Reserves change is huge. No deep strike at all turn 1. Alpha Legion and Raven Guard strat totally gimped, and Cult Ambush does nothing useful turn 1 (though the FAQ says this will be addressed in the codex)
Max of 1 CP gained per battle round is also huge!
A few issues we've had for a while cleared up! One shot weapons are optional to fire when shooting. Drones taken with battlesuits do not count as a Drones unit for rule of 3 purposes.
Fly units only ignore terrain in the movement phase specifically, so charges etc do NOT ignore terrain.
Overall I'm fairly happy on first pass, though I think there'll be people upset that nothing was done to the Castellan directly, and no points changes.
I do like that they're addressing the particularly strong strategems and upping their price, along with limiting CP regen.
Since they haven't done anything else to limit "soup", though, I think it's pretty clear that it's here to stay, and they're just going to try to balance around it.
Stratagem changes are good. I would have hoped they went farther and made it so that stratagems are CP's were faction specific, but what they did a more measured change that is still good for the game. Coupled with the changes to specific offending stratagems, these are good changes.
I don't like the change to fly. Measuring vertical is fine, but not using Fly during charges or consolidates is kind of a bummer - especially for Harlequins.
Quasistellar wrote: I do like that they're addressing the particularly strong strategems and upping their price, along with limiting CP regen.
Since they haven't done anything else to limit "soup", though, I think it's pretty clear that it's here to stay, and they're just going to try to balance around it.
Yeah I think you're right there.
While the Guard Battery doesn't really work any more, it's still 5cp for 120pts, which I think means we'll still see that Battalion quite a bit.
FAQ did a pretty good job at addressing lots of broken and/or unfun combinations. Not always the way I would've hoped, but good enough, hopefully, to bring some fun back.
FAQ clearly didn't address stuff that was rather weak (Grey Knights, Necrons, etc..). Hope they have that on the menu for Chapter Approved.
Sikplex wrote: I think a lot of people were expecting quite a few shifts in point changes...
Quite disappointed to see several armies receive nothing at all. (Mainly Grey Knights... seeing the position they are in ATM)
Points changes are in Chapter Approved. They don't do points adjustments in errata. If they were expecting points changes, they were just setting themselves up for disappointment.
RIP close combat armies.
They keep pushing 40k towards being two static gun lines that deploy in the back edge and lob shots at each other.
Close combat is riskier because you have to roll charge, more dangerous because your opponent gets to attack back, and with fallback leaves you vulnerable, so I dont know why GW seems to think it should be nerfed into oblivion and is "unfair" of a close combat unit is ever able to reach a gunline.
As a GSC player my units are incredibly overcosted and die if you look at them, so ambush was the only thing making them even semi viable. But I guess gunline are how they want everyone to play.
Valkyrie wrote: Annoyed that they've thrown RG in with the changes to pre-game deep-strikes, they were probably benefitting the least from it.
I think it was a poorly designed strat from the get go. It massively benefits you if you go turn 1, and is a bit meh if you get turn 2. Which just exacerbates the situation of the turn 1 advantage.
Then giving it to the chapter in the codex that already had the best tactic was a bizarre choice.
No we didn't see much RG in tournaments, but I still think it's the right choice. The issues with RG are the same issues as every other marine chapter and need addressing separately, which I am disappointed we didn't get anything for.
FAQ did a pretty good job at addressing lots of broken and/or unfun combinations. Not always the way I would've hoped, but good enough, hopefully, to bring some fun back.
FAQ clearly didn't address stuff that was rather weak (Grey Knights, Necrons, etc..). Hope they have that on the menu for Chapter Approved.
Sikplex wrote: I think a lot of people were expecting quite a few shifts in point changes...
Quite disappointed to see several armies receive nothing at all.
(Mainly Grey Knights... seeing the position they are in ATM)
Points changes are in Chapter Approved. They don't do points adjustments in errata.
If they were expecting points changes, they were just setting themselves up for disappointment.
They said that, but the first big FAQ actually did have point adjustments. Nearly 20 units got their points changed last time. It wasn't unreasonable to think they might do the same again.
Danny slag wrote: RIP close combat armies.
They keep pushing 40k towards being two static gun lines that deploy in the back edge and lob shots at each other.
Close combat is riskier because you have to roll charge, more dangerous because your opponent gets to attack back, and with fallback leaves you vulnerable, so I dont know why GW seems to think it should be nerfed into oblivion and is "unfair" of a close combat unit is ever able to reach a gunline.
That's the point. Close combat needs to be riskier.
The problem is risk-free close combat like Smash Captains or Bloodletter bombs. It's both boring and absolutely brainless to play, play against and bad for the game.
It's hard to tell as it stand atm. Currently, it doesn't appear to be much of a change, but that;s because it's hard to gauge the impact that the few changes included will have. If we continue to see the same ol' Imperium/ Aelderi/ Chaos soup lists stacking at the top of the pile, though, then yeah, I'd consider the FAQ to be inadequate. But we don't know for sure yet, only guesses atm.
Danny slag wrote: RIP close combat armies.
They keep pushing 40k towards being two static gun lines that deploy in the back edge and lob shots at each other.
Close combat is riskier because you have to roll charge, more dangerous because your opponent gets to attack back, and with fallback leaves you vulnerable, so I dont know why GW seems to think it should be nerfed into oblivion and is "unfair" of a close combat unit is ever able to reach a gunline.
That's the point. Close combat needs to be riskier.
The problem is risk-free close combat like Smash Captains or Bloodletter bombs. It's both boring and absolutely brainless to play, play against and bad for the game.
Melee needs a boost overall probably. But I agree the solution to that is not to allow someone to lock the opponent's gunline in melee on turn 1! So I see this change as positive.
Getting 60 Berserkers shoved into melee turn 1 is not ever fun to play against
Danny slag wrote: RIP close combat armies.
They keep pushing 40k towards being two static gun lines that deploy in the back edge and lob shots at each other.
Close combat is riskier because you have to roll charge, more dangerous because your opponent gets to attack back, and with fallback leaves you vulnerable, so I dont know why GW seems to think it should be nerfed into oblivion and is "unfair" of a close combat unit is ever able to reach a gunline.
That's the point. Close combat needs to be riskier.
The problem is risk-free close combat like Smash Captains or Bloodletter bombs. It's both boring and absolutely brainless to play, play against and bad for the game.
Why? Seriously give a reason. You dont say "shooting needs to be riskier" despite it being stronger than close combat. And combat already is riskier. So all close combat armies need to be fethed into uselessness because of one unit, blood angel captains?
Melee needs a boost overall probably. But I agree the solution to that is not to allow someone to lock the opponent's gunline in melee on turn 1! So I see this change as positive.
Getting 60 Berserkers shoved into melee turn 1 is not ever fun to play against
I don't think melee needs a boost. It's pretty potent, which is why having no chance to defend against it is so bad. Not having fly in pile-ins and consolidate should also help being able to defend against being locked in CC.
Danny slag wrote: RIP close combat armies.
They keep pushing 40k towards being two static gun lines that deploy in the back edge and lob shots at each other.
Close combat is riskier because you have to roll charge, more dangerous because your opponent gets to attack back, and with fallback leaves you vulnerable, so I dont know why GW seems to think it should be nerfed into oblivion and is "unfair" of a close combat unit is ever able to reach a gunline.
That's the point. Close combat needs to be riskier.
The problem is risk-free close combat like Smash Captains or Bloodletter bombs. It's both boring and absolutely brainless to play, play against and bad for the game.
Melee needs a boost overall probably. But I agree the solution to that is not to allow someone to lock the opponent's gunline in melee on turn 1! So I see this change as positive.
Getting 60 Berserkers shoved into melee turn 1 is not ever fun to play against
And getting your entire army shot off the board before it has any chance to do any damage isn't fun either. But that half of the equation doesn't seem to ever come up. Because as I said they're ok discouraging combat armies.
Sikplex wrote: I think a lot of people were expecting quite a few shifts in point changes...
Quite disappointed to see several armies receive nothing at all.
(Mainly Grey Knights... seeing the position they are in ATM)
Its an FAQ, not Chapter Approved. Anyone expecting points changes my misinformed as to what the FAQ was going to be.
OT though, overall its kind of meh. Not nearly as 'big' as I was expecting, really more of a few tweaks here and there that I dont really think affect the game a lot.
The CP regen is neutered but still good (Its free CP, even if it is just one a round, not like youre taking those other relics anyway).
Tactical reserves remains almost unchanged really, how many people wanted to DS units in their deployment zone?
Changes to trike from the shadows is HUGE for anyone actually using it. It means you cant get 9" away when playing long board.
The cover strat is interesting, 2CP is a lot, but potentially could have huge payoffs going second. All your vehicles with 2+ saves, no longer needing to keep your assault squads in cover and deploying them right on the line.
The change to On Wings of Fire is probably needed too.
Sikplex wrote: I think a lot of people were expecting quite a few shifts in point changes...
Quite disappointed to see several armies receive nothing at all.
(Mainly Grey Knights... seeing the position they are in ATM)
Its an FAQ, not Chapter Approved. Anyone expecting points changes my misinformed as to what the FAQ was going to be.
OT though, overall its kind of meh. Not nearly as 'big' as I was expecting, really more of a few tweaks here and there that I dont really think affect the game a lot.
As I said above, we got a fair few points changes in the last Big FAQ, so it wasn't unreasonable to expect a few here too.
And getting your entire army shot off the board before it has any chance to do any damage isn't fun either. But that half of the equation doesn't seem to ever come up. Because as I said they're ok discouraging combat armies.
I haven't seen many shooty armies do well recently, with the exception of the Castellan, which is (still) just broken.
Genestealers, Ynnari, Prophets of Flesh, Daemons, Bash-Brothers, Tzaangors, etc.. are pretty much all you see at top tables, if you subtract the IG/BA/Castellan lists.
Melee has an edge at moment and shooting (e.g. Tau, Necrons, Marines without Guilliman) definitely needs a boost. Just the reality of the game atm.
Danny slag wrote: RIP close combat armies.
They keep pushing 40k towards being two static gun lines that deploy in the back edge and lob shots at each other.
Close combat is riskier because you have to roll charge, more dangerous because your opponent gets to attack back, and with fallback leaves you vulnerable, so I dont know why GW seems to think it should be nerfed into oblivion and is "unfair" of a close combat unit is ever able to reach a gunline.
That's the point. Close combat needs to be riskier.
The problem is risk-free close combat like Smash Captains or Bloodletter bombs. It's both boring and absolutely brainless to play, play against and bad for the game.
Melee needs a boost overall probably. But I agree the solution to that is not to allow someone to lock the opponent's gunline in melee on turn 1! So I see this change as positive.
Getting 60 Berserkers shoved into melee turn 1 is not ever fun to play against
And getting your entire army shot off the board before it has any chance to do any damage isn't fun either. But that half of the equation doesn't seem to ever come up. Because as I said they're ok discouraging combat armies.
They addressed the problem of going second against a gunline too: you have a stratagem that makes all of the units in your deployment zone (sans Titantic) gain the benefits of cover. As a Primaris player I'm happy to finally get something useful for my army other than the Chapter Master upgrade.
Danny slag wrote: RIP close combat armies.
They keep pushing 40k towards being two static gun lines that deploy in the back edge and lob shots at each other.
Close combat is riskier because you have to roll charge, more dangerous because your opponent gets to attack back, and with fallback leaves you vulnerable, so I dont know why GW seems to think it should be nerfed into oblivion and is "unfair" of a close combat unit is ever able to reach a gunline.
That's the point. Close combat needs to be riskier.
The problem is risk-free close combat like Smash Captains or Bloodletter bombs. It's both boring and absolutely brainless to play, play against and bad for the game.
Melee needs a boost overall probably. But I agree the solution to that is not to allow someone to lock the opponent's gunline in melee on turn 1! So I see this change as positive.
Getting 60 Berserkers shoved into melee turn 1 is not ever fun to play against
And getting your entire army shot off the board before it has any chance to do any damage isn't fun either. But that half of the equation doesn't seem to ever come up. Because as I said they're ok discouraging combat armies.
They addressed the problem of going second against a gunline too: you have a stratagem that makes all of the units in your deployment zone (sans Titantic) gain the benefits of cover. As a Primaris player I'm happy to finally get something useful for my army other than the Chapter Master upgrade.
Its an FAQ, not Chapter Approved. Anyone expecting points changes my misinformed as to what the FAQ was going to be.
OT though, overall its kind of meh. Not nearly as 'big' as I was expecting, really more of a few tweaks here and there that I dont really think affect the game a lot.
The CP regen is neutered but still good (Its free CP, even if it is just one a round, not like youre taking those other relics anyway).
Tactical reserves remains almost unchanged really, how many people wanted to DS units in their deployment zone?
Changes to trike from the shadows is HUGE for anyone actually using it. It means you cant get 9" away when playing long board.
The cover strat is interesting, 2CP is a lot, but potentially could have huge payoffs going second. All your vehicles with 2+ saves, no longer needing to keep your assault squads in cover and deploying them right on the line.
The change to On Wings of Fire is probably needed too.
If they can't or won't change points costs, yet somehow are willing to change to points costs of stratagems, so there is that, then why not errata rules? Why not let GK deep strike turn 1 as the only army in game. Or add some rule to their brotherhood of psyker rule. For example keep the baby smite, but make it auto cast.
neither of those things wouls suddenly blow up the meta with 90% of people playing GK, but for GK players it would at least give a reason to take out the army out of its box.
They addressed the problem of going second against a gunline too: you have a stratagem that makes all of the units in your deployment zone (sans Titantic) gain the benefits of cover. As a Primaris player I'm happy to finally get something useful for my army other than the Chapter Master upgrade.
I guess it is good for marines, that have more starting CP. If you take GK and lose two CP, on top of any relics or re-rolls, your more or less stay with 1-2 CP for the rest of the game, and unlike other armies we don't get the 1CP per turn regeneration on any of our characters or detachments.
Danny slag wrote: RIP close combat armies.
They keep pushing 40k towards being two static gun lines that deploy in the back edge and lob shots at each other.
Close combat is riskier because you have to roll charge, more dangerous because your opponent gets to attack back, and with fallback leaves you vulnerable, so I dont know why GW seems to think it should be nerfed into oblivion and is "unfair" of a close combat unit is ever able to reach a gunline.
That's the point. Close combat needs to be riskier.
The problem is risk-free close combat like Smash Captains or Bloodletter bombs. It's both boring and absolutely brainless to play, play against and bad for the game.
Melee needs a boost overall probably. But I agree the solution to that is not to allow someone to lock the opponent's gunline in melee on turn 1! So I see this change as positive.
Getting 60 Berserkers shoved into melee turn 1 is not ever fun to play against
And getting your entire army shot off the board before it has any chance to do any damage isn't fun either. But that half of the equation doesn't seem to ever come up. Because as I said they're ok discouraging combat armies.
They addressed the problem of going second against a gunline too: you have a stratagem that makes all of the units in your deployment zone (sans Titantic) gain the benefits of cover. As a Primaris player I'm happy to finally get something useful for my army other than the Chapter Master upgrade.
Doenst do squat for armies with middling saves
Most vehicles have decent saves which makes transports more important (2+ save on a Rhino, 1+ save on a Land Raider for a couple of examples) and if you're not sticking them in a transport you should have deployed them out of line of sight anyways. You know, stuff that we've been doing for several editions now to force gunlines to either forgo shooting due to lacking valid targets, or forcing them to move in order to see things to shoot.
ClockworkZion wrote: They addressed the problem of going second against a gunline too: you have a stratagem that makes all of the units in your deployment zone (sans Titantic) gain the benefits of cover. As a Primaris player I'm happy to finally get something useful for my army other than the Chapter Master upgrade.
I will admit that I'm mostly a hobbyist rather than a player, so please correct me if I'm wrong. But, doesn't this completely screw over Imperial Knights players?
Sikplex wrote: I think a lot of people were expecting quite a few shifts in point changes...
Quite disappointed to see several armies receive nothing at all.
(Mainly Grey Knights... seeing the position they are in ATM)
Points changes are in Chapter Approved. They don't do points adjustments in errata.
If they were expecting points changes, they were just setting themselves up for disappointment.
If they don't why there was on spring? They could have, have done but this opted not to. And whatever are in ca are already decided for better or worse.
And getting your entire army shot off the board before it has any chance to do any damage isn't fun either. But that half of the equation doesn't seem to ever come up. Because as I said they're ok discouraging combat armies.
I haven't seen many shooty armies do well recently, with the exception of the Castellan, which is (still) just broken.
Genestealers, Ynnari, Prophets of Flesh, Daemons, Bash-Brothers, Tzaangors, etc.. are pretty much all you see at top tables, if you subtract the IG/BA/Castellan lists.
Melee has an edge at moment and shooting (e.g. Tau, Necrons, Marines without Guilliman) definitely needs a boost. Just the reality of the game atm.
False. Tzaanagors are seen because they're cheap filler for a smite army, not because of close combat prowess. The only one that was at the top tables was imperial soup with smash captains, in every WAAC list. So they should fix the blood Angel's stratagems, not nerf all combat into uselessness because of blood angels. You seem to be forgetting that charging from deep strike has less than a 50% chance of working, can be negated completely by screens, and you can only do it with part of your army. It's already very risky and a huge gamble. I guess they want it to be high risk zero reward instead.
Danny slag wrote: RIP close combat armies.
They keep pushing 40k towards being two static gun lines that deploy in the back edge and lob shots at each other.
Close combat is riskier because you have to roll charge, more dangerous because your opponent gets to attack back, and with fallback leaves you vulnerable, so I dont know why GW seems to think it should be nerfed into oblivion and is "unfair" of a close combat unit is ever able to reach a gunline.
That's the point. Close combat needs to be riskier.
The problem is risk-free close combat like Smash Captains or Bloodletter bombs. It's both boring and absolutely brainless to play, play against and bad for the game.
Melee needs a boost overall probably. But I agree the solution to that is not to allow someone to lock the opponent's gunline in melee on turn 1! So I see this change as positive.
Getting 60 Berserkers shoved into melee turn 1 is not ever fun to play against
And getting your entire army shot off the board before it has any chance to do any damage isn't fun either. But that half of the equation doesn't seem to ever come up. Because as I said they're ok discouraging combat armies.
They addressed the problem of going second against a gunline too: you have a stratagem that makes all of the units in your deployment zone (sans Titantic) gain the benefits of cover. As a Primaris player I'm happy to finally get something useful for my army other than the Chapter Master upgrade.
Doenst do squat for armies with middling saves
Most vehicles have decent saves which makes transports more important (2+ save on a Rhino, 1+ save on a Land Raider for a couple of examples) and if you're not sticking them in a transport you should have deployed them out of line of sight anyways. You know, stuff that we've been doing for several editions now to force gunlines to either forgo shooting due to lacking valid targets, or forcing them to move in order to see things to shoot.
As a dark eldar and ork player it really doesnt do much. Orks will still get blown off the board(I know thats more an army issue) but Dark Eldar Vehicles(san taloi) used to be safe if you screaming jets them now if they get shot at by any halfway decent weapon they'll still be relying on their invul
False. Tzaanagors are seen because they're cheap filler for a smite army, not because of close combat prowess. The only one that was at the top tables was imperial soup with smash captains, in every WAAC list. So they should fix the blood Angel's stratagems, not nerf all combat into uselessness because of blood angels. You seem to be forgetting that charging from deep strike has less than a 50% chance of working, can be negated completely by screens, and you can only do it with part of your army. It's already very risky and a huge gamble. I guess they want it to be high risk zero reward instead.
No. Tzaangors aren't even close to being the cheapest filler. They are there to teleport up with the Dark Matter Crystal, charge one screen-unit, wrap another. Than you pile in Mortarion or something into the same wrapped screen unit. Everything's locked in combat and the shooty army auto-loses.
Danny slag wrote: RIP close combat armies.
They keep pushing 40k towards being two static gun lines that deploy in the back edge and lob shots at each other.
Close combat is riskier because you have to roll charge, more dangerous because your opponent gets to attack back, and with fallback leaves you vulnerable, so I dont know why GW seems to think it should be nerfed into oblivion and is "unfair" of a close combat unit is ever able to reach a gunline.
That's the point. Close combat needs to be riskier.
The problem is risk-free close combat like Smash Captains or Bloodletter bombs. It's both boring and absolutely brainless to play, play against and bad for the game.
Melee needs a boost overall probably. But I agree the solution to that is not to allow someone to lock the opponent's gunline in melee on turn 1! So I see this change as positive.
Getting 60 Berserkers shoved into melee turn 1 is not ever fun to play against
And getting your entire army shot off the board before it has any chance to do any damage isn't fun either. But that half of the equation doesn't seem to ever come up. Because as I said they're ok discouraging combat armies.
They addressed the problem of going second against a gunline too: you have a stratagem that makes all of the units in your deployment zone (sans Titantic) gain the benefits of cover. As a Primaris player I'm happy to finally get something useful for my army other than the Chapter Master upgrade.
So they have a stratagem that's great for MEQ static gunline evo go second. Doesn't fix the imbalance of erring the gak out of combat armies. That 6+ cover save sure will save a whopping 3 of my melee models to maybe reach charge range turn 3...
Yeah remember when deep stirke was nerfed the first time for armies that didn't have warp time to push their dudes turn one?
Or how for armies without Guillman razorbacks got a points hike. It is the same thing again. Instead of fixing the broken thing, GW just kills the whole build.
I seriously wonder why they didn't do something like remove infiltration from scouts, or something like that too.
False. Tzaanagors are seen because they're cheap filler for a smite army, not because of close combat prowess. The only one that was at the top tables was imperial soup with smash captains, in every WAAC list. So they should fix the blood Angel's stratagems, not nerf all combat into uselessness because of blood angels. You seem to be forgetting that charging from deep strike has less than a 50% chance of working, can be negated completely by screens, and you can only do it with part of your army. It's already very risky and a huge gamble. I guess they want it to be high risk zero reward instead.
No. Tzaangors aren't even close to being the cheapest filler. They are there to teleport up with the Dark Matter Crystal, charge one screen-unit, wrap another. Than you pile in Mortarion or something into the same wrapped screen unit. Everything's locked in combat and the shooty army auto-loses.
So let's make combat armies auto lose because you play a gunline, sounds great.
Danny slag wrote: RIP close combat armies.
They keep pushing 40k towards being two static gun lines that deploy in the back edge and lob shots at each other.
Close combat is riskier because you have to roll charge, more dangerous because your opponent gets to attack back, and with fallback leaves you vulnerable, so I dont know why GW seems to think it should be nerfed into oblivion and is "unfair" of a close combat unit is ever able to reach a gunline.
That's the point. Close combat needs to be riskier.
The problem is risk-free close combat like Smash Captains or Bloodletter bombs. It's both boring and absolutely brainless to play, play against and bad for the game.
Melee needs a boost overall probably. But I agree the solution to that is not to allow someone to lock the opponent's gunline in melee on turn 1! So I see this change as positive.
Getting 60 Berserkers shoved into melee turn 1 is not ever fun to play against
And getting your entire army shot off the board before it has any chance to do any damage isn't fun either. But that half of the equation doesn't seem to ever come up. Because as I said they're ok discouraging combat armies.
They addressed the problem of going second against a gunline too: you have a stratagem that makes all of the units in your deployment zone (sans Titantic) gain the benefits of cover. As a Primaris player I'm happy to finally get something useful for my army other than the Chapter Master upgrade.
So they have a stratagem that's great for MEQ static gunline evo go second. Doesn't fix the imbalance of erring the gak out of combat armies. That 6+ cover save sure will save a whopping 3 of my melee models to maybe reach charge range turn 3...
6+ cover save..?
Is your army 7+ save normally? Are you running nothing but Poxwalkers?
ClockworkZion wrote: They addressed the problem of going second against a gunline too: you have a stratagem that makes all of the units in your deployment zone (sans Titantic) gain the benefits of cover. As a Primaris player I'm happy to finally get something useful for my army other than the Chapter Master upgrade.
I will admit that I'm mostly a hobbyist rather than a player, so please correct me if I'm wrong. But, doesn't this completely screw over Imperial Knights players?
SG
IK's are in a good enough spot to be fine. Probably going to hit their Invul anyway.
Process wrote: So has anything really changed? guard batteries still a thing, even if its just to get as many cp as possible to start with.
This doesn't change anything does it?
ohh apart from stopping the raven guard domination we're seeing............?
Well, I think it's too soon to say.
The CP change will make a difference to how much you can spam the strats on Knights. Rotate Ion Shields is 3cp on a Castellan alone. Without significant CP regen you're going to run out fast.
So let's make combat armies auto lose because you play a gunline, sounds great.
I don't play a gunline. Lol. Because most are terrible right now.
Go play some Tau or something and come back, telling me how you did auto-winning against all those Genestealers, Daemons, etc.. out there
Agreed. Pure gunline does poorly, and honestly I'm generally ok with that, just as I am ok with pure combat doing poorly. Both are gimmick lists in my opinion (outside of Tau and Daemons respectively, who do need help).
Generally though the game should be balanced around a mixed force being the default, in my opinion.
Process wrote: So has anything really changed? guard batteries still a thing, even if its just to get as many cp as possible to start with.
This doesn't change anything does it?
ohh apart from stopping the raven guard domination we're seeing............?
They nerfed the BA captins and the jetbikes custodes. Now if either are also invalid to play with, is a question better players then me have to anwser. I do think the BA player without the regeneration abilities maybe not good enough, but it is gut feeling. May as well be wrong and he could still be ok to be used in some sort of builds.
Generally though the game should be balanced around a mixed force being the default, in my opinion.
You know what is a mixed melee and shoting army? GK are, and how good are they doing? The game is won by armies that are not doing shoting and melee, they are won by armies with super shoting, and some super melee units to counter or tie up stuff. Something like a good mid range army doesn't exist in w4k right now,
ClockworkZion wrote: They addressed the problem of going second against a gunline too: you have a stratagem that makes all of the units in your deployment zone (sans Titantic) gain the benefits of cover. As a Primaris player I'm happy to finally get something useful for my army other than the Chapter Master upgrade.
I will admit that I'm mostly a hobbyist rather than a player, so please correct me if I'm wrong. But, doesn't this completely screw over Imperial Knights players?
ClockworkZion wrote: They addressed the problem of going second against a gunline too: you have a stratagem that makes all of the units in your deployment zone (sans Titantic) gain the benefits of cover. As a Primaris player I'm happy to finally get something useful for my army other than the Chapter Master upgrade.
I will admit that I'm mostly a hobbyist rather than a player, so please correct me if I'm wrong. But, doesn't this completely screw over Imperial Knights players?
While Knights won't benefit from the rule, they need it less to start with. Knights are a low-count army so will usually get the +1 to the first turn roll. Secondly, everything in the army can move 10" or more and still fire heavy weapons without a penalty. GW sell enough tall terrain pieces to either block LOS to Knight-sized models or at least give them a normal cover save.
Danny slag wrote: RIP close combat armies.
They keep pushing 40k towards being two static gun lines that deploy in the back edge and lob shots at each other.
Close combat is riskier because you have to roll charge, more dangerous because your opponent gets to attack back, and with fallback leaves you vulnerable, so I dont know why GW seems to think it should be nerfed into oblivion and is "unfair" of a close combat unit is ever able to reach a gunline.
That's the point. Close combat needs to be riskier.
The problem is risk-free close combat like Smash Captains or Bloodletter bombs. It's both boring and absolutely brainless to play, play against and bad for the game.
Melee needs a boost overall probably. But I agree the solution to that is not to allow someone to lock the opponent's gunline in melee on turn 1! So I see this change as positive.
Getting 60 Berserkers shoved into melee turn 1 is not ever fun to play against
And getting your entire army shot off the board before it has any chance to do any damage isn't fun either. But that half of the equation doesn't seem to ever come up. Because as I said they're ok discouraging combat armies.
They addressed the problem of going second against a gunline too: you have a stratagem that makes all of the units in your deployment zone (sans Titantic) gain the benefits of cover. As a Primaris player I'm happy to finally get something useful for my army other than the Chapter Master upgrade.
So they have a stratagem that's great for MEQ static gunline evo go second. Doesn't fix the imbalance of erring the gak out of combat armies. That 6+ cover save sure will save a whopping 3 of my melee models to maybe reach charge range turn 3...
MEQ doesn't do gunline all that well, plus if you play the mission (which MEQhas to do in order to have a chance of winning) you need to be mobile to grab objectives in most games. So no, it's not great for static MEQ gunlines because no one plays those (or at least plays those an expects to win games).
Danny slag wrote: RIP close combat armies.
They keep pushing 40k towards being two static gun lines that deploy in the back edge and lob shots at each other.
Close combat is riskier because you have to roll charge, more dangerous because your opponent gets to attack back, and with fallback leaves you vulnerable, so I dont know why GW seems to think it should be nerfed into oblivion and is "unfair" of a close combat unit is ever able to reach a gunline.
That's the point. Close combat needs to be riskier.
The problem is risk-free close combat like Smash Captains or Bloodletter bombs. It's both boring and absolutely brainless to play, play against and bad for the game.
Melee needs a boost overall probably. But I agree the solution to that is not to allow someone to lock the opponent's gunline in melee on turn 1! So I see this change as positive.
Getting 60 Berserkers shoved into melee turn 1 is not ever fun to play against
And getting your entire army shot off the board before it has any chance to do any damage isn't fun either. But that half of the equation doesn't seem to ever come up. Because as I said they're ok discouraging combat armies.
They addressed the problem of going second against a gunline too: you have a stratagem that makes all of the units in your deployment zone (sans Titantic) gain the benefits of cover. As a Primaris player I'm happy to finally get something useful for my army other than the Chapter Master upgrade.
So they have a stratagem that's great for MEQ static gunline evo go second. Doesn't fix the imbalance of erring the gak out of combat armies. That 6+ cover save sure will save a whopping 3 of my melee models to maybe reach charge range turn 3...
6+ cover save..?
Is your army 7+ save normally? Are you running nothing but Poxwalkers?
GSC which are 11 points (minimum) for a paper thin model. Most guns in the game have some AP, with the exception of stunt marine boaters. So this stratagem will mean almost nothing. Just like it means nothing for orks, though at least they arent paying out the ass per model.
GW keeps using duct tape to fix what is inherently broken which is the turn structure. And they keep breaking entire armies to fix cheese that's only a very specific model combined with a specific strategem.
Well they did make it so you can hold objectives with buildings which is a hilarious way to make fortifications better (and makes me want to run the largest one I can just so hordes can't even get within 3" of said objective).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Process wrote: So has anything really changed? guard batteries still a thing, even if its just to get as many cp as possible to start with.
This doesn't change anything does it?
ohh apart from stopping the raven guard domination we're seeing............?
Considering how fast some army builds burn through CP it means we're looking at 1-2 turns of heavy CP usage instead of 4-5 turns.
Process wrote: So has anything really changed? guard batteries still a thing, even if its just to get as many cp as possible to start with.
This doesn't change anything does it?
ohh apart from stopping the raven guard domination we're seeing............?
Yeah this is how I see it. I don't see any move away from the current reliance on allied Guard to gain CPs for Imperium Soup. You're not going to see IK without it, just as you didn't before.
I've seen so many innovative rule changes suggested here and other places among players that the new FAQ makes me very frustrated. At every turn GW seems to have taken the laziest, nerfiest solution possible. And to say Battle Brothers is working and everyone loves it makes me wretch.
I have to say that many of these changes made me happy as a Craftworld/Drukhari player primarily. Also makes me excited to pull out my Dark Angels again.
Process wrote: So has anything really changed? guard batteries still a thing, even if its just to get as many cp as possible to start with.
This doesn't change anything does it?
ohh apart from stopping the raven guard domination we're seeing............?
Yeah this is how I see it. I don't see any move away from the current reliance on allied Guard to gain CPs for Imperium Soup. You're not going to see IK without it, just as you didn't before.
It means the Knight players will either need to spend less CP per turn for late game CP usage, or run out before turn 3 meaning they'll go down faster once they run out since they won't get as much CP back every turn.
Overall, I like it. The CP farm nerf is good, and warranted, but in truth I feel like CPs should be faction specific. Because like others have pointed out, you're still going to have cheap IG brigades to fuel knight stratagems, it's just going to less effective because they don't get so many free CPs.
If knight stratagems HAD to use CPs from knight detachments, that would be a lot more fair and permament fix, imo.
Also, the smash captain nerf didn't seem all that substantial. Increased the stratagem cost by 1. Meh. But that's not my biggest issue atm anyways.
I also think the RG/AL nerf was warranted. Granted, they were incredibly reliant on those armies getting first turn, but a guaranteed berzerker charge turn 1 or deep striking-but-not-moving agressors were broken as hell. My question is whether or not the new stratagem counts as a move for things like agressors.
And granted, there's still plenty of stuff that has ridiculous turn 1 moves (40" genestealer charges, 30" knight charges, etc). But the less of that nonsense, the better.
ClockworkZion wrote: They addressed the problem of going second against a gunline too: you have a stratagem that makes all of the units in your deployment zone (sans Titantic) gain the benefits of cover. As a Primaris player I'm happy to finally get something useful for my army other than the Chapter Master upgrade.
I will admit that I'm mostly a hobbyist rather than a player, so please correct me if I'm wrong. But, doesn't this completely screw over Imperial Knights players?
While Knights won't benefit from the rule, they need it less to start with. Knights are a low-count army so will usually get the +1 to the first turn roll. Secondly, everything in the army can move 10" or more and still fire heavy weapons without a penalty. GW sell enough tall terrain pieces to either block LOS to Knight-sized models or at least give them a normal cover save.
I think Knights will be fine.
Generally correct but gw terrain pieces are full of windows so los is never blocked and as you can't just be behind terrain to get cover no cover save. But then again not that they need it
Process wrote: So has anything really changed? guard batteries still a thing, even if its just to get as many cp as possible to start with.
This doesn't change anything does it?
ohh apart from stopping the raven guard domination we're seeing............?
Yeah this is how I see it. I don't see any move away from the current reliance on allied Guard to gain CPs for Imperium Soup. You're not going to see IK without it, just as you didn't before.
It means the Knight players will either need to spend less CP per turn for late game CP usage, or run out before turn 3 meaning they'll go down faster once they run out since they won't get as much CP back every turn.
Agreed. It's a positive step, it just may well not be enough to change the meta. But we can't know for sure until there are some big tournaments using these rules.
Confirmed GW and competitive players are not playing the same game.
The loyal 32 just became more important. Cheap CP is even more valuable with only limited means of regening it (although the warlord trait and relic have been nerfed). The ability of units to screen from flying charges makes chaff even more important and punishes armies that can't throw chaff out.
Nothing done about 3++ castillians. New targeting/shooting rules make rotate ion shields even more powerful. Eldar psychic powers still OP as all outdoors. DE, ugh.
The real problem of soup (gaming detachments for strat access/use) doesn't seem to be understood by GW yet. Patting themselves on the back for battle brothers which "solved" a problem that no one was having (Celestine plus assassins was the only exploit I saw) shows the disconnect they have with their own game.
The no deepstrike protections are clearly a crutch for non-competitive players. Anyone who has the tactical acumen of an 8 year old is able to screen out deepstrikers. Forcing units to stay off the table until turn 2 just increases the value of resilient long range shoot (hmmm, no problematic units have those traits...) and fast/double moving units (nope, not meta defining units at all).
Oh, the fortifications can hold objectives is such a terrible rule. Stinks of marketing "we need to sell more fortifications for this edition" I can't think of any other reason a building should be able to hold an objective...
Terrain still sucks. True LOS is so bad (the tip of my spear shoots the corner of your command flag pole). The character targeting rules are still dumb (that unit of scouts hidden in that building mean you can't shoot my shield captain on top of the building.
Underwhelming at best. I was hoping the terrain interactions would be looked at. Deepstriking would be limited to outside of 9" of enemies deployment zone. LOS required for psychic powers. Character targeting looked at. Relics modified. Something done about the loyal 32. Vect once per turn. No heretic astartes for cultists. Something done about the double shoot/move/attack strats. Word of pheonix/SfD changes.
I'm not sure how I feel about the 2cp to give your guys cover turn 1. Having to clump all of my infantry into oddly shaped/leveled terrain was a quality of life issue I'm glad they fixed. But just being able to deploy wherever seems like it removes one of the last strategic elements of deployment further dumbing down an already dumb game.
Basically the things that are making the game as unbalanced as it is on a competitive level and next to nothing (raising the cost of some strats and going from 2 cp per turn to 1 cp per turn regen will have an effect turn 3 or later but by that time the broken stuff has already done it's job).
Doesn't leave me optimistic for CA but I'm still holding out hope. Maybe they had to stay away from all of those changes since CA is already at the printers and I'll be pleasantly surprised but in the mean time anyone want to buy a slightly used BA or SM codex?
Dave1215 wrote: I've seen so many innovative rule changes suggested here and other places among players that the new FAQ makes me very frustrated. At every turn GW seems to have taken the laziest, nerfiest solution possible. And to say Battle Brothers is working and everyone loves it makes me wretch.
Well the GT level tournie players are loving it. We need a buff for mono-faction armies though.
It means the Knight players will either need to spend less CP per turn for late game CP usage, or run out before turn 3 meaning they'll go down faster once they run out since they won't get as much CP back every turn.
I play the other type of knights. Does not chage the fact I am against making stuff bad, for sake of making stuff bad. An errata or FAQ should be making bad stuff good or worth taking. With nerfs like this two things are achived. Either the nerf is not enough, and the army or unit keeps being used anyway. As the example of eldar nerfs this edition or IG this FAQ are showing. Or the thing is killed, and the players wonder what they are suppose to do with the models now. It aint like GW is taking returns on stuff that no longer works or anything like that.
And getting your entire army shot off the board before it has any chance to do any damage isn't fun either. But that half of the equation doesn't seem to ever come up. Because as I said they're ok discouraging combat armies.
I haven't seen many shooty armies do well recently, with the exception of the Castellan, which is (still) just broken.
Genestealers, Ynnari, Prophets of Flesh, Daemons, Bash-Brothers, Tzaangors, etc.. are pretty much all you see at top tables, if you subtract the IG/BA/Castellan lists.
Melee has an edge at moment and shooting (e.g. Tau, Necrons, Marines without Guilliman) definitely needs a boost. Just the reality of the game atm.
They're all you see at the top tables (if you subtract, like, 7 of NOVA's top 10). That's QUITE the qualifying statement at the end. This was very much an unnecessary nerf to melee armies.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Overall, I like it. The CP farm nerf is good, and warranted, but in truth I feel like CPs should be faction specific. Because like others have pointed out, you're still going to have cheap IG brigades to fuel knight stratagems, it's just going to less effective because they don't get so many free CPs.
If knight stratagems HAD to use CPs from knight detachments, that would be a lot more fair and permament fix, imo.
Also, the smash captain nerf didn't seem all that substantial. Increased the stratagem cost by 1. Meh. But that's not my biggest issue atm anyways.
I also think the RG/AL nerf was warranted. Granted, they were incredibly reliant on those armies getting first turn, but a guaranteed berzerker charge turn 1 or deep striking-but-not-moving agressors were broken as hell. My question is whether or not the new stratagem counts as a move for things like agressors.
And granted, there's still plenty of stuff that has ridiculous turn 1 moves (40" genestealer charges, 30" knight charges, etc). But the less of that nonsense, the better.
You missed the change to Fly and how that affects the smashcaptain build. You can't jump over screening units to charge knights anymore (as an example) but rather need something to pull the screening unit out of position first THEN charge the knight.
Never said they needed a buff. Just seems that it might hurt IK players since they cannot ever use this strategem to give IKs a chance to get out onto the battlefield.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Overall, I like it. The CP farm nerf is good, and warranted, but in truth I feel like CPs should be faction specific. Because like others have pointed out, you're still going to have cheap IG brigades to fuel knight stratagems, it's just going to less effective because they don't get so many free CPs.
If knight stratagems HAD to use CPs from knight detachments, that would be a lot more fair and permament fix, imo.
Also, the smash captain nerf didn't seem all that substantial. Increased the stratagem cost by 1. Meh. But that's not my biggest issue atm anyways.
I also think the RG/AL nerf was warranted. Granted, they were incredibly reliant on those armies getting first turn, but a guaranteed berzerker charge turn 1 or deep striking-but-not-moving agressors were broken as hell. My question is whether or not the new stratagem counts as a move for things like agressors.
And granted, there's still plenty of stuff that has ridiculous turn 1 moves (40" genestealer charges, 30" knight charges, etc). But the less of that nonsense, the better.
Smash captain was also nerfed with fly nerf. No more need to roll 3" to charge after ds and screen stops from charging target
Grimtuff wrote: ITT- people complaining about the DS "nerf" like they've never played another edition of 40k before and it's just going back to how it always was.
I never played another edition. Neither did any of my friends.
Point changes are mainly addressed in CA, which is 2.5 months out.
Ok, but what if it ends up the same way the last CA did. GK were the worse or one of the worse factions 9 months ago, and the CA nerfed them with points costs going up.
Never said they needed a buff. Just seems that it might hurt IK players since they cannot ever use this strategem to give IKs a chance to get out onto the battlefield.
SG
Giving them the buff would hurt the game more than denying them the buff hurts the army.
On a different note: GWdidn't change the way Grapnel Launchers work, meaning Reivers can still pull the 2" charge stunt.
Why? Seriously give a reason. You dont say "shooting needs to be riskier" despite it being stronger than close combat. And combat already is riskier. So all close combat armies need to be fethed into uselessness because of one unit, blood angel captains?
The changes to the BA captain have nothing to do with melee armies in general.
In any case buy some Rhinos and give them 2+ armor saves.
Why? Seriously give a reason. You dont say "shooting needs to be riskier" despite it being stronger than close combat. And combat already is riskier. So all close combat armies need to be fethed into uselessness because of one unit, blood angel captains?
The changes to the BA captain have nothing to do with melee armies in general.
In any case buy some Rhinos and give them 2+ armor saves.
I have two rhinos, termintors can't ride in rhinos.
Danny slag wrote: RIP close combat armies.
They keep pushing 40k towards being two static gun lines that deploy in the back edge and lob shots at each other.
Close combat is riskier because you have to roll charge, more dangerous because your opponent gets to attack back, and with fallback leaves you vulnerable, so I dont know why GW seems to think it should be nerfed into oblivion and is "unfair" of a close combat unit is ever able to reach a gunline.
That's the point. Close combat needs to be riskier.
The problem is risk-free close combat like Smash Captains or Bloodletter bombs. It's both boring and absolutely brainless to play, play against and bad for the game.
What about the risky units like khorne berserkers? Most of my army is consistent of melee stuff. I've had to add more and more shooting through the existence of 8th when going to events. It's getting harder and harder to find victory against 95% gunline metas. I've played games where none of my Berserkers made it to melee because they were shot to Oblivion before they could get anything done.
Danny slag wrote: I like how needing to roll a 9 on 2d6 when deepstriking is "guaranteed charge." Less than 50% chance is far from guaranteed.
Everyone gaks their pants if combat units have any chance at all of doing any damage.
Units doing ds charges don't do 2d6 charges. As a bare minimum they have multiple units and rerol' for 50-50(that's why multiple units) or boost distance. 2d6 9" charge is for noobs
Why? Seriously give a reason. You dont say "shooting needs to be riskier" despite it being stronger than close combat. And combat already is riskier. So all close combat armies need to be fethed into uselessness because of one unit, blood angel captains?
The changes to the BA captain have nothing to do with melee armies in general.
In any case buy some Rhinos and give them 2+ armor saves.
You seem to be confused. Everyone took smash captains with jump packs to deep strike in. so GW nerfed deep stroking. Which yes effects every melee army.
But man you can get your GSC those gazylion points huge trucks that can't be hidden out of LoS and ride in those. Just don't let your opponent read your codex what they can transport and you should be ok.
But on a more positive side of things. With vect working the way it does now, how does one fit it in to an Inari soup list? You have to take the flesh dudes detachment, or is it just impossible to do, with in the points limitations given of course?
Why? Seriously give a reason. You dont say "shooting needs to be riskier" despite it being stronger than close combat. And combat already is riskier. So all close combat armies need to be fethed into uselessness because of one unit, blood angel captains?
The changes to the BA captain have nothing to do with melee armies in general.
In any case buy some Rhinos and give them 2+ armor saves.
I have two rhinos, termintors can't ride in rhinos.
Terminators have a 1+ save in cover. So does a Land Raider. BOTH are AWESOME with this.
That said, why are your Terminators on the board turn 1 and not deep striking?
Danny slag wrote: I like how needing to roll a 9 on 2d6 when deepstriking is "guaranteed charge." Less than 50% chance is far from guaranteed.
Everyone gaks their pants if combat units have any chance at all of doing any damage.
Units doing ds charges don't do 2d6 charges. As a bare minimum they have multiple units and rerol' for 50-50(that's why multiple units) or boost distance. 2d6 9" charge is for noobs
You mean like how shooty armies have things like reroll auras to boost their odds? How novel! But that's different right because it likely benefits the type of army you play.
You still have to make a roll to see if you even get in, and if you dont your entire unit is wasted. Huge risk, no real reward over just shooting instead.
Your entire argument seems to be "sometimes combat units can do damage and that's unacceptable." Stupid argument is stupid.
I think a lot of people are preemptively grabbing the pitchforks when it remains to be seen what Chapter Approved will bring with regards to points costs. Stuff that still appears to be broken might be recosted appropriately.
Why? Seriously give a reason. You dont say "shooting needs to be riskier" despite it being stronger than close combat. And combat already is riskier. So all close combat armies need to be fethed into uselessness because of one unit, blood angel captains?
The changes to the BA captain have nothing to do with melee armies in general.
In any case buy some Rhinos and give them 2+ armor saves.
You seem to be confused. Everyone took smash captains with jump packs to deep strike in. so GW nerfed deep stroking. Which yes effects every melee army.
Oh sure let me put my GSC in rhinos....oh wait.
No, deep striking was nerfed due to alpha striking melee builds that locked armies in their deployment zones and basically kept people from playing the game. Fly was nerfed because of the BA Captain, Shining Spears and Custodian Jetbikes.
I had no expectations for this FAQ but I was pleasantly surprised with the CP nerfs. What I'm not surprised with is GK being left in the dust. We'll see what CA does to help, but I don't expect anything significant.
Kelligula wrote: I had no expectations for this FAQ but I was pleasantly surprised with the CP nerfs. What I'm not surprised with is GK being left in the dust. We'll see what CA does to help, but I don't expect anything significant.
I think GK need a Codex redo to be honest. You can only do so much in a FAQ.
You seem to be confused. Everyone took smash captains with jump packs to deep strike in. so GW nerfed deep stroking. Which yes effects every melee army.
Oh sure let me put my GSC in rhinos....oh wait.
No, deep striking was nerfed due to alpha striking melee builds that locked armies in their deployment zones and basically kept people from playing the game. Fly was nerfed because of the BA Captain, Shining Spears and Custodian Jetbikes.
Where there any nerfs done to shoting too? I havent read all the FAQs yet.
ClockworkZion wrote: That said, why are your Terminators on the board turn 1 and not deep striking?
While good advice, this does make their damage per points lower overall
You pay X points for a unit for 5 turns of play, sometimes 6-7 turns, but lets keep it simple and just say 5.
If your unit isn't doing anything for a full turn it's efficiency potential is now Xppm - 20%.
Having to wait a full turn to use a unit, especially an already expensive one, is a downside of itself.
Personally, I would've loved faction-specific CP, but it'll work like this.
It's not a rebalancing, so I hope CA brings some love to Grey Knights, Necrons, etc.. (and hopefully tones down Cultists, still think they shouldn't have the Hereticus Astartes Keyword), but for what the FAQ does address, I like it a lot.
Why? Seriously give a reason. You dont say "shooting needs to be riskier" despite it being stronger than close combat. And combat already is riskier. So all close combat armies need to be fethed into uselessness because of one unit, blood angel captains?
The changes to the BA captain have nothing to do with melee armies in general.
In any case buy some Rhinos and give them 2+ armor saves.
You seem to be confused. Everyone took smash captains with jump packs to deep strike in. so GW nerfed deep stroking. Which yes effects every melee army.
Oh sure let me put my GSC in rhinos....oh wait.
No, deep striking was nerfed due to alpha striking melee builds that locked armies in their deployment zones and basically kept people from playing the game. Fly was nerfed because of the BA Captain, Shining Spears and Custodian Jetbikes.
Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.
Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.
I have two rhinos, termintors can't ride in rhinos.
Terminators have a 1+ save in cover. So does a Land Raider. BOTH are AWESOME with this.
That said, why are your Terminators on the board turn 1 and not deep striking?
So that my NDK doesn't get shot dead turn 1 and I auto lose ? plus with the power points change, I have to have some termintors on the board. I can't just leave a draigo and NDK on the table behind a building, even If I wanted to.
I don't own a LR, and everyone has been telling me they are one of the worse units in the game when cost to efficiency goes. And considering people at my store generaly don't help new people with what is good and what is bad, and they still say that, they have to be really bad.
Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.
Karol wrote: Where there any nerfs done to shoting too? I havent read all the FAQs yet.
Shooting didn't need further nerfs. We've already had several with this edition removing templates and markers that made certain weapons worth taking (poor Vindicators and your useless gun for example) and with how the game relies on you needing to move to grab objectives the game punishes static play. That's not even getting into how you can still slingshot units into your enemy's lines turn 1 to disrupt gun lines.
Plus with AP changes most gunlines aren't as good at dealing with horde armies anyways meaning gunlines need to do more than just turtle up to win games.
Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.
Ah so to come up with something you had to repeat the same thing 5 times, then throw in raven guard which shoots, not combat, and a joke unit.
Thank you for illustrating how weak your argument is.
You simply dont like if any combat units can do any damage to your army and prefer to wipe the board with no resistance. So you think that's "balanced." And that its "unfair" if any combat unit can do anything to you.
Ok thanks. Maybe it is just me, but I though shoting was super powerful in 8th, and stuff like the BA captin or s spears were in lists as a bonus, a very nice one, but the heavy work still was done by stuff like reapers or castellans.
Karol wrote: So that my NDK doesn't get shot dead turn 1 and I auto lose ? plus with the power points change, I have to have some termintors on the board. I can't just leave a draigo and NDK on the table behind a building, even If I wanted to.
I don't own a LR, and everyone has been telling me they are one of the worse units in the game when cost to efficiency goes. And considering people at my store generaly don't help new people with what is good and what is bad, and they still say that, they have to be really bad.
Land Raiders are more point efficient than Rhinos are (and can give GK some much needed lascannon support to help deal with enemy tanks). If you want to go all in on terminators then you need to be looking at doing more than just putting them on the board and crossing your fingers for the best.
Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.
Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.
Karol wrote: Ok thanks. Maybe it is just me, but I though shoting was super powerful in 8th, and stuff like the BA captin or s spears were in lists as a bonus, a very nice one, but the heavy work still was done by stuff like reapers or castellans.
Technically Reapers were nerfed in FAQ 1 so that would mean shooting has received its nerf in some respect as has been mentioned.
Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.
Danny slag wrote: Gunline players be all "omg sometimes combat units can do what you pay their points. to do! Unacceptable!"
Yet you don't complain when your shooty units do damage in shooting, because that's what they're supposed to do.
Locking someone in their deployment zone isn't what they're "supposed to be doing" it's denying your opponent the ability to actually play the game. Likewise, the ability for smashcaptains to make 2-3" charges into things like Knights on a DS was silly. Glad they changed it.
And they left Reivers alone to continue making 2-3" charges after dropping in which means they didn't nerf a much weaker unit the same way.
Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.
Ah so to come up with something you had to repeat the same thing 5 times, then throw in raven guard which shoots, not combat, and a joke unit.
Thank you for illustrating how weak your argument is.
You simply dont like if any combat units can do any damage to your army and prefer to wipe the board with no resistance. So you think that's "balanced." And that its "unfair" if any combat unit can do anything to you.
You are playing a game. Any option that allows one player to prevent the other from actually playing it by pinning their army in the deployment zone on turn 1 isn't a good mechanic. It's a broken one. Get over it already.
Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.
Thousand Sons were working as a Smite spam army, not a major assault army.
Tzaangor bombs had a little success, so I guess if you wanted to smash 1/10 of the top lists; mission accomplished.
Not true. NOVA finals was a Tzaangor Bomb. And plenty more in the Top 30. Aside from Castellan-lists, it was easily the top list out there, and with Castellan/BA lists getting a nerf, it wouldn't do to just not address the 3-4 lists below that (Cultist-Spam with Abaddon and 120 infiltrating Alpha Legion Cultists being probably no. 3), or you're not really changing anything other than the flavour of the problem.
Karol wrote: Ok thanks. Maybe it is just me, but I though shoting was super powerful in 8th, and stuff like the BA captin or s spears were in lists as a bonus, a very nice one, but the heavy work still was done by stuff like reapers or castellans.
Shooting is still strong, but it's not the static gunline king it was in something like 5th. Hordes are stronger than they used to be against shooting and mobility and board control are incredibly powerful things in the current edition.
Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.
Current meta is the result of them already being nerfed. They were incredibly good to the point of breaking the game which is why alpha striking was nerfed.
Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.
You never faced 20 alphalegion berzerkers, 30bloodletter bomb, skarbrand and more in your face turn 1?
Karol wrote: So that my NDK doesn't get shot dead turn 1 and I auto lose ? plus with the power points change, I have to have some termintors on the board. I can't just leave a draigo and NDK on the table behind a building, even If I wanted to.
I don't own a LR, and everyone has been telling me they are one of the worse units in the game when cost to efficiency goes. And considering people at my store generaly don't help new people with what is good and what is bad, and they still say that, they have to be really bad.
Land Raiders are more point efficient than Rhinos are (and can give GK some much needed lascannon support to help deal with enemy tanks). If you want to go all in on terminators then you need to be looking at doing more than just putting them on the board and crossing your fingers for the best.
I don't have the money to buy one, and I would have to buy it from the store, as no one localy owns any. A friend just teased me with this, could even be funny possibly, am never good with the funny stuff.
> After 7e codex: "They're not too good now, maybe in a later FAQ they'll improve!"
> After later FAQ: "They didn't get better, but I'm sure they'll get better in 8th edition!"
> After 8e index: "They're awful now, but they'll get fixed in the FAQ!"
> After index FAQ: "They're still awful, but they'll be good when they get a codex!"
> After codex: "They're really bad, but they'll get fixed in their FAQ!"
> After codex FAQ: "They're awful. However, they'll get fixed for sure in Chapter Approved!"
> After Chapter Approved: "They just got worse. However, I'm sure they'll get better in the March FAQ!"
> After March FAQ: "They got worse again, and didn't even receive any specific fixes despite overwhelming feedback. Just wait until the September FAQ, they're sure to improve!"
> After September FAQ: "They didn't get any fixes at all despite heavy feedback? Just wait until CA, that's when they'll be fixed!"
Does anyone know how long does it take GW to write a book like CA, someone told me they are done with stuff 6 months in advance, whihc would mean the CA stuff is already done and just waiting to be printed. Maybe if enough people post on the GW facebook they will leak some GK stuff or something, so people don't feel bad about this update.
Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.
Ah so to come up with something you had to repeat the same thing 5 times, then throw in raven guard which shoots, not combat, and a joke unit.
Thank you for illustrating how weak your argument is.
You simply dont like if any combat units can do any damage to your army and prefer to wipe the board with no resistance. So you think that's "balanced." And that its "unfair" if any combat unit can do anything to you.
You are playing a game. Any option that allows one player to prevent the other from actually playing it by pinning their army in the deployment zone on turn 1 isn't a good mechanic. It's a broken one. Get over it already.
And that shows the asinine bias of your argument because you wouldn't say the same thing about shooting a unit. But doesn't shooting them dead also stop them from doing anything? Oh but that's different because that's what the armies you play do. An combat army being prevented from playing it is ok though right? So your entire argument still sums up in "units I don't use shouldn't be able to do anything to units I use."
You're dense.
Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.
Thousand Sons were working as a Smite spam army, not a major assault army.
Tzaangor bombs had a little success, so I guess if you wanted to smash 1/10 of the top lists; mission accomplished.
Tzaangor bomb was a powerful supplement to the smite spam army that was toned down by denying alpha strikes out of deep strike meaning that you can't throw most of your army into reserves to smash into the enemy lines the same way you used to.
You're ignoring that this change was done for good reason and using the fact that the reasons being mentioned aren't strong anymore as proof that the change wasn't needed despite the reason those builds aren't broken anymore being a result of said change.
Karol wrote: So that my NDK doesn't get shot dead turn 1 and I auto lose ? plus with the power points change, I have to have some termintors on the board. I can't just leave a draigo and NDK on the table behind a building, even If I wanted to.
I don't own a LR, and everyone has been telling me they are one of the worse units in the game when cost to efficiency goes. And considering people at my store generaly don't help new people with what is good and what is bad, and they still say that, they have to be really bad.
Land Raiders are more point efficient than Rhinos are (and can give GK some much needed lascannon support to help deal with enemy tanks). If you want to go all in on terminators then you need to be looking at doing more than just putting them on the board and crossing your fingers for the best.
I don't have the money to buy one, and I would have to buy it from the store, as no one localy owns any. A friend just teased me with this, could even be funny possibly, am never good with the funny stuff.
> After 7e codex: "They're not too good now, maybe in a later FAQ they'll improve!"
> After later FAQ: "They didn't get better, but I'm sure they'll get better in 8th edition!"
> After 8e index: "They're awful now, but they'll get fixed in the FAQ!"
> After index FAQ: "They're still awful, but they'll be good when they get a codex!"
> After codex: "They're really bad, but they'll get fixed in their FAQ!"
> After codex FAQ: "They're awful. However, they'll get fixed for sure in Chapter Approved!"
> After Chapter Approved: "They just got worse. However, I'm sure they'll get better in the March FAQ!"
> After March FAQ: "They got worse again, and didn't even receive any specific fixes despite overwhelming feedback. Just wait until the September FAQ, they're sure to improve!"
> After September FAQ: "They didn't get any fixes at all despite heavy feedback? Just wait until CA, that's when they'll be fixed!"
Does anyone know how long does it take GW to write a book like CA, someone told me they are done with stuff 6 months in advance, whihc would mean the CA stuff is already done and just waiting to be printed. Maybe if enough people post on the GW facebook they will leak some GK stuff or something, so people don't feel bad about this update.
CA is out in December so it should be done being printed, or almost done being printed now.
Dave1215 wrote: I've seen so many innovative rule changes suggested here and other places among players that the new FAQ makes me very frustrated. At every turn GW seems to have taken the laziest, nerfiest solution possible. And to say Battle Brothers is working and everyone loves it makes me wretch.
Well the GT level tournie players are loving it. We need a buff for mono-faction armies though.
That is a pretty small group of highly biased players. It's also a very unique demographic - people who can afford to travel to play tournaments on a regular basis. These people have a highly vested interest in their stupid tournament net-listed armies remaining unchanged.
Mixed reaction to this from me. The CP farm changes might be enough, but I still think they need to look at soup in general. I think the Guard Battalion will still show up in every Imperial list for the +5 CP but we might now see some variety in relics/warlord traits. Changing how some of the strats work seems like a good idea to balance thinigs. I like half of the Fly nerf, making those 0" charges a thing of the past.
However, I think the Fly nerf went too far. Now cheap screening troops are even more valuable, making armies that don't have them even worse. A lot of tactics now simply don't work, which pushes the game down an even simpler path than it is right now. On top of that, we have GW declaring everyone loved their soup nerf, which shows they're either trolling us or don't understand their own game.
I think I'd like to see GW take a few more risks with their beta rules. At the moment they tend to be adopted immediately by tournaments because they're pretty safe changes overall. I think GW should be using these FAQs to make bigger changes but make it absolutely clear that noting is final yet and they will make changes if things prove too good/bad. Right now the beta rules never really feel like they won't be implemented with anything other than minor tweaks.
Danny slag wrote: And that shows the asinine bias of your argument because you wouldn't say the same thing about shooting a unit. But doesn't shooting them dead also stop them from doing anything? Oh but that's different because that's what the armies you play do. Your entire argument still sums up in "units I don't use shouldn't be able to do anything to units I use."
You're dense.
I play an all mono-faction all Primaris Imperial Fists army. I can't gunline the way you claim if I wanted to and have to rely on controlling the board center to win games. But nice projection of how my army is the cancer of the game despite not being in the top 10 this entire edition.
The current meta is already a result of the builds we've mentioned being nerfed and the game is better for it. Your bias for melee only armies is basically insane if only for the fact that the game shouldn't allow one player to lock the other player completely out of every phase save for assualt on turn 1. Even if you want to argue that shooting is strong it doesn't prevent you from doing other things in the game and they even gave you a means on increasing the durability of your army against shooting on turn 1 (and making transports better since they'll weather shooting on turn 1 better).
Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.
Thousand Sons were working as a Smite spam army, not a major assault army.
Tzaangor bombs had a little success, so I guess if you wanted to smash 1/10 of the top lists; mission accomplished.
Not true. NOVA finals was a Tzaangor Bomb. And plenty more in the Top 30. Aside from Castellan-lists, it was easily the top list out there, and with Castellan/BA lists getting a nerf, it wouldn't do to just not address the 3-4 lists below that (Cultist-Spam with Abaddon and 120 infiltrating Alpha Legion Cultists being probably no. 3), or you're not really changing anything other than the flavour of the problem.
Uh, no, not at all. Let's review the lists, shall we?
I have no idea why you decided to say "Top 30" except maybe because it helps you. Most places generally settle on top 10 and occasionally top 15. In order to include as many lists as possible, here's the top 16 (cause I found na extra):
1. Knights/CP Farm
2. Knights/CP Farm
3. Ynnari
4. Knights/CP Farm
5. Morty+Magnus Party
6. Knights/CP Farm
7. Custodes Mass Jetbikes
8. Dark Eldar
9. Blood Angels
10. Harlequinns
11. Knight/CP Farm
12. Custodes (Infantry of all things)
13. Knights/CP Farm
14. Tau
15. Adeptus Astartes
16. Daemons
So looking at this, the top lists aside from Knight/CP Farm are almost certainly Eldar of some sort or another. There were only two Chaos lists at all that could even TAKE Tzaangoer bombs. Cultist Spam, even with Abaddon, has like no presence at all. Honestly, your idea of the current meta just seems wildly off base or based on early 2018 as opposed to late 2018.
Dave1215 wrote: I've seen so many innovative rule changes suggested here and other places among players that the new FAQ makes me very frustrated. At every turn GW seems to have taken the laziest, nerfiest solution possible. And to say Battle Brothers is working and everyone loves it makes me wretch.
Well the GT level tournie players are loving it. We need a buff for mono-faction armies though.
That is a pretty small group of highly biased players. It's also a very unique demographic - people who can afford to travel to play tournaments on a regular basis. These people have a highly vested interest in their stupid tournament net-listed armies remaining unchanged.
Hrm, while I'd agree that its a very small niche of players, these are the guys that generally also will hop from army to army or build entirely different lists as the meta changes also, I doubt any are super wedded to any particular build that wont last a year anyway.
Dave1215 wrote: I've seen so many innovative rule changes suggested here and other places among players that the new FAQ makes me very frustrated. At every turn GW seems to have taken the laziest, nerfiest solution possible. And to say Battle Brothers is working and everyone loves it makes me wretch.
Well the GT level tournie players are loving it. We need a buff for mono-faction armies though.
That is a pretty small group of highly biased players. It's also a very unique demographic - people who can afford to travel to play tournaments on a regular basis. These people have a highly vested interest in their stupid tournament net-listed armies remaining unchanged.
It's the most well documented and noticeable part of the hobby though too.
Dave1215 wrote: I've seen so many innovative rule changes suggested here and other places among players that the new FAQ makes me very frustrated. At every turn GW seems to have taken the laziest, nerfiest solution possible. And to say Battle Brothers is working and everyone loves it makes me wretch.
Well the GT level tournie players are loving it. We need a buff for mono-faction armies though.
That is a pretty small group of highly biased players. It's also a very unique demographic - people who can afford to travel to play tournaments on a regular basis. These people have a highly vested interest in their stupid tournament net-listed armies remaining unchanged.
I don't know maybe am more strange then I think I really are. But does something like "clan" loyality exist in w40k? You know those people for which, and am not saying am one of them, just play other army or game isn't a fix for their army problems? I could imagine if someone played BAs and the two good things about their codex was the cpts and scouts, and someone took the cpts away and gave nothing in return, they may have a problem with adjusting. Or is it totally not the thing and the norm is that each year or new faq/errata your exepcted to go and buy a new army, just like in AoS, and if you are lucky some models maybe will transfer from the old list to the new list.
also pardon me about the tournament question. Was the BA+castellan+Ig list considered bad for tournaments, because it was too efficient and had no real counters that could also win games vs other armies? Because if yes why not just leave the changes to the tournament folk? Their orgenisers can just say a combinations of X units won't be allowed at the event, or that the stratagem can't be used. The changes wouldn't require, the nerfing of armies that do not play at the top tables of big tournaments on the other side of the ocean.
bananathug wrote: Confirmed GW and competitive players are not playing the same game.
The loyal 32 just became more important. Cheap CP is even more valuable with only limited means of regening it (although the warlord trait and relic have been nerfed). The ability of units to screen from flying charges makes chaff even more important and punishes armies that can't throw chaff out.
Nothing done about 3++ castillians. New targeting/shooting rules make rotate ion shields even more powerful. Eldar psychic powers still OP as all outdoors. DE, ugh.
The real problem of soup (gaming detachments for strat access/use) doesn't seem to be understood by GW yet. Patting themselves on the back for battle brothers which "solved" a problem that no one was having (Celestine plus assassins was the only exploit I saw) shows the disconnect they have with their own game.
The no deepstrike protections are clearly a crutch for non-competitive players. Anyone who has the tactical acumen of an 8 year old is able to screen out deepstrikers. Forcing units to stay off the table until turn 2 just increases the value of resilient long range shoot (hmmm, no problematic units have those traits...) and fast/double moving units (nope, not meta defining units at all).
Oh, the fortifications can hold objectives is such a terrible rule. Stinks of marketing "we need to sell more fortifications for this edition" I can't think of any other reason a building should be able to hold an objective...
Terrain still sucks. True LOS is so bad (the tip of my spear shoots the corner of your command flag pole). The character targeting rules are still dumb (that unit of scouts hidden in that building mean you can't shoot my shield captain on top of the building.
Underwhelming at best. I was hoping the terrain interactions would be looked at. Deepstriking would be limited to outside of 9" of enemies deployment zone. LOS required for psychic powers. Character targeting looked at. Relics modified. Something done about the loyal 32. Vect once per turn. No heretic astartes for cultists. Something done about the double shoot/move/attack strats. Word of pheonix/SfD changes.
I'm not sure how I feel about the 2cp to give your guys cover turn 1. Having to clump all of my infantry into oddly shaped/leveled terrain was a quality of life issue I'm glad they fixed. But just being able to deploy wherever seems like it removes one of the last strategic elements of deployment further dumbing down an already dumb game.
Basically the things that are making the game as unbalanced as it is on a competitive level and next to nothing (raising the cost of some strats and going from 2 cp per turn to 1 cp per turn regen will have an effect turn 3 or later but by that time the broken stuff has already done it's job).
Doesn't leave me optimistic for CA but I'm still holding out hope. Maybe they had to stay away from all of those changes since CA is already at the printers and I'll be pleasantly surprised but in the mean time anyone want to buy a slightly used BA or SM codex?
Bananathug coming through with truth and clarity yet again.
Danny slag wrote: And that shows the asinine bias of your argument because you wouldn't say the same thing about shooting a unit. But doesn't shooting them dead also stop them from doing anything? Oh but that's different because that's what the armies you play do. Your entire argument still sums up in "units I don't use shouldn't be able to do anything to units I use."
You're dense.
I play an all mono-faction all Primaris Imperial Fists army. I can't gunline the way you claim if I wanted to and have to rely on controlling the board center to win games. But nice projection of how my army is the cancer of the game despite not being in the top 10 this entire edition.
The current meta is already a result of the builds we've mentioned being nerfed and the game is better for it. Your bias for melee only armies is basically insane if only for the fact that the game shouldn't allow one player to lock the other player completely out of every phase save for assualt on turn 1. Even if you want to argue that shooting is strong it doesn't prevent you from doing other things in the game and they even gave you a means on increasing the durability of your army against shooting on turn 1 (and making transports better since they'll weather shooting on turn 1 better).
Says they don't play gunline then proceeds to say they play a gunline army.
Again you seem to think that shooting a unit dead is "fair" but killing it in melee isn't, somehow. Go ahead and tell me how my units you've shot off the board "still get to do something."
Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.
Thousand Sons were working as a Smite spam army, not a major assault army.
Tzaangor bombs had a little success, so I guess if you wanted to smash 1/10 of the top lists; mission accomplished.
Tzaangor bomb was a powerful supplement to the smite spam army that was toned down by denying alpha strikes out of deep strike meaning that you can't throw most of your army into reserves to smash into the enemy lines the same way you used to.
You're ignoring that this change was done for good reason and using the fact that the reasons being mentioned aren't strong anymore as proof that the change wasn't needed despite the reason those builds aren't broken anymore being a result of said change.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm disputing it. This change was too heavy-handed in the wrong direction. Tzaangoer bombs were part of one, maybe two lists at NOVA. They just weren't a prevalent, serious issue. And there was good reason for that: they were annoying, but they weren't game breaking (I say this as a person who only fights AGAINST them since I won't play as Chaos).
The Smite Spam army will still be fine because it's primary assault element was Warp Time'd Mortarion, who is completely unaffected by this change.
I have no idea why you decided to say "Top 30" except maybe because it helps you.
No, because there're limits to grasping numbers of the cuff.
To just address the Top 0.01% of possible army lists combinations, addressing something in the ball-park of the top one or two million ITC lists played this year would probably be a better approach.
Audustum wrote: Uh, no, not at all. Let's review the lists, shall we?
I have no idea why you decided to say "Top 30" except maybe because it helps you. Most places generally settle on top 10 and occasionally top 15. In order to include as many lists as possible, here's the top 16 (cause I found na extra):
1. Knights/CP Farm
2. Knights/CP Farm
3. Ynnari
4. Knights/CP Farm
5. Morty+Magnus Party
6. Knights/CP Farm
7. Custodes Mass Jetbikes
8. Dark Eldar
9. Blood Angels
10. Harlequinns
11. Knight/CP Farm
12. Custodes (Infantry of all things)
13. Knights/CP Farm
14. Tau
15. Adeptus Astartes
16. Daemons
So looking at this, the top lists aside from Knight/CP Farm are almost certainly Eldar of some sort or another. There were only two Chaos lists at all that could even TAKE Tzaangoer bombs. Cultist Spam, even with Abaddon, has like no presence at all. Honestly, your idea of the current meta just seems wildly off base or based on early 2018 as opposed to late 2018.
The good news is changes to fly should shake up those builds a bit since most of those armies rely on jumping over units to charge important units.
Quasistellar wrote: I do like that they're addressing the particularly strong strategems and upping their price, along with limiting CP regen.
Since they haven't done anything else to limit "soup", though, I think it's pretty clear that it's here to stay, and they're just going to try to balance around it.
Didn't they make official that you need to have a keyword other than Chaos, Imperium, etc.? Doesn'y that kill most soup armies, as I am pretty sure that means I can't take daemons in my TS army anymore (other than summon which sucks)
Karol wrote: Ok thanks. Maybe it is just me, but I though shoting was super powerful in 8th, and stuff like the BA captin or s spears were in lists as a bonus, a very nice one, but the heavy work still was done by stuff like reapers or castellans.
Shooting is still strong, but it's not the static gunline king it was in something like 5th. Hordes are stronger than they used to be against shooting and mobility and board control are incredibly powerful things in the current edition.
Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.
Current meta is the result of them already being nerfed. They were incredibly good to the point of breaking the game which is why alpha striking was nerfed.
Uh, what nerf? They were exempt from Deep Strike rule before today.
Quasistellar wrote: I do like that they're addressing the particularly strong strategems and upping their price, along with limiting CP regen.
Since they haven't done anything else to limit "soup", though, I think it's pretty clear that it's here to stay, and they're just going to try to balance around it.
Didn't they make official that you need to have a keyword other than Chaos, Imperium, etc.? Doesn'y that kill most soup armies, as I am pretty sure that means I can't take daemons in my TS army anymore (other than summon which sucks)
Not in the same detachment.
You can have a Nurgle Daemon Battalion and a TS Battalion no problem. You just cannot have Ahriman be a HQ for your Nurgle Daemon Battalion solely on the Chaos Keyword.
Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.
I have no idea why you decided to say "Top 30" except maybe because it helps you.
No, because there're limits to grasping numbers of the cuff.
To just address the Top 0.01% of possible army lists combinations, addressing something in the ball-park of the top one or two million ITC lists played this year would probably be a better approach.
Top 10/Top 15 is pretty standard across tournament formats for a multitude of games. It's also where we have data to track consistent winners/top performers. Things below that could just as easily be player error instead of balance. You're gonna have to give some reason for your chosen cut-off line that's a bit more verifiable.
Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.
Maybe 8.5 edition and a new round of codexes for everyone will move things in the right direction. In the meantime, my hobby group is burned out on the rapidly expanding trash fire that 8th is and will probably just play kill team for a few months to try and only waste a half hour at a time instead of 2.
Quasistellar wrote: I do like that they're addressing the particularly strong strategems and upping their price, along with limiting CP regen.
Since they haven't done anything else to limit "soup", though, I think it's pretty clear that it's here to stay, and they're just going to try to balance around it.
Didn't they make official that you need to have a keyword other than Chaos, Imperium, etc.? Doesn'y that kill most soup armies, as I am pretty sure that means I can't take daemons in my TS army anymore (other than summon which sucks)
Not in the same detachment.
You can have a Nurgle Daemon Battalion and a TS Battalion no problem. You just cannot have Ahriman be a HQ for your Nurgle Daemon Battalion solely on the Chaos Keyword.
Thank you. Did anyone actually do this? I mean then you lose your army trait. Wow that rule is pointless and stupid
Danny slag wrote: And that shows the asinine bias of your argument because you wouldn't say the same thing about shooting a unit. But doesn't shooting them dead also stop them from doing anything? Oh but that's different because that's what the armies you play do. Your entire argument still sums up in "units I don't use shouldn't be able to do anything to units I use."
You're dense.
I play an all mono-faction all Primaris Imperial Fists army. I can't gunline the way you claim if I wanted to and have to rely on controlling the board center to win games. But nice projection of how my army is the cancer of the game despite not being in the top 10 this entire edition.
The current meta is already a result of the builds we've mentioned being nerfed and the game is better for it. Your bias for melee only armies is basically insane if only for the fact that the game shouldn't allow one player to lock the other player completely out of every phase save for assualt on turn 1. Even if you want to argue that shooting is strong it doesn't prevent you from doing other things in the game and they even gave you a means on increasing the durability of your army against shooting on turn 1 (and making transports better since they'll weather shooting on turn 1 better).
Says they don't play gunline then proceeds to say they play a gunline army.
Again you seem to think that shooting a unit dead is "fair" but killing it in melee isn't, somehow. Go ahead and tell me how my units you've shot off the board "still get to do something."
A gunline is a mostly static army that relies on basically trying to table the opponent from their deployment zone. I'm playing a mid to short range shooting army (plus melee Reivers) that requires mobility to win games. It's not a gunline. Just because an army uses it's shooting phase doesn't make it a gunline.
Quasistellar wrote: I do like that they're addressing the particularly strong strategems and upping their price, along with limiting CP regen.
Since they haven't done anything else to limit "soup", though, I think it's pretty clear that it's here to stay, and they're just going to try to balance around it.
Didn't they make official that you need to have a keyword other than Chaos, Imperium, etc.? Doesn'y that kill most soup armies, as I am pretty sure that means I can't take daemons in my TS army anymore (other than summon which sucks)
Inside of a single detachment soup is mostly dead. Multi-detachment soup is fine.
Bremon wrote: Maybe 8.5 edition and a new round of codexes for everyone will move things in the right direction. In the meantime, my hobby group is burned out on the rapidly expanding trash fire that 8th is and will probably just play kill team for a few months to try and only waste a half hour at a time instead of 2.
Same. Kill team feels so much more balanced and I think it comes down almost entirely due to a more intelligent turn structure. 40k will always be impossible to balance as long as they insist on this outdated turn structure of entire armies going before the other army gets to do anything to react.
I don't know maybe am more strange then I think I really are. But does something like "clan" loyality exist in w40k? You know those people for which, and am not saying am one of them, just play other army or game isn't a fix for their army problems? I could imagine if someone played BAs and the two good things about their codex was the cpts and scouts, and someone took the cpts away and gave nothing in return, they may have a problem with adjusting. Or is it totally not the thing and the norm is that each year or new faq/errata your exepcted to go and buy a new army, just like in AoS, and if you are lucky some models maybe will transfer from the old list to the new list.
also pardon me about the tournament question. Was the BA+castellan+Ig list considered bad for tournaments, because it was too efficient and had no real counters that could also win games vs other armies? Because if yes why not just leave the changes to the tournament folk? Their orgenisers can just say a combinations of X units won't be allowed at the event, or that the stratagem can't be used. The changes wouldn't require, the nerfing of armies that do not play at the top tables of big tournaments on the other side of the ocean.
Swapping codexes is absolutely thing. With marines can even made to extreme so that same models can be used for any variant. Whether imperial or chaos!
Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.
Thousand Sons were working as a Smite spam army, not a major assault army.
Tzaangor bombs had a little success, so I guess if you wanted to smash 1/10 of the top lists; mission accomplished.
Not true. NOVA finals was a Tzaangor Bomb. And plenty more in the Top 30. Aside from Castellan-lists, it was easily the top list out there, and with Castellan/BA lists getting a nerf, it wouldn't do to just not address the 3-4 lists below that (Cultist-Spam with Abaddon and 120 infiltrating Alpha Legion Cultists being probably no. 3), or you're not really changing anything other than the flavour of the problem.
Uh, no, not at all. Let's review the lists, shall we?
I have no idea why you decided to say "Top 30" except maybe because it helps you. Most places generally settle on top 10 and occasionally top 15. In order to include as many lists as possible, here's the top 16 (cause I found na extra):
1. Knights/CP Farm
2. Knights/CP Farm
3. Ynnari
4. Knights/CP Farm
5. Morty+Magnus Party
6. Knights/CP Farm
7. Custodes Mass Jetbikes
8. Dark Eldar
9. Blood Angels
10. Harlequinns
11. Knight/CP Farm
12. Custodes (Infantry of all things)
13. Knights/CP Farm
14. Tau
15. Adeptus Astartes
16. Daemons
So looking at this, the top lists aside from Knight/CP Farm are almost certainly Eldar of some sort or another. There were only two Chaos lists at all that could even TAKE Tzaangoer bombs. Cultist Spam, even with Abaddon, has like no presence at all. Honestly, your idea of the current meta just seems wildly off base or based on early 2018 as opposed to late 2018.
Why would you ignore evidence just because it helps your perspective lol. It's a fact that they are taking spots in the top 30 so that isn't bad at all, it helps his perspective so he stated it. What the hell is this logic that the cut off point for success has to be where you deem it lol
Quasistellar wrote: I do like that they're addressing the particularly strong strategems and upping their price, along with limiting CP regen.
Since they haven't done anything else to limit "soup", though, I think it's pretty clear that it's here to stay, and they're just going to try to balance around it.
Didn't they make official that you need to have a keyword other than Chaos, Imperium, etc.? Doesn'y that kill most soup armies, as I am pretty sure that means I can't take daemons in my TS army anymore (other than summon which sucks)
Not in the same detachment.
You can have a Nurgle Daemon Battalion and a TS Battalion no problem. You just cannot have Ahriman be a HQ for your Nurgle Daemon Battalion solely on the Chaos Keyword.
Thank you. Did anyone actually do this? I mean then you lose your army trait. Wow that rule is pointless and stupid
It was more of an issue with index armies. Some armies (like Inquisition, Assassins and Sisters of Silence) relied more heavily on it than others.
Danny slag wrote: And that shows the asinine bias of your argument because you wouldn't say the same thing about shooting a unit. But doesn't shooting them dead also stop them from doing anything? Oh but that's different because that's what the armies you play do. Your entire argument still sums up in "units I don't use shouldn't be able to do anything to units I use."
You're dense.
I play an all mono-faction all Primaris Imperial Fists army. I can't gunline the way you claim if I wanted to and have to rely on controlling the board center to win games. But nice projection of how my army is the cancer of the game despite not being in the top 10 this entire edition.
The current meta is already a result of the builds we've mentioned being nerfed and the game is better for it. Your bias for melee only armies is basically insane if only for the fact that the game shouldn't allow one player to lock the other player completely out of every phase save for assualt on turn 1. Even if you want to argue that shooting is strong it doesn't prevent you from doing other things in the game and they even gave you a means on increasing the durability of your army against shooting on turn 1 (and making transports better since they'll weather shooting on turn 1 better).
Says they don't play gunline then proceeds to say they play a gunline army.
Again you seem to think that shooting a unit dead is "fair" but killing it in melee isn't, somehow. Go ahead and tell me how my units you've shot off the board "still get to do something."
A gunline is a mostly static army that relies on basically trying to table the opponent from their deployment zone. I'm playing a mid to short range shooting army (plus melee Reivers) that requires mobility to win games. It's not a gunline. Just because an army uses it's shooting phase doesn't make it a gunline.
Quasistellar wrote: I do like that they're addressing the particularly strong strategems and upping their price, along with limiting CP regen.
Since they haven't done anything else to limit "soup", though, I think it's pretty clear that it's here to stay, and they're just going to try to balance around it.
Didn't they make official that you need to have a keyword other than Chaos, Imperium, etc.? Doesn'y that kill most soup armies, as I am pretty sure that means I can't take daemons in my TS army anymore (other than summon which sucks)
Inside of a single detachment soup is mostly dead. Multi-detachment soup is fine.
A gunline that balls up around an aura and slowly walks forward a few inches is still a gunline.
Don't get me wrong, that playstyle should be viable, but so should other playstyles. The issue is some of you seem to think that if any combat unit ever has any chance of doing what it's designed to do that's "unfair." You think its wrong fofor melee units to be able to sometimes get into melee. You're fine shooting half the opponents army off the board before it can do anything, but if a combat unit gets a charge off that's "no fun. "
bananathug wrote: Confirmed GW and competitive players are not playing the same game.
The loyal 32 just became more important. Cheap CP is even more valuable with only limited means of regening it (although the warlord trait and relic have been nerfed). The ability of units to screen from flying charges makes chaff even more important and punishes armies that can't throw chaff out.
Nothing done about 3++ castillians. New targeting/shooting rules make rotate ion shields even more powerful. Eldar psychic powers still OP as all outdoors. DE, ugh.
The real problem of soup (gaming detachments for strat access/use) doesn't seem to be understood by GW yet. Patting themselves on the back for battle brothers which "solved" a problem that no one was having (Celestine plus assassins was the only exploit I saw) shows the disconnect they have with their own game.
The no deepstrike protections are clearly a crutch for non-competitive players. Anyone who has the tactical acumen of an 8 year old is able to screen out deepstrikers. Forcing units to stay off the table until turn 2 just increases the value of resilient long range shoot (hmmm, no problematic units have those traits...) and fast/double moving units (nope, not meta defining units at all).
Oh, the fortifications can hold objectives is such a terrible rule. Stinks of marketing "we need to sell more fortifications for this edition" I can't think of any other reason a building should be able to hold an objective...
Terrain still sucks. True LOS is so bad (the tip of my spear shoots the corner of your command flag pole). The character targeting rules are still dumb (that unit of scouts hidden in that building mean you can't shoot my shield captain on top of the building.
Underwhelming at best. I was hoping the terrain interactions would be looked at. Deepstriking would be limited to outside of 9" of enemies deployment zone. LOS required for psychic powers. Character targeting looked at. Relics modified. Something done about the loyal 32. Vect once per turn. No heretic astartes for cultists. Something done about the double shoot/move/attack strats. Word of pheonix/SfD changes.
I'm not sure how I feel about the 2cp to give your guys cover turn 1. Having to clump all of my infantry into oddly shaped/leveled terrain was a quality of life issue I'm glad they fixed. But just being able to deploy wherever seems like it removes one of the last strategic elements of deployment further dumbing down an already dumb game.
Basically the things that are making the game as unbalanced as it is on a competitive level and next to nothing (raising the cost of some strats and going from 2 cp per turn to 1 cp per turn regen will have an effect turn 3 or later but by that time the broken stuff has already done it's job).
Doesn't leave me optimistic for CA but I'm still holding out hope. Maybe they had to stay away from all of those changes since CA is already at the printers and I'll be pleasantly surprised but in the mean time anyone want to buy a slightly used BA or SM codex?
Bananathug coming through with truth and clarity yet again.
Yea,no.
Cheap CP is even more valuable with only limited means of regening it
The CP farms are also the ones with the best regen. The cost for IGCP farms to function just went up.
Nothing done about 3++ castillians. New targeting/shooting rules make rotate ion shields even more powerful.
The cost for CP went up. Smash captains are no longer easily filling in the holes of their list.
DE, ugh.
Chapter Approved also Vect went up.
The no deepstrike protections are clearly a crutch for non-competitive players. Anyone who has the tactical acumen of an 8 year old is able to screen out deepstrikers. Forcing units to stay off the table until turn 2 just increases the value of resilient long range shoot (hmmm, no problematic units have those traits...) and fast/double moving units (nope, not meta defining units at all).
Oh look - the everything will be a gunline argument again. You mean armies that have access to cheap infantry only, right? I'm not sure what point you're making, because those units largely weren't coming until turn 2 last FAQ as well and the world didn't end in gun lines.
Oh, the fortifications can hold objectives is such a terrible rule. Stinks of marketing "we need to sell more fortifications for this edition" I can't think of any other reason a building should be able to hold an objective...
Oh no the horror. People might actually use fortifications. I guess they don't want to sell gnarlmaws though.
Terrain still sucks. True LOS is so bad (the tip of my spear shoots the corner of your command flag pole). The character targeting rules are still dumb (that unit of scouts hidden in that building mean you can't shoot my shield captain on top of the building.
Terrain does suck. Don't stick your flag out. It's an equitable rule. Character rules are there to prevent abuse and make characters useful so complain all you want.
I'm not sure how I feel about the 2cp to give your guys cover turn 1. Having to clump all of my infantry into oddly shaped/leveled terrain was a quality of life issue I'm glad they fixed. But just being able to deploy wherever seems like it removes one of the last strategic elements of deployment further dumbing down an already dumb game.
It lasts a turn. What are you going to do when it wears off? Just stand there?
Quasistellar wrote: I do like that they're addressing the particularly strong strategems and upping their price, along with limiting CP regen.
Since they haven't done anything else to limit "soup", though, I think it's pretty clear that it's here to stay, and they're just going to try to balance around it.
Didn't they make official that you need to have a keyword other than Chaos, Imperium, etc.? Doesn'y that kill most soup armies, as I am pretty sure that means I can't take daemons in my TS army anymore (other than summon which sucks)
Within same detachment. Chaos is valid to connect tz and daemons. How you think knight, ig and ba combo was valid?-)
Danny slag wrote: A gunline that balls up around an aura and slowly walks forward a few inches is still a gunline.
By your definition any army that relies on shooting is a gunline regardless of how it actually plays. You're watering down a term to be next to meaningless just so you can claim to be right.
It lasts a turn. What are you going to do when it wears off? Just stand there?
Well at the speed infantry moves, at least of the marine kind, it is more or less the same. With those huge cover buildings a single move is often not enough to cross one area terrain on foot.
Audustum wrote: Uh, what nerf? They were exempt from Deep Strike rule before today.
They couldn't warp time out of a webway portal to make the charge go from "hard to make" to "impossible to fail".
That's still in the BRBFAQ unchanged (and, frankly, was always rather obvious, aside from a few idiots arguing that the sky is red, because it said right out of the gate when 8th edition was released that units arriving from reinforcement cannot move further except charge).
Quasistellar wrote: I do like that they're addressing the particularly strong strategems and upping their price, along with limiting CP regen.
Since they haven't done anything else to limit "soup", though, I think it's pretty clear that it's here to stay, and they're just going to try to balance around it.
Didn't they make official that you need to have a keyword other than Chaos, Imperium, etc.? Doesn'y that kill most soup armies, as I am pretty sure that means I can't take daemons in my TS army anymore (other than summon which sucks)
Not in the same detachment.
You can have a Nurgle Daemon Battalion and a TS Battalion no problem. You just cannot have Ahriman be a HQ for your Nurgle Daemon Battalion solely on the Chaos Keyword.
Thank you. Did anyone actually do this? I mean then you lose your army trait. Wow that rule is pointless and stupid
For that det they lose. Most common way was supreme commander and couple chars that don't need it. Celestian, 2 others and say tallarn shadowsword outflanking
It lasts a turn. What are you going to do when it wears off? Just stand there?
Well at the speed infantry moves, at least of the marine kind, it is more or less the same. With those huge cover buildings a single move is often not enough to cross one area terrain on foot.
Guess what: YOU CAN RUN. Also transports move even faster than that if you want to max out your turn 1 move. It's like you can't conceive of a game that requires effort to execute things instead of just getting to break the game with turn 1 massed charges that force the person who is going second to basically autolose.
Danny slag wrote: A gunline that balls up around an aura and slowly walks forward a few inches is still a gunline.
By your definition any army that relies on shooting is a gunline regardless of how it actually plays. You're watering down a term to be next to meaningless just so you can claim to be right.
Funny then that you don't ever address any of my actual arguments about the balance and only argue semantics.
And getting your entire army shot off the board before it has any chance to do any damage isn't fun either. But that half of the equation doesn't seem to ever come up. Because as I said they're ok discouraging combat armies.
I haven't seen many shooty armies do well recently, with the exception of the Castellan, which is (still) just broken.
Genestealers, Ynnari, Prophets of Flesh, Daemons, Bash-Brothers, Tzaangors, etc.. are pretty much all you see at top tables, if you subtract the IG/BA/Castellan lists.
Melee has an edge at moment and shooting (e.g. Tau, Necrons, Marines without Guilliman) definitely needs a boost. Just the reality of the game atm.
False. Tzaanagors are seen because they're cheap filler for a smite army, not because of close combat prowess. The only one that was at the top tables was imperial soup with smash captains, in every WAAC list. So they should fix the blood Angel's stratagems, not nerf all combat into uselessness because of blood angels. You seem to be forgetting that charging from deep strike has less than a 50% chance of working, can be negated completely by screens, and you can only do it with part of your army. It's already very risky and a huge gamble. I guess they want it to be high risk zero reward instead.
It's not a 50% chance when you have + to charge and re-rolls.
Why? Seriously give a reason. You dont say "shooting needs to be riskier" despite it being stronger than close combat. And combat already is riskier. So all close combat armies need to be fethed into uselessness because of one unit, blood angel captains?
The changes to the BA captain have nothing to do with melee armies in general.
In any case buy some Rhinos and give them 2+ armor saves.
You seem to be confused. Everyone took smash captains with jump packs to deep strike in. so GW nerfed deep stroking. Which yes effects every melee army.
Danny slag wrote: And that shows the asinine bias of your argument because you wouldn't say the same thing about shooting a unit. But doesn't shooting them dead also stop them from doing anything? Oh but that's different because that's what the armies you play do. Your entire argument still sums up in "units I don't use shouldn't be able to do anything to units I use."
You're dense.
I play an all mono-faction all Primaris Imperial Fists army. I can't gunline the way you claim if I wanted to and have to rely on controlling the board center to win games. But nice projection of how my army is the cancer of the game despite not being in the top 10 this entire edition.
The current meta is already a result of the builds we've mentioned being nerfed and the game is better for it. Your bias for melee only armies is basically insane if only for the fact that the game shouldn't allow one player to lock the other player completely out of every phase save for assualt on turn 1. Even if you want to argue that shooting is strong it doesn't prevent you from doing other things in the game and they even gave you a means on increasing the durability of your army against shooting on turn 1 (and making transports better since they'll weather shooting on turn 1 better).
Says they don't play gunline then proceeds to say they play a gunline army.
Again you seem to think that shooting a unit dead is "fair" but killing it in melee isn't, somehow. Go ahead and tell me how my units you've shot off the board "still get to do something."
Audustum wrote: Uh, what nerf? They were exempt from Deep Strike rule before today.
They couldn't warp time out of a webway portal to make the charge go from "hard to make" to "impossible to fail".
That's still in the BRBFAQ unchanged (and, frankly, was always rather obvious, aside from a few idiots arguing that the sky is red, because it said right out of the gate when 8th edition was released that units arriving from reinforcement cannot move further except charge).
My point was that change is part of what nerfed the Tzaangor bomb as it was originally played. People seem to thing the Tzaangor slingshot is the same thing despite it not working the same way (DMC crystal usually punts the unit out of Warptime support range meaning you're making a longer charge than you were before).
Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.
Thousand Sons were working as a Smite spam army, not a major assault army.
Tzaangor bombs had a little success, so I guess if you wanted to smash 1/10 of the top lists; mission accomplished.
Not true. NOVA finals was a Tzaangor Bomb. And plenty more in the Top 30. Aside from Castellan-lists, it was easily the top list out there, and with Castellan/BA lists getting a nerf, it wouldn't do to just not address the 3-4 lists below that (Cultist-Spam with Abaddon and 120 infiltrating Alpha Legion Cultists being probably no. 3), or you're not really changing anything other than the flavour of the problem.
Uh, no, not at all. Let's review the lists, shall we?
I have no idea why you decided to say "Top 30" except maybe because it helps you. Most places generally settle on top 10 and occasionally top 15. In order to include as many lists as possible, here's the top 16 (cause I found na extra):
1. Knights/CP Farm
2. Knights/CP Farm
3. Ynnari
4. Knights/CP Farm
5. Morty+Magnus Party
6. Knights/CP Farm
7. Custodes Mass Jetbikes
8. Dark Eldar
9. Blood Angels
10. Harlequinns
11. Knight/CP Farm
12. Custodes (Infantry of all things)
13. Knights/CP Farm
14. Tau
15. Adeptus Astartes
16. Daemons
So looking at this, the top lists aside from Knight/CP Farm are almost certainly Eldar of some sort or another. There were only two Chaos lists at all that could even TAKE Tzaangoer bombs. Cultist Spam, even with Abaddon, has like no presence at all. Honestly, your idea of the current meta just seems wildly off base or based on early 2018 as opposed to late 2018.
Why would you ignore evidence just because it helps your perspective lol. It's a fact that they are taking spots in the top 30 so that isn't bad at all, it helps his perspective so he stated it. What the hell is this logic that the cut off point for success has to be where you deem it lol
Uhh, you just made my argument to HIM at ME. I'm going with what is traditionally catalogue'd and kept so we can verify that these are high performing players/lists (i.e. the top). That way we can control for player error being a factor as much as possible. He's the one that just decided to use 30 as an arbitrary number.
It lasts a turn. What are you going to do when it wears off? Just stand there?
Well at the speed infantry moves, at least of the marine kind, it is more or less the same. With those huge cover buildings a single move is often not enough to cross one area terrain on foot.
Guess what: YOU CAN RUN. Also transports move even faster than that if you want to max out your turn 1 move. It's like you can't conceive of a game that requires effort to execute things instead of just getting to break the game with turn 1 massed charges that force the person who is going second to basically autolose.
Turn one charges are dumb and break the game but turn one massed shooting is tactical genius and doesnt..bias much?
ThePorcupine wrote: They just completely butchered the entire Harlequin army with the changes to "fly" and "flip belts." Without maneuverability, Harlequins are nothing.
Not nothing, you still get to play with tiny, plastic space clowns.
bananathug wrote: Confirmed GW and competitive players are not playing the same game.
The loyal 32 just became more important. Cheap CP is even more valuable with only limited means of regening it (although the warlord trait and relic have been nerfed). The ability of units to screen from flying charges makes chaff even more important and punishes armies that can't throw chaff out.
Nothing done about 3++ castillians. New targeting/shooting rules make rotate ion shields even more powerful. Eldar psychic powers still OP as all outdoors. DE, ugh.
The real problem of soup (gaming detachments for strat access/use) doesn't seem to be understood by GW yet. Patting themselves on the back for battle brothers which "solved" a problem that no one was having (Celestine plus assassins was the only exploit I saw) shows the disconnect they have with their own game.
The no deepstrike protections are clearly a crutch for non-competitive players. Anyone who has the tactical acumen of an 8 year old is able to screen out deepstrikers. Forcing units to stay off the table until turn 2 just increases the value of resilient long range shoot (hmmm, no problematic units have those traits...) and fast/double moving units (nope, not meta defining units at all).
Oh, the fortifications can hold objectives is such a terrible rule. Stinks of marketing "we need to sell more fortifications for this edition" I can't think of any other reason a building should be able to hold an objective...
Terrain still sucks. True LOS is so bad (the tip of my spear shoots the corner of your command flag pole). The character targeting rules are still dumb (that unit of scouts hidden in that building mean you can't shoot my shield captain on top of the building.
Underwhelming at best. I was hoping the terrain interactions would be looked at. Deepstriking would be limited to outside of 9" of enemies deployment zone. LOS required for psychic powers. Character targeting looked at. Relics modified. Something done about the loyal 32. Vect once per turn. No heretic astartes for cultists. Something done about the double shoot/move/attack strats. Word of pheonix/SfD changes.
I'm not sure how I feel about the 2cp to give your guys cover turn 1. Having to clump all of my infantry into oddly shaped/leveled terrain was a quality of life issue I'm glad they fixed. But just being able to deploy wherever seems like it removes one of the last strategic elements of deployment further dumbing down an already dumb game.
Basically the things that are making the game as unbalanced as it is on a competitive level and next to nothing (raising the cost of some strats and going from 2 cp per turn to 1 cp per turn regen will have an effect turn 3 or later but by that time the broken stuff has already done it's job).
Doesn't leave me optimistic for CA but I'm still holding out hope. Maybe they had to stay away from all of those changes since CA is already at the printers and I'll be pleasantly surprised but in the mean time anyone want to buy a slightly used BA or SM codex?
Absolutely everything here mirrors my own thoughts. This FAQ is really bad and you've done a great job of articulating way.
But if I use a transports, lets say a LR like you propose, what is going to happen is that If I start and move it, my opponent will just blow it up on his turn 1. if I have a unit of termintors, I at least have one more turn to move around and shot stuff. If he blows me up turn one, am in the middel of no where with 5 dudes that are just getting shot by the rest of his army.
Am not saying playing with GK is fun, but playing GK and losing before your turn 2 is really unfun. And it is even worse if my opponent gets turn one and just blows the LR in my deployment.
I don't understand the mass charges thing. Maybe I was doing something wrong with my GK, but am almost sure something like a mass turn 1 charge with them was not possible. Are we talking about other editions, because I only played 8th and that since around december.
Danny slag wrote: A gunline that balls up around an aura and slowly walks forward a few inches is still a gunline.
By your definition any army that relies on shooting is a gunline regardless of how it actually plays. You're watering down a term to be next to meaningless just so you can claim to be right.
Funny then that you don't ever address any of my actual arguments about the balance and only argue semantics.
You don't have an arguement, you have a massive bias about balance and will twist definitions to suit your arguments instead of tailoring your argument to suit the definitions. RULE #1 IS NOT OPTIONAL
Seriously, you're arguing that an all Primaris army is somehow breaking the game because it relies on shooting. That is the epitome of reaching just so you can claim to be right.
Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.
Thousand Sons were working as a Smite spam army, not a major assault army.
Tzaangor bombs had a little success, so I guess if you wanted to smash 1/10 of the top lists; mission accomplished.
Not true. NOVA finals was a Tzaangor Bomb. And plenty more in the Top 30. Aside from Castellan-lists, it was easily the top list out there, and with Castellan/BA lists getting a nerf, it wouldn't do to just not address the 3-4 lists below that (Cultist-Spam with Abaddon and 120 infiltrating Alpha Legion Cultists being probably no. 3), or you're not really changing anything other than the flavour of the problem.
Uh, no, not at all. Let's review the lists, shall we?
I have no idea why you decided to say "Top 30" except maybe because it helps you. Most places generally settle on top 10 and occasionally top 15. In order to include as many lists as possible, here's the top 16 (cause I found na extra):
1. Knights/CP Farm
2. Knights/CP Farm
3. Ynnari
4. Knights/CP Farm
5. Morty+Magnus Party
6. Knights/CP Farm
7. Custodes Mass Jetbikes
8. Dark Eldar
9. Blood Angels
10. Harlequinns
11. Knight/CP Farm
12. Custodes (Infantry of all things)
13. Knights/CP Farm
14. Tau
15. Adeptus Astartes
16. Daemons
So looking at this, the top lists aside from Knight/CP Farm are almost certainly Eldar of some sort or another. There were only two Chaos lists at all that could even TAKE Tzaangoer bombs. Cultist Spam, even with Abaddon, has like no presence at all. Honestly, your idea of the current meta just seems wildly off base or based on early 2018 as opposed to late 2018.
Why would you ignore evidence just because it helps your perspective lol. It's a fact that they are taking spots in the top 30 so that isn't bad at all, it helps his perspective so he stated it. What the hell is this logic that the cut off point for success has to be where you deem it lol
Uhh, you just made my argument to HIM at ME. I'm going with what is traditionally catalogue'd and kept so we can verify that these are high performing players/lists (i.e. the top). That way we can control for player error being a factor as much as possible. He's the one that just decided to use 30 as an arbitrary number.
Uhhhh no I didn't, you just didn't get my point. "What's traditionally catalogued" is also an arbitrary number, and to limit it to that when it's clear the army is still successful just beyond that limit you are setting for this tournament is absurd. The topic was whether they are successful, ignoring evidence of this success just because it doesn't fit into a top 10 isn't a sensible decision may all.
Ok. So they caught that the Deathmask on an ogryn bodyguard stacks with the slab shield, no more 2++ Lenny.
Also, explicit clarification: you can have three units of three leman russes, and Tau drones that are attachments to other units don't count as Tau drone units. Common sense things.
It lasts a turn. What are you going to do when it wears off? Just stand there?
Well at the speed infantry moves, at least of the marine kind, it is more or less the same. With those huge cover buildings a single move is often not enough to cross one area terrain on foot.
Guess what: YOU CAN RUN. Also transports move even faster than that if you want to max out your turn 1 move. It's like you can't conceive of a game that requires effort to execute things instead of just getting to break the game with turn 1 massed charges that force the person who is going second to basically autolose.
Turn one charges are dumb and break the game but turn one massed shooting is tactical genius and doesnt..bias much?
Let me break it down for you in the simplest way I can (sans crayons because I'm not going to take the time to draw pictures for you):
If you lock someone into melee on turn one and they can't leave melee, or shoot your engaged units because your entire army is locked in combat, you have negated your opponent from their movement, shooting and charge phases (unless they have pistols then they get a nerfed shooting phase). An army shooting you on turn one does not prevent you from moving, nor does it prevent you from shooting or charging. THAT is why massed charges on turn 1 broke the game. It kept people from actually playing the game.
Hmm, let's try to analize this FAQ point per point.
New Deep strike rules: Hmmm, not sold on these. Sure they hit many top aeldari builds, which is fine. Makes the ravenguard/alpha legion stratagems less of an all-in, which I like. Slaps in the face slamguinius and bananas, which i really like. But at what cost? BA, GK and termies in general are now in an even worse situation. Let's hope that they do something for them in CA.
New CP farm rules: Would have preferred the CPs to be tied to the detachments, but this is fine too. Coupled with an increased cost of the most common stratagems, this shatters the existing top lists to pieces. Taking a CP relic/trait or something else is finally a choice, this is good. This is also a nerf to the loyal 32, which again is good. The bad is that we are going to see a lot knights fueled by IG brigades, so the problem was only partially fixed.
New generic stratagem: Really good. Makes elite armies better, reduces the importance of going first and in general makes CC armies stronger. This one is spot on and is actually a change i had suggested (i suggested -1 to hit though).
Changes to fly: Honestly they don't really make a lot of sense, but FLY was too strong, so i will see this as half full. For those who didn't notice, Harlies still can do that, it has been added to the flip belts.
Changes to stratagem costs: No comment here, they were obvious and needed.
Lists of 9 demon princes confirmed: This is unexpected.
In general i like it, i would give it 7/10. They did act on the right points, but sometimes not in the best way (IMHO).
I guess that it will make more sense when we see CA.
Also, for those that were guessing about this, CA is finalized around mid November (at least the point changes, the rest of it is probably done by now), this has been demonstrated with the previous CA. It will include any feedback up to the start of November.
Edit: No, flip belts can't ignore terrains, that's a bad change.
This all seems ok to me. Would rather see incremental changes, then seeing how they play out, than the entire structure of the game massively shifting every time they do one of these. I'll be interested to see how it all shakes out.
Karol wrote: But if I use a transports, lets say a LR like you propose, what is going to happen is that If I start and move it, my opponent will just blow it up on his turn 1. if I have a unit of termintors, I at least have one more turn to move around and shot stuff. If he blows me up turn one, am in the middel of no where with 5 dudes that are just getting shot by the rest of his army.
Am not saying playing with GK is fun, but playing GK and losing before your turn 2 is really unfun. And it is even worse if my opponent gets turn one and just blows the LR in my deployment.
I don't understand the mass charges thing. Maybe I was doing something wrong with my GK, but am almost sure something like a mass turn 1 charge with them was not possible. Are we talking about other editions, because I only played 8th and that since around december.
You have a 2+ save normally and a 1+ save if you go second. And if they DID kill it, then they weren't killing your Terminators (unless you roll poorly on the unit inside).
And I apologize for the confusion on the massed charges thing, that was another poster. Grey Knights are like Marines: you can't really go all in on just Terminators and expect to win games (just ask Dark Angels). You can consider allying in some Guard or taking Power Armoured Grey Knights (who are cheaper and fit in Rhinos) to help balance your list more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Danny slag wrote: A bunch of cry bitches who think it's unfair if any combat unit has even a slight chance of doing anything.
No one is saying melee shouldn't be able to do anything. We're saying that melee shouldn't be given the ability to lock an entire army out of 2-3 phases of the game before the other player even gets to do anything.
Also, I don't get why GsC players are getting furious; there's going to be a Codex along any minute, and I imagine the way that functions has been factored into these changes.
Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.
Thousand Sons were working as a Smite spam army, not a major assault army.
Tzaangor bombs had a little success, so I guess if you wanted to smash 1/10 of the top lists; mission accomplished.
Not true. NOVA finals was a Tzaangor Bomb. And plenty more in the Top 30. Aside from Castellan-lists, it was easily the top list out there, and with Castellan/BA lists getting a nerf, it wouldn't do to just not address the 3-4 lists below that (Cultist-Spam with Abaddon and 120 infiltrating Alpha Legion Cultists being probably no. 3), or you're not really changing anything other than the flavour of the problem.
Uh, no, not at all. Let's review the lists, shall we?
I have no idea why you decided to say "Top 30" except maybe because it helps you. Most places generally settle on top 10 and occasionally top 15. In order to include as many lists as possible, here's the top 16 (cause I found na extra):
1. Knights/CP Farm
2. Knights/CP Farm
3. Ynnari
4. Knights/CP Farm
5. Morty+Magnus Party
6. Knights/CP Farm
7. Custodes Mass Jetbikes
8. Dark Eldar
9. Blood Angels
10. Harlequinns
11. Knight/CP Farm
12. Custodes (Infantry of all things)
13. Knights/CP Farm
14. Tau
15. Adeptus Astartes
16. Daemons
So looking at this, the top lists aside from Knight/CP Farm are almost certainly Eldar of some sort or another. There were only two Chaos lists at all that could even TAKE Tzaangoer bombs. Cultist Spam, even with Abaddon, has like no presence at all. Honestly, your idea of the current meta just seems wildly off base or based on early 2018 as opposed to late 2018.
Why would you ignore evidence just because it helps your perspective lol. It's a fact that they are taking spots in the top 30 so that isn't bad at all, it helps his perspective so he stated it. What the hell is this logic that the cut off point for success has to be where you deem it lol
Uhh, you just made my argument to HIM at ME. I'm going with what is traditionally catalogue'd and kept so we can verify that these are high performing players/lists (i.e. the top). That way we can control for player error being a factor as much as possible. He's the one that just decided to use 30 as an arbitrary number.
Uhhhh no I didn't, you just didn't get my point. "What's traditionally catalogued" is also an arbitrary number, and to limit it to that when it's clear the army is still successful just beyond that limit you are setting for this tournament is absurd. The topic was whether they are successful, ignoring evidence of this success just because it doesn't fit into a top 10 isn't a sensible decision may all.
No, the topic was whether they were breaking the game, OP, in need of a fix, however you want to phrase it. Just because something is successful doesn't mean it should be nerfed. Only when it is unreasonably successful.
The traditional pull is used because that's the only one we have data on we can use to at least try and exclude player error from the equation. If you want to change that, you can't just arbitrarily add more numbers. You'd need to start cataloguing all that yourself or find someone who did/is.
The problem is that shooting has always had all the problem they try to nerf from melee.
''Auto-charge from deepstrike''
Most heavier ranged platform will always have range on their target of choice, sometimes even regardless of LoS
''Can jump over screen and target my good unit immediately''
Shooting also does that 100% of the time by virtue of true LoS and without difficulty
''Melee is unfun to play against because i'm stuck in my deployment zone''
Because walking forward for 2 turns while getting shot at and doing negligible damage in return is way more fun. Also, most ranged army standstill turn 1 and 2 anyway, and only starts moving later to get objective and mop up the squads left to kill.
But every nerf is directed towards melee army. Boy am I glad I dropped csm + daemon in favor of necrons. Necrons are bad, but at least the game dev don't actively try to take their presence out of the game.
Nazrak wrote: Also, I don't get why GsC players are getting furious; there's going to be a Codex along any minute, and I imagine the way that functions has been factored into these changes.
GSC are likely next year meaning that they're nerfed for at least the next 3 months or so. I mean GW could drop them in November, but I don't think anyone is counting on that right now.
Nazrak wrote: Also, I don't get why GsC players are getting furious; there's going to be a Codex along any minute, and I imagine the way that functions has been factored into these changes.
They literally just said its still in development, so whenever that finishes it then has to go to print, so GSC are at least stuck this way till 2019 or later most likely.
VoidSempai wrote: The problem is that shooting has always had all the problem they try to nerf from melee.
''Auto-charge from deepstrike''
Most heavier ranged platform will always have range on their target of choice, sometimes even regardless of LoS
''Can jump over screen and target my good unit immediately''
Shooting also does that 100% of the time by virtue of true LoS and without difficulty
''Melee is unfun to play against because i'm stuck in my deployment zone''
Because walking forward for 2 turns while getting shot at and doing negligible damage in return is way more fun. Also, most ranged army standstill turn 1 and 2 anyway, and only starts moving later to get objective and mop up the squads left to kill.
But every nerf is directed towards melee army. Boy am I glad I dropped csm + daemon in favor of necrons. Necrons are bad, but at least the game dev don't actively try to take their presence out of the game.
I don't get this. CC armies just recevied a huge buff.
First turn cover is a huge nerf to shooty lists. The first turn is the greatest advantage a gunline list gets, having it nerfed is an enormous change.
Nazrak wrote: Also, I don't get why GsC players are getting furious; there's going to be a Codex along any minute, and I imagine the way that functions has been factored into these changes.
I just hope that when the CA or new FAQ update comes out my friends don't suddenly decide they want to play a different game or just plain quit. That would suck .
"I'm not sure how I feel about the 2cp to give your guys cover turn 1. Having to clump all of my infantry into oddly shaped/leveled terrain was a quality of life issue I'm glad they fixed. But just being able to deploy wherever seems like it removes one of the last strategic elements of deployment further dumbing down an already dumb game. "
From bananas post
I just want to focus on this because it is so true and relates to a discussion that was being had the other day.
Deployment is basically the only part of the game outside of "building a list" that has any form of strategy. Now guess what - You can deploy where ever you want for 2 CP. No more stratagey.
Has a beta rule ever been rescinded? That change to Harlequin flip-belts (and, in my opinion, units with fly charging) is an absolute outrage. It takes a lot of the flavour from Harlequins and ostensibly makes them buffed up Wyches/Howling Banshees.
VoidSempai wrote: The problem is that shooting has always had all the problem they try to nerf from melee.
''Auto-charge from deepstrike''
Most heavier ranged platform will always have range on their target of choice, sometimes even regardless of LoS
Very few units ignore LoS, and save for Reapers, most are fairly priced and balanced.
VoidSempai wrote: ''Can jump over screen and target my good unit immediately''
Shooting also does that 100% of the time by virtue of true LoS and without difficulty
I actually agree with this. There should be a penalty to hit for shooting through units or a bonus to the save for the targeted unit (or a rule that misses get resolved against the screening unit, SOMETHING). That said, there is something worth noting: Characters are typically excempt from this.
VoidSempai wrote: ''Melee is unfun to play against because i'm stuck in my deployment zone''
Because walking forward for 2 turns while getting shot at and doing negligible damage in return is way more fun. Also, most ranged army standstill turn 1 and 2 anyway, and only starts moving later to get objective and mop up the squads left to kill.
This is just a strawman. Turn 1 mass charges were unfun because you lost your ability to move, to shoot (you paid points for all those guns you can't shoot now) and you often can't even charge. Getting shot turn 1 doesn't prevent a unit from moving, shooting or charging unless you completely wipe it out.
VoidSempai wrote: But every nerf is directed towards melee army. Boy am I glad I dropped csm + daemon in favor of necrons. Necrons are bad, but at least the game dev don't actively try to take their presence out of the game.
They were directed at some very specific melee builds that broke the game in ways that shouldn't have happened.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: "I'm not sure how I feel about the 2cp to give your guys cover turn 1. Having to clump all of my infantry into oddly shaped/leveled terrain was a quality of life issue I'm glad they fixed. But just being able to deploy wherever seems like it removes one of the last strategic elements of deployment further dumbing down an already dumb game. "
From bananas post
I just want to focus on this because it is so true and relates to a discussion that was being had the other day.
Deployment is basically the only part of the game outside of "building a list" that has any form of strategy. Now guess what - You can deploy where ever you want for 2 CP. No more stratagey.
How much dumber can the game freaking get?
It means a melee army can toe up right along the front of their deployment zone instead of further back in cover meaning they'll engage sooner. But sure, the game is only biased towards shooting.
But if it is considered needed by GW to balance the game, why not put the rule in effect for free. So as a balancing factor to the startin player having a huge advantage, the player going second gets +1 their save for free. 2CP is a lot to pay for some armies.
Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.
Thousand Sons were working as a Smite spam army, not a major assault army.
Tzaangor bombs had a little success, so I guess if you wanted to smash 1/10 of the top lists; mission accomplished.
Not true. NOVA finals was a Tzaangor Bomb. And plenty more in the Top 30. Aside from Castellan-lists, it was easily the top list out there, and with Castellan/BA lists getting a nerf, it wouldn't do to just not address the 3-4 lists below that (Cultist-Spam with Abaddon and 120 infiltrating Alpha Legion Cultists being probably no. 3), or you're not really changing anything other than the flavour of the problem.
Uh, no, not at all. Let's review the lists, shall we?
I have no idea why you decided to say "Top 30" except maybe because it helps you. Most places generally settle on top 10 and occasionally top 15. In order to include as many lists as possible, here's the top 16 (cause I found na extra):
1. Knights/CP Farm
2. Knights/CP Farm
3. Ynnari
4. Knights/CP Farm
5. Morty+Magnus Party
6. Knights/CP Farm
7. Custodes Mass Jetbikes
8. Dark Eldar
9. Blood Angels
10. Harlequinns
11. Knight/CP Farm
12. Custodes (Infantry of all things)
13. Knights/CP Farm
14. Tau
15. Adeptus Astartes
16. Daemons
So looking at this, the top lists aside from Knight/CP Farm are almost certainly Eldar of some sort or another. There were only two Chaos lists at all that could even TAKE Tzaangoer bombs. Cultist Spam, even with Abaddon, has like no presence at all. Honestly, your idea of the current meta just seems wildly off base or based on early 2018 as opposed to late 2018.
Why would you ignore evidence just because it helps your perspective lol. It's a fact that they are taking spots in the top 30 so that isn't bad at all, it helps his perspective so he stated it. What the hell is this logic that the cut off point for success has to be where you deem it lol
Uhh, you just made my argument to HIM at ME. I'm going with what is traditionally catalogue'd and kept so we can verify that these are high performing players/lists (i.e. the top). That way we can control for player error being a factor as much as possible. He's the one that just decided to use 30 as an arbitrary number.
Uhhhh no I didn't, you just didn't get my point. "What's traditionally catalogued" is also an arbitrary number, and to limit it to that when it's clear the army is still successful just beyond that limit you are setting for this tournament is absurd. The topic was whether they are successful, ignoring evidence of this success just because it doesn't fit into a top 10 isn't a sensible decision may all.
No, the topic was whether they were breaking the game, OP, in need of a fix, however you want to phrase it. Just because something is successful doesn't mean it should be nerfed. Only when it is unreasonably successful.
The traditional pull is used because that's the only one we have data on we can use to at least try and exclude player error from the equation. If you want to change that, you can't just arbitrarily add more numbers. You'd need to start cataloguing all that yourself or find someone who did/is.
No, the topic was literally "point to an army that did any good", to which Thousand Sons was given as an answer, to which you disagreed with them doing good. Nobody said they were OP yet.
The traditional pull is a representation of who got top 8 or top 16. This is not a representation of every single army that is doing good, and ones that placed multiple times in a top 30 of one of the largest competitive events of the year definitely fit that description by my measure even if they didn't break top 16. You have conflated the two, and for this topic, your limit of "the traditional pull" is entirely arbitrary.
And I'm AGAINST the change, I think it's bad, dumbs down the game, and I do not think that TSons needed a nerf. If that was what you had said I would have agreed. But what you are currently arguing is that they are not doing good, and top 30 multiple times isn't good because it's not top 16, and that's absurd, especially since they won the major just before that.
Agiel wrote: Has a beta rule ever been rescinded? That change to Harlequin flip-belts (and, in my opinion, units with fly charging) is an absolute outrage. It takes a lot of the flavour from Harlequins and ostensibly makes them buffed up Wyches/Howling Banshees.
Flip belt change isn't a beta rule (neither is the change to fly actually):
Pages 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60 – Flip Belt
Change this ability to read:
‘During the Movement phase, models in this unit can move across models and terrain as if they were not there.’
So yeah, don't expect changes there. You're going to need to make your movement phase matter more to catch characters or knights more easily.
PFFF it's not minor. +1 armor to your whole army while deploying where ever you want is massive. This is actually a nerf to skill - people seem to think is so important in this game.
It's a massive buff to imperial guard. Every single gaurdsmen has a 4+ save to shooting turn 1. It's a huge freaking joke.
We are approaching IG holocost time. Can't even assault over their undercosted screening anymore. House rules for me from now on. Too bad I already bought tickets to LVO.
Xenomancers wrote: "I'm not sure how I feel about the 2cp to give your guys cover turn 1. Having to clump all of my infantry into oddly shaped/leveled terrain was a quality of life issue I'm glad they fixed. But just being able to deploy wherever seems like it removes one of the last strategic elements of deployment further dumbing down an already dumb game. "
From bananas post
I just want to focus on this because it is so true and relates to a discussion that was being had the other day.
Deployment is basically the only part of the game outside of "building a list" that has any form of strategy. Now guess what - You can deploy where ever you want for 2 CP. No more stratagey.
How much dumber can the game freaking get?
Being out of LOS is still better than +1 armor save. People always say that it's impossible to be out of LOS with the (admittedly bad) true LOS rules, but the ITC ruled all 1st floors as totally LOS blocking which helps with this.
VoidSempai wrote: The problem is that shooting has always had all the problem they try to nerf from melee.
''Auto-charge from deepstrike''
Most heavier ranged platform will always have range on their target of choice, sometimes even regardless of LoS
''Can jump over screen and target my good unit immediately''
Shooting also does that 100% of the time by virtue of true LoS and without difficulty
''Melee is unfun to play against because i'm stuck in my deployment zone''
Because walking forward for 2 turns while getting shot at and doing negligible damage in return is way more fun. Also, most ranged army standstill turn 1 and 2 anyway, and only starts moving later to get objective and mop up the squads left to kill.
But every nerf is directed towards melee army. Boy am I glad I dropped csm + daemon in favor of necrons. Necrons are bad, but at least the game dev don't actively try to take their presence out of the game.
I don't get this. CC armies just recevied a huge buff.
First turn cover is a huge nerf to shooty lists. The first turn is the greatest advantage a gunline list gets, having it nerfed is an enormous change.
oh sure, let me pay 2 CP for a bonus I could already get for free just by placing my unit correctly on the battlefield. I'm sure that +1 saves is going to save me from those ignore cover, ap-2 tau weapon, or those ap-3 weapon that shoot from across the table. Or those -2ap hiveguard that don't need LoS.
Every game I play, I always try to at least deploy with a toe in cover just to try and benefit from it, and it usually changed nothing. So now you can pay a big 2CP to maybe save 2-3 marine on the first turn only. Let's not even talk of what this does for orks and GSC.
But in the opposite corner, now most melee unit can't contribute to the battle until at least turn 2 at the earliest (except for genestealer and tzangor bomb, which, while very good, can still be screened against), and even then they will probably get stuck assaulting screening unit. The opponent will sure feel the lost of those 20 guardsman.
PFFF it's not minor. +1 armor to your whole army while deploying where ever you want is massive. This is actually a nerf to skill - people seem to think is so important in this game.
It's a massive buff to imperial guard. Every single gaurdsmen has a 4+ save to shooting turn 1. It's a huge freaking joke.
It's a buff to melee armies too since the edge of your deployment zone is often in front of ruins you'd hide your models in. That said, horde melee armies will still need to stay out of LOS, but anyone hiding in a transport got a buff.
Nazrak wrote: Also, I don't get why GsC players are getting furious; there's going to be a Codex along any minute, and I imagine the way that functions has been factored into these changes.
What this means either this(beta) rule was came up with month ago or gsc codex is further away anybody thought. Def not this year.
VoidSempai wrote: The problem is that shooting has always had all the problem they try to nerf from melee.
''Auto-charge from deepstrike''
Most heavier ranged platform will always have range on their target of choice, sometimes even regardless of LoS
''Can jump over screen and target my good unit immediately''
Shooting also does that 100% of the time by virtue of true LoS and without difficulty
''Melee is unfun to play against because i'm stuck in my deployment zone''
Because walking forward for 2 turns while getting shot at and doing negligible damage in return is way more fun. Also, most ranged army standstill turn 1 and 2 anyway, and only starts moving later to get objective and mop up the squads left to kill.
But every nerf is directed towards melee army. Boy am I glad I dropped csm + daemon in favor of necrons. Necrons are bad, but at least the game dev don't actively try to take their presence out of the game.
I don't get this. CC armies just recevied a huge buff.
First turn cover is a huge nerf to shooty lists. The first turn is the greatest advantage a gunline list gets, having it nerfed is an enormous change.
oh sure, let me pay 2 CP for a bonus I could already get for free just by placing my unit correctly on the battlefield. I'm sure that +1 saves is going to save me from those ignore cover, ap-2 tau weapon, or those ap-3 weapon that shoot from across the table. Or those -2ap hiveguard that don't need LoS.
Every game I play, I always try to at least deploy with a toe in cover just to try and benefit from it, and it usually changed nothing. So now you can pay a big 2CP to maybe save 2-3 marine on the first turn only. Let's not even talk of what this does for orks and GSC.
But in the opposite corner, now most melee unit can't contribute to the battle until at least turn 2 at the earliest (except for genestealer and tzangor bomb, which, while very good, can still be screened against), and even then they will probably get stuck assaulting screening unit. The opponent will sure feel the lost of those 20 guardsman.
2CP to put your army closer to theirs with less risk instead of being further back in cover.
And getting your entire army shot off the board before it has any chance to do any damage isn't fun either. But that half of the equation doesn't seem to ever come up. Because as I said they're ok discouraging combat armies.
I haven't seen many shooty armies do well recently, with the exception of the Castellan, which is (still) just broken.
Genestealers, Ynnari, Prophets of Flesh, Daemons, Bash-Brothers, Tzaangors, etc.. are pretty much all you see at top tables, if you subtract the IG/BA/Castellan lists.
Melee has an edge at moment and shooting (e.g. Tau, Necrons, Marines without Guilliman) definitely needs a boost. Just the reality of the game atm.
Yeah, the thing that all (or at least most, my knowledge on some of them is limited) those melee units have in common is that they have a pretty big chance to get into CC first turn or straight out of Deepstrike. Meanwhile slower assault units or armies get shot off the board without doing anything if they can't make it into CC turn 1 against a gunline.
A few weeks ago I took a assault-focused Space Wolves list to a small tournament in my FLGS (850 points). Looking back at it it was a pretty crappy list but getting shot off the board because my opponent simply pointed his Dark Reapers/ Leman Russ Executioners/ Hellblasters (DA with Weapons from the Dark Age) at me just felt so stupid. I took 2 Wulfen Dreadnoughts combined with a Rune Priest and got the Storm Caller + that stratagem that gives you -1 to hit in a 6" radius if you manifest a power off in T1 in all 3 games and got first turn all three matches. Neither of my dreads made it into CCeven once despite both having the Blizzard Shield for the 4+ invul. Only in the game vs. Craftworld Eldar one of my Dreads survived courtesy to it guarding a squad Grey Hunters at the other side of the board. In the games vs. Guard and DA both were shot off the board by turn 2. I think I inflicted less than 20 wounds of damage over 3 matches or about 5 hours of playing that day.
Thing is, the damage in current 40k is so high that for an assault unit to be viable it either needs to be able to get into CC reliably in T1 (or the same turn it comes out of Deepstrike) or be tanky as hell. If it is neither the best it can do is serve as a Distraction Carnifex.
40K life is pretty tough as a casual player that likes assault. Shooty armies only have to get into line of sight and let loose, I have to carefully maneuver around terrain, pray that shooting/ overwatch doesn't kill me, I'm fethed over by default if my opponent plays an infantry gunline that hides in ruins (at least with my SW army that purely consists of ground-pounders, only exception is the Rune Priest who has a jump pack) and I have to carefully consider what I charge and fight due to fallback, pile in, consolidate and heroic interventions. Now I like a challenge, but the difference in skill floor between playing shooty and choppy is enormous (yes I know I'm oversimplifying shooting in this example but you know what I mean).
Pandabeer wrote: Thing is, the damage in current 40k is so high that for an assault unit to be viable it either needs to be able to get into CC reliably in T1 (or the same turn it comes out of Deepstrike) or be tanky as hell. If it is neither the best it can do is serve as a Distraction Carnifex.
You're basically describing most of the Marine options in the game. They are neither fast enough or tanky enough but that's more an issue with how they interact with weapon AP now.
Xenomancers wrote: "I'm not sure how I feel about the 2cp to give your guys cover turn 1. Having to clump all of my infantry into oddly shaped/leveled terrain was a quality of life issue I'm glad they fixed. But just being able to deploy wherever seems like it removes one of the last strategic elements of deployment further dumbing down an already dumb game. "
From bananas post
I just want to focus on this because it is so true and relates to a discussion that was being had the other day.
Deployment is basically the only part of the game outside of "building a list" that has any form of strategy. Now guess what - You can deploy where ever you want for 2 CP. No more stratagey.
How much dumber can the game freaking get?
Being out of LOS is still better than +1 armor save. People always say that it's impossible to be out of LOS with the (admittedly bad) true LOS rules, but the ITC ruled all 1st floors as totally LOS blocking which helps with this.
You can still deploy out of LOS - plenty of things don't want to move so they can shoot with no penalty turn 1. It's a huge buff to infantry which can now deploy to screen but don't lose cover save bonus to do it. This buffs IG harder than any army.
Xenomancers wrote: "I'm not sure how I feel about the 2cp to give your guys cover turn 1. Having to clump all of my infantry into oddly shaped/leveled terrain was a quality of life issue I'm glad they fixed. But just being able to deploy wherever seems like it removes one of the last strategic elements of deployment further dumbing down an already dumb game. "
From bananas post
I just want to focus on this because it is so true and relates to a discussion that was being had the other day.
Deployment is basically the only part of the game outside of "building a list" that has any form of strategy. Now guess what - You can deploy where ever you want for 2 CP. No more stratagey.
How much dumber can the game freaking get?
Being out of LOS is still better than +1 armor save. People always say that it's impossible to be out of LOS with the (admittedly bad) true LOS rules, but the ITC ruled all 1st floors as totally LOS blocking which helps with this.
You can still deploy out of LOS - plenty of things don't want to move so they can shoot with no penalty turn 1. It's a huge buff to infantry which can now deploy to screen but don't lose cover save bonus to do it. This buffs IG harder than any army.
It buffs Chaos just as much (if not more since their saves are worse) for the same reason.
EDIT: Also camo-cloaks on Scouts acting as a Screening unit have a 2+ despite not being in terrain.
Xenomancers wrote: "I'm not sure how I feel about the 2cp to give your guys cover turn 1. Having to clump all of my infantry into oddly shaped/leveled terrain was a quality of life issue I'm glad they fixed. But just being able to deploy wherever seems like it removes one of the last strategic elements of deployment further dumbing down an already dumb game. "
From bananas post
I just want to focus on this because it is so true and relates to a discussion that was being had the other day.
Deployment is basically the only part of the game outside of "building a list" that has any form of strategy. Now guess what - You can deploy where ever you want for 2 CP. No more stratagey.
How much dumber can the game freaking get?
Being out of LOS is still better than +1 armor save. People always say that it's impossible to be out of LOS with the (admittedly bad) true LOS rules, but the ITC ruled all 1st floors as totally LOS blocking which helps with this.
You can still deploy out of LOS - plenty of things don't want to move so they can shoot with no penalty turn 1. It's a huge buff to infantry which can now deploy to screen but don't lose cover save bonus to do it. This buffs IG harder than any army.
My response was addressing your contention that deployment now takes no skill. If anything, this additional option now requires slightly more decision making. 2cp with nerfed farming is nothing to sneeze at. It's an expensive option. You still have to be smart about hiding things out of LOS, deciding if it's worth the risk of hiding your heavy weapons in case you don't get first turn, etc.
Thing is, the damage in current 40k is so high that for an assault unit to be viable it either needs to be able to get into CC reliably in T1 (or the same turn it comes out of Deepstrike) or be tanky as hell. If it is neither the best it can do is serve as a Distraction Carnifex.
Thing is, cc is so devastating, that any CC army getting in T1 (or the same turn it comes out of Deepstrike) wins the game. If there's no way for the opponent to make a play to potentially deny it, there's no game.
It's a broader problem of GW upping the damage output of armies with every Codex far more significantly than the damage-mitigation/defensive abilities. It's a structural issue outside of CC.
PFFF it's not minor. +1 armor to your whole army while deploying where ever you want is massive. This is actually a nerf to skill - people seem to think is so important in this game.
It's a massive buff to imperial guard. Every single gaurdsmen has a 4+ save to shooting turn 1. It's a huge freaking joke.
It's a buff to melee armies too since the edge of your deployment zone is often in front of ruins you'd hide your models in. That said, horde melee armies will still need to stay out of LOS, but anyone hiding in a transport got a buff.
Big buff to levithan hive fleet. was never able to get my termigants in cover cause they are big units. Can deploy all my fex right on the front line willy nilly. This is a great change for tyranids. Sucks for Jorm though...Levi undisputed champion now.
Being out of LOS is still better than +1 armor save. People always say that it's impossible to be out of LOS with the (admittedly bad) true LOS rules, but the ITC ruled all 1st floors as totally LOS blocking which helps with this.
You can still deploy out of LOS - plenty of things don't want to move so they can shoot with no penalty turn 1. It's a huge buff to infantry which can now deploy to screen but don't lose cover save bonus to do it. This buffs IG harder than any army.
Well that is great for IG, they sure were having a tough time before the FAQ. On the other spectrum of armies, more elite armies gain nothing from the +1sv, most stuff drop them in to bad saves anyway, and with the fire power an avarge army in 8th ed has standing in LoS of the opposing army means they are dead. And they have to pay 2 CP to be dead on top of it.
Thing is, cc is so devastating, that any CC army getting in T1 (or the same turn it comes out of Deepstrike) wins the game. If there's no way for the opponent to make a play to potentially deny it, there's no game.
Not every army. Plus you would still have to get rid of chaff units that bubble wrap shoting armies, and not all melee armies are know for their good chaff killing long ranger units.
PFFF it's not minor. +1 armor to your whole army while deploying where ever you want is massive. This is actually a nerf to skill - people seem to think is so important in this game.
It's a massive buff to imperial guard. Every single gaurdsmen has a 4+ save to shooting turn 1. It's a huge freaking joke.
It's a buff to melee armies too since the edge of your deployment zone is often in front of ruins you'd hide your models in. That said, horde melee armies will still need to stay out of LOS, but anyone hiding in a transport got a buff.
Melee horde armies cannot stay outside of LOS. Keeping 30 orks out of LOS is impossible. It is also impossible to put them in cover, so this stratagem is really appreciated.
Really the only ones who can (and should) complain about this are daemons.
Elite armies were greatly buffed.
Horde CC armies were buffed. Let's not downplay the value of a 5+ save here. What, when IG has it it breaks the game but on an ork it becomes useless?
Makes armors saves more reliable than invul saves, which is also something that the game needed.
Makes going first less important.
Makes cover ignoring rules more important.
Cheap CP is even more valuable with only limited means of regening it
The CP farms are also the ones with the best regen. The cost for IGCP farms to function just went up.
I'm not sure how this refutes my point that cheap CP gets more valuable without a way to regen it unless you are agreeing that those cheap CP sources are still OP as they still have the easiest way of regening those CP (although not as powerful now).
Nothing done about 3++ castillians. New targeting/shooting rules make rotate ion shields even more powerful.
The cost for CP went up. Smash captains are no longer easily filling in the holes of their list.
These armies will be able to keep that 3++ up through 2-3 turns even with the current cost of cp. The demise of the smash captain conversely makes that castilian even more powerful (no flying charge over screens was one of the few ways to threaten a 3++ vs shooting on a 24 wound t8 model). The change does nothing to curb the power of a meta defining model and actually makes it more powerful (or at least more invulnerable).
DE, ugh.
Chapter Approved also Vect went up.
True. Vect at 4 limits it to twice a game (outside of rolling 6s) most likely and CA is probably a better way of addressing some of the game balance issues. Having to wait 3 more months before I can play my primaris is probably a good thing so I can finally work on getting them painted.
The no deepstrike protections are clearly a crutch for non-competitive players. Anyone who has the tactical acumen of an 8 year old is able to screen out deepstrikers. Forcing units to stay off the table until turn 2 just increases the value of resilient long range shoot (hmmm, no problematic units have those traits...) and fast/double moving units (nope, not meta defining units at all).
Oh look - the everything will be a gunline argument again. You mean armies that have access to cheap infantry only, right? I'm not sure what point you're making, because those units largely weren't coming until turn 2 last FAQ as well and the world didn't end in gun lines.
Yeah, the meta defining armies with cheap infantry or quick units. My point is the change doesn't do anything to help balance the game and is a crutch for players who can't be bothered to screen their units. Not being able to come into your own deployment zone further removes the ability of units without invluns to protect themselves further stretching the meta towards resilient shoot or fast moving assault. Units which rely on deepstrike for protection (primaris inceptors) just lost 20%ish of their usefulness (going second and being able to deploy in your own deployment zone was a way to get them a turn of shooting, now they can't come in until turn 2 no matter what). Probably not the biggest deal individually but combined with the dominance of knights in the meta this just pushes the meta further in an unhealthy direction.
Oh, the fortifications can hold objectives is such a terrible rule. Stinks of marketing "we need to sell more fortifications for this edition" I can't think of any other reason a building should be able to hold an objective...
Oh no the horror. People might actually use fortifications. I guess they don't want to sell gnarlmaws though.
Some other poster already mentioned putting a fort ontop of a objective so you can never take it without destroying the fort. It's a bad rule that doesn't add anything to the game and will most likely only be used to game the system in immersion breaking ways. Adds little to the game and could potentially make for some wonky interactions or situations where interactions are impossible. Not a fan.
Terrain still sucks. True LOS is so bad (the tip of my spear shoots the corner of your command flag pole). The character targeting rules are still dumb (that unit of scouts hidden in that building mean you can't shoot my shield captain on top of the building.
Terrain does suck. Don't stick your flag out. It's an equitable rule. Character rules are there to prevent abuse and make characters useful so complain all you want.
The character rules are clunky and are being abused (see my example). A better rule would be characters w/in 3" of a unit cannot be targeted unless they are the closest target. Prevents weird hiding scouts on your side of the table to keep all of my chanters safe but prevents character sniping if the controlling character can use some tactical moving. Either way the current rule is dumb and true LOS is bad, clarifying body of the shooting character to body of the target would be preferable to me and not break the immersion. Agreed that it cuts both ways and is "fair" I just think it makes it very difficult to take advantage of terrain which is already pretty worthless. And I will continue to offer what I consider constructive criticism so hopefully GW sees how competitive meta players see their rules (submitted to GWFAQ for all that's worth.)
I'm not sure how I feel about the 2cp to give your guys cover turn 1. Having to clump all of my infantry into oddly shaped/leveled terrain was a quality of life issue I'm glad they fixed. But just being able to deploy wherever seems like it removes one of the last strategic elements of deployment further dumbing down an already dumb game.
It lasts a turn. What are you going to do when it wears off? Just stand there?
It does exactly what I said it does. Removes a strategic element of "deployment." The bad terrain rules and OP shooting elements do the rest.
I fail to see how your points show another side to any of the issues I raised and you don't bring up anything that the FAQ improved. The fly measuring diagonal, the actual FAQ sections (do drones count as units, do demon data sheets count) and the CP regen nerf are the best parts of the FAQ. The rest of it is worthless at best and harmful to an already skewed meta at worst.
PFFF it's not minor. +1 armor to your whole army while deploying where ever you want is massive. This is actually a nerf to skill - people seem to think is so important in this game.
It's a massive buff to imperial guard. Every single gaurdsmen has a 4+ save to shooting turn 1. It's a huge freaking joke.
It's a buff to melee armies too since the edge of your deployment zone is often in front of ruins you'd hide your models in. That said, horde melee armies will still need to stay out of LOS, but anyone hiding in a transport got a buff.
Melee horde armies cannot stay outside of LOS. Keeping 30 orks out of LOS is impossible. It is also impossible to put them in cover, so this stratagem is really appreciated.
Really the only ones who can (and should) complain about this are daemons.
Elite armies were greatly buffed.
Horde CC armies were buffed. Let's not downplay the value of a 5+ save here. What, when IG has it it breaks the game but on an ork it becomes useless?
Makes armors saves more reliable than invul saves, which is also something that the game needed.
Makes going first less important.
Makes cover ignoring rules more important.
I love all of it!
how were elite armies buffed? Am not trolling or flaming, I do happen to play a low count army, and if I missed something in the FAQs that makes such armies better, I would like to know it, because where I play no one is going to tell me that.
how were elite armies buffed? Am not trolling or flaming, I do happen to play a low count army, and if I missed something in the FAQs that makes such armies better, I would like to know it, because where I play no one is going to tell me that.
The cover stratagem is, arguably, better for elite, good save armies.
But that is not true, cover or not the good shoting armies have enough fire power to blow up an elite army with or without cover. Just because now, one can pay 2 CP and get the cover bonus isn't going to change the amount of incoming fire. In fact it can make it higher, because before maybe some units could be out of sight, while now if someone deploys as close to the deployment as possible the whole opposing army will be able to fire on the elite army turn 1.
PFFF it's not minor. +1 armor to your whole army while deploying where ever you want is massive. This is actually a nerf to skill - people seem to think is so important in this game.
It's a massive buff to imperial guard. Every single gaurdsmen has a 4+ save to shooting turn 1. It's a huge freaking joke.
It's a buff to melee armies too since the edge of your deployment zone is often in front of ruins you'd hide your models in. That said, horde melee armies will still need to stay out of LOS, but anyone hiding in a transport got a buff.
Melee horde armies cannot stay outside of LOS. Keeping 30 orks out of LOS is impossible. It is also impossible to put them in cover, so this stratagem is really appreciated.
Really the only ones who can (and should) complain about this are daemons.
Elite armies were greatly buffed.
Horde CC armies were buffed. Let's not downplay the value of a 5+ save here. What, when IG has it it breaks the game but on an ork it becomes useless?
Makes armors saves more reliable than invul saves, which is also something that the game needed.
Makes going first less important.
Makes cover ignoring rules more important.
I love all of it!
how were elite armies buffed? Am not trolling or flaming, I do happen to play a low count army, and if I missed something in the FAQs that makes such armies better, I would like to know it, because where I play no one is going to tell me that.
Because by it's nature cover is more effective on high armor values.
Having all marines at 2+ for turn 1 is quite an important change.
Marine (and CSM) transports also had the problem that if they went first they were fine due to activating smoke, but if you didn't have first turn they could be crippled before smoking.
Now those rhinos are 2+.
Karol wrote: But that is not true, cover or not the good shoting armies have enough fire power to blow up an elite army with or without cover. Just because now, one can pay 2 CP and get the cover bonus isn't going to change the amount of incoming fire. In fact it can make it higher, because before maybe some units could be out of sight, while now if someone deploys as close to the deployment as possible the whole opposing army will be able to fire on the elite army turn 1.
Thing is, the damage in current 40k is so high that for an assault unit to be viable it either needs to be able to get into CC reliably in T1 (or the same turn it comes out of Deepstrike) or be tanky as hell. If it is neither the best it can do is serve as a Distraction Carnifex.
Thing is, cc is so devastating, that any CC army getting in T1 (or the same turn it comes out of Deepstrike) wins the game. If there's no way for the opponent to make a play to potentially deny it, there's no game.
It's a broader problem of GW upping the damage output of armies with every Codex far more significantly than the damage-mitigation/defensive abilities. It's a structural issue outside of CC.
Nor is there a game if you can't make it into CC T1 as a choppy army and the opponent just shoots you off the board in a single turn.
But yeah, I agree that the balance between the ability to deal damage and to soak damage is pretty out of whack at the moment.
Karol wrote: But that is not true, cover or not the good shoting armies have enough fire power to blow up an elite army with or without cover. Just because now, one can pay 2 CP and get the cover bonus isn't going to change the amount of incoming fire. In fact it can make it higher, because before maybe some units could be out of sight, while now if someone deploys as close to the deployment as possible the whole opposing army will be able to fire on the elite army turn 1.
Math would like to have a word with you.
I am bad at math, that is true. Could you explain it to me?
how were elite armies buffed? Am not trolling or flaming, I do happen to play a low count army, and if I missed something in the FAQs that makes such armies better, I would like to know it, because where I play no one is going to tell me that.
The cover stratagem is, arguably, better for elite, good save armies.
If they go second. If. Prepared Positions is available only to the player who goes second. Depending on the scenario they have a +1 to go first or a 5/6th chance to go first. More instances of horde armies using the strategem rather than elite armies will be catalogued over time. It is far more of a buff for Hordes.
My Leman Russ tank has a 2+ save, so that is cool.
Xenomancers wrote: "I'm not sure how I feel about the 2cp to give your guys cover turn 1. Having to clump all of my infantry into oddly shaped/leveled terrain was a quality of life issue I'm glad they fixed. But just being able to deploy wherever seems like it removes one of the last strategic elements of deployment further dumbing down an already dumb game. "
From bananas post
I just want to focus on this because it is so true and relates to a discussion that was being had the other day.
Deployment is basically the only part of the game outside of "building a list" that has any form of strategy. Now guess what - You can deploy where ever you want for 2 CP. No more stratagey.
How much dumber can the game freaking get?
Being out of LOS is still better than +1 armor save. People always say that it's impossible to be out of LOS with the (admittedly bad) true LOS rules, but the ITC ruled all 1st floors as totally LOS blocking which helps with this.
You can still deploy out of LOS - plenty of things don't want to move so they can shoot with no penalty turn 1. It's a huge buff to infantry which can now deploy to screen but don't lose cover save bonus to do it. This buffs IG harder than any army.
My response was addressing your contention that deployment now takes no skill. If anything, this additional option now requires slightly more decision making. 2cp with nerfed farming is nothing to sneeze at. It's an expensive option. You still have to be smart about hiding things out of LOS, deciding if it's worth the risk of hiding your heavy weapons in case you don't get first turn, etc.
decision making does not mean tactics. The same decisions always existed - do I take advantage position or a cover save. Now the only skill is figuring out the advantage position because you are automatically getting a cover save. Really though - that possition is always going to be ether as close as possible or as far away as possible depending on your army. Now your army basically deploys itself.
how were elite armies buffed? Am not trolling or flaming, I do happen to play a low count army, and if I missed something in the FAQs that makes such armies better, I would like to know it, because where I play no one is going to tell me that.
The cover stratagem is, arguably, better for elite, good save armies.
If they go second. If. Prepared Positions is available only to the player who goes second. Depending on the scenario they have a +1 to go first or a 5/6th chance to go first. More instances of horde armies using the strategem rather than elite armies will be catalogued over time. It is far more of a buff for Hordes.
My Leman Russ tank has a 2+ save, so that is cool.
This is going to make a big difference to some armies, like 'nid swarms. Going from a 6+ to a 5+ in the face of mass low AP fire (which is fairly common).
Karol wrote: But that is not true, cover or not the good shoting armies have enough fire power to blow up an elite army with or without cover. Just because now, one can pay 2 CP and get the cover bonus isn't going to change the amount of incoming fire. In fact it can make it higher, because before maybe some units could be out of sight, while now if someone deploys as close to the deployment as possible the whole opposing army will be able to fire on the elite army turn 1.
Math would like to have a word with you.
I am bad at math, that is true. Could you explain it to me?
Having +1 save is huge on MEQ.
Even if all your enemy shooting is AP-3, you have effectively increased your wounds on the field by 25%.
This scales to 33% for AP-2, 50% for AP-1 and 100% for no AP.
Those numbers are quite something.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I wouldn't be surpised to see Rhino rush lists getting a lot of steam.
how were elite armies buffed? Am not trolling or flaming, I do happen to play a low count army, and if I missed something in the FAQs that makes such armies better, I would like to know it, because where I play no one is going to tell me that.
The cover stratagem is, arguably, better for elite, good save armies.
If they go second. If. Prepared Positions is available only to the player who goes second. Depending on the scenario they have a +1 to go first or a 5/6th chance to go first. More instances of horde armies using the strategem rather than elite armies will be catalogued over time. It is far more of a buff for Hordes.
My Leman Russ tank has a 2+ save, so that is cool.
''Use this Stratagem at the start of the first battle round, before the first turn begins.
Until the end of the first turn, all units from your army that are wholly within your
Deployment Zone, other than Titanic units, receive the benefit of cover, even while
they are not entirely on or in a terrain feature. A unit that is already receiving the
benefit of cover gains no additional benefit from this Stratagem.''
actually, is last the whole round, so you could be first player and pay 2CP, and when it comes the time for your opponent to shoot you still get your cover saves on your tanks or whatnot.
Karol wrote: But that is not true, cover or not the good shoting armies have enough fire power to blow up an elite army with or without cover. Just because now, one can pay 2 CP and get the cover bonus isn't going to change the amount of incoming fire. In fact it can make it higher, because before maybe some units could be out of sight, while now if someone deploys as close to the deployment as possible the whole opposing army will be able to fire on the elite army turn 1.
Math would like to have a word with you.
I am bad at math, that is true. Could you explain it to me?
Having +1 save is huge on MEQ.
Even if all your enemy shooting is AP-3, you have effectively increased your wounds on the field by 25%.
This scales to 33% for AP-2, 50% for AP-1 and 100% for no AP.
Those numbers are quite something.
Yes my friends army does around 32 wounds to my army per turn, and my army has 48 wounds not counting draigo. That makes my army dead turn one. I kind of a know it, because when we didn't play at the store, but at school we had no cover giving terrain, so my dudes acted as if they had the stratagem for free.
Like what? Point to an alpha striking deep strike melee army that did any good other than blood Angel's. The ones everyone mentions, genestealers and berserkers dont deep strike and instead run up the board.
Thousand Sons were working as a Smite spam army, not a major assault army.
Tzaangor bombs had a little success, so I guess if you wanted to smash 1/10 of the top lists; mission accomplished.
Not true. NOVA finals was a Tzaangor Bomb. And plenty more in the Top 30. Aside from Castellan-lists, it was easily the top list out there, and with Castellan/BA lists getting a nerf, it wouldn't do to just not address the 3-4 lists below that (Cultist-Spam with Abaddon and 120 infiltrating Alpha Legion Cultists being probably no. 3), or you're not really changing anything other than the flavour of the problem.
Uh, no, not at all. Let's review the lists, shall we?
I have no idea why you decided to say "Top 30" except maybe because it helps you. Most places generally settle on top 10 and occasionally top 15. In order to include as many lists as possible, here's the top 16 (cause I found na extra):
1. Knights/CP Farm
2. Knights/CP Farm
3. Ynnari
4. Knights/CP Farm
5. Morty+Magnus Party
6. Knights/CP Farm
7. Custodes Mass Jetbikes
8. Dark Eldar
9. Blood Angels
10. Harlequinns
11. Knight/CP Farm
12. Custodes (Infantry of all things)
13. Knights/CP Farm
14. Tau
15. Adeptus Astartes
16. Daemons
So looking at this, the top lists aside from Knight/CP Farm are almost certainly Eldar of some sort or another. There were only two Chaos lists at all that could even TAKE Tzaangoer bombs. Cultist Spam, even with Abaddon, has like no presence at all. Honestly, your idea of the current meta just seems wildly off base or based on early 2018 as opposed to late 2018.
Why would you ignore evidence just because it helps your perspective lol. It's a fact that they are taking spots in the top 30 so that isn't bad at all, it helps his perspective so he stated it. What the hell is this logic that the cut off point for success has to be where you deem it lol
Uhh, you just made my argument to HIM at ME. I'm going with what is traditionally catalogue'd and kept so we can verify that these are high performing players/lists (i.e. the top). That way we can control for player error being a factor as much as possible. He's the one that just decided to use 30 as an arbitrary number.
Uhhhh no I didn't, you just didn't get my point. "What's traditionally catalogued" is also an arbitrary number, and to limit it to that when it's clear the army is still successful just beyond that limit you are setting for this tournament is absurd. The topic was whether they are successful, ignoring evidence of this success just because it doesn't fit into a top 10 isn't a sensible decision may all.
No, the topic was whether they were breaking the game, OP, in need of a fix, however you want to phrase it. Just because something is successful doesn't mean it should be nerfed. Only when it is unreasonably successful.
The traditional pull is used because that's the only one we have data on we can use to at least try and exclude player error from the equation. If you want to change that, you can't just arbitrarily add more numbers. You'd need to start cataloguing all that yourself or find someone who did/is.
No, the topic was literally "point to an army that did any good", to which Thousand Sons was given as an answer, to which you disagreed with them doing good. Nobody said they were OP yet.
The traditional pull is a representation of who got top 8 or top 16. This is not a representation of every single army that is doing good, and ones that placed multiple times in a top 30 of one of the largest competitive events of the year definitely fit that description by my measure even if they didn't break top 16. You have conflated the two, and for this topic, your limit of "the traditional pull" is entirely arbitrary.
And I'm AGAINST the change, I think it's bad, dumbs down the game, and I do not think that TSons needed a nerf. If that was what you had said I would have agreed. But what you are currently arguing is that they are not doing good, and top 30 multiple times isn't good because it's not top 16, and that's absurd, especially since they won the major just before that.
You're missing heft context. Re-reading the quote chains, it is as clear to me now as it was then that "any good" was referring to top meta performance. You need to be up there to be doing "any good" in this conversation, so no it's not crazy.
You want to add in "your measure"? Great. Make an argument for why it's trustworthy, but you weren't the original post I was responding to and your subjective measure isn't what was being discussed.
I will say it for a third time and then probably no more because if it doesn't get through after 3 it probably never will: my pull is not arbitrary. It's what is usually compiled and recorded after tournaments so that way we have a verifiela let record to consult that minimizes player error as a factor. It's the only solid data we really have.
I also didn't disagree that Thousand Son's placed in the top sometimes. My point was they didn't place there very often and the Tzaangoer bomb wasn't the primary thrust of the army getting to where it was.
how were elite armies buffed? Am not trolling or flaming, I do happen to play a low count army, and if I missed something in the FAQs that makes such armies better, I would like to know it, because where I play no one is going to tell me that.
The cover stratagem is, arguably, better for elite, good save armies.
If they go second. If. Prepared Positions is available only to the player who goes second. Depending on the scenario they have a +1 to go first or a 5/6th chance to go first. More instances of horde armies using the strategem rather than elite armies will be catalogued over time. It is far more of a buff for Hordes.
My Leman Russ tank has a 2+ save, so that is cool.
''Use this Stratagem at the start of the first battle round, before the first turn begins.
Until the end of the first turn, all units from your army that are wholly within your
Deployment Zone, other than Titanic units, receive the benefit of cover, even while
they are not entirely on or in a terrain feature. A unit that is already receiving the
benefit of cover gains no additional benefit from this Stratagem.''
actually, is last the whole round, so you could be first player and pay 2CP, and when it comes the time for your opponent to shoot you still get your cover saves on your tanks or whatnot.
Karol wrote: But that is not true, cover or not the good shoting armies have enough fire power to blow up an elite army with or without cover. Just because now, one can pay 2 CP and get the cover bonus isn't going to change the amount of incoming fire. In fact it can make it higher, because before maybe some units could be out of sight, while now if someone deploys as close to the deployment as possible the whole opposing army will be able to fire on the elite army turn 1.
Math would like to have a word with you.
I am bad at math, that is true. Could you explain it to me?
Having +1 save is huge on MEQ.
Even if all your enemy shooting is AP-3, you have effectively increased your wounds on the field by 25%.
This scales to 33% for AP-2, 50% for AP-1 and 100% for no AP.
Those numbers are quite something.
Yes my friends army does around 32 wounds to my army per turn, and my army has 48 wounds not counting draigo. That makes my army dead turn one. I kind of a know it, because when we didn't play at the store, but at school we had no cover giving terrain, so my dudes acted as if they had the stratagem for free.
You play mono GK. Sorry, there is no salvation for you.
how were elite armies buffed? Am not trolling or flaming, I do happen to play a low count army, and if I missed something in the FAQs that makes such armies better, I would like to know it, because where I play no one is going to tell me that.
The cover stratagem is, arguably, better for elite, good save armies.
If they go second. If. Prepared Positions is available only to the player who goes second. Depending on the scenario they have a +1 to go first or a 5/6th chance to go first. More instances of horde armies using the strategem rather than elite armies will be catalogued over time. It is far more of a buff for Hordes.
My Leman Russ tank has a 2+ save, so that is cool.
''Use this Stratagem at the start of the first battle round, before the first turn begins.
Until the end of the first turn, all units from your army that are wholly within your
Deployment Zone, other than Titanic units, receive the benefit of cover, even while
they are not entirely on or in a terrain feature. A unit that is already receiving the
benefit of cover gains no additional benefit from this Stratagem.''
actually, is last the whole round, so you could be first player and pay 2CP, and when it comes the time for your opponent to shoot you still get your cover saves on your tanks or whatnot.
They said only the player going second has access to that strat. Going second is required to unlock it.
how were elite armies buffed? Am not trolling or flaming, I do happen to play a low count army, and if I missed something in the FAQs that makes such armies better, I would like to know it, because where I play no one is going to tell me that.
The cover stratagem is, arguably, better for elite, good save armies.
If they go second. If. Prepared Positions is available only to the player who goes second. Depending on the scenario they have a +1 to go first or a 5/6th chance to go first. More instances of horde armies using the strategem rather than elite armies will be catalogued over time. It is far more of a buff for Hordes.
My Leman Russ tank has a 2+ save, so that is cool.
''Use this Stratagem at the start of the first battle round, before the first turn begins.
Until the end of the first turn, all units from your army that are wholly within your
Deployment Zone, other than Titanic units, receive the benefit of cover, even while
they are not entirely on or in a terrain feature. A unit that is already receiving the
benefit of cover gains no additional benefit from this Stratagem.''
actually, is last the whole round, so you could be first player and pay 2CP, and when it comes the time for your opponent to shoot you still get your cover saves on your tanks or whatnot.
It lasts until the end of the first turn, not round.
Karol wrote: But that is not true, cover or not the good shoting armies have enough fire power to blow up an elite army with or without cover. Just because now, one can pay 2 CP and get the cover bonus isn't going to change the amount of incoming fire. In fact it can make it higher, because before maybe some units could be out of sight, while now if someone deploys as close to the deployment as possible the whole opposing army will be able to fire on the elite army turn 1.
Math would like to have a word with you.
I am bad at math, that is true. Could you explain it to me?
Having +1 save is huge on MEQ.
Even if all your enemy shooting is AP-3, you have effectively increased your wounds on the field by 25%.
This scales to 33% for AP-2, 50% for AP-1 and 100% for no AP.
Those numbers are quite something.
Yes my friends army does around 32 wounds to my army per turn, and my army has 48 wounds not counting draigo. That makes my army dead turn one. I kind of a know it, because when we didn't play at the store, but at school we had no cover giving terrain, so my dudes acted as if they had the stratagem for free.
You play mono GK. Sorry, there is no salvation for you.
how were elite armies buffed? Am not trolling or flaming, I do happen to play a low count army, and if I missed something in the FAQs that makes such armies better, I would like to know it, because where I play no one is going to tell me that.
The cover stratagem is, arguably, better for elite, good save armies.
If they go second. If. Prepared Positions is available only to the player who goes second. Depending on the scenario they have a +1 to go first or a 5/6th chance to go first. More instances of horde armies using the strategem rather than elite armies will be catalogued over time. It is far more of a buff for Hordes.
My Leman Russ tank has a 2+ save, so that is cool.
''Use this Stratagem at the start of the first battle round, before the first turn begins.
Until the end of the first turn, all units from your army that are wholly within your
Deployment Zone, other than Titanic units, receive the benefit of cover, even while
they are not entirely on or in a terrain feature. A unit that is already receiving the
benefit of cover gains no additional benefit from this Stratagem.''
actually, is last the whole round, so you could be first player and pay 2CP, and when it comes the time for your opponent to shoot you still get your cover saves on your tanks or whatnot.
You are incorrect, sorry:
Note what it says above the strategem
you're absolutely right and I'm sorry! I stand corrected! I guess in my anger I forgot basic reading skills
Karol wrote: But that is not true, cover or not the good shoting armies have enough fire power to blow up an elite army with or without cover. Just because now, one can pay 2 CP and get the cover bonus isn't going to change the amount of incoming fire. In fact it can make it higher, because before maybe some units could be out of sight, while now if someone deploys as close to the deployment as possible the whole opposing army will be able to fire on the elite army turn 1.
Math would like to have a word with you.
I am bad at math, that is true. Could you explain it to me?
Having +1 save is huge on MEQ.
Even if all your enemy shooting is AP-3, you have effectively increased your wounds on the field by 25%.
This scales to 33% for AP-2, 50% for AP-1 and 100% for no AP.
Those numbers are quite something.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I wouldn't be surpised to see Rhino rush lists getting a lot of steam.
Well, that is true... maybe I should try putting those 3 transports I still have lying around together, get Lukas, stuff him and 3 squads of angry Blood Claws in them and see what happens. Then see if I can get a Wolf Lord with Wulfen Stone + Saga of the Wolfkin in there somewhere as well. 29 Blood Claws with 3-5A per model on the charge at 2+ to hit and +1 to wound rolls if Lukas is near has to at least reach and kill SOMETHING.
I'm not sure how this refutes my point that cheap CP gets more valuable without a way to regen it unless you are agreeing that those cheap CP sources are still OP as they still have the easiest way of regening those CP (although not as powerful now).
Because there's a set value now. An IG battalion = +5. A relic/trait = +6. Previously you were looking at 10 plus extra. So that missing CP is either lost or needs to be made up by more IG battalions.
These armies will be able to keep that 3++ up through 2-3 turns even with the current cost of cp. The demise of the smash captain conversely makes that castilian even more powerful (no flying charge over screens was one of the few ways to threaten a 3++ vs shooting on a 24 wound t8 model). The change does nothing to curb the power of a meta defining model and actually makes it more powerful (or at least more invulnerable).
The top NOVA list was 20 CP. Previously Grand Strategist mathematically added 6.7 to that. Kurov's would be 2 or 3 depending on your opponent. All that is capped to 6 now.
To stand up his Castellan is now 3 CP.
The Captain needs an extra CP as well.
That makes this list come in at -6 CP from previous expectations.
Yeah, the meta defining armies with cheap infantry or quick units. My point is the change doesn't do anything to help balance the game and is a crutch for players who can't be bothered to screen their units. Not being able to come into your own deployment zone further removes the ability of units without invluns to protect themselves further stretching the meta towards resilient shoot or fast moving assault. Units which rely on deepstrike for protection (primaris inceptors) just lost 20%ish of their usefulness (going second and being able to deploy in your own deployment zone was a way to get them a turn of shooting, now they can't come in until turn 2 no matter what). Probably not the biggest deal individually but combined with the dominance of knights in the meta this just pushes the meta further in an unhealthy direction.
Time will tell.
Some other poster already mentioned putting a fort ontop of a objective so you can never take it without destroying the fort. It's a bad rule that doesn't add anything to the game and will most likely only be used to game the system in immersion breaking ways. Adds little to the game and could potentially make for some wonky interactions or situations where interactions are impossible. Not a fan.
Tournaments can apply and easy fix - forts can be next to objectives, but cover them. I doubt we'll see proliferation.
And I will continue to offer what I consider constructive criticism
I would expect no less.
It does exactly what I said it does. Removes a strategic element of "deployment." The bad terrain rules and OP shooting elements do the rest.
I disagree still. It opens the game for alternative first turn strategies that have yet to be explored.
Xenomancers wrote: decision making does not mean tactics. The same decisions always existed - do I take advantage position or a cover save. Now the only skill is figuring out the advantage position because you are automatically getting a cover save. Really though - that possition is always going to be ether as close as possible or as far away as possible depending on your army. Now your army basically deploys itself.
Sometimes, I wish I played in Xenomancers' meta where you don't need to have any skill at all to win games of 40k and there are no real decisions to be made. Then I realize that this meta only exists in fantasy strawman land.
Are you still restricted from movement of any kind after Deep Strike (i.e., Warp Time, or Swarmlords Hive Commander)? I don't remember where that previous ruling was listed, and can't seem to find whether it was changed?
Thing is, the damage in current 40k is so high that for an assault unit to be viable it either needs to be able to get into CC reliably in T1 (or the same turn it comes out of Deepstrike) or be tanky as hell. If it is neither the best it can do is serve as a Distraction Carnifex.
Thing is, cc is so devastating, that any CC army getting in T1 (or the same turn it comes out of Deepstrike) wins the game. If there's no way for the opponent to make a play to potentially deny it, there's no game.
It's a broader problem of GW upping the damage output of armies with every Codex far more significantly than the damage-mitigation/defensive abilities. It's a structural issue outside of CC.
rollawaythestone wrote: Are you still restricted from movement of any kind after Deep Strike (i.e., Warp Time, or Swarmlords Hive Commander)? I don't remember where that previous ruling was listed, and can't seem to find whether it was changed?
rollawaythestone wrote: Are you still restricted from movement of any kind after Deep Strike (i.e., Warp Time, or Swarmlords Hive Commander)? I don't remember where that previous ruling was listed, and can't seem to find whether it was changed?
I'm not sure how this refutes my point that cheap CP gets more valuable without a way to regen it unless you are agreeing that those cheap CP sources are still OP as they still have the easiest way of regening those CP (although not as powerful now).
Because there's a set value now. An IG battalion = +5. A relic/trait = +6. Previously you were looking at 10 plus extra. So that missing CP is either lost or needs to be made up by more IG battalions.
These armies will be able to keep that 3++ up through 2-3 turns even with the current cost of cp. The demise of the smash captain conversely makes that castilian even more powerful (no flying charge over screens was one of the few ways to threaten a 3++ vs shooting on a 24 wound t8 model). The change does nothing to curb the power of a meta defining model and actually makes it more powerful (or at least more invulnerable).
The top NOVA list was 20 CP. Previously Grand Strategist mathematically added 6.7 to that. Kurov's would be 2 or 3 depending on your opponent. All that is capped to 6 now.
To stand up his Castellan is now 3 CP. The Captain needs an extra CP as well.
That makes this list come in at -6 CP from previous expectations.
It's MUCH worse. 20 CP with Grand strategist alone is 30 CP. Assuming 4 Cps coming from Kurov's aquila over the first 2 turns, this becomes 36 CPs. If he also had the veritas vitae this was 43 CPs on average (assuming 2 CPs as the average stratagem cost). Now that list by turn 2 will be 22 CPs, with an expected increase of expended CPs of 3.
rollawaythestone wrote: Are you still restricted from movement of any kind after Deep Strike (i.e., Warp Time, or Swarmlords Hive Commander)? I don't remember where that previous ruling was listed, and can't seem to find whether it was changed?
I'm not sure how this refutes my point that cheap CP gets more valuable without a way to regen it unless you are agreeing that those cheap CP sources are still OP as they still have the easiest way of regening those CP (although not as powerful now).
Because there's a set value now. An IG battalion = +5. A relic/trait = +6. Previously you were looking at 10 plus extra. So that missing CP is either lost or needs to be made up by more IG battalions.
These armies will be able to keep that 3++ up through 2-3 turns even with the current cost of cp. The demise of the smash captain conversely makes that castilian even more powerful (no flying charge over screens was one of the few ways to threaten a 3++ vs shooting on a 24 wound t8 model). The change does nothing to curb the power of a meta defining model and actually makes it more powerful (or at least more invulnerable).
The top NOVA list was 20 CP. Previously Grand Strategist mathematically added 6.7 to that. Kurov's would be 2 or 3 depending on your opponent. All that is capped to 6 now.
To stand up his Castellan is now 3 CP.
The Captain needs an extra CP as well.
That makes this list come in at -6 CP from previous expectations.
It's MUCH worse. 20 CP with Grand strategist alone is 30 CP. Assuming 4 Cps coming from Kurov's aquila over the first 2 turns, this becomes 36 CPs. If he also had the veritas vitae this was 43 CPs on average (assuming 2 CPs as the average stratagem cost).
Now that list by turn 2 will be 22 CPs, with an expected increase of expended CPs of 3.
It's MUCH worse. 20 CP with Grand strategist alone is 30 CP. Assuming 4 Cps coming from Kurov's aquila over the first 2 turns, this becomes 36 CPs. If he also had the veritas vitae this was 43 CPs on average (assuming 2 CPs as the average stratagem cost).
Now that list by turn 2 will be 22 CPs, with an expected increase of expended CPs of 3.
That list is now down 24 CPs.
Grand Strategist is only 33% though? Forgot about Veritas.
A note on Raven Guard - this still doesn't prevent you from moving first turn so it means you move up 9" and use jump packs for 12" and now you're 3" from the front lines. If you didn't get first then you're on a 2+ cover save.
It's MUCH worse. 20 CP with Grand strategist alone is 30 CP. Assuming 4 Cps coming from Kurov's aquila over the first 2 turns, this becomes 36 CPs. If he also had the veritas vitae this was 43 CPs on average (assuming 2 CPs as the average stratagem cost).
Now that list by turn 2 will be 22 CPs, with an expected increase of expended CPs of 3.
That list is now down 24 CPs.
Grand Strategist is only 33% though? Forgot about Veritas.
A note on Raven Guard - this still doesn't prevent you from moving first turn so it means you move up 9" and use jump packs for 12" and now you're 3" from the front lines. If you didn't get first then you're on a 2+ cover save.
Only units still inside your deployment zone can get that cover save, so you better land in actual cover instead.
It's MUCH worse. 20 CP with Grand strategist alone is 30 CP. Assuming 4 Cps coming from Kurov's aquila over the first 2 turns, this becomes 36 CPs. If he also had the veritas vitae this was 43 CPs on average (assuming 2 CPs as the average stratagem cost).
Now that list by turn 2 will be 22 CPs, with an expected increase of expended CPs of 3.
That list is now down 24 CPs.
Grand Strategist is only 33% though? Forgot about Veritas.
A note on Raven Guard - this still doesn't prevent you from moving first turn so it means you move up 9" and use jump packs for 12" and now you're 3" from the front lines. If you didn't get first then you're on a 2+ cover save.
Yes, but the 33% recovered can also generate more CPs, and those CPs can generate more CPs. Mathematically this equals +50%.
These armies will be able to keep that 3++ up through 2-3 turns even with the current cost of cp. The demise of the smash captain conversely makes that castilian even more powerful (no flying charge over screens was one of the few ways to threaten a 3++ vs shooting on a 24 wound t8 model). The change does nothing to curb the power of a meta defining model and actually makes it more powerful (or at least more invulnerable).
.
Then they don't have raven strategem. Or don't have slamquinus. 2 bat and lone raven castellan you can power both strategem once. That's it. Change ig to brigade and 2 turn max. To get both 3 turn requires either 2 ig brigade(no slamquinus) or ba brigade(good luck with points)
SHUPPET wrote: GSC are at least stuck this way till 2019 or later most likely.
They're book was already announced. They're coming out before the end of the year.
The faq says it's in development. Which if true means it can't come this year(especially as gw doesn't release codexes in december). Also they didn't rannounce it in same level as say they did orks and sw.
Can fly keyword units still assault supersonic flyers? They can't fly over a gaurdsmen but they can assault a jet fighter? Who makes these rules. I demand they show themselves!
Xenomancers wrote: Can fly keyword units still assault supersonic flyers? They can't fly over a gaurdsmen but they can assault a jet fighter? Who makes these rules. I demand they show themselves!
It looks like jumping over units and up or down terrain outside the movement phase is the only part that change.
Xenomancers wrote: Can fly keyword units still assault supersonic flyers? They can't fly over a gaurdsmen but they can assault a jet fighter? Who makes these rules. I demand they show themselves!
It looks like jumping over units and up or down terrain outside the movement phase is the only part that change.
Seems to be the case. So you can actually screen ravens with gaurdsmen. Game has taken a turn for the surreal.
Xenomancers wrote: Can fly keyword units still assault supersonic flyers? They can't fly over a gaurdsmen but they can assault a jet fighter? Who makes these rules. I demand they show themselves!
It looks like jumping over units and up or down terrain outside the movement phase is the only part that change.
I think he is pointing out the absurdity of being able to jump/fly to fight a jet, but not being capable of charging from the ground to the first floor of a ruins, or leaping over a unit to assault something behind it.
Xenomancers wrote: Can fly keyword units still assault supersonic flyers? They can't fly over a gaurdsmen but they can assault a jet fighter? Who makes these rules. I demand they show themselves!
It looks like jumping over units and up or down terrain outside the movement phase is the only part that change.
Seems to be the case. So you can actually screen ravens with gaurdsmen. Game has taken a turn for the surreal.
...Letting a Monolith charge a Hemlock wasn't surreal enough?
Xenomancers wrote: Can fly keyword units still assault supersonic flyers? They can't fly over a gaurdsmen but they can assault a jet fighter? Who makes these rules. I demand they show themselves!
It looks like jumping over units and up or down terrain outside the movement phase is the only part that change.
Seems to be the case. So you can actually screen ravens with gaurdsmen. Game has taken a turn for the surreal.
...Letting a Monolith charge a Hemlock wasn't surreal enough?
Neither was a Knight not being able to smash the ruins with a Knight and smash the guys inside.
Xenomancers wrote: Can fly keyword units still assault supersonic flyers? They can't fly over a gaurdsmen but they can assault a jet fighter? Who makes these rules. I demand they show themselves!
Ugh, I hadn't even thought about that one yet... this FAQ is starting to sound more and more like "A treatise on how to feth over assault units and armies that are not meta-defining". In the meanwhile, that LRBT can still feth over my assault Dreads standing behind a bunch of other units without penalty.
All the love GW has been giving to gunlines in the past 2 FAQs just because some top tournament players have been abusing several overpowered CC units is making me consider just dropping the gaming part of the hobby and focus on building and painting (Well, I guess I still have my Tau left...), at least until this mess is fixed... playing a game with non-overpowered CC units is simply going to be an exercise in futility and frustration.
Nerfs to <fly> units have now relegated the bad (Raptors) and garbage (warp talons) units from Chaos into the "nice models, totally unplayable" category. Well done GW.
Even before all their nerfs (warptime deepstrike in particular), Warp Talons were just 'bad'. But they've been hit with nerfs with every update, and they deserved none of them.
Currently, the models are only really usable if they were more like 12ppm (including claws), so you could bring them in enough numbers to make up for their weakness. Instead they're 27ppm, totally useless.
Basically these nerfs seem to have slightly reduced the cheapness of the imperial CP batteries and slam captains. But has massively reduced the ability for other armies to even field a decent army.
I mean, Alpha legion was the only Chaos option that doesn't require bending over to a particular chaos god. Now after the nerf, they're... I mean, they're better than Night Lords I guess, just about, but that's about all you can say about them. But seems GW want's everyone to play TS smite spam (yaaawnnnn).
Xenomancers wrote: Can fly keyword units still assault supersonic flyers? They can't fly over a gaurdsmen but they can assault a jet fighter? Who makes these rules. I demand they show themselves!
It looks like jumping over units and up or down terrain outside the movement phase is the only part that change.
I think he is pointing out the absurdity of being able to jump/fly to fight a jet, but not being capable of charging from the ground to the first floor of a ruins, or leaping over a unit to assault something behind it.
Bingo! Thanks for clarifying that. This is exactly my point.
Xenomancers wrote: Can fly keyword units still assault supersonic flyers? They can't fly over a gaurdsmen but they can assault a jet fighter? Who makes these rules. I demand they show themselves!
It looks like jumping over units and up or down terrain outside the movement phase is the only part that change.
Seems to be the case. So you can actually screen ravens with gaurdsmen. Game has taken a turn for the surreal.
...Letting a Monolith charge a Hemlock wasn't surreal enough?
Realistically - monoliths just appear wherever they want so that doesn't break immersion for me at all. In fact - the likely event is monolith does 0 damage so...it's almost like nothing happened.
Xenomancers wrote: Can fly keyword units still assault supersonic flyers? They can't fly over a gaurdsmen but they can assault a jet fighter? Who makes these rules. I demand they show themselves!
Ugh, I hadn't even thought about that one yet... this FAQ is starting to sound more and more like "A treatise on how to feth over assault units and armies that are not meta-defining". In the meanwhile, that LRBT can still feth over my assault Dreads standing behind a bunch of other units without penalty.
All the love GW has been giving to gunlines in the past 2 FAQs just because some top tournament players have been abusing several overpowered CC units is making me consider just dropping the gaming part of the hobby and focus on building and painting, at least until this mess is fixed... playing a game with non-overpowered CC units is simply going to be an exercise in futility and frustration.
Gunlines are still nowhere as strong as they used to be. Mobility is king in a game that requires you to take objectives and AP values aren't as punishing to hordes (as well as the loss of blast templates).
To be fair, the change to Fly had nothing to do with "realism" and everything to do with disallowing a specific advantage that unit had.
Sometimes those rules are required for a fair game (not saying Flying charges were game breaking by any means, just that sometimes rules don't make fluff-sense because game-balance is more important)
Xenomancers wrote: Can fly keyword units still assault supersonic flyers? They can't fly over a gaurdsmen but they can assault a jet fighter? Who makes these rules. I demand they show themselves!
Ugh, I hadn't even thought about that one yet... this FAQ is starting to sound more and more like "A treatise on how to feth over assault units and armies that are not meta-defining". In the meanwhile, that LRBT can still feth over my assault Dreads standing behind a bunch of other units without penalty.
All the love GW has been giving to gunlines in the past 2 FAQs just because some top tournament players have been abusing several overpowered CC units is making me consider just dropping the gaming part of the hobby and focus on building and painting, at least until this mess is fixed... playing a game with non-overpowered CC units is simply going to be an exercise in futility and frustration.
I don't know if this is just my personal bias but...this is just yet another change that seems to benifit gaurd more than any other army.
Galef wrote: To be fair, the change to Fly had nothing to do with "realism" and everything to do with disallowing a specific advantage that unit had.
Sometimes those rules are required for a fair game (not saying Flying charges were game breaking by any means, just that sometimes rules don't make fluff-sense because game-balance is more important)
Too bad we have to be saddled with "game designers" who can't do both
Galef wrote: To be fair, the change to Fly had nothing to do with "realism" and everything to do with disallowing a specific advantage that unit had.
Sometimes those rules are required for a fair game (not saying Flying charges were game breaking by any means, just that sometimes rules don't make fluff-sense because game-balance is more important)
I think it's clear they are going after smash captains with this rule. It also ruins custodes biker stratagem as they can't even charge over their own units. I'd say those were their specific targets. It would have been pretty easy to target those 2 units without making such absurd rules.
Keep in mind - I am normally on the receiving end of this stuff. I think this is a pretty poor change.
Niiru wrote: I mean, Alpha legion was the only Chaos option that doesn't require bending over to a particular chaos god. Now after the nerf, they're... I mean, they're better than Night Lords I guess, just about, but that's about all you can say about them. But seems GW want's everyone to play TS smite spam (yaaawnnnn).
The Black Legion, Iron Warriors, Night Lords and Word Bearers all say "hi". None of those require you to side with any of the gods.
Or are you claiming that AL where the only non-god aligned competitive option? Because I'd say they've been going down hill for a while now and this is nothing new. Here's hoping that the "Marine players will be happy with CA" holds true.
Xenomancers wrote: Can fly keyword units still assault supersonic flyers? They can't fly over a gaurdsmen but they can assault a jet fighter? Who makes these rules. I demand they show themselves!
Ugh, I hadn't even thought about that one yet... this FAQ is starting to sound more and more like "A treatise on how to feth over assault units and armies that are not meta-defining". In the meanwhile, that LRBT can still feth over my assault Dreads standing behind a bunch of other units without penalty.
All the love GW has been giving to gunlines in the past 2 FAQs just because some top tournament players have been abusing several overpowered CC units is making me consider just dropping the gaming part of the hobby and focus on building and painting, at least until this mess is fixed... playing a game with non-overpowered CC units is simply going to be an exercise in futility and frustration.
I don't know if this is just my personal bias but...this is just yet another change that seems to benifit gaurd more than any other army.
It has not been a good year for chaos daemon players
Xenomancers wrote: Can fly keyword units still assault supersonic flyers? They can't fly over a gaurdsmen but they can assault a jet fighter? Who makes these rules. I demand they show themselves!
Ugh, I hadn't even thought about that one yet... this FAQ is starting to sound more and more like "A treatise on how to feth over assault units and armies that are not meta-defining". In the meanwhile, that LRBT can still feth over my assault Dreads standing behind a bunch of other units without penalty.
All the love GW has been giving to gunlines in the past 2 FAQs just because some top tournament players have been abusing several overpowered CC units is making me consider just dropping the gaming part of the hobby and focus on building and painting, at least until this mess is fixed... playing a game with non-overpowered CC units is simply going to be an exercise in futility and frustration.
Gunlines are still nowhere as strong as they used to be. Mobility is king in a game that requires you to take objectives and AP values aren't as punishing to hordes (as well as the loss of blast templates).
That mobility just got quite hamstrung by disallowing flying units to charge over screens and forcing them to take vertical distance in into account in the charge phase. IG and Tau gunline players worldwide are laughing their asses off, even with the nerf to IGCP generation.
Xenomancers wrote: Can fly keyword units still assault supersonic flyers? They can't fly over a gaurdsmen but they can assault a jet fighter? Who makes these rules. I demand they show themselves!
Ugh, I hadn't even thought about that one yet... this FAQ is starting to sound more and more like "A treatise on how to feth over assault units and armies that are not meta-defining". In the meanwhile, that LRBT can still feth over my assault Dreads standing behind a bunch of other units without penalty.
All the love GW has been giving to gunlines in the past 2 FAQs just because some top tournament players have been abusing several overpowered CC units is making me consider just dropping the gaming part of the hobby and focus on building and painting, at least until this mess is fixed... playing a game with non-overpowered CC units is simply going to be an exercise in futility and frustration.
I don't know if this is just my personal bias but...this is just yet another change that seems to benifit gaurd more than any other army.
Yep. Can't jump over Conscript and Guardsmen screens anymore to beat up those Manticores and Russes. Also you now have to get an extra 3-9" on your charge roll to reach those heavy weapon teams hiding in ruins with your Daemon Prince/ Death Company/ whatever.
Galef wrote: To be fair, the change to Fly had nothing to do with "realism" and everything to do with disallowing a specific advantage that unit had.
Sometimes those rules are required for a fair game (not saying Flying charges were game breaking by any means, just that sometimes rules don't make fluff-sense because game-balance is more important)
I think it's clear they are going after smash captains with this rule. It also ruins custodes biker stratagem as they can't even charge over their own units. I'd say those were their specific targets. It would have been pretty easy to target those 2 units without making such absurd rules.
Keep in mind - I am normally on the receiving end of this stuff. I think this is a pretty poor change.
Fip belts and wraiths got the same treatment. We don't need special little exception tweaks for strong units. Remove the problem and point down the other similar units that weren't as strong.
Xenomancers wrote: Can fly keyword units still assault supersonic flyers? They can't fly over a gaurdsmen but they can assault a jet fighter? Who makes these rules. I demand they show themselves!
Ugh, I hadn't even thought about that one yet... this FAQ is starting to sound more and more like "A treatise on how to feth over assault units and armies that are not meta-defining". In the meanwhile, that LRBT can still feth over my assault Dreads standing behind a bunch of other units without penalty.
All the love GW has been giving to gunlines in the past 2 FAQs just because some top tournament players have been abusing several overpowered CC units is making me consider just dropping the gaming part of the hobby and focus on building and painting, at least until this mess is fixed... playing a game with non-overpowered CC units is simply going to be an exercise in futility and frustration.
Gunlines are still nowhere as strong as they used to be. Mobility is king in a game that requires you to take objectives and AP values aren't as punishing to hordes (as well as the loss of blast templates).
That mobility just got quite hamstrung by disallowing flying units to charge over screens and forcing them to take vertical distance in into account in the charge phase. IG and Tau gunline players worldwide are laughing their asses off, even with the nerf to IGCP generation.
It hampers one part of their movement (when charging), but not all movement.
Galef wrote: To be fair, the change to Fly had nothing to do with "realism" and everything to do with disallowing a specific advantage that unit had.
Sometimes those rules are required for a fair game (not saying Flying charges were game breaking by any means, just that sometimes rules don't make fluff-sense because game-balance is more important)
I think it's clear they are going after smash captains with this rule. It also ruins custodes biker stratagem as they can't even charge over their own units. I'd say those were their specific targets. It would have been pretty easy to target those 2 units without making such absurd rules.
Keep in mind - I am normally on the receiving end of this stuff. I think this is a pretty poor change.
Fip belts and wraiths got the same treatment. We don't need special little exception tweaks for strong units. Remove the problem and point down the other similar units that weren't as strong.
Reivers are the only ones who didn't get that treatment which made me laugh a bit.
Niiru wrote: I mean, Alpha legion was the only Chaos option that doesn't require bending over to a particular chaos god. Now after the nerf, they're... I mean, they're better than Night Lords I guess, just about, but that's about all you can say about them. But seems GW want's everyone to play TS smite spam (yaaawnnnn).
The Black Legion, Iron Warriors, Night Lords and Word Bearers all say "hi". None of those require you to side with any of the gods.
Or are you claiming that AL where the only non-god aligned competitive option? Because I'd say they've been going down hill for a while now and this is nothing new. Here's hoping that the "Marine players will be happy with CA" holds true.
This is kind of a buff to space marines. It's also a huge buff to flayed skull eldar...like OMG...did they need a buff?
Galef wrote: To be fair, the change to Fly had nothing to do with "realism" and everything to do with disallowing a specific advantage that unit had.
Sometimes those rules are required for a fair game (not saying Flying charges were game breaking by any means, just that sometimes rules don't make fluff-sense because game-balance is more important)
I think it's clear they are going after smash captains with this rule. It also ruins custodes biker stratagem as they can't even charge over their own units. I'd say those were their specific targets. It would have been pretty easy to target those 2 units without making such absurd rules.
Keep in mind - I am normally on the receiving end of this stuff. I think this is a pretty poor change.
It also nerfs the 20 attack jump pack Rune Priest, and Shining Spears.
Galef wrote: To be fair, the change to Fly had nothing to do with "realism" and everything to do with disallowing a specific advantage that unit had.
Sometimes those rules are required for a fair game (not saying Flying charges were game breaking by any means, just that sometimes rules don't make fluff-sense because game-balance is more important)
I think it's clear they are going after smash captains with this rule. It also ruins custodes biker stratagem as they can't even charge over their own units. I'd say those were their specific targets. It would have been pretty easy to target those 2 units without making such absurd rules.
Keep in mind - I am normally on the receiving end of this stuff. I think this is a pretty poor change.
Fip belts and wraiths got the same treatment. We don't need special little exception tweaks for strong units. Remove the problem and point down the other similar units that weren't as strong.
Come on man. The issue is a smash captain busting 4 stratagems and doing 30 damage to a knight in 1 turn. Not being able to jump over gaurdsmen and 1 shot a russ. THAT is what he should be doing.
Stratagem stacking is the problem with that unit. Custodes bikes issues is you fight first in the opponents assault phase with the stratagem. That is how you fix those units. Man changes have been proposed and ignored and as a result we have trash rules. Thank you for your time.
Galef wrote: To be fair, the change to Fly had nothing to do with "realism" and everything to do with disallowing a specific advantage that unit had.
Sometimes those rules are required for a fair game (not saying Flying charges were game breaking by any means, just that sometimes rules don't make fluff-sense because game-balance is more important)
I think it's clear they are going after smash captains with this rule. It also ruins custodes biker stratagem as they can't even charge over their own units. I'd say those were their specific targets. It would have been pretty easy to target those 2 units without making such absurd rules.
Keep in mind - I am normally on the receiving end of this stuff. I think this is a pretty poor change.
Fip belts and wraiths got the same treatment. We don't need special little exception tweaks for strong units. Remove the problem and point down the other similar units that weren't as strong.
Come on man. The issue is a smash captain busting 4 stratagems and doing 30 damage to a knight in 1 turn. Not being able to jump over gaurdsmen and 1 shot a russ. THAT is what he should be doing.
Stratagem stacking is the problem with that unit. Custodes bikes issues is you fight first in the opponents charge phase. That is how you fix those units. Man changes have been proposed and ignored and as a result we have trash rules. Thank you for your time.
He was also jumping over Guard and one shot-ing a Knight.
Galef wrote: To be fair, the change to Fly had nothing to do with "realism" and everything to do with disallowing a specific advantage that unit had.
Sometimes those rules are required for a fair game (not saying Flying charges were game breaking by any means, just that sometimes rules don't make fluff-sense because game-balance is more important)
I think it's clear they are going after smash captains with this rule. It also ruins custodes biker stratagem as they can't even charge over their own units. I'd say those were their specific targets. It would have been pretty easy to target those 2 units without making such absurd rules.
Keep in mind - I am normally on the receiving end of this stuff. I think this is a pretty poor change.
It also nerfs the 20 attack jump pack Rune Priest, and Shining Spears.
Yeah it does - there is no doubting that. Wrong way to do it though. Spears are undercosted and their psychic powers need some twerking (range and psychic denial seem to be the issue there) - IDK what you are talking about RP - They can only take 3 max anyways. All JP units are nerfed too.
Galef wrote: To be fair, the change to Fly had nothing to do with "realism" and everything to do with disallowing a specific advantage that unit had.
Sometimes those rules are required for a fair game (not saying Flying charges were game breaking by any means, just that sometimes rules don't make fluff-sense because game-balance is more important)
I think it's clear they are going after smash captains with this rule. It also ruins custodes biker stratagem as they can't even charge over their own units. I'd say those were their specific targets. It would have been pretty easy to target those 2 units without making such absurd rules.
Keep in mind - I am normally on the receiving end of this stuff. I think this is a pretty poor change.
Fip belts and wraiths got the same treatment. We don't need special little exception tweaks for strong units. Remove the problem and point down the other similar units that weren't as strong.
Come on man. The issue is a smash captain busting 4 stratagems and doing 30 damage to a knight in 1 turn. Not being able to jump over gaurdsmen and 1 shot a russ. THAT is what he should be doing.
Stratagem stacking is the problem with that unit. Custodes bikes issues is you fight first in the opponents charge phase. That is how you fix those units. Man changes have been proposed and ignored and as a result we have trash rules. Thank you for your time.
He was also jumping over Guard and one shot-ing a Knight.
So it's okay that he murders a knight in the open ? These giant knights sure are fragile...
Xenomancers wrote: Can fly keyword units still assault supersonic flyers? They can't fly over a gaurdsmen but they can assault a jet fighter? Who makes these rules. I demand they show themselves!
Ugh, I hadn't even thought about that one yet... this FAQ is starting to sound more and more like "A treatise on how to feth over assault units and armies that are not meta-defining". In the meanwhile, that LRBT can still feth over my assault Dreads standing behind a bunch of other units without penalty.
All the love GW has been giving to gunlines in the past 2 FAQs just because some top tournament players have been abusing several overpowered CC units is making me consider just dropping the gaming part of the hobby and focus on building and painting, at least until this mess is fixed... playing a game with non-overpowered CC units is simply going to be an exercise in futility and frustration.
Gunlines are still nowhere as strong as they used to be. Mobility is king in a game that requires you to take objectives and AP values aren't as punishing to hordes (as well as the loss of blast templates).
mobility means nothing if you have nothing to move after ur opponent shot you out of table, and not all play with ITC missions where you score points often turn by turn, some formats give you points at game end and if you have nothing to get those points well... bye bye
Niiru wrote: Nerfs to <fly> units have now relegated the bad (Raptors) and garbage (warp talons) units from Chaos into the "nice models, totally unplayable" category. Well done GW.
Even before all their nerfs (warptime deepstrike in particular), Warp Talons were just 'bad'. But they've been hit with nerfs with every update, and they deserved none of them.
Currently, the models are only really usable if they were more like 12ppm (including claws), so you could bring them in enough numbers to make up for their weakness. Instead they're 27ppm, totally useless.
Basically these nerfs seem to have slightly reduced the cheapness of the imperial CP batteries and slam captains. But has massively reduced the ability for other armies to even field a decent army.
I mean, Alpha legion was the only Chaos option that doesn't require bending over to a particular chaos god. Now after the nerf, they're... I mean, they're better than Night Lords I guess, just about, but that's about all you can say about them. But seems GW want's everyone to play TS smite spam (yaaawnnnn).
I hadn't thought of that. But you make a great point. Warp Talons have been unintentionally nerfed into nothingness.
Xenomancers wrote: Can fly keyword units still assault supersonic flyers? They can't fly over a gaurdsmen but they can assault a jet fighter? Who makes these rules. I demand they show themselves!
Ugh, I hadn't even thought about that one yet... this FAQ is starting to sound more and more like "A treatise on how to feth over assault units and armies that are not meta-defining". In the meanwhile, that LRBT can still feth over my assault Dreads standing behind a bunch of other units without penalty.
All the love GW has been giving to gunlines in the past 2 FAQs just because some top tournament players have been abusing several overpowered CC units is making me consider just dropping the gaming part of the hobby and focus on building and painting, at least until this mess is fixed... playing a game with non-overpowered CC units is simply going to be an exercise in futility and frustration.
Gunlines are still nowhere as strong as they used to be. Mobility is king in a game that requires you to take objectives and AP values aren't as punishing to hordes (as well as the loss of blast templates).
mobility means nothing if you have nothing to move after ur opponent shot you out of table, and not all play with ITC missions where you score points often turn by turn, some formats give you points at game end and if you have nothing to get those points well... bye bye
Easy solution without these clunky rules. Leave fly/flip belts/etc alone. Change charge. All charges must be measured from base to base (or hull as applicable). Problem solved.
Xenomancers wrote: Can fly keyword units still assault supersonic flyers? They can't fly over a gaurdsmen but they can assault a jet fighter? Who makes these rules. I demand they show themselves!
Ugh, I hadn't even thought about that one yet... this FAQ is starting to sound more and more like "A treatise on how to feth over assault units and armies that are not meta-defining". In the meanwhile, that LRBT can still feth over my assault Dreads standing behind a bunch of other units without penalty.
All the love GW has been giving to gunlines in the past 2 FAQs just because some top tournament players have been abusing several overpowered CC units is making me consider just dropping the gaming part of the hobby and focus on building and painting, at least until this mess is fixed... playing a game with non-overpowered CC units is simply going to be an exercise in futility and frustration.
Gunlines are still nowhere as strong as they used to be. Mobility is king in a game that requires you to take objectives and AP values aren't as punishing to hordes (as well as the loss of blast templates).
mobility means nothing if you have nothing to move after ur opponent shot you out of table, and not all play with ITC missions where you score points often turn by turn, some formats give you points at game end and if you have nothing to get those points well... bye bye
With the changes to AP, most armies are stronger against shooting than they were before. About the only ones suffering against shooting compared to the past are MEQ and TEQ models.
Niiru wrote: I mean, Alpha legion was the only Chaos option that doesn't require bending over to a particular chaos god. Now after the nerf, they're... I mean, they're better than Night Lords I guess, just about, but that's about all you can say about them. But seems GW want's everyone to play TS smite spam (yaaawnnnn).
The Black Legion, Iron Warriors, Night Lords and Word Bearers all say "hi". None of those require you to side with any of the gods.
Or are you claiming that AL where the only non-god aligned competitive option? Because I'd say they've been going down hill for a while now and this is nothing new. Here's hoping that the "Marine players will be happy with CA" holds true.
Yeh, was talking competitive, not that they were especially competitive before really. But they keep being indirectly nerfed, by changes that are actually aimed at other armies who actually needed to be nerfed.
But you're right, maybe CA will fix things by reducing the points of all Chaos units. But I doubt it.
Can someone clarify for me - the new Tactical Reserves rule doesn't seem to have any effect on da jump, dark matter crystal, beacon angelis, etc. Am I right?
The exact wording is: "in matched play games, units that are not placed on the battlefield during deployment in order to arrive on the battle mid-game as reinforcements cannot arrive on the battlefield during the first battle round."
That seems very clear and specific:
[If in reserves] -> [then cannot arrive in turn 1]
But of course, a flerd of tzaangors or a band of boyz start the game on the table, and hence won't be constrained by this rule.
Niiru wrote: I mean, Alpha legion was the only Chaos option that doesn't require bending over to a particular chaos god. Now after the nerf, they're... I mean, they're better than Night Lords I guess, just about, but that's about all you can say about them. But seems GW want's everyone to play TS smite spam (yaaawnnnn).
The Black Legion, Iron Warriors, Night Lords and Word Bearers all say "hi". None of those require you to side with any of the gods.
Or are you claiming that AL where the only non-god aligned competitive option? Because I'd say they've been going down hill for a while now and this is nothing new. Here's hoping that the "Marine players will be happy with CA" holds true.
Yeh, was talking competitive, not that they were especially competitive before really. But they keep being indirectly nerfed, by changes that are actually aimed at other armies who actually needed to be nerfed.
But you're right, maybe CA will fix things by reducing the points of all Chaos units. But I doubt it.
Or giving Marines a rule like Kill Team's Transhuman Physiology.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
grouchoben wrote: Can someone clarify for me - the new Tactical Reserves rule doesn't seem to have any effect on da jump, dark matter crystal, beacon angelis, etc. Am I right?
The exact wording is: "in matched play games, units that are not placed on the battlefield during deployment in order to arrive on the battle mid-game as reinforcements cannot arrive on the battlefield during the first battle round."
That seems very clear and specific:
[If in reserves] -> [then cannot arrive in turn 1]
But of course, a flerd of tzaangors or a band of boyz start the game on the table, and hence won't be constrained by this rule.
Is this right? Or am I missing something?
The reworded the beta rule to make it so the reserve limit only works on units that are put off the board during deployment. So slingshotting models into melee turn one is possible.
grouchoben wrote: Can someone clarify for me - the new Tactical Reserves rule doesn't seem to have any effect on da jump, dark matter crystal, beacon angelis, etc. Am I right?
The exact wording is: "in matched play games, units that are not placed on the battlefield during deployment in order to arrive on the battle mid-game as reinforcements cannot arrive on the battlefield during the first battle round."
That seems very clear and specific:
[If in reserves] -> [then cannot arrive in turn 1]
But of course, a flerd of tzaangors or a band of boyz start the game on the table, and hence won't be constrained by this rule.
Is this right? Or am I missing something?
You are correct. Those stratagems/powers will work going forward.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EldarExarch wrote: All of the fluffy BA Jump options got unnecessarily nerfed by the Fly Change.
BA Smash captains were a problem, IN SOUP ARMIES WHERE THAT'S THE ONLY BA UNIT THEY RAN.
Pure BA players like myself, have been nerfed into oblivion for no other reason than tourney WAAC players abuse.
That is not right, nor is it fair. Please try to convince me otherwise.
Welcome to Eldar town, where Ynnari breaking things means your CWE units pay the price.
Also as someone with 2k sized BA force myself, I feel your pain. I have effectively decided to shelf that army indefinitely.
EldarExarch wrote: All of the fluffy BA Jump options got unnecessarily nerfed by the Fly Change.
BA Smash captains were a problem, IN SOUP ARMIES WHERE THAT'S THE ONLY BA UNIT THEY RAN.
Pure BA players like myself, have been nerfed into oblivion for no other reason than tourney WAAC players abuse.
That is not right, nor is it fair. Please try to convince me otherwise.
You mean declaring charges on a screen unit and then the unit behind it, consolidating into the unit behind it and then popping a fight twice strat isn't a strat you can use? Or using two units one to charge or shoot the screen out of the way, and the second to charge the target) doesn't work? I mean, jumping over units to charge the target you want to hit the most isn't the only way to do it, and requiring smarter play isn't a bad thing.
EldarExarch wrote: All of the fluffy BA Jump options got unnecessarily nerfed by the Fly Change.
BA Smash captains were a problem, IN SOUP ARMIES WHERE THAT'S THE ONLY BA UNIT THEY RAN.
Pure BA players like myself, have been nerfed into oblivion for no other reason than tourney WAAC players abuse.
That is not right, nor is it fair. Please try to convince me otherwise.
You mean declaring charges on a screen unit and then the unit behind it, consolidating into the unit behind it and then popping a fight twice strat isn't a strat you can use? Or using two units one to charge or shoot the screen out of the way, and the second to charge the target) doesn't work? I mean, jumping over units to charge the target you want to hit the most isn't the only way to do it, and requiring smarter play isn't a bad thing.
Yes and as a BA player I pay a significant price to do so in terms of both points and CPs, and when you run PURE BA you are getting roughly 9 CPs at most in a 2k army. Still not convinced in the slightest.
EldarExarch wrote: All of the fluffy BA Jump options got unnecessarily nerfed by the Fly Change.
BA Smash captains were a problem, IN SOUP ARMIES WHERE THAT'S THE ONLY BA UNIT THEY RAN.
Pure BA players like myself, have been nerfed into oblivion for no other reason than tourney WAAC players abuse.
That is not right, nor is it fair. Please try to convince me otherwise.
You mean declaring charges on a screen unit and then the unit behind it, consolidating into the unit behind it and then popping a fight twice strat isn't a strat you can use? Or using two units one to charge or shoot the screen out of the way, and the second to charge the target) doesn't work? I mean, jumping over units to charge the target you want to hit the most isn't the only way to do it, and requiring smarter play isn't a bad thing.
Except that pure BA players need to put a decent chunk of points into reserve to get off the charges they want in a timely manner. None of that can happen now on turn 1, which means pure gun lines that start with 100% on the board have a greater advantage.
EldarExarch wrote: All of the fluffy BA Jump options got unnecessarily nerfed by the Fly Change.
BA Smash captains were a problem, IN SOUP ARMIES WHERE THAT'S THE ONLY BA UNIT THEY RAN.
Pure BA players like myself, have been nerfed into oblivion for no other reason than tourney WAAC players abuse.
That is not right, nor is it fair. Please try to convince me otherwise.
You mean declaring charges on a screen unit and then the unit behind it, consolidating into the unit behind it and then popping a fight twice strat isn't a strat you can use? Or using two units one to charge or shoot the screen out of the way, and the second to charge the target) doesn't work? I mean, jumping over units to charge the target you want to hit the most isn't the only way to do it, and requiring smarter play isn't a bad thing.
Yes and as a BA player I pay a significant price to do so in terms of both points and CPs, and when you run PURE BA you are getting roughly 9 CPs at most in a 2k army. Still not convinced in the slightest.
I'm just saying that smart play is better than leapfrogging in terms of game balance, even if you don't like it very much. That said, Marines are supposed to be seeing something that'll make us happy in CA, so I'm not tossing my army in a bin just yet.
EldarExarch wrote: All of the fluffy BA Jump options got unnecessarily nerfed by the Fly Change.
BA Smash captains were a problem, IN SOUP ARMIES WHERE THAT'S THE ONLY BA UNIT THEY RAN.
Pure BA players like myself, have been nerfed into oblivion for no other reason than tourney WAAC players abuse.
That is not right, nor is it fair. Please try to convince me otherwise.
You mean declaring charges on a screen unit and then the unit behind it, consolidating into the unit behind it and then popping a fight twice strat isn't a strat you can use? Or using two units one to charge or shoot the screen out of the way, and the second to charge the target) doesn't work? I mean, jumping over units to charge the target you want to hit the most isn't the only way to do it, and requiring smarter play isn't a bad thing.
Except that pure BA players need to put a decent chunk of points into reserve to get off the charges they want in a timely manner. None of that can happen now on turn 1, which means pure gun lines that start with 100% on the board have a greater advantage.
They're stronger than they used to be but weaker than they were in previous editions. We're not going back to the edition of the gunline just yet.
EldarExarch wrote: All of the fluffy BA Jump options got unnecessarily nerfed by the Fly Change.
BA Smash captains were a problem, IN SOUP ARMIES WHERE THAT'S THE ONLY BA UNIT THEY RAN.
Pure BA players like myself, have been nerfed into oblivion for no other reason than tourney WAAC players abuse.
That is not right, nor is it fair. Please try to convince me otherwise.
You mean declaring charges on a screen unit and then the unit behind it, consolidating into the unit behind it and then popping a fight twice strat isn't a strat you can use? Or using two units one to charge or shoot the screen out of the way, and the second to charge the target) doesn't work? I mean, jumping over units to charge the target you want to hit the most isn't the only way to do it, and requiring smarter play isn't a bad thing.
Yes and as a BA player I pay a significant price to do so in terms of both points and CPs, and when you run PURE BA you are getting roughly 9 CPs at most in a 2k army. Still not convinced in the slightest.
Exactly, we dont have the points left over in order to effectively decimate the screens you are referencing. If the BA jump units get significant point drops it may be ok, but until then it it the hottest soggiest garbage I can think of.
EldarExarch wrote: All of the fluffy BA Jump options got unnecessarily nerfed by the Fly Change.
BA Smash captains were a problem, IN SOUP ARMIES WHERE THAT'S THE ONLY BA UNIT THEY RAN.
Pure BA players like myself, have been nerfed into oblivion for no other reason than tourney WAAC players abuse.
That is not right, nor is it fair. Please try to convince me otherwise.
You mean declaring charges on a screen unit and then the unit behind it, consolidating into the unit behind it and then popping a fight twice strat isn't a strat you can use? Or using two units one to charge or shoot the screen out of the way, and the second to charge the target) doesn't work? I mean, jumping over units to charge the target you want to hit the most isn't the only way to do it, and requiring smarter play isn't a bad thing.
Yes and as a BA player I pay a significant price to do so in terms of both points and CPs, and when you run PURE BA you are getting roughly 9 CPs at most in a 2k army. Still not convinced in the slightest.
Exactly, we dont have the points left over in order to effectively decimate the screens you are referencing. If the BA jump units get significant point drops it may be ok, but until then it it the hottest soggiest garbage I can think of.
Assault Marines of all varieties are suffering, not just BA versions. That said, I'm looking forward to see what CA gives us to fix things.
EldarExarch wrote: All of the fluffy BA Jump options got unnecessarily nerfed by the Fly Change.
BA Smash captains were a problem, IN SOUP ARMIES WHERE THAT'S THE ONLY BA UNIT THEY RAN.
Pure BA players like myself, have been nerfed into oblivion for no other reason than tourney WAAC players abuse.
That is not right, nor is it fair. Please try to convince me otherwise.
You mean declaring charges on a screen unit and then the unit behind it, consolidating into the unit behind it and then popping a fight twice strat isn't a strat you can use? Or using two units one to charge or shoot the screen out of the way, and the second to charge the target) doesn't work? I mean, jumping over units to charge the target you want to hit the most isn't the only way to do it, and requiring smarter play isn't a bad thing.
You've managed to perfectly encapsulate in one quote why shooting is so vastly superior to close combat in 40k. Assuming you manage to jump through all those hoops as the assaulting army, you still need to take overwatch fire and attacks back, spend a bunch of command points to fight again and hope you don't take too much damage from enemy attacks back at you. Then you have to hope you managed to surround the enemy to lock them in combat, and that they don't have a countercharge unit in place even if you did. The problem with close combat in 40k is to make it work you need all of that to come together - you need to "play smarter" as you put it.
Or you could just take a shooting army and not have to worry about that. Hunker down around your various reroll auras and blaze away from the safety of your cover.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Points Changes WERE addressed in the Big FAQ by making a Chapter Approved errata.
Those are from April. There are no point changes in this September FAQ to my knowledge.
Mhmm, I know. My comment was in response to the many posts saying FAQs don't adjust points, only Chapter Approved does. The FAQ adjusted the Chapter Approved in spring.
EldarExarch wrote: All of the fluffy BA Jump options got unnecessarily nerfed by the Fly Change.
BA Smash captains were a problem, IN SOUP ARMIES WHERE THAT'S THE ONLY BA UNIT THEY RAN.
Pure BA players like myself, have been nerfed into oblivion for no other reason than tourney WAAC players abuse.
That is not right, nor is it fair. Please try to convince me otherwise.
You mean declaring charges on a screen unit and then the unit behind it, consolidating into the unit behind it and then popping a fight twice strat isn't a strat you can use? Or using two units one to charge or shoot the screen out of the way, and the second to charge the target) doesn't work? I mean, jumping over units to charge the target you want to hit the most isn't the only way to do it, and requiring smarter play isn't a bad thing.
You've managed to perfectly encapsulate in one quote why shooting is so vastly superior to close combat in 40k. Assuming you manage to jump through all those hoops as the assaulting army, you still need to take overwatch fire and attacks back, spend a bunch of command points to fight again and hope you don't take too much damage from enemy attacks back at you. Then you have to hope you managed to surround the enemy to lock them in combat, and that they don't have a countercharge unit in place even if you did. The problem with close combat in 40k is to make it work you need all of that to come together - you need to "play smarter" as you put it.
Or you could just take a shooting army and not have to worry about that. Hunker down around your various reroll auras and blaze away from the safety of your cover.
I have said that there needs to be a change to how shooting works when shooting through units. It's one of the few things I feel is truly wrong with shooting in this edition (other than more modifiers both positive and negative ones). I won't deny it's a thing, but I'm not going to agree that shooting is somehow broken when compared to melee when shooting has taken a bat to the knees against anyone who isn't MEQ or TEQ.
Dude I want to shoot the screen so I can charge something worthwhile instead of some garbage 85 pt unit with my 200+ pt unit.
How many stipulations must my army have to even sniff success?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Especially when it is one of "signature" units. And if even one of those stipulations falter, guess what, my awesome unit is nothing more than dust. And I can only use my DC strat once per turn, so I do not have the ability to crowd the fields with actual threats.
EldarExarch wrote: AND those screens, if we go first, will now be EVEN more difficult to shift.
DOUBLE WHAMMY
Cover saves only work against shooting, so if you manage to get into melee then it's moot.
Clearly he means that you SHOOT the Screens to assault stuff behind them. Now you cannot jump over them (fair enough, I guess) and they're guaranteed cover if you go first, so they'll be harder to shift to make room for your assault unit to charge what they want, rather than waste time on chaff
Although, they probably had cover before, so I'm thinking of this Strat as a -2CPs for the opponent to "think" they got a bonus. Rather than just actually using cover. It doesn't help screens as much as it help Vehicles and Monsters that aren't obscured.
EldarExarch wrote: AND those screens, if we go first, will now be EVEN more difficult to shift.
DOUBLE WHAMMY
Cover saves only work against shooting, so if you manage to get into melee then it's moot.
Clearly he means that you SHOOT the Screens to assault stuff behind them.
Now you cannot jump over them (fair enough) and they're guaranteed cover if you go first.
Although, they probably had cover before, so I'm thinking of this Strat as a -2CPs for the opponent to "think" they got a bonus. Rather than just actually using cover.
It doesn't help screens as much as it help Vehicles and Monsters that aren't obscured.-
That's a fair point, but quite honestly I feel like it's more a nerf for turn one combat more than combat overall.
Ok but my DC have a specific strat that is supposed to help them get into combat on turn 1, and again it's only 1 unit that will get to do this.
That 1 unit will not be able to effectively tie up more than 2 of your shooty units (provided that you deployed somewhat intelligently), and then next turn its almost guaranteed dead.
I understand your point of not having multiple units being able to tie up a shooty army on turn 1, but that's not what we are asking for.
Im asking that one of my specialized units be able to make it up the board and have an impact on turn 1, before it dies in a blaze of glory. I really don't feel like that is imbalanced or an unfair ask all things considered.
Additionally, it LITERALLY fit their fluff to a T.
EldarExarch wrote: Ok but my DC have a specific strat that is supposed to help them get into combat on turn 1, and again it's only 1 unit that will get to do this.
That 1 unit will not be able to effectively tie up more than 2 of your shooty units (provided that you deployed somewhat intelligently), and then next turn its almost guaranteed dead.
I understand your point of not having multiple units being able to tie up a shooty army on turn 1, but that's not what we are asking for.
Im asking that one of my specialized units be able to make it up the board and have an impact on turn 1, before it dies in a blaze of glory. I really don't feel like that is imbalanced or an unfair ask all things considered.
Look, I get that not getting to jump over things nerfed very specific uses of assault marines and their kin. Thing is I don't think the game is worse for it, just specific uses of units that aren't that good to start with (at least not that good without a lot of points being dumped in on top of them). The units need to be fixed. Letting fly stay unchanged to allow them to be less garbage isn't fixing them, it's giving them a crunch while using it as an excuse for breaking their legs in the first place.
I've never been so pissed at Games Workshop as I am now. I recently bought a pair of Drills and converted some Fulgurites. And then, out of the blue, this massive nerf to infiltration? What the hell? Are AdMech and Alpha Legion so dangerous that we needed to have a core mechanic pulled out from under us?
Spoletta wrote: I honestly see the situation much brigther now for CC armies.
If i go first no problem, i will have to weather only one turn of firing then it will be my turn 2 and the enemy is out of shooting phases.
If i go second, i will weather one shooting phase with a bonus and his screens will not be protected.
A big improvement. Surely it rewards the mid/close range armies which do not bank on having first turn.
I think you over estimate what +1 save can really do. Most armies already know how to utilize cover as-is, so this Strat doesn't really do much except help armies that have lots of hard-to-hide tanks and Flyers, which are typically part of gunline armies.
Don't get me wrong, I like the strat, but it helps gunline armies a bit more than melee armies.
Spoletta wrote: I honestly see the situation much brigther now for CC armies.
If i go first no problem, i will have to weather only one turn of firing then it will be my turn 2 and the enemy is out of shooting phases.
If i go second, i will weather one shooting phase with a bonus and his screens will not be protected.
A big improvement. Surely it rewards the mid/close range armies which do not bank on having first turn.
I think you over estimate what +1 save can really do. Most armies already know how to utilize cover as-is, so this Strat doesn't really do much except help armies that have lots of hard-to-hide tanks and Flyers, which are typically part of gunline armies.
Don't get me wrong, I like the strat, but it helps gunline armies a bit more than melee armies.
-
I can tell you that my leviathan list loves this strat, and is a mid/close range army.
Spoletta wrote: I honestly see the situation much brigther now for CC armies.
If i go first no problem, i will have to weather only one turn of firing then it will be my turn 2 and the enemy is out of shooting phases.
If i go second, i will weather one shooting phase with a bonus and his screens will not be protected.
A big improvement. Surely it rewards the mid/close range armies which do not bank on having first turn.
I think you over estimate what +1 save can really do. Most armies already know how to utilize cover as-is, so this Strat doesn't really do much except help armies that have lots of hard-to-hide tanks and Flyers, which are typically part of gunline armies.
Don't get me wrong, I like the strat, but it helps gunline armies a bit more than melee armies.
-
It helps hordes who can't fit their units into cover easilly as well. And it helps transports a lot which were basically neglected.
