So, I watched a flip-through of the latest CA, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but apart from the points adjustments, there seems to be very little in general in it.
For example.........
Rumored full smite for GK and Thousand boyz isn't happening. I'd also have preferred that rubrics get a rule similar to GK's that don't evaporate half the squad if they perils, but very few new datasheets.
Rumored -1 to hit tactics changing to cover isn't happening. That's a bit of a shocker, as the similar ork klan (blood axes) got always in cover instead of -1 to hit.
SM/CSM not getting chapter/legion tactics on all vehicles, like everyone else is also surprising. It seems only fair at this point.
And as an ork player, I was personally expecting that natural 6s always counting as a hit would be more than fair game-wide. But nothing outside of a blurb in city fights.
Lastly, also as an ork player, our 'gets hot' weapons only get hot on unmodified 1s, which again, seems more than fair game-wide. But nothing there either - so if it's dark out, shiny imperium plasma still catastrophically gets hot more easily, whereas ork stuff still only deals 1 MW on a natural 1. And on that topic, I think that gets hot should just cause 1 MW instead of a instagib, again, like orks.
So, somehow, ork plasma weaponry is more reliable and safer than imperium counterparts. That's an odd feeling.
So, I'm a bit surprised by the lack of actual rules tweaks, in addition to some odd points tweaking.
I'm a little surprised regular Leman Russes didn't go down a bit, with the -25 pts to Tank Commanders there's no reason to not take them over standard russes. Orders + BS3 is absolutely worth 15 points.
Horst wrote: I'm a little surprised regular Leman Russes didn't go down a bit, with the -25 pts to Tank Commanders there's no reason to not take them over standard russes. Orders + BS3 is absolutely worth 15 points.
Rule of 3 prevents abuse! Even though the points aren't balanced whatsoever! Yay Rule of 3!
Errata are for established rules getting tweaked, generally. Last CA a number of FAQs came out alongside. We'll have to see if the same thing happens here.
Horst wrote: I'm a little surprised regular Leman Russes didn't go down a bit, with the -25 pts to Tank Commanders there's no reason to not take them over standard russes. Orders + BS3 is absolutely worth 15 points.
Rule of 3 prevents abuse! Even though the points aren't balanced whatsoever! Yay Rule of 3!
I will have to content myself with a Supreme Command consisting of Pask and 3 Tank Commanders for my heavy fire support I'll live somehow.
Daedalus81 wrote: Errata are for established rules getting tweaked, generally. Last CA a number of FAQs came out alongside. We'll have to see if the same thing happens here.
Fingers crossed. Hopefully several things get tweaked. Here's my wishlist: DE Disintegrators go to Damage:1 or even D3 like Star cannons. Flat 2 is brutally reliable Eldar Reaper launcher goes to Damage: D3 (D1 on the multi-shot mode) CPs get a massive tweak, preferable returning Battalions to 3CPs and Battle Forged to 5CPs Alaitoc/RG/AL become a cover bonus instead of -1 to be hit
Daedalus81 wrote: Errata are for established rules getting tweaked, generally. Last CA a number of FAQs came out alongside. We'll have to see if the same thing happens here.
That's a good point. I don't remember FAQs during last year's CA, but I'll take your word for it! Then again, if they're just going to FAQ everything (and they should FAQ point changes for free), makes you wonder why they bother with CA in the first place. I guess missions.
Daedalus81 wrote: Errata are for established rules getting tweaked, generally. Last CA a number of FAQs came out alongside. We'll have to see if the same thing happens here.
That's a good point. I don't remember FAQs during last year's CA, but I'll take your word for it! Then again, if they're just going to FAQ everything (and they should FAQ point changes for free), makes you wonder why they bother with CA in the first place. I guess missions.
I could be remembering it incorrectly. I agree on points. They're clearly able to do them in FAQs, but I don't mind them in CA so that I can have on physical reference instead of printing off a bunch of FAQs.
Horst wrote: I'm a little surprised regular Leman Russes didn't go down a bit, with the -25 pts to Tank Commanders there's no reason to not take them over standard russes. Orders + BS3 is absolutely worth 15 points.
Rule of 3 prevents abuse! Even though the points aren't balanced whatsoever! Yay Rule of 3!
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe it's an official rule. I thought it was just a suggestion in CA.
Horst wrote: I'm a little surprised regular Leman Russes didn't go down a bit, with the -25 pts to Tank Commanders there's no reason to not take them over standard russes. Orders + BS3 is absolutely worth 15 points.
Rule of 3 prevents abuse! Even though the points aren't balanced whatsoever! Yay Rule of 3!
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe it's an official rule. I thought it was just a suggestion in CA.
Rule of 3 is a suggestion for organized events, yes. But is it such a GOOD suggestion, that 99% of events endorse it and therefore most players assume it to be the standard even in their casual games.
If you want to break the rule of 3 in your casual games, go nuts, just make sure your opponent knows/is ok with it as a courtesy.
Kap'n Krump wrote: So, I watched a flip-through of the latest CA, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but apart from the points adjustments, there seems to be very little in general in it.
For example.........
Rumored full smite for GK and Thousand boyz isn't happening. I'd also have preferred that rubrics get a rule similar to GK's that don't evaporate half the squad if they perils, but very few new datasheets.
Rumored -1 to hit tactics changing to cover isn't happening. That's a bit of a shocker, as the similar ork klan (blood axes) got always in cover instead of -1 to hit.
SM/CSM not getting chapter/legion tactics on all vehicles, like everyone else is also surprising. It seems only fair at this point.
And as an ork player, I was personally expecting that natural 6s always counting as a hit would be more than fair game-wide. But nothing outside of a blurb in city fights.
Lastly, also as an ork player, our 'gets hot' weapons only get hot on unmodified 1s, which again, seems more than fair game-wide. But nothing there either - so if it's dark out, shiny imperium plasma still catastrophically gets hot more easily, whereas ork stuff still only deals 1 MW on a natural 1. And on that topic, I think that gets hot should just cause 1 MW instead of a instagib, again, like orks.
So, somehow, ork plasma weaponry is more reliable and safer than imperium counterparts. That's an odd feeling.
So, I'm a bit surprised by the lack of actual rules tweaks, in addition to some odd points tweaking.
Probably saving those changes for the next Vigilus type book. My understanding is that book has updated data sheets (well at least for Calgar)
I'm not surprised by the lack to changes to rules. They don't seem to change datasheets for the most part.
However, there are some changes I'm surprised with:
Tank Commanders down like 20+ points, but no corresponding change to regular tanks. Why are Tank Commanders going down in points in the first place?
Manticores going back down to 133 points. Huh?
Those are both entirely unexpected.
It was also expected that Guardsmen would go up a point, especially since Cultists did, but didn't.
It was generally assumed that Tacticals would go down a point, but they didn't.
They seemed very conservative changes. (barring named characters at least)
And I think the reasoning for it is the re-introduction of formations.
Correct me if I'm wrong but chaos isn't officially at Vigilus yet except for a warband led by haarkon. 80 days lands in early March so I figure chaos formations will be the star along with a couple others(Tau and Necrons will probably be absent again unfortunately). I figure when abaddon shows up so will a bunch of demons followed up by GK formations since Vigilus is oh so important
Daedalus81 wrote: Errata are for established rules getting tweaked, generally. Last CA a number of FAQs came out alongside. We'll have to see if the same thing happens here.
Last year a bunch of faq's come out with CA because they hadn't moved to the 2x Faq per year schedule right?
I would not expect faq's this time.
Kap'n Krump wrote:Lastly, also as an ork player, our 'gets hot' weapons only get hot on unmodified 1s, which again, seems more than fair game-wide. But nothing there either - so if it's dark out, shiny imperium plasma still catastrophically gets hot more easily, whereas ork stuff still only deals 1 MW on a natural 1. And on that topic, I think that gets hot should just cause 1 MW instead of a instagib, again, like orks.
So, somehow, ork plasma weaponry is more reliable and safer than imperium counterparts. That's an odd feeling.
Yeah, this point is baffling. Half of Imperial plasma has to include erratas and exceptions to not make 200+ model go pop because one tiny plasma gun somewhere in corner overloaded. They really should both make it universally unmodified 1 and 1 MW for all old gets hot weapons across the game.
Galef wrote:Fingers crossed. Hopefully several things get tweaked.
Here's my wishlist:
DE Disintegrators go to Damage:1 or even D3 like Star cannons. Flat 2 is brutally reliable
Eldar Reaper launcher goes to Damage: D3 (D1 on the multi-shot mode)
CPs get a massive tweak, preferable returning Battalions to 3CPs and Battle Forged to 5CPs
Alaitoc/RG/AL become a cover bonus instead of -1 to be hit
Yeah, a lot of guns with D2 in the game have no business doing so. It should really be limited to tank-grade guns or stuff with drawbacks (like GH), not given like candy to small hand guns.
This is why, BTW, I find all the people trying to invent primaris conspiracy to be so funny - GW would sure sell a lot more of them, if proliferation of D2 weapons didn't made them so bad, and if their expensive melee HQs (like fist captain) weren't stuck with single shot plasma pistol you can't swap that instantly kills your warlord if you try to overload it to actually deal any damage. You'd think that if the FUD was real in any way the rules wouldn't be constantly stacked in every possible way against the new faction (which has side effect of killing terminator and other elite units sales...).
And eh, the most urgent fix CPs need is the batteries. Make CPs only work for the faction of the detachment that generated them and I feel most problems with them will disappear.
Making those changes suggested would mean they had to put the models second in their design decisions. They clearly don't want to consider certain decreases or nerfs as it would invalidate some previous design decisions.
Or it could be they just didn't think about the tournament scene.
Daedalus81 wrote: Errata are for established rules getting tweaked, generally. Last CA a number of FAQs came out alongside. We'll have to see if the same thing happens here.
Last year a bunch of faq's come out with CA because they hadn't moved to the 2x Faq per year schedule right?
I would not expect faq's this time.
That a lot of you worked yourselves into a frenzy about xyz happening & got your hopes crushed is highly amusing to me though.
Oh well, it'll surely all come true in the next FAQ, won't it?
I think there are more changes than people really think going on - admittedly not stated outright in Chapter Approved.
The missions, for example, in Chapter Approve change the entire way the game is played more or less. Likewise, the specialist detachments in the upcoming Vigilus book include stratagems which affect Space Marine vehicles of certain types, etc. I don't think we'll see the full change until a couple of tournaments and a couple hundred battle reports go by.
I am 100% not surprised by the lack of army tweaks CA. They gave us exactly what they said they would and exactly what they gave us last year. Everyone wishing for otherwise was setting themselves up for disappointment.
It is interesting that 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). That puts CA a full 6 months behind the meta when it comes to changes.
I'm actually pleasantly surprised that Dark Eldar didn't get nerfed into the ground and just how many points drops my Death Guard got. I expected Dark Eldar to become at least unplayable.
Custodes, still no points drops for my FW hover tanks.
Land Raiders, still pretty useless.
GK, I just feel bad for these guys.
Cultists are 5 points but Guard are 4? In what fething world does this even remotely make sense? Just adjust the keywords on cultists, it's not hard. They aren't a 5 point model.
All in all. Hack job. But, it's GW and I'm used to it by now.
Cultists are 5 points but Guard are 4? In what fething world does this even remotely make sense? Just adjust the keywords on cultists, it's not hard. They aren't a 5 point model.
Maybe they're just trolling all of you who think you know how to properly stat this game better than they do.
Cultists are 5 points but Guard are 4? In what fething world does this even remotely make sense? Just adjust the keywords on cultists, it's not hard. They aren't a 5 point model.
Maybe they're just trolling all of you who think you know how to properly stat this game better than they do.
Do explain how a Cultist is worth a 25% increase over a Guardsmen. Please, enlighten us.
Cultists are 5 points but Guard are 4? In what fething world does this even remotely make sense? Just adjust the keywords on cultists, it's not hard. They aren't a 5 point model.
Maybe they're just trolling all of you who think you know how to properly stat this game better than they do.
Well knowing better than gw designers is pretty low bar...trained monkev could do it
Cultists are 5 points but Guard are 4? In what fething world does this even remotely make sense? Just adjust the keywords on cultists, it's not hard. They aren't a 5 point model.
Maybe they're just trolling all of you who think you know how to properly stat this game better than they do.
Do explain how a Cultist is worth a 25% increase over a Guardsmen. Please, enlighten us.
In a vacuum it isn't, but when you get to multiply anything you do to them by 40 then it adds up pretty quickly.
Did people forget why conscripts were a pain in the ass? You could take up to 50 of them and rock orders for a billion shots. Then they kicked the max size in the pants and nerfed orders.
Cultists don't have an implicit way to block what makes them good like orders on conscripts.
Cultists are 5 points but Guard are 4? In what fething world does this even remotely make sense? Just adjust the keywords on cultists, it's not hard. They aren't a 5 point model.
Maybe they're just trolling all of you who think you know how to properly stat this game better than they do.
Do explain how a Cultist is worth a 25% increase over a Guardsmen. Please, enlighten us.
In a vacuum it isn't, but when you get to multiply anything you do to them by 40 then it adds up pretty quickly.
Did people forget why conscripts were a pain in the ass? You could take up to 50 of them and rock orders for a billion shots. Then they kicked the max size in the pants and nerfed orders.
Cultists don't have an implicit way to block what makes them good like orders on conscripts.
Of course they do, remove the heretic astartes key word and suddenly they become 4pt nobodies who can't fire twice or get +1 to wound.
Nightlord1987 wrote: When the Big FAQ dropped, everyone expected points drops and GW repeatedly stated that was going to be covered by Chapter Approved.
Not sure why anyone expected rules errata to be in CA.
If anything, changes to gameplay would be seen in modified mission rules, which is sort of what we got.
But they modifie the game only for factions that can already play it. A different set of missions, no matter how good it is, won't really make bad factions better. Unless they give VP for casting psychic powers on your own units or something like that. If rules changes aren't in the FAQs and aren't in the CA, then where are they going to be put? Vigilus has only specific factions in it, for example.
Brutus_Apex wrote: I'm actually pleasantly surprised that Dark Eldar didn't get nerfed into the ground and just how many points drops my Death Guard got. I expected Dark Eldar to become at least unplayable.
Land Raiders, still pretty useless.
Drukhari too new, they would be covered in the next round of changes. Same for Harlequins, IK, orks and SW which had some points reductions but only because they have stuff in common with SM. The insanity of paying 10 points SS for TWC is explained by that.
Land raiders still useless in competitive meta, like 80% of the existing units in 40k, but a crusader at 266 points isn't complete trash in a regular game with decent armies.
The real surprise is the lack of nerfs to AM, since they bully other armies from day 1 and they're still top tiers. They should have been nerfed to the ground. I guess GW can't live if an imperium list isn't the absolute top tier of the moment.
Maybe they're just trolling all of you who think you know how to properly stat this game better than they do.
Maybe they are trolling us, what a great business move that would be.
And for the record, I know for a fact I could do a better job with rules writing than the GW staff. So could quite a few people on this forum I bet.
I dunno if you dropped an /s ?
cause I know for a FACT that 99% of the armchair generals on this forum could easily make ONE faction balanced ... balanced being equal to all the other factions combined
Reanimation_Protocol 768078 wrote:
I dunno if you dropped an /s ?
cause I know for a FACT that 99% of the armchair generals on this forum could easily make ONE faction balanced ... balanced being equal to all the other factions combined
lol
And that is different from GW in what sense? I get that people wouldn't always pick eldar as being the best, unlike GW designers seem to do through w40k history. I would understand the struggle with rules if GW was a new company in a market that was not really explored yet. But they are on their 8th edition, and in case of some factions the best they can do is to copy the codex prior to the one they are making, and any "fixs" are more often then not something they have not planed for. When they made the BA codex good, they didn't seem to think that good means scouts and cmd spam, alongside some soup for CP. And when they tried to revers that, they just killed the BAs dead. In fact most of their fixs aren't fixs, they just try to kill the problem unit. Something like conscripts or commisars, those weren't fixs, those units aren't used.
Yeah, a lot of guns with D2 in the game have no business doing so. It should really be limited to tank-grade guns or stuff with drawbacks (like GH), not given like candy to small hand guns.
This is why, BTW, I find all the people trying to invent primaris conspiracy to be so funny - GW would sure sell a lot more of them, if proliferation of D2 weapons didn't made them so bad, and if their expensive melee HQs (like fist captain) weren't stuck with single shot plasma pistol you can't swap that instantly kills your warlord if you try to overload it to actually deal any damage. You'd think that if the FUD was real in any way the rules wouldn't be constantly stacked in every possible way against the new faction (which has side effect of killing terminator and other elite units sales...).
And eh, the most urgent fix CPs need is the batteries. Make CPs only work for the faction of the detachment that generated them and I feel most problems with them will disappear.
I don't disagree with most of this, but at 92pts post-CA, the fist captain is an absolute steal even if he's stuck with a plasma pistol (especially with the Crimson Fisst relic fist)
Crimson Devil wrote: No one here wants to believe how long it actually takes to produce, translate, and ship a book worldwide.
Maybe because in this day and age there's no reason this stuff isn't digital so they can update it as needed rather than ship out a book?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hobojebus wrote: I don't understand why anyone thought it would include actual improvements to the game.
The devs have skitja for brains, they have zero clue how to fix the broken mess they've made.
All they can do is throw stuff at the wall over and over desperately seeing what will stick.
While this is probably true going from their track record, the other issue is also that GW wants their missions to help with the overall balance by toning down some armies and forcing a balanced list selection. But since in the USA at least ITC is so dominant, and their missions are so streamlined to put the whole onus on success being listbuilding and combo-stacking, that even if GW tried to balance it would be ignored because people would claim they aren't balanced for all armies (which is kinda the point; they are balanced on the assumption you're taking a balanced force not a skew)
Brutus_Apex wrote: I'm actually pleasantly surprised that Dark Eldar didn't get nerfed into the ground and just how many points drops my Death Guard got. I expected Dark Eldar to become at least unplayable.
Land Raiders, still pretty useless.
Drukhari too new, they would be covered in the next round of changes. Same for Harlequins, IK, orks and SW which had some points reductions but only because they have stuff in common with SM. The insanity of paying 10 points SS for TWC is explained by that.
Land raiders still useless in competitive meta, like 80% of the existing units in 40k, but a crusader at 266 points isn't complete trash in a regular game with decent armies.
The real surprise is the lack of nerfs to AM, since they bully other armies from day 1 and they're still top tiers. They should have been nerfed to the ground. I guess GW can't live if an imperium list isn't the absolute top tier of the moment.
I mean, those Codexes being too new to be featured is definitely a surprise to me. The Drukhari Codex came out eight months ago, that's a big chunk of time for CA to not cover!
Brutus_Apex wrote: I'm actually pleasantly surprised that Dark Eldar didn't get nerfed into the ground and just how many points drops my Death Guard got. I expected Dark Eldar to become at least unplayable.
Land Raiders, still pretty useless.
Drukhari too new, they would be covered in the next round of changes. Same for Harlequins, IK, orks and SW which had some points reductions but only because they have stuff in common with SM. The insanity of paying 10 points SS for TWC is explained by that.
Land raiders still useless in competitive meta, like 80% of the existing units in 40k, but a crusader at 266 points isn't complete trash in a regular game with decent armies.
The real surprise is the lack of nerfs to AM, since they bully other armies from day 1 and they're still top tiers. They should have been nerfed to the ground. I guess GW can't live if an imperium list isn't the absolute top tier of the moment.
I mean, those Codexes being too new to be featured is definitely a surprise to me. The Drukhari Codex came out eight months ago, that's a big chunk of time for CA to not cover!
CA probably went to print like months ago. The lead time on projects like this is fairly long.
Well, aren't GK the only Codex army that's boned right now? Sure, some others aren't great, either (Necrons, I'm sorry), but isn't the gap between most armies much smaller than it's been historically?
Bharring wrote: Well, aren't GK the only Codex army that's boned right now? Sure, some others aren't great, either (Necrons, I'm sorry), but isn't the gap between most armies much smaller than it's been historically?
Crimson Devil wrote: No one here wants to believe how long it actually takes to produce, translate, and ship a book worldwide.
Maybe because in this day and age there's no reason this stuff isn't digital so they can update it as needed rather than ship out a book?
You've been here long enough to know GW is not going to change when they are making money off their current business model. Only when it effects their profits will they change to digital releases.
Is it still in the works....so soon to be a beta or new update/errata.
Possibly in the 1st Big FAQ of 2019
or was that all just random speculation that went no where?
Nobody knows yet. It could have just been fake news, or the sources were right about changes but (obviously) wrong about them being in CA. There's a chance these changes will come in the Big FAQ since GW wants to keep errata out of CA as well for some reason.
Is it still in the works....so soon to be a beta or new update/errata.
Possibly in the 1st Big FAQ of 2019
or was that all just random speculation that went no where?
Nobody knows yet. It could have just been fake news, or the sources were right about changes but (obviously) wrong about them being in CA. There's a chance these changes will come in the Big FAQ since GW wants to keep errata out of CA as well for some reason.
From what some of the play testers have said about CA one the embargo was lifted on them by GW, it's heavily implied that CA is what they were testing 6+ months ago, those changes of -1 to hit traits only started leaking what 2 months ago so that would ve about 6 months from FAQ3 if GW's playtest lead time is really that long.
Marines just aren't a priority for the game designers, seriously.
Primaris marines are. Everything else is secondary.
I mean look at Storm Shields. They dropped for every space marine model... except Thunderwolf Cavalry. Because they have a separate entry in their codex, separate from the two listed in CA.
Meaning they have 10 point stormshields, still. It's an obvious oversight, but that only happens when there isn't anyone thinking about space wolves when the changes are being made.
Is it still in the works....so soon to be a beta or new update/errata.
Possibly in the 1st Big FAQ of 2019
or was that all just random speculation that went no where?
Nobody knows yet. It could have just been fake news, or the sources were right about changes but (obviously) wrong about them being in CA. There's a chance these changes will come in the Big FAQ since GW wants to keep errata out of CA as well for some reason.
From what some of the play testers have said about CA one the embargo was lifted on them by GW, it's heavily implied that CA is what they were testing 6+ months ago, those changes of -1 to hit traits only started leaking what 2 months ago so that would ve about 6 months from FAQ3 if GW's playtest lead time is really that long.
This makes a ton of sense. I'm guessing that when GW was playtesting the newer codices they were testing against the new points we just saw in chapter approved.
And yeah I'm ok with waiting for rule changes. I would rather let these points settle and see where everything lands before making anymore rule changes.
CA probably went to print like months ago. The lead time on projects like this is fairly long.
Soft cover books like these take a bit less time.
Increasing one codex amidst drops in all the others results in a very large swing. I'd bet they're playing it safe.
Right, people keep saying this line that there were no updates outside of DW and SW getting standardized marine treatment, but didn't carapace weapons for IKs go down? I think there was at least that one update.
Marmatag wrote: Marines just aren't a priority for the game designers, seriously.
Primaris marines are. Everything else is secondary.
I mean look at Storm Shields. They dropped for every space marine model... except Thunderwolf Cavalry. Because they have a separate entry in their codex, separate from the two listed in CA.
Meaning they have 10 point stormshields, still. It's an obvious oversight, but that only happens when there isn't anyone thinking about space wolves when the changes are being made.
Time to face the facts my dudes.
This is hardly unique to 8E Marines with GW, that's just the type of thing they bork all the time. Looking back to previous editions, that's how we ended up with drop pods, assault cannons, and rhinos that had different rules, costs, and abilities depending on if you were reading codex Daemonhunters, Black Templars, or Space Marines during 5E until they FAQd everything halfway through.
It could also just be that they thought 2ppm SS's on TWC's were absurd, which they would be to be fair, that's a nobrainer autotake option at that point
Let's also enjoy that Leman Russ plasma tank commanders can put out 2d6 + 4d3 plasma shots per turn for 172 points, hitting on 3s and able to order itself.
Like everyone complaining about Ravagers needs to chill.
These guys put out expected 15 shots with the same profile as a ravager except strength 8 instead of strength 5. Oh and they're T8, 3+ instead of T6, 5++. For less than 50 more points. Oh and they can receive orders.
Does GW not see that Guard are already dominating the tournament scene, and have been for a year and a half? What the feth?
Marmatag wrote: Let's also enjoy that Leman Russ plasma tank commanders can put out 2d6 + 4d3 plasma shots per turn for 172 points, hitting on 3s and able to order itself.
How is a Leman Russ Tank Commander doing all that for 172pts?
Not that im defending the Tank Commander price cut, I'm not, it was puzzling and unnecessary, but given that a barebones tank commander with executioner turret and a hull heavy bolter is 165pts under the leaked CA rules, before buying plasma sponsons, I'm not sure where you'd get the 4d3 plasma shots for 7pts. You could get 2d3 in a 185pt tank with two plasma cannon sponsons, but I'm not sure where the other 2d3 shots are coming from. Am I missing something?
The plasma tank commander is still inferior to the battle cannon. Taking plasma sponsons on the battle tank is an interesting option though though...I think I will. They still get plasma vents correct?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: Let's also enjoy that Leman Russ plasma tank commanders can put out 2d6 + 4d3 plasma shots per turn for 172 points, hitting on 3s and able to order itself.
Like everyone complaining about Ravagers needs to chill.
These guys put out expected 15 shots with the same profile as a ravager except strength 8 instead of strength 5. Oh and they're T8, 3+ instead of T6, 5++. For less than 50 more points. Oh and they can receive orders.
Does GW not see that Guard are already dominating the tournament scene, and have been for a year and a half? What the feth?
Rather than nerf castellan they try to let you get 3 commanders for less. Ehhh...Castellan is still better unfortunately. Not nerfing Castellan is a huge mistake - it completely dominates the game.
Cultists are 5 points but Guard are 4? In what fething world does this even remotely make sense? Just adjust the keywords on cultists, it's not hard. They aren't a 5 point model.
Maybe they're just trolling all of you who think you know how to properly stat this game better than they do.
Ah, this old chestnut. Tell me, do you have to eat dog gak to know it tastes bad?
Is it still in the works....so soon to be a beta or new update/errata.
Possibly in the 1st Big FAQ of 2019
or was that all just random speculation that went no where?
Nobody knows yet. It could have just been fake news, or the sources were right about changes but (obviously) wrong about them being in CA. There's a chance these changes will come in the Big FAQ since GW wants to keep errata out of CA as well for some reason.
We already had the Big Faq. it wasn't in there.
And unlike CA it didn't need a long time for printers and distrubtion, just translations.
Xenomancers wrote: The plasma tank commander is still inferior to the battle cannon. Taking plasma sponsons on the battle tank is an interesting option though though...I think I will. They still get plasma vents correct?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: Let's also enjoy that Leman Russ plasma tank commanders can put out 2d6 + 4d3 plasma shots per turn for 172 points, hitting on 3s and able to order itself.
Like everyone complaining about Ravagers needs to chill.
These guys put out expected 15 shots with the same profile as a ravager except strength 8 instead of strength 5. Oh and they're T8, 3+ instead of T6, 5++. For less than 50 more points. Oh and they can receive orders.
Does GW not see that Guard are already dominating the tournament scene, and have been for a year and a half? What the feth?
Rather than nerf castellan they try to let you get 3 commanders for less. Ehhh...Castellan is still better unfortunately. Not nerfing Castellan is a huge mistake - it completely dominates the game.
This chapter approved flatly misses the mark. It will not solve any balance issues. Maybe people will buy more primaris though, so that's at least something.
Xenomancers wrote: The plasma tank commander is still inferior to the battle cannon. Taking plasma sponsons on the battle tank is an interesting option though though...I think I will. They still get plasma vents correct?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: Let's also enjoy that Leman Russ plasma tank commanders can put out 2d6 + 4d3 plasma shots per turn for 172 points, hitting on 3s and able to order itself.
Like everyone complaining about Ravagers needs to chill.
These guys put out expected 15 shots with the same profile as a ravager except strength 8 instead of strength 5. Oh and they're T8, 3+ instead of T6, 5++. For less than 50 more points. Oh and they can receive orders.
Does GW not see that Guard are already dominating the tournament scene, and have been for a year and a half? What the feth?
Rather than nerf castellan they try to let you get 3 commanders for less. Ehhh...Castellan is still better unfortunately. Not nerfing Castellan is a huge mistake - it completely dominates the game.
This chapter approved flatly misses the mark. It will not solve any balance issues. Maybe people will buy more primaris though, so that's at least something.
I mean...I already got a lot of primaris. It seems more to me like they are trying to sell dreads/sterngaurd/vangaurd vet boxes...so basically...they want us to play deathwatch.
I love how the excuse for why a lot of things didn't get adjusted was "wait for CA" and now it's "wait for the next FAQ."
I feel with SM being weak but included in all future campaign books GW is counting on it's largest customer segment to chase the balance of the faction by buying all of the 30-50$ supplements. The formations given to guard are strong, the marine ones not so much but they aren't terrible.
There's no excuse for knights to remain as they are. Dissie cannons still basically half the price of grav? The interaction between jinx/doom + harlies+DE? Yanarri still break the game? Grav cannons costing 50% more than plasma cannons? No reductions to DAHQs but drops across the board for other factions? Plasma Devs costing less than Hellblasters? 10 point storm shields for TWC? FW mortis dreads not getting a price drop? SM twin autocannons costing more than FW autocannons? 13 point tacs? Custode guard still costing 50+ points? 5 pt cultists vs 4 point infantry? Tank commander points drops? The is just off the top of my head looking at one shelf of my models, the list of head-scratching decisions is long.
Even if some of the changes were good they have been done in such a sloppy and inconsistent way that I can't believe that a multi-million dollar company puts their name on them and we are supposed to think this is a serious attempt at balancing. I have no idea what metric GW is using to attempt balance and I don't think they do either. Supposedly this took months to do and I'm trying to give GW credit but they showed up to their own tournament not knowing how flying charges worked.
As a side rant. The most recent chapter tactics was the worst case of boot-licking and brown-nosing I think I've ever sat through. I love that they are trying so hard to put content out and they do more for the community than I could ever dream but it was really hard to sit through.
bananathug wrote: I love how the excuse for why a lot of things didn't get adjusted was "wait for CA" and now it's "wait for the next FAQ."
I feel with SM being weak but included in all future campaign books GW is counting on it's largest customer segment to chase the balance of the faction by buying all of the 30-50$ supplements. The formations given to guard are strong, the marine ones not so much but they aren't terrible.
There's no excuse for knights to remain as they are. Dissie cannons still basically half the price of grav? The interaction between jinx/doom + harlies+DE? Yanarri still break the game? Grav cannons costing 50% more than plasma cannons? No reductions to DAHQs but drops across the board for other factions? Plasma Devs costing less than Hellblasters? 10 point storm shields for TWC? FW mortis dreads not getting a price drop? SM twin autocannons costing more than FW autocannons? 13 point tacs? Custode guard still costing 50+ points? 5 pt cultists vs 4 point infantry? Tank commander points drops? The is just off the top of my head looking at one shelf of my models, the list of head-scratching decisions is long.
Even if some of the changes were good they have been done in such a sloppy and inconsistent way that I can't believe that a multi-million dollar company puts their name on them and we are supposed to think this is a serious attempt at balancing. I have no idea what metric GW is using to attempt balance and I don't think they do either. Supposedly this took months to do and I'm trying to give GW credit but they showed up to their own tournament not knowing how flying charges worked.
As a side rant. The most recent chapter tactics was the worst case of boot-licking and brown-nosing I think I've ever sat through. I love that they are trying so hard to put content out and they do more for the community than I could ever dream but it was really hard to sit through.
The only strong formation of guard is the tank one, the infantry and artillery ones are meh, the emperors blade is useful but not that much and the scion one centers on valkyries completely wich they don’t need.
Martel732 wrote: At this point I'd settle for no point changes, but drukhari cant take advantage of doom.
Yeah, I'd love that. Just force the farseer to cast buffing powers only to craftworlds, not harlies or drukhari. I think it's something that should work for anyone: psychic powers that buff friendly units can be casted only on units from the same book than the caster.
Bharring wrote: They already do. CWE buffs can only affect CWE units.
You're thinking hexes only hexing a target when interacting with a friendly book. Other books don't have that restriction (Null Zone, Death Hex).
No other book actually trys to pass of a buffing power as a hexing power. Re-roll all failed wounds isn't a debuff against that unit it a buff ti everything that shoot at them. Nullzoen, deathhex are debuffs the remove the invulnerable saves from the target.
They are totally different, also they don't allow for the insanity that is doom +Haywire BS or DOOM +Dissy spam. That needs to be stopped or a farseer is a 200 point model.
Bharring wrote: They already do. CWE buffs can only affect CWE units.
You're thinking hexes only hexing a target when interacting with a friendly book. Other books don't have that restriction (Null Zone, Death Hex).
At this point, I don't care. Doom shouldn't work for drukhari. Or disintegrators need to go up. A lot.
I'll accept this when IMPERIUM & CHAOS as a keyword is banned as a force-unifying keyword, and ADEPTUS ASTARTES or HERETIC ASTARTES stops being legal as well, both for detachment combinations and army based combinations.
Bharring wrote: They already do. CWE buffs can only affect CWE units.
You're thinking hexes only hexing a target when interacting with a friendly book. Other books don't have that restriction (Null Zone, Death Hex).
At this point, I don't care. Doom shouldn't work for drukhari. Or disintegrators need to go up. A lot.
I'll accept this when IMPERIUM & CHAOS as a keyword is banned as a force-unifying keyword, and ADEPTUS ASTARTES or HERETIC ASTARTES stops being legal as well, both for detachment combinations and army based combinations.
I can understand the first one and squinting perhaps adeptus astartes but heretic astartes? Really? How would you propose to play then codex heretic astartes? Think a bit before talking. I am not even entering on why would those things be equivalent with not having doom on drukhari when aeldary is also an army soup keyword
Bharring wrote: They already do. CWE buffs can only affect CWE units.
You're thinking hexes only hexing a target when interacting with a friendly book. Other books don't have that restriction (Null Zone, Death Hex).
At this point, I don't care. Doom shouldn't work for drukhari. Or disintegrators need to go up. A lot.
I'll accept this when IMPERIUM & CHAOS as a keyword is banned as a force-unifying keyword, and ADEPTUS ASTARTES or HERETIC ASTARTES stops being legal as well, both for detachment combinations and army based combinations.
That's some of the most blatantly bais false equivalency BS, I have seen on here.
You are just arguing in bad faith as you clearly don't actually have a counter argument as to why doom should work with haywire or dissy's.
Bharring wrote: They already do. CWE buffs can only affect CWE units.
You're thinking hexes only hexing a target when interacting with a friendly book. Other books don't have that restriction (Null Zone, Death Hex).
At this point, I don't care. Doom shouldn't work for drukhari. Or disintegrators need to go up. A lot.
Doom works for drukhari, unfortunately. So A CWE buff is actually buffing a drukhari unit. A single farseer or a supreme command detachment in quite common in many competitive drukhari armies. If the eldar psyker can't buff drukhari units what's the point of allying those units?
Dis cannons are well priced considering the drukhari codex and the drukhari codex only. They are the most effective ranged weapon but several other options are absolutely terrible. So they should probably get a price hike but only if other stuff go down in price. At the moment the army is balanced, there are lots of underperforming stuff and some other ones that are very powerful but still the codex as a whole works good for the first time in years. The soup is the problem, always have been. Nerf the soup, not the army.
I remember flocks being useful for the first time in their history during index time, but they didn't last for long. Why? Not because they were overpowered or undercosted, but because ynnari could use them to trigger an overpowered combo. In the end a unit that was finally viable for drukhari, and far from being overpowered, was nerfed into the ground because of the soup. I don't want the same fate for dis cannons.
No psychic debuff is restricted to benefiting a specific faction.
And complaining about haywire? Cry more, Knights exist. There is no other tool in this game to counter them. A lot of lists don't run vehicles making Haywire garbage.
And you guys want to apply restrictions to Eldar without the same things being applied to your factions. ADEPTUS ASTARTES supreme command with 3 different kinds of librarians? Magnus buffing Mortarian? Warp Time?
There are a lot of broken combos out there. You need to get over it.
Marmatag wrote: Let's also enjoy that Leman Russ plasma tank commanders can put out 2d6 + 4d3 plasma shots per turn for 172 points, hitting on 3s and able to order itself.
Like everyone complaining about Ravagers needs to chill.
These guys put out expected 15 shots with the same profile as a ravager except strength 8 instead of strength 5. Oh and they're T8, 3+ instead of T6, 5++. For less than 50 more points. Oh and they can receive orders.
Does GW not see that Guard are already dominating the tournament scene, and have been for a year and a half? What the feth?
At least get your maths right. That tank is 192 points. The two plasma sponsons will be 20 points.
Dont forget to account for the fact that a Ravager is super mobile whereas the LR will be penalised as soon as it moves (-1 to hit for heavy weapons), and if it moves more than 5" it will only get one shot from its turret. And in a meta with high APAT firepower, its not going to be around for long.
The potential reason why the tank commander received a buff was to price it inline with an Armiger Helverin. Both are now 172 points.
And no guard haven't been dominating, but they are doing reasonably well as a mono list. All the guard stuff that got a decrease weren't being used as often in the last 6 months and weren't part of soup.
Tau who would be on par with Guard as a mono codex just got huge buffs too and possibly will overtake them. No complaints there?
This chapter approved flatly misses the mark. It will not solve any balance issues. Maybe people will buy more primaris though, so that's at least something.
I think its too early to tell. Objectively speaking many armies will get better than the top cookie cutter lists that received little to no decreases and who wont benefit from Vigilus formations.
Marmatag wrote: No psychic debuff is restricted to benefiting a specific faction.
And you guys want to apply restrictions to Eldar without the same things being applied to your factions. ADEPTUS ASTARTES supreme command with 3 different kinds of librarians? Magnus buffing Mortarian? Warp Time?
Of course it should be a rule for everyone, not only the aeldari.
Haywire ins't broken at all, it's actually fairly priced. The only source of haywire firepower that is a top tier unit is a Skyweavers squad.
People complain about aeldari combos and effective units but forget or ignore AM craziness because they're all WAAC imperium players, mostly SM players, that can ally AM but not ravagers and other stuff.
Cultists are 5 points but Guard are 4? In what fething world does this even remotely make sense? Just adjust the keywords on cultists, it's not hard. They aren't a 5 point model.
Maybe they're just trolling all of you who think you know how to properly stat this game better than they do.
Do explain how a Cultist is worth a 25% increase over a Guardsmen. Please, enlighten us.
It's not got anything to do wether or not a cultist is worth 25% more than a guardsman. It's about poking you lot in the eye & hearing you yowl. THAT is worth a point.
Reece from FLG has stated that the book is written way in advance of its release which explains why changes to Knights, Drukhari and other over performing factions weren't included.
What it doesn't explain is why I should waste my hard earned on a book that is by definition out of date as it releases.
I guess if I was a Sisters player or had an interest in the different missions I'd be tempted.
In terms of balance this CA is a massive fail. Almost all of the 'meta lists' got stronger, sometimes directly, other times indirectly.
The OP explains how some ork weapons only cause mortal wounds to the bearer on unmodified rolls of 1 and how they feel this mechanic should have been rolled out to other factions. This is not the only discrepancy between Ork mechanics and those of other armies. There is a vast discrepancy with the costs of Ork weapons and other factions counterparts now - our equivalent to a heavy flamer is more expensive, our equivalent to a Power Fist is more expensive, our equivalent to plasma is more expensive, our bikers are more expensive.
I'm not particularly bothered about this discrepancy from a balance perspective - it's irritating and tedious but not going to completely destroy any lists I don't think, I am bothered from a customer perspective that a book that I waited an incredibly long time for is seemingly out of date less than 2 months after its release though. This does annoy me. It also annoys me that factions that had their codexes early seem to get more attention than those without as they have repeated updates on an annual basis while later books languish/continue to dominate (depending on your book). This isn't parity and it isn't balance by design. It's a clear attempt to draw in more sales under the pretence of balance and that is bogus.
To me, it seems clear that CA is not the correct mechanism to affect balance. Leave CA to serve another, more appropriate purpose. GW needs to think of a quicker, probably electronic way to edit points and unit entries so we don't have to wait a year for obviously broken combos to get fixed. I'm not sure why I should pay for GW to correct their balance mistakes either but here we are.
To me, it seems clear that CA is not the correct mechanism to affect balance. Leave CA to serve another, more appropriate purpose. GW needs to think of a quicker, probably electronic way to edit points and unit entries so we don't have to wait a year for obviously broken combos to get fixed. I'm not sure why I should pay for GW to correct their balance mistakes either but here we are.
Ultimately, if GW ever wants to take their TT Sport seriously, they will have to do this. I believe FFG is already doing this so this isn't something impossible for them to do. Knowing that they also have a Kill Team Builder and a Warscroll Builder that they could easily change points on shows that GW already has infrastructure to do this.
Chapter Approved could be better served as a source that takes all datasheets released over the year(in supplements and such) and reprints them in a collected place.
To me, it seems clear that CA is not the correct mechanism to affect balance. Leave CA to serve another, more appropriate purpose. GW needs to think of a quicker, probably electronic way to edit points and unit entries so we don't have to wait a year for obviously broken combos to get fixed. I'm not sure why I should pay for GW to correct their balance mistakes either but here we are.
Ultimately, if GW ever wants to take their TT Sport seriously, they will have to do this. I believe FFG is already doing this so this isn't something impossible for them to do. Knowing that they also have a Kill Team Builder and a Warscroll Builder that they could easily change points on shows that GW already has infrastructure to do this.
Chapter Approved could be better served as a source that takes all datasheets released over the year(in supplements and such) and reprints them in a collected place.
100%.
GW have the infrastructure they just lack the desire as I assume they can't think of a way to effectively monetize such a system.
Is it still in the works....so soon to be a beta or new update/errata.
Possibly in the 1st Big FAQ of 2019
or was that all just random speculation that went no where?
Nobody knows yet. It could have just been fake news, or the sources were right about changes but (obviously) wrong about them being in CA. There's a chance these changes will come in the Big FAQ since GW wants to keep errata out of CA as well for some reason.
From what some of the play testers have said about CA one the embargo was lifted on them by GW, it's heavily implied that CA is what they were testing 6+ months ago, those changes of -1 to hit traits only started leaking what 2 months ago so that would ve about 6 months from FAQ3 if GW's playtest lead time is really that long.
Marmatag wrote: No psychic debuff is restricted to benefiting a specific faction.
And you guys want to apply restrictions to Eldar without the same things being applied to your factions. ADEPTUS ASTARTES supreme command with 3 different kinds of librarians? Magnus buffing Mortarian? Warp Time?
Of course it should be a rule for everyone, not only the aeldari.
Haywire ins't broken at all, it's actually fairly priced. The only source of haywire firepower that is a top tier unit is a Skyweavers squad.
People complain about aeldari combos and effective units but forget or ignore AM craziness because they're all WAAC imperium players, mostly SM players, that can ally AM but not ravagers and other stuff.
1Once again for the hard of reading people arn't complaining about just haywire, it's the cascade effect of allowing doom to effect haywire that people are objecting to.
2 DOOM isn't a ficken Debuff, in what way is reroll wounds a debuff, no invlunerable save is a debuff, can't gain the benifit of cover is a debuff but reroll wounds is a straight up buff.
Reroll all failed wounds was also a pretty dumb mechanic to even introduce but GW seams to be happily oblivious to that.
3 Yes we're all so biased imperial soup players, some of us have been complaining about Guard being undercosted for months, becuase it obvious the Imperial soup would be so much more powerful with 5ppm guard than 4ppm guardsmen.
I've been after eldar since 2nd. I am the OG eldar hater. So don't tell me to get over it. They've never paid off their karma for 2nd, much less any other edition
2 DOOM isn't a ficken Debuff, in what way is reroll wounds a debuff, no invlunerable save is a debuff, can't gain the benifit of cover is a debuff but reroll wounds is a straight up buff.
It affects the opponent's unit so it's a debuff. A debuff giving a bonus to units attacking the target, but still a debuff.
Reroll all failed wounds was also a pretty dumb mechanic to even introduce but GW seams to be happily oblivious to that.
You've beeing arguing against Doom for decades ? (to be fair it's a bit stronger now)
Reece from FLG has stated that the book is written way in advance of its release which explains why changes to Knights, Drukhari and other over performing factions weren't included.
What it doesn't explain is why I should waste my hard earned on a book that is by definition out of date as it releases.
I guess if I was a Sisters player or had an interest in the different missions I'd be tempted.
In terms of balance this CA is a massive fail. Almost all of the 'meta lists' got stronger, sometimes directly, other times indirectly.
The OP explains how some ork weapons only cause mortal wounds to the bearer on unmodified rolls of 1 and how they feel this mechanic should have been rolled out to other factions. This is not the only discrepancy between Ork mechanics and those of other armies. There is a vast discrepancy with the costs of Ork weapons and other factions counterparts now - our equivalent to a heavy flamer is more expensive, our equivalent to a Power Fist is more expensive, our equivalent to plasma is more expensive, our bikers are more expensive.
I'm not particularly bothered about this discrepancy from a balance perspective - it's irritating and tedious but not going to completely destroy any lists I don't think, I am bothered from a customer perspective that a book that I waited an incredibly long time for is seemingly out of date less than 2 months after its release though. This does annoy me. It also annoys me that factions that had their codexes early seem to get more attention than those without as they have repeated updates on an annual basis while later books languish/continue to dominate (depending on your book). This isn't parity and it isn't balance by design. It's a clear attempt to draw in more sales under the pretence of balance and that is bogus.
To me, it seems clear that CA is not the correct mechanism to affect balance. Leave CA to serve another, more appropriate purpose. GW needs to think of a quicker, probably electronic way to edit points and unit entries so we don't have to wait a year for obviously broken combos to get fixed. I'm not sure why I should pay for GW to correct their balance mistakes either but here we are.
Reece has stated that only orcs are not included in CA since their codex is new. They have decided to make under performing fraction and units stronger, some over performing units got price hike. After all the balance is mainly done for the tournament metta, not for players that don`t wanna buy new models and just want their models to be OP. Only the betta testers have played with the new rules and the rest of as can be smart and wait to see how the changes effect the game.
Reece from FLG has stated that the book is written way in advance of its release which explains why changes to Knights, Drukhari and other over performing factions weren't included.
What it doesn't explain is why I should waste my hard earned on a book that is by definition out of date as it releases.
I guess if I was a Sisters player or had an interest in the different missions I'd be tempted.
In terms of balance this CA is a massive fail. Almost all of the 'meta lists' got stronger, sometimes directly, other times indirectly.
The OP explains how some ork weapons only cause mortal wounds to the bearer on unmodified rolls of 1 and how they feel this mechanic should have been rolled out to other factions. This is not the only discrepancy between Ork mechanics and those of other armies. There is a vast discrepancy with the costs of Ork weapons and other factions counterparts now - our equivalent to a heavy flamer is more expensive, our equivalent to a Power Fist is more expensive, our equivalent to plasma is more expensive, our bikers are more expensive.
I'm not particularly bothered about this discrepancy from a balance perspective - it's irritating and tedious but not going to completely destroy any lists I don't think, I am bothered from a customer perspective that a book that I waited an incredibly long time for is seemingly out of date less than 2 months after its release though. This does annoy me. It also annoys me that factions that had their codexes early seem to get more attention than those without as they have repeated updates on an annual basis while later books languish/continue to dominate (depending on your book). This isn't parity and it isn't balance by design. It's a clear attempt to draw in more sales under the pretence of balance and that is bogus.
To me, it seems clear that CA is not the correct mechanism to affect balance. Leave CA to serve another, more appropriate purpose. GW needs to think of a quicker, probably electronic way to edit points and unit entries so we don't have to wait a year for obviously broken combos to get fixed. I'm not sure why I should pay for GW to correct their balance mistakes either but here we are.
You can't get too upset about this, however. The book has to be developed, it will always fall behind the current meta, but will still affect it indirectly (sometimes positively or negatively). An FAQ book will always be chasing, it will never be current.
2 DOOM isn't a ficken Debuff, in what way is reroll wounds a debuff, no invlunerable save is a debuff, can't gain the benifit of cover is a debuff but reroll wounds is a straight up buff.
It affects the opponent's unit so it's a debuff. A debuff giving a bonus to units attacking the target, but still a debuff.
While I certainly agree that Doom affects the enemy unit and no other "malediction" (as they were called in 7E) specifies what friendly Faction can apply the "debuff", when you look at whose ROLLS are affected, it's clearly a buff to friendly units targeting the specific enemy unit. Those are the rolls that are buffed. If Doom forces the enemy unit to re-roll successful saves, that'd be a "true" debuff. It's also be more powerful than now
Doom does need reworked as currently the Faction that benefits the most isn't always CWE, but tends to be DE. That's an issue
Personally, I'd just Errata Doom to read as follows: "Doom has a warp charge of 7. If manifested, target an enemy unit with 24" of the Psyker. Your <Craftworld> units may reroll failed to wound rolls against the target unit the start of the next Psychic Phase" Done. And all that was needed was to add 1 word = <Craftworld> in between "Your" and "units"
2 DOOM isn't a ficken Debuff, in what way is reroll wounds a debuff, no invlunerable save is a debuff, can't gain the benifit of cover is a debuff but reroll wounds is a straight up buff.
It affects the opponent's unit so it's a debuff. A debuff giving a bonus to units attacking the target, but still a debuff.
While I certainly agree that Doom affects the enemy unit and no other "malediction" (as they were called in 7E) specifies what friendly Faction can apply the "debuff", when you look at whose ROLLS are affected, it's clearly a buff to friendly units targeting the specific enemy unit. Those are the rolls that are buffed. If Doom forces the enemy unit to re-roll successful saves, that'd be a "true" debuff. It's also be more powerful than now
Doom does need reworked as currently the Faction that benefits the most isn't always CWE, but tends to be DE. That's an issue
Personally, I'd just Errata Doom to read as follows:
"Doom has a warp charge of 7. If manifested, target an enemy unit with 24" of the Psyker. Your <Craftworld> units may reroll failed to wound rolls against the target unit the start of the next Psychic Phase"
Done. And all that was needed was to add 1 word = <Craftworld> in between "Your" and "units"
Maybe they tested it and reviewed the result and decided its fine ?
There is not much ways eldar can get rid of heavy hitters without doom and jinx.
Doom also have weakness you have to cast it, you can be denied and you pay for HQ that is only good at casting spells.
If doom was a problem, than we should have seen much more assassins on the table, but that is not the case.
Reece has stated that only orcs are not included in CA since their codex is new. They have decided to make under performing fraction and units stronger, some over performing units got price hike. After all the balance is mainly done for the tournament metta, not for players that don`t wanna buy new models and just want their models to be OP. Only the betta testers have played with the new rules and the rest of as can be smart and wait to see how the changes effect the game.
I didn’t expect Orks to be included. Also Reece said it was the reason that units from codexes such as Dark Eldar or IK weren’t nerfed. Which over performing units got a price hike sorry? Not Dissie Ravagers or Guardsmen. Not Castellans.
I think it’s obvious what the effect on the meta will be from this book but feel free to wait if you disagree.
bullyboy wrote: You can't get too upset about this, however. The book has to be developed, it will always fall behind the current meta, but will still affect it indirectly (sometimes positively or negatively). An FAQ book will always be chasing, it will never be current.
I agree dude, I’m not upset about it really, more confused. I’ll not be buying CA because I can’t see the value proposition.
I figure there’s a better way to deliver FAQs and balance tweaks that will ensure they are more current. If CA doesn’t sell well I guess GW will get the message too.
Reece has stated that only orcs are not included in CA since their codex is new. They have decided to make under performing fraction and units stronger, some over performing units got price hike. After all the balance is mainly done for the tournament metta, not for players that don`t wanna buy new models and just want their models to be OP. Only the betta testers have played with the new rules and the rest of as can be smart and wait to see how the changes effect the game.
I didn’t expect Orks to be included. Also Reece said it was the reason that units from codexes such as Dark Eldar or IK weren’t nerfed. Which over performing units got a price hike sorry? Not Dissie Ravagers or Guardsmen. Not Castellans.
I think it’s obvious what the effect on the meta will be from this book but feel free to wait if you disagree.
bullyboy wrote: You can't get too upset about this, however. The book has to be developed, it will always fall behind the current meta, but will still affect it indirectly (sometimes positively or negatively). An FAQ book will always be chasing, it will never be current.
I agree dude, I’m not upset about it really, more confused. I’ll not be buying CA because I can’t see the value proposition.
I figure there’s a better way to deliver FAQs and balance tweaks that will ensure they are more current. If CA doesn’t sell well I guess GW will get the message too.
Are you saying those 2 went up?
While that is true, that chart you linked (which is awesome. thanx) doesn't directly show the whole story
Spears went up 6ppm, but Twin Catapults went down 3ppm. So Spears only went up a net 3ppm.
Same goes for Fire Dragons, which went up 3ppm, but Fusion gusn went down 3ppm, so no net difference for the unit.
But Twin-Cats and Fusion guns are on other units, so it is clear that those decreases were meant for those other units.
2 DOOM isn't a ficken Debuff, in what way is reroll wounds a debuff, no invlunerable save is a debuff, can't gain the benifit of cover is a debuff but reroll wounds is a straight up buff.
It affects the opponent's unit so it's a debuff. A debuff giving a bonus to units attacking the target, but still a debuff.
While I certainly agree that Doom affects the enemy unit and no other "malediction" (as they were called in 7E) specifies what friendly Faction can apply the "debuff", when you look at whose ROLLS are affected, it's clearly a buff to friendly units targeting the specific enemy unit. Those are the rolls that are buffed. If Doom forces the enemy unit to re-roll successful saves, that'd be a "true" debuff. It's also be more powerful than now
Doom does need reworked as currently the Faction that benefits the most isn't always CWE, but tends to be DE. That's an issue
Personally, I'd just Errata Doom to read as follows:
"Doom has a warp charge of 7. If manifested, target an enemy unit with 24" of the Psyker. Your <Craftworld> units may reroll failed to wound rolls against the target unit the start of the next Psychic Phase"
Done. And all that was needed was to add 1 word = <Craftworld> in between "Your" and "units"
Maybe they tested it and reviewed the result and decided its fine ?
There is not much ways eldar can get rid of heavy hitters without doom and jinx.
Doom also have weakness you have to cast it, you can be denied and you pay for HQ that is only good at casting spells.
If doom was a problem, than we should have seen much more assassins on the table, but that is not the case.
I'm sure eldar have bright and dark lances which are S8 AP -4 Dd6
Ah so Wave Serpents and Spears went up, Spears a whole 3 points too! Now the game is completely balanced. Brilliant.
To be fair, the issue with Spears is less the Spears themselves and more about Ynnari Spears. Even regular Spears rely HEAVILY on support Characters. Not Character, Characters plural.
So I'm very glad GW seem to realize this and only bumped Spears a little instead of overreacting and nerfing them into uselessness.
The same happened with Serpents. The issue with them was less that they were too cheep, but that they were cheaper that the other Tanks, yet better somehow.
So the Serpent is now more expensive than some of the other tanks (except Prisms) because the other went down
"2 DOOM isn't a ficken Debuff, in what way is reroll wounds a debuff, no invlunerable save is a debuff, can't gain the benifit of cover is a debuff but reroll wounds is a straight up buff."
Then Conceal and LQR are debuffs, then?
They impact what your opponent rolls, not what you roll.
How would 'Can't benefit from cover' be categorized, as it impacts your rolls (Saves) and mine (Scorpions to-hit rolls)?
"Who rolls" is a sillly measure of Debuff vs Buff. A much simpler, clearer, and more widely-understood differentiation is "Who is targetted?" Clearly the enemy.
"Done. And all that was needed was to add 1 word = <Craftworld> in between 'Your' and 'units'"
Because Phoenix Lords aren't worth of Doom?
I get that you want this change for balance reasons, but let's not pretend that the change is consistent with the core concepts.
It'd be like if my Sorceror is casting a direct damage power on your Imperial Guard, he shouldn't suffer the negative effects of Null Zone, but if he's targetting your Marines, he does? And then how would that work for buffs or powers without specific targets?
This chapter approved flatly misses the mark. It will not solve any balance issues. Maybe people will buy more primaris though, so that's at least something.
If GW would have just made all marines 2w then I would buy some primarises too...
But, nope. So, never.
As with this CA book, if it doesn't sell well, then maybe GW will stop alientating people to corner a market in some cokeheaded MBA's dreamworld.
Bharring wrote: "2 DOOM isn't a ficken Debuff, in what way is reroll wounds a debuff, no invlunerable save is a debuff, can't gain the benifit of cover is a debuff but reroll wounds is a straight up buff."
Then Conceal and LQR are debuffs, then?
They impact what your opponent rolls, not what you roll.
How would 'Can't benefit from cover' be categorized, as it impacts your rolls (Saves) and mine (Scorpions to-hit rolls)?
"Who rolls" is a sillly measure of Debuff vs Buff. A much simpler, clearer, and more widely-understood differentiation is "Who is targetted?" Clearly the enemy.
"Done. And all that was needed was to add 1 word = <Craftworld> in between 'Your' and 'units'"
Because Phoenix Lords aren't worth of Doom?
I get that you want this change for balance reasons, but let's not pretend that the change is consistent with the core concepts.
It'd be like if my Sorceror is casting a direct damage power on your Imperial Guard, he shouldn't suffer the negative effects of Null Zone, but if he's targetting your Marines, he does? And then how would that work for buffs or powers without specific targets?
You just hate Doom.
So you'd rather give balancing a problem interaction two fingers because it gies against how eldar worked in previous editions.
So does keyword Aeldari so just ban that as a keyword if your a fluff above balance mood.
Galef wrote: To be fair, the issue with Spears is less the Spears themselves and more about Ynnari Spears. Even regular Spears rely HEAVILY on support Characters. Not Character, Characters plural.
The issue with Spears (and any other unit that’s over performing) is that they are too effective at something for their points. They would be an auto include in any army and they are efficient without Ynarri or support characters. There is no such thing as ‘regular’ Spears either. Spears are Spears, whether Ynarri or Craftworld and they feature heavily in both competitive lists. Further, your statement that they rely on support characters to be as effective as possible is true of almost any unit in the game, including some support characters themselves.
Either way my point isn’t to discuss the minutiae of whether ‘Unit A’ is nerfed enough or not. It’s subjective, prone to hostility and pointless. Rather that certain, other units that are clearly over performing were completely ignored and that is a failing of CA.
Martel732 wrote: I've been after eldar since 2nd. I am the OG eldar hater. So don't tell me to get over it. They've never paid off their karma for 2nd, much less any other edition
I exalted this cause it made me laugh. And its true, Eldar were so broken at times.
Martel732 wrote: I've been after eldar since 2nd. I am the OG eldar hater. So don't tell me to get over it. They've never paid off their karma for 2nd, much less any other edition
Flamers and Pulsa Rokkits got me through my hatred of Eldar in 2nd edition. Watching Exarchs run around waiting for the fire to stop while the rest of the army was knocked on their ass was very cathartic.
That being said, the hate is still there, not sure it ever really goes away.
"Eldar armies on average are going down in cost."
Based on which units in CWE lists?
The Ranger/Hemlock/etc cant-be-hit crap? That didn't go down.
The Guardian Bombs? No change.
The Serpents that back things up? Up.
The Reapers? Unchanged.
Spears? Unchanged.
Farseers? Unchanged.
I haven't looked at too many of the tourny lists yet, but the ones I've looked up have all gone up. Maybe not by enough. But certainly not down.
Some lists took Eldrad, who went down 15 points compared to Serpents going up 12. And there are Jetseers here and there that went down 3 points. But the number of things that went up, and the volume they went up by, is a lot larger than those few points.
"So you'd rather give balancing a problem interaction two fingers because it gies against how eldar worked in previous editions.
So does keyword Aeldari so just ban that as a keyword if your a fluff above balance mood."
I didn't say Doom doesn't need some balance help. I said don't contort the rules in a backwards unintuitive way just because it's overtuned right now. Up the points on a Farseer, or up the roll needed, or make denials easier, or don't play Deathstars/Knights. But don't remove Doom or make it awkward.
Why would banning Aeldari make more sense than banning Imperium or Chaos? wouldn't those be equally silly? I understand the viewpoint that those shouldn't exist, as soup is bad; at least that's consistent. But picking only one of the Soups to kill because you don't play it is intellectually dishonest.
I do agree that CWE have been OP far too often. I hope they fix it. But just removing all fluff and flavor from CWE isn't the right way to do it.
Martel732 wrote: I've been after eldar since 2nd. I am the OG eldar hater. So don't tell me to get over it. They've never paid off their karma for 2nd, much less any other edition
Flamers and Pulsa Rokkits got me through my hatred of Eldar in 2nd edition. Watching Exarchs run around waiting for the fire to stop while the rest of the army was knocked on their ass was very cathartic.
I had an Assault Marine I called "The Blue Hero" who absolutely lived to set Exarchs on fire. Good times!
Bharring wrote: "Eldar armies on average are going down in cost."
Based on which units in CWE lists?
The Ranger/Hemlock/etc cant-be-hit crap? That didn't go down.
The Guardian Bombs? No change.
The Serpents that back things up? Up.
The Reapers? Unchanged.
Spears? Unchanged.
Farseers? Unchanged.
I haven't looked at too many of the tourny lists yet, but the ones I've looked up have all gone up. Maybe not by enough. But certainly not down.
Some lists took Eldrad, who went down 15 points compared to Serpents going up 12. And there are Jetseers here and there that went down 3 points. But the number of things that went up, and the volume they went up by, is a lot larger than those few points.
"So you'd rather give balancing a problem interaction two fingers because it gies against how eldar worked in previous editions.
So does keyword Aeldari so just ban that as a keyword if your a fluff above balance mood."
I didn't say Doom doesn't need some balance help. I said don't contort the rules in a backwards unintuitive way just because it's overtuned right now. Up the points on a Farseer, or up the roll needed, or make denials easier, or don't play Deathstars/Knights. But don't remove Doom or make it awkward.
Why would banning Aeldari make more sense than banning Imperium or Chaos? wouldn't those be equally silly? I understand the viewpoint that those shouldn't exist, as soup is bad; at least that's consistent. But picking only one of the Soups to kill because you don't play it is intellectually dishonest.
I do agree that CWE have been OP far too often. I hope they fix it. But just removing all fluff and flavor from CWE isn't the right way to do it.
Eldrad went down in points. Jetbike farseer down 3 points. Gardian platforms got 3 points cheaper (scatter lasers). Autarcs on bikes got 3 points cheaper. Reapers can take EML for a savings of 2 or 3 points. Direavengers are down 1 point. Starcannons down in points.
It's a lot of little things.
Flacons and WW are now cheaper firepower per point that Crimson hunters. Nightspinners droped by a bunch. Direavengers are down 1 point. IMO you can actaully fit more into a list now. The lists might look a little different.
I really like the WW drop. With 2x starcannon they are now 14 points off - WW with scatter lasers now 16 points off. Gaurdian bikers down to 20 points with catapult.
I love Eldar hate, it's hilarious. You'd think Doom hadn't existed for like, well, forever basically. So you don't want Doom for Harlequins and Drukhari, I get that, I really do. But you'd better be open to nerfing your own soup too (Imperium, chaos). Your Ultramarine Librarian casts null zone? OK, but anything that is not Adeptus Astartes will still have to punch through an invuln save. Does that sound OK to you?
I'm all for nerfing the soup, but it had better be across the board. No picking and choosing.
The thing is, I'm not sure GW really wants to mess with soup that much. Heck, I just used the ebay coupon today to buy the loyal 32. I was holding out for CA, but looks like nothing's changing so now my Ravenwing and Deathwatch are going to get 5 more CP.
Bharring wrote: I didn't say Doom doesn't need some balance help. I said don't contort the rules in a backwards unintuitive way just because it's overtuned right now. Up the points on a Farseer, or up the roll needed, or make denials easier, or don't play Deathstars/Knights. But don't remove Doom or make it awkward.
Why would banning Aeldari make more sense than banning Imperium or Chaos? wouldn't those be equally silly? I understand the viewpoint that those shouldn't exist, as soup is bad; at least that's consistent. But picking only one of the Soups to kill because you don't play it is intellectually dishonest.
I do agree that CWE have been OP far too often. I hope they fix it. But just removing all fluff and flavor from CWE isn't the right way to do it.
How is making it a craftworld units only making it awkward?
Increasing points was suggested and met with wraith forks
CWE players complain that in CWE lists farseers can't be more points. (They actually complained they are already overpriced)
Harliquins players say skyweavers can't be more points.
Drukari players all laugh will stroking thier dissy cannons.
Let's see create slanesh, civil war, 1 side decieded to renounce the old excesses while the other continues to revel in them? Aeldari certainly seam like the one's to hold grudges. But it ok Cat lady has arrive Harry everyone is friendssss.
In terms of balance this CA is a massive fail. Almost all of the 'meta lists' got stronger, sometimes directly, other times indirectly.
Which of the meta lists got stronger?
Would be good to provide examples rather than just sweeping statements.
We don't need no stinkin' evidence! We base our judgement on real emotions!
Thought it was obvious.
Imperial soup of Castellan + Guard + SM.
Imperial soup of Castellan + Guard.
Aeldari soup lists of all flavours.
CWE lists including Alaitoc flywing.
Imperial soup of IK + Loyal 32.
Death Guard + Renegade Knights.
Chaos soup of TS + Daemons.
Chaos soup of Super friends.
Honourable mono lists mention - Tau.
Here’s the lists that reduced in effectiveness following CA;
Cultist bomb. (Black Legion/Alpha Legion).
Bharring wrote: I didn't say Doom doesn't need some balance help. I said don't contort the rules in a backwards unintuitive way just because it's overtuned right now. Up the points on a Farseer, or up the roll needed, or make denials easier, or don't play Deathstars/Knights. But don't remove Doom or make it awkward.
Why would banning Aeldari make more sense than banning Imperium or Chaos? wouldn't those be equally silly? I understand the viewpoint that those shouldn't exist, as soup is bad; at least that's consistent. But picking only one of the Soups to kill because you don't play it is intellectually dishonest.
I do agree that CWE have been OP far too often. I hope they fix it. But just removing all fluff and flavor from CWE isn't the right way to do it.
How is making it a craftworld units only making it awkward?
Increasing points was suggested and met with wraith forks
CWE players complain that in CWE lists farseers can't be more points. (They actually complained they are already overpriced)
Harliquins players say skyweavers can't be more points.
Drukari players all laugh will stroking thier dissy cannons.
Increasing points for units that are priced appropriately considering only their own codex is absolutely wrong. Kill the soup instead.
Remember razorwing flocks? For the first time in history they became viable, not overpowered since they needed a 60 points tax beastmaster to work, but then abused by the ynnari who could trigger their combo by fielding multiple 7 pts units. Result? GW killed the whole unit and now no ones bring them anymore in drukhari lists. Increasing points for units that become way better in the soup than how they are designed to be in their codex is a terrible solution, that screws internal balance of the single codexes and pushes to souping even more.
Like the new rules about creating characters/vehicles or whatever, soups should be relegated to open play. They're a plague.
It is pretty surreal for people to see Ynnari as some sort of unintended soup effect. The Ynnari were explicitly designed to work as allies, that's their whole point, they cannot function in another way. If there are issues with the Ynnari (as there is) it is a problem with their rules, not allies in general.
slightly surprised at Cultists going up, would have expected them to be subject to similar restrictions as grots, i.e. most of the stratagems in C:CSM cannot be used on them unless specifically stated they can be
Crimson wrote: It is pretty surreal for people to see Ynnari as some sort of unintended soup effect. The Ynnari were explicitly designed to work as allies, that's their whole point, they cannot function in another way. If there are issues with the Ynnari (as there is) it is a problem with their rules, not allies in general.
Razorwing flocks weren't clearly designed to work as cheap soul burst triggers.
There is no evidence Ynnari were "meant" to work as allies either - its just they are "better" that way, because you want to pour your buffs and bursts into one or two units due to the nerfs they have received through 8th.
The claim Spears were (and probably remain) just a problem with Ynnari while being fine otherwise is very suspect. As is the all too common view that the rest of CWE is chopped liver. If "mono-codex" counted for anything they would be up there at the top. Unfortunately (imo anyway) it isn't - and since soup has no downsides why wouldn't you - but its not as if you play Castellan+Guard+X every game you play.
I was initially favourable to the Wave Serpent nerf - but ditching a Shuriken Cannon for regular catapults takes away much of the impact so its hard to believe it will have much effect. Buffing Eldrad makes no sense at all.
Reece really should know - but all the evidence is that this CA sought to buff the obviously underperforming factions and units (but not basic MEQ units because screw those guys), while any "meta" balancing (i.e. for top tier competitive games) only considered data from well over 6 months ago. Which has resulted in cultists apparently being the biggest problem in the game - and some frankly weird arguments on this forum to justify this view.
Which over performing units got a price hike sorry? Not Dissie Ravagers or Guardsmen. Not Castellans.
Ohh please.
No one who could understand game balance thought the Castellan was going to get Nerfed. This was clear from the Lack of Castellan results on the Chaos side. Once you realize that you have an identical unit, and it was the system of rampant CP use that was fueling it, why would you nerf the part that wasn't the problem?
Given that GW seems to not get that CP batteries and a huge amount of CP generated by one detachment and used in another is the problem, it makes sense they would nerf the Castellan because points adjustment is seemingly all they think will really fix stuff.
"There is no evidence Ynnari were "meant" to work as allies either - its just they are "better" that way, because you want to pour your buffs and bursts into one or two units due to the nerfs they have received through 8th. "
A faction with no Troops. With no FA/Elite/HS/Flyer. With 2 Special Character HQs and one Special Character LoW to round out the entire faction.
A faction designed specifically to be fielded with multiple other factions at the same time.
A faction shown in fluff as being composed of multiple different factions.
A faction where, of the three models in the entire line, one was from one Codex, and the other from another Codex.
Ynnari weren't intended to be this OP, sure. But there is no way they were *not* meant to work as Allies.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I agree that +3ppm doesn't stop Ynnari Spears from being a problem. I *think* it makes them reasonable for CWE, but I'm not sure.
"I was initially favourable to the Wave Serpent nerf - but ditching a Shuriken Cannon for regular catapults takes away much of the impact so its hard to believe it will have much effect."
Serpents went up 12, so even 2xSC + Twin Cats Serpents cost more points while carrying less dakka than pre-CA Serpents. It's debateable if they were nerfed enough, but they were certainly nerfed.
" Buffing Eldrad makes no sense at all. "
That wasn't for balance reasons. Special Characters went down almost across the board. I think GW wants to see more of them (although I want to see less).
" but its not as if you play Castellan+Guard+X every game you play. "
Seems to be more common than Ynnari Spears. I think both will still be a problem.
CA has "tweaked" the game in a massive way. I think GW are keeping to their design philosophy of rules changes in the big faq's and codex errata and points changes in CA. This means we all know when we get rules changes but more importantly it justifies the purchase of the CA book which most people will avoid.
I am guessing that their approach to game wide points adjustments is the feel bad mitigation. If you have spent a ton of money buying models and are liking how they perform and then they get nerfed by points hikes it makes you feel bad but might make other players who have to face these hyper efficient units feel better in a schadenfreude sort of way.
But if you improve the efficiency of most of the non hyperefficient units it has a double effect of improving everyones armies relative to those units as well as not making the players that own those units get pissed and rage quit.
What they have done in CA is a very clever way of managing our emotions to get the best general positive effect. It hasn't worked for my grey knights though
"Eldrad went down in points."
So a list with Eldrad and a Wave Serpent broke even. I don't know that I've seen a well-placed list with Eldrad without a Wave Serpent, but it could happen. So, occasionally, you might see variants of the meta that saved 15 points here.
" Jetbike farseer down 3 points."
Never seen a Jetbike Seer without including at least one of the many things that went up (with the same caveats as above). We're talking 3 points in a 2k list.
"Gardian platforms got 3 points cheaper (scatter lasers)."
Which are taken about as frequently as Grav Cannons. We might see SLs in meta lists from time to time now, but SLs are distinctly not meta.
"Autarcs on bikes got 3 points cheaper."
Mixed with a Jetseer, we're up to 6 points down now! Saved half the points cost change of a Serpent! Saved 2/9ths the price change on a Spears unit! Because every list has a jet Autarch, but no list uses Serpents or Spears.
"Reapers can take EML for a savings of 2 or 3 points."
Sure, they can. And you can replace all your Plasma with Grav weapons. It's basically the same tradeoff. Again, not meta in any way.
"Direavengers are down 1 point."
When was the last time you saw DAs in meta lists? I'm fairly sure the answer to that question is "DAVU", which is a couple editions out of date.
"Starcannons down in points."
Ok, this one wasn't trash. It wasn't meta, though.
"Flacons and WW are now cheaper firepower per point that Crimson hunters."
Falcons are still LasPreds with fewer and weaker shots, but for fewer points. It had less dakka/pt than the LasPred. And now both went down. It was basically inferior to Serpents in every way. Now, it might sometimes be an actual choice. War Walkers were a cheapish platform for heavy weapons, but were outperformed by other platforms. Neither were meta.
"Nightspinners droped by a bunch."
Good. They were bad.
"Direavengers are down 1 point."
You already said this.
"IMO you can actaully fit more into a list now. The lists might look a little different."
While it's true that the meta list may change, the claim was that the CWE meta lists went down in points. They did not. As detailed above, almost all these things were bad. As I had already pointed out, the only meta-used items that went down were Jetbikes, saving you 3pts on a Jetseer or Jet Autarch, and Eldrad, saving you 15 points if you took him. But 3 or 6 points for one style of meta list or 15 points in another doesn't offset the 12 points per Serpent or 27 points for Shining Spear unit that they're paying.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ice_Can:
"How is making it a craftworld units only making it awkward?"
So I debuff that Titan. What do you mean it's not Doomed when my Corsairs shoot at it? There are also corner cases like Phoenix Lords, but that could be fixed by using 'Asuryani' instead of '<Craftworld>'.
"Increasing points was suggested and met with wraith forks
CWE players complain that in CWE lists farseers can't be more points. (They actually complained they are already overpriced)"
I disagree that Farseers are overcosted. I'm not sure they're substantially undercosted either. I'm not hostile to the possibility.
"Harliquins players say skyweavers can't be more points."
I still have a hard time feeling bad for the "I Wanna Play Transformers, screw your troops game!" crowd, that might be blinding me. Harlies have a very limited book, but it does seem Skyweavers are a little too good. It'll be interesting to see how they compare to the new price points for SM bikes.
"Drukari players all laugh will stroking thier dissy cannons."
Dissies are OP, sure. That said, they're not what gets the most value out of Doom, unless you're shooting at T8 or such.
"Let's see create slanesh, civil war, 1 side decieded to renounce the old excesses while the other continues to revel in them?"
That more or less happened twice. The first time, the Exodites wrote off "modern life" and set off to set up their Amish communities. The second time, the Puritans built Craftworlds, and fled the empire. There was no war at that time, because it was just the crazies leaving.
"Aeldari certainly seam like the one's to hold grudges. But it ok Cat lady has arrive Harry everyone is friendssss."
Do you have siblings?
Especially when growing up, I could hate my brothers and sisters more than I could ever hate you. But I still love/loved them. I may have wanted to kill them, but if you took a swing at them, I'd take a swing at you.
Eldar and Dark Eldar are siblings. They will fight eachother with a hatred Mankind could never comprehend. But, if Mankind takes a swing at one of them, the other is swinging back.
Also, your history is a bit off. Of the 4 Eldar factions, only two have not been allied, even before the Allies table was introduced. The other two were expected to ally with either readily. History has had the Eldar factions ally even more than GK and Inq - which is saying quite a bit.
Wayniac wrote: Given that GW seems to not get that CP batteries and a huge amount of CP generated by one detachment and used in another is the problem, it makes sense they would nerf the Castellan because points adjustment is seemingly all they think will really fix stuff.
Sorry Wayniac, but that is supposition, followed by something that might be true but unproven, followed by a logical fallacy.
The Castellan was never going to get nerfed in this CA.
The CP system is a ongoing effort. It was nerfed in the last FAQ, and I expect you will see it further nerfed in the next FAQ.
Tyel wrote: There is no evidence Ynnari were "meant" to work as allies either
What? You think they were meant to work as an army composed solely of three characters?
No.
But you can build an army which is Ynnari detachment, Ynnari detachment, Ynnari detachment.
Not Ynnari, CWE and DE detachment. Or Ynnari, CWE, Harlequins or whatever. This is why I assume you and others mean by "they are meant to work as allies". Much like how Knights are "meant to work as allies" - because a Knight+friends>Knight+more knights.
No.
But you can build an army which is Ynnari detachment, Ynnari detachment, Ynnari detachment.Not Ynnari, CWE and DE detachment.Or Ynnari, CWE, Harlequins or whatever.
But those different Ynnari Detachments could still draw from the different Eldar codices, and indeed merging the different Eldar factions is kinda the point of the Ynnari.
But frankly, the Ynnari rules are just badly designed. I'd love it they would encourage building a full Ynnari army more (they should obviously still be usable as allied detachments too.) Their rules give massive buffs to few units, which encourages bringing a small allied detachment they can supercharge and nothing more. They should be reworked so that they'd provide lesser buffs, but to all units in the detachment; this would actually make building full Ynnari armies viable.
This is why I assume you and others mean by "they are meant to work as allies". Much like how Knights are "meant to work as allies" - because a Knight+friends>Knight+more knights.
The Knights are totally meant to work as allies, they even shared a codex with the Ad Mech early in this edition.
Ordana wrote: Top lists don't play Scatter Laser platforms, Nor Reaper Exarchs with EML. No one is going to bring Falcons over Crimson Hunters.
You can't say Eldar lists got cheaper and then list a bunch of stuff where half is never taken.
Nah...lots of reapers were taking EML already - now they are all taking it. Top lists pick the cheapest platform because it is just a defensive buff for the unit - it will now be scatter lasers. You're right - no one is gonna take falcons (few will anyways) but people will bring warwalkers now. Plus they will ABSOLUTELY be bringing night spinners.
If you just focus on the change to spears. 3 more PPM - so 27 points up. Eldrad is -15 - 3-4 cheaper gardian platforms is 9-12 points. Then EML on dark reapers and you have already made up for the increase in points on spears. That's before even factoring any jetbike warlocks or autarcs or farseers which also went down in points. That isn't even factoring in units that aren't being played which have become basically auto include. Siam han scatter bikes are quite frankly amazing now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: I will totally trade doom nerfs for *snicker* null zone nerfs.
How does one nerf a power which is already near useless? Oh that is right. GW will find a way!
How does one nerf a power which is already near useless? Oh that is right. GW will find a way!
It's a very powerful tool you can use to kill drukhari and harlequins, that seem to be impossible to defeat for you.
It goes off on an 8 man. That is about a 50% chance with a reroll. Plus it's only effective on a jetpack libby which also has a d6 advance roll to get into good position. It ether works and you win or you have thrown away a 120 point model - it doesn't matter - you've basically already lost if 30 harliquens are charging you next turn or if you are facing DE anyways.
Yes, because the Marine power is an impossibly high 8, whereas the Eldar power is only an easy-peasy 8. Or something.
I don't think the argument is that Null Zone is good. The argument is that it's one rule for Marines (and everyone else) and another for Eldar.
"Nah...lots of reapers were taking EML already - now they are all taking it."
It was done in the Index some of the time for points, but I hadn't seen it since the Codex landed. If dropping points for survivability were good, SMDevs would be better. They can scale durability per point far better than Reapers can.
"If you just focus on the change to spears. 3 more PPM - so 27 points up. Eldrad is -15 - 3-4 cheaper gardian platforms is 9-12 points. Then EML on dark reapers and you have already made up for the increase in points on spears. That's before even factoring any jetbike warlocks or autarcs or farseers which also went down in points. That isn't even factoring in units that aren't being played which have become basically auto include. Siam han scatter bikes are quite frankly amazing now. "
If you assume meta lists that take Spears also take Eldrad and 2-4 Guardian squads, then that list *breaks even*, and doesn't go down. While having slightly less dakka on the Guardian squads. You'd have to also be taking an EML Reaper and no Wave Serpents to go down. Which means you actually have less dakka.
It requires a very contrived kinda-sorta-looks-meta list to see one that actually goes down just a couple points. Whereas almost every meta list I look at went up. It's very hard to say CWE meta lists went down.
"That isn't even factoring in units that aren't being played which have become basically auto include. Siam han scatter bikes are quite frankly amazing now. "
It's also not factoring in that the same list is also facing 10%-20% more stuff. Because it's out of scope. The point is that the meta list didn't go down in points. A new meta list might use more things that went down. But that's a different discussion.
bananathug wrote: I love how the excuse for why a lot of things didn't get adjusted was "wait for CA" and now it's "wait for the next FAQ."
That's been the case for 20 something years. The white knights ride in and tell you either that everything is fine (which is always demonstrably false), or that just wait for the next BRB edition/codex/FAQ/errata/chapter approved. The next magic book that was supposed to fix the game is released, breaks 2 things for every 1 that it fixed, and the white knights repeat their mantra.
Which over performing units got a price hike sorry? Not Dissie Ravagers or Guardsmen. Not Castellans.
Ohh please.
No one who could understand game balance thought the Castellan was going to get Nerfed. This was clear from the Lack of Castellan results on the Chaos side. Once you realize that you have an identical unit, and it was the system of rampant CP use that was fueling it, why would you nerf the part that wasn't the problem?
1. In my opinion, yes.
2. Lol at the claim that the Castellan doesn’t need a nerf. Sit down because this might blow your mind but perhaps a Castellan with a codex worth of household traits and stratagems is worth more than one without?
bananathug wrote: I love how the excuse for why a lot of things didn't get adjusted was "wait for CA" and now it's "wait for the next FAQ."
That's been the case for 20 something years. The white knights ride in and tell you either that everything is fine (which is always demonstrably false), or that just wait for the next BRB edition/codex/FAQ/errata/chapter approved. The next magic book that was supposed to fix the game is released, breaks 2 things for every 1 that it fixed, and the white knights repeat their mantra.
You're absolutely right. GW is doomed to fail and it's stock will crash soon. Why there's even far less people playing than ever before and tournaments are having an incredibly hard time filling spots.
I'll gladly agree that Chapter Approved is out of date as soon as it's released regarding points and rules changes. The points values should really be available online as part of the FAQ - if I've bought my Codex like a good boy, I shouldn't have to shell out every year to get the latest points values for my models.
That being said, I do support the idea of an annual book with new missions (and as Tabletop Tactics discussed at length in their Voxcast, the actual missions change the meta quite significantly in some cases) and other such rules. Why not go back to the roots of Chapter Approved the first go around, by including any and all extra rules published through the year in White Dwarf or online. Including Index: Renegade Knights is a great step, for example.
I'd gladly shell out my money for a compendium of all the added rules in the game, and if they want to include a paper version of new datasheets, points values etc in the appendix, that's great too. But that shouldn't be the reason we're buying it.
I'll live somehow.
, the rules base has already reached epic dumpster fire proportions.
