marine if that Space Marine costed 1000 points per model, and the weapon costed 15? No, of course not
Would a special weapon be OP on a Standard Guardsman that can deep strike was BS+2 and costed 1 point per model, and the weapon costed 15? Yes, of course it would be
Now that we agree that you can have circumstances in which exact same costs on a Guardsman Toughness could be OP, and a Space Marine Toughness could be UP that means that there will exist a value for both models in which it will be roughly balanced despite the cost of the weapon remaining static.
You're hyperbole is not valid, because the weapon costs more than both models, not less than one but more than the other. A more valid comparison would be:
"Is a plasma gun being 1000 points better for a Space Marine or better for a Guardsman with 2+ BS" - obviously it's better on the space marine, because you're spending so much on the weapon that the model its on fades into what is essentially the margin of error of the cost of the plasma gun - and the space marine has better durability and will be able to fire it more times.
To take a less hyperbolic example:
If plasma were 25 points, you'd essentially never see it on IG. Because you could buy 6 more Imperial Guardsmen and have points to spare. You would, I'd bet, still see it on Space Marines.
The person holding the weapon shouldn't affect the weapon's cost.
Doing so, especially when weapon costs have become blanket default just creates issues in where if a army has multiple models of varying skill or toughness carrying the same weapon, then those models have can vastly different efficiencies with the weapon.
1 cost for a weapon, then price the model based around their ability and/or inability.
The reason that doesn't work is that models differ in cost for a reason. If you force cheap models to pay the same price for their weapons as more elite/expensive models, then those cheap models quickly become far too expensive to justify their statlines. Because their expensive weapons quickly eclipse the initial differences in cost. So you end up with models that have vastly worse statlines than elite models but cost just marginally less.
It's even worse with melee weapons.
Not really, and we can use the classic 'sleep with me for $1mil joke"
Would a special weapon be OP on a Standard Space Marine if that Space Marine costed 1000 points per model, and the weapon costed 15? No, of course not
Would a special weapon be OP on a Standard Guardsman that can deep strike was BS+2 and costed 1 point per model, and the weapon costed 15? Yes, of course it would be
Now that we agree that you can have circumstances in which exact same costs on a Guardsman Toughness could be OP, and a Space Marine Toughness could be UP that means that there will exist a value for both models in which it will be roughly balanced despite the cost of the weapon remaining static.
You're hyperbole is not valid, because the weapon costs more than both models, not less than one but more than the other. A more valid comparison would be:
"Is a plasma gun being 1000 points better for a Space Marine or better for a Guardsman with 2+ BS" - obviously it's better on the space marine, because you're spending so much on the weapon that the model its on fades into what is essentially the margin of error of the cost of the plasma gun - and the space marine has better durability and will be able to fire it more times.
To take a less hyperbolic example:
If plasma were 25 points, you'd essentially never see it on IG. Because you could buy 6 more Imperial Guardsmen and have points to spare. You would, I'd bet, still see it on Space Marines.
Sigh, my example wasn't hyperbole. Hyperbole means that you aren't suppose to the exaggerated value seriously.
My example was to establish that a maximum exists. In which a model can be OP or UP based on a model's cost, but weapon cost remaining static.
Your counter example proved that you can make a weapon garbage for everyone by making it too expensive. At 1000 points it wouldn't matter if it said "This model is immortal and always hits.", it would still be a garbage weapon. (Altho if it also said "this model may shoot an infinite number of times per turn... but now we are getting to problems that it's the model that's broken, not inherently the weapon. Since we are assuming the weapon can be used on several different models.") Which is something that's kinda of pointless to prove.
My stance stands, as does my example. There is a reasonable static cost for the weapon and you can balance the models around it based on the model's toughness, accuracy, and various abilities.
The person holding the weapon shouldn't affect the weapon's cost.
Doing so, especially when weapon costs have become blanket default just creates issues in where if a army has multiple models of varying skill or toughness carrying the same weapon, then those models have can vastly different efficiencies with the weapon.
1 cost for a weapon, then price the model based around their ability and/or inability.
The reason that doesn't work is that models differ in cost for a reason. If you force cheap models to pay the same price for their weapons as more elite/expensive models, then those cheap models quickly become far too expensive to justify their statlines. Because their expensive weapons quickly eclipse the initial differences in cost. So you end up with models that have vastly worse statlines than elite models but cost just marginally less.
It's even worse with melee weapons.
Not really, and we can use the classic 'sleep with me for $1mil joke"
Would a special weapon be OP on a Standard Space Marine if that Space Marine costed 1000 points per model, and the weapon costed 15? No, of course not
Would a special weapon be OP on a Standard Guardsman that can deep strike was BS+2 and costed 1 point per model, and the weapon costed 15? Yes, of course it would be
Now that we agree that you can have circumstances in which exact same costs on a Guardsman Toughness could be OP, and a Space Marine Toughness could be UP that means that there will exist a value for both models in which it will be roughly balanced despite the cost of the weapon remaining static.
You're hyperbole is not valid, because the weapon costs more than both models, not less than one but more than the other. A more valid comparison would be:
"Is a plasma gun being 1000 points better for a Space Marine or better for a Guardsman with 2+ BS" - obviously it's better on the space marine, because you're spending so much on the weapon that the model its on fades into what is essentially the margin of error of the cost of the plasma gun - and the space marine has better durability and will be able to fire it more times.
To take a less hyperbolic example:
If plasma were 25 points, you'd essentially never see it on IG. Because you could buy 6 more Imperial Guardsmen and have points to spare. You would, I'd bet, still see it on Space Marines.
Your hyperbole is not valid because it alters the meaning of his statement, the point he was referring to, in favor of a different point you're attempting to show. He stated, and showed, how it's entirely possible for there to exist a point at which costs balance out despite models being different in stats and weapons being the same cost universally. Meanwhile, YOUR hyperbole attempts to prove that with a sufficient enough cost, some weapons aren't worth taking on their platforms (looking at you mister chainfist).
If you're going to invalidate something, argue from the same perspective.
That plasma gun will last far longer in a guard blob due to the cheap ablative wounds (3.3 per marine cost) versus the cost of maintaining a marine horde to throwaway to random plasma fire. Yet you made it seem like the guard's stats will mean he's dropping dead the first time he gets shot and losing all the points he spent on his precious special weapon. Not in this edition.
Also, never try to tell me that the platform price is irrelevant if the gun is price high. If the gun cost 1000 pts and I had a 1 pt model I can put it on or a 100 pt model I can put it on, I would still care about the difference in points. That's an extra Rhino.
You're hyperbole is not valid, because the weapon costs more than both models, not less than one but more than the other. A more valid comparison would be:
"Is a plasma gun being 1000 points better for a Space Marine or better for a Guardsman with 2+ BS" - obviously it's better on the space marine, because you're spending so much on the weapon that the model its on fades into what is essentially the margin of error of the cost of the plasma gun - and the space marine has better durability and will be able to fire it more times.
To take a less hyperbolic example:
If plasma were 25 points, you'd essentially never see it on IG. Because you could buy 6 more Imperial Guardsmen and have points to spare. You would, I'd bet, still see it on Space Marines.
You rarely buy plasma for individual models, and when you do they're going to be characters where their durability is not just about their stats. Typically you buy plasma for units. Space Marines with plasma are not notably more durable than Guardsmen with plasma -- typically, to kill a Space Marine with a plasma gun, you have to kill 4 or 5 Space Marines, whereas to kill a Guardsman with a plasma gun you have to kill 8 to 10 Guardsmen. You don't just get to shoot the model that has the plasma gun, and it's downright bizarre to talk about point costs without considering that.
There are advantages to being able to hide special weapons in squads -- the squad's firepower degrades relatively slowly with casualties, because you can remove cheaper ablative wounds before having to remove the special weapon. This is why you're a lot more likely to put a lascannon team in an infantry squad than in a heavy weapon squad. Edit: This is a problem that Eldar have. You simply can't play most Eldar units without giving them transports because all their models come with special weapons, and so if you deploy them on the table you're going to start losing lots of points very quickly.
The thing with Scion/Elysian Command Squads is that they're guaranteed to shoot first. Nobody's taking regular Guard Command Squads, giving them all plasma guns, and deploying them on the table. That'd be dumb -- they'd just get shot. But drop squads will shoot first, can make back all or almost all of their cost in damage in one volley, and can often shoot exactly what you want them to shoot. And so they don't care very much about ablative wounds -- unlimited-by-officers Scion Command Squads would be overpowered even if they were T1 7+. Durability is not that important for the unit. It's nice, and sometimes you can keep some of them alive for the next turn, but this is not something you're counting on. Likewise it would really not be a huge buff to them to make them T4 3+. Like, at what point cost do you actually start to prefer a 64 point Scion Command Squad to a hypothetical 4-MEQ plasma drop squad? The Marines probably don't need to cost that much more than the Scions to be a worse choice for most armies. Personally, I think Elysian Command Squads are a lot better than Scion Command Squads, just because they're cheaper. You save 8 points on the squad and 10 points on the officer, and you end up getting plasma shots for basically the same price as you used to with 1 Tempestor Prime for every 2 squads. Of course, you're giving up a 4+ save to do it, but that seems like a no-brainer.
The person holding the weapon shouldn't affect the weapon's cost.
Doing so, especially when weapon costs have become blanket default just creates issues in where if a army has multiple models of varying skill or toughness carrying the same weapon, then those models have can vastly different efficiencies with the weapon.
1 cost for a weapon, then price the model based around their ability and/or inability.
It's even worse with melee weapons.
Your point is valid with melle weapons - with shooting weapons it is not. Shooting weapons scale off 1 stat. BS. BS should determine the cost of a weapon - not what army you are in.
That's not true at all. Durability affects shooting power, because you can't shoot if you're dead.
A T4 3+ model with a plasma gun will get to shoot for more turns than a T3 5+ model with a plasma gun, and therefore inflict more shooting damage with exactly the same weapon.
The reason that doesn't work is that models differ in cost for a reason. If you force cheap models to pay the same price for their weapons as more elite/expensive models, then those cheap models quickly become far too expensive to justify their statlines. Because their expensive weapons quickly eclipse the initial differences in cost. So you end up with models that have vastly worse statlines than elite models but cost just marginally less.
Durability should be covered in the models base cost. It should not affect weapon costs.
I'd actually say the plasma gun is worse on such a stat heavy model given that it will be ignored. Either the model is a titan and has better weapon choices or the model is spending a fortune in points on being an "invincible plasma gun". That's SUCH a waste of points that the gun cost is irrelevant because the MODEL is overpriced for the gun it's using. With a model with those stats, it would carry a huge point cost. With such a huge point cost, it makes up a huge portion of your army. With such a huge portion of your army being devoted to a single model, it BETTER have something better than a plasma gun.
But if you're asking if a Warlord Titan can take 15 pt plasma gun upgrades as knee sponsons? He's more than welcome to. It's a waste of points on such a model.
Likewise, I already argued the weakling side. Yes, it's OP to have cheap guns on cheap models when they do the same thing.
vipoid wrote: You can't compare the durability of a model to the durability of a list and then use the latter to dictate the price of the former.
Likewise though, do we really want models with half-cost plasma running about when they're mildly less durable than a standard marine? 3+ save isn't the be-all when AP is being hurled about, especially that very same plasma, and everyone dies equally on a 1 (or more often too).
Let's say I have a model that dies to a warm summer's breeze. It has no save whatsoever, can't move at all, has a Toughness of 1, and isn't a character. But I can pay 5 pts to give it a Lascannon.
Oh and this is before considering that this edition we get to choose which model in a unit dies. So let me just bring my mostly plasma squad with a few throwaway extra wounds.
The point with that 1-1 trade is that a unit that is meant to be a sucide squad kills a unit that shouldn't be dead in turn 1 in the opponent's mind. With several scions command squads the AM can cripple the most powerful threats only sacrifying units that have that precise role. Scions kill the vehicles and the anti infantry AM weapons kill the crew inside. Without plasma scions that anti infantry shooting could be wasted. So this is not really a trade of 1 and 1.
And all the anti-infantry firepower taken by the scions saves several wounds to the semi-immortal super scary blob of conscripts which can become a real problem if it's left untouched by turn 2. They kill some valuable units and, in the subsequent turn, soak the firepower that can cripple one of more units that you want to be effective at full numbers. Unless that AM list faces a green tide ork army with only boyz and characters that can't be targeted by scions, or something similar, that tactics is way OP.
Plasma guns should cost 13 points, like the SM ones. And scions should probably be limited to a single command squad and two regular squads unless you go full scions.
1. SCS are not suicide squads by definition it´s the weapon options they have that make them go close the enemy and the enemy will of course see them as the easy targets they are.
2. As i have shown that a SCS with Prime are very unlikely to kill a rhino-chassis thus unable to reveal infantry for other friendly units. You would need a fifth SCS model so 5 SCS with 5 Primes would kill 4 razorbacks. Then they will die -> AM losing 545 vs. 400 SM. Bad deal for AM.
3. You´re speaking of turn 1 deep striking and direkt support by conscript blobs. That means you have set up or moved too far at the front so that they can reach you. In case you moved to close them, you will likely have delivered around of fire against them. Well sorry you know the list of the enemy at least just prior to deployment. You do know what is coming and can setup your units in an appropriate way.
4. As every army has to setup at least half of their units on the board, they can only hurl around half of their army as SCS+Prime at your feet. And thus around 1000 points of "first strikers" face your full 2000 points army. As you are usually going first against a 30+ units army, you have even the first turn to screen your most expensive units. And yes you will suffering damage and losing units but the dropped units will easily get wiped meaning the AM will have around 1000 points remaining and you around 1200. Of course with a good screening technique that will shift in your favor. If you spread your army, of course the SCS can pick the most juicy targets and the AM will be favored.
Concerning weapon costs i would really prefer a way that make a weapon cost for everyone the same. And that Space Marine for example and get more out of it, should be reflected in the model costs.
But i see that this would need a whole new system and still has a flaw. Weapon cost and model cost would be fixed and thus won´t scale appropriate.
I see that a scion hits better than the guardsman but i won´t live longer. Over the course of the game guardsmen get more shots out of it as not all of them will be killed in one round. So i can´t see a reason for any points increase.
Btw. no one has complained about AM Veterans. But they can bring quite a very similar firepower with excess bodies for the same points though not with a deep strike.
So what i see here is less a problem with the scions but with the easily available "deep striking". Which seems to me like a call for price increase for deep strikers and/or a special rule limiting deep strikes per turn.
(Make deep strike happening at the very end of the player turn, would tone it very much down.)
At least we have the rule that at least half of the units have to be setup. (Yes i´m also not a fan of deep striking)
But that seems to be part of the meta and most armies have half way cheap units for screening.
Weapons can literally be costed by their ability to remove wounds in a turn. BS is the stat that determines that. Nothing else should matter when costing weapons.
If you want to argue about durability - the marine costs 13 points compared to your - 6-8 point scion? The durability factor is already payed for. Against each other if they both fire simultaneously - Assuming the scion overcharges...why wouldn't he? He's going to die anyways right? The Marine has a chance at a 6+ save....and the guardsmen kills himself on a 1. Sounds like about a 5 point difference at max to me between the two models. Except in this comparison the marine is actually getting to shoot - Realistically the scion always shoots first.
Weapons can literally be costed by their ability to remove wounds in a turn. BS is the stat that determines that. Nothing else should matter when costing weapons.
If you want to argue about durability - the marine costs 13 points compared to your - 6-8 point scion? The durability factor is already payed for. Against each other if they both fire simultaneously - Assuming the scion overcharges...why wouldn't he? He's going to die anyways right? The Marine has a chance at a 6+ save....and the guardsmen kills himself on a 1. Sounds like about a 5 point difference at max to me between the two models. Except in this comparison the marine is actually getting to shoot - Realistically the scion always shoots first.
The scion shoots first because of deep strike, which is a tactical "choice" on the guard player (he didn't have a stroke and deploy the models on the table during deployment) and also has significant counterplay (reference: Marines being unable to deep-strike then charge IG tanks because of the bubble-wrap).
Otherwise, no, there's no guarantee that the scion shoots first. In fact, based on purely number-of-drops, the scion should almost always shoot second.
Durability should be covered in the models base cost. It should not affect weapon costs.
This really only works if all of a model's loadouts are going to be comparable in cost. It is a terrible idea if models are going to be able to choose from a wide variety of weapon options such that the final result can be either only a little shooty or very, very shooty.
Like, consider one of these FW artillery platforms which are immobile and can't be tied up in CC. I guess let's also say that they can't even hold objectives. So they're basically worthless except for their ability to shoot things. They're not characters and must deploy on the table, so can be shot at just fine, and you're not expecting to be able to hide them behind terrain or anything. The durability of the platform will determine how much you value its various weapon options. Suppose it can take a mortar or an Earthshaker cannon. I don't know what you want to price an Earthshaker at -- probably at least 40 points since it's at least as good as two lascannons. The mortar is still 5 points, just like on a HWT. I believe that, given a defensive statline, you will have a very hard time setting a price for the platform such that both of those weapon options seem viable. In general, if the platform is cheap and fragile, like a Heavy Weapon Team, the mortar is going to be an obviously better buy. If the platform is expensive and durable, like a Basilisk, the Earthshaker will be an obviously better buy. There's probably somewhere in the middle where this more-or-less works out, but that's going to be a special case.
I mean, sure, you can have aesthetic reasons for believing that it's better if we try to price weapons independently of the models/units that can take them, and that models' prices shouldn't reflect the weapons they can take. But this will in general produce imbalances that you can't address within the constraints of your system.
SM plasma equivalent can't deep strike and can't be spammed in the same numbers, in terms of effectiveness scions' plasma guns should cost more than SM ones.
So what you really want is for Scions to be unusable. Gotcha.
If scions command squads cost 30/40% more than the current price, including wargear, I'd take them anyway. They would be the most powerful unit in more than half the armies available even if a single squad was priced around 100 points.
Better range? Since you can deep strike plasma guns have better range. Damage 3 is nice but even with 20 tankbustas you won't get the same damage as the equivalent in terms of points of scions command squads. Killing the users? The standard profile of plasma guns doesn't kill you anymore, against T5-6 S7-8 are the same, and if you have access to re-rolls of 1s you can even overcharge. And suicide squads can even afford to lose some models risking the overcharge, they're going to die next turn anyway, losing one model in a unit of four dudes that is dead next turn is irrelevant.
You seem desperate to use the weakest codex as a point of comparison. Why? Are you that desperate that IG be nerfed into the ground for the third edition running?
Just because they're one of my armies actually. I wouldn't like the IG to be nerfed at the point they become the weakest army in the game, I'm fine with the current conscripts+commissar combo for example, but that cheap deep striking plasma spam (with re-rolling ones, which let them overcharge all the time, but thanks to their role they would do it anyway) is too broken.
Anything that is an auto-include should be toned down. The goal should be having armies with different tools and styles but similar effectiveness. Things like scions command squads, stormravens, guilliman, brimstones... should be toned down. AM lists would be strong and top tier even if, with plasma getting more expensive as they deserve to be, players were forced to field one lesser scions command squad.
1. SCS are not suicide squads by definition it´s the weapon options they have that make them go close the enemy and the enemy will of course see them as the easy targets they are.
How can a unit of 4 deepstriking dudes with T3 1W and 4+ save not be considered as a suicide squad?
2. As i have shown that a SCS with Prime are very unlikely to kill a rhino-chassis thus unable to reveal infantry for other friendly units. You would need a fifth SCS model so 5 SCS with 5 Primes would kill 4 razorbacks. Then they will die -> AM losing 545 vs. 400 SM. Bad deal for AM.
I would be fine with a single command squad and a prime. Problem is you may deep strike several of them without paying more than 400 points in total. Enough to cut down more than a vehicle or something very important for the opponent. Some things can be screwed even if they have some wounds left with the new damage table.
3. You´re speaking of turn 1 deep striking and direkt support by conscript blobs. That means you have set up or moved too far at the front so that they can reach you. In case you moved to close them, you will likely have delivered around of fire against them. Well sorry you know the list of the enemy at least just prior to deployment. You do know what is coming and can setup your units in an appropriate way.
Doesn't the AM have other anti-infantries tools rather than conscripts?
Btw. no one has complained about AM Veterans. But they can bring quite a very similar firepower with excess bodies for the same points though not with a deep strike.
So what i see here is less a problem with the scions but with the easily available "deep striking". Which seems to me like a call for price increase for deep strikers and/or a special rule limiting deep strikes per turn.
(Make deep strike happening at the very end of the player turn, would tone it very much down.)
At least we have the rule that at least half of the units have to be setup. (Yes i´m also not a fan of deep striking)
But that seems to be part of the meta and most armies have half way cheap units for screening.
Scions problem is the combination of their cheap plasma, the possiblity of equipping several models in a single unit with that weapon and the deep strike ability. Combine it with other powerful units the army have and the list becomes overpowered. You can kill veterans' vehicle and then the crew inside before they strike but even if you don't that unit must pay for the transport while scions don't. If they were forced to arrive by a drop pod equivalent or they didn't have the deep strike ability their 7 points plasma guns would be fine.
How can a unit of 4 deepstriking dudes with T3 1W and 4+ save not be considered as a suicide squad?
I would be fine with a single command squad and a prime. Problem is you may deep strike several of them without paying more than 400 points in total. Enough to cut down more than a vehicle or something very important for the opponent. Some things can be screwed even if they have some wounds left with the new damage table.
You can get more out of them if you place them tactically, e. g. on a flank or lonely units. Basically not dropping them on turn 1 in the face of the enemy. Although depends on his setup.
Yes you have to adapt your setup on a deep strike heavy list.
E. g. imagine a Space Marine army. As he know your army even he could setup his army in a way that only 4 full tacs or scouts are available as targets for a SCS alpha strike. Orks and Tyranids with their cheap units would have it even easier to deny an effective Alpha strike.
So it doesn´t matter if the AM player has 3 or 8 SCS drops, none of them can reach centurions/devastors or other high-points models.
Yes it forces you to move your army in another way as you might have wanted to. But if you push at his deployed units, he will have to act, otherwise he will loose that units despite being guarded by conscript blobs.
Doesn't the AM have other anti-infantries tools rather than conscripts?
Of course they do. I used the conscripts because you did. A heavy weapon team with heavy bolters can do some damage but are also as easily killed as SCS. And then units with a high rate of fire are lacking long range.
And if the list is drop-heavy then less points remain for other things.
So in short dropping SCS in front of you, cracking the transports open and have anti-infantry units in range of the passengers is very unlikely.
For that the opponent of the AM must have deployed on the front; if the AM went first
or must have lost his flank guarding units and your firepower failed to reduce the deployed AM-units; if the AM drop happens at turn 2+.
Scions problem is the combination of their cheap plasma, the possiblity of equipping several models in a single unit with that weapon and the deep strike ability. Combine it with other powerful units the army have and the list becomes overpowered. You can kill veterans' vehicle and then the crew inside before they strike but even if you don't that unit must pay for the transport while scions don't. If they were forced to arrive by a drop pod equivalent or they didn't have the deep strike ability their 7 points plasma guns would be fine.
So it still comes down to the deep strike. But there are so many units with the ability to deep strike, that i´m convinced GW did that intentionally and are aware of what that means.
