105466
Post by: fraser1191
So this is the first edition that i saw the beginning, and after seeing the Eldar codex it seems like there is a significant creep in power since the first codexes came out.
So do you guys think that this new Chapter approved will keep the balance between these new codexes coming out vs the earlier ones?
29836
Post by: Elbows
Is there codex creep? Yes, I believe so - seems almost impossible for GW not to do this.
However, the solution they've chosen is to cheapen units or make them better, which unfortunately means that it becomes a more killy arms race --- rather than reigning in more units which need a points increase/strength reduction.
I'd prefer the latter, personally.
27890
Post by: MagicJuggler
Creep implies subtlety. This is full-on codex sprinting.
105466
Post by: fraser1191
Haha that's a good one. But I'm kind of wondering if this was all kind of planned, releasing the indexes, then pump out basically copy and pasted codexes with later more tweaked and looked at codexes and then have the actual rules in the chapter approved book to avoid the first few codexes being totally unbeatable
2771
Post by: Infantryman
It's to entice you to buy the latest and greatest army.
GW is a figurine company, not a games company.
M.
116685
Post by: clownshoes
Have you heard of the AM/IG codex?
Ya, it sort of got here first, and is better than the craftworld. But sure blame the runner up.
85390
Post by: bullyboy
???? I don't want to hear BS about Eldar being OP....they are clearly not, so how can it be creep if they are not stronger than previous entries (AM)?
115017
Post by: Bremon
As long as AM is king then I don’t care to hear about creep too much, but there’s little doubt the latest handful of books are superior to vanilla marines, grey knights, etc.
114803
Post by: Drake003
Army lists using the Codexes were always going to be better than those made with Indexes as Indexes were just a stop gap, not the full options.
So no, there is no creep, simply a step up into the fully fledged lists instead of the temporary Indexes. That is why GW are ploughing through the Codexes as quickly as possible and releasing Chapter Approved in the meantime.
Though I would challenge the order of some of the Codex releases. I mean seriously, why are any Chapter specific Codex going out before Codexes for the various races that are still using Index (Tau, Orks etc). Blood Angels can still use any of the Chapters from the Space Marine Codex for the time being. They do not need their own Codex more than Orks need a Codex for example.
100848
Post by: tneva82
Actually there's no inheritent reason why codex HAS to be more powerful. Power level can stay same while adding more options but there's no real reason units have to be more powerful except fixing underpowered units but conversely it should then result also nerfing too good units from index.
114803
Post by: Drake003
That is true, though I was thinking more in terms of synergies enabled through things such as chapter tactics and Stratagems, along with a full set of Warlord Traits and psychic powers where relevant.
All those things are not in the Index so therefore the Codexes will be somewhat more powerful by the existence of these additional options and synergies
52309
Post by: Breng77
Drake003 wrote:Army lists using the Codexes were always going to be better than those made with Indexes as Indexes were just a stop gap, not the full options.
So no, there is no creep, simply a step up into the fully fledged lists instead of the temporary Indexes. That is why GW are ploughing through the Codexes as quickly as possible and releasing Chapter Approved in the meantime.
Though I would challenge the order of some of the Codex releases. I mean seriously, why are any Chapter specific Codex going out before Codexes for the various races that are still using Index (Tau, Orks etc). Blood Angels can still use any of the Chapters from the Space Marine Codex for the time being. They do not need their own Codex more than Orks need a Codex for example.
I think sometimes that is for the sake of ease. Maybe some other books are getting a model release with their codex which takes longer. I was actually surprised more Space Marine chapter books were not released earlier, largely they are a copy paste for the main book + their unique options. Much easier to put those out than entire other races.
I agree though largely there is no creep. If you look a tournament performances Chaos and Imperium armies ( AM/ SM) are doing well and had some of the earliest drops. Admech not so much, and they came after, Ynnari were doing well, but craftworld elder were not, so their faction got a buff, it remains to be seen if they will outshine the earlier books, but I highly doubt it. The same is true for nids.
A lot of what people seem to be reading as creep is "I got an early codex and there was not a huge amount of change from the index, and these newer books got a ton of buffs compared to the index, so codex creep is happening." Without considering that those later armies were pretty crap in their index, or the units that were buffed were not great.
Not saying there are no marine units that need buffing, but they performed well early in the edition, and continue to be solid.
113188
Post by: pismakron
I dont think there is a lot of codex creep. If there is, it is relatively minor.
I don't see the Craftworld codex as being vastly better than Imperial Guard, DG, Chaos or Space Marines. And while the Imperial Guard codex was very strong, it has been mellowed a bit with the nerfs on plasma-scions, conscripts and commissars.
35310
Post by: the_scotsman
on the contrary, I find the AM codex to be the exception, rather than the rule (and even then, the units that were problematic in the codex were almost universally problematic in the index...and they saw nerfs in the codex.)
The stuff that's broken in 40k is almost universally either A) Forgeworld, or B ) in the indexes/interacting with the indexes.
Craftworlds, for instance, would be just fine, with maybe a couple builds using the Alaitoc trait being abusive, if it weren't for the existence of Ynnari and the fact that all the buffs and stratagems CWE get can be used with the broken Ynnari Word of the Pheonix reapers. You can say "OMG so many buffs!" all you like, but when its buffs to stuff like Falcons, which were and are still pretty bad, it's not a bad thing. If anything, a balance pass to SMs, CSMs, GK and Admech is needed analogous to what guard and eldar got.
So far, the only thing we've seen receive significant buffs in the codex having already been seen in the tournament was Dark Reapers, which are broken specifically because of their interaction with the Index Ynnari Word of the Pheonix power, letting them circumvent exactly what Ynnari are intended to be, a close range "high risk high reward" variant of Eldar. The Guard codex at worst kept things we'd seen in tournaments the same, at best nerfed them.
IMO, as soon as we see nerfs to Forgeworld Malefic Lords, Ynnari, Magnus, Arty carriages, etc, and codexes for the other Index factions, we can start looking at codex creep. Heck, if the CA rumors are true, they already are looking at codex creep, which would be awesome.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
Infantryman wrote:It's to entice you to buy the latest and greatest army.
GW is a figurine company, not a games company.
M.
That would explain why the GK and AM codexes were so strong.
Wait, no they aren't, they're distinctly weaker than the codexes that came before them.
GW couldn't do codex creep on purpose if they wanted to. The power level of new codexes and new models is essentially random. For every new codex/model that is OP there's a new codex/model that sucks.
95410
Post by: ERJAK
lolwat?
Yeah, codex armies in general are superior to their equivalent index armies but it's not like Codex DG, Codex CM, Codex HA, Codex GK, Codex AM, Codex AsMil post-nerf, or Codex Craftworlds have come out and completely dominated everything else. Soup lists are still the overall strongest way to run Chaos or Imperium and the best standalone armies are still Harlequins and Adepta Sororitas.
Forgeworld has done far more to unbalance the game than the codexes have. And for the emperors sake dude, do you even remember Codex: Necrons? Or the old Codex CWE? THAT was codex sprinting. This is a leisurely sunday afternoon stroll where the codexes are even kind enough to wait for everyone else to catch up a bit, whether through chapter approved or non-threatening codexes like GK and DG.
52309
Post by: Breng77
Scott-S6 wrote: Infantryman wrote:It's to entice you to buy the latest and greatest army.
GW is a figurine company, not a games company.
M.
That would explain why the GK and AM codexes were so strong.
Wait, no they aren't, they're distinctly weaker than the codexes that came before them.
GW couldn't do codex creep on purpose if they wanted to. The power level of new codexes and new models is essentially random. For every new codex/model that is OP there's a new codex/model that sucks.
Yup I've always said this GW has never done creep for dollars, it is always random.
86872
Post by: MarkM
Scott-S6 wrote:
GW couldn't do codex creep on purpose if they wanted to. The power level of new codexes and new models is essentially random. For every new codex/model that is OP there's a new codex/model that sucks.
This ^^
GW couldn't balance a see-saw never mind a complex game system.
91362
Post by: DCannon4Life
the_scotsman wrote:on the contrary, I find the AM codex to be the exception, rather than the rule (and even then, the units that were problematic in the codex were almost universally problematic in the index...and they saw nerfs in the codex.)
The stuff that's broken in 40k is almost universally either A) Forgeworld, or B ) in the indexes/interacting with the indexes.
Craftworlds, for instance, would be just fine, with maybe a couple builds using the Alaitoc trait being abusive, if it weren't for the existence of Ynnari and the fact that all the buffs and stratagems CWE get can be used with the broken Ynnari Word of the Pheonix reapers. You can say "OMG so many buffs!" all you like, but when its buffs to stuff like Falcons, which were and are still pretty bad, it's not a bad thing. If anything, a balance pass to SMs, CSMs, GK and Admech is needed analogous to what guard and eldar got.
So far, the only thing we've seen receive significant buffs in the codex having already been seen in the tournament was Dark Reapers, which are broken specifically because of their interaction with the Index Ynnari Word of the Pheonix power, letting them circumvent exactly what Ynnari are intended to be, a close range "high risk high reward" variant of Eldar. The Guard codex at worst kept things we'd seen in tournaments the same, at best nerfed them.
IMO, as soon as we see nerfs to Forgeworld Malefic Lords, Ynnari, Magnus, Arty carriages, etc, and codexes for the other Index factions, we can start looking at codex creep. Heck, if the CA rumors are true, they already are looking at codex creep, which would be awesome.
Voice of reason. Well written.
71534
Post by: Bharring
One book does not mean a trend.
The first book in the edition - SM - clearly came out before DG, AdMech, or GK. All those are worse. In fact, it's squarely middle-of-the-road.
The imbalance between the top (IG or CWE) and bottom (GK) is dissapointing. But it's nowhere near as bad as 6th or 7th - at any time in those editions.
I much preferred the balance of the Indexes (even if they hosed my second favorite unit - the Dire Avenger). The codexes are bringing some interesting things. And the balance is closer than most editions I've seen between codexes. But it's too bad that balance is getting worse, even among the most recent publications.
But to say it's clear that each new Dex is better is flat out wrong. Even in the small sample set, there are clear counterexamples.
27890
Post by: MagicJuggler
On a more serious note, the fact that so many tournament armies are Soups rather than complete armies could be a sign that many armies were not designed as coherent wholes, so much as individual groups of units in isolation with relatively little forethought to the "bigger picture." This isn't exactly new: 4th ed Codex Tyranids could easily have been called Codex: Carnifex because it was clear where most of the options and attention went. And this is a relatively benign example.
And of course, for every 7e Eldar, you have a Khorne Daemonkin (or Cadia: An AM Supplement, or Waaagh Ghazgkull, both which came after). For every 8e Guard, an 8e Grey Knights. It could easily be a mix of factors, from certain writers having "favorites" (don't get a Space Wolf fanboy to write Thousand Sons - Wrath of Magnus was a trainwreck, and by the same author of the relatively well-received Genestealer Cults codex), to marketing getting in the way (hence the axing of "no model" options in codexes).
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Breng77 wrote:Drake003 wrote:Army lists using the Codexes were always going to be better than those made with Indexes as Indexes were just a stop gap, not the full options.
So no, there is no creep, simply a step up into the fully fledged lists instead of the temporary Indexes. That is why GW are ploughing through the Codexes as quickly as possible and releasing Chapter Approved in the meantime.
Though I would challenge the order of some of the Codex releases. I mean seriously, why are any Chapter specific Codex going out before Codexes for the various races that are still using Index (Tau, Orks etc). Blood Angels can still use any of the Chapters from the Space Marine Codex for the time being. They do not need their own Codex more than Orks need a Codex for example.
I think sometimes that is for the sake of ease. Maybe some other books are getting a model release with their codex which takes longer. I was actually surprised more Space Marine chapter books were not released earlier, largely they are a copy paste for the main book + their unique options. Much easier to put those out than entire other races.
I agree though largely there is no creep. If you look a tournament performances Chaos and Imperium armies ( AM/ SM) are doing well and had some of the earliest drops. Admech not so much, and they came after, Ynnari were doing well, but craftworld elder were not, so their faction got a buff, it remains to be seen if they will outshine the earlier books, but I highly doubt it. The same is true for nids.
A lot of what people seem to be reading as creep is "I got an early codex and there was not a huge amount of change from the index, and these newer books got a ton of buffs compared to the index, so codex creep is happening." Without considering that those later armies were pretty crap in their index, or the units that were buffed were not great.
Not saying there are no marine units that need buffing, but they performed well early in the edition, and continue to be solid.
Guard came before Eldar but after AdMech and Death Guard, and are the only book to receive a significant FAQ/Errata in the form of completely destroying one unit based upon its interactions with another unit--and the problematic unit in question(Conscripts) had already received a toning down from its Index to Codex iterations.
35310
Post by: the_scotsman
MagicJuggler wrote:On a more serious note, the fact that so many tournament armies are Soups rather than complete armies could be a sign that many armies were not designed as coherent wholes, so much as individual groups of units in isolation with relatively little forethought to the "bigger picture." This isn't exactly new: 4th ed Codex Tyranids could easily have been called Codex: Carnifex because it was clear where most of the options and attention went. And this is a relatively benign example.
And of course, for every 7e Eldar, you have a Khorne Daemonkin (or Cadia: An AM Supplement, or Waaagh Ghazgkull, both which came after). For every 8e Guard, an 8e Grey Knights. It could easily be a mix of factors, from certain writers having "favorites" (don't get a Space Wolf fanboy to write Thousand Sons - Wrath of Magnus was a trainwreck, and by the same author of the relatively well-received Genestealer Cults codex), to marketing getting in the way (hence the axing of "no model" options in codexes).
You think "no model no rules" is a marketing decision? To me, it smacks of a legal decision that they're shoving down marketing's throat and making them polish the turd. To me, the "units with rules no models can still be in indexes" seems to be a concession to quiet the passionate fans. If this were old GW, had that decision come down from on high, everything would be gone, like it or not, Finecast/Codex Dark Eldar Style.
Definitely agree on "favorite army/not favorite army" that's a problem they've had for a loooong time. And it's clear that whoever they had doing GK was NOT the passionate GK fanboy that they had doing Guard. You can tell by not looking at the best/worst options, but by the level of care and fine detail that went into not just points-adjusting underperforming units, but little tweaks to underperforming weapon options, changes to unit rules, and additions of small, fluffy options just in case someone wants to go in and do some converting (Autogun Veterans).
it's very clear they found someone who actually LIKED Guard and Nids to do those codexes. Eldar, I'm not convinced, those changes seemed more surface-level, mathematically going through and correcting points values. It was no big labor of love even though it did the job.
116685
Post by: clownshoes
MarkM wrote: Scott-S6 wrote:
GW couldn't do codex creep on purpose if they wanted to. The power level of new codexes and new models is essentially random. For every new codex/model that is OP there's a new codex/model that sucks.
This ^^
GW couldn't balance a see-saw never mind a complex game system.
How dare you sir. They cannot balance the bubble in a level... the see-saw is way to big and complex it has moving parts
722
Post by: Kanluwen
the_scotsman wrote:
Definitely agree on "favorite army/not favorite army" that's a problem they've had for a loooong time. And it's clear that whoever they had doing GK was NOT the passionate GK fanboy that they had doing Guard. You can tell by not looking at the best/worst options, but by the level of care and fine detail that went into not just points-adjusting underperforming units, but little tweaks to underperforming weapon options, changes to unit rules, and additions of small, fluffy options just in case someone wants to go in and do some converting (Autogun Veterans).
it's very clear they found someone who actually LIKED Guard and Nids to do those codexes. Eldar, I'm not convinced, those changes seemed more surface-level, mathematically going through and correcting points values. It was no big labor of love even though it did the job.
I disagree on this. Cruddace purportedly did Guard and it still reeks of his touch. The lack of options for Sergeants(I mean FFS, they now make it so the chainsword that they shoved down our throat for two editions isn't even a base part of the profile) coupled with the general "bleh" of anything that wasn't Conscripts, Valhallans, or Commissars(apparently his "favorite representation of the Guard") made it a book that while it can be exceedingly powerful(like it could before!) also made it extremely "meh" when doing anything out of the ordinary.
If it truly had been a labor of love, we would have seen some serious shifts in things I feel. But since Cruddace was involved, it's "tides of bodies".
52309
Post by: Breng77
Kanluwen wrote:Breng77 wrote:Drake003 wrote:Army lists using the Codexes were always going to be better than those made with Indexes as Indexes were just a stop gap, not the full options.
So no, there is no creep, simply a step up into the fully fledged lists instead of the temporary Indexes. That is why GW are ploughing through the Codexes as quickly as possible and releasing Chapter Approved in the meantime.
Though I would challenge the order of some of the Codex releases. I mean seriously, why are any Chapter specific Codex going out before Codexes for the various races that are still using Index (Tau, Orks etc). Blood Angels can still use any of the Chapters from the Space Marine Codex for the time being. They do not need their own Codex more than Orks need a Codex for example.
I think sometimes that is for the sake of ease. Maybe some other books are getting a model release with their codex which takes longer. I was actually surprised more Space Marine chapter books were not released earlier, largely they are a copy paste for the main book + their unique options. Much easier to put those out than entire other races.
I agree though largely there is no creep. If you look a tournament performances Chaos and Imperium armies ( AM/ SM) are doing well and had some of the earliest drops. Admech not so much, and they came after, Ynnari were doing well, but craftworld elder were not, so their faction got a buff, it remains to be seen if they will outshine the earlier books, but I highly doubt it. The same is true for nids.
A lot of what people seem to be reading as creep is "I got an early codex and there was not a huge amount of change from the index, and these newer books got a ton of buffs compared to the index, so codex creep is happening." Without considering that those later armies were pretty crap in their index, or the units that were buffed were not great.
Not saying there are no marine units that need buffing, but they performed well early in the edition, and continue to be solid.
Guard came before Eldar but after AdMech and Death Guard, and are the only book to receive a significant FAQ/Errata in the form of completely destroying one unit based upon its interactions with another unit--and the problematic unit in question(Conscripts) had already received a toning down from its Index to Codex iterations.
Not sure what your point is specifically. That it is a newer book that got a ton of buffs to many units (and some nerfs to other units), rather than the SM or CSM dex (first 2) that had little change from their indices?
71534
Post by: Bharring
I definitely agree the CWE changes were surface-level.
Nothing really got more interesting. Nothing changed significatnly, aside from points. Their attributes/traits/stratagems are mostly uninspired.
Serviceable work, but nothing wonderful/special.
Mostly it was points changes.
52309
Post by: Breng77
Kanluwen wrote:the_scotsman wrote:
Definitely agree on "favorite army/not favorite army" that's a problem they've had for a loooong time. And it's clear that whoever they had doing GK was NOT the passionate GK fanboy that they had doing Guard. You can tell by not looking at the best/worst options, but by the level of care and fine detail that went into not just points-adjusting underperforming units, but little tweaks to underperforming weapon options, changes to unit rules, and additions of small, fluffy options just in case someone wants to go in and do some converting (Autogun Veterans).
it's very clear they found someone who actually LIKED Guard and Nids to do those codexes. Eldar, I'm not convinced, those changes seemed more surface-level, mathematically going through and correcting points values. It was no big labor of love even though it did the job.
I disagree on this. Cruddace purportedly did Guard and it still reeks of his touch. The lack of options for Sergeants(I mean FFS, they now make it so the chainsword that they shoved down our throat for two editions isn't even a base part of the profile) coupled with the general "bleh" of anything that wasn't Conscripts, Valhallans, or Commissars(apparently his "favorite representation of the Guard") made it a book that while it can be exceedingly powerful(like it could before!) also made it extremely "meh" when doing anything out of the ordinary.
If it truly had been a labor of love, we would have seen some serious shifts in things I feel. But since Cruddace was involved, it's "tides of bodies".
Cruddace wrote the 5e guard book and it was "tide of tanks" so I'm not really sure that your argument holds water. It is more of an issue of the edition favoring certain types of units.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Breng77 wrote: Kanluwen wrote:Breng77 wrote:Drake003 wrote:Army lists using the Codexes were always going to be better than those made with Indexes as Indexes were just a stop gap, not the full options. So no, there is no creep, simply a step up into the fully fledged lists instead of the temporary Indexes. That is why GW are ploughing through the Codexes as quickly as possible and releasing Chapter Approved in the meantime. Though I would challenge the order of some of the Codex releases. I mean seriously, why are any Chapter specific Codex going out before Codexes for the various races that are still using Index (Tau, Orks etc). Blood Angels can still use any of the Chapters from the Space Marine Codex for the time being. They do not need their own Codex more than Orks need a Codex for example. I think sometimes that is for the sake of ease. Maybe some other books are getting a model release with their codex which takes longer. I was actually surprised more Space Marine chapter books were not released earlier, largely they are a copy paste for the main book + their unique options. Much easier to put those out than entire other races. I agree though largely there is no creep. If you look a tournament performances Chaos and Imperium armies ( AM/ SM) are doing well and had some of the earliest drops. Admech not so much, and they came after, Ynnari were doing well, but craftworld elder were not, so their faction got a buff, it remains to be seen if they will outshine the earlier books, but I highly doubt it. The same is true for nids. A lot of what people seem to be reading as creep is "I got an early codex and there was not a huge amount of change from the index, and these newer books got a ton of buffs compared to the index, so codex creep is happening." Without considering that those later armies were pretty crap in their index, or the units that were buffed were not great. Not saying there are no marine units that need buffing, but they performed well early in the edition, and continue to be solid.
Guard came before Eldar but after AdMech and Death Guard, and are the only book to receive a significant FAQ/Errata in the form of completely destroying one unit based upon its interactions with another unit--and the problematic unit in question(Conscripts) had already received a toning down from its Index to Codex iterations. Not sure what your point is specifically. That it is a newer book that got a ton of buffs to many units (and some nerfs to other units), rather than the SM or CSM dex (first 2) that had little change from their indices?
You said that Chaos and Imperium armies( AM/ SM) were doing well and had some of the earliest drops. Was just making it abundantly clear that while SM and CSM were early drops, the Guard book is under a month old and has experienced some of the most dramatic rules changes outside of going from Index->Codex and gaining your <Legion>, <Chapter>, etc rules. Guard dropped on October 7th. The Commissar gutting and FW Index FAQ were both on October 22nd, fixing the weird interaction between Carriages/Emplacements and Master of Ordnance and completely killing any use for Commissars outside of Conscript Hordes... the whole problem the idiots were trying to fix. Automatically Appended Next Post: Breng77 wrote: Kanluwen wrote:the_scotsman wrote:
Definitely agree on "favorite army/not favorite army" that's a problem they've had for a loooong time. And it's clear that whoever they had doing GK was NOT the passionate GK fanboy that they had doing Guard. You can tell by not looking at the best/worst options, but by the level of care and fine detail that went into not just points-adjusting underperforming units, but little tweaks to underperforming weapon options, changes to unit rules, and additions of small, fluffy options just in case someone wants to go in and do some converting (Autogun Veterans).
it's very clear they found someone who actually LIKED Guard and Nids to do those codexes. Eldar, I'm not convinced, those changes seemed more surface-level, mathematically going through and correcting points values. It was no big labor of love even though it did the job.
I disagree on this. Cruddace purportedly did Guard and it still reeks of his touch. The lack of options for Sergeants(I mean FFS, they now make it so the chainsword that they shoved down our throat for two editions isn't even a base part of the profile) coupled with the general "bleh" of anything that wasn't Conscripts, Valhallans, or Commissars(apparently his "favorite representation of the Guard") made it a book that while it can be exceedingly powerful(like it could before!) also made it extremely "meh" when doing anything out of the ordinary.
If it truly had been a labor of love, we would have seen some serious shifts in things I feel. But since Cruddace was involved, it's "tides of bodies".
Cruddace wrote the 5e guard book and it was "tide of tanks" so I'm not really sure that your argument holds water. It is more of an issue of the edition favoring certain types of units.
When the feth was it ever "tide of tanks"? You must have played a different 5e than I did, because all I ever saw whined about was Leafblower Guard.
52309
Post by: Breng77
Leafblower was essentially a tide of armored vehicles, so unless you are someone who thinks only Russes are tanks, it was tide of tanks.
5th ed guard was Mech veterans, Mantacores, Vendettas, hydras, colossus etc. Certainly not "tide of bodies" at the very least. I basically never saw blobs of infantry from guard in 5th.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Breng77 wrote:Leafblower was essentially a tide of armored vehicles, so unless you are someone who thinks only Russes are tanks, it was tide of tanks. 5th ed guard was Mech veterans, Mantacores, Vendettas, hydras, colossus etc. Certainly not "tide of bodies" at the very least. I basically never saw blobs of infantry from guard in 5th.
Leafblower was a specific build referring to Vets in Vendettas and Vets in Chimeras both. When someone says "Tide of Tanks", it's meaning literally that--a tide of tanks. You can walk your statement back now if you want; you'd still be wrong. There were blobs of infantry from Guard as well as the Leafblower builds, mainly dealing with Chenkov and his "Send in the Next Wave"...y'know, the thing people cried about getting cut from the next book?
35310
Post by: the_scotsman
Kanluwen wrote:the_scotsman wrote:
Definitely agree on "favorite army/not favorite army" that's a problem they've had for a loooong time. And it's clear that whoever they had doing GK was NOT the passionate GK fanboy that they had doing Guard. You can tell by not looking at the best/worst options, but by the level of care and fine detail that went into not just points-adjusting underperforming units, but little tweaks to underperforming weapon options, changes to unit rules, and additions of small, fluffy options just in case someone wants to go in and do some converting (Autogun Veterans).
it's very clear they found someone who actually LIKED Guard and Nids to do those codexes. Eldar, I'm not convinced, those changes seemed more surface-level, mathematically going through and correcting points values. It was no big labor of love even though it did the job.
I disagree on this. Cruddace purportedly did Guard and it still reeks of his touch. The lack of options for Sergeants(I mean FFS, they now make it so the chainsword that they shoved down our throat for two editions isn't even a base part of the profile) coupled with the general "bleh" of anything that wasn't Conscripts, Valhallans, or Commissars(apparently his "favorite representation of the Guard") made it a book that while it can be exceedingly powerful(like it could before!) also made it extremely "meh" when doing anything out of the ordinary.
If it truly had been a labor of love, we would have seen some serious shifts in things I feel. But since Cruddace was involved, it's "tides of bodies".
Yeah, they definitely didn't go in depth on anything like
-separate vehicle/infantry traits for almost all factions, only one single repeat trait we'd seen before in the 18" rapid fire out of Steel Legion
-Double-turret shot buff for Leman Russes, Obsec in Spearhead Detachments, Special tank orders
-A special order, stratagem, relic, and warlord trait for all regiments
-Reworks for all the turret weapons on Hellhound tank variants (both stats and points, possibly not the Bane Wolf, I haven't ever used that one but the other two saw significant changes)
-Basilisk extra AP buff
-Massive buffs and changes to Baneblade variants
-Move and fire buff to Valkyries
-New customizable ogryn bodyguard guy
yeah GW definitely didn't give a gak about anything but Conscripts and Heavy Weapon Squads and Infantry Squads, which got huge changes and buffs from Index to codex like
-
When will GW pay attention to tank, airborne, and mechanized guard army players?
Compare the number of actual stat/rule changes in the Guard and Nid codex to the new Eldar codex (disregarding the others since the theory is they were printed pre-game release so they didnt have time to make significant changes). A couple aspects got changed. Path of Command got a thing. Fire Prisms got the shoot twice rule.
97080
Post by: HuskyWarhammer
Breng77 wrote: Scott-S6 wrote: Infantryman wrote:It's to entice you to buy the latest and greatest army. GW is a figurine company, not a games company. M.
That would explain why the GK and AM codexes were so strong. Wait, no they aren't, they're distinctly weaker than the codexes that came before them. GW couldn't do codex creep on purpose if they wanted to. The power level of new codexes and new models is essentially random. For every new codex/model that is OP there's a new codex/model that sucks. Yup I've always said this GW has never done creep for dollars, it is always random. Man, I wish this were (*more*) true simply because it might mean new plastic aspect warriors.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, they definitely didn't go in depth on anything like -separate vehicle/infantry traits for almost all factions, only one single repeat trait we'd seen before in the 18" rapid fire out of Steel Legion
Let's be honest here. We know that the first 12 books were done(as in: sent to print) over the summer. Until we see all 12, I don't feel comfortable saying this is for sure. -Double-turret shot buff for Leman Russes, Obsec in Spearhead Detachments, Special tank orders
Special Tank Orders only went to the Regiments that didn't actually get a special Infantry Order. I'd be more inclined for this one if it were a thing in all of them. We saw the double-turret shot buff in Eldar so it makes me think that was a thing they started doing in non-Marine books. I won't understand why AdMech didn't get it but there it is. -A special order, stratagem, relic, and warlord trait for all regiments
Everyone got a special Stratagem, Relic, and Warlord Trait in every book prior. Some of the Orders are things that(in my opinion) would be based on characters in armies that are character heavy and, incidentally, are things that I feel would have been in Doctrina Imperatives had Skitarii remained separate to CultMech. -Reworks for all the turret weapons on Hellhound tank variants (both stats and points, possibly not the Bane Wolf, I haven't ever used that one but the other two saw significant changes) -Basilisk extra AP buff -Massive buffs and changes to Baneblade variants -Move and fire buff to Valkyries
All true. -New customizable ogryn bodyguard guy
This guy was a hugely welcome surprise, absolutely will admit. yeah GW definitely didn't give a gak about anything but Conscripts and Heavy Weapon Squads and Infantry Squads, which got huge changes and buffs from Index to codex like
Conscripts got a slight nerf from Index->Codex. They got Orders on 4+'s instead of automatically. When will GW pay attention to tank, airborne, and mechanized guard army players? Compare the number of actual stat/rule changes in the Guard and Nid codex to the new Eldar codex (disregarding the others since the theory is they were printed pre-game release so they didnt have time to make significant changes). A couple aspects got changed. Path of Command got a thing. Fire Prisms got the shoot twice rule.
And yet we didn't get Lasguns back for Sergeants and Sergeants lost Powerfists(both of which, by the by, put a hole in the head of the garbage about "Rules for kits!" since one of the only two plastic Guard Powerfists is in the Cadian Command Squad and it is emblazoned with a Sergeant's rank insignia) and we saw only cursory shifts to the problematic Index units. Sorry for being hyperbolic but I really, really dislike that Cruddace was allowed anywhere near the Guard book still. I just wanted my Lasguns for Sergeants back damnit!
71534
Post by: Bharring
The tanks-double-shoot thing applies only to the Prism in the CWE book. CWE has other HS tanks it would then, in theory, also apply to.
I think they just knew they had to throw Prisms a bone, and didn't really think out if HS tanks in general should have it.
(And then threw Prisms two bones, but Spinners none.)
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Bharring wrote:The tanks-double-shoot thing applies only to the Prism in the CWE book. CWE has other HS tanks it would then, in theory, also apply to.
I think they just knew they had to throw Prisms a bone, and didn't really think out if HS tanks in general should have it.
(And then threw Prisms two bones, but Spinners none.)
The tanks-double-shoot thing only applies to Russes in the Guard book.
52309
Post by: Breng77
Kanluwen wrote:Breng77 wrote:Leafblower was essentially a tide of armored vehicles, so unless you are someone who thinks only Russes are tanks, it was tide of tanks.
5th ed guard was Mech veterans, Mantacores, Vendettas, hydras, colossus etc. Certainly not "tide of bodies" at the very least. I basically never saw blobs of infantry from guard in 5th.
Leafblower was a specific build referring to Vets in Vendettas and Vets in Chimeras both.
When someone says "Tide of Tanks", it's meaning literally that--a tide of tanks.
You can walk your statement back now if you want; you'd still be wrong. There were blobs of infantry from Guard as well as the Leafblower builds, mainly dealing with Chenkov and his "Send in the Next Wave"...y'know, the thing people cried about getting cut from the next book?
Leafblower also used the artillery tanks and hydras. I never once saw Chenkov in 5th or blobs. Almost always "mech IG" which was centered around mechanized units not "tide of bodies" So again I'm no more wrong about tide of tanks, than you are saying that Cruddace is always tide of bodies for IG. Automatically Appended Next Post: The issue with Cruddace has been that other than that one book every thing else he has touched sucks (mostly nids).
71534
Post by: Bharring
Aren't russes more a chasis, with different weapon options?
The weapon options on a Fire Prisim is you can replace the stormbolter-like weapon with the CWE HB-like weapon.
Night Spinners, Firestorms, Fire Prisms, and Falcons all share one chasis.
(An actual quesiton about IG, I don't recall for sure)
35310
Post by: the_scotsman
I mean, OK, you want Lasguns on sergeants (Powerfists on regular sergeants annoys me too, they're only on Veteran Sergeants for some reason) but it's frankly laughable to say they didn't pay attention to army styles other than "wave of bodies" when out of all the vehicles in the codex, the ONLY ones that didn't get SOME kind of change index to codex (whether that be stat change, points change, or special Stratagem referring specifically to that vehicle) were:
-Regular Taurox
-Wyvern? I don't remember whether the Wyvern or the Hydra got the Aerial Spotter stratagem.
All the rest, every SINGLE one, got changed for the better. I'm not sure what it is with you and letting one thing completely ruin an entire release for you, but between this sergeant lasgun thing and the whole "I wish I didn't have to take a couple Enginseers" skitarii thing...I don't know what to tell you, man. We got regiment rules. They're really flavorful and in depth. the internal balance is pretty darn good, amazing by GW standards.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
Bharring wrote:Aren't russes more a chasis, with different weapon options?
The weapon options on a Fire Prisim is you can replace the stormbolter-like weapon with the CWE HB-like weapon.
Night Spinners, Firestorms, Fire Prisms, and Falcons all share one chasis.
(An actual quesiton about IG, I don't recall for sure)
It was a change from Index to Codex.
In the Index, Leman Russ (Battle Cannon, Eradicator Nova Cannon, Exterminator Cannon or Vanquisher) were one unit at 11PL and Leman Russ Demolishers (Demolisher Cannon, Executioner Plasma Cannon, Punisher Gatling Cannon) were a different unit at 12PL. (In previous editions, the Demolisher family got a higher rear AV, but they had identical stat lines in the Index.)
In the Codex all the (non- FW) turret variants are in one entry at 10PL and thus get some more flexibility about squadroning different turrets together.
11860
Post by: Martel732
bullyboy wrote:???? I don't want to hear BS about Eldar being OP....they are clearly not, so how can it be creep if they are not stronger than previous entries ( AM)?
Eldar are OP.
97080
Post by: HuskyWarhammer
Martel732 wrote: bullyboy wrote:???? I don't want to hear BS about Eldar being OP....they are clearly not, so how can it be creep if they are not stronger than previous entries ( AM)?
Eldar are OP.
Some people just like to complain about Eldar because....well, to complain. Often while their special snowflake SM get all of the nice toys. It reminds me of the kids who have 6/7 action figures, but cry "unfair" when another kid has just the one they're missing.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Kanluwen wrote:
Leafblower was a specific build referring to Vets in Vendettas and Vets in Chimeras both.
When someone says "Tide of Tanks", it's meaning literally that--a tide of tanks.
You can walk your statement back now if you want; you'd still be wrong. There were blobs of infantry from Guard as well as the Leafblower builds, mainly dealing with Chenkov and his "Send in the Next Wave"...y'know, the thing people cried about getting cut from the next book?
I'll agree with you on what the term originally meant, but I think toward the end of 5th it was being applied pejoratively to just about anything that had a Vendetta in it.
71534
Post by: Bharring
I was surprised when people didn't complain (too much) about Index CWE.
There were still complaints, but not nearly as much.
Turned out, there was more sanity than I expected.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
the_scotsman wrote:I mean, OK, you want Lasguns on sergeants (Powerfists on regular sergeants annoys me too, they're only on Veteran Sergeants for some reason) but it's frankly laughable to say they didn't pay attention to army styles other than "wave of bodies" when out of all the vehicles in the codex, the ONLY ones that didn't get SOME kind of change index to codex (whether that be stat change, points change, or special Stratagem referring specifically to that vehicle) were:
-Regular Taurox
-Wyvern? I don't remember whether the Wyvern or the Hydra got the Aerial Spotter stratagem.
Hydra, Manticore, and the Deathstrike didn't get access to Aerial Spotters but both the Wyvern and Basilisk both did.
If I'm going to be honest, I feel like the Hydra really should have gotten something to make it feel different to the other armies' anti-"Fly" keyword capabilities. I don't know what that something should be (whether it is being static BS4 versus both "Fly" and non-"Fly" keywords to represent the fact that it's supposedly just throwing boatloads of shells at the target or having more shots than it currently has), but it just feels exceedingly lackluster for an item described as throwing walls of flak up.
All the rest, every SINGLE one, got changed for the better. I'm not sure what it is with you and letting one thing completely ruin an entire release for you, but between this sergeant lasgun thing and the whole "I wish I didn't have to take a couple Enginseers" skitarii thing...I don't know what to tell you, man. We got regiment rules. They're really flavorful and in depth. the internal balance is pretty darn good, amazing by GW standards.
Truth be told, the Sergeant Lasgun thing is a pet peeve. It hasn't ruined my enjoyment but it does give me something to bring up when people talk about how the book feels "more customizable" than previous ones or things we'd like to have seen done differently. I've actually submitted it a few times for FAQs/Erratas in the hope that someone finally realizes that it's actually a thing that is possible thanks to the kit(which isn't actually doable with the new Laspistol and Frag Grenade loadout I might add, since both of those are the right hands of the model).
It's a pet peeve for me because of the fact that the other three armies I have/had(AdMech which are shelved until Fires of Cyraxus or the FW Cyraxus list gets released whichever comes first, Tau, and Marines/Deathwatch) have Sergeant/Sergeant equivalents rocking the same weapon as the rest of the squad while the one army I have which actually has long held that the weapons of an officer(pistol/sword) were not necessarily for the NCOs. There was a great little fluff bit in "Cadian Blood" where the Whiteshield(Conscripts by another name) leading the squad remarks (paraphrasing here) how he feels foolish waving a sword around like the Captain does, since he's "just" a sergeant equivalent.
AdMech for me wasn't just the Enginseers thing. It was the fact that all the flavor and feel of my Skitarii army was shitcanned in favor of everything being rolled into one book and then being called an idiot/fool for liking running Skitarii by themselves. If it was just the Enginseers or requiring an AdMech HQ, I would have been mostly okay. If it were just the removal of Doctrina Imperatives, the same thing likely would have been true of me being okay with it.
But that wasn't it. It was the fact that now I have to take an AdMech HQ and I'm saddled with just the Canticles side of things, while losing the ability to run a purely Skitarii army. I wouldn't tell people to take a Marine Captain with a Power Maul and Pistol, then just "pretend" he's a Chaplain if they'd lost the option for Chaplains. I think it was a HUGE misstep to not include a Skitarii HQ option or not to make Doctrina Imperatives an actual ability on Skitarii models.
All of that stuff rolled together is why I refuse to buy AdMech at this juncture and am waiting until there's a Skitarii HQ option, even if it's a single daggone character option, to bring them back. Automatically Appended Next Post: Bharring wrote:I was surprised when people didn't complain (too much) about Index CWE.
There were still complaints, but not nearly as much.
Turned out, there was more sanity than I expected.
They were still too busy complaining about Conscripts.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
Martel732 wrote: bullyboy wrote:???? I don't want to hear BS about Eldar being OP....they are clearly not, so how can it be creep if they are not stronger than previous entries ( AM)?
Eldar are OP.
Craftworld Eldar are fine. The fact that Ynnari got the same buffs that Craftworlders got is OP.
34439
Post by: Formosa
the_scotsman wrote:on the contrary, I find the AM codex to be the exception, rather than the rule (and even then, the units that were problematic in the codex were almost universally problematic in the index...and they saw nerfs in the codex.)
The stuff that's broken in 40k is almost universally either A) Forgeworld, or B ) in the indexes/interacting with the indexes.
Craftworlds, for instance, would be just fine, with maybe a couple builds using the Alaitoc trait being abusive, if it weren't for the existence of Ynnari and the fact that all the buffs and stratagems CWE get can be used with the broken Ynnari Word of the Pheonix reapers. You can say "OMG so many buffs!" all you like, but when its buffs to stuff like Falcons, which were and are still pretty bad, it's not a bad thing. If anything, a balance pass to SMs, CSMs, GK and Admech is needed analogous to what guard and eldar got.
So far, the only thing we've seen receive significant buffs in the codex having already been seen in the tournament was Dark Reapers, which are broken specifically because of their interaction with the Index Ynnari Word of the Pheonix power, letting them circumvent exactly what Ynnari are intended to be, a close range "high risk high reward" variant of Eldar. The Guard codex at worst kept things we'd seen in tournaments the same, at best nerfed them.
IMO, as soon as we see nerfs to Forgeworld Malefic Lords, Ynnari, Magnus, Arty carriages, etc, and codexes for the other Index factions, we can start looking at codex creep. Heck, if the CA rumors are true, they already are looking at codex creep, which would be awesome.
Can you explain A)? are you talking about just imperial guard forge world or all forge world, if its the latter you be having a laugh me bucko arrr
5386
Post by: sennacherib
Martel732 wrote: bullyboy wrote:???? I don't want to hear BS about Eldar being OP....they are clearly not, so how can it be creep if they are not stronger than previous entries ( AM)?
Eldar are OP.
I think the reason. More people are not.comaining is because we are conditioned to elder being OP. Its been their native state for two codex. Why should we be the least surprised that they have remained the same.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
sennacherib wrote:Martel732 wrote: bullyboy wrote:???? I don't want to hear BS about Eldar being OP....they are clearly not, so how can it be creep if they are not stronger than previous entries ( AM)?
Eldar are OP.
I think the reason. More people are not.comaining is because we are conditioned to elder being OP. Its been their native state for two codex. Why should we be the least surprised that they have remained the same.
Last two? Which codex have they had that was not top of the pile? They only time they haven't been at least top three are the editions where they didn't get a new codex.
9815
Post by: ryzouken
Formosa wrote:Can you explain A)? are you talking about just imperial guard forge world or all forge world, if its the latter you be having a laugh me bucko arrr
Why take drop pods when I can make my marines Raptors chapter and take Lias Issodon, saving 150ish points? (I lose access to Guilliman, I guess?)
Why take Codex Craftworlds anti infantry selections (banshees, scorpions, swooping hawks, etc.) when shadow spectres do the job better for cheaper?
Why take basilisks when I can take earthshaker batteries for cheaper and lose nothing I care about?
Why take plasma scions when elysians are cheaper?
These are four easy examples of hyper efficient things that stand out as superior to their codex counterparts. It's not an exhaustive list, just what I know of off the top of my head.
If Forgeworld weren't superior to the readily available codex options, people wouldn't generally bother going through the hoops and hurdles of international shipping costs and delays to order them, to say nothing of the pains of working on resin casts or the even higher prices on these models. I say that as someone who just procured two units of shadow spectres; they are simply the optimal selection compared to codex options in terms of anti infantry.
But go on ahead and argue why you believe it's balanced. Please provide specific examples.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
The problem with Codex Craftworlds Aspect Warriors and Shadow Spectres isn't that spectres are massively better. It's that Scorpions and Banshees are just plain bad. Even Warp Spiders are better at being the one thing Striking Scorpions are good at than Striking Scorpions are. If we're talking about pure efficiency, Shining Spears are still superior in most regards.
But maybe I'm just buying them because I like the models.
9815
Post by: ryzouken
Fafnir wrote:If we're talking about pure efficiency, Shining Spears are still superior in most regards.
Similar move speed, spectres have the extra -1 to hit vs the spears extra wound and T, both put out about 3 S6 hits per battle round (if the spectres manage to hit all 3 times) with spears having an extra AP and D. Spectres have their secondary fire mode of heavy flamers, however. So they're pretty close to par with one another. Except the shadow spectres cost 8ppm less than the spears.
I'm not sure I see the superiority.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
Spectres put out about 1.40 S6/AP-3/D1 hits per turn without guide, around 2.39 S6/AP-1/D1 per turn with guide. Spectres can also put out 3.5 S5/AP-1/D1 hits per turn instead.
Spears put out 2 S6/AP-4/D2 and 2.67 S4/AP0/D1 hits per turn without guide, and around 2.67 S6/AP-4/D2 and 3.56 S4/AP0/D1 hits per turn with guide.
Spears also have a 4++ against shooting, further movement range, and can more effectively tie up units they don't kill in close combat.
You're being disingenuous. Spears put out significantly more damage. Unbuffed, Spears are doing more than twice as many wounds in a turn than Spectres against MEQ, and the comparison moves even further in the Spears' favour against multi-wound models. Spectres are solid units, but they're a pale comparison to the damage output that Spears are capable of.
9815
Post by: ryzouken
Fafnir wrote:Spectres put out about 1.40 S6/ AP-3/D1 hits per turn without guide, around 2.39 S6/ AP-1/D1 per turn with guide. Spectres can also put out 3.5 S5/ AP-1/D1 hits per turn instead.
Spears put out 2 S6/ AP-4/D2 and 2.67 S4/AP0/D1 hits per turn without guide, and around 2.67 S6/ AP-4/D2 and 3.56 S4/AP0/D1 hits per turn with guide.
Spears also have a 4++ against shooting, further movement range, and can more effectively tie up units they don't kill in close combat.
You're being disingenuous. Spears put out significantly more damage. Unbuffed, Spears are doing more than twice as many wounds in a turn than Spectres against MEQ, and the comparison moves even further in the Spears' favour against multi-wound models. Spectres are solid units, but they're a pale comparison to the damage output that Spears are capable of.
I forgot about the shuriken catapults on their bikes. That does shift things offensively in the spears's favor, to a degree.
Melee unit v ranged unit comparisons are always a bit hard. How do you value melee attacks bearing in mind that the enemy might get overwatch, the possibility of failing a charge, and the additional possibility of suffering return strikes for anything that survived your attack? You get a 4++ vs shooting, but you invite the enemy to damage you up to three times as often as the spectres would. And tying up units in close combat? No, at best all you do is turn off their shooting for a turn.
I don't think the comparison can be made as clear as either of us have tried to do thus far, upon further inspection. The rest of my examples stand, however.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
Once again, Scorpions and Banshees are just bad even before you factor in Spectres.
Hawks and Spiders function adequately as MSU deep-striking objective grabbers and area deniers. Hawks are cheap, and Spiders are slightly tanky.
Spears and Reapers are the best of the aspect warriors, with Spectres rounding out a decent third place, which is well within reason.
91640
Post by: Wyldhunt
Kanluwen wrote:
AdMech for me wasn't just the Enginseers thing. It was the fact that all the flavor and feel of my Skitarii army was shitcanned in favor of everything being rolled into one book and then being called an idiot/fool for liking running Skitarii by themselves. If it was just the Enginseers or requiring an AdMech HQ, I would have been mostly okay. If it were just the removal of Doctrina Imperatives, the same thing likely would have been true of me being okay with it.
But that wasn't it. It was the fact that now I have to take an AdMech HQ and I'm saddled with just the Canticles side of things, while losing the ability to run a purely Skitarii army. I wouldn't tell people to take a Marine Captain with a Power Maul and Pistol, then just "pretend" he's a Chaplain if they'd lost the option for Chaplains. I think it was a HUGE misstep to not include a Skitarii HQ option or not to make Doctrina Imperatives an actual ability on Skitarii models.
All of that stuff rolled together is why I refuse to buy AdMech at this juncture and am waiting until there's a Skitarii HQ option, even if it's a single daggone character option, to bring them back.
Sorry to hear you're not happy with the state of your army. I'm curious as to what flavor your felt was lost though. I haven't really looked at their new book yet, but from what I've heard, the stuff we lost was...
* The non-outflanking scout. Which I never really got to work the way I wanted it to in 7th. It was flavorful, but it mostly boiled down to, "Can I sprint up to that next piece of cover turn 1, and if not, can I redeploy behind a wall to hide?"
*The doctrines. I know these were kind of "our thing," but they always felt a little... bland to me. It was nice to have, but it was basically a shoot/punch better/worse slider. The canticles m like a flashier sort of scientific technomagic, which seems a bit more flavorful to me. I assume you disagree?
* The ability to run all "skitarii" units, which admittedly is pretty lame. I play my harlequins more often than I play my skitarii, and I can imagine being quite perturbed if I was forced to field an autarch or something just to fill up an HQ slot. Turning our sargeants into HQs harlequin style would have made a lot of sense. However, I'm not sure the chaplain analogy is completely fair. In the marine scenario you've described, players have lost unit options. In our case, we've actually gained options (without doing ally shenanigans) but also been forced to fill an HQ slot. Do the rules for a techpriest not allow us to make a passably skitarii HQ? My rangers are generally lead by guys with arc mauls and pistol weapons. Surely we can make something comparable out of a tech priest. Or perhaps I'm mistaken?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Wyldhunt wrote: Sorry to hear you're not happy with the state of your army. I'm curious as to what flavor your felt was lost though. I haven't really looked at their new book yet, but from what I've heard, the stuff we lost was... * The non-outflanking scout. Which I never really got to work the way I wanted it to in 7th. It was flavorful, but it mostly boiled down to, "Can I sprint up to that next piece of cover turn 1, and if not, can I redeploy behind a wall to hide?"
Truthfully, this part was fine to lose. It should have been accompanied by vehicles or alternate deployment methods but c'est la vie. *The doctrines. I know these were kind of "our thing," but they always felt a little... bland to me. It was nice to have, but it was basically a shoot/punch better/worse slider. The canticles m like a flashier sort of scientific technomagic, which seems a bit more flavorful to me. I assume you disagree?
This is the biggest part. The Skitarii aren't the Magi. They're the military arm of the Mechanicus. The "shoot/punch better/worse" thing was a great reflection of the fact that even though they have arcane weaponry...they're still ground troops. They're trained/programmed to be military units and were introduced to us with no HQ to represent the fact that the Tech-Priest commanding their forces/operating logistics for them was too valuable to potentially lose in combat so was kept in orbit to uplink data to the forces. They were not disposable corpses with weapons(Servitors) or flocks of Zealots relying on their faith and tech that can potentially kill them(Electro-Priests) or relics of a lost age of technology regarded as walking divine symbols that are shepherded into battle by a priest(Kastelans) and were ultimately led into battle by a priest initiated deep into the mysteries of the Cult(Tech-Priest Dominus). The fact that now they're required to have an HQ in and of itself isn't an issue. It's the hamfisted way that it was done and how not even a year or two ago it was "too dangerous" for Skitarii to be accompanied by their Priests, instead being led by a specially chosen Alpha or Princeps within the units on the field or in extreme cases by a Cohort Commander who commands the forces with no outside input from a Priest. It's the hamfisted way that they're now forced to use the "zealot" side of things for special rules instead of having their own special rules remaining in play for the Skitarii side of things. Remember that they separated Canticles and Doctrina Imperatives because DI was a "static" benefit that would affect your Skitarii no matter the number of units you had on the field while Canticles got better and better based upon the number of models you had in play. * The ability to run all "skitarii" units, which admittedly is pretty lame. I play my harlequins more often than I play my skitarii, and I can imagine being quite perturbed if I was forced to field an autarch or something just to fill up an HQ slot. Turning our sargeants into HQs harlequin style would have made a lot of sense. However, I'm not sure the chaplain analogy is completely fair. In the marine scenario you've described, players have lost unit options. In our case, we've actually gained options (without doing ally shenanigans) but also been forced to fill an HQ slot. Do the rules for a techpriest not allow us to make a passably skitarii HQ? My rangers are generally lead by guys with arc mauls and pistol weapons. Surely we can make something comparable out of a tech priest. Or perhaps I'm mistaken?
That's the reason I made the comparison I did. A Skitarii Warlord, as fielded in 7th edition, was a guy who could have exactly the same as any other member of his squad. He had Doctrina Imperatives, he could tote a Galvanic Rifle or Rad-Carbine, etc. Can an Enginseer do any of that? No. Chaplains have a unique ability and unique wargear. A Captain doesn't have the ability or the wargear, but you can make a "close enough" and call it a day...but it's not the same thing as fielding a Chaplain.
116685
Post by: clownshoes
I would like some to explain exactly what is OP in eldar. Right now the only things i am that peaked my interest and are possibly OP. The dark reapers and alaitoc -1 to hit stacking.
As a harlequin player, there is nothing the codex is offering that i was not already going to take. That being hemlock or crimson hunter exarch. As good as the dark reapers are i won't be making room for them.
Seriously what is this OP boogeyman?
17376
Post by: Zid
I think the largest problem with balancing 40k in general is just that; new editions.
I get that they want to sell models and books, I really do. But why do we need new editions every few years? Why take a game system that is tried and true and completely turn it on its head, making models I loved to play obsolete (or worst case, unusable anymore), and then redoing the way my army plays?
8th is a good step forward for the company toward being a game company that sells models as opposed to a model company that sells games. FAQing broken stuff quickly, releasing "patch" books (CA), etc. Honestly if they could make the game system work and, instead of rereleasing brand new codices, go the warmachine route with expansion books they would make a crapload more money and people would be happier with the game overall.
I was actually extremely happy with 5th ed, much like many were happy with 4th. If they had taken what worked and just tweeked the stuff that didnt for 6th I wouldn't have quit in the first place. Instead they broke the game even more with allied detachments and all that BS, gave us rediculous rules interactions, and made forgeworld tourney legal; all of which ruined the game for me.
Yes, power creep is a thing no matter what game system you play (Magic is the same, pretty much any cell phone game with gatchas/cards, etc.). However, it would be much less of a thing if GW made a game system, and instead of scrapping it every so many years, they patch it and turned it into something that works that they can expand on. You'll still have a bit of power creep from new units and things, but its much easier to balance things then.
4183
Post by: Davor
Infantryman wrote:It's to entice you to buy the latest and greatest army.
GW is a figurine company, not a games company.
M.
Really? Someone is still sour on GW and still following them. Or maybe you didn't know that GW has released a few products now that are based on games. If GW was just a figurine company they wouldn't be offering these games with cheaper minis in them. That would mean GW is wasting money on the other parts than minis then.
MagicJuggler wrote:On a more serious note, the fact that so many tournament armies are Soups rather than complete armies could be a sign that many armies were not designed as coherent wholes, so much as individual groups of units in isolation with relatively little forethought to the "bigger picture."
I don't understand this. What is ment by soup? I have read this a few times referring to something in 8th edition and it makes no sense to me.
17376
Post by: Zid
Davor wrote:Infantryman wrote:It's to entice you to buy the latest and greatest army.
GW is a figurine company, not a games company.
M.
Really? Someone is still sour on GW and still following them. Or maybe you didn't know that GW has released a few products now that are based on games. If GW was just a figurine company they wouldn't be offering these games with cheaper minis in them. That would mean GW is wasting money on the other parts than minis then.
MagicJuggler wrote:On a more serious note, the fact that so many tournament armies are Soups rather than complete armies could be a sign that many armies were not designed as coherent wholes, so much as individual groups of units in isolation with relatively little forethought to the "bigger picture."
I don't understand this. What is ment by soup? I have read this a few times referring to something in 8th edition and it makes no sense to me.
Soup armies consist of detachments from various codices and indexes to make it competitive. What hes saying is that the codexes felt like they weren't designed to cover threats from other armies, and so a single army needs to pick from various places to make it work on the table against any threat.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
I think part of the issue is the game just breaks down at "competitive" play when you only care about optimal choices; half the options in a codex go away because there's something better. While you have solid codexes like Guard and Eldar, they get extreme when you only look at min/maxing and not the entire codex. I think a lot of these issues just aren't there if you are playing in a casual/narrative style where you might take Unit A just because you own/like Unit A, even if Unit B is better and spamming Unit B makes the army "competitive".
17376
Post by: Zid
Wayniac wrote:I think part of the issue is the game just breaks down at "competitive" play when you only care about optimal choices; half the options in a codex go away because there's something better. While you have solid codexes like Guard and Eldar, they get extreme when you only look at min/maxing and not the entire codex. I think a lot of these issues just aren't there if you are playing in a casual/narrative style where you might take Unit A just because you own/like Unit A, even if Unit B is better and spamming Unit B makes the army "competitive".
Definitely agree with this; it has always been this way. Honestly the FOC helped to dull this a bit because you couldn't fill a list with a million of the same unit. I mean, there still was spam, and min-maxing, but I think had they balanced the armies and options a bit better you would have had less of that. Now you can spam whatever you want
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Kanluwen wrote:Wyldhunt wrote:
Sorry to hear you're not happy with the state of your army. I'm curious as to what flavor your felt was lost though. I haven't really looked at their new book yet, but from what I've heard, the stuff we lost was...
* The non-outflanking scout. Which I never really got to work the way I wanted it to in 7th. It was flavorful, but it mostly boiled down to, "Can I sprint up to that next piece of cover turn 1, and if not, can I redeploy behind a wall to hide?"
Truthfully, this part was fine to lose. It should have been accompanied by vehicles or alternate deployment methods but c'est la vie.
*The doctrines. I know these were kind of "our thing," but they always felt a little... bland to me. It was nice to have, but it was basically a shoot/punch better/worse slider. The canticles m like a flashier sort of scientific technomagic, which seems a bit more flavorful to me. I assume you disagree?
This is the biggest part. The Skitarii aren't the Magi. They're the military arm of the Mechanicus. The "shoot/punch better/worse" thing was a great reflection of the fact that even though they have arcane weaponry...they're still ground troops. They're trained/programmed to be military units and were introduced to us with no HQ to represent the fact that the Tech-Priest commanding their forces/operating logistics for them was too valuable to potentially lose in combat so was kept in orbit to uplink data to the forces.
They were not disposable corpses with weapons(Servitors) or flocks of Zealots relying on their faith and tech that can potentially kill them(Electro-Priests) or relics of a lost age of technology regarded as walking divine symbols that are shepherded into battle by a priest(Kastelans) and were ultimately led into battle by a priest initiated deep into the mysteries of the Cult(Tech-Priest Dominus).
The fact that now they're required to have an HQ in and of itself isn't an issue. It's the hamfisted way that it was done and how not even a year or two ago it was "too dangerous" for Skitarii to be accompanied by their Priests, instead being led by a specially chosen Alpha or Princeps within the units on the field or in extreme cases by a Cohort Commander who commands the forces with no outside input from a Priest.
It's the hamfisted way that they're now forced to use the "zealot" side of things for special rules instead of having their own special rules remaining in play for the Skitarii side of things. Remember that they separated Canticles and Doctrina Imperatives because DI was a "static" benefit that would affect your Skitarii no matter the number of units you had on the field while Canticles got better and better based upon the number of models you had in play.
* The ability to run all "skitarii" units, which admittedly is pretty lame. I play my harlequins more often than I play my skitarii, and I can imagine being quite perturbed if I was forced to field an autarch or something just to fill up an HQ slot. Turning our sargeants into HQs harlequin style would have made a lot of sense. However, I'm not sure the chaplain analogy is completely fair. In the marine scenario you've described, players have lost unit options. In our case, we've actually gained options (without doing ally shenanigans) but also been forced to fill an HQ slot. Do the rules for a techpriest not allow us to make a passably skitarii HQ? My rangers are generally lead by guys with arc mauls and pistol weapons. Surely we can make something comparable out of a tech priest. Or perhaps I'm mistaken?
That's the reason I made the comparison I did. A Skitarii Warlord, as fielded in 7th edition, was a guy who could have exactly the same as any other member of his squad. He had Doctrina Imperatives, he could tote a Galvanic Rifle or Rad-Carbine, etc.
Can an Enginseer do any of that? No.
Chaplains have a unique ability and unique wargear. A Captain doesn't have the ability or the wargear, but you can make a "close enough" and call it a day...but it's not the same thing as fielding a Chaplain.
Honestly there needs to be a Skitarii HQ. I'm mad I had to use as many Dominus models as I do.
The question is what the guy would do. I'm personally opting for a Leautenit role where units nearby reroll 1's to wound. I know it's a direct copy-paste but it would work.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Zid wrote:
Soup armies consist of detachments from various codices and indexes to make it competitive. What hes saying is that the codexes felt like they weren't designed to cover threats from other armies, and so a single army needs to pick from various places to make it work on the table against any threat.
Specifically, what "soup" tends to refer to are armies that initially were forming a single Detachment that had one keyword in common(Detachments can consist of any armies as long as there is at least one shared keyword--such as Imperium). It's only once the codices started filling in the whole <insert fancy name here> that we started seeing multiple detachments I feel.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Honestly there needs to be a Skitarii HQ. I'm mad I had to use as many Dominus models as I do.
The question is what the guy would do. I'm personally opting for a Leautenit role where units nearby reroll 1's to wound. I know it's a direct copy-paste but it would work.
Honestly, I'd have it so that he grants +/- to Hit and Wound rolls for either the Fight or Shooting phase so that we can get Doctrina Imperatives back without having to blow CP...at least for starters.
I'd do two different levels of Skitarii HQs, at least, to start with.
Cohort Commander or Princeps(dunno which exactly I'd go with) and give him some wide-ranging abilities that affect everything within a bubble around him. Definitely would give him something inspired by that great piece of fluff in the Skitarii Codex about them igniting the clouds to prevent Tyranid spore pods from landing--something that would allow for the Skitarii to either penalize Fly heavy armies or mitigate Deep Strikers on demand for a turn.
Cohort Primus would be an HQ or Elite choice that granted some benefits in an aura around him, but it could depend based on his kit. Outfit him as a Ranger, benefits to shooty units. Outfit him with the same gear as a Ruststalker and he grants something to let Ruststalkers and Infiltrators be more effective, Vanguard gets the "poison" etc etc.
I'd also say that Stygies should get an assassin-ish character for their Skitarii, but given that Stygies has been fairly popular I dunno anymore.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Zid wrote:Wayniac wrote:I think part of the issue is the game just breaks down at "competitive" play when you only care about optimal choices; half the options in a codex go away because there's something better. While you have solid codexes like Guard and Eldar, they get extreme when you only look at min/maxing and not the entire codex. I think a lot of these issues just aren't there if you are playing in a casual/narrative style where you might take Unit A just because you own/like Unit A, even if Unit B is better and spamming Unit B makes the army "competitive".
Definitely agree with this; it has always been this way. Honestly the FOC helped to dull this a bit because you couldn't fill a list with a million of the same unit. I mean, there still was spam, and min-maxing, but I think had they balanced the armies and options a bit better you would have had less of that. Now you can spam whatever you want
Yeah. I kinda dislike the new detachments because they let you screw around; I get the point of them, but I think they should limit it so you have to completely fill out one detachment to take another (e.g. if you wanted a Battalion, you would have to take every slot allowed before you could add a second Detachment to your list), maybe excluding the Auxiliary Detachments (which on that note I think the superheavy one needs to cost -1 CP like all the others), and find some way to limit traits/tactics so you don't have things like taking a Mars detachment with Cawl and Kastelans and then a Stygies detachment with Dragoons, to maximize the benefits of both.
I also think that they have drifted from what they said CP would be in the previews; they said it would be a reward for playing "fluff" armies but all it's turned into is who can spam the most point-effective unit to take the most detachments to get the most CP to spend on stratagems.
27890
Post by: MagicJuggler
Zid wrote:I think the largest problem with balancing 40k in general is just that; new editions
Strong agreement. 4th to 5th transformed Rhinos from deathtraps to annoyingly resilient metal boxes, to redundant in 6th to usable in 7th to pointless in 8th, all due to core rule changes!
5th removed Ordnance Penetrating Hits, made it so only Troops score (even in a dedicated transport), and lowered the vehicle damage chart so glances didn't autokill.
6th added Hull Points, and made it so vehicles couldn't score, even if carrying troops. It also removed the ability to assault from stationary rides.
7th allowed for universal scoring, while lowering vehicle damage some.
Then 8th shifted the rules around, removing Fire Points altogether, upping the cost of Rhinos, and making it so you can only disembark from static vehicles, effectively reducing their "mobility" advantage. In fact, with Orders, it's possible for Guardsmen to outrun their own Chimeras!
Thus, while in 7th you could make the case for a Chimera versus a Taurox, a Rhino versus a Razorback, in 8th, it's a no-contest.
There are plenty of cases of units being screwed by rules updates. Dark Eldar lost a lot of their oomph from 5th to 6th, Killa Kans went from powerful in 5th to near-useless in 6th...And GW arguably adjusts and rebalances points based off the previous edition!
17376
Post by: Zid
Wayniac wrote: Zid wrote:Wayniac wrote:I think part of the issue is the game just breaks down at "competitive" play when you only care about optimal choices; half the options in a codex go away because there's something better. While you have solid codexes like Guard and Eldar, they get extreme when you only look at min/maxing and not the entire codex. I think a lot of these issues just aren't there if you are playing in a casual/narrative style where you might take Unit A just because you own/like Unit A, even if Unit B is better and spamming Unit B makes the army "competitive".
Definitely agree with this; it has always been this way. Honestly the FOC helped to dull this a bit because you couldn't fill a list with a million of the same unit. I mean, there still was spam, and min-maxing, but I think had they balanced the armies and options a bit better you would have had less of that. Now you can spam whatever you want
Yeah. I kinda dislike the new detachments because they let you screw around; I get the point of them, but I think they should limit it so you have to completely fill out one detachment to take another (e.g. if you wanted a Battalion, you would have to take every slot allowed before you could add a second Detachment to your list), maybe excluding the Auxiliary Detachments (which on that note I think the superheavy one needs to cost -1 CP like all the others), and find some way to limit traits/tactics so you don't have things like taking a Mars detachment with Cawl and Kastelans and then a Stygies detachment with Dragoons, to maximize the benefits of both.
I also think that they have drifted from what they said CP would be in the previews; they said it would be a reward for playing "fluff" armies but all it's turned into is who can spam the most point-effective unit to take the most detachments to get the most CP to spend on stratagems.
I actually like that -1 CP idea. Right now theres no other cost (other than points) for Lords of War. I also agree that filling out detachments should be a prerequisite. Aux attachments were made so you can tack in a little host of other armies, which is neat and all, but if your going to do that you open yourself to all sorts of rules abuse.
MagicJuggler wrote: Zid wrote:I think the largest problem with balancing 40k in general is just that; new editions
Strong agreement. 4th to 5th transformed Rhinos from deathtraps to annoyingly resilient metal boxes, to redundant in 6th to usable in 7th to pointless in 8th, all due to core rule changes!
5th removed Ordnance Penetrating Hits, made it so only Troops score (even in a dedicated transport), and lowered the vehicle damage chart so glances didn't autokill.
6th added Hull Points, and made it so vehicles couldn't score, even if carrying troops. It also removed the ability to assault from stationary rides.
7th allowed for universal scoring, while lowering vehicle damage some.
Then 8th shifted the rules around, removing Fire Points altogether, upping the cost of Rhinos, and making it so you can only disembark from static vehicles, effectively reducing their "mobility" advantage. In fact, with Orders, it's possible for Guardsmen to outrun their own Chimeras!
Thus, while in 7th you could make the case for a Chimera versus a Taurox, a Rhino versus a Razorback, in 8th, it's a no-contest.
There are plenty of cases of units being screwed by rules updates. Dark Eldar lost a lot of their oomph from 5th to 6th, Killa Kans went from powerful in 5th to near-useless in 6th...And GW arguably adjusts and rebalances points based off the previous edition!
Most definitely. I left the game at the beginning of 6th when the Harlequin/Dark Eldar/Warlock BS deathstar was around (2++ w/ rerolls). I actually lost a game to a horrible player because of it, failed a Ld 10 morale, the unit overran me (I was necrons) and he won the game with that single unit. I felt cheated, and supposedly it didn't get much better after I had left!
When shifting to a new edition it should be rules tweeks, not completely rewriting the game every single time.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
It wasn't a complete rewrite every time though.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Zid wrote:Wayniac wrote: Zid wrote:Wayniac wrote:I think part of the issue is the game just breaks down at "competitive" play when you only care about optimal choices; half the options in a codex go away because there's something better. While you have solid codexes like Guard and Eldar, they get extreme when you only look at min/maxing and not the entire codex. I think a lot of these issues just aren't there if you are playing in a casual/narrative style where you might take Unit A just because you own/like Unit A, even if Unit B is better and spamming Unit B makes the army "competitive". Definitely agree with this; it has always been this way. Honestly the FOC helped to dull this a bit because you couldn't fill a list with a million of the same unit. I mean, there still was spam, and min-maxing, but I think had they balanced the armies and options a bit better you would have had less of that. Now you can spam whatever you want Yeah. I kinda dislike the new detachments because they let you screw around; I get the point of them, but I think they should limit it so you have to completely fill out one detachment to take another (e.g. if you wanted a Battalion, you would have to take every slot allowed before you could add a second Detachment to your list), maybe excluding the Auxiliary Detachments (which on that note I think the superheavy one needs to cost -1 CP like all the others), and find some way to limit traits/tactics so you don't have things like taking a Mars detachment with Cawl and Kastelans and then a Stygies detachment with Dragoons, to maximize the benefits of both. I also think that they have drifted from what they said CP would be in the previews; they said it would be a reward for playing "fluff" armies but all it's turned into is who can spam the most point-effective unit to take the most detachments to get the most CP to spend on stratagems. I actually like that -1 CP idea. Right now theres no other cost (other than points) for Lords of War. I also agree that filling out detachments should be a prerequisite. Aux attachments were made so you can tack in a little host of other armies, which is neat and all, but if your going to do that you open yourself to all sorts of rules abuse.
Cool, you want a penalized LoW Auxiliary? Then put a 0-2 LoW option in the Brigade, Battalion, Vanguard, Spearhead, and Outrider Detachments. As it stands your options for a LoW are: Supreme Command Detachment (3-5 HQs, 0-1 Elite, 0-1 LoW), Super-Heavy Detachment (3-5 LoW), and Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment(1 LoW). You don't want that? Remove the 0-2 Flyers from everything else and make it so the Air Wing Detachment and a Flyer Auxiliary Detachment are the only ways to get them. There's a reason why the Lord of War Auxiliary has no detriment to your Command Points. It is one of two ways to field a LoW without having to bring a Supreme Command Detachment. You can field Flyers easier than LoW at this juncture.
89261
Post by: Brutallica
MagicJuggler wrote: Zid wrote:I think the largest problem with balancing 40k in general is just that; new editions
Then 8th shifted the rules around, removing Fire Points altogether, upping the cost of Rhinos, and making it so you can only disembark from static vehicles, effectively reducing their "mobility" advantage. In fact, with Orders, it's possible for Guardsmen to outrun their own Chimeras!
Sad buuut truuuuuuuueuuuauh!
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Kanluwen wrote:Cool, you want a penalized LoW Auxiliary? Then put a 0-2 LoW option in the Brigade, Battalion, Vanguard, Spearhead, and Outrider Detachments. As it stands your options for a LoW are: Supreme Command Detachment (3-5 HQs, 0-1 Elite, 0-1 LoW), Super-Heavy Detachment (3-5 LoW), and Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment(1 LoW). You don't want that? Remove the 0-2 Flyers from everything else and make it so the Air Wing Detachment and a Flyer Auxiliary Detachment are the only ways to get them. There's a reason why the Lord of War Auxiliary has no detriment to your Command Points. It is one of two ways to field a LoW without having to bring a Supreme Command Detachment. You can field Flyers easier than LoW at this juncture. Good, flyers should be fielded easier than LOW. If you want a LOW, lose 1 command point to do it just like any other "I want to add 1 of X without having to add anything else" detachment. Why should LOW alone be "free" other than points, while if I want to add a 4th heavy support to a Battalion or whatnot I have to lose a CP to do it?
117381
Post by: AdmiralHalsey
A Supreme Command Detachment gives you a CP, and allows the use of 3 HQ Choices. For Guard, that costs a whooping 90 points, and provides 3 models you'd likely want to use anyway. In fact for almost every army the HQ 'Tax' on fielding a Lord of War, are units you'd very likely want to bring.
While a little off topic I take huge issue with this editions desire to ram HQ choices down our throats as a mandatory tax on everything. A Space Marine Captain is supposed to be in charge of 100 [Or 100+ these days] Space Marines, not the 30 odd you seem to need him for these days. Having half a dozen company commanders overseeing a Platoon is equally bizzare, or these small swarms walking around with four or five Hive Tyrants.
34439
Post by: Formosa
ryzouken wrote: Formosa wrote:Can you explain A)? are you talking about just imperial guard forge world or all forge world, if its the latter you be having a laugh me bucko arrr
Why take drop pods when I can make my marines Raptors chapter and take Lias Issodon, saving 150ish points? (I lose access to Guilliman, I guess?)
Why take Codex Craftworlds anti infantry selections (banshees, scorpions, swooping hawks, etc.) when shadow spectres do the job better for cheaper?
Why take basilisks when I can take earthshaker batteries for cheaper and lose nothing I care about?
Why take plasma scions when elysians are cheaper?
These are four easy examples of hyper efficient things that stand out as superior to their codex counterparts. It's not an exhaustive list, just what I know of off the top of my head.
If Forgeworld weren't superior to the readily available codex options, people wouldn't generally bother going through the hoops and hurdles of international shipping costs and delays to order them, to say nothing of the pains of working on resin casts or the even higher prices on these models. I say that as someone who just procured two units of shadow spectres; they are simply the optimal selection compared to codex options in terms of anti infantry.
But go on ahead and argue why you believe it's balanced. Please provide specific examples.
Soooo you make a sweeping statement that all forge world is op, provide a couple of admittedly better units, but does that mean all fw is op?
Nope is the answer.
Sicarion venetor, powerful but costs a lot, not op, chaos one is objectively worse, not op.
Doreto dread, pretty good, but costs a lot, rifleman can do a similar job for a lot less, chaos version is better but still costs a lot, not op.
Spartan is not op due to being a lord of war now and this limited in number, oh and costs a hell of lot.
Lolviathans are hella expensive and pretty good, but it's a choice between one of these or 3 standard dread (give or take), situational as to which I'd prefer but not op due to high cost and almost no deployment method anymore.
Comtemptors are solid, but dum dum duuuum, cost a lot of points (relatively), but still the normal dread is better (doesn't degrade).
So yes I contest your sweeping statements that fw is all op, but not that some is defo op, same as regular gw.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Wayniac wrote: Kanluwen wrote:Cool, you want a penalized LoW Auxiliary?
Then put a 0-2 LoW option in the Brigade, Battalion, Vanguard, Spearhead, and Outrider Detachments. As it stands your options for a LoW are:
Supreme Command Detachment (3-5 HQs, 0-1 Elite, 0-1 LoW), Super-Heavy Detachment (3-5 LoW), and Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment(1 LoW).
You don't want that?
Remove the 0-2 Flyers from everything else and make it so the Air Wing Detachment and a Flyer Auxiliary Detachment are the only ways to get them.
There's a reason why the Lord of War Auxiliary has no detriment to your Command Points. It is one of two ways to field a LoW without having to bring a Supreme Command Detachment.
You can field Flyers easier than LoW at this juncture.
Good, flyers should be fielded easier than LOW. If you want a LOW, lose 1 command point to do it just like any other "I want to add 1 of X without having to add anything else" detachment. Why should LOW alone be "free" other than points, while if I want to add a 4th heavy support to a Battalion or whatnot I have to lose a CP to do it?
And why should Flyers be fielded easier than LoW?
You'd have a point if the other Detachments allowed for 0-1 LoW like they allow for 0-2 Flyers...but they don't, and as such you have no leg to stand on. Automatically Appended Next Post: AdmiralHalsey wrote:A Supreme Command Detachment gives you a CP, and allows the use of 3 HQ Choices. For Guard, that costs a whooping 90 points, and provides 3 models you'd likely want to use anyway. In fact for almost every army the HQ 'Tax' on fielding a Lord of War, are units you'd very likely want to bring.
Sure, but the point remains:
Flyers, something complained about in years past, got a new slot made for them(remember they used to be LoW, FA, HS, whatever) but promptly got rolled into the Detachments themselves. The only Detachments that can't take Flyers are the Supreme Command Detachment and the Super-Heavy Detachments.
While a little off topic I take huge issue with this editions desire to ram HQ choices down our throats as a mandatory tax on everything. A Space Marine Captain is supposed to be in charge of 100 [Or 100+ these days] Space Marines, not the 30 odd you seem to need him for these days. Having half a dozen company commanders overseeing a Platoon is equally bizzare, or these small swarms walking around with four or five Hive Tyrants.
Ehhh...there's precedent for multiple Captains in the same force. They don't pull everyone from the same Company and the different Companies do have different skill sets/specialties on paper.
The Company Commanders thing is annoying but that's what happens when you've decided to make different grades of Officers rather than just calling them "Officers".
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Not to mention the guy talked about Lias being OP when in the fact the regular Drop Pod is SO bad you don't take it anyway.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Not to mention the guy talked about Lias being OP when in the fact the regular Drop Pod is SO bad you don't take it anyway.
To be fair, Lias has always been a stand-out character...I wonder if it's just because most non Ultramarine characters are just awful?
34439
Post by: Formosa
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Not to mention the guy talked about Lias being OP when in the fact the regular Drop Pod is SO bad you don't take it anyway.
Yeah haha, noticed that, but ignored it as it was so ludicrous
117381
Post by: AdmiralHalsey
Flyers are also stupid in a Skirmish level game as anything other than abstracted air support.
But this is a product of GW making models people think are cool, and then as a result of having made them deciding they _Have_ to be shoehorned into the game they made as well, despite the scale the game is designed for being wildly inappropriate for such things.
This is on topic at least, because New Codex - New Models, and new models need to be good to increase sales. [Some people buy pretty models, some people buy good models, everyone buys pretty models that are also good.]
The no model no rules thing is simply an extension of this core marketing concept. Rough Riders can no longer be OP, because they're no longer provided with rules. Thus the 'Hot Unit' this year can't be rough riders, therefore people arn't buying them, which is what GW wants because those sales don't come direct from them.
Codex Creep is always just a symptom of GW providing lesser used, [Or more specifically, lesser purchased] models with better rules to drive sales and down toning good models [which have had high sales runs and minimal back stock], to continue to keep our armies expanding [Or at the very least, rotating.]
None of this is ever seemingly done with the aim of creating a good/competitive/realistic game, let alone one which in any way is an accurate representation of the setting. [Space Marine chapter masters getting in fistfights and dying every two seconds, Imperial Guard Platoons hosting the local Astropath conference, Unsupported Shadowswords showing up to every small scale skirmish, and so on.]
The new Detachments chart is part of the same principle. The old FOC was designed to force you to field a balenced force. The new one is designed specifically to allow you to field _Anything you Own_ regardless of balence, or realism or anything else. GW does not want your purchases hindered by rules. They want you to be able to play with anything in your collection at once, even if your collection is just thirty space marine captains. It isn't about balence, or realism or the setting they designed. It's about encouragement to buy.
It's really, geninuely saddening me, [While I might have only recently acquired a Dakka account again, I've been a player since second Ed.] to watch 40k's slow decline from a gaming system designed to reflect and simulate the warhammer universe [For which GW sold really cool models] to the rules set just becoming a sales medium for the models, and the setting be damned.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Formosa wrote:ryzouken wrote: Formosa wrote:Can you explain A)? are you talking about just imperial guard forge world or all forge world, if its the latter you be having a laugh me bucko arrr
Why take drop pods when I can make my marines Raptors chapter and take Lias Issodon, saving 150ish points? (I lose access to Guilliman, I guess?)
Why take Codex Craftworlds anti infantry selections (banshees, scorpions, swooping hawks, etc.) when shadow spectres do the job better for cheaper?
Why take basilisks when I can take earthshaker batteries for cheaper and lose nothing I care about?
Why take plasma scions when elysians are cheaper?
These are four easy examples of hyper efficient things that stand out as superior to their codex counterparts. It's not an exhaustive list, just what I know of off the top of my head.
If Forgeworld weren't superior to the readily available codex options, people wouldn't generally bother going through the hoops and hurdles of international shipping costs and delays to order them, to say nothing of the pains of working on resin casts or the even higher prices on these models. I say that as someone who just procured two units of shadow spectres; they are simply the optimal selection compared to codex options in terms of anti infantry.
But go on ahead and argue why you believe it's balanced. Please provide specific examples.
Soooo you make a sweeping statement that all forge world is op, provide a couple of admittedly better units, but does that mean all fw is op?
Nope is the answer.
Sicarion venetor, powerful but costs a lot, not op, chaos one is objectively worse, not op.
Doreto dread, pretty good, but costs a lot, rifleman can do a similar job for a lot less, chaos version is better but still costs a lot, not op.
Spartan is not op due to being a lord of war now and this limited in number, oh and costs a hell of lot.
Lolviathans are hella expensive and pretty good, but it's a choice between one of these or 3 standard dread (give or take), situational as to which I'd prefer but not op due to high cost and almost no deployment method anymore.
Comtemptors are solid, but dum dum duuuum, cost a lot of points (relatively), but still the normal dread is better (doesn't degrade).
So yes I contest your sweeping statements that fw is all op, but not that some is defo op, same as regular gw.
Yeah, it's pretty much "lets pick out a handful of units from FW's catalog, and ignore the entire rest of the FW line, and then pretend it's somehow worse than the main studio".
Looking over briefly just the IG stuff, I think people would be rather hard pressed to argue that the Atlas, Salamander (either kind), Hades, Centaur, Trojan, Tauros (again, both kinds), Armageddon pattern vehicles, Bombards, Cyclops, Griffon, Heavy Mortar, Leman Russ Annihilator, Malcador (any variant), Macharius (any variant), Rapiers, Sabres, Medusas, Destroyer Tank Hunters, Sentinel Power LIters, Thunderers, Stormblades, Tarantulas, CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT VEHICLES, Dominus Bombards, Gorgons, Minotaurs, Marauder Bombers, Praetors, Valdors, Avengers, Thunderbolts, Lightnings, Vendettas, anything DKoK, etc are in any way broken or overpowered
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Kanluwen wrote:Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Not to mention the guy talked about Lias being OP when in the fact the regular Drop Pod is SO bad you don't take it anyway.
To be fair, Lias has always been a stand-out character...I wonder if it's just because most non Ultramarine characters are just awful?
Not all them are, and in fact any Ultramarine character not Calgar and Tigger aren't note worthy. As far as I can recollect from 6th-7th...
1. Asterion provided a clutch to give PE against Marines, meaning that you had a potential edge against mirror Gladius lists
2. Sevrin had auto-access to several powers, making him one of the ideal candidates for Centurionstar
3. Iron Hands could take two generic Chapter Masters with EW, so there ya go
4. Khan gave Scout effectively for free
5. Naverez could do a Deep Strike strategy sorta, but he used Ultramarines Chapter Tactics so I don't know If you wanna count that or not.
That's maybe it off the top of my head.
34439
Post by: Formosa
Vaktathi wrote: Formosa wrote:ryzouken wrote: Formosa wrote:Can you explain A)? are you talking about just imperial guard forge world or all forge world, if its the latter you be having a laugh me bucko arrr
Why take drop pods when I can make my marines Raptors chapter and take Lias Issodon, saving 150ish points? (I lose access to Guilliman, I guess?)
Why take Codex Craftworlds anti infantry selections (banshees, scorpions, swooping hawks, etc.) when shadow spectres do the job better for cheaper?
Why take basilisks when I can take earthshaker batteries for cheaper and lose nothing I care about?
Why take plasma scions when elysians are cheaper?
These are four easy examples of hyper efficient things that stand out as superior to their codex counterparts. It's not an exhaustive list, just what I know of off the top of my head.
If Forgeworld weren't superior to the readily available codex options, people wouldn't generally bother going through the hoops and hurdles of international shipping costs and delays to order them, to say nothing of the pains of working on resin casts or the even higher prices on these models. I say that as someone who just procured two units of shadow spectres; they are simply the optimal selection compared to codex options in terms of anti infantry.
But go on ahead and argue why you believe it's balanced. Please provide specific examples.
Soooo you make a sweeping statement that all forge world is op, provide a couple of admittedly better units, but does that mean all fw is op?
Nope is the answer.
Sicarion venetor, powerful but costs a lot, not op, chaos one is objectively worse, not op.
Doreto dread, pretty good, but costs a lot, rifleman can do a similar job for a lot less, chaos version is better but still costs a lot, not op.
Spartan is not op due to being a lord of war now and this limited in number, oh and costs a hell of lot.
Lolviathans are hella expensive and pretty good, but it's a choice between one of these or 3 standard dread (give or take), situational as to which I'd prefer but not op due to high cost and almost no deployment method anymore.
Comtemptors are solid, but dum dum duuuum, cost a lot of points (relatively), but still the normal dread is better (doesn't degrade).
So yes I contest your sweeping statements that fw is all op, but not that some is defo op, same as regular gw.
Yeah, it's pretty much "lets pick out a handful of units from FW's catalog, and ignore the entire rest of the FW line, and then pretend it's somehow worse than the main studio".
Looking over briefly just the IG stuff, I think people would be rather hard pressed to argue that the Atlas, Salamander (either kind), Hades, Centaur, Trojan, Tauros (again, both kinds), Armageddon pattern vehicles, Bombards, Cyclops, Griffon, Heavy Mortar, Leman Russ Annihilator, Malcador (any variant), Macharius (any variant), Rapiers, Sabres, Medusas, Destroyer Tank Hunters, Sentinel Power LIters, Thunderers, Stormblades, Tarantulas, CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT VEHICLES, Dominus Bombards, Gorgons, Minotaurs, Marauder Bombers, Praetors, Valdors, Avengers, Thunderbolts, Lightnings, Vendettas, anything DKoK, etc are in any way broken or overpowered 
Yep, it basically sounds like the age old BS propaganda " FW IS OP AND MUST THE BEE BANEED!!!!" lol
17376
Post by: Zid
Formosa wrote: Vaktathi wrote: Formosa wrote:ryzouken wrote: Formosa wrote:Can you explain A)? are you talking about just imperial guard forge world or all forge world, if its the latter you be having a laugh me bucko arrr
Why take drop pods when I can make my marines Raptors chapter and take Lias Issodon, saving 150ish points? (I lose access to Guilliman, I guess?)
Why take Codex Craftworlds anti infantry selections (banshees, scorpions, swooping hawks, etc.) when shadow spectres do the job better for cheaper?
Why take basilisks when I can take earthshaker batteries for cheaper and lose nothing I care about?
Why take plasma scions when elysians are cheaper?
These are four easy examples of hyper efficient things that stand out as superior to their codex counterparts. It's not an exhaustive list, just what I know of off the top of my head.
If Forgeworld weren't superior to the readily available codex options, people wouldn't generally bother going through the hoops and hurdles of international shipping costs and delays to order them, to say nothing of the pains of working on resin casts or the even higher prices on these models. I say that as someone who just procured two units of shadow spectres; they are simply the optimal selection compared to codex options in terms of anti infantry.
But go on ahead and argue why you believe it's balanced. Please provide specific examples.
Soooo you make a sweeping statement that all forge world is op, provide a couple of admittedly better units, but does that mean all fw is op?
Nope is the answer.
Sicarion venetor, powerful but costs a lot, not op, chaos one is objectively worse, not op.
Doreto dread, pretty good, but costs a lot, rifleman can do a similar job for a lot less, chaos version is better but still costs a lot, not op.
Spartan is not op due to being a lord of war now and this limited in number, oh and costs a hell of lot.
Lolviathans are hella expensive and pretty good, but it's a choice between one of these or 3 standard dread (give or take), situational as to which I'd prefer but not op due to high cost and almost no deployment method anymore.
Comtemptors are solid, but dum dum duuuum, cost a lot of points (relatively), but still the normal dread is better (doesn't degrade).
So yes I contest your sweeping statements that fw is all op, but not that some is defo op, same as regular gw.
Yeah, it's pretty much "lets pick out a handful of units from FW's catalog, and ignore the entire rest of the FW line, and then pretend it's somehow worse than the main studio".
Looking over briefly just the IG stuff, I think people would be rather hard pressed to argue that the Atlas, Salamander (either kind), Hades, Centaur, Trojan, Tauros (again, both kinds), Armageddon pattern vehicles, Bombards, Cyclops, Griffon, Heavy Mortar, Leman Russ Annihilator, Malcador (any variant), Macharius (any variant), Rapiers, Sabres, Medusas, Destroyer Tank Hunters, Sentinel Power LIters, Thunderers, Stormblades, Tarantulas, CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT VEHICLES, Dominus Bombards, Gorgons, Minotaurs, Marauder Bombers, Praetors, Valdors, Avengers, Thunderbolts, Lightnings, Vendettas, anything DKoK, etc are in any way broken or overpowered 
Yep, it basically sounds like the age old BS propaganda " FW IS OP AND MUST THE BEE BANEED!!!!" lol
No ones arguing that a lot of FW is fine, however, there are a few items that are legitimately broken; Forgeworld models are made to be impressive and have fun with. They are excellent, excellent models, and I loved buying them in my old armies to have fun with. However, they aren't balanced properly. We all know that 40k has a bit of pay to win in it, forgeworld exacerbates that tremendously; many players are unfamiliar with the dozens of units forgeworld has, and even fewer own models from FW. Even if the units were properly balanced, the knowledge difference between players creates a huge gap, and in wargames knowledge is power.
Kanluwen wrote: Zid wrote:Wayniac wrote: Zid wrote:Wayniac wrote:I think part of the issue is the game just breaks down at "competitive" play when you only care about optimal choices; half the options in a codex go away because there's something better. While you have solid codexes like Guard and Eldar, they get extreme when you only look at min/maxing and not the entire codex. I think a lot of these issues just aren't there if you are playing in a casual/narrative style where you might take Unit A just because you own/like Unit A, even if Unit B is better and spamming Unit B makes the army "competitive".
Definitely agree with this; it has always been this way. Honestly the FOC helped to dull this a bit because you couldn't fill a list with a million of the same unit. I mean, there still was spam, and min-maxing, but I think had they balanced the armies and options a bit better you would have had less of that. Now you can spam whatever you want
Yeah. I kinda dislike the new detachments because they let you screw around; I get the point of them, but I think they should limit it so you have to completely fill out one detachment to take another (e.g. if you wanted a Battalion, you would have to take every slot allowed before you could add a second Detachment to your list), maybe excluding the Auxiliary Detachments (which on that note I think the superheavy one needs to cost -1 CP like all the others), and find some way to limit traits/tactics so you don't have things like taking a Mars detachment with Cawl and Kastelans and then a Stygies detachment with Dragoons, to maximize the benefits of both.
I also think that they have drifted from what they said CP would be in the previews; they said it would be a reward for playing "fluff" armies but all it's turned into is who can spam the most point-effective unit to take the most detachments to get the most CP to spend on stratagems.
I actually like that -1 CP idea. Right now theres no other cost (other than points) for Lords of War. I also agree that filling out detachments should be a prerequisite. Aux attachments were made so you can tack in a little host of other armies, which is neat and all, but if your going to do that you open yourself to all sorts of rules abuse.
Cool, you want a penalized LoW Auxiliary?
Then put a 0-2 LoW option in the Brigade, Battalion, Vanguard, Spearhead, and Outrider Detachments. As it stands your options for a LoW are:
Supreme Command Detachment (3-5 HQs, 0-1 Elite, 0-1 LoW), Super-Heavy Detachment (3-5 LoW), and Super-Heavy Auxiliary Detachment(1 LoW).
You don't want that?
Remove the 0-2 Flyers from everything else and make it so the Air Wing Detachment and a Flyer Auxiliary Detachment are the only ways to get them.
There's a reason why the Lord of War Auxiliary has no detriment to your Command Points. It is one of two ways to field a LoW without having to bring a Supreme Command Detachment.
You can field Flyers easier than LoW at this juncture.
Flyers have been part of the game since 5th and, honestly, during 5th they were just like any other vehicle other than the skimmer rules (which skimmer rules were bs...). Then 6th came along, made them actual fliers, which was cool and all, and they did some pretty unique things. But the rules were unwieldy. I think fliers should be more common than LoW because, lets be honest, a battalion of valk's would be more common than imperial knights stomping everywhere.
Essentially the game allows fielding super-heavies for no trade off. Which would be fine, but the addition of CP's kind of changes things. You should have to think before adding in a LoW instead of it being an auto include for many armies currently (Gulliman, Morty, Magnus....). A -1 CP isn't a lot, but its enough to make people think about what they build.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:It wasn't a complete rewrite every time though.
No, not a complete rewrite, but enough that it drastically changes the way the game is played each edition. Rhinos shouldn't go from usable one edition, to worthless the next, just as much as any other unit. Also, removing wargear from models points value was a huge misstep, and now you need to calculate individual wargear; so before when your standard librarian had a power staff on his model, but now a power sword is 6 points cheaper, you either have to destroy your old model to make it WYSIWYG, or pay extra points for something you don't want to use your ages old model. Some people even have "illegal" models because they came with chainswords that are no longer options, etc. Honestly have no idea what they were thinking when they came up with how to calculate points in the new dexes, its way more convoluted than 5th.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Zid wrote:
Flyers have been part of the game since 5th and, honestly, during 5th they were just like any other vehicle other than the skimmer rules (which skimmer rules were bs...). Then 6th came along, made them actual fliers, which was cool and all, and they did some pretty unique things. But the rules were unwieldy. I think fliers should be more common than LoW because, lets be honest, a battalion of valk's would be more common than imperial knights stomping everywhere.
Essentially the game allows fielding super-heavies for no trade off. Which would be fine, but the addition of CP's kind of changes things. You should have to think before adding in a LoW instead of it being an auto include for many armies currently (Gulliman, Morty, Magnus....). A -1 CP isn't a lot, but its enough to make people think about what they build.
Just so we're clear, Flyers were present before 5th. They were a FW only thing though...same as LoW were at the time.
So once again: why is one thing acceptable but the other isn't? Because you think that one would be more common?
There are entire Houses of Knights, with some sworn to the Mechanicus and some sworn to the Imperium and a third group that operate as individuals sworn to a specific task.
You're about as likely to run into an Imperial Knight, considering those circumstances, than you are "a battalion of Valkyries"--which are primarily earmarked for special Regiments or high ranking Imperial officials.
Hell there are regiments of Super-Heavy Tanks for the Imperial Guard...but rarely are they ever fielded en masse. They usually are (shock and gasp...) placed under the command of an Armoured Regiment or attached as part of its order of battle.
TLDR: -1 CP for a Superheavy is stupid when you can't place them into a normal FOC. It's a points heavy investment for something that usually can't claim Cover saves easily and in the case of the Primarchs is vulnerable to being singled out barring some gimmicks like the Deathshroud.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Neither should be acceptable, to be honest. They don't belong in 40k (outside of apocalypse that is), and are a big part of why the game is so fethed up (Forgeworld being usually imbalanced is another issue, for everything that's fine you get garbage like Malefic Lords), you shouldn't be able to just add it for nothing. Flyers don't belong in a "normal FOC" either if you ask me, but superheavies sure as hell don't.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Flyers and superheavies are both fine when costed appropriately.
"are a big part of why the game is so fethed up"
Not at all. Most of the problems are on cheap models, not expensive ones.
110703
Post by: Galas
I think some flyers are really nice like Deffkotpas and small things like those. Transport flyers like for example the ultra cool Republic Low Altitude Assault Transport are fine too.
The ultra-sonic jets, bombers, etc... in the other hand... meh.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Close air support is a mainstay of combined arms warfare.
Supersonic jets can drop all kinds of munitions all over a battlefield.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Zid wrote:
No ones arguing that a lot of FW is fine, however, there are a few items that are legitimately broken;
Sure, but not really any moreso or at any greater rate than main Studio stuff.
Forgeworld models are made to be impressive and have fun with. They are excellent, excellent models, and I loved buying them in my old armies to have fun with. However, they aren't balanced properly.
Less well than mainline studio stuff? I don't see that there's any data for that, most tournaments allow it and FW stuff isn't routinely dominating tables or required to win by any means, certainly wasn't the case in previous editions.
We all know that 40k has a bit of pay to win in it, forgeworld exacerbates that tremendously; many players are unfamiliar with the dozens of units forgeworld has, and even fewer own models from FW. Even if the units were properly balanced, the knowledge difference between players creates a huge gap, and in wargames knowledge is power.
In theory I can get that argument, but in practice I just can't lend it a lot of credence. The internet exists, and, like it or not, the FW rules stuff is just as accessible as anything else (legally or illegally) unless you're somehow unable to use the internet and can only ever buy stuff from a brick and mortar store, so are forums and discussion groups where people talk about them,etc. Furthermore, not everyone is familiar with everything from the main studio, I've had people flummoxed by Obliterators and Hellhounds and Wave Serpents before, relatively common mainline units. I just can't bring myself to be terribly sympathetic to the ignorance issue, and, looking at tournament results for both 7E and 8E, the pay2win stuff hasn't generally been in the FW court. Do they have a few stinkers? Yes. If you banned FW would the game be appreciably more balanced? Not really. In fact, in general, when the main studio writes rules for FW models, they usually make them dramatically more powerful.
Wayniac wrote:(Forgeworld being usually imbalanced is another issue, for everything that's fine you get garbage like Malefic Lords).
Hrm, it's usually more "for every stinker like Malefic Lords, there's two dozen units that are just fine or underpowered". Even most of the IG stuff that people complain about, like Earthshaker platforms, aren't unreasonably costed next to their tracked counterparts (you save 21pts but are much easier to kill, are vulnerable to morale, lose a heavy weapon, and are immobile) but rather the issue is more of an inherent metagame alpha strike issue where if that goes off right everything else becomes irrelevant.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
The unfamiliarity with FW argument is bad because you could've used that excuse with new armies that just came out like Genestealer Cults and both AdMech armies, and the internet exists to everyone a little easier.
Not to mention any time you see something new for the first time you're unfamiliar...
17376
Post by: Zid
Kanluwen wrote: Zid wrote:
Flyers have been part of the game since 5th and, honestly, during 5th they were just like any other vehicle other than the skimmer rules (which skimmer rules were bs...). Then 6th came along, made them actual fliers, which was cool and all, and they did some pretty unique things. But the rules were unwieldy. I think fliers should be more common than LoW because, lets be honest, a battalion of valk's would be more common than imperial knights stomping everywhere.
Essentially the game allows fielding super-heavies for no trade off. Which would be fine, but the addition of CP's kind of changes things. You should have to think before adding in a LoW instead of it being an auto include for many armies currently (Gulliman, Morty, Magnus....). A -1 CP isn't a lot, but its enough to make people think about what they build.
Just so we're clear, Flyers were present before 5th. They were a FW only thing though...same as LoW were at the time.
So once again: why is one thing acceptable but the other isn't? Because you think that one would be more common?
There are entire Houses of Knights, with some sworn to the Mechanicus and some sworn to the Imperium and a third group that operate as individuals sworn to a specific task.
You're about as likely to run into an Imperial Knight, considering those circumstances, than you are "a battalion of Valkyries"--which are primarily earmarked for special Regiments or high ranking Imperial officials.
Hell there are regiments of Super-Heavy Tanks for the Imperial Guard...but rarely are they ever fielded en masse. They usually are (shock and gasp...) placed under the command of an Armoured Regiment or attached as part of its order of battle.
TLDR: -1 CP for a Superheavy is stupid when you can't place them into a normal FOC. It's a points heavy investment for something that usually can't claim Cover saves easily and in the case of the Primarchs is vulnerable to being singled out barring some gimmicks like the Deathshroud.
I can see your point. Honestly, I would have rather super-heavies have been a niche-funsies thing permanently. But I can see why people dislike them too. I mean they have become a normal part of the game, I just wish they weren't the linchpin in many typical archetypes you see; but then again, its been the same since forever. Some guy finds an army that is super hard to beat, and everyone copies it. I think its just pretty crappy that games involving LoW's boil down to; kill the lord, I win, don't kill the lord, I lose sorts of things.
Vaktathi wrote: Zid wrote:
No ones arguing that a lot of FW is fine, however, there are a few items that are legitimately broken;
Sure, but not really any moreso or at any greater rate than main Studio stuff.
Forgeworld models are made to be impressive and have fun with. They are excellent, excellent models, and I loved buying them in my old armies to have fun with. However, they aren't balanced properly.
Less well than mainline studio stuff? I don't see that there's any data for that, most tournaments allow it and FW stuff isn't routinely dominating tables or required to win by any means, certainly wasn't the case in previous editions.
We all know that 40k has a bit of pay to win in it, forgeworld exacerbates that tremendously; many players are unfamiliar with the dozens of units forgeworld has, and even fewer own models from FW. Even if the units were properly balanced, the knowledge difference between players creates a huge gap, and in wargames knowledge is power.
In theory I can get that argument, but in practice I just can't lend it a lot of credence. The internet exists, and, like it or not, the FW rules stuff is just as accessible as anything else (legally or illegally) unless you're somehow unable to use the internet and can only ever buy stuff from a brick and mortar store, so are forums and discussion groups where people talk about them,etc. Furthermore, not everyone is familiar with everything from the main studio, I've had people flummoxed by Obliterators and Hellhounds and Wave Serpents before, relatively common mainline units. I just can't bring myself to be terribly sympathetic to the ignorance issue, and, looking at tournament results for both 7E and 8E, the pay2win stuff hasn't generally been in the FW court. Do they have a few stinkers? Yes. If you banned FW would the game be appreciably more balanced? Not really. In fact, in general, when the main studio writes rules for FW models, they usually make them dramatically more powerful.
Wayniac wrote:(Forgeworld being usually imbalanced is another issue, for everything that's fine you get garbage like Malefic Lords).
Hrm, it's usually more "for every stinker like Malefic Lords, there's two dozen units that are just fine or underpowered". Even most of the IG stuff that people complain about, like Earthshaker platforms, aren't unreasonably costed next to their tracked counterparts (you save 21pts but are much easier to kill, are vulnerable to morale, lose a heavy weapon, and are immobile) but rather the issue is more of an inherent metagame alpha strike issue where if that goes off right everything else becomes irrelevant.
I guess the primary argument here is that, yeah, there are "stinky" FW models. But how often do you see those? Never. Why? Because someone hasn't found a way to "optimize" and "mainstream" the unit, much like the Malefic Lord of today. But remember when 6th came out, how broken many of the units were because they were made for fun during that period? Yeah, it balanced out (eventually), but I didn't see the point in allowing Forgeworld other than more $$$ for GW and more headache for everyone else at the time.
Yes, the internet is a wealth of knowledge, and I'm sure if you wanted you could look up a billion profiles of a billion different models from all the forgeworld stuff. I'm in no way saying Forgeworld breaks the game currently because, well, the games not really in a good spot as it is. Forgeworld was an issue when I last quit, which is why I'm still hesitant about it getting back in, but I can see why people dislike it from a personal standpoint. Take that as you will.
100848
Post by: tneva82
ryzouken wrote: Formosa wrote:Can you explain A)? are you talking about just imperial guard forge world or all forge world, if its the latter you be having a laugh me bucko arrr
Why take drop pods when I can make my marines Raptors chapter and take Lias Issodon, saving 150ish points? (I lose access to Guilliman, I guess?)
Why take Codex Craftworlds anti infantry selections (banshees, scorpions, swooping hawks, etc.) when shadow spectres do the job better for cheaper?
Why take basilisks when I can take earthshaker batteries for cheaper and lose nothing I care about?
Why take plasma scions when elysians are cheaper?
These are four easy examples of hyper efficient things that stand out as superior to their codex counterparts. It's not an exhaustive list, just what I know of off the top of my head.
If Forgeworld weren't superior to the readily available codex options, people wouldn't generally bother going through the hoops and hurdles of international shipping costs and delays to order them, to say nothing of the pains of working on resin casts or the even higher prices on these models. I say that as someone who just procured two units of shadow spectres; they are simply the optimal selection compared to codex options in terms of anti infantry.
But go on ahead and argue why you believe it's balanced. Please provide specific examples.
Then "conveniently" forget all the broken stuff codexes have. But yeah it's okay for codex to be broken but numerically lower amount of FW and it's all FW stuff is bad.
Howabout if you want to ban FW stuff for being OP I want to ban all codex stuff since codex also has broken stuff? Fair is fair. Anything that contains OP stuff needs to be flat out banned after all.
95410
Post by: ERJAK
tneva82 wrote:ryzouken wrote: Formosa wrote:Can you explain A)? are you talking about just imperial guard forge world or all forge world, if its the latter you be having a laugh me bucko arrr
Why take drop pods when I can make my marines Raptors chapter and take Lias Issodon, saving 150ish points? (I lose access to Guilliman, I guess?)
Why take Codex Craftworlds anti infantry selections (banshees, scorpions, swooping hawks, etc.) when shadow spectres do the job better for cheaper?
Why take basilisks when I can take earthshaker batteries for cheaper and lose nothing I care about?
Why take plasma scions when elysians are cheaper?
These are four easy examples of hyper efficient things that stand out as superior to their codex counterparts. It's not an exhaustive list, just what I know of off the top of my head.
If Forgeworld weren't superior to the readily available codex options, people wouldn't generally bother going through the hoops and hurdles of international shipping costs and delays to order them, to say nothing of the pains of working on resin casts or the even higher prices on these models. I say that as someone who just procured two units of shadow spectres; they are simply the optimal selection compared to codex options in terms of anti infantry.
But go on ahead and argue why you believe it's balanced. Please provide specific examples.
Then "conveniently" forget all the broken stuff codexes have. But yeah it's okay for codex to be broken but numerically lower amount of FW and it's all FW stuff is bad.
Howabout if you want to ban FW stuff for being OP I want to ban all codex stuff since codex also has broken stuff? Fair is fair. Anything that contains OP stuff needs to be flat out banned after all.
This would be a fair point if you weren't so full of gak it was coming out of your ears. What broken stuff? What codex so far has been 'broken' in comparison to the indexes? Pretty much only AsMil right? And they got their most broken thing absolutely torn to bits in an FAQ. Everything else was just stuff from the index that didn't get nerfed (girlybro) or gimmick combos people flipped out about that actually kinda suck (infinte poxwalkers).
Meanwhile forgeworld have superchicken, malefic lords, and even the SoB repressors creating a pretty ridiculous power vacuum.
93221
Post by: Lance845
I mean... the only thing I can speak to first hand from FW to codex that is powerful is the Malanthrope. Why would you ever take Venomthropes? A degrading -1 to hit aura as models die that can be targetted or for 90 points a 9w character that provides a great -1 to hit aura and synapse.
This of course would all be fixed if they gave venomthropes a rule like the sniper drones where they cannot be targeted like characters even though they are not characters.
But as long as they are vulnerable malanthropes will win out.
34439
Post by: Formosa
ERJAK wrote:tneva82 wrote:ryzouken wrote: Formosa wrote:Can you explain A)? are you talking about just imperial guard forge world or all forge world, if its the latter you be having a laugh me bucko arrr
Why take drop pods when I can make my marines Raptors chapter and take Lias Issodon, saving 150ish points? (I lose access to Guilliman, I guess?)
Why take Codex Craftworlds anti infantry selections (banshees, scorpions, swooping hawks, etc.) when shadow spectres do the job better for cheaper?
Why take basilisks when I can take earthshaker batteries for cheaper and lose nothing I care about?
Why take plasma scions when elysians are cheaper?
These are four easy examples of hyper efficient things that stand out as superior to their codex counterparts. It's not an exhaustive list, just what I know of off the top of my head.
If Forgeworld weren't superior to the readily available codex options, people wouldn't generally bother going through the hoops and hurdles of international shipping costs and delays to order them, to say nothing of the pains of working on resin casts or the even higher prices on these models. I say that as someone who just procured two units of shadow spectres; they are simply the optimal selection compared to codex options in terms of anti infantry.
But go on ahead and argue why you believe it's balanced. Please provide specific examples.
Then "conveniently" forget all the broken stuff codexes have. But yeah it's okay for codex to be broken but numerically lower amount of FW and it's all FW stuff is bad.
Howabout if you want to ban FW stuff for being OP I want to ban all codex stuff since codex also has broken stuff? Fair is fair. Anything that contains OP stuff needs to be flat out banned after all.
This would be a fair point if you weren't so full of gak it was coming out of your ears. What broken stuff? What codex so far has been 'broken' in comparison to the indexes? Pretty much only AsMil right? And they got their most broken thing absolutely torn to bits in an FAQ. Everything else was just stuff from the index that didn't get nerfed (girlybro) or gimmick combos people flipped out about that actually kinda suck (infinte poxwalkers).
Meanwhile forgeworld have superchicken, malefic lords, and even the SoB repressors creating a pretty ridiculous power vacuum.
No need for insults lol, But I agree with you no Codex is really broken yet, sure some contain broken units (Roboute is a prime example), but on the whole they are all pretty well done, same with forge world, most units are fine, some are broken, but you can no more ban those than you can ban the ones in the codexs.
I guess rule number 1 comes into play here, dont be a dick, dont spam those broken units (in friendly games).
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
ERJAK wrote:tneva82 wrote:ryzouken wrote: Formosa wrote:Can you explain A)? are you talking about just imperial guard forge world or all forge world, if its the latter you be having a laugh me bucko arrr
Why take drop pods when I can make my marines Raptors chapter and take Lias Issodon, saving 150ish points? (I lose access to Guilliman, I guess?)
Why take Codex Craftworlds anti infantry selections (banshees, scorpions, swooping hawks, etc.) when shadow spectres do the job better for cheaper?
Why take basilisks when I can take earthshaker batteries for cheaper and lose nothing I care about?
Why take plasma scions when elysians are cheaper?
These are four easy examples of hyper efficient things that stand out as superior to their codex counterparts. It's not an exhaustive list, just what I know of off the top of my head.
If Forgeworld weren't superior to the readily available codex options, people wouldn't generally bother going through the hoops and hurdles of international shipping costs and delays to order them, to say nothing of the pains of working on resin casts or the even higher prices on these models. I say that as someone who just procured two units of shadow spectres; they are simply the optimal selection compared to codex options in terms of anti infantry.
But go on ahead and argue why you believe it's balanced. Please provide specific examples.
Then "conveniently" forget all the broken stuff codexes have. But yeah it's okay for codex to be broken but numerically lower amount of FW and it's all FW stuff is bad.
Howabout if you want to ban FW stuff for being OP I want to ban all codex stuff since codex also has broken stuff? Fair is fair. Anything that contains OP stuff needs to be flat out banned after all.
This would be a fair point if you weren't so full of gak it was coming out of your ears. What broken stuff? What codex so far has been 'broken' in comparison to the indexes? Pretty much only AsMil right? And they got their most broken thing absolutely torn to bits in an FAQ. Everything else was just stuff from the index that didn't get nerfed (girlybro) or gimmick combos people flipped out about that actually kinda suck (infinte poxwalkers).
Meanwhile forgeworld have superchicken, malefic lords, and even the SoB repressors creating a pretty ridiculous power vacuum.
Looking at complaint threads and tournament results, it would appear that pretty outside of Chaos and primarily the aforementioned Malefic Lords, FW stuff isn't terribly popular on winning tables. The much bemoaned IG appear to largely be played with entirely Codex units in tournaments. Shadow Spectres appear to be dropping out of Eldar lists like flies now that the Craftworld codex has been released. FW stuff doesn't exactly appear to be making routine appearances in most tournament SM lists either. There's a very small handful of FW units with issues, while looking at actual tournaments and what's placing at top tables reveals that FW stuff isn't exactly dominating or mandatory for the game as a whole, and currently really only appears to be an issue with Chaos and one or two entries. The majority of power-gaming stuff and winning lists tend to be all codex/index stuff, not FW.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Zid wrote:Kanluwen wrote: Zid wrote:
Flyers have been part of the game since 5th and, honestly, during 5th they were just like any other vehicle other than the skimmer rules (which skimmer rules were bs...). Then 6th came along, made them actual fliers, which was cool and all, and they did some pretty unique things. But the rules were unwieldy. I think fliers should be more common than LoW because, lets be honest, a battalion of valk's would be more common than imperial knights stomping everywhere.
Essentially the game allows fielding super-heavies for no trade off. Which would be fine, but the addition of CP's kind of changes things. You should have to think before adding in a LoW instead of it being an auto include for many armies currently (Gulliman, Morty, Magnus....). A -1 CP isn't a lot, but its enough to make people think about what they build.
Just so we're clear, Flyers were present before 5th. They were a FW only thing though...same as LoW were at the time.
So once again: why is one thing acceptable but the other isn't? Because you think that one would be more common?
There are entire Houses of Knights, with some sworn to the Mechanicus and some sworn to the Imperium and a third group that operate as individuals sworn to a specific task.
You're about as likely to run into an Imperial Knight, considering those circumstances, than you are "a battalion of Valkyries"--which are primarily earmarked for special Regiments or high ranking Imperial officials.
Hell there are regiments of Super-Heavy Tanks for the Imperial Guard...but rarely are they ever fielded en masse. They usually are (shock and gasp...) placed under the command of an Armoured Regiment or attached as part of its order of battle.
TLDR: -1 CP for a Superheavy is stupid when you can't place them into a normal FOC. It's a points heavy investment for something that usually can't claim Cover saves easily and in the case of the Primarchs is vulnerable to being singled out barring some gimmicks like the Deathshroud.
I can see your point. Honestly, I would have rather super-heavies have been a niche-funsies thing permanently. But I can see why people dislike them too. I mean they have become a normal part of the game, I just wish they weren't the linchpin in many typical archetypes you see; but then again, its been the same since forever. Some guy finds an army that is super hard to beat, and everyone copies it. I think its just pretty crappy that games involving LoW's boil down to; kill the lord, I win, don't kill the lord, I lose sorts of things.
Speaking for myself, until Lords of War differentiate between Superheavies and Characters...it's a pointless exercise to ask for there to be a penalty.
35310
Post by: the_scotsman
Kanluwen wrote:the_scotsman wrote:I mean, OK, you want Lasguns on sergeants (Powerfists on regular sergeants annoys me too, they're only on Veteran Sergeants for some reason) but it's frankly laughable to say they didn't pay attention to army styles other than "wave of bodies" when out of all the vehicles in the codex, the ONLY ones that didn't get SOME kind of change index to codex (whether that be stat change, points change, or special Stratagem referring specifically to that vehicle) were:
-Regular Taurox
-Wyvern? I don't remember whether the Wyvern or the Hydra got the Aerial Spotter stratagem.
Hydra, Manticore, and the Deathstrike didn't get access to Aerial Spotters but both the Wyvern and Basilisk both did.
If I'm going to be honest, I feel like the Hydra really should have gotten something to make it feel different to the other armies' anti-"Fly" keyword capabilities. I don't know what that something should be (whether it is being static BS4 versus both "Fly" and non-"Fly" keywords to represent the fact that it's supposedly just throwing boatloads of shells at the target or having more shots than it currently has), but it just feels exceedingly lackluster for an item described as throwing walls of flak up.
All the rest, every SINGLE one, got changed for the better. I'm not sure what it is with you and letting one thing completely ruin an entire release for you, but between this sergeant lasgun thing and the whole "I wish I didn't have to take a couple Enginseers" skitarii thing...I don't know what to tell you, man. We got regiment rules. They're really flavorful and in depth. the internal balance is pretty darn good, amazing by GW standards.
Truth be told, the Sergeant Lasgun thing is a pet peeve. It hasn't ruined my enjoyment but it does give me something to bring up when people talk about how the book feels "more customizable" than previous ones or things we'd like to have seen done differently. I've actually submitted it a few times for FAQs/Erratas in the hope that someone finally realizes that it's actually a thing that is possible thanks to the kit(which isn't actually doable with the new Laspistol and Frag Grenade loadout I might add, since both of those are the right hands of the model).
It's a pet peeve for me because of the fact that the other three armies I have/had(AdMech which are shelved until Fires of Cyraxus or the FW Cyraxus list gets released whichever comes first, Tau, and Marines/Deathwatch) have Sergeant/Sergeant equivalents rocking the same weapon as the rest of the squad while the one army I have which actually has long held that the weapons of an officer(pistol/sword) were not necessarily for the NCOs. There was a great little fluff bit in "Cadian Blood" where the Whiteshield(Conscripts by another name) leading the squad remarks (paraphrasing here) how he feels foolish waving a sword around like the Captain does, since he's "just" a sergeant equivalent.
AdMech for me wasn't just the Enginseers thing. It was the fact that all the flavor and feel of my Skitarii army was shitcanned in favor of everything being rolled into one book and then being called an idiot/fool for liking running Skitarii by themselves. If it was just the Enginseers or requiring an AdMech HQ, I would have been mostly okay. If it were just the removal of Doctrina Imperatives, the same thing likely would have been true of me being okay with it.
But that wasn't it. It was the fact that now I have to take an AdMech HQ and I'm saddled with just the Canticles side of things, while losing the ability to run a purely Skitarii army. I wouldn't tell people to take a Marine Captain with a Power Maul and Pistol, then just "pretend" he's a Chaplain if they'd lost the option for Chaplains. I think it was a HUGE misstep to not include a Skitarii HQ option or not to make Doctrina Imperatives an actual ability on Skitarii models.
All of that stuff rolled together is why I refuse to buy AdMech at this juncture and am waiting until there's a Skitarii HQ option, even if it's a single daggone character option, to bring them back.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote:I was surprised when people didn't complain (too much) about Index CWE.
There were still complaints, but not nearly as much.
Turned out, there was more sanity than I expected.
They were still too busy complaining about Conscripts. 
Alright, then the only two vehicles in the codex that were not changed for the better were the Hydra (which is average-to-good depending on your regular opponents) and the Manticore (which is bordering on OP or is OP, depending on who you ask.) Everything else got some kind of rules/stats change, not even looking at points. The codex is more customizable than previous codexes not because it has more options in it, but because it has the same number of options but way, way, WAY more of them are viable choices and internally balanced against the rest of it. We're living in a world where people whine about BULLGRYNS on these forums.
You know, I would feel more for you about the removal of doctrina imperatives if they had been removed.They still exist, and they're actually a much better buff than they used to be. If you're willing to take three enginseers (and given that Enginseers run around with Guard regiments, I'm not sure how unfluffy it is to see them in a Skitarii army) you can take a whole Brigade detachment of just skitarii units and have enough command points to use both the Doctrina Imperatives stratagems every single turn if you want to. And it'll even be a pretty solid army - take it with Graia, Agripinaa, Stygies, or heck Metalica tactics depending on your composition and you've got a perfectly solid Skitarii army. Skitarii are among the few things that actually got solidly buffed with the new codex, points dropped on both skitarii infantry types, the Taser Lance got a buff from Ironstriders, and the new Doctrina stratagems are balls-awesome when used with Taser and Plasma weapons.
3 Enginseers, 6 units of Skitarii, 3 units of Infiltrators, 3 Dunecrawlers, 2 Balistarii and 1 big unit of Ironstriders with the Stygies tactics is a perfectly competitive army in 8th.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
You clearly never played a Skitarii list in 8th then.
63064
Post by: BoomWolf
Kanluwen wrote: Zid wrote:Kanluwen wrote: Zid wrote:
Flyers have been part of the game since 5th and, honestly, during 5th they were just like any other vehicle other than the skimmer rules (which skimmer rules were bs...). Then 6th came along, made them actual fliers, which was cool and all, and they did some pretty unique things. But the rules were unwieldy. I think fliers should be more common than LoW because, lets be honest, a battalion of valk's would be more common than imperial knights stomping everywhere.
Essentially the game allows fielding super-heavies for no trade off. Which would be fine, but the addition of CP's kind of changes things. You should have to think before adding in a LoW instead of it being an auto include for many armies currently (Gulliman, Morty, Magnus....). A -1 CP isn't a lot, but its enough to make people think about what they build.
Just so we're clear, Flyers were present before 5th. They were a FW only thing though...same as LoW were at the time.
So once again: why is one thing acceptable but the other isn't? Because you think that one would be more common?
There are entire Houses of Knights, with some sworn to the Mechanicus and some sworn to the Imperium and a third group that operate as individuals sworn to a specific task.
You're about as likely to run into an Imperial Knight, considering those circumstances, than you are "a battalion of Valkyries"--which are primarily earmarked for special Regiments or high ranking Imperial officials.
Hell there are regiments of Super-Heavy Tanks for the Imperial Guard...but rarely are they ever fielded en masse. They usually are (shock and gasp...) placed under the command of an Armoured Regiment or attached as part of its order of battle.
TLDR: -1 CP for a Superheavy is stupid when you can't place them into a normal FOC. It's a points heavy investment for something that usually can't claim Cover saves easily and in the case of the Primarchs is vulnerable to being singled out barring some gimmicks like the Deathshroud.
I can see your point. Honestly, I would have rather super-heavies have been a niche-funsies thing permanently. But I can see why people dislike them too. I mean they have become a normal part of the game, I just wish they weren't the linchpin in many typical archetypes you see; but then again, its been the same since forever. Some guy finds an army that is super hard to beat, and everyone copies it. I think its just pretty crappy that games involving LoW's boil down to; kill the lord, I win, don't kill the lord, I lose sorts of things.
Speaking for myself, until Lords of War differentiate between Superheavies and Characters...it's a pointless exercise to ask for there to be a penalty.
It would still be pointless
Unless you suggest that the Orca (basically a big devilfish) is equal to a warhound titan?
The categories are very, very broad.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
the_scotsman wrote:
Alright, then the only two vehicles in the codex that were not changed for the better were the Hydra (which is average-to-good depending on your regular opponents) and the Manticore (which is bordering on OP or is OP, depending on who you ask.) Everything else got some kind of rules/stats change, not even looking at points. The codex is more customizable than previous codexes not because it has more options in it, but because it has the same number of options but way, way, WAY more of them are viable choices and internally balanced against the rest of it. We're living in a world where people whine about BULLGRYNS on these forums.
That's a fair assessment I guess. I will say that there are still some "dud" options that really could have been avoided such as Special Weapon Squads. Why they still can't be full 6/6 Special Weapons, I will never understand.
You know, I would feel more for you about the removal of doctrina imperatives if they had been removed.They still exist, and they're actually a much better buff than they used to be. If you're willing to take three enginseers (and given that Enginseers run around with Guard regiments, I'm not sure how unfluffy it is to see them in a Skitarii army) you can take a whole Brigade detachment of just skitarii units and have enough command points to use both the Doctrina Imperatives stratagems every single turn if you want to. And it'll even be a pretty solid army - take it with Graia, Agripinaa, Stygies, or heck Metalica tactics depending on your composition and you've got a perfectly solid Skitarii army. Skitarii are among the few things that actually got solidly buffed with the new codex, points dropped on both skitarii infantry types, the Taser Lance got a buff from Ironstriders, and the new Doctrina stratagems are balls-awesome when used with Taser and Plasma weapons.
3 Enginseers, 6 units of Skitarii, 3 units of Infiltrators, 3 Dunecrawlers, 2 Balistarii and 1 big unit of Ironstriders with the Stygies tactics is a perfectly competitive army in 8th.
Competitive or not...it's still 3 Enginseers that I didn't have to take last edition.
I ran the Skitarii War Cohort for 7th or alternated it with a Skitarii Maniple Detachment and a Killclade Formation.
I never ran Sydonian Dragoons either. Just Ballistarii.
I think at this point we'll just both have to accept that our ideas differ. I wanted to be able to keep a purely Skitarii army with the Skitarii special rules and you don't see a problem with the fact that I now have to add models I didn't before and use rules I specifically went out of my way to avoid.
63064
Post by: BoomWolf
TBH, this is a bit your fault here.
The fact admech and skitiarri would become one was obvious, very obvious.
Heck, people complained on the fact they are not one army from the day they dropped.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
BoomWolf wrote:TBH, this is a bit your fault here. The fact admech and skitiarri would become one was obvious, very obvious. Heck, people complained on the fact they are not one army from the day they dropped.
People complaining that they were not one army from the day they dropped is not the same as it "being obvious that they would become one". Nothing suggested that beyond the three Formations we got between White Dwarf, the Web Exclusive bundle, and Cawl's stuff. Now, quick question buddy, which one of those were available when Skitarii first released? Hint: If you answer with anything other than "None", you're wrong. The complaining, realistically, started once we got the Cult Mechanicus book and the War Convocation. There was a bit of it about the lack of the Enginseer despite him being in art...but so what? There was a Warhound in the art too and it wasn't there either.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
BoomWolf wrote:TBH, this is a bit your fault here.
The fact admech and skitiarri would become one was obvious, very obvious.
Heck, people complained on the fact they are not one army from the day they dropped.
The people complaining were the Cult people that were mad they had to buy a second codex for their broken formation.
35310
Post by: the_scotsman
Kanluwen wrote:the_scotsman wrote:
Alright, then the only two vehicles in the codex that were not changed for the better were the Hydra (which is average-to-good depending on your regular opponents) and the Manticore (which is bordering on OP or is OP, depending on who you ask.) Everything else got some kind of rules/stats change, not even looking at points. The codex is more customizable than previous codexes not because it has more options in it, but because it has the same number of options but way, way, WAY more of them are viable choices and internally balanced against the rest of it. We're living in a world where people whine about BULLGRYNS on these forums.
That's a fair assessment I guess. I will say that there are still some "dud" options that really could have been avoided such as Special Weapon Squads. Why they still can't be full 6/6 Special Weapons, I will never understand.
You know, I would feel more for you about the removal of doctrina imperatives if they had been removed.They still exist, and they're actually a much better buff than they used to be. If you're willing to take three enginseers (and given that Enginseers run around with Guard regiments, I'm not sure how unfluffy it is to see them in a Skitarii army) you can take a whole Brigade detachment of just skitarii units and have enough command points to use both the Doctrina Imperatives stratagems every single turn if you want to. And it'll even be a pretty solid army - take it with Graia, Agripinaa, Stygies, or heck Metalica tactics depending on your composition and you've got a perfectly solid Skitarii army. Skitarii are among the few things that actually got solidly buffed with the new codex, points dropped on both skitarii infantry types, the Taser Lance got a buff from Ironstriders, and the new Doctrina stratagems are balls-awesome when used with Taser and Plasma weapons.
3 Enginseers, 6 units of Skitarii, 3 units of Infiltrators, 3 Dunecrawlers, 2 Balistarii and 1 big unit of Ironstriders with the Stygies tactics is a perfectly competitive army in 8th.
Competitive or not...it's still 3 Enginseers that I didn't have to take last edition.
I ran the Skitarii War Cohort for 7th or alternated it with a Skitarii Maniple Detachment and a Killclade Formation.
I never ran Sydonian Dragoons either. Just Ballistarii.
I think at this point we'll just both have to accept that our ideas differ. I wanted to be able to keep a purely Skitarii army with the Skitarii special rules and you don't see a problem with the fact that I now have to add models I didn't before and use rules I specifically went out of my way to avoid.
I suppose we'll have to. To me, "convert or add three human-sized models to my army" is one of the single lowest bars I personally would have ever had to get under to make my army work in the new edition. I've already converted at least a dozen Harlequins, swapped the loadouts of half my Skyweavers, changed all my Autarchs to remove weapon options that no longer exist, and converted several Leman Russ tanks and metal vostroyans for the same reason.
I don't dispute the "My army doesn't play the same as it used to" portion, nor the "it would have been preferable if GW had included a character option for me" part. It's the "and there's nothing I can do to change the situation, therefore everything is ruined and I must shelve my 500+$ skitarii army until this gross injustice is corrected!" I do not see why you can't take a minute to calm down, put on your big boy pants, and convert a couple HQs to use as Enginseers and just call them skitarii commanders. You are not going to convince me that shelving an army that you probably spent hundreds of hours building and painting over having to add three models for the new edition is not the height of childish behavior.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
the_scotsman wrote:
I suppose we'll have to. To me, "convert or add three human-sized models to my army" is one of the single lowest bars I personally would have ever had to get under to make my army work in the new edition. I've already converted at least a dozen Harlequins, swapped the loadouts of half my Skyweavers, changed all my Autarchs to remove weapon options that no longer exist, and converted several Leman Russ tanks and metal vostroyans for the same reason.
I don't dispute the "My army doesn't play the same as it used to" portion, nor the "it would have been preferable if GW had included a character option for me" part. It's the "and there's nothing I can do to change the situation, therefore everything is ruined and I must shelve my 500+$ skitarii army until this gross injustice is corrected!" I do not see why you can't take a minute to calm down, put on your big boy pants, and convert a couple HQs to use as Enginseers and just call them skitarii commanders. You are not going to convince me that shelving an army that you probably spent hundreds of hours building and painting over having to add three models for the new edition is not the height of childish behavior.
And I think that's where we're kind of diverging.
I'm, personally, not a fan of running things as counts as or conversions. Would it be easy enough to do counts as? Sure. But I personally feel that the Enginseers just don't have the right mix of things available to them to really represent a Skitarii Cohort Commander or something like that. Maybe someday I'll bring them back out as an Exploratory Force(Lord knows I have enough Enginseers, as I do have them for my Guard--1 of the plastics, 1 of each metal variant that came out with the Doctrines book) but as it stands, running counts as Skitarii Commanders just doesn't appeal to me.
I look at it not as "Waaah, I don't get what I want!" and more "I can finish building other projects that have lingered by the wayside". My Guard have been in a state of flux since the first Cruddace book dropped(the removal of Lasguns for Sergeants, which many people view as a silly crusade of mine, actively killed my interest and removed the way I was going to run my Kasrkin) which Skitarii allowed me to kind of ignore since they were a fluff army that I felt actually played true to their fluff at the time. You could add stuff in via Cult if you wanted to, but you weren't required to. I have a Stealth Suit and Pathfinder heavy T'au army that I can get to after I finish building my Guardsmen as well.
And that doesn't even get into my Wood Elves for AoS who were left sitting unbuilt when the editions changed and their book got left behind for awhile.
4183
Post by: Davor
Thank you Zid for the explanation.
|
|