EricDominus wrote: Lets start this thread with a facepalm and a babyrage screeching about guard.
Conscripts are now 4 ppm per model. *sigh*
Eathsheiker battery now costs 115 ppm... while vanilla basilisk costs 108 ppm with a heavy bolter. (WAT?)
What do you think about CA? What do you like or dislike? And how badly you wanna kiss (or kill) GW game designers? What did your race/army get?
Mostly it looks like they just picked a handful of stuff people complained about, rolled on some random chart to see what they'd do, then threw darts to pick a couple other things to roll on a different random chart to do different stuff to, and called it good.
I can get upping costs on astropaths and Manticores and whatnot.
I don't understand why Forgefiends and Maulerfiends don't appear to have been helped at all (unless I missed something), or why GW thinks a 12pt discount is going to fix the Defiler. I'm baffled at what GW thinks the rationale for the existence of Conscripts is at this point. Not sure why Ratlings needed a Nerf. Really not sure why the Earthshaker platform needs to cost more than the more resilient, mobile, and Ld immune Basilisk does. The Meltagun change pretty much ensures nobody will take anything but plasma guns on Stormtroopers. Giving the Vanquisher cannon a 5pt price break isn't going to help with the gun is just fundamentally not intelligently designed for its role. They appeared to miss the Exterminator as well despite it being worse in every way than a Battlecannon and yet more expensive. Why on earth Rapiers and Heavy Mortars went *up* I cannot fathom. Krieg infantry all remains overcosted for whatever reason (particularly odd for an army designed around attrition to have overly expensive infantry, having to pay for their Doctrines where other Regiments do not). The Macharius tanks didn't get any love and they're just Leman Russ tanks without Orders and 10 extra wounds for twice or more the price...
GW...you will never change.
Though at least they did appear to change the base price on the Mars Alpha and Annihilator Russ tanks...though I have no idea why the Stygies Vanquisher remains so hilariously expensive for a coax storm bolter...
EDIT: hahaha...the actually nerfed the Twin Heavy Stubber...they increased it to 8pts from 7. That was something they actually felt needed to be called out and changed...I...I don't even
EDIT 2: Holy jeebus, they increased the price on the Salamander Command vehicle by almost 50% to way more than a Hellhound or even a Hydra...it's a Chimera that takes up an Elites slot that can't transport anything with a heavy flamer and heavy bolter that gets gets a scout move and gives a reroll 1's buff to a single vehicle unit within 6". Guess they didn't want to ever sell any of those.
Deductive reasoning brings me to the obvious conclusion that it means the Tau and Necron codex will be after Daemons but I wanted changes NOW so that when the codex is released in two months I could come on here amd complain about having bought CA and then having it invalidated a month later!
WHY CAN'T GW DOING SILLY THINGS TO JUSTIFY MY ONLINE OUTRAGE!
Honestly though, I'm pretty happy with everything. Army by army:
Grey Knights: I run mostly Termies, they got a decent price drop
Sisters: Love Exorcists, so happy they got a price drop. I didn't run Celestine without the Gemini so no change for me.
IG: I didn't run the things that got increased. Just Dudes and Russes really so s'all good.
Tyranids: Was sick of sick of seeing Malanthropes everywhere so I'm glad I'll be seeing more variety in HQ. Haha, only kidding, Neurothrope nerf in 2018 coming. They're fluffed as being a rare sight yet they're more common in 8th than most other Nids. Hopefully it'll teach people about buying into flavor of the month stuff but I doubt it.
Necrons: New codex soon. Whee.
AdMech: I've just started them and haven't got enough for a standard game size yet but points drops are nice even if it means I have to buy more stuff to get to my groups average game level.
FW: No one here uses FW stuff so whatevs.
I think the big take away from this is that the "new"GW/FW needs to seriously reconsider how they operate. Either they need to improve on planning ahead or introduce a new department specifically aimed at altering printed material for situations like this. Conscripts being nerfed for the 3rd time illustrates a lack of communication, planning & organization internally.
Post 3rd nerf, conscripts are going to be yet another unit in the IG codex that will end up like penal legion, medusas etc. No one will use them because GW nerfed them into the ground & they will just end up being removed entirely from the codex.
Also nerfs to orks? Forgive me but that is the last thing orks need right now. I can only assume it will be addressed in the codex, but the last thing orks need is point increases to any unit. Common sense.
1) I really like the general principle that unit rules and unit costs are decoupled, and that balance changes can be published outside of the main rulebooks.
2) The actual Chapter Approved 2017 book appears to be a particular low effort job. I haven't read it in its entirety, so my opinion might change.
Community: "Everything GW puts out is sooooooo unbalanced and broken!! They don't care about tournament players!! They need to get their act together and balance their stuff better!!!'"
GW: "Ok, let's do some minor fig-leaf adjustment to the most obviously bonkers units/combinations:"
Community: "NOOOOO! Everything was perfectly balance all along. Why did you change it??!?!"
Commissar Benny wrote: Also nerfs to orks? Forgive me but that is the last thing orks need right now. I can only assume it will be addressed in the codex, but the last thing orks need is point increases to any unit. Common sense.
Commissar Benny wrote: I think the big take away from this is that the "new"GW/FW needs to seriously reconsider how they operate. Either they need to improve on planning ahead or introduce a new department specifically aimed at altering printed material for situations like this. Conscripts being nerfed for the 3rd time illustrates a lack of communication, planning & organization internally.
Post 3rd nerf, conscripts are going to be yet another unit in the IG codex that will end up like penal legion, medusas etc. No one will use them because GW nerfed them into the ground & they will just end up being removed entirely from the codex.
Also nerfs to orks? Forgive me but that is the last thing orks need right now. I can only assume it will be addressed in the codex, but the last thing orks need is point increases to any unit. Common sense.
What the actual zog? What was the ork nerf?! I can only assume at this point that they just want to remove orks from the game because of how little they pay attention to us.
Community: "Everything GW puts out is sooooooo unbalanced and broken!! They don't care about tournament players!! They need to get their act together and balance their stuff better!!!'"
GW: "Ok, let's do some minor fig-leaf adjustment to the most obviously bonkers units/combinations:"
Community: "NOOOOO! Everything was perfectly balance all along. Why did you change it??!?!"
Literally nobody is saying that. Many people were expecting certain changes. The game is hardly perfectly balanced.
However, many of the changes appear to be either ineffectual or incomprehensible. The changes to a lot of stuff doesn't appear to have any rationale behind them or appear to be grossly disproportionate , or underproportionate.
Community: "Everything GW puts out is sooooooo unbalanced and broken!! They don't care about tournament players!! They need to get their act together and balance their stuff better!!!'"
GW: "Ok, let's do some minor fig-leaf adjustment to the most obviously bonkers units/combinations:"
Community: "NOOOOO! Everything was perfectly balance all along. Why did you change it??!?!"
Hah. But really Chaper Approve change the unit that work and leave useless unit behide... what we want is useless unit become useable and leave “working” unit alone.
I think in nearly all cases, points can used as the balance-stick. I'm not sure that it was the right choice for conscripts, seeings that they now conflict with guardsmen.
EDIT 2: Holy jeebus, they increased the price on the Salamander Command vehicle by almost 50% to way more than a Hellhound or even a Hydra...it's a Chimera that takes up an Elites slot that can't transport anything with a heavy flamer and heavy bolter that gets gets a scout move and gives a reroll 1's buff to a single vehicle unit within 6". Guess they didn't want to ever sell any of those.
Actually it gives +1 to hit, and that was super cool... until CA.
EricDominus wrote: EDIT 2: Holy jeebus, they increased the price on the Salamander Command vehicle by almost 50% to way more than a Hellhound or even a Hydra...it's a Chimera that takes up an Elites slot that can't transport anything with a heavy flamer and heavy bolter that gets gets a scout move and gives a reroll 1's buff to a single vehicle unit within 6". Guess they didn't want to ever sell any of those.
They don't want to sell them, the model has been OOP for years.
The point-raise to conscripts is especially puzzling. Clearly conscripts needed some changes originally, but now GW has managed to nerf conscripts into the ground while taking the commissar with them as a collateral casualty.
1. All the titans got DRASTICALLY more expensive - though to be fair someone was smoking something when a Reaver cost 2400 points. 6k For a warlord is about right though :|
2. Autocannons *finally* outperform heavy bolters at killing primaris... by 1 point per. And a mighty *2* points per wound better than Hbolters vs Leman Russ. Is this enough to return the AC back to the Old Ways?
3. Discount melta guns at bs 4 - this might actually be relevant since bs4 for guard is temporary, and it does make melta guns a bit more appealing
4. Manticore is still valid
5. Wyvern is once again getting spanked for some reason
6. 46 points for full-fat smite is perfectly acceptable
7. I've no problem with the salamander price bump; Cadian Stormlord with BS2 on a pre-wounded target *should* cost Silly Points, esp combined with a Trojan's reroll. Also; they don't sell Salamander Tanks any more.
8. Hellstrikes got +10 pts, meaning they'll be seen on Valkyries even less, if ever.
9. The Thunderer *still* costs more than a LR Demolisher.
malamis wrote: Cadian Stormlord with BS2 on a pre-wounded target *should* cost Silly Points, esp combined with a Trojan's reroll.
It already did, once you count the cost of all those support units you're dedicating to getting that firepower. That's the Stormlord itself, a Salamander, a Trojan, burning the CP for the stratagem, and whatever you pay for that additional unit that can consistently inflict a wound but not do so much damage that the Stormlord is overkill. That's the "all your eggs in one basket" sort of list that seems scary on paper, but ends up being too much of an investment in a real game. And if you're willing to dump that many points into one giant super-unit then the Salamander change isn't going to make a meaningful difference in your strategy. What this does is cripple the Salamander for anything but buffing a 500+ point LoW, as that's the only situation where you'll ever get enough of a buff to justify the cost.
Sooo... I guess I can toss my idea to buy a Thunderhawk sometime in the future out of the window. No way it's worth fielding at 1300 points (BEFORE wargear) besides Anything Goes Apocalypses, of which I have no idea I'll ever play one in the first place. Who thought up this "let's double random FW superheavies point costs" stuff? Rest of it looks pretty nice though, I think I can start fielding my Inceptors for my Space Wolves army regularly at this point.
Vakathi wrote:EDIT 2: Holy jeebus, they increased the price on the Salamander Command vehicle by almost 50% to way more than a Hellhound or even a Hydra...it's a Chimera that takes up an Elites slot that can't transport anything with a heavy flamer and heavy bolter that gets gets a scout move and gives a reroll 1's buff to a single vehicle unit within 6". Guess they didn't want to ever sell any of those.
Actually it gives +1 to hit, and that was super cool... until CA.
It also isn't actually on sale anymore.
Shame they didn't take the opportunity to revert the Commissar nerf with the Conscript points bump.
They really should have just listened to some of the input about requiring an Infantry Squad for each Conscript Squad.
DoomMouse wrote: I'm confused. Some good changes but some weird oversights.
Where are the points increases for Magnus, changeling, dark reapers, obliterators, castellan robots, russes and guard plasma?
And where are the price cuts for orks and necrons?
They seemed to miss some of the most obvious balance changes in my mind! They caught a few, but missed a lot of obvious stuff...
Guard plasma already got points increased. It's in the Guard codex.
Just like how Meltaguns are presented here, we have two different points costs for Plasma. A cheaper one for units that are BS4+(which means it only applies to Infantry and Special Weapon Squads since nobody else that is BS4+ can take Special Weapons) and a more expensive cost for units that are BS3+(Command Squads, Veterans, and Scions).
DoomMouse wrote: I'm confused. Some good changes but some weird oversights.
Where are the points increases for Magnus, changeling, dark reapers, obliterators, castellan robots, russes and guard plasma?
And where are the price cuts for orks and necrons?
They seemed to miss some of the most obvious balance changes in my mind! They caught a few, but missed a lot of obvious stuff...
Guard plasma already got points increased. It's in the Guard codex.
Just like how Meltaguns are presented here, we have two different points costs for Plasma. A cheaper one for units that are BS4+(which means it only applies to Infantry and Special Weapon Squads since nobody else that is BS4+ can take Special Weapons) and a more expensive cost for units that are BS3+(Command Squads, Veterans, and Scions).
I think the idea is sound, but the point adjustments seem really random, and they haven't addressed a lot of issues. It seems like they're trying to do something they have no clue how to do still, so they're mucking it up. Like, they did nothing for Orks. Necrons and T'au are absent (which could mean a codex soon). Cawl DECREASED by 10 points despite them saying he would go up, so either they lied, they forgot or they didn't proofread (or a combination). Some really powerful Forgeworld stuff was untouched (Leviathan Dreadnoughts), some were hit a bit too heavy-handed.
In general I'm sure the book overall will be good, but it doesn't really fix anything at all, so classic GW of doing something to say you're doing something, but you really just changed which pipe is leaking instead of fixing the pipes.
Guessing Malefic Lords got a nerf or at very least a price hike?
More than a price hike i'd say that the price skyrocketed, they are now 80 points.
I think i'm seeing a trend here, the more data they had, the better they worked.
SM: Lots of data on them > Lots of small spot on adjustements.
AM: Not as much data as SM, but still a good amount > about 70% accuracy on changes.
Forgeworld: Close to no data > Changes all over the place.
Many of the changes are quite puzzling, such as the conscript points change. Also a lot of omissions as well, such as the Changeling, and entirety of Tau or Necrons indexes (though they're getting a codex soon maybe? Should probably announce that).
EricDominus wrote: EDIT 2: Holy jeebus, they increased the price on the Salamander Command vehicle by almost 50% to way more than a Hellhound or even a Hydra...it's a Chimera that takes up an Elites slot that can't transport anything with a heavy flamer and heavy bolter that gets gets a scout move and gives a reroll 1's buff to a single vehicle unit within 6". Guess they didn't want to ever sell any of those.
Actually it gives +1 to hit, and that was super cool... until CA.
If you could give a super heavy +1 to hit for 75 points would you do it? And by doing so you got a tank for the cost of a heavy flamer and heavy bolter?
Commissar Benny wrote: I think the big take away from this is that the "new"GW/FW needs to seriously reconsider how they operate. Either they need to improve on planning ahead or introduce a new department specifically aimed at altering printed material for situations like this. Conscripts being nerfed for the 3rd time illustrates a lack of communication, planning & organization internally.
Post 3rd nerf, conscripts are going to be yet another unit in the IG codex that will end up like penal legion, medusas etc. No one will use them because GW nerfed them into the ground & they will just end up being removed entirely from the codex.
Also nerfs to orks? Forgive me but that is the last thing orks need right now. I can only assume it will be addressed in the codex, but the last thing orks need is point increases to any unit. Common sense.
What the actual zog? What was the ork nerf?! I can only assume at this point that they just want to remove orks from the game because of how little they pay attention to us.
There wasn't an Ork nerf. Every single thing they listed was a point drop. But I suppose when the GW hate train is rolling you'll see (and say) anything you want.
There wasn't an Ork nerf. Every single thing they listed was a point drop. But I suppose when the GW hate train is rolling you'll see anything you want to see.
Except for the killtank which went up by a lot, not that it really matters.
They seem to have nerfed Tervigons for some reason, increasing Massiv Scything Talons to 22 points (+12). That Close Combat Tervigon and Malceptor spam is finally dead! Wait... what?
Darsath wrote: Many of the changes are quite puzzling, such as the conscript points change. Also a lot of omissions as well, such as the Changeling, and entirety of Tau or Necrons indexes (though they're getting a codex soon maybe? Should probably announce that).
I don't think this is puzzling. Sometimes they nerf things not to balance them but to essentially strike them from the game. Look at Razorwing Flocks. These units get included in the books because they have a history and GW knows that people would pitch a fit if they got rid of them entirely, but they don't intend for them to actually be used. Razorwings and Malefic Lords are clear examples of "oops, we didn't intend for anyone to actually use this". You could say something similar about the big FW superheavies in regular Matched Play, which almost all got huge and competitively-unnecessary price increases -- they just want to be sure that nobody shows up to a pick-up game with a Titan. Conscripts look like this to me too. They want you to just use Infantry instead.
And then the lack of Daemon, Tau, and Necron changes is easily explained.
Yep why bother updating things for armies that are going to have a codex releases in a few months time - heck with the current pace at least two of those armies could have codex by the end of January. Makes full sense not to have them in the Chapter Approved as it would make publishing a codex almost pointless.
Overread wrote: Yep why bother updating things for armies that are going to have a codex releases in a few months time - heck with the current pace at least two of those armies could have codex by the end of January. Makes full sense not to have them in the Chapter Approved as it would make publishing a codex almost pointless.
Yeah I agree. Curious why they didn't announce the codexes, not why they wouldn't include the changes here. I'm sure someone will ask GW why there aren't many changes at some point, and it would explain it away quite easily.
AS a necron player I was sort of holding out for this book. I would have loved for a more meaningful presence on the 40k table the next months before we have a codex in hand.
Commissar Benny wrote: I think the big take away from this is that the "new"GW/FW needs to seriously reconsider how they operate. Either they need to improve on planning ahead or introduce a new department specifically aimed at altering printed material for situations like this. Conscripts being nerfed for the 3rd time illustrates a lack of communication, planning & organization internally.
Post 3rd nerf, conscripts are going to be yet another unit in the IG codex that will end up like penal legion, medusas etc. No one will use them because GW nerfed them into the ground & they will just end up being removed entirely from the codex.
Also nerfs to orks? Forgive me but that is the last thing orks need right now. I can only assume it will be addressed in the codex, but the last thing orks need is point increases to any unit. Common sense.
What the actual zog? What was the ork nerf?! I can only assume at this point that they just want to remove orks from the game because of how little they pay attention to us.
There wasn't an Ork nerf. Every single thing they listed was a point drop. But I suppose when the GW hate train is rolling you'll see (and say) anything you want.
Not a nerf per say, more like, "HAHAHA they thought we were going to make their units worth taking HAHAHA"
Reductions: Mork - 20 pts Skorchas - 12 Warbuggies - 11 Wartrakks - 12 Big Choppa - 2 Kilkannon - 12 Killsaw - 3 Two killsaws - 12 Kombi Rokkit - 6 Kopta rokkit - 4 Kustom Mega Kannon - 6 Power Klaw - 12 Rack of rokkits - 4 Shokk attack gun - 20 Twin Big shoota - 4
This means that the morkanaut got its base price reduced by 20, then the two twin big shootas shaves off another 8, and the kustom mega kannon is another 6, so that brings down the Morkanaut from 374 points (assuming you have a KFF) to 340. Not exactly the points decrease I was hoping for, but I'll take it.
Also PKs went down by a lot. Good.
So breaking that down. Morkanaut is still unplayable because its a giant lump with no dakka to speak of and is weaker in CC then the Gorkanaut who is also borderline unplayable due to weapons costs and complete lack of dakka.
Skorcha's Buggies, Wartrakkz: I Will go on record right now and say that GW is going to push out a new Buggies model either before or with the codex release. Unfortunately none of them are worth a damn still even with that massive price cut. The Skorcha is the exception, it actually can hit its target sometimes.
Big Choppa: Whoopdee Fething Dooo. people were either taking the Big Choppa or NOTHING. 2pts does not change that at all, what it does do is make it more bearable to take on all our nobz because even with the massive price cut....
Power Klaw: IS STILL UNPLAYABLE. this thing went from AP2 (no armor saves allowed) and being able to instant kill vehicles and characters to D3 damage. Add in the -1 to hit for using it and Orkz primary Anti-Tank weapon is trash.
KillKannon: A completely garbage "Ranged" weapon became a cheaper garbage "Ranged" weapon that no one will take still. Sorry but I am not paying pts for a Ranged 24 S7 D6 shot weapon that hits on 5+. This thing is slightly better then a Rokkit which is about 50% over priced.
Killsaw: Same as PKs just not as bad, if this thing had gotten as massive a price cut then maybe Id take more of them.
Kombi-Rokkitz: Who cares? Who is really paying pts to give an Ork a Rokkit right now? even with the price cut it is a waste of points.
Kopta Rokkit: This brings the points comparisons of TL Ork weapons to where SMTL Weapons are at. For some reason Ork TL weapons got MORE expensive then the cost of a single weapon while almost everyone else stayed exactly double. This is a good thing, unfortunately, GW forget to reduce the cost of Rokkitz because NOBODY is paying 12pts to put rokkitz on anything hitting on a 5+.
KMK: not a bad step, but definitely still not where it needs to be. This might make people actually consider taking KMKs over a Kannon.
Shokk Attack Gun: A massively over priced weapon that is all but unusable got a hefty price cut....and is still over priced for what little it can do. if they TRIPLED its shots it would be playable, for now its relegated to the Shelf to collect dust.
Twin Big Shootas: Same as Twin Rokkitz or Kopta Rokkitz. This brought it inline with everyone elses Twin weapons. However, nobody is going to pay that many points for a S5 Ranged 36 weapon that hits on 5s. The only reason they even exist in some lists is because its the cheapest option they are required to take.
What Orkz really needed was a Hefty price cut to ALL of our vehicles, most notably the Trukk which went up in price by 250%, the Battlewagon which went up in price 50% and got less useful, and ALL of our walkers which range from 30% to 50% over priced....Except the Stompa, that thing is just a pile of crap that needs to get removed from the Codex entirely. We also really needed a heavy price cut or some kind of buffs to our Ranged arsenal. 12pts for a single shot Rokkit is about 50% to much.
Commissar Benny wrote: I think the big take away from this is that the "new"GW/FW needs to seriously reconsider how they operate. Either they need to improve on planning ahead or introduce a new department specifically aimed at altering printed material for situations like this. Conscripts being nerfed for the 3rd time illustrates a lack of communication, planning & organization internally.
Post 3rd nerf, conscripts are going to be yet another unit in the IG codex that will end up like penal legion, medusas etc. No one will use them because GW nerfed them into the ground & they will just end up being removed entirely from the codex.
Also nerfs to orks? Forgive me but that is the last thing orks need right now. I can only assume it will be addressed in the codex, but the last thing orks need is point increases to any unit. Common sense.
What the actual zog? What was the ork nerf?! I can only assume at this point that they just want to remove orks from the game because of how little they pay attention to us.
There wasn't an Ork nerf. Every single thing they listed was a point drop. But I suppose when the GW hate train is rolling you'll see (and say) anything you want.
Not a nerf per say, more like, "HAHAHA they thought we were going to make their units worth taking HAHAHA"
Reductions:
Mork - 20 pts
Skorchas - 12
Warbuggies - 11
Wartrakks - 12
Big Choppa - 2
Kilkannon - 12
Killsaw - 3
Two killsaws - 12
Kombi Rokkit - 6
Kopta rokkit - 4
Kustom Mega Kannon - 6
Power Klaw - 12
Rack of rokkits - 4
Shokk attack gun - 20
Twin Big shoota - 4
This means that the morkanaut got its base price reduced by 20, then the two twin big shootas shaves off another 8, and the kustom mega kannon is another 6, so that brings down the Morkanaut from 374 points (assuming you have a KFF) to 340. Not exactly the points decrease I was hoping for, but I'll take it.
Also PKs went down by a lot. Good.
So breaking that down. Morkanaut is still unplayable because its a giant lump with no dakka to speak of and is weaker in CC then the Gorkanaut who is also borderline unplayable due to weapons costs and complete lack of dakka.
Skorcha's Buggies, Wartrakkz: I Will go on record right now and say that GW is going to push out a new Buggies model either before or with the codex release. Unfortunately none of them are worth a damn still even with that massive price cut. The Skorcha is the exception, it actually can hit its target sometimes.
Big Choppa: Whoopdee Fething Dooo. people were either taking the Big Choppa or NOTHING. 2pts does not change that at all, what it does do is make it more bearable to take on all our nobz because even with the massive price cut....
Power Klaw: IS STILL UNPLAYABLE. this thing went from AP2 (no armor saves allowed) and being able to instant kill vehicles and characters to D3 damage. Add in the -1 to hit for using it and Orkz primary Anti-Tank weapon is trash.
KillKannon: A completely garbage "Ranged" weapon became a cheaper garbage "Ranged" weapon that no one will take still. Sorry but I am not paying pts for a Ranged 24 S7 D6 shot weapon that hits on 5+. This thing is slightly better then a Rokkit which is about 50% over priced.
Killsaw: Same as PKs just not as bad, if this thing had gotten as massive a price cut then maybe Id take more of them.
Kombi-Rokkitz: Who cares? Who is really paying pts to give an Ork a Rokkit right now? even with the price cut it is a waste of points.
Kopta Rokkit: This brings the points comparisons of TL Ork weapons to where SMTL Weapons are at. For some reason Ork TL weapons got MORE expensive then the cost of a single weapon while almost everyone else stayed exactly double. This is a good thing, unfortunately, GW forget to reduce the cost of Rokkitz because NOBODY is paying 12pts to put rokkitz on anything hitting on a 5+.
KMK: not a bad step, but definitely still not where it needs to be. This might make people actually consider taking KMKs over a Kannon.
Shokk Attack Gun: A massively over priced weapon that is all but unusable got a hefty price cut....and is still over priced for what little it can do. if they TRIPLED its shots it would be playable, for now its relegated to the Shelf to collect dust.
Twin Big Shootas: Same as Twin Rokkitz or Kopta Rokkitz. This brought it inline with everyone elses Twin weapons. However, nobody is going to pay that many points for a S5 Ranged 36 weapon that hits on 5s. The only reason they even exist in some lists is because its the cheapest option they are required to take.
What Orkz really needed was a Hefty price cut to ALL of our vehicles, most notably the Trukk which went up in price by 250%, the Battlewagon which went up in price 50% and got less useful, and ALL of our walkers which range from 30% to 50% over priced....Except the Stompa, that thing is just a pile of crap that needs to get removed from the Codex entirely. We also really needed a heavy price cut or some kind of buffs to our Ranged arsenal. 12pts for a single shot Rokkit is about 50% to much.
Ok i'm going to take the bait. Why do you think that rokkits are overpriced at 12? You get the same amount of hits per point than a guard with a missile launcer (which costs 20 points) or a space marine with a missile launcher (which costs 25). Rokkits are almost identical to a missile launcer, except that to better reflect the way you will use them as orks, instead of being long range and heavy they are medium range and assault. We can discuss about which one is better, but i don't think there are enough arguments to call it crazily overpriced like you seem to be intending.
Drager wrote: They seem to have nerfed Tervigons for some reason, increasing Massiv Scything Talons to 22 points (+12). That Close Combat Tervigon and Malceptor spam is finally dead! Wait... what?
Commissar Benny wrote: I think the big take away from this is that the "new"GW/FW needs to seriously reconsider how they operate. Either they need to improve on planning ahead or introduce a new department specifically aimed at altering printed material for situations like this. Conscripts being nerfed for the 3rd time illustrates a lack of communication, planning & organization internally.
Post 3rd nerf, conscripts are going to be yet another unit in the IG codex that will end up like penal legion, medusas etc. No one will use them because GW nerfed them into the ground & they will just end up being removed entirely from the codex.
Also nerfs to orks? Forgive me but that is the last thing orks need right now. I can only assume it will be addressed in the codex, but the last thing orks need is point increases to any unit. Common sense.
What the actual zog? What was the ork nerf?! I can only assume at this point that they just want to remove orks from the game because of how little they pay attention to us.
There wasn't an Ork nerf. Every single thing they listed was a point drop. But I suppose when the GW hate train is rolling you'll see (and say) anything you want.
Not a nerf per say, more like, "HAHAHA they thought we were going to make their units worth taking HAHAHA"
Reductions:
Mork - 20 pts
Skorchas - 12
Warbuggies - 11
Wartrakks - 12
Big Choppa - 2
Kilkannon - 12
Killsaw - 3
Two killsaws - 12
Kombi Rokkit - 6
Kopta rokkit - 4
Kustom Mega Kannon - 6
Power Klaw - 12
Rack of rokkits - 4
Shokk attack gun - 20
Twin Big shoota - 4
This means that the morkanaut got its base price reduced by 20, then the two twin big shootas shaves off another 8, and the kustom mega kannon is another 6, so that brings down the Morkanaut from 374 points (assuming you have a KFF) to 340. Not exactly the points decrease I was hoping for, but I'll take it.
Also PKs went down by a lot. Good.
So breaking that down. Morkanaut is still unplayable because its a giant lump with no dakka to speak of and is weaker in CC then the Gorkanaut who is also borderline unplayable due to weapons costs and complete lack of dakka.
Skorcha's Buggies, Wartrakkz: I Will go on record right now and say that GW is going to push out a new Buggies model either before or with the codex release. Unfortunately none of them are worth a damn still even with that massive price cut. The Skorcha is the exception, it actually can hit its target sometimes.
Big Choppa: Whoopdee Fething Dooo. people were either taking the Big Choppa or NOTHING. 2pts does not change that at all, what it does do is make it more bearable to take on all our nobz because even with the massive price cut....
Power Klaw: IS STILL UNPLAYABLE. this thing went from AP2 (no armor saves allowed) and being able to instant kill vehicles and characters to D3 damage. Add in the -1 to hit for using it and Orkz primary Anti-Tank weapon is trash.
KillKannon: A completely garbage "Ranged" weapon became a cheaper garbage "Ranged" weapon that no one will take still. Sorry but I am not paying pts for a Ranged 24 S7 D6 shot weapon that hits on 5+. This thing is slightly better then a Rokkit which is about 50% over priced.
Killsaw: Same as PKs just not as bad, if this thing had gotten as massive a price cut then maybe Id take more of them.
Kombi-Rokkitz: Who cares? Who is really paying pts to give an Ork a Rokkit right now? even with the price cut it is a waste of points.
Kopta Rokkit: This brings the points comparisons of TL Ork weapons to where SMTL Weapons are at. For some reason Ork TL weapons got MORE expensive then the cost of a single weapon while almost everyone else stayed exactly double. This is a good thing, unfortunately, GW forget to reduce the cost of Rokkitz because NOBODY is paying 12pts to put rokkitz on anything hitting on a 5+.
KMK: not a bad step, but definitely still not where it needs to be. This might make people actually consider taking KMKs over a Kannon.
Shokk Attack Gun: A massively over priced weapon that is all but unusable got a hefty price cut....and is still over priced for what little it can do. if they TRIPLED its shots it would be playable, for now its relegated to the Shelf to collect dust.
Twin Big Shootas: Same as Twin Rokkitz or Kopta Rokkitz. This brought it inline with everyone elses Twin weapons. However, nobody is going to pay that many points for a S5 Ranged 36 weapon that hits on 5s. The only reason they even exist in some lists is because its the cheapest option they are required to take.
What Orkz really needed was a Hefty price cut to ALL of our vehicles, most notably the Trukk which went up in price by 250%, the Battlewagon which went up in price 50% and got less useful, and ALL of our walkers which range from 30% to 50% over priced....Except the Stompa, that thing is just a pile of crap that needs to get removed from the Codex entirely. We also really needed a heavy price cut or some kind of buffs to our Ranged arsenal. 12pts for a single shot Rokkit is about 50% to much.
Ok i'm going to take the bait. Why do you think that rokkits are overpriced at 12? You get the same amount of hits per point than a guard with a missile launcer (which costs 20 points) or a space marine with a missile launcher (which costs 25). Rokkits are almost identical to a missile launcer, except that to better reflect the way you will use them as orks, instead of being long range and heavy they are medium range and assault. We can discuss about which one is better, but i don't think there are enough arguments to call it crazily overpriced like you seem to be intending.
Beyond being as you mentioned literally HALF ranged? or being forced to be mobile in order to get closer which makes them either unable to hit or at best -1 to hit? Or how about being stuck on either a massively over priced transport or in the hands of a mob of boyz with 6+ armor? or not having a secondary fire mode like SMs and Guard have or how about having less high end damage? last edition they were a 5pt upgrade and were taken as a "Meh" weapon, they weren't game breaking nor did they perform all that well, but the 1/3rd chance of doing something made Ork players go for it, now they went up in price 133% and nobody is taking them. Big Shootas and Rokkitz are used exclusively as REQUIRED weapons. Nobody takes them as anything else if they want to win.
Commissar Benny wrote: I think the big take away from this is that the "new"GW/FW needs to seriously reconsider how they operate. Either they need to improve on planning ahead or introduce a new department specifically aimed at altering printed material for situations like this. Conscripts being nerfed for the 3rd time illustrates a lack of communication, planning & organization internally.
Post 3rd nerf, conscripts are going to be yet another unit in the IG codex that will end up like penal legion, medusas etc. No one will use them because GW nerfed them into the ground & they will just end up being removed entirely from the codex.
Also nerfs to orks? Forgive me but that is the last thing orks need right now. I can only assume it will be addressed in the codex, but the last thing orks need is point increases to any unit. Common sense.
What the actual zog? What was the ork nerf?! I can only assume at this point that they just want to remove orks from the game because of how little they pay attention to us.
There wasn't an Ork nerf. Every single thing they listed was a point drop. But I suppose when the GW hate train is rolling you'll see (and say) anything you want.
Not a nerf per say, more like, "HAHAHA they thought we were going to make their units worth taking HAHAHA"
Reductions: Mork - 20 pts Skorchas - 12 Warbuggies - 11 Wartrakks - 12 Big Choppa - 2 Kilkannon - 12 Killsaw - 3 Two killsaws - 12 Kombi Rokkit - 6 Kopta rokkit - 4 Kustom Mega Kannon - 6 Power Klaw - 12 Rack of rokkits - 4 Shokk attack gun - 20 Twin Big shoota - 4
This means that the morkanaut got its base price reduced by 20, then the two twin big shootas shaves off another 8, and the kustom mega kannon is another 6, so that brings down the Morkanaut from 374 points (assuming you have a KFF) to 340. Not exactly the points decrease I was hoping for, but I'll take it.
Also PKs went down by a lot. Good.
So breaking that down. Morkanaut is still unplayable because its a giant lump with no dakka to speak of and is weaker in CC then the Gorkanaut who is also borderline unplayable due to weapons costs and complete lack of dakka.
Skorcha's Buggies, Wartrakkz: I Will go on record right now and say that GW is going to push out a new Buggies model either before or with the codex release. Unfortunately none of them are worth a damn still even with that massive price cut. The Skorcha is the exception, it actually can hit its target sometimes.
Big Choppa: Whoopdee Fething Dooo. people were either taking the Big Choppa or NOTHING. 2pts does not change that at all, what it does do is make it more bearable to take on all our nobz because even with the massive price cut....
Power Klaw: IS STILL UNPLAYABLE. this thing went from AP2 (no armor saves allowed) and being able to instant kill vehicles and characters to D3 damage. Add in the -1 to hit for using it and Orkz primary Anti-Tank weapon is trash.
KillKannon: A completely garbage "Ranged" weapon became a cheaper garbage "Ranged" weapon that no one will take still. Sorry but I am not paying pts for a Ranged 24 S7 D6 shot weapon that hits on 5+. This thing is slightly better then a Rokkit which is about 50% over priced.
Killsaw: Same as PKs just not as bad, if this thing had gotten as massive a price cut then maybe Id take more of them.
Kombi-Rokkitz: Who cares? Who is really paying pts to give an Ork a Rokkit right now? even with the price cut it is a waste of points.
Kopta Rokkit: This brings the points comparisons of TL Ork weapons to where SMTL Weapons are at. For some reason Ork TL weapons got MORE expensive then the cost of a single weapon while almost everyone else stayed exactly double. This is a good thing, unfortunately, GW forget to reduce the cost of Rokkitz because NOBODY is paying 12pts to put rokkitz on anything hitting on a 5+.
KMK: not a bad step, but definitely still not where it needs to be. This might make people actually consider taking KMKs over a Kannon.
Shokk Attack Gun: A massively over priced weapon that is all but unusable got a hefty price cut....and is still over priced for what little it can do. if they TRIPLED its shots it would be playable, for now its relegated to the Shelf to collect dust.
Twin Big Shootas: Same as Twin Rokkitz or Kopta Rokkitz. This brought it inline with everyone elses Twin weapons. However, nobody is going to pay that many points for a S5 Ranged 36 weapon that hits on 5s. The only reason they even exist in some lists is because its the cheapest option they are required to take.
What Orkz really needed was a Hefty price cut to ALL of our vehicles, most notably the Trukk which went up in price by 250%, the Battlewagon which went up in price 50% and got less useful, and ALL of our walkers which range from 30% to 50% over priced....Except the Stompa, that thing is just a pile of crap that needs to get removed from the Codex entirely. We also really needed a heavy price cut or some kind of buffs to our Ranged arsenal. 12pts for a single shot Rokkit is about 50% to much.
Ok i'm going to take the bait. Why do you think that rokkits are overpriced at 12? You get the same amount of hits per point than a guard with a missile launcer (which costs 20 points) or a space marine with a missile launcher (which costs 25). Rokkits are almost identical to a missile launcer, except that to better reflect the way you will use them as orks, instead of being long range and heavy they are medium range and assault. We can discuss about which one is better, but i don't think there are enough arguments to call it crazily overpriced like you seem to be intending.
Beyond being as you mentioned literally HALF ranged? or being forced to be mobile in order to get closer which makes them either unable to hit or at best -1 to hit? Or how about being stuck on either a massively over priced transport or in the hands of a mob of boyz with 6+ armor? or not having a secondary fire mode like SMs and Guard have or how about having less high end damage? last edition they were a 5pt upgrade and were taken as a "Meh" weapon, they weren't game breaking nor did they perform all that well, but the 1/3rd chance of doing something made Ork players go for it, now they went up in price 133% and nobody is taking them. Big Shootas and Rokkitz are used exclusively as REQUIRED weapons. Nobody takes them as anything else if they want to win.
Sorry, but i still don't get it. You have access to that weapon in a unit full of T4 ablative wounds, which is always considered a great advantage. If you don't like that, then you can put that on really cheap bodies (tankbustas), disregarding durability for maximizing fire power. As you also noted, you can load that unit onto a transport that is FAR from undercosted, 76 points before weapons for an open topped transport is really good (the closest comparison is with the raider, 95 points before weapons but has a 5++). Damage 3 is considered better than Damage D6, or at least equal, for obvious reasons. Not saying that orks are fine, results show that they are not, but hearing your comments i'm getting really confused on the reasons for that...
Note: Any comments on the line of "This was like this in 7th" will be ignored. Everything changed with 8th.
Overread wrote: Yep why bother updating things for armies that are going to have a codex releases in a few months time - heck with the current pace at least two of those armies could have codex by the end of January. Makes full sense not to have them in the Chapter Approved as it would make publishing a codex almost pointless.
I was certainly under the impression that the points costs in Chapter Approved were at least partly meant to be a stopgap measure for armies that don't have a Codex released this year. For them to then turn into something which seems to mostly be rebalancing the armies that already have a Codex is somewhat confusing.
Wow, a bunch of the FW Eldar stuff got jacked up.
Revenant Titan went 1,200pts to 2,000.
Shadow Spectres went up 10ppm, essentially going for "auto-take" to "never-used" in one single go.
On the bright side, Deathshroud cannons went down 35pts each, making it a tempting choice, but still not for competitive games.
There wasn't an Ork nerf. Every single thing they listed was a point drop. But I suppose when the GW hate train is rolling you'll see anything you want to see.
Except for the killtank which went up by a lot, not that it really matters.
I stand corrected - though on a FW unit that I've never see make a list. And it was half the cost of a Baneblade base for nearly the same stats.
So why did the Khorne Lord of Skulls get a points increase? It's not even a large one either, at least not large by comparison of an already massive unit. It seems sort of silly, given that its wargear bumps it clear over 600 anyways.
Shadow Spectres went up 10ppm, essentially going for "auto-take" to "never-used" in one single go.
-
You think Concealed Alaitoc Spectres wouldn't have been problematic?
Jetpacks, -2/-3 to hit, and a morale affecting ability coupled with guns that do a damned great job at causing morale checks...
In all honesty I thought the base cost should have gone up. You don't get to have the flexibility of a heavy flamer plus another mode for LESS than the cost of a heavy flamer. Now you're paying heavy flamer price plus 8 points for flexibility.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vaklor4 wrote: So why did the Khorne Lord of Skulls get a points increase? It's not even a large one either, at least not large by comparison of an already massive unit. It seems sort of silly, given that its wargear bumps it clear over 600 anyways.
It's not like 15 points will change the picture that much anyway especially since it's still down from 465. They likely want it to be similarly costed to other base models with similar stats, which it's pretty close to a Baneblade.
Sorry, but i still don't get it.
You have access to that weapon in a unit full of T4 ablative wounds, which is always considered a great advantage. If you don't like that, then you can put that on really cheap bodies (tankbustas), disregarding durability for maximizing fire power. As you also noted, you can load that unit onto a transport that is FAR from undercosted, 76 points before weapons for an open topped transport is really good (the closest comparison is with the raider, 95 points before weapons but has a 5++). Damage 3 is considered better than Damage D6, or at least equal, for obvious reasons.
Not saying that orks are fine, results show that they are not, but hearing your comments i'm getting really confused on the reasons for that...
Note: Any comments on the line of "This was like this in 7th" will be ignored. Everything changed with 8th.
Clearly you never played orks and probably you even never faced them. Are tankbustas really cheap bodies???? They're quite overpriced instead, and also forced to take extremely overpriced transports since they're T4 1W 6+ save guyz.
12 tankbutas and a trukk are 286 points for an a average of 4 hits (6-7 against vehicles) at S8 Ap-2 D3 with a 24'' and 1 hit at S5 with no AP. The trukk is still a paper thing, T6 and 4+ save and it needs to get very close to the target, so it may not even fire in orks 1st turn since it may be out of range and be dead before firing the first shots.
Do you consider 3 rokkits in a 30 man boyz squad a good deal? 36 points for 3 rokkits that hit on 5s or 6s?
I don't get the example with the raider. Do you think it's an effective vehicle? It's another overpriced one. 82 points minimum for an open topped transport are not that good if the unit hits on 5s or 6s with a short range. If the trukk was T7 3+ save like the rhino maybe.
You're right about 8th edition. It screwed several orks units while making only 2-3 of them worthy after they were mediocre. 8th edition basically destroyed orks, not that they were OP before. Let's wait for the codex for a fair analysis but I don't have any faith, I think orks will be unplayable in the entire edition, unless they bring a green tide, which makes them extremely dull and boring to play and to face.
ross-128 wrote: I had already switched all my conscripts to infantry squads after the Commissar nerf, but sure GW, beat that dead horse.
The change to Earthshakers is just bizarre. How does taking the heavy bolter off make the price go up by 7 points? O_o
7? HA HA HA HA Earthshaker battery have costed 80 ppm. And now it skyrocket to 115 ppm.
I'm aware of that, the "7 points" is relative to the Basilisk's price of 108.
Going down to 80 points because it loses its heavy bolter, its movement, and some durability makes sense. Honestly it is easily 28 points of stuff you give up going from a Basilisk to an Earthshaker, even if the role does make that a much more favorable trade in practice than on paper from a min-maxing perspective. Losing all those things and going *up* to 115 though? What?
Galef wrote: Wow, a bunch of the FW Eldar stuff got jacked up.
Revenant Titan went 1,200pts to 2,000.
Shadow Spectres went up 10ppm, essentially going for "auto-take" to "never-used" in one single go.
On the bright side, Deathshroud cannons went down 35pts each, making it a tempting choice, but still not for competitive games.
-
Definitely will need to try out Shadow Spectres at the new points before making a decision, but 202pts for a 6 man unit with Exarch that is rather squishy sounds a bit much.
The Deathsroud change is almost pointless, you're still paying 610pts for a Skathatch with twin Deathshrouds and there's no way in hell it's worth that.
The one that annoys me though is the Phoenix Bomber. Finally got mine painted up to be used for the first time this weekend and it's now going up by 40pts.
I'm a bit curious about what this could do to Forgeworld sales. Items going from 600 something points up to 2000...that's easily in the realm of "will never purchase", etc.
However, does Chapter Approved not bring in any changes to actual Power Level --- and as such are these items all going to be dirt cheap for Narrative games, and just wildly expensive for tournaments/matched play?
For instance, if the Eldar Revanant titan went from 1,200 points to 2000 but it's power level stayed the same...it becomes a fun unit in narrative games, but impossible to justify in tournaments. Perhaps that's the goal with this?
Elbows wrote: I'm a bit curious about what this could do to Forgeworld sales. Items going from 600 something points up to 2000...that's easily in the realm of "will never purchase", etc.
To be fair if you're going to buy a titan you don't buy a titan just because you want to use it on the table; but to build and own a titan. I suspect its simply GW shifting the titan units back into Apoc and as Chapter Approved has Apoc rules within it there's no need to buy into another rules edition. Titans go up and players get Apoc rules to use them in at the same time.
I think its also about having titans in their own meta rather than having them creeping into more regular points levels whereby they can be more make or break in armies.
Elbows wrote: I'm a bit curious about what this could do to Forgeworld sales. Items going from 600 something points up to 2000...that's easily in the realm of "will never purchase", etc.
However, does Chapter Approved not bring in any changes to actual Power Level --- and as such are these items all going to be dirt cheap for Narrative games, and just wildly expensive for tournaments/matched play?
For instance, if the Eldar Revanant titan went from 1,200 points to 2000 but it's power level stayed the same...it becomes a fun unit in narrative games, but impossible to justify in tournaments. Perhaps that's the goal with this?
That would seem likely. All the Titans got massive point increases. It would seem they're trying to keep the stuff"intended" for narrative or apocalypse play out of tournament play.
All the points changes, even the ones people don't like, are good and necessary. You're free to clutch your pearls and not buy or use the book, but don't be surprised when the majority just laughs at you and goes back to playing the proper game.
BaconCatBug wrote: All the points changes, even the ones people don't like, are good and necessary. You're free to clutch your pearls and not buy or use the book, but don't be surprised when the majority just laughs at you and goes back to playing the proper game.
Immobile solo gun costs 115 ppm. Mobile gun with a heavy bolter costs 108. Good Changes. Change is good.
Sorry, but i still don't get it.
You have access to that weapon in a unit full of T4 ablative wounds, which is always considered a great advantage. If you don't like that, then you can put that on really cheap bodies (tankbustas), disregarding durability for maximizing fire power. As you also noted, you can load that unit onto a transport that is FAR from undercosted, 76 points before weapons for an open topped transport is really good (the closest comparison is with the raider, 95 points before weapons but has a 5++). Damage 3 is considered better than Damage D6, or at least equal, for obvious reasons.
Not saying that orks are fine, results show that they are not, but hearing your comments i'm getting really confused on the reasons for that...
Note: Any comments on the line of "This was like this in 7th" will be ignored. Everything changed with 8th.
In a unit of ablative wounds.....boyz want to be stuck in the entire game. If they aren't then they are worthless. So spending 36ptz (which is 20% the cost of the mob) on 3 rokkitz which should be advancing every turn is not a good investment. Now if you want to put them in a shoota mob then that's fine. But shootas are worse then choppas and you won't be doing much even if you don't advance. 36pts for 1s8 hit a turn. Add to that the fact that it still has incredibly short range and what's the point?
And tankbustas are cheap? In what world are they cheap? 17pts for a model that had T4 and a 6+ save is not cheap. Ohh but he has a rokkit so he is cheap!!! Well no. He is still BS5+ so unless they are shooting at a vehicle they are terrible. And even then they aren't great. Cramming 20 into a wagon brings you up to 500pts that is capable of slightly hurting a T8 vehicle with a 2+ save. (6-9 wounds on average). our premier anti armor unit isn't very good. But what about when they are mounted on vehicles? They aren't. They are so prohibitively expensive that people take Big shootas or KMBs instead. When I tried using them on deff lootas I found they were so expensive I couldn't afford them.
Finally in regards to transports not being over priced....I have nothing for you. That comment is so patently wrong that I can't even fathom it. That isn't true I can answer it. I am assuming you play guard or SM and didn't rely on transports so I'll explain this to you from an Ork perspective. When Orkz do something they do it redundantly to make sure it gets done. This is why you don't see a list with 1-3 trukkz 6 kanz, 1 flyer maybe a squad of lootas and some boyz. You always have to go all in or you won't make it. Trukk boyz require 6 trukkz minimum. Based on the new costs that went from being 180pts or roughly 1/10th of a competitive 1850 list to about 500pts or 1/4th a 2,000pt tournament list. Trukk boyz got weaker as well compared to their foot sloggin brethren. So when I say overpriced it's because Ork lists depended on cheap transports and when the vehicles costs more then the unit it transports then they ARENT cheap.
BaconCatBug wrote: All the points changes, even the ones people don't like, are good and necessary. You're free to clutch your pearls and not buy or use the book, but don't be surprised when the majority just laughs at you and goes back to playing the proper game.
Immobile solo gun costs 115 ppm. Mobile gun with a heavy bolter costs 107. Good Changes. Change is good.
Well, yes, this change is good. The various Earthshaker platforms were hugely redundant. People weren't moving their Basilisks anyway. The Battery and Carriage Battery pay less and are less durable, but this was also often not a big deal, and was a bigger advantage against armies that already struggle against Guard. So now they're gone and everyone can just use Basilisks instead, and GW doesn't have to worry about fine-tuning the balance of these very similar units, two of which are owned by very few players.
BaconCatBug wrote: All the points changes, even the ones people don't like, are good and necessary. You're free to clutch your pearls and not buy or use the book, but don't be surprised when the majority just laughs at you and goes back to playing the proper game.
Immobile solo gun costs 115 ppm. Mobile gun with a heavy bolter costs 107. Good Changes. Change is good.
Well, yes, this change is good. The various Earthshaker platforms were hugely redundant. People weren't moving their Basilisks anyway. The Battery and Carriage Battery pay less and are less durable, but this was also often not a big deal, and was a bigger advantage against armies that already struggle against Guard. So now they're gone and everyone can just use Basilisks instead, and GW doesn't have to worry about fine-tuning the balance of these very similar units, two of which are owned by very few players.
You make as much sence, as every other Forge World hater does.
BaconCatBug wrote: All the points changes, even the ones people don't like, are good and necessary. You're free to clutch your pearls and not buy or use the book, but don't be surprised when the majority just laughs at you and goes back to playing the proper game.
Ahhh....wat?
Salamander Command tanks needed a 50% points increase? Rapiers, Heavy Quad Launchers, Heavy Mortars, Griffons, and Armageddon pattern Medusa's, and Twin Heavy Stubbers all really needed nerfs? None of these were exactly balance problems before, most were seen as already notably overcosted. The Earthshaker and Medusa carriages really needed to be made *more* expensive than their more resilient, Ld-immune, and mobile tank counterparts? Conscripts needed to be made the same cost as Guardsmen, who are superior in every way?
Those were all good changes? Really?
IG BS3+ Meltaguns going to 17ppm means they're probably never going to be taken, as they're only advantage they have over plasma guns is being about 20% more effective against vehicles and big monsters at under 6" and under, against any other target or against vehicles at any other distance (particularly at that critical 9" Deep Strike distance) the Plasma Guns (with Overcharge option) are superior, and the Plasma Guns aren't exactly terrible even where the Meltagun is at its best It's just going to further push All Plasma All The Time.
BaconCatBug wrote: All the points changes, even the ones people don't like, are good and necessary. You're free to clutch your pearls and not buy or use the book, but don't be surprised when the majority just laughs at you and goes back to playing the proper game.
Immobile solo gun costs 115 ppm. Mobile gun with a heavy bolter costs 107. Good Changes. Change is good.
Well, yes, this change is good.
Change just for its own sake is not good. It's what drives people to leave the hobby.
The various Earthshaker platforms were hugely redundant. People weren't moving their Basilisks anyway.
Mostly not, but having the option is nice, and often critical, if something outflanks or clears a screen from one side of a table, you want to be able to scoot away if possible.
The Battery and Carriage Battery pay less and are less durable, but this was also often not a big deal, and was a bigger advantage against armies that already struggle against Guard.
It still means the unit is fundamentally less valuable and easier to destroy and that should absolutely be reflected in their points costs. There's a whole lot more tools to deal with the Earthshaker platforms than the Basilisks.
So now they're gone and everyone can just use Basilisks instead, and GW doesn't have to worry about fine-tuning the balance of these very similar units, two of which are owned by very few players.
Which is a garbage method of game design and certainly doesn't actually help help balance. People aren't going to go out and buy Basilisks instead, they're either going to shelve their fluffy armies or move to a different kind of power list, if they were taking Earthshaker platforms to maximize Alpha Strike capabilities, Basilisks aren't necessarily the automatic swap-out.
Vaktathi wrote: Which is a garbage method of game design and certainly doesn't actually help help balance. People aren't going to go out and buy Basilisks instead, they're either going to shelve their fluffy armies or move to a different kind of power list, if they were taking Earthshaker platforms to maximize Alpha Strike capabilities, Basilisks aren't necessarily the automatic swap-out.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of game design. As-is, 40k has far too many factions and units. The game -- as a game -- can be significantly improved by going through and just deleting lots of them. Unfortunately, GW can't really do this as thoroughly as would otherwise be desirable without alienating existing players, since this isn't an RTS or similar where someone can just immediately start playing a different faction or using completely different units. So in a few cases they've gone for the next best thing. When there are units that they don't really intend anyone to be using competitively (Razorwing Flocks, Malefic Lords, Titans, Earthshaker Batteries, etc.), and those units are only actually being used competitively by a very small number of players, they de facto remove them from the competitive game by raising their point costs to unplayable levels. This leaves them around as options for players who are using these units just because they really like their fluffy armies, and who might even be playing PL anyway instead of points. It's especially important that they do this promptly and make clear that this is not a model you should be buying/converting if you want to play competitively, because a unit being very strong competitively is going to drive model sales/conversions if it sits too long and this makes the eventual correction even more painful.
It's true - the best way to balance a game is to make everything the same.
But why is it so bad to have the carriage batteries be competitive? What's wrong with having a Basilisk Squadron and an Earthshaker Carriage Battery both being an option for competitive play? Why must the Basilisk always be better than the immobile battery?
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's true - the best way to balance a game is to make everything the same.
But why is it so bad to have the carriage batteries be competitive? What's wrong with having a Basilisk Squadron and an Earthshaker Carriage Battery both being an option for competitive play? Why must the Basilisk always be better than the immobile battery?
I mean, why bother? GW is obviously stretched too thin as-is when it comes to supplying balanced rules for all of the units and factions. Do we really need these three very similar things? Why not just throw out two of them?
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's true - the best way to balance a game is to make everything the same.
But why is it so bad to have the carriage batteries be competitive? What's wrong with having a Basilisk Squadron and an Earthshaker Carriage Battery both being an option for competitive play? Why must the Basilisk always be better than the immobile battery?
I mean, why bother? GW is obviously stretched too thin as-is when it comes to supplying balanced rules for all of the units and factions. Do we really need these three very similar things? Why not just throw out two of them?
Because more options is always better for players looking to build fluffy armies.
My buddy wants to make an American Civil War-themed IG army, and bring it to tournaments. Now, he has to add self-propelled guns that look like they're from World War 2 to his Civil War themed army because "reasons".
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's true - the best way to balance a game is to make everything the same.
But why is it so bad to have the carriage batteries be competitive? What's wrong with having a Basilisk Squadron and an Earthshaker Carriage Battery both being an option for competitive play? Why must the Basilisk always be better than the immobile battery?
I mean, why bother? GW is obviously stretched too thin as-is when it comes to supplying balanced rules for all of the units and factions. Do we really need these three very similar things? Why not just throw out two of them?
Because more options is always better for players looking to build fluffy armies.
My buddy wants to make an American Civil War-themed IG army, and bring it to tournaments. Now, he has to add self-propelled guns that look like they're from World War 2 to his Civil War themed army because "reasons".
Neat.
I mean, I would hope that everyone can see how it can be a reasonable tradeoff to make people in this very specific situation worse off in exchange for not having to worry at all about the competitive balance of 2 whole units. Yes, I'm sorry your friend will have a harder time winning competitive tournaments with his super-fluffy Civil War themed army. Of course, he can still use this army just fine in less competitive settings.
Vaktathi wrote: Which is a garbage method of game design and certainly doesn't actually help help balance. People aren't going to go out and buy Basilisks instead, they're either going to shelve their fluffy armies or move to a different kind of power list, if they were taking Earthshaker platforms to maximize Alpha Strike capabilities, Basilisks aren't necessarily the automatic swap-out.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of game design. As-is, 40k has far too many factions and units.
The game -- as a game -- can be significantly improved by going through and just deleting lots of them.
By that token, the stuff they're targeting is relatively minor in the grand balance scheme of things and lots of other stuff that didn't get touched. GW certainly doesn't seem to be communicating this thought process in any other way...
Unfortunately, GW can't really do this as thoroughly as would otherwise be desirable without alienating existing players, since this isn't an RTS or similar where someone can just immediately start playing a different faction or using completely different units.
So in a few cases they've gone for the next best thing. When there are units that they don't really intend anyone to be using competitively (Razorwing Flocks, Malefic Lords, Titans, Earthshaker Batteries, etc.), and those units are only actually being used competitively by a very small number of players, they de facto remove them from the competitive game by raising their point costs to unplayable levels. This leaves them around as options for players who are using these units just because they really like their fluffy armies, and who might even be playing PL anyway instead of points.
This assumes a whole lot about GW's mindset, that we've never seen in the past or anywhere else (and the Titans already weren't really cheap enough to take in normal games anyway), and that basically tells people "don't go out and buy the cool fluffy stuff we make". A lot of the stuff that got hit with nerfs was already underpowered and unpopular.
It's especially important that they do this promptly and make clear that this is not a model you should be buying/converting if you want to play competitively, because a unit being very strong competitively is going to drive model sales/conversions if it sits too long and this makes the eventual correction even more painful.
Why make the kit and offer the option in that case at all? It's certainly not going to get people to buy these things. And if they really don't want these units in competitive games, they really should give some sort of indication other than a monstrous surprise mega points nerf that people are just supposed to somehow extrapolate that such units aren't intended to do anything but sit on pretty shelves. That seems like the most roundabout and underhanded, and post-facto way of doing it. They certainly didn't appear to have that mindset a few months ago that such units shouldn't be fielded competitively. We really have no data other than supposition to back this up, and it certainly doesn't track with GW's methodology in any previous cases of dealing with their competitive environments or updates to units.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's true - the best way to balance a game is to make everything the same.
But why is it so bad to have the carriage batteries be competitive? What's wrong with having a Basilisk Squadron and an Earthshaker Carriage Battery both being an option for competitive play? Why must the Basilisk always be better than the immobile battery?
I mean, why bother? GW is obviously stretched too thin as-is when it comes to supplying balanced rules for all of the units and factions. Do we really need these three very similar things? Why not just throw out two of them?
Because more options is always better for players looking to build fluffy armies.
My buddy wants to make an American Civil War-themed IG army, and bring it to tournaments. Now, he has to add self-propelled guns that look like they're from World War 2 to his Civil War themed army because "reasons".
Neat.
I mean, I would hope that everyone can see how it can be a reasonable tradeoff to make people in this very specific situation worse off in exchange for not having to worry at all about the competitive balance of 2 whole units.
That "very specific situation" is actually not very specific at all. Or do you think there's no demand for wheeled gun carriage artillery models in 28mm sci-fi?
Like literally you're saying "We can't be assed to get this balance right, so feth people that want options."
I hope everyone can see how that's completely unreasonable and should not be an acceptable practice.
That "very specific situation" is actually not very specific at all. Or do you think there's no demand for wheeled gun carriage artillery models in 28mm sci-fi?
Like literally you're saying "We can't be assed to get this balance right, so feth people that want options."
I hope everyone can see how that's completely unreasonable and should not be an acceptable practice.
Well, no, you're just not paying attention to the conversation. You need to be arguing that we need all these options to exist at the most competitive levels. You can still bring Earthshaker Batteries! They're still there! They're not even total garbage, especially when there's a lot of terrain around. They're just strictly worse than Basilisks.
That "very specific situation" is actually not very specific at all. Or do you think there's no demand for wheeled gun carriage artillery models in 28mm sci-fi?
Like literally you're saying "We can't be assed to get this balance right, so feth people that want options."
I hope everyone can see how that's completely unreasonable and should not be an acceptable practice.
Well, no, you're just not paying attention to the conversation. You need to be arguing that we need all these options to exist at the most competitive levels. You can still bring Earthshaker Batteries! They're still there! They're not even total garbage, especially when there's a lot of terrain around. They're just strictly worse than Basilisks.
M8, you completly missing the point. Battery MUST costs lower, then fully kited Basilisk by all means, no matter the balance/options, whatever.
I pay 108 pts for a gun, a track and a heavy bolter.
Why should i pay 115 for JUST A GUN? Is that "THE option"? Huh? Its not even balance thing, its pure madness and incompetence.
Daedalus81 wrote: There wasn't an Ork nerf. Every single thing they listed was a point drop. But I suppose when the GW hate train is rolling you'll see (and say) anything you want.
Killtank went from 215 to 365. Yeah, that is a nerf but please continue. Nothing in the ork army should be seeing a point increase.
That "very specific situation" is actually not very specific at all. Or do you think there's no demand for wheeled gun carriage artillery models in 28mm sci-fi?
Like literally you're saying "We can't be assed to get this balance right, so feth people that want options."
I hope everyone can see how that's completely unreasonable and should not be an acceptable practice.
Well, no, you're just not paying attention to the conversation. You need to be arguing that we need all these options to exist at the most competitive levels. You can still bring Earthshaker Batteries! They're still there! They're not even total garbage, especially when there's a lot of terrain around. They're just strictly worse than Basilisks.
M8, you completly missing the point. Battery MUST costs lower, then fully kited Basilisk by all means, no matter the balance/options, whatever.
I pay 108 pts for a gun, a track and a heavy bolter.
Why should i pay 115 for JUST A GUN? Is that "THE option"? Huh? Its not even balance thing, its pure madness and incompetence.
I think his point is that... the track and the heavy bolter are useless. Is the same as the problem with Astropaths and Primaris Psykers. If they had the option to have no wargear, people will take them without wargear to make them cheaper, because it doesn't do anything for the purpose of the job the units must do.
Of course, in this case the solution is not to make the Earthshaker battery more expensive than the basilisk, but making both more expensive, with the Basilisk being more expensive but not by much, because it shouldn't be paying very much for things that in a piece of artillery you normally aren't gonna use.
pismakron wrote: 1) I really like the general principle that unit rules and unit costs are decoupled, and that balance changes can be published outside of the main rulebooks.
.
Eh. Locating the point costs elsewhere in the book doesn't decouple them from the rules. It just puts the burden of cross reference on the reader.
It's only really useful if you want to look at all the point values at once, which frankly is of limited utility for game purposes. For list building purposes, this is actually one of the worst approaches to book design.
If they were doing full page complete point lists every time they updated points, it would make some amount of sense. But since they're doing selected find and replace anyway, separating the point values out just makes things more aggravating on the usability end.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of game design. As-is, 40k has far too many factions and units. The game -- as a game -- can be significantly improved by going through and just deleting lots of them. Unfortunately, GW can't really do this as thoroughly as would otherwise be desirable without alienating existing players, since this isn't an RTS or similar where someone can just immediately start playing a different faction or using completely different units. So in a few cases they've gone for the next best thing. When there are units that they don't really intend anyone to be using competitively (Razorwing Flocks, Malefic Lords, Titans, Earthshaker Batteries, etc.), and those units are only actually being used competitively by a very small number of players, they de facto remove them from the competitive game by raising their point costs to unplayable levels. This leaves them around as options for players who are using these units just because they really like their fluffy armies, and who might even be playing PL anyway instead of points. It's especially important that they do this promptly and make clear that this is not a model you should be buying/converting if you want to play competitively, because a unit being very strong competitively is going to drive model sales/conversions if it sits too long and this makes the eventual correction even more painful.
I'd like to introduce you to Chess. It only has six different types of units, the rules are very simple, and it has a huge following so you'll never have trouble getting any games.
That "very specific situation" is actually not very specific at all. Or do you think there's no demand for wheeled gun carriage artillery models in 28mm sci-fi?
Like literally you're saying "We can't be assed to get this balance right, so feth people that want options."
I hope everyone can see how that's completely unreasonable and should not be an acceptable practice.
Well, no, you're just not paying attention to the conversation. You need to be arguing that we need all these options to exist at the most competitive levels. You can still bring Earthshaker Batteries! They're still there! They're not even total garbage, especially when there's a lot of terrain around. They're just strictly worse than Basilisks.
M8, you completly missing the point. Battery MUST costs lower, then fully kited Basilisk by all means, no matter the balance/options, whatever.
I pay 108 pts for a gun, a track and a heavy bolter.
Why should i pay 115 for JUST A GUN? Is that "THE option"? Huh? Its not even balance thing, its pure madness and incompetence.
Excuse my ignorance but what's the prior points cost for the battery? Moreover you're ignoring they're smaller and easier to hide. But you know what, if you or some dude wants a civil war themed army or ww2 army or whatever, play it in theme or fluffy and points costs be damned. Don't invent a motorised carriage because you want to win at all costs, under the false guise of "fluffy theme.
That "very specific situation" is actually not very specific at all. Or do you think there's no demand for wheeled gun carriage artillery models in 28mm sci-fi?
Like literally you're saying "We can't be assed to get this balance right, so feth people that want options."
I hope everyone can see how that's completely unreasonable and should not be an acceptable practice.
Well, no, you're just not paying attention to the conversation. You need to be arguing that we need all these options to exist at the most competitive levels. You can still bring Earthshaker Batteries! They're still there! They're not even total garbage, especially when there's a lot of terrain around. They're just strictly worse than Basilisks.
M8, you completly missing the point. Battery MUST costs lower, then fully kited Basilisk by all means, no matter the balance/options, whatever.
I pay 108 pts for a gun, a track and a heavy bolter.
Why should i pay 115 for JUST A GUN? Is that "THE option"? Huh? Its not even balance thing, its pure madness and incompetence.
Excuse my ignorance but what's the prior points cost for the battery? Moreover you're ignoring they're smaller and easier to hide. But you know what, if you or some dude wants a civil war themed army or ww2 army or whatever, play it in theme or fluffy and points costs be damned. Don't invent a motorised carriage because you want to win at all costs, under the false guise of "fluffy theme.
Prior point cost for the Eathshaker battery was 80. Its small, cant move and easy to kill. Not it costs more then a fully kited Basilisk.
So again, pay 108 for 3 things (gun, track, heavy bolter), or 115 for one (immobile gun). This is not balance issue. At all.
Its like a girl offering you a 10$ BJ or 25$ kick in the balls. Gives you some diversity too, huh?
I'm more disappointed by what *isn't* in here than what is. The lack of Necron and Tau updates is really disheartening for people with those armies (2 of the big players in my local meta).
Daedalus81 wrote: There wasn't an Ork nerf. Every single thing they listed was a point drop. But I suppose when the GW hate train is rolling you'll see (and say) anything you want.
Killtank went from 215 to 365. Yeah, that is a nerf but please continue. Nothing in the ork army should be seeing a point increase.
Go ahead and build your case around the single exception out of 20+ point decreases.
I'd love to know the percentage of Ork lists using one at a tournament - < 1%?
People say they're concerned by stuff 'at the most competitive levels' and then say "just play your theme list somewhere not competitive!"
This is why the wedge between the competitive and casual players exist. Because competitive players are fine with betraying the theme of their army to win - and instead of wanting balance, so both can exist in the same field, they're just okay with theme armies being flat out worse for no real reason other than "is easier."
HuskyWarhammer wrote: I'm more disappointed by what *isn't* in here than what is. The lack of Necron and Tau updates is really disheartening for people with those armies (2 of the big players in my local meta).
But I think it has been mentioned a few times that this is probably because their Codices are in the works. Why make so many changes back-to-back?
That "very specific situation" is actually not very specific at all. Or do you think there's no demand for wheeled gun carriage artillery models in 28mm sci-fi?
Like literally you're saying "We can't be assed to get this balance right, so feth people that want options."
I hope everyone can see how that's completely unreasonable and should not be an acceptable practice.
Well, no, you're just not paying attention to the conversation. You need to be arguing that we need all these options to exist at the most competitive levels. You can still bring Earthshaker Batteries! They're still there! They're not even total garbage, especially when there's a lot of terrain around. They're just strictly worse than Basilisks.
M8, you completly missing the point. Battery MUST costs lower, then fully kited Basilisk by all means, no matter the balance/options, whatever.
I pay 108 pts for a gun, a track and a heavy bolter.
Why should i pay 115 for JUST A GUN? Is that "THE option"? Huh? Its not even balance thing, its pure madness and incompetence.
Excuse my ignorance but what's the prior points cost for the battery? Moreover you're ignoring they're smaller and easier to hide. But you know what, if you or some dude wants a civil war themed army or ww2 army or whatever, play it in theme or fluffy and points costs be damned. Don't invent a motorised carriage because you want to win at all costs, under the false guise of "fluffy theme.
Prior point cost for the Eathshaker battery was 80. Its small, cant move and easy to kill. Not it costs more then a fully kited Basilisk.
So again, pay 108 for 3 things (gun, track, heavy bolter), or 115 for one (immobile gun). This is not balance issue. At all.
Its like a girl offering you a 10$ BJ or 25$ kick in the balls. Gives you some diversity too, huh?
They were regularly spammed competitively, are you arguing that being harder to kill, mobile and a heavy bolter wasn't worth 28 pts? Or is it that it was easy to hide and could fire without line of site for volume of shots that made it spammable? It is all but 1 of those things now, you can still do it with full basilisks but they can't be as easily hidden and fractionally more expensive. What was the solution you would suggest?
I am rather confused about that static vs motorized artillery chance. Regardless if you ever take one model over the other or not, it just doesn't make sense from a game design perspective.
That "very specific situation" is actually not very specific at all. Or do you think there's no demand for wheeled gun carriage artillery models in 28mm sci-fi?
Like literally you're saying "We can't be assed to get this balance right, so feth people that want options."
I hope everyone can see how that's completely unreasonable and should not be an acceptable practice.
Well, no, you're just not paying attention to the conversation. You need to be arguing that we need all these options to exist at the most competitive levels. You can still bring Earthshaker Batteries! They're still there! They're not even total garbage, especially when there's a lot of terrain around. They're just strictly worse than Basilisks.
M8, you completly missing the point. Battery MUST costs lower, then fully kited Basilisk by all means, no matter the balance/options, whatever.
I pay 108 pts for a gun, a track and a heavy bolter.
Why should i pay 115 for JUST A GUN? Is that "THE option"? Huh? Its not even balance thing, its pure madness and incompetence.
Excuse my ignorance but what's the prior points cost for the battery? Moreover you're ignoring they're smaller and easier to hide. But you know what, if you or some dude wants a civil war themed army or ww2 army or whatever, play it in theme or fluffy and points costs be damned. Don't invent a motorised carriage because you want to win at all costs, under the false guise of "fluffy theme.
Prior point cost for the Eathshaker battery was 80. Its small, cant move and easy to kill. Not it costs more then a fully kited Basilisk.
So again, pay 108 for 3 things (gun, track, heavy bolter), or 115 for one (immobile gun). This is not balance issue. At all.
Its like a girl offering you a 10$ BJ or 25$ kick in the balls. Gives you some diversity too, huh?
They were regularly spammed competitively, are you arguing that being harder to kill, mobile and a heavy bolter wasn't worth 28 pts? Or is it that it was easy to hide and could fire without line of site for volume of shots that made it spammable? It is all but 1 of those things now, you can still do it with full basilisks but they can't be as easily hidden and fractionally more expensive. What was the solution you would suggest?
About what 28 pts your are talking about?
Earthshaker battery and Basilisk is completly differents units! Read my massages before answer, please.
Battery - immobile, small, easy to kill. Armed with the Eathshaker cannon. Have costed 80. Now costs 115 ppm.
Basillisk - mobile, big, harder to kill and can move away from the killer, if needed. Armed with the Eathshaker cannon and a Heavy Bolter. Costs 108 ppm.
Infantryman wrote: I am rather confused about that static vs motorized artillery chance. Regardless if you ever take one model over the other or not, it just doesn't make sense from a game design perspective.
M.
Of fething course it doesn't make sense.
People arguing otherwise only demonstrate a complete lack of understanding for game design and balance.
It looks like FW Tyranids are getting nerfed, but the rest of Tyranids aren't getting buffed. That's especially funny because while codex Tyranids are competitive they are far from touching the likes of Chaos and Guard.
I'm super excited about the Guard nerfs, and the Malefic Lord nerfs. It's about time. I'm seriously concerned that those nerfs don't go far enough though.
Even after Reecius adjusted the ITC missions to give those of us without the ability to beat gunlines a chance - and the new missions are fantastic - Guard was still dominating because they can ignore objective based gameplay and table you completely. Guard needs adjusting. So did Malefic Lords. But let the salt flow. Maybe now you'll have to use tactics when you throw down your models, instead of just expecting to roll dice and win.
Infantryman wrote: I am rather confused about that static vs motorized artillery chance. Regardless if you ever take one model over the other or not, it just doesn't make sense from a game design perspective.
M.
Of fething course it doesn't make sense.
People arguing otherwise only demonstrate a complete lack of understanding for game design and balance.
That "very specific situation" is actually not very specific at all. Or do you think there's no demand for wheeled gun carriage artillery models in 28mm sci-fi?
Like literally you're saying "We can't be assed to get this balance right, so feth people that want options."
I hope everyone can see how that's completely unreasonable and should not be an acceptable practice.
Well, no, you're just not paying attention to the conversation. You need to be arguing that we need all these options to exist at the most competitive levels. You can still bring Earthshaker Batteries! They're still there! They're not even total garbage, especially when there's a lot of terrain around. They're just strictly worse than Basilisks.
M8, you completly missing the point. Battery MUST costs lower, then fully kited Basilisk by all means, no matter the balance/options, whatever.
I pay 108 pts for a gun, a track and a heavy bolter.
Why should i pay 115 for JUST A GUN? Is that "THE option"? Huh? Its not even balance thing, its pure madness and incompetence.
Excuse my ignorance but what's the prior points cost for the battery? Moreover you're ignoring they're smaller and easier to hide. But you know what, if you or some dude wants a civil war themed army or ww2 army or whatever, play it in theme or fluffy and points costs be damned. Don't invent a motorised carriage because you want to win at all costs, under the false guise of "fluffy theme.
Prior point cost for the Eathshaker battery was 80. Its small, cant move and easy to kill. Not it costs more then a fully kited Basilisk.
So again, pay 108 for 3 things (gun, track, heavy bolter), or 115 for one (immobile gun). This is not balance issue. At all.
Its like a girl offering you a 10$ BJ or 25$ kick in the balls. Gives you some diversity too, huh?
They were regularly spammed competitively, are you arguing that being harder to kill, mobile and a heavy bolter wasn't worth 28 pts? Or is it that it was easy to hide and could fire without line of site for volume of shots that made it spammable? It is all but 1 of those things now, you can still do it with full basilisks but they can't be as easily hidden and fractionally more expensive. What was the solution you would suggest?
About what 28 pts your are talking about?
Earthshaker battery and Basilisk is completly differents units! Read my massages before answer, please.
Battery - immobile, small, easy to kill. Armed with the Eathshaker cannon. Have costed 80. Now costs 115 ppm.
Basillisk - mobile, big, harder to kill and can move away from the killer, if needed. Armed with the Eathshaker cannon and a Heavy Bolter. Costs 108 ppm.
Do you get it now?
Tbh it's not me that's missing the point here, if normal basilisks have all these perks over a battery, why did people spam batteries over the basilisks? Could it be that people wanted to spam indirect high strength fire? In which case what points cost do you give it that makes both units comparable?
Sarcastic assumptions of dart-throwing and coin-flipping aside, I wonder how GWactually decides point values. Is there some kind of formula based on stats that serves as a general guideline? Is it a result of a hierarchy that revealed itself in playtesting? I find it hard to believe that they're just randomly tweaking things around, even though the changes in Chapter Approved do really seem that arbitrary. In any case, it's impossible to form an objective opinion about any one of these changes without either knowing how GW assigns point values or having a bunch of statistical data about how each unit performs in different situations.
That "very specific situation" is actually not very specific at all. Or do you think there's no demand for wheeled gun carriage artillery models in 28mm sci-fi?
Like literally you're saying "We can't be assed to get this balance right, so feth people that want options."
I hope everyone can see how that's completely unreasonable and should not be an acceptable practice.
Well, no, you're just not paying attention to the conversation. You need to be arguing that we need all these options to exist at the most competitive levels. You can still bring Earthshaker Batteries! They're still there! They're not even total garbage, especially when there's a lot of terrain around. They're just strictly worse than Basilisks.
M8, you completly missing the point. Battery MUST costs lower, then fully kited Basilisk by all means, no matter the balance/options, whatever.
I pay 108 pts for a gun, a track and a heavy bolter.
Why should i pay 115 for JUST A GUN? Is that "THE option"? Huh? Its not even balance thing, its pure madness and incompetence.
Excuse my ignorance but what's the prior points cost for the battery? Moreover you're ignoring they're smaller and easier to hide. But you know what, if you or some dude wants a civil war themed army or ww2 army or whatever, play it in theme or fluffy and points costs be damned. Don't invent a motorised carriage because you want to win at all costs, under the false guise of "fluffy theme.
Prior point cost for the Eathshaker battery was 80. Its small, cant move and easy to kill. Not it costs more then a fully kited Basilisk.
So again, pay 108 for 3 things (gun, track, heavy bolter), or 115 for one (immobile gun). This is not balance issue. At all.
Its like a girl offering you a 10$ BJ or 25$ kick in the balls. Gives you some diversity too, huh?
They were regularly spammed competitively, are you arguing that being harder to kill, mobile and a heavy bolter wasn't worth 28 pts? Or is it that it was easy to hide and could fire without line of site for volume of shots that made it spammable? It is all but 1 of those things now, you can still do it with full basilisks but they can't be as easily hidden and fractionally more expensive. What was the solution you would suggest?
About what 28 pts your are talking about?
Earthshaker battery and Basilisk is completly differents units! Read my massages before answer, please.
Battery - immobile, small, easy to kill. Armed with the Eathshaker cannon. Have costed 80. Now costs 115 ppm.
Basillisk - mobile, big, harder to kill and can move away from the killer, if needed. Armed with the Eathshaker cannon and a Heavy Bolter. Costs 108 ppm.
Do you get it now?
Tbh it's not me that's missing the point here, if normal basilisks have all these perks over a battery, why did people spam batteries over the basilisks? Could it be that people wanted to spam indirect high strength fire? In which case what points cost do you give it that makes both units comparable?
I'd've settled for roughly the same, e.g. 105 to 108, respectively.
Infantryman wrote: I am rather confused about that static vs motorized artillery chance. Regardless if you ever take one model over the other or not, it just doesn't make sense from a game design perspective.
M.
Of fething course it doesn't make sense.
People arguing otherwise only demonstrate a complete lack of understanding for game design and balance.
This.
You realize I'm disagreeing with you, right?
The decision GW made was pants on head slowed. An earthshaker platform should cost less than a basilisk. Making it cost more ensure it will never see the table.
That "very specific situation" is actually not very specific at all. Or do you think there's no demand for wheeled gun carriage artillery models in 28mm sci-fi?
Like literally you're saying "We can't be assed to get this balance right, so feth people that want options."
I hope everyone can see how that's completely unreasonable and should not be an acceptable practice.
Well, no, you're just not paying attention to the conversation. You need to be arguing that we need all these options to exist at the most competitive levels. You can still bring Earthshaker Batteries! They're still there! They're not even total garbage, especially when there's a lot of terrain around. They're just strictly worse than Basilisks.
M8, you completly missing the point. Battery MUST costs lower, then fully kited Basilisk by all means, no matter the balance/options, whatever.
I pay 108 pts for a gun, a track and a heavy bolter.
Why should i pay 115 for JUST A GUN? Is that "THE option"? Huh? Its not even balance thing, its pure madness and incompetence.
Excuse my ignorance but what's the prior points cost for the battery? Moreover you're ignoring they're smaller and easier to hide. But you know what, if you or some dude wants a civil war themed army or ww2 army or whatever, play it in theme or fluffy and points costs be damned. Don't invent a motorised carriage because you want to win at all costs, under the false guise of "fluffy theme.
Prior point cost for the Eathshaker battery was 80. Its small, cant move and easy to kill. Not it costs more then a fully kited Basilisk.
So again, pay 108 for 3 things (gun, track, heavy bolter), or 115 for one (immobile gun). This is not balance issue. At all.
Its like a girl offering you a 10$ BJ or 25$ kick in the balls. Gives you some diversity too, huh?
They were regularly spammed competitively, are you arguing that being harder to kill, mobile and a heavy bolter wasn't worth 28 pts? Or is it that it was easy to hide and could fire without line of site for volume of shots that made it spammable? It is all but 1 of those things now, you can still do it with full basilisks but they can't be as easily hidden and fractionally more expensive. What was the solution you would suggest?
About what 28 pts your are talking about?
Earthshaker battery and Basilisk is completly differents units! Read my massages before answer, please.
Battery - immobile, small, easy to kill. Armed with the Eathshaker cannon. Have costed 80. Now costs 115 ppm.
Basillisk - mobile, big, harder to kill and can move away from the killer, if needed. Armed with the Eathshaker cannon and a Heavy Bolter. Costs 108 ppm.
Do you get it now?
Tbh it's not me that's missing the point here, if normal basilisks have all these perks over a battery, why did people spam batteries over the basilisks? Could it be that people wanted to spam indirect high strength fire? In which case what points cost do you give it that makes both units comparable?
80 is nice and good for immobile solo gun, that can be easily killed. At least 90, if 80 feels THAT unfair. But not make it cost HIGHER that fully kited gun on track with additional weapon.
Infantryman wrote: I am rather confused about that static vs motorized artillery chance. Regardless if you ever take one model over the other or not, it just doesn't make sense from a game design perspective.
M.
Of fething course it doesn't make sense.
People arguing otherwise only demonstrate a complete lack of understanding for game design and balance.
This.
You realize I'm disagreeing with you, right?
The decision GW made was pants on head slowed. An earthshaker platform should cost less than a basilisk. Making it cost more ensure it will never see the table.
No, i dont, coz i stand for the same as you. Immobile solo gun MUST cost less then fully kited basilisk.
I think everyone is forgetting that the basilisk is a degrading platform for BS. That alone makes it worth less than earthshaker carriages and batteries. Or at least make them equal in points and force a choice of durability or reliability. I still think carriages are better.
Luciferian wrote: Sarcastic assumptions of dart-throwing and coin-flipping aside, I wonder how GWactually decides point values. Is there some kind of formula based on stats that serves as a general guideline? Is it a result of a hierarchy that revealed itself in playtesting? I find it hard to believe that they're just randomly tweaking things around, even though the changes in Chapter Approved do really seem that arbitrary. In any case, it's impossible to form an objective opinion about any one of these changes without either knowing how GW assigns point values or having a bunch of statistical data about how each unit performs in different situations.
The ITC tournament ranking system collects massive amounts of data in regards to army performance.
GW is looking at aggregate faction performance, as well as performance in major tournaments.
For instance, you see that pretty much the same exact Imperial Guard list has been winning tournaments since 8th dropped, even after all of their nerfs, and the only true competitor is Chaos, because of Magnus, Malefic Lords, and a couple good but not OP units.
Nerfs to Guard are really no surprise if you've played even 1 competitive game of 40k since 8th dropped. It is incredibly strong and most armies have actually no chance against them. It's not good for the game if Necrons and Tyranids NEVER WIN A TOURNAMENT, and AM/IG, or IG Soup'd marines, win basically every event?
That "very specific situation" is actually not very specific at all. Or do you think there's no demand for wheeled gun carriage artillery models in 28mm sci-fi?
Like literally you're saying "We can't be assed to get this balance right, so feth people that want options."
I hope everyone can see how that's completely unreasonable and should not be an acceptable practice.
Well, no, you're just not paying attention to the conversation. You need to be arguing that we need all these options to exist at the most competitive levels. You can still bring Earthshaker Batteries! They're still there! They're not even total garbage, especially when there's a lot of terrain around. They're just strictly worse than Basilisks.
M8, you completly missing the point. Battery MUST costs lower, then fully kited Basilisk by all means, no matter the balance/options, whatever.
I pay 108 pts for a gun, a track and a heavy bolter.
Why should i pay 115 for JUST A GUN? Is that "THE option"? Huh? Its not even balance thing, its pure madness and incompetence.
Excuse my ignorance but what's the prior points cost for the battery? Moreover you're ignoring they're smaller and easier to hide. But you know what, if you or some dude wants a civil war themed army or ww2 army or whatever, play it in theme or fluffy and points costs be damned. Don't invent a motorised carriage because you want to win at all costs, under the false guise of "fluffy theme.
Prior point cost for the Eathshaker battery was 80. Its small, cant move and easy to kill. Not it costs more then a fully kited Basilisk.
So again, pay 108 for 3 things (gun, track, heavy bolter), or 115 for one (immobile gun). This is not balance issue. At all.
Its like a girl offering you a 10$ BJ or 25$ kick in the balls. Gives you some diversity too, huh?
They were regularly spammed competitively, are you arguing that being harder to kill, mobile and a heavy bolter wasn't worth 28 pts? Or is it that it was easy to hide and could fire without line of site for volume of shots that made it spammable? It is all but 1 of those things now, you can still do it with full basilisks but they can't be as easily hidden and fractionally more expensive. What was the solution you would suggest?
About what 28 pts your are talking about?
Earthshaker battery and Basilisk is completly differents units! Read my massages before answer, please.
Battery - immobile, small, easy to kill. Armed with the Eathshaker cannon. Have costed 80. Now costs 115 ppm.
Basillisk - mobile, big, harder to kill and can move away from the killer, if needed. Armed with the Eathshaker cannon and a Heavy Bolter. Costs 108 ppm.
Do you get it now?
Tbh it's not me that's missing the point here, if normal basilisks have all these perks over a battery, why did people spam batteries over the basilisks? Could it be that people wanted to spam indirect high strength fire? In which case what points cost do you give it that makes both units comparable?
They didn't really spam batteries over basilisks in most cases. The overwhelmingly vast majority of IG tournament lists didn't include earthshaker batteries and carriages. You had some that really wanted to optimize that early game alpha strike that used them, to good effect to be fair, but they weren't super common. Most people probably would have been fine with a 10/15pt increase, but a nearly 50% increase of 35pts was...more than a wee bit ridiculous.
slargy wrote: I think everyone is forgetting that the basilisk is a degrading platform for BS. That alone makes it worth less than earthshaker carriages and batteries. Or at least make them equal in points and force a choice of durability or reliability. I still think carriages are better.
Generally if something gets to the artillery like that, Basilisk or no, it's done, and by the time the Basilisk would degrade the Earthshaker Battery/Carriage would simply be dead (fewer wounds, worse save).
I think everyone agrees that the Earthshaker platform should be less expensive than the basilisk. The problem is, how much?
For example, if people could chose between two units: Primaris Psyker and Primaris Psyker Without Weapons, what one people would chose? Logic demands that the Primaris Psyker without weapons is made cheaper, but at the end of the day, the weapons in the primaris Psyker don't give him anything for his intended purpose. So obviously people will spam the one that is cheaper and doesn't pay for weapons that it does not use.
The same can be said about the Basilisk. Why would people pay for a heavy bolter and tracks, when it is still artillery that gives you indirect fire? It isn't gonna move in 90% of the games, is durability is nearly non important, the same goes for the heavy bolter.
Of course, at least in my point of view, the solution would to make the weapon of the Earthshaker cannon less powerfull, or have some different rule or use, so they offer a slighly different tactical use, instead of being the same thing, but one paying for things that it does not use.
Vanguard and Sternguard Veterans aren't just Tacticals Marines+1 or -1, they have different weapon choices and stats. The same for IG Veterans vs Infantry vs Conscripts. They all have different tacticals niches. Basilisk vs Earthshaker don't.
Unit1126PLL wrote: People say they're concerned by stuff 'at the most competitive levels' and then say "just play your theme list somewhere not competitive!"
This is why the wedge between the competitive and casual players exist. Because competitive players are fine with betraying the theme of their army to win - and instead of wanting balance, so both can exist in the same field, they're just okay with theme armies being flat out worse for no real reason other than "is easier."
The issue is most changes affect the non-competitive players. The competitive cheesebags will just jump to the next thing and play it for a few months until it gets nerfed into the ground. It's the people who actually like their Orks, for example, or want to play Necrons and not just lose, that get fethed by these half-assed changes from GW. None of these things really affect the people the changes are done to affect (i.e. the super competitive people who break the game). For instance, that crazy Guilliman gunline went up about 115 or so points. Big deal, they just drop one of their 6 TL Assault Cannon Razorbacks, and continue to steamroll people because big whoop nothing was fixed. But then you have the person who wanted to do a Guard Penal Legion, now their army got nerfed to gak because some asshats were abusing it at tournaments.
It's a lot of bluster and bs without actually addressing any of the real underlying issues, and it's often tempered with a "Just use power level" or "Don't play Matched Play" kind of handwaving non-excuse whenever it's brought up.
Galas wrote: I think everyone agrees that the Earthshaker platform should be less expensive than the basilisk. The problem is, how much?
For example, if people could chose between two units: Primaris Psyker and Primaris Psyker Without Weapons, what one people would chose? Logic demands that the Primaris Psyker without weapons is made cheaper, but at the end of the day, the weapons in the primaris Psyker don't give him anything for his intended purpose. So obviously people will spam the one that is cheaper and doesn't pay for weapons that it does not use.
The same can be said about the Basilisk. Why would people pay for a heavy bolter and tracks, when it is still artillery that gives you indirect fire? It isn't gonna move in 90% of the games, is durability is nearly non important, the same goes for the heavy bolter.
Of course, at least in my point of view, the solution would to make the weapon of the Earthshaker cannon less powerfull, or have some different rule or use, so they offer a slighly different tactical use, instead of being the same thing, but one paying for things that it does not use.
Vanguard and Sternguard Veterans aren't just Tacticals Marines+1 or -1, they have different weapon choices and stats. The same for IG Veterans vs Infantry vs Conscripts.
This guy gets it
It's obvious it shouldn't be so much over a basilisk, but without addressing why they were taken over a basilisk you can't feasibly price them notably lower than a basilisk.
Unit1126PLL wrote: People say they're concerned by stuff 'at the most competitive levels' and then say "just play your theme list somewhere not competitive!"
This is why the wedge between the competitive and casual players exist. Because competitive players are fine with betraying the theme of their army to win - and instead of wanting balance, so both can exist in the same field, they're just okay with theme armies being flat out worse for no real reason other than "is easier."
The issue is most changes affect the non-competitive players. The competitive cheesebags will just jump to the next thing and play it for a few months until it gets nerfed into the ground. It's the people who actually like their Orks, for example, or want to play Necrons and not just lose, that get fethed by these half-assed changes from GW. None of these things really affect the people the changes are done to affect (i.e. the super competitive people who break the game). For instance, that crazy Guilliman gunline went up about 115 or so points. Big deal, they just drop one of their 6 TL Assault Cannon Razorbacks, and continue to steamroll people because big whoop nothing was fixed. But then you have the person who wanted to do a Guard Penal Legion, now their army got nerfed to gak because some asshats were abusing it at tournaments.
It's a lot of bluster and bs without actually addressing any of the real underlying issues, and it's often tempered with a "Just use power level" or "Don't play Matched Play" kind of handwaving non-excuse whenever it's brought up.
Except fluff players don't care because they're playing for the fluff, not to be competitive and the people they play against are generally going to be casual as well and won't put down Guiliman and six razorbacks.
Esmer wrote: So Conscripts now cost the same as infantry, but with worse WS, worse BS, worse LD a 50 % chance of refusing orders and no weapon options?
What's the point in taking them, then?
Same as taking immobile gun that costs MORE then artillery tank with 2 weapons.
Galas wrote: I think everyone agrees that the Earthshaker platform should be less expensive than the basilisk. The problem is, how much?
For example, if people could chose between two units: Primaris Psyker and Primaris Psyker Without Weapons, what one people would chose? Logic demands that the Primaris Psyker without weapons is made cheaper, but at the end of the day, the weapons in the primaris Psyker don't give him anything for his intended purpose. So obviously people will spam the one that is cheaper and doesn't pay for weapons that it does not use.
The same can be said about the Basilisk. Why would people pay for a heavy bolter and tracks, when it is still artillery that gives you indirect fire? It isn't gonna move in 90% of the games, is durability is nearly non important, the same goes for the heavy bolter.
Of course, at least in my point of view, the solution would to make the weapon of the Earthshaker cannon less powerfull, or have some different rule or use, so they offer a slighly different tactical use, instead of being the same thing, but one paying for things that it does not use.
Vanguard and Sternguard Veterans aren't just Tacticals Marines+1 or -1, they have different weapon choices and stats. The same for IG Veterans vs Infantry vs Conscripts.
This guy gets it
It's obvious it shouldn't be so much over a basilisk, but without addressing why they were taken over a basilisk you can't feasibly price them notably lower than a basilisk.
Galas, Your example doesnt work becuase of one simple reason: you speak about the same unit, just with different loadouts.
But we are talking about different units with the same battle role.
Esmer wrote: So Conscripts now cost the same as infantry, but with worse WS, worse BS, worse LD a 50 % chance of refusing orders and no weapon options?
Esmer wrote: So Conscripts now cost the same as infantry, but with worse WS, worse BS, worse LD a 50 % chance of refusing orders and no weapon options?
What's the point in taking them, then?
Same as taking immobile gun that costs MORE then artillery tank with 2 weapons.
Galas wrote: I think everyone agrees that the Earthshaker platform should be less expensive than the basilisk. The problem is, how much?
For example, if people could chose between two units: Primaris Psyker and Primaris Psyker Without Weapons, what one people would chose? Logic demands that the Primaris Psyker without weapons is made cheaper, but at the end of the day, the weapons in the primaris Psyker don't give him anything for his intended purpose. So obviously people will spam the one that is cheaper and doesn't pay for weapons that it does not use.
The same can be said about the Basilisk. Why would people pay for a heavy bolter and tracks, when it is still artillery that gives you indirect fire? It isn't gonna move in 90% of the games, is durability is nearly non important, the same goes for the heavy bolter.
Of course, at least in my point of view, the solution would to make the weapon of the Earthshaker cannon less powerfull, or have some different rule or use, so they offer a slighly different tactical use, instead of being the same thing, but one paying for things that it does not use.
Vanguard and Sternguard Veterans aren't just Tacticals Marines+1 or -1, they have different weapon choices and stats. The same for IG Veterans vs Infantry vs Conscripts.
This guy gets it
It's obvious it shouldn't be so much over a basilisk, but without addressing why they were taken over a basilisk you can't feasibly price them notably lower than a basilisk.
Galas, Your example doesnt work becuase of one simple reason: you speak about the same unit, just with different loadouts.
But we are talking about different units with the same battle role.
Are they different units with the same battle role? Ok. Can we change the name of the Primaris Psyker without Weapons to "Secundus Psyker"? Is the same as a Primaris Psyker but with one less LD and without weapons.
Thats the problem with the Earthshaker vs Basilisk. They are the same thing, but one has stuff on top of him that doesn't actually gives it anything. As I said, of course, the solution wasn't to make the Earthshaker more expensive than the Basilisk, but making him different enough to justify the existence of the Basilisk even if the Basilisk is more expensive.
Thats something that I have never liked, how for example the Lasscannon a Tank has on his main gun is exactly the same as a Lasscanon a Space Marine or a HWP uses. I assume if you put a Lasscanon on a Leman Russ or a Land Raider, it could be a heavier and more powerfull version of a Lasscannon. Then, they have different rules and tactical uses, instead of being the same weapon on different bodies. Because when you have units that share exactly the same tactical role without offering you tactical variety, one is gonna be more mathematically efficient.
Redundance is a big problem in Warhammer40k. And thats my only problem with FW. Many, many times they just make units that are literally a +1 or -1 version of something that already exist on GW.
Unit1126PLL wrote: People say they're concerned by stuff 'at the most competitive levels' and then say "just play your theme list somewhere not competitive!"
This is why the wedge between the competitive and casual players exist. Because competitive players are fine with betraying the theme of their army to win - and instead of wanting balance, so both can exist in the same field, they're just okay with theme armies being flat out worse for no real reason other than "is easier."
The issue is most changes affect the non-competitive players. The competitive cheesebags will just jump to the next thing and play it for a few months until it gets nerfed into the ground. It's the people who actually like their Orks, for example, or want to play Necrons and not just lose, that get fethed by these half-assed changes from GW. None of these things really affect the people the changes are done to affect (i.e. the super competitive people who break the game). For instance, that crazy Guilliman gunline went up about 115 or so points. Big deal, they just drop one of their 6 TL Assault Cannon Razorbacks, and continue to steamroll people because big whoop nothing was fixed. But then you have the person who wanted to do a Guard Penal Legion, now their army got nerfed to gak because some asshats were abusing it at tournaments.
It's a lot of bluster and bs without actually addressing any of the real underlying issues, and it's often tempered with a "Just use power level" or "Don't play Matched Play" kind of handwaving non-excuse whenever it's brought up.
Except fluff players don't care because they're playing for the fluff, not to be competitive and the people they play against are generally going to be casual as well and won't put down Guiliman and six razorbacks.
Even if you aren't playing to be competitive, nobody wants to be told when they say how they like the look and fluff of Orks that Orks are a garbage-tier faction and they had best get used to losing most of their games. That's why I say these changes affect the fluff players more, because even if you're playing another casual person, there's going to be a huge gap between let's say Eldar and Orks even without trying.
Unit1126PLL wrote: People say they're concerned by stuff 'at the most competitive levels' and then say "just play your theme list somewhere not competitive!"
This is why the wedge between the competitive and casual players exist. Because competitive players are fine with betraying the theme of their army to win - and instead of wanting balance, so both can exist in the same field, they're just okay with theme armies being flat out worse for no real reason other than "is easier."
The issue is most changes affect the non-competitive players. The competitive cheesebags will just jump to the next thing and play it for a few months until it gets nerfed into the ground. It's the people who actually like their Orks, for example, or want to play Necrons and not just lose, that get fethed by these half-assed changes from GW. None of these things really affect the people the changes are done to affect (i.e. the super competitive people who break the game). For instance, that crazy Guilliman gunline went up about 115 or so points. Big deal, they just drop one of their 6 TL Assault Cannon Razorbacks, and continue to steamroll people because big whoop nothing was fixed. But then you have the person who wanted to do a Guard Penal Legion, now their army got nerfed to gak because some asshats were abusing it at tournaments.
It's a lot of bluster and bs without actually addressing any of the real underlying issues, and it's often tempered with a "Just use power level" or "Don't play Matched Play" kind of handwaving non-excuse whenever it's brought up.
Except fluff players don't care because they're playing for the fluff, not to be competitive and the people they play against are generally going to be casual as well and won't put down Guiliman and six razorbacks.
This is more wedge-driving.
Fluff players can play both for the fluff and do it in a tournament.
Casual players bring what competitive people field to the table. So do narrative players in a lot of games. I run a narrative league and can vouch for this. People want to play for fun but they also field things that work.
People act like the lists between casual, narrative, and competitive are fundamentally different. At the core of it they're not that different, you just don't see the named big bads on the table. You can still see competitive-esque Alpha Legion tactics, just with other fun things on the table like a land raider. You can still see Guard artillery and conscript screens. You can still see 2+/4++/4+++ Nurgle Daemon princes dealing mortal wounds when they save in melee.
This game should be balanced around the competitive scene. It filters down through all the other modes and formats of play.
Marmatag wrote: Casual players bring what competitive people field to the table. So do narrative players in a lot of games. I run a narrative league and can vouch for this. People want to play for fun but they also field things that work.
People act like the lists between casual, narrative, and competitive are fundamentally different. At the core of it they're not that different, you just don't see the named big bads on the table. You can still see competitive-esque Alpha Legion tactics, just with other fun things on the table like a land raider. You can still see Guard artillery and conscript screens. You can still see 2+/4++/4+++ Nurgle Daemon princes dealing mortal wounds when they save in melee.
This game should be balanced around the competitive scene. It filters down through all the other modes and formats of play.
Essentially my point. I know we disagree about a few things Marmatag but this one I agree with you on.
I think the fundamentals of how to balance is where we disagree
Marmatag wrote: Casual players bring what competitive people field to the table. So do narrative players in a lot of games. I run a narrative league and can vouch for this. People want to play for fun but they also field things that work.
People act like the lists between casual, narrative, and competitive are fundamentally different. At the core of it they're not that different, you just don't see the named big bads on the table. You can still see competitive-esque Alpha Legion tactics, just with other fun things on the table like a land raider. You can still see Guard artillery and conscript screens. You can still see 2+/4++/4+++ Nurgle Daemon princes dealing mortal wounds when they save in melee.
This game should be balanced around the competitive scene. It filters down through all the other modes and formats of play.
Essentially my point. I know we disagree about a few things Marmatag but this one I agree with you on.
I think the fundamentals of how to balance is where we disagree
Hehe yeah.
It also happens that i entered 8th edition with what would become the two worst armies in the game.
Except fluff players don't care because they're playing for the fluff, not to be competitive and the people they play against are generally going to be casual as well and won't put down Guiliman and six razorbacks.
I consider myself a fluffy/casual player, and I don't mind that much if the units I field are not as PPM-efficient compared to what a competetive tournament player would put in a cookiecutter list.
However, when the units I like are made straight up worse than comparable units, something's wrong.
Like the Vanquisher being worse VS tanks than the regular Leman Russ - a measly 5pt reduction is an isult, as it shows they acknowledge the problem, but couldn't be arsed to actually solve it.
I don't run Earthshaker platforms, but I did appreciate them existing as a fluffy option to Basilisks. Making them more expensive than a Basilisk, which is a better unit in almost all ways, is an insult too.
Esmer wrote: So Conscripts now cost the same as infantry, but with worse WS, worse BS, worse LD a 50 % chance of refusing orders and no weapon options?
What's the point in taking them, then?
When you want to overwatch with 30 mordians or a wall of meat with the same toughness and save as infantry. There plenty of reasons if you go and look for them.
I have a theory on GW's balance logic, and why they've gone all 'Exterminatus' on certain units...
Looking at Malefic Lord, Conscripts and Earthshaker Batteries, all three have featured heavily in top table lists recently. All three have been smashed in the face with the nerfbat so hard they're no longer worth taking, compared to their alternatives. Why not just recost them to be balanced?
I think it's because certain players invested a lot into these units in order to have a significant tournament advantage, and GW wants to make these players think twice before investing money and paint on what are obviously overpowered units in the future.
Players might think twice before doubling down on spam, knowing that soon the nasty bat will be out and swinging again. I'm not advocating it as a tactic myself, but it would make sense...
Luciferian wrote: Sarcastic assumptions of dart-throwing and coin-flipping aside, I wonder how GWactually decides point values. Is there some kind of formula based on stats that serves as a general guideline? Is it a result of a hierarchy that revealed itself in playtesting? I find it hard to believe that they're just randomly tweaking things around, even though the changes in Chapter Approved do really seem that arbitrary. In any case, it's impossible to form an objective opinion about any one of these changes without either knowing how GW assigns point values or having a bunch of statistical data about how each unit performs in different situations.
A little of both. You can easily see similar weapons on models with similar BS are getting near the same costs. You can look at tanks with the same toughness and save, but different wounds and find that the point per wound is proportional. And then you'll find things like conscripts that got hit, because they may still have been seeing high use on top of recently gaining bonuses from the codex.
I see no problem in overnerfing things. I'll see a problem if in future balance patches they don't tweak them again to try to reach the "balanced" point.
If they just make things 80% more expensive and call it a day? Then thats a problem.
Hmm.. I don't think it will made him unplayable. With Honour guard tanking wounds from him and his hability to resurrect... it will be very hard, even for a competitive army to take him down in turn 1. And if they do... well... you have still the rest of your army.
I know, I know, Space Marines without Guilliman sucks, but thats a different problem that should be fixed.
I'll agree that the Swarmlord should be made more powerfull for his cost. It doesn't look as impresive as the ULTIMATE TYRANID BIO-WEAPON should be.
Esmer wrote: So Conscripts now cost the same as infantry, but with worse WS, worse BS, worse LD a 50 % chance of refusing orders and no weapon options?
What's the point in taking them, then?
When you want to overwatch with 30 mordians or a wall of meat with the same toughness and save as infantry. There plenty of reasons if you go and look for them.
You'd have to *really* look. In just about every case you're better off with just taking basic guardsmen. Mordian Conscripts are almost certainly not something that's going to be seen on any table, competitive or fluffy (conscripts have never really been a Mordian thing), you're still probably better off with basic Guardsmen and having additional weapons, better stats and more actions. You can get the wall of meat with basic guardsmen just fine.
grouchoben wrote: I have a theory on GW's balance logic, and why they've gone all 'Exterminatus' on certain units...
Looking at Malefic Lord, Conscripts and Earthshaker Batteries, all three have featured heavily in top table lists recently. All three have been smashed in the face with the nerfbat so hard they're no longer worth taking, compared to their alternatives. Why not just recost them to be balanced?
I think it's because certain players invested a lot into these units in order to have a significant tournament advantage, and GW wants to make these players think twice before investing money and paint on what are obviously overpowered units in the future.
Players might think twice before doubling down on spam, knowing that soon the nasty bat will be out and swinging again. I'm not advocating it as a tactic myself, but it would make sense...
I don't think so. Those type of people just move onto the next broken thing. They did it when razorwings were nerfed, when stormravens were nerfed, when conscripts were first nerfed, etc. they don't care what gets nerfed, they go to whatever is mathematically the best choice regardless.
Luciferian wrote: Sarcastic assumptions of dart-throwing and coin-flipping aside, I wonder how GWactually decides point values. Is there some kind of formula based on stats that serves as a general guideline? Is it a result of a hierarchy that revealed itself in playtesting? I find it hard to believe that they're just randomly tweaking things around, even though the changes in Chapter Approved do really seem that arbitrary. In any case, it's impossible to form an objective opinion about any one of these changes without either knowing how GW assigns point values or having a bunch of statistical data about how each unit performs in different situations.
A little of both. You can easily see similar weapons on models with similar BS are getting near the same costs. You can look at tanks with the same toughness and save, but different wounds and find that the point per wound is proportional. And then you'll find things like conscripts that got hit, because they may still have been seeing high use on top of recently gaining bonuses from the codex.
TBH for all intents and purposes it doesn't seem like GW has a formula. They've never indicated any sort of math inclination or anything other than spitballing. One of the designers (I think it was Simon Grant) said on the twitch stream that he didn't use math, and that when Magnus first came out in like 7th edition they "playtested" him at like 400 points first. So it really sounds like they are coming up with something, playing a game with it and going from there, but not actually doing proper playtesting (i.e. not setting up actual situations to test things, just playing a game with the unit and seeing what happens). From the fragments I've heard from people who playtested 8th, their involvement was VERY limited, and it wasn't really testing interactions but more like "Here try these models against these models, tell us what happens".
Esmer wrote: So Conscripts now cost the same as infantry, but with worse WS, worse BS, worse LD a 50 % chance of refusing orders and no weapon options?
What's the point in taking them, then?
When you want to overwatch with 30 mordians or a wall of meat with the same toughness and save as infantry. There plenty of reasons if you go and look for them.
You'd have to *really* look. In just about every case you're better off with just taking basic guardsmen. Mordian Conscripts are almost certainly not something that's going to be seen on any table, competitive or fluffy (conscripts have never really been a Mordian thing), you're still probably better off with basic Guardsmen and having additional weapons, better stats and more actions. You can get the wall of meat with basic guardsmen just fine.
And give your opponent lots of kill points. This isnt even an option.
Dispite all this nerf's Valhalla Conscripts are still *usefull*. Take 3 full squards, add commander with a special relic pistol, that give moral immunity - and move it along the table. If someone gonna shoot at conscript - then thats good, coz that firepower wont power your better units. If someone will charge you - use Valhallan special order to kill everyone, who dares go in melee with you, along with the some of our own conscripts.
Also, Mordian Conscript blob + sabre defence searchlight + Folley Fire = 278 lasgun shots with BS4+ from one single unit. Ouch.
grouchoben wrote: I have a theory on GW's balance logic, and why they've gone all 'Exterminatus' on certain units...
Looking at Malefic Lord, Conscripts and Earthshaker Batteries, all three have featured heavily in top table lists recently. All three have been smashed in the face with the nerfbat so hard they're no longer worth taking, compared to their alternatives. Why not just recost them to be balanced?
I think it's because certain players invested a lot into these units in order to have a significant tournament advantage, and GW wants to make these players think twice before investing money and paint on what are obviously overpowered units in the future.
Players might think twice before doubling down on spam, knowing that soon the nasty bat will be out and swinging again. I'm not advocating it as a tactic myself, but it would make sense...
This doesn't seem to make much sense. Ultra-competitive players are pretty indifferent between Malefic Lords at 80 points and Malefic Lords at 60 points. They're not going to use them either way. Likewise they weren't using Conscripts anymore either except possibly with a particular relic (which could have been addressed by errataing the relic to work like the new Commissar rule). The defining feature of ultra-competitive players who invest a lot in order to get a significant advantage in tournaments is that if a unit isn't significantly under-costed then it's worthless to them. Plus Conscript models can be used as Infantry, which are still great.
I still think my theory makes more sense than anything else that's been suggested -- they basically want to strike these units from the game, but don't want the backlash they'd get if they actually removed them. The only serious competitor seems to be: "they have literally no idea what they're doing".
Esmer wrote: So Conscripts now cost the same as infantry, but with worse WS, worse BS, worse LD a 50 % chance of refusing orders and no weapon options?
What's the point in taking them, then?
When you want to overwatch with 30 mordians or a wall of meat with the same toughness and save as infantry. There plenty of reasons if you go and look for them.
The Mordian special rules actually work best with PlasGun Infantry Squads, which I assume is what most people will use as their lists' backbone.
The "wall of meat" function can be fullfilled much better by naked Infantry squads now. If 3 Infantry Squads are identical in cost to one Conscript squad, there's no reason to take the latter over the former. Consider having a wall consisting of 30 conscripts vs. one consisting of three 10-man infantry squads: as it stands, having one infantry squad charged and two infantry squads in reserve and then having the two untouched squads fire FRFSRF in your turn (and maybe have the charged infantry Squad GBITF too, if it survived) is a MUCH better pay-off then having a 30-man conscript squad charged, inflicting less melee wounds, losing more guys to failed leadership and then in your turn hoping for a 50 % chance at GBITF.
Yeah, making conscripts 4ppm wasn't on itself a problem, the problem is making them the same cost as normal guardsmen. Normal guardsmen should have been made 5.
Or better, leave conscripts at 3ppm, make Gretchings 2 ppm, and rework Commisars.
But I still believe that Conscripts actually cost 3,5ppm. So GW should make the normal game size 4k points and make everything double the points, to have more room on the low end of the spectrum for balance. Then you can have 4ppm Gretchins, 5ppm Brimstones, 7ppm Conscripts, 8ppm Guardsmen, etc...
Dionysodorus wrote: The only serious competitor seems to be: "they have literally no idea what they're doing".
Which, given GW's loooong track record of incomprehensible rules/balance changes over the years and editions, would appear to be par for the course and a natural continuation of their previous work. There's too many inconsistencies in application of what units were selected and the scale of the changes to see any real pattern that shows a consistently applied line of thinking, other than GW *really* does not like Artillery units apparently.
Dispite all this nerf's Valhalla Conscripts are still *usefull*. Take 3 full squards, add commander with a special relic pistol, that give moral immunity - and move it along the table. If someone gonna shoot at conscript - then thats good, coz that firepower wont power your better units. If someone will charge you - use Valhallan special order to kill everyone, who dares go in melee with you, along with the some of our own conscripts.
Mostly they'll probably just ignore it. It's a big, slow, awkward formation that's going to be difficult to maneuver and isn't packing anything more fearsome than lasguns, and you'd need other infantry units relatively close by to make use of that. Probably the most functional use of conscripts I've seen proposed currently, but that's a lot of awkward coordination of infantry units that aren't really offering much other than physical board control and lasgun fire.
Also, Mordian Conscript blob + sabre defence searchlight + Folley Fire = 278 lasgun shots with BS4+ from one single unit. Ouch.
A Mordian Conscript blob with Volley Fire and FRFSRF (only going off on a 4+ mind you) and Sabre searchlight, at a target that's within 12" of all the conscripts, is putting out 140 Lasgun shots after exploding 6's, not 278 shots, unless I'm missing something? (If I am, please tell me). That's also not one unit, it's at least 3 acting in concert (conscripts, officer, sabre light) that only works right 50% of the time. That's 170pts to kill 7 or 8 Space Marines at point blank range assuming FRFSRF goes off.
Elbows wrote: I'm a bit curious about what this could do to Forgeworld sales. Items going from 600 something points up to 2000...that's easily in the realm of "will never purchase", etc.
To be fair if you're going to buy a titan you don't buy a titan just because you want to use it on the table; but to build and own a titan. I suspect its simply GW shifting the titan units back into Apoc and as Chapter Approved has Apoc rules within it there's no need to buy into another rules edition. Titans go up and players get Apoc rules to use them in at the same time.
I think its also about having titans in their own meta rather than having them creeping into more regular points levels whereby they can be more make or break in armies.
Meanwhile gw's own equilavents are untouched when they need nerfing.
This has zero game or balance reason and all abouts margins. Resin is less profitable. Gw is happy to sell those for modellers but want as much money to plastic as possible as it provides better margins so direct all who play game to plastic models.
Dispite all this nerf's Valhalla Conscripts are still *usefull*. Take 3 full squards, add commander with a special relic pistol, that give moral immunity - and move it along the table. If someone gonna shoot at conscript - then thats good, coz that firepower wont power your better units. If someone will charge you - use Valhallan special order to kill everyone, who dares go in melee with you, along with the some of our own conscripts.
You're probably better off with 9 naked infantry Squads if you want the Valhallan human wave now (put in a Brigade detachement, so the number of troops slots won't be an issue). 4-5 of them will easily be in the Commander's BLAM pistol range at any given time, they're more flexible in spreading out (for securing objectives, denying deepstrike and the like), have better shooting and melee and, most importantly, 100 % order reliance. Making the Commander a Master of Command and spending one CP per Round (you're fielding a Brigade so CPs won't be an issue either) will give him an order outpout of 4 per round, and you can give half the squads Voxcasters if you like, so that they can receive their orders from elsewhere.
Also, Mordian Conscript blob + sabre defence searchlight + Folley Fire = 278 lasgun shots with BS4+ from one single unit. Ouch.
Mordian naked infantry squads with guaranteed Volley Fire (by an appropriate number of officers) will do a better job here too.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's true - the best way to balance a game is to make everything the same.
But why is it so bad to have the carriage batteries be competitive? What's wrong with having a Basilisk Squadron and an Earthshaker Carriage Battery both being an option for competitive play? Why must the Basilisk always be better than the immobile battery?
I mean, why bother? GW is obviously stretched too thin as-is when it comes to supplying balanced rules for all of the units and factions. Do we really need these three very similar things? Why not just throw out two of them?
Or we could have game designers do their job rather tkan dictate player purchase patterns. Gw doesn't even pretend these are about balance. They aren't. It's all about profits. Don't kid yourself it's about balance. They don't want balance
Dispite all this nerf's Valhalla Conscripts are still *usefull*. Take 3 full squards, add commander with a special relic pistol, that give moral immunity - and move it along the table. If someone gonna shoot at conscript - then thats good, coz that firepower wont power your better units. If someone will charge you - use Valhallan special order to kill everyone, who dares go in melee with you, along with the some of our own conscripts.
You're probably better off with 9 naked infantry Squads if you want the Valhallan human wave now (put in a Brigade detachement, so the number of troops slots won't be an issue). 4-5 of them will easily be in the Commander's BLAM pistol range at any given time, they're more flexible in spreading out (for securing objectives, denying deepstrike and the like), have better shooting and melee and, most importantly, 100 % order reliance. Making the Commander a Master of Command and spending one CP per Round (you're fielding a Brigade so CPs won't be an issue either) will give him an order outpout of 4 per round, and you can give half the squads Voxcasters if you like, so that they can receive their orders from elsewhere.
Also, Mordian Conscript blob + sabre defence searchlight + Folley Fire = 278 lasgun shots with BS4+ from one single unit. Ouch.
Mordian naked infantry squads with guaranteed Volley Fire (by an appropriate number of officers) will do a better job here too.
Folley Fire is not an Order. Its a Stratagem. The Stratagem, that you can use once per turn, and only on one unit. And yet again. Tonnes of kill points for your opponent if you go Infantry Squad spam!
Except fluff players don't care because they're playing for the fluff, not to be competitive and the people they play against are generally going to be casual as well and won't put down Guiliman and six razorbacks.
Ah the false idea fluff players wouldn't be happy about balanced game. Actually it's opposite. Competive ones can easily switch army based on power so unbalance affects them less. Indeed for many part of fun is trying to figure out broken armies as part of the challenge. Fluff players have often more reasons to stick to an army
EricDominus wrote:Folley Fire is not an Order. Its a Stratagem. The Stratagem, that you can use once per turn, and only on one unit.
Oops, that's right. Still. You're trading off 1 BS, 3 LD and total order reliance for a highly situational application. Sure, you get one more shot for every 6...but you ALSO lose one shot you would have gotten for every 4 (or 3 with the light) with infantry.
So you have 30 conscripts, shooting with BS 5+ and Volley Fire, with every 6 generating one more shot. Maybe they'll get FRFSRF. MAYBE.
OTOH, you have three 10-man infantry squads with BS 4+, guaranteed FRFSRF, and one of those squads gets Volley Fire on top of that.
It just seems the safer option in most situations.
It really is the identical point cost that's the main issue here. If they had raised infantry squads to 5 pts per guy, as suggested above, but maybe reduced their weapons cost a bit, the distinction would be much clearer. You'd have the conscripts as the cannon fodder horde they are supposed to be, and infantry squads as the more versatile PlasGun/Heavy Bolter operators.
As it stands now, infantry squads are better at both special weapons versatility AND being cannon fodder than conscripts.
Not going to beat the dead horse on Conscripts since its already been mentioned a lot, but why exactly did Guard Melta get nerfed? If anything, I was expecting a points decrease for it, since in most situations Plasma was better even with its nerf on Scions and Vets. I mean, Melta: short ranged, and spitting range to get the roll twice feature. It is something that under most circumstances, Guard can't even take advantage of - dropping Scions can't get close enough to take advantage of the rerolls, Veterans need a transport (which incidentally the cheaper option got more expensive) to hope to get in range. I dunno, just seems like yet another thing that is incentivizing Plasma on Scions and to a lesser extent Veterans, as it is once again cheaper than Melta on them.
On the plus side, Power Fists got cheaper, and I have more Guardsmen equipped with Power Fists than is necessary (I think 3 or 4, though to be fair, one was a converted Steel Legion officer that came in an ebay lot).
But I still believe that Conscripts actually cost 3,5ppm. So GW should make the normal game size 4k points and make everything double the points, to have more room on the low end of the spectrum for balance. Then you can have 4ppm Gretchins, 5ppm Brimstones, 7ppm Conscripts, 8ppm Guardsmen, etc...
Oh yes this! Gw should really have done this. Frankly even better if game size would be 3k
koooaei wrote: 90% stuff we've seen so far is heading in the right direction.
Totally agree.
Hormagants still cost more than conscripts, they have a worse save, can't shoot guns. They move faster and are better in melee, but the purpose of these units is not to deal damage. Hormagants should cost 4PPM.
There are so many dumb changes in this book that GW has dispelled any notion of most balanced edition ever.
-The conscript change wasn't a nerf, it was an exterminatus from orbit. They should have nerfed the stats, not increased the points. STATS are much incremental to change.
-Meltagun change is insane, few people ever took them. Now no one will.
-Whoever wrote the community page was an idiot because Cawl went DOWN in points, making him more of an autotake than ever while punishing non Mars Forgeworld players.
-Fire Raptors (FW gunboat) is down an insane amount of points.
-GK wargear for FW Razorback and Dreadnought went up 20+ points, because you know, feth those guys.
koooaei wrote: 90% stuff we've seen so far is heading in the right direction.
Totally agree.
Hormagants still cost more than conscripts, they have a worse save, can't shoot guns. They move faster and are better in melee, but the purpose of these units is not to deal damage. Hormagants should cost 4PPM.
Hormies have synapse etc. And as for purpose basic ig troopers do same job as conscript for same price but have better ws, bs, ld, more special and heavy weapons if needed, more flexibility and are better for command points.
Conscripts have no purpose left. Before they were cheap bullet screen. Now even that infantry squad does better
To be honest I believe most of the changes to GW stuff (Not the FW, those were all over the place) were sensible. Many things need more fine tunning like Guilliman, of course, and the change to Conscripts doesn't make sense without making IG Infantry 5ppm.
Some people will say that GK sucks but I don't believe Gk can be fixed by making them cheaper. Of course, they can make them ultra-cheap but then they stop being an elite army. GK should be redone from scratch.
I'll wait 1-2 weeks for the dust to settle after this first days of hyperbole and outrage to see how all this point changes translate in the competitive meta. I'm just tired of people acting like is the end of the world with literally any change GW does. We have have the exact same reaction with all the Codexs and all the FAQ's, everyone loses their minds.
koooaei wrote: 90% stuff we've seen so far is heading in the right direction.
This kind of behavior is exactly why we ended up with this book.
Let me get it, you are Marine/Death Guard/Wolf Wolfer?
I will bet on the 3rd one. Congrats, GW has given you some bone to chump, clap-clap.
No need to be histrionic. Sorry if another poster has a different opinion from yours, but I doubt they were involved in writing or publishing Chapter Approved, so why don't you cool it with the accusatory posts unless you are at least going to back them up with something substantive?
Galas wrote: To be honest I believe most of the changes to GW stuff (Not the FW, those were all over the place) were sensible. Many things need more fine tunning like Guilliman, of course, and the change to Conscripts doesn't make sense without making IG Infantry 5ppm.
Some people will say that GK sucks but I don't believe Gk can be fixed by making them cheaper. Of course, they can make them ultra-cheap but then they stop being an elite army. GK should be redone from scratch.
I'll wait 1-2 weeks for the dust to settle after this first days of hyperbole and outrage to see how all this point changes translate in the competitive meta. I'm just tired of people acting like is the end of the world with literally any change GW does. We have have the exact same reaction with all the Codexs and all the FAQ's, everyone loses their minds.
Stop trying to bash poor guard back into the abyss! 5 ppm is WAY too much for what guardsman can do. Just stop it.
Actually I have said that Conscripts cost at least for me 3,5 points, and that the low end of the point costs spectrum needs more room for more fine balance. Or you end with things like Gretchins and Brimstones costing the same as a Conscript before the nerf, that don't make any sense. Or conscripts costing the same as IG Infantry. Because when something cost 3 points the smallest change you can do is a 33% change in their cost.
And no, I'm not trying to bash poor guard back into the abyss. Just as in 7th I didn't tried to bash Tau, Eldar and Daemons into the abyss. But I'm not gonna fall for any kind of victimhood, sorry.
Galas wrote: Actually I have said that Conscripts cost at least for me 3,5 points, and that the low end of the point costs spectrum needs more room for more fine balance. Or you end with things like Gretchins and Brimstones costing the same as a Conscript before the nerf, that don't make any sense. Or conscripts costing the same as IG Infantry. Because when something cost 3 points the smallest change you can do is a 33% change in their cost.
And no, I'm not trying to bash poor guard back into the abyss. Just as in 7th I didn't tried to bash Tau, Eldar and Daemons into the abyss. But I'm not gonna fall for any kind of victimhood, sorry.
More room for more balance can also bring D12, instead D6, but some thinks just never gonna happen...
The only victims here is IG players, and, suddenly, GW (and FW) itself, coz no one now gonna buy hundreds of infantry models. Just a couple of dozens.
Esmer wrote: So Conscripts now cost the same as infantry, but with worse WS, worse BS, worse LD a 50 % chance of refusing orders and no weapon options?
What's the point in taking them, then?
When you want to overwatch with 30 mordians or a wall of meat with the same toughness and save as infantry. There plenty of reasons if you go and look for them.
You'd have to *really* look. In just about every case you're better off with just taking basic guardsmen. Mordian Conscripts are almost certainly not something that's going to be seen on any table, competitive or fluffy (conscripts have never really been a Mordian thing), you're still probably better off with basic Guardsmen and having additional weapons, better stats and more actions. You can get the wall of meat with basic guardsmen just fine.
Yeah, there's no reason to take conscripts any more. Just take guardsmen instead.
30 conscripts at 12" vs MEQ: 60 shots, 20 hits, 6.667 wounds, 2.222 kills.
30 guardsmen at 12" vs MEQ: 57 shots, 28.5 hits, 9.5 wounds, 3.167 kills.
And that's purely with lasguns. Add in some other weapon and the guardsmen benefit even more. You can try to use FRFSRF to make up the difference for the conscripts.. though FRFSRF on the three guard squads is much better, and getting extra orders is super-cheap anyway-- or you can instead give your guardsmen plasmaguns and have them Take Aim, so they can fire overcharged shots with basically no risk. Or if you just need them as meat shields, give them flamers, and watch their damage output at short range soar without needing orders, and they get auto-hits on overwatch too.
Arachnofiend wrote: To be fair, a guardsman is flatly better than a cultist despite being the same cost.
We could arguee about perfect unbalance, and how Cultists are chaff in a "elite" army, but with 8th ally sistem it doesn't matter anymore.
Meh, all armies are chaff armies in 8th and armies that don't have chaff are auxiliaries to armies that do. Trust me, I've tried my damndest to run armies with no chaff and it simply does not work.
Man, is Chapter Approved some kind of fanfiction-ruleset by some... random dude?
Or is it actually released by GW? Anyway, it doesn't seem to serve any actual purpose. They just felt like changing some... stuff. No matter what it is but they just didn't care.
Things were already just fine. The only thing that wasn't fine was the fact that some of the Codexes haven't been released yet. Give it some time and it'll be alright.
We could have better and more honest discussion if people stoped trying to shame and do cheap ad-hominems to players based in the armies they play. Most of the time they didn't even are right because in the general imaginarium every player that says something bad about IG is a Space Marine player.
Answer to what people said, not attack the one saying it.
For the most part it looks fine to me. All the arch Daemon princes went back to the points they've pretty much been at since 4th (888 for the Khorne, 777 for nurgle, 666 for slaanesh) except the tzeench one. Other than that the LOW tank choices for chaos(and vanilla Marines) made drastic increases. Also for some reason the Xiphon went up. No matter, it still seems playable in my eyes. I don't play that often and when I do, I just try to have a good time playing with my toys.
Except fluff players don't care because they're playing for the fluff, not to be competitive and the people they play against are generally going to be casual as well and won't put down Guiliman and six razorbacks.
Ah the false idea fluff players wouldn't be happy about balanced game. Actually it's opposite. Competive ones can easily switch army based on power so unbalance affects them less. Indeed for many part of fun is trying to figure out broken armies as part of the challenge. Fluff players have often more reasons to stick to an army
Where did I say fluff players would be unhappy about a balanced game?
Well, and I just said that everything was balanced.... Where these changes written by a drunk or are GW really just that stupid as to think Conscripts are as good as regular Guardsmen, slower, squishier and less-well-armed artillery needs to cost more than a mobile, tougher and better armed version and that anyone would ever bring Melta at these points values?
Then again, some people will never be happy until Guard players are shelving their armies again.
Pretty happy overall. Problems include not having Tau or Necrons since they won't be out for several months. The FW changes are like someone took a dart board with up or down as the targets with really no reasoning. Totally good with the malific lord change and I ran them to a local tournie win. Those are stilll well priced when you look a magus or even other a libby since they have two mortal wound powers, still keep their invul, and can still go super-saiyan.
Tygre wrote: Maybe Guard should be raised back up to 5pts IF Marines are raised back up to 15pts.
Guard Infantry can be raised up to 5 points when Commissars are restored to their pre-nerf abilities and Conscripts have the "Raw Recruits" rule removed from them.
Tygre wrote: Maybe Guard should be raised back up to 5pts IF Marines are raised back up to 15pts.
In this edition, is one marine equal to three guardsmen? Marines seem worse than that.
I just wish there was an attempt to balance the game around unit-to-unit comparisons instead of these vague measures of whole army performance, which do nothing for internal balance. It should be clear that equal points of guardsmen should have certain advantages and disadvantages compared to equal points of marines or conscripts.
The designers should communicate these goals. I don't even know what each army's advantage is supposed to be any more. It's all about whichever units are currently overpowered.
What I do find strange is that things like Guard/Space Marine Missile Launchers appear to be staying the same points cost.
It is very obvious that it is an inferior choice to both Lascannons or Heavy Bolters, and it's "versatility" is a joke at best.
Or the fact that Grav weaponry seems to be paying for it's crimes against the universe in 7th edition by being lackluster at best in almost every scenario.
I personally wouldn't have been opposed to a 2 point increase for Plasma Guns across all armies (and avoid the silly Guard BS 3+ cost), a 1 point decrease for Flamers, a 2 point decrease for all Meltaguns and Plasma Cannons, and a 4 point reduction for Multi-Meltas.
I also don't mind the increase on Assault Cannons and Hurricane Bolters, but the lack of attention in addressing the points costs of things like the Land Raider Crusader which are overcosted to begin with, is a bit disheartening.
Guilliman really needed a far bigger points increase than what he got. He is still a no-brainer and makes almost every other Chapter seem like a far worse option. He should have gotten a 50 point increase at a minimum, along with the increase in points costs to the Assault Cannon and Hurricane Bolter.
Guilliman really needed a far bigger points increase than what he got. He is still a no-brainer and makes almost every other Chapter seem like a far worse option. He should have gotten a 50 point increase at a minimum, along with the increase in points costs to the Assault Cannon and Hurricane Bolter.
Hurricane bolter went up 6.
Asscan went up 1. Twin went up 7 as you know.
The Ork changes were all moves in the right direction. Many didn't go far enough, while a couple went too far (both up and down) and quite a few seem about right.
The more surprising thing was how many things didn't get changed, and what they prioritized changing, but our Codex hasn't come out yet so it isn't worth freaking out over. I'm still in wait and see mode, and I'm still cautiously optimistic.
There wasn't an Ork nerf. Every single thing they listed was a point drop. But I suppose when the GW hate train is rolling you'll see anything you want to see.
Except for the killtank which went up by a lot, not that it really matters.
I stand corrected - though on a FW unit that I've never see make a list. And it was half the cost of a Baneblade base for nearly the same stats.
The Kill Tank isn't in the same league as a Baneblade, it's actually pretty close to a Land Raider both in terms of its role and how powerful it is.
The Kill Tank is a little better than a Land Raider, but not a lot better. The Land Raider is more durable and a little bit better at shooting. The Kill Tank is a little bit faster, a little bit better of a transport* and significantly better in melee. The Kill Tank used to be ~50 points cheaper than the Land Raider, which meant it was undercosted. Now it is ~50 points more expensive than a Land Raider, which I think means it is overcosted but closer to fairly costed than it was before the change.
To be honest, I'm basing its cost entirely on comparing it to a Land Raider. I don't know if the Land Raider is currently appropriately costed or not.
*It's a better transport because it holds 12 instead of 10 and has the Hang On! rule. People might make a big deal out of that rule because it allows embarked units to shoot, but really that is not as big of an advantage as it may seem. Embarked units only hit on 6s, so anything other than Burnas and Kombi-Skorchas isn't going to do much. To use Burnas or Kombi-Skorchas the Kill Tank has to get within 8", which is generally a bad idea when dealing with the units that Burnas and Kombi-Skorchas are good against. The Kill Tank is very good at melee, but only relative to other vehicles and it is much better on the charge. Charging into most infantry would be a horrible waste of the Kill Tank, as it is still primarily a gun platform and it can't fall back and shoot. Plus, anything worth shooting with Burnas or Kombi-Skorchas is probably something that it would be worth disembarking and charging with Burna Boyz or Nobz anyway. The best use of the Kill Tank's melee is ramming vehicles that can outshoot it (like Land Raiders and 4x lascannon Predators), and shooting those with Burnas or Kombi-Skorchas is mostly a waste.
Galas wrote: I think everyone agrees that the Earthshaker platform should be less expensive than the basilisk. The problem is, how much?
For example, if people could chose between two units: Primaris Psyker and Primaris Psyker Without Weapons, what one people would chose? Logic demands that the Primaris Psyker without weapons is made cheaper, but at the end of the day, the weapons in the primaris Psyker don't give him anything for his intended purpose. So obviously people will spam the one that is cheaper and doesn't pay for weapons that it does not use.
The same can be said about the Basilisk. Why would people pay for a heavy bolter and tracks, when it is still artillery that gives you indirect fire? It isn't gonna move in 90% of the games, is durability is nearly non important, the same goes for the heavy bolter.
Of course, at least in my point of view, the solution would to make the weapon of the Earthshaker cannon less powerfull, or have some different rule or use, so they offer a slighly different tactical use, instead of being the same thing, but one paying for things that it does not use.
Vanguard and Sternguard Veterans aren't just Tacticals Marines+1 or -1, they have different weapon choices and stats. The same for IG Veterans vs Infantry vs Conscripts. They all have different tacticals niches. Basilisk vs Earthshaker don't.
I find it interesting that everyone goes on and on about the Basilisk having a move (which you don't want to use), a Heavy Bolter (that doesn't really matter for why you purchased it), and more durability (when you really want it out of LOS to avoid all attacks if possible), but no one mentions the Earthshaker Battery's ability to fire when within 1" of enemy models (which is much better than needing to run away from pesky chargers) and the fact you can shoot models that are within 1" of the ESB (much better way to get rid of pesky infantry than running away). So unless engaged by infantry that can actually do much damage to a T7 4+ AS target, the Battery is better able to do it's job and be rescued than a Basilisk.
Esmer wrote: So Conscripts now cost the same as infantry, but with worse WS, worse BS, worse LD a 50 % chance of refusing orders and no weapon options?
What's the point in taking them, then?
When you want to overwatch with 30 mordians or a wall of meat with the same toughness and save as infantry. There plenty of reasons if you go and look for them.
You'd have to *really* look. In just about every case you're better off with just taking basic guardsmen. Mordian Conscripts are almost certainly not something that's going to be seen on any table, competitive or fluffy (conscripts have never really been a Mordian thing), you're still probably better off with basic Guardsmen and having additional weapons, better stats and more actions. You can get the wall of meat with basic guardsmen just fine.
Yeah, there's no reason to take conscripts any more. Just take guardsmen instead.
30 conscripts at 12" vs MEQ: 60 shots, 20 hits, 6.667 wounds, 2.222 kills.
30 guardsmen at 12" vs MEQ: 57 shots, 28.5 hits, 9.5 wounds, 3.167 kills.
And that's purely with lasguns. Add in some other weapon and the guardsmen benefit even more. You can try to use FRFSRF to make up the difference for the conscripts.. though FRFSRF on the three guard squads is much better, and getting extra orders is super-cheap anyway-- or you can instead give your guardsmen plasmaguns and have them Take Aim, so they can fire overcharged shots with basically no risk. Or if you just need them as meat shields, give them flamers, and watch their damage output at short range soar without needing orders, and they get auto-hits on overwatch too.
There is an IG relic that makes for an old school Commissar.
Esmer wrote: So Conscripts now cost the same as infantry, but with worse WS, worse BS, worse LD a 50 % chance of refusing orders and no weapon options?
What's the point in taking them, then?
When you want to overwatch with 30 mordians or a wall of meat with the same toughness and save as infantry. There plenty of reasons if you go and look for them.
You'd have to *really* look. In just about every case you're better off with just taking basic guardsmen. Mordian Conscripts are almost certainly not something that's going to be seen on any table, competitive or fluffy (conscripts have never really been a Mordian thing), you're still probably better off with basic Guardsmen and having additional weapons, better stats and more actions. You can get the wall of meat with basic guardsmen just fine.
Yeah, there's no reason to take conscripts any more. Just take guardsmen instead.
30 conscripts at 12" vs MEQ: 60 shots, 20 hits, 6.667 wounds, 2.222 kills. 30 guardsmen at 12" vs MEQ: 57 shots, 28.5 hits, 9.5 wounds, 3.167 kills.
And that's purely with lasguns. Add in some other weapon and the guardsmen benefit even more. You can try to use FRFSRF to make up the difference for the conscripts.. though FRFSRF on the three guard squads is much better, and getting extra orders is super-cheap anyway-- or you can instead give your guardsmen plasmaguns and have them Take Aim, so they can fire overcharged shots with basically no risk. Or if you just need them as meat shields, give them flamers, and watch their damage output at short range soar without needing orders, and they get auto-hits on overwatch too.
There is an IG relic that makes for an old school Commissar.
After thinking a bit about it, i approve the new conscipt cost. Why? Because as the arguments presented are showing, conscripts are "almost but not quite" as good as regulard guards, because the fact that they have big numbers somehow can balance out the bonuses of a regular guard. Should the conscripts cost as much as regular guard? Probably not. Should they cost 25% less than a regular guard? No, they shouldn't. Conscripts are closer to the 4 points cost mark than they are to the 3 points mark, so bringing them up to 4 is the correct choice. "But you are removing them from the codex like this!!!" No, you are not. You are still going to use them in those niche situations where conscripts perform better than regular guards, if we are talking about competitive lists. If we are talking about regular gaming, then there is nothing unusual in choosing a unit while knowing that you could have done slighly better with a different selection. Come on, we are making this sound like bringing conscripts instead of guards is like shooting your leg, but the difference is actually really small.
Galas wrote: To be honest I believe most of the changes to GW stuff (Not the FW, those were all over the place) were sensible. Many things need more fine tunning like Guilliman, of course, and the change to Conscripts doesn't make sense without making IG Infantry 5ppm.
Some people will say that GK sucks but I don't believe Gk can be fixed by making them cheaper. Of course, they can make them ultra-cheap but then they stop being an elite army. GK should be redone from scratch.
.
Gw stuff that don't make sense. Not even complete&
Coscript
Ig melta
Why ig plasma left untouched?
Vanquisher. That's it?
Wyvern
Where's help for flamers and grenade launchers? Gw really wants us to use only plasma?
Ork way too little help
Ig psykers. Malefic lords get 100% hike, there only few. Well guess that's fw tax. Gw wants gamers not buy resin
Saint, guillimann. Way too small. Easy to see they are gw plastic. Were they fw resin would have been like double price
No hike for shadowsword? Hell no price hike for any baneblade chassis makes fw hikes even more blatant cash grab
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RedCommander wrote: Man, is Chapter Approved some kind of fanfiction-ruleset by some... random dude?
Or is it actually released by GW? Anyway, it doesn't seem to serve any actual purpose. They just felt like changing some... stuff. No matter what it is but they just didn't care.
Things were already just fine. The only thing that wasn't fine was the fact that some of the Codexes haven't been released yet. Give it some time and it'll be alright.
It was very deliberate changes. You just assumed changes were for balance when it's marketing tactic to drive gamers money from resin to higher margin plastics. It's money driven changes.
After thinking a bit about it, i approve the new conscipt cost. Why? Because as the arguments presented are showing, conscripts are "almost but not quite" as good as regulard guards, because the fact that they have big numbers somehow can balance out the bonuses of a regular guard. Should the conscripts cost as much as regular guard? Probably not. Should they cost 25% less than a regular guard? No, they shouldn't.
Conscripts are closer to the 4 points cost mark than they are to the 3 points mark, so bringing them up to 4 is the correct choice.
"But you are removing them from the codex like this!!!" No, you are not. You are still going to use them in those niche situations where conscripts perform better than regular guards, if we are talking about competitive lists. If we are talking about regular gaming, then there is nothing unusual in choosing a unit while knowing that you could have done slighly better with a different selection. Come on, we are making this sound like bringing conscripts instead of guards is like shooting your leg, but the difference is actually really small.
What edge cases make Conscripts as good as regular guardsmen? Normally I'd say that they're better because large squads can get more mileage out of buffs, but the most noteworthy buff available to Guard is orders, and Conscripts are not good with orders thanks to missing them half the time. This still leaves psychic buffs, but that's about the only case, and even then it's only so-so: You don't want to buff your screen units with one-use-per-turn abilities, you want to buff your valuable units that'll benefit a lot more.
Also, the ability to take MSU is a huge boon for regular guardsmen. Back when Conscripts were still the superior choice by a fair margin (pre-codex, basically,) I still saw players taking infantry squads just to save points on a cheap Troop Tax in order to get command points. Gone are the days of being worried about running out of slots, nowadays the game is all about bringing as many units as possible to get command points. (ESPECIALLY troops.) This makes the small squad size of Infantry squads even more of a boon.
Conscripts are stuck with cumbersome squad sizes, the inability to use the most common and powerful buff reliably, worse BS, WS, and Ld. All they get in exchange is... The ability to have more than ten guys. Which isn't even an advantage 99% of the time.
Really, Conscripts didn't need much of a nerf after the Commissar change. At most, they needed some kind of limitation on how many you could take in Matched Play. (Like, one Conscript squad per Infantry squad.)
Tyranid Malanthropes jumped up 50 points. Now are 140. I expected a paints hike but not that far. A fully kitted out Carnifex is cheaper, and does more than a Malanthrope does. And if it was the question of cheap synapse, they JUST released a cheaper HQ option with 2 psychic casts, can heal itself with a full smite, has a 3++, and is untargetable for 70 points.
Mr ghoti wrote: Tyranid Malanthropes jumped up 50 points. Now are 140. I expected a paints hike but not that far. A fully kitted out Carnifex is cheaper, and does more than a Malanthrope does. And if it was the question of cheap synapse, they JUST released a cheaper HQ option with 2 psychic casts, can heal itself with a full smite, has a 3++, and is untargetable for 70 points.
Shrouding Spores is why people were taking the Malanthrope, and its why the Malanthrope went up in cost. I expect the Changeling to see a similar price hike come Codex: Daemons.
Point changes after codex release is a slap into the customer's face.
The point range is a bit strange and brings GW under pressure.
E.g. should a Voidveawer be 69 pts or 60 or 80 pts. Makes not much sense.
We have seen such point ranges in the first ed of WMH. They changed it in the 2nd ed narrowing down to a very small range which was quite good. In the 3rd incarnation they increased the range a bit but it is still reasonable.
Weazel wrote: Did anyone else notice IG plasmagun spam was "fixed" on FW side of things but not on Codex side? Feels like a botched copy&paste job to me...
The codex contains altered plasma point values by BS already. CA is expanding the plasma cost split to melta and bringing FW in line.
What else do you want from IG plasma? It already received a big price hike. Do you no longer want to see it around?
This melta change was 100% expected, it brings it in line with the cost of plasma.
After thinking a bit about it, i approve the new conscipt cost. Why? Because as the arguments presented are showing, conscripts are "almost but not quite" as good as regulard guards, because the fact that they have big numbers somehow can balance out the bonuses of a regular guard. Should the conscripts cost as much as regular guard? Probably not. Should they cost 25% less than a regular guard? No, they shouldn't.
Conscripts are closer to the 4 points cost mark than they are to the 3 points mark, so bringing them up to 4 is the correct choice.
"But you are removing them from the codex like this!!!" No, you are not. You are still going to use them in those niche situations where conscripts perform better than regular guards, if we are talking about competitive lists. If we are talking about regular gaming, then there is nothing unusual in choosing a unit while knowing that you could have done slighly better with a different selection. Come on, we are making this sound like bringing conscripts instead of guards is like shooting your leg, but the difference is actually really small.
What edge cases make Conscripts as good as regular guardsmen? Normally I'd say that they're better because large squads can get more mileage out of buffs, but the most noteworthy buff available to Guard is orders, and Conscripts are not good with orders thanks to missing them half the time. This still leaves psychic buffs, but that's about the only case, and even then it's only so-so: You don't want to buff your screen units with one-use-per-turn abilities, you want to buff your valuable units that'll benefit a lot more.
Also, the ability to take MSU is a huge boon for regular guardsmen. Back when Conscripts were still the superior choice by a fair margin (pre-codex, basically,) I still saw players taking infantry squads just to save points on a cheap Troop Tax in order to get command points. Gone are the days of being worried about running out of slots, nowadays the game is all about bringing as many units as possible to get command points. (ESPECIALLY troops.) This makes the small squad size of Infantry squads even more of a boon.
Conscripts are stuck with cumbersome squad sizes, the inability to use the most common and powerful buff reliably, worse BS, WS, and Ld. All they get in exchange is... The ability to have more than ten guys. Which isn't even an advantage 99% of the time.
Really, Conscripts didn't need much of a nerf after the Commissar change. At most, they needed some kind of limitation on how many you could take in Matched Play. (Like, one Conscript squad per Infantry squad.)
From playing tyranids i can tell you that +1 armor on a wall of 30 conscripts is something i really fear, to make an example. With the cover stratagem they can now survive a devilbomb and correctly screen your units, where 40 guardsmen would have died. Yes, they will melt like snow when morale kicks in, but i couldn't charge past them in that turn, which is all that matters.
What else do you want from IG plasma? It already received a big price hike. Do you no longer want to see it around?
This melta change was 100% expected, it brings it in line with the cost of plasma.
To me the melta change was not at all expected. One of the quirks of 8th edition is that flamers and melta competes poorly with plasma. In theory each of the three has its niche, but plasma is simply too good vs tanks and too decent vs infantry to bring anything else. And on top of that, there are simply too many ways of getting around the dangers of overcharging.
The fallout from the above is that all two-wound models has struggled from the onset of the edition (as well as for other reasons).
That's why I find the melta-nerf puzzling. Now they are almost as expensive as las-cannons.
What they should have done was make Conscripts 4 points like the regular guardsmen, but give them two rules:
1. Conscripts cannot be affected by any positive modifiers to their leadership, cannot replace their leadership with that of another unit's and cannot be affected by any abilities or stratagems that would otherwise allow a unit to automatically pass or ignore a morale check. Conscripts do not count for the purposes of contesting objectives, victory points, and victory conditions.
2. Conscript units that are entirely destroyed may, at the end of their controlling player's movement phase, be redeployed up to 12" from their controlling player's table edge, and more than 9" away from any enemy models. This does not cost reinforcement points.
There you go. Now they have a fluffy use that functions entirely differently from infantry squads, while still having the potential to be useful.
I find it interesting that everyone goes on and on about the Basilisk having a move (which you don't want to use), a Heavy Bolter (that doesn't really matter for why you purchased it), and more durability (when you really want it out of LOS to avoid all attacks if possible), but no one mentions the Earthshaker Battery's ability to fire when within 1" of enemy models (which is much better than needing to run away from pesky chargers) and the fact you can shoot models that are within 1" of the ESB (much better way to get rid of pesky infantry than running away). So unless engaged by infantry that can actually do much damage to a T7 4+ AS target, the Battery is better able to do it's job and be rescued than a Basilisk.
I find it interesting you're making this argument, because the Carriage Battery lacks this rule and still went up to 121 points, fully furnished with mandatory crew. This one lacks the mobility, toughness and heavy bolter from the Basilisk, but it also requires crew within 3" (although they are protected from shooting like characters, they still die quite easily and if it has no crew within 6", you lose the entire unit). It is slightly smaller than a Basilisk, although longer, and I doubt much terrain which would be able to conceal the Basilisk can conceal the Carriage Battery. It also cannot benefit from Master of Ordnance etc.
Could it be argued that the Earthshaker Battery has some pro's compared to the Basilisk? Absolutely, it shouldn't cost almost 30 points less. But should it cost 7 points more for an arguably inferior unit? Probably not. However, the Carriage Battery only has its smaller footprint and height, but still costs more than a Basilisk. I would have been content if both the Medusa Carriage and Earthshaker Carriage went to 100 points each, but having it cost more than a Basilisk is just silly.
alextroy wrote: I find it interesting that everyone goes on and on about the Basilisk having a move (which you don't want to use), a Heavy Bolter (that doesn't really matter for why you purchased it), and more durability (when you really want it out of LOS to avoid all attacks if possible), but no one mentions the Earthshaker Battery's ability to fire when within 1" of enemy models (which is much better than needing to run away from pesky chargers) and the fact you can shoot models that are within 1" of the ESB (much better way to get rid of pesky infantry than running away). So unless engaged by infantry that can actually do much damage to a T7 4+ AS target, the Battery is better able to do it's job and be rescued than a Basilisk.
This is blatantly inconsistent and biased. You're dismissing the advantages of the Basilisk on the assumption that you're always out of LOS and never moving or using your secondary weapons or taking shot, but then you give the static artillery credit for an ability that only works if your opponent not only gains LOS, but successfully charges the battery. You can't have it both ways. And you certainly can't just handwave away the durability issues by assuming that it's somehow rare for units to be able to hurt T7/4+ models in an edition where everything wounds on at least a 6+ and deep striking is easy. I certainly know which unit I'd rather have when my opponent can drop plasma units directly into rapid fire range of my artillery...
Maybe they decided that there is really no place for conscripts -- that the unit was a mistake in the first place -- and so just opted to effectively remove them.
Alcibiades wrote: Maybe they decided that there is really no place for conscripts -- that the unit was a mistake in the first place -- and so just opted to effectively remove them.
In which case they should have just made a point of actually saying that. A statement to say that this was not how they intended on designing the game to be played, and an explanation of the direction they do want to move forward in, in order to encourage some actual faith in their decisions, which now just come off as either entirely senseless, to outright malicious.
They also should have said that of every god damned Forgeworld entry in the book.
Alcibiades wrote: Maybe they decided that there is really no place for conscripts -- that the unit was a mistake in the first place -- and so just opted to effectively remove them.
In which case they should have just made a point of actually saying that. A statement to say that this was not how they intended on designing the game to be played, and an explanation of the direction they do want to move forward in, in order to encourage some actual faith in their decisions, which now just come off as either entirely senseless, to outright malicious.
They also should have said that of every god damned Forgeworld entry in the book.
Agree with this; GW's design team needs to be a bit more open about things. When I played Warmachine/Hordes I liked how they would have an article before a nerf explaining WHY it was being nerfed and saying their vision; you still got the people gnashing teeth over it, but at least they could see the reasons behind it. GW's logic and adjustments seem to be just random potshotting with neither rhyme nor reason to them, so people are left scratching their heads at just why X was nerfed but the similar Y was not, or why X was increased by 50% and Y was increased by 35%. If they explained their logic and reasoning it might assuage some of the fears... of course, GW being GW it might equally just out them for being clueless incompetents.
koooaei wrote: 90% stuff we've seen so far is heading in the right direction.
This kind of behavior is exactly why we ended up with this book.
Let me get it, you are Marine/Death Guard/Wolf Wolfer?
I will bet on the 3rd one. Congrats, GW has given you some bone to chump, clap-clap.
I'm an ork player. I got nice price cuts for poer klaws. You can't realistically have 'everything' viable. Get happy with what good you actually get. Like for me there's now a way to field part of those 15 meganobz that i have in casual games without auto-loosing. 12 pt price cuts per model is nice. Who cares if those other price cuts don't fix anything and strategems are close to useless. I got something good and i'm gona use it.
koooaei wrote: 90% stuff we've seen so far is heading in the right direction.
This kind of behavior is exactly why we ended up with this book.
Let me get it, you are Marine/Death Guard/Wolf Wolfer?
I will bet on the 3rd one. Congrats, GW has given you some bone to chump, clap-clap.
I'm an ork player. I got nice price cuts for poer klaws. You can't realistically have 'everything' viable. Get happy with what good you actually get. Like for me there's now a way to field part of those 15 meganobz that i have in casual games without auto-loosing. 12 pt price cuts per model is nice. Who cares if those other price cuts don't fix anything and strategems are close to useless. I got something good and i'm gona use it.
It was a step in the right direction, but it was a tiny step. PKs are still crap, they just aren't expensive crap anymore.
Price reductions for the SW units were absolutely needed. I couldn't see a SW army being played like it was a SM one with tons of razorbacks and long fangs and no sign of wulfen or TWC. SW are suppposed to be an assault oriented army, not a gunline.
Only dreads were quite effective and they now cost more, which is appropriate.
Making wulfen, wolf guard terminators and TWC more viable was necessary. Just like making razorbacks with twin assault cannons 15ish points more expensive.
Looks like the IG haters got their wish. And facebook has been dreadful with all the people gleefully using Chapter Approved as some kind of way of proving the IG codex was OP.
Anyways, the vast majority of these changes are either token, or downright insulting or done to appease certain players. While I'm not personally affected much by these "balances" it's certainly eye opening to the eye of insanity...
Very true, I am just done with GW's "Better then nothing" approach to orkz. Last year I said I would not buy a single item from GW until they unfethed themselves. So far ive spent a grand total of $0 on GW in over a year. I have bought models, but only from players quitting. I will gladly support a hobby that is doing good work, but right now I feel they aren't.
On the Earthshaker vs Basilisk discussion, I see 2 things.
1.) The battery obviously needed a points increase. If spamming being able to take 4 for every 3 basilisks (or just have more points for other things) is a pretty big deal. I would rather have 4 of the main gun then 3 heavy bolters. As the main gun is the reason I'm buying the thing.
2.) The reason they got over nerfed(and I think this may apply to Malefic lords and even conscripts, which don't have models) is that many people were not using the official models instead buying cheap ww2 artillery models as stand ins. If I can spam 4 carriages for the monetary cost of 1 basilisk why buy the GW model? From GWs standpoint why would they want that to be a thing? At their current point cost so one who bought the FW model because they love the model can still use it and it will be an effective though slightly suboptimal choice, but the competitive scene that is min maxing aren't going to fill the board with cheap replacement models.
I haven't seen anyone say the statlines are the same. The guns are the same, but as everyone has generally acknowledged the Earthshaker is less durable. It has 4 fewer wounds, and a 4+ save instead of 3+, and of course a movement value of 0".
What people have been saying is that none of those stats justify paying *more* than a Basilisk would cost. Which is of course absolutely right, because they're all lower!
Breng77 wrote: 2.) The reason they got over nerfed(and I think this may apply to Malefic lords and even conscripts, which don't have models) is that many people were not using the official models instead buying cheap ww2 artillery models as stand ins. If I can spam 4 carriages for the monetary cost of 1 basilisk why buy the GW model? From GWs standpoint why would they want that to be a thing? At their current point cost so one who bought the FW model because they love the model can still use it and it will be an effective though slightly suboptimal choice, but the competitive scene that is min maxing aren't going to fill the board with cheap replacement models.
This is a profoundly stupid reason if it is true. Model sales should never determine game design, period. If GW genuinely did this then everyone involved should be fired for incompetence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote: 1.) The battery obviously needed a points increase. If spamming being able to take 4 for every 3 basilisks (or just have more points for other things) is a pretty big deal. I would rather have 4 of the main gun then 3 heavy bolters. As the main gun is the reason I'm buying the thing.
It's not just the heavy bolters. It's greatly reduced durability if anything gets to shoot at your artillery, zero ability to move if they're in a bad position, and the missing secondary weapons. If you're regularly playing games where the negatives of the earthshaker batteries never apply then you probably need to find opponents that better understand the 8th edition meta and bring things like deep striking plasma, non-LOS weapons of their own, etc. You can dispute whether the 4:3 ratio is exactly correct, but at most we're talking about a small point increase that still leaves the earthshaker battery significantly cheaper than the Basilisk, and certainly not more expensive for a weaker unit!
But +1T and it doesn't degrade. Leaving that out looks biased. They are different, claiming they are identical except for what the Basilisk has extra is disingenuous. Proxy your carriage as a Basilisk, convert it, pay the extra 5, whatever. Just move on. It's not a big deal. Not trying to be flippant, but as someone who has both Basilisks and Carriages, this really is much ado about nothing.
koooaei wrote: 90% stuff we've seen so far is heading in the right direction.
This kind of behavior is exactly why we ended up with this book.
Let me get it, you are Marine/Death Guard/Wolf Wolfer?
I will bet on the 3rd one. Congrats, GW has given you some bone to chump, clap-clap.
As a guard player, I'm gonna go ahead and say you are out of order, stand down soldier. This was a mostly good points adjustment. The fact that GW is actively involved is a huge improvement over the last few years. All you are doing with all this sabre rattling is proving that you can't make everyone happy. It's a very good thing we ended up with this book, that they had planned to release before 8th even came out. Give your feedback, then go have a beer and paint something. But not something from FW.
What else do you want from IG plasma? It already received a big price hike. Do you no longer want to see it around?
This melta change was 100% expected, it brings it in line with the cost of plasma.
Plasma shouldn'tbe default and only viable. Melta was already worse and now it got price hikd? Wtf? Worse weapon than plasma got price increased while plasma umtouched. Guess gw had sold enough melta models so wants to sell more plasma models
xmbk wrote: But +1T and it doesn't degrade. Leaving that out looks biased. They are different, claiming they are identical except for what the Basilisk has extra is disingenuous. Proxy your carriage as a Basilisk, convert it, pay the extra 5, whatever. Just move on. It's not a big deal. Not trying to be flippant, but as someone who has both Basilisks and Carriages, this really is much ado about nothing.
+1T, but that doesn't really matter. The relevant anti-tank weapons are going to wound it on the same 3+ either way, and by the time the Basilisk has taken enough wounds to degrade the battery is probably dead. In virtually all situations the Basilisk is significantly more durable.
And no, "just proxy it as the better unit" does not excuse poor design. This is a bad decision that says bad things about the incompetence of GW's rule authors, regardless of the fact that you can get around the change by pretending that your models are the superior unit.
What else do you want from IG plasma? It already received a big price hike. Do you no longer want to see it around?
This melta change was 100% expected, it brings it in line with the cost of plasma.
Plasma shouldn'tbe default and only viable. Melta was already worse and now it got price hikd? Wtf? Worse weapon than plasma got price increased while plasma umtouched. Guess gw had sold enough melta models so wants to sell more plasma models
Melta is not a worse weapon than plasma, it's a different weapon, specialized in taking down things that cost a lot and for the economy of the game that means that it has an high cost. Melta gun at 12 points for bs3+ models was an anomaly, since the bs3+ models of other factions pay more than that.
You could say that the plasma is a better weapon than melta FOR SCIONS that can deepstrike, which puts the model inside the rapid fire range but outside the melta range.
On all the other guys that can carry this weapon, melta is actually a better choice in a lot of situations, does not require a source of rerolls and doesn't blow up the moment that the enemy inflicts an hit penalty. Now, you could say that the other melta platforms, like veterans, suck. I could agree with this, but the blame there is in the model, not in the weapon. Altering the weapon balance to cover a model issue is bad design.
Can we change the title.of this thread to "Crying about conscripts and earthshaker platforms" so everyone knows what is in here and so I can remember to stop checking this thread?
Breng77 wrote: 2.) The reason they got over nerfed(and I think this may apply to Malefic lords and even conscripts, which don't have models) is that many people were not using the official models instead buying cheap ww2 artillery models as stand ins. If I can spam 4 carriages for the monetary cost of 1 basilisk why buy the GW model? From GWs standpoint why would they want that to be a thing? At their current point cost so one who bought the FW model because they love the model can still use it and it will be an effective though slightly suboptimal choice, but the competitive scene that is min maxing aren't going to fill the board with cheap replacement models.
This is a profoundly stupid reason if it is true. Model sales should never determine game design, period. If GW genuinely did this then everyone involved should be fired for incompetence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote: 1.) The battery obviously needed a points increase. If spamming being able to take 4 for every 3 basilisks (or just have more points for other things) is a pretty big deal. I would rather have 4 of the main gun then 3 heavy bolters. As the main gun is the reason I'm buying the thing.
It's not just the heavy bolters. It's greatly reduced durability if anything gets to shoot at your artillery, zero ability to move if they're in a bad position, and the missing secondary weapons. If you're regularly playing games where the negatives of the earthshaker batteries never apply then you probably need to find opponents that better understand the 8th edition meta and bring things like deep striking plasma, non-LOS weapons of their own, etc. You can dispute whether the 4:3 ratio is exactly correct, but at most we're talking about a small point increase that still leaves the earthshaker battery significantly cheaper than the Basilisk, and certainly not more expensive for a weaker unit!
The reason is not profoundly stupid from a buisiness standpoint, encourage people to
Buy your models over proxying things which gain you nothing.
As for the rest the thing has functionally unlimited range, it is never in a bad position, and if people
An deepstrike plasma and hit it you need to play against better opponents. Literally non-Los shooting (so other guard primarily) is the only good
Answer. If you ignore the +1 T we can also ignore the +1 armor save since most anti-tank will make it pretty meaningless. It will degrade before the carriage dies based on durability. All that said the thing should basically be similar in cost due to its main purpose being the same. To deny that means the game can never be balanced because mi-max units will reign supreme. What you are arguing for is upcosting units for being better at things they never want to do in the first place. If I deepstrike plasma on either unit your losing already. If I assault either again you are already losing, you are making an argument that something that has a slight advantage when you are losing should be 20-30 points less expensive. All that does is mean those units are better when you are not losing. There is no debate offensively that you would rather have 4 earthshaker cannons than 3. I agree they should not cost more (my second reason is why they probably do). But they should
be within 10-15 points max probably around 100 points. Otherwise you end up with the prior issue with command squads where they are the auto tak because they are better at their job for the points.
Alcibiades wrote: Maybe they decided that there is really no place for conscripts -- that the unit was a mistake in the first place -- and so just opted to effectively remove them.
no, they underestimated the fact that meta gamers will turn every stone in order to find the moust cheesy and broken unit combos in order to win. THAT is the biggest issue of ALL games.
as stuch GW faild to place restrictions to conscripts the moment the indexes was released, and are now forced to inderectly remove the conscripts from the meta untill they can remake the rules for them.
conscripts do belong in the codex, but not they way they was, or currently is.
they are a filler unit, something you bring just to add in the last missing points. they are not ment to be more important or effective in ANY task then a normal 10 man infantry unit.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Right - I even said earlier 100 or 105 would be fine.
But costing more is just dumb.
It is as I said I think that may be due to the mass proxying of the unit. Which is a common problem for cheaper FW units in the competitive scene. People want the powerful rules but don't want to spend the extra money if easy good looking alternatives exist. Other games avoid this by disallowing "conversions" but 40k has a history of encouraging them so it is a tough position to be in.
FrozenDwarf wrote: no, they underestimated the fact that meta gamers will turn every stone in order to find the moust cheesy and broken unit combos in order to win. THAT is the biggest issue of ALL games.
I'm not sure that's necessarily true, but supposing that it is for a moment, GW looks even worse - they've had literally decades to learn that simple lesson!
Melta is not a worse weapon than plasma, it's a different weapon, specialized in taking down things that cost a lot and for the economy of the game that means that it has an high cost. Melta gun at 12 points for bs3+ models was an anomaly, since the bs3+ models of other factions pay more than that.
You could say that the plasma is a better weapon than melta FOR SCIONS that can deepstrike, which puts the model inside the rapid fire range but outside the melta range.
On all the other guys that can carry this weapon, melta is actually a better choice in a lot of situations, does not require a source of rerolls and doesn't blow up the moment that the enemy inflicts an hit penalty. Now, you could say that the other melta platforms, like veterans, suck. I could agree with this, but the blame there is in the model, not in the weapon. Altering the weapon balance to cover a model issue is bad design.
It's marginally better in highly specialised situation that's hard to get to while notably worse in all else. Anybody that has done elementary school math knows it's worse.
Even on optimal situation it only slightly outperforms. All other situations it's worse. That does not make it worth more. If melta is better weapon why no serious list used it? All but you incapable of seeing it's worth?
xmbk wrote: But +1T and it doesn't degrade. Leaving that out looks biased. They are different, claiming they are identical except for what the Basilisk has extra is disingenuous. Proxy your carriage as a Basilisk, convert it, pay the extra 5, whatever. Just move on. It's not a big deal. Not trying to be flippant, but as someone who has both Basilisks and Carriages, this really is much ado about nothing.
+1T, but that doesn't really matter. The relevant anti-tank weapons are going to wound it on the same 3+ either way, and by the time the Basilisk has taken enough wounds to degrade the battery is probably dead. In virtually all situations the Basilisk is significantly more durable.
And no, "just proxy it as the better unit" does not excuse poor design. This is a bad decision that says bad things about the incompetence of GW's rule authors, regardless of the fact that you can get around the change by pretending that your models are the superior unit.
Again, saying +1T doesn't matter but a HB does is a misrepresentation. There are certainly much more egregious examples of GW's incompetence. As has been pointed out in this thread, this is not the strict comparison detractors make it out to be. It's a difference of a few points, and is easily circumvented. Just be glad you aren't trying to field a Stompa.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Right - I even said earlier 100 or 105 would be fine.
But costing more is just dumb.
I think the problem of the Earthshaker Battery vs Basilisk is the same problem as Grey Knights. Is not something you can fix with only points, they need a redesign from the rules stand-point.
But I have already explained why I think that in a previous post. You shouldn't have units that are +1 or -1 versions of other units without a different tactical role.
Clearly, as long as we have just one good unit we can field anything is okay. All glory to the monobuild.
Sure, none of the complained about changes have much of an effect on me because they're either on units I didn't use in the first place (the Russ variants that got hit, the factions I don't play) or are absolutely trivial to convert to something else at basically no cost (conscripts are literally the same model as 80% of the guard's other infantry options, an Earthshaker can easily be switched between an SPG chassis and a battery stand as long as you didn't glue them in place).
But neither of those makes nuking those units from orbit a *good* thing.
I'm pretty happy with a lot of the changes myself. I love the new missions and some added terrain rules are always welcome.
I also like the new battlezones and the planetstrike stuff.
I'm also kinda happy to see a lot of the FW stuff pointed to remove a large amount from non-narrative play. FW was always for the Acpoc players and such and I always did hate having it in normal pointed games. The points costs now make it less viable to bring those models and better to stick to the basic GW models instead.
Things I'm disappointed about are the lack of rules reducing smite casts per turn and the convoluted rules for targeting characters.
On the topic of the thread I'm overall a bit disappointed in CA I was hoping they would re-print the points for any army with changes so that the points tables would just be replaced, and was hoping for a few more tweaks, though I can see reasons not to make a ton of tweaks to armies that don't have books yet.
Melta is not a worse weapon than plasma, it's a different weapon, specialized in taking down things that cost a lot and for the economy of the game that means that it has an high cost. Melta gun at 12 points for bs3+ models was an anomaly, since the bs3+ models of other factions pay more than that.
You could say that the plasma is a better weapon than melta FOR SCIONS that can deepstrike, which puts the model inside the rapid fire range but outside the melta range.
On all the other guys that can carry this weapon, melta is actually a better choice in a lot of situations, does not require a source of rerolls and doesn't blow up the moment that the enemy inflicts an hit penalty. Now, you could say that the other melta platforms, like veterans, suck. I could agree with this, but the blame there is in the model, not in the weapon. Altering the weapon balance to cover a model issue is bad design.
It's marginally better in highly specialised situation that's hard to get to while notably worse in all else. Anybody that has done elementary school math knows it's worse.
Even on optimal situation it only slightly outperforms. All other situations it's worse. That does not make it worth more. If melta is better weapon why no serious list used it? All but you incapable of seeing it's worth?
Tell me in how many lists you see someone not using scions, that's why. Scions are the problem. Since for Scions the better weapon is plasma, everyone assumes that plasma is the always the better weapon. And if you really think what you said then go back to elementary school because you need to relearn math. Plasma against big targets is good only in one particular situation (target closer than 12", no hit penalties, reroll 1's to hit), if you can't overcharge or are not closer than 12" then guess which weapon is inflicting more damage?
I repeat, your view of this is altered by the fact that AM has a unit that puts the plasma exactly in the perfect situation for it to work, but plasma is not a weapon that will always shoot 2 times at 2 damage. Even if you can overchage safely, plasma wins from 24" to 18" and from 12" to 6", so your definition of "It's marginally better in highly specialised situation that's hard to get to while notably worse in all else." is higly inaccurate.
The Kill Tank isn't in the same league as a Baneblade, it's actually pretty close to a Land Raider both in terms of its role and how powerful it is.
The Kill Tank is a little better than a Land Raider, but not a lot better. The Land Raider is more durable and a little bit better at shooting. The Kill Tank is a little bit faster, a little bit better of a transport* and significantly better in melee. The Kill Tank used to be ~50 points cheaper than the Land Raider, which meant it was undercosted. Now it is ~50 points more expensive than a Land Raider, which I think means it is overcosted but closer to fairly costed than it was before the change.
To be honest, I'm basing its cost entirely on comparing it to a Land Raider. I don't know if the Land Raider is currently appropriately costed or not.
8 S8/10 attacks with WS3+ is no joke.
It's also trivial to get a big mek onboard and give it the same survivability as a land raider against anti-tank, but with 8 more wounds.
So previously landraider - T8, 2+ 18W @ 239 - 13.3 per wound
Killtank - T8, 4+/5++ 24W @ 290 - 12 per wound
Then slap on good melee and mortal wounds. Then take 3 of them and stick the mek on a bike to save on costs.
Sure you could shoot assault cannons at them, but that's going to be a long slog and they're not exactly slow. Maybe 365 is too far, but they needed to go up.
SideshowLucifer wrote: FW was always for the Acpoc players and such and I always did hate having it in normal pointed games.
No it wasn't. There was literally never a point in FW's existence where this was true. And nerfing FW units so that nobody brings them anymore is a profoundly stupid thing to do.
SideshowLucifer wrote: FW was always for the Acpoc players and such and I always did hate having it in normal pointed games.
No it wasn't. There was literally never a point in FW's existence where this was true. And nerfing FW units so that nobody brings them anymore is a profoundly stupid thing to do.
Obviously the entirety of Death Korps of Krieg and Renegades and Heretics only belongs in Apocalypse. Same with Lias Issodon and other normal Space Marine Captains/Chapter Masters.
Oh and so does Inquisitor Hector Rex. Can't let an Inquisitor with Grey Knight bonuses out of Apocalypse.
Audustum wrote: Obviously the entirety of Death Korps of Krieg and Renegades and Heretics only belongs in Apocalypse. Same with Lias Issodon and other normal Space Marine Captains/Chapter Masters.
Oh and so does Inquisitor Hector Rex. Can't let an Inquisitor with Grey Knight bonuses out of Apocalypse.
Actually... yeah, that was the rule really until very late 5th edition. When I started in 3rd, FW stuff was never allowed in tournaments, and was generally seen as unsporting to spring on an opponent in casual games.
6th/7th editions really eroded that, but even know, plenty of events limit FW in some way.
It was always seen as "something other," at least until maybe 5-6 years ago.
Audustum wrote: Obviously the entirety of Death Korps of Krieg and Renegades and Heretics only belongs in Apocalypse. Same with Lias Issodon and other normal Space Marine Captains/Chapter Masters.
Oh and so does Inquisitor Hector Rex. Can't let an Inquisitor with Grey Knight bonuses out of Apocalypse.
Actually... yeah, that was the rule really until very late 5th edition. When I started in 3rd, FW stuff was never allowed in tournaments, and was generally seen as unsporting to spring on an opponent in casual games.
6th/7th editions really eroded that, but even know, plenty of events limit FW in some way.
It was always seen as "something other," at least until maybe 5-6 years ago.
Kind of the wrong point. My point was the FW was never designed only for Apoc.
And yeah, in bygone days it was different. We aren't there anymore. Time to move on. Forgeworld is being balanced by GW. In 7th ITC and NOVA, the biggest formats, fully allowed Forgeworld. Time to stop living in the past.
Melta is not a worse weapon than plasma, it's a different weapon, specialized in taking down things that cost a lot and for the economy of the game that means that it has an high cost. Melta gun at 12 points for bs3+ models was an anomaly, since the bs3+ models of other factions pay more than that.
You could say that the plasma is a better weapon than melta FOR SCIONS that can deepstrike, which puts the model inside the rapid fire range but outside the melta range.
On all the other guys that can carry this weapon, melta is actually a better choice in a lot of situations, does not require a source of rerolls and doesn't blow up the moment that the enemy inflicts an hit penalty. Now, you could say that the other melta platforms, like veterans, suck. I could agree with this, but the blame there is in the model, not in the weapon. Altering the weapon balance to cover a model issue is bad design.
It's marginally better in highly specialised situation that's hard to get to while notably worse in all else. Anybody that has done elementary school math knows it's worse.
Even on optimal situation it only slightly outperforms. All other situations it's worse. That does not make it worth more. If melta is better weapon why no serious list used it? All but you incapable of seeing it's worth?
Tell me in how many lists you see someone not using scions, that's why. Scions are the problem. Since for Scions the better weapon is plasma, everyone assumes that plasma is the always the better weapon. And if you really think what you said then go back to elementary school because you need to relearn math. Plasma against big targets is good only in one particular situation (target closer than 12", no hit penalties, reroll 1's to hit), if you can't overcharge or are not closer than 12" then guess which weapon is inflicting more damage?
I repeat, your view of this is altered by the fact that AM has a unit that puts the plasma exactly in the perfect situation for it to work, but plasma is not a weapon that will always shoot 2 times at 2 damage. Even if you can overchage safely, plasma wins from 24" to 18" and from 12" to 6", so your definition of "It's marginally better in highly specialised situation that's hard to get to while notably worse in all else." is higly inaccurate.
I stopped using Scions a few months back. When I do use them now, I just take 5 man squads with maybe HSVGs but usually bare. Just to drop them on far away OBJs. Since the Valk became feasible I started dropping in Bullgryns or guard with meltas. With the Leman Russ getting to fire twice, I haven't required scion plasma spam anymore.
What I'm saying is, the guard codex is full of options now. Well, at least until the next FAQ probably. The only people spamming Scions anymore are just folks with a Scion army. Why do normal guard players need to deep strike in a suicide squad anymore? We don't. Heavy infantry used to be my fear as a guard player but battle tanks have solved that problem, as they should. I don't think melta needed to go up. Scions can't deep strike them into optimal range. Our ONLY way to get melta into optimal range is via Valkyrie or Chimera/Taurox. And if we NEED to kill something, that's not going to be how we do it. I'm not trying to get my squishy guys CLOSER to tough enemy units. With all the invulnerable saves, negative modifiers to hit, and feel no pain equivalents, it just doesn't make sense to bank on melta and definitely not now with the price hike. It was already difficult for me to choose them with the previous prices. You'll no longer see anything besides plasma guns in AM lists now. Final nail in the coffin. I'm not salty about it, I don't care, I was only using melta before to be something different. Part of the allure of the guard has always been their diversity and vast amount of options which I'm just seeing slowly fall away if you wish to be somewhat competitive.
Melta is not a worse weapon than plasma, it's a different weapon, specialized in taking down things that cost a lot and for the economy of the game that means that it has an high cost. Melta gun at 12 points for bs3+ models was an anomaly, since the bs3+ models of other factions pay more than that.
You could say that the plasma is a better weapon than melta FOR SCIONS that can deepstrike, which puts the model inside the rapid fire range but outside the melta range.
On all the other guys that can carry this weapon, melta is actually a better choice in a lot of situations, does not require a source of rerolls and doesn't blow up the moment that the enemy inflicts an hit penalty. Now, you could say that the other melta platforms, like veterans, suck. I could agree with this, but the blame there is in the model, not in the weapon. Altering the weapon balance to cover a model issue is bad design.
It's marginally better in highly specialised situation that's hard to get to while notably worse in all else. Anybody that has done elementary school math knows it's worse.
Even on optimal situation it only slightly outperforms. All other situations it's worse. That does not make it worth more. If melta is better weapon why no serious list used it? All but you incapable of seeing it's worth?
Tell me in how many lists you see someone not using scions, that's why. Scions are the problem. Since for Scions the better weapon is plasma, everyone assumes that plasma is the always the better weapon. And if you really think what you said then go back to elementary school because you need to relearn math. Plasma against big targets is good only in one particular situation (target closer than 12", no hit penalties, reroll 1's to hit), if you can't overcharge or are not closer than 12" then guess which weapon is inflicting more damage?
I repeat, your view of this is altered by the fact that AM has a unit that puts the plasma exactly in the perfect situation for it to work, but plasma is not a weapon that will always shoot 2 times at 2 damage. Even if you can overchage safely, plasma wins from 24" to 18" and from 12" to 6", so your definition of "It's marginally better in highly specialised situation that's hard to get to while notably worse in all else." is higly inaccurate.
Uh.
Plasma is 100% better than Melta at any range over 12 inches. Because Melta only has a range of 12 inches. If your target is 13 inches away at the end of your move? You always want a plasma gun, which you can always overcharge. Yes, you have a 1/6 chance of killing someone not suffering from a cheap order buff, that model costs 8-10 points +gun, if you're shooting it at something that costs less than that, you're doing it wrong.
Melta is only better in exceptionally narrow situations, [Less than 6 inches against targets with at least 3, if not five wounds,.] And if you're in that situation as a guardsman, you're also throwing the unit away for sure, which means that extra expense on the melta's is a one shot for sure.
If the issue was to bring Melta prices in line on BS3+ models across factions, [which in itself is silly, as the gun carrier's durability is intesely relevent with close range weapons] then a price _Drop_ is what was needed, not a raise.
It was always seen as "something other," at least until maybe 5-6 years ago.
Kind of the wrong point. My point was the FW was never designed only for Apoc.
And yeah, in bygone days it was different. We aren't there anymore. Time to move on. Forgeworld is being balanced by GW. In 7th ITC and NOVA, the biggest formats, fully allowed Forgeworld. Time to stop living in the past.
Well, it does address your point. Yes, strictly speaking, FW wasn't always meant for Apoc, but that's because FW actually predates formal Apoc rules. That said, the rules were always "opponents permission" while the superheavies required two FOC games, which was super rare. it was what we would now call open play.
That has changed, and I freely note that, but let's not pretend that FW was always fully integrated into 40k play.
I think this CA is the first sign that GW is really balancing FW. I know the debate about FW's balance is tired, but you saw less diversity in FW units than in codex units, which really suggests that players have typically cherry picked the broken nuggets from FW, which has really hurt it's reputation.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: If the issue was to bring Melta prices in line on BS3+ models across factions, [which in itself is silly, as the gun carrier's durability is intesely relevent with close range weapons] then a price _Drop_ is what was needed, not a raise.
I find that logic to be extremely flawed. The durability of a model is in it's base cost.
Terminator - 54 points <== most durable and shooty
Marine - 30 points
Scion - 26 points
Infantry - 16 points <== least durable and shooty
Now the base cost for the Scions themselves could go down (a little) now that the guns are not the problem.
Ratlings went up in cost... Why... Nobody used them anyway.
Taurox went up in cost... Why... I've never seen one fielded. It was supposed to be our only cheap transport. You really really don't want mech guard to be a thing, do you.
Taurox prime went up in cost. Huge increase in points. 19 point difference in classic prime loadout. Dunno if warranted. But again, another strike against mech guard.
Manticore and wyvern both went up in cost... Why... Were these a problem? I don't recall seeing any tourney lists fielding either of these. Am I wrong?
Hot shot volley guns went up in cost... Why?... People chose plasma over it anyway.
Melta guns went up in cost... Why?... Again, people chose plasma over it. Why in the world are you making plasma even MORE the obvious choice.
Conscripts went up in cost... hahaha. Just stop pretending. Just delete the unit from the codex and lets stop playing this silly pretend game. We get it. You never want to see another conscript on a table. We understand.
Hellstrike missiles went up to 30 points per missile?... Why am I paying 50% more for a worse lascannon? Who thought this was a good idea?
And of course the obvious earthshaker carriage, but that's been beaten to death already. Why would I pay more for a worse, and much more difficult to obtain unit.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: If the issue was to bring Melta prices in line on BS3+ models across factions, [which in itself is silly, as the gun carrier's durability is intesely relevent with close range weapons] then a price _Drop_ is what was needed, not a raise.
I find that logic to be extremely flawed. The durability of a model is in it's base cost.
Terminator - 54 points <== most durable and shooty
Marine - 30 points
Scion - 26 points
Infantry - 16 points <== least durable and shooty
Now the base cost for the Scions themselves could go down (a little) now that the guns are not the problem.
You didn't actually explain why the logic is extremely flawed. It actually seems obvious to me that the value of a weapon + body is not just the sum of the independent value of the weapon and the body. Like, if Stormravens' only possible weapon loadout was a single lasgun, no one would ever take them. Why?
It's generally the case that weapons are worth more on more durable platforms, and likewise that you're wasting the platform if you aren't giving it adequate firepower. Now, obviously there's more to platforms than durability -- plasma is great on Scions because they deep strike into rapid fire range -- but you should absolutely expect the price difference between big and small weapons to be bigger for more durable platforms. The difference in appropriate price between a Stormraven with a lasgun and a Stormraven with a twin AC, twin HB, missiles, etc., is a lot bigger than the difference in appropriate price between a single-model 1-wound cavalry unit with the same weapon options.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: If the issue was to bring Melta prices in line on BS3+ models across factions, [which in itself is silly, as the gun carrier's durability is intesely relevent with close range weapons] then a price _Drop_ is what was needed, not a raise.
I find that logic to be extremely flawed. The durability of a model is in it's base cost.
Terminator - 54 points <== most durable and shooty
Marine - 30 points
Scion - 26 points
Infantry - 16 points <== least durable and shooty
Now the base cost for the Scions themselves could go down (a little) now that the guns are not the problem.
You didn't actually explain why the logic is extremely flawed. It actually seems obvious to me that the value of a weapon + body is not just the sum of the independent value of the weapon and the body. Like, if Stormravens' only possible weapon loadout was a single lasgun, no one would ever take them. Why?
If you could give entire units of brimstones/gretchin/cultists melta guns would you cost them appropriate to their toughness? Why these models can't deepstrike and need to footslog so they need those guns to be even cheaper, right?
Here's how you fix conscripts, add a rule "you may only take one unit of conscripts per 2 units of guardsman."
Now you can leave them dirt cheap as they should be, but only as a filler instead of spamming them which was the problem. And it makes the army composition lore friendly instead of goofy. IG can still swarm bodies, but only to a degree that isn't silly. Because really what always ends up breaking 40k balance, going back through the past 4 edition, has been tourney players finding ways to create really goofy spammy army compositions through loopholes, soup lists, and scummy list building that obviously wasn't intended. Hell look at every single tactics thread here and it's tourney players figuring out how to ally in IG with every single army or how to use other armies relics, etc.
Fix that and balance would be much better.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: If the issue was to bring Melta prices in line on BS3+ models across factions, [which in itself is silly, as the gun carrier's durability is intesely relevent with close range weapons] then a price _Drop_ is what was needed, not a raise.
I find that logic to be extremely flawed. The durability of a model is in it's base cost.
Terminator - 54 points <== most durable and shooty
Marine - 30 points
Scion - 26 points
Infantry - 16 points <== least durable and shooty
Now the base cost for the Scions themselves could go down (a little) now that the guns are not the problem.
You didn't actually explain why the logic is extremely flawed. It actually seems obvious to me that the value of a weapon + body is not just the sum of the independent value of the weapon and the body. Like, if Stormravens' only possible weapon loadout was a single lasgun, no one would ever take them. Why?
If you could give entire units of brimstones/gretchin/cultists melta guns would you cost them appropriate to their toughness? Why these models can't deepstrike and need to footslog so they need those guns to be even cheaper, right?
These are bad examples since Brimstones can deep strike (summoned), Cultists can infiltrate with Alpha Legion or take drop pods, and Gretchin can ride in open-topped transports (I think). But yeah, if you had a unit of T2 7+ save models that came equipped with nothing but melta guns, and they absolutely had to footslog, you definitely wouldn't take these at more than, say, 8 points per model, and that's probably still too high.
Melta is not a worse weapon than plasma, it's a different weapon, specialized in taking down things that cost a lot and for the economy of the game that means that it has an high cost. Melta gun at 12 points for bs3+ models was an anomaly, since the bs3+ models of other factions pay more than that.
You could say that the plasma is a better weapon than melta FOR SCIONS that can deepstrike, which puts the model inside the rapid fire range but outside the melta range.
On all the other guys that can carry this weapon, melta is actually a better choice in a lot of situations, does not require a source of rerolls and doesn't blow up the moment that the enemy inflicts an hit penalty. Now, you could say that the other melta platforms, like veterans, suck. I could agree with this, but the blame there is in the model, not in the weapon. Altering the weapon balance to cover a model issue is bad design.
It's marginally better in highly specialised situation that's hard to get to while notably worse in all else. Anybody that has done elementary school math knows it's worse.
Even on optimal situation it only slightly outperforms. All other situations it's worse. That does not make it worth more. If melta is better weapon why no serious list used it? All but you incapable of seeing it's worth?
Tell me in how many lists you see someone not using scions, that's why. Scions are the problem. Since for Scions the better weapon is plasma, everyone assumes that plasma is the always the better weapon.
What other IG infantry unit is going to be able to put Meltaguns to better use than them, especially that are BS3+ ? Certainly not Veterans. Basic Guardsmen? Nope. Command Squads? Not really.
Where would the Meltagun be a superior option...?
And if you really think what you said then go back to elementary school because you need to relearn math. Plasma against big targets is good only in one particular situation (target closer than 12", no hit penalties, reroll 1's to hit), if you can't overcharge or are not closer than 12" then guess which weapon is inflicting more damage?
Why wouldn't you be able to Overcharge? The only situation where Melta is objectively superior is at 6" or under against models with hefty numbers of wounds, of if Advancing and are attempting to hit a target over 12" away (in which case, neither weapon is exactly optimal or well performing and the Meltagun isn't *that* much better). At 12-6", an Overcharged plasma gun matches a Meltagun almost identically (and is better against multi-model targets), at anything over that the Meltagun doesn't have range (unless it tries to Advance and shoot with less accuracy and hope it makes it into range). Against any other target or at any other distance, the Plasma Gun is superior, and given the nature of most IG infantry, fits their role much better.
There was no good reason to nerf the meltagun. The plasma gun is a more flexible weapon able to be used against a wider variety of targets and the Melta's optimal usage doesn't outweigh the flexibility of the plasma gun that's *almost* as good as the Melta at its own job.
You can see this looking at IG army lists. Even with the lower points costs...how often did you see Meltaguns? Very rarely. They certainly weren't something anyone complained about. Certainly not something worth nerfing.
Now an Eldar Fire Dragon, with a 3+sv, better statline across the board, way better Advance and shoot capabilities, ability to reroll Damage rolls of 1, and a higher Mv, is *cheaper* than a Stormtrooper with a Meltagun and 1pt more than an IG vet who's a basic IG grunt with BS3+.
ThePorcupine wrote: Ratlings went up in cost... Why... Nobody used them anyway.
Taurox went up in cost... Why... I've never seen one fielded. It was supposed to be our only cheap transport. You really really don't want mech guard to be a thing, do you.
Taurox prime went up in cost. Huge increase in points. 19 point difference in classic prime loadout. Dunno if warranted. But again, another strike against mech guard.
Manticore and wyvern both went up in cost... Why... Were these a problem? I don't recall seeing any tourney lists fielding either of these. Am I wrong?
Hot shot volley guns went up in cost... Why?... People chose plasma over it anyway.
Melta guns went up in cost... Why?... Again, people chose plasma over it. Why in the world are you making plasma even MORE the obvious choice.
Conscripts went up in cost... hahaha. Just stop pretending. Just delete the unit from the codex and lets stop playing this silly pretend game. We get it. You never want to see another conscript on a table. We understand.
Hellstrike missiles went up to 30 points per missile?... Why am I paying 50% more for a worse lascannon? Who thought this was a good idea?
And of course the obvious earthshaker carriage, but that's been beaten to death already. Why would I pay more for a worse, and much more difficult to obtain unit.
Firstly, anecdotes of personal experience are not evidence.
Second, a unit doesn't need to have been in the top 3 at a tournament for them to want to address points.
And instead of addressing all these individually i'll do one example.
A taurox (T6 W10 3+) and wyvern (T6 W11 3+) have roughly the same durability.
The wyvern and it's weapon are tied together so we don't know it's true base cost.
The Taurox base increased by 10. It follows that the Wyvern base should increase by 10 as well, which it did. The same happened to the Manticore, which is a little tougher overall so it got a bit of a "deal" on this change.
Orks currently pay 76 points for T6 W10 4+. Does it make sense for IG to pay almost HALF of that with a better armor save? Sure you could say the Orks are paying too much. It's hard to value Open Top and Ramshackle, but it should be less. But I bet we can agree that it shouldn't be 40 points, right? So why do you think the Taurox should be 40?
Think about it for a moment. The Taurox was paying 4 points per T6 3+ wound and now it is 5.
A Rhino pays 7 points per T7 3+ wound.
And you'll conveniently ignore that the Autocannons are now 6 points cheaper for the Taurox.
These are bad examples since Brimstones can deep strike (summoned), Cultists can infiltrate with Alpha Legion or take drop pods, and Gretchin can ride in open-topped transports (I think). But yeah, if you had a unit of T2 7+ save models that came equipped with nothing but melta guns, and they absolutely had to footslog, you definitely wouldn't take these at more than, say, 8 points per model, and that's probably still too high.
Base abilities, but in either case you'd be ok with someone fielding 200-250 (or more) melta guns in a 2,000 point game? Do you view smite spam as a problem?
Melta is not a worse weapon than plasma, it's a different weapon, specialized in taking down things that cost a lot and for the economy of the game that means that it has an high cost. Melta gun at 12 points for bs3+ models was an anomaly, since the bs3+ models of other factions pay more than that.
You could say that the plasma is a better weapon than melta FOR SCIONS that can deepstrike, which puts the model inside the rapid fire range but outside the melta range.
On all the other guys that can carry this weapon, melta is actually a better choice in a lot of situations, does not require a source of rerolls and doesn't blow up the moment that the enemy inflicts an hit penalty. Now, you could say that the other melta platforms, like veterans, suck. I could agree with this, but the blame there is in the model, not in the weapon. Altering the weapon balance to cover a model issue is bad design.
It's marginally better in highly specialised situation that's hard to get to while notably worse in all else. Anybody that has done elementary school math knows it's worse.
Even on optimal situation it only slightly outperforms. All other situations it's worse. That does not make it worth more. If melta is better weapon why no serious list used it? All but you incapable of seeing it's worth?
Tell me in how many lists you see someone not using scions, that's why. Scions are the problem. Since for Scions the better weapon is plasma, everyone assumes that plasma is the always the better weapon.
What other IG infantry unit is going to be able to put Meltaguns to better use than them, especially that are BS3+ ? Certainly not Veterans. Basic Guardsmen? Nope. Command Squads? Not really.
Where would the Meltagun be a superior option...?
And if you really think what you said then go back to elementary school because you need to relearn math. Plasma against big targets is good only in one particular situation (target closer than 12", no hit penalties, reroll 1's to hit), if you can't overcharge or are not closer than 12" then guess which weapon is inflicting more damage?
Why wouldn't you be able to Overcharge? The only situation where Melta is objectively superior is at 6" or under against models with hefty numbers of wounds, of if Advancing and are attempting to hit a target over 12" away (in which case, neither weapon is exactly optimal or well performing and the Meltagun isn't *that* much better). At 12-6", an Overcharged plasma gun matches a Meltagun almost identically (and is better against multi-model targets), at anything over that the Meltagun doesn't have range (unless it tries to Advance and shoot with less accuracy and hope it makes it into range). Against any other target or at any other distance, the Plasma Gun is superior, and given the nature of most IG infantry, fits their role much better.
There was no good reason to nerf the meltagun. The plasma gun is a more flexible weapon able to be used against a wider variety of targets and the Melta's optimal usage doesn't outweigh the flexibility of the plasma gun that's *almost* as good as the Melta at its own job.
You can see this looking at IG army lists. Even with the lower points costs...how often did you see Meltaguns? Very rarely. They certainly weren't something anyone complained about. Certainly not something worth nerfing.
Now an Eldar Fire Dragon, with a 3+sv, better statline across the board, way better Advance and shoot capabilities, ability to reroll Damage rolls of 1, and a higher Mv, is *cheaper* than a Stormtrooper with a Meltagun and 1pt more than an IG vet who's a basic IG grunt with BS3+.
Indeed as i'm saying, the problem is not in the melta, is in the fact that guard has no good platform for melta. This means that the melta should be correctly costed, like it is now, but at the same time something should be done for models like veterans.
Spoletta wrote: Indeed as i'm saying, the problem is not in the melta, is in the fact that guard has no good platform for melta. This means that the melta should be correctly costed, like it is now, but at the same time something should be done for models like veterans.
The Taurox base increased by 10. It follows that the Wyvern base should increase by 10 as well, which it did.
These units have different roles and capabilities. That doesn't follow at all. They didn't increase either the Hydra or Basilisk one will notice (thank the Emperor...), there's certainly no consistency by this line of thinking.
The same happened to the Manticore, which is a little tougher overall so it got a bit of a "deal" on this change.
Orks currently pay 76 points for T6 W10 4+. Does it make sense for IG to pay almost HALF of that with a better armor save? Sure you could say the Orks are paying too much. It's hard to value Open Top and Ramshackle, but it should be less. But I bet we can agree that it shouldn't be 40 points, right? So why do you think the Taurox should be 40?
Think about it for a moment. The Taurox was paying 4 points per T6 3+ wound and now it is 5.
A Rhino pays 7 points per T7 3+ wound.
And you'll conveniently ignore that the Autocannons are now 6 points cheaper for the Taurox.
The issue is that these armies are going to be using their transports in different ways. IG infantry have historically gotten very little use out of transports. They don't want to advance and get closer, that ends up with them being dead, the transports have typically been mobile bunkers more than transports. This remains true in 8E. Other armies get a whole lot more utility out of their transports as actual transports. As is, how many *mechanized* IG armies are we seeing in 8E? Especially of the kind that were popular the last several editions? Almost none, they're practically extinct already. Especially outside of Taurox Primes (which I expect will probably be relatively rare going forward as well).
And yeah, with Orks there's absolutely an argument that their transports are overcosted, they're not a great comparison.
The Wyvern should have roughly the same base cost as the Taurox. A change to its points now tells me that they feel like they mis-pointed it somewhere along the line.
To confirm this the base of the Wyvern should be about 5 points more than the Taurox for the extra wound. This leaves the cost of it's weapon at 40 points.
Is the Quad Mortar worth 40?
A Taurox Gatling cannon is 20 points for 20 S4 shots. The mortar is effectively 14 shots S4 with rerolls to wound and no LOS requirement.
A power sword is 4 points. A lightning claw is the same thing, but with rerolls to wound at 8 points.
Clearly the mortar has fewer shots so it isn't a straight comparison. The reroll to wounds are highly values as they probably should be and being able to shoot out of LOS is quite valuable. It is not far fetched to state that the mortar is worth at least 40 points.
That made the Wyvern chassis too cheap for the formula GW is apply to base costs.
Indeed as i'm saying, the problem is not in the melta, is in the fact that guard has no good platform for melta. This means that the melta should be correctly costed, like it is now, but at the same time something should be done for models like veterans.
Why are we insisting on making the weapon standardized across all platforms and armies instead of recognizing that it has different value for different units in different armies with different capabilities? How does one go about changing things for IG infantry to get more use out of Melta, that won't similarly make Plasma just that much better, when changing the cost will do it much more easily and simply, particularly when Melta was already seen as a distinctly 2nd-option niche choice?
Why must Meltaguns (and plasma) be the same price for IG as for Eldar (in the case of Meltaguns) and Space Marines, but not Autocannons, Lascannons, Flamers, Missile Launchers, Heavy Bolters, etc?
Vaktathi wrote: These units have different roles and capabilities. That doesn't follow at all. They didn't increase either the Hydra or Basilisk one will notice (thank the Emperor...), there's certainly no consistency by this line of thinking.
See my note above.
The issue is that these armies are going to be using their transports in different ways. IG infantry have historically gotten very little use out of transports. They don't want to advance and get closer, that ends up with them being dead, the transports have typically been mobile bunkers more than transports. This remains true in 8E. Other armies get a whole lot more utility out of their transports as actual transports. As is, how many *mechanized* IG armies are we seeing in 8E? Especially of the kind that were popular the last several editions? Almost none, they're practically extinct already. Especially outside of Taurox Primes (which I expect will probably be relatively rare going forward as well).
And yeah, with Orks there's absolutely an argument that their transports are overcosted, they're not a great comparison.
Yes, internal balance is a thing, but that is a criminally cheap transport. Armored sentinels don't even get that kind of price per wound. Which begs the question why would I ever taker an armored sentinel with one AC when I can take a Taurox for the same base cost and have two ACs? See the problem? (Yes degradation exists and the meta looked down on ACs, but not likely as much with the point drop).
And eventually you need to hop out anyway. So if you want to be mechanised you better do it to get special weapons in range.
Audustum wrote: Obviously the entirety of Death Korps of Krieg and Renegades and Heretics only belongs in Apocalypse. Same with Lias Issodon and other normal Space Marine Captains/Chapter Masters.
Oh and so does Inquisitor Hector Rex. Can't let an Inquisitor with Grey Knight bonuses out of Apocalypse.
Actually... yeah, that was the rule really until very late 5th edition. When I started in 3rd, FW stuff was never allowed in tournaments, and was generally seen as unsporting to spring on an opponent in casual games.
6th/7th editions really eroded that, but even know, plenty of events limit FW in some way.
It was always seen as "something other," at least until maybe 5-6 years ago.
And there was a time when Special Characters were 'opponent's permission only.' But we've moved past that. Actually, around the same time that FW stuff started being standardized as well. So if you want to act with the assumption that FW units should be considered for apocalypse only is a reasonable position, then you should also assume that the game should be excluding Special Characters as well.
And as for the case for melta weaponry, the only time anyone ever takes a melta gun is when a plasma gun is not available. Melta was bad before the point hike, and it's horrendous now.
Indeed as i'm saying, the problem is not in the melta, is in the fact that guard has no good platform for melta. This means that the melta should be correctly costed, like it is now, but at the same time something should be done for models like veterans.
Why are we insisting on making the weapon standardized across all platforms and armies instead of recognizing that it has different value for different units in different armies with different capabilities? How does one go about changing things for IG infantry to get more use out of Melta, that won't similarly make Plasma just that much better, when changing the cost will do it much more easily and simply, particularly when Melta was already seen as a distinctly 2nd-option niche choice?
Why must Meltaguns (and plasma) be the same price for IG as for Eldar (in the case of Meltaguns) and Space Marines, but not Autocannons, Lascannons, Flamers, Missile Launchers, Heavy Bolters, etc?
I agree with this. GW making Powerfist cost different for a space marine, a guardsmen and a Ork was a good thing. You can't value one weapon generally, thats one of the biggest problems of Warhammer40k balance-wise. They put a cost to a weapon, and that weapon can be used maybe by 6-9 units in one Codex alone (Not even talking about different Codex). How can you balance a Lasscannon with a single point cost? A Lasscannon shouldn't cost the same for a Space Marine than for a Vehicle or a Tank. Even with the same BS, the tank is just gonna be much more tought. And you can say "Yeah, but you put the cost of that tougthness on the tank", but as others have said, units are more than the sum of their parts. You can have a platform that is very expensive and very tought, but if it doesn't have options for good weapons nobody is gonna use it.
The same goes for Deepstrike. Should a Tactical squad with max +1 special weapon +1 heavy weapon +1 combi weapon pay the same for Deepstrike than a Sternguard that can have all combi weapons? No, because is obvious that the deepstrike hability sinergizes much better with the Sternguard squad.
One unit of Conscripts don't receive the same value from Deepstrike than a Bloodthirster of Khorne.
Indeed as i'm saying, the problem is not in the melta, is in the fact that guard has no good platform for melta. This means that the melta should be correctly costed, like it is now, but at the same time something should be done for models like veterans.
Why are we insisting on making the weapon standardized across all platforms and armies instead of recognizing that it has different value for different units in different armies with different capabilities? How does one go about changing things for IG infantry to get more use out of Melta, that won't similarly make Plasma just that much better, when changing the cost will do it much more easily and simply, particularly when Melta was already seen as a distinctly 2nd-option niche choice?
Why must Meltaguns (and plasma) be the same price for IG as for Eldar (in the case of Meltaguns) and Space Marines, but not Autocannons, Lascannons, Flamers, Missile Launchers, Heavy Bolters, etc?
Because autocannons, lascannon, missile launchers and heavy bolters don't have any bs3+ platform, that's why.
Having all the weapons at the same cost across codices gives consistency to the ruleset, it's a good thing. It means that when you change something, you have less chances to break something else without knowing.
Anyway, we don't know if in the next months the plasma will still be the best choice like it is now. There are already targets around that are best served with melta, rather than plasma, like a carnifex with sporocyst rushing your lines. Top SM lists are already switching it for grav.
Vaktathi wrote: These units have different roles and capabilities. That doesn't follow at all. They didn't increase either the Hydra or Basilisk one will notice (thank the Emperor...), there's certainly no consistency by this line of thinking.
See my note above.
I would dispute that they should have the same basic cost. They have different hulls, different weapons options, different roles and different capabilities unless you're talking about the most basic starting staline regardless of role and utility, which we don't have a cost for, and you're assuming a lot that we don't have any confirmation or evidence for, particularly that there's some sort of formula involved, that's being slavishly adhered to, and being done in very narrow context without deviation (GW has a long history of admittedly fudging costs in purely subjective manners through out the games existence and have said as much about 8E), and no such changes were applied to other platforms that share the same basic stats. There are far too many unknowns on our end unfortunately.
The issue is that these armies are going to be using their transports in different ways. IG infantry have historically gotten very little use out of transports. They don't want to advance and get closer, that ends up with them being dead, the transports have typically been mobile bunkers more than transports. This remains true in 8E. Other armies get a whole lot more utility out of their transports as actual transports. As is, how many *mechanized* IG armies are we seeing in 8E? Especially of the kind that were popular the last several editions? Almost none, they're practically extinct already. Especially outside of Taurox Primes (which I expect will probably be relatively rare going forward as well).
And yeah, with Orks there's absolutely an argument that their transports are overcosted, they're not a great comparison.
Yes, internal balance is a thing, but that is a criminally cheap transport. Armored sentinels don't even get that kind of price per wound.
Here's the issue with that comparison, nobody uses Armored Sentinels because they're painfully expensive for what they offer. 52pts (formerly 55, not going to make a big difference either way) for a single Autocannon that's hitting on 5's if it moves isn't anyone's idea of a good buy. The issue there isn't with the Taurox, the Armored Sentinel is overcosted. How often do you see them used? Almost never.
Which begs the question why would I ever taker an armored sentinel with one AC when I can take a Taurox for the same base cost and have two ACs? See the problem?
To which I would counter...even without the Taurox...why would I ever bother with the Armored Sentinel? I own a grip of them and they're *really* expensive for what they offer. For what a trio of AC armored sentinels costs, you can get a Leman Russ Exterminator that's pushing out 25% more shots, without any BS penalty on the move, and gets a heavy bolter to boot, and even that's seen as a distinctly sub-par option. Alternatively, you can just take an Infantry Squad with an autocannon, have just as much mobility, roughly the same resiliency (different against different types of weapons, but neither are exactly hardy units), but the Infantry Squad can receive orders, make use of ObSec, has more Stratagems to take advantage of, and better fills out detachments.
And eventually you need to hop out anyway. So if you want to be mechanised you better do it to get special weapons in range.
Only a couple of IG units have enough special weapons to care, and of those the one people actually typically use has a Deep Strike ability.
Again, mechanized IG armies are already almost nonexistent in 8th for a reason. They're certainly not going to be more viable now.
Indeed as i'm saying, the problem is not in the melta, is in the fact that guard has no good platform for melta. This means that the melta should be correctly costed, like it is now, but at the same time something should be done for models like veterans.
Why are we insisting on making the weapon standardized across all platforms and armies instead of recognizing that it has different value for different units in different armies with different capabilities? How does one go about changing things for IG infantry to get more use out of Melta, that won't similarly make Plasma just that much better, when changing the cost will do it much more easily and simply, particularly when Melta was already seen as a distinctly 2nd-option niche choice?
Why must Meltaguns (and plasma) be the same price for IG as for Eldar (in the case of Meltaguns) and Space Marines, but not Autocannons, Lascannons, Flamers, Missile Launchers, Heavy Bolters, etc?
Because autocannons, lascannon, missile launchers and heavy bolters don't have any bs3+ platform, that's why.
Did Veterans, Command Squads, and Tank Commanders suddenly disappear from the codex when I wasn't looking?
Wouldn't be the first time units have disappeared from the IG codex on me without explanation
One will notice that Sniper Rifles in an SM army are 4pts and are only on BS4+ models (unless I'm forgetting something), but are 2pts for IG models regardless of BS3+ or BS4+.
Having all the weapons at the same cost across codices gives consistency to the ruleset, it's a good thing.
No, because it ignores the critical fact that different units get different value from different weapon because they have different capabilities. It also doens't help that only a couple of weapons are held to this standard. Consistency is good where it's needed, not so where the only consistency is there because it's hamfisted into place for its own sake.
It means that when you change something, you have less chances to break something else without knowing.
I would disagree in the case of 40k 8E, for two reasons. First, there is almost certainly not going to be a change to the melta or plasma gun. Second, it means that if you do change something, it's going to cascade down to different platforms in different ways that you won't know ahead of time, instead of having units already at least somewhat adjusted relative to their basic performance.
This is also the first and only edition to break apart weapons values within a single army based on BS, and for whatever reason only applies to Plasma and Meltaguns.
Colonel Cross wrote:It's a shame because I loved my vets with meltas jumping out of a Valerie. At least I can go back to using the flamers and heavy flamer vet squad.
I probably will still do that, as it fits my fluff. Well, moreso the "Special Weapon Squads" but most "Veterans" in my army fluff show up as air-assault infantry.
Daedalus81 wrote: Which begs the question why would I ever taker an armored sentinel with one AC when I can take a Taurox for the same base cost and have two ACs? See the problem? (Yes degradation exists and the meta looked down on ACs, but not likely as much with the point drop).
And eventually you need to hop out anyway. So if you want to be mechanised you better do it to get special weapons in range.
Raises the question.
But yeah, I was noticing that I hadn't seen anyone speak on Sentenals at all since I swung back by here. Are they outmodded, now? They're a nifty model (I had like 4 in my old Guard force, when you could Deep Strike them), but I didn't think they fit well with my theme.
As for being Mechanized, the only special weapon I have in my 1500 point list is just Sniper rifles - infantry are only there to support / capture - it's the tanks that do the heavy lifting!
Deadalus. I think you give GW far too much credit when you think there's some sort of formula for how they decide point values, comparing transports to other armies' transports and doing some sort of wound/point ratio.
And yes, I did conveniently leave out the couple good things guard got (like cheaper autocannons). It's because my post was listing my complaints with chapter approved from a guard perspective, not a thorough analysis of the pros and cons. Yes, I admit, there were a couple nuggets of good out there. I don't deny that.
And just as I conveniently left that out, I think it's pretty convenient you only really focus on the taurox (and the wyvern a bit). Which, to be fair, I think you swayed me on. I never thought of it in terms of "why ever take an armored sentinel w/autocannon when the taurox costs the same, can carry two, and is more durable." So in the end a taurox went up by 6 points. I guess that's fair. I'll still field them.
But I think it's somewhat silly to try and compare something like a wyvern to a taurox prime. They're completely different units that serve completely different roles with completely different weapons. You can't just look at "wounds/point" in a vacuum. One will be in back probably behind cover. One will be up front taking fire. One is BS4. One is BS3. One can transport. One has double the range of the other. LOS ignoring. Rerolls. Regiment benefits. There are too many differences. And it's especially silly to determine that "rerolling wounds = weapon should cost double" for a guard artillery piece based on a marine melee weapon.
We can try to rationalize why the points for a certain thing changed the way they did, but all I can do is point out that if something wasn't being used before, increasing its cost proooobably won't do it any favors.
People weren't taking melta guns or ratlings or wyverns or conscripts (since the FAQ). They sure as hell aren't gonna start now. I believe Chapter Approved messed with a lot of things that didn't need messing with.
*shrug* But that's just my opinion. We'll see how it pans out.
But yeah, I was noticing that I hadn't seen anyone speak on Sentenals at all since I swung back by here. Are they outmodded, now?
Sentinels are sadly an eternally bad unit. They're an FA unit that isn't actually Fast (and in fact are slower than all the vehicle HS choices...), they don't have the resiliency of an actual tank, they don't have the firepower of an actual tank (even as a squadron of 3), and are always relatively expensive next to alternatives that fill the same role.
Indeed as i'm saying, the problem is not in the melta, is in the fact that guard has no good platform for melta. This means that the melta should be correctly costed, like it is now, but at the same time something should be done for models like veterans.
Why are we insisting on making the weapon standardized across all platforms and armies instead of recognizing that it has different value for different units in different armies with different capabilities? How does one go about changing things for IG infantry to get more use out of Melta, that won't similarly make Plasma just that much better, when changing the cost will do it much more easily and simply, particularly when Melta was already seen as a distinctly 2nd-option niche choice?
Why must Meltaguns (and plasma) be the same price for IG as for Eldar (in the case of Meltaguns) and Space Marines, but not Autocannons, Lascannons, Flamers, Missile Launchers, Heavy Bolters, etc?
Because autocannons, lascannon, missile launchers and heavy bolters don't have any bs3+ platform, that's why.
Did Veterans, Command Squads, and Tank Commanders suddenly disappear from the codex when I wasn't looking?
Wouldn't be the first time units have disappeared from the IG codex on me without explanation
One will notice that Sniper Rifles in an SM army are 4pts and are only on BS4+ models (unless I'm forgetting something), but are 2pts for IG models regardless of BS3+ or BS4+.
Having all the weapons at the same cost across codices gives consistency to the ruleset, it's a good thing.
No, because it ignores the critical fact that different units get different value from different weapon because they have different capabilities. It also doens't help that only a couple of weapons are held to this standard. Consistency is good where it's needed, not so where the only consistency is there because it's hamfisted into place for its own sake.
It means that when you change something, you have less chances to break something else without knowing.
I would disagree in the case of 40k 8E, for two reasons. First, there is almost certainly not going to be a change to the melta or plasma gun. Second, it means that if you do change something, it's going to cascade down to different platforms in different ways that you won't know ahead of time, instead of having units already at least somewhat adjusted relative to their basic performance.
This is also the first and only edition to break apart weapons values within a single army based on BS, and for whatever reason only applies to Plasma and Meltaguns.
Didn't actually now that veterans could form heavy weapon teams! Guess this speaks a lot about how much used veterans are...
And then there are HQs, but those are an exception in all codices, and right now Ta'u are abusing that exception as much as possible.
Anyway i agree, that rule isn't being enforced consistently.
Incredibly disappointed with CA's treatment of Dark Eldar, with our whopping six point changes, one of which was a Forgeworld unit no one was complaining about, one of which was already handled in an FAQ, and the remaining four were the Court of the Archon, which are really just a single unit. No wargear price adjustments, (The Heat Lance is inexplicably 25 points despite being worse than a Dark Lance is just about every scenario), no mention of our most grievously overcosted units (Hellions are T3, 1 Wound, 5+/6+++ Models and are 17 points.).
The kick in the teeth, however, is our Warlord Trait for the Wych Cults, activating on a 6+ to hit. Our signature HQ for the Cults is the Succubus, who's base wargear incurs a -1 to Hit. With how Power from Pain works out, it essentially means it's impossible for our HQ to make use of her Warlord Trait till Turn 3. Turn 3.
For a book supposedly about bringing non-codex armies up to speed, they seem to have taken the backseat.
This really just feels like an FAQ you have to pay for.
Glad to hear there's some relief for orks. A little surprised that our vehicles got heavily ignored. I still won't buy a single thing until the Ork codex is released. I've avoided all stop gaps so far. I'm patient even if it leads to waiting for another edition.
ProwlerPC wrote: Glad to hear there's some relief for orks. A little surprised that our vehicles got heavily ignored. I still won't buy a single thing until the Ork codex is released. I've avoided all stop gaps so far. I'm patient even if it leads to waiting for another edition.
tl:dr - my wallet already voted
Yeah, we basically gain 20-40 points in a 2000 list with CA, unless you play with several buggies. Better than nothing but pretty much near nothing anyway
I'm stoked by the CA points changes; Death Guard staples got cheaper, making Plague Marines usable and our Deathshroud Termis may see some tabletime now. Not to mention I can use PBC's for slightly less. Much needed changes
Indeed as i'm saying, the problem is not in the melta, is in the fact that guard has no good platform for melta. This means that the melta should be correctly costed, like it is now, but at the same time something should be done for models like veterans.
Why are we insisting on making the weapon standardized across all platforms and armies instead of recognizing that it has different value for different units in different armies with different capabilities? How does one go about changing things for IG infantry to get more use out of Melta, that won't similarly make Plasma just that much better, when changing the cost will do it much more easily and simply, particularly when Melta was already seen as a distinctly 2nd-option niche choice?
Why must Meltaguns (and plasma) be the same price for IG as for Eldar (in the case of Meltaguns) and Space Marines, but not Autocannons, Lascannons, Flamers, Missile Launchers, Heavy Bolters, etc?
Because autocannons, lascannon, missile launchers and heavy bolters don't have any bs3+ platform, that's why.
Having all the weapons at the same cost across codices gives consistency to the ruleset, it's a good thing. It means that when you change something, you have less chances to break something else without knowing.
Veterans can form Heavy Weapons Teams. So can standard Command Squads.
Veterans are BS3+.
Anyway, we don't know if in the next months the plasma will still be the best choice like it is now. There are already targets around that are best served with melta, rather than plasma, like a carnifex with sporocyst rushing your lines.
Top SM lists are already switching it for grav.
That's nice for "Top SM lists". Doesn't do diddly for anyone who doesn't have Grav though, now does it?
Alcibiades wrote: Maybe they decided that there is really no place for conscripts -- that the unit was a mistake in the first place -- and so just opted to effectively remove them.
no, they underestimated the fact that meta gamers will turn every stone in order to find the moust cheesy and broken unit combos in order to win. THAT is the biggest issue of ALL games.
as stuch GW faild to place restrictions to conscripts the moment the indexes was released, and are now forced to inderectly remove the conscripts from the meta untill they can remake the rules for them.
conscripts do belong in the codex, but not they way they was, or currently is.
they are a filler unit, something you bring just to add in the last missing points. they are not ment to be more important or effective in ANY task then a normal 10 man infantry unit.
Well that's kind of the issue I think. They were a filler unit, but then GW tried to give them a specific role -- a role that it turned out was difficult to fill without making them overpowered in other ways.
But yeah, I was noticing that I hadn't seen anyone speak on Sentenals at all since I swung back by here. Are they outmodded, now? They're a nifty model (I had like 4 in my old Guard force, when you could Deep Strike them), but I didn't think they fit well with my theme.
Only use I can think of for Sentinels is taking 3 Scout Sentinels, keeping them as cheap as possible to unlock a Brigade detachement, and then making use of their pre-first turn movement for area denial.
Other than that, both the Armored and the Scout Sentinel seem like a bad unit all around. They go down in no time, which means the Flamer+Chainsaw variant is never going to make it to the enemy alive, and the Heavy Weapons options have to stay stationary in order to shoot better than 5+, which makes their alleged mobility obsolete.
Maybe they're interesting in a Tallarn list but other than that, nah.
Regarding Sentinels, it probably doesn't help that their default (and cheapest) weapon - the Multilaser - is complete garbage.
What's more, Armoured Sentinels got further shafted with the changes to plasma. Previously, one of their main advantages was the ability to take Plasma Cannons - something neither Scout Sentinels nor HWTs could access. However, with the changes, any roll of 1 on a Plasma Cannon shot will kill the Sentinel outright.
What's more, both versions (but Scout Sentinels in particular) are supposed to be mobile gun-platforms. Now, though, unless you're using Tallarn, your Sentinels are basically no more mobile than Heavy Weapon Squads - and those can easily put out three times the firepower for around the same cost.
Oh, and the Sentinel Chainsaw is quite possibly the worst melee weapon in the game (relative to its platform). "So, if I take this upgrade, my Sentinel's single S5 attack at BS4+ will be made at AP-1? Where do I sign!"
Put simply, their cost doesn't appear to reflect their minuscule firepower and lack of mobility, and they just don't have any meaningful niche.
Base abilities, but in either case you'd be ok with someone fielding 200-250 (or more) melta guns in a 2,000 point game? Do you view smite spam as a problem?
Smite spam is a problem because it's actually hard to deal with. 200 T2 7+ bodies that have to footslog and have melta guns is not actually that hard to deal with. Why do you think it would be? If you have sufficient bolters to kill 60 GEQs then you can kill 112 of these things. Guardsmen shred them.
ProwlerPC wrote:Glad to hear there's some relief for orks. A little surprised that our vehicles got heavily ignored. I still won't buy a single thing until the Ork codex is released. I've avoided all stop gaps so far. I'm patient even if it leads to waiting for another edition.
tl:dr - my wallet already voted
See you in 2022, then?
Esmer wrote:
Only use I can think of for Sentinels is taking 3 Scout Sentinels, keeping them as cheap as possible to unlock a Brigade detachement, and then making use of their pre-first turn movement for area denial.
Other than that, both the Armored and the Scout Sentinel seem like a bad unit all around. They go down in no time, which means the Flamer+Chainsaw variant is never going to make it to the enemy alive, and the Heavy Weapons options have to stay stationary in order to shoot better than 5+, which makes their alleged mobility obsolete.
Maybe they're interesting in a Tallarn list but other than that, nah.
Vaktathi wrote:Sentinels are sadly an eternally bad unit. They're an FA unit that isn't actually Fast (and in fact are slower than all the vehicle HS choices...), they don't have the resiliency of an actual tank, they don't have the firepower of an actual tank (even as a squadron of 3), and are always relatively expensive next to alternatives that fill the same role.
Brutal :(
They were a cool looking model and an interesting concept - but as par usual, anything "neat" is junk.
Such is life.
One thing it also lost - to my recollection - is that Rough Terrain is no longer A Thing - so this means its other advantage (not throwing tracks) is gone. I don't know when that rule disappeared, but it was there in 4e. That said, in all truth, basically no table I played on other than my own ever featured much terrain at all - let alone rough ones. Always basically Line Battles with tanks and stuff. Seems to be supported with what I've seen here, too.
Time for a Terrain Revolution! (this will not happen because the staggeringly vast majority of any wargamers I've known are too lazy to even paint their own damn armies half the time).
I agree with this. GW making Powerfist cost different for a space marine, a guardsmen and a Ork was a good thing. You can't value one weapon generally, thats one of the biggest problems of Warhammer40k balance-wise. They put a cost to a weapon, and that weapon can be used maybe by 6-9 units in one Codex alone (Not even talking about different Codex). How can you balance a Lasscannon with a single point cost? A Lasscannon shouldn't cost the same for a Space Marine than for a Vehicle or a Tank. Even with the same BS, the tank is just gonna be much more tought. And you can say "Yeah, but you put the cost of that tougthness on the tank", but as others have said, units are more than the sum of their parts. You can have a platform that is very expensive and very tought, but if it doesn't have options for good weapons nobody is gonna use it.
The same goes for Deepstrike. Should a Tactical squad with max +1 special weapon +1 heavy weapon +1 combi weapon pay the same for Deepstrike than a Sternguard that can have all combi weapons? No, because is obvious that the deepstrike hability sinergizes much better with the Sternguard squad.
One unit of Conscripts don't receive the same value from Deepstrike than a Bloodthirster of Khorne.
This is just a sin of the new format. In the older codices, the options were written with the point costs in the same page, and the pricing of such options was not homogeneous (or at last it wasn't if the designer gave a crap). This new AoS layout is yet another example of impractical stupidity. Disregarding the loss of aestethic value in having the unit picture instead of an illustration of Adrian Smith.
About the sentinels: they are the victim of this new design: remove universal rules that were a staple of the units; and add it back, but not for everybody. Sentinels need Relentless. Like EVERY walker.
This is just a sin of the new format. In the older codices, the options were written with the point costs in the same page, and the pricing of such options was not homogeneous (or at last it wasn't if the designer gave a crap).
This new AoS layout is yet another example of impractical stupidity. Disregarding the loss of aestethic value in having the unit picture instead of an illustration of Adrian Smith.
I suspect points are to be phased out completely over time - that new "Power Level" thing is to take its place completely, I figure.
This is just a sin of the new format. In the older codices, the options were written with the point costs in the same page, and the pricing of such options was not homogeneous (or at last it wasn't if the designer gave a crap). This new AoS layout is yet another example of impractical stupidity. Disregarding the loss of aestethic value in having the unit picture instead of an illustration of Adrian Smith.
I suspect points are to be phased out completely over time - that new "Power Level" thing is to take its place completely, I figure.
M.
In that case, it will be the right moment to quit, I guess.
Vaktathi wrote: I would dispute that they should have the same basic cost. They have different hulls, different weapons options, different roles and different capabilities unless you're talking about the most basic starting staline regardless of role and utility, which we don't have a cost for, and you're assuming a lot that we don't have any confirmation or evidence for, particularly that there's some sort of formula involved, that's being slavishly adhered to, and being done in very narrow context without deviation (GW has a long history of admittedly fudging costs in purely subjective manners through out the games existence and have said as much about 8E), and no such changes were applied to other platforms that share the same basic stats. There are far too many unknowns on our end unfortunately.
Vehicles in the same Toughness and Save bracket have very similar costs.
Here's the issue with that comparison, nobody uses Armored Sentinels because they're painfully expensive for what they offer. 52pts (formerly 55, not going to make a big difference either way) for a single Autocannon that's hitting on 5's if it moves isn't anyone's idea of a good buy. The issue there isn't with the Taurox, the Armored Sentinel is overcosted. How often do you see them used? Almost never.
Armored Sentinels are really durable for the cost and great objective holders, but they certainly aren't an amazing gun platform (heavy flamers aside). This further reinforces the need for a Taurox packing 4 more wounds to get a bump in cost. Think of it this way:
Make an armored sentinel pay 5 points per wound. That's 30 points and cheaper than it is currently. And perhaps it will see reductions.
The Taurox has the same T6 3+ body. Make it pay 5 points per wound. It's now 50 points.
For what a trio of AC armored sentinels costs, you can get a Leman Russ Exterminator that's pushing out 25% more shots, without any BS penalty on the move, and gets a heavy bolter to boot, and even that's seen as a distinctly sub-par option. Alternatively, you can just take an Infantry Squad with an autocannon, have just as much mobility, roughly the same resiliency (different against different types of weapons, but neither are exactly hardy units), but the Infantry Squad can receive orders, make use of ObSec, has more Stratagems to take advantage of, and better fills out detachments.
18 T6 wounds dispersed across 3 models is going to limit damage spreading. A LRBT has 12 wounds (at T8 of course). Sentinels are potentially better at holding an objective. Easier to hide than a tank. A lascannon wounds both on a 3+ and gives both the same save. On average it takes just over 3 lascannon hits to kill a sentinel. And because the damage won't spread that makes it 4. So 12 hits for the squad. The LRBT needs 6.2 hits to be finished off. That makes the sentinels almost twice as durable for the cost.
The Kill Tank isn't in the same league as a Baneblade, it's actually pretty close to a Land Raider both in terms of its role and how powerful it is.
The Kill Tank is a little better than a Land Raider, but not a lot better. The Land Raider is more durable and a little bit better at shooting. The Kill Tank is a little bit faster, a little bit better of a transport* and significantly better in melee. The Kill Tank used to be ~50 points cheaper than the Land Raider, which meant it was undercosted. Now it is ~50 points more expensive than a Land Raider, which I think means it is overcosted but closer to fairly costed than it was before the change.
To be honest, I'm basing its cost entirely on comparing it to a Land Raider. I don't know if the Land Raider is currently appropriately costed or not.
8 S8/10 attacks with WS3+ is no joke.
It's also trivial to get a big mek onboard and give it the same survivability as a land raider against anti-tank, but with 8 more wounds.
So previously landraider - T8, 2+ 18W @ 239 - 13.3 per wound
Killtank - T8, 4+/5++ 24W @ 290 - 12 per wound
Then slap on good melee and mortal wounds. Then take 3 of them and stick the mek on a bike to save on costs.
Sure you could shoot assault cannons at them, but that's going to be a long slog and they're not exactly slow. Maybe 365 is too far, but they needed to go up.
I think we're actually mostly in agreement. I also think that Kill Tanks cost too little at 215. Now I think they cost too much*, but they are closer to being fairly priced than they were before. Of course, I'm talking about them maybe being ~25 points too high which probably isn't a huge deal when we're talking about a ~400 point model. It does add up when taking three of them, though.
The Kill Tank definitely packs a punch in close combat. I think that it's ability to do mortal wounds on the charge is even better than all the S8/10 Attacks, which as you say are no joke themselves. The main point I was trying to make was that the ability of passengers to shoot (but hit on 6s) was actually a pretty small advantage. Anything that doesn't auto-hit is mostly just going to miss. Burnas and skorchas will still auto-hit, but they're good against things like hormagaunts which I absolutely do not want my Kill Tank to get charged by as the Kill Tank can't fall back and shoot.. I want to charge things like Land Raiders and 4x Lascannon Predators with my Kill Tank. These targets are dangerous to my Kill Tank in shooting but are not dangerous to my Kill Tank in close combat. If I charge one of these units it can either stay there and get ground down under S8 while the rest of my enemy's army can't shoot the Kill Tank, or it can fall back in which case it can't shoot and if my Kill Tank survives it gets to shoot and charge in to do mortal wounds again. The things that I want to charge with my Kill Tank are not good targets for Burnas and Skorchas, and more often then not if those units want to shoot at something they'll want to hop out and charge it anyway.
So that was a long-winded way of saying that the Kill Tank is good in melee, but the Hang On rule is only really useful in edge cases.
You are right that the Big Mek with KFF synergizes very well with Kill Tanks. I didn't bring it up because synergies* can get pretty complicated. Aren't there Space Marine units that can also buff a Land Raider? Like Captains that give re-rolls and psychic powers that can make them tougher? Those probably aren't as good as the KFF, though. The Kill Tank is actually about as tough against anti-tank weapons as the Land Raider even without the KFF. The place where it is at a disadvantage is against high-volume, mid-strength shooting. The extra wounds don't make up for the 4+ armor save. Granted, a bunch of autocannons and heavy bolters would take forever to bring down a Kill Tank by themselves, but when you shoot a bunch of them at a Kill Tank there is a good chance of doing a few wounds and that can matter for knocking it down a tier on the degredation chart or when there's nothing better to shoot at. (On a side note, I really like that Ork vehicles tend to have a good amount of wounds but bad armor saves compared ot Imperical vehicles. You shoot a bunch of heavy bolter rounds at a Leman Russ and they bounce off. You spray down a Trukk or Battle Wagon and bits and pieces start flying off. On the flip side if a Lascannon or Krak Missile punches through an Imperial vehicle's armor it can be in serious trouble, while if it blows something off of an Ork vehicle there's a good chance they didn't really need those bits anyway. I think it's really fun and thematic.)
*I didn't consider that in terms of buffs and synergy the Space Marine Chapter Tactics don't effect vehicles while the Ork Clan abilities might, and we might also get a bunch of stratagems that might buff the Kill Tank. So yeah, it's entirely possible it might actually be a great unit for the points depending on what we see with the codex.
I was actually planning to run 3x Kill Tanks with a Big Mek on Bike. This was going to be the core of my tournament list as I'm too slow to play Green Tide. It still might be viable after the codex drops (and it's not even assembled yet so I have time) so I'm not too worried about it. I'm holding off on building my Nob Bikers as Big Mek bikers since I think they might get axed in the Codex, and while I could probably still play them out of the Index I don;t know if I want to bother with that.
ThePorcupine wrote: Deadalus. I think you give GW far too much credit when you think there's some sort of formula for how they decide point values, comparing transports to other armies' transports and doing some sort of wound/point ratio.
And yes, I did conveniently leave out the couple good things guard got (like cheaper autocannons). It's because my post was listing my complaints with chapter approved from a guard perspective, not a thorough analysis of the pros and cons. Yes, I admit, there were a couple nuggets of good out there. I don't deny that.
And just as I conveniently left that out, I think it's pretty convenient you only really focus on the taurox (and the wyvern a bit). Which, to be fair, I think you swayed me on. I never thought of it in terms of "why ever take an armored sentinel w/autocannon when the taurox costs the same, can carry two, and is more durable." So in the end a taurox went up by 6 points. I guess that's fair. I'll still field them.
But I think it's somewhat silly to try and compare something like a wyvern to a taurox prime. They're completely different units that serve completely different roles with completely different weapons. You can't just look at "wounds/point" in a vacuum. One will be in back probably behind cover. One will be up front taking fire. One is BS4. One is BS3. One can transport. One has double the range of the other. LOS ignoring. Rerolls. Regiment benefits. There are too many differences. And it's especially silly to determine that "rerolling wounds = weapon should cost double" for a guard artillery piece based on a marine melee weapon.
We can try to rationalize why the points for a certain thing changed the way they did, but all I can do is point out that if something wasn't being used before, increasing its cost proooobably won't do it any favors.
People weren't taking melta guns or ratlings or wyverns or conscripts (since the FAQ). They sure as hell aren't gonna start now. I believe Chapter Approved messed with a lot of things that didn't need messing with.
*shrug* But that's just my opinion. We'll see how it pans out.
Can we all just take a moment to sit down and appreciate how measured and polite this response was? Exalted, for something that is sorely lacking in these forums.
Infantryman wrote: I'm kind of surprised they don't just cruise the forums and scoop up community discussions on it to at least inform their decisions.
We kinda sorta do some of the leg work for them, there.
M.
people still playing 8th are more or less beta testers for them, just like AoS. Not saying its bad, but not good either.
And I wouldn't mind that, if there was at least an open discussion between the playerbase and GW in developing those updates. I like the core of 8th edition, and appreciate the initiative to try to better moderate the game, but GW spraying blindly against a wall while doing nothing to explain some very questionable decisions does not bode well for the long term health of the game, or the enjoyment of myself and others.
If GW is going to treat 8th edition as a beta, they need to also treat their dealings with the community as a two-way street.
Vaktathi wrote: I would dispute that they should have the same basic cost. They have different hulls, different weapons options, different roles and different capabilities unless you're talking about the most basic starting staline regardless of role and utility, which we don't have a cost for, and you're assuming a lot that we don't have any confirmation or evidence for, particularly that there's some sort of formula involved, that's being slavishly adhered to, and being done in very narrow context without deviation (GW has a long history of admittedly fudging costs in purely subjective manners through out the games existence and have said as much about 8E), and no such changes were applied to other platforms that share the same basic stats. There are far too many unknowns on our end unfortunately.
Vehicles in the same Toughness and Save bracket have very similar costs.
Hrm, not sure I agree with drawing too much from this, we don't know the rationale behind them, I'd argue that in the Chimeras case it's painfully overcosted (and as a result you see very few on tables), and the Predator has a *notably* higher cost despite having only one addiitonal wound and fewer features (no transport ability, no self repair, no out-of-LoS weapons) than the other platforms there (before buying its weapons, only one of which is mandatory).
Here's the issue with that comparison, nobody uses Armored Sentinels because they're painfully expensive for what they offer. 52pts (formerly 55, not going to make a big difference either way) for a single Autocannon that's hitting on 5's if it moves isn't anyone's idea of a good buy. The issue there isn't with the Taurox, the Armored Sentinel is overcosted. How often do you see them used? Almost never.
Armored Sentinels are really durable for the cost and great objective holders, but they certainly aren't an amazing gun platform (heavy flamers aside).
In what context?They're worth shooting big AT guns at when fresh, they're wounded on 5's by Lasguns and S3 melee attacks, and mid-strength weapons like Plasma Guns and Autocannons are spectacularly effective against them. Nobody particularly sees Armored Sentinels as fantastically resilient units.
This further reinforces the need for a Taurox packing 4 more wounds to get a bump in cost.
If the line of thinking is "X is bad, so lets nerf Y", there's a huge number of issues with that. There's zero context of where the two units actually perform, the reasons for taking them, what roles they fill and what places they take in the army? Just because Sentinels are bad and Tauroxes are better Autocannon sources doesn't mean that nerfing the Taurox is going to make people take Sentinels or that the Sentinel a good landmark for balance decisions.
It's not like Tauroxes were exactly Grade A competitive list units, aside from attempting to tie performance to units that are seen as decidedly uncompetitive, there's very little rationale for nerfing them, nobody thought they were an issue.
Think of it this way:
Make an armored sentinel pay 5 points per wound. That's 30 points and cheaper than it is currently. And perhaps it will see reductions.
The Taurox has the same T6 3+ body. Make it pay 5 points per wound. It's now 50 points.
If we're strictly sticking to this concept, to the exclusion of all other context, sure. By this rationale however the Predator above would be similarly *overcosted* relative to its Rhino counterpart (probably moreso), and nobody seems to think these are particularly bad units currently (aside from not getting chapter tactics which is another discussion altogether).
However, we have zero evidence that this is how GW costs units (who have themselves stated many times through many editions, including this one, that such formulae tend to be little more than passing fads around the studio and most costing is subjective), this costing paradigm ignores all context in which these units are used and employed, focused solely on wounds per point to the exclusion of all else. Stats don't always scale linearly, FoC slot location, tabletop role, armament choices, transport ability, etc and more all factor into costs in ways every analysis of yours is failing to capture.
For what a trio of AC armored sentinels costs, you can get a Leman Russ Exterminator that's pushing out 25% more shots, without any BS penalty on the move, and gets a heavy bolter to boot, and even that's seen as a distinctly sub-par option. Alternatively, you can just take an Infantry Squad with an autocannon, have just as much mobility, roughly the same resiliency (different against different types of weapons, but neither are exactly hardy units), but the Infantry Squad can receive orders, make use of ObSec, has more Stratagems to take advantage of, and better fills out detachments.
18 T6 wounds dispersed across 3 models is going to limit damage spreading. A LRBT has 12 wounds (at T8 of course).
Sure, if we're talking about overkill from big AT guns, but we're really trying very hard to make a unit nobody thinks is any good into some sort of reasonable balance landmark.
Sentinels are potentially better at holding an objective.
Again, pretty reachy here, that's going to be very circumstancial. Possible, but very circumstancial and they're going to have a harder time getting there while being much more vulnerable to the types of weapons many objective holding units are likely to hold (particularly infantry weapons).
Easier to hide than a tank.
In theory? Potentially, sure. In practice? Not really, the Sentinel is taller than a Russ, the bulk of its mass is higher (with some things like fences or low walls or an Aegis line its actually quite possible to get an LRBT 50% obscured but not a Sentinel because its body is so high), and in a squadron of two or three they don't really have any smaller of a footprint.
A lascannon wounds both on a 3+ and gives both the same save. On average it takes just over 3 lascannon hits to kill a sentinel. And because the damage won't spread that makes it 4. So 12 hits for the squad. The LRBT needs 6.2 hits to be finished off. That makes the sentinels almost twice as durable for the cost.
This is getting really reachy, we're really struggling to take a unit nobody rates and attempting to tie it as some sort of balance measure through the aspect of heavy anti-tank guns being overkill and less effective than against the heavy battle tanks they're intended for. The sentinels are much easier to hurt and destroy with small arms fire and mid-range weaponry like Plasma guns and Autocannons, and the big heavy anti-tank guns are still rather effective against the Sentinels, even if more circumstancial as to when you want to bring them to bear.
Again, the Sentinel is not a highly thought of unit. They're not particularly hard to kill (vulnerable to small arms fire, vulnerable to mid-strength weapons in ways heavier vehicles are not, big anti tank guns can still whack them not-inefficiently), their shooting is anemic and pathetic when moving, their mobility is actually rather limited next to proper tanks, etc. Trying to use it as a standard measure of balance is difficult to concur with. I'd argue they need to be notably cheaper.
A classic example of a unit that has a context in-universe, and maybe in specific forms of engagements, but doesn't fit the way Warhammer battles are actually played.
Same with the Salamander, I suspect - recon-type units work in an operational context, but you don't usually want to bring them into a tactical one...
I'd say the Scout version would make a half-decent platform for rushing up a hunter-killer missile to pop some choice units but heaven forbid THAT bit of wargear ever be worth its weight!
This is just a sin of the new format. In the older codices, the options were written with the point costs in the same page, and the pricing of such options was not homogeneous (or at last it wasn't if the designer gave a crap).
This new AoS layout is yet another example of impractical stupidity. Disregarding the loss of aestethic value in having the unit picture instead of an illustration of Adrian Smith.
I suspect points are to be phased out completely over time - that new "Power Level" thing is to take its place completely, I figure.
M.
I think to make this comment is to be blind to what has happened over the last couple of years regarding the launch of AoS. I think the idea of removing individual point costs was seriously considered and was tested with the original launch of AoS. However, such was the outcry, that we soon saw the general's handbook appear and point values reinstated.
Interestingly enough, this is how I felt with regards to the playerbase's reaction to the system.
There was such an outcry, locally, from the people who in editions past ran the cheesiest and most ridiculous lists that they "didn't know how to build an army now" or "anyone can spam X/Y/Z--where's the tactics?" or "I can't hide my heroes in a unit anymore how am I supposed to win?". Or my personal favorite--"Why are these silly rules even a thing? They're so dumb, you get a bonus for doing something silly!".
These people were the most vocal opponents of a pointsless system and I never really got why at the time, but seeing the reaction to Power and Open Play for 40k from those same people it makes a lot more sense now.
I had/have my issues with Aos (which was mainly from what I considered to be the unnecessary decision to nuke the World) but this statement is just not true.
Hollow wrote: I think to make this comment is to be blind to what has happened over the last couple of years regarding the launch of AoS. I think the idea of removing individual point costs was seriously considered and was tested with the original launch of AoS. However, such was the outcry, that we soon saw the general's handbook appear and point values reinstated.
Difference here being AOS lacked ANY point system. Power level is actually a point system. Just not very granular one.
So it's not totally comparable. "No points whatsoever failed. Thus less granular point system will also fail"
The problem with AOS is that GW wanted to push the idea of coming up with your own balance to tell a story, and people wanted a competitive game they could optimize the gak out of and "play to win". Mutually exclusive (not saying one is better than the other, both have places) but GW completely ignored the people who wanted some sort of guide for balancing, which was TOO far in the opposite direction. When your only guide for army building is "do what you want" that leaves it wide open to interpretation. Some of their battle reports in white dwarf were like "I used my entire collection" or "We each took several units and a couple heroes" but what constitutes "several" units? The concept itself I thought was great, but it can't work anymore. It worked fine in the 70s and 80s when you were doing historical gaming and kind of winging games in a club, but in today's culture people may not even have a regular club, so you need some sort of framework however basic to be able to play against a random stranger, and AOS didn't have that.
Power Level is fine for what it is; a rough way to come up with forces that will likely be asymmetrical but give you an idea. They aren't for people who will immediately look at it and say "I'm taking every upgrade possible because it's free", they're for people who build the squad as it comes on the box, or just have some variety in their army and want to just use it. Again, the issue is people seem to want 100% symmetry in armies; same points, same objectives, same deployment, etc. when a big part of playing 40k has been those asymmetric scenarios where you are defending an objective, or you need to spearhead blitz into your enemy's deployment zone, or any other situation where you may not be exactly equal.
The disconnect is that people don't want a casual narrative game they can mold; they want a tabletop e-sport with as close to "perfect" balance as possible and list building to be a core component (I'm pretty sure this mindset comes from Magic, but can't pinpoint it as it's been too many years), if not THE main component, in the game. So GW's approach to the game is just largely incompatible with what a lot (no idea if it's the majority/minority) of people want.
Personally, I like power level for what it is; when I want to play a fun scenario with friends and not care too much about us using the same points, or playing the same mission. Those games have thus far been a lot more fun than equal points, using an Maelstrom or Eternal War mission out of the book.
Wayniac wrote: Personally, I like power level for what it is; when I want to play a fun scenario with friends and not care too much about us using the same points, or playing the same mission. Those games have thus far been a lot more fun than equal points, using an Maelstrom or Eternal War mission out of the book.
For me it actually works surprisingly similar to what we had BEFORE 8th ed. Roughly eyeballing armies so they would be about same taking into account scenario(more points for attacker if defenders are in entrenched positions or if slow shooty army needs to advance etc). So power levels is actually surprisingly workable system for us. It's bit more organized than just no points whatsoever but still quick&easy. Since we don't try to minmax things(as it is we mutually make BOTH army lists on strict WYSIWYG for anything but grenade, iron halo's etc) no worry about maxing out on expensive wargear. Unit of death company all with power fists looks more boring than mix of weapons anyway!
Infantryman wrote: A classic example of a unit that has a context in-universe, and maybe in specific forms of engagements, but doesn't fit the way Warhammer battles are actually played.
I don't think this is true at all. Sentinels could be just fine at the right point cost, the problem is that GW consistently over-values them.
Every game of power level has been roughly the same in terms of "balance" (lol balance in 40k) as games using points. The only thing points do is soothe the desire to pay granular points.
Neither offers true balance.
In fact listbuilding is not about balance at all, its about breaking balance to have an advantage against your opponent. It is a mini-game to beat in and of itself.
The player saying "but power level lets me take all these FREE upgrades so its not balanced" is often the same player running a spreadsheet and figuring out the top of a power coefficient bell curve to squeeze out an extra +1000 points of functionality in their 2000 pt list so that they can have a fairly large advantage over a player not skilled with spreadsheeting (or not caring enough to spreadsheet). If BOTH players can just take power level and get free upgrades, then you have removed the spreadsheetiing skill. *there is the real source of complaint from a lot of people I know that say power level is not balanced* - not the balance - but now Joe and Mike can create abusive lists too but don't need my excel formula to figure out the power coefficient.
As such I use power level pretty much exclusively because I get the same quality of games as I do with points, only its a lot easier to put a list together.
AOS failed in the beginning with no poiints simply because listbuilders can't listbuild without points, and the 40k / whfb community is/was comprised of a huge majority of players that require listbuilding because the game is a competiitive game to them as opposed to a narrative style game that GW was trying to push.
People will say that its because no points = no balance, but often I either don't believe them or believe they are referring to something else, because when I see those people talk about no balance ruining the game turning around and min/max listbuilding when they can to break balance intentionally... I don't believe that they want balance. I believe that they want and need STRUCTURE TO ABUSE AND LISTBUILD AGAINST.
No points = no structure. No structure = no listbuilding. No listbuilding = no meta-game to beat.
Go back to AOS 2015 release. Player disappointed with no points could still break the game with no points as they can with points. It just doesn't feel as clever to do so with no points because they aren't beating a point-structure meta game, and feeling clever about gaining an advantage via listbuilding is the heart and soul of competitive play for many people, and yes dating back to when Magic exploded on ESPN and kick started the listbuilding/deckbuilding soul that is so vibrant and dominant in any game today.
I think to make this comment is to be blind to what has happened over the last couple of years regarding the launch of AoS. I think the idea of removing individual point costs was seriously considered and was tested with the original launch of AoS. However, such was the outcry, that we soon saw the general's handbook appear and point values reinstated.
I don't know much of anything about AoS. I do remember reading a version of WHFB that did not have points or anything - might have been an early release of AoS - but wasn't aware it was brought back at all. I parted ways with the game in 7th, and did not really feel compelled to go back.
I do think it's funny that people say "OH MAN PL IS SO UNBALANCED" and then GW drops Chapter Approved as if to say "Yeah, points are more balanced than power level. *rolleyes*"
auticus wrote: Every game of power level has been roughly the same in terms of "balance" (lol balance in 40k) as games using points. The only thing points do is soothe the desire to pay granular points.
Neither offers true balance.
In fact listbuilding is not about balance at all, its about breaking balance to have an advantage against your opponent. It is a mini-game to beat in and of itself.
The player saying "but power level lets me take all these FREE upgrades so its not balanced" is often the same player running a spreadsheet and figuring out the top of a power coefficient bell curve to squeeze out an extra +1000 points of functionality in their 2000 pt list so that they can have a fairly large advantage over a player not skilled with spreadsheeting (or not caring enough to spreadsheet). If BOTH players can just take power level and get free upgrades, then you have removed the spreadsheetiing skill. *there is the real source of complaint from a lot of people I know that say power level is not balanced* - not the balance - but now Joe and Mike can create abusive lists too but don't need my excel formula to figure out the power coefficient.
As such I use power level pretty much exclusively because I get the same quality of games as I do with points, only its a lot easier to put a list together.
AOS failed in the beginning with no poiints simply because listbuilders can't listbuild without points, and the 40k / whfb community is/was comprised of a huge majority of players that require listbuilding because the game is a competiitive game to them as opposed to a narrative style game that GW was trying to push.
People will say that its because no points = no balance, but often I either don't believe them or believe they are referring to something else, because when I see those people talk about no balance ruining the game turning around and min/max listbuilding when they can to break balance intentionally... I don't believe that they want balance. I believe that they want and need STRUCTURE TO ABUSE AND LISTBUILD AGAINST.
No points = no structure. No structure = no listbuilding. No listbuilding = no meta-game to beat.
Go back to AOS 2015 release. Player disappointed with no points could still break the game with no points as they can with points. It just doesn't feel as clever to do so with no points because they aren't beating a point-structure meta game, and feeling clever about gaining an advantage via listbuilding is the heart and soul of competitive play for many people, and yes dating back to when Magic exploded on ESPN and kick started the listbuilding/deckbuilding soul that is so vibrant and dominant in any game today.
TO some extent this is true, in the end though many people want the ability to have a somewhat balanced game against someone in a quick pick up style, and that is what some sort of points system is designed to allow. With no points you are basically always required to have a detailed discussion if you want any semblance of a balanced pick up game. No points in a small group work fine because those players can play repeated games against one another and decide what is too good, not good enough. I think power level could work, the issue is putting it on top of a system designed for granular points (lots of upgrade options at individual/unit levels). I think PL would best work if all units were like primaris marines where they have a very limited set of options, and those options are pretty close in utility. This seems to be the way most AOS units have gone, where they don't have many options, you just buy units.
This is an obvious straw man. Nobody is demanding perfect balance, we want better balance. And having point values that more accurately represent a unit's power, because they account for the varying power level of its upgrade options, provides better balance. If it fails to provide that improvement in balance it is only because GW is too incompetent to use the tools they have available. In the hands of a competent developer the more detailed point system is the clear winner.
In fact listbuilding is not about balance at all, its about breaking balance to have an advantage against your opponent. It is a mini-game to beat in and of itself.
Only when the game is fundamentally broken like 40k, and allows list-building to break balance to that degree. In a better game this does not happen.
No points = no structure. No structure = no listbuilding. No listbuilding = no meta-game to beat.
No. No points = whoever spends the most money wins. In the absence of points you put your entire collection on the table, and having more money to spend on a bigger collection means winning. The only reason AoS didn't immediately degenerate into this situation is that the players collectively realized the stupidity of playing without points and created their own point systems, whether explicit and detailed or simply a rough and informal approximation. So your choice becomes using an official point system that is provided by GW and acts as a common standard for the entire community, or dozens of separate point systems where everyone argues about which one should be used. I think the winner here is clear.
It just doesn't feel as clever to do so with no points because they aren't beating a point-structure meta game
You're right, it doesn't feel clever, because it's nothing more than a question of who spends the most money. The game isn't a game anymore, so why play it? That doesn't mean that people are ragequitting because they can't gain a huge advantage through list-building choices, it just means that there's a point where the game is so fundamentally broken that it isn't interesting anymore.
I agree... you need poiints for structure for pick up games. Thats why I don't mind Power Level, and thats why I wrote Azyr Comp for AOS when it first came out.
Now for our 40k campaign coming up that uses Power Level you are restricted to a certain number of upgrades period. So you can't just take everything.
auticus wrote: Now for our 40k campaign coming up that uses Power Level you are restricted to a certain number of upgrades period. So you can't just take everything.
That's an absurd rule because it ignores the fact that some armies have more upgrade options than others. For example, a Tau infantry squad is armed with nothing but its basic guns, but its basic guns are really powerful. An IG veteran squad starts with only its very weak lasguns, because the squad is really its four upgrade weapons (three special and one heavy) with some extra wound counters to keep them alive. The Tau player doesn't have to buy any upgrades to get the basic functioning of their unit, the IG player has to buy four (or more!) upgrades to get theirs. So the IG player is going to run out of upgrade slots and be stuck taking naked units that aren't meant to be used that way, while the Tau player gets to build their whole list at full effectiveness.
And really, what is the point of this rule? Stubborn insistence on using power levels? Just use the more detailed point system where there's no need to put a cap on upgrades.
auticus wrote: I agree... you need poiints for structure for pick up games. Thats why I don't mind Power Level, and thats why I wrote Azyr Comp for AOS when it first came out.
Now for our 40k campaign coming up that uses Power Level you are restricted to a certain number of upgrades period. So you can't just take everything.
So again it requires agreed to restrictions, to work properly. The reason PL works for most pick up games is that if you play WYSIWYG most people have built things for points, so armies are not using every upgrade, if PL became the common means of balance, unless accompanied by restrictions, people would start to build their units with max upgrades.
auticus wrote: I agree... you need poiints for structure for pick up games. Thats why I don't mind Power Level, and thats why I wrote Azyr Comp for AOS when it first came out.
Now for our 40k campaign coming up that uses Power Level you are restricted to a certain number of upgrades period. So you can't just take everything.
So again it requires agreed to restrictions, to work properly. The reason PL works for most pick up games is that if you play WYSIWYG most people have built things for points, so armies are not using every upgrade, if PL became the common means of balance, unless accompanied by restrictions, people would start to build their units with max upgrades.
auticus wrote: I agree... you need poiints for structure for pick up games. Thats why I don't mind Power Level, and thats why I wrote Azyr Comp for AOS when it first came out.
Now for our 40k campaign coming up that uses Power Level you are restricted to a certain number of upgrades period. So you can't just take everything.
So again it requires agreed to restrictions, to work properly. The reason PL works for most pick up games is that if you play WYSIWYG most people have built things for points, so armies are not using every upgrade, if PL became the common means of balance, unless accompanied by restrictions, people would start to build their units with max upgrades.
But people build their models right now with max efficiency upgrades, so I'm not seeing a giant difference overall.
Yaknow, people like peregrine keep claiming 40k as a game is broken as hell and has no balance and give the fact there are a handful of "top builds" as some sort of proof.
This is bull though, show me a single big game that does NOT have a meta of superior strategies.
Even starcraft, who many here seem to hail as the "standard of true balance", is really not.
It has merely 3 armies, who between the three I don't think they match the unit count of codex marines alone.
And it STILL has a few well defined meta with a handful of "build orders" and it boils down to micro level control most of the time (40k equivilat of movement, target selections and when to spend limited use abilities)
Overwatch, the other competetive game by "balance masters blizzard"-if anyone watched the world cup, it was mostly mirror matched of the same 6 heroes on both teams.
Lets not even start with hearthstone and their must-have legionaries.
Anyone else got a better example of "balance done right"? because I don't know a single game that fits your standard of balance.
sfshilo wrote: Power level is more fun, more competitive, and removes the silly point optimization game that the ITC encourages.
It does no such thing. Point optimization is still essential in a less-precise point system, it just means optimizing how much you get for each power level point. It isn't inherently any more competitive than a more precise point system, in fact it's less competitive because it has much more opportunity for poor balance. And whether it is fun or not is, I suppose, dependent on your personal definition of fun, but I don't see it at all. The game experience is still the same no matter how you add up your points.
And this is bad why?
Because it reduces diversity. Currently there are reasons to take my IG sergeants with and without power weapons. Taking the power weapon obviously makes the sergeant more powerful, but it also means paying more points and it forces a decision about whether or not the increase in points is justified in each individual case. But with a power level system you just give everyone a power weapon, there's no reason not to.
I wonder if PL would actually support more fluffy armies...doubt it.
The issue I see - to my unpracticed eye - is that you'd be a fool not to go full throttle, since a PL3 unit is PL3 regardless of what upgrades it takes.
Chess, which, while it has 54 to 46% winrate for white when played perfectly due to the first-turn advantage White has even in an alternating-activation system, is rather adequately balanced.
BoomWolf wrote: This is bull though, show me a single big game that does NOT have a meta of superior strategies.
That's not the point. The problem is not that 40k has a meta of superior strategies and bad lists lose, it's that 40k's superior strategies are obvious. In a game like MTG or X-Wing you have a meta that evolves over time as people start to understand what does and does not work, and there's no substitute for investing a lot of playtesting time into figuring it out. In 40k the superior strategies are incredibly obvious as soon as the rules are available. Things like pre-nerf conscripts, deep striking plasma, etc, were identified immediately because they were so blatantly overpowered. Similarly, weak units are very often immediately identified as weak and then never see any use because that initial dismissal turns out to be 100% correct. So, rather than a highly competitive meta struggle to figure out that last 5% of strategy power 40k has a few hours of identifying GW's obvious mistakes followed by months/years of exploiting them.
Because it reduces diversity. Currently there are reasons to take my IG sergeants with and without power weapons. Taking the power weapon obviously makes the sergeant more powerful, but it also means paying more points and it forces a decision about whether or not the increase in points is justified in each individual case. But with a power level system you just give everyone a power weapon, there's no reason not to.
For me, very causal player, this is one of the thing I love of listbuilding. I don't want to exploit the system but I like to make a plan and choose units and options, and equip my units for the mission. I restared with 8th and I love my Plague Marines because, at least theoretically, you can equip the squads in many way, carry them in many vehicles to accomplish the mission. They are cool, with all different teams! Melee, ranged, anti-horde, anti heavy infantry... Having the choice within a framework is a minigame by itself but it does not mean that I want to "exploit" it. This is particularly valid for low point games or kill teams. You really have a pleasure in working with few tools and satisfaction in the choice you made. For sure, when I used to play WHFB, I had a High Elf friend of mine, we always played his elves vs my chaos. Part of the pleasure was to write lists and surprise the enemy with a new strategy (well, more for him, Chaos was quite straightforward but I still had space). I did not want to make a fool of him, or exploit a system, just challenge a friend and have a framework to do it in a fair, sporty way. At least, this is what we used to think because we were naive at the beginning. Also, 6th edition book destroyed the HE. Thank you for ruining this, Jake Thornton. Finally, having the army divided in HQ, Troops, Heavy or whatever make it feel more "real" (lol) and gives you a direction even as a collector. Assemble quickly a properly costed army gives you a direction, a structure for the first order for the army. Is an advantage on that level. I am sorry for those that are burn by system exploiters, but that is more about the design team being mediocre and just choosing better players as adversaries (I admit that is not always possible).
Unit1126PLL wrote: Chess, which, while it has 54 to 46% winrate for white when played perfectly due to the first-turn advantage White has even in an alternating-activation system, is rather adequately balanced.
Look, it feels like it's centuries that I am waiting for a Queen nerf. Internal balance of that game is awful.
Infantryman wrote: I wonder if PL would actually support more fluffy armies...doubt it.
The issue I see - to my unpracticed eye - is that you'd be a fool not to go full throttle, since a PL3 unit is PL3 regardless of what upgrades it takes.
M.
If you're goiing to min/max all the time anyway, the same issue is in points. Only in points you have the false illusion that its ok because you paid points for it when the army lists come out similar anyway.
Its especially true if both players are min/maxing power level because they both have a min/max list, same as points. You'll get roughly the same quality of game.
Then there's "i''ll always max my list for free if I can with power level, why wouldn't you? I have a CHOICE with points to not do it."
I consider that a good solid majority of the time to be the illusion of choice. Yes technically its a choice, that most people will choose the same result regardless.
It's true. As far as casual vs competitive lists, PL does not encourage one or the other more, I don't think.
Points can still be exploited to break the game (incredibly obviously as Peregrine pointed out) and the type of people who will do that will break Power Level as well, sadly.
auticus wrote: I agree... you need poiints for structure for pick up games. Thats why I don't mind Power Level, and thats why I wrote Azyr Comp for AOS when it first came out.
Now for our 40k campaign coming up that uses Power Level you are restricted to a certain number of upgrades period. So you can't just take everything.
So again it requires agreed to restrictions, to work properly. The reason PL works for most pick up games is that if you play WYSIWYG most people have built things for points, so armies are not using every upgrade, if PL became the common means of balance, unless accompanied by restrictions, people would start to build their units with max upgrades.
And this is bad why?
Because PL is not balanced around units taking all their possible upgrades. It is poorly designed to handle unit upgrades.
Kaiyanwang wrote: For me, very causal player, this is one of the thing I love of listbuilding. I don't want to exploit the system but I like to make a plan and choose units and options, and equip my units for the mission. I restared with 8th and I love my Plague Marines because, at least theoretically, you can equip the squads in many way, carry them in many vehicles to accomplish the mission. They are cool, with all different teams! Melee, ranged, anti-horde, anti heavy infantry...
You can do all of this with points. Using the less-accurate point system of power levels adds nothing here.
The obvious power cards are often detected before the set even out, and so does the bad, to the point of "strictly better" IS actually a thing there (two cards who are completely indentical except one is cheaper, or identical except one has a strict numerical advantage like doing 1 more point of damage)
Other than an odd metabreaker (like lictorshame), the meta soldifies within a week or two from a new release, bad cards never see play outside casual because they are instantly identified as such, etc.
If any, MTG has it far far worse, because at one point WoTC actually admitted to doing that on purpose. at least you can say GW is trying.
The only benefit MTG has, is the "standard rotation" that releases hundrends of new cards every year and then throws them out the game one and a half to two years after they come out, so nothing broken stays forever and the meta shifts constantly and cards go in and out of rotation.
Except, models are far more expensive and requrie some effort to assemble and paint, and if any wargame tried to pull THAT off, nobody would play it.
You know what happens to MTG balance once you take rotation out of the game? try going to a all-cards-allowed turnament (forgot the name).
The meta "evolved" so far that most decks there can with a good draw kill you before they even get a turn, and with a lousy draw, kill by turn 2. (if they are lucky enough that the enemy also draws badly enough to have them live that long)
Without the rotation, MTG is outright unplayable given just how poorly the balance in that game is.
Heck, MTG is so broken and pay=to-win that if EA made it, people would be burning trashcans on the streets.
