What? How did this happen? Chaos Cultists are 5 points per model, but Guardsmen are still 4. There is no other change to either unit barring some wargear cost.
Guardsmen have better armor saves and the only thing going for the Cultists is the Alpha Legion shenanigan. Guardsmen have more weapon choice, but Cultists can get marks.
Veterans are only 5 points per model.
Can anyone tell me why this is the case? Did the newest Chapter Approve just do that to nerf Alpha Legion or something?
It's pretty mind boggling honestly. I could understand it if both models went up in price but there's no way in hell anyone can justify Cultists being more expensive than Guardsmen.
Arachnofiend wrote: It's pretty mind boggling honestly. I could understand it if both models went up in price but there's no way in hell anyone can justify Cultists being more expensive than Guardsmen.
IMO it's a great nerf. Cultists are supposed to be a minor support element for the marines that are the core of the CSM faction, they should be on the weak side to discourage cultist spam armies. Infantry squads are the core of the IG faction, so they should be one of the stronger units in the codex.
Peregrine wrote: IMO it's a great nerf. Cultists are supposed to be a minor support element for the marines that are the core of the CSM faction, they should be on the weak side to discourage cultist spam armies. Infantry squads are the core of the IG faction, so they should be one of the stronger units in the codex.
Peregrine wrote: IMO it's a great nerf. Cultists are supposed to be a minor support element for the marines that are the core of the CSM faction, they should be on the weak side to discourage cultist spam armies. Infantry squads are the core of the IG faction, so they should be one of the stronger units in the codex.
Say Peregrine, what army do you play?
Does it matter? He is right, the problem is though that to make the change good, the csm units, as in actual csm, would have to be worth taking, but it is not the case. Nerfing dark reapers a bit to make fire dragons a more inviting option is a good thing to do. Nerfing cultists, when your sure as hell not going to run csm anyway, only means your army got a 1pts hike on most of its models.
Simple cultists get
1. Larger unit size- this is a massive boon for any unit that is primarily made to soak up damage
2. Veterans of the long war
3. Guard “send in the next wave” got effectively removed from the game. Cultists still have theirs
4. -1 to hit
5. Go slaneesh and shoot twice with veterans of the long war
6. Because of the increased unit size every command point/ buff given to them is more efficient
7. Still have easy access to fearless
There is a reason 200+ cultist lists were a thing but not 200+ guard lists. If guard had access to all of the above you would see more then 32 in every list
Unapologetic guard player here. Not sure why guardsmen are still 4 points when they very clearly are 5 points, and it would fit perfectly in with the paradigm of conscript/guardsman/veteran being 4/5/6 ppm respectively. In fact, they doubled down by making veterans 5 points which is even more mind-boggling.
I don't buy the whole "well guardsmen are the backbone of the faction" argument either because points costs are supposed to reflect battlefield performance and nothing else. If that were the case, bog standard CSM and tac marines should go way down in points because they are the "backbone" of their respective factions and we didn't get that.
I like my faction, and I like that we are finally strong this edition but I call unfairness as I see it.
It's because we've seen a load of tournament lists that were basically just fearless cultist hordes. That's not how they are supposed to play. The increase in cost nerfs those lists. But pretty much everything else got cheaper. If you were using cultists in a regular list, then the increase to their cost has probably been compensated for by savings in other areas.
As for guard, that's a whole different issue. Increasing the cost of the loyal 32 doesn't really change the meta that much, because things in other areas got cheaper too. In other words, this was an effective way to end cultist spam, but 5pt guardsmen is not an effective way to end the loyal 32.
A stack of 40 cultists in rapid fire range can shoot 160 times, 3+, rerolling 1s, +1 to wound, for 2cps.
Expected damage of that salvo vs a Knight is 13.8 damage.
When it starts to thin out, spend another 2cps and the unit back for free on any boardedge.
Why the heck should that be 160pts?
It was a choice GW had: either remove the heretic astartes keyword from cultists (good choice) or hike their points up (okish choice). They had to do one or the other, and because this is CA, which deals almost exclusively in points changes not rules, we got the second option. It was totally needed.
Eldarain wrote: Access to easy Fearless, full rerolls to hit, +1 to wound, fire twice make them rather formidable.
Though Guardsmen should have taken a hit too.
Not all cultists have access to this or size 40 squads. Even R&H cultists got the pricehike, and we even got random ld sooooooooooooooooo, you were saying.
A stack of 40 cultists in rapid fire range can shoot 160 times, 3+, rerolling 1s, +1 to wound, for 2cps.
Expected damage of that salvo vs a Knight is 13.8 damage.
When it starts to thin out, spend another 2cps and the unit back for free on any boardedge.
Why the heck should that be 160pts?
It was a choice GW had: either remove the heretic astartes keyword from cultists (good choice) or hike their points up (okish choice). They had to do one or the other, and because this is CA, which deals almost exclusively in points changes not rules, we got the second option. It was totally needed.
Frankly they could've just removed the heretic astartes keyword, and maybee make tide of traitors once per squad (probably only when you lower the squad size to 30, or make it a specific stratagem for AL)
Peregrine wrote: IMO it's a great nerf. Cultists are supposed to be a minor support element for the marines that are the core of the CSM faction, they should be on the weak side to discourage cultist spam armies. Infantry squads are the core of the IG faction, so they should be one of the stronger units in the codex.
Im not totally convinced it's a great reason, but to me I would think it's because Cultists are not meant to be the focus of a Heretic Astartes army, they are an added extra you can throw in. Chaff is not something Chaos Marines are supposed to get easily, therefore they pay a premium to have them in their codex.
Of course, the availability of soup makes this not a terribly good reason.
Stux wrote: Im not totally convinced it's a great reason, but to me I would think it's because Cultists are not meant to be the focus of a Heretic Astartes army, they are an added extra you can throw in. Chaff is not something Chaos Marines are supposed to get easily, therefore they pay a premium to have them in their codex.
Of course, the availability of soup makes this not a terribly good reason.
The iron warriors and AL would disagree with you. Of course also it would help if the heretic ASTARTES part of the army would not suck so hard.
Heck i fathom that cultists could literally be 6ppm and would still be taken before CSM of any kind since they just can't generate enough CP for a csm army to function.
The more elegant solution IMO would've been to strip Cultists of the Hereticus Astartes and Legion keywords (because they are not) and simply given them a rule that they don't break battle-forged.
But 5 point maybe works as a quick-fix, simply because in the context of the army from a gameplay perspective, they ARE better than guardsmen (even if it doesn't make sense from a fluff-perspective).
That said, I think they ultimately need a full re-write at some point, especially if GW is bringing in Traitor Guardsmen from the Blackstone Fortress as a real thing in 40K. Cultists should probably end up being super-cheap, but below "trained" (traitor) guardsmen, probably just WS/BS 5+, no marks, no legion traits, 6+ armour, no strats except "cultist-specific" strats like Tide of Traitors, i.e. essentially a unit similar to how they handled Grots in the new Ork book.
Sunny Side Up wrote: The more elegant solution IMO would've been to strip Cultists of the Hereticus Astartes and Legion keywords (because they are not) and simply given them a rule that they don't break battle-forged.
But 5 point maybe works as a quick-fix, simply because in the context of the army from a gameplay perspective, they ARE better than guardsmen (even if it doesn't make sense from a fluff-perspective).
That said, I think they ultimately need a full re-write at some point, especially if GW is bringing in Traitor Guardsmen from the Blackstone Fortress as a real thing in 40K. Cultists should probably end up being super-cheap, but below "trained" (traitor) guardsmen, probably just WS/BS 5+, no marks, no legion traits, 6+ armour, no strats except "cultist-specific" strats like Tide of Traitors, i.e. essentially a unit similar to how they handled Grots in the new Ork book.
- First off: Are they really better? Yes with the stratagems , no in every other department profile wise, no in orders department and yes on traits. Then again we had Guilliman and Abbadon cock up balancing thanks to auras ever since 8th, making balancing a nightmare.
-Secondly: I honestly don't belive they are going to put Traitor guardsmen into the CSM codex, It's more likely that we will see codexified R&H army (lost and the damned) return in a codex form, just as GSC did. the demand would be there.
-Thirdly: We have no idea about the quality of these "Cultists". By fluff they can range from highly trained specialized individuals (Agents of the AL) to Trained mass fodder (IW) to a religious untrained mob (WB) and everything in between.Even the picture in the codex on the dark apostle of seventh show them as fanatic traitor IG with Ig equipment.
-Fourth: That suggestion to treat them like Grots and only let specific interactions happen seems like the best way to go forward really for CSM cultists,alternatively let only specific legions better interact with cultists (WB,AL, IW) come to mind.
And yet they missed the main point: Cultists shouldn't have <Heretic Astartes>. That alone would fix a big reason they are so good (Marks are still an issue due to their interaction with Stratagems, but I'm loathed to suggest Cultists shouldn't be marked since in the fluff they can be, it's just the rules interaction works badly). GW seems to think it's all points and they can hotfix it when a lot of the underlying problems are on the datasheets, which they are adamant to not touch in 99% of cases.
Sunny Side Up wrote: The more elegant solution IMO would've been to strip Cultists of the Hereticus Astartes and Legion keywords (because they are not) and simply given them a rule that they don't break battle-forged.
This. A hundred times this.
Making cultists 5pts changed basically nothing. Now instead of having a 160pts unit that can take 15 wounds off a Knight, we have a 200pts unit that can still take 15 wounds off a Knight... And is Fearless.
Also, 8th edition allows for too much stacking. Just like Orders, Stratagems should be limited to one per squad each turn. Using Tides of Traitor then stacking VoTL and Endless Cacophony in a single turn is stupid.
The Orks are currently welcoming all Chaos players to join our side of the battlefield is consolidation for our infintry going up 1pt and being told it's fine while everyone else stayed the same or went down.
Honestly though, they could have easily made guard 5pts but also reduced special guard weapons. That way a guard player is paying exsactly the same as before for their army but a soup player is paying 30pts more.
lolman1c wrote: The Orks are currently welcoming all Chaos players to join our side of the battlefield is consolidation for our infintry going up 1pt and being told it's fine while everyone else stayed the same or went down.
Honestly though, they could have easily made guard 5pts but also reduced special guard weapons. That way a guard player is paying exsactly the same as before for their army but a soup player is paying 30pts more.
I honestly don't think the majority of people complained about 6 ppm boyz, atleast for me they always fit in right well at their price tag. More annoying were actively slowplaying pricks, and surprise, that can be done by any "Horde" faction.
Also Codex Terlyporta (orkz) is not good designed, especially when the whole strategy of it revolves around one stratagem whilest the rest of the codex can figuratively speaking take a hike of the closest steep mountain side since that stratagem again hinders balance therefore anything needs to be regarded in conjunction to that stratagem. The same happens to CSM with cacophony, leading to a hike on cultists and the bypassing of our terminators compared to loyalists.
BTW i am also of the opinion that a IG guardsmen should not have gone up to 5 ppm, mostly because the average IG dude is not a problem when you actually play a monomatch, the hellhound variant from FW i belive was more of a issue, same with certain traits (then again traits making or breaking whole armies are now so common that it get's really annoying, most importantly when traits flat out offer a removal of a sixth of incoming damage without a cost adjustment). What really is a problem is the seemless integration in soup, mostly in combination of knights or smashcaptains, so basically outsourcing CP generation.
Valkyrie wrote: Is a 1pt increase really that much of a big deal?
Well it is 20% increase, so it is relatively large. Not game breaking but it does have an effect.
Yes it's 20% but it's still only 1pt. I would agree that a 20% increase on a 100pt model is a lot, yes, but on a 4pt model?
I mean when it literally is the "only" troop choice in a codex that is chronically starved off CP, because the good stratagems atleast cost 2+ it makes quite a dent into that budget.
I mean when it literally is the "only" troop choice in a codex that is chronically starved off CP, because the good stratagems atleast cost 2+ it makes quite a dent into that budget.
It is not "literally" the only troop choice in the codex. It's just the troop choice some tournament players prefer. It is one of 4 troop choices (2 for most legions), and if you take the codex "literally"(but with FaQs) it is one of 8.
I mean when it literally is the "only" troop choice in a codex that is chronically starved off CP, because the good stratagems atleast cost 2+ it makes quite a dent into that budget.
It is not "literally" the only troop choice in the codex. It's just the troop choice some tournament players prefer. It is one of 4 troop choices (2 for most legions), and if you take the codex "literally" it is one of 8.
Well, no, disagree politely but insistently:
CSM have the same problem as tacticals, they cannot generate enough cp for the army, ergo when one applies the logic that CP generation is the main job of any Troop choice they do it so badly that they don't even need to be considered. (Now even more since we still are paying 13ppm compared to loyalists, for whatever reason)
Khorne berzerkers and noise marines: Again are even more expensive, demand delivery or cover and suffer from the same fate. Aswell as soon will not be able anymore to be taken as troops for a regular CSM army.
"Minor Daemons" are not even capable of filling detachments so again are not a "cp " generating choice.
So what is left? Cultists. They can generate decently enough CP, ergo they are worth their slot's in a detachment.
Valkyrie wrote: Yes it's 20% but it's still only 1pt. I would agree that a 20% increase on a 100pt model is a lot, yes, but on a 4pt model?
Well, yes. That is kind of the point of percentages. You take 200 points of one and 200 points of the other, the 20% increase is going to hurt. Sure, it's only "1 point", but when it is repeated sixty times it adds up.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: It is not "literally" the only troop choice in the codex.
I love how "literally" can also mean "figuratively" now. The evolution of language is fun!
Valkyrie wrote: Yes it's 20% but it's still only 1pt. I would agree that a 20% increase on a 100pt model is a lot, yes, but on a 4pt model?
Well, yes. That is kind of the point of percentages. You take 200 points of one and 200 points of the other, the 20% increase is going to hurt. Sure, it's only "1 point", but when it is repeated sixty times it adds up.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: It is not "literally" the only troop choice in the codex.
I love how "literally" can also mean "figuratively" now. The evolution of language is fun!
It literally does mean figuratively in many dictionaries now! Usage determines language after all, not the other way around. As much as that fact perpetually irritates everyone.
Valkyrie wrote: Yes it's 20% but it's still only 1pt. I would agree that a 20% increase on a 100pt model is a lot, yes, but on a 4pt model?
Well, yes. That is kind of the point of percentages. You take 200 points of one and 200 points of the other, the 20% increase is going to hurt. Sure, it's only "1 point", but when it is repeated sixty times it adds up.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: It is not "literally" the only troop choice in the codex.
I love how "literally" can also mean "figuratively" now. The evolution of language is fun!
That does not make it any better.
Especially when we consider that R&H cultists which neither had access to stratagems nor traits and also had random LD also got the hike.
I mean maybee instead of hiking pts prices because certain stratagems are to cheap in cp they could change the CP prices? I mean has anyone ever seen the khonrate double fighting stratagem ever used?
I doubt it will change anything. They needed to buff CSM, not nerf cultists. As it stands the tourney meta lists won't change because Cultists are still able to get easy CP and be in a blob that can be buffed.
Wayniac wrote: I doubt it will change anything. They needed to buff CSM, not nerf cultists. As it stands the tourney meta lists won't change because Cultists are still able to get easy CP and be in a blob that can be buffed.
The point where we will see Marines instead of cultists for CP is the point were a cultist is 7ppm.
Eldarain wrote: Access to easy Fearless, full rerolls to hit, +1 to wound, fire twice make them rather formidable.
Though Guardsmen should have taken a hit too.
Full rerolls to hit? Cadians with Fire On My Target
Fire Twice? First Rank, Fire! Second Rank, Fire!
Fearless? No true fearless for guard, but between cheap Commissars, max squad 10 (vs Cultists of up to 30), several stratagems. It's not as important to Guardsmen.
+1 To Wound? Cultists got them there. Guard don't have a way AFAIK
Full rerolls to hit? Cadians with Fire On My Target
That does require a specific regiment, an order, and for the unit in question to remain stationary.
Loafing wrote: Fire Twice? First Rank, Fire! Second Rank, Fire!
Well, they can fire Lasguns twice. The sergeant won't be firing twice, nor will any special or heavy weapons. It also requires an order (meaning you can't stack it with the above).
(I don't know how this compared to Cultists, as I don't know what the requirements are for their buffs. I'm just clarifying what IG squads need.)
Peregrine wrote: IMO it's a great nerf. Cultists are supposed to be a minor support element for the marines that are the core of the CSM faction, they should be on the weak side to discourage cultist spam armies. Infantry squads are the core of the IG faction, so they should be one of the stronger units in the codex.
Which would be fine, except:
casvalremdeikun wrote: The bigger travesty is Chaos Marines and Tactical Marines are still 13 pts per model.
So Chaos Marines not getting a decrease means that Cultists will remain the de facto Troop for CSM. So your point about it being a way to limit Cultist Spam doesn't add up, save that CSM will now just take min-units, which isn't optimized to take advantage of those "bonuses" that make Cultists "better" then Guard Infantry.
That in itself is bad enough, but than you add Guard Infantry squads NOT getting an increase, while still remaining the superior unit and likewise used by Imperium Players to generate cheap CPs and the message from GW is very, very clear: "Feth Chaos, feth regular Marines and long live Imperial Soup!"
Asmodios wrote: Simple cultists get
1. Larger unit size- this is a massive boon for any unit that is primarily made to soak up danmage
2. Veterans of the long war
3. Guard “send in the next wave” got effectively removed from the game. Cultists still have theirs
4. -1 to hit
5. Go slaneesh and shoot twice with veterans of the long war
6. Because of the increased unit size every Colman’s point/ buff given to them is more efficient
7. Still have easy access to fearless
There is a reason 200+ cultist lists were a thing but not 200+ guard lists. If guard had access to all of the above you would see more then 32 in every list
This is the best summary. I'm still not sure IS should be 4, but I can deal.
Sir Heckington wrote: I see the strats and traits arguments but R&H cultists got the same treatment.
because feth R&H i guess.
Same with Ig veterans, they are now 5 ppm, have more special and heavy weapons options whilest disciples (R&H veteran equivalent) still costs 6 ppm, has less option per squad (1 special 1 hwt) random LS aswell as no traits.
Sidenote, even the malefic at 80pts since ca 17 remains unchanged. Meanwhile IG psykers are still only 40 pts, for the same profil and better psy powers.
I have to agree that it is frustrating to me to see a unit that's worse than Guardsmen, outs of specific builds, cost more than Guardsmen. And the specific builds that these models are in are not very good. Anything in this game is great when you stack rerolls on everything, +1's on everything, and "bring back at full strength" anything. That's a problem of the things that grant those abilities, and the scale of the game we play. Remember, we used to have Commissars that did the same thing. Now, Guardsmen are better without any support, and can still be supported! They also, in specific builds, get rerolls on their shots, and can get rerolls on their wounds. If anything, Guardsmen are better at their purpose within the generic strategy of the army they're in. They protect better shooting stuff from close combat (both in codex, and with allies). That's their primary job both with buffs, and without buffs. They have a secondary job of capturing objectives in a way that keeps close combat units away from your shooting, allowing your other strong stuff to move into better positions rather than potentially exposed or worse positioning in order to hold objective. Again, regardless of your "build" these are the jobs they're trying to do. The primary job of a unit of Fearless Cultists blob is to spread out and take up space, covering as many objectives as possible, and then when they die they get to come back once and do it again. They have a secondary job in preventing things from getting into close combat. Now, outside the specific build, we have your generic Cultists, without all those buffs. These Cultists' jobs are to capture objectives in a way that allows your other strong stuff to engage more effectively.
Now that I've identified their jobs, how good are they at them? We have some interesting comparisons:
#1 - Survivability of models:
Guardsmen; (1) Have a better save. (2) Have better Leadership. | buffs | (3) Can use a generic stratagem for +1 save. | (4) Can use a generic psychic power for +1 save (5) Can use a generic psychic power for -1 to hit.
Cultists; (no innate strengths of Guardsmen) | buffs | (1) Can have a legion-specific trait for -1 to hit in a common circumstance. (2a) Can use a Mark-specific psychic power for -1 to hit. (2b) Can use a Mark-specific psychic power for 5+ Feel No Paint. (3a) Can use a Mark-AND-Legion specific Psychic Power for +1T (Death Guard).
I think it's clear to say that Guardsmen are innately more survivable. With buffs, you can have Cultists be up to -2 to hit, while being T4, or you can make them -1 to hit with a 5+ FnP. However, I think if we're counting buffs, I'd have to give this to Guardsmen, because they can stack buffs to be a -1 to hit with a 2+ save (Psychic power, stratagem, psychic power, cover), plus these buffs are easier to get because they don't rely on being a specific Regiment, so are more generally achievable. Overall winner in this category are the Guard.
#2 - Survivability of units:
This is a hard one to quantify. On the one hand, if a large unit of cultists survives with just a couple models, you can get back a ton of models. On the other hand, you might not against a savy and/or lucky and/or Dark Eldar opponent. Guardsmen don't get to come back (at least, not at no reinforcement point cost), but multiple 10-man units are innately resistant to Ld losses. At the end of the day, I think it's a wash, but only so long as they were within very close cost-structures of each other. Of course, that's just for the Fearless Blob of Cultists. The regular cultists have far worse unit survivability because they have a worse Sv and Leadership, and large units then becomes a drawback, so you go for smaller units that depend on their Sv to survive, which is a t-shirt save for the Cultists.
#3 - Lethality;
Guardsmen; (1) Have more long-range weapon options (Plasma/Melta, and Heavy weapons). | buffs | (2a) Can reroll 1's with order. (2b) Certain regiments can reroll everything. (3) Generic relic offers chance to issue a secondary order to the same unit for either double shots, or reroll wounds, or shoot after falling back. (4) Have "Revenge for Cadia" stratagem to reroll all failed hits AND wounds without any other buffs. (5) Regiment-specific trait allows Guardsmen to be S4 in close combat.
Cultists; (1) Have more close-range weapon options (shotguns, close combat weapons). | buffs | (2a) Can reroll 1's with generic HQ aura. (2b) Certain legion with extremely expensive HQ has aura for reroll all failed hits. (3) Stratagem allows +1 to wound rolls. (4a) Mark-specific Cultists can fight again in close combat with 3-CP stratagem. (4b) Mark-and-Legion specific psychic power allows Cultists to be S4 in close combat. (5) Generic psychic power gives +1 to hit.
I'd tip this slightly towards the Guardsmen. I think the best-case scenario is better for the Cultists in having 4 attacks each (due to fight twice), and exploding 5's and 6's and 4's, 3's, or even 2's to wound, depending on the target. However, again, a lot of these require a lot of commitment and setup. Guardsmen can do many of the same things, but at range, and with far less setup.
Okay, I think we can say then that the two are pretty even in Unit Survivability, but only if we're talking about a specific Cultist build instead of the generic Guardsmen build. We can also say they're pretty close in lethality, with one excelling at range, and the other excelling in close. The main difference between the two is Model Survivability.
Now that we've identified where they're better/worse than each other at, we can answer to ourselves who is better at their jobs. I'd say that Guardsmen are better at their primary and secondary jobs than regular Cultists are at their only 1 job. I'd also say that generic Guardsmen are better at their primary and secondary jobs than Fearless Cultists are at their secondary job. However, Fearless Cultists are better at their Primary job than Guardsmen are at their Primary job. So, out of those 12 or so combinations where we are comparing effectiveness, Guardsmen seem to come out on top in most of the cases.
The only thing I can see that makes sense is if there was some odd typing issue that caused someone to accidentally type the veterans as 5 points rather than the infantry squad, because neither the infantry at 4 nor the veteran at 5 makes a shred of sense.
I mean, infantry squads are, for quite a while now, in EVERY imperial army. they needed a nerf far more than cultists did.
It's clear now that GW is only using direct comparison between codices as a tertiary consideration. I disagree with this philosophy, but the proof is pretty undeniable.
That does require a specific regiment, an order, and for the unit in question to remain stationary.
Well, they can fire Lasguns twice. The sergeant won't be firing twice, nor will any special or heavy weapons. It also requires an order (meaning you can't stack it with the above).
Chaos' full reroll to hit is BLACK LEGION only. So subfaction only is fair game
The only guns Cultists CAN take are Autoguns (same stats as Lasguns). (You can take a stubbers as a special weapon, but AFAIK it's not taken / critical) so only firing Lasguns are fine.
There is a Guard Relic to let you get multiple orders on the same unit on a 4+.
And that's not including the new Specialist detachment whose warlord/relic is reroll 1s to hit aura, meaning Take Aim will give full rerolls all the time.
The only thing I can see that makes sense is if there was some odd typing issue that caused someone to accidentally type the veterans as 5 points rather than the infantry squad, because neither the infantry at 4 nor the veteran at 5 makes a shred of sense.
I mean, infantry squads are, for quite a while now, in EVERY imperial army. they needed a nerf far more than cultists did.
Nope. It's the Command Points they provide that needed the nerf and it's the ability for them to be souped in so easily with a Warlord that can do good things for an army that are the issue.
Infantry Squads by themselves aren't the issue. This Soup nonsense is.
Loafing wrote: And that's not including the new Specialist detachment whose warlord/relic is reroll 1s to hit aura, meaning Take Aim will give full rerolls all the time.
While I agree Cultists should be 5pt, Guardsmen should be 5pt as well. Cultists should also lose access to VotLW, while CSMs/SMs (the units) should be dropped to 11 or 12pt.
Secondly, Heretic Astartes can't be removed as a Keyword, because it's their Faction Keyword and us CSM player would never be able to make a Battleforged Army with Cultists.
bibotot wrote: What? How did this happen? Chaos Cultists are 5 points per model, but Guardsmen are still 4. There is no other change to either unit barring some wargear cost.
Guardsmen have better armor saves and the only thing going for the Cultists is the Alpha Legion shenanigan. Guardsmen have more weapon choice, but Cultists can get marks.
Veterans are only 5 points per model.
Can anyone tell me why this is the case? Did the newest Chapter Approve just do that to nerf Alpha Legion or something?
The Alpha Legion was nerfed from the top tables by the FAQ2 with the changes to the Forward Operatives stratagems.
Eldarain wrote: Access to easy Fearless, full rerolls to hit, +1 to wound, fire twice make them rather formidable.
Though Guardsmen should have taken a hit too.
Commissars, Vengeance for Cadia + Relic of Lost Cadia, Fire on My Target, FRFSRF, Guardsmen can take heavy and special weapons that aren't flamers and HS. But yeah, I agree - Guardsmen should go up a point.
Asmodios wrote: Simple cultists get
1. Larger unit size- this is a massive boon for any unit that is primarily made to soak up danmage
2. Veterans of the long war
3. Guard “send in the next wave” got effectively removed from the game. Cultists still have theirs
4. -1 to hit
5. Go slaneesh and shoot twice with veterans of the long war
6. Because of the increased unit size every Colman’s point/ buff given to them is more efficient
7. Still have easy access to fearless
There is a reason 200+ cultist lists were a thing but not 200+ guard lists. If guard had access to all of the above you would see more then 32 in every list
1 - Kill 23 Cultists and the last die to Battleshock unless the Chaos player uses 2 CP, barring Abaddon and Iron Warrior Warlords.
2. Absolutely baller Stratagem that Cultists in no way should be able to use as they're not Veterans of the Long War.
3. Cultists can do it once.
4. That's the Alpha Legion only.
5. 3 CPs, something that Chaos doesn't have that much access due to zero CP regen.
6. Sure, but also requires 3 CPs per turn, which CSMs can't sustain.
7. See 1.
A stack of 40 cultists in rapid fire range can shoot 160 times, 3+, rerolling 1s, +1 to wound, for 2cps.
Expected damage of that salvo vs a Knight is 13.8 damage.
When it starts to thin out, spend another 2cps and the unit back for free on any boardedge.
Why the heck should that be 160pts?
It was a choice GW had: either remove the heretic astartes keyword from cultists (good choice) or hike their points up (okish choice). They had to do one or the other, and because this is CA, which deals almost exclusively in points changes not rules, we got the second option. It was totally needed.
It's 3 CPs; 2 for Endless Cacophony and 1 for VotLW.
I agree in practice though - but just change VotLW to specifically not affect Cultists and alter Endless Cacophony to be keyed to PL. Also, retain the 5pt cost, but increase the Guardsman to 5pt too.
That does require a specific regiment, an order, and for the unit in question to remain stationary.
Well, they can fire Lasguns twice. The sergeant won't be firing twice, nor will any special or heavy weapons. It also requires an order (meaning you can't stack it with the above).
Chaos' full reroll to hit is BLACK LEGION only. So subfaction only is fair game
The only guns Cultists CAN take are Autoguns (same stats as Lasguns). (You can take a stubbers as a special weapon, but AFAIK it's not taken / critical) so only firing Lasguns are fine.
There is a Guard Relic to let you get multiple orders on the same unit on a 4+.
And that's not including the new Specialist detachment whose warlord/relic is reroll 1s to hit aura, meaning Take Aim will give full rerolls all the time.
If you're thinking Abaddon, aye. But you can always have a barebones Alpha Legionnaire Chaos Lord babysitting as well, but -1 to hit doesn't really matter once your unit is Fearless and 40 strong. You also need it to be really close to the enemy to benefit from Rapid Fire.
Peregrine wrote: IMO it's a great nerf. Cultists are supposed to be a minor support element for the marines that are the core of the CSM faction, they should be on the weak side to discourage cultist spam armies. Infantry squads are the core of the IG faction, so they should be one of the stronger units in the codex.
Say Peregrine, what army do you play?
Krieg?
He doesn't play 40K and hates it with a passion- or so he has said in past posts. Doesn't stop him from about it every chance he can get.
It's disappointing that GW did little, if anything, to stop IG Soup. One extra point to Cultists? LOL So instead of a group of 20, I can only field 16 for the same cost? OK... I'm pretty sure a Chaos player will be able to find an extra 20 points somewhere to make the Cultists 20 models again. This will do little to curb Cultist Spam because, yeah, it's that good.
That does require a specific regiment, an order, and for the unit in question to remain stationary.
Well, they can fire Lasguns twice. The sergeant won't be firing twice, nor will any special or heavy weapons. It also requires an order (meaning you can't stack it with the above).
Chaos' full reroll to hit is BLACK LEGION only. So subfaction only is fair game
The only guns Cultists CAN take are Autoguns (same stats as Lasguns). (You can take a stubbers as a special weapon, but AFAIK it's not taken / critical) so only firing Lasguns are fine.
There is a Guard Relic to let you get multiple orders on the same unit on a 4+.
And that's not including the new Specialist detachment whose warlord/relic is reroll 1s to hit aura, meaning Take Aim will give full rerolls all the time.
Nah, talking about certain subfactions only counts to make your Chaos unit look SUPER powerful, and it doesn't count for Infantry. Ever.
GW analyzes the game by looking at problematic lists and stomping them. Cultist spam was a problematic list? Yes, let's nerf it. Guard spam is a problematic list? No, leave it as it is.
The only good thing here are the veterans at 5 points, together with the reduced cost of chimeras we could finally see mechanised guards again. Let's be honest, if the 4/5/6 paradigma were to pass, conscripts and guards would be fine, but no one would use veterans.
The only thing I can see that makes sense is if there was some odd typing issue that caused someone to accidentally type the veterans as 5 points rather than the infantry squad, because neither the infantry at 4 nor the veteran at 5 makes a shred of sense.
I mean, infantry squads are, for quite a while now, in EVERY imperial army. they needed a nerf far more than cultists did.
Nope. It's the Command Points they provide that needed the nerf and it's the ability for them to be souped in so easily with a Warlord that can do good things for an army that are the issue.
Infantry Squads by themselves aren't the issue. This Soup nonsense is.
That's an absurd notion, given that in a world when stratagems are not a thing and you judge a unit based on its own merits-the IS squad beats every single unit in the game in a straight fight.
GW analyzes the game by looking at problematic lists and stomping them.
Cultist spam was a problematic list? Yes, let's nerf it.
Guard spam is a problematic list? No, leave it as it is.
The only good thing here are the veterans at 5 points, together with the reduced cost of chimeras we could finally see mechanised guards again. Let's be honest, if the 4/5/6 paradigma were to pass, conscripts and guards would be fine, but no one would use veterans.
The problem with this kind of reasoning is that GW continues to look at units individually while continuing to produce a game that has so much overlap between codexes and encourages combos via stratagems, chapter tactics, etc. It's impossible to value a unit properly when a unit is meh with 5 out of 6 choices but the 6th makes them way to much.
The only thing I can see that makes sense is if there was some odd typing issue that caused someone to accidentally type the veterans as 5 points rather than the infantry squad, because neither the infantry at 4 nor the veteran at 5 makes a shred of sense.
I mean, infantry squads are, for quite a while now, in EVERY imperial army. they needed a nerf far more than cultists did.
Nope. It's the Command Points they provide that needed the nerf and it's the ability for them to be souped in so easily with a Warlord that can do good things for an army that are the issue.
Infantry Squads by themselves aren't the issue. This Soup nonsense is.
That's an absurd notion, given that in a world when stratagems are not a thing and you judge a unit based on its own merits-the IS squad beats every single unit in the game in a straight fight.
But this game has stratagems and interactions, so a model based on straight fights is equally wrong.
Guys, come on now. Imperial Knights were getting wounds. Chaos had a patently better unit than the imperials. This should not, and was not stood for.
And CSM costing more than loyalist? Well, that's just the tax chaos needs on its codex to make up for OP chaos jank. Its like a few of you don't even play the game.
Table wrote: Guys, come on now. Imperial Knights were getting wounds. Chaos had a patently better unit than the imperials. This should not, and was not stood for.
And CSM costing more than loyalist? Well, that's just the tax chaos needs on its codex to make up for OP chaos jank. Its like a few of you don't even play the game.
We need to create a mass email about Chaos Terminators after Chapter Approved comes out.
Table wrote: Guys, come on now. Imperial Knights were getting wounds. Chaos had a patently better unit than the imperials. This should not, and was not stood for.
And CSM costing more than loyalist? Well, that's just the tax chaos needs on its codex to make up for OP chaos jank. Its like a few of you don't even play the game.
We need to create a mass email about Chaos Terminators after Chapter Approved comes out.
Table wrote: Guys, come on now. Imperial Knights were getting wounds. Chaos had a patently better unit than the imperials. This should not, and was not stood for.
And CSM costing more than loyalist? Well, that's just the tax chaos needs on its codex to make up for OP chaos jank. Its like a few of you don't even play the game.
We need to create a mass email about Chaos Terminators after Chapter Approved comes out.
Why? It's just the spike tax, nothing wrong here!
That or the "Powerfist squads are overpriced crap; we need to charge Chaos for the ability to not take them!" tax. (My theory would be more correct if Deathwatch Terminators were closer to the CSM price, but GW chronically overprices their Fearless ability so it's hard to tell.)
Addendum: Nope, Deathwatch Terminators are the same price as normal loyalist ones now. Definitely the spike tax. (Also: ...I might actually use mine now!)
ChazSexington wrote: While I agree Cultists should be 5pt, Guardsmen should be 5pt as well. Cultists should also lose access to VotLW, while CSMs/SMs (the units) should be dropped to 11 or 12pt.
Secondly, Heretic Astartes can't be removed as a Keyword, because it's their Faction Keyword and us CSM player would never be able to make a Battleforged Army with Cultists.
I believe Cultists also get <LEGION> which I'm pretty sure can also count as a keyword for Battleforged.
How long has spike tax been around now? 15....20 years? Why are you chaos players not used to it yet. Anyway, like I said above. There is a very good reason for it....im sure.
Table wrote: How long has spike tax been around now? 15....20 years? Why are you chaos players not used to it yet. Anyway, like I said above. There is a very good reason for it....im sure.
Ever after 3.5. And I guess 3.0 because that was trash. 2nd was alright from my recollection.
ChazSexington wrote: While I agree Cultists should be 5pt, Guardsmen should be 5pt as well. Cultists should also lose access to VotLW, while CSMs/SMs (the units) should be dropped to 11 or 12pt.
Secondly, Heretic Astartes can't be removed as a Keyword, because it's their Faction Keyword and us CSM player would never be able to make a Battleforged Army with Cultists.
I believe Cultists also get <LEGION> which I'm pretty sure can also count as a keyword for Battleforged.
Or they get the Grot treatment.
Doesn't benefit from tactics and only stratagems that call out CULTISTS can be used.
ChazSexington wrote: While I agree Cultists should be 5pt, Guardsmen should be 5pt as well. Cultists should also lose access to VotLW, while CSMs/SMs (the units) should be dropped to 11 or 12pt.
Secondly, Heretic Astartes can't be removed as a Keyword, because it's their Faction Keyword and us CSM player would never be able to make a Battleforged Army with Cultists.
I believe Cultists also get <LEGION> which I'm pretty sure can also count as a keyword for Battleforged.
Or they get the Grot treatment.
Doesn't benefit from tactics and only stratagems that call out CULTISTS can be used.
Now THAT might be a good alternative solution. Did not know that's how Grots worked. I like it.
GW analyzes the game by looking at problematic lists and stomping them.
Cultist spam was a problematic list? Yes, let's nerf it.
Guard spam is a problematic list? No, leave it as it is.
The only good thing here are the veterans at 5 points, together with the reduced cost of chimeras we could finally see mechanised guards again. Let's be honest, if the 4/5/6 paradigma were to pass, conscripts and guards would be fine, but no one would use veterans.
The problem with this kind of reasoning is that GW continues to look at units individually while continuing to produce a game that has so much overlap between codexes and encourages combos via stratagems, chapter tactics, etc. It's impossible to value a unit properly when a unit is meh with 5 out of 6 choices but the 6th makes them way to much.
Seems to me the opposite is taking place. If giant Cultist blobs are showing up in tournaments, that's the result of players making the calculation of its value in the context of all the relevant buffs, stratagems, chapter tactics, etc. So GW nerfs it.
What we see CONSTANTLY online, is people taking unit x in isolation, vs. unit y in isolation, doing some math and calling it "proof" that unit x or y is unbalanced. GW is making the smarter call here, imo.
The issue isn't Cultists being 5ppm. At 5ppm they are still worth taking, especially with all the potential buffs they can get.
The issue (or rather the 2 issues) with Cultists being 5ppm is: A) GW already confirm that this was specifically done to limit spamming Cultists. Without lowering the cost of Chaos Marines, however, this will not have the outcome GW intended. B) Guard Infantry units are outright better than Cultists, yet remain 4ppm. Debate potential buffs to either unit all you want, but the fact remains that both units can get buffs from various means and Guard IS should at least be the same cost, but certainly not cheaper. This is just added salt in the wound of issue A.
If Chaos Marines got a decrease even to 12ppm (although 11ppm is ideally where they should be) and Guard IS got bumped to 5ppm, than Cultists at 5ppm is not an issue. Heck, Guard Vets are fine at 5ppm too, because they pay more for weapons already due to having BS3+. I see no reason Vets and IS couldn't both be 5ppm.
I admire GWs consistency. They have managed to find something in the CSM codex to nerf with every single game update they have made since the release of 8th edition.
I am excited to see what they nerf next, I'm not sure there's a lot left in the codex to nerf, but GW has proven that if it's there and it's useful, they'll find it and crush it.
Galef wrote: The issue isn't Cultists being 5ppm. At 5ppm they are still worth taking, especially with all the potential buffs they can get.
The issue (or rather the 2 issues) with Cultists being 5ppm is:
A) GW already confirm that this was specifically done to limit spamming Cultists. Without lowering the cost of Chaos Marines, however, this will not have the outcome GW intended.
B) Guard Infantry units are outright better than Cultists, yet remain 4ppm. Debate potential buffs to either unit all you want, but the fact remains that both units can get buffs from various means and Guard IS should at least be the same cost, but certainly not cheaper. This is just added salt in the wound of issue A.
If Chaos Marines got a decrease even to 12ppm (although 11ppm is ideally where they should be) and Guard IS got bumped to 5ppm, than Cultists at 5ppm is not an issue.
Heck, Guard Vets are fine at 5ppm too, because they pay more for weapons already due to having BS3+. I see no reason Vets and IS couldn't both be 5ppm.
-
GW isnt balancing laterally. 4 pom guardsmen dont matter in the cultist situation.
Sir Heckington wrote: I see the strats and traits arguments but R&H cultists got the same treatment.
because feth R&H i guess.
Same with Ig veterans, they are now 5 ppm, have more special and heavy weapons options whilest disciples (R&H veteran equivalent) still costs 6 ppm, has less option per squad (1 special 1 hwt) random LS aswell as no traits.
Sidenote, even the malefic at 80pts since ca 17 remains unchanged. Meanwhile IG psykers are still only 40 pts, for the same profil and better psy powers.
But that they are that delusional and let csm stay 13 pts whilest loyalist tacs go down, even if they are virtually exchangeable i won't ever understand.
You mind explaining what price cut that Tactical Squads got as the main complaining in the marine threads is that primaris units got points cuts while tacs got nothing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: The issue isn't Cultists being 5ppm. At 5ppm they are still worth taking, especially with all the potential buffs they can get.
The issue (or rather the 2 issues) with Cultists being 5ppm is:
A) GW already confirm that this was specifically done to limit spamming Cultists. Without lowering the cost of Chaos Marines, however, this will not have the outcome GW intended.
B) Guard Infantry units are outright better than Cultists, yet remain 4ppm. Debate potential buffs to either unit all you want, but the fact remains that both units can get buffs from various means and Guard IS should at least be the same cost, but certainly not cheaper. This is just added salt in the wound of issue A.
If Chaos Marines got a decrease even to 12ppm (although 11ppm is ideally where they should be) and Guard IS got bumped to 5ppm, than Cultists at 5ppm is not an issue.
Heck, Guard Vets are fine at 5ppm too, because they pay more for weapons already due to having BS3+. I see no reason Vets and IS couldn't both be 5ppm.
-
As long as Cultists are the least trash troops choice choas have, they will still be in every choas tournament list.
They are the choas codex's version of scouts, you don't take them because they are good it's just the cheapest way to pay the troopa tax.
1 - Kill 23 Cultists and the last die to Battleshock unless the Chaos player uses 2 CP, barring Abaddon and Iron Warrior Warlords.
2. Absolutely baller Stratagem that Cultists in no way should be able to use as they're not Veterans of the Long War.
3. Cultists can do it once.
4. That's the Alpha Legion only.
5. 3 CPs, something that Chaos doesn't have that much access due to zero CP regen.
6. Sure, but also requires 3 CPs per turn, which CSMs can't sustain.
7. See 1.
1. So still a massively good ability and can be fearless/ come back and cn be made harder to kill with -1 hit
2. Yup amazing strategem that they still have
3. Yup they can do it once guard can do it 0 times
4. Yup its alpha legion only and guard cant be alpha legion soooooo...
5. 3cp for an amazing ability when you need it
6.once again 3cp for an amazing ability
7. see 1
I Mean your list kinda just proves what i said on all of mine
As I learn't with my Orks, a 1pts increase was about 100+ points added to my army. In general I didn't actually lose any points and my army went up a little. XD
1 - Kill 23 Cultists and the last die to Battleshock unless the Chaos player uses 2 CP, barring Abaddon and Iron Warrior Warlords.
2. Absolutely baller Stratagem that Cultists in no way should be able to use as they're not Veterans of the Long War.
3. Cultists can do it once.
4. That's the Alpha Legion only.
5. 3 CPs, something that Chaos doesn't have that much access due to zero CP regen.
6. Sure, but also requires 3 CPs per turn, which CSMs can't sustain.
7. See 1.
1. So still a massively good ability and can be fearless/ come back and cn be made harder to kill with -1 hit
2. Yup amazing strategem that they still have
3. Yup they can do it once guard can do it 0 times
4. Yup its alpha legion only and guard cant be alpha legion soooooo...
5. 3cp for an amazing ability when you need it
6.once again 3cp for an amazing ability
7. see 1
I Mean your list kinda just proves what i said on all of mine
Soup player can easily hold out long enough for the chaos player to run out of CP. You can have a command point ability that says "Play this and win the game" but it's useless if it's 1000cp and you only have 8.
Galef wrote: The issue isn't Cultists being 5ppm. At 5ppm they are still worth taking, especially with all the potential buffs they can get.
The issue (or rather the 2 issues) with Cultists being 5ppm is: A) GW already confirm that this was specifically done to limit spamming Cultists. Without lowering the cost of Chaos Marines, however, this will not have the outcome GW intended. B) Guard Infantry units are outright better than Cultists, yet remain 4ppm. Debate potential buffs to either unit all you want, but the fact remains that both units can get buffs from various means and Guard IS should at least be the same cost, but certainly not cheaper. This is just added salt in the wound of issue A.
If Chaos Marines got a decrease even to 12ppm (although 11ppm is ideally where they should be) and Guard IS got bumped to 5ppm, than Cultists at 5ppm is not an issue. Heck, Guard Vets are fine at 5ppm too, because they pay more for weapons already due to having BS3+. I see no reason Vets and IS couldn't both be 5ppm.
-
GW isnt balancing laterally. 4 pom guardsmen dont matter in the cultist situation.
That's fine. It just means my point B is just added salt, even if not intentional from GW. But my point A stands. GW bumped Cultists up so that they wouldn't keep showing up as the only CSM Troop, but then didn't lower the cost of Chaos Marines. Cultists could be 6-7ppm and that wouldn't make a lick of difference in making Chaos Marines more playable. So as far as I'm concerned, this is strike 2 for GW. Strike 1 was claiming "soup was off the table"
Sir Heckington wrote: I see the strats and traits arguments but R&H cultists got the same treatment.
because feth R&H i guess.
Same with Ig veterans, they are now 5 ppm, have more special and heavy weapons options whilest disciples (R&H veteran equivalent) still costs 6 ppm, has less option per squad (1 special 1 hwt) random LS aswell as no traits.
Sidenote, even the malefic at 80pts since ca 17 remains unchanged. Meanwhile IG psykers are still only 40 pts, for the same profil and better psy powers.
But that they are that delusional and let csm stay 13 pts whilest loyalist tacs go down, even if they are virtually exchangeable i won't ever understand.
You mind explaining what price cut that Tactical Squads got as the main complaining in the marine threads is that primaris units got points cuts while tacs got nothing.
.
Sorry meant primaris. point still stands though, will edit it.
GW analyzes the game by looking at problematic lists and stomping them.
Cultist spam was a problematic list? Yes, let's nerf it.
Guard spam is a problematic list? No, leave it as it is.
The only good thing here are the veterans at 5 points, together with the reduced cost of chimeras we could finally see mechanised guards again. Let's be honest, if the 4/5/6 paradigma were to pass, conscripts and guards would be fine, but no one would use veterans.
The problem with this kind of reasoning is that GW continues to look at units individually while continuing to produce a game that has so much overlap between codexes and encourages combos via stratagems, chapter tactics, etc. It's impossible to value a unit properly when a unit is meh with 5 out of 6 choices but the 6th makes them way to much.
Seems to me the opposite is taking place. If giant Cultist blobs are showing up in tournaments, that's the result of players making the calculation of its value in the context of all the relevant buffs, stratagems, chapter tactics, etc. So GW nerfs it.
What we see CONSTANTLY online, is people taking unit x in isolation, vs. unit y in isolation, doing some math and calling it "proof" that unit x or y is unbalanced. GW is making the smarter call here, imo.
If GW simply wants to reduce giant squads of cultists it should start with why are people not taking the other troop choices and make them better and then in that context see if cultists still need a tweak. What I meant though is due to a unit not getting a point decrease or increase depending on chapter tactics/ available stratagems.
This makes balancing it really difficult because unit A might be worth it's points with one CT but totally not worth it with three others and way to powerful with another. I can't see GW getting a unit's points right with there being so many variables to even mono army construction.
Sir Heckington wrote: I see the strats and traits arguments but R&H cultists got the same treatment.
because feth R&H i guess.
Same with Ig veterans, they are now 5 ppm, have more special and heavy weapons options whilest disciples (R&H veteran equivalent) still costs 6 ppm, has less option per squad (1 special 1 hwt) random LS aswell as no traits.
Sidenote, even the malefic at 80pts since ca 17 remains unchanged. Meanwhile IG psykers are still only 40 pts, for the same profil and better psy powers.
But that they are that delusional and let csm stay 13 pts whilest loyalist tacs go down, even if they are virtually exchangeable i won't ever understand.
You mind explaining what price cut that Tactical Squads got as the main complaining in the marine threads is that primaris units got points cuts while tacs got nothing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: The issue isn't Cultists being 5ppm. At 5ppm they are still worth taking, especially with all the potential buffs they can get.
The issue (or rather the 2 issues) with Cultists being 5ppm is:
A) GW already confirm that this was specifically done to limit spamming Cultists. Without lowering the cost of Chaos Marines, however, this will not have the outcome GW intended.
B) Guard Infantry units are outright better than Cultists, yet remain 4ppm. Debate potential buffs to either unit all you want, but the fact remains that both units can get buffs from various means and Guard IS should at least be the same cost, but certainly not cheaper. This is just added salt in the wound of issue A.
If Chaos Marines got a decrease even to 12ppm (although 11ppm is ideally where they should be) and Guard IS got bumped to 5ppm, than Cultists at 5ppm is not an issue.
Heck, Guard Vets are fine at 5ppm too, because they pay more for weapons already due to having BS3+. I see no reason Vets and IS couldn't both be 5ppm.
-
As long as Cultists are the least trash troops choice choas have, they will still be in every choas tournament list.
They are the choas codex's version of scouts, you don't take them because they are good it's just the cheapest way to pay the troopa tax.
Tactical Marines didn't get a price cut but certain weapons did.
The issue there is several other units got price cuts. If you just run Scouts like usual, not only did your Vet units get price cuts but so did their weapons.
Vets pay only a point more for their new stats and considerably more flexible weapon loadouts. Having Objective Secured isn't enough of a benefit.
If GW simply wants to reduce giant squads of cultists it should start with why are people not taking the other troop choices and make them better and then in that context see if cultists still need a tweak. What I meant though is due to a unit not getting a point decrease or increase depending on chapter tactics/ available stratagems.
This makes balancing it really difficult because unit A might be worth it's points with one CT but totally not worth it with three others and way to powerful with another. I can't see GW getting a unit's points right with there being so many variables to even mono army construction.
Which is kinda why I am starting to think Chapter tactic/Legion traits should be moved to Narrative/Open play only. You can still be Raven Guard/Alpha Legion for the keywords, strats and relics in Matched Play, but if you want that -1 to be hit, you have to play Narrative.
Sir Heckington wrote: I see the strats and traits arguments but R&H cultists got the same treatment.
because feth R&H i guess.
Same with Ig veterans, they are now 5 ppm, have more special and heavy weapons options whilest disciples (R&H veteran equivalent) still costs 6 ppm, has less option per squad (1 special 1 hwt) random LS aswell as no traits.
Sidenote, even the malefic at 80pts since ca 17 remains unchanged. Meanwhile IG psykers are still only 40 pts, for the same profil and better psy powers.
But that they are that delusional and let csm stay 13 pts whilest loyalist tacs go down, even if they are virtually exchangeable i won't ever understand.
You mind explaining what price cut that Tactical Squads got as the main complaining in the marine threads is that primaris units got points cuts while tacs got nothing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: The issue isn't Cultists being 5ppm. At 5ppm they are still worth taking, especially with all the potential buffs they can get.
The issue (or rather the 2 issues) with Cultists being 5ppm is:
A) GW already confirm that this was specifically done to limit spamming Cultists. Without lowering the cost of Chaos Marines, however, this will not have the outcome GW intended.
B) Guard Infantry units are outright better than Cultists, yet remain 4ppm. Debate potential buffs to either unit all you want, but the fact remains that both units can get buffs from various means and Guard IS should at least be the same cost, but certainly not cheaper. This is just added salt in the wound of issue A.
If Chaos Marines got a decrease even to 12ppm (although 11ppm is ideally where they should be) and Guard IS got bumped to 5ppm, than Cultists at 5ppm is not an issue.
Heck, Guard Vets are fine at 5ppm too, because they pay more for weapons already due to having BS3+. I see no reason Vets and IS couldn't both be 5ppm.
-
As long as Cultists are the least trash troops choice choas have, they will still be in every choas tournament list.
They are the choas codex's version of scouts, you don't take them because they are good it's just the cheapest way to pay the troopa tax.
Tactical Marines didn't get a price cut but certain weapons did.
The issue there is several other units got price cuts. If you just run Scouts like usual, not only did your Vet units get price cuts but so did their weapons.
Vets pay only a point more for their new stats and considerably more flexible weapon loadouts. Having Objective Secured isn't enough of a benefit.
I know some units got price cuts just thought I'd totally missed somethin in the leaks.
Really the only reason marine's even want to take troops is CP and thats done with more CP per point and more damage and durability per point by Infantry Squads, really it doesn't matter how much a tac or intercessors or Choas marine costs because they simply cannot compete with IG codex choices.
I really can't wait to see GW justify their actions of 5ppm cultist while Infantry Squads are better and cheaper.
I think nerfing forward operatives was probably enough to prevent the most egregious cultist spam T1 stuff cultists that are Deployment zone to deployment zone away remotely as feel bad as the double tap and charge everyone T1 alpha legion cultist spam. It's like CA is fixing issue with points that they fixed in FAQ2 with rules changes for choas.
Ice_can wrote: Really the only reason marine's even want to take troops is CP and thats done with more CP per point and more damage and durability per point by Infantry Squads, really it doesn't matter how much a tac or intercessors or Choas marine costs because they simply cannot compete with IG codex choices.
Easy solution: remove soup, or at least remove the ability to generate CP from detachments that don't share your warlord's faction. This solves the problem of marine players taking IGCP farms without nerfing pure IG armies.
Spoletta wrote: The only good thing here are the veterans at 5 points, together with the reduced cost of chimeras we could finally see mechanised guards again. Let's be honest, if the 4/5/6 paradigma were to pass, conscripts and guards would be fine, but no one would use veterans.
The rule of three effectively killed mechanized guard. Veterans aren't bad because they are 6ppm, they are bad because they are an elite slot and you can only take 3 of them (and scions are better in comparison).
IMO veterans should be troop choices, and scions should be elites. Scions should then be given a special rule that makes them considered troops in any detachment that is purely <militarum tempestus> excluding regimental advisers to keep all-scion lists possible.
Scions also should be 8ppm without deepstrike, with a rule that lets them take grav chutes for 1-2ppm more. It makes no sense to run them in dedicated transports when you are paying for their deepstrike ability as part of their cost, and then not using it.
Galef wrote: Which is kinda why I am starting to think Chapter tactic/Legion traits should be moved to Narrative/Open play only.
You can still be Raven Guard/Alpha Legion for the keywords, strats and relics in Matched Play, but if you want that -1 to be hit, you have to play Narrative.
Rumor has it all the -1 to hit army traits are becoming +1 cover save under the same conditions, I guess we'll see if that's true when CA hits.
Obviously, +1 cover save is significantly less useful to cultists than -1 to hit.
Ice_can wrote: Really the only reason marine's even want to take troops is CP and thats done with more CP per point and more damage and durability per point by Infantry Squads, really it doesn't matter how much a tac or intercessors or Choas marine costs because they simply cannot compete with IG codex choices.
Easy solution: remove soup, or at least remove the ability to generate CP from detachments that don't share your warlord's faction. This solves the problem of marine players taking IGCP farms without nerfing pure IG armies.
Yeah because Marine lists with the 32 have been so meta right?
I'm amazed people can defend the Astra Millicheese codex, but hey you do you.
GW nerfed captain smash and what happend, as predicted 1.4k of guard plus a Castellan. "IG arn't the problem soup is, so if they nerf a castellen and its 1.6K of guard and a GMNK it's sure to be all the GK player's fault for allying in Guard for CP.
If GW simply wants to reduce giant squads of cultists it should start with why are people not taking the other troop choices and make them better and then in that context see if cultists still need a tweak. What I meant though is due to a unit not getting a point decrease or increase depending on chapter tactics/ available stratagems.
This makes balancing it really difficult because unit A might be worth it's points with one CT but totally not worth it with three others and way to powerful with another. I can't see GW getting a unit's points right with there being so many variables to even mono army construction.
You would not be able to make CSM cheap enough.
That's the power of force multipliers - cultists get everything x 40 for very few points.
If GW simply wants to reduce giant squads of cultists it should start with why are people not taking the other troop choices and make them better and then in that context see if cultists still need a tweak. What I meant though is due to a unit not getting a point decrease or increase depending on chapter tactics/ available stratagems.
This makes balancing it really difficult because unit A might be worth it's points with one CT but totally not worth it with three others and way to powerful with another. I can't see GW getting a unit's points right with there being so many variables to even mono army construction.
You would not be able to make CSM cheap enough.
That's the power of force multipliers - cultists get everything x 40 for very few points.
Well they already nerfed Tide Of Traitors, everyone knows that VotLW needs an adjustment, and...yeah that's about it.
If GW simply wants to reduce giant squads of cultists it should start with why are people not taking the other troop choices and make them better and then in that context see if cultists still need a tweak. What I meant though is due to a unit not getting a point decrease or increase depending on chapter tactics/ available stratagems.
This makes balancing it really difficult because unit A might be worth it's points with one CT but totally not worth it with three others and way to powerful with another. I can't see GW getting a unit's points right with there being so many variables to even mono army construction.
You would not be able to make CSM cheap enough.
That's the power of force multipliers - cultists get everything x 40 for very few points.
Agreed, marines of all stripes need better rules to make them worth taking. Im in favor of +1 wound on ALL marine models (including terminators) at zero point increase. At this point bolters just don't have the firepower to make marines viable. Even rubric bolters are underwhelming to be honest. So if the bolters remain at its current stats then they need to focus on making marines far more survivable.
If GW simply wants to reduce giant squads of cultists it should start with why are people not taking the other troop choices and make them better and then in that context see if cultists still need a tweak. What I meant though is due to a unit not getting a point decrease or increase depending on chapter tactics/ available stratagems.
This makes balancing it really difficult because unit A might be worth it's points with one CT but totally not worth it with three others and way to powerful with another. I can't see GW getting a unit's points right with there being so many variables to even mono army construction.
You would not be able to make CSM cheap enough.
That's the power of force multipliers - cultists get everything x 40 for very few points.
Well they already nerfed Tide Of Traitors, everyone knows that VotLW needs an adjustment, and...yeah that's about it.
Bumping VotLW cost takes it out of range of usefulness for other units. Removing it from cultists makes the far less useful. Restricting cultists to 20 would be a better option, perhaps.
You joke, but it could very well be relevant. If chaos termies were 23 then you'd get double tapping plasma monsters for 39 points each.
If cultists got nerfed, because of available stratagems then it's equally likely terminators were given the same consideration.
That's idiotic though
If the reason to "fix" everything chaos is that they might be double tapping monsters MAYBE the issue is in the double tapping stratagem, rather than nerfing every single unit to the point they are useless without it?
Not like they didnt up the CP cost of things already in FAQs, and to be frank whoever thought a fight twice stratagem is worth 3cp yet shoot twice is worth 2cp to begin with should have been fired for incompetence as its so absurdly slowed its not even funny.
Galef wrote: Which is kinda why I am starting to think Chapter tactic/Legion traits should be moved to Narrative/Open play only.
You can still be Raven Guard/Alpha Legion for the keywords, strats and relics in Matched Play, but if you want that -1 to be hit, you have to play Narrative.
Rumor has it all the -1 to hit army traits are becoming +1 cover save under the same conditions, I guess we'll see if that's true when CA hits.
Obviously, +1 cover save is significantly less useful to cultists than -1 to hit.
That was the rumour with CA2018, which didn't apparently happen. When is the next FAQ supposed to drop?
You joke, but it could very well be relevant. If chaos termies were 23 then you'd get double tapping plasma monsters for 39 points each.
If cultists got nerfed, because of available stratagems then it's equally likely terminators were given the same consideration.
That's idiotic though
If the reason to "fix" everything chaos is that they might be double tapping monsters MAYBE the issue is in the double tapping stratagem, rather than nerfing every single unit to the point they are useless without it?
Not like they didnt up the CP cost of things already in FAQs, and to be frank whoever thought a fight twice stratagem is worth 3cp yet shoot twice is worth 2cp to begin with should have been fired for incompetence as its so absurdly slowed its not even funny.
Thank you!
That's the whole problem and rather then solving it they went along and fought the Symptomes.
Not only that but now lists that did not spam cultists but used them for their gameplan can now go take a hike off a cliff.
Well at least Kill Team cultists are still 4 points...for now.
It seems like GW has been listening to players like me griping about how CSM armies aren't really CSM armies but Chaos Cultist armies. I have long felt that Chaos cultists are a blight in what you primarily be a marine fielded faction. I am not against army being built based on cultists, just that should be a different viable option not the obviously better of the two one. But instead of making a player like me not feel kinda like a chump fielding marines instead of cultists, they just make cultists a little more of pain to field in huge numbers. Not that it really stops cultists from being the go to troop choice if you don't want to hamstring yourself, now you just have to pay extra.
I can't help to think Primaris are to blame. There very existence limits what normal marine, loyal and chaos alike, design space as without bumping into these FNGs. I wasn't a fan of the Primaris model design myself and even less the background for their introduction, but this apparent stat ceiling they have placed on normal marines is really getting me to hate them. So as a Chaos Space Marine player, flavor win? I can share my disdain of Parmaris with my Black Legion army now.
Again, I don't want to field cultists often or in large amounts. I do want to field marines. However, I do want my marines to be a worthwhile element of my army and not just a tax to get CPs or unlock other units. Ultimately, I don't want cheaper marines. I want better marines that field a little more like the super-soldier, transhuman walking tanks with some of the most powerful small arms available to mankind. I am not looking for movie marines or anything just something a little more elite. I also feel all legions need a 3rd troop choice like the end of 7th had of either cult marine or chosen option type thing.
For now, I am sticking with Kill Team. I can't say normal marines are an outstanding choice in it, but since every faction is somewhat limited, I don't feel like they are too bad of choice (yet) either. I will say that 5 point Kill Team cultists feels too expensive since I mostly just use mine as mobile cover since they can't seem to hit gak if it is cover and/or long ranged.
Valkyrie wrote: Is a 1pt increase really that much of a big deal?
Well it is 20% increase, so it is relatively large. Not game breaking but it does have an effect.
Yes it's 20% but it's still only 1pt. I would agree that a 20% increase on a 100pt model is a lot, yes, but on a 4pt model?
Would you like to play with 1800 pts vs my 2000?
20% is 20%. And you seem to be assuming people play 1 cultist in the army. Sure if you have exactly 1 cultist the 1 pts is no big deal. What about if you have 200?
If GW simply wants to reduce giant squads of cultists it should start with why are people not taking the other troop choices and make them better and then in that context see if cultists still need a tweak. What I meant though is due to a unit not getting a point decrease or increase depending on chapter tactics/ available stratagems.
This makes balancing it really difficult because unit A might be worth it's points with one CT but totally not worth it with three others and way to powerful with another. I can't see GW getting a unit's points right with there being so many variables to even mono army construction.
You would not be able to make CSM cheap enough.
That's the power of force multipliers - cultists get everything x 40 for very few points.
Well they already nerfed Tide Of Traitors, everyone knows that VotLW needs an adjustment, and...yeah that's about it.
Bumping VotLW cost takes it out of range of usefulness for other units. Removing it from cultists makes the far less useful. Restricting cultists to 20 would be a better option, perhaps.
Hardly. Deathwatch have similar Strategems priced at 2CP and they're fair.
You joke, but it could very well be relevant. If chaos termies were 23 then you'd get double tapping plasma monsters for 39 points each.
If cultists got nerfed, because of available stratagems then it's equally likely terminators were given the same consideration.
That's idiotic though
If the reason to "fix" everything chaos is that they might be double tapping monsters MAYBE the issue is in the double tapping stratagem, rather than nerfing every single unit to the point they are useless without it?
Not like they didnt up the CP cost of things already in FAQs, and to be frank whoever thought a fight twice stratagem is worth 3cp yet shoot twice is worth 2cp to begin with should have been fired for incompetence as its so absurdly slowed its not even funny.
You also forgot that those fighting twice Strategems happen at the end of the phase too!
You joke, but it could very well be relevant. If chaos termies were 23 then you'd get double tapping plasma monsters for 39 points each.
If cultists got nerfed, because of available stratagems then it's equally likely terminators were given the same consideration.
That's idiotic though
If the reason to "fix" everything chaos is that they might be double tapping monsters MAYBE the issue is in the double tapping stratagem, rather than nerfing every single unit to the point they are useless without it?
Not like they didnt up the CP cost of things already in FAQs, and to be frank whoever thought a fight twice stratagem is worth 3cp yet shoot twice is worth 2cp to begin with should have been fired for incompetence as its so absurdly slowed its not even funny.
Fight twice also involve a considerable potential amount of movement and the further tie up units forcing them to flee next turn.
I'm not going to make any claims to the right answer, but 3CP shoot twice means it's inaccessible to all but the biggest units.
Let's say we scale with unit size.
1 to 10 = 1CP
11 to 20 = 2CP
21+ = 3CP
Easy, right? Ok, well you just made shoot twice 1 CP for 10 terminators.
Let's try again:
1 to 5 = 1CP
6 to 20 = 2CP
21+ = 3CP
Ok, so MSU terminators get buffed and cultists really pay for the top end. Then again 10 terminators are really benefiting here, which leads us to still increasing their cost.
It's quite obvious CA 2018 was rushed. The point changes don't address a single thing externally, and maybe ever so slightly internally.
All of the armies got cheaper by 10-20%, which means you get to field more models, which means GW sells more figures. That's literally ONLY thing GW acconplished here.
"Cultists get all these buffs that guardsmen don't!"
-They should have been changed to not get so many ridiculous buffs. They're a chaff unit made of rabble.
"Cultists needed to be nerfed to make Chaos Marines stand out!"
-Chaos Marines still suck and should have been made better instead of cultists made worse.
But you know the real reason? GW only has a 5-model cultist box out right now and nothing else. Model-wise, they're almost entirely out of print.
drbored wrote: "Cultists get all these buffs that guardsmen don't!"
-They should have been changed to not get so many ridiculous buffs. They're a chaff unit made of rabble.
"Cultists needed to be nerfed to make Chaos Marines stand out!"
-Chaos Marines still suck and should have been made better instead of cultists made worse.
But you know the real reason? GW only has a 5-model cultist box out right now and nothing else. Model-wise, they're almost entirely out of print.
So they nerfed a unit that they weren't able to sell anyway? The absolute geniuses! Diabolical even.
drbored wrote: "Cultists get all these buffs that guardsmen don't!"
-They should have been changed to not get so many ridiculous buffs. They're a chaff unit made of rabble.
"Cultists needed to be nerfed to make Chaos Marines stand out!"
-Chaos Marines still suck and should have been made better instead of cultists made worse.
But you know the real reason? GW only has a 5-model cultist box out right now and nothing else. Model-wise, they're almost entirely out of print.
So they nerfed a unit that they weren't able to sell anyway? The absolute geniuses! Diabolical even.
Actually this does kind of make sense. Look at the Admech... they sell a special £100 box for Christmas and they all get points drops nobody was expecting at all. Gw stops selling cultists on mass and suddenly they get a nerf. Hmmmm.... suspicious.
A. They nerf Cultists to the point of being much less impressive in the Chaos Marine codex and try to push the "Marine" side of Chaos Marines.
B. They release a 'Renegades and Heretics' Codex that features traitor guard, cultists, and other hordes and massed militia that gives Chaos players something they've been asking for for a long time but that GW no longer sells either on their website or in Forgeworld.
C. They couple this with Emperor's Children and World Eaters releases, fully fleshing out Chaos as a faction in 40k and making them the bad guys they were always meant to be in the 40k universe.
Actually this does kind of make sense. Look at the Admech... they sell a special £100 box for Christmas and they all get points drops nobody was expecting at all. Gw stops selling cultists on mass and suddenly they get a nerf. Hmmmm.... suspicious.
I must have been dreaming about all those cultists at top tables.
In what way does upping the cost of something they don't sell benefit them in any way?
Reivers are in the box - where is their point drop?
None of the points for Inceptors changed from the last CA - they're in the box.
Plague drones are in a box - where is their point drop?
I try to avoid being hysterical, but man this sucks. Nothing changed about the CSM unit so there's still no reason to take them outside of ascetics. At a minimum this is a 10 point tax to any list and you're more likely to see 40 to 120 points added on.
I'm a bit confused about people objecting to cultist spam from a fluff perspective. 3 legions have cultist spam as part of their established background.
Also 160 rapid firing cultists shots with +1 to wound looks scary, but if that scenario plays out you deserve to take those hits. How on earth are you letting 40 cultists get that close to anything of value? At 3CP's that tactic is going to take a good chunk of your CP's. If you're using tide of traitors it's going to take 5, which is somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of your CPs most likely. Obliterators, bezerkers, havoks, and chosen are all better recipients of those CP's
Peregrine wrote: IMO it's a great nerf. Cultists are supposed to be a minor support element for the marines that are the core of the CSM faction, they should be on the weak side to discourage cultist spam armies. Infantry squads are the core of the IG faction, so they should be one of the stronger units in the codex.
Say Peregrine, what army do you play?
Does it matter? He is right
He's not right, because appeals to fluff are meaningless when discussing army mechanics. Points are a representation of game balance, nothing more, ergo trying to use them to influence which units get taken in X capacity is dumb. If GW didn't want people using cultists as the core to a CSM army then they should have made them an elites choice or tweaked their keywords so that they don't synergize as well with other mechanics.
In any case, "why did cultists get nerfed" isn't even a real question- everyone knew they were overperforming. The real question is why they got hit but Guardsmen didn't.
skchsan wrote: It's quite obvious CA 2018 was rushed. The point changes don't address a single thing externally, and maybe ever so slightly internally.
All of the armies got cheaper by 10-20%, which means you get to field more models, which means GW sells more figures. That's literally ONLY thing GW acconplished here.
Actually, the problem isn't that is is rushed, but about 6 months behind the times. There are no changes to codexes for the April to June releases (Drukhari, Deathwatch, Harlequins, and Imperial Knights) except for those that fall in line with other codexes (Deathwatch and Space Wolves get the same changes as Space Marines).
This is why they increased the cost of Cultist, but reduced the cost of AM Veterans. Cultist were very much a problem 6+ months ago, especial before the Spring FAQ. The Loyal 32 on the other hand were not a big deal until the Castellan/Smash Captain combo really took over the meta, which well after these points adjustments seem to have been done.
This is the real problem with once a year update to points with a hardcopy distribution method. There is too much a time lag between the decisions and their being disseminated. I'm sure there would be a whole lot more points adjustments if the go to press date was 3 months ago instead what appears to be 6 or more months ago.
In any case, "why did cultists get nerfed" isn't even a real question- everyone knew they were overperforming. The real question is why they got hit but Guardsmen didn't.
Guardsmen aren't overperforming. They're there to generate CP for really powerful imperial units. If guardsmen got hit with too much of a points increase people would switch to ad mech or something for a cheap battalion and it wouldn't matter.
Cultists are actually strong, with access to large squad sizes, tide of traitors, VOTLW, and a -1 to hit legion trait.
In any case, "why did cultists get nerfed" isn't even a real question- everyone knew they were overperforming. The real question is why they got hit but Guardsmen didn't.
Guardsmen aren't overperforming. They're there to generate CP for really powerful imperial units. If guardsmen got hit with too much of a points increase people would switch to ad mech or something for a cheap battalion and it wouldn't matter.
Cultists are actually strong, with access to large squad sizes, tide of traitors, VOTLW, and a -1 to hit legion trait.
fyi, admech battalions are now cheaper than guard battalions, but I doubt people will switch over. We'll see though.
The main reason I can see it is that Tide of Traitors allows you to get free models. A full 40 man squad could regenerate up to 156 points. Realistically you weren;t going to wait till the last man dies to regen so lets say regen 30, thats still 120points you got effectively for free over your opponent.
The 2CP cost for ToT is effectively market rate now after FAQ2. Prior to it, 1CP to pick up a squad and redeploy was fair. Now its 2CP.
So if you took up to 120 cultists you and you get a good regen, you are still getting fair value out of the the unit.
At this point i'v removed every chaos space marine unit from every list I run, they are just not worth it. I'm full proxying (and no i don't care) them as KB, TS or PM and making up some fluff to support that.
This change to 5pts for cultists is a bit of a reaction to one type of lists at tournaments and it was a while ago. Basically about 200 of them all bubbled around abby with obilts and blight trees.... that list is nerfed because its 200pts over now.
Any army i run is not really nerfed (in a vacuum) but is when compared against other factions pts drops. I'm still gonna take two or so units of 30, so now i'm 60pts over? no i'm not because everything else went down so even with a 60pts increase i'm like 60-120pts better off with some of the stuff i run. Knights barely changed so my 60 odd cultists being delightful agonized up then VOTLW and shooting twice are still viable, my army is cheapter so vs my mates knight list nothing has changed except i get some more spawn now! woo hoo.
They should of made CSM 10pts and made cultists non legion/h-astartes and applied the same rule they already have in place for fabius/cypher so they don't break battle forged. Edit: heck even if they stayed 4, got nerfed with legion stuff and marines went down to 10 i think i'd still take 25 cultists over 10 marines! thats how bad marines are
'Maybe I am missing it but I don't think Chaos gave been dominating the competitive scene, so all the claims that this "needed" to happen seem suspect.'
yea, maybe 6 months to a year ago, go to any tournament atm and its knights and IG soup. If i go to a tourney again next year my chaos knights and cultists are proxying as normal IG and knights.... again could not care less .
ChazSexington wrote: While I agree Cultists should be 5pt, Guardsmen should be 5pt as well. Cultists should also lose access to VotLW, while CSMs/SMs (the units) should be dropped to 11 or 12pt.
Secondly, Heretic Astartes can't be removed as a Keyword, because it's their Faction Keyword and us CSM player would never be able to make a Battleforged Army with Cultists.
I believe Cultists also get <LEGION> which I'm pretty sure can also count as a keyword for Battleforged.
I stand corrected! Double checked the BRB and Codex - thanks
lolman1c wrote: As I learn't with my Orks, a 1pts increase was about 100+ points added to my army. In general I didn't actually lose any points and my army went up a little. XD
1 - Kill 23 Cultists and the last die to Battleshock unless the Chaos player uses 2 CP, barring Abaddon and Iron Warrior Warlords.
2. Absolutely baller Stratagem that Cultists in no way should be able to use as they're not Veterans of the Long War.
3. Cultists can do it once.
4. That's the Alpha Legion only.
5. 3 CPs, something that Chaos doesn't have that much access due to zero CP regen.
6. Sure, but also requires 3 CPs per turn, which CSMs can't sustain.
7. See 1.
1. So still a massively good ability and can be fearless/ come back and cn be made harder to kill with -1 hit
2. Yup amazing strategem that they still have
3. Yup they can do it once guard can do it 0 times
4. Yup its alpha legion only and guard cant be alpha legion soooooo...
5. 3cp for an amazing ability when you need it
6.once again 3cp for an amazing ability
7. see 1
I Mean your list kinda just proves what i said on all of mine
Soup player can easily hold out long enough for the chaos player to run out of CP. You can have a command point ability that says "Play this and win the game" but it's useless if it's 1000cp and you only have 8.
This pretty much answers it - we run out of CP real fast as our entire army is incredibly CP intensive. From Dark Matter Crystal to Cultist bombs to Bloodletter bombs, it all costs CPs, and we're not getting any back.
Tyel wrote: Maybe I am missing it but I don't think Chaos gave been dominating the competitive scene, so all the claims that this "needed" to happen seem suspect.
They haven't; Ynnari, Drew Carey, and Imperial Soup has dominated for the last while. However, CA was written just after the IK release, so CA addresses the pre-Castellan meta.
skchsan wrote: All of the armies got cheaper by 10-20%, which means you get to field more models, which means GW sells more figures. That's literally ONLY thing GW acconplished here.
Except for the fact that unless you count the 2-3 armies that got buffs on core stuff (that were desperately needed, TBH) most of armies got buffs on stuff no one took making them internally more balanced, so the above is absolutely wrong. How does point cut on say Sternguard that saw little play (and are much more viable now) translate to 20% cheaper army? Mind explaining that bit?
Is it possible that there will be a CSMFAQ release alongside the official release of Chapter Approved that subtly adds the line "remove the Heretic Astartes keyword from the Cultist entry" on top of the points increase?
That wouldn't do anything to make CSM a more viable troops choice, but might make people think twice about using Cultists any more than as their minimum unit sizes to fill out the troops tax in the Battalion detachment.
I would sorely like to see a proper R&H codex with *proper* Cultists. In the Word Bearers books I'm basing my army around, the Cultists in the mountains of Tankareg are a gurrella militia force armed with missile launchers and heavy bolters, and they ambush the Imperial scout units. I'd love to see some proper traitor guard that we can soup with to be honest. Yeah sure it would be a cheap Battalion, but totally in theme for my army, and hopefully wouldn't include orders or command point generating relics/warlord traits. Because I really don't like them.
Raichase wrote: Is it possible that there will be a CSMFAQ release alongside the official release of Chapter Approved that subtly adds the line "remove the Heretic Astartes keyword from the Cultist entry" on top of the points increase?
That wouldn't do anything to make CSM a more viable troops choice, but might make people think twice about using Cultists any more than as their minimum unit sizes to fill out the troops tax in the Battalion detachment.
I would sorely like to see a proper R&H codex with *proper* Cultists. In the Word Bearers books I'm basing my army around, the Cultists in the mountains of Tankareg are a gurrella militia force armed with missile launchers and heavy bolters, and they ambush the Imperial scout units. I'd love to see some proper traitor guard that we can soup with to be honest. Yeah sure it would be a cheap Battalion, but totally in theme for my army, and hopefully wouldn't include orders or command point generating relics/warlord traits. Because I really don't like them.
We can? There's the Index R&H from FW, though it's awful.
Raichase wrote: Is it possible that there will be a CSMFAQ release alongside the official release of Chapter Approved that subtly adds the line "remove the Heretic Astartes keyword from the Cultist entry" on top of the points increase?
That wouldn't do anything to make CSM a more viable troops choice, but might make people think twice about using Cultists any more than as their minimum unit sizes to fill out the troops tax in the Battalion detachment.
I would sorely like to see a proper R&H codex with *proper* Cultists. In the Word Bearers books I'm basing my army around, the Cultists in the mountains of Tankareg are a gurrella militia force armed with missile launchers and heavy bolters, and they ambush the Imperial scout units. I'd love to see some proper traitor guard that we can soup with to be honest. Yeah sure it would be a cheap Battalion, but totally in theme for my army, and hopefully wouldn't include orders or command point generating relics/warlord traits. Because I really don't like them.
We can? There's the Index R&H from FW, though it's awful.
Cultists are the only good troop choice, or at least were. They got the point increase even though they dont get any of the strats/traits of the CSM ones so er... all of our troops are trash now?
Raichase wrote: Is it possible that there will be a CSMFAQ release alongside the official release of Chapter Approved that subtly adds the line "remove the Heretic Astartes keyword from the Cultist entry" on top of the points increase?
That wouldn't do anything to make CSM a more viable troops choice, but might make people think twice about using Cultists any more than as their minimum unit sizes to fill out the troops tax in the Battalion detachment.
I would sorely like to see a proper R&H codex with *proper* Cultists. In the Word Bearers books I'm basing my army around, the Cultists in the mountains of Tankareg are a gurrella militia force armed with missile launchers and heavy bolters, and they ambush the Imperial scout units. I'd love to see some proper traitor guard that we can soup with to be honest. Yeah sure it would be a cheap Battalion, but totally in theme for my army, and hopefully wouldn't include orders or command point generating relics/warlord traits. Because I really don't like them.
No, because that would entail GW actually understanding the problem. They don't (and ITC missions exacerbates it) so they can't fix what they don't "get". All they see is people are taking an inordinate amount of Cultists across lists. They don't get why that is the case (otherwise we would have seen CSM drops/improvements). It's part of the age-old issue. GW designers just don't understand the game as it's played outside of their bubble, so how can you expect them to properly balance and correct things when they never see the problem?
Even if we all wrote in explaining the real issue and suggest they remove Heretic Astartes from Cultists, they likely wouldn't do it. And I highly doubt Reece and crew are telling them what the actual issues are (if they are even allowed to; from what I understood GW's playtesting during 8th consisted of them saying "Here try out this premade list and see how it feels" without letting the issues with listbuilding rear their ugly heads. It could be that GW isn't actually using playtesters for feedback on what to change, just test what they've already decided)
Raichase wrote: Is it possible that there will be a CSMFAQ release alongside the official release of Chapter Approved that subtly adds the line "remove the Heretic Astartes keyword from the Cultist entry" on top of the points increase?
That wouldn't do anything to make CSM a more viable troops choice, but might make people think twice about using Cultists any more than as their minimum unit sizes to fill out the troops tax in the Battalion detachment.
I would sorely like to see a proper R&H codex with *proper* Cultists. In the Word Bearers books I'm basing my army around, the Cultists in the mountains of Tankareg are a gurrella militia force armed with missile launchers and heavy bolters, and they ambush the Imperial scout units. I'd love to see some proper traitor guard that we can soup with to be honest. Yeah sure it would be a cheap Battalion, but totally in theme for my army, and hopefully wouldn't include orders or command point generating relics/warlord traits. Because I really don't like them.
We can? There's the Index R&H from FW, though it's awful.
Cultists are the only good troop choice, or at least were. They got the point increase even though they dont get any of the strats/traits of the CSM ones so er... all of our troops are trash now?
I'd still take cultists over any of the loyalist Marine troops.
skchsan wrote: All of the armies got cheaper by 10-20%, which means you get to field more models, which means GW sells more figures. That's literally ONLY thing GW acconplished here.
Except for the fact that unless you count the 2-3 armies that got buffs on core stuff (that were desperately needed, TBH) most of armies got buffs on stuff no one took making them internally more balanced, so the above is absolutely wrong. How does point cut on say Sternguard that saw little play (and are much more viable now) translate to 20% cheaper army? Mind explaining that bit?
So what do you plan on doing with leftover 200-400 points (from 2k standpoint) if not add more units?
Smirrors wrote: The main reason I can see it is that Tide of Traitors allows you to get free models. A full 40 man squad could regenerate up to 156 points. Realistically you weren;t going to wait till the last man dies to regen so lets say regen 30, thats still 120points you got effectively for free over your opponent.
The 2CP cost for ToT is effectively market rate now after FAQ2. Prior to it, 1CP to pick up a squad and redeploy was fair. Now its 2CP.
So if you took up to 120 cultists you and you get a good regen, you are still getting fair value out of the the unit.
fyi, admech battalions are now cheaper than guard battalions, but I doubt people will switch over. We'll see though.
They are cheaper but they also dont provide the body count and utility.
Renegades and Heretics provide the even worse Disloyal 32 at 170points for 5cp but doesnt seem a popular pick.
...then raise the CP cost for Tide Of Traitors. They already limited it to once per game, you might as well do that too. Cultists themselves aren't 5 point models.
Units shouldn't be balanced around Strategems. Strategems need to be balanced around units.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Units shouldn't be balanced around Strategems. Strategems need to be balanced around units.
Amen to this. Stratagems are already causing a ton of problems just like formations did in the last two editions. Great idea, terrible execution because it gets used as a dumping ground for "Oh this would be cool" without legit thought.
Raichase wrote: Is it possible that there will be a CSMFAQ release alongside the official release of Chapter Approved that subtly adds the line "remove the Heretic Astartes keyword from the Cultist entry" on top of the points increase?
That wouldn't do anything to make CSM a more viable troops choice, but might make people think twice about using Cultists any more than as their minimum unit sizes to fill out the troops tax in the Battalion detachment.
I would sorely like to see a proper R&H codex with *proper* Cultists. In the Word Bearers books I'm basing my army around, the Cultists in the mountains of Tankareg are a gurrella militia force armed with missile launchers and heavy bolters, and they ambush the Imperial scout units. I'd love to see some proper traitor guard that we can soup with to be honest. Yeah sure it would be a cheap Battalion, but totally in theme for my army, and hopefully wouldn't include orders or command point generating relics/warlord traits. Because I really don't like them.
No, because that would entail GW actually understanding the problem. They don't (and ITC missions exacerbates it) so they can't fix what they don't "get". All they see is people are taking an inordinate amount of Cultists across lists. They don't get why that is the case (otherwise we would have seen CSM drops/improvements). It's part of the age-old issue. GW designers just don't understand the game as it's played outside of their bubble, so how can you expect them to properly balance and correct things when they never see the problem?
Even if we all wrote in explaining the real issue and suggest they remove Heretic Astartes from Cultists, they likely wouldn't do it. And I highly doubt Reece and crew are telling them what the actual issues are (if they are even allowed to; from what I understood GW's playtesting during 8th consisted of them saying "Here try out this premade list and see how it feels" without letting the issues with listbuilding rear their ugly heads. It could be that GW isn't actually using playtesters for feedback on what to change, just test what they've already decided)
It's funny and a little ironic that you say they don't understand the game, but removing Heretic Astartes would make it one of the most useless units in the game.
Or did you forget that Abaddon's morale bubble is triggered on Heretic Astartes?
Raichase wrote: Is it possible that there will be a CSMFAQ release alongside the official release of Chapter Approved that subtly adds the line "remove the Heretic Astartes keyword from the Cultist entry" on top of the points increase?
That wouldn't do anything to make CSM a more viable troops choice, but might make people think twice about using Cultists any more than as their minimum unit sizes to fill out the troops tax in the Battalion detachment.
I would sorely like to see a proper R&H codex with *proper* Cultists. In the Word Bearers books I'm basing my army around, the Cultists in the mountains of Tankareg are a gurrella militia force armed with missile launchers and heavy bolters, and they ambush the Imperial scout units. I'd love to see some proper traitor guard that we can soup with to be honest. Yeah sure it would be a cheap Battalion, but totally in theme for my army, and hopefully wouldn't include orders or command point generating relics/warlord traits. Because I really don't like them.
We can? There's the Index R&H from FW, though it's awful.
Cultists are the only good troop choice, or at least were. They got the point increase even though they dont get any of the strats/traits of the CSM ones so er... all of our troops are trash now?
Just to be clear, I play CSMs and R&H
1pt increase on CSM Cultists doesn't make them trash - it genuinely brings them into balance, imho. They should still lose access to VotLW.
CSMs/SMs are a dumpster fire though. They need to drop 1-2 points. The IG Infantryman should also go up a point to bring them to par with Cultists, but CA was written just pre-Castellan meta, so Guardsmen weren't dominating when it was finished, thus didn't warrant an increase.
The whole R&H index needs to be redone - it's hot garbage. At the Vigilus Open Day, GW stated they weren't working on a R&H codex, but maybe FW are. I would recommend just using the IG codex for now, as best one can. As I mentioned, GW's Gwilya - the perceived tax on non-Imperium stuff - is practically a thing.
BTW, I don't disagree that Cultists are utter garbage for R&H! They are, but that entire index's theme is trash.
Raichase wrote: Is it possible that there will be a CSMFAQ release alongside the official release of Chapter Approved that subtly adds the line "remove the Heretic Astartes keyword from the Cultist entry" on top of the points increase?
That wouldn't do anything to make CSM a more viable troops choice, but might make people think twice about using Cultists any more than as their minimum unit sizes to fill out the troops tax in the Battalion detachment.
I would sorely like to see a proper R&H codex with *proper* Cultists. In the Word Bearers books I'm basing my army around, the Cultists in the mountains of Tankareg are a gurrella militia force armed with missile launchers and heavy bolters, and they ambush the Imperial scout units. I'd love to see some proper traitor guard that we can soup with to be honest. Yeah sure it would be a cheap Battalion, but totally in theme for my army, and hopefully wouldn't include orders or command point generating relics/warlord traits. Because I really don't like them.
We can? There's the Index R&H from FW, though it's awful.
Cultists are the only good troop choice, or at least were. They got the point increase even though they dont get any of the strats/traits of the CSM ones so er... all of our troops are trash now?
Just to be clear, I play CSMs and R&H
1pt increase on CSM Cultists doesn't make them trash - it genuinely brings them into balance, imho. They should still lose access to VotLW.
CSMs/SMs are a dumpster fire though. They need to drop 1-2 points. The IG Infantryman should also go up a point to bring them to par with Cultists, but CA was written just pre-Castellan meta, so Guardsmen weren't dominating when it was finished, thus didn't warrant an increase.
The whole R&H index needs to be redone - it's hot garbage. At the Vigilus Open Day, GW stated they weren't working on a R&H codex, but maybe FW are. I would recommend just using the IG codex for now, as best one can. As I mentioned, GW's Gwilya - the perceived tax on non-Imperium stuff - is practically a thing.
BTW, I don't disagree that Cultists are utter garbage for R&H! They are, but that entire index's theme is trash.
Oh yeah, I just put my R&H army off to the side right now. With CA, R&H are on the shelf for now, Tau suit only army is what I'm doing now. I hope FW is working on it, the entire thing does need to be redone I agree.
I am going to start with that, despite what I am going to say below, I think it is awesome that GW is at least trying to fix issues and balance problems an a regular basis. They are not doing the best job (Why did normal marines not get a drop?), but at least they are trying. Anyone who remembers having to wait years and years for fixes or a new codex so that maybe a unit would be balanced has to appreciate the current state of the game. That said, raising cultists to 5 points while not raising guard is ridiculous.
First, objectively, the Guardsmen is a better than a Cultist. One better save, one better leadership. Cultists have nothing innate that makes up for this disparity. So then we go to equipment, and Guardsmen have access to better heavy weapons and special weapons. So, just on the basis of the unit, the Guardsmen has better stats, and better access to equipment making them overall better.
Now people are saying that it is Cultists access to CSM stratagems/legion traits that justify the increase despite the above. However, Guardsmen have orders, which can improve them without spending command points and you can use the same order repeatedly. Are the orders as good as the CSM stratagems? Problem not, but are they close enough that in light of the objective inferiority of Cultists that it warrants the 1 additional point cost? Probably not. Furthermore, pricing a unit on what is can potentially do with stratagems etc. is a slippery slope, and does not seem to be the model for GW as the stratagems and traits seem to be "free". An example of why it is a problem to use points to balance when the stratagems are the issue is highlighted by the Thousand Sons Cultists. As a Thousand Sons player, my Cultists have access to VotLW and that is it. No slaneesh extra shooting, no coming back, no alpha legion trait, no fearless, etc. So, why are Thousand Sons Cultists the same price as CSM if the price is based on the stratagems? Solely for VotLW? That is ridiculous, especially in a Thousand Sons army, there are better units to use VotLW on. So, I would like to hear why Thousand Sons Cultists should be 5 points while a Guardsmen is 4.
Also, Guardsmen are also being abused to the same, if not greater, level as Cultists. GW did nothing to fix the CP battery. Every imperial army takes at least one, and the effect of all those extra CPs can be seen on how powerful Knights are from that extra screening and CP use. Why are Guardsmen not increased in points because they can be allied to other imperial detachments to provide cheap CP? There is just as much logic in that as making Cultists 5 points because of VotLW.
The real answer to the Cultist problem would have been leaving them 4 points, and removing access to VotLW and legion traits. There is precedent for this. Gretchens don't benefit from Ork Kultures, but can be included in the attachment. And VotLW already discriminates against units as Renegades are not allowed to use it. This would have fixed the issues with Cultists, and not created this crazy situation where an objectively better unit is less points.
Sir Heckington wrote: I hope FW is working on it, the entire thing does need to be redone I agree.
I wouldn't really count on FW to fix R&H. 8th Edition has been a real low point for them, for understandable reasons, and they just don't seem to be producing the quality or quantity of material that they used to. Knowing how long models are in the production pipe, we are still seeing things coming out that were started years ago. Rule wise, what we have had has been spotty or simply bad. I hope that they can turn it around in future because I love some of the things they have done. Vraks is my favourite campaign and my alpha pattern vanquisher and vulture are great models. My copy of Imperial Armour 1 2nd Edition is pretty much a high quality coffee table book. I eagerly await the next Imperial Armour, and hope the time being taken is really going to give a quality product.
Sir Heckington wrote: I hope FW is working on it, the entire thing does need to be redone I agree.
I wouldn't really count on FW to fix R&H. 8th Edition has been a real low point for them, for understandable reasons, and they just don't seem to be producing the quality or quantity of material that they used to. Knowing how long models are in the production pipe, we are still seeing things coming out that were started years ago. Rule wise, what we have had has been spotty or simply bad. I hope that they can turn it around in future because I love some of the things they have done. Vraks is my favourite campaign and my alpha pattern vanquisher and vulture are great models. My copy of Imperial Armour 1 2nd Edition is pretty much a high quality coffee table book. I eagerly await the next Imperial Armour, and hope the time being taken is really going to give a quality product.
Yeah, I don't really count on them being fixed soon, though I can't say I blame them. It's just kinda annoying, such cool models and fun lore and I can't use them unless I basically want to auto lose. I'd use them as guard but half of them are armed with melee weapons.
Sir Heckington wrote: Yeah, I don't really count on them being fixed soon, though I can't say I blame them. It's just kinda annoying, such cool models and fun lore and I can't use them unless I basically want to auto lose. I'd use them as guard but half of them are armed with melee weapons.
Genestealer Cults could perfectly represent a chaos uprising, with beastmen and mutants instead of the various genestealer things. You could even stretch the idea to have daemons as counts-as tyranids, or Guard as more organised heretics. You would miss out on astartes-themed stuff though.
Yeah, the biggest issue is my R&H have always been supported by a small group of IWs, the FW tyrant siege Terminators, though maybe I could find a use for them. I'll have to look at it.
Smirrors wrote: The main reason I can see it is that Tide of Traitors allows you to get free models. A full 40 man squad could regenerate up to 156 points. Realistically you weren;t going to wait till the last man dies to regen so lets say regen 30, thats still 120points you got effectively for free over your opponent.
The 2CP cost for ToT is effectively market rate now after FAQ2. Prior to it, 1CP to pick up a squad and redeploy was fair. Now its 2CP.
So if you took up to 120 cultists you and you get a good regen, you are still getting fair value out of the the unit.
fyi, admech battalions are now cheaper than guard battalions, but I doubt people will switch over. We'll see though.
They are cheaper but they also dont provide the body count and utility.
Renegades and Heretics provide the even worse Disloyal 32 at 170points for 5cp but doesnt seem a popular pick.
...then raise the CP cost for Tide Of Traitors. They already limited it to once per game, you might as well do that too. Cultists themselves aren't 5 point models.
Units shouldn't be balanced around Strategems. Strategems need to be balanced around units.
What part of free models that you dont pay for in points dont you understand from my point. The Stratagem cost is irrelevant. If you had to set aside points to use ToT depending on how many you want to bring on, would you still use it? No.
All GW has done is make you pay upfront for free models you get regardless if you use ToT.
Smirrors wrote: The main reason I can see it is that Tide of Traitors allows you to get free models. A full 40 man squad could regenerate up to 156 points. Realistically you weren;t going to wait till the last man dies to regen so lets say regen 30, thats still 120points you got effectively for free over your opponent.
The 2CP cost for ToT is effectively market rate now after FAQ2. Prior to it, 1CP to pick up a squad and redeploy was fair. Now its 2CP.
So if you took up to 120 cultists you and you get a good regen, you are still getting fair value out of the the unit.
fyi, admech battalions are now cheaper than guard battalions, but I doubt people will switch over. We'll see though.
They are cheaper but they also dont provide the body count and utility.
Renegades and Heretics provide the even worse Disloyal 32 at 170points for 5cp but doesnt seem a popular pick.
...then raise the CP cost for Tide Of Traitors. They already limited it to once per game, you might as well do that too. Cultists themselves aren't 5 point models.
Units shouldn't be balanced around Strategems. Strategems need to be balanced around units.
What part of free models that you dont pay for in points dont you understand from my point. The Stratagem cost is irrelevant. If you had to set aside points to use ToT depending on how many you want to bring on, would you still use it? No.
All GW has done is make you pay upfront for free models you get regardless if you use ToT.
The issue with that logic is that 40k is a game with 2 players the opponent does get a say in whats happening meaning charging people points up front for actions they may or may not take or that their opponent can potentially prevent them from taking leads to the mess that is/was the necron codex, where you over pay for stuff your opponent can remove from you very easily.
If the strategum is the problem recost the strategums not the unit.
xeen wrote: I am going to start with that, despite what I am going to say below, I think it is awesome that GW is at least trying to fix issues and balance problems an a regular basis. They are not doing the best job (Why did normal marines not get a drop?), but at least they are trying. Anyone who remembers having to wait years and years for fixes or a new codex so that maybe a unit would be balanced has to appreciate the current state of the game. That said, raising cultists to 5 points while not raising guard is ridiculous.
First, objectively, the Guardsmen is a better than a Cultist. One better save, one better leadership. Cultists have nothing innate that makes up for this disparity. So then we go to equipment, and Guardsmen have access to better heavy weapons and special weapons. So, just on the basis of the unit, the Guardsmen has better stats, and better access to equipment making them overall better.
Now people are saying that it is Cultists access to CSM stratagems/legion traits that justify the increase despite the above. However, Guardsmen have orders, which can improve them without spending command points and you can use the same order repeatedly. Are the orders as good as the CSM stratagems? Problem not, but are they close enough that in light of the objective inferiority of Cultists that it warrants the 1 additional point cost? Probably not. Furthermore, pricing a unit on what is can potentially do with stratagems etc. is a slippery slope, and does not seem to be the model for GW as the stratagems and traits seem to be "free". An example of why it is a problem to use points to balance when the stratagems are the issue is highlighted by the Thousand Sons Cultists. As a Thousand Sons player, my Cultists have access to VotLW and that is it. No slaneesh extra shooting, no coming back, no alpha legion trait, no fearless, etc. So, why are Thousand Sons Cultists the same price as CSM if the price is based on the stratagems? Solely for VotLW? That is ridiculous, especially in a Thousand Sons army, there are better units to use VotLW on. So, I would like to hear why Thousand Sons Cultists should be 5 points while a Guardsmen is 4.
Also, Guardsmen are also being abused to the same, if not greater, level as Cultists. GW did nothing to fix the CP battery. Every imperial army takes at least one, and the effect of all those extra CPs can be seen on how powerful Knights are from that extra screening and CP use. Why are Guardsmen not increased in points because they can be allied to other imperial detachments to provide cheap CP? There is just as much logic in that as making Cultists 5 points because of VotLW.
The real answer to the Cultist problem would have been leaving them 4 points, and removing access to VotLW and legion traits. There is precedent for this. Gretchens don't benefit from Ork Kultures, but can be included in the attachment. And VotLW already discriminates against units as Renegades are not allowed to use it. This would have fixed the issues with Cultists, and not created this crazy situation where an objectively better unit is less points.
That is just my two cents.
While I 100% agree, I'll just point out that CA was written pre-Castellan meta, so the Loyal 32 weren't anywhere near the powerhouse of the cell soup they are now. I'm guessing that's why they didn't nerf them.
Smirrors wrote: The main reason I can see it is that Tide of Traitors allows you to get free models. A full 40 man squad could regenerate up to 156 points. Realistically you weren;t going to wait till the last man dies to regen so lets say regen 30, thats still 120points you got effectively for free over your opponent.
The 2CP cost for ToT is effectively market rate now after FAQ2. Prior to it, 1CP to pick up a squad and redeploy was fair. Now its 2CP.
So if you took up to 120 cultists you and you get a good regen, you are still getting fair value out of the the unit.
fyi, admech battalions are now cheaper than guard battalions, but I doubt people will switch over. We'll see though.
They are cheaper but they also dont provide the body count and utility.
Renegades and Heretics provide the even worse Disloyal 32 at 170points for 5cp but doesnt seem a popular pick.
...then raise the CP cost for Tide Of Traitors. They already limited it to once per game, you might as well do that too. Cultists themselves aren't 5 point models.
Units shouldn't be balanced around Strategems. Strategems need to be balanced around units.
What part of free models that you dont pay for in points dont you understand from my point. The Stratagem cost is irrelevant. If you had to set aside points to use ToT depending on how many you want to bring on, would you still use it? No.
All GW has done is make you pay upfront for free models you get regardless if you use ToT.
The Strategem cost IS relevant. If GW made it 6CP overnight, would you still use it?
Isn't the price point of cultists purely an internal balance issue? It doesn't really matter how they compare to Guardsmen, as you never have a choice between the two. What you have to compare them to is other choices in your own faction, and whether they are still worth it over them. External balance is done on a force level, where you compare what armies you can build against each other. For example, it doesn't really matter if a force has cheap troops and expensive tanks, or cheap tanks and expensive troops, when comparing that army to others. What matters is the the complete lists you can build with it, such as taking loads of troops or tanks because they are cheap.
Please note, I'm speaking more generally about internal vs external balance and am aware that there are probably many examples of bad external balance for Chaos. I just mean that comparing Guardsmen to Cultists in a vacuum isn't really how external balance works.
Trickstick wrote: Isn't the price point of cultists purely an internal balance issue? It doesn't really matter how they compare to Guardsmen, as you never have a choice between the two. What you have to compare them to is other choices in your own faction, and whether they are still worth it over them. External balance is done on a force level, where you compare what armies you can build against each other. For example, it doesn't really matter if a force has cheap troops and expensive tanks, or cheap tanks and expensive troops, when comparing that army to others. What matters is the the complete lists you can build with it, such as taking loads of troops or tanks because they are cheap.
Please note, I'm speaking more generally about internal vs external balance and am aware that there are probably many examples of bad external balance for Chaos. I just mean that comparing Guardsmen to Cultists in a vacuum isn't really how external balance works.
If you wanted to talk INTERNAL, Cultists are still a better choice than Chaos Marines because Chaos Marines have no offensive power, and Cultists are about even with Cult Marines as a Troop choice.
Quite honestly the Chaos Marine profile needs to be deleted and Chosen should be their regular Troop choice.
Trickstick wrote: Isn't the price point of cultists purely an internal balance issue? It doesn't really matter how they compare to Guardsmen, as you never have a choice between the two. What you have to compare them to is other choices in your own faction, and whether they are still worth it over them. External balance is done on a force level, where you compare what armies you can build against each other. For example, it doesn't really matter if a force has cheap troops and expensive tanks, or cheap tanks and expensive troops, when comparing that army to others. What matters is the the complete lists you can build with it, such as taking loads of troops or tanks because they are cheap.
Please note, I'm speaking more generally about internal vs external balance and am aware that there are probably many examples of bad external balance for Chaos. I just mean that comparing Guardsmen to Cultists in a vacuum isn't really how external balance works.
If you wanted to talk INTERNAL, Cultists are still a better choice than Chaos Marines because Chaos Marines have no offensive power, and Cultists are about even with Cult Marines as a Troop choice.
Quite honestly the Chaos Marine profile needs to be deleted and Chosen should be their regular Troop choice.
Chosen need to be troops like the old "Chaos Space Marine Veterans" in 3.5 were for legions.
Honestly I would love to see cultists become similar to how the Tyrant's Legion list used to work. The masses of cheap men gave cover to their Marine betters, but took casualties in return. Would give a reason to take both, if points appropriate.
Trickstick wrote: Honestly I would love to see cultists become similar to how the Tyrant's Legion list used to work. The masses of cheap men gave cover to their Marine betters, but took casualties in return. Would give a reason to take both, if points appropriate.
That was one of my proposed rules! Cultists blocked Chaos Marine Infantry (probably not Bikers) from being shot like they were Characters.
Trickstick wrote: Isn't the price point of cultists purely an internal balance issue? It doesn't really matter how they compare to Guardsmen, as you never have a choice between the two. What you have to compare them to is other choices in your own faction, and whether they are still worth it over them. External balance is done on a force level, where you compare what armies you can build against each other. For example, it doesn't really matter if a force has cheap troops and expensive tanks, or cheap tanks and expensive troops, when comparing that army to others. What matters is the the complete lists you can build with it, such as taking loads of troops or tanks because they are cheap.
Please note, I'm speaking more generally about internal vs external balance and am aware that there are probably many examples of bad external balance for Chaos. I just mean that comparing Guardsmen to Cultists in a vacuum isn't really how external balance works.
If you wanted to talk INTERNAL, Cultists are still a better choice than Chaos Marines because Chaos Marines have no offensive power, and Cultists are about even with Cult Marines as a Troop choice.
Quite honestly the Chaos Marine profile needs to be deleted and Chosen should be their regular Troop choice.
Chosen need to be troops like the old "Chaos Space Marine Veterans" in 3.5 were for legions.
Exactly. The fact that nothing has Vet stats at minimum is frankly an insult.
Eldarain wrote: Access to easy Fearless, full rerolls to hit, +1 to wound, fire twice make them rather formidable.
Though Guardsmen should have taken a hit too.
Guardsmen have ways to get fearless too through soup.
Not to mention they provide a cheap, flexible battery for CP to other armies (Knights, Custodes), while having their good cheap options as well (Mortars, various artillery)
That said, I feel like the cultist nerf wasn't warrented; they already killed the tactic that made them work with Alpha legion, plus the nerf to tide of traitors. They weren't really that much of a thing recently...
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Exactly. The fact that nothing has Vet stats at minimum is frankly an insult.
Chaos used to get the consolation prize for not having ATSKNF of +1 LD, to represent their hardened, cynical nature and the thousands of years spent battling in the warp.
Apparently that was just a bad trip though that never really happened.
Eldarain wrote: Access to easy Fearless, full rerolls to hit, +1 to wound, fire twice make them rather formidable.
Though Guardsmen should have taken a hit too.
Guardsmen have ways to get fearless too through soup.
Not to mention they provide a cheap, flexible battery for CP to other armies (Knights, Custodes), while having their good cheap options as well (Mortars, various artillery)
That said, I feel like the cultist nerf wasn't warrented; they already killed the tactic that made them work with Alpha legion, plus the nerf to tide of traitors. They weren't really that much of a thing recently...
They also have a relic that gives Fearless too, don't they? It's supposed to be a Pistol or something?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: They also have a relic that gives Fearless too, don't they? It's supposed to be a Pistol or something?
Yes, Pietrov's MK 45, you can never lose more than 1 model from morale. Unfortunately, it is limited to Valhallan, which are one of the less taken regiments. You can also do a thing by giving a Commissar the draconian disciplinarian warlord trait. According to the FAQ, the Commissars's ability interacts with that trait in such a way that you kill one model for a reroll, but if that is also failed you simply lose d3 models instead of whatever. 1+d3 is not the best, but can be a lot less than some morale losses.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: They also have a relic that gives Fearless too, don't they? It's supposed to be a Pistol or something?
Yes, Pietrov's MK 45, you can never lose more than 1 model from morale. Unfortunately, it is limited to Valhallan, which are one of the less taken regiments. You can also do a thing by giving a Commissar the draconian disciplinarian warlord trait. According to the FAQ, the Commissars's ability interacts with that trait in such a way that you kill one model for a reroll, but if that is also failed you simply lose d3 models instead of whatever. 1+d3 is not the best, but can be a lot less than some morale losses.
Well people are saying Cultists can be Fearless, but that's limited just like this pistol.
It's broken until you're allowed to have it apparently, according to Guard players anyway.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's broken until you're allowed to have it apparently, according to Guard players anyway.
A few Guard players maybe. Sweeping generalisations just create a weird "us vs them" situation. Personally I like hordes of crazed cultists, gives me something to use The Emperor's holy lasguns on.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's broken until you're allowed to have it apparently, according to Guard players anyway.
A few Guard players maybe. Sweeping generalisations just create a weird "us vs them" situation. Personally I like hordes of crazed cultists, gives me something to use The Emperor's holy lasguns on.
If you've read this thread you'd see why I made that statement.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's broken until you're allowed to have it apparently, according to Guard players anyway.
A few Guard players maybe. Sweeping generalisations just create a weird "us vs them" situation. Personally I like hordes of crazed cultists, gives me something to use The Emperor's holy lasguns on.
Thats the issue overall; Cultists have been toned down tremendously, so the points bump seems like the nail in the coffin. Guardsdudes have proven to be too cheap for what they do, yet they are left untouched... the balls
Zid wrote: Thats the issue overall; Cultists have been toned down tremendously, so the points bump seems like the nail in the coffin. Guardsdudes have proven to be too cheap for what they do, yet they are left untouched... the balls
Same thing happened to conscripts. A triple hit: points, order nerf, commissar nerf. Any two of those would have been good, all three mean you never see them. Personally, I think they should go back to three points because they are useless now. However, I doubt complaining about conscripts is going to get me much love in this thread...
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's broken until you're allowed to have it apparently, according to Guard players anyway.
A few Guard players maybe. Sweeping generalisations just create a weird "us vs them" situation. Personally I like hordes of crazed cultists, gives me something to use The Emperor's holy lasguns on.
Thats the issue overall; Cultists have been toned down tremendously, so the points bump seems like the nail in the coffin. Guardsdudes have proven to be too cheap for what they do, yet they are left untouched... the balls
Probably because depending on who you ask Guardsmen do wildly different things.
Ask Guard players and they'll tell you that it's the mainstay infantry since Conscripts are trash, thematically and ruleswise, now and Scions are highly specialized Troops choices that basically get used solely as suicide troops.
Ask any soup player and "they're handy to have".
Trickstick wrote: Isn't the price point of cultists purely an internal balance issue? It doesn't really matter how they compare to Guardsmen, as you never have a choice between the two. What you have to compare them to is other choices in your own faction, and whether they are still worth it over them. External balance is done on a force level, where you compare what armies you can build against each other. For example, it doesn't really matter if a force has cheap troops and expensive tanks, or cheap tanks and expensive troops, when comparing that army to others. What matters is the the complete lists you can build with it, such as taking loads of troops or tanks because they are cheap.
Please note, I'm speaking more generally about internal vs external balance and am aware that there are probably many examples of bad external balance for Chaos. I just mean that comparing Guardsmen to Cultists in a vacuum isn't really how external balance works.
Points are supposed to be a universal measurement of how a unit performs on the tabletop. Making one faction pay a premium on a certain unit just because they have overpowered units in other areas is really bad game design. The fact that guardsmen are roughly equal to cultists and yet you have to pay 25% more for cultists is absolutely unacceptable IMO. If cultists are taken too often as opposed to CSM, then buff CSM, they aren't exactly overpowered. If cultists are too strong when buffed, nerf the auras or remove certain keywords from cultists etc. There are plenty of other levers you can pull for balance besides just raising points.
The point that I'm trying to make is that internal balance is useless without external balance (and vice versa).
Smirrors wrote: The main reason I can see it is that Tide of Traitors allows you to get free models. A full 40 man squad could regenerate up to 156 points. Realistically you weren;t going to wait till the last man dies to regen so lets say regen 30, thats still 120points you got effectively for free over your opponent.
The 2CP cost for ToT is effectively market rate now after FAQ2. Prior to it, 1CP to pick up a squad and redeploy was fair. Now its 2CP.
So if you took up to 120 cultists you and you get a good regen, you are still getting fair value out of the the unit.
fyi, admech battalions are now cheaper than guard battalions, but I doubt people will switch over. We'll see though.
They are cheaper but they also dont provide the body count and utility.
Renegades and Heretics provide the even worse Disloyal 32 at 170points for 5cp but doesnt seem a popular pick.
...then raise the CP cost for Tide Of Traitors. They already limited it to once per game, you might as well do that too. Cultists themselves aren't 5 point models.
Units shouldn't be balanced around Strategems. Strategems need to be balanced around units.
What part of free models that you dont pay for in points dont you understand from my point. The Stratagem cost is irrelevant. If you had to set aside points to use ToT depending on how many you want to bring on, would you still use it? No.
All GW has done is make you pay upfront for free models you get regardless if you use ToT.
The issue with that logic is that 40k is a game with 2 players the opponent does get a say in whats happening meaning charging people points up front for actions they may or may not take or that their opponent can potentially prevent them from taking leads to the mess that is/was the necron codex, where you over pay for stuff your opponent can remove from you very easily.
If the strategum is the problem recost the strategums not the unit.
Well then concoct your own reason why cultists now cost 5 pts.
Whatever you come up with will work out just the same. I.E. you'll still pay that 5ppm & still wonder why exactly GW raised it.
If you could make multiple fearless units of 40 Guardsmen with better stats then conscripts I would agree that Guard should also cost 5 points per model.
Cultists do have very specific advantages that are pretty clear.
Ishagu wrote: If you could make multiple fearless units of 40 Guardsmen with better stats then conscripts I would agree that Guard should also cost 5 points per model.
Cultists do have very specific advantages that are pretty clear.
Some people would rather see those advantages removed and cultists stay at 4ppm. Multiple fearless units of 40 cultists sounds outside the purview of how that unit is supposed to function.
Smirrors wrote: The main reason I can see it is that Tide of Traitors allows you to get free models. A full 40 man squad could regenerate up to 156 points. Realistically you weren;t going to wait till the last man dies to regen so lets say regen 30, thats still 120points you got effectively for free over your opponent.
The 2CP cost for ToT is effectively market rate now after FAQ2. Prior to it, 1CP to pick up a squad and redeploy was fair. Now its 2CP.
So if you took up to 120 cultists you and you get a good regen, you are still getting fair value out of the the unit.
fyi, admech battalions are now cheaper than guard battalions, but I doubt people will switch over. We'll see though.
They are cheaper but they also dont provide the body count and utility.
Renegades and Heretics provide the even worse Disloyal 32 at 170points for 5cp but doesnt seem a popular pick.
...then raise the CP cost for Tide Of Traitors. They already limited it to once per game, you might as well do that too. Cultists themselves aren't 5 point models.
Units shouldn't be balanced around Strategems. Strategems need to be balanced around units.
What part of free models that you dont pay for in points dont you understand from my point. The Stratagem cost is irrelevant. If you had to set aside points to use ToT depending on how many you want to bring on, would you still use it? No.
All GW has done is make you pay upfront for free models you get regardless if you use ToT.
The Strategem cost IS relevant. If GW made it 6CP overnight, would you still use it?
Interestingly if cultists were 4pts, the value of the ToT strategem would be actually 6CP.
2CP for the ability to pick up and redeploy, standard post FAQ2 rates and:
4CP to account for the max you can regen you can get (39 cultists x 4pts = 156pts) with the value of CP being efficiently obtained at 36pts per CP (180 point IG battalion /5). 156/36 = 4.33.
So if it was 6CP and you can regen 36 from a squad of 40 you are getting "fair" value.
Not many things in the game generate free points like ToT does. It is all costed into the value of the base unit like Necrons and apothecary etc.
Smirrors wrote: The main reason I can see it is that Tide of Traitors allows you to get free models. A full 40 man squad could regenerate up to 156 points. Realistically you weren;t going to wait till the last man dies to regen so lets say regen 30, thats still 120points you got effectively for free over your opponent.
The 2CP cost for ToT is effectively market rate now after FAQ2. Prior to it, 1CP to pick up a squad and redeploy was fair. Now its 2CP.
So if you took up to 120 cultists you and you get a good regen, you are still getting fair value out of the the unit.
fyi, admech battalions are now cheaper than guard battalions, but I doubt people will switch over. We'll see though.
They are cheaper but they also dont provide the body count and utility.
Renegades and Heretics provide the even worse Disloyal 32 at 170points for 5cp but doesnt seem a popular pick.
...then raise the CP cost for Tide Of Traitors. They already limited it to once per game, you might as well do that too. Cultists themselves aren't 5 point models.
Units shouldn't be balanced around Strategems. Strategems need to be balanced around units.
What part of free models that you dont pay for in points dont you understand from my point. The Stratagem cost is irrelevant. If you had to set aside points to use ToT depending on how many you want to bring on, would you still use it? No.
All GW has done is make you pay upfront for free models you get regardless if you use ToT.
The Strategem cost IS relevant. If GW made it 6CP overnight, would you still use it?
Interestingly if cultists were 4pts, the value of the ToT strategem would be actually 6CP.
2CP for the ability to pick up and redeploy, standard post FAQ2 rates and:
4CP to account for the max you can regen you can get (39 cultists x 4pts = 156pts) with the value of CP being efficiently obtained at 36pts per CP (180 point IG battalion /5). 156/36 = 4.33.
So if it was 6CP and you can regen 36 from a squad of 40 you are getting "fair" value.
Not many things in the game generate free points like ToT does. It is all costed into the value of the base unit like Necrons and apothecary etc.
LOL you're not serious are you?
Nobody will revive any squad of 40 Cultists for 6CP when there are several other Strategems to use. You're being contradictory for the sake of it, otherwise you haven't a single concept of game balance in your thoughts.
Smirrors wrote: The main reason I can see it is that Tide of Traitors allows you to get free models. A full 40 man squad could regenerate up to 156 points. Realistically you weren;t going to wait till the last man dies to regen so lets say regen 30, thats still 120points you got effectively for free over your opponent.
The 2CP cost for ToT is effectively market rate now after FAQ2. Prior to it, 1CP to pick up a squad and redeploy was fair. Now its 2CP.
So if you took up to 120 cultists you and you get a good regen, you are still getting fair value out of the the unit.
fyi, admech battalions are now cheaper than guard battalions, but I doubt people will switch over. We'll see though.
They are cheaper but they also dont provide the body count and utility.
Renegades and Heretics provide the even worse Disloyal 32 at 170points for 5cp but doesnt seem a popular pick.
...then raise the CP cost for Tide Of Traitors. They already limited it to once per game, you might as well do that too. Cultists themselves aren't 5 point models.
Units shouldn't be balanced around Strategems. Strategems need to be balanced around units.
What part of free models that you dont pay for in points dont you understand from my point. The Stratagem cost is irrelevant. If you had to set aside points to use ToT depending on how many you want to bring on, would you still use it? No.
All GW has done is make you pay upfront for free models you get regardless if you use ToT.
The Strategem cost IS relevant. If GW made it 6CP overnight, would you still use it?
Interestingly if cultists were 4pts, the value of the ToT strategem would be actually 6CP.
2CP for the ability to pick up and redeploy, standard post FAQ2 rates and:
4CP to account for the max you can regen you can get (39 cultists x 4pts = 156pts) with the value of CP being efficiently obtained at 36pts per CP (180 point IG battalion /5). 156/36 = 4.33.
So if it was 6CP and you can regen 36 from a squad of 40 you are getting "fair" value.
Not many things in the game generate free points like ToT does. It is all costed into the value of the base unit like Necrons and apothecary etc.
LOL you're not serious are you?
Nobody will revive any squad of 40 Cultists for 6CP when there are several other Strategems to use. You're being contradictory for the sake of it, otherwise you haven't a single concept of game balance in your thoughts.
No gak, hence i said the CP cost is irrelevant. You've missed the point the ToT gives you free points over your opposition.
The game balance is getting models back but paying for it in the cultist base cost.
At 4 points the first thing to be removed would be ToT stratagem.
Smirrors wrote: The main reason I can see it is that Tide of Traitors allows you to get free models. A full 40 man squad could regenerate up to 156 points. Realistically you weren;t going to wait till the last man dies to regen so lets say regen 30, thats still 120points you got effectively for free over your opponent.
The 2CP cost for ToT is effectively market rate now after FAQ2. Prior to it, 1CP to pick up a squad and redeploy was fair. Now its 2CP.
So if you took up to 120 cultists you and you get a good regen, you are still getting fair value out of the the unit.
fyi, admech battalions are now cheaper than guard battalions, but I doubt people will switch over. We'll see though.
They are cheaper but they also dont provide the body count and utility.
Renegades and Heretics provide the even worse Disloyal 32 at 170points for 5cp but doesnt seem a popular pick.
...then raise the CP cost for Tide Of Traitors. They already limited it to once per game, you might as well do that too. Cultists themselves aren't 5 point models.
Units shouldn't be balanced around Strategems. Strategems need to be balanced around units.
What part of free models that you dont pay for in points dont you understand from my point. The Stratagem cost is irrelevant. If you had to set aside points to use ToT depending on how many you want to bring on, would you still use it? No.
All GW has done is make you pay upfront for free models you get regardless if you use ToT.
The Strategem cost IS relevant. If GW made it 6CP overnight, would you still use it?
Interestingly if cultists were 4pts, the value of the ToT strategem would be actually 6CP.
2CP for the ability to pick up and redeploy, standard post FAQ2 rates and:
4CP to account for the max you can regen you can get (39 cultists x 4pts = 156pts) with the value of CP being efficiently obtained at 36pts per CP (180 point IG battalion /5). 156/36 = 4.33.
So if it was 6CP and you can regen 36 from a squad of 40 you are getting "fair" value.
Not many things in the game generate free points like ToT does. It is all costed into the value of the base unit like Necrons and apothecary etc.
LOL you're not serious are you?
Nobody will revive any squad of 40 Cultists for 6CP when there are several other Strategems to use. You're being contradictory for the sake of it, otherwise you haven't a single concept of game balance in your thoughts.
No gak, hence i said the CP cost is irrelevant. You've missed the point the ToT gives you free points over your opposition.
The game balance is getting models back but paying for it in the cultist base cost.
At 4 points the first thing to be removed would be ToT stratagem.
At 5 points the 2CP cost for ToT becomes fair.
OR, since the Strategem is already limited to once per game and Cultists aren't a 5 point model, you make Tide Of Traitors 3CP and call it a day.
Smirrors wrote: The main reason I can see it is that Tide of Traitors allows you to get free models. A full 40 man squad could regenerate up to 156 points. Realistically you weren;t going to wait till the last man dies to regen so lets say regen 30, thats still 120points you got effectively for free over your opponent.
The 2CP cost for ToT is effectively market rate now after FAQ2. Prior to it, 1CP to pick up a squad and redeploy was fair. Now its 2CP.
So if you took up to 120 cultists you and you get a good regen, you are still getting fair value out of the the unit.
fyi, admech battalions are now cheaper than guard battalions, but I doubt people will switch over. We'll see though.
They are cheaper but they also dont provide the body count and utility.
Renegades and Heretics provide the even worse Disloyal 32 at 170points for 5cp but doesnt seem a popular pick.
...then raise the CP cost for Tide Of Traitors. They already limited it to once per game, you might as well do that too. Cultists themselves aren't 5 point models.
Units shouldn't be balanced around Strategems. Strategems need to be balanced around units.
What part of free models that you dont pay for in points dont you understand from my point. The Stratagem cost is irrelevant. If you had to set aside points to use ToT depending on how many you want to bring on, would you still use it? No.
All GW has done is make you pay upfront for free models you get regardless if you use ToT.
The Strategem cost IS relevant. If GW made it 6CP overnight, would you still use it?
Interestingly if cultists were 4pts, the value of the ToT strategem would be actually 6CP.
2CP for the ability to pick up and redeploy, standard post FAQ2 rates and:
4CP to account for the max you can regen you can get (39 cultists x 4pts = 156pts) with the value of CP being efficiently obtained at 36pts per CP (180 point IG battalion /5). 156/36 = 4.33.
So if it was 6CP and you can regen 36 from a squad of 40 you are getting "fair" value.
Not many things in the game generate free points like ToT does. It is all costed into the value of the base unit like Necrons and apothecary etc.
LOL you're not serious are you?
Nobody will revive any squad of 40 Cultists for 6CP when there are several other Strategems to use. You're being contradictory for the sake of it, otherwise you haven't a single concept of game balance in your thoughts.
No gak, hence i said the CP cost is irrelevant. You've missed the point the ToT gives you free points over your opposition.
The game balance is getting models back but paying for it in the cultist base cost.
At 4 points the first thing to be removed would be ToT stratagem.
At 5 points the 2CP cost for ToT becomes fair.
OR, since the Strategem is already limited to once per game and Cultists aren't a 5 point model, you make Tide Of Traitors 3CP and call it a day.
The point is even at 3CP you are gaining more than the 1CP increase. I showed you the maths reasoning behind it.
2CP to pick up and redeploy
1CP to possibly regen 156 points worth of models but more likely 120 points.
Would you be happy to set aside 120 points from your overall list to be able to use this stratagem? No i didnt think so.
EDIT: The precedent for this is the Guard codex whereby you can pay 2CP to regen a destroyed squad but you have to set aside the points for it. And it must be deployed in your own deployment zone. And this is a basic guard squad that even when buffed can barely scratch most enemy units. Cultists when buffed can do a lot more due to better stratagems and large unit sizes.
OR GW could make the similar guard stratagem decent.
I'm in the remove heretic astartes keyword from cultists so they only have ToT once per game and Mark stratagems, reduce squad size to 30, and go back down to 4ppm. Maybe make both kinds of marines worthwhile too eh?
30 non-deepstriking, non-fearless cultists shooting or fighting twice then recovering for 4-5CP would be about the worst you could face. Sounds nasty enough for casual and pathetic compared to poxwalkers. Reminds me there are a bunch of DG powers that are silly good on cultists which would also be removed from them.
Cultists probably shouldn't be the same price as Termagants. 5 ppm is probably a fair price for a model that does what they do, and I think issue is... why the hell weren't Guardsmen given the same treatment, they may not be a mirror unit but they are close enough that we can tell something is amiss.
Ishagu wrote: If you could make multiple fearless units of 40 Guardsmen with better stats then conscripts I would agree that Guard should also cost 5 points per model.
Cultists do have very specific advantages that are pretty clear.
Guard do have better stats than Cultists.
And they have some very specific advantages too: heavy and special weapons, orders, and access to Fearless through Commissars and Mental Fortitude (WC 4).
Cultists have the ability to go up to 40 to maximise Stratagems, but I think Orders more than weighs up for this. Guardsmen can still fire lasguns twice (Endless Cacophony), fall back and shoot or move double (Warptime), Take Aim for re-rolling 1s to hit, Bring It Down for re-rolling 1s to wound, Fix Bayonets for Fighting Again (Catachans with this is terrifying when buffed by Priests and Straken) etc. Also remember you can use Consolidate Squads to get bigger squads of Guard at the end of your Movement phase.
Then you have Overlapping Fields of Fire for +1 to hit for all Cadians etc. And then you have Relic of Lost Cadia and Vengeance for Cadia.
Cultists should be 50pt and can stand to lose VotLW, but Infantry Squads should also be 50pt.
Ishagu wrote: If you could make multiple fearless units of 40 Guardsmen with better stats then conscripts I would agree that Guard should also cost 5 points per model.
Cultists do have very specific advantages that are pretty clear.
Guard do have better stats than Cultists.
And they have some very specific advantages too: heavy and special weapons, orders, and access to Fearless through Commissars and Mental Fortitude (WC 4).
Cultists have the ability to go up to 40 to maximise Stratagems, but I think Orders more than weighs up for this. Guardsmen can still fire lasguns twice (Endless Cacophony), fall back and shoot or move double (Warptime), Take Aim for re-rolling 1s to hit, Bring It Down for re-rolling 1s to wound, Fix Bayonets for Fighting Again (Catachans with this is terrifying when buffed by Priests and Straken) etc. Also remember you can use Consolidate Squads to get bigger squads of Guard at the end of your Movement phase.
Then you have Overlapping Fields of Fire for +1 to hit for all Cadians etc. And then you have Relic of Lost Cadia and Vengeance for Cadia.
Cultists should be 50pt and can stand to lose VotLW, but Infantry Squads should also be 50pt.
This was covered in one of the many threads on Guard being undercosted, but the reality is that in this edition models are so few points the game can't point cost models accurately.
If you multiplied all points by say 10 you could probably get to a cultist being worth 47 maybe 48 point per model and Infantry Squads being 54-55ppm the problem is when you scale that back down by 10 you end up with 4.7 and 5.4 now clearly one is better than the other hence why it was worth more but when you compressor the scale this much you can't make a distinction between them, so at best IS and Cultists should be 5ppm or maybe 5 and 4 respectively but infantry squads being Cheapest is just very wrong.
In all honesty, cultists should have lost the "heretic astartes" keyword and gone the ork codex way on stratagems with them only getting to use them if they are mentioned like gretchin.
Making them go up 1pt is a bit of a lazy fix, but one hopes that this is rectified when they get to make codex 2.0 for each faction...
I think 1pt up is a great fix. They are still an excellent, durable unit for the price that provides amazing board control and is the best target for stratagems/buffs in the dex. Infantry Squads should be 5pts as well, but I feel that anyone saying Cultists aren't going to be played anymore is just kneejerking.
Dr. Mills wrote: In all honesty, cultists should have lost the "heretic astartes" keyword and gone the ork codex way on stratagems with them only getting to use them if they are mentioned like gretchin.
Making them go up 1pt is a bit of a lazy fix, but one hopes that this is rectified when they get to make codex 2.0 for each faction...
Yeah. This was the fix, and it got ignored. Buff stacking on cultists is the REAL problem here, not cultists themselves. Take away the option to combo buffs on them, and they stay what they were intended to be: Cheap throwaway troops.
SHUPPET wrote: I think 1pt up is a great fix. They are still an excellent, durable unit for the price that provides amazing board control and is the best target for stratagems/buffs in the dex. Infantry Squads should be 5pts as well, but I feel that anyone saying Cultists aren't going to be played anymore is just kneejerking.
I agree in the abstract. 5pts for a spammable wound, and in the Troop slot, is totally fine. If Loyalist Marines had access to them then they would see play in pure Marine lists.
The only issue really is the comparison to Guardsmen. And for me that's only really an issue because of soup. I think it's fine for different armies to have things at different costs, so they have different strengths and weaknesses. But soup just allows every Imperium player to sub in the game's best light Infantry.
iGuy91 wrote: I agree with the +1 point for Cultists
I think they should have lost their astartes keywords.
I also however think basic guardsmen should have gone up 1 point to differentiate them from conscripts, and to discourage loyal 32 bats.
I doubt that a 30 point increase would effect a reduction in the usage of loyal 32.
It would've made the unit what it's actually worth though, compared to Cultists which are mathematically NOT a 5 point model and should've had Strategems repriced.
There's just simply no reason a unit should be priced around a Strategem rather than the other way around.
The increase is an illusion for anyone not trying to spam nothing but gud stuff. Its a clamshell game.
I just checked some of my fun lists and they are all around 50 ish pts cheaper even though most have at least 40 cultists.
What I am pleased about is defilers, huron, kharn, warpsmiths etc. The defilers in particular might actually make their way into some dread lists with their FW buddies now.
SHUPPET wrote: I think 1pt up is a great fix. They are still an excellent, durable unit for the price that provides amazing board control and is the best target for stratagems/buffs in the dex. Infantry Squads should be 5pts as well, but I feel that anyone saying Cultists aren't going to be played anymore is just kneejerking.
I agree in the abstract. 5pts for a spammable wound, and in the Troop slot, is totally fine. If Loyalist Marines had access to them then they would see play in pure Marine lists.
The only issue really is the comparison to Guardsmen. And for me that's only really an issue because of soup. I think it's fine for different armies to have things at different costs, so they have different strengths and weaknesses. But soup just allows every Imperium player to sub in the game's best light Infantry.
Yeah thats what I was referring to in the second half of my post. Guardsmen are unfairly priced right now. Everything else infantry wise seems pretty cool.
The only issue really is the comparison to Guardsmen. And for me that's only really an issue because of soup. I think it's fine for different armies to have things at different costs, so they have different strengths and weaknesses. But soup just allows every Imperium player to sub in the game's best light Infantry.
I could not disagree more. Points are there to be an objective gauge of relative strength, once you start discounting certain units, you break that objectivity and encourage spam. In the context of guard, giving the standard infantry a discount would disincentive players from running vets, scions, ogryns etc... and that's not what we want. We want diversity of lists. People will just double down on the "strengths" and ignore the "weaknesses". It is also simply unfair to those players that do not want to run the discounted units for whatever reason.
SHUPPET wrote: I think 1pt up is a great fix. They are still an excellent, durable unit for the price that provides amazing board control and is the best target for stratagems/buffs in the dex. Infantry Squads should be 5pts as well, but I feel that anyone saying Cultists aren't going to be played anymore is just kneejerking.
I agree in the abstract. 5pts for a spammable wound, and in the Troop slot, is totally fine. If Loyalist Marines had access to them then they would see play in pure Marine lists.
The only issue really is the comparison to Guardsmen. And for me that's only really an issue because of soup. I think it's fine for different armies to have things at different costs, so they have different strengths and weaknesses. But soup just allows every Imperium player to sub in the game's best light Infantry.
Yeah thats what I was referring to in the second half of my post. Guardsmen are unfairly priced right now. Everything else infantry wise seems pretty cool.
The only issue really is the comparison to Guardsmen. And for me that's only really an issue because of soup. I think it's fine for different armies to have things at different costs, so they have different strengths and weaknesses. But soup just allows every Imperium player to sub in the game's best light Infantry.
I could not disagree more. Points are there to be an objective gauge of relative strength, once you start discounting certain units, you break that objectivity and encourage spam. In the context of guard, giving the standard infantry a discount would disincentive players from running vets, scions, ogryns etc... and that's not what we want. We want diversity of lists. People will just double down on the "strengths" and ignore the "weaknesses". It is also simply unfair to those players that do not want to run the discounted units for whatever reason.
In your opinion they are there to be an objective guage of relative power. I've never seen GW state that that is their philosophy.
I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong in asymmetric point distribution (just like how in MtG a particular ability might cost a mana budget of 1 in one colour for whom its primary ability, but 2 in another colour for whom it is a secondary ability).
That can work really well to give nuance and variety to different factions, and make them feel truly different. I like it a lot.
But it's ruined by rampant and uncontrolled ability for many factions to soup.
I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong in asymmetric point distribution (just like how in MtG a particular ability might cost a mana budget of 1 in one colour for whom its primary ability, but 2 in another colour for whom it is a secondary ability).
I've noticed how everyone in favor of "asymmetric" points always uses MtG as an example. But 40k isn't a card game and I'd hate for it to become balanced like one. Giving units in 40k discounts is not nuance, it's not flavor, it's just unbalanced. (I also have 0 interest in MtG type games anyway so I'm even less convinced )
Besides, how does giving Guard cheaper infantry make them more nuanced anyway? You're just stripping options from players by forcing them to run intentionally OP units to not lose. Imagine a Guard vs Guard game where one player spams infantry and the other player takes mostly stormtroopers. By making infantry intentionally cheaper than they're worth you're screwing over the other player.
Lastly, if points are not objective gauges of strength/performance then what's the point in having them at all? Just play open play at that point because you'll never be able to have even matches anyway. Points need to be objective or they're worthless.
Asymmetric points works in a world where you have to take some "bad" units as well as the good.
Its not a thing in 8th. If all troops were tactical marine bad maybe, but most are not.
A world where guard had to take overcosted infantry in order to take undercosted tanks might work. Or vice versa. But right now they get both which is why they are a great army, only made better with a CP-sink Knight.
I am a little bummed that cultists got nerfed, but it still won't stop me from running them. I basically just used them in my Death Guard to fill up points and fill my battalion.
Dandelion wrote: I could not disagree more. Points are there to be an objective gauge of relative strength, once you start discounting certain units, you break that objectivity and encourage spam. In the context of guard, giving the standard infantry a discount would disincentive players from running vets, scions, ogryns etc... and that's not what we want. We want diversity of lists. People will just double down on the "strengths" and ignore the "weaknesses". It is also simply unfair to those players that do not want to run the discounted units for whatever reason.
Dandelion wrote: Lastly, if points are not objective gauges of strength/performance then what's the point in having them at all? Just play open play at that point because you'll never be able to have even matches anyway. Points need to be objective or they're worthless.
Dandelion wrote: I could not disagree more. Points are there to be an objective gauge of relative strength, once you start discounting certain units, you break that objectivity and encourage spam. In the context of guard, giving the standard infantry a discount would disincentive players from running vets, scions, ogryns etc... and that's not what we want. We want diversity of lists. People will just double down on the "strengths" and ignore the "weaknesses". It is also simply unfair to those players that do not want to run the discounted units for whatever reason.
Dandelion wrote: Lastly, if points are not objective gauges of strength/performance then what's the point in having them at all? Just play open play at that point because you'll never be able to have even matches anyway. Points need to be objective or they're worthless.
Dandelion wrote: I could not disagree more. Points are there to be an objective gauge of relative strength, once you start discounting certain units, you break that objectivity and encourage spam. In the context of guard, giving the standard infantry a discount would disincentive players from running vets, scions, ogryns etc... and that's not what we want. We want diversity of lists. People will just double down on the "strengths" and ignore the "weaknesses". It is also simply unfair to those players that do not want to run the discounted units for whatever reason.
Dandelion wrote: Lastly, if points are not objective gauges of strength/performance then what's the point in having them at all? Just play open play at that point because you'll never be able to have even matches anyway. Points need to be objective or they're worthless.
Agreed.
Yep. Agreed as well.
Also agree, we have extra minor abilities for point exempt flavor. If cultists and infantry squads had the same statline but different means of being buffed or different inherent bonuses they'd be worth the same points. As it is cultists are more similar to conscripts which are essentially worthless. Or looking at Fire Warrior Strike teams vs Skitarii Rangers, they fill the same role of 5 bodies at T3/4+sv that do good ranged damage for 35pts. Very different weapons and means of buffing but asymmetrically balanced.
I wonder if infantry squads didn't get a pts increase to prevent a cyber 17 replacing loyal 32, but TPD are expensive and TPE don't do anything synergistic so the 32 would still be alright imo. Then again FW and rangers could tolerate being 8ppm if ig go up to 5ppm especially if board control is becoming more important for missions.
I might take exception to Necrons troops to an extent as they don't have allies or chaff and their abilities somewhat favor larger blobs making the tax extra heavy.
Dandelion wrote: I could not disagree more. Points are there to be an objective gauge of relative strength, once you start discounting certain units, you break that objectivity and encourage spam. In the context of guard, giving the standard infantry a discount would disincentive players from running vets, scions, ogryns etc... and that's not what we want. We want diversity of lists. People will just double down on the "strengths" and ignore the "weaknesses". It is also simply unfair to those players that do not want to run the discounted units for whatever reason.
Dandelion wrote: Lastly, if points are not objective gauges of strength/performance then what's the point in having them at all? Just play open play at that point because you'll never be able to have even matches anyway. Points need to be objective or they're worthless.
Agreed.
I would be fine with guardsman being discounted if they still had to buy them in platoons for a single troop choice. that way you would have a real choice between conscripts, guardsman and veterans
Dandelion wrote: could not disagree more. Points are there to be an objective gauge of relative strength
Should 2000pts of Land Raiders have an equal chance of winning against 2000pts of Knights?
Should 2000pts of bare-bones Marines (with some bare-bones Captains thrown in as HQs) have an equal chance of winning against 2000pts of Knights?
Absolutely not, in my opinion. All interactions should have an element of rock-paper-scissors to them.
That isn't to say that a whole army is "Rock" and another is "Scissors", and therefore Rock always wins that match up. Not at all, that's terrible.
It's to say that army A might have easier access to Rock and Scissors, but struggle to bring much Paper efficiently.
Except imagine it with dozens of these things instead of 3.
It leads to far more strategy in list building than just "I can bring whatever and have an equal chance of winning".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Addendum:
The main reason this is failing in 40k at the moment is that there is no trade off for soup. At least not meaningfully.
In MtG, you can take 2, 3, 4, or even all 5 colours in your deck. And in that way bring the most efficient draw, removal, creatures, and so on. But the more colours you take the more you have to contend with a difficult to manage mana base to access all these effects.
vipoid wrote: I maintain that I'd be curious to see whether 4pt Infantry still caused issues if CP sharing was stopped.
Well as they’re the most points efficient troop in the game in terms of durability and offensive output I think we can make a pretty safe assumption.
The only likely change is that those Imperial Soup players would switch to pure AM.
I'm not convinced pure AM would be tournament winning. Which is part of why I don't think 4pt Guardsmen is an issue outside of soup.
I don't understand point reductions on Russ weapons and Tank Commanders though. That's a head scratcher.
Meh the russ weapons make sense, as in everything got cheaper instead of the BC variant, because the BC variant was the only really good one.
(let's be honest, nobody would pay 25 pts for an exterminator autocannon when you can pay 22 for a bc.)
Stux wrote: I'd still always take Pask. BS 2+ is just too good.
Pask is good but now is 35 points more than a tank commander, which is a fair few points. Also, Pask can't get the awesome new relic battle cannon. So whilst Pask is still a great choice, he is nowhere near as much of a must-take as he used to be.
Stux wrote: I'd still always take Pask. BS 2+ is just too good.
Pask is good but now is 35 points more than a tank commander, which is a fair few points. Also, Pask can't get the awesome new relic battle cannon. So whilst Pask is still a great choice, he is nowhere near as much of a must-take as he used to be.
Technically the new Battlecannon doesn't work with Grinding Advance, so is actually worse. But hopefully that will get FAQ'd.
Thing is though, Pask was awesome. Tank Commanders getting cheaper doesn't change that, it just makes Tank Commanders awesome too.
Stux wrote: I'd still always take Pask. BS 2+ is just too good.
Pask is good but now is 35 points more than a tank commander, which is a fair few points. Also, Pask can't get the awesome new relic battle cannon. So whilst Pask is still a great choice, he is nowhere near as much of a must-take as he used to be.
Does he need the new Battlecannon when he spits out 40 shots at BS2+? Not really.
Those 35 points are basically for the BS2+ and avoiding Rule Of 3 like the rest of the Russes do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vipoid wrote: I maintain that I'd be curious to see whether 4pt Infantry still caused issues if CP sharing was stopped.
Everyone would still take them for the bodies. The super cheap 5+ is invaluable for holding objectives.
Stux wrote: I'd still always take Pask. BS 2+ is just too good.
Pask is good but now is 35 points more than a tank commander, which is a fair few points. Also, Pask can't get the awesome new relic battle cannon. So whilst Pask is still a great choice, he is nowhere near as much of a must-take as he used to be.
Technically the new Battlecannon doesn't work with Grinding Advance, so is actually worse. But hopefully that will get FAQ'd.
Thing is though, Pask was awesome. Tank Commanders getting cheaper doesn't change that, it just makes Tank Commanders awesome too.
I'm curious why the relic doesn't work. Grinding Advance is a rule for the Russ, and it's a Turret weapon.
Stux wrote: I'd still always take Pask. BS 2+ is just too good.
Pask is good but now is 35 points more than a tank commander, which is a fair few points. Also, Pask can't get the awesome new relic battle cannon. So whilst Pask is still a great choice, he is nowhere near as much of a must-take as he used to be.
The point drop makes a little more sense in that context.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'm curious why the relic doesn't work. Grinding Advance is a rule for the Russ, and it's a Turret weapon.
Not really the thread for it, it isn't exactly about cultists! But as a quick summary, and hopefully not annoy the hordes of Chaos too much, Grinding Advance has a list of guns it defines as turret weapons, and Hammer of Sunderance is not on it.
vipoid wrote: I maintain that I'd be curious to see whether 4pt Infantry still caused issues if CP sharing was stopped.
Well as they’re the most points efficient troop in the game in terms of durability and offensive output I think we can make a pretty safe assumption.
The only likely change is that those Imperial Soup players would switch to pure AM.
Except this doesn't hold up in reality. Guardsmen have not changed price the entire edition yet neither mono guard or massed guardsmen have been a top tier list at any point in 8th. The only mono guard lists that were ever consistently placing in 8th were
1. conscript spam with earthshakers (both adjusted very quickly)
2. Hellhound spam (points just went up and even when this was an issue other spam lists were better. Also, the rule of 3 knocked this one out)
Dakka always loves to claim that mono guard is some competitive top dog army while it's simply not. Guard have needed at least one CP super unit in their army in order to contend at every point this edition.
Stux wrote: Yeah that's true... Still, Commanders? 20pts for Orders and a BS increase is an insane price.
Case in point, i said i would understand leman russ weapon price drops, why commanders got additionally, i honestly can't understand.
Same though with veterans. They should've just been moved back to the troop slot.
Edit: maybee they want that people not take always pask over the other aces.
Either of you ever run tank commanders pre CA? let me tell you that anything that killed a knight killed them 10x faster and they can't be hidden like other commanders/ are too large to sit out of LOS on many boards. What you ended up with was 1-2 dead and 1-2 last profile tank commanders turn 1 that did nothing till they died on the next turn. Its why you never saw them previously. Hopefully, with this change, they see the board a bit more. This is the one change I'm surprised people are really worried about. I still don't think tank commanders will be a widely taken unit post-CA. If they are though just bump the points in the next FAQ
(let's be honest, nobody would pay 25 pts for an exterminator autocannon when you can pay 22 for a bc.)
Guaranteed 4 shots and upto 8 damage vs random shot and random damage...
I'll take Exterminators thanks.
While you get a guaranteed number of shots with the autocannon, each shot is dramatically inferior and the average for the Russ is around the same number of shots. The Battlecannon is averaging about 50% more damage against targets like MEQ infantry and Monsters/Vehicles, while matching the Exterminator Autocannon against weeny infantry like Orks and Guardsmen, with better range to boot. Yeah, it's more variable, but that variance is weighted higher than the average is for the autocannon, and the potential maximum damage output is dramatically higher as well.
vipoid wrote: I maintain that I'd be curious to see whether 4pt Infantry still caused issues if CP sharing was stopped.
Well as they’re the most points efficient troop in the game in terms of durability and offensive output I think we can make a pretty safe assumption.
The only likely change is that those Imperial Soup players would switch to pure AM.
I'm not convinced pure AM would be tournament winning. Which is part of why I don't think 4pt Guardsmen is an issue outside of soup.
I don't understand point reductions on Russ weapons and Tank Commanders though. That's a head scratcher.
Well mono Guard has already won man, they’ve won major tournaments (against soup lists). To me if a unit is mathematically better than all others and is taken in abundance it should highlight that the unit needs to be changed.
vipoid wrote: I maintain that I'd be curious to see whether 4pt Infantry still caused issues if CP sharing was stopped.
Well as they’re the most points efficient troop in the game in terms of durability and offensive output I think we can make a pretty safe assumption.
The only likely change is that those Imperial Soup players would switch to pure AM.
Except this doesn't hold up in reality. Guardsmen have not changed price the entire edition yet neither mono guard or massed guardsmen have been a top tier list at any point in 8th. The only mono guard lists that were ever consistently placing in 8th were
1. conscript spam with earthshakers (both adjusted very quickly)
2. Hellhound spam (points just went up and even when this was an issue other spam lists were better. Also, the rule of 3 knocked this one out)
Dakka always loves to claim that mono guard is some competitive top dog army while it's simply not. Guard have needed at least one CP super unit in their army in order to contend at every point this edition.
Except we know this is false. AM have been competing on the top tables the entirety of 8th since their codex dropped. Not only with soup lists either. Pure AM have won a number of major tournaments. You know this, I’ve discussed it with you in another topic. In addition you’ll notice that Infantry feature in abundance in every single competitive AM or Imperium list.
Mathematically Infantry are more efficient than any other troop point for point, which might explain why they are so popular in lists. They outshoot Fire Warriors, Skitari rangers, Cultists. They are more durable than any other troop point for point, a problem compounded by cover, orders and their flexibility with heavy weapons (to hide out of site but still damage the enemy).
I disagree that Guard require a super CP unit to compete too. The primary reason people take Knights or Smash Captains is because they serve a very specific purpose and provide your opponent with a big problem. Imagine soup was banned from tournaments, do you think Knights would be taken over AM? I don’t.
Either way you’re a Guard apologist, I’ve seen that from previous posts. Your bias is unreal. If Cultists are 5ppm, so are Infantry. No question.
vipoid wrote: I maintain that I'd be curious to see whether 4pt Infantry still caused issues if CP sharing was stopped.
Well as they’re the most points efficient troop in the game in terms of durability and offensive output I think we can make a pretty safe assumption.
The only likely change is that those Imperial Soup players would switch to pure AM.
I'm not convinced pure AM would be tournament winning. Which is part of why I don't think 4pt Guardsmen is an issue outside of soup.
I don't understand point reductions on Russ weapons and Tank Commanders though. That's a head scratcher.
Well mono Guard has already won man, they’ve won major tournaments (against soup lists). To me if a unit is mathematically better than all others and is taken in abundance it should highlight that the unit needs to be changed.
vipoid wrote: I maintain that I'd be curious to see whether 4pt Infantry still caused issues if CP sharing was stopped.
Well as they’re the most points efficient troop in the game in terms of durability and offensive output I think we can make a pretty safe assumption.
The only likely change is that those Imperial Soup players would switch to pure AM.
Except this doesn't hold up in reality. Guardsmen have not changed price the entire edition yet neither mono guard or massed guardsmen have been a top tier list at any point in 8th. The only mono guard lists that were ever consistently placing in 8th were
1. conscript spam with earthshakers (both adjusted very quickly)
2. Hellhound spam (points just went up and even when this was an issue other spam lists were better. Also, the rule of 3 knocked this one out)
Dakka always loves to claim that mono guard is some competitive top dog army while it's simply not. Guard have needed at least one CP super unit in their army in order to contend at every point this edition.
Except we know this is false. AM have been competing on the top tables the entirety of 8th since their codex dropped. Not only with soup lists either. Pure AM have won a number of major tournaments. You know this, I’ve discussed it with you in another topic. In addition you’ll notice that Infantry feature in abundance in every single competitive AM or Imperium list.
Mathematically Infantry are more efficient than any other troop point for point, which might explain why they are so popular in lists. They outshoot Fire Warriors, Skitari rangers, Cultists. They are more durable than any other troop point for point, a problem compounded by cover, orders and their flexibility with heavy weapons (to hide out of site but still damage the enemy).
I disagree that Guard require a super CP unit to compete too. The primary reason people take Knights or Smash Captains is because they serve a very specific purpose and provide your opponent with a big problem. Imagine soup was banned from tournaments, do you think Knights would be taken over AM? I don’t.
Either way you’re a Guard apologist, I’ve seen that from previous posts. Your bias is unreal. If Cultists are 5ppm, so are Infantry. No question.
No IG + (insert random soup here) have won top events. The fact is SM, Orks, Tau, Eldar, DE have all won more events then mono guard. Other then early in the edition before conscript fix mono guard have not consistantly won anything. Sorry but taking a knight and dumping all your CP into it doesnt show how broken guard is.... it simply highlights the issue with soup
Cultist spam was (is?) a viable competitive list. Infantry squad spam never won anything.
That already tells you that there was a problem with cultists and not with guards, so GW correctly nerfed the cultists. We can disagree on the way chosen to nerf them, maybe there was a better way, but a nerf was needed.
Guards are not a problem right now, people hate them because "mathematically" they are too good. Actual results though show that the game is not suffering due to guards being 4 ppm. Maybe that they should be 5 ppm? Yeah maybe, but in actual game priority this is as important as making kroots viable, nothing would change in the meta.
That is because in a logic of asymmetrical balance, they work correctly at 4 points. Remember that asymmetrical balance is the same one that was used by warmahordes MK2, which was considered the example of a balanced wargame.
Regarding the Tank commanders receiving a cost buff, the only thing i can think is that they are going to be BS 4+, so that there is no longer the problem of weapons costing the same for BS3+ and 4+ tanks.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Mathematically Infantry are more efficient than any other troop point for point, which might explain why they are so popular in lists. They outshoot Fire Warriors, Skitari rangers, Cultists. They are more durable than any other troop point for point, a problem compounded by cover, orders and their flexibility with heavy weapons (to hide out of site but still damage the enemy).
... If Cultists are 5ppm, so are Infantry. No question.
I've done the math myself, so I have to actually agree with this. But, I was also merely stating that I think points should be an objective measurement of battlefield strength, and that if guardsmen are 4ppm, it makes no sense why cultists are 5 ppm. Therefore the obvious solution becomes raise guardsmen to 5 ppm.
Because people here think the huge point tag on Abigail wasnt enough, and because Chaos isn't allowed to have nice things but all the sudden Guard is, nerf Cultists. Ya know, a 4 point model.
Spoletta wrote: Cultist spam was (is?) a viable competitive list.
Infantry squad spam never won anything.
this is quite possibly the least accurate summary of the pre-CA meta I've ever seen.
SHUPPET, dont you know? 150 cultists are a spam list but 120 catachan infantry bodies are not spam because they use a Castellan.
Ignore the daemon princes that go with the 150 cultists please.
In fairness, I think most people have been saying that 4pt Infantry aren't a problem in their own army.
It's when every Imperium army can take a cheap IG Battalion (or even 2) - which not only costs them nothing but actually gains them 5CP - that it becomes an issue.
And even in this case, raising them to 5pts still won't make a significant difference. The increase is simply negligible compared to the CPs you gain from the detachment.
If you really want to reduce IG infantry spam, start by limiting CPs to the faction that generated them.
Spoletta wrote: Cultist spam was (is?) a viable competitive list. Infantry squad spam never won anything.
this is quite possibly the least accurate summary of the pre-CA meta I've ever seen.
SHUPPET, dont you know? 150 cultists are a spam list but 120 catachan infantry bodies are not spam because they use a Castellan.
Ignore the daemon princes that go with the 150 cultists please.
In fairness, I think most people have been saying that 4pt Infantry aren't a problem in their own army.
It's when every Imperium army can take a cheap IG Battalion (or even 2) - which not only costs them nothing but actually gains them 5CP - that it becomes an issue.
And even in this case, raising them to 5pts still won't make a significant difference. The increase is simply negligible compared to the CPs you gain from the detachment.
If you really want to reduce IG infantry spam, start by limiting CPs to the faction that generated them.
Then how on earth was cultists inside pure CSM was a problem in the pre-CA meta?
Spoletta wrote: Cultist spam was (is?) a viable competitive list.
Infantry squad spam never won anything.
this is quite possibly the least accurate summary of the pre-CA meta I've ever seen.
SHUPPET, dont you know? 150 cultists are a spam list but 120 catachan infantry bodies are not spam because they use a Castellan.
Ignore the daemon princes that go with the 150 cultists please.
In fairness, I think most people have been saying that 4pt Infantry aren't a problem in their own army.
It's when every Imperium army can take a cheap IG Battalion (or even 2) - which not only costs them nothing but actually gains them 5CP - that it becomes an issue.
And even in this case, raising them to 5pts still won't make a significant difference. The increase is simply negligible compared to the CPs you gain from the detachment.
If you really want to reduce IG infantry spam, start by limiting CPs to the faction that generated them.
They would still be taken for efficiency? You really didn't solve anything except make it harder for Knights and Custodes to use their Strategems (which the latter didn't need to be hurt more).
Spoletta wrote: Cultist spam was (is?) a viable competitive list.
Infantry squad spam never won anything.
this is quite possibly the least accurate summary of the pre-CA meta I've ever seen.
SHUPPET, dont you know? 150 cultists are a spam list but 120 catachan infantry bodies are not spam because they use a Castellan.
Ignore the daemon princes that go with the 150 cultists please.
It does feel like this is what he's trying to say. Hell, not just the Daemon Princes, but literally the 1 or 2 entire other factions that were taken alongside any Cultist list to do well in the meta before CA dropped.
Come on guys, i trust you all to be smart enough to understand what i meant.
Cultists formed the core of a list which revolved around them. If you wanted to nerf that list then you nerfed the cultists.
Guards were either taken as a loyal 32, or as the cheap troop option of a brigade, usually around 6-8 squads. The highest number of guards i remember seeing in a list which did something good, was 80 (in a brigade). Those guards in there can be annoying due to the combo with priest and yarrick, but they were in no way the focus of that list. To nerf that list, you don't nerf guards, you nerf the staples of that list, like the Artemia which were indeed nerfed. I also hope that tank commanders being made cheaper means that we are going to see them dropped to BS4+.
Guards being a 4ppm model is more of a problem of Dakka, because some really dubious demonstrations of guards being mathematically OP have been circulating. Guards could be rised to 5 ppm, i agree, but them being a 4 ppm is not a big problem for the game.
I too would have liked to see both going to 5 ppm, but if i had to select only one between cultists and guards to rise to 5ppm, i would have choosen cultists.
Spoletta wrote: Come on guys, i trust you all to be smart enough to understand what i meant.
Cultists formed the core of a list which revolved around them. If you wanted to nerf that list then you nerfed the cultists.
Guards were either taken as a loyal 32, or as the cheap troop option of a brigade, usually around 6-8 squads. The highest number of guards i remember seeing in a list which did something good, was 80 (in a brigade). Those guards in there can be annoying due to the combo with priest and yarrick, but they were in no way the focus of that list. To nerf that list, you don't nerf guards, you nerf the staples of that list, like the Artemia which were indeed nerfed. I also hope that tank commanders being made cheaper means that we are going to see them dropped to BS4+.
Guards being a 4ppm model is more of a problem of Dakka, because some really dubious demonstrations of guards being mathematically OP have been circulating. Guards could be rised to 5 ppm, i agree, but them being a 4 ppm is not a big problem for the game.
I too would have liked to see both going to 5 ppm, but if i had to select only one between cultists and guards to rise to 5ppm, i would have choosen cultists.
So your premis is that choas cultist spam lists going up 120 points stops them being spammed, but the 1000 to 1400 points of Guard wouldnt be effected if they lost 80 points to spend on multiple hellhounds etc?
But stepping away from the hyper competitive stuff, guard are one of the most annoying list for I'll bring a flufdy list and it's 15 LR and a stormhammer, shadowsword. Or 2000 points of full infantry.
Spoletta wrote: Come on guys, i trust you all to be smart enough to understand what i meant.
Cultists formed the core of a list which revolved around them. If you wanted to nerf that list then you nerfed the cultists.
I think the issue is that list was competitive back in July - but is now not obviously winning anything or really placing. I don't think its been a thing in the post-Knight codex meta.
I am checking tournament after tournament to make sure I have not missed something - but the idea its been remotely as common as guardsmen+knights is hard to justify. Taking one blob of 40 is a bit more common, but committing to 120-150 isn't at all.
Am I just missing a lot of tournaments where this list dominated over the last 6 months?
The past 6 months has been a meta of Imperial and Eldar soup domination - and if chaos have done okay, its been from death guard resiliency combined with thousand sons princes and mortal wound output. It hasn't been from bringing 100+ cultists.
Spoletta wrote: Come on guys, i trust you all to be smart enough to understand what i meant.
Cultists formed the core of a list which revolved around them. If you wanted to nerf that list then you nerfed the cultists.
I think the issue is that list was competitive back in July - but is now not obviously winning anything or really placing. I don't think its been a thing in the post-Knight codex meta.
I am checking tournament after tournament to make sure I have not missed something - but the idea its been remotely as common as guardsmen+knights is hard to justify. Taking one blob of 40 is a bit more common, but committing to 120-150 isn't at all.
Am I just missing a lot of tournaments where this list dominated over the last 6 months?
The past 6 months has been a meta of Imperial and Eldar soup domination - and if chaos have done okay, its been from death guard resiliency combined with thousand sons princes and mortal wound output. It hasn't been from bringing 100+ cultists.
This, if any unit would've needed a change then it would've been certain DP versions.
In their own army, sure. But then there are basically no other troop choices in IG (unless you're running Militarum Tempestus).
In Knights or Custodes armies? I doubt it. I think the Loyal 32 will be a lot less appealing when players realise that they're not bringing 5 'wild' CPs with them.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You really didn't solve anything except make it harder for Knights and Custodes to use their Strategems
Except that that's the whole point. Knights, Custodes or such should not be able to get extra CPs for themselves via allies. This is one of the main problems with the whole Ally mechanic - in that taking Allies costs you nothing and gains you everything.
In their own army, sure. But then there are basically no other troop choices in IG (unless you're running Militarum Tempestus).
In Knights or Custodes armies? I doubt it. I think the Loyal 32 will be a lot less appealing when players realise that they're not bringing 5 'wild' CPs with them.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You really didn't solve anything except make it harder for Knights and Custodes to use their Strategems
Except that that's the whole point. Knights, Custodes or such should not be able to get extra CPs for themselves via allies. This is one of the main problems with the whole Ally mechanic - in that taking Allies costs you nothing and gains you everything.
Spoletta wrote: Come on guys, i trust you all to be smart enough to understand what i meant.
Cultists formed the core of a list which revolved around them. If you wanted to nerf that list then you nerfed the cultists.
Guards were either taken as a loyal 32, or as the cheap troop option of a brigade, usually around 6-8 squads. The highest number of guards i remember seeing in a list which did something good, was 80 (in a brigade). Those guards in there can be annoying due to the combo with priest and yarrick, but they were in no way the focus of that list. To nerf that list, you don't nerf guards, you nerf the staples of that list, like the Artemia which were indeed nerfed. I also hope that tank commanders being made cheaper means that we are going to see them dropped to BS4+.
Guards being a 4ppm model is more of a problem of Dakka, because some really dubious demonstrations of guards being mathematically OP have been circulating. Guards could be rised to 5 ppm, i agree, but them being a 4 ppm is not a big problem for the game.
I too would have liked to see both going to 5 ppm, but if i had to select only one between cultists and guards to rise to 5ppm, i would have choosen cultists.
So your premis is that choas cultist spam lists going up 120 points stops them being spammed, but the 1000 to 1400 points of Guard wouldnt be effected if they lost 80 points to spend on multiple hellhounds etc?
But stepping away from the hyper competitive stuff, guard are one of the most annoying list for I'll bring a flufdy list and it's 15 LR and a stormhammer, shadowsword. Or 2000 points of full infantry.
I love they completely ignored how several players went above the minimum amount because they're THAT good.
vipoid wrote: I maintain that I'd be curious to see whether 4pt Infantry still caused issues if CP sharing was stopped.
Well as they’re the most points efficient troop in the game in terms of durability and offensive output I think we can make a pretty safe assumption.
The only likely change is that those Imperial Soup players would switch to pure AM.
I'm not convinced pure AM would be tournament winning. Which is part of why I don't think 4pt Guardsmen is an issue outside of soup.
I don't understand point reductions on Russ weapons and Tank Commanders though. That's a head scratcher.
It makes complete sense if you look at the game as a whole which is what CA points balances have done.
The commander drop has put it into the same territory as Helverin Armigers at 172points. Both BS3+ but with LR having T8 3+, vs T7 3+/5++ of the armiger. The LR will have a larger variety of armaments vs the mobility of the Armiger.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: I also hope that tank commanders being made cheaper means that we are going to see them dropped to BS4+.
Guards being a 4ppm model is more of a problem of Dakka, because some really dubious demonstrations of guards being mathematically OP have been circulating. Guards could be rised to 5 ppm, i agree, but them being a 4 ppm is not a big problem for the game.
Tank commanders going to BS4+ would be the dumbest thing from a competitive POV. Would not be even remotely worth taking for orders.
Prior to CA2018 people were asking for LR to go up in points. Also absolutely clueless.
Guard at 4ppm or as they have been for the last 1.5yrs is a non issue for most armies to deal with other than soup.
Yeah. This was the fix, and it got ignored. Buff stacking on cultists is the REAL problem here, not cultists themselves. Take away the option to combo buffs on them, and they stay what they were intended to be: Cheap throwaway troops.
Cap them at 10-20 models and they will be worth 4ppm.
Why does it make sense to make them comparable cost to Armigers? They're a different army, balancing one specific unit around one specific unit in a different army makes no sense, especially when they've left everything else more or less where it was.
All they've done is essentially devalued regular Russes.
I've done the math myself, so I have to actually agree with this. But, I was also merely stating that I think points should be an objective measurement of battlefield strength, and that if guardsmen are 4ppm, it makes no sense why cultists are 5 ppm. Therefore the obvious solution becomes raise guardsmen to 5 ppm.
Cultists can easily be 4ppm, but you may not like the consequences of doing so (removing ToT, lower unit cap etc).
If cultists were truly basic units, I suspect CSM players would cry salt even harder.
Cultists going to 5ppm sucked for the players who took 3 squads of 10 as backfield objective holders. That is 30 points extra for no benefit.
For those that took truly big units and had real plan to use them to their full capacity then the extra points wont be too bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stux wrote: Why does it make sense to make them comparable cost to Armigers? They're a different army, balancing one specific unit around one specific unit in a different army makes no sense, especially when they've left everything else more or less where it was.
All they've done is essentially devalued regular Russes.
Your argument should be regular Russ deserves a slight decrease too rather than why commanders got a decrease. Many armies received a discount against the meta armies, I am just explaining why the TC may have received his discount.
There is a 20 point difference between TC and Russ but anyone knows that TC wont survive very long. T8 and 3+ doesn't cut it any more.
Stux wrote: Why does it make sense to make them comparable cost to Armigers? They're a different army, balancing one specific unit around one specific unit in a different army makes no sense, especially when they've left everything else more or less where it was.
...you mean like arguing that Cultists going to 5 points means that Infantry Squads should go to 5 points as well?
Spoletta wrote:Come on guys, i trust you all to be smart enough to understand what i meant.
Cultists formed the core of a list which revolved around them. If you wanted to nerf that list then you nerfed the cultists.
I guess I'm not as smart as you, because it looked like you were saying Cultist heavy builds were a viable competitive list that were winning events just before CA, but Infantry Squad heavy lists never did.
If this isn't what you are saying, I must be truly stupid, because I'm having a great deal of trouble understanding how this isn't exactly what you said:
"Cultist spam was (is?) a viable competitive list. Infantry squad spam never won anything."
Stux wrote: Why does it make sense to make them comparable cost to Armigers? They're a different army, balancing one specific unit around one specific unit in a different army makes no sense, especially when they've left everything else more or less where it was.
...you mean like arguing that Cultists going to 5 points means that Infantry Squads should go to 5 points as well?
Stux wrote: Why does it make sense to make them comparable cost to Armigers? They're a different army, balancing one specific unit around one specific unit in a different army makes no sense, especially when they've left everything else more or less where it was.
All they've done is essentially devalued regular Russes.
Your argument should be regular Russ deserves a slight decrease too rather than why commanders got a decrease. Many armies received a discount against the meta armies, I am just explaining why the TC may have received his discount.
There is a 20 point difference between TC and Russ but anyone knows that TC wont survive very long. T8 and 3+ doesn't cut it any more.
I don't see why my "argument should be" that. TCs were good before, they didn't need to be better.
There's no need for TCs or regular Russes to be compared to Armigers anyway, they're totally different armies with access to vastly different things.
Also, am I the only person who thinks a sorceror casting a strength enhancer or an enrage upon a horde of Cultists, and then throwing them facefirst to take a dent out of a big threat before the things they care about losing dig in, is actually entirely thematic, and is exactly what plenty of Legions use them for? I'm not sure where this idea that Cultists are just meant to be small objective holders thematically comes from, that actually seems contrary to the lore.
Stux wrote: Why does it make sense to make them comparable cost to Armigers? They're a different army, balancing one specific unit around one specific unit in a different army makes no sense, especially when they've left everything else more or less where it was.
...you mean like arguing that Cultists going to 5 points means that Infantry Squads should go to 5 points as well?
Well Armigers and Russes are the same army, Imperium, whilst cultists are a separate army, Chaos. Balancing Knights and Guard is pretty much an internal balance issue these days.
Stux wrote: Why does it make sense to make them comparable cost to Armigers? They're a different army, balancing one specific unit around one specific unit in a different army makes no sense, especially when they've left everything else more or less where it was.
...you mean like arguing that Cultists going to 5 points means that Infantry Squads should go to 5 points as well?
Well Armigers and Russes are the same army, Imperium, whilst cultists are a separate army, Chaos. Balancing Knights and Guard is pretty much an internal balance issue these days.
Renegade KNights do exist.
Just so you know. They don't have the nice stratagems and traits though.
You don't believe people would still take the Loyal 32 for objective holding and shooting?
I'm highly doubtful that they'd be used if they didn't bring 5CPs with them.
However, as I've said many times in the past, I'm more than happy to find out. Hence why I've consistently advocated for CP sharing to be removed.
If it is removed and every Imperium-Soup army continues to use the loyal 32 regardless, then I'll freely admit that my prediction was wrong.
They actually would be used if you think about it for like 2 seconds instead of one.
1. Both Custodes and Knights can't hold home objectives efficiently.
2. Nobody helps as much
It's a pretty simple process.
Stux wrote: Why does it make sense to make them comparable cost to Armigers? They're a different army, balancing one specific unit around one specific unit in a different army makes no sense, especially when they've left everything else more or less where it was.
...you mean like arguing that Cultists going to 5 points means that Infantry Squads should go to 5 points as well?
Well Armigers and Russes are the same army, Imperium, whilst cultists are a separate army, Chaos. Balancing Knights and Guard is pretty much an internal balance issue these days.
Renegade KNights do exist.
Just so you know. They don't have the nice stratagems and traits though.
So are you saying Renegade Knights + Cultists should be weaker than an equivalent army of Guard + IK? Because they were weaker before and are much weaker now. But that is besides the point.
Because allies are so common, you really do have to consider Armigers to tank equivalents in other armies. Forgefiends are compared to Armigers all the time. Renegade Knights are compared to the Lord of Skulls or Leviathan Dreads. Years ago, you had a valid point. Different Codex's had different internal balances and something that may be balanced in one codex may need a different price value in another. This is no longer true. Leman Russ Battle Tanks and Armigers can be fielded side by side with very little difficulty. If one is obviously superior to the other that is a problem. Internal Balance in an codex will only have meaning if players do not have access to allies and must play solo faction. As long as allies are implemented as they are with no costs, External balance between units is the only thing that matters. Internal balance must be applied to the entire overarching keyword. 'Aeldari' 'Imperium' 'Chaos'. Thinking about Imperium as a collection of different codex's is a habit and rememberance for what the hobby used to be. From a balancing perspective you must think of a single 'Imperium Codex' which is made from the armybook for each subfaction. If you say that cannot be internally balanced, the problem can only be solved by removing or nerfing allies to give the armies more individual identity.
How easily though? They still need to be grouped into detachments of a single faction. Where you use stuff like the Spearhead or whatever you're giving up a ton of Command Points.
Renegade Knights aren't a fully supported army though, they're a free index that was given out to give people some extra options.
And cultists aren't meant to be what Heretic Astartes are about, where as Infantry are one of the main focuses of Astra Militarum.
So yes, I would expect Imperial Knights and Infantry to be stronger than Renegade Knights and Cultists. The second list isn't playing to the strengths of the faction at all, so it would be weaker.
Stux wrote: Im not totally convinced it's a great reason, but to me I would think it's because Cultists are not meant to be the focus of a Heretic Astartes army, they are an added extra you can throw in. Chaff is not something Chaos Marines are supposed to get easily, therefore they pay a premium to have them in their codex.
Of course, the availability of soup makes this not a terribly good reason.
The iron warriors and AL would disagree with you. Of course also it would help if the heretic ASTARTES part of the army would not suck so hard.
Heck i fathom that cultists could literally be 6ppm and would still be taken before CSM of any kind since they just can't generate enough CP for a csm army to function.
Heretic astartes do not suck, they were just outclassed by cultists.
Stux wrote: Im not totally convinced it's a great reason, but to me I would think it's because Cultists are not meant to be the focus of a Heretic Astartes army, they are an added extra you can throw in. Chaff is not something Chaos Marines are supposed to get easily, therefore they pay a premium to have them in their codex.
Of course, the availability of soup makes this not a terribly good reason.
The iron warriors and AL would disagree with you. Of course also it would help if the heretic ASTARTES part of the army would not suck so hard.
Heck i fathom that cultists could literally be 6ppm and would still be taken before CSM of any kind since they just can't generate enough CP for a csm army to function.
Heretic astartes do not suck, they were just outclassed by cultists.
Stux wrote: Why does it make sense to make them comparable cost to Armigers? They're a different army, balancing one specific unit around one specific unit in a different army makes no sense, especially when they've left everything else more or less where it was.
...you mean like arguing that Cultists going to 5 points means that Infantry Squads should go to 5 points as well?
Stux wrote: Why does it make sense to make them comparable cost to Armigers? They're a different army, balancing one specific unit around one specific unit in a different army makes no sense, especially when they've left everything else more or less where it was.
All they've done is essentially devalued regular Russes.
Your argument should be regular Russ deserves a slight decrease too rather than why commanders got a decrease. Many armies received a discount against the meta armies, I am just explaining why the TC may have received his discount.
There is a 20 point difference between TC and Russ but anyone knows that TC wont survive very long. T8 and 3+ doesn't cut it any more.
I don't see why my "argument should be" that. TCs were good before, they didn't need to be better.
There's no need for TCs or regular Russes to be compared to Armigers anyway, they're totally different armies with access to vastly different things.
Lol you were confused why TC received a buff in reduced points. I gave you the reason. You just dont like said reason.
SHUPPET wrote: Also, am I the only person who thinks a sorceror casting a strength enhancer or an enrage upon a horde of Cultists, and then throwing them facefirst to take a dent out of a big threat before the things they care about losing dig in, is actually entirely thematic, and is exactly what plenty of Legions use them for? I'm not sure where this idea that Cultists are just meant to be small objective holders thematically comes from, that actually seems contrary to the lore.
I totally agree with you!
I feel like the cultists get ground forward, and the CSM are the true objective holders. It doesn't quite play out that way, but I 100% agree with you about its connection to the lore.
Stux wrote: Im not totally convinced it's a great reason, but to me I would think it's because Cultists are not meant to be the focus of a Heretic Astartes army, they are an added extra you can throw in. Chaff is not something Chaos Marines are supposed to get easily, therefore they pay a premium to have them in their codex.
Of course, the availability of soup makes this not a terribly good reason.
The iron warriors and AL would disagree with you. Of course also it would help if the heretic ASTARTES part of the army would not suck so hard.
Heck i fathom that cultists could literally be 6ppm and would still be taken before CSM of any kind since they just can't generate enough CP for a csm army to function.
Heretic astartes do not suck, they were just outclassed by cultists.
Cruddace is a strong hand in 8th edition. he was not going to allow his precious guard to be balanced by having them go to the 5 points where they should be. In a fair game conscripts would be 4 points, guardsman 5 points as is , and vetrand 6 points, veterans would be the same as now but with a 4+ armor
Stux wrote: Im not totally convinced it's a great reason, but to me I would think it's because Cultists are not meant to be the focus of a Heretic Astartes army, they are an added extra you can throw in. Chaff is not something Chaos Marines are supposed to get easily, therefore they pay a premium to have them in their codex.
Of course, the availability of soup makes this not a terribly good reason.
The iron warriors and AL would disagree with you. Of course also it would help if the heretic ASTARTES part of the army would not suck so hard.
Heck i fathom that cultists could literally be 6ppm and would still be taken before CSM of any kind since they just can't generate enough CP for a csm army to function.
Heretic astartes do not suck, they were just outclassed by cultists.
Remove cultists and they would still be bad. Sure they might see more play being only troop so needed for cp but all it would accomplish is huge nerf to chaos.
Bad units don't become good just by nerfing alternatives
G00fySmiley wrote: Cruddace is a strong hand in 8th edition. he was not going to allow his precious guard to be balanced by having them go to the 5 points where they should be. In a fair game conscripts would be 4 points, guardsman 5 points as is , and vetrand 6 points, veterans would be the same as now but with a 4+ armor
Conscripts should be 3 points again. Getting hit with 3 nerfs was a bit too much. With the changes to Commissars and orders, 3 would be alright. Also, not all veterans need carapace armour, that would be weird.
G00fySmiley wrote: Cruddace is a strong hand in 8th edition. he was not going to allow his precious guard to be balanced by having them go to the 5 points where they should be. In a fair game conscripts would be 4 points, guardsman 5 points as is , and vetrand 6 points, veterans would be the same as now but with a 4+ armor
Conscripts should be 3 points again. Getting hit with 3 nerfs was a bit too much. With the changes to Commissars and orders, 3 would be alright. Also, not all veterans need carapace armour, that would be weird.
I more think of the armor as making them worth the 6 points than the guard actually giving them the better armor. though it would make sense to give your mroe elite tropops who are shooting at the level of a space marine better protection/equipment.
as for conscripts.. i wish they had not nerfed commissars as it made sense to have the two together. pushing the conscripts into combat. but I do think even as is compared to cultusts being 5 poitns and compared to most other units... they would be a 4 point model. that is again assuming guardsman were where they should be at 5 points per model.
G00fySmiley wrote: Cruddace is a strong hand in 8th edition. he was not going to allow his precious guard to be balanced by having them go to the 5 points where they should be. In a fair game conscripts would be 4 points, guardsman 5 points as is , and vetrand 6 points, veterans would be the same as now but with a 4+ armor
Oh just fething stop with the Cruddace nonsense. The guy is constantly painted as being so "protective" of Guard, but quite frankly?
He's screwed us over more than anyone else has.
He's the reason why our Sergeants are gak with no options other than "Derp! Pistols and CCWs!", he's the reason why we had stupid Commissars thrown into such a big role for the past two editions, and he's the reason why we lost all the kits for Veterans.
Guard don't need to be at 5 points. Cultists going up sucks certainly, but anyone who is still on about Conscripts at all(who received THREE nerfs that rendered them completely useless compared to this single one that Cultists have seen which just makes them a bit harder to fit into lists) needs to step back and realize they need to learn to play.
I mean fricking seriously, Conscripts? Still? Who the feth even uses them at this point?
G00fySmiley wrote: Cruddace is a strong hand in 8th edition. he was not going to allow his precious guard to be balanced by having them go to the 5 points where they should be. In a fair game conscripts would be 4 points, guardsman 5 points as is , and vetrand 6 points, veterans would be the same as now but with a 4+ armor
Conscripts should be 3 points again. Getting hit with 3 nerfs was a bit too much. With the changes to Commissars and orders, 3 would be alright. Also, not all veterans need carapace armour, that would be weird.
I more think of the armor as making them worth the 6 points than the guard actually giving them the better armor. though it would make sense to give your mroe elite tropops who are shooting at the level of a space marine better protection/equipment.
They'd still be T3. You want to give them better protection, give them a -1 to hit from shooting attacks and a +1 to Cover Saves.
as for conscripts.. i wish they had not nerfed commissars as it made sense to have the two together. pushing the conscripts into combat. but I do think even as is compared to cultusts being 5 poitns and compared to most other units... they would be a 4 point model. that is again assuming guardsman were where they should be at 5 points per model.
No, they wouldn't be. They have 0 options aside from "additional models".
If you want Cultists to go down in price, they need to start shedding keywords before that can happen.
G00fySmiley wrote: Cruddace is a strong hand in 8th edition. he was not going to allow his precious guard to be balanced by having them go to the 5 points where they should be. In a fair game conscripts would be 4 points, guardsman 5 points as is , and vetrand 6 points, veterans would be the same as now but with a 4+ armor
Oh just fething stop with the Cruddace nonsense. The guy is constantly painted as being so "protective" of Guard, but quite frankly?
He's screwed us over more than anyone else has.
He's the reason why our Sergeants are gak with no options other than "Derp! Pistols and CCWs!", he's the reason why we had stupid Commissars thrown into such a big role for the past two editions, and he's the reason why we lost all the kits for Veterans.
Guard don't need to be at 5 points. Cultists going up sucks certainly, but anyone who is still on about Conscripts at all(who received THREE nerfs that rendered them completely useless compared to this single one that Cultists have seen which just makes them a bit harder to fit into lists) needs to step back and realize they need to learn to play.
I mean fricking seriously, Conscripts? Still? Who the feth even uses them at this point?
G00fySmiley wrote: Cruddace is a strong hand in 8th edition. he was not going to allow his precious guard to be balanced by having them go to the 5 points where they should be. In a fair game conscripts would be 4 points, guardsman 5 points as is , and vetrand 6 points, veterans would be the same as now but with a 4+ armor
Conscripts should be 3 points again. Getting hit with 3 nerfs was a bit too much. With the changes to Commissars and orders, 3 would be alright. Also, not all veterans need carapace armour, that would be weird.
I more think of the armor as making them worth the 6 points than the guard actually giving them the better armor. though it would make sense to give your mroe elite tropops who are shooting at the level of a space marine better protection/equipment.
They'd still be T3. You want to give them better protection, give them a -1 to hit from shooting attacks and a +1 to Cover Saves.
as for conscripts.. i wish they had not nerfed commissars as it made sense to have the two together. pushing the conscripts into combat. but I do think even as is compared to cultusts being 5 poitns and compared to most other units... they would be a 4 point model. that is again assuming guardsman were where they should be at 5 points per model.
No, they wouldn't be. They have 0 options aside from "additional models".
If you want Cultists to go down in price, they need to start shedding keywords before that can happen.
so my point is invalid because you want me to stop... interesting. I believe telling another user such is a violation of the user agreement here and community behavior guidelines... but what do i know. Perhaps better wording would be that you disagree and feel differently rather than telling another user thier opinion is invalid and they cannot continue in such a manner. (not reporting at all, not my style, but please consider less hostile verbage as it could be toxic to our community and chase off newbies/keep lurkers from inputing thier opions and adding to discussion)
I will agree that guard was not always in a good place certainly, and they should have been stronger in previous editions. But Cruddace was not a lead developer at that point from my understanding. duriing 6th/7th matt ward wanted uber space marines and guard were the support and weak so... they were. Now headed by Cruddace guard are at the top and in most competitive lists... coincidence?
Now on the subject of guard also I am glad that they got some buffs in CA and hope to see more tanks around. but in my view it compounds that the rest of the army got stronger while the lone gaurdsman is point for point the (in my opinion) best unit in the game right now. They are the go to imperial soup ally for a reason, cheap bodies to bubble wrap things, orders allow them to be versatile and thanks fro being able to wound anything on a 6 they cannot be just ignored (honestly this is one of the big things making guard worth more than 4 points imo each squad can whittle wounds off tough things they should not even be able to touch with a flashlight.). with changes to jump packs.jet bikes they can no longer be just jumped over in the assault phase and due to model placement they are probably the best bubble wrap one can get. why take those cool shiny tanks and walkers when guardsmen are better?
so my point is invalid because you want me to stop... interesting. I believe telling another user such is a violation of the user agreement here and community behavior guidelines... but what do i know. Perhaps better wording would be that you disagree and feel differently rather than telling another user thier opinion is invalid and they cannot continue in such a manner. (not reporting at all, not my style, but please consider less hostile verbage as it could be toxic to our community and chase off newbies/keep lurkers from inputing thier opions and adding to discussion)
Your "point is invalid" because it's predicated upon a nonsensical premise that Robin Cruddace was somehow amazing to Guard players or the patron saint of us on the dev team. No. He screwed the army up, badly, with the jump from the amazing Doctrines book to the trash that was his first book and is the reason why Blob Squads with Priests and Commissars became a thing in Ward's era.
You would know that if you weren't so invested into the silliness of "X dev had to have been the one to make the army good!"
I will agree that guard was not always in a good place certainly, and they should have been stronger in previous editions. But Cruddace was not a lead developer at that point from my understanding. duriing 6th/7th matt ward wanted uber space marines and guard were the support and weak so... they were. Now headed by Cruddace guard are at the top and in most competitive lists... coincidence?
And what else changed since then? The whole core of the rules set. And let's not forget that Guard being present "in most competitive lists" is ignoring the fact of the Loyal 32 Command Point Generation Team.
And Christ, nobody is saying Guard were weak--it's that Cruddace was an awful developer who tried to push Guard the way he saw Guard and that was it. The way he saw Guard was literally the way they were at the launch of 8th: Conscripts with Commissars shoveled in with whatever other Imperium stuff someone had. Aka the ONLY build that saw substantial nerfs...
Now on the subject of guard also I am glad that they got some buffs in CA and hope to see more tanks around. but in my view it compounds that the rest of the army got stronger while the lone gaurdsman is point for point the (in my opinion) best unit in the game right now. They are the go to imperial soup ally for a reason, cheap bodies to bubble wrap things, orders allow them to be versatile and thanks fro being able to wound anything on a 6 they cannot be just ignored (honestly this is one of the big things making guard worth more than 4 points imo each squad can whittle wounds off tough things they should not even be able to touch with a flashlight.). with changes to jump packs.jet bikes they can no longer be just jumped over in the assault phase and due to model placement they are probably the best bubble wrap one can get. why take those cool shiny tanks and walkers when guardsmen are better?
Orders mean nothing to "imperial soup". The idea of Guard being the only thing to benefit from the ability to wound anything on a 6 is laughable as well, since your Cultists are using the same statted weapon but with the ability to take more of them in a squad.
SHUPPET wrote: Also, am I the only person who thinks a sorceror casting a strength enhancer or an enrage upon a horde of Cultists, and then throwing them facefirst to take a dent out of a big threat before the things they care about losing dig in, is actually entirely thematic, and is exactly what plenty of Legions use them for? I'm not sure where this idea that Cultists are just meant to be small objective holders thematically comes from, that actually seems contrary to the lore.
I totally agree with you!
I feel like the cultists get ground forward, and the CSM are the true objective holders. It doesn't quite play out that way, but I 100% agree with you about its connection to the lore.
The way I would've designed it is so that Chosen are the base troops for CSM, and Cultists basically screen Astartes infantry, Helbrutes/Dreads, and Bikers like they were Characters until they hit a certain number of models, when they realize "Hey maybe these guys don't like us so much".
Ice_can wrote: Still haven't see any actual logical reason why Guard Infantry are now all 1ppm undercosted, bar designer favouritism.
So you missed the entire part of the thread where cultists because of their keywords can
>be brought in groups of 40 instead of just 10 giving CP used on them more millage
>can be made fearless
>can be made -1 to hit
>can use Veterans of the long war
>can Double fire
>can infiltrate
>can have a diminished unit brought back to life (where the guard have to pay for the unit for the same ability)
I'll gladly take 5pt guardsmen if i gain access to all that
so my point is invalid because you want me to stop... interesting. I believe telling another user such is a violation of the user agreement here and community behavior guidelines... but what do i know. Perhaps better wording would be that you disagree and feel differently rather than telling another user thier opinion is invalid and they cannot continue in such a manner. (not reporting at all, not my style, but please consider less hostile verbage as it could be toxic to our community and chase off newbies/keep lurkers from inputing thier opions and adding to discussion)
Your "point is invalid" because it's predicated upon a nonsensical premise that Robin Cruddace was somehow amazing to Guard players or the patron saint of us on the dev team. No. He screwed the army up, badly, with the jump from the amazing Doctrines book to the trash that was his first book and is the reason why Blob Squads with Priests and Commissars became a thing in Ward's era.
You would know that if you weren't so invested into the silliness of "X dev had to have been the one to make the army good!"
I will agree that guard was not always in a good place certainly, and they should have been stronger in previous editions. But Cruddace was not a lead developer at that point from my understanding. duriing 6th/7th matt ward wanted uber space marines and guard were the support and weak so... they were. Now headed by Cruddace guard are at the top and in most competitive lists... coincidence?
And what else changed since then? The whole core of the rules set. And let's not forget that Guard being present "in most competitive lists" is ignoring the fact of the Loyal 32 Command Point Generation Team.
And Christ, nobody is saying Guard were weak--it's that Cruddace was an awful developer who tried to push Guard the way he saw Guard and that was it. The way he saw Guard was literally the way they were at the launch of 8th: Conscripts with Commissars shoveled in with whatever other Imperium stuff someone had. Aka the ONLY build that saw substantial nerfs...
Now on the subject of guard also I am glad that they got some buffs in CA and hope to see more tanks around. but in my view it compounds that the rest of the army got stronger while the lone gaurdsman is point for point the (in my opinion) best unit in the game right now. They are the go to imperial soup ally for a reason, cheap bodies to bubble wrap things, orders allow them to be versatile and thanks fro being able to wound anything on a 6 they cannot be just ignored (honestly this is one of the big things making guard worth more than 4 points imo each squad can whittle wounds off tough things they should not even be able to touch with a flashlight.). with changes to jump packs.jet bikes they can no longer be just jumped over in the assault phase and due to model placement they are probably the best bubble wrap one can get. why take those cool shiny tanks and walkers when guardsmen are better?
Orders mean nothing to "imperial soup". The idea of Guard being the only thing to benefit from the ability to wound anything on a 6 is laughable as well, since your Cultists are using the same statted weapon but with the ability to take more of them in a squad.
I don't actually use cultists, my chaos list is pink tide, noise marines with chaos marines squads, horde power armor is surprisingly effective.
my imperial soup army gets played more and it does involve guard, but i rarely use guardsman anymore in it, i prefer a themed rough riders with space marine bikers and custodian jet bikes ( i liek themed lists) but when i do bring guardsman... they just do to much work for their investment, my battalion of guard handle bubblewrap, chippign woulnds off even tough things and tar pit big stuff liek tyranids. .
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The way I would've designed it is so that Chosen are the base troops for CSM, and Cultists basically screen Astartes infantry, Helbrutes/Dreads, and Bikers like they were Characters until they hit a certain number of models, when they realize "Hey maybe these guys don't like us so much".
This works mechanically, thematically it doesn't really account for Alpha Legion lore wherein they support highly effective guerilla insurgencies using cultists and heretic guard units. R&H really could have been developed into this concept, but it's just another example of GW not really giving a gak. Hell, you could have made R&H a central component of an Alpha Legion codex, which would have given them a very unique flavor compared to other legions rather than the requisite Chaos-flavored Raven Guard.
Honestly, the entire implementation of Chaos this edition is just lazy and uninspired, it's a bottomless well of missed opportunities.
Ice_can wrote: Still haven't see any actual logical reason why Guard Infantry are now all 1ppm undercosted, bar designer favouritism.
So you missed the entire part of the thread where cultists because of their keywords can
>be brought in groups of 40 instead of just 10 giving CP used on them more millage
>can be made fearless
>can be made -1 to hit
>can use Veterans of the long war
>can Double fire
>can infiltrate
>can have a diminished unit brought back to life (where the guard have to pay for the unit for the same ability)
I'll gladly take 5pt guardsmen if i gain access to all that
You can literally do all those things besides VotLW for Conscripts and infantry.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The way I would've designed it is so that Chosen are the base troops for CSM, and Cultists basically screen Astartes infantry, Helbrutes/Dreads, and Bikers like they were Characters until they hit a certain number of models, when they realize "Hey maybe these guys don't like us so much".
This works mechanically, thematically it doesn't really account for Alpha Legion lore wherein they support highly effective guerilla insurgencies using cultists and heretic guard units. R&H really could have been developed into this concept, but it's just another example of GW not really giving a gak. Hell, you could have made R&H a central component of an Alpha Legion codex, which would have given them a very unique flavor compared to other legions rather than the requisite Chaos-flavored Raven Guard.
Honestly, the entire implementation of Chaos this edition is just lazy and uninspired, it's a bottomless well of missed opportunities.
Regarding Alpha Legion, the "trained" part would simply be the Infiltration strategem, and telling their dudes that, if they hold the line, help is on the way!
I think it works thematically. I also think the idea of incorporated R&H works too, but leaving them as two separate armies is good for now.
I also agree the implementation of Chaos was lazy. The four Cult Legions need to be separated, and Renegades need to go into the Vanilla codex and be played out using switching of keywords and getting a couple of unique units that are simply daemonic or bad juju (like Possessed and Spawn and such).
Ice_can wrote: Still haven't see any actual logical reason why Guard Infantry are now all 1ppm undercosted, bar designer favouritism.
So you missed the entire part of the thread where cultists because of their keywords can
>be brought in groups of 40 instead of just 10 giving CP used on them more millage
>can be made fearless
>can be made -1 to hit
>can use Veterans of the long war
>can Double fire
>can infiltrate
>can have a diminished unit brought back to life (where the guard have to pay for the unit for the same ability)
I'll gladly take 5pt guardsmen if i gain access to all that
You can literally do all those things besides VotLW for Conscripts and infantry.
I must have missed
>the -1 to hit trait
>the fearless trait
>the be brought back without paying points for the unit
>the infiltrate trait
Ice_can wrote: Still haven't see any actual logical reason why Guard Infantry are now all 1ppm undercosted, bar designer favouritism.
So you missed the entire part of the thread where cultists because of their keywords can
>be brought in groups of 40 instead of just 10 giving CP used on them more millage
>can be made fearless
>can be made -1 to hit
>can use Veterans of the long war
>can Double fire
>can infiltrate
>can have a diminished unit brought back to life (where the guard have to pay for the unit for the same ability)
I'll gladly take 5pt guardsmen if i gain access to all that
You can literally do all those things besides VotLW for Conscripts and infantry.
I must have missed
>the -1 to hit trait
>the fearless trait
>the be brought back without paying points for the unit
>the infiltrate trait
The -1 comes from a Psyker power, you get Fearless and Infiltrate via a simple Relic, and you have a Strategem as well to bring back dead squads.
It's like all those things you named are tied to a specific Legion and the things I named are tied to a specific Legion, yet it only matters for Chaos for some reason. Bias much on your end?
Ice_can wrote: Still haven't see any actual logical reason why Guard Infantry are now all 1ppm undercosted, bar designer favouritism.
So you missed the entire part of the thread where cultists because of their keywords can
>be brought in groups of 40 instead of just 10 giving CP used on them more millage
>can be made fearless
>can be made -1 to hit
>can use Veterans of the long war
>can Double fire
>can infiltrate
>can have a diminished unit brought back to life (where the guard have to pay for the unit for the same ability)
I'll gladly take 5pt guardsmen if i gain access to all that
You can literally do all those things besides VotLW for Conscripts and infantry.
I must have missed
>the -1 to hit trait
>the fearless trait
>the be brought back without paying points for the unit
>the infiltrate trait
The -1 comes from a Psyker power, you get Fearless and Infiltrate via a simple Relic, and you have a Strategem as well to bring back dead squads.
It's like all those things you named are tied to a specific Legion and the things I named are tied to a specific Legion, yet it only matters for Chaos for some reason. Bias much on your end?
So i get -1 for paying for a psker then having to get the power off.......... so not just having it
I get infiltrate by using my relic slot...... so cant just get it
and we have a strategem that functions that brings back dead squads if we pay the points for those squads before the game starts
thanks for making my point
Ice_can wrote: Still haven't see any actual logical reason why Guard Infantry are now all 1ppm undercosted, bar designer favouritism.
So you missed the entire part of the thread where cultists because of their keywords can
>be brought in groups of 40 instead of just 10 giving CP used on them more millage
>can be made fearless
>can be made -1 to hit
>can use Veterans of the long war
>can Double fire
>can infiltrate
>can have a diminished unit brought back to life (where the guard have to pay for the unit for the same ability)
I'll gladly take 5pt guardsmen if i gain access to all that
You can literally do all those things besides VotLW for Conscripts and infantry.
I must have missed
>the -1 to hit trait
>the fearless trait
>the be brought back without paying points for the unit
>the infiltrate trait
The -1 comes from a Psyker power, you get Fearless and Infiltrate via a simple Relic, and you have a Strategem as well to bring back dead squads.
It's like all those things you named are tied to a specific Legion and the things I named are tied to a specific Legion, yet it only matters for Chaos for some reason. Bias much on your end?
So i get -1 for paying for a psker then having to get the power off.......... so not just having it
I get infiltrate by using my relic slot...... so cant just get it
and we have a strategem that functions that brings back dead squads if we pay the points for those squads before the game starts
thanks for making my point
Boohoo you need to use a Relic slot. It isn't like I have to use a Legion slot that doesn't benefit Cultists in order to make them Fearless, or pay more than 200 points for the dude that affects everyone instead of just using 30 points and a Relic slot to make sure your Conscripts never run away.
See how the trade-off works? Cultists aren't a 5 point model, period.
You two have confused each other and are talking about different things. Slayer named ways of getting those things in a chaos list, and Asmodios was talking about Guard. Guard have to ally in custodes and use a relic to get fearless. I don't think they can get infiltrate at all.
Trickstick wrote: You two have confused each other and are talking about different things. Guard have to ally in custodes and use a relic to get fearless. I don't think they can get infiltrate at all.
They have an Outflank Strategem (so, same thing), and a relic that does the same thing, all with differing measurements of course.
Ice_can wrote: Still haven't see any actual logical reason why Guard Infantry are now all 1ppm undercosted, bar designer favouritism.
So you missed the entire part of the thread where cultists because of their keywords can
>be brought in groups of 40 instead of just 10 giving CP used on them more millage
>can be made fearless
>can be made -1 to hit
>can use Veterans of the long war
>can Double fire
>can infiltrate
>can have a diminished unit brought back to life (where the guard have to pay for the unit for the same ability)
I'll gladly take 5pt guardsmen if i gain access to all that
You can literally do all those things besides VotLW for Conscripts and infantry.
I must have missed
>the -1 to hit trait
>the fearless trait
>the be brought back without paying points for the unit
>the infiltrate trait
The -1 comes from a Psyker power, you get Fearless and Infiltrate via a simple Relic, and you have a Strategem as well to bring back dead squads.
It's like all those things you named are tied to a specific Legion and the things I named are tied to a specific Legion, yet it only matters for Chaos for some reason. Bias much on your end?
So i get -1 for paying for a psker then having to get the power off.......... so not just having it
I get infiltrate by using my relic slot...... so cant just get it
and we have a strategem that functions that brings back dead squads if we pay the points for those squads before the game starts
thanks for making my point
Boohoo you need to use a Relic slot. It isn't like I have to use a Legion slot that doesn't benefit Cultists in order to make them Fearless, or pay more than 200 points for the dude that affects everyone instead of just using 30 points and a Relic slot to make sure your Conscripts never run away.
See how the trade-off works? Cultists aren't a 5 point model, period.
haha get proven wrong on all your points and the reply is "boohoo"..... thanks I will continue to not shed any tears for cultist. If they are going to remain 4pts they should lose the keyword access to all the traits listed above. As long as the have all those they should be 5points
Trickstick wrote: You two have confused each other and are talking about different things. Guard have to ally in custodes and use a relic to get fearless. I don't think they can get infiltrate at all.
They have an Outflank Strategem (so, same thing), and a relic that does the same thing, all with differing measurements of course.
I forgot about ambush. I guess I don't consider it infiltrate, as that is more of the Ratling rule type of thing to me. Do cultists get the same sort of thing as outflanking?
Trickstick wrote: You two have confused each other and are talking about different things. Guard have to ally in custodes and use a relic to get fearless. I don't think they can get infiltrate at all.
They have an Outflank Strategem (so, same thing), and a relic that does the same thing, all with differing measurements of course.
I forgot about ambush. I guess I don't consider it infiltrate, as that is more of the Ratling rule type of thing to me. Do cultists get the same sort of thing as outflanking?
Via Tide Of Traitors. Otherwise all the Infiltration strategems are now just additional movement at the beginning of the game.
Ice_can wrote: Still haven't see any actual logical reason why Guard Infantry are now all 1ppm undercosted, bar designer favouritism.
So you missed the entire part of the thread where cultists because of their keywords can
>be brought in groups of 40 instead of just 10 giving CP used on them more millage
>can be made fearless
>can be made -1 to hit
>can use Veterans of the long war
>can Double fire
>can infiltrate
>can have a diminished unit brought back to life (where the guard have to pay for the unit for the same ability)
I'll gladly take 5pt guardsmen if i gain access to all that
You can literally do all those things besides VotLW for Conscripts and infantry.
I must have missed
>the -1 to hit trait
>the fearless trait
>the be brought back without paying points for the unit
>the infiltrate trait
The -1 comes from a Psyker power, you get Fearless and Infiltrate via a simple Relic, and you have a Strategem as well to bring back dead squads.
It's like all those things you named are tied to a specific Legion and the things I named are tied to a specific Legion, yet it only matters for Chaos for some reason. Bias much on your end?
So i get -1 for paying for a psker then having to get the power off.......... so not just having it
I get infiltrate by using my relic slot...... so cant just get it
and we have a strategem that functions that brings back dead squads if we pay the points for those squads before the game starts
thanks for making my point
Boohoo you need to use a Relic slot. It isn't like I have to use a Legion slot that doesn't benefit Cultists in order to make them Fearless, or pay more than 200 points for the dude that affects everyone instead of just using 30 points and a Relic slot to make sure your Conscripts never run away.
See how the trade-off works? Cultists aren't a 5 point model, period.
haha get proven wrong on all your points and the reply is "boohoo"..... thanks I will continue to not shed any tears for cultist. If they are going to remain 4pts they should lose the keyword access to all the traits listed above. As long as the have all those they should be 5points
I proved YOU wrong by showing all these things are faction specific and not universal. Units should be priced on their own merit and then outside abilities priced around that, not the other way around.
Cultists aren't 5 points in any army. Period. Abigail is 250 points and you complain he confers Fearless? Give me a break. You're nothing but a Guard apologist, pure and simple.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
fe40k wrote: Why is it that Imperials never have to pay for faction traits/stratagems, but other races do?
First it was Ork Boyz, going up 1ppm.
Now, it's Chaos Cultists going up 1ppm.
...and the arguments remain the same; "but, you get access to traits+stratagems! those should cost points!".
Call me when an Imperial pays for those as well.
Ork Boyz are technically the same price. What happened was you're basically forced to buy the Bomb upgrade, which is now 0 points.
So if you were already taking it, the price is the same. If not...now you're taking it anyway.
Ice_can wrote: Still haven't see any actual logical reason why Guard Infantry are now all 1ppm undercosted, bar designer favouritism.
So you missed the entire part of the thread where cultists because of their keywords can
>be brought in groups of 40 instead of just 10 giving CP used on them more millage
>can be made fearless
>can be made -1 to hit
>can use Veterans of the long war
>can Double fire
>can infiltrate
>can have a diminished unit brought back to life (where the guard have to pay for the unit for the same ability)
I'll gladly take 5pt guardsmen if i gain access to all that
You can literally do all those things besides VotLW for Conscripts and infantry.
I must have missed
>the -1 to hit trait
>the fearless trait
>the be brought back without paying points for the unit
>the infiltrate trait
The -1 comes from a Psyker power, you get Fearless and Infiltrate via a simple Relic, and you have a Strategem as well to bring back dead squads.
It's like all those things you named are tied to a specific Legion and the things I named are tied to a specific Legion, yet it only matters for Chaos for some reason. Bias much on your end?
So i get -1 for paying for a psker then having to get the power off.......... so not just having it
I get infiltrate by using my relic slot...... so cant just get it
and we have a strategem that functions that brings back dead squads if we pay the points for those squads before the game starts
thanks for making my point
Boohoo you need to use a Relic slot. It isn't like I have to use a Legion slot that doesn't benefit Cultists in order to make them Fearless, or pay more than 200 points for the dude that affects everyone instead of just using 30 points and a Relic slot to make sure your Conscripts never run away.
See how the trade-off works? Cultists aren't a 5 point model, period.
haha get proven wrong on all your points and the reply is "boohoo"..... thanks I will continue to not shed any tears for cultist. If they are going to remain 4pts they should lose the keyword access to all the traits listed above. As long as the have all those they should be 5points
I proved YOU wrong by showing all these things are faction specific and not universal. Units should be priced on their own merit and then outside abilities priced around that, not the other way around.
Cultists aren't 5 points in any army. Period. Abigail is 250 points and you complain he confers Fearless? Give me a break. You're nothing but a Guard apologist, pure and simple.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
fe40k wrote: Why is it that Imperials never have to pay for faction traits/stratagems, but other races do?
First it was Ork Boyz, going up 1ppm.
Now, it's Chaos Cultists going up 1ppm.
...and the arguments remain the same; "but, you get access to traits+stratagems! those should cost points!".
Call me when an Imperial pays for those as well.
Ork Boyz are technically the same price. What happened was you're basically forced to buy the Bomb upgrade, which is now 0 points.
So if you were already taking it, the price is the same. If not...now you're taking it anyway.
You proved me wrong by saying "ignore veterans of the long war and guardsmen have all these too" which i proceed to show you that they didnt have? Sorry but your gonna need to do some more research before you convince anyone to change their minds
Ice_can wrote: Still haven't see any actual logical reason why Guard Infantry are now all 1ppm undercosted, bar designer favouritism.
So you missed the entire part of the thread where cultists because of their keywords can
>be brought in groups of 40 instead of just 10 giving CP used on them more millage
>can be made fearless
>can be made -1 to hit
>can use Veterans of the long war
>can Double fire
>can infiltrate
>can have a diminished unit brought back to life (where the guard have to pay for the unit for the same ability)
I'll gladly take 5pt guardsmen if i gain access to all that
You can literally do all those things besides VotLW for Conscripts and infantry.
I must have missed
>the -1 to hit trait
>the fearless trait
>the be brought back without paying points for the unit
>the infiltrate trait
The -1 comes from a Psyker power, you get Fearless and Infiltrate via a simple Relic, and you have a Strategem as well to bring back dead squads.
It's like all those things you named are tied to a specific Legion and the things I named are tied to a specific Legion, yet it only matters for Chaos for some reason. Bias much on your end?
So i get -1 for paying for a psker then having to get the power off.......... so not just having it
I get infiltrate by using my relic slot...... so cant just get it
and we have a strategem that functions that brings back dead squads if we pay the points for those squads before the game starts
thanks for making my point
Boohoo you need to use a Relic slot. It isn't like I have to use a Legion slot that doesn't benefit Cultists in order to make them Fearless, or pay more than 200 points for the dude that affects everyone instead of just using 30 points and a Relic slot to make sure your Conscripts never run away.
See how the trade-off works? Cultists aren't a 5 point model, period.
haha get proven wrong on all your points and the reply is "boohoo"..... thanks I will continue to not shed any tears for cultist. If they are going to remain 4pts they should lose the keyword access to all the traits listed above. As long as the have all those they should be 5points
I proved YOU wrong by showing all these things are faction specific and not universal. Units should be priced on their own merit and then outside abilities priced around that, not the other way around.
Cultists aren't 5 points in any army. Period. Abigail is 250 points and you complain he confers Fearless? Give me a break. You're nothing but a Guard apologist, pure and simple.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
fe40k wrote: Why is it that Imperials never have to pay for faction traits/stratagems, but other races do?
First it was Ork Boyz, going up 1ppm.
Now, it's Chaos Cultists going up 1ppm.
...and the arguments remain the same; "but, you get access to traits+stratagems! those should cost points!".
Call me when an Imperial pays for those as well.
Ork Boyz are technically the same price. What happened was you're basically forced to buy the Bomb upgrade, which is now 0 points.
So if you were already taking it, the price is the same. If not...now you're taking it anyway.
You proved me wrong by saying "ignore veterans of the long war and guardsmen have all these too" which i proceed to show you that they didnt have? Sorry but your gonna need to do some more research before you convince anyone to change their minds
Read your post again. I showed that Conscripts and Infantry can get all the things you listed.
Ice_can wrote: Still haven't see any actual logical reason why Guard Infantry are now all 1ppm undercosted, bar designer favouritism.
So you missed the entire part of the thread where cultists because of their keywords can
>be brought in groups of 40 instead of just 10 giving CP used on them more millage
>can be made fearless
>can be made -1 to hit
>can use Veterans of the long war
>can Double fire
>can infiltrate
>can have a diminished unit brought back to life (where the guard have to pay for the unit for the same ability)
I'll gladly take 5pt guardsmen if i gain access to all that
You can literally do all those things besides VotLW for Conscripts and infantry.
I must have missed
>the -1 to hit trait
>the fearless trait
>the be brought back without paying points for the unit
>the infiltrate trait
The -1 comes from a Psyker power, you get Fearless and Infiltrate via a simple Relic, and you have a Strategem as well to bring back dead squads.
It's like all those things you named are tied to a specific Legion and the things I named are tied to a specific Legion, yet it only matters for Chaos for some reason. Bias much on your end?
So i get -1 for paying for a psker then having to get the power off.......... so not just having it
I get infiltrate by using my relic slot...... so cant just get it
and we have a strategem that functions that brings back dead squads if we pay the points for those squads before the game starts
thanks for making my point
Boohoo you need to use a Relic slot. It isn't like I have to use a Legion slot that doesn't benefit Cultists in order to make them Fearless, or pay more than 200 points for the dude that affects everyone instead of just using 30 points and a Relic slot to make sure your Conscripts never run away.
See how the trade-off works? Cultists aren't a 5 point model, period.
haha get proven wrong on all your points and the reply is "boohoo"..... thanks I will continue to not shed any tears for cultist. If they are going to remain 4pts they should lose the keyword access to all the traits listed above. As long as the have all those they should be 5points
I proved YOU wrong by showing all these things are faction specific and not universal. Units should be priced on their own merit and then outside abilities priced around that, not the other way around.
Cultists aren't 5 points in any army. Period. Abigail is 250 points and you complain he confers Fearless? Give me a break. You're nothing but a Guard apologist, pure and simple.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
fe40k wrote: Why is it that Imperials never have to pay for faction traits/stratagems, but other races do?
First it was Ork Boyz, going up 1ppm.
Now, it's Chaos Cultists going up 1ppm.
...and the arguments remain the same; "but, you get access to traits+stratagems! those should cost points!".
Call me when an Imperial pays for those as well.
Ork Boyz are technically the same price. What happened was you're basically forced to buy the Bomb upgrade, which is now 0 points.
So if you were already taking it, the price is the same. If not...now you're taking it anyway.
You proved me wrong by saying "ignore veterans of the long war and guardsmen have all these too" which i proceed to show you that they didnt have? Sorry but your gonna need to do some more research before you convince anyone to change their minds
Read your post again. I showed that Conscripts and Infantry can get all the things you listed.
You showed that conscripts could
>get -1 to hit by buying a psker and casting a power on them
>you can pay CP in order to infiltrate them
>You can pay points for another full unit and CP to get tide of traders
>you could pay 2 CP to get fearless like everyone else in the game but cant get on multiple squads
>can do nothing to get VOTLW wow you really showed that they should be a point more. Thanks again for making my point
You're acting like Guard don't have their own traits and bonuses (a lot of which are actually really good), and acting like Cultists don't pay CP/points to get those bonuses as well.
So the point is, all units can get SUBJECTIVELY equal buffs, so saying X gets Y is irrelevant when A can get B, with Y & B being subjectively equal.
Both sides need to stop refuting the subjectivity of this buff vs that and just look at the units and what THEY provide to an army.
Objectively, Guard Infantry are flat out better for Guard than Cultists are for Chaos. Better armour save, better options.
Most would be fine if Cultists and Guardsman were equal in posts, but Cultists being MORE than Guardsman FOR WHAT EACH BRINGS TO THEIR ARMY is just living in opposite land
fe40k wrote: You're acting like Guard don't have their own traits and bonuses (a lot of which are actually really good), and acting like Cultists don't pay CP/points to get those bonuses as well.
Cmon.
Thanks for putting that more elegantly than I did
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: So the point is, all units can get SUBJECTIVELY equal buffs, so saying X gets Y is irrelevant when A can get B, with Y & B being subjectively equal.
Both sides need to stop refuting the subjectivity of this buff vs that and just look at the units and what THEY provide to an army.
Objectively, Guard Infantry are flat out better for Guard than Cultists are for Chaos. Better armour save, better options.
Most would be fine if Cultists and Guardsman were equal in posts, but Cultists being MORE than Guardsman FOR WHAT EACH BRINGS TO THEIR ARMY is just living in opposite land
-
The particular poster is a noted Guard apologist. I don't know why I'm trying to reason with them.
fe40k wrote: You're acting like Guard don't have their own traits and bonuses (a lot of which are actually really good), and acting like Cultists don't pay CP/points to get those bonuses as well.
Cmon.
Thanks for putting that more elegantly than I did
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: So the point is, all units can get SUBJECTIVELY equal buffs, so saying X gets Y is irrelevant when A can get B, with Y & B being subjectively equal.
Both sides need to stop refuting the subjectivity of this buff vs that and just look at the units and what THEY provide to an army.
Objectively, Guard Infantry are flat out better for Guard than Cultists are for Chaos. Better armour save, better options.
Most would be fine if Cultists and Guardsman were equal in posts, but Cultists being MORE than Guardsman FOR WHAT EACH BRINGS TO THEIR ARMY is just living in opposite land
-
The particular poster is a noted Guard apologist. I don't know why I'm trying to reason with them.
If by guard apologist you mean pointing out very obvious reasons why cultists should cost an additional point then I guess....
If you give conscripts or guardsmen all the above then yeah they should be 5points as well
If you want cultists to stay 4pts they need to lose access to VOTLW and they need to pay points pre game for tide of traders
fe40k wrote: You're acting like Guard don't have their own traits and bonuses (a lot of which are actually really good), and acting like Cultists don't pay CP/points to get those bonuses as well.
Cmon.
Thanks for putting that more elegantly than I did
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: So the point is, all units can get SUBJECTIVELY equal buffs, so saying X gets Y is irrelevant when A can get B, with Y & B being subjectively equal.
Both sides need to stop refuting the subjectivity of this buff vs that and just look at the units and what THEY provide to an army.
Objectively, Guard Infantry are flat out better for Guard than Cultists are for Chaos. Better armour save, better options.
Most would be fine if Cultists and Guardsman were equal in posts, but Cultists being MORE than Guardsman FOR WHAT EACH BRINGS TO THEIR ARMY is just living in opposite land
-
The particular poster is a noted Guard apologist. I don't know why I'm trying to reason with them.
If by guard apologist you mean pointing out very obvious reasons why cultists should cost an additional point then I guess....
If you give conscripts or guardsmen all the above then yeah they should be 5points as well
If you want cultists to stay 4pts they need to lose access to VOTLW and they need to pay points pre game for tide of traders
Tide Of Traitors is already once per game and Cultists aren't even the single greatest target for VotLW (though thematically I agree they shouldn't have it).
I thought there was a tournament winning list around that exploited VOTLW s on 40-man cultist blobs shooting twice?
Either way, not having to pay reinforcement points for the ability is silly. Better that Tide of Traitors lose the "once per game" and instead gain "reinforcement points", just like SITNW did.
That makes it better for both matched play and narrative play.
fe40k wrote: You're acting like Guard don't have their own traits and bonuses (a lot of which are actually really good), and acting like Cultists don't pay CP/points to get those bonuses as well.
Cmon.
Thanks for putting that more elegantly than I did
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: So the point is, all units can get SUBJECTIVELY equal buffs, so saying X gets Y is irrelevant when A can get B, with Y & B being subjectively equal.
Both sides need to stop refuting the subjectivity of this buff vs that and just look at the units and what THEY provide to an army.
Objectively, Guard Infantry are flat out better for Guard than Cultists are for Chaos. Better armour save, better options.
Most would be fine if Cultists and Guardsman were equal in posts, but Cultists being MORE than Guardsman FOR WHAT EACH BRINGS TO THEIR ARMY is just living in opposite land
-
The particular poster is a noted Guard apologist. I don't know why I'm trying to reason with them.
If by guard apologist you mean pointing out very obvious reasons why cultists should cost an additional point then I guess....
If you give conscripts or guardsmen all the above then yeah they should be 5points as well
If you want cultists to stay 4pts they need to lose access to VOTLW and they need to pay points pre game for tide of traders
Tide Of Traitors is already once per game and Cultists aren't even the single greatest target for VotLW (though thematically I agree they shouldn't have it).
Let's do some simple math lets say you bring back simply 25 cultists with a tide of traders that is 100 free points right there on 4point cultists (and that's bringing only 25 back). That's alone is worth the cost bump on 100 cultists. Meanwhile the guard ability you have to pay for the full unit pre-game. Its funny getting called a guard apologist while you brush off a free 100-156 point free unit because its only "once a game". Not to mention that while you agree that they shouldnt have VOTLW they simply do and having the ability to pop up and do 15 wounds to a knigh is well worth the 1 point bump
Unit1126PLL wrote: I thought there was a tournament winning list around that exploited VOTLW s on 40-man cultist blobs shooting twice?
Either way, not having to pay reinforcement points for the ability is silly. Better that Tide of Traitors lose the "once per game" and instead gain "reinforcement points", just like SITNW did.
That makes it better for both matched play and narrative play.
I believe that's correct (it was at least a top table list), but that was a looong time ago, relatively speaking, back when the CSM codex was one of only a couple codices out there and prior to the ToT changes I think.
The codex arms race has honestly reduced the usefulness of that to gimmick status. Honestly, I had someone try to pop that on me at LVO last year, I got first turn and killed the entire squad, no ToT, no VotLW, no EC.
It's just not as scary as everyone is making it out to be.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I thought there was a tournament winning list around that exploited VOTLW s on 40-man cultist blobs shooting twice?
Either way, not having to pay reinforcement points for the ability is silly. Better that Tide of Traitors lose the "once per game" and instead gain "reinforcement points", just like SITNW did.
That makes it better for both matched play and narrative play.
I believe that's correct (it was at least a top table list), but that was a looong time ago, relatively speaking, back when the CSM codex was one of only a couple codices out there and prior to the ToT changes I think.
The codex arms race has honestly reduced the usefulness of that to gimmick status. Honestly, I had someone try to pop that on me at LVO last year, I got first turn and killed the entire squad, no ToT, no VotLW, no EC.
It's just not as scary as everyone is making it out to be.
I think this is most people's problem with CA it's not that it hasn't got some good changes in it.
It's that some of the units being nerfed are no longer problems while even more rampant current meta defining units are untouched.
Also, for the purposes of math, and setting points aside, just to indulge myself (But also for perusal here):
max squad (40) cultists in rapid fire with VOTLW and Endless Cacophony:
vs Tactical Squad
160 shots, 80 hits, 40 wounds, 13-14 dead, ouch.
vs Knight
160 shots, 80 hits, 27 wounds, 9 stick. Pretty good.
Max squad (20) CSM in rapid fire with VOTLW and Endless Cacophony, no special weapons:
vs Tactical Squad
80 shots, 54 hits, 27 wounds, ~9 dead. Damn good, but not quite as good as cultists
vs Knight
80 shots, 54 hits, 18 wounds, ~6 stick. meh.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Also, for the purposes of math, and setting points aside, just to indulge myself (But also for perusal here):
max squad (40) cultists in rapid fire with VOTLW and Endless Cacophony:
vs Tactical Squad
160 shots, 80 hits, 40 wounds, 13-14 dead, ouch.
vs Knight
160 shots, 80 hits, 27 wounds, 9 stick. Pretty good.
Max squad (20) CSM in rapid fire with VOTLW and Endless Cacophony, no special weapons:
vs Tactical Squad
80 shots, 54 hits, 27 wounds, ~9 dead. Damn good, but not quite as good as cultists
vs Knight
80 shots, 54 hits, 18 wounds, ~6 stick. meh.
Interesting.
Possibly a post for the choas tactics but what about oblits with VoTLW and Endless?
Unit1126PLL wrote: Also, for the purposes of math, and setting points aside, just to indulge myself (But also for perusal here):
max squad (40) cultists in rapid fire with VOTLW and Endless Cacophony:
vs Tactical Squad
160 shots, 80 hits, 40 wounds, 13-14 dead, ouch.
vs Knight
160 shots, 80 hits, 27 wounds, 9 stick. Pretty good.
Max squad (20) CSM in rapid fire with VOTLW and Endless Cacophony, no special weapons:
vs Tactical Squad
80 shots, 54 hits, 27 wounds, ~9 dead. Damn good, but not quite as good as cultists
vs Knight
80 shots, 54 hits, 18 wounds, ~6 stick. meh.
Interesting.
Should we go over the assumptions built into the math here? It assumes 1) you got first turn 2) somehow you got within double tap range of the knight on that first turn despite the changes to FO. Sure, it's possible, but I think it also assumes that your opponent probably made a few deployment mistakes as well.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Also, for the purposes of math, and setting points aside, just to indulge myself (But also for perusal here):
max squad (40) cultists in rapid fire with VOTLW and Endless Cacophony:
vs Tactical Squad
160 shots, 80 hits, 40 wounds, 13-14 dead, ouch.
vs Knight
160 shots, 80 hits, 27 wounds, 9 stick. Pretty good.
Max squad (20) CSM in rapid fire with VOTLW and Endless Cacophony, no special weapons:
vs Tactical Squad
80 shots, 54 hits, 27 wounds, ~9 dead. Damn good, but not quite as good as cultists
vs Knight
80 shots, 54 hits, 18 wounds, ~6 stick. meh.
Interesting.
So it proves that Chaos Marines have been poor on offense like always. Remove VotLW from both and you'll see that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I thought there was a tournament winning list around that exploited VOTLW s on 40-man cultist blobs shooting twice?
Either way, not having to pay reinforcement points for the ability is silly. Better that Tide of Traitors lose the "once per game" and instead gain "reinforcement points", just like SITNW did.
That makes it better for both matched play and narrative play.
I don't think SITNW should require reinforcement points either, for what it's worth. Tzeentch Horrors simply had the issue of being too cheap.
I don't think SITNW should require reinforcement points either, for what it's worth. Tzeentch Horrors simply had the issue of being too cheap.
I think what always gets neglected with SITNW is that you can't stop it by wiping the squad. Whenever GW gives "free" summoning in 8th, it's always replenishing a depleted squad. It sucks for the Guard that when they wrote the codex, they went with the implementation that requires reinforcement points, but that's what they did. Comparing it to ToT or a Tervigon or whatever is apples and oranges.
Galef wrote: So the point is, all units can get SUBJECTIVELY equal buffs, so saying X gets Y is irrelevant when A can get B, with Y & B being subjectively equal.
Both sides need to stop refuting the subjectivity of this buff vs that and just look at the units and what THEY provide to an army.
Objectively, Guard Infantry are flat out better for Guard than Cultists are for Chaos. Better armour save, better options.
Most would be fine if Cultists and Guardsman were equal in posts, but Cultists being MORE than Guardsman FOR WHAT EACH BRINGS TO THEIR ARMY is just living in opposite land
-
Exactly. Nobody would be moaning about Guardsmen vs Cultist points difference if they were both 5 pts (considering they're taken in far different List compositions and belong to entirely different factions) but having guardsmen still at 4 pts is bonkers and that should have NEVER happened
Surely the main reason why cultists went up but guardsmen didn’t was because the codex is called Codex: Heretic Astartes, not Codex: Chaos Cultists. GW want CSM to be the main focus of CSM armies, whereas guardsmen are the focus of their own codex, not some inherent bias towards imperial guard.
Excommunicatus wrote: Especially when you consider that R&H Militia also cost 4ppm and are, indisputably, inferior to Infantry Squads in every regard.
No Stratagems, no Relics, no WT, no Orders. 6+ save, WS/BS 5+, variable and terrible Ld.
pretty much all the FW lists are bad however. This also isnt new. DKoK for instance cost more than their codex equivalents and are demonstrably inferior even if they were the same cost, always have been going back to 4E
Largely, it appears that FW has just ceased non-manufacturing related work after Alan's passing. We have no new or updated army lists, GW has seemingly taken up balance/usage issues itself, we got some Index lists from FW at the start of the edition and that was basically it.
Excommunicatus wrote: Especially when you consider that R&H Militia also cost 4ppm and are, indisputably, inferior to Infantry Squads in every regard.
No Stratagems, no Relics, no WT, no Orders. 6+ save, WS/BS 5+, variable and terrible Ld.
pretty much all the FW lists are bad however. This also isnt new. DKoK for instance cost more than their codex equivalents and are demonstrably inferior even if they were the same cost, always have been going back to 4E
Largely, it appears that FW has just ceased non-manufacturing related work after Alan's passing. We have no new or updated army lists, GW has seemingly taken up balance/usage issues itself, we got some Index lists from FW at the start of the edition and that was basically it.
Unless we get something new from FW, I almost think that they are winding down. We know that the model cycle takes several years to complete, so we could just get a few years of things that are already inthe pipe. How is the Horus Heresy stuff going these days? I'm guessing it may become a bit defunct with Primarchs coming to 40k.
I hope I am wrong, but I could see FW either wrap up or become a vastly smaller part of the company, producing only a few select models like titans.
Excommunicatus wrote: Especially when you consider that R&H Militia also cost 4ppm and are, indisputably, inferior to Infantry Squads in every regard.
No Stratagems, no Relics, no WT, no Orders. 6+ save, WS/BS 5+, variable and terrible Ld.
Your version of "Orders" is blended with your version of the "Regiments" tagline, giving you the Covenants.
You having no Stratagems, Relics, or Warlord Traits means nothing as no Index lists had them until we saw Chapter Approved's first iteration.
Also, "Militia" are one of three Troop options for R&H. Please note that the Militia unit he's referring to gets, in comparison to a Guard unit:
1)10 additional models toting Lasguns(or Autoguns).
2)1 in 5 models get to take a weapon from the R&H Special Weapons list(Flamer, Grenade Launcher, Meltagun, or Plasma Gun).
3)For every 10 models in the unit, you get to bring a Heavy Weapons Team(Autocannon, Heavy Bolter, Heavy Stubber, Lascannon, Missile Launcher, or Mortar).
4)A Chaos Sigil(roll 2D6 for Morale, choose the lowest)
5)Vox-Caster(roll 2 dice to determine its Leadership value and then pick the highest--so when that "terrible and variable LD is being rolled for")
6)The Renegade Cultist Champion gets an autogun/lasgun standard and can get a Shotgun or a pistol/CCW mix.
7) The whole squad can get pistols+CCWs if they so choose.
Renegade Cultists are another option, closer to to actual Guardsmen than the Militia are(as they're 4+/4+), in comparison to the Guard Infantry Squad they are a bit less flexible but they still are nothing to be sneezed at with the fact that they're basically a GEQ version of a Conscript Squad that also gets Heavy Stubbers+Flamers or Pistols/CCWs.
Renegade Mutant Rabble are the last option, and are basically the 'worst' of the bunch. WS/BS5+ with no LD mods--but they come with laspistols, stub guns, or autopistols and the option for Lasgun, Autogun, or Shotgun. The unit starts at 10 and can be given 10, 20, 30, or 40 additional models. When the unit is first deployed you roll a D6 to see what they get as a mutation, on a 1 you remove D6 models, 2-3 +2" to Move, 4-5 +1A when they charge, and on a 6 you get to make them T4 instead of T3.
TLDR version:
Saying they're "inferior versions of Guardsmen" misses the point. Militia are what Conscripts should have been and comparing them to the Guard Infantry Squad is disingenuous.
Re; Infantry being 5 ppm models. The maths has been done to death on this in countless threads. At 4 ppm infantry are the best troop in the game. At 5 ppm they are still the best troop in the game but the gap is smaller.
I think Cultists are 5 ppm troops, but so are Infantry. Conscripts are not 3 ppm units. Grots are 3 ppm units and there is no comparison. Vets are not 5 ppm units either.
"The maths" are useless. They don't factor in outlying factors such as the fact that Infantry Squads are static units with no sliding scale for unit size nor do the Sergeants have any options.
If you keep trying to say "I made this wonderful formula that shows the round peg fits in the round hole" while widening the hole, of course the round peg will fit.
Does the Sergeant getting options REALLY matter like you say it does? No.
Also, complaining about the static nature of Infantry is honestly laughable. Fire Warriors are pretty darn static too and they have a transport they're supposed to go in!
Excommunicatus wrote: Especially when you consider that R&H Militia also cost 4ppm and are, indisputably, inferior to Infantry Squads in every regard.
No Stratagems, no Relics, no WT, no Orders. 6+ save, WS/BS 5+, variable and terrible Ld.
pretty much all the FW lists are bad however. This also isnt new. DKoK for instance cost more than their codex equivalents and are demonstrably inferior even if they were the same cost, always have been going back to 4E
Largely, it appears that FW has just ceased non-manufacturing related work after Alan's passing. We have no new or updated army lists, GW has seemingly taken up balance/usage issues itself, we got some Index lists from FW at the start of the edition and that was basically it.
Unless we get something new from FW, I almost think that they are winding down. We know that the model cycle takes several years to complete, so we could just get a few years of things that are already inthe pipe. How is the Horus Heresy stuff going these days? I'm guessing it may become a bit defunct with Primarchs coming to 40k.
I hope I am wrong, but I could see FW either wrap up or become a vastly smaller part of the company, producing only a few select models like titans.
It wouldn't surprise me. I'm kinda getting the same feeling in some ways, if FW were winding down or on hold after Alan, I could see it.
about it every chance he can get. 
.
)
