Hello Dakka! As a mirror thread of the "How would you *slightly* change your favourite underperforming units/models? " thread, I am curious to know what kind of slight changes could Dakka bring to some overpowered units ? Same rules as in the other thread (change the unit in as minor as possible to make it fill it's main role to an acceptable standard, not to make it undeniably bad).
I begin with the hive-tyrant. I would let him get only one psy power (IIRC he has two), and lessen a bit its resilience (for example: if he has wings, -1 T. IIRC there was something like that before with flying tyranid MCs) This way, a walking hive tyrant would still be resilient, but if you want a mobile beast, you have to pay for it trading resilience for mobility.
Remove Ion Bulwark from the knight warlord trait list.
If you want giant 400 point robots to have the same free relics and warlord traits as 40 point company commanders, you're going to have to make those buffs VERY SLIGHT.
VERY VERY SLIGHT. like, if Ion Bulwark is a thing it should be "reroll invuln saves of 1" not "add 1 to invuln saves."
It should not be "hmm decisions decisions, I could get this D2 2-shot bolt pistol, or this macro-cannon that does an average of 6 extra unsaved wounds per turn vs tanks."
Bullgryn: Delete the slabshield. No. I do not care whether you have a distinct model for it, you may not have a T5/3W/2+ unit that benefits from stacking Take Cover/Psychic Barrier and benefits from cover like infantry.
Remove Ion Bulwark from the knight warlord trait list.
If you want giant 400 point robots to have the same free relics and warlord traits as 40 point company commanders, you're going to have to make those buffs VERY SLIGHT.
VERY VERY SLIGHT. like, if Ion Bulwark is a thing it should be "reroll invuln saves of 1" not "add 1 to invuln saves."
It should not be "hmm decisions decisions, I could get this D2 2-shot bolt pistol, or this macro-cannon that does an average of 6 extra unsaved wounds per turn vs tanks."
Iron Bulwark actually has a very good reason why it exsists as a warlord trait, it's just unfortunately GW didn't forsee people stacking all the combos with unlimited Guard CP.
Cawls Wrath on the otherhand is an unbalanced abomination on top of an already powerful weapons platform.
IG Orders cost 1CP per use, and Grand Strategist is changed to make the first order your warlord issues per turn free. Apparently mono-IG have literal mountains of CP with no worthwhile sink, so it shouldn't hurt them while limiting how much nonsense the Loyal 32 can get up to.
I really think that most of my over performers could be toned down with a rule to only allow the Warlords Stratagems to be used.
The Castellan is only silly due to the ability to feed it CP like its a suspect getting waterboarded. If you had to make it the Real Warlord, and gave it only the Knight Stratagems it would show its appropriately pointed.
Remove Ion Bulwark from the knight warlord trait list.
If you want giant 400 point robots to have the same free relics and warlord traits as 40 point company commanders, you're going to have to make those buffs VERY SLIGHT.
VERY VERY SLIGHT. like, if Ion Bulwark is a thing it should be "reroll invuln saves of 1" not "add 1 to invuln saves."
It should not be "hmm decisions decisions, I could get this D2 2-shot bolt pistol, or this macro-cannon that does an average of 6 extra unsaved wounds per turn vs tanks."
Iron Bulwark actually has a very good reason why it exsists as a warlord trait, it's just unfortunately GW didn't forsee people stacking all the combos with unlimited Guard CP.
Cawls Wrath on the otherhand is an unbalanced abomination on top of an already powerful weapons platform.
"stacking all combos?"
What combo is stacked by ion bulwark other than "1/3cp to make my knight basically immune to shooting kthxbye"
Remove Ion Bulwark from the knight warlord trait list.
If you want giant 400 point robots to have the same free relics and warlord traits as 40 point company commanders, you're going to have to make those buffs VERY SLIGHT.
VERY VERY SLIGHT. like, if Ion Bulwark is a thing it should be "reroll invuln saves of 1" not "add 1 to invuln saves."
It should not be "hmm decisions decisions, I could get this D2 2-shot bolt pistol, or this macro-cannon that does an average of 6 extra unsaved wounds per turn vs tanks."
Iron Bulwark actually has a very good reason why it exsists as a warlord trait, it's just unfortunately GW didn't forsee people stacking all the combos with unlimited Guard CP.
Cawls Wrath on the otherhand is an unbalanced abomination on top of an already powerful weapons platform.
"stacking all combos?"
What combo is stacked by ion bulwark other than "1/3cp to make my knight basically immune to shooting kthxbye"
When you have 9 CP period for you list which started at 6cp untill FAQ'd you weren't even looking at ever takinh rotate on a dominus class ever. Giving "imperium lists access to 20 +CP is the issue mono codex it needs to exsist as otherwise that 600 points is dead before it even shoots 50% of the time.
Not that a Castellen is correct at 600 with cawls wrath exsisting.
Play against a vallient and tell me it havibg a 4++ is broken?
So basically you want to remove IG Orders from the game.
No mono guard apparently have nothing to spend CP on, plentiful
CP and game breaking orders.
It's an interesting spin on trying to balance them, while actually hurting soup more.
Yeah, as an IG player I wouldn't mind the 1CP per Order, though I'd still think making the first "free" shouldn't be a Warlord Trait.
The only problem I foresee is finding something the HQs can do, then.
The only concern is that making Orders into stratagems would be too limiting (1 per phase is the problem with the Sororitas Acts of Faith in the beta codex). So, all the orders past the first one (or two?) are 1CP, but you can use the same order more than once, and spend 80 CP for all I care...
No mono guard apparently have nothing to spend CP on, plentiful
CP and game breaking orders.
It's an interesting spin on trying to balance them, while actually hurting soup more.
So if we're charging CP in order to allow models to use basic abilities, I assume you also won't object to Necrons paying 2CP to use MWBD, other units paying XCP to activate their auras for a turn (X being the number of units in the aura) etc.
No mono guard apparently have nothing to spend CP on, plentiful
CP and game breaking orders.
It's an interesting spin on trying to balance them, while actually hurting soup more.
So if we're charging CP in order to allow models to use basic abilities, I assume you also won't object to Necrons paying 2CP to use MWBD, other units paying XCP to activate their auras for a turn (X being the number of units in the aura) etc.
RIght. We should find something else for Company Commanders to do. Perhaps Marine players wouldn't mind us giving them a re-roll 1s aura like Captains have?
No mono guard apparently have nothing to spend CP on, plentiful
CP and game breaking orders.
It's an interesting spin on trying to balance them, while actually hurting soup more.
So if we're charging CP in order to allow models to use basic abilities, I assume you also won't object to Necrons paying 2CP to use MWBD, other units paying XCP to activate their auras for a turn (X being the number of units in the aura) etc.
When other armies have aura's they can change at will sure they can pay CP for them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah, as an IG player I wouldn't mind the 1CP per Order, though I'd still think making the first "free" shouldn't be a Warlord Trait.
The only problem I foresee is finding something the HQs can do, then.
The only concern is that making Orders into stratagems would be too limiting (1 per phase is the problem with the Sororitas Acts of Faith in the beta codex). So, all the orders past the first one (or two?) are 1CP, but you can use the same order more than once, and spend 80 CP for all I care...
What if it was 1CP per order but it effected say evey unit wholely within 6 inches of that HQ commander and 3 inches of platoon commanders.
No mono guard apparently have nothing to spend CP on, plentiful
CP and game breaking orders.
It's an interesting spin on trying to balance them, while actually hurting soup more.
So if we're charging CP in order to allow models to use basic abilities, I assume you also won't object to Necrons paying 2CP to use MWBD, other units paying XCP to activate their auras for a turn (X being the number of units in the aura) etc.
When other armies have aura's they can change at will sure they can pay CP for them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah, as an IG player I wouldn't mind the 1CP per Order, though I'd still think making the first "free" shouldn't be a Warlord Trait.
The only problem I foresee is finding something the HQs can do, then.
The only concern is that making Orders into stratagems would be too limiting (1 per phase is the problem with the Sororitas Acts of Faith in the beta codex). So, all the orders past the first one (or two?) are 1CP, but you can use the same order more than once, and spend 80 CP for all I care...
What if it was 1CP per order but it effected say evey unit wholely within 6 inches of that HQ commander and 3 inches of platoon commanders.
I wouldn't say wholly within, because it's dumb to force an army to blob up like that. I'd say within, just like all the Space Marine HQs have.
No mono guard apparently have nothing to spend CP on, plentiful
CP and game breaking orders.
It's an interesting spin on trying to balance them, while actually hurting soup more.
So if we're charging CP in order to allow models to use basic abilities, I assume you also won't object to Necrons paying 2CP to use MWBD, other units paying XCP to activate their auras for a turn (X being the number of units in the aura) etc.
When other armies have aura's they can change at will sure they can pay CP for them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah, as an IG player I wouldn't mind the 1CP per Order, though I'd still think making the first "free" shouldn't be a Warlord Trait.
The only problem I foresee is finding something the HQs can do, then.
The only concern is that making Orders into stratagems would be too limiting (1 per phase is the problem with the Sororitas Acts of Faith in the beta codex). So, all the orders past the first one (or two?) are 1CP, but you can use the same order more than once, and spend 80 CP for all I care...
What if it was 1CP per order but it effected say evey unit wholely within 6 inches of that HQ commander and 3 inches of platoon commanders.
I wouldn't say wholly within, because it's dumb to force an army to blob up like that. I'd say within, just like all the Space Marine HQs have.
I would honestly have to double check as I know some of my marine aura's are wholly within thanks to FAQing. But I also dislike tge wierd conga lining that within started to be abused for, personally I would rather larger area's with wholly within than the smaller within shenanigans with units congalining across the board.
No mono guard apparently have nothing to spend CP on, plentiful
CP and game breaking orders.
It's an interesting spin on trying to balance them, while actually hurting soup more.
So if we're charging CP in order to allow models to use basic abilities, I assume you also won't object to Necrons paying 2CP to use MWBD, other units paying XCP to activate their auras for a turn (X being the number of units in the aura) etc.
RIght. We should find something else for Company Commanders to do. Perhaps Marine players wouldn't mind us giving them a re-roll 1s aura like Captains have?
Sounds fair, as long as Cadians get re-roll all hits if they don't move. I'd gladly trade orders for that. Otherwise, 1 CP per order is stupid. Guard armies have plenty to spend CP on, I'll always spend at least 3 CP per turn (overlapping fields of fire + re-roll), so 15 CP per game if we assume 5 turn games. Just because the Guard doesn't blow it's CP in the first turn like some armies doesn't mean those CP are useless.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: IG Orders cost 1CP per use, and Grand Strategist is changed to make the first order your warlord issues per turn free. Apparently mono-IG have literal mountains of CP with no worthwhile sink, so it shouldn't hurt them while limiting how much nonsense the Loyal 32 can get up to.
Given that models issuing Orders generally don't do literally anything else at all, and that a classic IG Infantry wall list will exhaust those CP's in a couple of turns, we'd better be changing some other mechanics in the process, because thats no slight change.
No mono guard apparently have nothing to spend CP on, plentiful
CP and game breaking orders.
It's an interesting spin on trying to balance them, while actually hurting soup more.
So if we're charging CP in order to allow models to use basic abilities, I assume you also won't object to Necrons paying 2CP to use MWBD, other units paying XCP to activate their auras for a turn (X being the number of units in the aura) etc.
RIght. We should find something else for Company Commanders to do. Perhaps Marine players wouldn't mind us giving them a re-roll 1s aura like Captains have?
As mentioned in the now closed silly Guardsmen thread disaster from last week, I'd trade Orders entirely for the Captain reroll 1's buff in a heartbeat no questions asked if it was the exact same thing.
I don't think most opponents would feel the same way after playing however
I should have been clearer on one point; I would want them to cost CP, not that they'd be stratagems. Think SoB's faith points, but using a pre-existing system and less(?) disappointment. It's intentionally a different use for CPs, because mono-IG armies should be able to spam FRFSRF to their heart's content. The point is to make orders functionally inaccessible in Soup builds, not weaker. If it's too harsh power-wise (and I don't think it is), then buffing CCs with something like a re-roll aura sounds fine.
Also if my Overlord had access to such a variety of useful buffs akin to IG orders I'd be too busy dreaming to pay for them lol.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: I should have been clearer on one point; I would want them to cost CP, not that they'd be stratagems. Think SoB's faith points, but using a pre-existing system and less(?) disappointment. It's intentionally a different use for CPs, because mono-IG armies should be able to spam FRFSRF to their heart's content. The point is to make orders functionally inaccessible in Soup builds, not weaker. If it's too harsh power-wise (and I don't think it is), then buffing CCs with something like a re-roll aura sounds fine.
Also if my Overlord had access to such a variety of useful buffs akin to IG orders I'd be too busy dreaming to pay for them lol.
I could see orders becoming something like a slew of different auras that require CP to activate. So they'd mechanically work the same way as other factions' auras (affecting everyone within 6", not just one unit per order), but the flexibility of being able to choose what to use on a given turn would come at the cost of CP.
Maybe then have cheap, minor auras available to Platoon Commanders (eg pay 1CP, re-roll 1s to hit), while Company Commanders could have more expensive/powerful abilities (eg pay 2-3CP, re-roll all misses). Throw in an effect for voxes (maybe 12" bubble for units with voxes, recost appropriately) and it seems like a workable scheme. That'd all be pretty useless to soup's Loyal 32, but a lot more valuable to mono-Guard lists.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: I should have been clearer on one point; I would want them to cost CP, not that they'd be stratagems. Think SoB's faith points, but using a pre-existing system and less(?) disappointment. It's intentionally a different use for CPs, because mono-IG armies should be able to spam FRFSRF to their heart's content. The point is to make orders functionally inaccessible in Soup builds, not weaker. If it's too harsh power-wise (and I don't think it is), then buffing CCs with something like a re-roll aura sounds fine.
Also if my Overlord had access to such a variety of useful buffs akin to IG orders I'd be too busy dreaming to pay for them lol.
I could see orders becoming something like a slew of different auras that require CP to activate. So they'd mechanically work the same way as other factions' auras (affecting everyone within 6", not just one unit per order), but the flexibility of being able to choose what to use on a given turn would come at the cost of CP.
Maybe then have cheap, minor auras available to Platoon Commanders (eg pay 1CP, re-roll 1s to hit), while Company Commanders could have more expensive/powerful abilities (eg pay 2-3CP, re-roll all misses). Throw in an effect for voxes (maybe 12" bubble for units with voxes, recost appropriately) and it seems like a workable scheme. That'd all be pretty useless to soup's Loyal 32, but a lot more valuable to mono-Guard lists.
You guys are vastly overrating guard orders... re-rolling 1's to hit on a lasgun squad gets you what, 2-3 extra hits tops? Re-rolling all misses gives you an extra what, 7-8 lasgun hits maybe? FRFSRF gives you an extra 9 lasgun hits on average... again, so what? 9 lasgun hits is 1 dead MEQ. Who would ever spend 1 CP to kill a single marine? Orders make guardsmen go from absolutely worthless to decent for their points.
Making orders cost CP would be a massive nerf to mono-IG armies, and wouldn't effect soup armies because while they use orders to make their guardsmen better, it's not like 3 extra MEQ dead is that big of a deal, assuming they can get all 30 guardsmen in 12" and issue orders to all of them to get off a solid volley.
I'd give the Hemlock some sort of potential minus to casting powers as it gets degraded. As it stands a Hemlock on 1 wound is just as effective as on 12 and it can be really absurd and frustrating for your opponent to throw a lot of damage at it and to essentially do nothing. It also removes a lot of potential skill from the use of it since it's an incredibly cool concept for a unit and is an interesting mix of damage and support abilities. I don't know how effective a psychic nerf from degradation would be, but just making so it can't throw out so many easy smites and jinxes despite being beaten up would go a long way to addressing it outside of increasing its points until it becomes unusable.
I think a very simple "fix" to a lot of serious issues would be to limit stratagems to more exclusive units, and likewise edit/remove some keywords from certain units. Most of the powerful combinations come from soup, or from stratagems which equally affect a single toughness 3 model, or a 500+ point Knight or Baneblade, etc.
I'd have liked to see one extra page of stratagems per codex, but more importantly limit stratagems to certain units - this would also make certain units more worth taking "Oh well, these stats aren't great...but they have this cool stratagem", much in the way you're seeing the Specialist Detachments (note they're mostly based around the more rare units in the armies from Vigilus...not surprising). I think stratagems could be a good way to "fix" many underperforming units, or give them at least some flavor. This should have been more heavily considered at the onset.
One of the main issues with stuff like Chaos cultists is that they (admittedly - for no reason) benefit from stratagems that were not really intended for them. So, cut and clip some keywords, or change the stratagems to be used on X, Y and Z. Some of these already exist of course, but some units could benefit from more "aimed" stratagems.
Look at stuff like Vengeance for Cadia in the guard codex - that makes certain guard units comically powerful vs. Chaos for, what, 1 CP? Limit it to an <INFANTRY> unit or something like that. I think if GW narrowed stratagems down across the board (something they won't do), it would be a much more interesting game. Perhaps they'll learn lessons from 8th when they revise it in a few years time.
I'd just ban the soups from matched play to be honest, that basically kills the most significant cheesy combos in the game.
Then just adjust some points costs.
This is the only way to fix 40k issues with minor changes. Most of the overperforming units are not that broken outside the soup and if they get an appropriate points cost they wouldn't be broken even in their stand alone faction, if they really are over performing on their own.
Blackie wrote: I'd just ban the soups from matched play to be honest, that basically kills the most significant cheesy combos in the game.
This kills several several units that literally can't exist as standalone armies.
Such as? Don't say units like assassins please or the ynnari characters, I'm talking about mixing real factions. Units like assassins or those elves should be just part of some already existing imperium and aeldari faction. Of course units that don't belong to any codex should be included in one or more.
Even harlequins, with their grand total of 8 entries in their entire codex, work very well as a stand alone army. Now even knights, with their baby robots, can work as a stand alone army.
Iron Bulwark actually has a very good reason why it exsists as a warlord trait, it's just unfortunately GW didn't forsee people stacking all the combos with unlimited Guard CP.
Just make it so that it doesn't stack with the stratagem. Add wording to the stratagem which says 'up to maximum of 4+.' Easy fix.
Cawls Wrath on the otherhand is an unbalanced abomination on top of an already powerful weapons platform.
Make it just a Plasma Pecimator which always fires at the overcharged profile without actually having a change to overheat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackie wrote: I'd just ban the soups from matched play to be honest,
I'd ban whichever army you happen play from the matched.
Ghorgul wrote: Regarding Knights, You who have played more and play more Lord of War units specifically, how do you feel about Super Heavy Detachment awarding +3 CP?
Would it be fair it was something like -1, 0 or +1 only instead?
My superheavy tank detachment for IG is just fine with +3.
The problem with Knights is that it gives them +6, and +3 if they bring 1 LOW and 2 Armigers. That'd be like 1 Baneblade and 2 Leman Russes giving 3 CP, and 3 Baneblades giving 6. That's what's silly.
3CP is fine, esp. after the Battalion and Brigade detachments went up so much.
Blackie wrote: I'd just ban the soups from matched play to be honest, that basically kills the most significant cheesy combos in the game.
This is indeed true, but banning it entierly is bit drastic. Maybe just limit it to 2 factions (maybe add a exception for small factions, like the Rogue trader, inquisition, assasins etc, or make them a specialised detachment that gives no or less CP. Or "If you wish to include a third faction in your army list, this faction MUST be in a 'Patrol' detachment, unless it's the 'Auxillary' detachment.)
You want to play the Loyal 32, Custodes on jetbikes and 3 Knights? Haha, too bad. Drop one faction and you are free to go.
You are free to take 3 detachments of Imperial Guard, or two guard and one Space Marine, but if you want to take one Guard, one Marine and one Admech for example, one of them must be either Patrol or Auxillary.
You want to play the Loyal 32, Custodes on jetbikes and 3 Knights? Haha, too bad. Drop one faction and you are free to go.
I'd probably go further punishing soups. If they're not completely banned I'd alternatively cut any interactions between units from different codexes, like drukhari units cannot benefit from a target that was Doomed by an eldar psyker. I'd also lock the CPs to the detachment that generates it if there are different factions in the same list. Do you want the loyal 32 in a wider imperium faction? Then those 5 CPs could only be invested on that detachment.
No unit can benefit in any way from a psychic power used by a model from another faction.
That means everything. You don't count enemy units as not having an invuln save if you're not heretic astartes and you're shooting a Death Hexed enemy. You don't get Doom if you're a drukhari. You don't have -1 to hit drukhari models if a Harlequin psyker cast a -1 to hit buff on you, only if you try to target Harlequin models.
Just get rid of the Doom interaction, and every other interaction that might exist elsewhere. If something is intended to affect soup, it needs to be DESIGNED AND COSTED with soup in mind.
That, and the "command points generated by a faction can only be used by that faction" fix would solve an enormous amount of problems currently in the game.
Ghorgul wrote: Regarding Knights, You who have played more and play more Lord of War units specifically, how do you feel about Super Heavy Detachment awarding +3 CP?
Would it be fair it was something like -1, 0 or +1 only instead?
My superheavy tank detachment for IG is just fine with +3.
The problem with Knights is that it gives them +6, and +3 if they bring 1 LOW and 2 Armigers. That'd be like 1 Baneblade and 2 Leman Russes giving 3 CP, and 3 Baneblades giving 6. That's what's silly.
3CP is fine, esp. after the Battalion and Brigade detachments went up so much.
The difference is that for knights to have 6 CP from the detachment they are into it for 1056 points compair that to a competitive IG battalion for 12CP at sub 800 points.
Realistically it's more like 1400 points for 6 CP, mono knights are often starting with 9 CP at 2k they might be able to stretch to 12 CP.
The issue is bolting on 800 points of guard competitive on their own with 12 CP as a free bonus.
CP shouldn't have ecen been based on detachments with the ith edition allies rules as they are.
Ghorgul wrote: Regarding Knights, You who have played more and play more Lord of War units specifically, how do you feel about Super Heavy Detachment awarding +3 CP?
Would it be fair it was something like -1, 0 or +1 only instead?
My superheavy tank detachment for IG is just fine with +3.
The problem with Knights is that it gives them +6, and +3 if they bring 1 LOW and 2 Armigers. That'd be like 1 Baneblade and 2 Leman Russes giving 3 CP, and 3 Baneblades giving 6. That's what's silly.
3CP is fine, esp. after the Battalion and Brigade detachments went up so much.
The difference is that for knights to have 6 CP from the detachment they are into it for 1056 points compair that to a competitive IG battalion for 12CP at sub 800 points.
Realistically it's more like 1400 points for 6 CP, mono knights are often starting with 9 CP at 2k they might be able to stretch to 12 CP.
The issue is bolting on 800 points of guard competitive on their own with 12 CP as a free bonus.
CP shouldn't have ecen been based on detachments with the ith edition allies rules as they are.
So you are saying Knights should have more CP and IG should have less?
Giving different armies drastically different amount of CPs was a bad idea from the get go, and cause of most of the soup problems. If some army has more powerful stratagems (like the Knights) then those stratagems can just cost more CP.
Ghorgul wrote: Regarding Knights, You who have played more and play more Lord of War units specifically, how do you feel about Super Heavy Detachment awarding +3 CP?
Would it be fair it was something like -1, 0 or +1 only instead?
My superheavy tank detachment for IG is just fine with +3.
The problem with Knights is that it gives them +6, and +3 if they bring 1 LOW and 2 Armigers. That'd be like 1 Baneblade and 2 Leman Russes giving 3 CP, and 3 Baneblades giving 6. That's what's silly.
3CP is fine, esp. after the Battalion and Brigade detachments went up so much.
The difference is that for knights to have 6 CP from the detachment they are into it for 1056 points compair that to a competitive IG battalion for 12CP at sub 800 points.
Realistically it's more like 1400 points for 6 CP, mono knights are often starting with 9 CP at 2k they might be able to stretch to 12 CP.
The issue is bolting on 800 points of guard competitive on their own with 12 CP as a free bonus.
CP shouldn't have ecen been based on detachments with the ith edition allies rules as they are.
So you are saying Knights should have more CP and IG should have less?
Frankly it shouldn't have ever been scaled to anything other than points, IMHO.
Playing 1000 pointa everyone gets 8 CP, playing at 1500 points you get 12 CP, at 2000 points you get 16, at 2500 you get 20CP.
The current system scales horibly.
The weird CP allocation was GW's attempt to emphasize Troops oriented armies while allowing people to otherwise take whatever they wanted. It really has not turned out terribly well however, the detachment thing has been something of a mess.
CP's can only be spent between units that share faction keywords that are not aeldari, imperium or chaos (and maybe tyranid or ynnari for consistency purposes?).
This will curb taking of the CP batteries so you can pew pew with bigger things.
With this change, perhaps we'll see a more coherent AM army with bane-variant as the lynchpin LoW instead of the castellan.
Good lord that orders for cp idea is terrible. Just make it so only a factions cp can only be used on their stratagems. There’s precedent in the elucidian starstrider and gellerpox WL traits.
If guard orders must be changed, make them only resolve on. 3+ for infantry and 2+ for vets/officers, and prevent units from ordering themselves. Orders are the backbone of guard, making them cost cp would be like making nids pay cp to activate synapse each turn
skchsan wrote: CP's can only be spent between units that share faction keywords that are not aeldari, imperium or chaos (and maybe tyranid or ynnari for consistency purposes?).
This will curb taking of the CP batteries so you can pew pew with bigger things.
With this change, perhaps we'll see a more coherent AM army with bane-variant as the lynchpin LoW instead of the castellan.
Still doesn't actually address the underlying issue that not all armies have equal troops and hence access to CP, hence strategums need to be costed differently, which fractures the game balance even worse. As a marine fight twice strategum should be 1 CP and guard one 4CP or more due to the availability and quality of troops
Much better for GW designers to just fix it to something than try and add more variables to their own mess.
skchsan wrote: CP's can only be spent between units that share faction keywords that are not aeldari, imperium or chaos (and maybe tyranid or ynnari for consistency purposes?).
This will curb taking of the CP batteries so you can pew pew with bigger things.
With this change, perhaps we'll see a more coherent AM army with bane-variant as the lynchpin LoW instead of the castellan.
Still doesn't actually address the underlying issue that not all armies have equal troops and hence access to CP, hence strategums need to be costed differently, which fractures the game balance even worse. As a marine fight twice strategum should be 1 CP and guard one 4CP or more due to the availability and quality of troops
Much better for GW designers to just fix it to something than try and add more variables to their own mess.
Agreed. With how CP generation works in 8th ed, GW should have overhauled the existing notion of what constitutes 'troops,' and really explore the option to make troop FOC the slot with the most choices available.
I'm currently in the process of tinkering with a house rule that re-shifts the FOC's where any and all units that can be a backbone element become troops, and upgraded troops (i.e. tac vs vets) and support elements become elite slots.
For example, SM troops could look something like:
-tac marines
-devastator
-assault
-termies
-scout
and elites:
-veterans
-vanguard vets
-apothecary/ancient/etc
Valentine009 wrote: When you soup you lose the 3 CP for being battleforged. If you soup a third faction you lose another 3 CP.
Reword buff stratagems and physic powers to require additional CP, or require a higher cast roll for every 10 models in the unit.
Hmm, I like the idea of -3 CP per additional codex you bring in beyond the first. Knights + Guard are still viable, but without the smashcaps it would be a lot more reasonable to fight against.
Valentine009 wrote: When you soup you lose the 3 CP for being battleforged. If you soup a third faction you lose another 3 CP.
Reword buff stratagems and physic powers to require additional CP, or require a higher cast roll for every 10 models in the unit.
Hmm, I like the idea of -3 CP per additional codex you bring in beyond the first. Knights + Guard are still viable, but without the smashcaps it would be a lot more reasonable to fight against.
Nobody took smash captains after the Big FAQ beta nerf anyways.
Valentine009 wrote: When you soup you lose the 3 CP for being battleforged. If you soup a third faction you lose another 3 CP.
Reword buff stratagems and physic powers to require additional CP, or require a higher cast roll for every 10 models in the unit.
Hmm, I like the idea of -3 CP per additional codex you bring in beyond the first. Knights + Guard are still viable, but without the smashcaps it would be a lot more reasonable to fight against.
Nobody took smash captains after the Big FAQ beta nerf anyways.
Funny, because I see new ones pop up almost daily on r/warhammer40k. But, no. nobody takes them obvs.
Ok, but doom the way it is now means instant lose to elite armies. I understand that eldar need it to beat knights, and I understand that eldar players like to have a codex that can deal with all other factions and armies. But a rule that invalidates whole other codex, just because it exists, is not just a bad one, but a stupid one.
That's not even remotely true. Marine squads don't care about Doom - you're paying a lot for a fairly reliable chance to get reroll wounds against a ~100pt target. A target that Smite would eat half of on it's own.
Doom doesn't invalidate the IK codex. It hurts the bring-one-Knight-plus-Chaff-and-beatsticks lists the most. THat is the #1 list it threatens. Lists with multiple Knights still only have one target Doomed a round, so it doesn't do more against them. So the list it's optimal against is the top list right now.
If the list it's optimal against is top right now, how is it autowin?
Doom mainly just needs to only work for CWE units, not DE units. Aside from that, it's powerful but has always long been an iconic Eldar psychic power.
As for 8th's paradigm being off, well, it is, but this has been going on for several editions. The scale has run away on itself. We're playing small games of Epic at this point in many instances which tends to emphasize size and numbers, and we're dealing with lots of factions that have little place in the kinds of battles that the scale 40k is suited for, both up and down.
We also have too many units made with concepts in mind that dont have a place on the pitched battle field that is most games of 40k. Mutilators or Terminators for example could be terrifying in a game with boards more like Zone Mortalis and played at a skirmish scale, but they're a whole lot less interesting on an open field deployed against a lance of superheavy Knights.
Eldarsif wrote: Change Doom so it only gives one unit a chance to reroll to wound and it can only target Asuryani units.
If you want to make it easier for your opponent to kill your units, go right ahead...
Not sure if willfully misunderstanding. Cast Doom on Reapers. Now Reaper squad only gets to reroll when they try to wound and not every single unit in the army.
Bharring wrote: Because CWE need more of their power to be in the buff-one-unit form? Because they aren't pushed hard enough into playing deathstars?
The change you suggest helps Knight armies and Deathstar armies, and hurts MSU armies and Combined Arms-style armies. Why go that way?
What Deathstars? HQ units can no longer join units like in 7th.
Wraithknights don't really need help with wounding unless they are wounding Imperial Knights or something with really high toughness.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why go that way?
I am all for balancing Doom and in no way do I proclaim my idea is superior(or needed even). However, I would say that increasing WC8 on Doom is no better.
9-man Shining Spears with all the buffs are a deathstar.
10-man Reaper squads are a deathstar.
I didn't mean that the changes help the CWE player run Knight and Deathstar armies. I meant the changes help Knight and Deathstar armies facing CWE lists. If Doom only affects one target unit, even if that unit is a 9-man Spears unit, that Knight is going to be a lot harder to take down. Conversely, if you're Dooming a 10-man Reaper unit, that's a lot scarier for an MSU army to face than Doom as-is.
In other words, the change makes things easier for the current top list, and makes things harder for many of the lists that are currently terrible.
Bharring wrote: 9-man Shining Spears with all the buffs are a deathstar.
10-man Reaper squads are a deathstar.
I didn't mean that the changes help the CWE player run Knight and Deathstar armies. I meant the changes help Knight and Deathstar armies facing CWE lists. If Doom only affects one target unit, even if that unit is a 9-man Spears unit, that Knight is going to be a lot harder to take down. Conversely, if you're Dooming a 10-man Reaper unit, that's a lot scarier for an MSU army to face than Doom as-is.
In other words, the change makes things easier for the current top list, and makes things harder for many of the lists that are currently terrible.
The biggest issue with DOOM as written is it buffs Non craftworld units better than craftworld units making it ethier
1 undercosted as its only costed for the buff it gives to craftworld units.
2 it's working outwith GW's design intention and they need to learn to write what they mean the player's arn't all Eldrad and just automatically know how the games supposed to work.
3 they need to actually get address it in some way.
Bharring wrote: 9-man Shining Spears with all the buffs are a deathstar.
10-man Reaper squads are a deathstar.
I didn't mean that the changes help the CWE player run Knight and Deathstar armies. I meant the changes help Knight and Deathstar armies facing CWE lists. If Doom only affects one target unit, even if that unit is a 9-man Spears unit, that Knight is going to be a lot harder to take down. Conversely, if you're Dooming a 10-man Reaper unit, that's a lot scarier for an MSU army to face than Doom as-is.
In other words, the change makes things easier for the current top list, and makes things harder for many of the lists that are currently terrible.
So we get to the crux of the matter: Doom - as it is now - is actually fine. I would argue that Ynnari makes a mess of it, and having other factions being able to benefit from it is something that needs to be looked at. In other words: Doom is fine, but should only benefit the faction that is also casting it - the Asuryani.
The biggest issue with DOOM as written is it buffs Non craftworld units better than craftworld units
How?
My guess is that people are allying a Farseer Windrunner to Doom units for their Drukhari siblings.
Yes, but how the DE benefit from the Doom more than the CWE?
1 the hot garbage that is Ynnari
2 Harliquin haywire is clearly not costed for targets being doomed
3 DE haywire and dissis gain more than CW weapons from doom
Re-roll all wounds disproportionately boosts s5-6 weapons vs all targets due to the wounding chart. DE have the most point efficient source of s5-6 weapon.
For the haywire it doubles the chances of inflicting the big mortal wounds for those stupid bikes by getting to re-roll all failed wound rolls when you need 6's to wound.
Honestly Dissie cannons are too cheap. It takes one of the best weapons in the game and makes it better which is why it disproportionately benefits armies that can bring that weapon to the battle field. Turning it into a kills all targets relatively efficiently from a kills marines efficiently. Same thing that Gman does for assault cannons (which is why both he and they went up a ton of points but for some reason the eldar equivalent has remained relatively untouched).
Knights would pretty much be fixed if they could only use CP they generated themselves. The Loyal 32 showing up and pumping a knight up is just bad game design.
Doom makes an already broken weapon super broken. Same thing with ynarri and jet-bikes.
Restrict it to benefit CWE only, cast up to 8 and require LOS and it seems more fair.
The inter-faction buffing and non LOS are the two most busted parts about it (IMHO) with the interaction with haywire probably more busted than it's effects on dissie cannons (which is still busted).
I don't think diss cannons are too cheap instead, during index time they were more expensive and litterally no one used to take them. They're just extremely more effective if they also get doomed and the ynnari keyword. The soup is the problem, not the unit/wargear. Like harlequins bikes, they're fairly priced if taken in a pure clowns force, but they can become broken if souped with other space elves.
I'd hate a nerf to some units only because the soup makes them overpowered. I'd already witnessed the death of razorwing flocks, which were finally viable for the first time in decades, and thanks to the ynnari abuse of them nerfed into the ground after a couple of months. Please don't do the same with diss cannons and harlequins bikes.
Crimson wrote: Why it is the DE units that become particularly problematic with the doom?
Because DE have a source of S5 ap-3 D2 damage on a super cheap platform and harlequins have haywire blasters both of which see an absurd spike in damage with Doom and almost certainly were not costed with doom in mind.
Dissies could go up maybe 5 points(parity with Dark Lances). More than that and they would likely slowly disappear into the ether or make Doom mandatory. At least try minimal nerfing to see how it plays out instead of going for the kill.
As Blackie mentioned I would be wary of nerfing things because GW forgot to keep soup in mind. Only thing that changes with those nerfs is that it reinforces soup style of play as the only acceptable.
Eldarsif wrote: Dissies could go up maybe 5 points(parity with Dark Lances). More than that and they would likely slowly disappear into the ether or make Doom mandatory. At least try minimal nerfing to see how it plays out instead of going for the kill.
As Blackie mentioned I would be wary of nerfing things because GW forgot to keep soup in mind. Only thing that changes with those nerfs is that it reinforces soup style of play as the only acceptable.
Yeah, in fact one the ways I proposed to mitigate the soups' power creep was to introduce a tax in terms of points if someone brings units from different books. Like 50-100 pts. This way units/loadout that are internally balanced considering a single codex may be improved by the soup but also get an appropriate cost. It's not only a matter of combos that improve something, it's also the fact that some units (like cheap dudes in super elite army or psykers in an army that is designed to play without them) add something that may be extremely valuable, even if they don't get significant buffs from the soup.
Someone proposed CPs tax, but usually effective soups can be CPs not very dependant (aeldari) or they can dispose of a huge amount of them (imperium) so taking some of those CPs away could be not enough. Introducing a points tax, however, may balance things without screwing armies that want to play with no allies even if they have the chance to bring them.
This may be a suggestion only if we don't consider the most effective and easy way to solve the issue which is to ban soups from matched play.
The dissy gains 2.3 wounds from doom while the scatter laser gains .6 of a wound. That D2 and -3AP come in clutch.
In making it a generalist weapon, which is what Doom boosts like an Saturn 5 rocket.
Damage of both was boosted about 60%. Of course if you boost a thing that does more damage for its you gain more total wounds, but if that thing was able to do much more damage for its points than comparable options in other codex, then that unit is undercosted (or the units compared to are overcosted.)
The dissy gains 2.3 wounds from doom while the scatter laser gains .6 of a wound. That D2 and -3AP come in clutch.
In making it a generalist weapon, which is what Doom boosts like an Saturn 5 rocket.
....of course it does, versus vehicles. They are boosted the same percentage (ignoring that SLs would wound T6 on 4s) you're just starting from a much more efficient place because an anti-elite weapon is going to flex much better into vehicles than an anti-infantry weapon.
38ppw is not an unreasonable flex to anti-vehicle. An unbuffed helverin flexing into standard vehicles does 43ppw. a space marine with a plasma gun not on overcharge at a standard vehicle does 45.If you take an anti-elite or anti light vehicle weapon and try firing it into a medium vehicle, you tend to see in the 35-50 ppw range.
With Doom is where you start to see dissies pulling in the "as good or better than dedicated anti tank" range, while still being a really great anti-elite tool. When you start to do everything well, you have a balance problem.
So, could you bump dissies to 20pts, bumping them up to 42ppw and putting them right there in the sweet spot of efficiency alongside most choices that are good but not over the top? Yeah, you could. but if you resolve the doom interaction, you have a whole lot of other more pressing concerns to deal with before dissies having a toe over the line is the thing you most need to fix.
Simply make Doom only useful to Asuryani and Doom becomes a non-issue in non-Asuryani armies. I feel like that should be the first avenue to be explored in regards to this.
In regards to Dissies being good comparatively to other codexes it is good to keep in mind the other options in the Drukhari codex. Splinter Weapons are not doing much these days to their lack of AP and with the removal of Blasterborns(or Trueborns) it is harder for Drukhari to get better AP except for single Blasters and Dark Lances in Kabalite Squads(and Scourges) with Blasters being the only real option due to it being assault.
Again, I think the biggest problem with a lot of these discussions is based on soup problems and by punishing a codex for soup you are reinforcing soup as the only viable path.
The dissy gains 2.3 wounds from doom while the scatter laser gains .6 of a wound. That D2 and -3AP come in clutch.
In making it a generalist weapon, which is what Doom boosts like an Saturn 5 rocket.
....of course it does, versus vehicles. They are boosted the same percentage (ignoring that SLs would wound T6 on 4s) you're just starting from a much more efficient place because an anti-elite weapon is going to flex much better into vehicles than an anti-infantry weapon.
38ppw is not an unreasonable flex to anti-vehicle. An unbuffed helverin flexing into standard vehicles does 43ppw. a space marine with a plasma gun not on overcharge at a standard vehicle does 45.If you take an anti-elite or anti light vehicle weapon and try firing it into a medium vehicle, you tend to see in the 35-50 ppw range.
With Doom is where you start to see dissies pulling in the "as good or better than dedicated anti tank" range, while still being a really great anti-elite tool. When you start to do everything well, you have a balance problem.
So, could you bump dissies to 20pts, bumping them up to 42ppw and putting them right there in the sweet spot of efficiency alongside most choices that are good but not over the top? Yeah, you could. but if you resolve the doom interaction, you have a whole lot of other more pressing concerns to deal with before dissies having a toe over the line is the thing you most need to fix.
I never said dissy's were or were not broken it more they are clearly not costed appropriately to be effected by doom.
That was all I was trying to show with that comparison.
CWE go from bad to passable but your better with more appropriate weapons.
Dissy's go from good to insanely powerful by comparison.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarsif wrote: Simply make Doom only useful to Asuryani and Doom becomes a non-issue in non-Asuryani armies. I feel like that should be the first avenue to be explored in regards to this.
In regards to Dissies being good comparatively to other codexes it is good to keep in mind the other options in the Drukhari codex. Splinter Weapons are not doing much these days to their lack of AP and with the removal of Blasterborns(or Trueborns) it is harder for Drukhari to get better AP except for single Blasters and Dark Lances in Kabalite Squads(and Scourges) with Blasters being the only real option due to it being assault.
Again, I think the biggest problem with a lot of these discussions is based on soup problems and by punishing a codex for soup you are reinforcing soup as the only viable path.
That was my original point but apparently had to defend that cross faction buffing is rarely well designed or costed.
I also don't see the reason in comparing Scatter Laser and Dissies. Two very different weapons with one of them never being picked these days comparatively. Would be fairer to compare it to StarCannons that have a very similar weapon profile and are actually cheaper. Yet you don't see many StarCannons on the table. Dissies have one less str than Starcannons(Starcannon would wound IG on 2+ compared to 3+ of dissie), cost 2 points more, but get instead a flat D2 whereas the Starcannon has a D3. Dissies get one extra shot.
Hell, why not make Dissies the same profile as StarCannons and the same cost? Then nobody could ever complain again about dissies being overpowered.
The interesting question would be: with StarCannons as is, and Dissies being what they are, what makes it so one is rarely to never picked and one is auto-pick? Would Dissies with Assault 2 still be auto-pick?
The dissy gains 2.3 wounds from doom while the scatter laser gains .6 of a wound. That D2 and -3AP come in clutch.
In making it a generalist weapon, which is what Doom boosts like an Saturn 5 rocket.
....of course it does, versus vehicles. They are boosted the same percentage (ignoring that SLs would wound T6 on 4s) you're just starting from a much more efficient place because an anti-elite weapon is going to flex much better into vehicles than an anti-infantry weapon.
38ppw is not an unreasonable flex to anti-vehicle. An unbuffed helverin flexing into standard vehicles does 43ppw. a space marine with a plasma gun not on overcharge at a standard vehicle does 45.If you take an anti-elite or anti light vehicle weapon and try firing it into a medium vehicle, you tend to see in the 35-50 ppw range.
With Doom is where you start to see dissies pulling in the "as good or better than dedicated anti tank" range, while still being a really great anti-elite tool. When you start to do everything well, you have a balance problem.
So, could you bump dissies to 20pts, bumping them up to 42ppw and putting them right there in the sweet spot of efficiency alongside most choices that are good but not over the top? Yeah, you could. but if you resolve the doom interaction, you have a whole lot of other more pressing concerns to deal with before dissies having a toe over the line is the thing you most need to fix.
I never said dissy's were or were not broken it more they are clearly not costed appropriately to be effected by doom.
That was all I was trying to show with that comparison.
CWE go from bad to passable but your better with more appropriate weapons.
Dissy's go from good to insanely powerful by comparison.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarsif wrote: Simply make Doom only useful to Asuryani and Doom becomes a non-issue in non-Asuryani armies. I feel like that should be the first avenue to be explored in regards to this.
In regards to Dissies being good comparatively to other codexes it is good to keep in mind the other options in the Drukhari codex. Splinter Weapons are not doing much these days to their lack of AP and with the removal of Blasterborns(or Trueborns) it is harder for Drukhari to get better AP except for single Blasters and Dark Lances in Kabalite Squads(and Scourges) with Blasters being the only real option due to it being assault.
Again, I think the biggest problem with a lot of these discussions is based on soup problems and by punishing a codex for soup you are reinforcing soup as the only viable path.
That was my original point but apparently had to defend that cross faction buffing is rarely well designed or costed.
While true, Eldar due have one fairly notorious weapon with the same profile as a disintegrator that clearly wasn't balanced around doom and had to be hit a few times to take into account its intereaction with the spell.
Ion shields: This model gets a 4+ invulnerable save against ranged weapons with a damage characteristic of 1,2 or d3.
Knights fixed, thx bye.
This would give them a clear counter (heavy weapons), make them more resistant against mid-high tier weapons (like tanks, plasma, disintegrators, dark reapers and so on), give a role to melta over plasma and since rotate ion shields is already capped at 3++, it makes it so that Ion Bulwark is no longer an auto pick.
CWE go from bad to passable but your better with more appropriate weapons.
Dissy's go from good to insanely powerful by comparison.
Then fix the weapons! That's the real issue, Doom merely magnifies it.
Except that the point of the mathematical comparison was that without doom, Dissies perform pretty much exactly as an anti-elite weapon should when used against tanks. I.E., somewhat inefficiently.
In a mono-Drukhari list, Dissies perform the role they're supposed to perform: A weapon that spikes in damage potential against multiwound targets with low toughness and good Sv, and reduces in power vs high toughness or low saves/high invuln saves.
When affected by a psychic power that's not even in their codex, they start doing more damage than dedicated anti tank weaponry against tanks, because they were not costed with that power in mind.
When the power exists in the codex, it makes sense to take almost the same weapon (reaper launcher) and nerf its points cost. When it exists outside the codex, it makes far more sense to first REMOVE THE UNINTENDED INTERACTION and THEN look at how the weapon performs.
Should Bullgryn slabshields have been bumped in price by 20 points because you can do some stupid wonky combo with out-of-codex options to give them an invuln save and amp them up to 2++? No, obviously you should just remove the fact that they affect Invuln saves.
Make Supreme Command Detachment, Super Heavy Detachment and Airwing Detachment only available for Matched Play at 2001+pts. Failing that, allow them at 2000+pts and make most big tournaments 1999pts or less.
So yes, you can bring your single knight to a game....just not a whole bunch of them. Same for Commanders, you need to bring some troops with them.
Then of course we can look at the CPs again for the other detachments/battleforged etc.
Except that the point of the mathematical comparison was that without doom, Dissies perform pretty much exactly as an anti-elite weapon should when used against tanks. I.E., somewhat inefficiently.
In a mono-Drukhari list, Dissies perform the role they're supposed to perform: A weapon that spikes in damage potential against multiwound targets with low toughness and good Sv, and reduces in power vs high toughness or low saves/high invuln saves.
When affected by a psychic power that's not even in their codex, they start doing more damage than dedicated anti tank weaponry against tanks, because they were not costed with that power in mind.
When the power exists in the codex, it makes sense to take almost the same weapon (reaper launcher) and nerf its points cost. When it exists outside the codex, it makes far more sense to first REMOVE THE UNINTENDED INTERACTION and THEN look at how the weapon performs.
How you know it is unintended? They wrote the Doom, they wrote the ally rules.
The Doom increases the power of CWE weapons just the same; if their weapons are not as point efficient than DE ones, then that is a balance issue without the Doom as well.
Should Bullgryn slabshields have been bumped in price by 20 points because you can do some stupid wonky combo with out-of-codex options to give them an invuln save and amp them up to 2++? No, obviously you should just remove the fact that they affect Invuln saves.
But it was the slabshield rules that got changed, not the buff.
It only shows that the margin of being useless and useful are very damn tight considering Starcannons and Dissies. My guess is that if StarCannons were to be made into Assault weapons you'd probably see more of them. Would probably be a nice fix for them.
But as you say Crimson, soup is probably the right way to play. Even I am starting to get around to that point.
Yeah dissies at 15ppm are fairly balanced in the drukhari codex. They become undercosted in some soups. Simple.
In fact several things in the drukhari codex should be buffed because they are very underwhelming despite people claim that drukhari are the best stand alone army. They'd definitely should get more buffs rather than nerfs. Even their most competitive units/options aren't overpowered at all without allies, just a few things are a bit undercosted, but nothing game breaking.
Nerfing the drukhari codex because WAAC players abuse some broken combos using more books would be dumb.
CWE go from bad to passable but your better with more appropriate weapons.
Dissy's go from good to insanely powerful by comparison.
Then fix the weapons! That's the real issue, Doom merely magnifies it.
Why don't you fix doom and/or the interaction between different factions instead? The weapon is perfectly fine at 15 points. In fact several other options should be buffed to their level, starting with poison and drukhari's crappy flamers.
Imperium dudes have plasma guns at 11ppm. When plasma scions were a problem they weren't broken because of the weapon's profile, but due to the interactions between all the factors involved. Unit that was too cheap, effective weapon, free access to re-roll, could be spammed in huge numbers since there wasn't rule of three then, etc. GW got it right by fixing the combo, not the gun.
Except that the point of the mathematical comparison was that without doom, Dissies perform pretty much exactly as an anti-elite weapon should when used against tanks. I.E., somewhat inefficiently.
In a mono-Drukhari list, Dissies perform the role they're supposed to perform: A weapon that spikes in damage potential against multiwound targets with low toughness and good Sv, and reduces in power vs high toughness or low saves/high invuln saves.
When affected by a psychic power that's not even in their codex, they start doing more damage than dedicated anti tank weaponry against tanks, because they were not costed with that power in mind.
When the power exists in the codex, it makes sense to take almost the same weapon (reaper launcher) and nerf its points cost. When it exists outside the codex, it makes far more sense to first REMOVE THE UNINTENDED INTERACTION and THEN look at how the weapon performs.
How you know it is unintended? They wrote the Doom, they wrote the ally rules.
The Doom increases the power of CWE weapons just the same; if their weapons are not as point efficient than DE ones, then that is a balance issue without the Doom as well.
Should Bullgryn slabshields have been bumped in price by 20 points because you can do some stupid wonky combo with out-of-codex options to give them an invuln save and amp them up to 2++? No, obviously you should just remove the fact that they affect Invuln saves.
But it was the slabshield rules that got changed, not the buff.
While we can't prove that games workshop doesn't take out-of-codex buffs into account when designing factions, I find it extremely likely given the unbuffed damage per point you get out of similar weapons from the craftworlds codex versus the drukhari/harlequin codex.
Someone mentioned the starcannon above, and I mentioned the reaper launcher.
Starcannon: Heavy 2, 36" range, S6, Ap-3, Dd3, 13pts.
The Starcannon does less damage tan the Dissie for the points when fired without the buff, and 20% more with the buff. Besides having access to full re-rolls through Guide and Doom, the buff access within the codex between the two is identical.
in a world where Doom and Guide exist for the starcannon and the disintegrator, their costing makes sense. In a world where the disintegrator has access to a power that doesn't even exist in the same book, that most players may not even be aware of, their costing is pants-on-head absurd.
Why don't you fix doom and/or the interaction between different factions instead? The weapon is perfectly fine at 15 points. In fact several other options should be buffed to their level, starting with poison and drukhari's crappy flamers.
A reason has not been provided for the belief that Doom affects dissies somehow disproportionately, it affects them just as much as any other weapons, craftworld weapons included. And yes, there are a lot of underperforming Eldar options (both DE and CW) that should be buffed. This is really an Eldar faction internal balance issue. If CWE have not weapons that can work just as well with Doom than the dissies do, then either the dissies are too good or CWE weapons are not good enough. Doom really doesn't change anything here, it merely magnifies already existing disparity.
(I generally think that many D2 weapons in the game are too cheap, Imperial plasma included; they often get taken over dedicated antitank options, even when there is no doom-like buff available, yet they obviously perform better against infantry too.)
Interestingly enough the Reaper Launcher is costed at 22 points on a unit that is immune to -1 to hit and is mostly seen in Ynnari lists that double its fire making them Assault 4. Even then I have seen a dramatic decrease in use of Dark Reapers after the point changes.
Going over some of the winners in the past year I see mostly Dark Reapers still in Ynnari lists whereas they've gone out of favor in many non-Ynnari lists.
Again, as Crimson pointed out, perhaps it is the resistance to playing soup that is the bigger problem in all of this.
The Starcannon does less damage tan the Dissie for the points when fired without the buff, and 20% more with the buff.
So you're saying Starcannon benefits from the Doom more? In any case, if there is disparity between these two weapons, then fix that. And if increasing the point costs would make unbuffed weapons not good enough, (I'm not convinced about that, dissies get taken without CWE allies too) then put the extra points (or some of them) on the source of the buff, the Farseer.
Why don't you fix doom and/or the interaction between different factions instead? The weapon is perfectly fine at 15 points. In fact several other options should be buffed to their level, starting with poison and drukhari's crappy flamers.
A reason has not been provided for the belief that Doom affects dissies somehow disproportionately, it affects them just as much as any other weapons, craftworld weapons included. And yes, there are a lot of underperforming Eldar options (both DE and CW) that should be buffed. This is really an Eldar faction internal balance issue. If CWE have not weapons that can work just as well with Doom than the dissies do, then either the dissies are too good or CWE weapons are not good enough. Doom really doesn't change anything here, it merely magnifies already existing disparity.
(I generally think that many D2 weapons in the game are too cheap, Imperial plasma included; they often get taken over dedicated antitank options, even when there is no doom-like buff available, yet they obviously perform better against infantry too.)
Doom is more powerful the lower the strenght of the weapon. CW weapons tend to be high strenght, while Drukhari only have blasters, dark lances and a few other minor wargears with good strenght.
CWE weapons are not worse that Drukhari weapons, but when you apply doom the drukhari weapons become much stronger.
The Starcannon does less damage tan the Dissie for the points when fired without the buff, and 20% more with the buff.
So you're saying Starcannon benefits from the Doom more? In any case, if there is disparity between these two weapons, then fix that. And if increasing the point costs would make unbuffed weapons not good enough, (I'm not convinced about that, dissies get taken without CWE allies too) then put the extra points (or some of them) on the source of the buff, the Farseer.
Dissies get taken without CWE but is it because they are all-powerful or because they are really the only good option in that weapon category. This is why I'd be careful about over-nerfing and feel that a 5 point increase would be a decent start to begin with to see how it goes.
Dissies get taken without CWE but is it because they are all-powerful or because they are really the only good option in that weapon category. This is why I'd be careful about over-nerfing and feel that a 5 point increase would be a decent start to begin with to see how it goes.
But why are they the only goo option? Why are the other options not taken? This is an obvious balance issue. Bump the price of dissies a tiny bit and make the other guns a bit cheaper.
I find it really annoying that the first instinct of many people when a problem arises is to just start to ban stuff instead of finding the actual source of the problem and fixing it.
Dissies get taken without CWE but is it because they are all-powerful or because they are really the only good option in that weapon category. This is why I'd be careful about over-nerfing and feel that a 5 point increase would be a decent start to begin with to see how it goes.
But why are they the only goo option? Why are the other options not taken? This is an obvious balance issue. Bump the price of dissies a tiny bit and make the other guns a bit cheaper.
I find it really annoying that the first instinct of many people when a problem arises is to just start to ban stuff instead of finding the actual source of the problem and fixing it.
I wouldn't bump the cost of the dissies, you would make the ravagers even more glassy than how they currently are, and glass cannons are bad for the game.
Change the role of dissies by giving them damage 1 (and reduce the cost). This makes them anti MEQ without trampling the AT role of the Dark lances.
Dissies get taken without CWE but is it because they are all-powerful or because they are really the only good option in that weapon category. This is why I'd be careful about over-nerfing and feel that a 5 point increase would be a decent start to begin with to see how it goes.
But why are they the only goo option? Why are the other options not taken? This is an obvious balance issue. Bump the price of dissies a tiny bit and make the other guns a bit cheaper.
I find it really annoying that the first instinct of many people when a problem arises is to just start to ban stuff instead of finding the actual source of the problem and fixing it.
Well, I did make a suggestion in another thread that splinter weapons should get some ability on 6 like a -1 to AP or perhaps even change how Blasters can be taken(a la Trueborn). Problem is accessibility to weapons, not the points and the Ravager is the only thing that gives you good access to a good weapon whereas you have to pay a hefty tax for every Blaster in the form of 4 Kabalite Warriors(technically 3 + 1 Sybarite).
Also, people are trying to fix stuff, not ban anything. With all of the suggestions above Doom is not going to be removed from the game. Modified, yes, but not removed or banned. They are just doubtful that Dissies are the real problem, but here we probably have a difference of intention more than anything else. You play and like soup whereas those who are arguing against may not like soup or don't want soup to be a requirement to play the game. Also, changing dissies would probably require more than point changes to the internal balance of the Drukhari which won't come until the next codex hits.
I personally see both points. If soup is the de facto way to play Warhammer 40.000 then I agree that dissies should go up even though it means Farseers will be an auto-include in all Aeldari armies. However, if talking to people who don't like soup then I agree with their point that perhaps Doom should be modified to not aid Drukhari. Both points are valid as they come from two different viewpoints about how to approach the game.
In short, I think people are overlooking the fact that some people in the discussion are pro-soup whereas others aren't. Perhaps we should all be more explicit about where we come from. For example, I am pretty much ambivalent about soup. I prefer an AoS ally system, but will adapt if it is clear there is a right way to play the game.
If you have a several weapon to choose from, but one is almost always chosen over others, that is a balancing fail completely irrespective of this Doom issue.
And I don't want Farseers to be mandatory to DE, but I don't want them to be mandatory to CWE either; you should be able to play an aspect host or a wraith host without one. If one character choice provides buffs so powerful that it is an autotake, then certainly one should increase point cost of the buffer, rather than everything it could potentially buff?
Crimson wrote: If you have a several weapon to choose from, but one is almost always chosen over others, that is a balancing fail completely irrespective of this Doom issue.
And I don't want Farseers to be mandatory to DE, but I don't want them to be mandatory to CWE either; you should be able to play an aspect host or a wraith host without one. If one character choice provides buffs so powerful that it is an autotake, then certainly one should increase point cost of the buffer, rather than everything it could potentially buff?
What you are arguing for is front-loading of point costs which is a bad game design unless you design the army to be played around that singular unit/method(which I feel like they are doing in AoS more than 40k).
Problem there is that to justify the cost of the buffer "Doom" becomes an auto-take to justify the cost. You just removed the auto-take from the buffer to the buff. You still have the same problem, its position is just different in the chain of events.
I actually think we have come down to a solution. Whether you agree with it isn't really relevant, but for sake of balance I think it is something that is important to weigh in on.
Psychic Powers should basically have a point cost like equipment. That way Doom can be costed based on its usefulness without front-loading all the cost on individual units. This is the ultimate solution. It removes all front-loading and puts the onus on the actual perpetrator. Hell, this could fix a lot of issues with a lot of psychic powers. That way you can balance the thing itself - as you have voiced a desire for - without banning anything(another thing you like), but at the same time appeal to non-soup players. Make WC also fixed for all psychic powers and have point costs and you have a system that has a reliable proc rate that can be balanced with points.
Problem there is that to justify the cost of the buffer "Doom" becomes an auto-take to justify the cost. You just removed the auto-take from the buffer to the buff. You still have the same problem, its position is just different in the chain of events.
Certainly true. I think this is a way lesser problem, but a problem nevertheless.
I actually think we have come down to a solution. Whether you agree with it isn't really relevant, but for sake of balance I think it is something that is important to weigh in on.
Psychic Powers should basically have a point cost like equipment. That way Doom can be costed based on its usefulness without front-loading all the cost on individual units. This is the ultimate solution. It removes all front-loading and puts the onus on the actual perpetrator. Hell, this could fix a lot of issues with a lot of psychic powers. That way you can balance the thing itself - as you have voiced a desire for - without banning anything(another thing you like), but at the same time appeal to non-soup players. Make WC also fixed for all psychic powers and have point costs and you have a system that has a reliable proc rate that can be balanced with points.
This would be great solution, yes. Same with relics, they should cost points too. Unfortunately I think it is higly unlikely that GW would actually do this.
This would be great solution, yes. Same with relics, they should cost points too. Unfortunately I think it is higly unlikely that GW would actually do this.
The Starcannon does less damage tan the Dissie for the points when fired without the buff, and 20% more with the buff.
So you're saying Starcannon benefits from the Doom more? In any case, if there is disparity between these two weapons, then fix that. And if increasing the point costs would make unbuffed weapons not good enough, (I'm not convinced about that, dissies get taken without CWE allies too) then put the extra points (or some of them) on the source of the buff, the Farseer.
no. It benefits the same PERCENTAGE, and it starts as an obviously less powerful weapon - by 33% or more in almost all use cases, because it's Heavy 2 vs Assault 3.
It's nearly identical except that it has easy access to a buff that increases its power, making it stronger - but less crazy dramatically than if it were identical to the dissie. That's exactly how the two weapons should be balanced against each other. one has access to reroll 1s to hit in its codex, the other has access to full reroll to hit and to wound.
Putting 100% of the power budget in the buffing unit causes the problem of "well, what game size are we balancing around? 1000 points? 2000 points?" Buffing units will only be balanced at a single game size if you always put all the power budget into them. It makes more sense to split the cost between the unit doing the buffing and the unit with access to buffs.
95% of rules interactions in the game don't need to be balanced around souping because 95% of the time the different codexes don't buff each other. Why work so hard to preserve this one instance of debuffing psychic powers interacting when you could simply remove it as a factor?
no. It benefits the same PERCENTAGE, and it starts as an obviously less powerful weapon - by 33% or more in almost all use cases, because it's Heavy 2 vs Assault 3.
Then the point costs of these weapons are wrong.
It's nearly identical except that it has easy access to a buff that increases its power, making it stronger - but less crazy dramatically than if it were identical to the dissie. That's exactly how the two weapons should be balanced against each other. one has access to reroll 1s to hit in its codex, the other has access to full reroll to hit and to wound.
What if I want to play a CWE army without a Farseer, what then? Now all my stuff is overcosted because I could have taken one... It is same problem than with Guilliman and Marines (granted, that is even more stupid, as Guilliman is a special character tied to one subfaction.)
Putting 100% of the power budget in the buffing unit causes the problem of "well, what game size are we balancing around? 1000 points? 2000 points?" Buffing units will only be balanced at a single game size if you always put all the power budget into them. It makes more sense to split the cost between the unit doing the buffing and the unit with access to buffs.
One Farseer cannot buff the whole army anyway. It is pretty weird army if all of your 2000 points can fire one doomed target, and even if they could, that would most likely be an absurd overkill.
95% of rules interactions in the game don't need to be balanced around souping because 95% of the time the different codexes don't buff each other. Why work so hard to preserve this one instance of debuffing psychic powers interacting when you could simply remove it as a factor?
Well, that's how debuffs generally work, they affect the target unit. It would just feel weird to me if this one worked differently.
Martel732 wrote: Ravagers are not glass cannons currently. They are hard to kill at 36".
Like we've discussed in several other threads, Martel, Ravagers are a different to kill, but not flat out more durable. I definitely agree that they aren't glass cannons, they just fall in a different spot on the sliding scale of durability than most vehicles which means if you're preparing for mostly T7 3+, then Dark Eldar (And Harlequin, and Ork, and Custode, and Necron) vehicles are very likely to be inefficient to shoot at.
A T5 4+ 5++ platform makes strength over 6 inefficient, and AP over -1 inefficient, leading to a situation where you want autocannons or equivalent rather than lascannons or equivalent to hurt them.
Ravager: 125 pts
8.46 autocannons to kill
12.88 lascannons to kill
Rough imperial equivalent Razorback with twin assault cannon: 114 points
15 autocannons to kill
7.73 lascannons to kill
Definitely not a glass cannon, but it is also OK to have different classes of vehicles existing in the game that different weapons are more effective against.
no. It benefits the same PERCENTAGE, and it starts as an obviously less powerful weapon - by 33% or more in almost all use cases, because it's Heavy 2 vs Assault 3.
Then the point costs of these weapons are wrong.
It's nearly identical except that it has easy access to a buff that increases its power, making it stronger - but less crazy dramatically than if it were identical to the dissie. That's exactly how the two weapons should be balanced against each other. one has access to reroll 1s to hit in its codex, the other has access to full reroll to hit and to wound.
What if I want to play a CWE army without a Farseer, what then? Now all my stuff is overcosted because I could have taken one... It is same problem than with Guilliman and Marines (granted, that is even more stupid, as Guilliman is a special character tied to one subfaction.)
Putting 100% of the power budget in the buffing unit causes the problem of "well, what game size are we balancing around? 1000 points? 2000 points?" Buffing units will only be balanced at a single game size if you always put all the power budget into them. It makes more sense to split the cost between the unit doing the buffing and the unit with access to buffs.
One Farseer cannot buff the whole army anyway. It is pretty weird army if all of your 2000 points can fire one doomed target, and even if they could, that would most likely be an absurd overkill.
95% of rules interactions in the game don't need to be balanced around souping because 95% of the time the different codexes don't buff each other. Why work so hard to preserve this one instance of debuffing psychic powers interacting when you could simply remove it as a factor?
Well, that's how debuffs generally work, they affect the target unit. It would just feel weird to me if this one worked differently.
If you want 250 point farseers, then I suppose we can have 250 point farseers, because you might take it in a 4000 point game and doom your opponent's warlord titan. To me, it seems to make much more sense to holistically base the point costs of a faction around the buffs they have access to, and trim the edge case interactions with other books by removing them.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: IG Orders cost 1CP per use, and Grand Strategist is changed to make the first order your warlord issues per turn free. Apparently mono-IG have literal mountains of CP with no worthwhile sink, so it shouldn't hurt them while limiting how much nonsense the Loyal 32 can get up to.
I don’t mind guard get orders for free but I must admit when 8th dropped this is exactly how I expected to be, I just assumed guard commands would cost command points... I was clearly insane
If you want 250 point farseers, then I suppose we can have 250 point farseers, because you might take it in a 4000 point game and doom your opponent's warlord titan. To me, it seems to make much more sense to holistically base the point costs of a faction around the buffs they have access to, and trim the edge case interactions with other books by removing them.
So you think it is a better idea to ruin several units if the player doesn't take buffing unit rather than just giving the appropriate point cost for these units as they are? You might as well have many faction lock in certain HQ choices then. Your playing CWE? Farseer. Your playing Black Legion? Abbadon. Space Marines (especially Ultramarines)? Guilliman. And on and and on...
I think it is far better to point these buffs/debuff units to fairly common point range band. It isn't like 40k doesn't already have fairly standardized point band of 1500-2000. Sure, those units might be more powerful in smaller point games and weaker in larger point games. You can't control every aspect/condition via points. It is the same thing Close Combat units. They are better on tables with dense, LoS blocking tables and worst of open ones. You can't really point for one and keep them good for the other.
So you think it is a better idea to ruin several units if the player doesn't take buffing unit rather than just giving the appropriate point cost for these units as they are? You might as well have many faction lock in certain HQ choices then. Your playing CWE? Farseer. Your playing Black Legion? Abbadon. Space Marines (especially Ultramarines)? Guilliman. And on and and on...
I think it is far better to point these buffs/debuff units to fairly common point range band. It isn't like 40k doesn't already have fairly standardized point band of 1500-2000. Sure, those units might be more powerful in smaller point games and weaker in larger point games. You can't control every aspect/condition via points. It is the same thing Close Combat units. They are better on tables with dense, LoS blocking tables and worst of open ones. You can't really point for one and keep them good for the other.
Hell yeah! I don't know how useful it actually would be, but I am still bitter how in the third edition they nerfed the Farseers and Warlocks from the ungodly warrior mystics that were an utter terror in the close combat to these timid wizards who hide behind their pointy-hatted troops casting buffs.
A T5 4+ 5++ platform makes strength over 6 inefficient, and AP over -1 inefficient, leading to a situation where you want autocannons or equivalent rather than lascannons or equivalent to hurt them.
Ravager: 125 pts
8.46 autocannons to kill
12.88 lascannons to kill
Rough imperial equivalent Razorback with twin assault cannon: 114 points
15 autocannons to kill
7.73 lascannons to kill
Definitely not a glass cannon, but it is also OK to have different classes of vehicles existing in the game that different weapons are more effective against.
It's exactly this. Drukhari aren't particularly resilient but they're very anti meta. Since knights bully the tables people spam S8+ weapon which aren't that effective gainst T5-6. Spam S5-7 weapons and drukhari can be dealt with quite efficiently.
If I bring lootas, Smasha gunz and traktor cannons I can melt lots of drukhari units with no particular effort. SM players should do the same switching some of their plasmas and lascannons with autocannons, heavy bolters and assault cannons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: If you have a several weapon to choose from, but one is almost always chosen over others, that is a balancing fail completely irrespective of this Doom issue.
It's very true, that's why several drukhari weapons should be toned up, at the moment they're terrible.
