Tau are totally good and fine though right Reece. Right guys? Clearly "everything" is good according to Reece.
Anyways now that this is over and surprise (not) that basically we all knew what would be the best stuff and what isn't can we finally get down to brass tacks and start balancing via faq's?
I don't want to wait a year for books for every army. The game is already 10x more boring than 7th ed because of how predictable it is and all I needed to do was some mathhammer and play two games to know this.
I hope they don't make conscripts too bad after their (arguably justifiable) Nerf.
I'm really hoping they get body armour rather than flack (in game effect us a 6+ instead of a 5+) and that they are limited to a Max squad size of 30.
Maybe chuck in a requirement of a Ld test for orders, and perhaps they won't be as effective at offense, but excellent at being "operation human shield"...
More experienced Dakkanauts can share their Scion Nerf ideas, as I don't even know where to begin!
Freddy Kruger wrote: I hope they don't make conscripts too bad after their (arguably justifiable) Nerf.
I'm really hoping they get body armour rather than flack (in game effect us a 6+ instead of a 5+) and that they are limited to a Max squad size of 30.
Maybe chuck in a requirement of a Ld test for orders, and perhaps they won't be as effective at offense, but excellent at being "operation human shield"...
More experienced Dakkanauts can share their Scion Nerf ideas, as I don't even know where to begin!
Other than possibly reducing the max limit of a Scion Squad to 2 Special Weapons instead of four (right now it's 2 per 5 Scions) do Scions really need a nerf? Not at all a fan of the trend of crying to nerf this or that anytime it appears in a list with regularity - particularly with AM. Are AM just not supposed to appear in the Top 10 of a tournament?
Scions are already 9pts + weapon, after all. The problem people seem to have, really, is more with Plasma Guns - between their versatility against all threats thanks to overcharge and their low cost. Nerf the problem not the symptoms. If plasma guns went to STR 6 normally and overcharged to STR 7 while staying at 1 damage I imagine the angst would lessen.
I mean, the other consistent element of these lists were also FW options - all three had Earthshaker Batteries in them. I haven't seen a tenth of the angst against the wildly unbalanced FW options as we have over Conscripts.
Just make orders fail on conscripts 50% of the time and have the commissar have to roll a 3+ save each time he needs to put down a conscript due to moral. If he fails it the conscripts attack the commissar doing d3 mortal wounds and behave normally for their leadership.
Conscripts are undisciplined and untrained prone to panic possibly overwhelming nearby authority figures in their panic.
For the earthshaker carrages I think once the cheap bubble wrap that is concripts is addressed then things may settle but a slight points nerf may be in order.
Gamgee wrote: Tau are totally good and fine though right Reece. Right guys? Clearly "everything" is good according to Reece.
Anyways now that this is over and surprise (not) that basically we all knew what would be the best stuff and what isn't can we finally get down to brass tacks and start balancing via faq's?
I don't want to wait a year for books for every army. The game is already 10x more boring than 7th ed because of how predictable it is and all I needed to do was some mathhammer and play two games to know this.
Freddy Kruger wrote: I hope they don't make conscripts too bad after their (arguably justifiable) Nerf.
I'm really hoping they get body armour rather than flack (in game effect us a 6+ instead of a 5+) and that they are limited to a Max squad size of 30.
Maybe chuck in a requirement of a Ld test for orders, and perhaps they won't be as effective at offense, but excellent at being "operation human shield"...
More experienced Dakkanauts can share their Scion Nerf ideas, as I don't even know where to begin!
Other than possibly reducing the max limit of a Scion Squad to 2 Special Weapons instead of four (right now it's 2 per 5 Scions) do Scions really need a nerf? Not at all a fan of the trend of crying to nerf this or that anytime it appears in a list with regularity - particularly with AM. Are AM just not supposed to appear in the Top 10 of a tournament?
Scions are already 9pts + weapon, after all. The problem people seem to have, really, is more with Plasma Guns - between their versatility against all threats thanks to overcharge and their low cost. Nerf the problem not the symptoms. If plasma guns went to STR 6 normally and overcharged to STR 7 while staying at 1 damage I imagine the angst would lessen.
I mean, the other consistent element of these lists were also FW options - all three had Earthshaker Batteries in them. I haven't seen a tenth of the angst against the wildly unbalanced FW options as we have over Conscripts.
Plasma Gun needs a nerf too
but if you nerf Plasma Gun everyone will instantly just switch to Melta Gun
Also, Why isn't Plasma Gun overpowered on a Terminator? (rhetorical)
One could say that it's not just 1 problem, it's a web of smaller problems.
Also drop the "Are AM just not supposed to appear in the Top 10 of a tournament?" It gets us nowhere.
Freddy Kruger wrote: I hope they don't make conscripts too bad after their (arguably justifiable) Nerf.
I'm really hoping they get body armour rather than flack (in game effect us a 6+ instead of a 5+) and that they are limited to a Max squad size of 30.
Maybe chuck in a requirement of a Ld test for orders, and perhaps they won't be as effective at offense, but excellent at being "operation human shield"...
More experienced Dakkanauts can share their Scion Nerf ideas, as I don't even know where to begin!
Other than possibly reducing the max limit of a Scion Squad to 2 Special Weapons instead of four (right now it's 2 per 5 Scions) do Scions really need a nerf? Not at all a fan of the trend of crying to nerf this or that anytime it appears in a list with regularity - particularly with AM. Are AM just not supposed to appear in the Top 10 of a tournament?
Scions are already 9pts + weapon, after all. The problem people seem to have, really, is more with Plasma Guns - between their versatility against all threats thanks to overcharge and their low cost. Nerf the problem not the symptoms. If plasma guns went to STR 6 normally and overcharged to STR 7 while staying at 1 damage I imagine the angst would lessen.
I mean, the other consistent element of these lists were also FW options - all three had Earthshaker Batteries in them. I haven't seen a tenth of the angst against the wildly unbalanced FW options as we have over Conscripts.
Plasma Gun needs a nerf too
but if you nerf Plasma Gun everyone will instantly just switch to Melta Gun
Except that a Meltagun is 12pts and would still be far worse at killing MEQ - arguably the main intended target for Plasma Guns. As this chart from 3++ (http://www.3plusplus.net) shows: http://www.3plusplus.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/WeaponChart_IG_All.png currently overcharged PGs allow the PG to handle AV/MC as well as it does MEQ/TEQ. Tone them down and you'd bring back weapon diversity.
Whoop-de-doo, that's kind of missing the forest for the trees. It's a Conscripts and Stormtroopers list, not a "walk me closer, I want to hit them with my sword" list!
This shows AM is too powerful at this point. and i really hope we will have a more balanced meta byi the end of the year. the flyer nerf gives me hope.
There will always be units there are better than others, and those units will always be spammed at tournaments. The picture that is slowly emerging tells us that:
1) Conscripts needs a little nerf. And plasma-scions also. But nothing huge.
2) Leman Russes are too expensive to be fielded by competetive Guard players.
3) Tourneys should disallow forgeworld models, or at least put a cap or a tax on them.
4) Tau is competetive, but would not be without the Tau Commander.
5) Guilliman and the stormraven are probably undercosted
6) There were only two undefeated lists. This suggests that 8th edition, in spite it's warts, is far more balanced than the 7th editions invisibility deathballs of doom.
So per the other thread I made for BAO results (which is also still on page 1), 15 of these lists we're undefeated at the close of round 3. These included lots of Tau, Eldar and Chaos. As this shows, by the end of round 6 only two lists remained in that category.
What that tells me is that the final 3 rounds were actually pretty close so the people crying nerf are likely overdoing it. We likely should wait for Codexes before doing any balancing and see where things shake up. The only other clear takeaway I see is that Tau need a small buff for some of their stuff besides Commander Suits (which can be delivered via Codex I'd imagine as tactics or Stratagems).
Given that this was played with swiss system it is not surprising that it went from 15 to 2 undefeated lists. In swiss players with the same win/loss ratio face each other each round.
Yeah people shouldn't put too much weight on there being "only" 2 undefeated lists, since the format of the tournament isn't going to allow for more than one or 2 anyway.
Golly, with those TWO total Chaos lists in the Top 18, Brimstones and other horrors sure are a major problem. Almost no one at the BAO was able to beat them!!
Oh hey, they only brought conscripts in ALL THREE LISTS! WHERE ARE YOU MELISSA AND KANLUWEN!?!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also if it a Swiss-tournament format, being undefeated means much less as it is set up in such a way that essentially MAYBE 4 people will walk away undefeated. So that means if someone has 1 loss, it isn't too big of a deal; but at the same time if they went undefeated they are the real stars of the show.
Freddy Kruger wrote: I hope they don't make conscripts too bad after their (arguably justifiable) Nerf.
I'm really hoping they get body armour rather than flack (in game effect us a 6+ instead of a 5+) and that they are limited to a Max squad size of 30.
Maybe chuck in a requirement of a Ld test for orders, and perhaps they won't be as effective at offense, but excellent at being "operation human shield"...
More experienced Dakkanauts can share their Scion Nerf ideas, as I don't even know where to begin!
Other than possibly reducing the max limit of a Scion Squad to 2 Special Weapons instead of four (right now it's 2 per 5 Scions) do Scions really need a nerf? Not at all a fan of the trend of crying to nerf this or that anytime it appears in a list with regularity - particularly with AM. Are AM just not supposed to appear in the Top 10 of a tournament?
Scions are already 9pts + weapon, after all. The problem people seem to have, really, is more with Plasma Guns - between their versatility against all threats thanks to overcharge and their low cost. Nerf the problem not the symptoms. If plasma guns went to STR 6 normally and overcharged to STR 7 while staying at 1 damage I imagine the angst would lessen.
I mean, the other consistent element of these lists were also FW options - all three had Earthshaker Batteries in them. I haven't seen a tenth of the angst against the wildly unbalanced FW options as we have over Conscripts.
Plasma Gun needs a nerf too
but if you nerf Plasma Gun everyone will instantly just switch to Melta Gun
Also, Why isn't Plasma Gun overpowered on a Terminator? (rhetorical)
One could say that it's not just 1 problem, it's a web of smaller problems.
Also drop the "Are AM just not supposed to appear in the Top 10 of a tournament?" It gets us nowhere.
The Plasma Guns are too cheap is the issue. Not the plasma Guns themselves...
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah, that's what happens when you leave conscripts with orders. Their firepower is ridiculous with orders.
I'd wonder if these lists would fare equally well if Orders were removed from conscripts.
According to the thread in tourney discussion, they were being used to deny deepstrike offensives by going second. Then the tempestus would deploy to beta strike the enemy. Exactly like they should be used, but still far too cheap.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah, that's what happens when you leave conscripts with orders. Their firepower is ridiculous with orders.
I'd wonder if these lists would fare equally well if Orders were removed from conscripts.
Expect, at least, Conscript Squads to get tied to Infantry Squads taken.
They did that with Command Squads and officers in Guard.
But again, people who didn't play Guard have whined for years that many Guard players wanted their army to be something other than the WW1 meatshieldfest that they imagined them to be...
Gamgee wrote: Tau are totally good and fine though right Reece. Right guys? Clearly "everything" is good according to Reece.
Anyways now that this is over and surprise (not) that basically we all knew what would be the best stuff and what isn't can we finally get down to brass tacks and start balancing via faq's?
I don't want to wait a year for books for every army. The game is already 10x more boring than 7th ed because of how predictable it is and all I needed to do was some mathhammer and play two games to know this.
Tau had a placing in the top 10, more than many other armies, not seeing where the issue is here. We dont even see Orks, Dark Eldar, Tyranids, Sisters, Grey Knights, Necrons, etc appear in this list. The only real big issue apparent in these lists is flyers and conscripts.
IG are this edition's Eldar. Clearly top tier with a bag of great options - its not just Conscripts that are the problem (although they contribute).
They might not be once all the books are released but from now to Christmas I expect them to place well in every tournament and they shall be the army dictating the meta.
As everyone here has basically been saying. They've dominated the tournaments i've played in (admittedly, smaller local events), as well as every single casual game.
Freddy Kruger wrote: I hope they don't make conscripts too bad after their (arguably justifiable) Nerf.
I'm really hoping they get body armour rather than flack (in game effect us a 6+ instead of a 5+) and that they are limited to a Max squad size of 30.
Maybe chuck in a requirement of a Ld test for orders, and perhaps they won't be as effective at offense, but excellent at being "operation human shield"...
More experienced Dakkanauts can share their Scion Nerf ideas, as I don't even know where to begin!
Other than possibly reducing the max limit of a Scion Squad to 2 Special Weapons instead of four (right now it's 2 per 5 Scions) do Scions really need a nerf? Not at all a fan of the trend of crying to nerf this or that anytime it appears in a list with regularity - particularly with AM. Are AM just not supposed to appear in the Top 10 of a tournament?
Scions are already 9pts + weapon, after all. The problem people seem to have, really, is more with Plasma Guns - between their versatility against all threats thanks to overcharge and their low cost. Nerf the problem not the symptoms. If plasma guns went to STR 6 normally and overcharged to STR 7 while staying at 1 damage I imagine the angst would lessen.
I mean, the other consistent element of these lists were also FW options - all three had Earthshaker Batteries in them. I haven't seen a tenth of the angst against the wildly unbalanced FW options as we have over Conscripts.
Plasma Gun needs a nerf too
but if you nerf Plasma Gun everyone will instantly just switch to Melta Gun
Also, Why isn't Plasma Gun overpowered on a Terminator? (rhetorical)
One could say that it's not just 1 problem, it's a web of smaller problems.
Also drop the "Are AM just not supposed to appear in the Top 10 of a tournament?" It gets us nowhere.
There is nothing wrong with that for several reasons.
a) melta isn't nearly as useful with deepstrike
b) melta is more expensive and farily poor vs anti infantry
c) most vehicles outside of flyers aren't that competitive. The fact plasma is better vs vehicles in MOST situations than meltaguns is just bad balancing.
Im all for plasmaguns/pistols getting nerfed to str6 base and str7 overcharged (I think overcharged at 2damage is fine).
This will make plasmagun worse vs t8 and t7 vehicles even when they deepstrike compared to meltaguns. And it makes grenade launchers a bit more comparable (even though grenade launchers still need a slight buff to make them better then the basic lasgun w orders.
conscripts need an ORDER nerf... limit the orders the conscripts can receive and you severly cut down on their offense (FRFSRF), utility (get back in the fight). This still keeps them as a durable screen unit but much less effective offensively.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah, that's what happens when you leave conscripts with orders. Their firepower is ridiculous with orders.
I'd wonder if these lists would fare equally well if Orders were removed from conscripts.
It's more than that, insanely cheap deep strike plasma, as well as total board control with conscripts, that are nearly impossible to remove. As well as undercosted tanks.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah, that's what happens when you leave conscripts with orders. Their firepower is ridiculous with orders.
I'd wonder if these lists would fare equally well if Orders were removed from conscripts.
It's more than that, insanely cheap deep strike plasma, as well as total board control with conscripts, that are nearly impossible to remove. As well as undercosted tanks.
I wonder how well the intercept stratagem would work against them.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah, that's what happens when you leave conscripts with orders. Their firepower is ridiculous with orders.
I'd wonder if these lists would fare equally well if Orders were removed from conscripts.
It's more than that, insanely cheap deep strike plasma, as well as total board control with conscripts, that are nearly impossible to remove. As well as undercosted tanks.
Yeah the plasma I expect a hard nerf-bat whallop. The tanks I am not sure are undercosted - if you mean Artillery, then I have no idea as I do not run them and haven't seen much math comparing them to other tanks. The Leman Russ is pretty bad, to be fair.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah, that's what happens when you leave conscripts with orders. Their firepower is ridiculous with orders.
I'd wonder if these lists would fare equally well if Orders were removed from conscripts.
It's more than that, insanely cheap deep strike plasma, as well as total board control with conscripts, that are nearly impossible to remove. As well as undercosted tanks.
Yeah the plasma I expect a hard nerf-bat whallop. The tanks I am not sure are undercosted - if you mean Artillery, then I have no idea as I do not run them and haven't seen much math comparing them to other tanks. The Leman Russ is pretty bad, to be fair.
Yes, I agree with the plasma. And that's honestly pretty well deserved.
Also yes - I do think Leman Russ are strong, but i'm referring to Artillery, things like Manticores. I would suggest proxying a few for your next game and walling them with conscripts. You'll have enough points left over for a nasty deep strike plasma. if you're feeling especially cruel, throw Celestine into the mix for 150 points.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'd love to see how the solitary Grey Knights player did :( Solidarity! King Arthur in Spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace
Quickjager wrote: Oh hey, they only brought conscripts in ALL THREE LISTS! WHERE ARE YOU MELISSA AND KANLUWEN!?!
If you want to whine at me about conscripts, while ignoring all the other units that it takes just as much firepower-per-point as conscripts to remove, I quite simply have no time for it.
And neither you nor the mods want to hear the words I have to say about you for trying to specifically call me out by name.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah, that's what happens when you leave conscripts with orders. Their firepower is ridiculous with orders.
I'd wonder if these lists would fare equally well if Orders were removed from conscripts.
It's more than that, insanely cheap deep strike plasma, as well as total board control with conscripts, that are nearly impossible to remove. As well as undercosted tanks.
Yeah the plasma I expect a hard nerf-bat whallop. The tanks I am not sure are undercosted - if you mean Artillery, then I have no idea as I do not run them and haven't seen much math comparing them to other tanks. The Leman Russ is pretty bad, to be fair.
Yes, I agree with the plasma. And that's honestly pretty well deserved.
Also yes - I do think Leman Russ are strong, but i'm referring to Artillery, things like Manticores. I would suggest proxying a few for your next game and walling them with conscripts. You'll have enough points left over for a nasty deep strike plasma. if you're feeling especially cruel, throw Celestine into the mix for 150 points.
Oh no I would never inflict that upon someone! I run a tank regiment, so having artillery and conscripts is unfluffy anyways.
Celestine is staying with my burgeoning Sororitas army (who is going to be predominantly footslogging!) for fluff as well, though I may mix and match the tanks and the sisters - still trying to find an efficient solution to anti-tank in a pure footslogging sisters force.
Anyways, that aside, yeah, the plasma thing is unbelievable. We're in total agreement on that.
Audustum wrote: So per the other thread I made for BAO results (which is also still on page 1), 15 of these lists we're undefeated at the close of round 3. These included lots of Tau, Eldar and Chaos. As this shows, by the end of round 6 only two lists remained in that category.
What that tells me is that the final 3 rounds were actually pretty close so the people crying nerf are likely overdoing it. We likely should wait for Codexes before doing any balancing and see where things shake up. The only other clear takeaway I see is that Tau need a small buff for some of their stuff besides Commander Suits (which can be delivered via Codex I'd imagine as tactics or Stratagems).
This says nothing since being undefeated after the first 3 games vs most of the chaff fluffy lists isn't crazy. By default at the end of round 6 there is generally ONLY 2 undefeated lists since that is the FINAL game. Furthermore after 8 editions where gw rarely adjusted a single army during the entire edition a wait and see approach for several months NEVER worked.... Again we can go over this over and over but waiting a year or more for codexs to release does not help balance the game when even after the first 3-4 weeks people were able to accurately predict which units are to powerful. Oh look scion plasma spam and conscript hordes won!!! that was a surprise... NOT... tau commander spam, brimstone spam, and guilliman reroll lists; all did well? shocker.. I think we need to wait another year and about another dozen tournament results to show what people have been saying the last 2 months....great idea
And hopefully a price hike for Gulliman like many have been calling for. Maybe not a huge one but it needs to be enough.
Rowboat is FAR easier to play around than conscripts. The marines as a whole are looking incredibly mediocre without the stormraven crutch, and Rowboat added in makes them strong, but not busted, even if he is undercosted. But maybe he's not in the context of the mediocre nature of marines. This, btw, is what marines would have looked like in 7th w/o gladius and deathstar. Mediocre is what they naturally are because 40K punishes generalists HEAVILY.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah, that's what happens when you leave conscripts with orders. Their firepower is ridiculous with orders.
I'd wonder if these lists would fare equally well if Orders were removed from conscripts.
It's more than that, insanely cheap deep strike plasma, as well as total board control with conscripts, that are nearly impossible to remove. As well as undercosted tanks.
Yeah the plasma I expect a hard nerf-bat whallop. The tanks I am not sure are undercosted - if you mean Artillery, then I have no idea as I do not run them and haven't seen much math comparing them to other tanks. The Leman Russ is pretty bad, to be fair.
Yes, I agree with the plasma. And that's honestly pretty well deserved.
Also yes - I do think Leman Russ are strong, but i'm referring to Artillery, things like Manticores. I would suggest proxying a few for your next game and walling them with conscripts. You'll have enough points left over for a nasty deep strike plasma. if you're feeling especially cruel, throw Celestine into the mix for 150 points.
Oh no I would never inflict that upon someone! I run a tank regiment, so having artillery and conscripts is unfluffy anyways.
Celestine is staying with my burgeoning Sororitas army (who is going to be predominantly footslogging!) for fluff as well, though I may mix and match the tanks and the sisters - still trying to find an efficient solution to anti-tank in a pure footslogging sisters force.
Anyways, that aside, yeah, the plasma thing is unbelievable. We're in total agreement on that.
That sounds like a good mix. See what you're playing is actually cool, and should be viable.
But in truth - running Celestine with any list is a solid choice. She's so broken in 8th.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah, that's what happens when you leave conscripts with orders. Their firepower is ridiculous with orders.
I'd wonder if these lists would fare equally well if Orders were removed from conscripts.
It's more than that, insanely cheap deep strike plasma, as well as total board control with conscripts, that are nearly impossible to remove. As well as undercosted tanks.
Yeah the plasma I expect a hard nerf-bat whallop. The tanks I am not sure are undercosted - if you mean Artillery, then I have no idea as I do not run them and haven't seen much math comparing them to other tanks. The Leman Russ is pretty bad, to be fair.
Yes, I agree with the plasma. And that's honestly pretty well deserved.
Also yes - I do think Leman Russ are strong, but i'm referring to Artillery, things like Manticores. I would suggest proxying a few for your next game and walling them with conscripts. You'll have enough points left over for a nasty deep strike plasma. if you're feeling especially cruel, throw Celestine into the mix for 150 points.
Oh no I would never inflict that upon someone! I run a tank regiment, so having artillery and conscripts is unfluffy anyways.
Celestine is staying with my burgeoning Sororitas army (who is going to be predominantly footslogging!) for fluff as well, though I may mix and match the tanks and the sisters - still trying to find an efficient solution to anti-tank in a pure footslogging sisters force.
Anyways, that aside, yeah, the plasma thing is unbelievable. We're in total agreement on that.
That sounds like a good mix. See what you're playing is actually cool, and should be viable.
But in truth - running Celestine with any list is a solid choice. She's so broken in 8th.
I have not had the pleasure of running her on the table but this is what I am hearing from a lot of people. Would you say it's her durability, combat stats, auras, speed, or something else? If it's her synergy, that just adds more data to the "GW's army synergy is the worst balanced part of 8th" thought I've been having.
And hopefully a price hike for Gulliman like many have been calling for. Maybe not a huge one but it needs to be enough.
Rowboat is FAR easier to play around than conscripts. The marines as a whole are looking incredibly mediocre without the stormraven crutch, and Rowboat added in makes them strong, but not busted, even if he is undercosted. But maybe he's not in the context of the mediocre nature of marines. This, btw, is what marines would have looked like in 7th w/o gladius and deathstar. Mediocre is what they naturally are because 40K punishes generalists HEAVILY.
Roboute is actually not threatening. He serves to maximize the firepower you have on the table, but that requires that it (a) be near him, within 6", and (b) that the firepower is alive.
He does nothing to improve the survivability, nor the range & line of sight issues, that come with marines heavy weaponry, be it power armor or tank.
How hard is it to shoot marines off of the table? Not very? Ok. You just solved the problem of Guilliman. Ignore him and kill the stuff around him. It's not hard.
Azrael is more threatening as the 4++ means your tanks lifespan just doubled.
And hopefully a price hike for Gulliman like many have been calling for. Maybe not a huge one but it needs to be enough.
Rowboat is FAR easier to play around than conscripts. The marines as a whole are looking incredibly mediocre without the stormraven crutch, and Rowboat added in makes them strong, but not busted, even if he is undercosted. But maybe he's not in the context of the mediocre nature of marines. This, btw, is what marines would have looked like in 7th w/o gladius and deathstar. Mediocre is what they naturally are because 40K punishes generalists HEAVILY.
Roboute is actually not threatening. He serves to maximize the firepower you have on the table, but that requires that it (a) be near him, within 6", and (b) that the firepower is alive.
He does nothing to improve the survivability, nor the range & line of sight issues, that come with marines heavy weaponry, be it power armor or tank.
How hard is it to shoot marines off of the table? Not very? Ok. You just solved the problem of Guilliman. Ignore him and kill the stuff around him. It's not hard.
Azrael is more threatening as the 4++ means your tanks lifespan just doubled.
That's more detail than I provided, but that's what I meant by playing around him.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah, that's what happens when you leave conscripts with orders. Their firepower is ridiculous with orders.
I'd wonder if these lists would fare equally well if Orders were removed from conscripts.
It's more than that, insanely cheap deep strike plasma, as well as total board control with conscripts, that are nearly impossible to remove. As well as undercosted tanks.
Yeah the plasma I expect a hard nerf-bat whallop. The tanks I am not sure are undercosted - if you mean Artillery, then I have no idea as I do not run them and haven't seen much math comparing them to other tanks. The Leman Russ is pretty bad, to be fair.
Yes, I agree with the plasma. And that's honestly pretty well deserved.
Also yes - I do think Leman Russ are strong, but i'm referring to Artillery, things like Manticores. I would suggest proxying a few for your next game and walling them with conscripts. You'll have enough points left over for a nasty deep strike plasma. if you're feeling especially cruel, throw Celestine into the mix for 150 points.
Oh no I would never inflict that upon someone! I run a tank regiment, so having artillery and conscripts is unfluffy anyways.
Celestine is staying with my burgeoning Sororitas army (who is going to be predominantly footslogging!) for fluff as well, though I may mix and match the tanks and the sisters - still trying to find an efficient solution to anti-tank in a pure footslogging sisters force.
Anyways, that aside, yeah, the plasma thing is unbelievable. We're in total agreement on that.
That sounds like a good mix. See what you're playing is actually cool, and should be viable.
But in truth - running Celestine with any list is a solid choice. She's so broken in 8th.
I have not had the pleasure of running her on the table but this is what I am hearing from a lot of people. Would you say it's her durability, combat stats, auras, speed, or something else? If it's her synergy, that just adds more data to the "GW's army synergy is the worst balanced part of 8th" thought I've been having.
It's everything. Speed, auras, durability, combat stats (if you charge her, you'll get attacked 18 times before you can fight back a second time, if you fail to kill her). She's got fly so she can freely leave combat, she comes back to life if slain, it's ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.
I field her in my tournament list. It's just not fun though, i feel lame using it. At the last tournament, nearly half the players had a Celestine. Those that didn't had no answer.
Based on her stats i would say she should be base 300 points. And that's still nearly an auto-include at 2000 points.
To be fair, Guilliman does improve the units survivability around him sort of indirectly:
If I may steal an example from MMOs, many DPSs go a 'glass cannon' build which depends on murdering any threats to their health before they can retaliate sufficiently to end their existence. Even 'non-glass-cannon' DPS builds still have to kill quickly, as the increased duration of a fight increases the chance that they (or one of their comrades) will make a mistake.
So (now back to 40k) by giving things the ability to delete the greatest threats to their existence before those things can impact the game meaningfully, Guilliman indirectly buffs the survivability of the units he's around.
The simplest example would be in a vacuum: A Vanquisher with MM + Lascannon vs a Predator Annihilator. Giving the Annihilator the ability to delete the Vanquisher before it fires increases its survivability in this vacuum situation far more than a 4++ would.
It's a combination of her durability and speed. Her synergy is actually kinda mediocre; she doesn't deep strike with seraphim, repentia just don't survive long enough to synergize with her, and we have no other assault units for her to synergize with (Seraphim aren't really an assault unit). She is a loner amongst the Sisters rather limited list of units.
Frankly Celestine should not be nerfed, though for a very different reason-- because she's literally the only named character Sisters players have, and one of only two (!!!) HQ slot choices we have.
And the other one is, at best, mediocre, being a 45 point, T3/S3/W5 model with a 3+/6++ save, that has pitiful equipment options (best melee weapon is 22 points for S6 AP-4 D3 damage at -1 to-hit, best shooting option is a combiweapon or storm bolter), no jump pack option, and only has the standard "reroll to-hit rolls of one" buff aura. Her only benefit is that she's cheap.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah, that's what happens when you leave conscripts with orders. Their firepower is ridiculous with orders.
I'd wonder if these lists would fare equally well if Orders were removed from conscripts.
It's more than that, insanely cheap deep strike plasma, as well as total board control with conscripts, that are nearly impossible to remove. As well as undercosted tanks.
Yeah the plasma I expect a hard nerf-bat whallop. The tanks I am not sure are undercosted - if you mean Artillery, then I have no idea as I do not run them and haven't seen much math comparing them to other tanks. The Leman Russ is pretty bad, to be fair.
Yes, I agree with the plasma. And that's honestly pretty well deserved.
Also yes - I do think Leman Russ are strong, but i'm referring to Artillery, things like Manticores. I would suggest proxying a few for your next game and walling them with conscripts. You'll have enough points left over for a nasty deep strike plasma. if you're feeling especially cruel, throw Celestine into the mix for 150 points.
Oh no I would never inflict that upon someone! I run a tank regiment, so having artillery and conscripts is unfluffy anyways.
Celestine is staying with my burgeoning Sororitas army (who is going to be predominantly footslogging!) for fluff as well, though I may mix and match the tanks and the sisters - still trying to find an efficient solution to anti-tank in a pure footslogging sisters force.
Anyways, that aside, yeah, the plasma thing is unbelievable. We're in total agreement on that.
That sounds like a good mix. See what you're playing is actually cool, and should be viable.
But in truth - running Celestine with any list is a solid choice. She's so broken in 8th.
I have not had the pleasure of running her on the table but this is what I am hearing from a lot of people. Would you say it's her durability, combat stats, auras, speed, or something else? If it's her synergy, that just adds more data to the "GW's army synergy is the worst balanced part of 8th" thought I've been having.
It's everything. Speed, auras, durability, combat stats (if you charge her, you'll get attacked 18 times before you can fight back a second time, if you fail to kill her). She's got fly so she can freely leave combat, she comes back to life if slain, it's ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.
I field her in my tournament list. It's just not fun though, i feel lame using it. At the last tournament, nearly half the players had a Celestine. Those that didn't had no answer.
Based on her stats i would say she should be base 300 points. And that's still nearly an auto-include at 2000 points.
Oh! Well, maybe I can count on her to carry the weight that the rest of my footsloggers will inevitably drop when they run into a Land Raider and somehow I get all of my meltaguns within 6" and my entire army gives it 10 wounds. XD
Melissia wrote: It's a combination of her durability and speed. Her synergy is actually kinda mediocre; she doesn't deep strike with seraphim, repentia just don't survive long enough to synergize with her, and we have no other assault units for her to synergize with (Seraphim aren't really an assault unit). She is a loner amongst the Sisters rather limited list of units.
Frankly Celestine should not be nerfed, though for a very different reason-- because she's literally the only named character Sisters players have, and one of only two (!!!) HQ slot choices we have.
And the other one is, at best, mediocre, being a 45 point, T3/S3/W5 model with a 3+/6++ save, that has pitiful equipment options (best melee weapon is 22 points for S6 AP-4 D3 damage at -1 to-hit, best shooting option is a combiweapon or storm bolter), no jump pack option, and only has the standard "reroll to-hit rolls of one" buff aura. Her only benefit is that she's cheap.
Yeah I'm going to take her for this reason no matter how ridiculous she is - spamming Canonesses just doesn't sound fun.
Unit1126PLL wrote: To be fair, Guilliman does improve the units survivability around him sort of indirectly:
If I may steal an example from MMOs, many DPSs go a 'glass cannon' build which depends on murdering any threats to their health before they can retaliate sufficiently to end their existence. Even 'non-glass-cannon' DPS builds still have to kill quickly, as the increased duration of a fight increases the chance that they (or one of their comrades) will make a mistake.
So (now back to 40k) by giving things the ability to delete the greatest threats to their existence before those things can impact the game meaningfully, Guilliman indirectly buffs the survivability of the units he's around.
The simplest example would be in a vacuum: A Vanquisher with MM + Lascannon vs a Predator Annihilator. Giving the Annihilator the ability to delete the Vanquisher before it fires increases its survivability in this vacuum situation far more than a 4++ would.
It's still something that you can overcome. If for any reason, the alpha fails, you can neuter the Rowboat list in fairly standard ways.
Leman Russ are too expensive. I'd expect a 15-20 point reduction in the codex.
If kept barebones I think a wyvern is better versus all targets in terms of points efficiency (and quite a bit better versus softer targets).
A fully tricked out Russ does more damage but also starts to become a bit of a points pinata. You are making your opponents anti-tank very efficient which isn't really desirable.
Plasma is just too cheap. I'd expect them to go up to 10 points per model, perhaps 12. Still not sure it would be enough but it would potentially add up.
Unit1126PLL wrote: To be fair, Guilliman does improve the units survivability around him sort of indirectly:
If I may steal an example from MMOs, many DPSs go a 'glass cannon' build which depends on murdering any threats to their health before they can retaliate sufficiently to end their existence. Even 'non-glass-cannon' DPS builds still have to kill quickly, as the increased duration of a fight increases the chance that they (or one of their comrades) will make a mistake.
So (now back to 40k) by giving things the ability to delete the greatest threats to their existence before those things can impact the game meaningfully, Guilliman indirectly buffs the survivability of the units he's around.
The simplest example would be in a vacuum: A Vanquisher with MM + Lascannon vs a Predator Annihilator. Giving the Annihilator the ability to delete the Vanquisher before it fires increases its survivability in this vacuum situation far more than a 4++ would.
It's still something that you can overcome. If for any reason, the alpha fails, you can neuter the Rowboat list in fairly standard ways.
Yes, yes. I'm just reacting to the idea that Guilliman doesn't buff their durability. Not directly, certainly, but take it from someone who runs a superheavy tank army: eliminating the counter units more quickly is absolutely a buff to durability.
Melissia wrote: It's a combination of her durability and speed. Her synergy is actually kinda mediocre; she doesn't deep strike with seraphim, repentia just don't survive long enough to synergize with her, and we have no other assault units for her to synergize with (Seraphim aren't really an assault unit). She is a loner amongst the Sisters rather limited list of units.
Frankly Celestine should not be nerfed, though for a very different reason-- because she's literally the only named character Sisters players have, and one of only two (!!!) HQ slot choices we have.
And the other one is, at best, mediocre, being a 45 point, T3/S3/W5 model with a 3+/6++ save, that has pitiful equipment options (best melee weapon is 22 points for S6 AP-4 D3 damage at -1 to-hit, best shooting option is a combiweapon or storm bolter), no jump pack option, and only has the standard "reroll to-hit rolls of one" buff aura. Her only benefit is that she's cheap.
Acts of faith are mediocre now? Sorry no, that's amazing synergy. Acts of faith are *outstanding,* and this synergies with Ministorum, as well as Sisters, and Ministorum has some really solid stuff.
Finally - "because... Sisters!" is not a good enough reason for the total lack of balance in regards to Celestine.
Denying that she is total cheese shows your bias. I run her and have since she was pre-order in 7th, in pretty much every game, every week. I ran her last weekend, i'll run her again next weekend. She's broken.
Agreed. But it's just not as robust as hiding a distributed gunline with NO points pinatas behind a wall of conscripts. There's just no way to efficiently engage that list.
"eliminating the counter units more quickly is absolutely a buff to durability."
This has always been a debuff on marine durability in general. Their INABILITY to remove enemy firepower.
Martel732 wrote: I agree, as I said, but it's just not as good as raw durability.
This.
Azrael + a primaris Lieutenant is cheaper, provides the reroll to hit bubble, and you can only reroll wounds of 1. But what you get is the invulnerable save. If you're running quad las preds and twin las dreadnoughts, you're only losing 12.5% efficiency in the wound roll, but gaining insane durability.
Consider a twin-melta vs a dreadnought. 2 wounds = boom pretty much guaranteed. Meanwhile with Azrael, 2 wounds has a (1/4) chance to be 0 wounds, a (1/2) chance to be 4.5 wounds, and only a (1/4) chance for boom.
Tyel wrote: Leman Russ are too expensive. I'd expect a 15-20 point reduction in the codex.
If kept barebones I think a wyvern is better versus all targets in terms of points efficiency (and quite a bit better versus softer targets).
A fully tricked out Russ does more damage but also starts to become a bit of a points pinata. You are making your opponents anti-tank very efficient which isn't really desirable.
Plasma is just too cheap. I'd expect them to go up to 10 points per model, perhaps 12. Still not sure it would be enough but it would potentially add up.
I think many vehicles (outside of flyers and a few select undercosted artillery type units like basilisk carriages) tend to not be as durable as first claimed. Personally I'm hoping that once plasmaguns are nerfed to str6/str7 overcharged and a few other undercosted and highly efficient units are adjusted we will see leman russes and other vechicles last a bit longer and thus earn thier points back. It's pretty crazy to see multiple t8 3+ save units with 15+ wounds drop in 1 turn. And without invul saves this happens a lot vs the current overcharged plasma spam meta. Take plasma spam down a notch and people will rely more on lascannons and melta guns which while still good are a lot more expensive and easier to handle. And thus a squad of leman russes will last longer.
IG are this edition's Eldar. Clearly top tier with a bag of great options -
Yeah this isn't quite true.
I stopped playing my Eldar during 7th because they where so strong they became boring to play. Almost the entire codex was too strong and could do with a nerf. There was almost no bad choices, only strong choices. Then add all the no-brainer detachments like free WS and BS-boosts.
Current IG is nothing like Eldar during 7th. IG has 2-3 broken units/combos which when spammed breaks the game. The vast majority of their units however are either balanced or outright weak. (With some being broken in the bad way, like the Deathstrike.) Conscript Spamm and Scion Spamm is overpowered. IG as an army isn't nearly overpowered. Remove these two units and IG won't win any tournaments. You could remove any 2 units from the 7th Ed. Eldar-codex and it would still be stupidly strong.
Unlike 7th Ed. Eldar, I still enjoy playing my 8th Ed. IG, but then I don't use conscripts either, and only ever use 1 squad of Scions.
IG are this edition's Eldar. Clearly top tier with a bag of great options -
Yeah this isn't quite true.
I stopped playing my Eldar during 7th because they where so strong they became boring to play. Almost the entire codex was too strong and could do with a nerf. There was almost no bad choices, only strong choices. Then add all the no-brainer detachments like free WS and BS-boosts.
Current IG is nothing like Eldar during 7th. IG has 2-3 broken units/combos which when spammed breaks the game. The vast majority of their units however are either balanced or outright weak. (With some being broken in the bad way, like the Deathstrike.) Conscript Spamm and Scion Spamm is overpowered. IG as an army isn't nearly overpowered. Remove these two units and IG won't win any tournaments. You could remove any 2 units from the 7th Ed. Eldar-codex and it would still be stupidly strong.
Unlike 7th Ed. Eldar, I still enjoy playing my 8th Ed. IG, but then I don't use conscripts either, and only ever use 1 squad of Scions.
but remove from 7th edition eldars, scatterbikes and warp spiders and they suddenly cant handle tournaments so easily, i looked so many eldar lists in 7th, almost each one had bikes and spiders.... so.... not so sure about what you saying, each army list if you remove 2-3 choices become less strong, demons (brimstones+spam smite), marines (girlyman+stormravens) and so on...
MinscS2 wrote: You could remove any 2 units from the 7th Ed. Eldar-codex and it would still be stupidly strong.
Unlike 7th Ed. Eldar, I still enjoy playing my 8th Ed. IG, but then I don't use conscripts either, and only ever use 1 squad of Scions.
I am not sure I agree.
Scatbikes, Warp Spiders and Wraithknights were the problem Eldar units.
If you had taken those 3 away I doubt you would have seen much Eldar at tournaments in 7th. Perhaps a somewhat gimmicky wraithbomb?
If you were rocking things with your guardian defenders, banshees and vypers then more power to you but I'd be surprised if you were.
By comparison what's bad in the IG list? As I said above I think Leman Russ are overpriced and this is true for a lot of tank models (look at say the Fire Prism or the Hammerhead and its arguably even worse).
Once you take out conscripts, scions, the artillery, the cheap access to smite, heavy weapon squads though you are starting to run out of things.
What's left? Ogryns and Hellhounds? Even if they are not top tier they are probably better than ever (actually not sure on Ogryns - not seen them on a table for years).
MinscS2 wrote: Are Artillery and HWS considered OP now? That's new.
Why would you remove them? What does that even have to do with my post?
I don't really follow.
You said that in 7th the problem with Eldar was that everything was too strong.
I think this was a bit suspect - some units were better than others - but I think its fair to say there were very few outright bad choices. Certainly compared with say DE, Orks and Tyranids.
Today I would say IG are in a similar position. Most of their roster is good.
Its combining to produce a top tier army which is going to do well in tournaments.
You said that in 7th the problem with Eldar was that everything was too strong.
And I stand by that.
It's the first time in 15 years that I've stopped playing an army I own, because I found them to be so strong that they made for boring games.
And I didn't even field Scatterbikes and Wraithknights.
Today I would say IG are in a similar position. Most of their roster is good.
Let's just agree to disagree.
Without Conscripts and Scion-spamm, 8th Ed. IG are nothing like 7th Ed. Eldar.
I should also note that I'm not talking from a WAAC-perspective here, but from a casual/semi-competitive perspective.
I can make lists with 8th Ed. IG that doesn't feel like an autowin and where both I and my opponent will enjoy the game. I couldn't do that with 7th Ed. Eldar.
Gamgee wrote:Tau are totally good and fine though right Reece. Right guys? Clearly "everything" is good according to Reece.
Anyways now that this is over and surprise (not) that basically we all knew what would be the best stuff and what isn't can we finally get down to brass tacks and start balancing via faq's?
I don't want to wait a year for books for every army. The game is already 10x more boring than 7th ed because of how predictable it is and all I needed to do was some mathhammer and play two games to know this.
Top 10 finish in a major GT can hardly be considered a bad showing. Plenty of other factions didn't even make it that far; by the standards of the finish, Tau are doing about as well as Eldar right now in the competitive scene.
Unless you are playing pure book missions on a table with no LOS-blocking terrain, games should not be decided by pure Mathhammer.
And hopefully a price hike for Gulliman like many have been calling for. Maybe not a huge one but it needs to be enough.
Guilliman with Space Marines is fine cost-wise. It's when you pair him with things like Conscripts that he b comes problematic.
Personally I believe toning down Imperium Soup would go a long way toward balancing IG/AM. Perhaps a return to the old Two-source rule but modified for 8th Edition? I could see only allowing two Detachments in a Battle-Forged army, as well as only having up to two different Faction Keywords in a single army?
Plasma is just OP when the firer is expendable and overcharged is no significant risk.
Make overcharged a single mortal wound on a hit roll under your armour save. So 5+ guard will not want to do it often, although a marine player may risk it more.
You said that in 7th the problem with Eldar was that everything was too strong.
And I stand by that.
It's the first time in 15 years that I've stopped playing an army I own, because I found them to be so strong that they made for boring games.
And I didn't even field Scatterbikes and Wraithknights.
Today I would say IG are in a similar position. Most of their roster is good.
Let's just agree to disagree.
Without Conscripts and Scion-spamm, 8th Ed. IG are nothing like 7th Ed. Eldar.
I should also note that I'm not talking from a WAAC-perspective here, but from a casual/semi-competitive perspective.
I can make lists with 8th Ed. IG that doesn't feel like an autowin and where both I and my opponent will enjoy the game. I couldn't do that with 7th Ed. Eldar.
i guess you can easily show us some winning eldar lists at major 7th ed tournaments, without scatterbikes warp spiders and Wk... we'r wait...
MinscS2 wrote: Are Artillery and HWS considered OP now? That's new.
Why would you remove them? What does that even have to do with my post?
Anything that does damage to marines is considered OP by certain whiny marine players. Just ignore them, their opinions are not worth considering.
FFS they're saying LRBTs are too strong, a statement that'd make most Guard players laugh.
If the results prove anything, it is that competitive guard player's find all of the Leman Russ variants too expensive to include in their lists. The winning lists were all conscripts, plasma scions, ForgeWorld earthshaker carriage + Imperium smoothie.
i guess you can easily show us some winning eldar lists at major 7th ed tournaments, without scatterbikes warp spiders and Wk... we'r wait...
By bringing up tournaments, you showed that you didn't actually read my post.
I should also note that I'm not talking from a WAAC-perspective here, but from a casual/semi-competitive perspective.
I can make lists with 8th Ed. IG that doesn't feel like an autowin and where both I and my opponent will enjoy the game. I couldn't do that with 7th Ed. Eldar.
Besides, asking for tournament winners that didn't use the best (read: most op) a codex had to offer? Do such lists even exist?
You said that in 7th the problem with Eldar was that everything was too strong.
And I stand by that.
It's the first time in 15 years that I've stopped playing an army I own, because I found them to be so strong that they made for boring games.
And I didn't even field Scatterbikes and Wraithknights.
Were you playing against people who just brought bad lists or something? For all of the coming out here against Eldar, they were nowhere nearly as bad as you're melodramatically making them out to be. I played Eldar in maybe 50% of my games over the last 2-3 years without WK/scatbike spam and it almost always made for a good game. Their units were good, but if you don't try to break the game and make fun/interesting lists, they're a blast.
Gamgee wrote: Tau are totally good and fine though right Reece. Right guys? Clearly "everything" is good according to Reece.
Anyways now that this is over and surprise (not) that basically we all knew what would be the best stuff and what isn't can we finally get down to brass tacks and start balancing via faq's?
I don't want to wait a year for books for every army. The game is already 10x more boring than 7th ed because of how predictable it is and all I needed to do was some mathhammer and play two games to know this.
Tau had a placing in the top 10, more than many other armies, not seeing where the issue is here. We dont even see Orks, Dark Eldar, Tyranids, Sisters, Grey Knights, Necrons, etc appear in this list. The only real big issue apparent in these lists is flyers and conscripts.
This is the exact problem I have with this win. Oh because Commanders are so good we can't look at rebalancing the Tau so they don't need to rely on bringing commanders which are unfluffy. It's as unfair as the old flyrant spam lists and people using them to justify the nids as balanced. Granted I don't think we're as bad as nids in 7th. Still it is incredibly boring spamming commanders and very unfluffy. I would like to see our other anti-tank options actually made worth while instead. If commanders are nerfed and nothing else is brought up it's going to kill Tau viability. Not to mention commanders are terrible at commanding Tau armies with almost pointless buffs if the commanders are brought up in points then they also need to get a lot better at offering buffs to still make them a viable choice as HQ. Then when they are not able to be spammed we can look into buffing other stuff up to do what the CMDers are doing in the current meta. I also think that whatever units are buffed up to take the CMDer don't have to be made as strong as commanders are now. Especially if conscripts and gulliman get nerfs to accompany them. I think this would be more than fair.
However I suspect we'll just see another round of nerfs across the board regardless of any facts, evidence, or discussions being had.
Marmatag, Melissia is a guy (I believe from previous posts) but the rest is priceless
Melissia wrote: It's a combination of her durability and speed. Her synergy is actually kinda mediocre; she doesn't deep strike with seraphim, repentia just don't survive long enough to synergize with her, and we have no other assault units for her to synergize with (Seraphim aren't really an assault unit). She is a loner amongst the Sisters rather limited list of units.
Frankly Celestine should not be nerfed, though for a very different reason-- because she's literally the only named character Sisters players have, and one of only two (!!!) HQ slot choices we have.
And the other one is, at best, mediocre, being a 45 point, T3/S3/W5 model with a 3+/6++ save, that has pitiful equipment options (best melee weapon is 22 points for S6 AP-4 D3 damage at -1 to-hit, best shooting option is a combiweapon or storm bolter), no jump pack option, and only has the standard "reroll to-hit rolls of one" buff aura. Her only benefit is that she's cheap.
Then, the way to fix it is a little nerf to Celestine and a buff to the generic Canoness.
Gamgee wrote: Tau are totally good and fine though right Reece. Right guys? Clearly "everything" is good according to Reece.
Anyways now that this is over and surprise (not) that basically we all knew what would be the best stuff and what isn't can we finally get down to brass tacks and start balancing via faq's?
I don't want to wait a year for books for every army. The game is already 10x more boring than 7th ed because of how predictable it is and all I needed to do was some mathhammer and play two games to know this.
Tau had a placing in the top 10, more than many other armies, not seeing where the issue is here. We dont even see Orks, Dark Eldar, Tyranids, Sisters, Grey Knights, Necrons, etc appear in this list. The only real big issue apparent in these lists is flyers and conscripts.
This is the exact problem I have with this win. Oh because Commanders are so good we can't look at rebalancing the Tau so they don't need to rely on bringing commanders which are unfluffy. It's as unfair as the old flyrant spam lists and people using them to justify the nids as balanced. Granted I don't think we're as bad as nids in 7th. Still it is incredibly boring spamming commanders and very unfluffy. I would like to see our other anti-tank options actually made worth while instead. If commanders are nerfed and nothing else is brought up it's going to kill Tau viability. Not to mention commanders are terrible at commanding Tau armies with almost pointless buffs if the commanders are brought up in points then they also need to get a lot better at offering buffs to still make them a viable choice as HQ. Then when they are not able to be spammed we can look into buffing other stuff up to do what the CMDers are doing in the current meta. I also think that whatever units are buffed up to take the CMDer don't have to be made as strong as commanders are now. Especially if conscripts and gulliman get nerfs to accompany them. I think this would be more than fair.
However I suspect we'll just see another round of nerfs across the board regardless of any facts, evidence, or discussions being had.
I agree with this post. Saying that Tau are fine because Tau Commander can work is like saying that in 7th Tyranid where fine because Flyrant Spam was OP. (Just like Gamgee said). Not I'm saying Tau are as weak as Tyranid in 7th, they arent. Just like IG aren't as OP as Scatterbike and Wraitknight spam in 7th.
No, they have pretty bad internal balance. As a whole, Tau are one of the weakest armies with Orks. The Commander is just OP. They need to nerf him and buff the rest of the codex.
I'm not sure how you fix it. This game has incredibly basic concepts towards support units.
it would be very interesting, and fitting, if Tau had troops that didn't even attack, but brought mobile generators, field dampeners, flux chambers, and other sci-fi things that basically amount to low mobility squads that enhance the other Tau units.
Maybe you bring a troop squad that's got a Gravmetric Stabilization Field, which allows them to create deep strike barriers.
I dunno. I know it's not feasible to reimagine a faction entirely, just disappointed that their troops amount to "guys with guns," when their army is really about "guys in mechs."
That said, Tau do have some very strong units. I understand that it's the same kind of 7th edition factions that relied on 1 unit. But please. At least you have something you can spam to be top tier. Some of us have to suck it up and get curb stomped with barely any viable units. Where would Grey Knights be without the Stormraven, and that's not even technically a "grey knight" themed unit?
There were like 3 Grey Knights players total at the BAO and none of them did anything. The best one actually ran conscripts and commissars, and a flyer wing... Doesn't that tell you something about that army?
Galas wrote: Then, the way to fix it is a little nerf to Celestine and a buff to the generic Canoness.
No, it's really not.
The best way to fix this is to add more characters, both named and otherwise, to the HQ choices of the Sisters of Battle. And THEN, in the process of that, make each of them a valid choice for leading a Sisters army, while toning down Celestine. Even then, not much is needed to tone Celestine down; in order to make her as durable as she can be, you spend 250 points on her, which is extremely expensive for what she actually does. Sisters take her anyway because there's really just not much else of value we can take.
Just toning down Celestine and buffing up Canonesses won't improve the game for anyone. Instead of Celestine in every list, you'll have Canoness spam in every list, which doesn't improve the situation at all. Every list will STILL be the exact same, because there's no variety in the Sisters of Battle army list.
Celestine was a beast in all games. She alone occupied 3 turns of shooting by my fireprisms because she was literally in my fire base wrecking stuff, died, came back and did it again.
Galas wrote: Then, the way to fix it is a little nerf to Celestine and a buff to the generic Canoness.
No, it's really not.
The best way to fix this is to add more characters, both named and otherwise, to the HQ choices of the Sisters of Battle. And THEN, in the process of that, make each of them a valid choice for leading a Sisters army, while toning down Celestine. Even then, not much is needed to tone Celestine down; in order to make her as durable as she can be, you spend 250 points on her, which is extremely expensive for what she actually does. Sisters take her anyway because there's really just not much else of value we can take.
Just toning down Celestine and buffing up Canonesses won't improve the game for anyone. Instead of Celestine in every list, you'll have Canoness spam in every list, which doesn't improve the situation at all. Every list will STILL be the exact same, because there's no variety in the Sisters of Battle army list.
Well, yeah, I don't disagree with anything of that. Maybe this year is the year? or the next year...
Personally I think Celestine should go up in points instead of making her weaker.
Uriels_Flame wrote: Celestine was a beast in all games. She alone occupied 3 turns of shooting by my fireprisms because she was literally in my fire base wrecking stuff, died, came back and did it again.
For 150pts, she was aces.
Yep. And the funny part is, even if she was 300 points, with no Superia, you could still justify taking her. She is literally that good.
You want to shoot Celestine? I suppose you can, but that 2+/4++ offers pretty solid protection. And, she can heal D3 wounds per turn. Of course, you're only shooting her if the person controlling Celestine is letting you. When I set her up, I deploy her out of LOS of the big nasty stuff, and can rely on my first 24" move to close the distance. I don't let people shoot Celestine. If they do, it's because they're falling back in terror or i've exposed her intentionally.
You want to charge Celestine? You'll eat flamer overwatch, then you'll attack her. But before your next opportunity to attack, I will get 18 attacks in response. So in the span of you getting 1 attack, i've done 18 attacls + d6 flamer hits. Charge me. I'd love nothing more. Catch me in a bad combat? Fly fly fly away.
You want to ignore Celestine? I move 24" a turn. You can't ignore me.
You actually killed Celestine? I'm coming back on a 35/36 chance.
I say this as someone who uses Celestine in basically every game - she is way too good.
Uriels_Flame wrote: Celestine was a beast in all games. She alone occupied 3 turns of shooting by my fireprisms because she was literally in my fire base wrecking stuff, died, came back and did it again.
For 150pts, she was aces.
Yep. And the funny part is, even if she was 300 points, with no Superia, you could still justify taking her. She is literally that good.
You want to shoot Celestine? I suppose you can, but that 2+/4++ offers pretty solid protection. And, she can heal D3 wounds per turn. Of course, you're only shooting her if the person controlling Celestine is letting you. When I set her up, I deploy her out of LOS of the big nasty stuff, and can rely on my first 24" move to close the distance. I don't let people shoot Celestine. If they do, it's because they're falling back in terror or i've exposed her intentionally.
You want to charge Celestine? You'll eat flamer overwatch, then you'll attack her. But before your next opportunity to attack, I will get 18 attacks in response. So in the span of you getting 1 attack, i've done 18 attacls + d6 flamer hits. Charge me. I'd love nothing more. Catch me in a bad combat? Fly fly fly away.
You want to ignore Celestine? I move 24" a turn. You can't ignore me.
You actually killed Celestine? I'm coming back on a 35/36 chance.
I say this as someone who uses Celestine in basically every game - she is way too good.
You can't nerf her though. Because reasons that suck!
That's not a "reason that sucks". That sucks, and it's a reason.
Including the reintroduction of the Sisters Non-Miltiant as characters and our dedicated transport selection and everything we have from FW, the Sisters of Battle have a total of 16 unit choices, of which:
Spoiler:
Celestine is a named character who basically is used as a crutch by the rest of the list.
The Canoness is our only non-named HQ unit, which is pretty much pointless and only used as filler as it has very minimal offense, defense, mobility, or support capability.
Dialogous/Hospitaller/Imagifier, are lackluster support units at best, and best used as filler to get more CP.
Celestians are an overpriced close combat unit without close combat wargear, not even worth using as filler nevermind for any particular purpose.
Repentia are an even MORE overpriced power fist delivery system without armor; the sad thing is, even as bad as they are right now, they're the strongest they've ever been. And considering they're 17 points for no armor save, two attacks, and an S6 AP-2 D2 weapon (meaning, it's weaker than a marine eviscerator or even power fist), that's saying something.
Mistress of Repentance, whose only purpose is to add rerolls to Repentia charges, further adding to the cost of the already expensive Repentia.
Battle Sisters Squads are our sole troops choice and are, at best, little more than a cheap but fragile method to deliver boltguns and are outshined in every way but price by tactical marines.
Dominions are our best non-character unit, and basically the only reason we're winning games at all right now with their Vanguard move and special weapon spam, and even then it wouldn't even be spectacular were it not for Celestine tying the enemy up due to how fragile they are.
Seraphim are still half-decent, but had both of their weapons options nerfed in the transition to 8th, and with no canoness jump pack they basically only function properly with Celestine's support.
Retributors are good if only because they're the only thing worth taking in the heavy support slot; heavy bolter spam is a thing this edition for hurting MEQ, and that's about it.
Exorcists USED to be our sole long-ranged anti-tank, now it's not really even that; it got nerfed hard, they're worse than the jok that is an LRBT right now.
The Rhino, which is more expensive than the one you get.
The Immolator, a more expensive Razorback that's only made great when used by dominions.
And the Repressor, which is pretty much the third thing that's saving Sisters of Battle lists after Celestine and Dominions.
Compare that to Space Marines, who have 35 unit options in their HQ choices alone. Das rite-- even ignoring Forgeworld, Space Marines have more than twice as many HQ-slot options as Sisters have options, period.
And thats it. That's all we have. Any nerf to Celestine should only come along with an expansion of our options to replace her, along with an expansion of our options in general.
Huge Infantry units that can shoot or put out some ranged offense are bad for the game in its current form, Conscripts fit into that. If they get nerfed, Brimstones will be next up. You just can't have models that cheap with the removal of Templates. I'm not advocating Templates return, Infantry just need to pay a tax for it if they're shooty. I play Orks and run 180 Boyz, it can't compete with any top-tier list. Why? No guns, they have to fit in to do damage. Also they're not as cheap as some options, nor should they be.
Even if Conscripts lose Orders or something they're still broken because they're cheap and invalidate Deep Strike. When Deep Strike doesn't work gunlines are the best available army. When gunlines are the best available army the game can get very boring, very fast. Cheap models can't exist in the quantities they do now, never mind the power level. If they're removed then things can open up, until then the top tier meta is decided barring a majorly OP Codex, which I don't think anyone wants.
The Prince of Excess wrote: Huge Infantry units that can shoot or put out some ranged offense are bad for the game in its current form, Conscripts fit into that. If they get nerfed, Brimstones will be next up. You just can't have models that cheap with the removal of Templates. I'm not advocating Templates return, Infantry just need to pay a tax for it if they're shooty. I play Orks and run 180 Boyz, it can't compete with any top-tier list. Why? No guns, they have to fit in to do damage. Also they're not as cheap as some options, nor should they be.
Even if Conscripts lose Orders or something they're still broken because they're cheap and invalidate Deep Strike. When Deep Strike doesn't work gunlines are the best available army. When gunlines are the best available army the game can get very boring, very fast. Cheap models can't exist in the quantities they do now, never mind the power level. If they're removed then things can open up, until then the top tier meta is decided barring a majorly OP Codex, which I don't think anyone wants.
then what is the use of conscripts if you can't deny deep strike with them. Their whole purpose becomes worthless.
The Prince of Excess wrote: Huge Infantry units that can shoot or put out some ranged offense are bad for the game in its current form, Conscripts fit into that. If they get nerfed, Brimstones will be next up. You just can't have models that cheap with the removal of Templates. I'm not advocating Templates return, Infantry just need to pay a tax for it if they're shooty. I play Orks and run 180 Boyz, it can't compete with any top-tier list. Why? No guns, they have to fit in to do damage. Also they're not as cheap as some options, nor should they be.
Even if Conscripts lose Orders or something they're still broken because they're cheap and invalidate Deep Strike. When Deep Strike doesn't work gunlines are the best available army. When gunlines are the best available army the game can get very boring, very fast. Cheap models can't exist in the quantities they do now, never mind the power level. If they're removed then things can open up, until then the top tier meta is decided barring a majorly OP Codex, which I don't think anyone wants.
then what is the use of conscripts if you can't deny deep strike with them. Their whole purpose becomes worthless.
Perhaps true. But the biggest Faction in the game, Imperium, being able to deny an entire ability from the game, period, seems bad to me. I would rather have a unit be useless than live in that world. Just my opinion.
The Prince of Excess wrote: Huge Infantry units that can shoot or put out some ranged offense are bad for the game in its current form, Conscripts fit into that. If they get nerfed, Brimstones will be next up. You just can't have models that cheap with the removal of Templates. I'm not advocating Templates return, Infantry just need to pay a tax for it if they're shooty. I play Orks and run 180 Boyz, it can't compete with any top-tier list. Why? No guns, they have to fit in to do damage. Also they're not as cheap as some options, nor should they be.
Even if Conscripts lose Orders or something they're still broken because they're cheap and invalidate Deep Strike. When Deep Strike doesn't work gunlines are the best available army. When gunlines are the best available army the game can get very boring, very fast. Cheap models can't exist in the quantities they do now, never mind the power level. If they're removed then things can open up, until then the top tier meta is decided barring a majorly OP Codex, which I don't think anyone wants.
then what is the use of conscripts if you can't deny deep strike with them. Their whole purpose becomes worthless.
Perhaps true. But the biggest Faction in the game, Imperium, being able to deny an entire ability from the game, period, seems bad to me. I would rather have a unit be useless than live in that world. Just my opinion.
So what d you propose to fix such as it seems. Cause there is already plenty of useless Guard units now ( Most Leeman Russ variants, Veteran Squads, Chimera....)
I have to say Guilliman and Celestine are overperforming as well. Guilliman is of course here to stay forever most likely because he is in the codex now, but his ability to provide re-rolls for hitting and wounding is insane, especially when taken in conjunction with his statline. I think he should have to choose at the bare minimum whether he wants the reroll to wound or hit aura at the start of the game.
The Prince of Excess wrote: Huge Infantry units that can shoot or put out some ranged offense are bad for the game in its current form, Conscripts fit into that. If they get nerfed, Brimstones will be next up. You just can't have models that cheap with the removal of Templates. I'm not advocating Templates return, Infantry just need to pay a tax for it if they're shooty. I play Orks and run 180 Boyz, it can't compete with any top-tier list. Why? No guns, they have to fit in to do damage. Also they're not as cheap as some options, nor should they be.
Even if Conscripts lose Orders or something they're still broken because they're cheap and invalidate Deep Strike. When Deep Strike doesn't work gunlines are the best available army. When gunlines are the best available army the game can get very boring, very fast. Cheap models can't exist in the quantities they do now, never mind the power level. If they're removed then things can open up, until then the top tier meta is decided barring a majorly OP Codex, which I don't think anyone wants.
then what is the use of conscripts if you can't deny deep strike with them. Their whole purpose becomes worthless.
Perhaps true. But the biggest Faction in the game, Imperium, being able to deny an entire ability from the game, period, seems bad to me. I would rather have a unit be useless than live in that world. Just my opinion.
So what d you propose to fix such as it seems. Cause there is already plenty of useless Guard units now ( Most Leeman Russ variants, Veteran Squads, Chimera....)
Never said I had one other than fix them and the units like them. Not singling out Conscripts by any means, they're the ones in the spotlight because they're in the best Faction in the game - Imperium. IG could certainly use some positive tweaks, no reason to dumpster them. I'm on board for raising some of their under-performers up. That's usually how balance is done, ideally.
The Prince of Excess wrote: Huge Infantry units that can shoot or put out some ranged offense are bad for the game in its current form, Conscripts fit into that. If they get nerfed, Brimstones will be next up. You just can't have models that cheap with the removal of Templates. I'm not advocating Templates return, Infantry just need to pay a tax for it if they're shooty. I play Orks and run 180 Boyz, it can't compete with any top-tier list. Why? No guns, they have to fit in to do damage. Also they're not as cheap as some options, nor should they be.
Even if Conscripts lose Orders or something they're still broken because they're cheap and invalidate Deep Strike. When Deep Strike doesn't work gunlines are the best available army. When gunlines are the best available army the game can get very boring, very fast. Cheap models can't exist in the quantities they do now, never mind the power level. If they're removed then things can open up, until then the top tier meta is decided barring a majorly OP Codex, which I don't think anyone wants.
then what is the use of conscripts if you can't deny deep strike with them. Their whole purpose becomes worthless.
Perhaps true. But the biggest Faction in the game, Imperium, being able to deny an entire ability from the game, period, seems bad to me. I would rather have a unit be useless than live in that world. Just my opinion.
So what d you propose to fix such as it seems. Cause there is already plenty of useless Guard units now ( Most Leeman Russ variants, Veteran Squads, Chimera....)
Never said I had one other than fix them and the units like them. Not singling out Conscripts by any means, they're the ones in the spotlight because they're in the best Faction in the game - Imperium. IG could certainly use some positive tweaks, no reason to dumpster them. I'm on board for raising some of their under-performers up. That's usually how balance is done, ideally.
That's not a "reason that sucks". That sucks, and it's a reason.
Including the reintroduction of the Sisters Non-Miltiant as characters and our dedicated transport selection and everything we have from FW, the Sisters of Battle have a total of 16 unit choices, of which:
Spoiler:
Celestine is a named character who basically is used as a crutch by the rest of the list.
The Canoness is our only non-named HQ unit, which is pretty much pointless and only used as filler as it has very minimal offense, defense, mobility, or support capability.
Dialogous/Hospitaller/Imagifier, are lackluster support units at best, and best used as filler to get more CP.
Celestians are an overpriced close combat unit without close combat wargear, not even worth using as filler nevermind for any particular purpose.
Repentia are an even MORE overpriced power fist delivery system without armor; the sad thing is, even as bad as they are right now, they're the strongest they've ever been. And considering they're 17 points for no armor save, two attacks, and an S6 AP-2 D2 weapon (meaning, it's weaker than a marine eviscerator or even power fist), that's saying something.
Mistress of Repentance, whose only purpose is to add rerolls to Repentia charges, further adding to the cost of the already expensive Repentia.
Battle Sisters Squads are our sole troops choice and are, at best, little more than a cheap but fragile method to deliver boltguns and are outshined in every way but price by tactical marines.
Dominions are our best non-character unit, and basically the only reason we're winning games at all right now with their Vanguard move and special weapon spam, and even then it wouldn't even be spectacular were it not for Celestine tying the enemy up due to how fragile they are.
Seraphim are still half-decent, but had both of their weapons options nerfed in the transition to 8th, and with no canoness jump pack they basically only function properly with Celestine's support.
Retributors are good if only because they're the only thing worth taking in the heavy support slot; heavy bolter spam is a thing this edition for hurting MEQ, and that's about it.
Exorcists USED to be our sole long-ranged anti-tank, now it's not really even that; it got nerfed hard, they're worse than the jok that is an LRBT right now.
The Rhino, which is more expensive than the one you get.
The Immolator, a more expensive Razorback that's only made great when used by dominions.
And the Repressor, which is pretty much the third thing that's saving Sisters of Battle lists after Celestine and Dominions.
Compare that to Space Marines, who have 35 unit options in their HQ choices alone. Das rite-- even ignoring Forgeworld, Space Marines have more than twice as many HQ-slot options as Sisters have options, period.
And thats it. That's all we have. Any nerf to Celestine should only come along with an expansion of our options to replace her, along with an expansion of our options in general.
She needs a nerf and the Cannoness needs a buff. You're showing your bias.
Also nobody is against more Sisters HQ. They could use a Chaplain equivalent and Techmarine equivalent. What you're suggesting
The Prince of Excess wrote: Huge Infantry units that can shoot or put out some ranged offense are bad for the game in its current form, Conscripts fit into that. If they get nerfed, Brimstones will be next up. You just can't have models that cheap with the removal of Templates. I'm not advocating Templates return, Infantry just need to pay a tax for it if they're shooty. I play Orks and run 180 Boyz, it can't compete with any top-tier list. Why? No guns, they have to fit in to do damage. Also they're not as cheap as some options, nor should they be.
Even if Conscripts lose Orders or something they're still broken because they're cheap and invalidate Deep Strike. When Deep Strike doesn't work gunlines are the best available army. When gunlines are the best available army the game can get very boring, very fast. Cheap models can't exist in the quantities they do now, never mind the power level. If they're removed then things can open up, until then the top tier meta is decided barring a majorly OP Codex, which I don't think anyone wants.
then what is the use of conscripts if you can't deny deep strike with them. Their whole purpose becomes worthless.
Perhaps true. But the biggest Faction in the game, Imperium, being able to deny an entire ability from the game, period, seems bad to me. I would rather have a unit be useless than live in that world. Just my opinion.
So what d you propose to fix such as it seems. Cause there is already plenty of useless Guard units now ( Most Leeman Russ variants, Veteran Squads, Chimera....)
Never said I had one other than fix them and the units like them. Not singling out Conscripts by any means, they're the ones in the spotlight because they're in the best Faction in the game - Imperium. IG could certainly use some positive tweaks, no reason to dumpster them. I'm on board for raising some of their under-performers up. That's usually how balance is done, ideally.
So what is their purpose?
Fluff I suppose. Not every unit needs a purpose. I only care about the macro balance of the game, not about how Conscripts fit into IG. I feel like you're trying to coax something out of me that doesn't exist. I don't care about Conscripts. I don't care about any unit in particular, even ones I play. I just care about slowly balancing the game. :]
That's fine, as I said it's my opinion. I think it's boring when an entire strategy in the game can be negated by the Faction which makes up half the game can spend 121 points to negate it. And always should if you're playing to win. I mean I'd do that if I played Imperium.
Which I never disagreed with. Read my post again. To translate it for you since apparently you need it, I said "yeah, she needs a nerf, but she shouldn't get it until we get more stuff."
tl;dr: I just disagree that we should get our cool toys taken away before we ever get a chance to get new ones. And if we're never going to get new ones, well, that's tough gak for people whining about Celestine now, ain't it?
Lol that is a horrible argument; that is like the dumb GK players from last ed. saying "Dreadknights are fine! It doesn't matter they're overperforming because they're all we got!"
Quickjager wrote: Lol that is a horrible argument; that is like the dumb GK players from last ed. saying "Dreadknights are fine! It doesn't matter they're overperforming because they're all we got!"
Maybe you feel that way, but you know what? Don't care. We've played the same army lists since 3rd edition and basically the same since 2nd. No army is in even remotely a similar situation than us, even Grey Knights.
We finally move from being a bottom tier, forgettable list to one that can actually contend competitively. It's fething nice to see. If only GW actually gave us new units, I might give a damn about you feeling like this is a horrible argument. But they don't. So I don't.
I was planing on doing Conscript/ Scion spam at my local ITC tournament. What If I ran regular guard squads instead of conscripts and scions without plasma and report the results to everyone?
Quickjager wrote: Lol that is a horrible argument; that is like the dumb GK players from last ed. saying "Dreadknights are fine! It doesn't matter they're overperforming because they're all we got!"
Maybe you feel that way, but you know what? Don't care. We've played the same army lists since 3rd edition and basically the same since 2nd. No army is in even remotely a similar situation than us, even Grey Knights.
We finally move from being a bottom tier, forgettable list to one that can actually contend competitively. It's fething nice to see. If only GW actually gave us new units, I might give a damn about you feeling like this is a horrible argument. But they don't. So I don't.
Just gonna get that in quotes so any argument from you in the future shows you don't "give a damn"
EDIT: Howscat, do you have any games to compare it to? Like a baseline?
Quickjager wrote: Just gonna get that in quotes so any argument from you in the future shows you don't "give a damn"
You have no idea the depths of my bitterness regarding GW's treatment of Sisters of Battle as a faction. If GW actually bothers to give us an update worth talking about, with fun new options and plastic minis and things that might actually motivate me to buy a new Sisters army, I'll be glad to see Celestine nerfed. I even agreed she needs to be-- I've said several times that Celestine "is a crutch" for our army. I just think said nerf should only come when we get our codex, and not a day sooner. You're spoiled for options by comparison.
That's not a "reason that sucks". That sucks, and it's a reason.
Including the reintroduction of the Sisters Non-Miltiant as characters and our dedicated transport selection and everything we have from FW, the Sisters of Battle have a total of 16 unit choices, of which:
Spoiler:
Celestine is a named character who basically is used as a crutch by the rest of the list.
The Canoness is our only non-named HQ unit, which is pretty much pointless and only used as filler as it has very minimal offense, defense, mobility, or support capability.
Dialogous/Hospitaller/Imagifier, are lackluster support units at best, and best used as filler to get more CP.
Celestians are an overpriced close combat unit without close combat wargear, not even worth using as filler nevermind for any particular purpose.
Repentia are an even MORE overpriced power fist delivery system without armor; the sad thing is, even as bad as they are right now, they're the strongest they've ever been. And considering they're 17 points for no armor save, two attacks, and an S6 AP-2 D2 weapon (meaning, it's weaker than a marine eviscerator or even power fist), that's saying something.
Mistress of Repentance, whose only purpose is to add rerolls to Repentia charges, further adding to the cost of the already expensive Repentia.
Battle Sisters Squads are our sole troops choice and are, at best, little more than a cheap but fragile method to deliver boltguns and are outshined in every way but price by tactical marines.
Dominions are our best non-character unit, and basically the only reason we're winning games at all right now with their Vanguard move and special weapon spam, and even then it wouldn't even be spectacular were it not for Celestine tying the enemy up due to how fragile they are.
Seraphim are still half-decent, but had both of their weapons options nerfed in the transition to 8th, and with no canoness jump pack they basically only function properly with Celestine's support.
Retributors are good if only because they're the only thing worth taking in the heavy support slot; heavy bolter spam is a thing this edition for hurting MEQ, and that's about it.
Exorcists USED to be our sole long-ranged anti-tank, now it's not really even that; it got nerfed hard, they're worse than the jok that is an LRBT right now.
The Rhino, which is more expensive than the one you get.
The Immolator, a more expensive Razorback that's only made great when used by dominions.
And the Repressor, which is pretty much the third thing that's saving Sisters of Battle lists after Celestine and Dominions.
Compare that to Space Marines, who have 35 unit options in their HQ choices alone. Das rite-- even ignoring Forgeworld, Space Marines have more than twice as many HQ-slot options as Sisters have options, period.
And thats it. That's all we have. Any nerf to Celestine should only come along with an expansion of our options to replace her, along with an expansion of our options in general.
It's almost as if having 1 Super Faction known as Imperium is an incredibly stupid idea for balance purposes.
Would be 99% fine if Celestine is broken OP if only Sisters were allowed to take her.
but when basically half the game can take her...
After seeing the lists and watching the livestreams. I really couldn't see any reason for the 31+ PL limitations. Am I terribly mistaken? I haven't seen this limitation being put on the NOVA open as of yet. IG seemed very strong as well.
NenkotaMoon wrote: Yea, matched play wise Keyword army joining is a bad idea.
Depends who you are. My Custodes, Inquisition and I'm betting Sisters of Silence would basically be impossible if we couldn't take units from other Imperium armies.
Gamgee wrote: Tau are totally good and fine though right Reece. Right guys? Clearly "everything" is good according to Reece.
Anyways now that this is over and surprise (not) that basically we all knew what would be the best stuff and what isn't can we finally get down to brass tacks and start balancing via faq's?
I don't want to wait a year for books for every army. The game is already 10x more boring than 7th ed because of how predictable it is and all I needed to do was some mathhammer and play two games to know this.
Tau had a placing in the top 10, more than many other armies, not seeing where the issue is here. We dont even see Orks, Dark Eldar, Tyranids, Sisters, Grey Knights, Necrons, etc appear in this list. The only real big issue apparent in these lists is flyers and conscripts.
This is the exact problem I have with this win. Oh because Commanders are so good we can't look at rebalancing the Tau so they don't need to rely on bringing commanders which are unfluffy. It's as unfair as the old flyrant spam lists and people using them to justify the nids as balanced. Granted I don't think we're as bad as nids in 7th. Still it is incredibly boring spamming commanders and very unfluffy. I would like to see our other anti-tank options actually made worth while instead. If commanders are nerfed and nothing else is brought up it's going to kill Tau viability. Not to mention commanders are terrible at commanding Tau armies with almost pointless buffs if the commanders are brought up in points then they also need to get a lot better at offering buffs to still make them a viable choice as HQ. Then when they are not able to be spammed we can look into buffing other stuff up to do what the CMDers are doing in the current meta. I also think that whatever units are buffed up to take the CMDer don't have to be made as strong as commanders are now. Especially if conscripts and gulliman get nerfs to accompany them. I think this would be more than fair.
However I suspect we'll just see another round of nerfs across the board regardless of any facts, evidence, or discussions being had.
I agree as well. I've already seen people saying 'Tau are fine, whiners gonna whine' (luckly not many here) while mrhappyface's thread on accumulated games shows us that Tau isn't fine at all (mostly because of its horrendous internal balance).
I don't want to play zounds of Commanders and some pinch of infantry! As I'm certain AM folks don't want to field Conscripts and Scion teams ad infinitum. Or Imperium armies always fielding Guilliman and Celestine.
I'm glad Tau codex wasn't in the first batch and I hope at least another 2-3 FAQs will show up before they send the codex to the presses.
NenkotaMoon wrote: Yea, matched play wise Keyword army joining is a bad idea.
Depends who you are. My Custodes, Inquisition and I'm betting Sisters of Silence would basically be impossible if we couldn't take units from other Imperium armies.
That's partly a problem imo that Im still trying to figure out. Could those faction just be rolled into another existing or each other. I could see SoS and Custodies combined, as well Inquisition being added as special rules for Guard and Marines, even Sisters (but then again GW doesn't give SoB really much to begin with).
niv-mizzet wrote: That's just what I'm getting from between the lines on your posts. Maybe you just have a writing style that uses very strong phrasing while being entirely calm, I don't know, but if that's not the case, you may want to look at if your health and well-being might be suffering.
Amusingly, no one notices the positive posts I make, even though they outnumber the bitter ones. Sure, I'm bitter about GW's treatment of Sisters. Have been for well over ten years. But I actually like 8th edition and the various changes made in it. Hell, it inspired me to start that BA terminator army idea I came up with during 7th. Still need to finish assembling the last squad actually...
Howscat wrote: I was planing on doing Conscript/ Scion spam at my local ITC tournament. What If I ran regular guard squads instead of conscripts and scions without plasma and report the results to everyone?
Regular guard can almost do the same shooting as conscripts, per point. When I did some mathhammer I found that 33 guards with two company commanders got the same number of hits as 50 conscripts and 1 platoon commander, in double tap range. So that's 170 points versus 192 points. And for that extra 22 points you have to try and stuff all 50 into 12" range of your target, which is hilarious.
So the deal is really that conscripts get 17 extra wounds for the same price. That's really the only deal with conscripts versus guardsman. Is that too many? I don't really know, I haven't played against them or with them. But for a unit with flashlights and flak armor, people sure to be getting awfully worked up. I think some folks here would be engaging in manly (or womanly as the case may be) fisticuffs at this point.
NenkotaMoon wrote: Yea, matched play wise Keyword army joining is a bad idea.
Depends who you are. My Custodes, Inquisition and I'm betting Sisters of Silence would basically be impossible if we couldn't take units from other Imperium armies.
Making Sisters of Silence their own thing rather than being part of a Sororitas release was a ridiculous mistake. Honestly all of these Imperium "mini-factions" that aren't intended to function as their own army are a big batch of mistakes.
I'm not to worried about things being slightly OP. However excessive outliers like a single army that has two units in over half the top 10 in major tournaments and regularly in most other major tournaments is a major outlier.
Right now gw should focus on conscript spam and plasma spam as the most egregious problems. (Maybe fw should look at basilisk carriages separately). The fact they were predominately in 5 of the top 10 is a huge red flag. Everything else was at most in only 1-2 lists tops even if they are slightly undercosted.
NenkotaMoon wrote: Yea, matched play wise Keyword army joining is a bad idea.
I think the idea is that as more Codexes are released this won't be as much of an issue. When your opponent is able to spend 2 CP to hit your minis with a hammer because they're playing the Hammer Hitters subfaction and you're stuck with just rerolls and countercharges, things should even out even if you're taking something from every list. Hopefully that will be the case. Power creep for everyone!
Right now, though, in the world of Indexes there is basically no downside to combining every list because you lose out on nothing (unless you're a vanilla Marine player). You should absolutely be running Typhus and Kharn with poxwalkers and Berzerkers, etc, until your faction's book comes out.
NenkotaMoon wrote: Yea, matched play wise Keyword army joining is a bad idea.
Depends who you are. My Custodes, Inquisition and I'm betting Sisters of Silence would basically be impossible if we couldn't take units from other Imperium armies.
I think this is an easy fix you break up the imperium into 8 codices and for matched play you rule that all armies must come from a single source. I understand the fluff of combining the imperium, but it is terrible for balance given that most other armies cannot get that kind of flexibility. There are just too many combinations available when you can pick and choose units from a ton of factions.
Adeptus Mechanicus + skitari
IG/AM Space Marines
Dark Angles
Space Wolves
Blood Angels
Grey Knights
Agents of the Imperium (includes custodies, inquisition, sisters, Sisters of silence, assassins, knights)
Now this will never happen because GW wants to sell those agents models to all the marine players.
What if we had a primary "faction" and every other detachment taken not from that Primary "faction" cost you a CP.
Use the list Breng77 made to split up the imperium into different Primary factions. This would punish soup players but allow people to flavor with allied stuff.
And still I agree plasma and conscripts need looking into in addition to this.
Timeshadow wrote: What if we had a primary "faction" and every other detachment taken not from that Primary "faction" cost you a CP.
Use the list Breng77 made to split up the imperium into different Primary factions. This would punish soup players but allow people to flavor with allied stuff.
And still I agree plasma and conscripts need looking into in addition to this.
I could see going that non-primary detachments cost their CP bonus in CP so a battalion would cost -3 CP. Another potential solution could be making it so that non-primary faction units can only be taken as part of an auxiliary detachment or a single patrol detachment
NenkotaMoon wrote: Yea, matched play wise Keyword army joining is a bad idea.
Depends who you are. My Custodes, Inquisition and I'm betting Sisters of Silence would basically be impossible if we couldn't take units from other Imperium armies.
I think this is an easy fix you break up the imperium into 8 codices and for matched play you rule that all armies must come from a single source. I understand the fluff of combining the imperium, but it is terrible for balance given that most other armies cannot get that kind of flexibility. There are just too many combinations available when you can pick and choose units from a ton of factions.
Adeptus Mechanicus + skitari
IG/AM Space Marines
Dark Angles
Space Wolves
Blood Angels
Grey Knights
Agents of the Imperium (includes custodies, inquisition, sisters, Sisters of silence, assassins, knights)
Now this will never happen because GW wants to sell those agents models to all the marine players.
I would say
Imperium (Custodes, Inquistion, Sisters of Silence) <-- If this is lacking anything major, they can have an entry for like a Basic Guardsman Infantry Squad.
Sisters of Battle
and then have Assassins and Knights be a unique mechanic that can be brought into any of these 10 Factions
NenkotaMoon wrote: Yea, matched play wise Keyword army joining is a bad idea.
Depends who you are. My Custodes, Inquisition and I'm betting Sisters of Silence would basically be impossible if we couldn't take units from other Imperium armies.
I think this is an easy fix you break up the imperium into 8 codices and for matched play you rule that all armies must come from a single source. I understand the fluff of combining the imperium, but it is terrible for balance given that most other armies cannot get that kind of flexibility. There are just too many combinations available when you can pick and choose units from a ton of factions.
Adeptus Mechanicus + skitari
IG/AM Space Marines
Dark Angles
Space Wolves
Blood Angels
Grey Knights
Agents of the Imperium (includes custodies, inquisition, sisters, Sisters of silence, assassins, knights)
Now this will never happen because GW wants to sell those agents models to all the marine players.
I would say
Imperium (Custodes, Inquistion, Sisters of Silence)
Sisters of Battle
and then have Assassins and Knights be a unique mechanic that can be brought into any of these 10 Factions
This issue here is that custodies inquisition and sisters of silence don't have many units, same with knights and assassins. I see no reason why we need knights and assassins to be able to be added to the other factions. but if you use the above can only take as an aux detachment you would be able to anyway.
But for imperium as you suggest:
Inquisition has 8 units (most single model units)
sisters of silence have 4 units
Custodes have 3 units
So that would be an army with 15 units, half of which are single model units.
Adding assassins adds 4 units (all single models
adding knights adds 5 "units" (basically all knights are the same unit with different wargear)
adding these gets you to 24 units, again mostly single models
Sisters have 21 units (many single models)
so you would have 45 unit choices, only 15 are multiple model units
Astra Millitarum has 49 (more if you role psykers back in instead of being astra telepathica), 20 are multiple model units
Adeptics Mechanicus would be on the small end, but they still have 10 multiple model units.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If sisters want to split out later if they get an expanded line, fine, but right now I feel like they lack support
Automatically Appended Next Post: alternately you could make the Imperium faction have a base
Inquisition
Custodes
Knights
Assassins
with 3 sub factions
1.) Xenos - Add deathwatch
2.) Malleus - Add grey knights
3.) Hereticus - Add Sisters of Silence, and Sisters of battle.
If conscripts are the "meta" then you just have to work out a way to beat them. You will start seeing massive ork armies with 150+ orks, banners and warboss with some weirdboys to teleport a squad within 9", congo to the warboss, advance and then charge those conscript units.
6+/5+ with only double shots and then dying in drove on a 2+/3+.
Stop being so nerf happy and figure out a way to beat the current meta instead of relying on GW to do it for you.
Uriels_Flame wrote: Celestine was a beast in all games. She alone occupied 3 turns of shooting by my fireprisms because she was literally in my fire base wrecking stuff, died, came back and did it again.
For 150pts, she was aces.
Yep. And the funny part is, even if she was 300 points, with no Superia, you could still justify taking her. She is literally that good.
You want to shoot Celestine? I suppose you can, but that 2+/4++ offers pretty solid protection. And, she can heal D3 wounds per turn. Of course, you're only shooting her if the person controlling Celestine is letting you. When I set her up, I deploy her out of LOS of the big nasty stuff, and can rely on my first 24" move to close the distance. I don't let people shoot Celestine. If they do, it's because they're falling back in terror or i've exposed her intentionally.
You want to charge Celestine? You'll eat flamer overwatch, then you'll attack her. But before your next opportunity to attack, I will get 18 attacks in response. So in the span of you getting 1 attack, i've done 18 attacls + d6 flamer hits. Charge me. I'd love nothing more. Catch me in a bad combat? Fly fly fly away.
You want to ignore Celestine? I move 24" a turn. You can't ignore me.
You actually killed Celestine? I'm coming back on a 35/36 chance.
I say this as someone who uses Celestine in basically every game - she is way too good.
How is Celestine getting 18 attacks when charged!?
Rickels wrote: If conscripts are the "meta" then you just have to work out a way to beat them. You will start seeing massive ork armies with 150+ orks, banners and warboss with some weirdboys to teleport a squad within 9", congo to the warboss, advance and then charge those conscript units.
6+/5+ with only double shots and then dying in drove on a 2+/3+.
Stop being so nerf happy and figure out a way to beat the current meta instead of relying on GW to do it for you.
So your 30 orks are going to kill a ton of conscripts?
Against a squad of 50 conscripts 5 orks die to overwatch, if you congaline back to your buffs (lets say ghaz, and a weirdboy giving them +2 attacks, and the banner) you probably have 15 boyz attacking (5 died, probably 10 not in range once you conga back to your buffs) So you have 3 base attacks +3 from bonuses so 6 attacks each. 90 attacks, kills 33 conscripts, 17 remaining kill 2 more orks. Those guys fall back on their turn, and the rest of that ork squad dies. The issue is that if you trade 30 orks for 30 conscripts you will lose the game.
But yes that is one of the armies that might have a chance against conscripts spam + killy stuff.
Rickels wrote: If conscripts are the "meta" then you just have to work out a way to beat them. You will start seeing massive ork armies with 150+ orks, banners and warboss with some weirdboys to teleport a squad within 9", congo to the warboss, advance and then charge those conscript units.
6+/5+ with only double shots and then dying in drove on a 2+/3+.
Stop being so nerf happy and figure out a way to beat the current meta instead of relying on GW to do it for you.
So your 30 orks are going to kill a ton of conscripts?
Against a squad of 50 conscripts 5 orks die to overwatch, if you congaline back to your buffs (lets say ghaz, and a weirdboy giving them +2 attacks, and the banner) you probably have 15 boyz attacking (5 died, probably 10 not in range once you conga back to your buffs) So you have 3 base attacks +3 from bonuses so 6 attacks each. 90 attacks, kills 33 conscripts, 17 remaining kill 2 more orks. Those guys fall back on their turn, and the rest of that ork squad dies. The issue is that if you trade 30 orks for 30 conscripts you will lose the game.
But yes that is one of the armies that might have a chance against conscripts spam + killy stuff.
You are assuming you lose 5 orks in overwatch but you are forgetting that you can stagger units, that first unit that ported in is just the wound soaking damage for the other unit coming at the conscripts. Lock any other conscript unit nearby in the following consolidation and then force orders to be get back in the fight, which halves the effectiveness of the conscript wall.
In your world of mathhammer you are missing the most vital portion of the game we are playing, space. You literally will be so crowded with those conscript spam you are never ever EVER going to get the mythical figure of 200 shots, ever.
I didn't calculate 200 shots, I calculated 100 for overwatch, it might be slightly less depending on how spread out each unit is. There won't be another unit of boyz until the following turn as you can only port one a turn, so unless you are using commandos as a wound soak, and they actually make the charge, and survive overwatch and you assume the boyz make the charge which is not a given.
You in your assumption are missing the fact that I did account for space, and it is still not by any means a given that things fall in your favor.
Say you don't go first, now you are down a number of boyz, maybe a weirdboy if snipers exist. You might fail Da jump, or kill your weirdboys with perils.
Locking additional units with pile in isn't a give or an easy feat if they are deployed well.
The conscript all is literally just there to block you from stuff that is actually killing your models, it isn't the means with which to kill those models, so forcing them to fall back and get back into the fight isn't a big loss.
jeff white wrote: Named characters should be banned from competition.
I'm the guy who actively advocates the separation of Imperium and banning of FW, and even I don't think named characters should be banned.
(Just balanced)
I would agree on the first point for sure - Inquisition and imperials generally shouldn't embrace Girlyman's nuStormtroopers.
Mine won't.
Forgeworld might be a case by case but for competition I would also agree to a blanket ban.
Also banning superheavies.
More than three of the same unit.
But then again I would also like to see the return of player army comp and sportsmanship points contributing toward final scores in tourney play.
As for named character, i am adamant.
Superheroes belong in comic books and special narrative matches.
Gimmicky list/deck building is not what this hobby originally represented.
It was chess for people with imagination and a good deal of discipline.
People change I guess.
And the hobby follows the money.
I would not play against a named character without prior consent and for special reasons.
That is the way things used to be - in fact it was part of the game.
But again everyone wants that rare card in their MtG deck and GW went the way of the wallet.
Spoiled deck builders dropped big money on character models like they did on Magic cards.
I never liked Magic. Or the smell of cat piss and flip flops.
But in previous editions, the Lords could be stronger than the special characters due to wargear customization. Even HeroHammer was a thing in Fantasy. Special named characters weren't the crux of these days but rather your personally named avatar warlord with the bajillion upgrades.
This edition is the closest chess equivalent we've had yet thanks to stratagems allowing for a sense of choice and the careful evaluation of resource expenditure according to what your opponent is likely to do. Past editions effectively played themselves if you were always performing the optimal play.
jeff white wrote: Named characters should be banned from competition.
That's as stupid as banning FW or specific units because you don't like them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rickels wrote: If conscripts are the "meta" then you just have to work out a way to beat them. You will start seeing massive ork armies with 150+ orks, banners and warboss with some weirdboys to teleport a squad within 9", congo to the warboss, advance and then charge those conscript units.
6+/5+ with only double shots and then dying in drove on a 2+/3+.
Stop being so nerf happy and figure out a way to beat the current meta instead of relying on GW to do it for you.
Remember how Eldar and Marine apologists said this exact line about Scatterbikes and Gladius?
I don't really see anything wrong with the Earthshaker Carriage, if we consider it balanced with the codex (which is not necessarily balanced with the overall game). A Basilisk has T6 W11 Sv3+ with an Earthshaker and Heavy Bolter, whereas an Earthshaker Carriage has T7 W7 Sv4+ and 4 crew (which are considered a separate unit though it cannot really be shot at), and it cannot move if that ever becomes important (objectives etc). The Basilisk costs 17 points more (~19%).
Arguably, I think those 17 points are justified as the increased toughness only matters for S3, S6 and S7 weapons. and the Basilisk has a heavy bolter instead of 4 lasguns, 4 more wounds and a better save. I think the problem is that the carriage is better because its cheaper for the same firepower (the Earthshaker) and a Conscript wall prevents from the decrease in durability from being an issue. If conscripts lose in popularity, this might change.
IG are this edition's Eldar. Clearly top tier with a bag of great options - its not just Conscripts that are the problem (although they contribute).
They might not be once all the books are released but from now to Christmas I expect them to place well in every tournament and they shall be the army dictating the meta.
You have lived to see Imperial Guard become the WAACTFG army.
IG are this edition's Eldar. Clearly top tier with a bag of great options - its not just Conscripts that are the problem (although they contribute).
They might not be once all the books are released but from now to Christmas I expect them to place well in every tournament and they shall be the army dictating the meta.
You have lived to see Imperial Guard become the WAACTFG army.
What a time to be alive.
It just means we have gone full circle... again
Considering they were plenty WAAC in 4th & 5th
This issue here is that custodies inquisition and sisters of silence don't have many units, same with knights and assassins. I see no reason why we need knights and assassins to be able to be added to the other factions. but if you use the above can only take as an aux detachment you would be able to anyway.
But for imperium as you suggest:
Inquisition has 8 units (most single model units)
sisters of silence have 4 units
Custodes have 3 units
So that would be an army with 15 units, half of which are single model units.
Sisters have 21 units (many single models)
Sisters of Battle have survived for a very long time without a huge selection of choice, they will be fine.
The Imperium as I suggested would be a little thin, I acknowledge. However, plenty of other factions are arguably fairly thin as well.
Change Daemonhost and Witchseekers to Fast Attack
Change Jokaero to Heavy Support
Give them access to Guardsman Infantry Squads, Valkyrie, Rhino, and maybe Vindicator?
and they would be playable enough. In time they can have more releases to expand or clean up the roster.
This issue here is that custodies inquisition and sisters of silence don't have many units, same with knights and assassins. I see no reason why we need knights and assassins to be able to be added to the other factions. but if you use the above can only take as an aux detachment you would be able to anyway.
But for imperium as you suggest:
Inquisition has 8 units (most single model units)
sisters of silence have 4 units
Custodes have 3 units
So that would be an army with 15 units, half of which are single model units.
Sisters have 21 units (many single models)
Sisters of Battle have survived for a very long time without a huge selection of choice, they will be fine.
The Imperium as I suggested would be a little thin, I acknowledge. However, plenty of other factions are arguably fairly thin as well.
Change Daemonhost and Witchseekers to Fast Attack
Change Jokaero to Heavy Support
Give them access to Guardsman Infantry Squads, Valkyrie, Rhino, and maybe Vindicator?
and they would be playable enough. In time they can have more releases to expand or clean up the roster.
Sisters have only had their own "stand alone" codex for ~2 editions, prior to that they had inquisition aspects.
IMO it is easier to just include sisters than give them guardsman (they have acolytes), what is the rationale between sisters needing their own book? That it means GW will expand the line? They might or might not, if the last 2 releases of sisters suggest anything they won't expand much. So why not expand their choices by putting them in with other small imperial factions? You could still run pure sisters, but could include other imperial choices as well. It isn't a matter that they won't survive, it is that there is no reason to have a separate codex for such a small faction, when instead it could include all the small imperial stuff. At that point really only Ad mech is super small from an imperial standpoint.
Uh... no. Sisters have been a "stand alone army" since second edition (and arguably 1st, unless you count "policing the Astartes and killing any who stepped out of line" as not a "stand-alone army" which to be fair is arguable).
Even 3rd edition's C:WH acknowledged them as such, and listed them not only as the primary force behind the codex gameplaywise, but also a force separate from the Inquisition whose primary duties had nothing to do with it; assisting the Inquisition was their side job, one they weren't actually obligated to do, but did so out of having similar goals.
So the solution to beating a top tier army is to buy a whole new HORDE army? No thanks. Thankfully for me, there aren't a lot of IG players in my area. If not, I would just play a different game.
Melissia wrote: Uh... no. Sisters have been a "stand alone army" since second edition (and arguably 1st, unless you count "policing the Astartes and killing any who stepped out of line" as not a "stand-alone army" which to be fair is arguable).
Even 3rd edition's C:WH acknowledged them as such, and listed them not only as the primary force behind the codex gameplaywise, but also a force separate from the Inquisition whose primary duties had nothing to do with it; assisting the Inquisition was their side job, one they weren't actually obligated to do, but did so out of having similar goals.
But they did have a codex in which it wasn't all sisters of battle, and that was their most recent print codex. It also being part of a larger book in no way prevents them from being played as an all sisters force, but instead gives them more options without the need for a whole new line. Which I hope will come, but I don't see a whole new line with a ton of new units for sisters in the cards. As I said it seems to me that if you are limiting primary factions the way I suggest is the best to accomplish doing so without making the other small imperial factions just guard lite. Codex imperium with Sisters, Deathwatch, Inquisition, Gk, Custodes, Sisters of silence, knights and assassins would work. As GK are having their own book I suppose you could have sisters be a separate book as well but allow them to "ally" within the imperium faction. My main reasoning was toning down imperial soup of lets all take conscripts to wall off our fire base/ lets cherry pick the best units from half the game.
Breng77 wrote: But they did have a codex in which it wasn't all sisters of battle, and that was their most recent print codex.
Using Codex: Imperial Agents as a guide for what you consider a good idea doesn't exactly say much good about your taste in books.
It literally added nothing to the army (in fact, it took options AWAY), was decried as the most useless piece of gak book in 7th edition, and generally speaking was considered by anyone who wasn't an Inquisition player to be little more than a useless waste of space, paper, and time-- and even Inquisition players barely even really needed it to begin with.
Breng77 wrote: But they did have a codex in which it wasn't all sisters of battle, and that was their most recent print codex.
Using Codex: Imperial Agents as a guide for what you consider a good idea doesn't exactly say much good about your taste in books.
It literally added nothing to the army (in fact, it took options AWAY), was decried as the most useless piece of gak book in 7th edition, and generally speaking was considered by anyone who wasn't an Inquisition player to be little more than a useless waste of space, paper, and time-- and even Inquisition players barely even really needed it to begin with.
And I'm not suggesting taking away options, look at it this way, such a book wouldn't hurt you in any way, but would remove options from other armies if their were limits on what imperial players could take. unless you are taking non-sisters units in your sisters like conscripts...
Breng77 wrote: And I'm not suggesting taking away options, look at it this way, such a book wouldn't hurt you in any way
Getting nothing and continuing our two-decade long stagnation is, in fact, fething hurtful. And that is the inevitable and frankly only realistic result of haphazardly being stuffed in some half-assed "All The Other Reindeer" amalgamation book. By cramming five or six factions in to a single book, you simply don't have space or time to give any of them the attention they deserve.
Let me ask you this would you prefer the current imperial soup where sisters get a new book with no new units, or a limited imperium where sisters are part of a larger faction but still fully playable as their own army?
Breng77 wrote: Let me ask you this would you prefer the current imperial soup where sisters get a new book with no new units, or a limited imperium where sisters are part of a larger faction but still fully playable as their own army?
Might as well be asking me "Do you want to eat the horse gak, or cow gak?". Either way it's gak and I don't want it going in my mouth.
But if I had to pick? New book for Sisters, completely separate from any other factions. At least then even if we don't get new units, GW has to write some new fuckin' lore for us.
Merging all the non-SM Imperium factions into a single book is especially silly when you consider Space Marines themselves get five or six different books to cover their various flavors.
That would cause the publishing cycle to be even more heavily saturated with Space Marines, with GW only rarely acknowledging "oh yeah other armies kinda exist".
Breng77 wrote: So it comes down to "if I don't get exactly what I want every other improvement to the game is gak."
There is nothing that an amalgamated "factions Breng doesn't give a damn about" book would do to improve the game to begin with.
Did you even read the genesis of said idea? Or just say "sisters merge with other stuff feth no!" The idea was a way to limit "allies" in the game. Especially because they largely boil down (as they always have) to Imperium gets allies. Allies make a balanced game difficult. I'd love to see all those factions fully supported, but they aren't and may never be. If all those factions had a full model range that made them playable armies on their own great, then you just have more "primary factions" with no extra allies. Until such a point merging them together to allow them all to be playable to some extent is superior to having "Codex custodies" with 4 units in it.
ross-128 wrote: Merging all the non-SM Imperium factions into a single book is especially silly when you consider Space Marines themselves get five or six different books to cover their various flavors.
That would cause the publishing cycle to be even more heavily saturated with Space Marines, with GW only rarely acknowledging "oh yeah other armies kinda exist".
Except those space marine books have more units than many of the non-space marine factions. Personally I love the idea of all space marine chapters rolled into 1 book, I always have, it cuts down on re-prints of units, and keeps all the rules on the same page between books.
That said
Blood Angels, Dark Angels and Space Wolves have more unique units than Sisters have units.
GK are 1 less, and Deathwatch are significantly less, and I've said they should be rolled into the imperium dex to work with the inquisition and expand their model range.
Which gives you
IG SM BA DA SW Ad mech
and Imperium
For the imperial side of things as "primary" factions
Martel732 wrote: It's just 5th ed redux. Don't let the IG whiners tell you otherwise; they were brutal in 5th to face.
Best army in the game in 5th.
For a little while. Guard leafblower did not actually last as the top tier army for the whole of 5th edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote: Did you even read the genesis of said idea?
Yeah, I read it. I stand by my statement. I view your solution as crap even BEFORE I hate on it for forcing multiple wildly divergent armies into a single book where they stagnate and die.
Frankly, if the only way to achieve balance is to say "feth you" to everyone who isn't a Space Marine, then balance isn't worth achieving.
And by the way, I found it pretty fething funny that your original post wanted to stuff deathwatch, sisters, and inquisition in a book, but wouldn't allow Daemonhunter Inquisitors access to Grey Knights. If there's going to be a solution to this "problem", it needs to come without screwing a huge number of people completely unrelated to the problem over.
Quickjager wrote: Uniting the Ordos again under one book isn't a bad idea.
Isn't a good one, either. Best idea is actually more variety; more books, including variant books for factions like orks, guard, tyranids, necrons, and sisters similar to the various colors of space marines that get their own books. Like with C:SM, make them weaker when you mix and match.
Quickjager wrote: Uniting the Ordos again under one book isn't a bad idea.
Isn't a good one, either. Best idea is actually more variety; more books, including variant books for factions like orks, guard, tyranids, necrons, and sisters similar to the various colors of space marines that get their own books. Like with C:SM, make them weaker when you mix and match.
nah this is terrible, it just makes updates take longer. We need space marine contraction, not expansion of other stuff. Now if we are talking about some more units for underserved armies I'm for it, but more books was a huge issue in 7th.
Breng77 wrote: nah this is terrible, it just makes updates take longer. We need space marine contraction, not expansion of other stuff. Now if we are talking about some more units for underserved armies I'm for it, but more books was a huge issue in 7th.
Not really. 7th's problems had almost nothing to do with too many books, and too much to do with the idea that each new book must be better, stronger, and more versatile than the last.
Martel732 wrote: It's just 5th ed redux. Don't let the IG whiners tell you otherwise; they were brutal in 5th to face.
Best army in the game in 5th.
For a little while. Guard leafblower did not actually last as the top tier army for the whole of 5th edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote: Did you even read the genesis of said idea?
Yeah, I read it. I stand by my statement. I view your solution as crap even BEFORE I hate on it for forcing multiple wildly divergent armies into a single book where they stagnate and die.
Frankly, if the only way to achieve balance is to say "feth you" to everyone who isn't a Space Marine, then balance isn't worth achieving.
And by the way, I found it pretty fething funny that your original post wanted to stuff deathwatch, sisters, and inquisition in a book, but wouldn't allow Daemonhunter Inquisitors access to Grey Knights. If there's going to be a solution to this "problem", it needs to come without screwing a huge number of people completely unrelated to the problem over.
Assumption that those armies stagnate and die in one book, is no more valid than the reality that they are stagnating and dying right now in their own separate snowflake books. Also everyone that isn't a space Marine?
It doesn't hurt
Ad Mech
IG Any merged army based on their current iteration.
Orks
Eldar
DE Nid
GSC etc.
So yeah not really hurting lots of non-space marine players, in fact it takes tools away from space marine players so point in fact would hurt them.
Personally I'm sad to see the return of codices at all, I think they are a terrible design practice. on the flip side carrying 10 books for your army sucks.
Breng77 wrote: nah this is terrible, it just makes updates take longer. We need space marine contraction, not expansion of other stuff. Now if we are talking about some more units for underserved armies I'm for it, but more books was a huge issue in 7th.
Not really. 7th's problems had almost nothing to do with too many books, and too much to do with the idea that each new book must be better, stronger, and more versatile than the last.
I disagree I think adding new books instead of updating existing books was bad, which is what happened. Why update sisters when we can have admech, or more flavors of marines.
Breng77 wrote: Assumption that those armies stagnate and die in one book, is no more valid than the reality that they are stagnating and dying right now in their own separate snowflake books.
Even with Sisters stagnating separately in the gameplay, we actually got new lore in the previous codices before Imperial Agents. New lore, new artwork, and so on.
Breng77 wrote: So yeah not really hurting lots of non-space marine players
I specified imperial earlier in this thread, and that's the context behidn that statement.
Breng77 wrote: Personally I'm sad to see the return of codices at all, I think they are a terrible design practice. on the flip side carrying 10 books for your army sucks.
What the feth-ass kind of army are you using that requires ten books? Inquisition? Well tough gak, that's the nature of Inquisition. They explicitly aren't an army in and of themselves. They are powerful leaders that take command of, hire, or otherwise acquire other armies. Really, Inquisitors should actually be Lord of War material with their retinue giving them powerful support, debuff, and survivability powers depending on how the retinue is built; but that's an entirely different gripe.
Breng77 wrote: I disagree I think adding new books instead of updating existing books was bad, which is what happened. Why update sisters when we can have admech, or more flavors of marines.
By that definition, the first thing they should have done this edition is release Sisters of Battle as their opening codex, but that's not what's happened, and let's be realistic, it was never going to happen. In your ideal fairyland world with unicorns and rainbows, everyone can be crammed inside of a few tiny books but still be supported just as well if not better than they currently are. I fail to see how, with such a vivid imagination as would craft such an unlikely scenario, you cannot also imagine the idea of GW continuing to pump out a book or two every month until everyone has gotten an update, then add new subfactions in order to add even more variety ot the gameplay.
And yes, a game without variety is a worse game than one with more. If I wanted to play a game without variety, I'd toss away my miniatures and go be boring and pick up chess.
With Codex's coming out you're going to be more motivated to bring a single army through specific stratagems and other perks. So hopefully you'll be rewarded by bringing a thematic army, though I know you can forge whatever narrative you wish.
Breng77 wrote: Personally I'm sad to see the return of codices at all, I think they are a terrible design practice. on the flip side carrying 10 books for your army sucks.
It's strange too since Age of Sigmar is almost perfect in its design and affordability. There aren't masses of codex books like this mess of a game. There's just four mega-alliance books that have the stats for everyone in them. They consolidated the factions into four "teams" and put all the rules into a single book for each. Plus when the game launched, the rules were FREE. You could download your index online.
Yet GW makes us pay $25 for an Index that is obsolete two weeks later then $50 for a book that contains 1/3 of your faction then waiting months and months and MONTHS to get the rest of them. Sigmar dropped all four faction books at basically the same time.
They CAN do it. They're just not bothering to. That or Sigmar is literally occupying the majority of their resources.
7th problem wherent many books. It was that you needed MANY books to play ONE army.
Many books but everyone to one single army (Real Armies that aren't stupid armies like Tempestus Scions or Custodes or Sisters of Silence) are a good thing.
jeff white wrote: Named characters should be banned from competition.
That's as stupid as banning FW or specific units because you don't like them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rickels wrote: If conscripts are the "meta" then you just have to work out a way to beat them. You will start seeing massive ork armies with 150+ orks, banners and warboss with some weirdboys to teleport a squad within 9", congo to the warboss, advance and then charge those conscript units.
6+/5+ with only double shots and then dying in drove on a 2+/3+.
Stop being so nerf happy and figure out a way to beat the current meta instead of relying on GW to do it for you.
Remember how Eldar and Marine apologists said this exact line about Scatterbikes and Gladius?
Stupid?
Yeah.
Such a smart remark.
Because I don't like them? Who said that?
Not me...
Anyway you are so smart.
You must be right.
I think the salt is that we are still at a place where "Eldar" means "CWE" not "anyone with pointy ears".
Ynnari are still fine. Not quite as comically "this is the end of the edition they are not even pretending to care" broken as before, but clearly solid.
I am convinced DE are also good - but while this is being confirmed in Dakka's findings it doesn't seem to be coming through in tournaments.
Craftworld by contrast are looking pretty rubbish. Which is perhaps not surprising because their perk for not being Ynnari is pretty rubbish.
Not sure about Harlequins.
Tyel wrote: Ynnari are still fine. Not quite as comically "this is the end of the edition they are not even pretending to care" broken as before, but clearly solid.
I am convinced DE are also good - but while this is being confirmed in Dakka's findings it doesn't seem to be coming through in tournaments.
Craftworld by contrast are looking pretty rubbish. Which is perhaps not surprising because their perk for not being Ynnari is pretty rubbish.
Not sure about Harlequins.
I think it's not showing in tournaments because those will feature only the most hyper competitive lists. Dakka's results include all manner of random games, both hardcore and fluffy, that distill the results a bit. Obviously when people only take the absolute min-max unit compositions in an effort to be That Guy then only the Imperial Guard truly shine as a beacon of terror. Everyone else is kind of... eh? Mixed results.
Arkaine wrote: But in previous editions, the Lords could be stronger than the special characters due to wargear customization. Even HeroHammer was a thing in Fantasy. Special named characters weren't the crux of these days but rather your personally named avatar warlord with the bajillion upgrades.
This edition is the closest chess equivalent we've had yet thanks to stratagems allowing for a sense of choice and the careful evaluation of resource expenditure according to what your opponent is likely to do. Past editions effectively played themselves if you were always performing the optimal play.
So what?
Fixing herohammer - this is easy enough.
What does that have to do with named characters and buff-junkies doing what buff-junkies do?
Point is stop feeding the buff junkies.
Srategems seem cool but we have yet to see the rest of them.
And how is your second statement not true now?
The easiest way to make a more even less buff junkie rewarding system is with universal rules.
Everything in special words on different scrolls or slates is not helping.
ross-128 wrote: Merging all the non-SM Imperium factions into a single book is especially silly when you consider Space Marines themselves get five or six different books to cover their various flavors.
That would cause the publishing cycle to be even more heavily saturated with Space Marines, with GW only rarely acknowledging "oh yeah other armies kinda exist".
There should really only be a few Space Marine codices:
1. Space Marines
2. Grey Knights
3. Space Wolves
4. Deathwatch
There's absolutely no reason for Death Angels and Blood Angels to be separate. Plus there's no reason Vanilla Marines shouldn't have some of their options, and no reason the angels shouldn't have some of their options. It's ridiculous.
ross-128 wrote: Merging all the non-SM Imperium factions into a single book is especially silly when you consider Space Marines themselves get five or six different books to cover their various flavors.
That would cause the publishing cycle to be even more heavily saturated with Space Marines, with GW only rarely acknowledging "oh yeah other armies kinda exist".
There should really only be a few Space Marine codices:
1. Space Marines
2. Grey Knights
3. Space Wolves
4. Deathwatch
There's absolutely no reason for Death Angels and Blood Angels to be separate. Plus there's no reason Vanilla Marines shouldn't have some of their options, and no reason the angels shouldn't have some of their options. It's ridiculous.
I'm curious as to why Dark/Blood Angels should be included within the main codex and Deathwatch not? Just add a few more special weapons and equipment and you'll have that army included as well.
ross-128 wrote: Merging all the non-SM Imperium factions into a single book is especially silly when you consider Space Marines themselves get five or six different books to cover their various flavors.
That would cause the publishing cycle to be even more heavily saturated with Space Marines, with GW only rarely acknowledging "oh yeah other armies kinda exist".
There should really only be a few Space Marine codices: 1. Space Marines 2. Grey Knights 3. Space Wolves 4. Deathwatch
There's absolutely no reason for Death Angels and Blood Angels to be separate. Plus there's no reason Vanilla Marines shouldn't have some of their options, and no reason the angels shouldn't have some of their options. It's ridiculous.
Deathwatch and Grey Knights should just be put in their corresponding Ordos books. So Deathwatch in Ordos Xenos which also features rules for Ordos Xenos Inquisitors and their retinues and Grey Knights in Ordos Malleus which has options for Ordos Malleus Inquisitors. Then there is Ordos Hereticus with the Sisters of Battle, Hereticus Inquisitors and other members of the Ecclesiarchy. They come together as three separate softbacks in a cardboard case.
Pretty surprised at the nerd rage. Someone had to win. That its Astra Militarum is a good sign that forgotten factions are forgotten no more. There may need to be some changes, i won't argue against that. Not saying the codex's won't look different. Just surprised at some of the vociferous responses. I have played with Dark Eldar, Militarum Tempestus, T'au Empire, and Chaos Space Marines (I'll be trying out my Sisters of Battle after i play some more Chaos for the Konor campaign). I'm 20-2 including tournaments. One of those losses was a "time out" loss in which my opponent had 4 near dead models left by turn 3. The army hasn't seemed to make a difference, and that is after all, what we wanted right? We wanted to see the armies matter less, which would indicate parity. I am seeing parity.
I would also like to say that other than the Dark Eldar, I have been using Brigades for all the other forces. It's not as if i spammed anything in particular. Even with the Dark Eldar, I was mostly just unable to rebuild my old list given the way Elites are now so what can ya do? Same problem will happen with Sisters of Battle, sadly. So I am seeign that you can play a reasonably non-spammy list and win.
The Conscript army is one I saw at the tournament I just attended and it was good.
Anywho, I'm liking the parity I am seeing.
Also, look at the lists most people took. A HEAVY Imperial concentration so its not surprising many factions didn't get their day in court, not really.
ross-128 wrote: Merging all the non-SM Imperium factions into a single book is especially silly when you consider Space Marines themselves get five or six different books to cover their various flavors.
That would cause the publishing cycle to be even more heavily saturated with Space Marines, with GW only rarely acknowledging "oh yeah other armies kinda exist".
There should really only be a few Space Marine codices:
1. Space Marines
2. Grey Knights
3. Space Wolves
4. Deathwatch
There's absolutely no reason for Death Angels and Blood Angels to be separate. Plus there's no reason Vanilla Marines shouldn't have some of their options, and no reason the angels shouldn't have some of their options. It's ridiculous.
I'm curious as to why Dark/Blood Angels should be included within the main codex and Deathwatch not? Just add a few more special weapons and equipment and you'll have that army included as well.
With Blood Angels and Dark Angels it's really easy. They get one thing for Chapter Tactics, 1-2 special units (as they have too many redundant units), and then we give access to different equipment (why don't Vanilla Marines have Hand Flamers, Inferno Pistols, or even Plasma Cannons on their Terminators? Why don't either have Centurions or TFC?)
Deathwatch is complicated to just bring in. The army has nothing in common, and tons of bizarre equipment. It shouldn't be a very expensive codex though.
Arkaine wrote: But in previous editions, the Lords could be stronger than the special characters due to wargear customization. Even HeroHammer was a thing in Fantasy. Special named characters weren't the crux of these days but rather your personally named avatar warlord with the bajillion upgrades.
This edition is the closest chess equivalent we've had yet thanks to stratagems allowing for a sense of choice and the careful evaluation of resource expenditure according to what your opponent is likely to do. Past editions effectively played themselves if you were always performing the optimal play.
So what?
Fixing herohammer - this is easy enough.
What does that have to do with named characters and buff-junkies doing what buff-junkies do?
Point is stop feeding the buff junkies.
Srategems seem cool but we have yet to see the rest of them.
And how is your second statement not true now?
The easiest way to make a more even less buff junkie rewarding system is with universal rules.
Everything in special words on different scrolls or slates is not helping.
See the earlier conversation.
My second statement is not true now because you no longer simply autoplay the game. Stratagems have introduced a high potential for actual decision making in battles. Even barring any future ones that we have yet to see, the reroll Stratagem has been proven to make or break games based on when you choose to use it or not use it. Limited resources means limited rerolls, not being able to do it multiple times per phase or to multiple dice at once, all of this leads to players having to imagine the outcome of the battle and determine when to risk a CP on a crucial reroll. Squander them and you won't have them for when a truly vital roll comes along. Now that more Stratagems are coming along that allow you to do even more effects, like shooting twice with Slaanesh units, when you choose to expend CP is going to be be even more match-deciding.
Universal rules are bad because they make it harder to change a single rule. I sense your complaint stems from not being to easily and readily understand your enemy's capabilities without buying his codex or studying his build sheet. But I can't sympathize here. The game has taken a logical step forward toward balancing units as individuals rather than a sum of their points. The fact that they gave Possessed an extra wound without a point increase is evidence that they're balancing now at the individual level rather than the old methods of just totaling the cost of stats and weapons on a model and calling it fair.
ross-128 wrote: Merging all the non-SM Imperium factions into a single book is especially silly when you consider Space Marines themselves get five or six different books to cover their various flavors.
That would cause the publishing cycle to be even more heavily saturated with Space Marines, with GW only rarely acknowledging "oh yeah other armies kinda exist".
There should really only be a few Space Marine codices:
1. Space Marines
2. Grey Knights
3. Space Wolves
4. Deathwatch
There's absolutely no reason for Death Angels and Blood Angels to be separate. Plus there's no reason Vanilla Marines shouldn't have some of their options, and no reason the angels shouldn't have some of their options. It's ridiculous.
Deathwatch and Grey Knights should just be put in their corresponding Ordos books. So Deathwatch in Ordos Xenos which also features rules for Ordos Xenos Inquisitors and their retinues and Grey Knights in Ordos Malleus which has options for Ordos Malleus Inquisitors. Then there is Ordos Hereticus with the Sisters of Battle, Hereticus Inquisitors and other members of the Ecclesiarchy. They come together as three separate softbacks in a cardboard case.
I can live with Ordo being its own codex, and then Grey Knights and Deathwatch go in there too.
Deathwatch is complicated to just bring in. The army has nothing in common, and tons of bizarre equipment. It shouldn't be a very expensive codex though.
But is all that bizaree equipment necessary?
You have Xenophase Blades, Deathwatch Shotguns, Frag Cannons, Power Fist with Meltagun, Heavy Thunder Hammer and some wargear (Auspex Array, Infernum Halo-launcher), as well as the Guardian Spear I guess. I might have missed something. Otherwise, they're just an army comprised of marine veterans? The only really unique unit is the Corvus Blackstar, and their ability to mix. Dark Angels have about the same unique stuff, and more unique units. So I think an argument that having Deathwatch as a separate army while older more established ones are included in the main codex is quite weird. Instead, just fold it into an Inquisition one or something and make the marine codices Space Marines, Space Wolves and Inquisiton & Friends as said.
1) Conscripts should have an armor save of 6+ and max squad size of 30 would fix 99% of the problems. Then suddenly they die easier and order are no longer nearly as effective.
2) In regard to scions infantry squads are not a problem. The only issue people had (rightfully so) is the command squad spam which has been resolved by forcing you to buy a 40pt commander.
3) Banning FW stuff is insane since many people pay so much money to use those cool models. It is part of the game banning FW models would really put off many people.
4) Plasma is good, but if you want to overcharge it there is a significant risk. I am not sure if it is overpriced when it hits on a 4+ (depending on the unit). The real problem is melta needs improved rules or a price reduction. So I recommend increasing the cost of plasma guns by 1pt (8pts) and reduce the cost of melta by 2pts (10pts).
Overall, the winning lists seem to have a good spread of different lists and armies. I think as codexes continue to come out will continue to see many more options and list variety. I think the game seems pretty balanced even with the small tweaks we are suggesting. I remember editions of the game where it was over before it even started. I really love 8th edition!
4) Plasma is good, but if you want to overcharge it there is a significant risk. I am not sure if it is overpriced when it hits on a 4+ (depending on the unit). The real problem is melta needs improved rules or a price reduction. So I recommend increasing the cost of plasma guns by 1pt (8pts) and reduce the cost of melta by 2pts (10pts).
Plasma guns should cost 13 points like SM ones do.
I'd think that making Scions drop from at least 12" away instead of 9" away would be a good move. There isn't much counter play when they can make up their points in a single turn of shooting in that double tap range.
Conscripts being a maximum size of 20 would make them equally to buff with orders as veteran squad for point cost.
And I think the commissar shouldn't be able to make squads only take a maximum of one loss during a moral test. He might be able to instill fear in men to make nobody flee but I don't think he can save the men who have their minds completely broken by battlefield losses. Those who are babbling mad can't be saved by any amount of leadership.
broxus wrote:1) Conscripts should have an armor save of 6+ and max squad size of 30 would fix 99% of the problems. Then suddenly they die easier and order are no longer nearly as effective.
2) In regard to scions infantry squads are not a problem. The only issue people had (rightfully so) is the command squad spam which has been resolved by forcing you to buy a 40pt commander.
3) Banning FW stuff is insane since many people pay so much money to use those cool models. It is part of the game banning FW models would really put off many people.
4) Plasma is good, but if you want to overcharge it there is a significant risk. I am not sure if it is overpriced when it hits on a 4+ (depending on the unit). The real problem is melta needs improved rules or a price reduction. So I recommend increasing the cost of plasma guns by 1pt (8pts) and reduce the cost of melta by 2pts (10pts).
Overall, the winning lists seem to have a good spread of different lists and armies. I think as codexes continue to come out will continue to see many more options and list variety. I think the game seems pretty balanced even with the small tweaks we are suggesting. I remember editions of the game where it was over before it even started. I really love 8th edition!
4) Plasma is good, but if you want to overcharge it there is a significant risk. I am not sure if it is overpriced when it hits on a 4+ (depending on the unit). The real problem is melta needs improved rules or a price reduction. So I recommend increasing the cost of plasma guns by 1pt (8pts) and reduce the cost of melta by 2pts (10pts).
Plasma guns should cost 13 points like SM ones do.
Plasma for both should be S5 AP-1 with OC S7 AP-3
Before I hear "That normal profile is bad" it should be, you're not buying that. You're buying the OC.
Breng77 wrote: Assumption that those armies stagnate and die in one book, is no more valid than the reality that they are stagnating and dying right now in their own separate snowflake books.
Even with Sisters stagnating separately in the gameplay, we actually got new lore in the previous codices before Imperial Agents. New lore, new artwork, and so on.
Really? I don't remember their WD dex having much in the way of lore at all.
Breng77 wrote: So yeah not really hurting lots of non-space marine players
I specified imperial earlier in this thread, and that's the context behidn that statement.
Even then it isn't hurting those players based on current releases
Breng77 wrote: Personally I'm sad to see the return of codices at all, I think they are a terrible design practice. on the flip side carrying 10 books for your army sucks.
What the feth-ass kind of army are you using that requires ten books? Inquisition? Well tough gak, that's the nature of Inquisition. They explicitly aren't an army in and of themselves. They are powerful leaders that take command of, hire, or otherwise acquire other armies. Really, Inquisitors should actually be Lord of War material with their retinue giving them powerful support, debuff, and survivability powers depending on how the retinue is built; but that's an entirely different gripe.
You missed the point, I'd like to see no codex books at all but see units released in say campaign books as then you can add smaller numbers of units for each faction at a time. The issue with that is that you would need to carry 10 books to a game. A good middle road would be releasing the data slates with the models and then having a single GHB for points like AOS. Then leave the fluff to fluff books.
Breng77 wrote: I disagree I think adding new books instead of updating existing books was bad, which is what happened. Why update sisters when we can have admech, or more flavors of marines.
By that definition, the first thing they should have done this edition is release Sisters of Battle as their opening codex, but that's not what's happened, and let's be realistic, it was never going to happen. In your ideal fairyland world with unicorns and rainbows, everyone can be crammed inside of a few tiny books but still be supported just as well if not better than they currently are. I fail to see how, with such a vivid imagination as would craft such an unlikely scenario, you cannot also imagine the idea of GW continuing to pump out a book or two every month until everyone has gotten an update, then add new subfactions in order to add even more variety ot the gameplay.
And yes, a game without variety is a worse game than one with more. If I wanted to play a game without variety, I'd toss away my miniatures and go be boring and pick up chess.
The game already has variety, at some point variety become bloat which is bad. Also no what I said in no way means Sisters should have been first, just that maybe they should have gotten a proper update before GW released Ad mech, Sisters of silence, Custodes, Skitari, GSC etc.
If GW had any track record of actually updating all their factions in a meaningful way then I could imagine GW both adding more factions to the game, and updating their existing models. What typically happens instead is that they don't update factions and editions change causing tons of issues. It would be better if there were no codex books in this scenario as releases could happen for armies at various times which could keep them better up to date.
Oh look, conscripts are becoming a must take for any imperial army, because they are absurdly undercosted for their durability alone. What a shocker. It's not like this was apparent to most of the player base (ignoring a handful of guard players lost in their delusions of what balanced guard looks like) for months now.
Breng77 wrote: Really? I don't remember their WD dex having much in the way of lore at all.
Oh look you conveniently forget important details how surprising.
The WD dex actually did have new lore. Not a terribly large amount of it, but it was the first new lore outside of Black Library that we got since third edition. It was considered one of the few positive aspects of it. Same with the pdf book after it.
For space Marines, maybe. For Sisters of Battle? Hell no there isn't variety. Marines have more named characters than Sisters have units. By a wide margin. And with your myopic view of "variety", you're okay with this.
SilverAlien wrote: Oh look, conscripts are becoming a must take for any imperial army, because they are absurdly undercosted for their durability alone. What a shocker. It's not like this was apparent to most of the player base (ignoring a handful of guard players lost in their delusions of what balanced guard looks like) for months now.
The top Grey Knights player at BAO had 30 conscripts and a commissar. He also had a flyer wing with Space Marines fliers that GK don't have access to.
I was thinking about how I could improve my list.
Conscripts + Commissar really is perfect for any imperium list, so i'll add some. In addition to massive area denial and the ability to almost guarantee holding an objective, they are also 2 boots on the ground for the purposes of deployment, which really helps a near 100% deep strike army that can't null deploy.
Then i figured I should add some artillery because i'll have the bubble. And if someone does alpha my bubble i have an amazing beta strike. So, i figured Manticores, would be the perfect addition, since Grey Knights lack anti-tank.
Additionally, I should probably add another Guard HQ to buff the tanks. Maybe a master of ordnance.
Now, on to my beta strike. What can i do to improve it? I figured, I have decent dakka, but i could really use cheaper, stronger shots for instances when I face something with a toughness 5+. The best, cheapest option is plasma scions. So, I'll add some of those.
At this point i'm really only using draigo to reroll storm bolter shots, so i can probably drop him. He's iconic but 240 points to reroll 2s just isn't worth it. In fact, I could just add more conscripts, and some Vultures. It'll be cheaper, more mobile dakka than PAGK and i don't need to bring Draigo.
Nice! I've just made the perfect Grey Knights list. Without any Grey Knights.
Martel732 wrote: It's the BA "solution" from 7th. Take out all the BA and get IoM allies that work.
My friend plays Blood Angels and is really struggling. He lost a game recently to Guard without getting his second turn. Can you PM me a good BA list for him to try out? He's got a decent amount of DC, Astorath, Lemartes, Terminators, Land Raider, Storm Raven, Vindicator, Rhino, TAC squads, devastator squads, drop pods, Dreadnoughts... I am trying to help him, but I simply don't know what to suggest.
It's kinda hilarious how people were worried codices would "destroy" the fragile balance of the game, when a lot of armies still aren't worth running, and 1-2 are basically full of must take units.
Honestly, I'm not even sure codices are strong enough to change the meta. It'll be interesting to see going forward.
Breng77 wrote: Really? I don't remember their WD dex having much in the way of lore at all.
Oh look you conveniently forget important details how surprising.
The WD dex actually did have new lore. Not a terribly large amount of it, but it was the first new lore outside of Black Library that we got since third edition. It was considered one of the few positive aspects of it. Same with the pdf book after it.
For space Marines, maybe. For Sisters of Battle? Hell no there isn't variety. Marines have more named characters than Sisters have units. By a wide margin. And with your myopic view of "variety", you're okay with this.
Love the condescension....You did miss the point by asking what army I ran that required 10 books, the point was if codices were done away with there is a chance I would need to take 10 books...which you missed.
The game as a whole is not limited to Marines and Sisters. Sisters could use some more variety, the game on the whole doesn't need tons more variety to have enough to be interesting, there are a good number of distinct factions, with distinct units. I'd rather see all these units made usable than to have more stuff added to the game. Further if we aren't considering restricting the imperium (the genesis to this entire discussion), then sisters have more variety available to them than half the game. It just isn't variety you want because you want to play pure sisters. I already said I'd be fine with sisters having their own book if their line was expanded to warrant having one, otherwise I'd rather see them included in an Imperium book. We don't agree, that is fine, I'll rest easy that at least I can have a polite conversion without condescending to the other party and resulting to vulgarity.
Breng77 wrote: You did miss the point by asking what army I ran that required 10 books, the point was if codices were done away with there is a chance I would need to take 10 books...which you missed.
I'm pretty sure this is a typo, because otherwise you're saying your own suggestion would force you to take ten books, which shows how little thought you're putting in to your posts.
Regardless, your claim was nothing more than pointless hyperbole, which is to say your whine about having to have "ten books" for your army was ridiculous; one cannot miss the point if there is no point to miss. Hell, your idea doesn't even reduce the number of books, because if one wanted lore-- and most people do-- you'd still have to buy "ten books!". Frankly, if you want to reduce the number of books, you'd stuff everything in the core rulebook instead, making it an enormous, ponderous tome not unlike the ones Sisters have chained to their hips and probably costing 200 bucks or more to buy.
Breng77 wrote: The game as a whole is not limited to Marines and Sisters.
Irrelevant.
Breng77 wrote: I'd rather see all these units made usable than to have more stuff added to the game.
Most units in the game are usable as they are right now; the ones that aren't-- grots, termagants, and so on-- will get a chance to be fixed when their books come out (though frankly they probably won't, knowing GW's history). It's mainly in the very top tier competitive circuits that you see a massive skew towards very specific units and lists.
As noted, Eldar, Orks, Necrons, etc are going to get their own books, and in those books they can get their broken units fixed and get additional units, making your pointless whining little more than a distraction from the topic at hand.
Breng77 wrote: It just isn't variety you want because you want to play pure sisters.
You're right. In fact, let's take this argument to its logical extreme; Let's let Eldar take Space Marines, and Tyranids take Space Marines, and Necrons take Space Marines, and Orks take Space Marines, and Tau take Space Marines. Space Marines for everyone! That way, every time Space Marines get updated, every faction gets more units!
This statement is ridiculous on its face, and works on the assumption that playing lore-based armies or armies with a consistent aesthetic is a bad thing. Sisters of Battle explicitly and specifically aren't Space Marines. Shoving them in to a book with Space Marines is like shoving Tyranids in to the Eldar codex. Hey, what's the problem? They're both fast-moving, psychic heavy armies!
If the problem is the allies rules, then fix the damn allies rules, don't screw over factions just because you, yourself, aren't particularly interested in them. Or to say it in another way; when you want to turn a screw, you reach for the screwdriver, not the jackhammer.
Breng77 wrote: You did miss the point by asking what army I ran that required 10 books, the point was if codices were done away with there is a chance I would need to take 10 books...which you missed.
I'm pretty sure this is a typo, because otherwise you're saying your own suggestion would force you to take ten books, which shows how little thought you're putting in to your posts.
Regardless, your claim was nothing more than pointless hyperbole, which is to say your whine about having to have "ten books" for your army was ridiculous; one cannot miss the point if there is no point to miss. Hell, your idea doesn't even reduce the number of books, because if one wanted lore-- and most people do-- you'd still have to buy "ten books!". Frankly, if you want to reduce the number of books, you'd stuff everything in the core rulebook instead, making it an enormous, ponderous tome not unlike the ones Sisters have chained to their hips and probably costing 200 bucks or more to buy.
Breng77 wrote: The game as a whole is not limited to Marines and Sisters.
Irrelevant.
Breng77 wrote: I'd rather see all these units made usable than to have more stuff added to the game.
Most units in the game are usable as they are right now; the ones that aren't-- grots, termagants, and so on-- will get a chance to be fixed when their books come out (though frankly they probably won't, knowing GW's history). It's mainly in the very top tier competitive circuits that you see a massive skew towards very specific units and lists.
As noted, Eldar, Orks, Necrons, etc are going to get their own books, and in those books they can get their broken units fixed and get additional units, making your pointless whining little more than a distraction from the topic at hand.
Breng77 wrote: It just isn't variety you want because you want to play pure sisters.
You're right. In fact, let's take this argument to its logical extreme; Let's let Eldar take Space Marines, and Tyranids take Space Marines, and Necrons take Space Marines, and Orks take Space Marines, and Tau take Space Marines. Space Marines for everyone! That way, every time Space Marines get updated, every faction gets more units!
This statement is ridiculous on its face, and works on the assumption that playing lore-based armies or armies with a consistent aesthetic is a bad thing. Sisters of Battle explicitly and specifically aren't Space Marines. Shoving them in to a book with Space Marines is like shoving Tyranids in to the Eldar codex. Hey, what's the problem? They're both fast-moving, psychic heavy armies!
If the problem is the allies rules, then fix the damn allies rules, don't screw over factions just because you, yourself, aren't particularly interested in them. Or to say it in another way; when you want to turn a screw, you reach for the screwdriver, not the jackhammer.
My point was for game balance the codex release cycle is a terrible method of rules delivery. Releasing new rules for all factions at the same time would be a more effective way of updating and releasing new models. The downside to that method (as I said) is that you would need 10 books (possible hyperbole) to play your army. So again you missed what I was saying. Perhaps it could have been more clear, but you missed it. Yes I did say my own suggestion had drawbacks, which shows I did think about it not that I did not.
In a discussion of variety, it is not irrelevant that the game is more than marines and sisters.
Not all units in the game are near equally viable, and they never have been I'd rather see those gaps closed than add new units that either go straight to the shelf, or are stupid overpowered. This is true for any meta that is at all competitive. If you don't care about winning anything is viable.
As for everything taking space marines, they aren't allowed, sisters are. WHICH IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM THAT STARTED THIS DISCUSSION: "THE IMPERIUM AS A SINGLE FACTION IS DUMB FROM A BALANCE STANDPOINT." as such I suggested limiting the "allies" to single primary factions with limits on what else could be taken. One of those factions was "Imperial Agents" which based on the current state of sisters, included sisters. If sisters got their own tome with 40 sisters units, I'd be thrilled, but they don't have that. This in no way "screws" those factions, in fact it requires them to buy fewer books (cannot ally in guard or space marines, only 1 book for everything they can take), you just don't like it because it isn't your ideal outcome of a fully supported sisters book. Now if sisters do get full support, great then they get their own book, if not why do we need a ton of books. Heck for all I care all the "agents of the imperium" can each have their own book and then they can only ally with each other. The issue is that right now Half the game is made up of a single faction (GW has said sisters and space marines are sub factions of the same faction), and that is dumb from a standpoint of competitive balance. So for matched play I would rather see it restricted as I originally stated, whether or not all those factions are in a single book.
Heck sisters aren't even my biggest issue in the whole thing I think Sisters of Silence, Custodes, Knights, Assassins, Deathwatch and Inquisition are all stupid as far as being stand alone books because they are all tiny factions with almost no units. So if you want to limit just those "armies" to one book and sisters be separate that is fine. But if they cannot take inquisitors sisters lose some fluffy interactions as would GK. So maybe have those 2 be separate "agents of the imperium" books, that work with the collection of those smaller armies, because it is fluffy.
Yeah, something needs to be done about the ally situation. Because it hurts smaller armies as well. Anemic army lists can be justified with "well just ally in x or y".
Breng77 wrote: My point was for game balance the codex release cycle is a terrible method of rules delivery.
However, it's also the most practical method. By focusing on each army in turn, GW can give the armies the love and attention they deserve. Notice I said "can", not "do"-- I still hold that it's much less likely as a practical matter that they'd be able to devote as much attention to the non-frontpage armies in one giant combined book.
Breng77 wrote: In a discussion of variety, it is not irrelevant that the game is more than marines and sisters.
Not when discussing the internal variety of the Sisters of Battle army, not that you appear to give a damn about that.
Breng77 wrote: Not all units in the game are near equally viable
That's not what I said.
Breng77 wrote: As for everything taking space marines, they aren't allowed, sisters are.
Barring Celestine-- who, to give context to this problem, was re-introduced in 7th edition not as a Sisters of Battle character but as her own unique character available to all the Imperium thus causing a huge mess as every competitive Imperial army took her (and caused a lot of upset Sisters players because the Imperial Agents book didn't actually have a single Sisters named character, and not a single Sisters HQ other than the Canoness)-- most people who are in to Sisters are in to them because they like the lore, the aesthetics, or the playstyle. And of those, none of them are really improved by adding Space Marines to the mix like you suggest should be done.
You said, to paraphrase, that sure in your solution Sisters might not get new things, but at least they can take Space Marines in the form of Grey Knights and Deathwatch. In other words, you're the one that's suggesting Sisters SHOULD have to rely on Marines in order to get variety.
And the spiteful donkey-cave in me says "if Sisters have to rely on allying in Space Marines to get variety, then fething everyone should have to." You're not giving me any good reasons not to listen to the spiteful donkey-cave in me.
Breng77 wrote: So maybe have those 2 be separate "agents of the imperium" books
Agents of the imperium was a wildly unpopular and hated book, and for good reason.
broxus wrote: 3) Banning FW stuff is insane since many people pay so much money to use those cool models. It is part of the game banning FW models would really put off many people.
At this state Forge World is little more than a pay-to-win button. The rules that ForgeWorld has made for their models are extremely poorly balanced, not playtested and not proof-read.
Maybe sisters and GK get their own fully supported codices as part of the faction "agents of the imperium" which allows them to ally with codex "agents of the imperium" Which includes the Inquisition, sisters of silence, assassins, Deathwatch (because they are part of the inquisition), and Knights You could call it something else for all I care since "agents of the imperium" is apparently a trigger for you.
I'm not suggesting that Sisters SHOULD have to rely on marines, but instead that they might have to if GW doesn't do their job and expand their line...as you noted your self GW could do this, whether they do it remains to be seen.
As for units being equally viable, it may not be what you said, but it is what I desire.
As to internal variety of Sisters, I'd love to see them get more units. I'm just not sure they will whether they get a new book or not. They have not gotten new units (other than Celestine) in more than 3 editions, they don't even have plastic kits. So any release of them would either just stick with what they have, or re-do what they have in plastic, which may not have any new units included.
So to paraphrase my solution "In case sisters don't get new things, at least they can use allies if players desire, if they get new stuff great, but if people want to use them as a force with the inquisition as they could in the past, they could still do that too."
broxus wrote: 3) Banning FW stuff is insane since many people pay so much money to use those cool models. It is part of the game banning FW models would really put off many people.
At this state Forge World is little more than a pay-to-win button. The rules that ForgeWorld has made for their models are extremely poorly balanced, not playtested and not proof-read.
Tbh, normal 40K is only marginally better on the balance and playtesting. Better on the proofreading though I agree.
Breng77 wrote: Maybe sisters and GK get their own fully supported codices as part of the faction "agents of the imperium"
Why not just change how allies rules work to begin with?
Breng77 wrote: I'm not suggesting that Sisters SHOULD have to rely on marines
Actually, that's pretty much what you did. "Hey, if we stuff Sisters in this book, they get more stuff to take!"
You know that telling Marine players "sure conscripts are op, but hey, you can make use of them, yourself!" isn't going to make many people smile, right? Because that's the same thing.
Breng77 wrote: As for units being equally viable, it may not be what you said, but it is what I desire.
Yeah it'd be nice, but it shoveling Sisters in to some half-assed "Imperial Agents" book isn't going to cause more units to be equally viable. Overpowered units will still be overpowered, underpowered units will still be underpowered. Or to rephrase myself: if you want to remove a nail, I grab the claw hammer, not the dynamite.
Breng77 wrote: They have not gotten new units (other than Celestine) in more than 3 editions
Celestine isn't "new." Her bodyguards are, but that's really just an extension of the rules she's had since 3rd edition of being a super-durable tarpit character.
And it's not three editions that we haven't gotten new units, but five.
Rickels wrote: If conscripts are the "meta" then you just have to work out a way to beat them. You will start seeing massive ork armies with 150+ orks, banners and warboss with some weirdboys to teleport a squad within 9", congo to the warboss, advance and then charge those conscript units.
6+/5+ with only double shots and then dying in drove on a 2+/3+.
Stop being so nerf happy and figure out a way to beat the current meta instead of relying on GW to do it for you.
So your 30 orks are going to kill a ton of conscripts?
Against a squad of 50 conscripts 5 orks die to overwatch, if you congaline back to your buffs (lets say ghaz, and a weirdboy giving them +2 attacks, and the banner) you probably have 15 boyz attacking (5 died, probably 10 not in range once you conga back to your buffs) So you have 3 base attacks +3 from bonuses so 6 attacks each. 90 attacks, kills 33 conscripts, 17 remaining kill 2 more orks. Those guys fall back on their turn, and the rest of that ork squad dies. The issue is that if you trade 30 orks for 30 conscripts you will lose the game.
But yes that is one of the armies that might have a chance against conscripts spam + killy stuff.
You are assuming you lose 5 orks in overwatch but you are forgetting that you can stagger units, that first unit that ported in is just the wound soaking damage for the other unit coming at the conscripts. Lock any other conscript unit nearby in the following consolidation and then force orders to be get back in the fight, which halves the effectiveness of the conscript wall.
In your world of mathhammer you are missing the most vital portion of the game we are playing, space. You literally will be so crowded with those conscript spam you are never ever EVER going to get the mythical figure of 200 shots, ever.
The mathhammer also misses out on the strategy.
If I'm depending on getting 30 boyz into CC, I'm assaulting with something else first specifically to draw their overwatch out early so I can charge in with the boyz and maximize the effects of any buffs I've got going.
It's what small groups of Komandoes are for. It's also why assaulting with transports is so popular.
broxus wrote: 3) Banning FW stuff is insane since many people pay so much money to use those cool models. It is part of the game banning FW models would really put off many people.
At this state Forge World is little more than a pay-to-win button. The rules that ForgeWorld has made for their models are extremely poorly balanced, not playtested and not proof-read.
And yet people complain more about GW models such as Conscripts and Stormravens than FW models. I will admit that Forge World is broken, but in other ways than being an p2w. Some FW choices are superior yes, but when you get an additional 50 units, some of them are bound to be superior to the ones you previously had.
If BoLS is to be believed (and unlike their other 40k content their event coverage is pretty good) there are several things worth taking away from the BAO Top 8:
1. The finish was very close. A matter of dice rolls or difference in opponents, and any one of these lists could have won.
2. While the exact details of his list are not yet available, the Tau player in the Top 8 only had four Commander Suits. As it tuns out, there might be more to Tau than just spamming as many Commanders as possible.
3. The Dark Angels player only had two Flyers in his list (a pair of Fire Raptors).
4. All of the Top 3 lists have one thing in common (in addition to AM and using Conscripts): the use of at least three different detachments.
Overall, I think that what we can take away from the BAO is that the game is in a much better state balance-wise than it was in 7th edition. The FAQ nerf to Flyers and Sudden Death has definitely cut down on the Flyer spam, particularly Stormravens.
The biggest changes to balance that I would see being necessary going forward are to Conscripts and to Detachments. I don't think Conscripts need a points increase or lose the ability to receive orders, as that would make them objectively inferior to Guardsmen. I would prefer a limit on the availability of Conscripts instead: for every unit of Guardsmen in a Detachment, you may take one unit of Conscripts as a Troops choice. I also think that there needs to be a return to the old Two-Source limit for army construction, albeit for Detachments: your army may be composed of a maximum of two Detachments (of any type). In addition, all units within a detachment must share the same faction Key Words. Both of these changes would, in my opinion, further improve the balance of the tournament game in 8th Edition.
The be fair I watched the live stream of the final game with Tau vs Guard. The damn guard player was sloppy as hell.
In a tournament, how the hell are you going to shoot plasma at stealth suits and over charge thinking you're safe with re reroll 1s. They weren't even playing the game right and we're supposed to draw conclusions from this tournament?
TheNewBlood wrote: If BoLS is to be believed (and unlike their other 40k content their event coverage is pretty good) there are several things worth taking away from the BAO Top 8:
1. The finish was very close. A matter of dice rolls or difference in opponents, and any one of these lists could have won.
2. While the exact details of his list are not yet available, the Tau player in the Top 8 only had four Commander Suits. As it tuns out, there might be more to Tau than just spamming as many Commanders as possible.
3. The Dark Angels player only had two Flyers in his list (a pair of Fire Raptors).
4. All of the Top 3 lists have one thing in common (in addition to AM and using Conscripts): the use of at least three different detachments.
Overall, I think that what we can take away from the BAO is that the game is in a much better state balance-wise than it was in 7th edition. The FAQ nerf to Flyers and Sudden Death has definitely cut down on the Flyer spam, particularly Stormravens.
The biggest changes to balance that I would see being necessary going forward are to Conscripts and to Detachments. I don't think Conscripts need a points increase or lose the ability to receive orders, as that would make them objectively inferior to Guardsmen. I would prefer a limit on the availability of Conscripts instead: for every unit of Guardsmen in a Detachment, you may take one unit of Conscripts as a Troops choice. I also think that there needs to be a return to the old Two-Source limit for army construction, albeit for Detachments: your army may be composed of a maximum of two Detachments (of any type). In addition, all units within a detachment must share the same faction Key Words. Both of these changes would, in my opinion, further improve the balance of the tournament game in 8th Edition.
I just wanted to say a "thank you" for a return to reasonable analysis of the situation, rather than just yelling something silly like, "Ban FW models."
I think we're seeing the evolution of a meta in process. The IG armies are clearly the top three list, and I'm expecting the next step will be to see if an army comes specifically to counter them. We see it a lot in other games - popular recipe X comes along and does well, so people create Y to counter it. Then Z comes along to counter Y, but how does X vs. Z pan out? Conscripts are certainly very strong, no doubt about it.
Colonel Cross wrote: The be fair I watched the live stream of the final game with Tau vs Guard. The damn guard player was sloppy as hell.
In a tournament, how the hell are you going to shoot plasma at stealth suits and over charge thinking you're safe with re reroll 1s. They weren't even playing the game right and we're supposed to draw conclusions from this tournament?
2. While the exact details of his list are not yet available, the Tau player in the Top 8 only had four Commander Suits. As it tuns out, there might be more to Tau than just spamming as many Commanders as possible.
His list is here. It has 6 Commanders which combined make up around 50% of the total list in terms of points.
80 points of Marker Drones. 264 points of Gun Drones. 907 points of Commanders. 42 points of Fireblade. 243 points of Crisis Suits. 230 points of Stealth Suits. 127 points of Devilfish. 80 points of Pathfinders. 43 points of Fire Warriors.
In short, spamming commanders and drones (with some flamer crisis suits thrown in) certainly seem to be the only way for Tau to compete.
2. While the exact details of his list are not yet available, the Tau player in the Top 8 only had four Commander Suits. As it tuns out, there might be more to Tau than just spamming as many Commanders as possible.
His list is here. It has 6 Commanders which combined make up around 50% of the total list in terms of points.
80 points of Marker Drones.
264 points of Gun Drones.
907 points of Commanders.
42 points of Fireblade.
243 points of Crisis Suits.
230 points of Stealth Suits.
127 points of Devilfish.
80 points of Pathfinders.
43 points of Fire Warriors.
In short, spamming commanders and drones (with some flamer crisis suits thrown in) certainly seem to be the only way for Tau to compete.
Thank you for pointing out my error; I did not know the full details of his list.
Look at it this way: while it is true that this player spent 50% of his points on Commanders, he also spent 50% of his points on units other than Commanders. With the way his Detachments are set up, he easily could have cut points down in other units in favor of more Commanders. So why didn't he? He must have had a reason for doing so, seeing as how he made Top 8 in a large and highly competitive tournament.
Also interesting: no Coldstar Commander. Again, he clearly must have a reason; what could it be for not including such a powerful unit?
TheNewBlood wrote: Thank you for pointing out my error; I did not know the full details of his list.
Look at it this way: while it is true that this player spent 50% of his points on Commanders, he also spent 50% of his points on units other than Commanders. With the way his Detachments are set up, he easily could have cut points down in other units in favor of more Commanders. So why didn't he? He must have had a reason for doing so, seeing as how he made Top 8 in a large and highly competitive tournament.
Also interesting: no Coldstar Commander. Again, he clearly must have a reason; what could it be for not including such a powerful unit?
Because it's less powerful than Commanders, more mobile but less powerful.
TheNewBlood wrote: Look at it this way: while it is true that this player spent 50% of his points on Commanders, he also spent 50% of his points on units other than Commanders. With the way his Detachments are set up, he easily could have cut points down in other units in favor of more Commanders. So why didn't he? He must have had a reason for doing so, seeing as how he made Top 8 in a large and highly competitive tournament.
Most likely for warm bodies as meatshields and objective takers, even excluding gun drones Tau have okay to good sources of s4-5 that are also less vulnerable to multiwound weapons then commanders.
Rickels wrote: If conscripts are the "meta" then you just have to work out a way to beat them. You will start seeing massive ork armies with 150+ orks, banners and warboss with some weirdboys to teleport a squad within 9", congo to the warboss, advance and then charge those conscript units.
6+/5+ with only double shots and then dying in drove on a 2+/3+.
Stop being so nerf happy and figure out a way to beat the current meta instead of relying on GW to do it for you.
So your 30 orks are going to kill a ton of conscripts?
Against a squad of 50 conscripts 5 orks die to overwatch, if you congaline back to your buffs (lets say ghaz, and a weirdboy giving them +2 attacks, and the banner) you probably have 15 boyz attacking (5 died, probably 10 not in range once you conga back to your buffs) So you have 3 base attacks +3 from bonuses so 6 attacks each. 90 attacks, kills 33 conscripts, 17 remaining kill 2 more orks. Those guys fall back on their turn, and the rest of that ork squad dies. The issue is that if you trade 30 orks for 30 conscripts you will lose the game.
But yes that is one of the armies that might have a chance against conscripts spam + killy stuff.
You are assuming you lose 5 orks in overwatch but you are forgetting that you can stagger units, that first unit that ported in is just the wound soaking damage for the other unit coming at the conscripts. Lock any other conscript unit nearby in the following consolidation and then force orders to be get back in the fight, which halves the effectiveness of the conscript wall.
In your world of mathhammer you are missing the most vital portion of the game we are playing, space. You literally will be so crowded with those conscript spam you are never ever EVER going to get the mythical figure of 200 shots, ever.
The mathhammer also misses out on the strategy.
If I'm depending on getting 30 boyz into CC, I'm assaulting with something else first specifically to draw their overwatch out early so I can charge in with the boyz and maximize the effects of any buffs I've got going.
It's what small groups of Komandoes are for. It's also why assaulting with transports is so popular.
If you are assaulting with a small unit Kommandos, you better hope they don't die in overwatch, and that they don't fail the charge which isn't unlikely, because then you still lose 5 boyz. If you are assaulting with a vehicle you are at least on turn 2 (unless your opponent moved toward your orks.) in which case it is not unreasonable to think you no longer have 30 orks in a squad. Sure there are ways to mitigate overwatch, those things also cost points. Strategy happens from both players.
"Are 
