My guess would be either the end of September or the beginning of October. They refer to the FAQ as the fall FAQ, and not the September FAQ as they did at the beginning of the year. Might mean some larger changes are incorporated into it. We'll have to wait and see though.
Darsath wrote: My guess would be either the end of September or the beginning of October. They refer to the FAQ as the fall FAQ, and not the September FAQ as they did at the beginning of the year. Might mean some larger changes are incorporated into it. We'll have to wait and see though.
Not if you email 40kFaq. The automated email you get back says September.
Darsath wrote: My guess would be either the end of September or the beginning of October. They refer to the FAQ as the fall FAQ, and not the September FAQ as they did at the beginning of the year. Might mean some larger changes are incorporated into it. We'll have to wait and see though.
Not if you email 40kFaq. The automated email you get back says September.
I guess September would fall into place with the end of September estimation. However, as we've seen with the March FAQ, sometimes things can go wrong, or changes need to be made last minute. This can cause it to be later than they expect. I stand by what I said to be a good estimate. Though, if anybody does find any other information about it, I'd love to know.
Who knows if there will suddenly be another major tournament in September which GW just couldn't possibly have foreseen and planned their schedule around ahead of time?!
If they are taking into account events from the Nova open then I don't want to see one for at least 3 weeks. I want them to sit and really think (I know they can't effectively playtest it) how to make the best changes possible to solve the current problems without unnecessary nerfs that would greatly affect thematic armies that are not the usual min-maxed/spammed versions used by competitive gamers.
Case in point: the dumb increase in CPs that came last FAQ.
The increase in CPs itself wasn't a problem, but that's another discussion.
I am quite sure GW will not be giving hints at release dates since people flipped their gak when it was a couple weeks late last time. I'd imagine we're on a firm "You'll get it when you get it" schedule.
I don't think that the CP increase was necessarily a bad idea..... Giving it to everyone was a bad idea. If they would have given bonus CP to struggling armies to increase their playability it would have made sense. Instead, they simply made it work on armies that could already generate mass CP and thus made souping those even more advantageous
Asmodios wrote: I don't think that the CP increase was necessarily a bad idea..... Giving it to everyone was a bad idea. If they would have given bonus CP to struggling armies to increase their playability it would have made sense. Instead, they simply made it work on armies that could already generate mass CP and thus made souping those even more advantageous
Exactly.
Here I am playing mono Ravenwing, lucky to bring 5-6CP total because of Outrider detachments only, and yet they boost battalions up to +5 CP and Brigades even more. There was nothing wrong with the CPs as they were. It's far better to have fewer CPs so a player has to pick and choose wisely, not provide so many that all the right combos can be done every damn turn.
Many of the issues are due to mass use of CPs to get a desired effect, and armies that are low on CP are handicapped accordingly. hence whey you only really see lists with lots of CPs.
GW should start thinking about specific detachment bonuses and adding them to CA. Speaking in my case..
Ravenwing.....give more than just +1 CP for an Outrider detachment that has units only with the Ravenwing keyword.
Ghostwarriors....Vanguard detachment yields +3CPs instead of +1CP if it contains 3 spirit host units from Elite slot.
And what about Space Marine battle Companies..Demi Companies?
Encourage the use of tacs, assault and devs by boosting their CPs.
I would much prefer to see that employed, rather than the generic +5CP for battalions because you know people are going to spam the cheapest, most efficient Troops choice possible just to get the CPs. It gets really old and boring.
Asmodios wrote: I don't think that the CP increase was necessarily a bad idea..... Giving it to everyone was a bad idea. If they would have given bonus CP to struggling armies to increase their playability it would have made sense. Instead, they simply made it work on armies that could already generate mass CP and thus made souping those even more advantageous
Exactly.
Here I am playing mono Ravenwing, lucky to bring 5-6CP total because of Outrider detachments only, and yet they boost battalions up to +5 CP and Brigades even more. There was nothing wrong with the CPs as they were. It's far better to have fewer CPs so a player has to pick and choose wisely, not provide so many that all the right combos can be done every damn turn.
Many of the issues are due to mass use of CPs to get a desired effect, and armies that are low on CP are handicapped accordingly. hence whey you only really see lists with lots of CPs.
GW should start thinking about specific detachment bonuses and adding them to CA. Speaking in my case..
Ravenwing.....give more than just +1 CP for an Outrider detachment that has units only with the Ravenwing keyword.
Ghostwarriors....Vanguard detachment yields +3CPs instead of +1CP if it contains 3 spirit host units from Elite slot.
And what about Space Marine battle Companies..Demi Companies?
Encourage the use of tacs, assault and devs by boosting their CPs.
I would much prefer to see that employed, rather than the generic +5CP for battalions because you know people are going to spam the cheapest, most efficient Troops choice possible just to get the CPs. It gets really old and boring.
except this is, broadly, what CPs do already, they allow fluffy elite formations, such as raven wing, death wing, Space Wolf Wolf guard etc, well at the same time enchouraging people to sue troops etc in a more standand format by rewarding it. you are not being PUNSIHED for playing Ravenwing, I am being REWARDED for taking a balanced force..
Asmodios wrote: I don't think that the CP increase was necessarily a bad idea..... Giving it to everyone was a bad idea. If they would have given bonus CP to struggling armies to increase their playability it would have made sense. Instead, they simply made it work on armies that could already generate mass CP and thus made souping those even more advantageous
Exactly.
Here I am playing mono Ravenwing, lucky to bring 5-6CP total because of Outrider detachments only, and yet they boost battalions up to +5 CP and Brigades even more. There was nothing wrong with the CPs as they were. It's far better to have fewer CPs so a player has to pick and choose wisely, not provide so many that all the right combos can be done every damn turn.
Many of the issues are due to mass use of CPs to get a desired effect, and armies that are low on CP are handicapped accordingly. hence whey you only really see lists with lots of CPs.
GW should start thinking about specific detachment bonuses and adding them to CA. Speaking in my case..
Ravenwing.....give more than just +1 CP for an Outrider detachment that has units only with the Ravenwing keyword.
Ghostwarriors....Vanguard detachment yields +3CPs instead of +1CP if it contains 3 spirit host units from Elite slot.
And what about Space Marine battle Companies..Demi Companies?
Encourage the use of tacs, assault and devs by boosting their CPs.
I would much prefer to see that employed, rather than the generic +5CP for battalions because you know people are going to spam the cheapest, most efficient Troops choice possible just to get the CPs. It gets really old and boring.
except this is, broadly, what CPs do already, they allow fluffy elite formations, such as raven wing, death wing, Space Wolf Wolf guard etc, well at the same time enchouraging people to sue troops etc in a more standand format by rewarding it. you are not being PUNSIHED for playing Ravenwing, I am being REWARDED for taking a balanced force..
or so the design logic goes.
yeah, so these net lists with 20CPs are balanced? that's a laugh. I'm not sure where an army of 3 scout units deserves more CPs than an army of 3 biker units.
The system is broken currently, and needs a total revamp to be balanced correctly.
Asmodios wrote: I don't think that the CP increase was necessarily a bad idea..... Giving it to everyone was a bad idea. If they would have given bonus CP to struggling armies to increase their playability it would have made sense. Instead, they simply made it work on armies that could already generate mass CP and thus made souping those even more advantageous
Exactly.
Here I am playing mono Ravenwing, lucky to bring 5-6CP total because of Outrider detachments only, and yet they boost battalions up to +5 CP and Brigades even more. There was nothing wrong with the CPs as they were. It's far better to have fewer CPs so a player has to pick and choose wisely, not provide so many that all the right combos can be done every damn turn.
Many of the issues are due to mass use of CPs to get a desired effect, and armies that are low on CP are handicapped accordingly. hence whey you only really see lists with lots of CPs.
GW should start thinking about specific detachment bonuses and adding them to CA. Speaking in my case..
Ravenwing.....give more than just +1 CP for an Outrider detachment that has units only with the Ravenwing keyword.
Ghostwarriors....Vanguard detachment yields +3CPs instead of +1CP if it contains 3 spirit host units from Elite slot.
And what about Space Marine battle Companies..Demi Companies?
Encourage the use of tacs, assault and devs by boosting their CPs.
I would much prefer to see that employed, rather than the generic +5CP for battalions because you know people are going to spam the cheapest, most efficient Troops choice possible just to get the CPs. It gets really old and boring.
except this is, broadly, what CPs do already, they allow fluffy elite formations, such as raven wing, death wing, Space Wolf Wolf guard etc, well at the same time enchouraging people to sue troops etc in a more standand format by rewarding it. you are not being PUNSIHED for playing Ravenwing, I am being REWARDED for taking a balanced force..
or so the design logic goes.
yeah, so these net lists with 20CPs are balanced? that's a laugh. I'm not sure where an army of 3 scout units deserves more CPs than an army of 3 biker units.
The system is broken currently, and needs a total revamp to be balanced correctly.
No your misunderstanding the design intention of the Detachment and CP system. As far as GW are concerned armirs bilt around trooos, HQ with a sprinkling of Heavy elite and FA are "the intended" way to build an army.
Your all ravenwing army gets it's advantage of having insane mobility, or that Guard armoured company get its high defensive stats and fire power balanced by The "TAC" troop heavy list gets extra CP. The base idea is actually nit bad and makes some sence.
The problem is that GW wrote the guard codex and destroyed the CP mechanic with infine CP.
You fix the net lists by targeting Grand Strategists and Kurov's.
Then give soup a downside like loosing the battle forged CP.
Only after all of thats been done will codex to codex and strategum to strategum balance begin to show. Then if a strategum is always spammed it costs more CP, if strategums are never used, they get resuced CP costs or improved rules.
I would buy into that concept if all armies were built equally, but not all Troops and options are created equal.
I have no problem when trying to avoid cherry picking, but a pure Ravenwing should be rewarded for being pure (hence why keywords can be used to create this). If you think it's stronger than something with other options in the DA codex (hey I don't get obsec units either) then you're dead wrong.
However, let's say the philosophy was fine, the difference between +3CPs for battalion over +1 for Outrider was fine, no reason to bump it to +5.
bullyboy wrote: I would buy into that concept if all armies were built equally, but not all Troops and options are created equal.
I have no problem when trying to avoid cherry picking, but a pure Ravenwing should be rewarded for being pure (hence why keywords can be used to create this). If you think it's stronger than something with other options in the DA codex (hey I don't get obsec units either) then you're dead wrong.
However, let's say the philosophy was fine, the difference between +3CPs for battalion over +1 for Outrider was fine, no reason to bump it to +5.
Good point. I don't think that Outriders, Spearheads and Vanguards were breaking the meta before the CP bump for Battalions and Brigades. I'm still not sure what the reasoning was behind the bump for the Battalions and Brigades - a rising tide should have raised all boats.
I enjoy Stratagems and Command Points. I agree with those that say, though, that Soup should have some kind of drawback.
bullyboy wrote: I would buy into that concept if all armies were built equally, but not all Troops and options are created equal.
I have no problem when trying to avoid cherry picking, but a pure Ravenwing should be rewarded for being pure (hence why keywords can be used to create this). If you think it's stronger than something with other options in the DA codex (hey I don't get obsec units either) then you're dead wrong.
However, let's say the philosophy was fine, the difference between +3CPs for battalion over +1 for Outrider was fine, no reason to bump it to +5.
Good point. I don't think that Outriders, Spearheads and Vanguards were breaking the meta before the CP bump for Battalions and Brigades. I'm still not sure what the reasoning was behind the bump for the Battalions and Brigades - a rising tide should have raised all boats.
I enjoy Stratagems and Command Points. I agree with those that say, though, that Soup should have some kind of drawback.
I honestly think the CP raise was GW trying to address Guard soup with a buff, people often complained about being short on CP and almost felt they HAD to take some guard for extra. so they tried seeing if they could address it simply by giving people access to CP.
(I never said it was a good idea, just that may have been their thinking)
It's possible there may be a halt to CP farming given one of the rules in the Gellarpox codex- the HQ only has 1 warlord trait, which gives his detachment 3cps that can only be spent on that detachment.
Grimtuff wrote: It's possible there may be a halt to CP farming given one of the rules in the Gellarpox codex- the HQ only has 1 warlord trait, which gives his detachment 3cps that can only be spent on that detachment.
Could this be a hint of something to come?
Lets hope, but Custodian Guards are already expensive enough for strategems it would break them as is.
Im seriously considering it might be better to just give Every list 14-15 CP to start, and not have detachments give any CP.
There can still be characters (named ones) that grant extra CP as part of their kit, but it evens out a lot of stuff and means people don't have to soup in cheap battalions to still be able to use their strats.
It also kinda does away with the max of 3 detachments necessity since it wont matter how many you bring if everyone gets the same CP.
Would certainly shake up the meta..
The only bad thing this change could cause would be that less people would take troops, but since we have the Rule of 3 implemented I don't think it'd be too bad.
Eihnlazer wrote: Im seriously considering it might be better to just give Every list 14-15 CP to start, and not have detachments give any CP.
There can still be characters (named ones) that grant extra CP as part of their kit, but it evens out a lot of stuff and means people don't have to soup in cheap battalions to still be able to use their strats.
It also kinda does away with the max of 3 detachments necessity since it wont matter how many you bring if everyone gets the same CP.
Would certainly shake up the meta..
The only bad thing this change could cause would be that less people would take troops, but since we have the Rule of 3 implemented I don't think it'd be too bad.
Probably too radical a change at this point. If they do a wholesale change at this point, I'd hope it goes more towards AoS, where players don't get all CP at the start, but they get x amount of CP at the beginning of each battle round. Spreads it out more and mitigates the first-turn-heavy game play a tiny little bit.
Also, CP regen should ideally be on CP NOT spent, rather than CP spent, forcing players into a tactical decision to save CP for potentially more CP later, or spend them early for an early in-game benefit but forgo their CP-regen ability.
Eihnlazer wrote: Im seriously considering it might be better to just give Every list 14-15 CP to start, and not have detachments give any CP.
There can still be characters (named ones) that grant extra CP as part of their kit, but it evens out a lot of stuff and means people don't have to soup in cheap battalions to still be able to use their strats.
It also kinda does away with the max of 3 detachments necessity since it wont matter how many you bring if everyone gets the same CP.
Would certainly shake up the meta..
The only bad thing this change could cause would be that less people would take troops, but since we have the Rule of 3 implemented I don't think it'd be too bad.
You would also need to rebalance all strategems. Not so easy
Eihnlazer wrote: Im seriously considering it might be better to just give Every list 14-15 CP to start, and not have detachments give any CP.
There can still be characters (named ones) that grant extra CP as part of their kit, but it evens out a lot of stuff and means people don't have to soup in cheap battalions to still be able to use their strats.
It also kinda does away with the max of 3 detachments necessity since it wont matter how many you bring if everyone gets the same CP.
Would certainly shake up the meta..
The only bad thing this change could cause would be that less people would take troops, but since we have the Rule of 3 implemented I don't think it'd be too bad.
Probably too radical a change at this point. If they do a wholesale change at this point, I'd hope it goes more towards AoS, where players don't get all CP at the start, but they get x amount of CP at the beginning of each battle round. Spreads it out more and mitigates the first-turn-heavy game play a tiny little bit.
Also, CP regen should ideally be on CP NOT spent, rather than CP spent, forcing players into a tactical decision to save CP for potentially more CP later, or spend them early for an early in-game benefit but forgo their CP-regen ability.
I like that idea, how about from turn 2 onwards for every 5 CP you have left you get a CP on 5+ start of your turn?
except this is, broadly, what CPs do already, they allow fluffy elite formations, such as raven wing, death wing, Space Wolf Wolf guard etc, well at the same time enchouraging people to sue troops etc in a more standand format by rewarding it. you are not being PUNSIHED for playing Ravenwing, I am being REWARDED for taking a balanced force..
or so the design logic goes.
But that is not true. If I go and take an characterful mono army, and avoid the rule of 3, I am being punished for not taking the 32 IG dudes or some strong melee/shoting. Not just in power, but in the number of CPs I would get, and my army thank to GW did not get any good 1CP stratagems to be spamed.
except this is, broadly, what CPs do already, they allow fluffy elite formations, such as raven wing, death wing, Space Wolf Wolf guard etc, well at the same time enchouraging people to sue troops etc in a more standand format by rewarding it. you are not being PUNSIHED for playing Ravenwing, I am being REWARDED for taking a balanced force..
or so the design logic goes.
But that is not true. If I go and take an characterful mono army, and avoid the rule of 3, I am being punished for not taking the 32 IG dudes or some strong melee/shoting. Not just in power, but in the number of CPs I would get, and my army thank to GW did not get any good 1CP stratagems to be spamed.
That doesn't make what he is saying any less true, it just shows that GW's implementation was less than perfect.
If you stop looking at it from GK's perspective the idea does fallow GW's fluff minded idea of how people should build their armies.
The main problem as always is that GW's rules writers don't think about the game in the same way the player's do so overvalue certain stats and fail to spot certain combos.
Aha, so am suppose to look it from a non GK perspective. Only I kind of a own a GK army, I don't see people changing the rules for GK players when their state is visibly unfun. Why should I get punished again, so that a group of tournament players and maybe people playing other armies have even more fun then they have now.
Also you know what, I think GW spots those combos just right. I think they knew very well what the ravellan or IG/soup rules are going to do aka generate sales, And while there is nothing wrong with a company wanting to sell more stuff, in fact it is a desired thing to expect, they really should do something about their knee jerk reaction to stuff. They never fix stuff, they kill it dead and make people buy other stuff. And while for people with good book this means they just have to switch from reapers to spears, for people with bad books this means their bad stuff always stays bad.
Kind of goes to what’s rapidly becoming my soapbox: a good, well-balanced game will self-generate more sales than any amount of artificial meta shifts.
except this is, broadly, what CPs do already, they allow fluffy elite formations, such as raven wing, death wing, Space Wolf Wolf guard etc, well at the same time enchouraging people to sue troops etc in a more standand format by rewarding it. you are not being PUNSIHED for playing Ravenwing, I am being REWARDED for taking a balanced force..
or so the design logic goes.
But that is not true. If I go and take an characterful mono army, and avoid the rule of 3, I am being punished for not taking the 32 IG dudes or some strong melee/shoting. Not just in power, but in the number of CPs I would get, and my army thank to GW did not get any good 1CP stratagems to be spamed.
ohh I agree this is a problem, but it's more a matter of GW not thinking things fully through rather then "by design" the IDEA of CP is "I take some troops in a battlaion and I get more CPs for stratigiums" the PRACTICE is "I take a vanguard detachment of my best stuff, and a cheap guard Battalion" is the system deeply deeply flawed? yes, but we need to correct that flaw.
the problem with the guard is two things interacting together, 1 they have the best tools to regen CP combined with having the easiest time generating CP.
This is a serious game design problem and one that frankly is a horriable design problem. CP regen should be a feature of Custodes, Grey Knights, maybe space marines...
Elite armies that will struggle to field a large model count and thus need to make the most of their limited CP.
Karol wrote: Aha, so am suppose to look it from a non GK perspective. Only I kind of a own a GK army, I don't see people changing the rules for GK players when their state is visibly unfun. Why should I get punished again, so that a group of tournament players and maybe people playing other armies have even more fun then they have now.
Also you know what, I think GW spots those combos just right. I think they knew very well what the ravellan or IG/soup rules are going to do aka generate sales, And while there is nothing wrong with a company wanting to sell more stuff, in fact it is a desired thing to expect, they really should do something about their knee jerk reaction to stuff. They never fix stuff, they kill it dead and make people buy other stuff. And while for people with good book this means they just have to switch from reapers to spears, for people with bad books this means their bad stuff always stays bad.
I don't see all these knee-jerk reactions, it seems that they are quite hamfisted actually.
Dark Reapers got nerfed, and they are still used.
Flyrants were triple nerfed and they are still used.
Dark Talons were nerfed and they are still used.
Gman was nerfed and he is still used.
Azrael was nerfed and he is still used.
Flyers were nerfed and they are still used.
Here's hoping they FAQ Battle Forged to give the most CPs (like 3 CPs per turn or something) and detachments get dramatically reduced. I'd be cool with Battalions only giving 2CPs and Brigades giving 5, and all other detachments getting nothing (Aux still -1), so long as Battle Forged is the thing that grants the bulk of CPs. That evens the playing field a bit more vs soup, since soup wouldn't really get a ton more CPs than mono-factions.
Also, by having BF generate CPs at the start of each turn would cut down dramatically on pre-game shenanigans.
Galef wrote: Here's hoping they FAQ Battle Forged to give the most CPs (like 3 CPs per turn or something) and detachments get dramatically reduced.
I'd be cool with Battalions only giving 2CPs and Brigades giving 5, and all other detachments getting nothing (Aux still -1), so long as Battle Forged is the thing that grants the bulk of CPs.
That evens the playing field a bit more vs soup, since soup wouldn't really get a ton more CPs than mono-factions.
Also, by having BF generate CPs at the start of each turn would cut down dramatically on pre-game shenanigans.
It could be done very easily via FAQ/Errata.
-
They also need to seriously rehaul the brigade. You should strive to fill the brigade as it is a full CAD detachment. As it stands, it is more CP friendly and efficient to run 2 battalions. you get the 4 HQ, you can have 6 troops then only have to pick units you want that are points efficient in the other slots. This is 10 CP vs 12 but guard aren't missing out on those 2 CP when they can generate so many. They also get to take the things they want like guard battalion + slamguinius battalion + knight. Taking cheap troops and efficeint LoW and HQs. They don't have to take anything of their fast attack options or elite choices.
Karol wrote: Aha, so am suppose to look it from a non GK perspective. Only I kind of a own a GK army, I don't see people changing the rules for GK players when their state is visibly unfun. Why should I get punished again, so that a group of tournament players and maybe people playing other armies have even more fun then they have now.
Also you know what, I think GW spots those combos just right. I think they knew very well what the ravellan or IG/soup rules are going to do aka generate sales, And while there is nothing wrong with a company wanting to sell more stuff, in fact it is a desired thing to expect, they really should do something about their knee jerk reaction to stuff. They never fix stuff, they kill it dead and make people buy other stuff. And while for people with good book this means they just have to switch from reapers to spears, for people with bad books this means their bad stuff always stays bad.
I don't see all these knee-jerk reactions, it seems that they are quite hamfisted actually.
Dark Reapers got nerfed, and they are still used.
Flyrants were triple nerfed and they are still used.
Dark Talons were nerfed and they are still used.
Gman was nerfed and he is still used.
Azrael was nerfed and he is still used.
Flyers were nerfed and they are still used.
They keep all the good hammers for the FW stuff.
Storm ravens were considered too OP along side razorbacks in marine armies, because of the re rolls . Nerf cimes and instead of dealing with the re rolls or nerfing gulliman dead, they nerf the vehicles. And to make it a real knee jerk reaction they nerf them, pardon my GK focus, in the GK army where they have no access to 're rolls and already cost more. Or how about GW saying they didn't want to over power GK with psychic potential, and giving them nerf smite no good psyker school... only to let IG and traitors guard to run around with normal smite for less the a single GK terminator, and top it all of by giving eldar ton of powerful psychic powers, as if somehow eldar stuff did not end up broken even before the "free" psychic power in form of soul burst, specially it's first iterations.
Karol- I know that you had a hard time playing/learning the rules for GK from your FLGS but you're mistaken in that any GK unit/model can get rerolls. All they have to do is be within 6" of any model with the Rites of Battle rule to reroll "1s" or within 6" of Draigo to reroll any misses.
I do agree that GW doesn't seem to understand that if GKs are supposed to be the psychic space marine chapter they aren't even as good as the other chapters in most ways let alone compared to TSons and Eldar.
greyknight12 wrote: Kind of goes to what’s rapidly becoming my soapbox: a good, well-balanced game will self-generate more sales than any amount of artificial meta shifts.
Yes, but look at it this from GW’s perspective: creating a well-balanced game with a roster as large as modern 40k while still releasing new content on schedule is hard, while getting the game kinda-sorta balanced in casual matches while shifting up the meta based on tournament results and feedback is easier. This way GW doesn’t have to get the game right every FAQ and codex, they just have to move closer to a balanced game. This gives them much more leeway and longtime fans are used to the inevitable problems.
Galef wrote: Here's hoping they FAQ Battle Forged to give the most CPs (like 3 CPs per turn or something) and detachments get dramatically reduced. I'd be cool with Battalions only giving 2CPs and Brigades giving 5, and all other detachments getting nothing (Aux still -1), so long as Battle Forged is the thing that grants the bulk of CPs. That evens the playing field a bit more vs soup, since soup wouldn't really get a ton more CPs than mono-factions.
Also, by having BF generate CPs at the start of each turn would cut down dramatically on pre-game shenanigans.
It could be done very easily via FAQ/Errata.
-
They also need to seriously rehaul the brigade. You should strive to fill the brigade as it is a full CAD detachment. As it stands, it is more CP friendly and efficient to run 2 battalions. you get the 4 HQ, you can have 6 troops then only have to pick units you want that are points efficient in the other slots. This is 10 CP vs 12 but guard aren't missing out on those 2 CP when they can generate so many. They also get to take the things they want like guard battalion + slamguinius battalion + knight. Taking cheap troops and efficeint LoW and HQs. They don't have to take anything of their fast attack options or elite choices.
Yeah, that makes sense. At that rate, I'd have Brigades generate 3x what a Battalion does, which still should not be much. If a Battalion only give 2cps, maybe Brigades can give 7 or more. That should encourage Brigades over 2x Battalions
But the main issue is that armies shouldn't be generating most of their CPs via detachments anyway. Rewarding some CP for larger detahcments is fine, but the bulk of CPs should absolutely come from being Battle Forged. I really like the idea of 3CPs PER TURN being generated by BF (while WL is alive) and detachment CPs being reduced dramatically and are generated as now (once only). It "evens" out the available CPs everyone has access to, but allows some armies to gain a handful more (but not as much more as now) It also prevents an army from dumping all their CPs into a single devastating turn, having to spread them out over the course of the game.
I don't think that some mono armies could even field a remotely usuable brigade at 2000 pts. I'm very sure that GK can't. GK can field 2 battalions only due to the fact that it doesn't require the extra units that the brigade does.
Eihnlazer wrote: Im seriously considering it might be better to just give Every list 14-15 CP to start, and not have detachments give any CP.
There can still be characters (named ones) that grant extra CP as part of their kit, but it evens out a lot of stuff and means people don't have to soup in cheap battalions to still be able to use their strats.
It also kinda does away with the max of 3 detachments necessity since it wont matter how many you bring if everyone gets the same CP.
Would certainly shake up the meta..
The only bad thing this change could cause would be that less people would take troops, but since we have the Rule of 3 implemented I don't think it'd be too bad.
I've seen a few variations on that theme, the one I like best was 3 CPs per full 500 points of game size, minus one for each detachment after the first, minus another one for each force you'd souped in. And even then I strongly suspect that people would take the -2CPs for the small Guard detachment to get access to CP regeneration.
Galef wrote: Here's hoping they FAQ Battle Forged to give the most CPs (like 3 CPs per turn or something) and detachments get dramatically reduced.
I'd be cool with Battalions only giving 2CPs and Brigades giving 5, and all other detachments getting nothing (Aux still -1), so long as Battle Forged is the thing that grants the bulk of CPs.
That evens the playing field a bit more vs soup, since soup wouldn't really get a ton more CPs than mono-factions.
Also, by having BF generate CPs at the start of each turn would cut down dramatically on pre-game shenanigans.
It could be done very easily via FAQ/Errata.
-
They also need to seriously rehaul the brigade. You should strive to fill the brigade as it is a full CAD detachment. As it stands, it is more CP friendly and efficient to run 2 battalions. you get the 4 HQ, you can have 6 troops then only have to pick units you want that are points efficient in the other slots. This is 10 CP vs 12 but guard aren't missing out on those 2 CP when they can generate so many. They also get to take the things they want like guard battalion + slamguinius battalion + knight. Taking cheap troops and efficeint LoW and HQs. They don't have to take anything of their fast attack options or elite choices.
Yeah, that makes sense. At that rate, I'd have Brigades generate 3x what a Battalion does, which still should not be much.
If a Battalion only give 2cps, maybe Brigades can give 7 or more. That should encourage Brigades over 2x Battalions
But the main issue is that armies shouldn't be generating most of their CPs via detachments anyway. Rewarding some CP for larger detahcments is fine, but the bulk of CPs should absolutely come from being Battle Forged.
I really like the idea of 3CPs PER TURN being generated by BF (while WL is alive) and detachment CPs being reduced dramatically and are generated as now (once only).
It "evens" out the available CPs everyone has access to, but allows some armies to gain a handful more (but not as much more as now)
It also prevents an army from dumping all their CPs into a single devastating turn, having to spread them out over the course of the game.
-
Brigades really should be an apocalypse size game and up detachment, when half the armies can't realistically field one at 2k.
I really think that GW will make the most gains if it tried to reduce the range in some of the more extremes of the game.
I think they would do better if they understood that a game where you can have a side with 6 CP versus a side with 20+ CP and the chance of getting more or recycling that CP is going to be an issue. If they made it do that the minimum a side could have was 10, and the max a side could get through list and play selection was 15, you would see a different game and people wouldn’t care about CP as much.
Same with model count. If they tried to build a game that wanted you to try to get to around 50 models, and worked to that kind of behavior, you wouldn’t see silly forces like 200 horde forces and 4 model IK armies doing so well.
So I hope the Faq does some thinking like that, and moves quicker in trying to help people get to these kinds of places.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I don't think that some mono armies could even field a remotely usuable brigade at 2000 pts. I'm very sure that GK can't. GK can field 2 battalions only due to the fact that it doesn't require the extra units that the brigade does.
Dark Eldar are a very good Codex and they can only field a Kabal Brigade and 6 units won't even benefit from the Chapter tactic.
Galef wrote: Here's hoping they FAQ Battle Forged to give the most CPs (like 3 CPs per turn or something) and detachments get dramatically reduced.
I'd be cool with Battalions only giving 2CPs and Brigades giving 5, and all other detachments getting nothing (Aux still -1), so long as Battle Forged is the thing that grants the bulk of CPs.
That evens the playing field a bit more vs soup, since soup wouldn't really get a ton more CPs than mono-factions.
Also, by having BF generate CPs at the start of each turn would cut down dramatically on pre-game shenanigans.
It could be done very easily via FAQ/Errata.
-
They also need to seriously rehaul the brigade. You should strive to fill the brigade as it is a full CAD detachment. As it stands, it is more CP friendly and efficient to run 2 battalions. you get the 4 HQ, you can have 6 troops then only have to pick units you want that are points efficient in the other slots. This is 10 CP vs 12 but guard aren't missing out on those 2 CP when they can generate so many. They also get to take the things they want like guard battalion + slamguinius battalion + knight. Taking cheap troops and efficeint LoW and HQs. They don't have to take anything of their fast attack options or elite choices.
Yeah, that makes sense. At that rate, I'd have Brigades generate 3x what a Battalion does, which still should not be much.
If a Battalion only give 2cps, maybe Brigades can give 7 or more. That should encourage Brigades over 2x Battalions
But the main issue is that armies shouldn't be generating most of their CPs via detachments anyway. Rewarding some CP for larger detahcments is fine, but the bulk of CPs should absolutely come from being Battle Forged.
I really like the idea of 3CPs PER TURN being generated by BF (while WL is alive) and detachment CPs being reduced dramatically and are generated as now (once only).
It "evens" out the available CPs everyone has access to, but allows some armies to gain a handful more (but not as much more as now)
It also prevents an army from dumping all their CPs into a single devastating turn, having to spread them out over the course of the game.
-
Brigades really should be an apocalypse size game and up detachment, when half the armies can't realistically field one at 2k.
Yeah, probably. But that's a different discussion. I like the idea of a Brigade, but maybe requiring 3 Elites, Fast and Heavy is a bit much for a 2K game. Especially since no army (I can think of) truly has great units in all 3 slots. Typically you'll see at least 1 of the 3 taken as the cheapest throw away option, which is sad.
Requiring only 2 of each (plus all the Troops and HQs) would probably have work better.
Another potential fix GW could FAQ is that CPs generated mid-game are lost at the end of the turn they are generated. So you either use them immediately, or lose them
Combine this with lowering the disparity between detachments (seriously Battalions should not be giving 5CPs when others only give 1), and you get far closer to balanced
Likely the best change they could do in the short term is to make CP restricted to the detachment that generates it, as well as any extra CP generated by something like the guard CP farming warlord and item only supports the detachment that model is in.
The you can balance out things like rotate ion shields and all the ridiculous blood angel strats that allow a single 120 model to kill virtually anything from anywhere on the board with no counterplay around the fact that there will be a limited number of total command points available to those models
VIlacom wrote: Likely the best change they could do in the short term is to make CP restricted to the detachment that generates it, as well as any extra CP generated by something like the guard CP farming warlord and item only supports the detachment that model is in.
The you can balance out things like rotate ion shields and all the ridiculous blood angel strats that allow a single 120 model to kill virtually anything from anywhere on the board with no counterplay around the fact that there will be a limited number of total command points available to those models
Why should CPs be restricted by Detachment? If I have three Detachments from the same faction/book I see no reason to restrict them.
Furthermore,if there are problematic strats, traits and relics then maybe fix those directly?
BaconCatBug wrote: More and more I am thinking that 3 CP a turn (which accumulates), with the removal of any CP refunding mechanics is the way to go.
That just creates new problems though because people aren't disincentivised from just taking the best possible combination of units for the points. Like an army of all custodes on bikes or knights lists just taking armigers to replace the cp battery. There needs to be something to encourage people to take a more "balanced" approach in the type of units they take.
Why? And who decides what's more "balanced"? What if I want to play a list of all pox walkers? Why should I have to take other units if I don't want to do so?
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Why? And who decides what's more "balanced"? What if I want to play a list of all pox walkers? Why should I have to take other units if I don't want to do so?
Balanced as in a variety of unit types and not just max dark reapers and hemlocks. White scars players would be happy there's no penalty for taking all bikes anymore but there should always be a tradeoff for taking a skew list or just spamming whatever is your strongest unit.
An army of entirely pox walkers is kind of a bad example because they're troops so incredibly easy to just load up on as is.
Giving free stuff (in this case free buffs i.e. stratagems) is fundamentally difficult to balance.
Most playtested edition ever my backside.
Strats aren't the problem as their use is tied to a limited resource: CP which is determined by your army comp. The problem is free CP that breaks that mechanic from CP farm style builds.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Why? And who decides what's more "balanced"? What if I want to play a list of all pox walkers? Why should I have to take other units if I don't want to do so?
Balanced as in a variety of unit types and not just max dark reapers and hemlocks. White scars players would be happy there's no penalty for taking all bikes anymore but there should always be a tradeoff for taking a skew list or just spamming whatever is your strongest unit.
An army of entirely pox walkers is kind of a bad example because they're troops so incredibly easy to just load up on as is.
Ah yes GW style "we have problem units but let's not fix those but just bandaid limits" like the rule of 3 that still left underpriced stuff underpriced so people max out on those anyway. Lol.
tneva82 wrote: Ah yes GW style "we have problem units but let's not fix those but just bandaid limits" like the rule of 3 that still left underpriced stuff underpriced so people max out on those anyway. Lol.
It's asinine to complain about the rule of 3 not fixing every problem with broken units. The game is arguably in a better state with it than without. Saying that the rule of 3 still leaves unit X too cheap doesn't change the fact that the game is better when a player can't take 15 flyrants. Sure a change to points would've been a more balanced solution but it would've been an insane amount of work to get every problem unit to a point where you need to really weigh up if the points cost justify taking a 4th unit of them.
So GW being GW with amateurs as designers(they 100% are NOT professional level) go for the lazy solution leaving game broken mess. 8th ed is horrible mess in terms of balance. It's like 10% of a remotedly balanced. With positive spin...
"Most balanced edition" yet huge stepbacks in terms of balance.
tneva82 wrote: So GW being GW with amateurs as designers(they 100% are NOT professional level) go for the lazy solution leaving game broken mess. 8th ed is horrible mess in terms of balance. It's like 10% of a remotedly balanced. With positive spin...
"Most balanced edition" yet huge stepbacks in terms of balance.
The game is far from balanced sure, but it is very playable. I'd much rather have a simple solution that leaves the game in a more playable state than have to wait for the next edition for them to try to fix something completely. We know from experience they'll never be able to really fix anything completely. It's not about being lazy it's about using simple solutions that improve the state of the game while not shaking things up too much. The fact that so many people are coming back to the game and having fun is evidence that a lot of people prefer this approach.
tneva82 wrote: So GW being GW with amateurs as designers(they 100% are NOT professional level) go for the lazy solution leaving game broken mess. 8th ed is horrible mess in terms of balance. It's like 10% of a remotedly balanced. With positive spin...
"Most balanced edition" yet huge stepbacks in terms of balance.
There have fortunately been some concessions back towards previous rules from editions past, rules that were haphazardly tossed out without regard for the decades of "lessons learned" that led to their in inclusion in the first place.
greyknight12 wrote: There have fortunately been some concessions back towards previous rules from editions past, rules that were haphazardly tossed out without regard for the decades of "lessons learned" that led to their in inclusion in the first place.
With regards to the "lessons learned" it's much easier to strip things to their core then add things back piecemeal than it is to just strip out only the bad things. Would it be better if they had perfect testing so they could do this before it was released? Yes, obviously. That means time though and time is money. There's realistically only so long they can keep the shareholders off their back about getting it out the door so it can start making money already.
BaconCatBug wrote: More and more I am thinking that 3 CP a turn (which accumulates), with the removal of any CP refunding mechanics is the way to go.
That just creates new problems though because people aren't disincentivised from just taking the best possible combination of units for the points. Like an army of all custodes on bikes or knights lists just taking armigers to replace the cp battery. There needs to be something to encourage people to take a more "balanced" approach in the type of units they take.
Sure. But there are alternative ways to do that.
ObSec is already a thing, and should probably be removed from non-Troop Custodes. For Knights, it's already implemented reasonably well, with only very limited access to it, if it's pure Knights.
And you could, even and/or especially with fixed and non-regainable CP, make varying costs. Part of the problem already is that Tide of Traitors on 10 cultists and 40 cultists cost the same, which is idiotic. It should obviously cost 4x as many CP on 40 as it does on 10. House Raven strat shouldn't be the same cost on a Castellan and on a Warglaive.
You could link CP costs to Powerlevel and/or battlefield role, giving a discount if a strat is used on troop choices and/or making players pay an extra CP or two if it's played on a superheavy and/or a unit over a certain powerlevel.
Etc.. just brainstorming, but there're lots of ways to go there.
Galef wrote: Here's hoping they FAQ Battle Forged to give the most CPs (like 3 CPs per turn or something) and detachments get dramatically reduced.
I'd be cool with Battalions only giving 2CPs and Brigades giving 5, and all other detachments getting nothing (Aux still -1), so long as Battle Forged is the thing that grants the bulk of CPs.
That evens the playing field a bit more vs soup, since soup wouldn't really get a ton more CPs than mono-factions.
Also, by having BF generate CPs at the start of each turn would cut down dramatically on pre-game shenanigans.
It could be done very easily via FAQ/Errata.
-
Dear Galef,
I wouldn't hope for too much.
GW does neither do sufficient playtesting nor do they care much about tournament play.
However, in the 8th ed., they seem to listen to the player base to a certain extent.
Otherwise, they would have not done some nerfs in the former spring FAQ.
I'm not expecting much but would welcome some changes so that soup Imperium
gets a nerf.
Greeting, WF
ObSec is already a thing, and should probably be removed from non-Troop Custodes. For Knights, it's already implemented reasonably well, with only very limited access to it, if it's pure Knights.
as someone who plays custodes and doesn't just spam jet bike captains I'd rather not see that happen. Custodes jet bike captain spam can easily be addressed by removing the supreme command detachment from matched play
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I don't think that some mono armies could even field a remotely usuable brigade at 2000 pts. I'm very sure that GK can't. GK can field 2 battalions only due to the fact that it doesn't require the extra units that the brigade does.
Pure GK would suck even if they could generate 24 CP at 2000. Let's just stop using them as an example for something that affects all armies, k?
GK need a new codex, no buff to general rules will fix them and not make something else even better.
BaconCatBug wrote: More and more I am thinking that 3 CP a turn (which accumulates), with the removal of any CP refunding mechanics is the way to go.
That just creates new problems though because people aren't disincentivised from just taking the best possible combination of units for the points. Like an army of all custodes on bikes or knights lists just taking armigers to replace the cp battery. There needs to be something to encourage people to take a more "balanced" approach in the type of units they take.
Troops, especially <10 point troops, will definitely still be taken in a world where troops don't generate CP. Conscripts were one of the most broken units in 8th's history during a time period when nobody had stratagems so nobody cared about CP generation; troops generally provide board control, which is valuable regardless of any other bonuses so Kabalites and Guardsmen will absolutely still see play. This isn't true of the more elite troop choices but hey they aren't seeing any play now either.
Arachnofiend wrote: Troops, especially <10 point troops, will definitely still be taken in a world where troops don't generate CP. Conscripts were one of the most broken units in 8th's history during a time period when nobody had stratagems so nobody cared about CP generation; troops generally provide board control, which is valuable regardless of any other bonuses so Kabalites and Guardsmen will absolutely still see play. This isn't true of the more elite troop choices but hey they aren't seeing any play now either.
It'll just be a patrol with whatever is cheapest though to free up as much as they can for the units they actually want to take. You'll just end up with something like someone dropping 6 dark reapers for a warlock and 2 units of rangers instead of them just having something like a warlock, 29 dark reapers, 3 hemlocks and 2 crimson hunters.
ObSec is already a thing, and should probably be removed from non-Troop Custodes. For Knights, it's already implemented reasonably well, with only very limited access to it, if it's pure Knights.
as someone who plays custodes and doesn't just spam jet bike captains I'd rather not see that happen. Custodes jet bike captain spam can easily be addressed by removing the supreme command detachment from matched play
Removing a whole type of detachment has many more far reaching consequences for all kinds of armies (including non-Imperial armies already struggling) than walking back a stupid special snowflake rule that shouldn't have been there in the first place (or be granted to all HQ/LoW/FA, etc.. north of 150 points to be fair to everyone)
ObSec is already a thing, and should probably be removed from non-Troop Custodes. For Knights, it's already implemented reasonably well, with only very limited access to it, if it's pure Knights.
as someone who plays custodes and doesn't just spam jet bike captains I'd rather not see that happen. Custodes jet bike captain spam can easily be addressed by removing the supreme command detachment from matched play
Removing a whole type of detachment has many more far reaching consequences for all kinds of armies (including non-Imperial armies already struggling) than walking back a stupid special snowflake rule that shouldn't have been there in the first place (or be granted to all HQ/LoW/FA, etc.. north of 150 points to be fair to everyone)
I am sceptical to this, but happy to hear your reasoning.
Specifically, what problems for what armies does the removal of supreme command have?
ObSec is already a thing, and should probably be removed from non-Troop Custodes. For Knights, it's already implemented reasonably well, with only very limited access to it, if it's pure Knights.
as someone who plays custodes and doesn't just spam jet bike captains I'd rather not see that happen. Custodes jet bike captain spam can easily be addressed by removing the supreme command detachment from matched play
Removing a whole type of detachment has many more far reaching consequences for all kinds of armies (including non-Imperial armies already struggling) than walking back a stupid special snowflake rule that shouldn't have been there in the first place (or be granted to all HQ/LoW/FA, etc.. north of 150 points to be fair to everyone)
I am sceptical to this, but happy to hear your reasoning.
Specifically, what problems for what armies does the removal of supreme command have?
it takes away from the diversity of builds and options of ALL armies to preserve a broken special rule of ONE army.
Not sure how there's room to be skeptical about giving everyone the same shot for ObSec instead of slapping it on unkillable "elite" units who are traditionally balanced against units with less damage output and survivability precisely by not having ObSec since .. dunno .. 5th or 4th Edition?
The whole point of ObSec is giving units without great offensive output a way to contribute points to the game (in turn as a means to incentivise players to take those less punchy units to make the visual/composition of a 40K army more "like the background" while also keeping the offensive advantage the "elites" have over the non-elites in the background).
Something worth 200 points and having ObSec needs to be significantly less killy and durable than something worth 200 points without ObSec. That's how you get tactical choices, target priorites and different strategic options into the game in the first place and make it more than just "who rolls more 6s"
Stux wrote: I am sceptical to this, but happy to hear your reasoning.
Specifically, what problems for what armies does the removal of supreme command have?
One potential example is it stops dark eldar players from taking a supreme command with some combination of craftworlds psykers to give the army the ability to debuff the enemy or throw out some mortal wounds.
ObSec is already a thing, and should probably be removed from non-Troop Custodes. For Knights, it's already implemented reasonably well, with only very limited access to it, if it's pure Knights.
as someone who plays custodes and doesn't just spam jet bike captains I'd rather not see that happen. Custodes jet bike captain spam can easily be addressed by removing the supreme command detachment from matched play
Dawn eagles full stop captains or not are undercosted, the advantages they have over normal custodes are worth more than they are currently paying for them.
I would say standard custodes need to be a few points cheaper and dawneagles need to be atleast 10 points more per bike.
Strats aren't the problem as their use is tied to a limited resource: CP which is determined by your army comp. The problem is free CP that breaks that mechanic from CP farm style builds.
CP batteries are a problem, sure, but the fact that Stratagems (unfortunately) are not equal and CP are simply "better" and "worse", or "worth more" and "worth less" for different books, depending on how good the stratagems are, will make players always want to shift CP to the detachment that uses those CP most effectively.
Hell, if, as a thought experiment, you would tie CP to certain factions but also add a universal Stratagem to "transfer" CP for a cost along the lines of "Pay 1 CP to turn 2 Guard CP into 2 Knight or BACP", people would almost certainly use that every game, simply because the value of CP for the BA or Knights is so much higher, that it'd be worth the cost/tax of shifting it over from the Guard.
Well, I'd tie CPs to the detachment which have created them.
CPs shouldn't be allowed to use by other detachments in an army.
This would be a straigthforward restiction which wouldn't need clarifications afterwards.
BaconCatBug wrote: Why not start with 3 pre-game and then generate 3 on the first turn.
If they rollover then you can use 6 CP on turn one to boost an alpha strike which was one of the main reasons people suggest gaining CP over time. If they don't rollover then you're being punished for not having a pregame stratagem and lets RG strike from the shadows 3 units for free and gives other chapters a free chapter master.
well, we may have a hint in the 2 new codexes that came with rogue trader mini codexes. CP generated by a detachment can only be send on that detachment is in them.
on the subject earlier it was mentioned people woul take armigers in knight games, that is not a bad thing, a full knight army with a lot of armigers would probably be funner to play/against.
on normal custodes jetbikes they are good for the points but far from the most broken thing in the game. Taken as jet bike shield captains though they are closer to the top and maybe adjustments are needed, but I don't think the typical 3 man unit needs re-balancing.
BaconCatBug wrote: Why not start with 3 pre-game and then generate 3 on the first turn.
If they rollover then you can use 6 CP on turn one to boost an alpha strike which was one of the main reasons people suggest gaining CP over time. If they don't rollover then you're being punished for not having a pregame stratagem and lets RG strike from the shadows 3 units for free and gives other chapters a free chapter master.
Agree. The whole point of a resource system is to make that resource limited, not to give everyone all the CP all the time.
When you need to decide between deep strinking units, additional relics and fighting again turn 1, the decision to use a stratagem matters. When you just burn through as many CP as possible to maximize your first turn, the army with the most CP used on the most powerful stratagems simply wins, as proven by the Nova results.
What if you got 3 at deployment and then 3 each turn that don't carry over?
Honestly, though, I think the sad thing is that this means no one will bother taking more than 1 Relic - especially for fun/flavour. It'll just cut too much into deployment rules and the like.
Ok, so, 3 for deployment and first turn combined means that –
Noone will ever take more than 1 additional relic
Pure Knight lists are heavily restricted
Additional Relics and pre-game buffs become more of a 1 off
1/3CP deployment options will rarely get used as it sacrifices you’re first turn options
I’m all for setting a “max” on CP levels, but linking deployment with the first turn in a “max cp per turn” setting is just going to severely limit a lot of armies and their options.
- My 4 Knights and Admech can’t now spend 7CP on 3 relics and traits for my Knights and a relic on the admech.
-Custodes can’t use Victor of the Blood Games and then reasonably expect to use anything else CP wise in their first turn.
-Eldar, Drukari, Thousand Sons, Harlequinns and Deathwatch will never put more than 1 unit into deepstrike. (Custodes likely won’t use the strat ever again)
-Raven Guard, Alpha Legion, Stygies stratagem use will hurt even more for the players.
-Tallarn stratagem will never get used in a mono-guard list or soup list.
-Chapter Master and Orbital Bombardment stratagems will never be used. Honour the Chapter will rarely be used.
-All other “orbital bombardment” style stratagems will never get used.
-Deathwatch will rarely get use out of their faction specific stratagems (and none of their combos).
-Blood Angels won’t be able to super power 1 character even for a turn.
-Deathwing Assault will never get used.
-Most Grey Knight combos cease to exist.
-Space Wolves -1 to hit penalty will never get used.
-Guard vox stratagem will never get used.
-Deathstrikes (lol) definitely won’t get used.
A lot of combos won’t be able to be used anymore, due to them having total costs of 4+ CP. Even the ones that cost 3CP will rarely get used due to the likelihood of a simple re-roll requirement somewhere within the turn.
Of course, all the things I’ve pointed out above, are under the assumption that you are spending 3 CP a turn, or want to do something in deployment and your first turn. You can, of course do nothing first turn, do the combo turn 2, and then hope you don’t need to do much turn 3, so you can do stuff again turn 4, but that seriously breaks up the flow of the game imo and will leave a lot of armies out to dry.
If each army was given 3 CP “pre game”. 3 CP for deployment and THEN 3CP a turn, then things could be different (however, Knights again would need that doubling otherwise you might as well just remove Exalted Court and addition Relics from their codex, and then while you’re at it, DVoS, VotBG, +2 relics and other similar stratagems).
All this does though is essentially mean that most factions start the game with 3 relics for free and then potentially turn 1 with 6CP. (“Pre game” CP wouldn’t roll over, but deployment CP would)
As I’ve said before, limiting CP could be a good way to do things going forward, but, you need to account for the vast array of styles and tactics each faction has before you do so. Just because some styles of CP abuse is happening, doesn’t mean that it is the case for every army out there.
Kdash wrote: Knights again would need that doubling otherwise you might as well just remove Exalted Court and addition Relics from their codex, and then while you’re at it, DVoS, VotBG, +2 relics and other similar stratagems).
All this does though is essentially mean that most factions start the game with 3 relics for free and then potentially turn 1 with 6CP. (“Pre game” CP wouldn’t roll over, but deployment CP would)
This sounds terrific. Actual decisions would have to be made about whether to use the pregame stratagems or take relics.
jaxor1983 wrote: This sounds terrific. Actual decisions would have to be made about whether to use the pregame stratagems or take relics.
Because the hallmark of a good wargame is one where the players have to decide whether they want a fluffy army or a good army.
No, the hallmark of a FAIR game is when players don't get to take all the toys with no downsides. Where real tactical decisions matter
But a better solution that is similar to yours is to lower the CPs available by detachments (Battalions get 2, Brigades 5, everything else gets 0 CPs) and in Matched play, a detachment cannot be repeated. Battle Forged gives you 3CP pregame, and 3CPs at the start of each battle round.
So at deployment, and army with 1 Battalion would have 5 total CPs to spend on pregame stuff. After that, you "lose" any CPs generated during the game at the end of the Battle round they were generated This change makes list building for CPs only good for pregame stuff. But mid-game, most factions should be even. And if you can generate or steal CPs, you have to use them or lose them.
Kdash wrote: Ok, so, 3 for deployment and first turn combined means that –
Noone will ever take more than 1 additional relic
Pure Knight lists are heavily restricted
Additional Relics and pre-game buffs become more of a 1 off
1/3CP deployment options will rarely get used as it sacrifices you’re first turn options
I’m all for setting a “max” on CP levels, but linking deployment with the first turn in a “max cp per turn” setting is just going to severely limit a lot of armies and their options.
- My 4 Knights and Admech can’t now spend 7CP on 3 relics and traits for my Knights and a relic on the admech.
-Custodes can’t use Victor of the Blood Games and then reasonably expect to use anything else CP wise in their first turn.
-Eldar, Drukari, Thousand Sons, Harlequinns and Deathwatch will never put more than 1 unit into deepstrike. (Custodes likely won’t use the strat ever again)
-Raven Guard, Alpha Legion, Stygies stratagem use will hurt even more for the players.
-Tallarn stratagem will never get used in a mono-guard list or soup list.
-Chapter Master and Orbital Bombardment stratagems will never be used. Honour the Chapter will rarely be used.
-All other “orbital bombardment” style stratagems will never get used.
-Deathwatch will rarely get use out of their faction specific stratagems (and none of their combos).
-Blood Angels won’t be able to super power 1 character even for a turn.
-Deathwing Assault will never get used.
-Most Grey Knight combos cease to exist.
-Space Wolves -1 to hit penalty will never get used.
-Guard vox stratagem will never get used.
-Deathstrikes (lol) definitely won’t get used.
A lot of combos won’t be able to be used anymore, due to them having total costs of 4+ CP. Even the ones that cost 3CP will rarely get used due to the likelihood of a simple re-roll requirement somewhere within the turn.
Of course, all the things I’ve pointed out above, are under the assumption that you are spending 3 CP a turn, or want to do something in deployment and your first turn. You can, of course do nothing first turn, do the combo turn 2, and then hope you don’t need to do much turn 3, so you can do stuff again turn 4, but that seriously breaks up the flow of the game imo and will leave a lot of armies out to dry.
If each army was given 3 CP “pre game”. 3 CP for deployment and THEN 3CP a turn, then things could be different (however, Knights again would need that doubling otherwise you might as well just remove Exalted Court and addition Relics from their codex, and then while you’re at it, DVoS, VotBG, +2 relics and other similar stratagems).
All this does though is essentially mean that most factions start the game with 3 relics for free and then potentially turn 1 with 6CP. (“Pre game” CP wouldn’t roll over, but deployment CP would)
As I’ve said before, limiting CP could be a good way to do things going forward, but, you need to account for the vast array of styles and tactics each faction has before you do so. Just because some styles of CP abuse is happening, doesn’t mean that it is the case for every army out there.
To be fair, most of the things on that list gone sounds quite good to me. Of course, there is some collateral damage that is very much not intended, but the focus should be on the models and not on the stratagems.
You should have to decide whether to get all the best relics or make your knights characters. Having re-rolls turn 1 or deep striking turn two is a decision to make. Currently you just use all the top X stratagems until your run out, no decision needed.
Also keep in mind that a lot of your "won't be used" comes from the stratagem no being costed right or simply weak, which is just magnified by having less CP.
Maybe 3 is not the right number, maybe we should do something like 3 +1 or 2 if your warlord is alive or similar. But I think the game should aim to not allow more than one 3 CP stratagem per turn unless you saved points from last turn.
Galef wrote: No, the hallmark of a FAIR game is when players don't get to take all the toys with no downsides. Where real tactical decisions matter
Yes, because taking a sword on an IG character with terrible melee ability is exactly equal to tactically deep striking a unit into a key position on the map.
It's just natural and completely fair for these things to have identical costs.
Kdash wrote: Ok, so, 3 for deployment and first turn combined means that –
Noone will ever take more than 1 additional relic
Pure Knight lists are heavily restricted
Additional Relics and pre-game buffs become more of a 1 off
1/3CP deployment options will rarely get used as it sacrifices you’re first turn options
I’m all for setting a “max” on CP levels, but linking deployment with the first turn in a “max cp per turn” setting is just going to severely limit a lot of armies and their options.
- My 4 Knights and Admech can’t now spend 7CP on 3 relics and traits for my Knights and a relic on the admech.
-Custodes can’t use Victor of the Blood Games and then reasonably expect to use anything else CP wise in their first turn.
-Eldar, Drukari, Thousand Sons, Harlequinns and Deathwatch will never put more than 1 unit into deepstrike. (Custodes likely won’t use the strat ever again)
-Raven Guard, Alpha Legion, Stygies stratagem use will hurt even more for the players.
-Tallarn stratagem will never get used in a mono-guard list or soup list.
-Chapter Master and Orbital Bombardment stratagems will never be used. Honour the Chapter will rarely be used.
-All other “orbital bombardment” style stratagems will never get used.
-Deathwatch will rarely get use out of their faction specific stratagems (and none of their combos).
-Blood Angels won’t be able to super power 1 character even for a turn.
-Deathwing Assault will never get used.
-Most Grey Knight combos cease to exist.
-Space Wolves -1 to hit penalty will never get used.
-Guard vox stratagem will never get used.
-Deathstrikes (lol) definitely won’t get used.
A lot of combos won’t be able to be used anymore, due to them having total costs of 4+ CP. Even the ones that cost 3CP will rarely get used due to the likelihood of a simple re-roll requirement somewhere within the turn.
Of course, all the things I’ve pointed out above, are under the assumption that you are spending 3 CP a turn, or want to do something in deployment and your first turn. You can, of course do nothing first turn, do the combo turn 2, and then hope you don’t need to do much turn 3, so you can do stuff again turn 4, but that seriously breaks up the flow of the game imo and will leave a lot of armies out to dry.
If each army was given 3 CP “pre game”. 3 CP for deployment and THEN 3CP a turn, then things could be different (however, Knights again would need that doubling otherwise you might as well just remove Exalted Court and addition Relics from their codex, and then while you’re at it, DVoS, VotBG, +2 relics and other similar stratagems).
All this does though is essentially mean that most factions start the game with 3 relics for free and then potentially turn 1 with 6CP. (“Pre game” CP wouldn’t roll over, but deployment CP would)
As I’ve said before, limiting CP could be a good way to do things going forward, but, you need to account for the vast array of styles and tactics each faction has before you do so. Just because some styles of CP abuse is happening, doesn’t mean that it is the case for every army out there.
To be fair, most of the things on that list gone sounds quite good to me. Of course, there is some collateral damage that is very much not intended, but the focus should be on the models and not on the stratagems.
You should have to decide whether to get all the best relics or make your knights characters. Having re-rolls turn 1 or deep striking turn two is a decision to make. Currently you just use all the top X stratagems until your run out, no decision needed.
Also keep in mind that a lot of your "won't be used" comes from the stratagem no being costed right or simply weak, which is just magnified by having less CP.
Maybe 3 is not the right number, maybe we should do something like 3 +1 or 2 if your warlord is alive or similar. But I think the game should aim to not allow more than one 3 CP stratagem per turn unless you saved points from last turn.
I agree that a lot of the “won’t get used” is because of the numbers and the stratagem current costs.
But that is part of the problem. Any move towards fixed CP figures per turn wouldn’t require additional work on stratagem costs and effects.
I have no problem with the decision for the Custodes 3CP charge stratagem being a choice of “charge and nothing else that turn” or “use CP elsewhere”, as it is a powerful stratagem and represents the idea being promoted here perfectly, but, all stratagems and combos would have to be reviewed under such a system to adjust them into line. At which point, I think we’d then just be back at square one as previous “expensive combos” would be just as repeatable every other turn, or even every turn.
I am also slightly concerned about game impact. Prior to the codices being released (back in ye olde Index days) games were still going the same way they are currently. Even without stratagems. One side would destroy a load of units, then the other side would hit back etc etc, with games still being decided in the early turns of the game. Stratagems allow for different builds and ideas to be used as they provide a “power point” for said builds. Yes, some of the combos are currently too powerful, but, the moment we have half the turns in a game potentially being stratagem less, then it goes back to the old “mathhammer wins” argument more so than it is now.
Noone would have a problem if a Smash Captain could only his combo once on turn 1. Noone really has a problem if 3 Knights rock relics and warlord traits. A lot of the combos, used in isolation are pretty reasonable. If someone wants to use 7CP turn 1, or 8CP in deployment then they should still be able to BUT, yes, I agree there should be some kind of penalty for doing so – which there isn’t currently when talking about Imperial Soup specifically.
If I use 7CP to deepstrike 7 Raven Guard units, it’s hardly going to break the game, but it will certainly give my opponent something to stress over if I get first turn. Now, as I could currently spend those 7 and potentially get 3 or 4 back, then, yes, that is where problems start to appear.
CP needs to be adjusted – or at least the farming side of things, but, I don’t believe restricting the levels will do anything other than highlight imbalance elsewhere.
Galef wrote: No, the hallmark of a FAIR game is when players don't get to take all the toys with no downsides. Where real tactical decisions matter
Yes, because taking a sword on an IG character with terrible melee ability is exactly equal to tactically deep striking a unit into a key position on the map.
It's just natural and completely fair for these things to have identical costs.
To be frank tho, the game is based for Narrative, open, and comp play. There is no way to balance a building/painting hobby game with fluff and comp in mind.
And that is why you are suppose to agree how to play with your opponent.
Galef wrote: No, the hallmark of a FAIR game is when players don't get to take all the toys with no downsides. Where real tactical decisions matter
Yes, because taking a sword on an IG character with terrible melee ability is exactly equal to tactically deep striking a unit into a key position on the map.
It's just natural and completely fair for these things to have identical costs.
To be frank tho, the game is based for Narrative, open, and comp play. There is no way to balance a building/painting hobby game with fluff and comp in mind.
And that is why you are suppose to agree how to play with your opponent.
This is where i would slightly disagree and say that you can run strong fluff lists and do reasonably well in a lot of settings.
Talos will be up +25 points
Agents of Vect Will be once per turn, not once per phase.
CP farming is getting nerfed -no clear idea just yet
Shining Spears getting points increase
Castellan is going to be over 700 points
Talos will be up +25 points
Agents of Vect Will be once per turn, not once per phase.
CP farming is getting nerfed -no clear idea just yet
Shining Spears getting points increase
Castellan is going to be over 700 points
Talos will be up +25 points Agents of Vect Will be once per turn, not once per phase. CP farming is getting nerfed -no clear idea just yet Shining Spears getting points increase Castellan is going to be over 700 points
Why Talos of all things?
Agree, i was expecting a small increase, like 5-10pts at the most, but 25? WTF thats almost unplayable, just take 30 Grots instead...... at least most players are only taking 3, no one is spamming 9 and winning with 9......
Shining Spears getting a points increase? That's fair, but can we get Windriders a decrease to be playable? As-is, you should be able to get 2 WRs for just over 1 Spear. If Spears go up to about 40ppm, WRs should be >20ppm, or >25ppm with upgraded gun.
abyrn wrote: So GW continues to play whack a mole with the Craftworld codex to keep Ynarri balanced...
I would prefer if Ynarri shining spears had a different cost than Craftworld shining spears. Or place the points increase on the Ynarri HQ's.
Or just change the mechanic entirely, it's a nightmare to balance.
I think they should actually just lower the cost of psykers and nerf the psy powers since they have so many that can stack.
No unit will ever be balanced when it can be fortuned, doomed, guided, quickened and concelaed all at the same time. Lower the effects (and points) of those powers.
The probability of Spikey Bits click-bait being correct or even "genuine" rumours is about as high as all-Terminator mono-Grey Knights winning the next Grand Tournament.
The funniest thing is alot of that just sounds like they read the Nova results thread.
Also that's a lot of things getting emergency points increases ahead of CA, which is GW self decreed points rebalancing method with FAQ's only dealing with emergency situations.
Talos will be up +25 points
Agents of Vect Will be once per turn, not once per phase.
CP farming is getting nerfed -no clear idea just yet
Shining Spears getting points increase
Castellan is going to be over 700 points
Sunny Side Up wrote: The probability of Spikey Bits click-bait being correct or even "genuine" rumours is about as high as all-Terminator mono-Grey Knights winning the next Grand Tournament.
Hahahaha, that cracked me up!
Completely and 100% right though. I think i'll wait for a more reputable source.
Talos will be up +25 points
Agents of Vect Will be once per turn, not once per phase.
CP farming is getting nerfed -no clear idea just yet
Shining Spears getting points increase
Castellan is going to be over 700 points
Also that's a lot of things getting emergency points increases ahead of CA, which is GW self decreed points rebalancing method with FAQ's only dealing with emergency situations.
How many units is he suggesting?
As for the points increase, it's so they can "test" them before C.A and then reduce the cost again in C.A. to get people hyped to buy it!
If blasters, ravagers and grotesques don't go up to I have no idea what game GW is looking at.
That being said I'm holding off on judgement as to GWs ability to balance the game until after CA. My guess is they have to hold off on some things that are going to happen in CA so this can't be the fix to end all fixes. Especially since GW is still sending things to printers so most likely the CA stuff was done BEFORE this FAQ...
Ice_can wrote: The funniest thing is alot of that just sounds like they read the Nova results thread.
Also that's a lot of things getting emergency points increases ahead of CA, which is GW self decreed points rebalancing method with FAQ's only dealing with emergency situations.
To be fair, there did end up being points changes in the big FAQ. Sure, not masses of them. But some.
OK, they're never going to completely redo the whole CP generation. As it is, there's a huge divide between people who actually even READ the FAQs. Anyone developing a new formula for CP is in for dissapointment. GW isn't going to go through the effort in explaining a new system.
The simplest solution is keeping CPs in their respective detachment. If it gets addressed at all.
This is GW were talking about. The same ones that though Rule of Three would balance spam.
abyrn wrote: So GW continues to play whack a mole with the Craftworld codex to keep Ynarri balanced...
I would prefer if Ynarri shining spears had a different cost than Craftworld shining spears. Or place the points increase on the Ynarri HQ's.
Or just change the mechanic entirely, it's a nightmare to balance.
The "whack-a-mole" analogy is quite apt. I won't be able to not think of it like this now.
And agreed, Ynnari just needs a true codex with particular datasheets rather than cherry-picking for the other books.
So you'd have a CWE Spears unit entry and a Ynnari Spears unit entry. Each with their own rules and points.
It's also be a good opportunity to retool SfD
Also that's a lot of things getting emergency points increases ahead of CA, which is GW self decreed points rebalancing method with FAQ's only dealing with emergency situations.
How many units is he suggesting?
As for the points increase, it's so they can "test" them before C.A and then reduce the cost again in C.A. to get people hyped to buy it!
C.A. is most likely done already heading to the printers now or close to it. There is not really any time to get any meaningful tests from the FAQ that could influence C.A. Also, its important for most folks to note that C.A. is probably going to fix a lot of points issues as it is, so this FAQ would only be fixing ones that GW feels they "missed" in C.A. or they are doing an early correction for those units.
bananathug wrote: If blasters, ravagers and grotesques don't go up to I have no idea what game GW is looking at.
That being said I'm holding off on judgement as to GWs ability to balance the game until after CA. My guess is they have to hold off on some things that are going to happen in CA so this can't be the fix to end all fixes. Especially since GW is still sending things to printers so most likely the CA stuff was done BEFORE this FAQ...
You are more wrong than anyone, Blaster are fine, MELTA needs to go down to Blaster level, there is a reason NO ONE takes Melta and only "some" players takes Blasters (all tournament winning lists DONT take Blasters).
To add, DC should be 20pts, Ravager points are fine, the Dissie at 15pts wll make the 125pt Ravager 140pts, thats perfect, if you go to much over its not even worth playing, b.c you can just take a Reaper and give it +1 Toughness for a better vehicle.
I think one of the things GW should do is say that once an army has its own codex the index data sheets for that army are no longer available in matched play. I know that this will upset people who are using legacy models but this edition change happened more than a year ago. If you can't afford to update your army then just play open or narrative play games. The whole codex/index thing is confusing and adding unneeded complexity to the game at this point.
Just wishing that they decide to use a good few pages of CA2018 to reprint all the point values, as otherwise this becomes a mess.
I wish to take unit X, so I check the codex, then check CA2017 in case it was revised, then check the FAQs, in order in case one supersedes another, then check CA2018, just in case.
would actually be something to make CA very useful, an annual adjustment where needed and re-print of all point values
Talos up 25 is to low. It’s gets T7 and 4++ with more or less no effort. That the same stats as a hive tyrant. Has anybody done the math on what it takes to remove 9 talos with t7 and 4++. Either they raise the price in talos with more then 25p or they have to raise the price on other things buffing it to. It’s cheaoer then a carnifex and are twice as good.
Haywire weapons feels to cheap for what they do. 15p for a cannon doing mortal wound on 4+ and a d3 on 6+, that’s in addition to any other damage.. That’s bonkers. 270p for 6 skyweavers shooting 6d6 haywire shots. That is killing anything in the game if it has doom in it. Could almost kill anything even without doom. Should maybe change the wording to “wound vehicles on 2+. If wounding on 6+ doing 1 mortal wound in addition to any other damage). That feels more reasonable for 15p. Even a Heavy venom cannon is 25p and it’s not even close imo.
bananathug wrote: If blasters, ravagers and grotesques don't go up to I have no idea what game GW is looking at.
That being said I'm holding off on judgement as to GWs ability to balance the game until after CA. My guess is they have to hold off on some things that are going to happen in CA so this can't be the fix to end all fixes. Especially since GW is still sending things to printers so most likely the CA stuff was done BEFORE this FAQ...
You are more wrong than anyone, Blaster are fine, MELTA needs to go down to Blaster level, there is a reason NO ONE takes Melta and only "some" players takes Blasters (all tournament winning lists DONT take Blasters).
To add, DC should be 20pts, Ravager points are fine, the Dissie at 15pts wll make the 125pt Ravager 140pts, thats perfect, if you go to much over its not even worth playing, b.c you can just take a Reaper and give it +1 Toughness for a better vehicle.
Yeah, blasters should have been dissies. Blasters are cheap but I agree are more of a boogyman than those stupid cannons. I just can't look at the prices of marine weapons and then eldar weapons and keep my thoughts straight yeah, ravagers at 140-150 seems fair.
I think this FAQ will be used to address the stuff they missed in C.A. like the rest of you. Curious what we will be able to learn about what's coming in CA from the FAQ.
leopard wrote: Just wishing that they decide to use a good few pages of CA2018 to reprint all the point values, as otherwise this becomes a mess.
Not disagreeing, but unfortunately I know this won't happen. If they were to reprint all of the point values in CA2018, they would very likely lose individual codex sales.
leopard wrote: Just wishing that they decide to use a good few pages of CA2018 to reprint all the point values, as otherwise this becomes a mess.
Not disagreeing, but unfortunately I know this won't happen. If they were to reprint all of the point values in CA2018, they would very likely lose individual codex sales.
SG
Aware its unlikely, mores the pity.
but then I also wish they went back to printing this stuff to be split and stuck in a binder.
jesper77 wrote: Talos up 25 is to low. It’s gets T7 and 4++ with more or less no effort.
You mean besides consuming its chapter tactic, as well as keeping within 6" of a target that anyone with two functioning neurons is going to snipe out immediately.
Sure, as long as one ignores all the psychic bs tyrants can do. I'll happily take an increased point cost increase on a Talos if I can Cast 2, Deny 1 and impart a -1 to all psyker rolls for my enemies. Oh and make its buddies immune to morale.
jesper77 wrote: It’s cheaoer then a carnifex and are twice as good.
Bahahahaha
Oh, you were serious. That's unfortunate. And hilariously inaccurate.
leopard wrote: Just wishing that they decide to use a good few pages of CA2018 to reprint all the point values, as otherwise this becomes a mess.
Not disagreeing, but unfortunately I know this won't happen. If they were to reprint all of the point values in CA2018, they would very likely lose individual codex sales.
SG
Tobad its not something we can ever test (or would get data on from GW) but I see no reason why points in CA would cost codex sales. The points are useless without the rules which are still limited to the codex.
leopard wrote: Just wishing that they decide to use a good few pages of CA2018 to reprint all the point values, as otherwise this becomes a mess.
Not disagreeing, but unfortunately I know this won't happen. If they were to reprint all of the point values in CA2018, they would very likely lose individual codex sales.
SG
Aware its unlikely, mores the pity.
but then I also wish they went back to printing this stuff to be split and stuck in a binder.
and thats not going to happen anytime soon either
Can we settle on a hope for a middle ground of all amended points values being printed together - plus the points (and rules?) for models which have been released without a book entry (Marbo, Eisenhorn, at least) - so at least there's one central source for the amended costs? Worst case is then after the Spring FAQ, where you may need to check Codex + latest CA + Spring FAQ, as opposed to just Codex + latest CA...
leopard wrote: Just wishing that they decide to use a good few pages of CA2018 to reprint all the point values, as otherwise this becomes a mess.
Not disagreeing, but unfortunately I know this won't happen. If they were to reprint all of the point values in CA2018, they would very likely lose individual codex sales.
SG
Aware its unlikely, mores the pity.
but then I also wish they went back to printing this stuff to be split and stuck in a binder.
and thats not going to happen anytime soon either
Can we settle on a hope for a middle ground of all amended points values being printed together - plus the points (and rules?) for models which have been released without a book entry (Marbo, Eisenhorn, at least) - so at least there's one central source for the amended costs? Worst case is then after the Spring FAQ, where you may need to check Codex + latest CA + Spring FAQ, as opposed to just Codex + latest CA...
Can we settle on a hope for a middle ground of all amended points values being printed together - plus the points (and rules?) for models which have been released without a book entry (Marbo, Eisenhorn, at least) - so at least there's one central source for the amended costs? Worst case is then after the Spring FAQ, where you may need to check Codex + latest CA + Spring FAQ, as opposed to just Codex + latest CA...
But that way gw can't sell 2 books for point changes. Which is why i'm worried they won't reprint ca2017 points
All the more reason my cheat sheets feature a line of text in the bottom corner of what updates are applied to that cheat sheet. My current ones read: "August 2018 Edition (CA17, FAQ18)" --- so I'll keep updating them with FAQ/Chapter Approved. It's slightly time consuming to start, but has been an absolute life saver.
Agreed. I would be totally lost amongst all the errata and point changes without it. The sooner GW get their act together and release their own the better. (And I don't mean that unusable Combat Roster crap).
100% Agree. It's an invaluable resource for me at this point, but as always it's still good to check the sources from the codex itself. Mistakes DO happen and they can be big mistakes sometimes.
And it's not like the books have lasting value anyway, so I say scribble away. Although I use stick notes personally. And I print out FAQs and put them in the books
Scribbles, post its, etc are all well and good for your list, but battlescribe offers you the ability to check your opponents list and rules. A quick 5 minutes during set up and you can recreate your opponents list. Saves time in the long run and ensures a clean game.
mokoshkana wrote: Scribbles, post its, etc are all well and good for your list, but battlescribe offers you the ability to check your opponents list and rules. A quick 5 minutes during set up and you can recreate your opponents list. Saves time in the long run and ensures a clean game.
Yeah I often do this when I hear something that sounds fishy or playing someone who seems off. I can very easily pull up the unit and question and give it a look. If they're right then no problems all drama avoided because I never needed to address it. If they're wrong I can ask them for their information. This process can skip that awkward "Hey can you show me where it says that?" situation if they are right.
I just wish Battle scribe wasn't so dang hard to read. I hate the format. When an opponent hands me a BS print out, I just look at it for 1 second, give it back and ask "Ok, so tell me about your army? What's in it, and what can it do?"
The sad part is that I think you can adjust the format to be far more readable, but no one does
Battlescribe seems to be pretty consistently correct, at least in 8th. Have there really been that many issues? It's not like GWs books are particularly error free either.
LunarSol wrote: Battlescribe seems to be pretty consistently correct, at least in 8th. Have there really been that many issues? It's not like GWs books are particularly error free either.
I may give BS a try for 8E. I've heard some horror stories from prior editions, but the format of 8E may be a bit more easy to translate for BS, so it might not be bad.
But it still feel faster and more accurate with my book, calculator, paper and pen.
Battlescribe mostly has errors in units that are rarely used.
Most common error is probably missing wargear like pistols or close combat weapons on units that have other primary roles.
There also is the issue of some units being allowed to be added from the index, despite GW being quite clear that they have been replaced by codex datasheets - because the rule writers want to enable people to use battlescribe if their TO rules otherwise. Some people will see this as legitimization to field them anywhere.
LunarSol wrote: Battlescribe seems to be pretty consistently correct, at least in 8th. Have there really been that many issues? It's not like GWs books are particularly error free either.
I may give BS a try for 8E. I've heard some horror stories from prior editions, but the format of 8E may be a bit more easy to translate for BS, so it might not be bad. But it still feel faster and more accurate with my book, calculator, paper and pen.
The UI is quite terrible and would make some of my UX colleagues cry if I showed it to them. (UX experts are people who get paid to make user interfaces easier to use) You get used to it though, and even the terrible UI is better than pen&paper. The most important feature not the UI, but the constantly updated data available through auto-update. That alone is what sets Battlescribe apart from all competition.
Is BS free to download?
Yes.
How often does it update?
All the time Depends on the guy maintaining your faction, but usually within a day or three.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I think one of the things GW should do is say that once an army has its own codex the index data sheets for that army are no longer available in matched play. I know that this will upset people who are using legacy models but this edition change happened more than a year ago. If you can't afford to update your army then just play open or narrative play games. The whole codex/index thing is confusing and adding unneeded complexity to the game at this point.
The edition may have been around for just over a year but the game itself has not. In the nicest possible way you can sod off with that suggestion.
Playing necrons I have never come across errors in BS in 8th or 7th.
I have only good things to say about data correctness, the mobild app can become tediously slow at times, depending on how many rosters you have and if you synchronize with dropbox.
Which makes mem tear out my hair from times to times. But I couldn't live without it.
Galef wrote: Better for phone or desktop? Or does that come down to user preference?
I prefer computer, but have gotten used to the UI for mobile. I think the computer version is faster and easier to navigate and select wargear.
Its easier to use at the computer but I have no problems to use it at my iPhone.
On the other hand, the AoS app is quite nice. Much better than battlescribe on handy.
Galef wrote: Better for phone or desktop? Or does that come down to user preference?
Personally I use phone version only for checking rules if codex isn't available(codex is more convenient for me checking rules). For designing list the PC version beats the phone's sub menu after sub menu selection. Though even PC version has it's issues in UI though albeit that might be personal preferences(me I would rather have "this unit has X plasma pistols" rather than set up 5 specific dudes with plasma weapons. Fun when you have 10 guys you need to select gear manually for EVERY SINGLE GUY. That drives me nuts. But at least PC version isn't back-forth flipping sub menus after sub menu).
Only thing I dislike about any Craftworld change is that a lot of them are done with Ynnari in mind. I do not want to be forced to play Ynnari, but if an army is balanced around Ynnari I fear that is a path I must eventually accept.
Well, that's inherently a problem with a lot of the stuff targeted for potential nerfs.
Talos/Grotesques aren't badly priced if you're NOT taking Prophets of Flesh. But GW clearly failed to grasp how powerful the change from a 5++ to a 4++ is (also applies to Knights' Ion Bulwark, which is literally the Warlord Trait everyone takes, because it's just flat out the best, i.e. badly internally balanced).
Shining Spears are pretty laughable at 31 points per model, if you run them as Ulthwe or whatever. It's basically a fast Primaris Marine at twice the price. But the buffs and especially the double activation isn't "priced" into it.
A House Terryn or something Castellan in an all-Knight army with, dunno, 9 CP of which half are gone before the game is not a problem. It's the combo, CPs and the House Raven strat, which in turn is probably nothing to write home about on an Armiger, but just insane on a Castellan and thus shouldn't be identical in CP for either one, is just silly.
Tide of Traitors is cute on 10 cultists, but game-deciding on 40. How they are the same CP costs is beyond me.
At this point it would be better to have all chapter/craftworld/etc traits removed as they are far from equal. I really dislike the fact that Craftworlds are often balanced around Alaitoc traits, but I play exclusively Saim-hann.
Or here is a novel idea: What if you actually paid points for your army trait? This way Alaitoc trait will be more expensive than the Ulthwe trait.
Regarding Ynnari they just need their own codex with their own point cost for everything. They should, if anything, just give Ynnari its own point costs in CA18
rather then getting rid of index units (and rememebr we need entires for inqusitors, sisters of silence, Ynnari etc before that happens) I'd rather once they released everything and rendered the index "obselete" they'd stop printing it and put out a "Index: X" online as a PDF of all the legacy units etc. So if say they did that in december now that Space Marines are complete (now that space Wolves are out the index is done unless we're getting codex legion of the damned) they stop selling Index 1: Space Marines, and instead put a PDF up called "Index Astartes" that contains data sheets for Legion of the damned, the various bike options etc.
Eldarsif wrote: At this point it would be better to have all chapter/craftworld/etc traits removed as they are far from equal. I really dislike the fact that Craftworlds are often balanced around Alaitoc traits, but I play exclusively Saim-hann.
Or here is a novel idea: What if you actually paid points for your army trait? This way Alaitoc trait will be more expensive than the Ulthwe trait.
Regarding Ynnari they just need their own codex with their own point cost for everything. They should, if anything, just give Ynnari its own point costs in CA18
It wouldn't be entirely unprecedented actually. It would be similar to paying points for battalions is AoS.
Eldarsif wrote: At this point it would be better to have all chapter/craftworld/etc traits removed as they are far from equal. I really dislike the fact that Craftworlds are often balanced around Alaitoc traits, but I play exclusively Saim-hann.
Or here is a novel idea: What if you actually paid points for your army trait? This way Alaitoc trait will be more expensive than the Ulthwe trait.
Regarding Ynnari they just need their own codex with their own point cost for everything. They should, if anything, just give Ynnari its own point costs in CA18
It wouldn't be entirely unprecedented actually. It would be similar to paying points for battalions is AoS.
paying points for chapter tactics seems good in practice but you know we'd see stupid things like "Raven Guard Chapter tactics: 5 points. Black Templar chapter tactics: 25 points"
Eldarsif wrote: At this point it would be better to have all chapter/craftworld/etc traits removed as they are far from equal. I really dislike the fact that Craftworlds are often balanced around Alaitoc traits, but I play exclusively Saim-hann.
Or here is a novel idea: What if you actually paid points for your army trait? This way Alaitoc trait will be more expensive than the Ulthwe trait.
Regarding Ynnari they just need their own codex with their own point cost for everything. They should, if anything, just give Ynnari its own point costs in CA18
It wouldn't be entirely unprecedented actually. It would be similar to paying points for battalions is AoS.
paying points for chapter tactics seems good in practice but you know we'd see stupid things like "Raven Guard Chapter tactics: 5 points. Black Templar chapter tactics: 25 points"
Yeah... I don't actually play AoS, but I was following all this stuff. As I understand it Battalions were free at first so were ludicrously powerful, then they gave everything huge point costs and more or less all of them were unusable, and then they scaled down the points a bit and now for each army there are a handful that are just about worth it and loads that are still unusably expensive.
Eldarsif wrote: At this point it would be better to have all chapter/craftworld/etc traits removed as they are far from equal. I really dislike the fact that Craftworlds are often balanced around Alaitoc traits, but I play exclusively Saim-hann.
Or here is a novel idea: What if you actually paid points for your army trait? This way Alaitoc trait will be more expensive than the Ulthwe trait.
Regarding Ynnari they just need their own codex with their own point cost for everything. They should, if anything, just give Ynnari its own point costs in CA18
It wouldn't be entirely unprecedented actually. It would be similar to paying points for battalions is AoS.
paying points for chapter tactics seems good in practice but you know we'd see stupid things like "Raven Guard Chapter tactics: 5 points. Black Templar chapter tactics: 25 points"
Yeah... I don't actually play AoS, but I was following all this stuff. As I understand it Battalions were free at first so were ludicrously powerful, then they gave everything huge point costs and more or less all of them were unusable, and then they scaled down the points a bit and now for each army there are a handful that are just about worth it and loads that are still unusably expensive.
Is that about right?
dunno I've never played AoS, I'm just cynically commenting on their history with pointing in 40k, also a points cost for CT would be difficult as CTs would be in many cases a force multiplier, consider the challanges GW has with Gulliman, pointing him correctly is almost impossiable because he acts as a force multiplier so in addition to his (admittingly beefy) combat stats the guy enhances every unit around him. This IMHO is going to be one of the biggest challanges for GW going forward from 8th edition, with auras, buffs etc, HQ units aren't just the beat sticks they where in previous editions, but are now force multipliers. some of which are VERY good. How do you point a unit whose primary purpose is to make his entire army "twice as good"?
dunno I've never played AoS, I'm just cynically commenting on their history with pointing in 40k, also a points cost for CT would be difficult as CTs would be in many cases a force multiplier, consider the challanges GW has with Gulliman, pointing him correctly is almost impossiable because he acts as a force multiplier so in addition to his (admittingly beefy) combat stats the guy enhances every unit around him. This IMHO is going to be one of the biggest challanges for GW going forward from 8th edition, with auras, buffs etc, HQ units aren't just the beat sticks they where in previous editions, but are now force multipliers. some of which are VERY good. How do you point a unit whose primary purpose is to make his entire army "twice as good"?
I agree with this and why I feel like the traits in general must be revisited completely. The Alaitoc buff, for example, should be rangers(perhaps troops) only, which would make it easier to balance or give points to if that path is chosen. Much like the current Saim-hann rule is very much limited to bikes only.
I feel like indiscriminate buffs(like the Alaitoc one) tend to be too large of a force multiplier and wildcard that they become impossible to buff. If they are kept to a minimum they are much more easier to handle. Same kinda goes for Roboute. If he was just buffing select units he would be much easier to balance.
I do agree that all the traits are imbalanced across all armies; it shoehorns people to choose specific ones in a competitive setting.
I think you would see a radical shift if they made it where only the primary detachment got the benefits of a craftworld/god/whatever, or added some points or something. Really they should have made it fluffier; for example, if I want to run World Eaters, then I need a minimum of 3 Berzerker troops in this detachment, or Ravenwing needs 3 bike squads which are troops, etc. Leaving it open as it is is what breaks so many factions.
One example would be Alpha Legion; should be everything must be chaos undivided, and no use of the legion elite choices (noise, zerkers, or plagues). Then one of their benefits would be that you can infiltrate one squad for free, and the army gets -1 to hit on all Infantry, Walkers, and Demon Princes. Demon princes cannot have marks, etc. Yes, it limits options for the army as a whole, but the -1 hit benefits outweigh being able to choose certain options.
I really think they made the game too open ended, which is leading to these imbalances.
My only problem with 40K sub-faction traits is how little important they are with how you play your faction, and normally, how badly they reflect the "fluff" of that sub-faction. The Dark Angels one, for example... is so... boring and... meh.
AoS is much more imaginative with the special rules of their armies. The balance is way off as a result, but welp. Both AoS and 40k work in a casual setting. And in that context, imaginative rules are more fun.
I would love it if GW followed FFG and issued an app, and all point values were in the APP. And said app was an army builder. It would fix a lot of issues. And they could rebalance easily. These Units have changed cost, your old saved armies with the old points have been marked invalid, redo those lists and reprint them out to play he most up to date 40K.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Well, that's inherently a problem with a lot of the stuff targeted for potential nerfs.
Talos/Grotesques aren't badly priced if you're NOT taking Prophets of Flesh. But GW clearly failed to grasp how powerful the change from a 5++ to a 4++ is (also applies to Knights' Ion Bulwark, which is literally the Warlord Trait everyone takes, because it's just flat out the best, i.e. badly internally balanced).
Shining Spears are pretty laughable at 31 points per model, if you run them as Ulthwe or whatever. It's basically a fast Primaris Marine at twice the price. But the buffs and especially the double activation isn't "priced" into it.
A House Terryn or something Castellan in an all-Knight army with, dunno, 9 CP of which half are gone before the game is not a problem. It's the combo, CPs and the House Raven strat, which in turn is probably nothing to write home about on an Armiger, but just insane on a Castellan and thus shouldn't be identical in CP for either one, is just silly.
Tide of Traitors is cute on 10 cultists, but game-deciding on 40. How they are the same CP costs is beyond me.
Etc..
Etc..
what's sad is they have done it occasionally, for example the Deathwing trait. Costs 1 CP for a 5 man sqd, but automatically jumps to 3 CP for 6-10 (which is ridiculous when you compare to the strength of other strats). So, why couldn't Tide of Traitors be 1CP for 10 cultists, 2CP for 11-20 cultists and 3CP for 21-40?
If you are going to pay points for a trait, and I don't think thats a bad idea as it happens then it really needs to be paying a percentage of the cost of the models it would apply to, and apply a "power level" cost to the force as a whole for those just playing power points or for where power points are used in victory conditions etc (its not granular enough to do it per unit I don't think)
e.g. this trait adds 5%, that one maybe 7%.
would be a perfect way into a GW army builder, pick your trait and it can adjust the cost of whatever so a Raven Guard Interbanannnanna squad costs "x" while a plain one without a train costs "y", and a blood angels one costs "z" - the sort of thing a roster builder can easily manage and the codex can just list as text next to the chapter traits (other factions also available)
leopard wrote: If you are going to pay points for a trait, and I don't think thats a bad idea as it happens then it really needs to be paying a percentage of the cost of the models it would apply to, and apply a "power level" cost to the force as a whole for those just playing power points or for where power points are used in victory conditions etc (its not granular enough to do it per unit I don't think)
e.g. this trait adds 5%, that one maybe 7%.
would be a perfect way into a GW army builder, pick your trait and it can adjust the cost of whatever so a Raven Guard Interbanannnanna squad costs "x" while a plain one without a train costs "y", and a blood angels one costs "z" - the sort of thing a roster builder can easily manage and the codex can just list as text next to the chapter traits (other factions also available)
You could also just have the traits cost points depending on game size. More traits, more costs - boom, a reason to run mono armies.
leopard wrote: If you are going to pay points for a trait, and I don't think thats a bad idea as it happens then it really needs to be paying a percentage of the cost of the models it would apply to, and apply a "power level" cost to the force as a whole for those just playing power points or for where power points are used in victory conditions etc (its not granular enough to do it per unit I don't think)
e.g. this trait adds 5%, that one maybe 7%.
would be a perfect way into a GW army builder, pick your trait and it can adjust the cost of whatever so a Raven Guard Interbanannnanna squad costs "x" while a plain one without a train costs "y", and a blood angels one costs "z" - the sort of thing a roster builder can easily manage and the codex can just list as text next to the chapter traits (other factions also available)
They would never do something percentage related because it leads to fractions and it stops list building being simple addition when it comes to points. I could see them potentially having a small table for a cost per trait per unit type, i.e. this trait costs 5pts per fast attack unit but 8 points per heavy support units. Though I'm sure they'd want to go for a simpler solution if they did introduce something like that. They want the game to be accessible and while making list building more complex may solve problems it adds barriers to entry that will turn some players away. GW wants to minimise barriers to entry because more barriers mean less sales.
The UI is quite terrible and would make some of my UX colleagues cry if I showed it to them. (UX experts are people who get paid to make user interfaces easier to use)
You get used to it though, and even the terrible UI is better than pen&paper.
The most important feature not the UI, but the constantly updated data available through auto-update. That alone is what sets Battlescribe apart from all competition.
This is all very true. Particularly the bit about the UI bringing me to tears.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: What you are suggesting is what Privateer Press does for its themes. It restricts choices but gives some benefits for those restrictions.
Yeah! And we can give a name to those restricted choices. Perhaps something like... Formations! That'll work. You can take a restricted list of models in exchange for rule bonuses. What could go wrong!
Generally speaking, GW has the right idea; they just have to figure out how to sort through their baggage. GW has been making "theme forces" for years by taking models, giving them a different paint scheme and calling them a new faction. The more recent versions of this like DW and Genestealers and the separated out Chaos Legions have pretty well thought out designs top to bottom built on the bedrock of pretty limited model selection.
Where they seem to be struggling most is applying this design to hugely bloated legacy factions. What would really work, IMO is using the traits to give incentives to take different kinds of units. Orks seem like the obvious example to me, but if you had one Klan whose buff only applied to vehicles and another that only appllied to Meks, etc so that different subdivisions would enable them to apply buffs to pieces of these armies as needed.
Sure, the obvious complain would be that players would feel like they could ONLY run Centurions in Crimson Fists or that Bikers only work in White Scars or something, but with the ability to mix detachments I think it would lead to some pretty exciting list directions and gameplay. I feel like this works pretty well for most of the game, with the biggest hurdle being the way they've isolated Space Marine players under the idea that they're whole army has one gimmick. The rest of the game seems a little happier to accept a bit more diversity in their unit roles.
Stux wrote: Yeah... I don't actually play AoS, but I was following all this stuff. As I understand it Battalions were free at first so were ludicrously powerful, then they gave everything huge point costs and more or less all of them were unusable, and then they scaled down the points a bit and now for each army there are a handful that are just about worth it and loads that are still unusably expensive.
Is that about right?
Not quite...
Battalions were originally AoS's implementation of the 40k formation mechanic but unlike 40k, once AoS finally got a points system the battalions got a points cost.
They have changed gradually over time though: in the Sylvaneth Battletome there were two kinds: formations of a few specific units with a couple of special rules attached, and ones that consisted of one of those small formations plus 0-infinity other sylvaneth units that slightly modified the benefit of the tiny formation and conferred other buffs or special rules, the latter were basically chapter tactic equivalents.
Currently, they're moving more towards 40ks implementation, free chapter tactic-like abilities that confer certain bonuses but require you to take certain artefacts or command traits, with battalions back to being the small formations.
Generally speaking battalions are good force multipliers even now, cheap enough that their equal points in units arent usually better, but expensive enough that you aught to spend time thinking about how to maximize their benefit.
Their big problem is that they're almost always undercosted when the book first drops and usually don't get bumped until the General's Handbook comes out.
Stux wrote: Yeah... I don't actually play AoS, but I was following all this stuff. As I understand it Battalions were free at first so were ludicrously powerful, then they gave everything huge point costs and more or less all of them were unusable, and then they scaled down the points a bit and now for each army there are a handful that are just about worth it and loads that are still unusably expensive.
Is that about right?
Not quite...
Battalions were originally AoS's implementation of the 40k formation mechanic but unlike 40k, once AoS finally got a points system the battalions got a points cost.
They have changed gradually over time though: in the Sylvaneth Battletome there were two kinds: formations of a few specific units with a couple of special rules attached, and ones that consisted of one of those small formations plus 0-infinity other sylvaneth units that slightly modified the benefit of the tiny formation and conferred other buffs or special rules, the latter were basically chapter tactic equivalents.
Currently, they're moving more towards 40ks implementation, free chapter tactic-like abilities that confer certain bonuses but require you to take certain artefacts or chapter tactics, with battalions back to being the small formations.
Generally speaking battalions are good force multipliers even now, cheap enough that their equal points in units arent usually better, but expensive enough that you aught to spend time thinking about how to maximize their benefit.
Their big problem is that they're almost always undercosted when the book first drops and usually don't get bumped until the General's Handbook comes out.
Cool, so basically what I said without my pessimism
Leo_the_Rat wrote: What you are suggesting is what Privateer Press does for its themes. It restricts choices but gives some benefits for those restrictions.
Yeah! And we can give a name to those restricted choices. Perhaps something like... Formations! That'll work. You can take a restricted list of models in exchange for rule bonuses. What could go wrong!
This made me smile. But seriously, Formations could have worked if the bonuses were not so blatantly OP. 8E would actually be the BEST edition for formations as the only bonuses you'd need to give is Obsec on certain non-Troops and some additional CPs A Deathwing Formation, for example, could basically be a Battalion that treats DW Termies as Troops, or rather makes them the required units, give them ObSec and has 4-5 CPs Yes, you can use a Vangaurd detachment to take the same units, but without ObSec and more than 1 measly CP, why would you?
TL;DR: Formations could work in 8E if the extra bonuses were just CPs & Obsec
Stux wrote: Cool, so basically what I said without my pessimism
More or less, except they never really go down in points; GW seems to want people to take one in mid-sized games on average.
My point is, they did try to make chapter tactics a batallion thing you paid points for and didn't really like the result. New armies in AoS get those for free now, like armies in 40k always did.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: What you are suggesting is what Privateer Press does for its themes. It restricts choices but gives some benefits for those restrictions.
Yeah! And we can give a name to those restricted choices. Perhaps something like... Formations! That'll work. You can take a restricted list of models in exchange for rule bonuses. What could go wrong!
This made me smile.
But seriously, Formations could have worked if the bonuses were not so blatantly OP. 8E would actually be the BEST edition for formations as the only bonuses you'd need to give is Obsec on certain non-Troops and some additional CPs A Deathwing Formation, for example, could basically be a Battalion that treats DW Termies as Troops, or rather makes them the required units, give them ObSec and has 4-5 CPs Yes, you can use a Vangaurd detachment to take the same units, but without ObSec and more than 1 measly CP, why would you?
TL;DR: Formations could work in 8E if the extra bonuses were just CPs & Obsec
-
I agree. It's just that the word now tastes bitter. The problem was there were 50 formations that had taxes and were balanced. But the 5 formations everyone took broke the game. FoC is now essentially formations with CP bonuses. But, Faction specific formations could be fun if implemented correctly. I shan't hold my breath.
Sure, the obvious complain would be that players would feel like they could ONLY run Centurions in Crimson Fists or that Bikers only work in White Scars or something, but with the ability to mix detachments I think it would lead to some pretty exciting list directions and gameplay. I feel like this works pretty well for most of the game, with the biggest hurdle being the way they've isolated Space Marine players under the idea that they're whole army has one gimmick. The rest of the game seems a little happier to accept a bit more diversity in their unit roles.
How would mixing detachments give you sensible bikers that are NOT white scars? Or howabout white scar TACTICALS that are you know the core of white scars?
For that matter where are blood angel devastators? They have exact same amount of those as dark angels have. But if you look at rules you would think there are none...
Problem is these silly chapter traits etc that by their very nature drives toward unfluffy armies. Then add to that typical GW stupidity making them all free which ensures balance will never work...
End result is standard GW type of mess where balance just goes to hell.
Ideally, you'd build one large detatchment which was your army, or maybe 2. Then you'd pick one CT for it. Maybe add a second force of another Chapter or army, if you wanted.
Ideally, an army with Bikers and Devs would beat an all-BIkes army or an all-Devs army. Or, at least, be equally viable.
If those were true, you'd see BADevs and White Scar Tacs - just in formations with slightly more ASM/Bikes (respectively) than normal.
Unfortunately, instead of incentivising one-detatchement-with-lots-of-things, or even sharing a Trait across detatchements, the rules were written to incentivise as many detatchments as possible.
If there were a benefit to have 1 Battalion instead of a Brigade plus a Vanguard/Outrider/whatever, you'd see more White Scar troops (tacs, or maybe just Scouts) along with those White Scar bikes. Instead, the army gets more CP for bringing an Outrider White Scar detatchment for bikes, so their Tacs (and the rest of the Battalion) are UM or Sallies or whatever.
This is a core principle for why the game would be better if detatchments *cost* CP - even Battallions/Brigades. It's a soft nerf to Soup, as each additional faction requires addtional CP be payed - instead of getting more CP for further splitting up your forces.
I like my Marines to have ASM, Devs, and Tacs in their army. I want them all to be the same chapter. But the way the rules are written, there's too much incentive to use multiple detatchments and different CTs.
The chapter tactics would be better as an orders system that imperial guard have.
Captains, Leiutenants, etc can issue orders, which is bestowing the chapter tactic bonus to a unit, for the phase/player turn/game turn (depending).
It would also help marines be true generalists, as being a generalist should be defined by tactical flexibility, as you'd be able to select the appropriate tactic for the given turn. Maybe you're shooting at castled reapers and want imperial fists tactics, maybe you're advancing with bikes and want them to have white scars tactics, maybe you want to fall back and shoot, ultramarines tactics, etc.
Also, ATSKNF should be flat morale immunity. It's insane to me that Marines are barely more disciplined than imperial guard.
I'd just define it differently. Just define them as "Tactics". That way if you want to take a detachment of bikers for your Iron Hands but need to take the "White Scar" Tactics to make them work, cool do so. Make a list of tactics that facilitates the job of incentivizing a variety of detachment builds that combine to form an army and just don't assign it to a specific coat of paint. Then in the Chapter fluff sections, you can have at the top "Preferred Tactics" to give players an idea how they can build fluffy. That even gives you the option of listing multiple preferred tactics so that yes, you can do things like defining White Scars as a core of Tac marines that also include a detachment of Bikers or something like that.
LunarSol wrote: I'd just define it differently. Just define them as "Tactics". That way if you want to take a detachment of bikers for your Iron Hands but need to take the "White Scar" Tactics to make them work, cool do so. Make a list of tactics that facilitates the job of incentivizing a variety of detachment builds that combine to form an army and just don't assign it to a specific coat of paint. Then in the Chapter fluff sections, you can have at the top "Preferred Tactics" to give players an idea how they can build fluffy. That even gives you the option of listing multiple preferred tactics so that yes, you can do things like defining White Scars as a core of Tac marines that also include a detachment of Bikers or something like that.
Or you know, just get rid of the whole thing. It is just needless rule clutter. If certain units work best with certain special rules, then just give those units those rules as a default!
LunarSol wrote: I'd just define it differently. Just define them as "Tactics". That way if you want to take a detachment of bikers for your Iron Hands but need to take the "White Scar" Tactics to make them work, cool do so. Make a list of tactics that facilitates the job of incentivizing a variety of detachment builds that combine to form an army and just don't assign it to a specific coat of paint. Then in the Chapter fluff sections, you can have at the top "Preferred Tactics" to give players an idea how they can build fluffy. That even gives you the option of listing multiple preferred tactics so that yes, you can do things like defining White Scars as a core of Tac marines that also include a detachment of Bikers or something like that.
That's a solid idea.
I guess my point is there are already previously designed tools that marines have, which could be improved really without totally redefining the army. I don't think the answer is 9 point tacticals, for example.
Also, ATSKNF should be flat morale immunity. It's insane to me that Marines are barely more disciplined than imperial guard.
What? ATSKNF is already crazy reliable. I literally haven't lost a single marine to the morale in this edition.
To that end, I'd prefer ATSKNF to flat out ignore morale, not because they are "barely more disciplined than guard" but because it's "crazy reliable". 99% of the time we are just wasted time rolling the dice that we know will succeed. Unnecessary rolls are unnecessary
Also, ATSKNF should be flat morale immunity. It's insane to me that Marines are barely more disciplined than imperial guard.
What? ATSKNF is already crazy reliable. I literally haven't lost a single marine to the morale in this edition.
Because you build around a mechanic rather than allowing it to negatively impact your play. Saying you have a workaround to a problem, therefore it isn't a problem, is silly.
A 10 man death company unit has leadership 7.
If you lose 6 and roll a 3, you're losing 2. Do you re-roll that 3?
Marmatag wrote: A 10 man death company unit has leadership 7.
If you lose 6 and roll a 3, you're losing 2. Do you re-roll that 3?
You either spend 2 CPs to ignore entirely, or hop in a time machine and go back before your game started and split them into two 5-man units so you don't have to worry about loosing 6 models affected the other 4
Also, ATSKNF should be flat morale immunity. It's insane to me that Marines are barely more disciplined than imperial guard.
What? ATSKNF is already crazy reliable. I literally haven't lost a single marine to the morale in this edition.
To that end, I'd prefer ATSKNF to flat out ignore morale, not because they are "barely more disciplined than guard" but because it's "crazy reliable".
99% of the time we are just wasted time rolling the dice that we know will succeed.
Unnecessary rolls are unnecessary
Yeah, fair. That's a good argument for making it auto success.
Marmatag wrote: A 10 man death company unit has leadership 7.
If you lose 6 and roll a 3, you're losing 2. Do you re-roll that 3?
You either spend 2 CPs to ignore entirely, or hop in a time machine and go back before your game started and split them into two 5-man units so you don't have to worry about loosing 6 models affected the other 4
This seems like a flippant reply.
Stratagems like Descent encourage usage of 10 man units, or you're not getting your bang for your buck. And paying 2 CP to pass a morale test? Not everyone is imperial guard, with 17+ CP throughout the course of the game.
Saying marines never lose guys to morale is false. Deathwatch also suffer, because Kill Teams are generally better constructed as 10 mans for the ablative wounds.
Galef wrote: And the rule is "And they shall know NO fear" not "And they shall know fear only some of the time, but not usually"
The problem with this is - when you really dig down into it - what units should actually have fear?
Really it's just like...imperial gaurd and tau. Everyone else is ether a robot or a brainwashed zelot or at the very least - a veteran of 1000 battles.
Galef wrote: And the rule is "And they shall know NO fear" not "And they shall know fear only some of the time, but not usually"
The problem with this is - when you really dig down into it - what units should actually have fear?
Really it's just like...imperial gaurd and tau. Everyone else is ether a robot or a brainwashed zelot or at the very least - a veteran of 1000 battles.
Thats why I say that Morale in 40k was always anti fluffy and a bad mechanic. They are trying to make it work here because Fantasy had morale and it was very important. But morale in fantasy makes a ton of sense. Here it doesn't.
One example: Greenskins in Fantasy, they are very prone to run for their lives once they start losing or the warboss dies. In 40k? Orks are biological bio weapons that will fight to the death and practically never run.
As you said, only Imperial Guard (Unless they are Cadians or 80% of the other regiments that are the best of the best humanity has to offer and always hold the line) or Tau would be really affected by morale.
Galef wrote: And the rule is "And they shall know NO fear" not "And they shall know fear only some of the time, but not usually"
You have to read the rules as an abstraction. Them failing a leadership test doesn't necessarily mean they are fleeing in terror. It could be more like thinking the battle is lost and doing a more tactical retreat or dragging a brother to safety in the middle of a battle. SM "fall back" or do "fighting retreats" all the times in books. Having no fear and standing in the same spot getting cut down by fire are different things
Galef wrote: And the rule is "And they shall know NO fear" not "And they shall know fear only some of the time, but not usually"
You have to read the rules as an abstraction. Them failing a leadership test doesn't necessarily mean they are fleeing in terror. It could be more like thinking the battle is lost and doing a more tactical retreat or dragging a brother to safety in the middle of a battle. SM "fall back" or do "fighting retreats" all the times in books. Having no fear and standing in the same spot getting cut down by fire are different things
This is what the rulebook does such a bad job of explaining, but was talked over a fair bit when 8e was just coming out and the new mechanics of ld where revealed. Those Necrons aren’t running away, they’re teleporting out of the battlefield for repairs like the oldcron phase rules. Eldar and SM grab their fallen brethren to regroup and retreat, preparing for the next battle. Orks start hemorrhaging boyz not because they got scared but because some wandered off or got bored, making them no longer a force leveraged by the warboss. Morale has to be abstracted somewhat, but every faction has reasons for their troops losing even more manpower after suffering squad losses.
LunarSol wrote: I'd just define it differently. Just define them as "Tactics". That way if you want to take a detachment of bikers for your Iron Hands but need to take the "White Scar" Tactics to make them work, cool do so. Make a list of tactics that facilitates the job of incentivizing a variety of detachment builds that combine to form an army and just don't assign it to a specific coat of paint. Then in the Chapter fluff sections, you can have at the top "Preferred Tactics" to give players an idea how they can build fluffy. That even gives you the option of listing multiple preferred tactics so that yes, you can do things like defining White Scars as a core of Tac marines that also include a detachment of Bikers or something like that.
then why even bother with this? chapter tactics aren't supposed to be a way to super charge and army but are a way to diffrentiate the army to represent various subfactions. which IMHO is where chapter tactics problem lies, it originated as a nice way to diffrentiate the various space marine chapters, chaos needed them as well but it swiftly got out of hand with 8th edition when EVERYONE got fething CT
LunarSol wrote: I'd just define it differently. Just define them as "Tactics". That way if you want to take a detachment of bikers for your Iron Hands but need to take the "White Scar" Tactics to make them work, cool do so. Make a list of tactics that facilitates the job of incentivizing a variety of detachment builds that combine to form an army and just don't assign it to a specific coat of paint. Then in the Chapter fluff sections, you can have at the top "Preferred Tactics" to give players an idea how they can build fluffy. That even gives you the option of listing multiple preferred tactics so that yes, you can do things like defining White Scars as a core of Tac marines that also include a detachment of Bikers or something like that.
Or you know, just get rid of the whole thing. It is just needless rule clutter. If certain units work best with certain special rules, then just give those units those rules as a default!
This.
Or do it like daemons manged to do for their gods: "If this unit has the WHITE SCARS keyword, it can still charge in turn it fell back and adds 2" to its advance moves."
LunarSol wrote: I'd just define it differently. Just define them as "Tactics". That way if you want to take a detachment of bikers for your Iron Hands but need to take the "White Scar" Tactics to make them work, cool do so. Make a list of tactics that facilitates the job of incentivizing a variety of detachment builds that combine to form an army and just don't assign it to a specific coat of paint. Then in the Chapter fluff sections, you can have at the top "Preferred Tactics" to give players an idea how they can build fluffy. That even gives you the option of listing multiple preferred tactics so that yes, you can do things like defining White Scars as a core of Tac marines that also include a detachment of Bikers or something like that.
then why even bother with this? chapter tactics aren't supposed to be a way to super charge and army but are a way to diffrentiate the army to represent various subfactions. which IMHO is where chapter tactics problem lies, it originated as a nice way to diffrentiate the various space marine chapters, chaos needed them as well but it swiftly got out of hand with 8th edition when EVERYONE got fething CT
Why is that a bad thing? Between white scars and salamanders there are the same difference that there are between different craftworlds or different hive fleets.
Why is that a bad thing? Between white scars and salamanders there are the same difference that there are between different craftworlds or different hive fleets.
Those shouldn't have had the special rules either. It just doesn't work, one special rule set always end up being stronger than others and everyone will play that anyway or intentionally gimp themselves for fluff. I miss the time when marines were just marines and you could freely mix all the special characters (or your own versions of them, really) in one army.
Why is that a bad thing? Between white scars and salamanders there are the same difference that there are between different craftworlds or different hive fleets.
Those shouldn't have had the special rules either. It just doesn't work, one special rule set always end up being stronger than others and everyone will play that anyway or intentionally gimp themselves for fluff. I miss the time when marines were just marines and you could freely mix all the special characters (or your own versions of them, really) in one army.
Those days are gone, playing marines is going to become increasingly annoying I suspect as GW starts to push more fluff back into the game. Marines account for a significant proportion of the player base, the best way to sell more models is to force players to have multiple armies in different colours to meta chase.
Why is that a bad thing? Between white scars and salamanders there are the same difference that there are between different craftworlds or different hive fleets.
Those shouldn't have had the special rules either. It just doesn't work, one special rule set always end up being stronger than others and everyone will play that anyway or intentionally gimp themselves for fluff. I miss the time when marines were just marines and you could freely mix all the special characters (or your own versions of them, really) in one army.
Those days are gone, playing marines is going to become increasingly annoying I suspect as GW starts to push more fluff back into the game. Marines account for a significant proportion of the player base, the best way to sell more models is to force players to have multiple armies in different colours to meta chase.
I think it's simplier then that, in modern 40k parituclarly with the Horus Heresy etc, people are less "space marine fans" then "Imperial Fist" or "Ultramarines" etc fans. there's ALWAYS been an element of that but the various chap[ters and how they differ is seen as an important element of 40k. and people want that reflected in table top.
Why is that a bad thing? Between white scars and salamanders there are the same difference that there are between different craftworlds or different hive fleets.
Those shouldn't have had the special rules either. It just doesn't work, one special rule set always end up being stronger than others and everyone will play that anyway or intentionally gimp themselves for fluff. I miss the time when marines were just marines and you could freely mix all the special characters (or your own versions of them, really) in one army.
This is not necessarily true.
Nid fleets for example are quite balanced with each other, with Kraken being a bit better but with Leviathan, Kronos and Jormu seeing a lot of play.
Behemoth, hydra and Gorgon suffer a bit. This shows that it is possible to balance those traits, and when you do they shape a lot of the gameplay. Kraken lists play a lot differently than Jormu and Kronos.
Why is that a bad thing? Between white scars and salamanders there are the same difference that there are between different craftworlds or different hive fleets.
Those shouldn't have had the special rules either. It just doesn't work, one special rule set always end up being stronger than others and everyone will play that anyway or intentionally gimp themselves for fluff. I miss the time when marines were just marines and you could freely mix all the special characters (or your own versions of them, really) in one army.
This is not necessarily true.
Nid fleets for example are quite balanced with each other, with Kraken being a bit better but with Leviathan, Kronos and Jormu seeing a lot of play.
Behemoth, hydra and Gorgon suffer a bit. This shows that it is possible to balance those traits, and when you do they shape a lot of the gameplay. Kraken lists play a lot differently than Jormu and Kronos.
Behemoth is the Kraken of DSing melee, if multi-wound models were better on the table this would be the better choice.
IMO the Tyranids codex is one of the best balance codex (outside of a couple point costs MC's).
Nids are not balanced if you are considering tournaments. They have a win percentage on par with Space Marines. Knights and Custodes have really shut them out.
Most people run Kronos or Jormungandr now as the best Nid lists are shooting lists. Kraken is great for genestealers but paying marine prices for a 5+ save is a recipe for getting tabled.
Galef wrote: And the rule is "And they shall know NO fear" not "And they shall know fear only some of the time, but not usually"
You have to read the rules as an abstraction. Them failing a leadership test doesn't necessarily mean they are fleeing in terror. It could be more like thinking the battle is lost and doing a more tactical retreat or dragging a brother to safety in the middle of a battle. SM "fall back" or do "fighting retreats" all the times in books. Having no fear and standing in the same spot getting cut down by fire are different things
GW is damned if they do, damned if they don't. 7th ed and complain was marines ignoring morale. Now complain is they don't ignore morale. GW makes ATSKNF ignore morale and it will be complained anyway. Quite likely by same crowd for added fun.
Galef wrote: And the rule is "And they shall know NO fear" not "And they shall know fear only some of the time, but not usually"
You have to read the rules as an abstraction. Them failing a leadership test doesn't necessarily mean they are fleeing in terror. It could be more like thinking the battle is lost and doing a more tactical retreat or dragging a brother to safety in the middle of a battle. SM "fall back" or do "fighting retreats" all the times in books. Having no fear and standing in the same spot getting cut down by fire are different things
GW is damned if they do, damned if they don't. 7th ed and complain was marines ignoring morale. Now complain is they don't ignore morale. GW makes ATSKNF ignore morale and it will be complained anyway. Quite likely by same crowd for added fun.
Very true words. Literally anything GW could do, there's someone here who'd start a thread complaining about it. And it would probably go to 30 pages
Marmatag wrote: Nids are not balanced if you are considering tournaments. They have a win percentage on par with Space Marines. Knights and Custodes have really shut them out.
Most people run Kronos or Jormungandr now as the best Nid lists are shooting lists. Kraken is great for genestealers but paying marine prices for a 5+ save is a recipe for getting tabled.
Well the problem is that Tournaments themselves are extremely biased, having limited time and almost never going full 5+ rounds and having no or very little long term objectives completely hurts many armies and army types, then you have scored like what ITC does where killing characters is worth a point, killing large units is worth a point, etc... making people want to build lists to ignore those extra VP's.
You can not and should not say an army is or isnt balanced based on tournament standings, you can calculated some fairness and see if some units are extremely unbalanced, but over all its impossible.
And you shoudnt look at win percent without some type of curve base on number of armies taken. The win/lost rate might be worst only b.c more players are moving away from tyranids and we dont have a real sample size, with less players 1 bad player will skew it heavily compare to 100 imperial players.
Why do i think Tyranids is the more balanced codex? B.c out of all the codex's Tyranids has the most playable Traits, you see players using Jorm, Behemoth, Leviathan, Kronos, Kraken, you see Horde lists, you see Nidzilia lists, you see Shooting and Melee ones, what other MONO Codex do you see with that much diversity?
Marmatag wrote: Nids are not balanced if you are considering tournaments. They have a win percentage on par with Space Marines. Knights and Custodes have really shut them out.
Most people run Kronos or Jormungandr now as the best Nid lists are shooting lists. Kraken is great for genestealers but paying marine prices for a 5+ save is a recipe for getting tabled.
Well the problem is that Tournaments themselves are extremely biased, having limited time and almost never going full 5+ rounds and having no or very little long term objectives completely hurts many armies and army types, then you have scored like what ITC does where killing characters is worth a point, killing large units is worth a point, etc... making people want to build lists to ignore those extra VP's.
You can not and should not say an army is or isnt balanced based on tournament standings, you can calculated some fairness and see if some units are extremely unbalanced, but over all its impossible.
And you shoudnt look at win percent without some type of curve base on number of armies taken. The win/lost rate might be worst only b.c more players are moving away from tyranids and we dont have a real sample size, with less players 1 bad player will skew it heavily compare to 100 imperial players.
Why do i think Tyranids is the more balanced codex? B.c out of all the codex's Tyranids has the most playable Traits, you see players using Jorm, Behemoth, Leviathan, Kronos, Kraken, you see Horde lists, you see Nidzilia lists, you see Shooting and Melee ones, what other MONO Codex do you see with that much diversity?
All of my games end in a tabling /concession or go to turn 6. This is the norm for players at this point, as people have adapted to chess clocks.
The sample size is all ITC games in tournaments for the past 3 months. It's a huge sample size.
And honestly Nids aren't a late game army due to lack in durability. If games ended on turn 4 then Nids would be god mode. Ending early helps them, should you end early.
I agree Tyranids are in a decent place. You don't see quite as much of them at the top level because they aren't broken, which if anything is a sign of balance!
Even the rarely seen poorer units aren't generally that bad when compared to the worst of other armies. Take Lictors, they're a bit underwhelming. Then you remember they're the same cost as a Terminator and I start weeping for my Deathwing :-(
Galef wrote: And the rule is "And they shall know NO fear" not "And they shall know fear only some of the time, but not usually"
You have to read the rules as an abstraction. Them failing a leadership test doesn't necessarily mean they are fleeing in terror. It could be more like thinking the battle is lost and doing a more tactical retreat or dragging a brother to safety in the middle of a battle. SM "fall back" or do "fighting retreats" all the times in books. Having no fear and standing in the same spot getting cut down by fire are different things
GW is damned if they do, damned if they don't. 7th ed and complain was marines ignoring morale. Now complain is they don't ignore morale. GW makes ATSKNF ignore morale and it will be complained anyway. Quite likely by same crowd for added fun.
I imagine if marines weren't so easy to kill, losing some from morale (however it is abstracted) wouldn't be a concern.
As it stands, marines die easy. Being immune to morale serves to reduce the natural attrition marine units face when they get shot at, but it honestly shouldn't be THE solution. Marines should just be far more durable than they are now.
Hopefully Primaris is the answer, eventually. Probably need a 40k version of the Transhuman Physiology rule in Kill Team before that realistically starts to happen, though.
Marmatag wrote: Nids are not balanced if you are considering tournaments. They have a win percentage on par with Space Marines. Knights and Custodes have really shut them out.
Most people run Kronos or Jormungandr now as the best Nid lists are shooting lists. Kraken is great for genestealers but paying marine prices for a 5+ save is a recipe for getting tabled.
Well the problem is that Tournaments themselves are extremely biased, having limited time and almost never going full 5+ rounds and having no or very little long term objectives completely hurts many armies and army types, then you have scored like what ITC does where killing characters is worth a point, killing large units is worth a point, etc... making people want to build lists to ignore those extra VP's.
You can not and should not say an army is or isnt balanced based on tournament standings, you can calculated some fairness and see if some units are extremely unbalanced, but over all its impossible.
And you shoudnt look at win percent without some type of curve base on number of armies taken. The win/lost rate might be worst only b.c more players are moving away from tyranids and we dont have a real sample size, with less players 1 bad player will skew it heavily compare to 100 imperial players.
Why do i think Tyranids is the more balanced codex? B.c out of all the codex's Tyranids has the most playable Traits, you see players using Jorm, Behemoth, Leviathan, Kronos, Kraken, you see Horde lists, you see Nidzilia lists, you see Shooting and Melee ones, what other MONO Codex do you see with that much diversity?
All of my games end in a tabling /concession or go to turn 6. This is the norm for players at this point, as people have adapted to chess clocks.
The sample size is all ITC games in tournaments for the past 3 months. It's a huge sample size.
And honestly Nids aren't a late game army due to lack in durability. If games ended on turn 4 then Nids would be god mode. Ending early helps them, should you end early.
I never said Nids are a late game army, i said other armies are not meta due to there is no late game.
And you didnt answer me, what other armies has the diversity as nids? You dont see 10 different SM list, or IG ones, its all the same 3-4 lists with 1-2 units that are different.
Balance also doesnt mean OP and win every game, if every army was actually balanced then all armies has the same win ratio, clearly you dont know what balance means since you are looking at tournaments where luck is the biggest factor in a GT... "Did you take Meta A list? Did your 1st opponent take Anti-Meta A list? No? Good you win, yes? Oh look you lost" Or "Did you and your opponent both take the same list? Oh he went first? GG you lost"
Hopefully Primaris is the answer, eventually. Probably need a 40k version of the Transhuman Physiology rule in Kill Team before that realistically starts to happen, though.
My pitch for a 40k equivalent is to give them (and Terminators while we're at it) the following rule:
While this model has more than 1 wound, if an attack would reduce it to 0 wounds, instead reduce it to 1 wound.
Marmatag wrote: Nids are not balanced if you are considering tournaments. They have a win percentage on par with Space Marines. Knights and Custodes have really shut them out.
Most people run Kronos or Jormungandr now as the best Nid lists are shooting lists. Kraken is great for genestealers but paying marine prices for a 5+ save is a recipe for getting tabled.
Well the problem is that Tournaments themselves are extremely biased, having limited time and almost never going full 5+ rounds and having no or very little long term objectives completely hurts many armies and army types, then you have scored like what ITC does where killing characters is worth a point, killing large units is worth a point, etc... making people want to build lists to ignore those extra VP's.
You can not and should not say an army is or isnt balanced based on tournament standings, you can calculated some fairness and see if some units are extremely unbalanced, but over all its impossible.
And you shoudnt look at win percent without some type of curve base on number of armies taken. The win/lost rate might be worst only b.c more players are moving away from tyranids and we dont have a real sample size, with less players 1 bad player will skew it heavily compare to 100 imperial players.
Why do i think Tyranids is the more balanced codex? B.c out of all the codex's Tyranids has the most playable Traits, you see players using Jorm, Behemoth, Leviathan, Kronos, Kraken, you see Horde lists, you see Nidzilia lists, you see Shooting and Melee ones, what other MONO Codex do you see with that much diversity?
All of my games end in a tabling /concession or go to turn 6. This is the norm for players at this point, as people have adapted to chess clocks.
The sample size is all ITC games in tournaments for the past 3 months. It's a huge sample size.
And honestly Nids aren't a late game army due to lack in durability. If games ended on turn 4 then Nids would be god mode. Ending early helps them, should you end early.
I never said Nids are a late game army, i said other armies are not meta due to there is no late game.
And you didnt answer me, what other armies has the diversity as nids? You dont see 10 different SM list, or IG ones, its all the same 3-4 lists with 1-2 units that are different.
Balance also doesnt mean OP and win every game, if every army was actually balanced then all armies has the same win ratio, clearly you dont know what balance means since you are looking at tournaments where luck is the biggest factor in a GT... "Did you take Meta A list? Did your 1st opponent take Anti-Meta A list? No? Good you win, yes? Oh look you lost" Or "Did you and your opponent both take the same list? Oh he went first? GG you lost"
You don't see more than 2 different competitive Tyranids lists. It's kraken double bat and ranged dakka (carnifex + hg).
You are one of those posters who states his opinion as fact, when in reality what you're saying is factually untrue. I'm not going to waste time replying to things that are false. For instance, if i make the claim, "every single unit in the space marines codex is top tier," there is no point in spending energy disproving that statement because it's idiotic. Your claim that Tyranids have more viable builds is laughably false, so why bother refuting what can only be classified as a bold lie?
Marmatag wrote: Nids are not balanced if you are considering tournaments. They have a win percentage on par with Space Marines. Knights and Custodes have really shut them out.
Most people run Kronos or Jormungandr now as the best Nid lists are shooting lists. Kraken is great for genestealers but paying marine prices for a 5+ save is a recipe for getting tabled.
Well the problem is that Tournaments themselves are extremely biased, having limited time and almost never going full 5+ rounds and having no or very little long term objectives completely hurts many armies and army types, then you have scored like what ITC does where killing characters is worth a point, killing large units is worth a point, etc... making people want to build lists to ignore those extra VP's.
You can not and should not say an army is or isnt balanced based on tournament standings, you can calculated some fairness and see if some units are extremely unbalanced, but over all its impossible.
And you shoudnt look at win percent without some type of curve base on number of armies taken. The win/lost rate might be worst only b.c more players are moving away from tyranids and we dont have a real sample size, with less players 1 bad player will skew it heavily compare to 100 imperial players.
Why do i think Tyranids is the more balanced codex? B.c out of all the codex's Tyranids has the most playable Traits, you see players using Jorm, Behemoth, Leviathan, Kronos, Kraken, you see Horde lists, you see Nidzilia lists, you see Shooting and Melee ones, what other MONO Codex do you see with that much diversity?
All of my games end in a tabling /concession or go to turn 6. This is the norm for players at this point, as people have adapted to chess clocks.
The sample size is all ITC games in tournaments for the past 3 months. It's a huge sample size.
And honestly Nids aren't a late game army due to lack in durability. If games ended on turn 4 then Nids would be god mode. Ending early helps them, should you end early.
I never said Nids are a late game army, i said other armies are not meta due to there is no late game.
And you didnt answer me, what other armies has the diversity as nids? You dont see 10 different SM list, or IG ones, its all the same 3-4 lists with 1-2 units that are different.
Balance also doesnt mean OP and win every game, if every army was actually balanced then all armies has the same win ratio, clearly you dont know what balance means since you are looking at tournaments where luck is the biggest factor in a GT... "Did you take Meta A list? Did your 1st opponent take Anti-Meta A list? No? Good you win, yes? Oh look you lost" Or "Did you and your opponent both take the same list? Oh he went first? GG you lost"
You don't see more than 2 different competitive Tyranids lists. It's kraken double bat and ranged dakka (carnifex + hg).
You are one of those posters who states his opinion as fact, when in reality what you're saying is factually untrue. I'm not going to waste time replying to things that are false. For instance, if i make the claim, "every single unit in the space marines codex is top tier," there is no point in spending energy disproving that statement because it's idiotic. Your claim that Tyranids have more viable builds is laughably false, so why bother refuting what can only be classified as a bold lie?
Again you are stating tournaments top results = balance, we have seen nids in tournaments with 40% win rates, yes that is low (lower mid tier), but we have seen equal play from players with Kronos Horde, Kracken horde, Jormungandr Nidzilia, and Mix with Behemoth at times. Thats 3 distinct play styles and <traits>.
Look at DE its always Kabal Black Heart with Coven, and its always the same units, look at CWE its almost always the same units and <traits> How is it not a well balanced book when you have diversity that are all equal to each other?
My point isnt Tyranids are good and they win 60% of their games, my point is you see equal win rates with diverse lists. Hence making them a balanced book. Sadly Tyranids are allying in GSC (well its cool also) to stay mid tier, but its the Soup Edition, if you dont soup you are left behind.
Hopefully Primaris is the answer, eventually. Probably need a 40k version of the Transhuman Physiology rule in Kill Team before that realistically starts to happen, though.
My pitch for a 40k equivalent is to give them (and Terminators while we're at it) the following rule:
While this model has more than 1 wound, if an attack would reduce it to 0 wounds, instead reduce it to 1 wound.
I assume this would only happen once, since marines functionally immune to 1 damage weaponry is a correction too far the opposite direction. I would be more likely to lean towards a rule that reduces all damage taken by 1 to a minimum of 1. I fear that keeping track of the wound state on individual models would be cumbersome.
Your idea definitely means old marines get to come out and play with more durability though, which should absolutely not be discounted. I think Primaris are the future and the faster we pare down some of the redundant old marine nonsense, the better.
Don't want to make this thread another marine salt party, though (even though I really want to complain about some gak)
You don't see more than 2 different competitive Tyranids lists. It's kraken double bat and ranged dakka (carnifex + hg).
You are one of those posters who states his opinion as fact, when in reality what you're saying is factually untrue. I'm not going to waste time replying to things that are false. For instance, if i make the claim, "every single unit in the space marines codex is top tier," there is no point in spending energy disproving that statement because it's idiotic. Your claim that Tyranids have more viable builds is laughably false, so why bother refuting what can only be classified as a bold lie?
I'm afraid you guys aren't even talking about the same thing at this point. In Amishprn86Made defense, I think he's been pretty clear he's talking about internal balance.
My pitch for a 40k equivalent is to give them (and Terminators while we're at it) the following rule:
While this model has more than 1 wound, if an attack would reduce it to 0 wounds, instead reduce it to 1 wound.
I'd say the fluff indicates that a single lucky shot from massed guardsman fire should have a hard time felling a space marine.
to that end I'd look at a reverse of the stratagems for +1 wounding ... Space marines are wounded on -1 from single damage weapons of equal or lower strength.
it's horribly wordy, but there's gotta be a way outside of making all marines T6 of reducing the risk they die to flashlights.
Hopefully Primaris is the answer, eventually. Probably need a 40k version of the Transhuman Physiology rule in Kill Team before that realistically starts to happen, though.
My pitch for a 40k equivalent is to give them (and Terminators while we're at it) the following rule:
While this model has more than 1 wound, if an attack would reduce it to 0 wounds, instead reduce it to 1 wound.
I think giving Terminators and bikers one extra wound would help balance them against the plethora of 2 wound weapons that are scattered around the battlefield. Plasma and Dissies et al would continue to wipe out standard marines, but would require a bit more focus fire on Terminators and Bikers. It also means that for every 2 x 2 wound weapon shot at a Term/Biker 1 wound would be wasted meaning greater survivability for the remainder of the squad. This would also mean that meltas, brightlances, and anti-tank weapons in general would still be able to penetrate their armor on a good roll. Having a 100% kill rate for an unsaved 2 wound weapon compared to the 83% chance of an unsaved melta is just weird. In these cases I feel meltas should have a higher chance than plasma.
Could also give it the serpent shield makeover. Similar to what you suggest but would allow meltas and brightlances a chance to kill a terminator while plasmas and dissies won't.
My pitch for a 40k equivalent is to give them (and Terminators while we're at it) the following rule:
While this model has more than 1 wound, if an attack would reduce it to 0 wounds, instead reduce it to 1 wound.
I'd say the fluff indicates that a single lucky shot from massed guardsman fire should have a hard time felling a space marine.
to that end I'd look at a reverse of the stratagems for +1 wounding ... Space marines are wounded on -1 from single damage weapons of equal or lower strength.
it's horribly wordy, but there's gotta be a way outside of making all marines T6 of reducing the risk they die to flashlights.
Space Marines on the tabletop aren't anywhere near where they are in the fluff, which has been an issue for, oh, always.
Why not just change ATSKNF to make morale checks only fail on a natural 6?
That way it would still be effective even if the squad takes too many casualties without it being the same as fearless.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Why not just change ATSKNF to make morale checks only fail on a natural 6?
That way it would still be effective even if the squad takes too many casualties without it being the same as fearless.
I think a better option would be to make ATSKNF only ever lose 1 model when failed, rather it be a reroll.
That would better represent a Marine "taking the wounded off the battle field"
It would also make Morale worth rolling for Marines rather than being an almost auto-pass waste of time.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Why not just change ATSKNF to make morale checks only fail on a natural 6?
That way it would still be effective even if the squad takes too many casualties without it being the same as fearless.
I think a better option would be to make ATSKNF only ever lose 1 model when failed, rather it be a reroll.
That would better represent a Marine "taking the wounded off the battle field"
It would also make Morale worth rolling for Marines rather than being an almost auto-pass waste of time.
-
I'd be ok with that if Dark Angels could please get something decent instead, as they already have this ability, thank you.
(Deathwing actually technically get ATSKNF, can only lose 1 model to a failed morale test, AND are immune to morale :p maximum redundancy!)
I'd say the fluff indicates that a single lucky shot from massed guardsman fire should have a hard time felling a space marine.
to that end I'd look at a reverse of the stratagems for +1 wounding ... Space marines are wounded on -1 from single damage weapons of equal or lower strength.
it's horribly wordy, but there's gotta be a way outside of making all marines T6 of reducing the risk they die to flashlights.
That is unnecessarily complicated. Non-legacy marines are already unkillable by a single lasgun shot.
Hopefully Primaris is the answer, eventually. Probably need a 40k version of the Transhuman Physiology rule in Kill Team before that realistically starts to happen, though.
My pitch for a 40k equivalent is to give them (and Terminators while we're at it) the following rule:
While this model has more than 1 wound, if an attack would reduce it to 0 wounds, instead reduce it to 1 wound.
I think giving Terminators and bikers one extra wound would help balance them against the plethora of 2 wound weapons that are scattered around the battlefield. Plasma and Dissies et al would continue to wipe out standard marines, but would require a bit more focus fire on Terminators and Bikers. It also means that for every 2 x 2 wound weapon shot at a Term/Biker 1 wound would be wasted meaning greater survivability for the remainder of the squad. This would also mean that meltas, brightlances, and anti-tank weapons in general would still be able to penetrate their armor on a good roll. Having a 100% kill rate for an unsaved 2 wound weapon compared to the 83% chance of an unsaved melta is just weird. In these cases I feel meltas should have a higher chance than plasma.
Could also give it the serpent shield makeover. Similar to what you suggest but would allow meltas and brightlances a chance to kill a terminator while plasmas and dissies won't.
My pitch for a 40k equivalent is to give them (and Terminators while we're at it) the following rule:
While this model has more than 1 wound, if an attack would reduce it to 0 wounds, instead reduce it to 1 wound.
I'd say the fluff indicates that a single lucky shot from massed guardsman fire should have a hard time felling a space marine.
to that end I'd look at a reverse of the stratagems for +1 wounding ... Space marines are wounded on -1 from single damage weapons of equal or lower strength.
it's horribly wordy, but there's gotta be a way outside of making all marines T6 of reducing the risk they die to flashlights.
Space Marines on the tabletop aren't anywhere near where they are in the fluff, which has been an issue for, oh, always.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:Why not just change ATSKNF to make morale checks only fail on a natural 6?
That way it would still be effective even if the squad takes too many casualties without it being the same as fearless.
Galef wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Why not just change ATSKNF to make morale checks only fail on a natural 6?
That way it would still be effective even if the squad takes too many casualties without it being the same as fearless.
I think a better option would be to make ATSKNF only ever lose 1 model when failed, rather it be a reroll.
That would better represent a Marine "taking the wounded off the battle field"
It would also make Morale worth rolling for Marines rather than being an almost auto-pass waste of time.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Why not just change ATSKNF to make morale checks only fail on a natural 6?
That way it would still be effective even if the squad takes too many casualties without it being the same as fearless.
I think a better option would be to make ATSKNF only ever lose 1 model when failed, rather it be a reroll.
That would better represent a Marine "taking the wounded off the battle field"
It would also make Morale worth rolling for Marines rather than being an almost auto-pass waste of time.
-
I'd be ok with that if Dark Angels could please get something decent instead, as they already have this ability, thank you.
(Deathwing actually technically get ATSKNF, can only lose 1 model to a failed morale test, AND are immune to morale :p maximum redundancy!)
All great points!
Redundancy is an issue for marines, not just in special rules, but in their data sheets as well. I'd personally love to see a culling of sorts in a new codex but until then I'm pretty sure the number of adjustments will be low. Doesn't mean they can't be big...I wouldn't even use precedence as a guide here as I'm not even sure they've ever updated an entire statline across multiple data sheets in multiple books at once in an FAQ before. Doesn't meant they won't, though.
Hopefully Primaris is the answer, eventually. Probably need a 40k version of the Transhuman Physiology rule in Kill Team before that realistically starts to happen, though.
My pitch for a 40k equivalent is to give them (and Terminators while we're at it) the following rule:
While this model has more than 1 wound, if an attack would reduce it to 0 wounds, instead reduce it to 1 wound.
I think giving Terminators and bikers one extra wound would help balance them against the plethora of 2 wound weapons that are scattered around the battlefield. Plasma and Dissies et al would continue to wipe out standard marines, but would require a bit more focus fire on Terminators and Bikers. It also means that for every 2 x 2 wound weapon shot at a Term/Biker 1 wound would be wasted meaning greater survivability for the remainder of the squad. This would also mean that meltas, brightlances, and anti-tank weapons in general would still be able to penetrate their armor on a good roll. Having a 100% kill rate for an unsaved 2 wound weapon compared to the 83% chance of an unsaved melta is just weird. In these cases I feel meltas should have a higher chance than plasma.
Could also give it the serpent shield makeover. Similar to what you suggest but would allow meltas and brightlances a chance to kill a terminator while plasmas and dissies won't.
Spoletta wrote: Marines don't have problems with durability, they are an elite unit, they shouldn't "tank" hits efficently like chaff does.
What they lack is offensive power, a standard bolter is a terrible weapon for an elite model and the melee stats aren't better.
That fly's in the face of basic game logic. If your elite (higher point costs) model isn't as durable as the chaff than there's no point in taking the elite model over the cheaper one.
Even fluff wise, the Space Marines are known for being a solid defensive force - the hero's whose line doesn't break after all the guardsmen run for the hills. The Tau and Eldar often comment on the durability of their armor and gear as opposed to their own and respect it far more than they respect thier 'crude' weapons.
Jidmah wrote: A basic marine should be able to tank just as much damage as three basic orks. Currently they don't.
This is the main reason I feel MEQs & TEQs need +1W across the board. Those that also have extra durability rules after that (like Death Guard) either get a points bump of have their rule nerfed a bit (5+++ goes to only 6+++, for example)
Maybe. This problem is very complicated because of the way GW has treated power armor in 8th. Really, the problem is truly caused by the custodes release, capping elite infantry. Custodes should be better than grotesques. Full stop. They aren't. All other problems are a derivative of this problem. Like a marine being vastly inferior to 3 guardsmen.
The simplest fix is to recost marines and custodes around the reality of the Xenos codices. This would entail massive across the board points reductions, as marines especially lack invulns, lack meaningful chapter traits (for the most part), don't get traits on vehicles, and have equipment not suited to fighting Xenos.
Martel732 wrote: Elites should lose points faster vs heavy weapons and lose points slower vs light weapons. They currently lose points faster vs everything.
Yes indeed.
This is where the disconnect is with people. Elite infantry should have a significant advantage against light infantry otherwise they serve exactly 0 purpose. When they are actually at a disadvantage against light infantry. You are actively trying to lose by bringing them because we all know - quality firepower hurts elites even more than light troops.
It's actually very simple math. But huge chunks of this forum deny such math and delude themselves into thinking that cleverness or terrain can make up the difference. It can't.
My win rate has skyrocketed since souping in IG. I think IG units are even better after using them myself than merely facing them.
Jidmah wrote: A basic marine should be able to tank just as much damage as three basic orks. Currently they don't.
The normal Space Marine is not the super human as it should be. The Primaris come much closer. The bolter has too less impact (but in the new edition it can wound each model or tank in town). How about giving bolters some kind of rending?
Jidmah wrote: A basic marine should be able to tank just as much damage as three basic orks. Currently they don't.
The normal Space Marine is not the super human as it should be. The Primaris come much closer. The bolter has too less impact (but in the new edition it can wound each model or tank in town). How about giving bolters some kind of rending?
Primaris do get much closer. However, primaris instantly lose to triple ravager builds. Primaris-based lists are simply a huge risk in a game with so much cheap damage 2 spam available. And bolt rifles still suck for how much the model costs.
All this being said, I expect marines to be addressed in CA, not the FAQ. FAQ will kick capt smash in the nuts somehow, though.
The point about D2 weapons is valid. However, the issue is mainly that such qeapons are too common and too cheap. This can be fixed, old marine statline however cannot be saved without rewriting the system. The Primaris statline can work though.
Crimson wrote: The point about D2 weapons is valid. However, the issue is mainly that such qeapons are too common and too cheap. This can be fixed, old marine statline however cannot be saved without rewriting the system. The Primaris statline can work though.
Crimson wrote: The point about D2 weapons is valid. However, the issue is mainly that such qeapons are too common and too cheap. This can be fixed, old marine statline however cannot be saved without rewriting the system. The Primaris statline can work though.
Crimson wrote: The point about D2 weapons is valid. However, the issue is mainly that such qeapons are too common and too cheap. This can be fixed, old marine statline however cannot be saved without rewriting the system. The Primaris statline can work though.
Whilst I agree that marines need help, people's attemts to fix them are hilarious as they end up reinventing the Primaris. Almost like GW had already realised these issues and offered a solution. If you want marines that are more durable against small arms and have better bolters you already have them!
Crimson wrote: Whilst I agree that marines need help, people's attemts to fix them are hilarious as they end up reinventing the Primaris. Almost like GW had already realised these issues and offered a solution. If you want marines that are more durable against small arms and have better bolters you already have them!
They also cost too much, though. Good for 7th, not 8th.
Crimson wrote: Whilst I agree that marines need help, people's attemts to fix them are hilarious as they end up reinventing the Primaris. Almost like GW had already realised these issues and offered a solution. If you want marines that are more durable against small arms and have better bolters you already have them!
You have to reinvent the primaris. Their cost is based off the tactical marine. Any change to tactical marine really requires changes to the entire marine infantry line - across all codex. This is why you shouldn't release an army with such a phenomenally over-costed base model that is used for almost 25% of all unit entrees in the whole of the game. You'd really think they'd want to get that right. Also - considering - space marines is the first experience with 40k most players will have. If it is a bad experience - there is a good chance they wont get another army.
What if this was the plan all along. Make people hate their majority player marine armies, so that when 9th ed comes and primaris are superior no one is going to make an uproar about them replacing the normal marines, because by then everyone and their grandmother is going to hate all stuff marine?
They also could have just given marines a new stat line and new models, instead of callling them primaris and creating a fluff nightmare.
And the “oh players will be pissed with new models”...really? Has anyone ever actually been upset when their model range got updated, especially if they continued to produce the old models as an option? Cause at least that way you can still use the models you have, rather than the “less enraging” option everyone seems to be advocating where ALL your old marines no longer have rules.
I really enjoy how some people are ready to cite the evil genius cunning of GW in one thread, but castigate them as potato incompetent fish washers in the next thread down.
People discussing sweeping changes to the core marine statline and costs need to understand that this would just make deathwatch the best SM army out there. The conversation wouldn't be, "which chapter should I use," it would be "why aren't you playing deathwatch?" And, deathwatch are good, right now. They can field very solid lists and act as a surprisingly solid counter to many lists. Knights have really ruined them, but Knights have ruined everyone. The meta is on its heels because of Guard & Knights, which will be addressed (hopefully) in September FAQ.
Core marines need a few things.
Tactical squad improvements: (a) ATSKNF should just be that you may choose to automatically pass any morale test in the morale phase of the game. Forcing an auto-pass is good too, but if you have one guy surrounded, you might want him to flee so that a squad is not locked in combat. It's a good change that would really help. Also, it would unlock 10 man squads. Next, on that note...
(b) Cheaper special weapons, and allow 3 per 10 man squad, + the combi. It's kind of silly that most of the duders in a TAC squad are just slogging around carrying bolters. On that note, give standard marines an AP-1 on wound rolls of 6 with their boltguns. NOTE: This needs to apply to only marines, not all boltguns.
(c) A couple more stratagems. For instance, Imperial Guard has "go to ground," i would think that there should be a 1CP stratagem for marines, something like "Hunker Down," used when targeted, where they get a +1 save, and can fire adding 1 to hit rolls if they don't move in the next movement phase. Another stratagem, like "Fury of Terra," allowing them to disembark after a rhino concludes its movement.
(d) Give everyone a chainsword. Also, give marines in melee a special rule, wound rolls of 6 are AP-1.
Transport changes: (a) Make Rhinos T8. (b) Reduce the cost of drop pods. (c) Give land raiders the ability to shoot all of their guns into combat. Give them a 5++ invulnerable save. There's far too much in the way of AP-5 now.
In my opinion this would really help marines. And, it doesn't require fundamental repointing - just changes to the cost of a few special weapons, which we all know are overcosted (such as melta).
Primaris troops do not actually bleed points that fast to D2 weapons.
A dark reaper for example doesn't make a good chunk of it's points back when shooting an intercessor.It's 1/3 per turn, which is decent but not great, especially for a glasscannon.
Bursttides net about 1/4 per turn when going offensive nova.
Dissie ravagers are nasty, but they are nasty to everything in the game right now, they are OP.
Crimson wrote: Sure. But people basically want Primaris marines which cost the same as the egular marines.
Primaris probably need to be couple of cheaper and many D2 weapons need to be more expensive. And that's marines fixed.
If the d2 weapons don't change, which many of don't think they will, primaris will need to cost 13 pts. This the hole gw has dug.
To be fair - I think intercessors are properly costed at 15-16. The bolt rifle is nice. They need some options (like 1 model can take a plasma incinerator per 5) (Sargent needs full access to wargear) and they need to be able to ride in any trasnport - and all those transports need major point drops.
Crimson wrote: Sure. But people basically want Primaris marines which cost the same as the egular marines.
Primaris probably need to be couple of cheaper and many D2 weapons need to be more expensive. And that's marines fixed.
If the d2 weapons don't change, which many of don't think they will, primaris will need to cost 13 pts. This the hole gw has dug.
To be fair - I think intercessors are properly costed at 15-16. The bolt rifle is nice. They need some options (like 1 model can take a plasma incinerator per 5) (Sargent needs full access to wargear) and they need to be able to ride in any trasnport - and all those transports need major point drops.
I don't know. D2 or D(d3) is super common, super accessible, and frequently super cheap.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: Primaris troops do not actually bleed points that fast to D2 weapons.
A dark reaper for example doesn't make a good chunk of it's points back when shooting an intercessor.It's 1/3 per turn, which is decent but not great, especially for a glasscannon.
Bursttides net about 1/4 per turn when going offensive nova.
Dissie ravagers are nasty, but they are nasty to everything in the game right now, they are OP.
I'd kill for my marines to have a 1/3 return in a turn. Primaris bleed pretty damn fast to D2 at 18 ppm. It get so much worse for things like inceptors.
The forthcoming Chapter Approved is supposed to have the new Sisters list so they may combine that with an update for all Rhino and thier variants which are used across quite a few factions:
Sisters of Battle, Sisters of Silence, Chaos Marines, Marines and all the myriad Snowflake Marines.
- cos otherwise the book would not be dominated by Marines (again)
Crimson wrote: Whilst I agree that marines need help, people's attemts to fix them are hilarious as they end up reinventing the Primaris. Almost like GW had already realised these issues and offered a solution. If you want marines that are more durable against small arms and have better bolters you already have them!
I think you're right.
greyknight12 wrote: They also could have just given marines a new stat line and new models, instead of callling them primaris and creating a fluff nightmare.
And the “oh players will be pissed with new models”...really? Has anyone ever actually been upset when their model range got updated, especially if they continued to produce the old models as an option? Cause at least that way you can still use the models you have, rather than the “less enraging” option everyone seems to be advocating where ALL your old marines no longer have rules.
The most interesting part about the GW approach with Primaris isn't just an adjustment to new models and a new statline, but a complete change to marine infantry options. Primaris stats would have been a sufficient solution for marine issues if it applied to all marines, but it doesn't. And that's clearly by design. Fluff aside, the GW approach here is much more layered than just updating stats. They appear to be keen on redefining what space marines are as a fighting force above and beyond simply adding AP to boltguns and doubling wounds and attacks. For better or worse, I like the approach here to try and redefine space marines as an army, but they wouldn't be able to do that if they're forever shackled to the old legacy marine units.
I'm eager to see the next step here in hopes that it truly does resolve some of the biggest issues this army faces.
Martel732 wrote: Lack of access to heavy weapons is killing primaris as well.
Hellblasters are too reliant on babysitter buffs and AP in a game where over half the non-marines have access to a plethora of invuln saves.
More then anything Hellblasters suffer from a lack of ablative wounds.
Hellblasters are great, but they only shoot once because every enemy gun will target them and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
Martel732 wrote: Lack of access to heavy weapons is killing primaris as well.
Hellblasters are too reliant on babysitter buffs and AP in a game where over half the non-marines have access to a plethora of invuln saves.
More then anything Hellblasters suffer from a lack of ablative wounds.
Hellblasters are great, but they only shoot once because every enemy gun will target them and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
That's an additional problem, but you are paying a lot of points for that AP -4. If it's negated by invuln, they lose a LOT of value. Also, -1 to hit trait just lays waste to them. That's a bad flaw in the current meta.
Martel732 wrote: Lack of access to heavy weapons is killing primaris as well.
Hellblasters are too reliant on babysitter buffs and AP in a game where over half the non-marines have access to a plethora of invuln saves.
Weapon and unit options in general are lacking, but that can be solved by new releases, not fundamental FAQ or CA rule and point changes.
Except for maybe on the heavy incinerators...that's certainly an avenue to consider.
I'm personally more a fan of buffing marines so they last longer on the table rather than increasing their numbers via points drops or increasing their lethality against similar units with tweaked weapon stats, special rules, loadout options, or points costs. I'd rather they burn dimmer for several turns than burn brightly for one. That's mostly because an increase in the lethality of the basic infantry of the most played faction in the game will not solve the problem if they end up dying faster than they do now.
Whichever way they go, be it in the FAQ or the CA, it'll be interesting to see if it brings legacy marines along with it.
Martel732 wrote: Making things last in 8th is a challenge for sure.
Absolutely, but I think it's a fundamentally better avenue to take than simple balancing through points drops. I'd rather not see T4, 3+ turn into a pseudo-horde army, personally.
Martel732 wrote: Personally, I agree. I just don't know what mathematical outs gw has left. Custodes needed t6 w5 to leave room.
Well if the latest roumers are correct and GW is doing a 2.0 Codex Adaptes Astartes for the back end of next year we might get to find out, in all honesty though I really suspect that the fundamental issue is that primaris marines stats are what marine stats for 8th edition need to be. The issue is GW tried to keep old marines and nee primaris marines and this has resulted in neither really working.
Primaris need a vanguard vets equivalent and maybe a sternguard equivelent hellblasters need lascannons and there is the start of a viable army.
Well if the latest roumers are correct and GW is doing a 2.0 Codex Adaptes Astartes for the back end of next year
What is the source of these rumours? Could we get a ling or something?
Was in a podcast I'll see if I can find it, but it was talking Q4 2019
Can you imagine having to wait 'till the end of 2019 for changes. That would suck.
To be honest I could see it being Codex Adaptes Astartes Primaris, I wouldn't mold much stock in it, like truck loads of salt, but it's not impossible.
Then again codex vanilla marines isn't really fun to use as it is.
Reemule wrote: What if you approached from another direction and made Guardsmen equivalents more easy to kill?
The only way this can be done - if we're talking points killed by weapons - is something that specifically affects T3 5+.
The better solution is to increase Guardsmen to 6PPM.
Kabalite Warriors are considered good, costing 6, without access to orders, and all the imperium synergy.
Ummm...So you are talking about giving same cost to guardsmen as guy with better WS, BS, weapon and IIRCLD. And you think that\s fair and balanced? Lol. Thank god you aren't in 40k game design team.
edit: Oh and 4+ save, 6" more range and +1S on guns seems to be worth only 1 pts according to you then.
Martel732 wrote: Personally, I agree. I just don't know what mathematical outs gw has left. Custodes needed t6 w5 to leave room.
I think that's a fake corner they've painted themselves in, and we along with them. Custodes don't actually have to be shackled to a weird arbitrary rule that their relative power against current marines is the gap in capability that must be maintained at all costs. That gap shifted between 7th and 8th. It can shift again.
Even with an improvement in durability to space marines, Custodes are STILL superior both defensively and offensively by a large margin. After all, compared to Primaris they'd still carry an extra wound, a better armour save, an invulnerable save, higher base leadership, an extra point of toughness, a FNP save against psychic powers, a two damage weapon, an extra attack, 2+ WS and BS, and a high rend multiple damage melee weapon.
I'm thinking that this offensive gap should still remain, so I don't think weapon damage is the right solution without addressing durability first. It's just the durability gap that needs to be adjusted a bit in favour of marines, and in so doing the offensive output across an entire GAME is increased. I'm a fan of any solution that abandons the legacy marine line, but I'm a deeply flawed human being that wishes to cast off the shackles of those ugly squat marines with silly frowny face masks and seeks enlightenment in the bright true scale future.
Which is why I'd like to see Primaris receive a rule that reduces the damage caused by all weapons by 1 to a minimum of 1 alongside the earlier proposed treatment of weapons with AP-1 as AP-0 (which, sure, whatever - this can apply to all the grumpy tinymarines too...)
To shreds with the fluff implications. Make Marines Great Again (on the table)!
Edit: Also, many apologies to all those who hate to hear yet another marine player complain about stuff and derailing threads and what not. I really don't want you to think I don't care about your particular army's plight. The problem being that I really don't care about your particular army's plight. LONG LIVE ASTARTES
What worries me is the possibility that GW won't take any corrective action to address Marines at all between the FAQ and the next CA.
What it would signal (and what I suspect is the case) is that GW doesn't actually see the various flavors of Marine as factions. They see Imperium as a faction with Guard, Knights, AdMech Sisters, and Marines as sub-components. As long as Imperial Soup is doing ok then there isn't a problem, and if you take a handicap by playing a monobuild list then you have only yourself to blame.
The Newman wrote: What worries me is the possibility that GW won't take any corrective action to address Marines at all between the FAQ and the next CA.
What it would signal (and what I suspect is the case) is that GW doesn't actually see the various flavors of Marine as factions. They see Imperium as a faction with Guard, Knights, AdMech, and Marines as sub-components. As long as Imperial Soup is doing ok then there isn't a problem, and if you want to handicap yourself by playing a monobuild list then you're doing it wrong.
I hope I'm wrong.
I think you will be but I do think that (correctly) GW see Imperium as a single faction - the problem is that they focussed way too much time and effort on it in general and in particular so many Marine subfactions.
They have done some minor adjustments re Soup and I think they will do more - likely CP can only spent on that which genrates it - hint of this in the RT rules for 40k.
The Newman wrote: What worries me is the possibility that GW won't take any corrective action to address Marines at all between the FAQ and the next CA.
What it would signal (and what I suspect is the case) is that GW doesn't actually see the various flavors of Marine as factions. They see Imperium as a faction with Guard, Knights, AdMech, and Marines as sub-components. As long as Imperial Soup is doing ok then there isn't a problem, and if you want to handicap yourself by playing a monobuild list then you're doing it wrong.
I hope I'm wrong.
I think there's some fear that this will happen. And honestly, I think there's a very rational reason why that might happen, and why it's okay for it to happen.
I think it's possible they may try and address things slowly by first addressing the Loyal 32 and CP battery issues, then see how things shake out to really identify the best method for solving the rest of the issues.
What's important is that I think GW will actually try and make things better, it's just the speed at which this happens is (eternally) in question.
The Newman wrote: What worries me is the possibility that GW won't take any corrective action to address Marines at all between the FAQ and the next CA.
What it would signal (and what I suspect is the case) is that GW doesn't actually see the various flavors of Marine as factions. They see Imperium as a faction with Guard, Knights, AdMech Sisters, and Marines as sub-components. As long as Imperial Soup is doing ok then there isn't a problem, and if you take a handicap by playing a monobuild list then you have only yourself to blame.
I hope I'm wrong.
I don't think we'll see the fundamental change to Marines that they need until 9e in all honesty.
I think there are many factions who are awaiting some hopeful big changes in either the new FAQ (I still think we'll see it first week of October) or in Chapter Approved. I hope that they get it, and don't leave factions or units that are clearly unsuitable or massively overpriced in their current state. I'm not sure the best fix for the current issues regarding smaller-scale Space Marine units, as I don't play Space Marines of any flavour. But I do play Necrons, and I feel there is some overlapping issues as to why both armies are currently failing to perform (or at the very least, why many units within those faction's codexes are failing to perform).
Reemule wrote: What if you approached from another direction and made Guardsmen equivalents more easy to kill?
The only way this can be done - if we're talking points killed by weapons - is something that specifically affects T3 5+.
The better solution is to increase Guardsmen to 6PPM.
Kabalite Warriors are considered good, costing 6, without access to orders, and all the imperium synergy.
Ummm...So you are talking about giving same cost to guardsmen as guy with better WS, BS, weapon and IIRCLD. And you think that\s fair and balanced? Lol. Thank god you aren't in 40k game design team.
edit: Oh and 4+ save, 6" more range and +1S on guns seems to be worth only 1 pts according to you then.
1. Kabalite Warriors have a 5+ save. 2. Kabalite Warriors weapons are 24" 3. Splinter Rifles are poisoned, not strength 4
The ability to be given orders, plus all of the synergy that Guardsmen have, overall make them a better unit. Guardsmen > Kabalite Warriors. Although Guardsmen > All Troops, so it's not a specifically new development.
Guard players on here need to stop pretending that orders aren't a given.
Martel732 wrote: Personally, I agree. I just don't know what mathematical outs gw has left. Custodes needed t6 w5 to leave room.
Is there any justification for a space marine captain being superior to a custodian guard? Nope. Not in the least.
Of course there is. The Space Marine Captain is a veteran of countless battles with various xenos and chaotic monstrosities, whereas the Custodians have just been LARPing battles with their pals.
Martel732 wrote: Personally, I agree. I just don't know what mathematical outs gw has left. Custodes needed t6 w5 to leave room.
Is there any justification for a space marine captain being superior to a custodian guard? Nope. Not in the least.
Why not? Stuff the fluff.
Or are we going to let stupid story logic get in the way of balancing again?
Fluff is the justification for relative power level. Not the justification for point costs associated with that power level. A custode should be superior to all astartes. The are practically primarchs - all of them. The whole army should be 130-150 point heros. I guess the figured that wouldn't be fun to play against - ehh...they are wrong but okay. Only a chapter master should be able to face a custodian mono A mono.
Martel732 wrote: Personally, I agree. I just don't know what mathematical outs gw has left. Custodes needed t6 w5 to leave room.
Is there any justification for a space marine captain being superior to a custodian guard? Nope. Not in the least.
Of course there is. The Space Marine Captain is a veteran of countless battles with various xenos and chaotic monstrosities, whereas the Custodians have just been LARPing battles with their pals.
No - custodes are constantly battling too. Amongst themselves - in games - not to mention they have been alive a REALLY long time.
Martel732 wrote: Personally, I agree. I just don't know what mathematical outs gw has left. Custodes needed t6 w5 to leave room.
Is there any justification for a space marine captain being superior to a custodian guard? Nope. Not in the least.
Why not? Stuff the fluff.
Or are we going to let stupid story logic get in the way of balancing again?
Fluff is the justification for relative power level. Not the justification for point costs associated with that power level. A custode should be superior to all astartes. The are practically primarchs - all of them. The whole army should be 130-150 point heros. I guess the figured that wouldn't be fun to play against - ehh...they are wrong but okay. Only a chapter master should be able to face a custodian mono A mono.
Blah, enough of that nonsense. The fluff has been rewritten and retconed a million times over, why must it be held as gospel today?
Free this game from these draconian fluff limitations. It will never be balanced otherwise. After all, how many times have battles in the fluff been held between two suspiciously equal forces in capability and firepower? The game needs some freedom from the fluff to balance itself, and that's an issue caused by the fluff, not the game rules.
Not saying abandon it of course, that would be silly. Just...loosen that grip.
1. Kabalite Warriors have a 5+ save. 2. Kabalite Warriors weapons are 24" 3. Splinter Rifles are poisoned, not strength 4
1: So is guardsmen 2: So is lasgun 3: Gee I take poison 4+ any day over S3 of lasgun. I'm sure you face loooooooots of T2 targets.
What kind of cheaters you play with if you think lasguns have longer range than 24" and are S4 and guardsmen have better save than 5+? Sheesh lol.
Dark eldars also have 6+++ etc. Oh and better transports. The two are HARDLY worth same points.
Wow okay, so i listed those things because you claimed that Kabalites had a 4+ save, 30" range, and strength 4 guns. It's normal to refute nonsense, which is what i was doing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's you, quoted saying it. I mean WTF is going on in your head with these posts.
Reemule wrote: I really enjoy how some people are ready to cite the evil genius cunning of GW in one thread, but castigate them as potato incompetent fish washers in the next thread down.
Make up your mind.
It' almost as if Dakka; unlike both the Tyranids and Reddit, doesn't have a hive mind...
Reemule wrote: I really enjoy how some people are ready to cite the evil genius cunning of GW in one thread, but castigate them as potato incompetent fish washers in the next thread down.
Make up your mind.
It' almost as if Dakka; unlike both the Tyranids and Reddit, doesn't have a hive mind...
No, but sometimes it is the same person to be fair.
Reemule wrote: What if you approached from another direction and made Guardsmen equivalents more easy to kill?
The only way this can be done - if we're talking points killed by weapons - is something that specifically affects T3 5+.
The better solution is to increase Guardsmen to 6PPM.
Kabalite Warriors are considered good, costing 6, without access to orders, and all the imperium synergy.
Ummm...So you are talking about giving same cost to guardsmen as guy with better WS, BS, weapon and IIRCLD. And you think that\s fair and balanced? Lol. Thank god you aren't in 40k game design team.
edit: Oh and 4+ save, 6" more range and +1S on guns seems to be worth only 1 pts according to you then.
1. Kabalite Warriors have a 5+ save.
2. Kabalite Warriors weapons are 24"
3. Splinter Rifles are poisoned, not strength 4
The ability to be given orders, plus all of the synergy that Guardsmen have, overall make them a better unit. Guardsmen > Kabalite Warriors. Although Guardsmen > All Troops, so it's not a specifically new development.
Guard players on here need to stop pretending that orders aren't a given.
I love my Dark Eldar - kabalites are pretty good - they get a great transport, the Kabel bonuses and the Power from Pain ones, plenty of fun Stratagems too. Thye are also 3+ WS/BS. 30" range Splinter rifles if they want.
Darsath wrote: I think there are many factions who are awaiting some hopeful big changes in either the new FAQ (I still think we'll see it first week of October) or in Chapter Approved. I hope that they get it, and don't leave factions or units that are clearly unsuitable or massively overpriced in their current state. I'm not sure the best fix for the current issues regarding smaller-scale Space Marine units, as I don't play Space Marines of any flavour. But I do play Necrons, and I feel there is some overlapping issues as to why both armies are currently failing to perform (or at the very least, why many units within those faction's codexes are failing to perform).
I play necrons as well, it isn't a secret that our AT capabilities got nerfed hard with this edition. I remember back when I last played in 6th that everyone was terrified of necron warriors peeling off hullpoints left and right. I really feel like the only thing necrons truly need is a buff to gauss vs vehicles. Gauss needs WAY more than -1 ap to even compete. Our other options for AT are either expensive, mediocre, or stuck behind random shots, all of which are not very fun to use.
This doesn't even cover the rules headaches on the interactions of the beta deep strike rules compared to our night scythe and monolith transports. There is a lot of confusion in my FLGS about whether the rule pertains to the units disembarking from these units on first turn, and I think a FAQ clarification would be great.
Some point drops of course would be nice, and maybe a retool of some of our weapon profiles to make a lot of the lagging units (ABarge, Flyers, etc) a bit more usable, preferably against large targets.
The army isn't BAD and I have fun playing it, but I'd like to do more than run a handful of units.
Jidmah wrote: A basic marine should be able to tank just as much damage as three basic orks. Currently they don't.
This is the main reason I feel MEQs & TEQs need +1W across the board. Those that also have extra durability rules after that (like Death Guard) either get a points bump of have their rule nerfed a bit (5+++ goes to only 6+++, for example)
-
It's not like plague marines are massively over-performing right now. Unlike regular MEQ they actually work in casual settings, but they have no place in competitive gaming. Loyalist scouts are probably better troops than plague marines.
Jidmah wrote: A basic marine should be able to tank just as much damage as three basic orks. Currently they don't.
This is the main reason I feel MEQs & TEQs need +1W across the board. Those that also have extra durability rules after that (like Death Guard) either get a points bump of have their rule nerfed a bit (5+++ goes to only 6+++, for example)
-
It's not like plague marines are massively over-performing right now. Unlike regular MEQ they actually work in casual settings, but they have no place in competitive gaming. Loyalist scouts are probably better troops than plague marines.
yeah, ravagers at 140-150 seems fair.
(even though I really want to complain about some gak)
never seeing the irony.
