I know there is already a thread about conscripts, but what are some of the other changes you believe will be arriving in this FAQ? Who will be better? Who will be worse?
I'm hoping 2w models such as Terminators and Bikers are addressed and given a points reduction. Far too much saturation with 2+ damage weapons that makes any 'elite' multiwound model feel overpriced
NurglesR0T wrote: I'm hoping 2w models such as Terminators and Bikers are addressed and given a points reduction. Far too much saturation with 2+ damage weapons that makes any 'elite' multiwound model feel overpriced
fething this. I want to use my Chaos Bikes again and know they are worth their points. CA dropped their points slightly but they either need a further points drop or some more equipment options. Let me give them all Power Axes or something!
Also, drop the points on all Khorne Daemons (except maybe Bloodletters). Drop the points on the Juggernaut of Khorne. Drop the points on Kharn SLIGHTLY, or give him a +1 movement. Hell, make all close combat units SLIGHTLY faster so they are more threatening.
NurglesR0T wrote: I'm hoping 2w models such as Terminators and Bikers are addressed and given a points reduction. Far too much saturation with 2+ damage weapons that makes any 'elite' multiwound model feel overpriced
I feel like Bikers and Terminators should be base 3 wounds, not 2 wounds, because of the reasons you mentioned. I don't think a point reduction is enough as it just means more bodies on the floor which doesn't mean much when there are many multi-wound weapons in the game already.
Also, 3 wounds would mean that you would need 2 x 2 wound weapons to kill the model which means 1 lost wound that doesn't go anywhere. That would address vulnerability of elite units. This would also address potential plasma spam(or equivalent guns) and give Flamers and meltas a reason to be in the game.
Other than the obvious guardsmen and dark reapers, I wouldn't be surprised to see obliterators go up in price a bit. They pretty seriously outclass the other options CSM have in both damage and practicality, and the gap only widens when you consider synergy with other units.
NurglesR0T wrote: I'm hoping 2w models such as Terminators and Bikers are addressed and given a points reduction. Far too much saturation with 2+ damage weapons that makes any 'elite' multiwound model feel overpriced
I feel like Bikers and Terminators should be base 3 wounds, not 2 wounds, because of the reasons you mentioned. I don't think a point reduction is enough as it just means more bodies on the floor which doesn't mean much when there are many multi-wound weapons in the game already.
Also, 3 wounds would mean that you would need 2 x 2 wound weapons to kill the model which means 1 lost wound that doesn't go anywhere. That would address vulnerability of elite units. This would also address potential plasma spam(or equivalent guns) and give Flamers and meltas a reason to be in the game.
Mud Turkey 13 wrote: I know there is already a thread about conscripts, but what are some of the other changes you believe will be arriving in this FAQ? Who will be better? Who will be worse?
IG plasma and melta costs being tweaked. Maybe not an outright switch but melta is pointless at 12/17 and plasma is a no brainer at 7/13 the way they work now. I would expect something like melta going to at least 10-15 with plasma being the same, or worst case scenario, plasma being brought up to melta prices.
I would also expect to see changes to how indirect fire works, given I just picked up a manticore and am super stoked to try it My guess would be a -1 penalty when firing at units you can't see, but who knows what GW may try. Usually any time I have a unit I like become competitive gets nerfed so I expect to see artillery get some sort of nerf.
Guardsmen going up to 5ppm wouldn't be too bad but it is annoying to feel like I'm being punished for space marine players abusing my codex I put odds of it happening at 50/50.
Only other thing I can think of is some sort of penalty for soup. As it sits there are no downsides and it really hurts non eldar xenos armies. I wouldn't be surprised to see command points locked to the codex that generates them (so ig commanders can't be used to generate cp's for admech/space Marines) and perhaps a rule where the warlord must be part of your largest detachment, so people can't take a token ig detachment just to generate cp's.
If they tweak the plasma/melta situation then it'll be for all Imperium/Chaos armies, not just IG. Plasma being too good and melta having no place is a problem for everyone.
Kataphoron destroyers/breachers going down in price and getting an extra wound would be good. Admech getting a global rule that lets them use other armies' transports with normal sized infantry needing 1 space, kataphorons needing 2, TPDs needing 3 and cawl needing 4 would be good as well.
I wouldn't expect anything in terms of making "more viable", i suspect that that is something we will only see with the next chapter approved. They will probably use this FAQ to just reign in some of the worst offenders, so:
- Dark reaper cost increase and/or smaller unit size
- Shining spears smaller unit size
- Infantry squad cost increase
- Obliterator's weapons becoming Heavy
- Mortarion something
- Maybe Dark Talon cost increase
- Maybe flyrant cost increase
Apart from that, beta rules will become official and we will be given a new set of beta rules to test for September.
Spoletta wrote: I wouldn't expect anything in terms of making "more viable", i suspect that that is something we will only see with the next chapter approved. They will probably use this FAQ to just reign in some of the worst offenders, so:
- Dark reaper cost increase and/or smaller unit size
- Shining spears smaller unit size
- Infantry squad cost increase
- Obliterator's weapons becoming Heavy
- Mortarion something
- Maybe Dark Talon cost increase
- Maybe flyrant cost increase
Apart from that, beta rules will become official and we will be given a new set of beta rules to test for September.
What's wrong with Mortarion? He's already costed high enough to not be competitive and CD Stratagem nerf quickly put a stop to abusive mechanics with him.
Agreed with the beta rules, actually forgot about them. Could see them becoming official errata, would make sense. Hopefully the next beta rules include more fleshed out terrain rules, Hull Down for vehicles again would be a welcome change.
2: Big, Twice-a-year FAQs Major game-wide questions will be answered on a biannual basis each March and September when a wider set of FAQ updates will be released. These will be focused on anything that might emerge as more codexes, and thus more unusual interactions, make their way into the game and will address issues across multiple factions and publications. We’ll also use these to address balance issues in the game, so these might include a few changes to rules for overly powerful, or underrepresented units.
I wouldn't expect to see many points adjustments (if any at all) until Chapter Approved 2018 is released at the end of the year.
We’ll also use these to address balance issues in the game, so these might include a few changes to rules for overly powerful, or underrepresented units.
We’ll also use these to address balance issues in the game, so these might include a few changes to rules for overly powerful, or underrepresented units.
We’ll also use these to address balance issues in the game, so these might include a few changes to rules for overly powerful, or underrepresented units.
Yes? Rules, not points.
Are the points cost of a unit not part of its rules?
Mostly I'd expect these main FAQs to contain mostly clarification etc. Actual rule changes to a datasheet and points adjustments would be quite selective and saved for the Annual Chapter Approved.
Who knows though, it might. They did mention that they would address OP/Trash units so they are probably gathering data from the recent tournaments on what lists contained and go from there.
I expect the nerf bat to swong at some things (negative to hit) and then the units that benefitted from it, after being brought in line by the nerf, to get a price hike on CA2018
I'm hoping to see some help for the Marine statline in general. It doesn't help much to tweak individual units when pretty much every base MeQ is lackluster unless it has a huge number of special rules. Str 4, T4, 3+, 1A, and Str 4 shooting models that cost in the low to mid teens in points are pretty much never worth using across the board. This is a huge problem, because it covers the majority of Marine infantry.
Tac Marines, Assault Marines, Bikers, Chaos Marines, Raptors, etc are all not worth using. We see that marines and Chaos alike are using swarm +elites and heavies for their armies, usually as part of a soup list. More elite versions of these units like Cult Marines are generally a bit better off, but you still cannot make the core of your army based around them and end up with enough models on the board to be useful.
The MeQ statline has depreciated since previous editions due to the changes in AP and offensive power. A 3+ armor save is just not what it used to be in the new AP system. And on top of that, they got shafted in that many armies weapons moved to an equivalent AP in the new system, but basic bolters did not. They used to be AP 5, which ignored 5+ and 6+ saves, meaning basic bolter fire was an effective anti hoard weapon. Now they are AP 0, which means they lost a significant amount of offensive power against common units like guardsmen and boyz. Aura stacking helps bring their firepower level back, but other armies also got that.
I would argue that the basic MeQ statline is the hardest hit by a large amount of 8th's changes. To summarize:
1) AP changes made 3+ less strong
2) Bolters effectively losing AP made them so inefficient they are barely worth rolling
3) Lack of ability to lock foes in combat hurt marine units like assault marines that are proportionally lower damage but higher survivability compared to other melee units
4) Changes to template and blast weapons hit marines harder than other armies because they relied on them more to cover more army roles.
5) The combination of bolters becoming proportionally weaker and flamers/frag missiles becoming weaker, less reliable, and more expensive totally destroyed the ability to normal marine units to provide anti-swarm.
6) The new vehicle wound system hits marines hardest because they relied on low shot high damage weapons like Meltas for their anti tank. Meltas have gone up in price, and lost their ability to 1 shot vehicles, which has hugely decreased the potential of normal marine infantry to counter armor.
7) Power fist changes have hurt marines more than other races, as the power fist sergeant was often half of a squads melee damage output, a solid tank/monster deterrent, and the majority of an army's anti-character power. I'm not sad that this changed because it was silly, but it's still left them overall weaker.
8) In the past, marine infantry relied on a good armor save to out attrition their opponents. But now the offensive power of everyone has increased considerably, so they've lost their ability to take in damage without getting wiped out early. The changes to cover have also hurt them, but not necessarily more than other races.
9) The loss of mechanized lists due to transport changes has hurt too. You can no longer move, disembark, and shoot, which was a major trick of Tacs and CSM. And even if you could, you wouldn't want to as you no longer have the durability to receive a charge and whittle down a unit, or hold until reinforcements come. And drop pods can no longer come in close enough for short range melta shots, and as mentioned above those aren't what they used to be. And transports now cost an arm and a leg.
10) Loss of Pistol+bolter+ccw on many marine units (especially CSM)
11) They did get a couple points cheaper overall, but it's really not enough to help.
Even elite marines units just aren't that great. Berzerkers may be the exception because their special rule and weapons are so phenomenal. But consider the other cult troops: Plague marines give you a lot for their points, but their firepower is so low that it just doesn't matter. So we see poxwalker spam instead. Noise marines are cool and also have some nasty rules and guns, but the points add up really fast. If you try to build an army using more than a couple 5 man objective holding squads, you just won't have enough other stuff. And they die easily. And Rubrics, even with their new powers, just don't have enough firepower. And even with All is Dust, they are proportionally less survivable than most swarm infantry, point for point. These units are not bad in a vacuum (except maybe rubrics), and seem like what we should be forming our armies around. But it just doesn't work.
Primaris marines are more on the right track. If all MeQs had just been given that statline, things would be much different (except plasma spam would still pwn them.) The extra melee attack, extra ap point on bolt weapons, and extra wound really help. But we still don't see armies of primaris the way we saw armies of regular MeQs back in, say, 5th (my main point of comparison as I played it most.) Because even the extra stats at only a few extra points per model doesn't make the units worth using over swarm units + elites and heavy support. The exception may be Blood Angels, because they can stack enough buffs to make Primaris versatile, durable, and efficient in both shooting and melee.
Note I'm not saying that Marines and Chaos are weak overall. Their elite and soup lists are doing fine. But the standard marine infantry has gotten shafted by this edition and it needs help. But there's no easy fix either because the problems go beyond a small points change. It's the entire design philosophy of 8th. And it effect so many units that aren't united by keywords or common names that it'd be hard to change that many overall.
Some combination of the following would help, applied to everyone or only to marines (to represent their greater skill, bigger weapons, etc). I'm trying to keep away from all out statline changes.
A) Move all bolter weapons an AP lower for marines. Standard becomes AP -1, intercessor one becomes -2, heavy bolter -2, etc. This will also help their vehicles out. But it won't break currently good units like assault cannon razorbacks.
B) Make flamer/other former template weapons more reliable. Instead of d6 shots, let them be 3+d3, or an amount based on the size of the attacking unit.
C) Increase the power of pretty much all Chapter traits except Blood Angels and Death Guard to help infantry.
D) Bring back Bolter+Bolt Pistol+CCW for Tacs and CSM and their elite variants
E) Give Jump Pack troops the ability to lock enemies in close combat, or perhaps follow them if they fall back (can be based on leadership check.)
F) Award extra CP for detachments of basic MeQs
All that wishlisting aside, I doubt they'll touch this. Which means this is the edition of Xenos and Soup!
Crazyterran wrote: I expect the nerf bat to swong at some things (negative to hit) and then the units that benefitted from it, after being brought in line by the nerf, to get a price hike on CA2018
MrMoustaffa wrote: I would also expect to see changes to how indirect fire works, given I just picked up a manticore and am super stoked to try it My guess would be a -1 penalty when firing at units you can't see, but who knows what GW may try. Usually any time I have a unit I like become competitive gets nerfed so I expect to see artillery get some sort of nerf.
Are we still pretending manticores are competitive? When will this meme end? Basilisks are better against almost every target and STILL you practically never see them. In fact, vehicles in general are a rare sight unless you're eldar. Imperial armored companies are fluffy and non competitive and for some reason you think they should be driven into the dirt even more?
We need to encourage vehicles, not discourage them.
•The Avatar needs some serious readjustment. If they're not going to redesign him, they need to at least drop his cost by 75 points.
•Striking Scorpions are in the same boat. It'd be hilarious how bad they are if it wasn't so sad. Either drop them to 9ppm, or redesign them from the ground up.
•Banshees need a point reduction as well. Just like Scorpions, there is no universe where they should cost more than Genestealers.
•Wraithlords need Implaccable. And probably something else.
•Spiritseers need to go up in cost to at least 55ppm.
•Warp Spiders need to be redesigned. Make their guns get an extra shot for every 5 models in the target unit or something.
•Shadow Spectres need a point reduction. 27ppm MAX.
•Dire Avengers could probably use a small reduction in points, something like 10 or 11ppm. They're not bad, but they suffer a bit from master of none syndrome.
•Reapers need to be seriously nerfed, obviously. They'd still be a bargain at their old 36ppm. They should also lose their 'Inescapable Accuracy' rule on a turn where they move.
•Shining Spears could also go up a bit. Adjusting them to their base cost from the index while retaining their weapon costs from the codex would put them in a good place at 37ppm.
•Most of the Phoenix Lords could probably use a minor point decrease. You should also be able to take them as your general.
•Wraithknights need some serious point reduction.
What we'll probably get is just some nerfs to Reapers and Spears with little other adjustment, and then be left with the hollow remains of the Craftworlds codex instead.
Why do people keep saying they want points changes when it been explicitly stated by GW that the bi-annual FAQ is for rules amd Chapter Approved is for points? It's even been said in this thread.
Anyway.
Expecting a Cawl nerf. Only reason I could see why he'd go down in points in CA. If I had to guess it would be his 9" aura ability.
Guilliman will probably lose reroll to wound aura but keep his hit rerolls or vice versa or go up to 10 wounds. Maybe both. Basing this on the tiny points increase he got in CA since whatever rule was changed wasn't significant enough to warrent his price staying the same but changed enough for him to avoid getting a bigger points hike.
Kastellan Robots double fire thing will probably get nerfed but I'm not sure how.
Lictors and stratagems relating to them will probably get a buff seeing as theres zero reason to take them right now. I would like to think Toxicrenes and the big psychic one I can't remember the name of might get a minor buff. Probably to its giant psychic wave power.
Other than that I think it's tough to predict what GW will do as we don't know their plans. The fact that they've chosen to keep points changes and rules changes makes predicting things difficult. I fully expect a load of "I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY DIDN'T FIX X CLEARLY GW ARE INCOMPETANT" because GW feel that the problem should be addressed via points changes instead of rules.
I'm hoping for something to stop tactical marines feeling more like crossing guards directing the local PDF (guard IS) to the front line. While it might be thematic for a choas space marine to be using a living cultist as a mest shield, it doesn't realy work fluff wise for the loyalists.
Give them a rule called tactical flexability and allow them to give you extra CP or something to make them not a I'm only taking them as I can't/won't soup option.
Space marine drivers edd, teaching spacemarines how chapter tactics and legion traits effect your vehicals.
Imperial guard paying your share of the bill 101 if you bring twice the guys no were not splitting the bar bill evenly.
Heroes 101 your supposed to be good at killing how about getting stuck in instead of standing around in the middle of your adoring fans hoping they'll do better just to impress you this is war, not a pop concert.
The main structural change I anticipate would be a limit to stacking the same effect - e.g. only one Feel No Pain style save, only the first -1 to hit counts, etc. There's already some instances of this in Codex Craftworlds, and it makes sense as a game-wide rule.
I would like to see fundamental changes to detachments to put the kibosh on soup lists, but that's something that would be in Chapter Approved (if it would ever happen) I would think.
I expect to see a change to Dark Reapers, probably changing the always hits on 3+ ability. I also expect to see errata saying Ynnari replaces the <Craftworld> keyword rather than adds to it, so you can't use a <Craftworld> stratagem on a unit in a Ynnari detachment. Maybe even going back to Ynnari being all or nothing like it was at the very start of 40k? Where either your entire army is Ynnari, or nothing is.
Not sure what else, really. Unit profiles are fair game, just not points (which would be in CA).
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: I'm hoping to see some help for the Marine statline in general. It doesn't help much to tweak individual units when pretty much every base MeQ is lackluster unless it has a huge number of special rules. Str 4, T4, 3+, 1A, and Str 4 shooting models that cost in the low to mid teens in points are pretty much never worth using across the board. This is a huge problem, because it covers the majority of Marine infantry.
Tac Marines, Assault Marines, Bikers, Chaos Marines, Raptors, etc are all not worth using. We see that marines and Chaos alike are using swarm +elites and heavies for their armies, usually as part of a soup list. More elite versions of these units like Cult Marines are generally a bit better off, but you still cannot make the core of your army based around them and end up with enough models on the board to be useful.
The MeQ statline has depreciated since previous editions due to the changes in AP and offensive power. A 3+ armor save is just not what it used to be in the new AP system. And on top of that, they got shafted in that many armies weapons moved to an equivalent AP in the new system, but basic bolters did not. They used to be AP 5, which ignored 5+ and 6+ saves, meaning basic bolter fire was an effective anti hoard weapon. Now they are AP 0, which means they lost a significant amount of offensive power against common units like guardsmen and boyz. Aura stacking helps bring their firepower level back, but other armies also got that.
I would argue that the basic MeQ statline is the hardest hit by a large amount of 8th's changes. To summarize:
1) AP changes made 3+ less strong
2) Bolters effectively losing AP made them so inefficient they are barely worth rolling
3) Lack of ability to lock foes in combat hurt marine units like assault marines that are proportionally lower damage but higher survivability compared to other melee units
4) Changes to template and blast weapons hit marines harder than other armies because they relied on them more to cover more army roles.
5) The combination of bolters becoming proportionally weaker and flamers/frag missiles becoming weaker, less reliable, and more expensive totally destroyed the ability to normal marine units to provide anti-swarm.
6) The new vehicle wound system hits marines hardest because they relied on low shot high damage weapons like Meltas for their anti tank. Meltas have gone up in price, and lost their ability to 1 shot vehicles, which has hugely decreased the potential of normal marine infantry to counter armor.
7) Power fist changes have hurt marines more than other races, as the power fist sergeant was often half of a squads melee damage output, a solid tank/monster deterrent, and the majority of an army's anti-character power. I'm not sad that this changed because it was silly, but it's still left them overall weaker.
8) In the past, marine infantry relied on a good armor save to out attrition their opponents. But now the offensive power of everyone has increased considerably, so they've lost their ability to take in damage without getting wiped out early. The changes to cover have also hurt them, but not necessarily more than other races.
9) The loss of mechanized lists due to transport changes has hurt too. You can no longer move, disembark, and shoot, which was a major trick of Tacs and CSM. And even if you could, you wouldn't want to as you no longer have the durability to receive a charge and whittle down a unit, or hold until reinforcements come. And drop pods can no longer come in close enough for short range melta shots, and as mentioned above those aren't what they used to be. And transports now cost an arm and a leg.
10) Loss of Pistol+bolter+ccw on many marine units (especially CSM)
11) They did get a couple points cheaper overall, but it's really not enough to help.
Even elite marines units just aren't that great. Berzerkers may be the exception because their special rule and weapons are so phenomenal. But consider the other cult troops: Plague marines give you a lot for their points, but their firepower is so low that it just doesn't matter. So we see poxwalker spam instead. Noise marines are cool and also have some nasty rules and guns, but the points add up really fast. If you try to build an army using more than a couple 5 man objective holding squads, you just won't have enough other stuff. And they die easily. And Rubrics, even with their new powers, just don't have enough firepower. And even with All is Dust, they are proportionally less survivable than most swarm infantry, point for point. These units are not bad in a vacuum (except maybe rubrics), and seem like what we should be forming our armies around. But it just doesn't work.
Primaris marines are more on the right track. If all MeQs had just been given that statline, things would be much different (except plasma spam would still pwn them.) The extra melee attack, extra ap point on bolt weapons, and extra wound really help. But we still don't see armies of primaris the way we saw armies of regular MeQs back in, say, 5th (my main point of comparison as I played it most.) Because even the extra stats at only a few extra points per model doesn't make the units worth using over swarm units + elites and heavy support. The exception may be Blood Angels, because they can stack enough buffs to make Primaris versatile, durable, and efficient in both shooting and melee.
Note I'm not saying that Marines and Chaos are weak overall. Their elite and soup lists are doing fine. But the standard marine infantry has gotten shafted by this edition and it needs help. But there's no easy fix either because the problems go beyond a small points change. It's the entire design philosophy of 8th. And it effect so many units that aren't united by keywords or common names that it'd be hard to change that many overall.
Some combination of the following would help, applied to everyone or only to marines (to represent their greater skill, bigger weapons, etc). I'm trying to keep away from all out statline changes.
A) Move all bolter weapons an AP lower for marines. Standard becomes AP -1, intercessor one becomes -2, heavy bolter -2, etc. This will also help their vehicles out. But it won't break currently good units like assault cannon razorbacks.
B) Make flamer/other former template weapons more reliable. Instead of d6 shots, let them be 3+d3, or an amount based on the size of the attacking unit.
C) Increase the power of pretty much all Chapter traits except Blood Angels and Death Guard to help infantry.
D) Bring back Bolter+Bolt Pistol+CCW for Tacs and CSM and their elite variants
E) Give Jump Pack troops the ability to lock enemies in close combat, or perhaps follow them if they fall back (can be based on leadership check.)
F) Award extra CP for detachments of basic MeQs
All that wishlisting aside, I doubt they'll touch this. Which means this is the edition of Xenos and Soup!
Important points about MEQ. Feels like this post needs it's own thread.
I would be surprised if the FAQ offers any improvements for MEQ or TEQ. You're completely right, the offense / defense is just not there for them this edition.
MinscS2 wrote: I hope and expect them to fix the Deathstrike.
It was absolute garbage in the Index, and since they didn't change a thing its absolute garbage in the Codex as well.
I feel like the Deathstrike is unlikely to ever have a place in non-narrative style games. You need to be really careful with it. I feel like a careless change could take it from being a bit crappy to "oh look it's the Deathstrike meta! Take loads, screen them and hold out a couple of turns and you can table your opponent with an instant 40+ mortal wounds, with more spilling over". It's a very flavourful and great looking model though.
I'm more curious how much GW will actually change genuine rules. If they don't do points adjustments, then a year is probably too long of a wait for the tournament meta. If they change too many rules they risk invalidating their own codices (which, let's be honest will be almost pointless in purchasing a year or more after release for most armies - the penalty of a "living ruleset").
I think if they don't do points adjustments, this could lead to some really poor see-sawing effects, of "trying" to fix a unti with rules when it simply needs a points adjustment, etc. I can see an issue with "Hey, this unit needs a point reduction" - "Well, we're not doing those on this go round, how can we change its rules instead?"
That doesn't seem like the best way to fix stuff.
I would like to see some help for stuff like Terminators. Even in a casual setting, they're really quite tough to justify, despite being cool.
We’ll also use these to address balance issues in the game, so these might include a few changes to rules for overly powerful, or underrepresented units.
Yes? Rules, not points.
Are the points cost of a unit not part of its rules?
Considering the points are separate from the units, no they're not the same.
MrMoustaffa wrote: I would also expect to see changes to how indirect fire works, given I just picked up a manticore and am super stoked to try it My guess would be a -1 penalty when firing at units you can't see, but who knows what GW may try. Usually any time I have a unit I like become competitive gets nerfed so I expect to see artillery get some sort of nerf.
Are we still pretending manticores are competitive? When will this meme end? Basilisks are better against almost every target and STILL you practically never see them. In fact, vehicles in general are a rare sight unless you're eldar. Imperial armored companies are fluffy and non competitive and for some reason you think they should be driven into the dirt even more?
We need to encourage vehicles, not discourage them.
Manticores are competitive, what are you going on about? Due to the higher volume of shots they'll usually out damage a Basilisk too. Board clearing indirect fire will always have a competitive place.
Really, the problem is with ignoring LoS. We need to toss that rule or make models pay much more for it.
Genestealers need to be nerfed. Moving and advancing 20 models 16-20" across the battlefield (kraken 3D6 for advancing, using the highest roll, doubling it with 1CP) and being able to charge with 3-4 attacks, and acid maws (AP-3 for free), for 12 pts. a model is a big nono.
NurglesR0T wrote: I'm hoping 2w models such as Terminators and Bikers are addressed and given a points reduction. Far too much saturation with 2+ damage weapons that makes any 'elite' multiwound model feel overpriced
This right now, my ravenwing and deathwing army has been shelf ed and is collecting dust because they are just such hot garbage right now. To many 2 wound weapons, and high AP that just rips them apart.
I would like to see a change to character targeting rules.
A Character can only be targeted in the shooting phase if the shooting model has a clear light of sight, and the character is more then 2" away from any of their allies units, excluding vehicles. Characters with 10 or more wound characterists, Vehicles, and monsters, are not subject to this rule and my be targeted so long as there is LoS.
Would love to see armor facings come back, maybe a +1 to wound on rear armor
Also wanna see firing arch come back. No more of this, im gonna shoot all my weapons outta this corner of my LR.
Finally i wanna see sensible targeting return. Meaning when drawing LoS to a unit, you ignore things like hair, horns, wings, magic swirly gak, weapons. Basically if you cant see the targets head, or body, you cant shoot it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
p5freak wrote: Genestealers need to be nerfed. Moving and advancing 20 models 16-20" across the battlefield (kraken 3D6 for advancing, using the highest roll, doubling it with 1CP) and being able to charge with 3-4 attacks, and acid maws (AP-3 for free), for 12 pts. a model is a big nono.
Well thats not just a stealer issue, thats a Deep strike and turn one charge issue.
Antoher thing i want to see is the removal of turn one deep strikes. I think unless your army has a super good fluffy reason, they should not be able to. Which is another issue, to much crap can deep strike now.
This right now, my ravenwing and deathwing army has been shelf ed and is collecting dust because they are just such hot garbage right now. To many 2 wound weapons, and high AP that just rips them apart.
I would like to see a change to character targeting rules.
A Character can only be targeted in the shooting phase if the shooting model has a clear light of sight, and the character is more then 2" away from any of their allies units, excluding vehicles. Characters with 10 or more wound characterists, Vehicles, and monsters, are not subject to this rule and my be targeted so long as there is LoS.
Would love to see armor facings come back, maybe a +1 to wound on rear armor
Also wanna see firing arch come back. No more of this, im gonna shoot all my weapons outta this corner of my LR.
They already published this FAQ! It came in a nice three-book set that looked like this:
Martel732 wrote: Too bad deep strike sucks horribly this edition. For all the people scared of first turn charge, your opponents must be rolling a lot of 9's.
There is a lot of stuff taht lets you get bonuses to the charge as well. I mean, tzaangors get +1 to the charge, so i only need to make an 8" charge, + i can reroll a single die for a command point, or if i got the spell off for no command points.
You can also deep strike and warp time stuff directly up to your enemy and just need to make a 3 inch charge. Or for alpha legion, just pop up 9" away, move, and make like a 4 inch charge. Its not hard to make it into combat outta a deep strike. I kept telling people that with garuneed deep strike, and being able to charge, its gonna get dumb, and it has, alpha strike is worse now then it was in 7th.
p5freak wrote: Genestealers need to be nerfed. Moving and advancing 20 models 16-20" across the battlefield (kraken 3D6 for advancing, using the highest roll, doubling it with 1CP) and being able to charge with 3-4 attacks, and acid maws (AP-3 for free), for 12 pts. a model is a big nono.
What gets me is that, last I heard, Tyranid Genestealers are Troops and cheaper than Genestealer Genestealers for effectively the same model, ability-wise.
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: I'm hoping to see some help for the Marine statline in general. It doesn't help much to tweak individual units when pretty much every base MeQ is lackluster unless it has a huge number of special rules. Str 4, T4, 3+, 1A, and Str 4 shooting models that cost in the low to mid teens in points are pretty much never worth using across the board. This is a huge problem, because it covers the majority of Marine infantry.
Tac Marines, Assault Marines, Bikers, Chaos Marines, Raptors, etc are all not worth using. We see that marines and Chaos alike are using swarm +elites and heavies for their armies, usually as part of a soup list. More elite versions of these units like Cult Marines are generally a bit better off, but you still cannot make the core of your army based around them and end up with enough models on the board to be useful.
The MeQ statline has depreciated since previous editions due to the changes in AP and offensive power. A 3+ armor save is just not what it used to be in the new AP system. And on top of that, they got shafted in that many armies weapons moved to an equivalent AP in the new system, but basic bolters did not. They used to be AP 5, which ignored 5+ and 6+ saves, meaning basic bolter fire was an effective anti hoard weapon. Now they are AP 0, which means they lost a significant amount of offensive power against common units like guardsmen and boyz. Aura stacking helps bring their firepower level back, but other armies also got that.
I would argue that the basic MeQ statline is the hardest hit by a large amount of 8th's changes. To summarize:
1) AP changes made 3+ less strong
2) Bolters effectively losing AP made them so inefficient they are barely worth rolling
3) Lack of ability to lock foes in combat hurt marine units like assault marines that are proportionally lower damage but higher survivability compared to other melee units
4) Changes to template and blast weapons hit marines harder than other armies because they relied on them more to cover more army roles.
5) The combination of bolters becoming proportionally weaker and flamers/frag missiles becoming weaker, less reliable, and more expensive totally destroyed the ability to normal marine units to provide anti-swarm.
6) The new vehicle wound system hits marines hardest because they relied on low shot high damage weapons like Meltas for their anti tank. Meltas have gone up in price, and lost their ability to 1 shot vehicles, which has hugely decreased the potential of normal marine infantry to counter armor.
7) Power fist changes have hurt marines more than other races, as the power fist sergeant was often half of a squads melee damage output, a solid tank/monster deterrent, and the majority of an army's anti-character power. I'm not sad that this changed because it was silly, but it's still left them overall weaker.
8) In the past, marine infantry relied on a good armor save to out attrition their opponents. But now the offensive power of everyone has increased considerably, so they've lost their ability to take in damage without getting wiped out early. The changes to cover have also hurt them, but not necessarily more than other races.
9) The loss of mechanized lists due to transport changes has hurt too. You can no longer move, disembark, and shoot, which was a major trick of Tacs and CSM. And even if you could, you wouldn't want to as you no longer have the durability to receive a charge and whittle down a unit, or hold until reinforcements come. And drop pods can no longer come in close enough for short range melta shots, and as mentioned above those aren't what they used to be. And transports now cost an arm and a leg.
10) Loss of Pistol+bolter+ccw on many marine units (especially CSM)
11) They did get a couple points cheaper overall, but it's really not enough to help.
Even elite marines units just aren't that great. Berzerkers may be the exception because their special rule and weapons are so phenomenal. But consider the other cult troops: Plague marines give you a lot for their points, but their firepower is so low that it just doesn't matter. So we see poxwalker spam instead. Noise marines are cool and also have some nasty rules and guns, but the points add up really fast. If you try to build an army using more than a couple 5 man objective holding squads, you just won't have enough other stuff. And they die easily. And Rubrics, even with their new powers, just don't have enough firepower. And even with All is Dust, they are proportionally less survivable than most swarm infantry, point for point. These units are not bad in a vacuum (except maybe rubrics), and seem like what we should be forming our armies around. But it just doesn't work.
Primaris marines are more on the right track. If all MeQs had just been given that statline, things would be much different (except plasma spam would still pwn them.) The extra melee attack, extra ap point on bolt weapons, and extra wound really help. But we still don't see armies of primaris the way we saw armies of regular MeQs back in, say, 5th (my main point of comparison as I played it most.) Because even the extra stats at only a few extra points per model doesn't make the units worth using over swarm units + elites and heavy support. The exception may be Blood Angels, because they can stack enough buffs to make Primaris versatile, durable, and efficient in both shooting and melee.
Note I'm not saying that Marines and Chaos are weak overall. Their elite and soup lists are doing fine. But the standard marine infantry has gotten shafted by this edition and it needs help. But there's no easy fix either because the problems go beyond a small points change. It's the entire design philosophy of 8th. And it effect so many units that aren't united by keywords or common names that it'd be hard to change that many overall.
Some combination of the following would help, applied to everyone or only to marines (to represent their greater skill, bigger weapons, etc). I'm trying to keep away from all out statline changes.
A) Move all bolter weapons an AP lower for marines. Standard becomes AP -1, intercessor one becomes -2, heavy bolter -2, etc. This will also help their vehicles out. But it won't break currently good units like assault cannon razorbacks.
B) Make flamer/other former template weapons more reliable. Instead of d6 shots, let them be 3+d3, or an amount based on the size of the attacking unit.
C) Increase the power of pretty much all Chapter traits except Blood Angels and Death Guard to help infantry.
D) Bring back Bolter+Bolt Pistol+CCW for Tacs and CSM and their elite variants
E) Give Jump Pack troops the ability to lock enemies in close combat, or perhaps follow them if they fall back (can be based on leadership check.)
F) Award extra CP for detachments of basic MeQs
All that wishlisting aside, I doubt they'll touch this. Which means this is the edition of Xenos and Soup!
Good post. I agree mostly, but there are some flaws in my view.
Note I'm not saying that Marines and Chaos are weak overall. Their elite and soup lists are doing fine. But the standard marine infantry has gotten shafted by this edition and it needs help.
Wouldn't making mono marine lists stronger make the soup even stronger still thereby defeating the overall purpose?
A) Move all bolter weapons an AP lower for marines. Standard becomes AP -1, intercessor one becomes -2, heavy bolter -2, etc. This will also help their vehicles out. But it won't break currently good units like assault cannon razorbacks.
As long as they get a good point increase. Hurricane bolters would be even more desirable. Rubrics would go to -3 and Soul Reapers to -4...
D) Bring back Bolter+Bolt Pistol+CCW for Tacs and CSM and their elite variants
Only if a chainsword, bolt pistol, and bolter combination comes at a higher cost. Rubrics would be left in the dust there (heh heh). And Berzerkers would be even more absurd wouldn't they?
F) Award extra CP for detachments of basic MeQs
I think there may be more elegant solutions to that problem.
Feel like the amount of disappoint is going to be really high - some wishlists seem incredible. Hoping for the best but likely reasonable to reflect on what to EXPECT vs what is WANTED. Ideally this should be 1:1 but experience has proven this to not be the reality.
Audustum wrote: Manticores are competitive, what are you going on about? Due to the higher volume of shots they'll usually out damage a Basilisk too.
No. Do the math. Manticores cost 143 points. Basilisks cost 108. 143/108 = 1.324 as in a manticore costs 32.4% more than a basilisk. Now lets figure out the firepower vs what these things should be shooting (T7/8 things with 3+ or 2+ saves).
Manticore vs T7/8 3+ = average 7 shots = 3.5 hits = 2.33 wounds = 3.11 unsaved damage
Manticore vs T7/8 2+ = average 7 shots = 3.5 hits = 2.33 wounds = 2.33 unsaved damage
Basilisk vs T7/8 3+ = average 4.47 shots = 2.24 hits = 1.49 wounds = 2.49 unsaved damage
Basilisk vs T7/8 2+ = average 4.47 shots = 2.24 hits = 1.49 wounds = 1.99 unsaved damage
Now obviously 1 manticore does more damage than 1 basilisk, but that's because it costs 32.4% more. The question is, is it worth it? For that we compare the difference in cost to the difference in damage.
3.11/2.49 = 1.25. The manticore is 25% more damaging to vehicles with 3+ armor, but costs 32.4% more. Not worth it.
2.33/1.99 = 1.17. The manticore is 17% more damaging to vehicles with 2+ armor, but costs 32.4% more. Not worth it.
Hell, we can even look at targetting non-ideal units like marine infantry. Basilisk still comes out on top.
Manticore vs T4 3+ = average 7 shots = 3.5 hits = 2.91 wounds = 1.94 unsaved damage (any rollover from D3 damage is usually wasted. it's the same between the 2 artillery anyway)
Manticore vs T4 2+ = average 7 shots = 3.5 hits = 2.91 wounds = 1.46 unsaved damage
Basilisk vs T4 3+ = average 4.47 shots = 2.24 hits = 1.87 wounds = 1.56 unsaved damage
Basilisk vs T4 2+ = average 4.47 shots = 2.24 hits = 1.87 wounds = 1.25 unsaved damage
1.94/1.56 = 1.24. Not worth it.
1.46/1.25 = 1.17. Not worth it.
In fact, I can't think of any target that I'd rather shoot with a manticore than an equivalent number of points of basilisks.
Audustum wrote: Really, the problem is with ignoring LoS. We need to toss that rule or make models pay much more for it.
It's actually not a problem at all. You do not see indirect fire lists dominating tournaments. They're pretty uncommon, really. I'm curious why you think they're a "problem"? How do you define a "problem." At what point does something need fixing?
What is a problem are -1 to hit armies. Tournaments are saturated with them.
A) Move all bolter weapons an AP lower for marines. Standard becomes AP -1, intercessor one becomes -2, heavy bolter -2, etc. This will also help their vehicles out. But it won't break currently good units like assault cannon razorbacks.
Audustum wrote: Manticores are competitive, what are you going on about? Due to the higher volume of shots they'll usually out damage a Basilisk too.
No. Do the math. Manticores cost 143 points. Basilisks cost 108. 143/108 = 1.324 as in a manticore costs 32.4% more than a basilisk. Now lets figure out the firepower vs what these things should be shooting (T7/8 things with 3+ or 2+ saves).
Manticore vs T7/8 3+ = average 7 shots = 3.5 hits = 2.33 wounds = 3.11 unsaved damage
Manticore vs T7/8 2+ = average 7 shots = 3.5 hits = 2.33 wounds = 2.33 unsaved damage
Basilisk vs T7/8 3+ = average 4.47 shots = 2.24 hits = 1.49 wounds = 2.49 unsaved damage
Basilisk vs T7/8 2+ = average 4.47 shots = 2.24 hits = 1.49 wounds = 1.99 unsaved damage
Now obviously 1 manticore does more damage than 1 basilisk, but that's because it costs 32.4% more. The question is, is it worth it? For that we compare the difference in cost to the difference in damage.
3.11/2.49 = 1.25. The manticore is 25% more damaging to vehicles with 3+ armor, but costs 32.4% more. Not worth it.
2.33/1.99 = 1.17. The manticore is 17% more damaging to vehicles with 2+ armor, but costs 32.4% more. Not worth it.
Hell, we can even look at targetting non-ideal units like marine infantry. Basilisk still comes out on top.
Manticore vs T4 3+ = average 7 shots = 3.5 hits = 2.91 wounds = 1.94 unsaved damage (any rollover from D3 damage is usually wasted. it's the same between the 2 artillery anyway)
Manticore vs T4 2+ = average 7 shots = 3.5 hits = 2.91 wounds = 1.46 unsaved damage
Basilisk vs T4 3+ = average 4.47 shots = 2.24 hits = 1.87 wounds = 1.56 unsaved damage
Basilisk vs T4 2+ = average 4.47 shots = 2.24 hits = 1.87 wounds = 1.25 unsaved damage
1.94/1.56 = 1.24. Not worth it.
1.46/1.25 = 1.17. Not worth it.
In fact, I can't think of any target that I'd rather shoot with a manticore than an equivalent number of points of basilisks.
I would note that nothing in here has an invulnerables save. You also didn't factor in common bonuses like the Catachan re-roll on number of shots which helps the Manticore substantially over the Basilisk.
Compare the number of wounds vs. Magnus, Dreadknight Grandmasters or Custodes Jetbikes and I believe the picture starts to look different.
You also didn't math any T7 targets with -1 to Hit, like the common flyer. The Manticore fares better here as well.
The models have differences besides their main gun to justify points as well. The Mant is T7. The Basilisk is T6. The Basilisk explodes, the Manticore does not.
This analysis also failed to account for the fact that the Manticore benefits more from re-roll auras, such as the MoO due to firing a larger volume of shots.
In short, there's a lot missing from your frame of reference.
Audustum wrote: Really, the problem is with ignoring LoS. We need to toss that rule or make models pay much more for it.
It's actually not a problem at all. You do not see indirect fire lists dominating tournaments. They're pretty uncommon, really. I'm curious why you think they're a "problem"? How do you define a "problem." At what point does something need fixing?
What is a problem are -1 to hit armies. Tournaments are saturated with them.
There can be more than one problem. The obvious solution, however, is to give MORE units Dark Reapers like abilities so TAC can make an answer to Hit penalties.
Indirect fire lists are not the top dominant at the moment, but that wasn't my statement. My statement was that they will always have a place, and they will. The problem with them arises from their taking all counterplay away in a strategy game. You can't run from them, you can't hide from them, you can't shoot them back and you have no choice but to sit there and take their punishment as you plow through chaff. That's bad design. Simply requiring LoS on them solves the issue or increase the cost associated with having the power to shoot from out of LoS.
p5freak wrote: Genestealers need to be nerfed. Moving and advancing 20 models 16-20" across the battlefield (kraken 3D6 for advancing, using the highest roll, doubling it with 1CP) and being able to charge with 3-4 attacks, and acid maws (AP-3 for free), for 12 pts. a model is a big nono.
What gets me is that, last I heard, Tyranid Genestealers are Troops and cheaper than Genestealer Genestealers for effectively the same model, ability-wise.
Martel732 wrote: Too bad deep strike sucks horribly this edition. For all the people scared of first turn charge, your opponents must be rolling a lot of 9's.
There is a lot of stuff taht lets you get bonuses to the charge as well. I mean, tzaangors get +1 to the charge, so i only need to make an 8" charge, + i can reroll a single die for a command point, or if i got the spell off for no command points.
You can also deep strike and warp time stuff directly up to your enemy and just need to make a 3 inch charge. Or for alpha legion, just pop up 9" away, move, and make like a 4 inch charge. Its not hard to make it into combat outta a deep strike. I kept telling people that with garuneed deep strike, and being able to charge, its gonna get dumb, and it has, alpha strike is worse now then it was in 7th.
It's actually very hard. Alpha strikes are coming from shooting lists, not melee lists.
p5freak wrote: Genestealers need to be nerfed. Moving and advancing 20 models 16-20" across the battlefield (kraken 3D6 for advancing, using the highest roll, doubling it with 1CP) and being able to charge with 3-4 attacks, and acid maws (AP-3 for free), for 12 pts. a model is a big nono.
What gets me is that, last I heard, Tyranid Genestealers are Troops and cheaper than Genestealer Genestealers for effectively the same model, ability-wise.
That's definitely gotta get reconciled if true.
GSC have the Ambush rules.
Yeah I know, that's why I said effectively. Ambush alone does not justify those changes
p5freak wrote: Genestealers need to be nerfed. Moving and advancing 20 models 16-20" across the battlefield (kraken 3D6 for advancing, using the highest roll, doubling it with 1CP) and being able to charge with 3-4 attacks, and acid maws (AP-3 for free), for 12 pts. a model is a big nono.
What gets me is that, last I heard, Tyranid Genestealers are Troops and cheaper than Genestealer Genestealers for effectively the same model, ability-wise.
That's definitely gotta get reconciled if true.
GSC have the Ambush rules.
Yeah I know, that's why I said effectively. Ambush alone does not justify those changes
This. Give Gene cult's chance to pick tyranids <hive fleet> faction abilities or make them own <House of ..> rules and then higher point cost is justified.
Important points about MEQ. Feels like this post needs it's own thread.
I would be surprised if the FAQ offers any improvements for MEQ or TEQ. You're completely right, the offense / defense is just not there for them this edition.
Thanks, i'll try making its own thread.
Wouldn't making mono marine lists stronger make the soup even stronger still thereby defeating the overall purpose?
I don't think so because it is effective different units. These MeQ units are barely used in the soup lists. Most soup is marine elites/heavies that aren't meqs, and then swarm/horde units from another list. So the units getting buffed aren't the ones being used in the soup list.
As long as they get a good point increase. Hurricane bolters would be even more desirable. Rubrics would go to -3 and Soul Reapers to -4...
Some items might need point increases, but most won't. Hurricane's might. Rubrics shouldn't, as they are already expensive and not that great. Their bolters used to fully ignore MeQ armor, and now they fully ignore...guard armor. Woo. They always should have been AP -3 imo.
Only if a chainsword, bolt pistol, and bolter combination comes at a higher cost. Rubrics would be left in the dust there (heh heh). And Berzerkers would be even more absurd wouldn't they?
Having thought about it a bit more, I think the solution is to allow Bolter+Chainsword as an option. I don't think this should increase points, because the units it benefits need to get stronger. And Berzerkers wouldn't get this (in the past they didn't have bolter+pistol+ccw)
I think there may be more elegant solutions to that problem.
I hope so. There doesn't seem to be many good solutions given the nature of the problem. But I'm sure there's more creative folks than I.
Why only Marines??????
Because these are the units that aren't worth taking now. Other factions, like Sisters, may also need it. But Guard doesn't.
I love how everyone thinks this FAQ will be game changing just like we hoped CA would be... in the end it won't change anything major and will just cause arguments on general. Why do I love this game...
lolman1c wrote: I love how everyone thinks this FAQ will be game changing just like we hoped CA would be... in the end it won't change anything major and will just cause arguments on general. Why do I love this game...
Well, you cant please everyone all of the time. Especially with these lofty desires.
meleti wrote: So far as actual rules changes go, I think something needs to be done about stacking penalties to hit.
-1 to hit a unit is reasonable, -2 to hit is ridiculous and -3 to hit is insane.
This is definitely the big one. I'd be all in favor of no stacking at all, but you'd need to allow stacking between enemy imposed and self imposed penalties so that moving with a heavy weapon doesn't cause it to ignore stealthy tricks.
meleti wrote: So far as actual rules changes go, I think something needs to be done about stacking penalties to hit.
-1 to hit a unit is reasonable, -2 to hit is ridiculous and -3 to hit is insane.
This is definitely the big one. I'd be all in favor of no stacking at all, but you'd need to allow stacking between enemy imposed and self imposed penalties so that moving with a heavy weapon doesn't cause it to ignore stealthy tricks.
The issue with this is that as far as I'm aware, there are exceedingly few units that can have -2s--let alone -3s.
Two of them, that I'm aware of, are Eldar units(Alaitoc Rangers and Flyers with Hard to Hit). One is an AdMech unit(Dragoons with Stygies).
Flyers with multiple negative to hits aren't bad IMO, since most of them get balanced out by the fact that anti-air weaponry has gotten a smidge bit of a boost(+1 to hit versus Fly keyword means it's a bit more helpful against stuff rather than just being "Only take it if your opponent has Flyers").
I'd argue in favor of the more advanced anti-air weapons(Hydra Flak Tanks, Icarus Array Onagers, Tau with Velocity Trackers, etc) getting an additional caveat added to them where they ignore the Hard to Hit modifier in addition to the flat +1 to hit things with the Fly keyword.
But I'd also argue that if such is done, we need more AA weapon platforms in the game.
meleti wrote: So far as actual rules changes go, I think something needs to be done about stacking penalties to hit.
-1 to hit a unit is reasonable, -2 to hit is ridiculous and -3 to hit is insane.
This is definitely the big one. I'd be all in favor of no stacking at all, but you'd need to allow stacking between enemy imposed and self imposed penalties so that moving with a heavy weapon doesn't cause it to ignore stealthy tricks.
The issue with this is that as far as I'm aware, there are exceedingly few units that can have -2s--let alone -3s.
Two of them, that I'm aware of, are Eldar units(Alaitoc Rangers and Flyers with Hard to Hit). One is an AdMech unit(Dragoons with Stygies).
Flyers with multiple negative to hits aren't bad IMO, since most of them get balanced out by the fact that anti-air weaponry has gotten a smidge bit of a boost(+1 to hit versus Fly keyword means it's a bit more helpful against stuff rather than just being "Only take it if your opponent has Flyers").
I'd argue in favor of the more advanced anti-air weapons(Hydra Flak Tanks, Icarus Array Onagers, Tau with Velocity Trackers, etc) getting an additional caveat added to them where they ignore the Hard to Hit modifier in addition to the flat +1 to hit things with the Fly keyword.
But I'd also argue that if such is done, we need more AA weapon platforms in the game.
You're forgetting Conceal from the Runes of Battle.
meleti wrote: So far as actual rules changes go, I think something needs to be done about stacking penalties to hit.
-1 to hit a unit is reasonable, -2 to hit is ridiculous and -3 to hit is insane.
This is definitely the big one. I'd be all in favor of no stacking at all, but you'd need to allow stacking between enemy imposed and self imposed penalties so that moving with a heavy weapon doesn't cause it to ignore stealthy tricks.
The issue with this is that as far as I'm aware, there are exceedingly few units that can have -2s--let alone -3s.
Two of them, that I'm aware of, are Eldar units(Alaitoc Rangers and Flyers with Hard to Hit). One is an AdMech unit(Dragoons with Stygies).
Flyers with multiple negative to hits aren't bad IMO, since most of them get balanced out by the fact that anti-air weaponry has gotten a smidge bit of a boost(+1 to hit versus Fly keyword means it's a bit more helpful against stuff rather than just being "Only take it if your opponent has Flyers").
I'd argue in favor of the more advanced anti-air weapons(Hydra Flak Tanks, Icarus Array Onagers, Tau with Velocity Trackers, etc) getting an additional caveat added to them where they ignore the Hard to Hit modifier in addition to the flat +1 to hit things with the Fly keyword.
But I'd also argue that if such is done, we need more AA weapon platforms in the game.
You're forgetting Conceal from the Runes of Battle.
So it still comes down to "Eldar units"?
To be honest, I'm not running into too many Eldar players locally and I just am not buying codices like I used to.
Yeah, for now -2 is mostly an Eldar problem, it's just nearly any unit in the Eldar army, rather than just Rangers or flyers.
There's still a bunch of codices yet to come out that will probably introduce some new -1 to hit mechanics (ex: Tau Stealth suits with a Alaitoc Sept tactic).
For soup nerfing: Your warlord must come from the detachment with the highest points total. Only detachments and units that share every faction keyword with your warlord may contribute command points to your overall pool.
For MEQ buffs: Bolt weapons generally get a "on a roll of a 6 to hit, make another roll. These rolls cannot generate further rolls". Or do that to on to-wound rolls for two damage shots instead of 1 damage shots.
For Death Guard: Please make the generic lords and sorcerers toughness 5 with digustingly resilient. My eye twitches every time I see that T4 stat sandwiched in with the T5s.
meleti wrote: Yeah, for now -2 is mostly an Eldar problem, it's just nearly any unit in the Eldar army, rather than just Rangers or flyers.
There's still a bunch of codices yet to come out that will probably introduce some new -1 to hit mechanics (ex: Tau Stealth suits with a Alaitoc Sept tactic).
I'm not expecting Tau to get an Alaitoc styled Sept trait, if I'm honest. There's not really any of them known for stealth/fieldcraft. I would expect their traits to be more in line with Guard's stuff.
meleti wrote: Yeah, for now -2 is mostly an Eldar problem, it's just nearly any unit in the Eldar army, rather than just Rangers or flyers.
There's still a bunch of codices yet to come out that will probably introduce some new -1 to hit mechanics (ex: Tau Stealth suits with a Alaitoc Sept tactic).
I'm not expecting Tau to get an Alaitoc styled Sept trait, if I'm honest. There's not really any of them known for stealth/fieldcraft. I would expect their traits to be more in line with Guard's stuff.
Hopefully Kroot get given the trait though.
I'll love for Tau to get Guard style traits, with different bonus for infantry and for tanks. Or maybe even infantry, battlesuits and tanks.
meleti wrote: Yeah, for now -2 is mostly an Eldar problem, it's just nearly any unit in the Eldar army, rather than just Rangers or flyers.
There's still a bunch of codices yet to come out that will probably introduce some new -1 to hit mechanics (ex: Tau Stealth suits with a Alaitoc Sept tactic).
I'm not expecting Tau to get an Alaitoc styled Sept trait, if I'm honest. There's not really any of them known for stealth/fieldcraft. I would expect their traits to be more in line with Guard's stuff.
Hopefully Kroot get given the trait though.
I'll love for Tau to get Guard style traits, with different bonus for infantry and for tanks. Or maybe even infantry, battlesuits and tanks.
It would definitely suit them considering they're the only other professional military in 40k, at least in a modern sense. I would like to see more Tau hovertanks on the table especially, anything to get people to take firewarriors and hammerheads. It's sad to see Tau get reduced to just suit spam when they have so many cool and characterful options that just get outshined by battlesuits and those hideous super heavy monstrosities GW is pushing like riptides. I don't think I've seen a Tau player willingly take fire warriors in over 2 years.
I just had a thought. What if they changed CP for matched play to be static? The Malign Portents book for AOS has something like this.. it uses "Prophecy Points" which are randomly generated (each turn in that case) but for Matched Play it's like... 3 per 500 points or something like that. Would we see less soup lists if it was, for example 3 base for being battleforged and then +1 per 500 points (so 7 at 2000 points) and that number was fixed for everybody, other than the characters who give a bonus?
Wayniac wrote: I just had a thought. What if they changed CP for matched play to be static? The Malign Portents book for AOS has something like this.. it uses "Prophecy Points" which are randomly generated (each turn in that case) but for Matched Play it's like... 3 per 500 points or something like that. Would we see less soup lists if it was, for example 3 base for being battleforged and then +1 per 500 points (so 7 at 2000 points) and that number was fixed for everybody, other than the characters who give a bonus?
Then you'd see everyone move away from more basic units when they're no longer penalized for taking all fast attack, heavy, etc.
Wayniac wrote: I just had a thought. What if they changed CP for matched play to be static? The Malign Portents book for AOS has something like this.. it uses "Prophecy Points" which are randomly generated (each turn in that case) but for Matched Play it's like... 3 per 500 points or something like that. Would we see less soup lists if it was, for example 3 base for being battleforged and then +1 per 500 points (so 7 at 2000 points) and that number was fixed for everybody, other than the characters who give a bonus?
Then you'd see everyone move away from more basic units when they're no longer penalized for taking all fast attack, heavy, etc.
A lot of troop choices are pretty good and would be taken anyways. It's just that the tactical is so terrible (this isn't even a general space marine thing because scouts are a really good troop choice) that it skews perception a bit.
I'm of a controversial opinion that we need to bring blast weapons back. There's no 'other' easy answer to anti horde, or at the very least bring black flamer templates.
Changes that I think are needed:
* Deep strike and its variants can now only happen on turn 2+ (Fixes the alpha strike problems, I'm looking at you berserkers!)
* We need to see a melee 'overwatch' that happens when people retreat from combat
* All Vehicles now reduce AP penalties by half, AP on Lascannons and Meltas go up slightly to compensate
And finally a wishlist of things that will never happen but should:
* Add psychic dice a-la 8e Warhammer fantasy, using a pool of dice that increases per psyker in your army - makes it easier to cast a single spell but harder for multiple
* TEQ units now have a save of 3+ but pass using 2d6 * Remove all reroll auras (As they are bland, uninspiring and reduce game-design space available) and replace them with something interesting.
2) Bolters effectively losing AP made them so inefficient they are barely worth rolling
5) The combination of bolters becoming proportionally weaker and flamers/frag missiles becoming weaker, less reliable, and more expensive totally destroyed the ability to normal marine units to provide anti-swarm.
8) In the past, marine infantry relied on a good armor save to out attrition their opponents. But now the offensive power of everyone has increased considerably, so they've lost their ability to take in damage without getting wiped out early. The changes to cover have also hurt them, but not necessarily more than other races.
A) Move all bolter weapons an AP lower for marines. Standard becomes AP -1, intercessor one becomes -2, heavy bolter -2, etc. This will also help their vehicles out. But it won't break currently good units like assault cannon razorbacks.
I agree with most of your points but this. You said that high AP weapons are making marines worse, and then later suggest adding more high AP weapons?
E) Give Jump Pack troops the ability to lock enemies in close combat, or perhaps follow them if they fall back (can be based on leadership check.)
I don't think that's the right way of doing it; Non-jump pack infantry are still invalid
Daedalus81 wrote: Wouldn't alpha strikes just turn into beta strikes?
It'll allow for more counter play in the game than there currently is, and is perhaps one of the more elegant solutions they can do without a complete rules revision.
They're already pretty damn tough...
The changes means vehicles aren't bad against everything -AP. The Lascannon / Melta buff should offset the change.
It's there so that anti infantry weapons aren't as effective against vehicles (Go away, plasma!)
I'll love for Tau to get Guard style traits, with different bonus for infantry and for tanks. Or maybe even infantry, battlesuits and tanks.
It would definitely suit them considering they're the only other professional military in 40k, at least in a modern sense. I would like to see more Tau hovertanks on the table especially, anything to get people to take firewarriors and hammerheads. It's sad to see Tau get reduced to just suit spam when they have so many cool and characterful options that just get outshined by battlesuits and those hideous super heavy monstrosities GW is pushing like riptides. I don't think I've seen a Tau player willingly take fire warriors in over 2 years.
The guard traits are definitely my favorites so far, so I hope tau get similar traits. There's a reason to take all of them and each lends itself to a wildly different playstyle. (whereas 6+ FNP doesn't change your tactics and -1 to hit is pretty boring).
Though, I do think Fire warriors are already in a solid spot. If they drop one point and get some mean sept traits you might start seeing a lot more. Maybe not though, for some reason people like big robots more. Which is a shame because they look so much better than most battlesuits IMO.
For Death Guard: Please make the generic lords and sorcerers toughness 5 with digustingly resilient. My eye twitches every time I see that T4 stat sandwiched in with the T5s.
on this I agree. it's just so painfully an artifical keeping the stats the same between codices it's annoying I agree it should be done in most cases (a predator is a predator is a predator) but in the case of the death guard everything is changed.
Wayniac wrote: I just had a thought. What if they changed CP for matched play to be static? The Malign Portents book for AOS has something like this.. it uses "Prophecy Points" which are randomly generated (each turn in that case) but for Matched Play it's like... 3 per 500 points or something like that. Would we see less soup lists if it was, for example 3 base for being battleforged and then +1 per 500 points (so 7 at 2000 points) and that number was fixed for everybody, other than the characters who give a bonus?
Then you'd see everyone move away from more basic units when they're no longer penalized for taking all fast attack, heavy, etc.
No different to lists that are all Outrider etc (aka Ravenwing). This isn't a bad idea and you could still link army traits to being battleforged to encourage rounded lists as they currently are (change battleforged to mean all armies share faction keyword and and have a valid detachment.).
Eonfuzz wrote: I'm of a controversial opinion that we need to bring blast weapons back. There's no 'other' easy answer to anti horde, or at the very least bring black flamer templates.
Changes that I think are needed:
* Deep strike and its variants can now only happen on turn 2+ (Fixes the alpha strike problems, I'm looking at you berserkers!)
* We need to see a melee 'overwatch' that happens when people retreat from combat
* All Vehicles now reduce AP penalties by half, AP on Lascannons and Meltas go up slightly to compensate
And finally a wishlist of things that will never happen but should:
* Add psychic dice a-la 8e Warhammer fantasy, using a pool of dice that increases per psyker in your army - makes it easier to cast a single spell but harder for multiple
* TEQ units now have a save of 3+ but pass using 2d6 * Remove all reroll auras (As they are bland, uninspiring and reduce game-design space available) and replace them with something interesting.
* Agreed with Deep strike on turn 2 onwards. Going second still exposes you to enemy fire before acting but at least you have a turn to reposition and counter before reinforcements enter. (even make it a dice roll of 3+ on turn 1 and automatic from turn 2)
* Melee overwatch or perhaps D3 mortal wounds for retreating (D6 if outnumbered by more than 2:1) - there should be a penalty of some sort for retreating however it's done
* Not a fan of this sorry.
* They tried this in 7th Ed. It slowed the game down to a crawl and psychic phases were painful to sit through.
* A nice throw back to 2nd ED, but what happens when hit by a weapon with AP? If the aim is to make them more resistant to AP0 small arms fire but still weak against plasma etc I actually like this idea.
* I personally like the concept of auras, it helps encourage your troops to surround the commanding characters like a cohesive fighting force. It's no different to previous editions were characters conferred a buff to the unit they joined - now it's in a bubble around them as they can't join units anymore.
For Death Guard: Please make the generic lords and sorcerers toughness 5 with digustingly resilient. My eye twitches every time I see that T4 stat sandwiched in with the T5s.
Yes. Please. Give them T5 and DR like they should and a slight points increase. I understand why they did it so all Chaos Lords across any list are the same but they could have added a rule like they did with Daemon Princes in the Data Sheet were they gain an extra ability based on the Mark of Chaos they are given - problem solved.
* Agreed with Deep strike on turn 2 onwards. Going second still exposes you to enemy fire before acting but at least you have a turn to reposition and counter before reinforcements enter. (even make it a dice roll of 3+ on turn 1 and automatic from turn 2)
* Melee overwatch or perhaps D3 mortal wounds for retreating (D6 if outnumbered by more than 2:1) - there should be a penalty of some sort for retreating however it's done
* Not a fan of this sorry.
* They tried this in 7th Ed. It slowed the game down to a crawl and psychic phases were painful to sit through.
* A nice throw back to 2nd ED, but what happens when hit by a weapon with AP? If the aim is to make them more resistant to AP0 small arms fire but still weak against plasma etc I actually like this idea.
* I personally like the concept of auras, it helps encourage your troops to surround the commanding characters like a cohesive fighting force. It's no different to previous editions were characters conferred a buff to the unit they joined - now it's in a bubble around them as they can't join units anymore.
The vehicle change is to make them as strong as they are now against anti vehicle, but tougher against small arms like Plasma.
I believe auras are contributing to the upcoming 'death blob' problem. Marine players all bunch around a captain and lieutenant for those sweet rerolls.
Additionally the auras are problematic. How do you cost something that makes all nearby units 17% more effective? And do you balance those other units around always being in the auras?
I want to see more things that are 'interesting' from a gameplay perspective; for example replace the captains aura with:
Inspiring Courage Whenever the Space Marine Captain destroys an enemy unit nearby units are bolstered with courage; Nominate a friendly unit within 12", for the remainder of this turn their hit rolls are increased by 1 (to a maximum of 2+ to hit) for the remainder of the phase.
This introduces gameplay (you want your captain to kill something) while also introducing new strategies.
Strategems I'd like to see some strategems get adjusted. - The Eldar Interceptor strategem that is the best strategem they have, and only 1 CP could really do with a nerf. Limit it to 12" - Eldar's 1 CP to leave combat and act normally is nuts too. 3 CP to do this. - IG,'s take Cover strategem should be armor saves only. Not invuls. - Nids have a bunch of strategems that don't really work. IE. pheromone trail, or any of the summoning stratagems. - Bloodletter bomb is too good. I asked my friend, "Do you think we'll ever see a Korne army without a bloodletter bomb?" He said, "I don't think you'll see a chaos demons army without a bloodletter bomb." That is pretty poor design in my opinion. Limit the strategem to units of 20 or less. - Blood angels have a similar problem, though less turn 1 game ending. I'd like to see it get dicier. AKA, charge 3D6, but you roll a dice for each model, and on a 1 they are removed. Makes Sanguinary guard kinda risky. Psychic Powers - Quicken and Warp Time are both psychic powers that badly unbalance the game. I'd like to see Quicken change to double advance (like the kraken strategm), and Warp Time change to add 6" to the unit's movement. Another way to fix both is to make them infantry only. - Tyranid Psychic powers lack bite. Onslaught should be better. They need a way to lower invul saves (paroxysm: -1 to all saving throws?). - Grey Knights and anyone else with mini smite need to avoid the smite nerf. - Neurothrope needs to be able to pick 2 powers.
Specific unit changes: - Skarbrand is kinda silly. Take away his fearless buff. - Celestine is too good. Make her Res with D3 wounds. - Dark Reapers have problems. 3+ to hit if they don't move. Make the frag profile S5 AP-1, 1 Damage. Cap squad size to 6. Maybe a few more tweaks. - I.G's Grand strategist should be limited to IG pure armies
Primarchs - Rowboat sucks. No fun to play against. Give him 12 wounds so he can be targetted. - Mortarian and Magnus are also no fun. Maybe Magnus has been nerfed enough (the fix to warp time above might be enough). Mortarian should probably get a reduction on the range of his mortal wound's at the start of the fight phase. - Alternative approach, Primarchs are no fun. Limit all 3 of them to Open Play.
General Game changes - Terrain rules suck. Alpha Strikes are too good. Bring back "night Fighting". Player who goes 1st has -1 to hit on their 1st turn. Or Player who goes 2nd gets +1 to saving throws on their 1st turn. - 6's should always hit - Monster / bike / vehicles can't be placed on upper levels, but if they can roll high enough to make a charge, they should be able to charge units on upper levels via wobbly model or some other mechanic. - Fly is too good. If you leave combat you can shoot, but at -1 maybe.
- Blood angels have a similar problem, though less turn 1 game ending. I'd like to see it get dicier. AKA, charge 3D6, but you roll a dice for each model, and on a 1 they are removed. Makes Sanguinary guard kinda risky.
Makes it unusable, which I guess is OK if that's what you intended.
Primarchs - Rowboat sucks. No fun to play against. Give him 12 wounds so he can be targetted.
- Mortarian and Magnus are also no fun. Maybe Magnus has been nerfed enough (the fix to warp time above might be enough). Mortarian should probably get a reduction on the range of his mortal wound's at the start of the fight phase.
- Alternative approach, Primarchs are no fun. Limit all 3 of them to Open Play.
Ah yes, more Gulliman nerfs...
It's not like I'm always losing when I DO have him.
For Death Guard: Please make the generic lords and sorcerers toughness 5 with digustingly resilient. My eye twitches every time I see that T4 stat sandwiched in with the T5s.
This!
And make orks armed with assault, rapidfire, and pistols hit on 5+ no mater any negatives to hit.
For Death Guard: Please make the generic lords and sorcerers toughness 5 with digustingly resilient. My eye twitches every time I see that T4 stat sandwiched in with the T5s.
This!
And make orks armed with assault, rapidfire, and pistols hit on 5+ no mater any negatives to hit.
Guys, it's a FAQ. Not a chapter approved. Not a game update to a new version. It's a big FAQ.
Temper your expectations accordingly and don't be surprised when none of the stuff you're hoping for happens in March.
I don't think there's a chance of new rules.
I don't think any army currently without a codex will get a mention.
I don't think there will be many if any points changes.
If they make any rules changes it will only be to those units that are currently way too strong/weak and again only for armies with codexes released. They may change global, general rules/make beta rules legitimate.
That's it. Again, to reiterate, don't be expecting a plethora of changes and complete overhauls of current systems.
Maybe they will change the rules so you can pick units with assault weapons that advanced, or units with pistols/equivalent within 1" of an enemy, to shoot those weapons in the shooting phase.
I only hope they don't make the Beta Smite rules permanent.
These rules are poorly thought out and uneeded. A Chaos Sorcerer deals 3 Mortal Wounds if he only uses witchfire powers.... 3 MORTAL WOUNDS for 100pts. Obliterators deal way more damage than that against any kind of targets, except those that Mortal Wounds were DESIGNED to take down (high invulnerable saves units).
All they need to do is to give baby-Smite to Psykers that cost 50pts or less. Easily fixed.
2: Big, Twice-a-year FAQs Major game-wide questions will be answered on a biannual basis each March and September when a wider set of FAQ updates will be released. These will be focused on anything that might emerge as more codexes, and thus more unusual interactions, make their way into the game and will address issues across multiple factions and publications. We’ll also use these to address balance issues in the game, so these might include a few changes to rules for overly powerful, or underrepresented units.
Ynnari stratagems changed
Dark Reapers and Shiny Spears a 4-5pt increase
What i want? Sporefield Stratagem to not use Reinforcement points.
Nym wrote: I only hope they don't make the Beta Smite rules permanent.
These rules are poorly thought out and uneeded. A Chaos Sorcerer deals 3 Mortal Wounds if he only uses witchfire powers.... 3 MORTAL WOUNDS for 100pts. Obliterators deal way more damage than that against any kind of targets, except those that Mortal Wounds were DESIGNED to take down (high invulnerable saves units).
All they need to do is to give baby-Smite to Psykers that cost 50pts or less. Easily fixed.
A decision, rather than having an optional rule that screws over some armies and not others would be handy...
... of course, if it is implemented, I hope the armies that get screwed over get some sort of compensation or a way to mitigate it a bit...
Nym wrote: I only hope they don't make the Beta Smite rules permanent.
These rules are poorly thought out and uneeded. A Chaos Sorcerer deals 3 Mortal Wounds if he only uses witchfire powers.... 3 MORTAL WOUNDS for 100pts. Obliterators deal way more damage than that against any kind of targets, except those that Mortal Wounds were DESIGNED to take down (high invulnerable saves units).
All they need to do is to give baby-Smite to Psykers that cost 50pts or less. Easily fixed.
A decision, rather than having an optional rule that screws over some armies and not others would be handy...
... of course, if it is implemented, I hope the armies that get screwed over get some sort of compensation or a way to mitigate it a bit...
Mark.
They are compensated; the two armies that are intended to spam out psykers get 18 spells in their list. They just need to expand the Grey Knights list to be as big as the Eldar and Thousand Sons lists and the smite change is totally fine.
p5freak wrote: Genestealers need to be nerfed. Moving and advancing 20 models 16-20" across the battlefield (kraken 3D6 for advancing, using the highest roll, doubling it with 1CP) and being able to charge with 3-4 attacks, and acid maws (AP-3 for free), for 12 pts. a model is a big nono.
This can only be done with one unit per turn, there are only 5 acid maw per unit of 20, they still have to make the charge and tank the overwatch. Once they've done that, they then have to chew through the bubblewrap before actually hitting the useful target. If they kill what they're fighting, then they are left out in the open and are eradicated off the board next turn. If they don't kill what they are fighting, the opponent falls back and eradicates them (unless the genetealers are able to completely surround their target). IMO genestealers (and the tyranid codex in general, barring a couple of underpowered/overpriced units) are fine
They are compensated; the two armies that are intended to spam out psykers get 18 spells in their list. They just need to expand the Grey Knights list to be as big as the Eldar and Thousand Sons lists and the smite change is totally fine.
I don't own either of those armies; can their basic squads now cast spells other than Smite? (as at one time that was all they could cast)?
Also: Horrors totally don't work if it is -1 per ATTEMPT, and they definitely only know Smite.
tag8833 wrote: Strategems I'd like to see some strategems get adjusted.
- The Eldar Interceptor strategem that is the best strategem they have, and only 1 CP could really do with a nerf. Limit it to 12"
- Eldar's 1 CP to leave combat and act normally is nuts too. 3 CP to do this.
- IG,'s take Cover strategem should be armor saves only. Not invuls.
- Nids have a bunch of strategems that don't really work. IE. pheromone trail, or any of the summoning stratagems.
- Bloodletter bomb is too good. I asked my friend, "Do you think we'll ever see a Korne army without a bloodletter bomb?" He said, "I don't think you'll see a chaos demons army without a bloodletter bomb." That is pretty poor design in my opinion. Limit the strategem to units of 20 or less.
- Blood angels have a similar problem, though less turn 1 game ending. I'd like to see it get dicier. AKA, charge 3D6, but you roll a dice for each model, and on a 1 they are removed. Makes Sanguinary guard kinda risky.
Psychic Powers - Quicken and Warp Time are both psychic powers that badly unbalance the game. I'd like to see Quicken change to double advance (like the kraken strategm), and Warp Time change to add 6" to the unit's movement. Another way to fix both is to make them infantry only.
- Tyranid Psychic powers lack bite. Onslaught should be better. They need a way to lower invul saves (paroxysm: -1 to all saving throws?).
- Grey Knights and anyone else with mini smite need to avoid the smite nerf.
- Neurothrope needs to be able to pick 2 powers.
Specific unit changes: - Skarbrand is kinda silly. Take away his fearless buff.
- Celestine is too good. Make her Res with D3 wounds.
- Dark Reapers have problems. 3+ to hit if they don't move. Make the frag profile S5 AP-1, 1 Damage. Cap squad size to 6. Maybe a few more tweaks.
- I.G's Grand strategist should be limited to IG pure armies
Primarchs - Rowboat sucks. No fun to play against. Give him 12 wounds so he can be targetted.
- Mortarian and Magnus are also no fun. Maybe Magnus has been nerfed enough (the fix to warp time above might be enough). Mortarian should probably get a reduction on the range of his mortal wound's at the start of the fight phase.
- Alternative approach, Primarchs are no fun. Limit all 3 of them to Open Play.
General Game changes - Terrain rules suck. Alpha Strikes are too good. Bring back "night Fighting". Player who goes 1st has -1 to hit on their 1st turn. Or Player who goes 2nd gets +1 to saving throws on their 1st turn.
- 6's should always hit
- Monster / bike / vehicles can't be placed on upper levels, but if they can roll high enough to make a charge, they should be able to charge units on upper levels via wobbly model or some other mechanic.
- Fly is too good. If you leave combat you can shoot, but at -1 maybe.
Is the intercept really the best stratagem they have? Personally, i can count the amount of times i've used it in events on one hand.
Quicken and Warptime can't affect advance distances, as you advance in the phase beforehand - unless you mean it affects the next turns advance distance? In which case it'd never get used...
If you give Tyranids a way to reduce saving throws, then you need to give it to every army as well then. Currently only CSM, Thousand Sons and SMs have the ability to remove Invulns, and then Eldar reducing saves by 1 - and even then, only for 1 unit.
Grey Knights etc just need their smite changing to normal smite damage THOUGH they do currently get +1 to casting attempts, so it does somewhat counter balance the first couple of casts.
I presume, you also require the Ultramarines, Eldar and other CP regen traits/abilties/relics to be the same? I don't really have a problem with this, but, has to be consistent.
To be fair, the only Primarch that is sometimes "counter fun" is Mortarian. Nothing is more annoying than a warptimed 7" mortal wound causing bubble followed by 18 attacks. That said - Primarchs are fun, and can be fun - if challenging to play against.
Terrain rules do suck, and i think Night fighting could come back, but not the +1 to saves.
I kinda enjoy bikes etc not being able to climb a multi storey building. It at least adds a little bit of realism to the game.
Fly is generally alright right now, especially as the ability is costed into the unit. If you add a penalty to them, then you'd have to reduce the points cost added to the units.
I like the idea of no deep strike turn 1, but, i'd only apply it to the player that goes first. Taking 2 turns of fire before you're able to reinforce your own army is going to result in a lot of people dropping deep strike all together. I'd be happy to go first with a Guard army, if i know 1/3 of your army is in reserve and i had 2 turns to focus fire everything and had the advantage of my own deep-strikes coming in to block yours.
Tyraids:
Surprised to be able to say that as a Nid player, but most stuff is fine. I can see some internal balancing issues.
Tervigon is costed for its potential in narrative and open play (summon for free), but that makes it overpriced in matched play.
Lictors and Deathleaper need a buff. Maybe make all of them characters? A little more hth punch would not hurt either. I do picture them as glass cannons in my mind.
Many tyranid monsters have an identity crisis. Toxicrene, Carnifex, Haruspex and Trygons are all fighting over the same role (with Fexes being more flexible as they can double as dakka platforms). They need to have distinct roles as to what exactly they need to be doing. Especially toxicrene.
Malfunctor needs some love at some point. It was terrible in 7th edition and it's pretty bad now.
GW needs to wrap their head about one simple concept: Shooting is better than HtH in 40k. Period. There is no reason why hormagaunts would ever be more expensive in points than termagants.
Finally, some adjustment to the Tyranid Prime would not go amiss. Not necessarily a price drop, but an ability to take wings or some heavy weaponry (venom cannon or monstrous claws) would help a lot. It's an important model, because it basically automatically qualifies the warriors as a viable unit or not.
On the nerf side, Flyrants are kinda cheap-ish for what they do and genestealers need a tone down so we don't have auto-take units. Also address the fact that the biovores actually prefer to be missing with their shots rather than hitting. Maybe make the spore mine explosion less accurate? (aka MW on a 4+ only?)
As for Thousand Sons, there is some issues there too. DP's are too good compared to CSMDP's for the same points. It should be one or the other, not both. Same goes with plain sorcerer (although that's a case of the CSM one being crappy rather than the TS one being broken).
For units, aspiring sorcerers need to be excluded from the smite beta rules. Rubric aspiring needs rework so he doesn't automatically destroy half his own unit when he perils with no questions asked. The rubrics entry vs the CSM rubric entry needs to be addressed.
flame weapons need an adjustment in the rules. They are expensive and short ranged. Deep striking them is terrible.
We complain about clearing out horde screens and such and we used to have a pretty good weapon to do it...the flamer.
Either give it better range and or allow it to shoot after advancing. Ignoring cover should still be considered. As of now its a useless weapon for the most part.
tag8833 wrote: Strategems I'd like to see some strategems get adjusted.
- The Eldar Interceptor strategem that is the best strategem they have, and only 1 CP could really do with a nerf. Limit it to 12"
- Eldar's 1 CP to leave combat and act normally is nuts too. 3 CP to do this.
I have good news - both of these have already been nerfed to 2CP just now!
Tyraids:
Surprised to be able to say that as a Nid player, but most stuff is fine. I can see some internal balancing issues.
Tervigon is costed for its potential in narrative and open play (summon for free), but that makes it overpriced in matched play.
Lictors and Deathleaper need a buff. Maybe make all of them characters? A little more hth punch would not hurt either. I do picture them as glass cannons in my mind.
Many tyranid monsters have an identity crisis. Toxicrene, Carnifex, Haruspex and Trygons are all fighting over the same role (with Fexes being more flexible as they can double as dakka platforms). They need to have distinct roles as to what exactly they need to be doing. Especially toxicrene.
Malfunctor needs some love at some point. It was terrible in 7th edition and it's pretty bad now.
GW needs to wrap their head about one simple concept: Shooting is better than HtH in 40k. Period. There is no reason why hormagaunts would ever be more expensive in points than termagants.
Finally, some adjustment to the Tyranid Prime would not go amiss. Not necessarily a price drop, but an ability to take wings or some heavy weaponry (venom cannon or monstrous claws) would help a lot. It's an important model, because it basically automatically qualifies the warriors as a viable unit or not.
On the nerf side, Flyrants are kinda cheap-ish for what they do and genestealers need a tone down so we don't have auto-take units. Also address the fact that the biovores actually prefer to be missing with their shots rather than hitting. Maybe make the spore mine explosion less accurate? (aka MW on a 4+ only?)
As for Thousand Sons, there is some issues there too. DP's are too good compared to CSMDP's for the same points. It should be one or the other, not both. Same goes with plain sorcerer (although that's a case of the CSM one being crappy rather than the TS one being broken).
For units, aspiring sorcerers need to be excluded from the smite beta rules. Rubric aspiring needs rework so he doesn't automatically destroy half his own unit when he perils with no questions asked. The rubrics entry vs the CSM rubric entry needs to be addressed.
Tau: Codex plx.
I wouldn't say that Genestealers need a nerf. Sure they pack a punch but they are still fragile and could easily become useless. Maybe a rework so they trade their offensive for some defense?
And the reason Biovores want to be missing is to control the enemy movement. Reducing the damage of spore mines, which are already quite useless unless they are free, will not change that. If we want Biovores to hit then they need some actual damage that makes their hits worth it.
As for Tyrants, what they need is to actually pay for their MRC.q
p5freak wrote: Genestealers need to be nerfed. Moving and advancing 20 models 16-20" across the battlefield (kraken 3D6 for advancing, using the highest roll, doubling it with 1CP) and being able to charge with 3-4 attacks, and acid maws (AP-3 for free), for 12 pts. a model is a big nono.
This can only be done with one unit per turn, there are only 5 acid maw per unit of 20, they still have to make the charge and tank the overwatch. Once they've done that, they then have to chew through the bubblewrap before actually hitting the useful target. If they kill what they're fighting, then they are left out in the open and are eradicated off the board next turn. If they don't kill what they are fighting, the opponent falls back and eradicates them (unless the genetealers are able to completely surround their target). IMO genestealers (and the tyranid codex in general, barring a couple of underpowered/overpriced units) are fine
I've found that most people complaining about melee alpha strike and non-spammed smite are those who haven't grasped the concept of bubble wrap yet.
I had a co-worker complain to me how OPGK were after his first game of 8th, which kind of had me stumped. Of course, they dropped right next to his daemon prince and defiler and drowned them in 3 wound smites.
If you have genestealers running up to your hell blasters and eating them turn 1, I can see why you might be upset. If they end up somewhere in no mans land eating some scouts, all those OP melee units become a lot easier to tackle again.
I wouldn't say that Genestealers need a nerf. Sure they pack a punch but they are still fragile and could easily become useless. Maybe a rework so they trade their offensive for some defense?
This is already possible. You can give them extended carapaces for 2 pts. per model. They get a 4+ save, but lose their ability to advance and charge. A broodlord can cast catalyst on them, this gives the entire unit a 5+ FNP.
How can a unit with a threat range of ~25-30" become useless ??
And Genestealers don't need a nerf. T4, 5++, 12 points, 8" move. You need wound 6s to really damage anything.
There are stronger melee units out there.
Boyz are cheaper by half, Berzerkers are insane and can use transports, alpha legion stratagems, etc, Thunderwolf Cavalry with Shields + Swords will ruin Genestealers badly, etc. And if you shoot them you will kill them.
Tyranids finally have a balanced army that isn't nails on a chalkboard painful to play, and they're still not tearing up the meta nearly as bad as Chaos, or Imperium, and in major events Orks are doing just as well if not better. How on earth you want to nerf Tyranids is just insanepants.
The only changes I expect to see are in people's blood pressure and the water level in the Ocean of Tears.
I mostly hope some Inquisition stuff sees some love without taking away the army's access to a wide array of transports (I know I've seen some discussion on this for things like the Land Speeder Storm so clarification that doesn't lead to a nerf would be nice) and considering that they've dropped a whole datasheet into an FAQ I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility to put new points sheets into FAQs. I mean, that was the point of having matched play points separate from the unit entries: ease of replacement.
Martel732 wrote: Matt Ward is reasonable compared to Phil Kelly.
Ward had good internal balance (not perfect, but it was good) while external balance was kind of all over the place. Meanwhile Kelly was great for fluffy and interesting rules, but the power level was schizophrenic at best and the bookkeeping was a nightmare at times.
Basically both of them had pros and cons. I like the current rules team because they've done a reasonable job at balancing fluff and lore, but of course more fine tuning is needed. Especially as new codex updates come out and shift the meta.
Martel732 wrote: Matt Ward is reasonable compared to Phil Kelly.
I'm not overly familiar with much of the writers. But I heard that Matt ward actually had good balance when it was 2 of his codexes against each other. But that's just hear say for the most part
Martel732 wrote: Matt Ward is reasonable compared to Phil Kelly.
I'm not overly familiar with much of the writers. But I heard that Matt ward actually had good balance when it was 2 of his codexes against each other. But that's just hear say for the most part
Now to see what this Phil Kelly guy writes...
He wrote the previous Chaos Marine and Craftworld Eldar codexes.
I wouldn't say that Genestealers need a nerf. Sure they pack a punch but they are still fragile and could easily become useless. Maybe a rework so they trade their offensive for some defense?
This is already possible. You can give them extended carapaces for 2 pts. per model. They get a 4+ save, but lose their ability to advance and charge. A broodlord can cast catalyst on them, this gives the entire unit a 5+ FNP.
It is not optimal, because paying 14 (and losing advance and charge) points for a T4 4+ model is not worth it. Sure we can increase improve it with catalyst, but that's has it's own limitations.
How can a unit with a threat range of ~25-30" become useless ??
I wonder how you are getting the threat range 25-30".
8" movement + D6 advance + 2D6 charge = 18.5" in average.
Sure with Kraken stratagem (8" movement + 2 x best of 3D6 advance + 2D6 charge) we get 25" average, but that's with a stratagem. Nerfing a unit to needing a sub-faction exclusive stratagem to work is just bad design.
And that's of course ignoring that there is stuff like bubble wrapping that pretty much counters Genestealers as they cannot move over enemy units.
I wouldn't say that Genestealers need a nerf. Sure they pack a punch but they are still fragile and could easily become useless. Maybe a rework so they trade their offensive for some defense?
This is already possible. You can give them extended carapaces for 2 pts. per model. They get a 4+ save, but lose their ability to advance and charge. A broodlord can cast catalyst on them, this gives the entire unit a 5+ FNP.
It is not optimal, because paying 14 (and losing advance and charge) points for a T4 4+ model is not worth it. Sure we can increase improve it with catalyst, but that's has it's own limitations.
How can a unit with a threat range of ~25-30" become useless ??
I wonder how you are getting the threat range 25-30".
8" movement + D6 advance + 2D6 charge = 18.5" in average.
Sure with Kraken stratagem (8" movement + 2 x best of 3D6 advance + 2D6 charge) we get 25" average, but that's with a stratagem. Nerfing a unit to needing a sub-faction exclusive stratagem to work is just bad design.
And that's of course ignoring that there is stuff like bubble wrapping that pretty much counters Genestealers as they cannot move over enemy units.
I believe the swarmlord gives them something like moving again or something similar. I'm no tyranid player though
The Swarmlord is a 14 wound T7 model with a 4++ that costs 300 freaking points. If you see him on the table count yourself lucky your opponent decided to effectively waste 15% of his list for an obvious gimmick that still won't get you passed any screens lol
For reference i love the Swarmlord. Mine is fully painted and based, just waiting for a price drop to hit the tables.
Marmatag wrote: The Swarmlord is a 14 wound T7 model with a 4++ that costs 300 freaking points. If you see him on the table count yourself lucky your opponent decided to effectively waste 15% of his list for an obvious gimmick that still won't get you passed any screens lol
For reference i love the Swarmlord. Mine is fully painted and based, just waiting for a price drop to hit the tables.
I wonder how you are getting the threat range 25-30".
8" movement + D6 advance + 2D6 charge = 18.5" in average.
Sure with Kraken stratagem (8" movement + 2 x best of 3D6 advance + 2D6 charge) we get 25" average, but that's with a stratagem. Nerfing a unit to needing a sub-faction exclusive stratagem to work is just bad design.
If you roll 3D6 chances are pretty good you will end up with a 4 or 5 as the highest result. You can reroll one dice in the movement phase. In the charge phase you can also also reroll one dice. Getting at least 25" is easy.
And that's of course ignoring that there is stuff like bubble wrapping that pretty much counters Genestealers as they cannot move over enemy units.
What bubble ? Genestealers are so cheap that the nid player can easily have 2*20 or even 3*20 models. The first 20 remove the bubble, the second 20 run around them, and attack whatever was bubbled. Or the nid player spends 2 CP to let the first 20 models fight again. Nid players usually have 10+ CP.
A squad of 20 Genestealers is 240 points base. Is it really worth it to throw 240 points away on a 40 point screen? Let's say you kill 2 screens. That's 80 points. You've just spent 240 points to clear 80 points, in a pretty optimal scenario, since the Genestealers are dead next turn. If 240 points is cheap to you, i'm curious what faction you're playing.
Secondly, it costs 3CP to fight again, and you must be within 1" of something. Meaning, the squad didn't clear their target. Unlikely since we're fighting screens. For Nid players to usually have 10+ cp means they're running a brigade. Saying "most Nid players run a brigade" is not even close to accurate.
Finally, if you're running 3 squads of genestealers, that's 720 points of models that die horribly to alpha, because you've spent a huge chunk of your list on things that actually require screening. And you have no answer to Fire Raptors or other flyers.
Anyone who tells you first turn charges are a real strategy for Tyranids simply doesn't play the army. And if people are doing this to you, just deploy further back, if you're insisting on not running the 8e mandatory screens. You can literally deny this tactic by being aware that it exists. Even in the most unfavorable board layout, you can negate this strategy by deploying further back. I mean seriously.
Every faction - Imperium, Chaos, Xenos - all have a great answer to massed Genestealers, without even going outside the meta.
If you roll 3D6 chances are pretty good you will end up with a 4 or 5 as the highest result. You can reroll one dice in the movement phase. In the charge phase you can also also reroll one dice. Getting at least 25" is easy.
And wasting 3 CP in the process, in one unit.
What bubble ? Genestealers are so cheap that the nid player can easily have 2*20 or even 3*20 models. The first 20 remove the bubble, the second 20 run around them, and attack whatever was bubbled. Or the nid player spends 2 CP to let the first 20 models fight again. Nid players usually have 10+ CP.
They are slightly cheaper than Space Marines, that's not cheap for infantry.
And that's not how the Charge and Fight phases work, and that's another 3CP. 6CP used on a 240 pt unit is quite an investment and more than half of the CP pool of most Tyranid lists.
1. Smite nerf (beta rules - though I believe there may be an exception for GK given how it would affect them more than most)
2. Character targeting (beta rules)
3. Fireraptor update (+points likely)
4. Stratagem update (possibly restricted to the faction's detachment, but who knows)
5. Possible +points for Morty
6. Other Q&A that have been brought up
Let's say you kill 2 screens. That's 80 points. You've just spent 240 points to clear 80 points, in a pretty optimal scenario, since the Genestealers are dead next turn. If 240 points is cheap to you, i'm curious what faction you're playing.
240 is very cheap for 80 attacks with S4 AP-1, 20 of them at AP-3, for free. Every wound roll of 6 is AP-4. BADC cant advance and charge, they have no AP weapons for free, they have no invuln sv, they cant race 25" across the battlefield every turn. To get 80 attacks i need 20 DC models, which are 400 pts with JP.
Secondly, it costs 3CP to fight again, and you must be within 1" of something. Meaning, the squad didn't clear their target. Unlikely since we're fighting screens. For Nid players to usually have 10+ cp means they're running a brigade. Saying "most Nid players run a brigade" is not even close to accurate.
You're right, its 2 CP to shoot again. Getting two battalions at 1,5k is no problem. Thats 9 CP. As a SM player i can only dream of 9 CP at 1,5k.
Finally, if you're running 3 squads of genestealers, that's 720 points of models that die horribly to alpha, because you've spent a huge chunk of your list on things that actually require screening. And you have no answer to Fire Raptors or other flyers.
Ever heard of infestation nodes ? Or deepstriking with a trygon ?
Anyone who tells you first turn charges are a real strategy for Tyranids simply doesn't play the army. And if people are doing this to you, just deploy further back, if you're insisting on not running the 8e mandatory screens. You can literally deny this tactic by being aware that it exists. Even in the most unfavorable board layout, you can negate this strategy by deploying further back. I mean seriously.
Right. Tyranids have no way of deepstriking with a trygon and another unit, or flyrants, and charge with +1, reroll for free, with their hive fleet ability, if necessary.
Marmatag wrote: I hope they restrict souping. It shouldn't be infeasible, but there should at least be some kind of trade off here.
This. The problem isn't with one codex, it's when you soup several together that it borders on the edge. Not sure how you would do this though without going the other way and make it pointless to do.
How does a space marine player get a 40 point screen ? That screen is two models, a unit of two models company veterans are 32
Scouts are 55 points and provide a good bubble against deep strike. You can however add IG into the mix which should give you a lot of screening units.
240 is very cheap for 80 attacks with S4 AP-1, 20 of them at AP-3, for free. Every wound roll of 6 is AP-4. BADC cant advance and charge, they have no AP weapons for free, they have no invuln sv, they cant race 25" across the battlefield every turn. To get 80 attacks i need 20 DC models, which are 400 pts with JP.
You do the mistake of thinking that all units exist within a bubble when in fact they exist within an army. BADC might not have some of the things you mentioned, but they have an army of options that synergizes with them. BADC also has access to ranged weapons, jumppacks, and a host of different weaponry. I mean, if you want to look at this in the most narrow way possible then yes Genestealers are stronger, but that's only if you want to willfully ignore other aspects of Blood Angels as well as Death Company.
Your army is a bit more than a single unit. Unless you are playing at 250 point level.
You're right, its 2 CP to shoot again. Getting two battalions at 1,5k is no problem. Thats 9 CP. As a SM player i can only dream of 9 CP at 1,5k.
Sure, getting 9 CP is easy, but the question is what you sacrifice as you aim for CP instead of unit/army synergy. Technically you can get 9 CP as a SM player but the army won't have much to do on the battlefield. By your very definition it is easy for an SM player to get 9 CP.
Ever heard of infestation nodes ? Or deepstriking with a trygon ?
Infestation Nodes are not deep striking like you think deep striking works. Also, a Trygon is an expensive beast. If I commit a unit of 240 genestealers and a Trygon it should be doing some damage since it is dedicating 1/3rd of the army for a one trick pony. My trygon has yet to survive a whole turn after deep striking as it is shot into oblivion. Personally I've found devilgaunts with Trygon a bit more effective with a Trygon deep strike, especially if I use the shoot again stratagem.
Right. Tyranids have no way of deepstriking with a trygon and another unit, or flyrants, and charge with +1, reroll for free, with their hive fleet ability, if necessary.
You sound like you are arguing that a 5 man BADC should be beating 240 points of Genestealers, a Flyrant, and a Trygon like the heroes of legend they are. All of these things are synergy which cost a lot of points. You as a BA player have units within your army that have the same job of providing synergy unless you are willfully ignoring the rest of your codex.
I played against Tyranids last weekend in a tournament. The guy brought Genestealers, a broodlord who was slamming catalyst, and enough chaff to distract me. I still won with a simple force of Noise Marines, Chaos Rhinos, and cultists. I have also played Genestealer hordes and it's a bit harder to get those genestealers where you want them even when I am running Kraken fleets. The reason - and this one trick might surprise you - but the tyranid player's opponent gets to deploy their units as they wish and in a way attempt to minimize the genestealer bum rush effectiveness.
There are Death Guard models in power armour that are lower than t5????!?!!!!??!!!!one!!!
And without DR. Basically any unit that is in the vanilla CSM codex that was ported across is exactly the same. Linking DR and T5 to the Death Guard Keyword would have fixed this though.. but meh. Hopefully one day they will fix it.
There are Death Guard models in power armour that are lower than t5????!?!!!!??!!!!one!!!
And without DR. Basically any unit that is in the vanilla CSM codex that was ported across is exactly the same. Linking DR and T5 to the Death Guard Keyword would have fixed this though.. but meh. Hopefully one day they will fix it.
I think they probably will, based on the Thousand Sons codex where the base sorcerers got a Tzeentchy invuln save and the ability to take inferno weapons. They must have changed their mind on that front at some point in the development cycle.
Marmatag wrote: I hope they restrict souping. It shouldn't be infeasible, but there should at least be some kind of trade off here.
This. The problem isn't with one codex, it's when you soup several together that it borders on the edge. Not sure how you would do this though without going the other way and make it pointless to do.
One solution would be detachments must be mono-faction, and you are allowed 2 detachments at 2000 points instead of 3 if you soup. Not necessarily a great idea, but just an example of how it remains effective but with drawbacks.
There are Death Guard models in power armour that are lower than t5????!?!!!!??!!!!one!!!
And without DR. Basically any unit that is in the vanilla CSM codex that was ported across is exactly the same. Linking DR and T5 to the Death Guard Keyword would have fixed this though.. but meh. Hopefully one day they will fix it.
Literally smashing my head on my desk right now. Why are they in the codex then? Oh GW you fething sorry sots...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well I guess I know what I want the FAQ to fix now...
Marmatag wrote: I hope they restrict souping. It shouldn't be infeasible, but there should at least be some kind of trade off here.
This. The problem isn't with one codex, it's when you soup several together that it borders on the edge. Not sure how you would do this though without going the other way and make it pointless to do.
One solution would be detachments must be mono-faction, and you are allowed 2 detachments at 2000 points instead of 3 if you soup. Not necessarily a great idea, but just an example of how it remains effective but with drawbacks.
I would be careful with that though. Armies like IG and AM have several smaller factions commonly included in their ranks. For example, with IG, where does the keyword matter? Because I can take Adeptus Ministorum, Cult Mechanicus, Aeronautical, and militarum tempestus units that are all technically different branches straight from my codex.
Another example with AM, their codex is split 3 ways between skitarii, cult mechanicus, and knights.
I get what you're trying to do, and like the idea, just pointing out it could easily be screwed up if GW ain't careful.
There are Death Guard models in power armour that are lower than t5????!?!!!!??!!!!one!!!
And without DR. Basically any unit that is in the vanilla CSM codex that was ported across is exactly the same. Linking DR and T5 to the Death Guard Keyword would have fixed this though.. but meh. Hopefully one day they will fix it.
I think they probably will, based on the Thousand Sons codex where the base sorcerers got a Tzeentchy invuln save and the ability to take inferno weapons. They must have changed their mind on that front at some point in the development cycle.
Hopefully they fix it. It would be a simple errata to slot into the FAQ.
I understand the thought process behind it. They wanted "Possessed Marines" to have a consistent data sheet for streamlining. The ability to say, "oh that's a Chaos Lord? Yep, I know it's rules." instead of "Right, so what does this Chaos Lord do differently? oh, what does that weapon do now?" - but at the cost of flavour. I don't understand how a Plague Marine can rise through the ranks, gain favour of Mortarion and be given a Vectorium to command and 'well now you lost your papa nurgle blessings" .. well
I am really missing my Phil Kelly Chaos Random Table Codex with Chaos Marks right now.
You know the dumb thing is I just kit bashed a Sorc for my nurgle army and I looked at that data card a dozen times trying to make sure I was modeling on the right weapons. My mind must have just blanked it out because it was so strange, like a reverse UFO sighting or something...
darkcloak wrote: I am really missing my Phil Kelly Chaos Random Table Codex with Chaos Marks right now.
You know the dumb thing is I just kit bashed a Sorc for my nurgle army and I looked at that data card a dozen times trying to make sure I was modeling on the right weapons. My mind must have just blanked it out because it was so strange, like a reverse UFO sighting or something...
Boon table is still there as a stratagem (and easier to trigger)
You could just run that sorcerer as a Malignant Plaguecaster and get all the goodies that datasheet has. (Plaguecaster is way better than a standard sorc anyway due to free MW on a 7+)
Marmatag wrote: I hope they restrict souping. It shouldn't be infeasible, but there should at least be some kind of trade off here.
There's a tournament I saw recently (Broadside Bash, I think it was) that had an addendum that Chaos/Imperium does not count as a faction keyword for Battleforged. I wonder if that's based on insider knowledge, or just something to try and fix it independently.
Jidmah wrote: So far, Phil Kelly is the only person to actually write any sort of ork rules that are both strong and fun to play.
To an extent. He is well known to heavily invest in his pet project armies more so than others. (Eldar in 6th/7th)
If he had gotten his hands (or claws?) on Nids back then they would have been power houses as well (they are decent in 8th now though)
I was thinking about this earlier though. Is it bad if fans writes rules? So this guy wrote some really "good" rules for Eldar(People have differing opinions blah blah). I wish someone as passionate as that wrote the rules for marines or Ad-mech
Previously a lot of it came down to the lottery draw of which writer picked up your codex. If they had a real passion for the faction you would end up with a very good Codex (Space Wolves 5th Ed, GK 5th Ed etc)
if the writer wasn't really into it, you ended up with a dud for the next 5 years (Cruddance and his IG for example)
Now, it's not so much an issue as the books are more of a collaborative effort rather than being tied to one writer.
Jidmah wrote: So far, Phil Kelly is the only person to actually write any sort of ork rules that are both strong and fun to play.
To an extent. He is well known to heavily invest in his pet project armies more so than others. (Eldar in 6th/7th)
If he had gotten his hands (or claws?) on Nids back then they would have been power houses as well (they are decent in 8th now though)
I was thinking about this earlier though. Is it bad if fans writes rules? So this guy wrote some really "good" rules for Eldar(People have differing opinions blah blah). I wish someone as passionate as that wrote the rules for marines or Ad-mech
It's only a problem when some Codices have that kind of person and some don't. See 8E Grey Knights Vs. Astra Militarum.
I'd really like to see them bring back Landraider Assault ramps. I have no idea why they were ever removed. At first I thought it was consistent with the new deepstrike and other similar rules and that they didn't want turn 1 charges to be possible. Buuuut then they went and made a ton of ways to get turn 1 charges.
Crazyterran wrote: I expect the nerf bat to swong at some things (negative to hit) and then the units that benefitted from it, after being brought in line by the nerf, to get a price hike on CA2018
Jidmah wrote: So far, Phil Kelly is the only person to actually write any sort of ork rules that are both strong and fun to play.
To an extent. He is well known to heavily invest in his pet project armies more so than others. (Eldar in 6th/7th)
If he had gotten his hands (or claws?) on Nids back then they would have been power houses as well (they are decent in 8th now though)
I was thinking about this earlier though. Is it bad if fans writes rules? So this guy wrote some really "good" rules for Eldar(People have differing opinions blah blah). I wish someone as passionate as that wrote the rules for marines or Ad-mech
It's not bad that he writes the rules. The problem is (was?) that there was no other guy doing QA on the codex and then telling him that he should tone them down a notch.
MtG pretty much has two groups of people involved when creating new cards: designers, who think up new awesome cards, and developers that tone those cards up or down or axe them completely to prevent them from breaking the game or ending up garbage. They are also in charge of making the rules for the idea the designer had work.
Basically one creative element and one that understands the game. People that can do both well are rare, so I think splitting that task is a very good idea.
Marmatag wrote: I hope they restrict souping. It shouldn't be infeasible, but there should at least be some kind of trade off here.
There's a tournament I saw recently (Broadside Bash, I think it was) that had an addendum that Chaos/Imperium does not count as a faction keyword for Battleforged. I wonder if that's based on insider knowledge, or just something to try and fix it independently.
I hope, then, that they also made the same restriction on “Aeldari”?
I can’t see GW preventing “Imperium” or “Chaos” from denying Battleforged benefits at an army wide level, but, there is an outside chance that they introduce it at detachment level to prevent soup detachments but still allow mixed armies.
Marmatag wrote: I hope they restrict souping. It shouldn't be infeasible, but there should at least be some kind of trade off here.
There's a tournament I saw recently (Broadside Bash, I think it was) that had an addendum that Chaos/Imperium does not count as a faction keyword for Battleforged. I wonder if that's based on insider knowledge, or just something to try and fix it independently.
I hope, then, that they also made the same restriction on “Aeldari”?
They are compensated; the two armies that are intended to spam out psykers get 18 spells in their list. They just need to expand the Grey Knights list to be as big as the Eldar and Thousand Sons lists and the smite change is totally fine.
I don't own either of those armies; can their basic squads now cast spells other than Smite? (as at one time that was all they could cast)?
Also: Horrors totally don't work if it is -1 per ATTEMPT, and they definitely only know Smite.
Mark.
Plus it's bad game design to make rule as unscalable as this is. Psychics weren't all that scalable in 7th edition and 8th edition it went even worse which I didn't think would even be possible.
Quickjager wrote: Man if I got my hands on a codex I know what I would do to bring GK up to snuff.
Baseline WS2+ Flat 2 mortal wound smite against anything All GK detachment can cast a spell twice Some other things
Would fluff out the Brotherhoods, especially the 5th Brotherhood Dreadnoughts.
2 and 3 are broken man
And this is why I can't take people seriously, how is 3 broken do you even know the GK spells?
2 is not broken considering they will never do D6 damage and they have a 12 inch range and they're 105 points MINIMUM for a single smite. Or are you terrified of Purifiers with their D6 smite?
Honestly, I would very much like GK going back to their 5th edition style where all the units were casting some minor psychic buffs like hammerhand and fortitude on themselves. For that they would need an exception to the "one spell per turn" rule, which I frankly don't see a problem with as long as the powers can only be used on the casting unit itself.
2 MW smites are bogus though. "Bring back smite spam" said no one ever.
Spamming GK, my sides are in pain from the laughter.
You might get 6-7 units on the field that can cast spells. 3 of those will be casting other spells. If you let them cast the same spell twice, i.e. sanctuary, hammerhand, all of a sudden there are only 3 units casting smite. That's even assuming no vehicles or allies that can't cast spells in the first place.
Increase the MW from 1 to 2 and people lose their minds, knee jerk reactions much.
If you improve smite to flat two MW no one would be casting spells, but smiting instead. Even malific lord lists would not have more than 5-7 smites.
I think you are undervaluinging flat two MW smites by a lot. Imagine being on the receiving end - some army just deleting two squads of power armed grey knights every psychik phase, before any shots are fired.
Sounds like fun? Didn't think so.
Jidmah wrote: If you improve smite to flat two MW no one would be casting spells, but smiting instead. Even malific lord lists would not have more than 5-7 smites.
I think you are undervaluinging flat two MW smites by a lot. Imagine being on the receiving end - some army just deleting two squads of power armed grey knights every psychik phase, before any shots are fired. Sounds like fun? Didn't think so.
Lol 2 squads of tac marines gone each turn? That is already reality for SM players my friend, doubly so for GK who pay extra for that privilege because those GKSS are quite seriously a contender for the 3rd best unit in our codex behind GMDK and Stormraven. It like you aren't even considering the Beta nerf GW is likely to implement in March for increasing difficulty of each cast or the fact it is a 12 inch range meaning a good opponent will just remove the models closest to GK squad after deepstrike to make the charge impossible negating the melee focus. It isn't even like GK have many units, you mention 5-7 malefic D3 (D6 if lucky) smite lords, that ALSO have an army backing them up? A GK army at best if you maximized smite spam would have @2000 14 units: 4 HQ, 10 5-man strike squads. Which would be suicide and really badly optimized as 6 of those units would not be in smite range for likely 2 turns of the game, also these squads would be extremely easy to wipe efficiently with splitfire of 8th ed. The second you include vehicles to transport the GK you lose smite as vehicles outside of DK and Dreadnoughts cannot smite.
The realistic GK list would most likely consist of closer to 10 or less units that are close to max squad size in order to benefit from their stratagems which are ridiculously expensive for the 6 cp you would get total without dabbling into allies, if you wanted to push 9 cp (totally doable and a pretty good list still) you would be taking 4 GMDK and 6 troops (for 2 battalions) which would bite into your remaining points. At that point you have so few units on the field you don't care about smite, because you can wipe each individual squad out easily; rather the GMDK are the threat at that point.
So I ask, is going from 6-9 mortal wounds a turn, to 12-18 a turn really insane for LITERALLY the weakest codex?
Doesn't matter, you'd be spamming 5-man Strike squads to abuse the 2W Smite and double cast
No you wouldn't it would be gak because of the Beta Smite rules I already addressed that, think ahead a bit next time. Also GKSS can only cast one power, when I say double cast I mean one can squad cast Hammerhand and OHMYGOD another squad can also cast that spell on themselves because the fething spell isn't some mathbook you only got one copy of to share among 10 people.
It was confirmed by a GW rule-writter that if Wraithknights where so OP in 7th was not because the writers of the Codex but because marketing and the guys in the suit said them that. He also said that Codex were never written by just one guy, every single of them was written by a group of people.
So probably we should cut some slack for single-name boogeymans. Even I, after saying that Matt Ward killed fantasy. I'm sure that was a mix of Matt Ward believe that Daemons should be unbeatable and marketing.
Galas wrote: It was confirmed by a GW rule-writter that if Wraithknights where so OP in 7th was not because the writers of the Codex but because marketing and the guys in the suit said them that. He also said that Codex were never written by just one guy, every single of them was written by a group of people.
So probably we should cut some slack for single-name boogeymans. Even I, after saying that Matt Ward killed fantasy. I'm sure that was a mix of Matt Ward believe that Daemons should be unbeatable and marketing.
It could also be a factor of the in-house only play testing (some of which the writers even did in their off time just to try and get a feel for the rules). RAI will always feel more balanced than RAW just because the writer intends for things to work a certain way and will even impose limits on themselves without thinking about it to fit the narrative they're seeking while RAW may be a lot more grey and easily abused.
The problem with the theory that OP units were intentionally OP to sell is that the Tyranids has plenty of new expensive models with crap rules. Exocrines, Haruspexes, Maleceptors, Pyrovores, Toxicrenes, Harpies, Tervigons and Tyrannofexes were poor units with excellent new models that I doubt had good sales because poor rules. Some of those are still quite bad.
Which I guess is a testament to the incompetence of GW.
Formosa wrote: The same result as the last round, incompetent points adjustments that are barely thought out, FAQ's for questions not asked, no FAQ for things needed
Grey Knights need a total redesign. And it should start with the psychic powers. In addition to having more to choose from, each power should have a diminished effect that can be used on a non-GK Space Marines unit. For example, you can cast Gate of Infinity on a GK unit and it deep strikes anywhere. Or, on an Adeptus Astartes unit and it deep strikes within 12" of the caster.
Tyran wrote: The problem with the theory that OP units were intentionally OP to sell is that the Tyranids has plenty of new expensive models with crap rules. Exocrines, Haruspexes, Maleceptors, Pyrovores, Toxicrenes, Harpies, Tervigons and Tyrannofexes were poor units with excellent new models that I doubt had good sales because poor rules. Some of those are still quite bad.
Which I guess is a testament to the incompetence of GW.
I'm pretty sure the power level of Primaris disproves the notion that GW only writes rules to sell models.
But it's not like Primaris needed to be powerful to sell. GW management might now have their fingers in every pot, but they probably do every once in a while, especially for those big centrepiece kits.
Then there's the element of GW's rules writing staffs' incompetence. If management tells them to make something overpowered, they likely mess that up just as often as they mess up everything else (which is a lot). I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of units that were intended on being powerful (such as those new Tyranid kits at the time) ended up being crap because the rules staff had such a poor ability at developing their own rules.
leopard wrote: What I expect is not much more than the usual FAQ do
What I want is something so you draw LoS from a weapon, not any part of the model, and for non-turret or sponson weapons to get a fixed fire arc.
Would also love to see "rotate the model or turret to face its target", with stuff splitting fire having to face what a "primary weapon" aims at.
I just don't expect to see it
Firing arcs No, but facings yeah.
We already use this, barring flyers. I know it's not in the rules but we still pivot and point our cannons in the direction of what we shoot. The only reason I say no to firing arcs is because the land raider can't shoot things too close to it's front lol
Ugh god no... just house rule that for your games. No need to make it a formal rule, it causes way too many disagreements. If it works without disagreement for your group, great - just house rule it - it doesn't work for most.
Fire arcs also don't really make sense for 40k's current scale.
1) Nothing else uses it (even though there are non-vehicle units with obvious fixed forward-firing guns, etc).
2) It's a company scale game, and no tank company commander is going to micromanage every single individual tank's disposition - that will be left up to individual tank commanders or platoon/squadron commanders.
3) It's clunky and difficult, especially if people actually try to do it "realistically" which is completely not how 40k has ever done it in the past.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Fire arcs also don't really make sense for 40k's current scale.
1) Nothing else uses it (even though there are non-vehicle units with obvious fixed forward-firing guns, etc).
2) It's a company scale game, and no tank company commander is going to micromanage every single individual tank's disposition - that will be left up to individual tank commanders or platoon/squadron commanders.
3) It's clunky and difficult, especially if people actually try to do it "realistically" which is completely not how 40k has ever done it in the past.
Company levei game where only ig generally fields company amount of infantry. Not even ig in 2k list has always company level stuff. Marines? Forget it.
You are cravely mistaken on 40k scale. It's not big battle game but game of individual models. Your argument makes sense for epic etc big batle game. Not skirmish that 40k is
Unit1126PLL wrote: Fire arcs also don't really make sense for 40k's current scale.
1) Nothing else uses it (even though there are non-vehicle units with obvious fixed forward-firing guns, etc).
2) It's a company scale game, and no tank company commander is going to micromanage every single individual tank's disposition - that will be left up to individual tank commanders or platoon/squadron commanders.
3) It's clunky and difficult, especially if people actually try to do it "realistically" which is completely not how 40k has ever done it in the past.
Company levei game where only ig generally fields company amount of infantry. Not even ig in 2k list has always company level stuff. Marines? Forget it.
You are cravely mistaken on 40k scale. It's not big battle game but game of individual models. Your argument makes sense for epic etc big batle game. Not skirmish that 40k is
lol.
My Sororitas fielded 102 models in my last game against ~150 orks.
I am going to be one of those that thinks the firing arcs and facing were rather stupid. They were not realistic in any way unless one had a certain way of suspending disbelief.
First of all a tank could only shoot when stopped at point B after travelling from point A even though these were highly advanced equipment that should at this point be able to shoot at any point while travelling between A and B.
Second, most of the vehicles available tend to be rather agile barring Imperial technology(which is still stuck in WW2 era) which means that at any point these tanks/vehicles should be able to rotate at will. This becomes especially ridiculous when thinking of Vypers, Venoms, Raiders, and the more agile vehicles.
The rules were designed around Leman Russ schematics which meant that every advanced technology(and therefore rules) was in essence a WW2 tank in practice. This just isn't realistic at all.
In general those rules just made vehicle designs limited and boring(everything had to be in essence a World War 2 tank by design) and nearly impossible to balance unless the design was always in the traditional form. I mean, god forbid somebody set the sponsons of the Landraider in the aft slot. That player in essence was ruining their own game even though it looked cool. This rule was anti-kitbashing(something that the game used to endorse) as you were either kitbashing for advantage or disadvantage.
Also, unless you are playing Custodes this game is far from skirmish these days.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Fire arcs also don't really make sense for 40k's current scale.
1) Nothing else uses it (even though there are non-vehicle units with obvious fixed forward-firing guns, etc).
2) It's a company scale game, and no tank company commander is going to micromanage every single individual tank's disposition - that will be left up to individual tank commanders or platoon/squadron commanders.
3) It's clunky and difficult, especially if people actually try to do it "realistically" which is completely not how 40k has ever done it in the past.
Company levei game where only ig generally fields company amount of infantry. Not even ig in 2k list has always company level stuff. Marines? Forget it.
You are cravely mistaken on 40k scale. It's not big battle game but game of individual models. Your argument makes sense for epic etc big batle game. Not skirmish that 40k is
Orks, nids, IG, chaos, and genestealer cult all routinely field over a hundred models in a list, sometimes up to 200, that is absolutely company size.
In addition, about 10 vehicles is a company. Many 40k armies field that sort of strength.
Remember, lots of people play 40k at 2k. That is absolutely company strength for all but the most elite armies in this game.
1. Very Little Rules Errata: I don't expect GW to update unit rules unless those rules don't do what they are supposed to do OR lead to player confusion. AMGrinding Advance is a prime example. Player's couldn't accept the simple concept that staying stationary is the same as moving 0", so they added errata to spell it out.
2. Lots of FAQ Questions Answered: Any questions from Codexes that need answers after their 1st Post Release FAQ will be updated.
3. Matched Play Rules Updates: They may incorporate some of the Beta Rules, and maybe other rules, into the Matched Play part of the game. I don't expect any rules changes to Open or Narrative Play.
4. Matched Play Point Updates: At least to correct the outliers that are having too much impact on Matched Play.
What do they need to do?
1-3 Above
4a: Massive Overhaul of Matched Play Points: GW needs to take a serious look at Match Play Points and how Tournament Players use them to optimize their list. They then need to learn from that to shape the point levels of units to get players to bring list that are both more "balanced" and "background consistent". What do I mean by this?
Points Efficient Units: Let's compare Militarum Tempestus Command Squad versus Militarum Tempestus Scions. Each model in these units are 9 points each. Makes sense since they have the same Stat Block, right? Wrong! I can jam 4 Special Weapons into 4 models in a Command Squad [4 Plasma Guns for 88 Points] while I need to take 10 models in the Scions Squad to get the same 4 Special Weapons [4 Plasma Guns for 148 Points] . Sure, you get a 6 bullet catchers for the points, but have you ever seen a player take Scions over MTC when they have the choice? Does anyone even take Militarum Tempestus without maximum Special Weapons? Heck, you can get 6 Plasma Guns on MT by taking the Command Squad plus a 5-Model MTC for only 162 Points. That's two more Plasma Guns and only 1 less Model for only 14 Points. To make the game better, points efficient units like these need to have a premium cost added to them.
Bare-Bones Slot Fillers and Road Blocks: You see them in nearly every competitive list. A unit that is purchased with only compulsory equipment to make it as cheap as possible. These units exist either to fill a slot in a FOC or to serve as bubblewrap and speed bumps. GW should like at minimizing or even eliminating some of the cost of upgrades in these units to encourage the use of the "proper" unit. If the cheapest Special Weapon and Heavy Weapon for a unit were 0 and instead the cost was incorporated into the unit cost, a lot more AM Grenade Launchers and Space Marine Flamers or Heavy Bolters would appear in the game.
Points Efficient Units: Let's compare Militarum Tempestus Command Squad versus Militarum Tempestus Scions. Each model in these units are 9 points each. Makes sense since they have the same Stat Block, right? Wrong! I can jam 4 Special Weapons into 4 models in a Command Squad [4 Plasma Guns for 88 Points] while I need to take 10 models in the Scions Squad to get the same 4 Special Weapons [4 Plasma Guns for 148 Points] . Sure, you get a 6 bullet catchers for the points, but have you ever seen a player take Scions over MTC when they have the choice? Does anyone even take Militarum Tempestus without maximum Special Weapons? Heck, you can get 6 Plasma Guns on MT by taking the Command Squad plus a 5-Model MTC for only 162 Points. That's two more Plasma Guns and only 1 less Model for only 14 Points. To make the game better, points efficient units like these need to have a premium cost added to them.
You don't consider having to take a Prime for every CMD unit a premium cost?
Chrysen wrote: Would love to see the removal of all the silly primaris restrictions. Won't happen, but it'd be nice
Next best thing would be to at least give us a Primaris equivalent of a Rhino (assuming the Repulsor is their equivalent of a Land Raider). One of the big advantages of Inceptors is they don't need transports and can be protect from alpha-striking.
Regarding fire arcs, the problem is they then introduce all sorts of fiddly movement as players try to get them positioned correctly. Some detail can add flavour to the game but some just make it less satisfying.
I would like to see something done to address the strength of alpha. Something like the old Night Fighting rules on the first turn to help blunt T1 shooting a bit. Many games are over before one player gets a proper go.
Points Efficient Units: Let's compare Militarum Tempestus Command Squad versus Militarum Tempestus Scions. Each model in these units are 9 points each. Makes sense since they have the same Stat Block, right? Wrong! I can jam 4 Special Weapons into 4 models in a Command Squad [4 Plasma Guns for 88 Points] while I need to take 10 models in the Scions Squad to get the same 4 Special Weapons [4 Plasma Guns for 148 Points] . Sure, you get a 6 bullet catchers for the points, but have you ever seen a player take Scions over MTC when they have the choice? Does anyone even take Militarum Tempestus without maximum Special Weapons? Heck, you can get 6 Plasma Guns on MT by taking the Command Squad plus a 5-Model MTC for only 162 Points. That's two more Plasma Guns and only 1 less Model for only 14 Points. To make the game better, points efficient units like these need to have a premium cost added to them.
You don't consider having to take a Prime for every CMD unit a premium cost?
As AdmiralHalsey noted, you're going to take a Prime anyway, so not really. And as I noted, the Prime will be just as effective either way. Sure you lose you melee weapon for the Command Rod, but you know your taking that if you have more than one MT unit anyway.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Fire arcs also don't really make sense for 40k's current scale.
1) Nothing else uses it (even though there are non-vehicle units with obvious fixed forward-firing guns, etc).
2) It's a company scale game, and no tank company commander is going to micromanage every single individual tank's disposition - that will be left up to individual tank commanders or platoon/squadron commanders.
3) It's clunky and difficult, especially if people actually try to do it "realistically" which is completely not how 40k has ever done it in the past.
And it makes it harder to value tanks since some have better firing arcs than others. It's way simpler to just expect a tank to be able to shoot everything.
The big thing I'd want is some changes in detachments for matched play. Somehow balancing soup (no "free" 3cp for being battleforged maybe) and you can only use stratagems that match your warlords keywords.
I'd also want flamers to have 2d6 hits pick the highest and ignore cover saves. If people think that makes them too good then raise their points, just make them feel special.
Also drop sicarian ruststalkers 5 ppm.
And make rubric marines' inferno boltguns free and give the squads the icon of flame for free as well.
Ruststalkers and Infiltrators need more than just a point drop to be useful. Without some added utility, they just won't have a place. Making them simple pump-and-dump melee units doesn't work at all, since the Imperium already has a million flavours of that that are better in every way. They need meaningful utility that allows them to work well with the greater Admech army.
Right now, I wish we had a date for this FAQ. If it's going to balance the game/shake up the "meta" then it should be coming sooner rather than later, but we have heard nothing.
Honestly, I am just going to be hopeful they fix enough. This FAQ should be basically a mini-CA as well as clarifying rules; they need to adjust datasheets, change points, remove/add/change wording, etc. for it to be well-received.
Ruststalkers and Infiltrators need more than just a point drop to be useful. Without some added utility, they just won't have a place. Making them simple pump-and-dump melee units doesn't work at all, since the Imperium already has a million flavours of that that are better in every way. They need meaningful utility that allows them to work well with the greater Admech army.
1) Ruststalkers get their grenades back or get given the same grenade rules as Reivers. Them being able to 'turn off' enemy Overwatch would make them and Infiltrators a bit more viable.
2) Infiltrators get their debuff aura back. Again, this would be a Huge Deal.
Oh, I'm not saying ruststalkers would be good at 5 ppm cheaper but I'd at least be able to "rule of cool" play them. Those reiver grenades, making their non-MW attacks ap-1 and the point decrease would make them interesting.
PiñaColada wrote: Oh, I'm not saying ruststalkers would be good at 5 ppm cheaper but I'd at least be able to "rule of cool" play them. Those reiver grenades, making their non-MW attacks ap-1 and the point decrease would make them interesting.
So here's where the problem comes from with Ruststalkers:
Last edition, they were intended to be fielded en masse...but their points & monetary cost never really allowed for people to do that.
It was showcased by how their weapons got better AP if they survived the fightback and/or if they rolled 6s to Wound during the first round of close combat.
Add to it the Chordclaw having 'Molecular Dissonance'(granted Fleshbane; which in turn was always wounding on a 2+ with that weapon)--they were a glass knife that could be deadly as hell IF you had a way to shut down Overwatch. Stuff like the Chordclaw made it so that the Ruststalker's piddly Strength value didn't really matter; they had a way to get wounds in as needed.
PiñaColada wrote: Oh, I'm not saying ruststalkers would be good at 5 ppm cheaper but I'd at least be able to "rule of cool" play them. Those reiver grenades, making their non-MW attacks ap-1 and the point decrease would make them interesting.
So here's where the problem comes from with Ruststalkers:
Last edition, they were intended to be fielded en masse...but their points & monetary cost never really allowed for people to do that.
It was showcased by how their weapons got better AP if they survived the fightback and/or if they rolled 6s to Wound during the first round of close combat.
Add to it the Chordclaw having 'Molecular Dissonance'(granted Fleshbane; which in turn was always wounding on a 2+ with that weapon)--they were a glass knife that could be deadly as hell IF you had a way to shut down Overwatch. Stuff like the Chordclaw made it so that the Ruststalker's piddly Strength value didn't really matter; they had a way to get wounds in as needed.
I gotta be honest, I was on a hiatus from 40k so I missed the last 5 or so editions and as such have no experince with admech on the tabletop apart from 8th, when they brought me back to the hobby. So what would you propose for them, more going back to that "glass-knife" build?
Also, hard pass on firing arcs. That's one mechanic I'm very happy to be rid of
I gotta be honest, I was on a hiatus from 40k so I missed the last 5 or so editions and as such have no experince with admech on the tabletop apart from 8th, when they brought me back to the hobby. So what would you propose for them, more going back to that "glass-knife" build?
In general, AdMech got a lot of stuff removed from their weapons/wargear that really shouldn't have been. The 'glass-knife build' wouldn't really work this edition(partly because the Killclade which allowed for Run->Charging) without Ruststalkers dropping heavily in points and getting unit sizes increased...which given the $46/5 pricetag isn't really an option most people would enjoy I think.
Ideally, they'd be changed to be able to shutdown Overwatch when charging and getting something that let them either decrease enemy LD within a certain range or some kind of thing allowing for them to be meaner in CC.
Infiltrators, previously, were short-range gunfighters who had a debuff(-1LD, WS, BS, and Initiative) aura. I could see them getting a place again if they had a native -1 to Hit(they previously had the StealthUSR) and something where they made it so enemy units near them couldn't attack first, even if they charged--unless they had a special rule saying they always fought first? Something like that--it'd be super wordy to do but it could really breathe some new life into those two units.
Additionally Transauranic Arquebi need to be upped in Strength or be given a rule making them deal 2-3 Mortal Wounds in addition to the normal damage they would deal on a shot. They had a USR last edition called "Armourbane", which allowed you to roll 2D6(cumulatively) for Armour Penetration instead of a single D6. It meant that a relatively low strength Sniper weapon was able to punch way outside of its weight class.
Infiltrators, previously, were short-range gunfighters who had a debuff(-1LD, WS, BS, and Initiative) aura. I could see them getting a place again if they had a native -1 to Hit(they previously had the StealthUSR) and something where they made it so enemy units near them couldn't attack first, even if they charged--unless they had a special rule saying they always fought first? Something like that--it'd be super wordy to do but it could really breathe some new life into those two units.
.
First off, thanks for the insight. The ability you're describing sounds like Slaneesh Quicksilver Swiftness to me. So unless I misunderstand it exists in the game already and as such at least isn't "too wordy". As much as it sounds interesting I highly doubt anything like this would be enacted though. Unless something is particularly egregious it'll probably be ignored or tweaked in points, maybe some stat modifiers but I seriously doubt they'll be adding many rules.
But this FAQ has to be coming out towards the end of March right? Seems like they wouldn't do it before Tau or the week after so it basically has to be the tail end imo
Infiltrators, previously, were short-range gunfighters who had a debuff(-1LD, WS, BS, and Initiative) aura. I could see them getting a place again if they had a native -1 to Hit(they previously had the StealthUSR) and something where they made it so enemy units near them couldn't attack first, even if they charged--unless they had a special rule saying they always fought first? Something like that--it'd be super wordy to do but it could really breathe some new life into those two units.
.
First off, thanks for the insight. The ability you're describing sounds like Slaneesh Quicksilver Swiftness to me. So unless I misunderstand it exists in the game already and as such at least isn't "too wordy". As much as it sounds interesting I highly doubt anything like this would be enacted though. Unless something is particularly egregious it'll probably be ignored or tweaked in points, maybe some stat modifiers but I seriously doubt they'll be adding many rules.
I'm sometimes bad at explaining ideas. What I'm envisioning is that enemy units within the Infiltrators' radius would be unable to strike first, even if they charged--unless they had some special rule of "this unit always strikes first".
It's basically the same effect as Quicksilver Swiftness, just coming at it from a weird direction/explanation. Ideally it would be a way to 'shutter' an enemy unit from being able to strike before it gets wiped out if the Infiltrators are nearby.
But this FAQ has to be coming out towards the end of March right? Seems like they wouldn't do it before Tau or the week after so it basically has to be the tail end imo
Infiltrators are fine. They are not fantastic, but they are usable as infantry killers due to thier deepstrike, high number of pistol shots, and good melee stats. They are basically better rievers. They also do still have an aura, just the -1 ld aura is not nearly as strong as it was in 7th.
Ruststalkers struggle because they are a fragile unit with no ranged attacks in an army with no transports. I think they at least need the ability to advance and charge. You basically are fishing for mortal wounds with thier weapons, so a buff would be increasing thier number of attacks. In keeping with thier old rules of getting better after round 1, one idea would be granting mortal wounds on 5s or 6s after round 1, but that may be too strong
I expect Terminators to be boosted to 3 wounds across the board, and Paladins to get up to 4.
Not wishlisting here, thinking GW is going to do the right thing with Tau / Necrons / etc coming out. From everything I can tell, the Xenos codexes are going to have a lot of AP -3 / multiwound firepower.
Terminators already suffer with all the Plasma in the game, they are going to be completely sidelined unless they become tough enough to withstand a turn of high powered shots.
I expect Terminators to be boosted to 3 wounds across the board, and Paladins to get up to 4.
Not wishlisting here, thinking GW is going to do the right thing with Tau / Necrons / etc coming out. From everything I can tell, the Xenos codexes are going to have a lot of AP -3 / multiwound firepower.
Terminators already suffer with all the Plasma in the game, they are going to be completely sidelined unless they become tough enough to withstand a turn of high powered shots.
I expect Terminators to be boosted to 3 wounds across the board, and Paladins to get up to 4.
Not wishlisting here, thinking GW is going to do the right thing with Tau / Necrons / etc coming out. From everything I can tell, the Xenos codexes are going to have a lot of AP -3 / multiwound firepower.
Terminators already suffer with all the Plasma in the game, they are going to be completely sidelined unless they become tough enough to withstand a turn of high powered shots.
wighti wrote: Has there been any word on when we might get this update?
no word but I’d expect it to coincide with taus first faq
I'd rather not wait until the end of the month but the more I think about it the more I expect it.
I just want it to be over with so we can move on and gripe about how the September(?) FAQ will fix everything!
wighti wrote: Has there been any word on when we might get this update?
no word but I’d expect it to coincide with taus first faq
I'd rather not wait until the end of the month but the more I think about it the more I expect it.
I just want it to be over with so we can move on and gripe about how the September(?) FAQ will fix everything!
Hah. Well, we're about to harvest a whole host of new issues with DE, Necrons, and whatever else springs up between now and then. And once Dark Reapers and pals are sorted (I hope) then it's entirely possibly other things will spring up because they were so blinding.
wighti wrote: Has there been any word on when we might get this update?
no word but I’d expect it to coincide with taus first faq
I'd rather not wait until the end of the month but the more I think about it the more I expect it.
I just want it to be over with so we can move on and gripe about how the September(?) FAQ will fix everything!
Hah. Well, we're about to harvest a whole host of new issues with DE, Necrons, and whatever else springs up between now and then. And once Dark Reapers and pals are sorted (I hope) then it's entirely possibly other things will spring up because they were so blinding.
Absolutely, I don't think anyone is under the illusion that this FAQ will make the game perfectly balanced but if you remove the worst offenders it's still making it better incrementally.
And the release date basically has to coincide with when the TAU errata would come out in my opinion, so very end of March.
The only path towards balance is iteration. The FAQ is a new iteration, and while not every single iteration will be a step to a more balanced game, multiple iterations will be.
"IF" GW is planning on upping the points on AM troops 10pts I would prefer to see them just make the "requirement" : 1 platoon commander per 2 troop squads. This way you get the points increase without actually raising the pts per model plus gives us access to additional orders
There is a 0% chance of a Lasgun being 1 point. None of the standard army weapons have points values unless they are supped up version of a regular weapon.
I expect Terminators to be boosted to 3 wounds across the board, and Paladins to get up to 4.
Not wishlisting here, thinking GW is going to do the right thing with Tau / Necrons / etc coming out. From everything I can tell, the Xenos codexes are going to have a lot of AP -3 / multiwound firepower.
Terminators already suffer with all the Plasma in the game, they are going to be completely sidelined unless they become tough enough to withstand a turn of high powered shots.
That’s a feature not a bug.
Your feature is bugged it works too well and needs adjustment.
2: Big, Twice-a-year FAQs Major game-wide questions will be answered on a biannual basis each March and September when a wider set of FAQ updates will be released. These will be focused on anything that might emerge as more codexes, and thus more unusual interactions, make their way into the game and will address issues across multiple factions and publications. We’ll also use these to address balance issues in the game, so these might include a few changes to rules for overly powerful, or underrepresented units.
So by 'balance changes', they don't mean points adjustments.
2: Big, Twice-a-year FAQs Major game-wide questions will be answered on a biannual basis each March and September when a wider set of FAQ updates will be released. These will be focused on anything that might emerge as more codexes, and thus more unusual interactions, make their way into the game and will address issues across multiple factions and publications. We’ll also use these to address balance issues in the game, so these might include a few changes to rules for overly powerful, or underrepresented units.
So by 'balance changes', they don't mean points adjustments.
points = rules therefore this can include point changes
Would like to see tactical marines and CSM equiv get a rule giving you one command point per squad of ten taken. Wont make them auto takes and wont fix most of the issues but it will help a bitter pill go down.
Would also like to see a way for assault marines and CSM equiv to follow units that disengage on a leadership test.
Would like to see LoW models get some form of alpha mitigation, this could change from unit to unit. Getting your knight or primarch plowed turn 1 without ever getting to move the model is not fun.
Would like to see less spike in heavy weapon damage. All d6 weapons drop to d3+1. This keeps them relevant, gets rid of 1 damage las shots and also gets rid of 6 strings which instant gib models.
Would like to see better LoS rules.
Would like to see point changes in the FAQ for out of control units like dark reapers. Waiting a year for point changes on overtly broken units is just to long. The longer they wait the more entrenched those models players become thus more salt when a change happens.
Would like to see some GK changes. I would say more on this but I am not a GK player.
Would like to see some significant 1kson changes on bonkers things like soul rippers in groups of 10 and shaman/asp sorcs only drawing from Change (there are only six spells and one of those spells being a potentially dead due to list content) means that often asp sorcs are left with only repeats or mini smites if the beta rules go forward.
and lastly.....
Would like to see some changes to chaff and horde infantry to make them less appealing takes and close the huge gulf between them and elite infantry.
Galas wrote: Theres rumours about removing grinding advance from Leman Russes and equivalents.
But I have seen 0 reliable sources for this so...
Uh, wow. That would create some serious rage. Not that I disagree with it, but...damn. Would they do the same to Fire Prisms I wonder?
The rumours are only in relation to IG so if they end up doing it just for Leman Russes people will rage, yeah.
I think without grinding advance most Leman Russ variants become unplayable. But at the same time it is an hamfisted rule. Just remove it and buff the guns that need to be buffed.
If they get rid of grinding advance my guess is they just reduce the points of the tanks so that people buy/field more of them.
Armor spam will become a thing and tournaments will become rock, paper, scissors as no TAC list will be able to deal with the skew (10 LRBTs or 200 nids/orcs)...
bananathug wrote: If they get rid of grinding advance my guess is they just reduce the points of the tanks so that people buy/field more of them.
Armor spam will become a thing and tournaments will become rock, paper, scissors as no TAC list will be able to deal with the skew (10 LRBTs or 200 nids/orcs)...
Well, they won't be able to drop the cost by half so the net effect would be more wounds, but fewer shots than now. T8 is still a risky thing to price too low though.
Galas wrote: Theres rumours about removing grinding advance from Leman Russes and equivalents.
But I have seen 0 reliable sources for this so...
Uh, wow. That would create some serious rage. Not that I disagree with it, but...damn. Would they do the same to Fire Prisms I wonder?
The rumours are only in relation to IG so if they end up doing it just for Leman Russes people will rage, yeah.
I think without grinding advance most Leman Russ variants become unplayable. But at the same time it is an hamfisted rule. Just remove it and buff the guns that need to be buffed.
If they'd take away their stupid insistance that non-random damage be capped at 3 they'd make things a lot easier for themselves.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It's not capped though; Siege Hammers do a static 5 damage, for example.
Any other examples? Or is it just the one Forge World unit?
Yes - the reaper chainsword and thunderstrike gauntlet both do 6.
Thanks. But all it does is serve to make me wonder even more as to why so many heavy weapons are only 3 or d6 if they've already made exceptions to the rule. Like why does heavy ordinance, especially those of advanced races not do 4 or 5? Or even d3+1?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It's not capped though; Siege Hammers do a static 5 damage, for example.
Any other examples? Or is it just the one Forge World unit?
Yes - the reaper chainsword and thunderstrike gauntlet both do 6.
Thanks. But all it does is serve to make me wonder even more as to why so many heavy weapons are only 3 or d6 if they've already made exceptions to the rule. Like why does heavy ordinance, especially those of advanced races not do 4 or 5? Or even d3+1?
Because it makes a huge difference.
3 damage is 4 successes to kill something with 11 wounds (predator). 4 damage takes that down to 3. 5 is in an odd spot and 6 goes to 2.
Galas wrote: Theres rumours about removing grinding advance from Leman Russes and equivalents.
But I have seen 0 reliable sources for this so...
Uh, wow. That would create some serious rage. Not that I disagree with it, but...damn. Would they do the same to Fire Prisms I wonder?
Yeah, that plus increasing the cost of Infantry would probably cause a massive reduction in people playing straight AM - and yet have minimal effects on the Soup lists people complain about.
Adjusting Grinding Advance might happen, but I doubt it'll just get stripped out entirely.
And yes, treating AM as a punching bag in this FAQ will undoubtedly cause some rage.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: 40K facebook just said that the FAQ won't be out until after Adepticon. So that means that it will be out the last week of the month.
It is nice to see that GW didin't want to disrupt things just before Adepticon. It shows that they are at least paying attention to the big events.
I wonder if that potentially means there are significant changes being done.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: 40K facebook just said that the FAQ won't be out until after Adepticon. So that means that it will be out the last week of the month.
It is nice to see that GW didin't want to disrupt things just before Adepticon. It shows that they are at least paying attention to the big events.
I wonder if that potentially means there are significant changes being done.
I'm sure there are - this is being billed as a twice yearly broad strokes FAQ/balancing tool. I highly doubt that this is just going to be answers to a few questions and done.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: 40K facebook just said that the FAQ won't be out until after Adepticon. So that means that it will be out the last week of the month.
It is nice to see that GW didin't want to disrupt things just before Adepticon. It shows that they are at least paying attention to the big events.
Hmm. Just two hours ago they said this...
Warhammer 40,000 wrote:We've still got 17 days left in March! Once we know exactly when the FAQ is due we'll be letting everyone know here on Facebook.
Hopefully they come out with the FAQ. Do you think it will change some of the soup? I am not being salty I am just curious due to the way some tournaments are rumored to be going.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: 40K facebook just said that the FAQ won't be out until after Adepticon. So that means that it will be out the last week of the month.
It is nice to see that GW didin't want to disrupt things just before Adepticon. It shows that they are at least paying attention to the big events.
Hmm. Just two hours ago they said this...
Warhammer 40,000 wrote:We've still got 17 days left in March! Once we know exactly when the FAQ is due we'll be letting everyone know here on Facebook.
That doesn't necessarily contradict the other statement.
RiderOrk wrote: Hopefully they come out with the FAQ. Do you think it will change some of the soup? I am not being salty I am just curious due to the way some tournaments are rumored to be going.
You mean 1 40 man tournament that placed a name only restriction on soup?
Leo_the_Rat wrote: 40K facebook just said that the FAQ won't be out until after Adepticon. So that means that it will be out the last week of the month.
It is nice to see that GW didin't want to disrupt things just before Adepticon. It shows that they are at least paying attention to the big events.
Hmm. Just two hours ago they said this...
Warhammer 40,000 wrote:We've still got 17 days left in March! Once we know exactly when the FAQ is due we'll be letting everyone know here on Facebook.
That doesn't necessarily contradict the other statement.
It kinda does, since it also includes the days before AdeptiCon.
You fix soup quite easily by saying you only get CPs from detachments that are from the same force as your Warlord. So no more cheap CP buffing with Imperial Guard.
Otherwise I would love (but doubt it will happen) a reduction in dice rolls. Make an Imperial Guard med pack auto heal, but double the cost (currently 4+), fix lots of variable dice on how many attacks to a flat x attacks (so say D6 replaced by '3', keep variable for narrative play, faster fixed numbers for matched play). Make bonuses that increase the number of shots or let you re-roll 1's/misses bonus's to hit instead (so say first rank fire second rank fire becomes +2 to hit and so on). Really the amount of dice rolls currently is a bit silly! - A basic lasgun squad of guard at rapid fire range under orders can put out 37 dice of shots...
Leo_the_Rat wrote: 40K facebook just said that the FAQ won't be out until after Adepticon. So that means that it will be out the last week of the month.
It is nice to see that GW didin't want to disrupt things just before Adepticon. It shows that they are at least paying attention to the big events.
Hmm. Just two hours ago they said this...
Warhammer 40,000 wrote:We've still got 17 days left in March! Once we know exactly when the FAQ is due we'll be letting everyone know here on Facebook.
That doesn't necessarily contradict the other statement.
It kinda does, since it also includes the days before AdeptiCon.
Except that statement doesn't exclude or include those days. It's a statement of "look guys - March isn't even half over - chill out". They don't have an exact date, but based on the other comment it will be after Adepticon. Nothing contradicts unless you will it to.
The_Real_Chris wrote: You fix soup quite easily by saying you only get CPs from detachments that are from the same force as your Warlord. So no more cheap CP buffing with Imperial Guard.
So still hooray for Imperial Soup filling out a fairly cheap guard brigade and having enough points to still get their punchy elements from other imperial lists?
The_Real_Chris wrote: You fix soup quite easily by saying you only get CPs from detachments that are from the same force as your Warlord. So no more cheap CP buffing with Imperial Guard.
I'd like to add a "only use stratagems from your warlord's faction" to that please.
6 ppm guardsmen also fixes cheap souping. And it fixes 200 infantry lists guarding 1000 pts of undercosted artillery. Costing units appropriately in all codices largely fixes soup, because then there's far less reason to reach into another codex.
RiderOrk wrote: Hopefully they come out with the FAQ. Do you think it will change some of the soup? I am not being salty I am just curious due to the way some tournaments are rumored to be going.
You mean 1 40 man tournament that placed a name only restriction on soup?
Is that your opinion about if they will make changes to the soup or are you just stating that you know of every tournament that takes place around the world?
The_Real_Chris wrote: You fix soup quite easily by saying you only get CPs from detachments that are from the same force as your Warlord. So no more cheap CP buffing with Imperial Guard.
Not going to help, they take 750 Guard Brigade and 1250 Blood Angels Battalion and have a blood angels Warlord use 16 CP.
Solution: each detachment can only use the CP they generate, with 3 that can be used in any detachment. Problem solved.
By the formula given by The Real Chris the Blood Angel warlord would only have 3 CP from the battalion and 3 for being a war forged army. He would gain nothing from the Guard Brigade.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: By the formula given by The Real Chris the Blood Angel warlord would only have 3 CP from the battalion and 3 for being a war forged army. He would gain nothing from the Guard Brigade.
you know what your right I didn't read that right sorry about that @ The_Real_Chris.
My idea and his yield about the same results then...apologies.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: By the formula given by The Real Chris the Blood Angel warlord would only have 3 CP from the battalion and 3 for being a war forged army. He would gain nothing from the Guard Brigade.
you know what your right I didn't read that right sorry about that @ The_Real_Chris.
My idea and his yield about the same results then...apologies.
Except that his idea doesn't leave 9 CP for the guard battalion to use. Plus it reduces record keeping of Det X has Y Command Points and Det A has C Command Points. Though at this point, anything would be better than the current implementation. I'm all for conglomerations, but reward those who build a a single, organic army.
mokoshkana wrote: I'm all for conglomerations, but reward those who build a a single, organic army.
I get that his lacks 9cp for the guard.
Honestly your not going to do much with 9 CP in that guard list, its mostly mortars and infantry. Very few useful stratagems. Really all it will do is make people drop any attempt at the brigade; outside of pure lists, and take something a more useful with 1-2 of the following: Battalion outrider, spearhead, vanguard, or supreme Command; in addition to the original Battalion. The over all effect will be less CP for the power lists.
Martel732 wrote: 6 ppm guardsmen also fixes cheap souping. And it fixes 200 infantry lists guarding 1000 pts of undercosted artillery. Costing units appropriately in all codices largely fixes soup, because then there's far less reason to reach into another codex.
I don't think paying 60 points more is any significant difference for a Guard battalion and does nothing for those who are using them for a boost. I mean in a 2000 point list that is a 3% cost increase. I had no idea the margin between success and failure was so small...
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: Honestly your not going to do much with 9 CP in that guard list, its mostly mortars and infantry. Very few useful stratagems.
True, though if Catachan you get the nifty booby traps which enhances them as a roadblock (that and having +1 LD when an officer is nearby...).
The fix to soup could be even more simple and harsh. If you take a soup army you no longer benefit from the stratagems, special rules or other benefits of the codex army.
This won't happen of course because, unfortunately, GW have designed some armies around the assumption that they will take allies - Grey Knights and Custodes immediately spring to mind.
Perhaps they will force players to have a 'Primary' detachment if there are detachments from different codexes and only their stratagems can be used on that detachment. You wouldn't want to punish players for taking an Ultramarines and Salamanders force I don't think. Other option is to remove the 'Imperium' and 'Chaos' faction keywords from matched play.
An Actual Englishman wrote: The fix to soup could be even more simple and harsh. If you take a soup army you no longer benefit from the stratagems, special rules or other benefits of the codex army.
This won't happen of course because, unfortunately, GW have designed some armies around the assumption that they will take allies - Grey Knights and Custodes immediately spring to mind.
Perhaps they will force players to have a 'Primary' detachment if there are detachments from different codexes and only their stratagems can be used on that detachment. You wouldn't want to punish players for taking an Ultramarines and Salamanders force I don't think. Other option is to remove the 'Imperium' and 'Chaos' faction keywords from matched play.
I would hope GW would not do that and would much rather see the FAQ provide better synergy for mixed detachments on par with what you get using a mono-Codex army.
There is no problem with a soup list per se. Rules for allies fighting together was a big improvement in 6th.
This filled in a lot of gaps that came out of giving armies their own Codexes. Grey Knights used to be part of the Daemonhunters Codex. Daemons used to be part of the Chaos Space Marines Codex. It's perfectly natural to want to play them as part of a larger Inquisition or Chaos force, and I would hate to see them nerfed for working together.
The problem with soup lists is when people are forced to use them because their Codex options are too weak to stand on their own. On the one hand, synergy between two forces fighting together is hit-or-miss. SM / IG get a lot, CSM / CD don't. That's not fair. Eldar / Tau will have no synergy, and that's really awful.
On the other hand, it makes you wonder how important Codexes are now that we have Detachments. A Codex is now a collection of datasheets, warlord traits, stratagems, relics, and psychic abilities. If you can't build a strong army with a given Codex, should it even exist?
Probably not. That's a sign of bad game design, not a problem with mixing lists.
Such plug-in faction could just have exceptions from the rule. AM already has similar rules in place right in their codex for factions that are not AM, but belong with the imperial army.
The problem is not GK terminators helping out some guardsmen, the problem is tzeench horrors turning into death guard box walkers while getting screened by alpha legion cultists.
Jidmah wrote: Such plug-in faction could just have exceptions from the rule. AM already has similar rules in place right in their codex for factions that are not AM, but belong with the imperial army.
The problem is not GK terminators helping out some guardsmen, the problem is tzeench horrors turning into death guard box walkers while getting screened by alpha legion cultists.
Genuine question here - why is this bad? Is it because of luff or you find this particular build too strong?
Remove the ability to use strategems from your secondary and third codices.
Add in "Chapter Abilities" that are army wide for Chaos and SM; i.e. Iron Warrior tanks get the reroll against stuff in buildings. I would probably re-do the Alpha Legion one though, a lot of people will QQ. But it makes sense if the army is that army, they should all get whatever benefit.
I think soupings fine, it breaks it when you can use multiple codex strategems. This would get rid of people using a CSM detachment solely to recycle 40 cultists, or the weird Eldar stuff, or the constant debates as to whether or not Daemon strategems work on X Y or Z unit, etc,
Zid wrote: Remove the ability to use strategems from your secondary and third codices.
Add in "Chapter Abilities" that are army wide for Chaos and SM; i.e. Iron Warrior tanks get the reroll against stuff in buildings. I would probably re-do the Alpha Legion one though, a lot of people will QQ. But it makes sense if the army is that army, they should all get whatever benefit.
I think soupings fine, it breaks it when you can use multiple codex strategems. This would get rid of people using a CSM detachment solely to recycle 40 cultists, or the weird Eldar stuff, or the constant debates as to whether or not Daemon strategems work on X Y or Z unit, etc,
I see this quoted pretty often, people do understand that this is just as effective as a ban on soup armies right?
Gw could just fix marines 11 point marines 16 point intercessors, mix throughout. Done. Marines suck, that’s problem. Fix it for once instead of sticking your head in the sand
Automatically Appended Next Post: Seriously 3+ armor isn’t worth what gw charges, it never has, the one time marines were good, they had to give them all free transports.
gendoikari87 wrote: Gw could just fix marines 11 point marines 16 point intercessors, mix throughout. Done. Marines suck, that’s problem. Fix it for once instead of sticking your head in the sand
Automatically Appended Next Post: Seriously 3+ armor isn’t worth what gw charges, it never has, the one time marines were good, they had to give them all free transports.
My guess would be a -1 penalty when firing at units you can't see, but who knows what 
that's why there is so many.
