So I guess obliterators are getting new rules? Since there are only 2 in the box, maybe a minimum of 1 per unit with increased points per unit and stronger power?
Wayniac wrote: From what we can guess, 2 will now cost the same as 3 used to, but they got a slight boost so that 2 will put out the same firepower as 3.
I guess the reason for this is the box has a unit of 2 and that will probably be what the box is if/when they are released separately.
This also opens up quite some options for GW, for example selling them a piece for 20 EUR in easy to build kits, they would still sell like crazy
But 2 die much faster then 3. They aren't walking around with ++3 re-rollable saves. having 2 extra shots per dude,which is the same number of shots as the old oblits had, is true only till the first one dies, then they become less efficient for more points.
Eihnlazer wrote: they are still better now as you can take 3 and benefit even more from the broken +1 wound strat.
And fire twice, that's 50% more firepower than before, if they're not getting 50% more expensive, it's a huge buff, you're getting 36 shots, you needed 2 squads of them, one firing twice to get the same volume, so it's a buff and a huge one
On the surface, the boosts look really good and certainly match the new model. But at PL6 per model, there is no way they are less than 100ppm. More than likely they will be 110-120ppm.
They still look good at the points cost, but hardly auto-take (which is good). Overall, though, not as big a buff as it would seem just based on the datasheet.
I think it will largely depend on how much they go up. If it's small, it won't matter. If they go up to where 2 really cost the same as 3, that is IMHO a net nerf.
For me the main interesting part is the weapons are still "Fleshmetal weapons" but the models obviously have other types like they used to. This makes me think that at one point the rules were going to revert back to how it used to be before 8th, or there's a new book on the horizon that is going to bring it back. It's not like GW to make a model that visibly has certain weapons, but has an amalgamated profile for them.
Wayniac wrote: If they go up to where 2 really cost the same as 3, that is IMHO a net nerf.
At PL6 per model, this is almost guaranteed. 3 were PL10 before, 2 are now PL12. Even if we allow some variance for Points =/= PL, there is almost no chance 2 of the new Oblits are cheaper than 3 of the old.
More than likely 2 of the new Oblits WILL be slightly more expensive than 3 Olbits with the current/old rules.
Yeah, I don't get the Venomcrawler. Maybe it will be a sleeper though, it's a cool model so could have some use. I just don't see how it outclasses a Maulerfiend unless it's dirt cheap, and I'm guessing it will be around 120 points.
Venomcrawler seems awful so far. Too little shooting, too mediocre-to-bad hth, very fragile for its size. More than anyone it feels awkward. It packs assault weapons, so it's supposed to move and shoot, but it buffs summoning which needs the caster to stay immobile in the first place. And the crawler is faster than the master anyways, so what's the point of the assault weapons?
If the Master had a rule like "Can move AND summon a unit in the same turn" I could see that being a thing (and a really interesting caster on top of it, rather than just another sorcerer).
topaxygouroun i wrote: If the Master had a rule like "Can move AND summon a unit in the same turn" I could see that being a thing (and a really interesting caster on top of it, rather than just another sorcerer).
Keep in mind that we haven't seen what the Malefic Discipline does yet. I would be very surprised if it doesn't include a Summoning power. So you could quite possibly be able to move and Summon.
Galef wrote: Keep in mind that we haven't seen what the Malefic Discipline does yet. I would be very surprised if it doesn't include a Summoning power. So you could quite possibly be able to move and Summon.
Honestly, the value of the model hinges entirely on the new Discipline, because the rest of him is nothing to write home about. Certainly nothing I'm going to pull a Thousand Sons caster out of my list to make room for.
Oblits despite individually scaling up offensively and in cost, scaled down in survivability with the unit getting smaller. In general I'm happy GW did something to better differentiate them from their Loyalist counterparts, centurions, but GW will need to adjust their cost. Looking at them as whole, I'd say 20-30% cheaper.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
topaxygouroun i wrote: Venomcrawler seems awful so far. Too little shooting, too mediocre-to-bad hth, very fragile for its size. More than anyone it feels awkward. It packs assault weapons, so it's supposed to move and shoot, but it buffs summoning which needs the caster to stay immobile in the first place. And the crawler is faster than the master anyways, so what's the point of the assault weapons?
If the Master had a rule like "Can move AND summon a unit in the same turn" I could see that being a thing (and a really interesting caster on top of it, rather than just another sorcerer).
You're right we need to see what the MoP can do and if what the Venomcrawler does contributes in a meaningful enough way. It'd be nice if the MoP's floating gave him a better enough movement to keep up with the Venomcrawler.
In the end the Venomcrawler and MoP needs to create a situation reliable enough that we can think of the Venomcrawler as a good daemon transport, and not just the weaker chaos analogue to the Mechanicus Dunecrawler.
Wayniac wrote: I think it will largely depend on how much they go up. If it's small, it won't matter. If they go up to where 2 really cost the same as 3, that is IMHO a net nerf.
For me the main interesting part is the weapons are still "Fleshmetal weapons" but the models obviously have other types like they used to. This makes me think that at one point the rules were going to revert back to how it used to be before 8th, or there's a new book on the horizon that is going to bring it back. It's not like GW to make a model that visibly has certain weapons, but has an amalgamated profile for them.
The model may well have been designed 2+ years ago. Fleshmetal just best represents whatever particular weapon ends up firing at that time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: Yeah, I don't get the Venomcrawler. Maybe it will be a sleeper though, it's a cool model so could have some use. I just don't see how it outclasses a Maulerfiend unless it's dirt cheap, and I'm guessing it will be around 120 points.
S9 shots when the Greater Possessed is around. Gun is assault so it can get to melee without penalty. I just wish we knew it's attacks.
Scanning the CSM book I think Obliterators are internally all right; approximate the d3s in the weapon profile as 2s for 8/-2/d3 and it looks to me like they're not wildly out of line with the rest of the Heavy Support section (they tend to be squishier but have comparable or better damage output than the armour).
AnomanderRake wrote: Scanning the CSM book I think Obliterators are internally all right; approximate the d3s in the weapon profile as 2s for 8/-2/d3 and it looks to me like they're not wildly out of line with the rest of the Heavy Support section (they tend to be squishier but have comparable or better damage output than the armour).
If they end up costing over 100 ppm that's a pretty huge nerf to one of the few consistent performers in the Codex.
AnomanderRake wrote: Scanning the CSM book I think Obliterators are internally all right; approximate the d3s in the weapon profile as 2s for 8/-2/d3 and it looks to me like they're not wildly out of line with the rest of the Heavy Support section (they tend to be squishier but have comparable or better damage output than the armour).
If they end up costing over 100 ppm that's a pretty huge nerf to one of the few consistent performers in the Codex.
Maybe? At 100PPM you're paying about +60% points for T5, an extra Wound, +50% firepower, a melee weapon, and the ability to take squads of 1-3 instead of exactly 3. Not sure it's a "huge nerf" given how massive a bump to survivability T4->T5 is.
Addendum: My contact with the 8e CSM rules is a game or two running my 30k Thousand Sons with the 40k Codex and deciding I didn't like it very much, so it's entirely possible that my armchair math-based impression is wrong, though I can tell you from my experience with Terminators (T4/2+) and Custodians (T5/2+) that the T bump is really quite good.
The problem is that the 100 pt mark is the Hellbrute territory (post weapons) and that one sports T7 and 8 wounds. A single infantry model for 100 points feels awkward.
I am hoping they are going to be allowed in DG and 1ksons now. I am tired of trying to fit CSM detatchment into my lists if I want to take the obliterators. Im also hoping all the current daemon engines get a rework so their shooty weapons are str based like all the deathguard ones are and the new one. Might make the forgefiend and heldrake not complete garbage.
AnomanderRake wrote: Scanning the CSM book I think Obliterators are internally all right; approximate the d3s in the weapon profile as 2s for 8/-2/d3 and it looks to me like they're not wildly out of line with the rest of the Heavy Support section (they tend to be squishier but have comparable or better damage output than the armour).
If they end up costing over 100 ppm that's a pretty huge nerf to one of the few consistent performers in the Codex.
No unit I can find with a PL over 5 has a minimum points cost below 100pts. There might be some out there, but they either have a very high max point cost once fully decked-out, or there has been some CA points tweak on them since their PL was established.
1PL is still roughly equal to 20ppm across the board. There has just been a lot of points tweaks that muck up that "formula". But since the new Oblits are a brand new datasheet, we can rely on the 1PL ~ 20pts method. So it is an almost guarantee that a single Oblit is over 100ppm Which I think is still fine as they should still be a good unit.
The Salt Mine wrote: I am hoping they are going to be allowed in DG and 1ksons now. I am tired of trying to fit CSM detatchment into my lists if I want to take the obliterators. Im also hoping all the current daemon engines get a rework so their shooty weapons are str based like all the deathguard ones are and the new one. Might make the forgefiend and heldrake not complete garbage.
Forgefiend is garbage? Gets pumped from daemonforge and flickering flames. I think it's pretty decent in fact in scenarios where there is no FW allowed (otherwise the hellforged contemptor eats it for breakfast for less points, which is super sad).
AnomanderRake wrote: Maybe? At 100PPM you're paying about +60% points for T5, an extra Wound, +50% firepower, a melee weapon, and the ability to take squads of 1-3 instead of exactly 3. Not sure it's a "huge nerf" given how massive a bump to survivability T4->T5 is.
Not really a maybe. It takes 3 squads from being about 1/3 of your points to about 1/2. It reduces their survivability because there will be less to protect them from assault and short range firepower.
If Abaddon ends up changing and/or going up in cost you've now taken one of the more consistent list configurations that CSM has and seriously kneecapped it, since that would push the combo up over half your points, now you can't deepstrike that package onto the table. This further reduces survivability for a very small number of units.
topaxygouroun i wrote: The problem is that the 100 pt mark is the Hellbrute territory (post weapons) and that one sports T7 and 8 wounds. A single infantry model for 100 points feels awkward.
Not sure he really counts as an "infantry model". At T5/W4/2+ the closest statline comparison I've got is an Allarus Terminator, who costs around 80pts, is a bit tougher due to 4++ and a 6+ FNP in the psychic phase, but doesn't have anything like the damage output (4 8/-2/d3 in melee is all well and good but 6 8/-2/d3 at range is way, way better).
AnomanderRake wrote: Maybe? At 100PPM you're paying about +60% points for T5, an extra Wound, +50% firepower, a melee weapon, and the ability to take squads of 1-3 instead of exactly 3. Not sure it's a "huge nerf" given how massive a bump to survivability T4->T5 is.
Not really a maybe. It takes 3 squads from being about 1/3 of your points to about 1/2. It reduces their survivability because there will be less to protect them from assault and short range firepower.
If Abaddon ends up changing and/or going up in cost you've now taken one of the more consistent list configurations that CSM has and seriously kneecapped it, since that would push the combo up over half your points, now you can't deepstrike that package onto the table. This further reduces survivability for a very small number of units.
The cost of getting 36 shots out of your deepstrike package of Obliterators will have gone up from 585 (65pts/model for nine models) to 600 (100pts/model for six models). They will have 24 wounds (6*4) instead of 27 (9*3) and be protected by T5 where they had T4 before. The alpha-strike potential will be different and you won't be running the exact same list anymore but I still fail to see how this is a "huge nerf".
topaxygouroun i wrote: The problem is that the 100 pt mark is the Hellbrute territory (post weapons) and that one sports T7 and 8 wounds. A single infantry model for 100 points feels awkward.
Not sure he really counts as an "infantry model". At T5/W4/2+ the closest statline comparison I've got is an Allarus Terminator, who costs around 80pts, is a bit tougher due to 4++ and a 6+ FNP in the psychic phase, but doesn't have anything like the damage output (4 8/-2/d3 in melee is all well and good but 6 8/-2/d3 at range is way, way better).
AnomanderRake wrote: Maybe? At 100PPM you're paying about +60% points for T5, an extra Wound, +50% firepower, a melee weapon, and the ability to take squads of 1-3 instead of exactly 3. Not sure it's a "huge nerf" given how massive a bump to survivability T4->T5 is.
Not really a maybe. It takes 3 squads from being about 1/3 of your points to about 1/2. It reduces their survivability because there will be less to protect them from assault and short range firepower.
If Abaddon ends up changing and/or going up in cost you've now taken one of the more consistent list configurations that CSM has and seriously kneecapped it, since that would push the combo up over half your points, now you can't deepstrike that package onto the table. This further reduces survivability for a very small number of units.
The cost of getting 36 shots out of your deepstrike package of Obliterators will have gone up from 585 (65pts/model for nine models) to 600 (100pts/model for six models). They will have 24 wounds (6*4) instead of 27 (9*3) and be protected by T5 where they had T4 before. The alpha-strike potential will be different and you won't be running the exact same list anymore but I still fail to see how this is a "huge nerf".
The concern is that it will probably won't be 100 pts but more close to 120 for a PL6 model. If you redo the math with that, you end up with 720 pts vs 585, and this is a huge point difference.
topaxygouroun i wrote: The concern is that it will probably won't be 100 pts but more close to 120 for a PL6 model. If you redo the math with that, you end up with 720 pts vs 585, and this is a huge point difference.
Not to mention fewer net wounds to absorb damage. The +1 T makes some difference, but it's not like people were turning Bolters on Obliterators to wipe them off the table. The weapons generally shooting at Obliterators will be much happier only having to kill 2 of them instead of 3 of them.
However, it sounds like Rake has already locked in his position on the topic, so until we actually have data, the debate is probably pointless.
PL is not directly proportionate to point cost. GW has said what they do is they take an average of the cheapest and most expensive ways to load out the unit.
Obliterators have no options, so they will be something of the purest correlation between PL and points.
At the same time, if we're honest, the Obliterator is something of mini-Dreadnought and tends to be used to fill a similar niche. Sitting around 150pts... higher strength, more toughness more wounds, less of a save, longer range weapons. How does a Hellbrute vs 2 new Obliterators stack up? I think they'd win... How about 2 Hellbrutes vs 3 new Obliterators? I think it'd be closer, but the Hellbrutes I think would likely win, if for nothing else than being able to keep their distance. So its pretty obvious, Obliterators at 70pts are too cheap; and at 100 pts too expensive.
If for a moment we pretended their stats remained the same, and only their weapon improved... they're armed now with something in the ball park of 3 plasma guns... and would have a cost much like the centurion... 70 + 3xPG... That's 90 some points before the stat increases. Its easy to see why GW would make them a 100pts+... even if holistically they shouldn't be. Somewhere between 85-95 pts is probably the appropriate cost.
The +1 T does make a difference against MLs, Lascannons, Meltas and Supercharged Plasma, which were being used to kill Oblits.
You still need the same number of Supercharged Plasma wounds to kill an Oblit, but you will be wounding on 3+, not 2+ like before. The extra wound also helps against d6 damage weapons that roll low. A Lascannon had a 66% chance to 1-shot an Obit before (assuming hit, wound and failed invul). That's down to only 50% now, even less considering they no longer wound on 2+
In the end, I really feel like this is both a nerf and a boost at the same time, which should strike a nice balance.
topaxygouroun i wrote: The concern is that it will probably won't be 100 pts but more close to 120 for a PL6 model. If you redo the math with that, you end up with 720 pts vs 585, and this is a huge point difference.
Not to mention fewer net wounds to absorb damage. The +1 T makes some difference, but it's not like people were turning Bolters on Obliterators to wipe them off the table. The weapons generally shooting at Obliterators will be much happier only having to kill 2 of them instead of 3 of them.
However, it sounds like Rake has already locked in his position on the topic, so until we actually have data, the debate is probably pointless.
True. I look forward to seeing them on the table so we can see if they work like I think they will, like you guys think they will, or somewhere in between.
There was no need to change the Obliterator. It was one of the few consistent performing units in the CSM codex. It's like the Russians redesigning the AK-47, why?
Perhaps focus your efforts on the units that never see the field instead.
aka_mythos wrote: PL is not directly proportionate to point cost. GW has said what they do is they take an average of the cheapest and most expensive ways to load out the unit.
Obliterators have no options, so they will be something of the purest correlation between PL and points.
At the same time, if we're honest, the Obliterator is something of mini-Dreadnought and tends to be used to fill a similar niche. Sitting around 150pts... higher strength, more toughness more wounds, less of a save, longer range weapons. How does a Hellbrute vs 2 new Obliterators stack up? I think they'd win... How about 2 Hellbrutes vs 3 new Obliterators? I think it'd be closer, but the Hellbrutes I think would likely win, if for nothing else than being able to keep their distance. So its pretty obvious, Obliterators at 70pts are too cheap; and at 100 pts too expensive.
If for a moment we pretended their stats remained the same, and only their weapon improved... they're armed now with something in the ball park of 3 plasma guns... and would have a cost much like the centurion... 70 + 3xPG... That's 90 some points before the stat increases. Its easy to see why GW would make them a 100pts+... even if holistically they shouldn't be. Somewhere between 85-95 pts is probably the appropriate cost.
A hellbrute with las/missile is 120 pts tho, nowhere close to 150. If you feeling bold, a plasma cannon/missile hellbrute is 96 pts. An obliterator shoots bettter than that, but is a lot weaker.
I like the look of them, I hope they are field-able so that I can see them across the table from my orks. I imagine if they cost to many points GW will adjust them as they will want to sell the new plastic. it is the same reason I am pretty sure the mediocre performing ork buggies will see some changes as well, gotta push that plastic!
TwinPoleTheory wrote: There was no need to change the Obliterator. It was one of the few consistent performing units in the CSM codex. It's like the Russians redesigning the AK-47, why?
Perhaps focus your efforts on the units that never see the field instead.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: There was no need to change the Obliterator. It was one of the few consistent performing units in the CSM codex. It's like the Russians redesigning the AK-47, why?
Perhaps focus your efforts on the units that never see the field instead.
Performance aside, the new model absolutely required new rules. Those things look like Chaos-ified Centurions and the current "Terminator with +1W and a better gun" rules would not do it justice.
aka_mythos wrote: ...If for a moment we pretended their stats remained the same, and only their weapon improved... they're armed now with something in the ball park of 3 plasma guns... and would have a cost much like the centurion... 70 + 3xPG... That's 90 some points before the stat increases. Its easy to see why GW would make them a 100pts+... even if holistically they shouldn't be. Somewhere between 85-95 pts is probably the appropriate cost.
A thought experiment:
The statblock is a weird one to find comparisons for so I don't have a lot of data points here, but we can reasonably say that the Obliterator statblock here falls between that of a Centurion (-1 W, no built-in Deep Strike or Invulnerable save) at 40pts and that of a Custodian Terminator (+2" move, +1 WS/BS, +1 Invulnerable save) at 65pts. Placing it a bit closer to the Centurion than the Custodian since the Custodian has more toys gives us an approximate chassis cost of 50pts.
The best comparison to the melee weapon is probably force weapons given d3 damage but a low Strength buff. Force weapons are 8-10pts; they come on S4 bodies instead of S5, but the cost of the body's Strength should be baked into the cost of the body, so we're probably looking at 5-6pts.
There aren't many weapons with random S or AP so I'm going to run with the idea that it's 8/-2/d3 since it's better and worse in equal proportions. With that in mind some comparable weapons:
-Centurion Missile Launcher: Same damage profile, d3 shots (averages to 2) and 36" range. 75pts to get the same average firepower, but the range probably drops it down to a 60-70pt weapon.
-Missile Launcher: Two Fleshmetal shots are a bit better than one krak missile since two d3 damage shots are more flexible and more reliable than one d6-damage shot. Fleshmetal lacks the frag mode, however, though it makes up some for the lack of range with the Assault type. Three missile launchers are 60pts after Chapter Approved, so let's call it 50-60pts for the fleshmetal gun.
-Plasma (Overcharging): For pure damage output one Fleshmetal gun is worse than three overcharging plasma guns at rapid fire range. Let's estimate the cost as somewhere between three plasma guns (six shots at 12") and six plasma guns (six shots at 24") for an average of 49.5pts; the plasma has better AP but it also has a chance of blowing the user up, so I'll call 50pts the lower bound for my estimate of the Fleshmetal gun.
This produces a generous estimate of 50pts and a harsh estimate of 70pts for the value of the fleshmetal gun, split the difference and it's a 60pt gun on a 50pt chassis with a 5pt melee weapon for a ballpark cost of 115pts +/- 20pts (assuming a possible error of 10pts either way on both chassis and gun). Within a reasonable margin for a 6PL model, I think.
aka_mythos wrote: ...If for a moment we pretended their stats remained the same, and only their weapon improved... they're armed now with something in the ball park of 3 plasma guns... and would have a cost much like the centurion... 70 + 3xPG... That's 90 some points before the stat increases. Its easy to see why GW would make them a 100pts+... even if holistically they shouldn't be. Somewhere between 85-95 pts is probably the appropriate cost.
A thought experiment:
The statblock is a weird one to find comparisons for so I don't have a lot of data points here, but we can reasonably say that the Obliterator statblock here falls between that of a Centurion (-1 W, no built-in Deep Strike or Invulnerable save) at 40pts and that of a Custodian Terminator (+2" move, +1 WS/BS, +1 Invulnerable save) at 65pts. Placing it a bit closer to the Centurion than the Custodian since the Custodian has more toys gives us an approximate chassis cost of 50pts.
The best comparison to the melee weapon is probably force weapons given d3 damage but a low Strength buff. Force weapons are 8-10pts; they come on S4 bodies instead of S5, but the cost of the body's Strength should be baked into the cost of the body, so we're probably looking at 5-6pts.
There aren't many weapons with random S or AP so I'm going to run with the idea that it's 8/-2/d3 since it's better and worse in equal proportions. With that in mind some comparable weapons:
-Centurion Missile Launcher: Same damage profile, d3 shots (averages to 2) and 36" range. 75pts to get the same average firepower, but the range probably drops it down to a 60-70pt weapon.
-Missile Launcher: Two Fleshmetal shots are a bit better than one krak missile since two d3 damage shots are more flexible and more reliable than one d6-damage shot. Fleshmetal lacks the frag mode, however, though it makes up some for the lack of range with the Assault type. Three missile launchers are 60pts after Chapter Approved, so let's call it 50-60pts for the fleshmetal gun.
-Plasma (Overcharging): For pure damage output one Fleshmetal gun is worse than three overcharging plasma guns at rapid fire range. Let's estimate the cost as somewhere between three plasma guns (six shots at 12") and six plasma guns (six shots at 24") for an average of 49.5pts; the plasma has better AP but it also has a chance of blowing the user up, so I'll call 50pts the lower bound for my estimate of the Fleshmetal gun.
This produces a generous estimate of 50pts and a harsh estimate of 70pts for the value of the fleshmetal gun, split the difference and it's a 60pt gun on a 50pt chassis with a 5pt melee weapon for a ballpark cost of 115pts +/- 20pts (assuming a possible error of 10pts either way on both chassis and gun). Within a reasonable margin for a 6PL model, I think.
In the whole Obliterator vs Hellbrute... the inconsistency of the Obliterator due to the randomness of its weapons in particular no longer having weapons with consistent damage output, relies largely on the volume of shots to try and balance that in averages. And it does tend to. It however also a question of how much is consistent performance worth vs peak positive performance and peak under performance. Two other areas the Obliterator is challenged versus previous editions, versus the Hellbrute, and versus its Its imperial counter part, is its greatly reduced range and the lack of an auto hitting flamer weapons. But we also can't measure a unit entirely on offensive output, defense and surviabilty have to factor in.
An extra wound helps mitigate the loss of an extra obliterator. The extra toughness helps with the increased vulnerability that comes with the reduced number models. Its about 1/3 fewer hits getting through, while requiring 1/3 more damage to kill the model. Its arguably a 50% survivability boost making the two Oblits capable of tanking that many more shots.
I think in practice I'd worry about them becoming a bigger target for the weapons that can overkill them.
topaxygouroun wrote:
A hellbrute with las/missile is 120 pts tho, nowhere close to 150. If you feeling bold, a plasma cannon/missile hellbrute is 96 pts. An obliterator shoots bettter than that, but is a lot weaker.
You're right, I was thinking of its old point cost.
AnomanderRake wrote: Scanning the CSM book I think Obliterators are internally all right; approximate the d3s in the weapon profile as 2s for 8/-2/d3 and it looks to me like they're not wildly out of line with the rest of the Heavy Support section (they tend to be squishier but have comparable or better damage output than the armour).
If they end up costing over 100 ppm that's a pretty huge nerf to one of the few consistent performers in the Codex.
It seems a buff to me. You get more power out of your stratagems now. Classic GW - making the best selections in a book better for no apparent reason. I am not complaining though - just pointing out GW doesn't really understand their game very well. I wish Centurions got this treatment too but Alas...
It's a bizarre change, owing only to the model becoming increasingly large. The easier route would have been to call them something else, like a Greater Obliterator or something silly.
My main interest is how tournaments, etc. will respond to this. Fielding the old models (which thousands of players obviously have) will make them pretty powerful for how small they are (and how easily you could hide them). I personally won't be using the new rules as I don't think my kit-bashed old Obliterators can justify the bumped stat-line. None of my buddies care.
I do think overall it's a net nerf, solely because they'll now be immediate targets - even moreso than before, so they'll be lavished with much more hostile attention. I do think they're going to be eye-wateringly expensive, and regardless of armour and toughness, it's still a 4-wound model which can't hide like a character. Considering certain Hellbrutes can be nearly 100 points now (with cheap options), it'll be a tough thing to justify on a 4-wound model.
Xenomancers wrote: It seems a buff to me. You get more power out of your stratagems now. Classic GW - making the best selections in a book better for no apparent reason. I am not complaining though - just pointing out GW doesn't really understand their game very well. I wish Centurions got this treatment too but Alas...
Covered earlier in the thread, there will be less around to support a full deployment of them, that same full deployment that cost ~1/3 of your points before is now closer ~1/2 your points. Yes, it's more shots, but we also ended up paying for a hand to hand upgrade they didn't need. As Galef mentioned earlier, the increased toughness makes them slightly more durable in some ways, but with a net loss of wounds at a similar point cost I think that's going to end up being a wash ultimately. It's just GW design interns who couldn't design their way out of a paper bag again.
Elbows wrote: It's a bizarre change, owing only to the model becoming increasingly large. The easier route would have been to call them something else, like a Greater Obliterator or something silly.
My main interest is how tournaments, etc. will respond to this. Fielding the old models (which thousands of players obviously have) will make them pretty powerful for how small they are (and how easily you could hide them). I personally won't be using the new rules as I don't think my kit-bashed old Obliterators can justify the bumped stat-line. None of my buddies care.
I do think overall it's a net nerf, solely because they'll now be immediate targets - even moreso than before, so they'll be lavished with much more hostile attention. I do think they're going to be eye-wateringly expensive, and regardless of armour and toughness, it's still a 4-wound model which can't hide like a character. Considering certain Hellbrutes can be nearly 100 points now (with cheap options), it'll be a tough thing to justify on a 4-wound model.
Stratagem and spell efficiency are the things that matter in this game. I'm not sure how a #1 priority target becomes more of a #1 priority target. +1 to hit now effects up to 12 more shots same with +1 to wound. Same with defensive buffs now affecting 3 additional wounds with different break points. Basically - it's very similiar to what would happen if dark reapers suddenly became max squad size 14 - everyone would just start taking 14 instead of 10.
Xenomancers wrote: It seems a buff to me. You get more power out of your stratagems now. Classic GW - making the best selections in a book better for no apparent reason. I am not complaining though - just pointing out GW doesn't really understand their game very well. I wish Centurions got this treatment too but Alas...
Covered earlier in the thread, there will be less around to support a full deployment of them, that same full deployment that cost ~1/3 of your points before is now closer ~1/2 your points. Yes, it's more shots, but we also ended up paying for a hand to hand upgrade they didn't need. As Galef mentioned earlier, the increased toughness makes them slightly more durable in some ways, but with a net loss of wounds at a similar point cost I think that's going to end up being a wash ultimately. It's just GW design interns who couldn't design their way out of a paper bag again.
True they don't need the CC ability but we don't know what they cost yet. If the points cost is equally efficient per damage as it was before - the CC damage is just free bonus. Have to reserve judgement on that until we know the points cost. Overall though we have a general idea through power level that the ball park figure is going to be efficient. In that case it's a buff.
Galef wrote: Performance aside, the new model absolutely required new rules. Those things look like Chaos-ified Centurions and the current "Terminator with +1W and a better gun" rules would not do it justice.
Indeed! And if they are to be proper Chaos Centurions, they obviously needs to cost as much as a Dreadnought while being way worse!
Galef wrote: Performance aside, the new model absolutely required new rules. Those things look like Chaos-ified Centurions and the current "Terminator with +1W and a better gun" rules would not do it justice.
Indeed! And if they are to be proper Chaos Centurions, they obviously needs to cost as much as a Dreadnought while being way worse!
I couldn't have said it better myself BUT I have not lost all faith that Cents will get fixed at the beginning of 9th ed.
Xenomancers wrote: True they don't need the CC ability but we don't know what they cost yet. If the points cost is equally efficient per damage as it was before - the CC damage is just free bonus. Have to reserve judgement on that until we know the points cost. Overall though we have a general idea through power level that the ball park figure is going to be efficient. In that case it's a buff.
You're cherry picking to support your point. A conservative estimate has this increasing the cost of a full deployment by 315 points, if we're lucky, 375 if we're not. At a certain point the sliding scale of efficiency breaks down if they're the only significant deployment you're putting on the table.
Galef wrote: Performance aside, the new model absolutely required new rules. Those things look like Chaos-ified Centurions and the current "Terminator with +1W and a better gun" rules would not do it justice.
Indeed! And if they are to be proper Chaos Centurions, they obviously needs to cost as much as a Dreadnought while being way worse!
I couldn't have said it better myself BUT I have not lost all faith that Cents will get fixed at the beginning of 9th ed.
The Beta Bolter rule for them WAS a good start to be fair.
Xenomancers wrote: True they don't need the CC ability but we don't know what they cost yet. If the points cost is equally efficient per damage as it was before - the CC damage is just free bonus. Have to reserve judgement on that until we know the points cost. Overall though we have a general idea through power level that the ball park figure is going to be efficient. In that case it's a buff.
You're cherry picking to support your point. A conservative estimate has this increasing the cost of a full deployment by 315 points, if we're lucky, 375 if we're not. At a certain point the sliding scale of efficiency breaks down if they're the only significant deployment you're putting on the table.
Not sure why were talking about a full deployment when you only ever need to bring 1 unit and super buff it. That unit alone is as effective 6 more oblitz and will likely cost around 700 points less. The difference in cost for that 1 unit will mean something like dropping single basilisk or half a unit of zangors or a single shaman. For that you are gonna get 12 more quality shots hitting on 2's rerolling 1 and likely wounding on 2's. Or in other words - a trade everyone competitive player would take EVERY TIME. It's a buff.
Xenomancers wrote: Not sure why were talking about a full deployment when you only ever need to bring 1 unit and super buff it. That unit alone is as effective 6 more oblitz and will likely cost around 700 points less. The difference in cost for that 1 unit will mean something like dropping single basilisk or half a unit of zangors or a single shaman. For that you are gonna get 12 more quality shots hitting on 2's rerolling 1 and likely wounding on 2's. Or in other words - a trade everyone competitive player would take EVERY TIME. It's a buff.
Because there's more than one way to play and buff them, as pointed out earlier the Feculant Gnarlmaw makes them significantly more durable, Locus of Virulence can improve their damage. If you go Tzeentchian, you have Daemonspark and Flickering Flames which you can use alongside Veterans. Both options significantly reduce your CP burn and/or free it up to be used elsewhere.
Xenomancers wrote: Not sure why were talking about a full deployment when you only ever need to bring 1 unit and super buff it. That unit alone is as effective 6 more oblitz and will likely cost around 700 points less. The difference in cost for that 1 unit will mean something like dropping single basilisk or half a unit of zangors or a single shaman. For that you are gonna get 12 more quality shots hitting on 2's rerolling 1 and likely wounding on 2's. Or in other words - a trade everyone competitive player would take EVERY TIME. It's a buff.
Because there's more than one way to play and buff them, as pointed out earlier the Feculant Gnarlmaw makes them significantly more durable, Locus of Virulence can improve their damage. If you go Tzeentchian, you have Daemonspark and Flickering Flames which you can use alongside Veterans. Both options significantly reduce your CP burn and/or free it up to be used elsewhere.
There are several ways to skin that cat.
Edited for grammar.
The only Oblitz I see are Slaneesh so they can shot twice because it's broken AF. Ignore everything I am saying about builds that aren't trying to amp max damage because it's all I am addressing. Plus 95% of the time it's all that gets used in competitive.
Plus correct me if I am wrong but feculents can't affect Oblitz can they?
Xenomancers wrote: Plus correct me if I am wrong but feculents can't affect Oblitz can they?
Nurgle Obliterators are affected by Feculent Gnarlmaws, it's especially effective with Alpha Legion. You can't use any of the Stratagems in the book on them, that's pretty much it though.
Also, Tzeentchian Obliterators buffed with Daemonspark and Flickering Flames alongside Veterans of the long war, means that even if you get a crap roll on your weapons you're still wounding T8 on a 3+ and re-rolling 1s or allows you split +1 to wound out to two different units if you're already wounding on 3+.
So since the Datasheet is just "Obliterators", and not Adjective VerbNoun you're now forced to use this datasheet, you cannot use the one in the CSM codex. The game simply cannot work any other way (otherwise you can still use pre-nerf Commissars and Conscripts, and double up on Index Zerkers and Codex Zerkers in tournaments) and GW insists you must use the latest datasheet for your unit.
Xenomancers wrote: Plus correct me if I am wrong but feculents can't affect Oblitz can they?
Nurgle Obliterators are affected by Feculent Gnarlmaws, it's especially effective with Alpha Legion. You can't use any of the Stratagems in the book on them, that's pretty much it though.
Also, Tzeentchian Obliterators buffed with Daemonspark and Flickering Flames alongside Veterans of the long war, means that even if you get a crap roll on your weapons you're still wounding T8 on a 3+ and re-rolling 1s or allows you split +1 to wound out to two different units if you're already wounding on 3+.
I still like the idea of Khorne ones supported by The Crimson Crown relic, as it doesnt require much in the way of CP or support.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I still like the idea of Khorne ones supported by The Crimson Crown relic, as it doesnt require much in the way of CP or support.
That's also a pretty decent one, especially with Veterans to trigger the Crown on a 5+, which in theory would end up netting you 4 extra shots on average, or 2 extra shots per squad without Veterans. Throw in re-rolls to hit and you're probably getting 5 or 3 extra shots per squad. Personally I like the Tzeentch approach to counteract some of the weapon variability.
BaconCatBug wrote: So since the Datasheet is just "Obliterators", and not Adjective VerbNoun you're now forced to use this datasheet, you cannot use the one in the CSM codex. The game simply cannot work any other way (otherwise you can still use pre-nerf Commissars and Conscripts, and double up on Index Zerkers and Codex Zerkers in tournaments) and GW insists you must use the latest datasheet for your unit.
Good work GW.
Is it sad I'm not sure if your "good work GW" is sarcastic or not?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I still like the idea of Khorne ones supported by The Crimson Crown relic, as it doesnt require much in the way of CP or support.
That's also a pretty decent one, especially with Veterans to trigger the Crown on a 5+, which in theory would end up netting you 4 extra shots on average, or 2 extra shots per squad without Veterans. Throw in re-rolls to hit and you're probably getting 5 or 3 extra shots per squad. Personally I like the Tzeentch approach to counteract some of the weapon variability.
Huh, well, that's a weird one. Seems intended for melee, but totally viable RAW. I don't think people like giving up double tap though.
Daedalus81 wrote: Huh, well, that's a weird one. Seems intended for melee, but totally viable RAW. I don't think people like giving up double tap though.
I think part of that is just the fact that it's a Khornate artifact. The nice thing about some of the non-Slaanesh options is their ability to not get shutdown by things like Vect and the ability to maintain said effectiveness without spending CP.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I still like the idea of Khorne ones supported by The Crimson Crown relic, as it doesnt require much in the way of CP or support.
That's also a pretty decent one, especially with Veterans to trigger the Crown on a 5+, which in theory would end up netting you 4 extra shots on average, or 2 extra shots per squad without Veterans. Throw in re-rolls to hit and you're probably getting 5 or 3 extra shots per squad. Personally I like the Tzeentch approach to counteract some of the weapon variability.
Huh, well, that's a weird one. Seems intended for melee, but totally viable RAW. I don't think people like giving up double tap though.
With Oblits having an actual melee profile now, it is perfectly reasonable to have them fight twice as well. Use the Renegades trait for these shenanagins if you're all about the word FUN.
Assault 6, but 2 oblits are now with 3 of the old kind in terms of points as far as we can tell. So it balances out to the same shots for the same points, just now they are harder to kill per model.
Assault 6, but 2 oblits are now with 3 of the old kind in terms of points as far as we can tell. So it balances out to the same shots for the same points, just now they are harder to kill per model.
More value out of the Shoot Twice strat though, that's what I'm liking.
Not too keen on the new model though. I'm a big fan of the prior sculpt.
Assault 6, but 2 oblits are now with 3 of the old kind in terms of points as far as we can tell. So it balances out to the same shots for the same points, just now they are harder to kill per model.
More value out of the Shoot Twice strat though, that's what I'm liking.
Not too keen on the new model though. I'm a big fan of the prior sculpt.
This...
Spoiler:
Is better than this?
Spoiler:
You crazy? The old sculpt was just AWFUL.
I mean, to each their own, but I find your position baffling.
GW pretty smart, save on new mold and some plastic for more money and be somewhat "same" on the tabletop. I havent seen oblits be used in competitive in a long time.
Assault 6, but 2 oblits are now with 3 of the old kind in terms of points as far as we can tell. So it balances out to the same shots for the same points, just now they are harder to kill per model.
More value out of the Shoot Twice strat though, that's what I'm liking.
Not too keen on the new model though. I'm a big fan of the prior sculpt.
This...
Spoiler:
Is better than this?
Spoiler:
You crazy? The old sculpt was just AWFUL.
I mean, to each their own, but I find your position baffling.
I prefer the old ones by a lot. I like that they have more marine-ish armor, and that the armor and flesh are mixing more organically. I like that they don't look as big, too. I like that their guns look like they're sprouting uncontrollably. They look more chaotic to me. The new ones look more like a sloppy comic book design.
Technically, mabe the new ones are superior, but I'd prefer a poor recording of great music over a great recording of poor music.
I actually like the model, but the rules for me are a major miss. You finally have a model that has half a dozen clear classic weapons sticking out from it with details and you give it a generic shooting profile ? They could have brought back a classic rule set for a unit and didn't.
I don't like the new Obliterator personally, but I don't believe it's physically possible to make a worse sculpt than the previous Obliterator (one of many sculpted Chaos miniatures from someone who's design philosophy was....apply green stuff...drag a sharp tool through it...CHAOS! --- seriously, these along with the Plague Marines at the time were some of the very worst, laziest, gak sculpts from GW's worst sculpting period) - early to mid 2000's they had some horrible stuff.
Ap0k wrote: I'm assuming none of you guys raving about herp derp shoot twice ever plan to play into Drukhari or Genestealer Cults.
The reason people are raving is because pretty much since the start of 8th Obliterators of Slaanesh have been the de-facto dakka outputter for Chaos. Its less speculation and more "how will our dakka-bois change"
I mean, I wish that wasn't the case, but it is. New Oblits are a sidegrade at best (if they get favourably costed toward the low end of the 6PL average), and a catastrophe at worst (i.e the expected cost).
Rumor has it they are 115 PPM...Which is pretty freakin large. However, they did get a pretty hard hitting melee profile, so...Although Slaaneshi oblits aren't good anymore, Khorne and Nurgle may carry more merit.
Ap0k wrote: I'm assuming none of you guys raving about herp derp shoot twice ever plan to play into Drukhari or Genestealer Cults.
That stops castellans cold, too, right?
Vecting a Rotate doesn't exactly guarantee a Castellan goes down, since it's still incredibly survivable without it. Similarly, Vecting Machine Spirit Resurgent just slows their damage output for a turn.
Vecting Cacophony all but ensures you just dropped a now 300-360ish point unit (depending on eventual price) onto the table that will not make its points back, because it's going to be 100% dead before it gets another chance to shoot (this is the same problem existing Oblits have, btw, which is why nobody uses them outside casual play). In the case of GSC, they're more likely to get tied up in combat and never shoot again.
Oblits have one turn to do their job. They don't get a 2nd. The unit costing more just means you lose even more points when they inevitably die after the drop. You can't rely on Cacophony because you might play into DE/GSC, and if you can't rely on Cacophony, you can't put units into your list that rely on Cacophony to do their job.
I don't remember hearing of anyone running Oblits at LVO, but I was dipping in and out of the stream so can't say I was paying a ton of attention.
I'd assume if they were running Oblits there's a reasonable chance they were marked nurgle and backed up by a tree since that's the most feasible non-stratagem-reliant way to get mileage out of them, but I'd be happy to be wrong.
Also something something exception something something proving the rule.
Ap0k wrote: I'm assuming none of you guys raving about herp derp shoot twice ever plan to play into Drukhari or Genestealer Cults.
That stops castellans cold, too, right?
Vecting a Rotate doesn't exactly guarantee a Castellan goes down, since it's still incredibly survivable without it. Similarly, Vecting Machine Spirit Resurgent just slows their damage output for a turn.
Vecting Cacophony all but ensures you just dropped a now 300-360ish point unit (depending on eventual price) onto the table that will not make its points back, because it's going to be 100% dead before it gets another chance to shoot (this is the same problem existing Oblits have, btw, which is why nobody uses them outside casual play). In the case of GSC, they're more likely to get tied up in combat and never shoot again.
Oblits have one turn to do their job. They don't get a 2nd. The unit costing more just means you lose even more points when they inevitably die after the drop. You can't rely on Cacophony because you might play into DE/GSC, and if you can't rely on Cacophony, you can't put units into your list that rely on Cacophony to do their job.
Do you believe Oblits are costed around being able to shoot twice?
Is there something that Oblits really need to shoot twice when facing DE or GSC? I'm doubtful.
Oblits need to shoot twice vs DE because if you don't kill as many Ravagers as you can on the drop, your chances of getting another chance to kill them (with those units) are incredibly slim (likely because you're dead, occasionally because they can just fly away outside your range and you'll never get back into range).
The point isn't about 'what do these factions have that you need to shoot twice'. The point is 'These factions exist in the meta, and as a result you will likely face them, and if you're facing them using a unit that is only worth its points when it gets to Cacophony, then you lose, which means you can't put those units in a list because their feasibility depends on their ability to make use of a stratagem'.
Oblits need Cacophony to clear out threats to their survivability to give them a chance of surviving the turn after the drop. If you can't get Cacophony off, you throw away a, currently, 195 point unit with minimal impact, and that's kinda a big deal.
That'll be half my points or thereabouts but it'll be a fun drop. Commencing mathhammer.
Edit:
Haha, 42 wounds on a Castellan if I get Abaddon rerolls and Death Hex off. Which won't happen, but that's some firepower.
54 shots (no stratagem) and Abby get 42 wounds on Ravagers, blowing the usual 3 out of the sky. Might lose the long game anyway but that'd be pretty satisfying.
Ap0k wrote: Are you talking about newblits or oldblits?
Oblits need to shoot twice vs DE because if you don't kill as many Ravagers as you can on the drop, your chances of getting another chance to kill them (with those units) are incredibly slim (likely because you're dead, occasionally because they can just fly away outside your range and you'll never get back into range).
The point isn't about 'what do these factions have that you need to shoot twice'. The point is 'These factions exist in the meta, and as a result you will likely face them, and if you're facing them using a unit that is only worth its points when it gets to Cacophony, then you lose, which means you can't put those units in a list because their feasibility depends on their ability to make use of a stratagem'.
Oblits need Cacophony to clear out threats to their survivability to give them a chance of surviving the turn after the drop. If you can't get Cacophony off, you throw away a, currently, 195 point unit with minimal impact, and that's kinda a big deal.
Okay, and then what happens when you don't face Dark Eldar?
Also Oblits really don't need to fire twice against Cult units. Hell, even against Dark Eldar you're fine because you're not paying for a bunch of extra AP you don't need.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: 36 shots? Pfft... 72 since I have 9 Obliterators.
That'll be half my points or thereabouts but it'll be a fun drop. Commencing mathhammer.
Edit:
Haha, 42 wounds on a Castellan if I get Abaddon rerolls and Death Hex off. Which won't happen, but that's some firepower.
Hell, you don't even need Death Hex for the most part.
As much as I hate Chaos, I like the look of these models and the idea of a “living weapon”
However, I hate the randomness of the fleshmetal gun. Wish they would have given it three different stat lines and let the player choose which to use (with maaaaybe a limitation you can’t choose the same stat line twice in a row). Something like an anti-mob light profile (like a hurricane bolter), a harder hitting profile to use against MEQ (like an assault cannon) and an Anti-tank profile (like a Lascannon).
Stormonu wrote: As much as I hate Chaos, I like the look of these models and the idea of a “living weapon”
However, I hate the randomness of the fleshmetal gun. Wish they would have given it three different stat lines and let the player choose which to use (with maaaaybe a limitation you can’t choose the same stat line twice in a row). Something like an anti-mob light profile (like a hurricane bolter), a harder hitting profile to use against MEQ (like an assault cannon) and an Anti-tank profile (like a Lascannon).
I quite like that idea. For their current points, I'd add "Twin" to each of those profiles
For the amount of points we are paying for these guys I'm actually thinking that they should allow the user to allocate stat points from a fixed pool of points to increase/decrease the weapon's various stats
For instance their weapons can have a base stat of 4 shots, S4, AP0, Damage 1 and every time they shoot the player is given a total of 6 points to add to the stats in any combination they want (with caps on specific stats obviously)
That makes them less random, extremely flexible, and perfectly reflects their ability to morph weapons to suit the situation
Continuity wrote: For the amount of points we are paying for these guys I'm actually thinking that they should allow the user to allocate stat points from a fixed pool of points to increase/decrease the weapon's various stats
For instance their weapons can have a base stat of 4 shots, S4, AP0, Damage 1 and every time they shoot the player is given a total of 6 points to add to the stats in any combination they want (with caps on specific stats obviously)
That makes them less random, extremely flexible, and perfectly reflects their ability to morph weapons to suit the situation
I would gladly pay 120pt per model for that
I'd thought about that too, but I think that may be too fiddly in the middle of a game, prone to people "umm"ing and "erm"ing over where to put the last point or two. Or someone just using the same exact optimized stat each round. I really do think "choice of three" is the best option, and randumb is the worst.
Continuity wrote: For the amount of points we are paying for these guys I'm actually thinking that they should allow the user to allocate stat points from a fixed pool of points to increase/decrease the weapon's various stats
For instance their weapons can have a base stat of 4 shots, S4, AP0, Damage 1 and every time they shoot the player is given a total of 6 points to add to the stats in any combination they want (with caps on specific stats obviously)
That makes them less random, extremely flexible, and perfectly reflects their ability to morph weapons to suit the situation
I would gladly pay 120pt per model for that
How in the world is that better than the average Assault 6 S8 AP-2 D2? Your consistency leads to a what is usually a far worse weapon.
I think at this point the points cost will be the main factor. It's looking more and more like 2 will cost what 3 used to, which IMHO is a solid nerf despite 2 operating similar to three, but we will see what it specifically is.
Continuity wrote: For the amount of points we are paying for these guys I'm actually thinking that they should allow the user to allocate stat points from a fixed pool of points to increase/decrease the weapon's various stats
For instance their weapons can have a base stat of 4 shots, S4, AP0, Damage 1 and every time they shoot the player is given a total of 6 points to add to the stats in any combination they want (with caps on specific stats obviously)
That makes them less random, extremely flexible, and perfectly reflects their ability to morph weapons to suit the situation
I would gladly pay 120pt per model for that
How in the world is that better than the average Assault 6 S8 AP-2 D2? Your consistency leads to a what is usually a far worse weapon.
Because it's meant to be an example to represent a design philosophy, not a set-in-stone rule, I can easily make the allocation pool larger if it suits your fancy. The goal here is to reflect the flexible nature of Obliterators' weapons accurately while still being fun to play instead of the current random rolling nonsense with the gun being strictly better or worse due to luck.
Daedalus81 wrote: With T5 and W4 these guys will be obnoxious to kill under a tree if you can get FNP on them, too. But then you only have 24".
Can't get FnP without Slaanesh. Malefic has locked Obliterators into a Slaaneshian paradigm. I don't really see any value in other implementations now. You maybe carry two squads since Cursed Earth and Infernal Power are 6" bubbles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Continuity wrote: Because it's meant to be an example to represent a design philosophy, not a set-in-stone rule, I can easily make the allocation pool larger if it suits your fancy. The goal here is to reflect the flexible nature of Obliterators' weapons accurately while still being fun to play instead of the current random rolling nonsense with the gun being strictly better or worse due to luck.
Gaze of Fate and Command re-roll will largely eliminate the variability of the squad you intend to buff for alpha strike.
Continuity wrote: For the amount of points we are paying for these guys I'm actually thinking that they should allow the user to allocate stat points from a fixed pool of points to increase/decrease the weapon's various stats
For instance their weapons can have a base stat of 4 shots, S4, AP0, Damage 1 and every time they shoot the player is given a total of 6 points to add to the stats in any combination they want (with caps on specific stats obviously)
That makes them less random, extremely flexible, and perfectly reflects their ability to morph weapons to suit the situation
I would gladly pay 120pt per model for that
How in the world is that better than the average Assault 6 S8 AP-2 D2? Your consistency leads to a what is usually a far worse weapon.
Because it's meant to be an example to represent a design philosophy, not a set-in-stone rule, I can easily make the allocation pool larger if it suits your fancy. The goal here is to reflect the flexible nature of Obliterators' weapons accurately while still being fun to play instead of the current random rolling nonsense with the gun being strictly better or worse due to luck.
If you're going to go this route on design philosophy it'd be quite a lot faster on the tabletop to just go back to the 3e-7e rules and give them a couple of different profiles representing different groups of weapons.
Continuity wrote: For the amount of points we are paying for these guys I'm actually thinking that they should allow the user to allocate stat points from a fixed pool of points to increase/decrease the weapon's various stats
For instance their weapons can have a base stat of 4 shots, S4, AP0, Damage 1 and every time they shoot the player is given a total of 6 points to add to the stats in any combination they want (with caps on specific stats obviously)
That makes them less random, extremely flexible, and perfectly reflects their ability to morph weapons to suit the situation
I would gladly pay 120pt per model for that
How in the world is that better than the average Assault 6 S8 AP-2 D2? Your consistency leads to a what is usually a far worse weapon.
Because it's meant to be an example to represent a design philosophy, not a set-in-stone rule, I can easily make the allocation pool larger if it suits your fancy. The goal here is to reflect the flexible nature of Obliterators' weapons accurately while still being fun to play instead of the current random rolling nonsense with the gun being strictly better or worse due to luck.
They weren't very flexible in the first place. Out of the 6-8 weapons you could choose, you would only ever choose 2-3 of them. The same ones, at that.
The new profile is randumb, but the unit functioned a lot better since 8th's codex was released, and this update really does make them better.
I also like that you can give them a reroll on the weapon with the new malefic powers.WC7 might be too high for that and there are other contenders in the discipline of course, but if you go full daemonkin with possessed, spawn and Oblits I could see that power as a nice supporter.
From a game mechanics stand point, it really slows things down to be rolling 3 distinct dice in addition to everything you normally roll for attacking.
The point of the random weapon stats is that GW doesn't want Obliterators just sitting back and always able to put the ideal weapon on the ideal target. The limited range had already partially addressed that, but even at a 24" range fixed options would still allow a level of reliability GW simply doesn't want.
What's frustrating is that it contradicts the lore and their ability to summon forth these weapons they previously absorbed.
While some would disagree, the fleshmetal weapon performs better in some ways than the options we previously had. In general we lost reliability, long range, and the ability to flame/auto hit. Instead we have many more shots.
GW wants this unit stomping around advancing on our enemies. I think the only way we can reconcile GW's design goal and our desire reliability, is if instead of being a random everything weapon, it worked like a Conversion Beamer in reverse, reliably and consistently becoming more powerful the closer you are to a target.
For example:
48"-24", Str 7, AP 1, Dmg 1, Heavy 6
23"-12", Str 8, AP 2, Dmg 2, Heavy 4
11"-1", Str 9, AP 3, Dmg 3, Heavy 2
I consider my Grav/Hurricane Dev Cent's to be pretty overpriced at 78 ppm, so "overpriced" feels like quite the understatement in regards to Oblits being over 100 ppm.
Sure, they get a decent melee-profile, +1 W and a 5++, but still.
I'm not sure in what world an Obliterator is worth the same as a decked out Helbrute.
MinscS2 wrote: I consider my Grav/Hurricane Dev Cent's to be pretty overpriced at 78 ppm, so "overpriced" feels like quite the understatement in regards to Oblits being over 100 ppm.
Sure, they get a decent melee-profile, +1 W and a 5++, but still.
I'm not sure in what world an Obliterator is worth the same as a decked out Helbrute.
Shame, because the model's are pretty good.
Cents atm are in a rough space, now we got Chaos cents eeeeeermm i mean Oblits more expensive then cents.....
Yay.
MinscS2 wrote: I consider my Grav/Hurricane Dev Cent's to be pretty overpriced at 78 ppm, so "overpriced" feels like quite the understatement in regards to Oblits being over 100 ppm.
Sure, they get a decent melee-profile, +1 W and a 5++, but still.
I'm not sure in what world an Obliterator is worth the same as a decked out Helbrute.
Shame, because the model's are pretty good.
Not quite the same kind of fire power though.
An Obliterator is carrying almost the equivalent of a rapid fire BC.
A Hurricane/Las Cent is 100 points AND one less wound AND no 5++ AND no melee weapon.
MinscS2 wrote: I consider my Grav/Hurricane Dev Cent's to be pretty overpriced at 78 ppm, so "overpriced" feels like quite the understatement in regards to Oblits being over 100 ppm.
Sure, they get a decent melee-profile, +1 W and a 5++, but still.
I'm not sure in what world an Obliterator is worth the same as a decked out Helbrute.
Shame, because the model's are pretty good.
Not quite the same kind of fire power though.
An Obliterator is carrying almost the equivalent of a rapid fire BC.
A Hurricane/Las Cent is 100 points AND one less wound AND no 5++ AND no melee weapon.
The price for these Oblits is more than fair.
Almost the equivalent... If you're lucky.
Sometimes, you get an autocannon with 6 shots, but D1.
Other times, you get a Lascannon with D3 instead of d6.
While, on average, the guns are pretty good, it adds yet more points of failure to the process.
As for a 5++... On a 2+ Infantry model, who cares? You need AP-4 (AP-5 in cover) to make it matter.
Sometimes, you get an autocannon with 6 shots, but D1.
Other times, you get a Lascannon with D3 instead of d6.
While, on average, the guns are pretty good, it adds yet more points of failure to the process.
As for a 5++... On a 2+ Infantry model, who cares? You need AP-4 (AP-5 in cover) to make it matter.
Yes, but that can easily be made a 4++. Things like disintegrators care about that a lot.
The average is battle cannon stats - rerolls are prime for such an impactful unit and now it's possible to get 3 rerolls on them - gaze, new spell, and command reroll. Whether that is wise or not needs to be seen.
I give up trying to explain how terrible these guys are going to be.
Nothing will convince some of you folks until you play with them yourselves and see your 360~pt unit vaporised or perpetually trapped in combat on the drop.
For casual games? Crack on. They'll always be good against people who don't build optimized lists, or don't play (reasonably) optimally. They'll be a blast, as they always have been, when they can get Cacophony off or when they can shoot at targets that don't have invulns/minuses to hit, and they're a lot of fun when they roll well.
Just don't kid yourselves that you're making an optimized choice.
Ap0k wrote: I give up trying to explain how terrible these guys are going to be.
Nothing will convince some of you folks until you play with them yourselves and see your 360~pt unit vaporised or perpetually trapped in combat on the drop.
For casual games? Crack on. They'll always be good against people who don't build optimized lists, or don't play (reasonably) optimally. They'll be a blast, as they always have been, when they can get Cacophony off or when they can shoot at targets that don't have invulns/minuses to hit, and they're a lot of fun when they roll well.
Just don't kid yourselves that you're making an optimized choice.
All my lists are medium-optimization at worst and I'm telling you the new Oblits are fine.
Four wounds is pretty helpful against some match ups since 3D and lucky d3D weapons don't immediately take out 4 shots.
+1T is pretty helpful against many infantry and anti-tank weapons since wounding is -1 for S4, S8/9. S7 stuff is usually not D4+.
Like terminators the 5++ is limited but not 100% useless and didn't change anyways.
Sure, one full squad of 3 will cost notably more but also give 50% more firepower on the turn they come in on. Endless cacophony is still great on them, but if Vect comes out the DE players is likely down 4CP vs maybe 2.
Randumb is not ideal, I don't like it, and at worst they're way overpriced for a the offense. Thing is they aren't that fragile. Killing them will take heat off of other units.
As for the helbrute comparison. Newblits get 6 shots while a dedicated ranged helbrute gets 3. Brute has better range but penalty for moving or eating up CP. Brute also takes full damage from 5/6D hits that wouldn't spill over for oblits. Oblits get to buff 3 of them in 1 strat like VotLW or EC. More shots and strat milage, less defense, CC weapon that doesn't take away from ranged. I don't think the change is strictly bad.
Oh and not using EC doesn't mean they don't get the base shots. It's certainly less pts efficient but vect doesn't negate them entirely, just half.
Ap0k wrote: I give up trying to explain how terrible these guys are going to be.
Nothing will convince some of you folks until you play with them yourselves and see your 360~pt unit vaporised or perpetually trapped in combat on the drop.
For casual games? Crack on. They'll always be good against people who don't build optimized lists, or don't play (reasonably) optimally. They'll be a blast, as they always have been, when they can get Cacophony off or when they can shoot at targets that don't have invulns/minuses to hit, and they're a lot of fun when they roll well.
Just don't kid yourselves that you're making an optimized choice.
*Godfathers Blessing+Fleshy Abundence+Sacrifice
Nurgle Oblits will be a bitch to remove from anywhere.
*Weaver of fates+Cursed Earth
Tzeentch Oblits will have a 2+/3++ making them difficult to kill in general.
*Delightful Agonies+Cursed Earth
Slaanesh Oblits will have a 2+/4++/5+++ save.
Khorne players should get more spells :p
Offensively they all get access to prescience and infernal power which means they can be hitting on 2s rerolling.
Tzeentch players can cast flickering flames and will be wounding everything below T8 on 2s rerolling 1s.
Slaanesh Players can have them shoot twice. Bringing them to 36 shots.
Nurgle Players don't have to do a bunch of damage because they will have a full squad of Oblits at the end of the game.
Tzeentch and Slaanesh players can down a Castellian in 1 turn with proper support.
Ap0k wrote: I give up trying to explain how terrible these guys are going to be.
Nothing will convince some of you folks until you play with them yourselves and see your 360~pt unit vaporised or perpetually trapped in combat on the drop.
For casual games? Crack on. They'll always be good against people who don't build optimized lists, or don't play (reasonably) optimally. They'll be a blast, as they always have been, when they can get Cacophony off or when they can shoot at targets that don't have invulns/minuses to hit, and they're a lot of fun when they roll well.
Just don't kid yourselves that you're making an optimized choice.
They're a scissors that will meet paper from time to time - that's the nature of a competitive setting. For the most part, they will do quite well and god help the opponent for when they can't deal with them or they whiff when trying to get rid of them. And if they focus a whole army to take them out, well congratulations you've invested far more than their points to remove them - now deal with the other 1800 points shooting back at you unharmed.
Ap0k wrote: I give up trying to explain how terrible these guys are going to be.
Nothing will convince some of you folks until you play with them yourselves and see your 360~pt unit vaporised or perpetually trapped in combat on the drop.
For casual games? Crack on. They'll always be good against people who don't build optimized lists, or don't play (reasonably) optimally. They'll be a blast, as they always have been, when they can get Cacophony off or when they can shoot at targets that don't have invulns/minuses to hit, and they're a lot of fun when they roll well.
Just don't kid yourselves that you're making an optimized choice.
They're a scissors that will meet paper from time to time - that's the nature of a competitive setting. For the most part, they will do quite well and god help the opponent for when they can't deal with them or they whiff when trying to get rid of them. And if they focus a whole army to take them out, well congratulations you've invested far more than their points to remove them - now deal with the other 1800 points shooting back at you unharmed.
Ap0k wrote: I give up trying to explain how terrible these guys are going to be.
Nothing will convince some of you folks until you play with them yourselves and see your 360~pt unit vaporised or perpetually trapped in combat on the drop.
For casual games? Crack on. They'll always be good against people who don't build optimized lists, or don't play (reasonably) optimally. They'll be a blast, as they always have been, when they can get Cacophony off or when they can shoot at targets that don't have invulns/minuses to hit, and they're a lot of fun when they roll well.
Just don't kid yourselves that you're making an optimized choice.
But isn't your argument basically "DE/GSC exist, so Oblits suck"? That seems like an extremely narrow-minded viewpoint.
For me the only real part that bugs me is it looks more and more like 2 will cost the same as 3 used to. That just doesn't sit right with me at all, even if they got buffs.
Ap0k wrote: I give up trying to explain how terrible these guys are going to be.
Nothing will convince some of you folks until you play with them yourselves and see your 360~pt unit vaporised or perpetually trapped in combat on the drop.
For casual games? Crack on. They'll always be good against people who don't build optimized lists, or don't play (reasonably) optimally. They'll be a blast, as they always have been, when they can get Cacophony off or when they can shoot at targets that don't have invulns/minuses to hit, and they're a lot of fun when they roll well.
Just don't kid yourselves that you're making an optimized choice.
But isn't your argument basically "DE/GSC exist, so Oblits suck"? That seems like an extremely narrow-minded viewpoint.
For me the only real part that bugs me is it looks more and more like 2 will cost the same as 3 used to. That just doesn't sit right with me at all, even if they got buffs.
That's because it's an over-all nerf, and a mandatory one to boot.
If they do get bumped up to 120 points a piece I am of the personal experience that they are a bit to expensive for a gun that isn't reliable. At their old cost it wasn't as huge of a deal. I could shoot them at a variety of targets and hope my other anti-armor weapons could pick up the slack. Now they are taking up double the points and I have to remove some of those other anti-tank options from my list to make room. If I don't roll good on their guns its going to suck pretty hard now. I know there are new spells and stuff that can buff them up to be better but now we are talking about investing more points into making something better that is at the mercy of dice the dice gods. I am also not a huge fan of the new new melee profile. Its points wasted on something that is not really going to save them from being locked into CC. I am more than willing to give them a try when they come out thought. Still hoping there is a new rule in Shadowspear that will allow 1ksons and DG to take them without having to ally in a CSM detatchment.
But isn't your argument basically "DE/GSC exist, so Oblits suck"?
I mean, yeah. That's part of the reason nobody really uses them right now.
You are building a list and you need AV. You don't know what armies you might fight into.
Do you pick the unit that needs Stratagems to offset the fact they're a suicide drop, or do you pick 2 naked Deredeo's that don't rely on stratagems at all? Hell, even a Butcher Contemptor is only 20ish points more than one of these guys.
Ap0k wrote: Do you pick the unit that needs Stratagems to offset the fact they're a suicide drop, or do you pick 2 naked Deredeo's that don't rely on stratagems at all? Hell, even a Butcher Contemptor is only 20ish points more than one of these guys.
Also significantly more durable, more shots, better BS, for 138 points the Contemptor w/ Butchers is pretty amazing and definitely bursts the new Obliterator bubble. Especially given that it's not confused about what it's job is supposed to be.
That being said, many here will call this an invalid comparison because it's FW, which means it's some form of cheating or some such, I haven't bothered to get the logic clarified.
Ap0k wrote: Do you pick the unit that needs Stratagems to offset the fact they're a suicide drop, or do you pick 2 naked Deredeo's that don't rely on stratagems at all? Hell, even a Butcher Contemptor is only 20ish points more than one of these guys.
Also significantly more durable, more shots, better BS, for 138 points the Contemptor w/ Butchers is pretty amazing and definitely bursts the new Obliterator bubble. Especially given that it's not confused about what it's job is supposed to be.
That being said, many here will call this an invalid comparison because it's FW, which means it's some form of cheating or some such, I haven't bothered to get the logic clarified.
It's not a likewise comparison - the strength of obliterators is packing in a ton of buffs while they stay safely in the cloud. A contemptor can be shot off turn 1. Is that better than obliterators being shot off after they deliver their payload?
I'm not personally planning to use obliterators, because I don't like making that investment. I *would* rather have a contemptor, or, singular obliterators sitting on an objective in cover.
At 130 Venomcrawler is hot garbage. That's Maulerfiend territory. MAYBE if we get the Baleflamer variant it might make it worthwhile (but who knows what that will increase on points)
Oblit at 115 I think is too much, but not so far as to be useless. I'd have said 100 would be the max (so its 5 points more for 2 buffed than 3 unbuffed) but this is 35 points more. A TL Lascannon+Fist Helbrute is 130 points.
There is no way that the venomcrawler is worth 130 pts. A Defiler body is 120. Master of possession goes in line with the thousand sons sorcerer but has an extra ability so that's nice. CSM at 13 pts yay babe. Buy a chaos space marine with a bolter, or two tzaangors? Hmmmmm.
Those basically all look about exactly how I'd expect them to, and unfortunately that's about 10-20% more than they should be, barring maybe the Greater Possessed.
topaxygouroun i wrote: There is no way that the venomcrawler is worth 130 pts. A Defiler body is 120.
That really depends on how many attacks the VC has. It has a mini scourge as well as more shots, more speed, more healing, and the summon thing (which is not great, but points could be ascribed to it).
VC will probably have 4 attacks with a degrading profile, maybe 6 if we're lucky. I still don't see how it's remotely better than Defiler with Scourge that comes in at 132 points. Or the Maulerfiend. Sure it has 2 mediocre guns while the mauler doesn't, I'll give it that.
He'll land in around the same cost as a regular Sorc once you add the Force Weapon.
Not really that surprising really. He's maybe even marginally better given his perils aura and 5++. Though he will likely lose out on the ability to grab a jump pack/termy armour.
97-100ish for him is no worse than existing sorcs, assuming you can make use of the powers.
Oblits at 115 doesn't come as a surprise at all.
Greater Possessed at 70 seems ok. Same price as an Exalted Champ, but can benefit from Locii. That seems mostly fair, though he has a niche purpose, so not quite as versatile as an EC.
Wayniac wrote: VC will probably have 4 attacks with a degrading profile, maybe 6 if we're lucky. I still don't see how it's remotely better than Defiler with Scourge that comes in at 132 points. Or the Maulerfiend. Sure it has 2 mediocre guns while the mauler doesn't, I'll give it that.
If you back out the BC the base of a Defiler is 98 points with 4 big claw attacks.
VC guns are likely to be worth something like 13 to 15 each. Defiler is 3 S12 AP2 D3 for 12. The VC scourge is 2 S6 AP2 D2 so 4 points. That puts the VS base at 100.
Then you need to account for the extra heal, move, and summoning junk. 10 points maybe? Puts it at 90 base. If it has 6/5/4 attacks it's a good buy. If it has 4/3/2 then it might need a 10 point drop, but there is little chance you'll see this thing much lower.
With good speed, good healing, and easy access to S9 attacks it makes for a potentially interesting monster mash with maulerfiends.
Daedalus81 wrote: If you back out the BC the base of a Defiler is 98 points with 4 big claw attacks.
VC guns are likely to be worth something like 13 to 15 each. Defiler is 3 S12 AP2 D3 for 12. The VC scourge is 2 S6 AP2 D2 so 4 points. That puts the VS base at 100.
Then you need to account for the extra heal, move, and summoning junk. 10 points maybe? Puts it at 90 base. If it has 6/5/4 attacks it's a good buy. If it has 4/3/2 then it might need a 10 point drop, but there is little chance you'll see this thing much lower.
With good speed, good healing, and easy access to S9 attacks it makes for a potentially interesting monster mash with maulerfiends.
Pretty sure it's trash you couldn't pay me to field. But I'm happy to be proven wrong.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: That being said, many here will call this an invalid comparison because it's FW, which means it's some form of cheating or some such, I haven't bothered to get the logic clarified.
Yup, why people don't like broken, obscure pay to win toys with blatantly OP rules using stratagems that were never designed for them? Crazy, isn't it?
Maybe, just maybe FW wouldn't cause that reaction if they actually could write rules, instead of producing either useless or old wraithknight tier units (and guess which subsets shows up on tables, making people allergic) but as it is, smugly putting something that should cost good 50% more points if it was any balanced at all on table and proclaiming stuff straight from the list of exploits FW is too lazy to actually rein in won't produce any other response...
TwinPoleTheory wrote: That being said, many here will call this an invalid comparison because it's FW, which means it's some form of cheating or some such, I haven't bothered to get the logic clarified.
Yup, why people don't like broken, obscure pay to win toys with blatantly OP rules using stratagems that were never designed for them? Crazy, isn't it?
Maybe, just maybe FW wouldn't cause that reaction if they actually could write rules, instead of producing either useless or old wraithknight tier units (and guess which subsets shows up on tables, making people allergic) but as it is, smugly putting something that should cost good 50% more points if it was any balanced at all on table and proclaiming stuff straight from the list of exploits FW is too lazy to actually rein in won't produce any other response...
When was the last time you saw something like that, also you can replace every instance off this with Gw and atm out off all fw products you don't see any in tournament tables soooooo.
Not to mention that fw units get balanced at the same time gw tries too, E.g. Ca.
But he keep beeing uninformed.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: That being said, many here will call this an invalid comparison because it's FW, which means it's some form of cheating or some such, I haven't bothered to get the logic clarified.
Yup, why people don't like broken, obscure pay to win toys with blatantly OP rules using stratagems that were never designed for them? Crazy, isn't it?
Maybe, just maybe FW wouldn't cause that reaction if they actually could write rules, instead of producing either useless or old wraithknight tier units (and guess which subsets shows up on tables, making people allergic) but as it is, smugly putting something that should cost good 50% more points if it was any balanced at all on table and proclaiming stuff straight from the list of exploits FW is too lazy to actually rein in won't produce any other response...
Name me 10 FW units that see regular tournament play.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: That being said, many here will call this an invalid comparison because it's FW, which means it's some form of cheating or some such, I haven't bothered to get the logic clarified.
Yup, why people don't like broken, obscure pay to win toys with blatantly OP rules using stratagems that were never designed for them? Crazy, isn't it?
One must question where all these broken units are, given that they don't appear to be particularly present in tournament lists.
Maybe, just maybe FW wouldn't cause that reaction if they actually could write rules, instead of producing either useless or old wraithknight tier units (and guess which subsets shows up on tables, making people allergic) but as it is, smugly putting something that should cost good 50% more points if it was any balanced at all on table and proclaiming stuff straight from the list of exploits FW is too lazy to actually rein in won't produce any other response...
Again...what exactly are we referring to here? How are they doing any worse than the core studio?
More to the point, most FW stuff has its costings done by the core GW studio these days anyway, and almost the entire line was up-priced into competitivr oblivion with CA2017. In fact, just about any balance query to FW over one of their models will get a bounceback to hit up the main studio about it. I'm not sure they're much in the rules business these days with Alan gone.
I can't recall any edition where FW stuff dominated. We had Malefic Lords and Earthshaker platforms at the very beginning of this edition, and those got nerfed into total pointlessness within a few months. I can't recall FW being a major consistent balance issue in any of the last several editions, certainly not anything that routinely appeared at and dominated tournaments for any length of time.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: That being said, many here will call this an invalid comparison because it's FW, which means it's some form of cheating or some such, I haven't bothered to get the logic clarified.
Yup, why people don't like broken, obscure pay to win toys with blatantly OP rules using stratagems that were never designed for them? Crazy, isn't it?
Maybe, just maybe FW wouldn't cause that reaction if they actually could write rules, instead of producing either useless or old wraithknight tier units (and guess which subsets shows up on tables, making people allergic) but as it is, smugly putting something that should cost good 50% more points if it was any balanced at all on table and proclaiming stuff straight from the list of exploits FW is too lazy to actually rein in won't produce any other response...
Name me 10 FW units that see regular tournament play.
I'll wait.
Surely these big daemons must be broken, and Krieg is guard 2.0 that actually can hit in melee, Corsairs are everywhere and renegades singlehandedly break all the metas alone!
How dare you suggest he is wrong
can't recall any edition where FW stuff dominated. We had Malefic Lords and Earthshaker platforms at the very beginning of this edition, and those got nerfed into total pointlessness within a few months. I can't recall FW being a major consistent balance issue in any of the last several editions, certainly not anything that routinely appeared at and dominated tournaments for any length of time.
Let's be honest here, malefic spam was absolute bad for the game but to point at them and say they were the Sole issue, when the model now exists basically in guard is a lie.
The main reason why they were broken was the supreme command detachment which still leads to issues, the questionable soup rules at the time and the other half called brimstone horrors.
Let's be honest here, malefic spam was absolute bad for the game but to point at them and say they were the Sole issue,
I didn't say they were the sole issue, only that they and earthshaker platforms were about the only FW things that appeared to have any major balance issues, and even then only for the briefest of periods before they got obliterated by CA2017
Let's be honest here, malefic spam was absolute bad for the game but to point at them and say they were the Sole issue,
I didn't say they were the sole issue, only that they and earthshaker platforms were about the only FW things that appeared to have any major balance issues, and even then only for the briefest of periods before they got obliterated by CA2017
Rightly so but the better way would've been to now lower the price back down after rule of three and battlbrothers, etc for the malefic and the Plattform.
That said r&h cultists, the worse cultists got also the same nerf last ca so at this point i question gw's capability.
CSM - Yeah, so unchanged.
Greater Possessed - If only they were HQ, he'd fill a tax, then! Still, he's better in melee than a Power Axe Chaos Lord for 9 points less. However said Chaos Lord provides some nice rerolls unlike the GP's meh aura.
Master of Possession - Wait? He has exactly the SAME price as a regular Sorcerer? Granted, Malefic spells are far less interesting than the Dark Hereticus discipline, but he's still got an invul and a passive anti-psyker ability over the standard psyker. Might be worth taking.
Obliterators - And they are hot steaming garbage. There are so many better options for the cost of fielding the unit.
Venomcrawler - At first glance, about as appealing as the model looks. At a second glance it might be playable if properly supported. It is almost as good in melee as a melee Helbrute and its shooting has potential. With a Master of Possession and a Greater Possessed babysitting them they might actually be useable. Just not with that model.
CSM - Yeah, so unchanged.
Greater Possessed - If only they were HQ, he'd fill a tax, then! Still, he's better in melee than a Power Axe Chaos Lord for 9 points less. However said Chaos Lord provides some nice rerolls unlike the GP's meh aura.
Master of Possession - Wait? He has exactly the SAME price as a regular Sorcerer? Granted, Malefic spells are far less interesting than the Dark Hereticus discipline, but he's still got an invul and a passive anti-psyker ability over the standard psyker. Might be worth taking.
Obliterators - And they are hot steaming garbage. There are so many better options for the cost of fielding the unit.
Venomcrawler - At first glance, about as appealing as the model looks. At a second glance it might be playable if properly supported. It is almost as good in melee as a melee Helbrute and its shooting has potential. With a Master of Possession and a Greater Possessed babysitting them they might actually be useable. Just not with that model.
Why would you fill a hq tax with gp when exalted Champions and Warpsmiths exist.
Not Online!!! wrote: Why would you fill a hq tax with gp when exalted Champions and Warpsmiths exist.
Um... Exalted Champions are only 4 points cheaper than Chaos Lords, so I don't really see why I'd ever take one.
The Warpsmith I can see the rationale, as he is our cheapest HQ while still pretty good.
Still, it doesn't change the fact that the GP would be better if he were a HQ, as it's a more valuable for slot list building than elite, since it's more efficient when it comes to squeezing out extra CP.
buddha wrote: Greater possessed appear to be elites not HQ based on the leaked sheets.
Hence why I said "If only he were HQ". He isn't, but I'd prefer if he was.
Ap0k wrote: You'll want an Exalted Champ if Mutilators get a formation/stratagem with all this new Vigilus stuff.
They're so damn close to being good right now.
There's definitely going to be some kind of Daemonkin detachment. If it makes Mutilators good, I will be mildly amazed. I'm still trying to understand why Obliterators got changed but Mutilators didn't get a similar change, surely if Obliterators have crappy power weapons now Mutilators should have crappy plasma guns, I mean, if you're going to give a unit something it never wanted, be consistent with it.
Abaddon's detachment will more than likely focus on Terminators and Chosen, which I think is a tough slog to make competitive.
The detachments I'm holding out the most hope for are Iron Warriors and Alpha Legion. Night Lords will be some horribly fidgety monstrosity where if the moon is eclipsed while the 9th planet is in ascension, it's scary, for half a round.
Word Bearers could have potential if they give them a detachment that really synergizes with the Daemons codex, but that seems unlikely.
World Eaters and Emperor's Children also have some decent potential, would love to see some real love for Noise Marines.
Ap0k wrote: You'll want an Exalted Champ if Mutilators get a formation/stratagem with all this new Vigilus stuff.
They're so damn close to being good right now.
Well, first they would need to fix the M value on them....
Renegades for Advance + Charge.
Dreadclaws can carry 1 Mutilator per transport slot due to FW's inept rules writing.
Just needs a big distraction-thirster to absorb your opponents AV for a turn.
15"+advance with the pod on T1, then 3" disembark + 4"move + advance + charge on T2.
On a unit that currently costs 105 points for 3.
500points gets you a (currently) fairly damage efficient deathstar, though you do have to build around giving your opponent more pressing targets than a flimsy drop pod.
With a solid strat/formation, they certainly have the potential.
Ap0k wrote: You'll want an Exalted Champ if Mutilators get a formation/stratagem with all this new Vigilus stuff.
They're so damn close to being good right now.
Well, first they would need to fix the M value on them....
Renegades for Advance + Charge.
Dreadclaws can carry 1 Mutilator per transport slot due to FW's inept rules writing.
Just needs a big distraction-thirster to absorb your opponents AV for a turn.
15"+advance with the pod on T1, then 3" disembark + 4"move + advance + charge on T2.
On a unit that currently costs 105 points for 3.
500points gets you a (currently) fairly damage efficient deathstar, though you do have to build around giving your opponent more pressing targets than a flimsy drop pod.
With a solid strat/formation, they certainly have the potential.
CSM - Yeah, so unchanged.
Greater Possessed - If only they were HQ, he'd fill a tax, then! Still, he's better in melee than a Power Axe Chaos Lord for 9 points less. However said Chaos Lord provides some nice rerolls unlike the GP's meh aura.
Master of Possession - Wait? He has exactly the SAME price as a regular Sorcerer? Granted, Malefic spells are far less interesting than the Dark Hereticus discipline, but he's still got an invul and a passive anti-psyker ability over the standard psyker. Might be worth taking.
Obliterators - And they are hot steaming garbage. There are so many better options for the cost of fielding the unit.
Venomcrawler - At first glance, about as appealing as the model looks. At a second glance it might be playable if properly supported. It is almost as good in melee as a melee Helbrute and its shooting has potential. With a Master of Possession and a Greater Possessed babysitting them they might actually be useable. Just not with that model.
Malefic less interesting than Dark Hereticus? Sure, it's more flat numbers than stuff like Warptime or Death Hex but I for one am looking forward to buffing my Daemon Engines through the roof. Here's to hoping that Plagueburst Crawlers are also valid targets (so I can drink my opponents tears as he tries to remove W12 T8 3+/4++/5+++ that reroll 1s to hit and wound... x3)
Pandabeer wrote: Malefic less interesting than Dark Hereticus? Sure, it's more flat numbers than stuff like Warptime or Death Hex but I for one am looking forward to buffing my Daemon Engines through the roof. Here's to hoping that Plagueburst Crawlers are also valid targets (so I can drink my opponents tears as he tries to remove W12 T8 3+/4++/5+++ that reroll 1s to hit and wound... x3)
I don't see myself using most of what Malefic has to offer, whereas Dark Hereticus has mostly interesting powers.
Cursed Earth is strong, and a power I'd probably auto-take when running a MoP, but it's not as absolutely game defining as Warptime or Prescience.
Infernal Power is okay. Less so if you've got a spare chaos lord. Plus, it affects only <Legion> Daemon units, and well... the new obliterators are too expensive and most Daemon Engines suffer from guard-level accuracy. Decimators are better, but the Soulburner loadout does not benefit from IP over a Chaos Lord.
Edit : Anyway, the Malefic Discipline is interesting, but pales somewhat before Prescience, Warptime, Death Hex or even Diabolical Strength
Not sure if this was addressed, but how are the new Oblits going to work with the old data sheet not being replaced? Unless there is to be a new Chaos codex, you can't really force someone to buy the demonkin dex just to use Oblits. I also don't think having 2 of the same unit type existing with different stats is good for the game. Perhaps GW will produce an article after release indicating that the.new replaces the old and provides the stats or just replacing Chaos codex in general. Otherwise, there is no way to legally stop someone using the old unit entry since it exists in a valid book.
bullyboy wrote: Not sure if this was addressed, but how are the new Oblits going to work with the old data sheet not being replaced? Unless there is to be a new Chaos codex, you can't really force someone to buy the demonkin dex just to use Oblits. I also don't think having 2 of the same unit type existing with different stats is good for the game. Perhaps GW will produce an article after release indicating that the.new replaces the old and provides the stats or just replacing Chaos codex in general. Otherwise, there is no way to legally stop someone using the old unit entry since it exists in a valid book.
This is, IMO, the biggest downside to a "living ruleset". It has been well established that when a new datasheet comes out, it replaces the old one. Intercessors in CA2018 is a good example, although in their case, you are just missing out on Sgt options, so no big deal.
You don't have to "force" anyone to use the new Oblit datasheet, but if both players are agreeing to use the most updated rules (which is by far the default assumption), they really should be using the Daemonkin version. And in this era of online information, it is fairly common for players to use rules they don't physically own (which is a separate issue, mind you). There are just far too many sources of rules to expect every player have every rule.
But who knows, maybe the datasheet will be updated in the digital CSM codex?
bullyboy wrote: Not sure if this was addressed, but how are the new Oblits going to work with the old data sheet not being replaced? Unless there is to be a new Chaos codex, you can't really force someone to buy the demonkin dex just to use Oblits. I also don't think having 2 of the same unit type existing with different stats is good for the game. Perhaps GW will produce an article after release indicating that the.new replaces the old and provides the stats or just replacing Chaos codex in general. Otherwise, there is no way to legally stop someone using the old unit entry since it exists in a valid book.
The only way the game can function whatsoever is if the latest datasheets and errata are used. Otherwise you're free to use pre-nerf 4ppm Conscripts, pre-nerf Celestine etc.
Because these are just Obliterators and not Adjective VerbNoun, they replace the CSM codex one wholesale. The "ethical" thing to do would be to put it in the CSM errata document, but that would cut into the shareholder profit.
Ah yes, the FAQ would be the best place. They do have to do something in official format as CA adjusted the cultist point cost. Otherwise the old entry would be a valid option. The mini dex is not available as a separate purchase either.
I do expect we'll see something to make the change.
Maybe, just maybe FW wouldn't cause that reaction if they actually could write rules, instead of producing either useless or old wraithknight tier units (and guess which subsets shows up on tables, making people allergic) but as it is, smugly putting something that should cost good 50% more points if it was any balanced at all on table and proclaiming stuff straight from the list of exploits FW is too lazy to actually rein in won't produce any other response...
Again...what exactly are we referring to here? How are they doing any worse than the core studio?
More to the point, most FW stuff has its costings done by the core GW studio these days anyway, and almost the entire line was up-priced into competitivr oblivion with CA2017. In fact, just about any balance query to FW over one of their models will get a bounceback to hit up the main studio about it. I'm not sure they're much in the rules business these days with Alan gone.
I can't recall any edition where FW stuff dominated. We had Malefic Lords and Earthshaker platforms at the very beginning of this edition, and those got nerfed into total pointlessness within a few months. I can't recall FW being a major consistent balance issue in any of the last several editions, certainly not anything that routinely appeared at and dominated tournaments for any length of time.
Are you aware that after the FW Index books, the main GW studio took over writing the 40k rules for FW? FW's staff has really been stretched thin with all the specialist games.
bullyboy wrote: Not sure if this was addressed, but how are the new Oblits going to work with the old data sheet not being replaced? Unless there is to be a new Chaos codex, you can't really force someone to buy the demonkin dex just to use Oblits. I also don't think having 2 of the same unit type existing with different stats is good for the game. Perhaps GW will produce an article after release indicating that the.new replaces the old and provides the stats or just replacing Chaos codex in general. Otherwise, there is no way to legally stop someone using the old unit entry since it exists in a valid book.
The only way the game can function whatsoever is if the latest datasheets and errata are used. Otherwise you're free to use pre-nerf 4ppm Conscripts, pre-nerf Celestine etc.
Because these are just Obliterators and not Adjective VerbNoun, they replace the CSM codex one wholesale. The "ethical" thing to do would be to put it in the CSM errata document, but that would cut into the shareholder profit.
Rules as written, rules as FAQ'd, its very clear that we must use the new Obliterator rules.
The only tiniest of caveats, you can house rule anything you want and with your opponents permission play that way; you can even play with old rules but at that point its a house rule.
bullyboy wrote: Not sure if this was addressed, but how are the new Oblits going to work with the old data sheet not being replaced? Unless there is to be a new Chaos codex, you can't really force someone to buy the demonkin dex just to use Oblits. I also don't think having 2 of the same unit type existing with different stats is good for the game. Perhaps GW will produce an article after release indicating that the.new replaces the old and provides the stats or just replacing Chaos codex in general. Otherwise, there is no way to legally stop someone using the old unit entry since it exists in a valid book.
The only way the game can function whatsoever is if the latest datasheets and errata are used. Otherwise you're free to use pre-nerf 4ppm Conscripts, pre-nerf Celestine etc.
Because these are just Obliterators and not Adjective VerbNoun, they replace the CSM codex one wholesale. The "ethical" thing to do would be to put it in the CSM errata document, but that would cut into the shareholder profit.
Rules as written, rules as FAQ'd, its very clear that we must use the new Obliterator rules.
The only tiniest of caveats, you can house rule anything you want and with your opponents permission play that way; you can even play with old rules but at that point its a house rule.
My point is that GW has a responsibility to publish the rule if the expectation is to change it and use the new one. Imagine if someone played Space Marines and the stats to the rhino changed in the BA codex. The player cannot be expected to purchase that codex because they play Ultramarines. GW would have to publish the change somewhere officially.
This is not a new chaos codex, its daemonkin and very different.
However, I do believe they will publish something within a few days after release.
I'm sure the rules will eventually become available else where. I agree with your sentiment, and I think for units like the Obliterators GW should release the rules as an errata. In this instance they're really the only unit that has this kind of updated rules in this set.
Are you aware that after the FW Index books, the main GW studio took over writing the 40k rules for FW?
Did they? Where was that stated? And what 40k rules for FW stuff there has actually been after the indices? (There was some Custodian rules, I guess.)
It was something that was stated more than once at some of FW's presentations that have happened since the beginning of the year.
In one instance I saw mentioned someone was asking if FW would be updating their 40k rules through errata or FAQ and were told the rules are being handled by the main studio so they couldn't say.
In another instance someone was asking in broad strokes if the FW Dark Mechanicum for Heresy would get a 40k rules release like the Custodians; they said was that was the plan, but they couldn't really say anything more about rules or timing because the rules were being handled by the main studio who had taken over when they restructured for all the specialist games projects.
At its peak FW was only about a dozen people. One critical member passed away and some people either moved to other places in GW or left; and whats been said are that only three designers were held on for heresy (where they had intended 4) and each of the specialist games got two designers attached to it.
bullyboy wrote: This is not a new chaos codex, its daemonkin and very different.
However, I do believe they will publish something within a few days after release.
They have stopped requiring retailers to auto re-stock the SM and CSM codices though, so let your conspiracy theories run wild.
bullyboy wrote: Not sure if this was addressed, but how are the new Oblits going to work with the old data sheet not being replaced? Unless there is to be a new Chaos codex, you can't really force someone to buy the demonkin dex just to use Oblits. I also don't think having 2 of the same unit type existing with different stats is good for the game. Perhaps GW will produce an article after release indicating that the.new replaces the old and provides the stats or just replacing Chaos codex in general. Otherwise, there is no way to legally stop someone using the old unit entry since it exists in a valid book.
The only way the game can function whatsoever is if the latest datasheets and errata are used. Otherwise you're free to use pre-nerf 4ppm Conscripts, pre-nerf Celestine etc.
Because these are just Obliterators and not Adjective VerbNoun, they replace the CSM codex one wholesale. The "ethical" thing to do would be to put it in the CSM errata document, but that would cut into the shareholder profit.
Rules as written, rules as FAQ'd, its very clear that we must use the new Obliterator rules.
The only tiniest of caveats, you can house rule anything you want and with your opponents permission play that way; you can even play with old rules but at that point its a house rule.
My point is that GW has a responsibility to publish the rule if the expectation is to change it and use the new one. Imagine if someone played Space Marines and the stats to the rhino changed in the BA codex. The player cannot be expected to purchase that codex because they play Ultramarines. GW would have to publish the change somewhere officially.
This is not a new chaos codex, its daemonkin and very different.
However, I do believe they will publish something within a few days after release.
In fairness, GW have been good recently at publishing updated datasheets which are common to multiple books - for example, the CSMFAQ includes the updated Horror datasheet from when CD came out.
I'd expect to see the new datasheet appear in the CSMFAQ somewhere between Shadowspear release day and the two-week FAQ.
aka_mythos wrote: It was something that was stated more than once at some of FW's presentations that have happened since the beginning of the year.
In one instance I saw mentioned someone was asking if FW would be updating their 40k rules through errata or FAQ and were told the rules are being handled by the main studio so they couldn't say.
In another instance someone was asking in broad strokes if the FW Dark Mechanicum for Heresy would get a 40k rules release like the Custodians; they said was that was the plan, but they couldn't really say anything more about rules or timing because the rules were being handled by the main studio who had taken over when they restructured for all the specialist games projects.
I think that's a bit of an over-reaction. Oblits were arguably too good for their cost before. This is a correction that also accommodates the new model.
Look at it this way, the old Oblits probably should have been about 75ppm. So for 3 of them that would have been 225pts. You can get 2 of the new Oblits for 230pt
For 5pts more, you get T5, which will have a significant impact on their survivability. And with 6 shots per model, 2 is the same as 3 of the old, so you get the same number of shots.
You also get the ability to take only 1, which has merit. And taking 3, while very much more expensive than before, has MUCH more buff potential
Overall, I truly think they are better than before, but you now pay for what you get. So competitively, it evens out. Oblits are still valid, but will be used differently
Players will either invest less points on just fielding units of 1 instead of the full 3 of the old, or lean into the skid and dump more points on taking even more
I did add the qualifier "arguably"
However, not being top of the meta doesn't mean a unit isn't "good for its cost"
My point is that Oldblits were good, yes, but easy to abuse (even if that abuse did not give CSMs enough of an advantage). Nublits correct that abuse, or at least force more points investment for it, but also provide a valid way to take units of just 1 Oblit, which has it's merit.
Overall the change is good, but it means a bit a thought in using them.
It does NOT mean "bye, bye Oblits"
I did add the qualifier "arguably"
However, not being top of the meta doesn't mean a unit isn't "good for its cost"
My point is that Oldblits were good, yes, but easy to abuse (even if that abuse did not give CSMs enough of an advantage). Nublits correct that abuse, or at least force more points investment for it, but also provide a valid way to take units of just 1 Oblit, which has it's merit.
Overall the change is good, but it means a bit a thought in using them.
It does NOT mean "bye, bye Oblits"
-
Oblits were good, but "easy to abuse" is reaching. They had zero flexibility, here's your 195 pt monoblock of three dudes, that's all you get. Here's your random rolls you get to find out after dropping, oops you got Damage 1, good luck kid. Now you should only play them one single way and no other, period.
A 200 pt unit that's not even in the field Turn 1 and will die on opponent's Turn 2 is not really "easy to abuse". It's not like they start in a wave serpent, pop out, shoot with no penalties with flat 3 damage weapons from 48" away and then run behind a terrain in the same turn if you know what I mean.
Oblits (and the double shooting strats in general) are a good example of the terrible game design GW has gone down with the strats.
Playing against an army with no Vect, pwn your face with double shooting for days. Oh, you have vect, this unit is now 50%+ over costed.
They fell out of favor in competitive lists once vect came out and are really dead now that GSC have it too. Doesn't help if you happen to face them without access to one of those strats...
I think that's a bit of an over-reaction. Oblits were arguably too good for their cost before. This is a correction that also accommodates the new model.
Look at it this way, the old Oblits probably should have been about 75ppm. So for 3 of them that would have been 225pts. You can get 2 of the new Oblits for 230pt
For 5pts more, you get T5, which will have a significant impact on their survivability. And with 6 shots per model, 2 is the same as 3 of the old, so you get the same number of shots.
You also get the ability to take only 1, which has merit. And taking 3, while very much more expensive than before, has MUCH more buff potential
Overall, I truly think they are better than before, but you now pay for what you get. So competitively, it evens out. Oblits are still valid, but will be used differently
Players will either invest less points on just fielding units of 1 instead of the full 3 of the old, or lean into the skid and dump more points on taking even more
-
When you look at all the Obliterator changes and their statistical impact, 5 points over 3 old Oblits for the 2 new Obliterators is what it should cost. However that calculation doesn't take into consideration that you will lose offensive firepower that much more quickly; when the old Oblits were at 50% of their wounds they retain 66% of their shooting; where the new Oblits are down to 50% of their shooting effectiveness.
I won't begin to try and assess what the old Obliterators should cost, but I think its objectively clear whatever a squad of 3 old ones should cost 2 of the new ones actually end up a break even trade off and should be priced the same as the 3 old Obliterators. I think they will eventually come down in price.
An aspect that is problematic is that when you go to plug them into an existing army... all other things being the same the cost difference means you can actually only replace your 3 old Obliterators with 1 new Obliterator; that to take 2 you will be editing down your list. Chaos not being a particularly point efficient army, losing a point efficient unit for a less efficient version, means to break even on this unit you will be diminishing some other unit in your army. Then when you look at the numbers and the reliance on buffs to live up to their cost, to optimize their performance you need to take 3.
To me all that is the meta-level equivalent of circling the drain. I still think there is a place for Obliterators; their second best optimization point is as a single mini where their potential is just slightly higher than their cost. Units of individual Obliterators are what you will see if people aren't committing to an obliterator christmas tree of buffs. Even then, given the available unit alternatives that are more cost effective than the new version I think there is a good chance you will see just a single squad of a single Obliterator in a number of armies... after things settle in and percolate through the meta.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bananathug wrote: Oblits (and the double shooting strats in general) are a good example of the terrible game design GW has gone down with the strats.
Playing against an army with no Vect, pwn your face with double shooting for days. Oh, you have vect, this unit is now 50%+ over costed.
They fell out of favor in competitive lists once vect came out and are really dead now that GSC have it too. Doesn't help if you happen to face them without access to one of those strats...
aka_mythos wrote: I won't begin to try and assess what the old Obliterators should cost, but I think its objectively clear whatever a squad of 3 old ones should cost 2 of the new ones actually end up a break even trade off and should be priced the same as the 3 old Obliterators. I think they will eventually come down in price.
I can agree with that. To GWs credit, however, it does seem like they are being a bit cautious with pricing dramatically change/new rules in most cases.
But I would certain expect a price decrease by at least CA2019, but probably sooner via a new CSM codex that might be only the way. It would make perfect sense for a new Codex to drop alongside the stand-alone boxes for the units in Shadowspear. That would be the ideal time to drop the points on the Nubilits
But I would certain expect a price decrease by at least CA2019, but probably sooner via a new CSM codex that might be only the way. It would make perfect sense for a new Codex to drop alongside the stand-alone boxes for the units in Shadowspear. That would be the ideal time to drop the points on the Nubilits
-
CSM are the first army to get an update of their codex alongside shadowspear as you are wishing. Likely to be the same point cost as the leaks as this book would have been at the printers. If there is a CA2019 price drop, it just makes a mockery of the codex.
But I would certain expect a price decrease by at least CA2019, but probably sooner via a new CSM codex that might be only the way. It would make perfect sense for a new Codex to drop alongside the stand-alone boxes for the units in Shadowspear. That would be the ideal time to drop the points on the Nubilits
-
CSM are the first army to get an update of their codex alongside shadowspear as you are wishing. Likely to be the same point cost as the leaks as this book would have been at the printers. If there is a CA2019 price drop, it just makes a mockery of the codex.
Maybe not, it's possiable the dhadowspear books where printed ages ago, heck Jes Goodwin says the design process was made when dark Imperium was being done
‘Mere Mortals’ rule can just be made out on the Black Legion preview page from Vigilus Ablaze on the WHC site. It is a rule that appears to remove Legion traits from Cultists. Not entirely surprising from a fluff perspective, but mildly demoralizing nonetheless. The new Codex looks like it will be ‘fixing’ more than a few things.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: ‘Mere Mortals’ rule can just be made out on the Black Legion preview page from Vigilus Ablaze on the WHC site. It is a rule that appears to remove Legion traits from Cultists. Not entirely surprising from a fluff perspective, but mildly demoralizing nonetheless. The new Codex looks like it will be ‘fixing’ more than a few things.
in fairness people have been saying they need a reason to take CSMs for a long time, problem is that there's little real reason to do that, if you step back and look at 40k list trends on a whole, when you have an army with 2 troops options, they'll useally take the cheaper option unless there is something compelling about chosing the other option. right now cultists are basicly just infantry with a rifle or a CCW/Pistol. CSMs meanwhile are infantry with a Rifle or a CCW. the reasons to choose CSMs over cultists aren't compelling eneugh, removjng chapter tactics from Cultists makes sense and gives CSMs that little bit more of an edge. even with that in mind I'll proably still use cultists in my CSM army. if only to pad out detachments for maximum CP gain.
But I would certain expect a price decrease by at least CA2019, but probably sooner via a new CSM codex that might be only the way. It would make perfect sense for a new Codex to drop alongside the stand-alone boxes for the units in Shadowspear. That would be the ideal time to drop the points on the Nubilits
-
CSM are the first army to get an update of their codex alongside shadowspear as you are wishing. Likely to be the same point cost as the leaks as this book would have been at the printers. If there is a CA2019 price drop, it just makes a mockery of the codex.
No it doesn’t. Hyperbolic language is hyperbolic. It’s mildly annoying from one POV; from another it’s awesome they kept playtesting and improving balance after sending a book to the printers. It takes months to print a book, hours to knock up and upload a PDF.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TwinPoleTheory wrote: ‘Mere Mortals’ rule can just be made out on the Black Legion preview page from Vigilus Ablaze on the WHC site. It is a rule that appears to remove Legion traits from Cultists. Not entirely surprising from a fluff perspective, but mildly demoralizing nonetheless. The new Codex looks like it will be ‘fixing’ more than a few things.
I can live without the miraculously stealthy blob of 40 guys with rusty guns and no training. That are somehow stealthy.
The new Codex is just an update to consolidate FAQs, update points costs from Chapter Approved and include the new Datasheets coming. It doesn't seem like a real 2.0 revision like people were expecting, say from 3.0 to 3.5 back in the day. I would be surprised if it actually updated any existing sheets that weren't already modified (e.g. Obliterators) or changed anything rules-wise. It looks like just an updated reprint and not changing the majority of the rules like, for example, the 3rd revision of the Blades of Khorne book is doing for AOS where it's actually a new codex, not just consolidating updates.
The fact their own chart shows if you already own the CSM codex you don't need to buy the "2.0" one lends credence to this idea that it won't have any major changes that we don't already know about.
Which brings up a very interesting point. We've seen at least one new model (the Lord Discordant) which, unless he's in Vigilus Ablaze, would mean there's something else coming with Datasheets. I doubt he will be in the updated codex.
What I'm really hoping is that the Big FAQ applies "Mere Mortals" to every legion (assuming Vigilus Ablaze doesn't do that already) as well as make them not affected by VOTLW and even the mark-specific stratagems.
What I'm really hoping is that the Big FAQ applies "Mere Mortals" to every legion (assuming Vigilus Ablaze doesn't do that already) as well as make them not affected by VOTLW and even the mark-specific stratagems.
Reasoning beeing?
It is one of the few actual usefull units left in the Codex.
Wayniac wrote: The new Codex is just an update to consolidate FAQs, update points costs from Chapter Approved and include the new Datasheets coming. It doesn't seem like a real 2.0 revision like people were expecting, say from 3.0 to 3.5 back in the day. I would be surprised if it actually updated any existing sheets that weren't already modified (e.g. Obliterators) or changed anything rules-wise. It looks like just an updated reprint and not changing the majority of the rules like, for example, the 3rd revision of the Blades of Khorne book is doing for AOS where it's actually a new codex, not just consolidating updates.
The fact their own chart shows if you already own the CSM codex you don't need to buy the "2.0" one lends credence to this idea that it won't have any major changes that we don't already know about.
Yeah this was my first impression when I saw the chart. It's pretty safe to assume no changes in the codex, only consolidation of changes we've had since the first Codex dropped, including the new Vigilis units.
While this is ok on the surface, I think it has poor implications for future "updates". It's very likely that after the new Chaos Codex comes out, the next Codex will be a similar Space Marine update, that is also just a consolidation of prior changes and inclusion of new units. Although it will be interesting to see if they do the same for DAs, SWs and BAs, or if you just stick with getting the Vanguard Marine book.
What I'm really hoping is that the Big FAQ applies "Mere Mortals" to every legion (assuming Vigilus Ablaze doesn't do that already) as well as make them not affected by VOTLW and even the mark-specific stratagems.
Reasoning beeing?
It is one of the few actual usefull units left in the Codex.
I also replied in the other thread, but so it's clear that Cultists are not meant to be the main unit you see in chaos armies. There's no reason cultists need to get VOTLW.
What I'm really hoping is that the Big FAQ applies "Mere Mortals" to every legion (assuming Vigilus Ablaze doesn't do that already) as well as make them not affected by VOTLW and even the mark-specific stratagems.
Reasoning beeing?
It is one of the few actual usefull units left in the Codex.
I also replied in the other thread, but so it's clear that Cultists are not meant to be the main unit you see in chaos armies. There's no reason cultists need to get VOTLW.
That would make a case if CSM actually had a fieldable unit in the troop slot other than cultists. If they think that they will make Chaos marines playable by nerfing what's left in a very underwhelming codex and still think they are going to get my money, well I do have news for them.
I can live without the miraculously stealthy blob of 40 guys with rusty guns and no training. That are somehow stealthy.
Not sure my AL opponent will be so happy.
Would be interesting if Alpha Legion Cultists kept their Legion tactics as they were actually highly trained specialists and saboteurs in the 3rd Edition Codex.
That being said I wouldn't be surprised if GW changed the AL tactic, too.
Wayniac wrote: I also replied in the other thread, but so it's clear that Cultists are not meant to be the main unit you see in chaos armies. There's no reason cultists need to get VOTLW.
I'm not quite comfortable relegating them to 'warm body' status yet. While I agree that Veterans doesn't make a lot of sense for Cultists, the Mark specific stratagems should probably still be available to them, although, without Veterans you probably aren't going to bother with any strats on them other than ToT.
I'm all for cultist losing these abilities, provided that they drop back to 4 pts and everyone else takes similar fluff based nerfs. How about we force Guard to take platoons again? Maybe we move scouts to fast attack or elites because it's clear that GW never wanted scouts as the main troop choice?
Wayniac wrote: I also replied in the other thread, but so it's clear that Cultists are not meant to be the main unit you see in chaos armies. There's no reason cultists need to get VOTLW.
I'm not quite comfortable relegating them to 'warm body' status yet. While I agree that Veterans doesn't make a lot of sense for Cultists, the Mark specific stratagems should probably still be available to them, although, without Veterans you probably aren't going to bother with any strats on them other than ToT.
We don't know what is or isn't available to Cultists yet. We just have a bit that suggests they lose Legion Traits.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
evil_kiwi_60 wrote: I'm all for cultist losing these abilities, provided that they drop back to 4 pts and everyone else takes similar fluff based nerfs. How about we force Guard to take platoons again?
Why in the world is it that people keep thinking this will fix anything?
So we're clear:
You put Guard back into Platoons, a Guard list will look like:
-1x Commander
-1x Command Squad
-2+ Infantry Squads
-Heavy Weapon, Conscript, and Special Weapon Squads to fit
All as a single Troops choice.
OR
-Scion Squad per Troop choice
Platoons were a garbage mechanism that was viable when Veterans were a Troop choice. Veterans are Elite choices now, Conscripts(who need to lose the <Regiment> keyword and go down in points as well) are Troops choices independent of the Platoon that just don't work thanks to the Commissar nerf.
Maybe we move scouts to fast attack or elites because it's clear that GW never wanted scouts as the main troop choice?
Scouts are still actually Marines.
Cultists are scum that cling to the bottom of their masters' boots.
Now, if you want to argue that Cultists should drop down to 3ppm, lose Legion traits, and can't benefit from any auras? I'm down for that.
Kanluwen wrote: We don't know what is or isn't available to Cultists yet. We just have a bit that suggests they lose Legion Traits.
Agreed, beyond losing Legion traits, which I have to say is pretty much guaranteed at this point, we don't know much. But removing Legion traits does infer a lot of other things, specifically, segregating Cultists from a lot of the Legion-specific rules, which would naturally imply certain stratagems are probably going to stop being available to them. If they lose the Heretic Astartes tag, that would be a pretty huge change.
Kanluwen wrote: We don't know what is or isn't available to Cultists yet. We just have a bit that suggests they lose Legion Traits.
Agreed, beyond losing Legion traits, which I have to say is pretty much guaranteed at this point, we don't know much. But removing Legion traits does infer a lot of other things, specifically, segregating Cultists from a lot of the Legion-specific rules, which would naturally imply certain stratagems are probably going to stop being available to them. If they lose the Heretic Astartes tag, that would be a pretty huge change.
I wouldn't be surprised if they did it similarly to the Brood Brothers unit in GSC. They retain the faction keyword but lose the <> one.
bananathug wrote: Oblits (and the double shooting strats in general) are a good example of the terrible game design GW has gone down with the strats.
Playing against an army with no Vect, pwn your face with double shooting for days. Oh, you have vect, this unit is now 50%+ over costed.
They fell out of favor in competitive lists once vect came out and are really dead now that GSC have it too. Doesn't help if you happen to face them without access to one of those strats...
GW is habitually pricing units around Strategems and buffs when it is the Strategems and buffs that should be priced around the units.
Does it matter certain Cultists can fire twice when there are already THREE Legions incapable of doing it? And then they're priced all the same?
Why in the world is it that people keep thinking this will fix anything?
So we're clear:
You put Guard back into Platoons, a Guard list will look like:
-1x Commander
-1x Command Squad
-2+ Infantry Squads
-Heavy Weapon, Conscript, and Special Weapon Squads to fit
All as a single Troops choice.
OR
-Scion Squad per Troop choice
Platoons were a garbage mechanism that was viable when Veterans were a Troop choice. Veterans are Elite choices now, Conscripts(who need to lose the <Regiment> keyword and go down in points as well) are Troops choices independent of the Platoon that just don't work thanks to the Commissar nerf.
You seem to want to kick one faction in the teeth so I figure we can just spread the love around. Platoons would be cumbersome but at least it kills the loyal 32. And fluff wise now you’ll get the actual formations in the regiments instead of a bunch of random squads running around.
Scouts are still actually Marines.
Cultists are scum that cling to the bottom of their masters'
Now, if you want to argue that Cultists should drop down to 3ppm, lose Legion traits, and can't benefit from any auras? I'm down for that.
So Deveatators are still actually marines. So are Vets and assault marines. Should they be troops too? You’re also off the mark for cultists. Yes some are just whatever crazed fantatics chaos can round up. There are plenty of other examples for legions training up disciplined units of cultists. Most notably the alpha legion makes use of that.
I’ll take your offer if conscripts lose regiment traits and can’t benefit from any aura or stratagems and infantry squads only take orders on a 4+. Do you want to make a serious offer now?
A Guard Platoon was a thing because you couldn't build an infantry list without running out of slots in the age of one-detachment armies (3e-5e). These days one Brigade gets you about three old-school platoons worth of units, and you've still got two detachments left.
If you want to punish the Loyal 32 you could punish the Loyal 32 instead of introducing unwarranted and tweaks to all Guard armies that in practice are mostly a buff to infantry-spam armies (going from 3 Platoon Commanders allowed ever to one per Troops choice?).
Scouts are still actually Marines.
Cultists are scum that cling to the bottom of their masters'
Now, if you want to argue that Cultists should drop down to 3ppm, lose Legion traits, and can't benefit from any auras? I'm down for that.
So Deveatators are still actually marines. So are Vets and assault marines. Should they be troops too? You’re also off the mark for cultists. Yes some are just whatever crazed fantatics chaos can round up. There are plenty of other examples for legions training up disciplined units of cultists. Most notably the alpha legion makes use of that.
I’ll take your offer if conscripts lose regiment traits and can’t benefit from any aura or stratagems and infantry squads only take orders on a 4+. Do you want to make a serious offer now?
Might be a saner idea to delete "Cultists" from the CSM book and release a functional/playable Renegades and Heretics/Traitor Guard book.
evil_kiwi_60 wrote: I’ll take your offer if conscripts lose regiment traits and can’t benefit from any aura or stratagems and infantry squads only take orders on a 4+. Do you want to make a serious offer now?
I'd be ok with Guardsmen getting bumped to 6ppm also, they're clearly better than Cultists and Kroot Carnivores, roughly equivalent to Storm Guardians (given the flexibility of orders and more numerous weapon options) and not as good as Fire Warriors.
evil_kiwi_60 wrote: I’ll take your offer if conscripts lose regiment traits and can’t benefit from any aura or stratagems and infantry squads only take orders on a 4+. Do you want to make a serious offer now?
I'd be ok with Guardsmen getting bumped to 6ppm also, they're clearly better than Cultists and Kroot Carnivores, roughly equivalent to Storm Guardians (given the flexibility of orders and more numerous weapon options) and not as good as Fire Warriors.
evil_kiwi_60 wrote: I’ll take your offer if conscripts lose regiment traits and can’t benefit from any aura or stratagems and infantry squads only take orders on a 4+. Do you want to make a serious offer now?
I'd be ok with Guardsmen getting bumped to 6ppm also, they're clearly better than Cultists and Kroot Carnivores, roughly equivalent to Storm Guardians (given the flexibility of orders and more numerous weapon options) and not as good as Fire Warriors.
IS currently cost 5.5 points each if you have a commander, which it seems you are factoring in your head space. IS should be at 5 top end without a commander. Probably maybe.
Just change the CP mechanic and make them less relevant overall.
Daedalus81 wrote: IS currently cost 5.5 points each if you have a commander, which it seems you are factoring in your head space. IS should be at 5 top end without a commander. Probably maybe.
Just change the CP mechanic and make them less relevant overall.
I think the small move here is to adjust the cost of a single unit, not rework fundamental mechanics that touch every army and book released in the entire game.
Daedalus81 wrote: IS currently cost 5.5 points each if you have a commander, which it seems you are factoring in your head space. IS should be at 5 top end without a commander. Probably maybe.
Just change the CP mechanic and make them less relevant overall.
I think the small move here is to adjust the cost of a single unit, not rework fundamental mechanics that touch every army and book released in the entire game.
Because obviously it ain't the stratagems that are broken but the units.
/Sarcasm
Daedalus81 wrote: IS currently cost 5.5 points each if you have a commander, which it seems you are factoring in your head space. IS should be at 5 top end without a commander. Probably maybe.
Just change the CP mechanic and make them less relevant overall.
I think the small move here is to adjust the cost of a single unit, not rework fundamental mechanics that touch every army and book released in the entire game.
Well, it's a pretty simple mechanic that they've already changed once, so...
Daedalus81 wrote: Well, it's a pretty simple mechanic that they've already changed once, so...
Not to the extent that you're suggesting. What you're suggesting would require going back and re-assessing the cost of every unit and every stratagem in every book they've released. Adjusting the cost of Guardsmen to reflect their actual value involves significantly less, and consequently has significantly less chance of cascading problems across the entire game.
Daedalus81 wrote: Well, it's a pretty simple mechanic that they've already changed once, so...
Not to the extent that you're suggesting. What you're suggesting would require going back and re-assessing the cost of every unit and every stratagem in every book they've released. Adjusting the cost of Guardsmen to reflect their actual value involves significantly less, and consequently has significantly less chance of cascading problems across the entire game.
I think you and I have different perspectives on what we'd do there. Suffice to say that I don't have the answers, but I'm reasonably sure 6 point IS doesn't move things in the right direction.
But why do IG have to be good ? If GW is suppose to rotate lists that are good, then why shouldn't they nerf the living hell out of IG, leave eldar untouched as they seem to like them a lot, and make an army like csm the next OP army ?
Karol wrote: But why do IG have to be good ? If GW is suppose to rotate lists that are good, then why shouldn't they nerf the living hell out of IG, leave eldar untouched as they seem to like them a lot, and make an army like csm the next OP army ?
Who said they have to be good? GW isn't supposed to rotate anything. They're supposed to round the edges off stuff until we're approximately balanced. The lists will rotate themselves at that point.
MinscS2 wrote: As a mono-IG player, I would love if GW stopped nerfing my army because units from other armies become to good when they add IG to their list.
Don't nerf army X because army Y and Z becomes too good when combined with army X.
It's not so much that (although I can imagine from a mono-guard perspective it may feel that way at times), it's the simple fact that at 4ppm Guardsmen are way too good.
Also, when was the last time IG got nerfed? I must have missed that meeting.
6ppm for Guardsmen makes sense, they are clearly better than Cultists and Kroot, equivalent to Storm Guardians and not as good as Fire Warriors. Either that or 5ppm and 45 point commanders, one way or another they need to change, they are way too cheap for what they provide right now.
Karol wrote: But why do IG have to be good ? If GW is suppose to rotate lists that are good, then why shouldn't they nerf the living hell out of IG, leave eldar untouched as they seem to like them a lot, and make an army like csm the next OP army ?
Who said they have to be good? GW isn't supposed to rotate anything. They're supposed to round the edges off stuff until we're approximately balanced. The lists will rotate themselves at that point.
Well what other argument can there be made unless one wants IG to keep being good. I don't think GW wants balance, or can write anything close to balance rules. Only thing they can do, is at some time write very good rules for the army you happen to play. I don't play IG, any nerf to other armies, automaticly makes my army better, specially if the nerf is a real one, and not the types eldar get.
MinscS2 wrote: As a mono-IG player, I would love if GW stopped nerfing my army because units from other armies become to good when they add IG to their list.
Don't nerf army X because army Y and Z becomes too good when combined with army X.
It's not so much that (although I can imagine from a mono-guard perspective it may feel that way at times), it's the simple fact that at 4ppm Guardsmen are way too good.
Also, when was the last time IG got nerfed? I must have missed that meeting.
6ppm for Guardsmen makes sense, they are clearly better than Cultists and Kroot, equivalent to Storm Guardians and not as good as Fire Warriors. Either that or 5ppm and 45 point commanders, one way or another they need to change, they are way too cheap for what they provide right now.
Start of 8th?
Middle of 8th?
but he some of us are not gifted with a a mid-term Memory.
MinscS2 wrote: As a mono-IG player, I would love if GW stopped nerfing my army because units from other armies become to good when they add IG to their list.
Don't nerf army X because army Y and Z becomes too good when combined with army X.
It's not so much that (although I can imagine from a mono-guard perspective it may feel that way at times), it's the simple fact that at 4ppm Guardsmen are way too good.
So what other troop choice am I supposed to have as a Guard player?
Scions are Regiment locked to Tempestus.
Conscripts got nerfed into the ground thanks to the shift to Commissars and their points buff(and really could have been fixed by removing the <Regiment> tag and giving them a 6+ save instead of a 5+...both of which were incredibly popular suggestions at the outset of 8th).
Infantry Squads are the only <Regiment> Troops choice we have that actually is able to take the various options within the book and receive Orders reliably, but the flipside is that it is always a 10 man squad that always has one model(Sergeant) that is armed differently and thus reduces the effectiveness of the most whined about Order(FRFSRF) to 90% before any upgrades are added to the unit.
The constant whining about Infantry Squads is tiresome at this point. It never gets aimed at soup or the actual problem of shared CPs, it's always that the 4ppm Guardsmen are "way too good" and when called out as to why it just keeps coming down to "because".
Also, when was the last time IG got nerfed? I must have missed that meeting.
Commissars, Conscripts being the same price as Guardsmen, the whole of the GSC book and its mechanisms.
6ppm for Guardsmen makes sense, they are clearly better than Cultists and Kroot, equivalent to Storm Guardians and not as good as Fire Warriors. Either that or 5ppm and 45 point commanders, one way or another they need to change, they are way too cheap for what they provide right now.
6ppm doesn't make a damn bit of sense for Guardsmen when you compare their points to Rangers or Vanguard.
6ppm doesn't make a damn bit of sense when you actually realize that the army lives or dies based upon the price of those 5+, T3 models that don't get "auras" without being in Orders range of a 5+, T3 model or by paying for a Vox-Caster.
Stop trying to "fix" Guard until you're willing to sit down and realize that soup needs to be addressed first.
Daedalus81 wrote: Well, it's a pretty simple mechanic that they've already changed once, so...
Not to the extent that you're suggesting. What you're suggesting would require going back and re-assessing the cost of every unit and every stratagem in every book they've released. Adjusting the cost of Guardsmen to reflect their actual value involves significantly less, and consequently has significantly less chance of cascading problems across the entire game.
I think you and I have different perspectives on what we'd do there. Suffice to say that I don't have the answers, but I'm reasonably sure 6 point IS doesn't move things in the right direction.
It doesn't and it never will. That's the problem here: people focus upon the "points! points! points!" nonsense without recognizing the mechanisms of the game.
Kanluwen wrote: Stop trying to "fix" Guard until you're willing to sit down and realize that soup needs to be addressed first.
As Lord Commander of the Guard apologists I understand your position.
However, I disagree, you're supposed to pay more for those troops. Just like Chaos did when they increased the cost of Cultists, just like Orks did when they adjusted the cost of Boyz, strangely, they were able to *somehow* soldier on, so my answer to you would be to, soldier on.
Again, what you're proposing involves re-writing, re-working, and re-costing every codex, unit and model in the game as well as all the stratagems.
The other solution is to adjust the cost of a single unit that has proven to be problematic repeatedly. I love how Guard apologists would rather light the entire game on fire than acknowledge a problem with a single unit in their own codex. So Commissars and Conscripts got nerfed...almost two years ago, clearly you have been cursed, GW is clearly out to get you.
Kanluwen wrote: Stop trying to "fix" Guard until you're willing to sit down and realize that soup needs to be addressed first.
As Lord Commander of the Guard apologists I understand your position.
However, I disagree, you're supposed to pay more for those troops. Just like Chaos did when they increased the cost of Cultists, just like Orks did when they adjusted the cost of Boyz, strangely, they were able to *somehow* soldier on, so my answer to you would be to, soldier on.
There are some Ork players who won't stop whining about Guard being less points while ignoring they have higher Toughness, variable squad sizes, and generally aren't useless in CC.
Cultists having their cost increased was a mistake--but at the same time, you have variable squad sizes for them and they are meant to be chaff for the army. The common refrain was "Cultists should be just like Conscripts!"...but quite a few Guard players were trying to get Conscripts nerfed in a more sensible way that left them with a viable role.
T3 BS/WS5+ S3 1W LD3-4, M6" with a 6+ save and both maybe having a weapon called "Improvised Firearms" with 18" Assault 2 S2 0AP 1D .
That's what Conscripts and Cultists should be for a 3ppm unit--just with Cultists getting the option for CCW+pistols and specials for every 1 in 10.
Again, what you're proposing involves re-writing, re-working, and re-costing every codex, unit and model in the game as well as all the stratagems.
Nope, it really doesn't.
Literally all that needed to happen is what happened with GSC and their "Brood Brothers" special rule. Any Guard Detachments you take in a non-Guard army(one led by a non-Guard Warlord--and give Guard specifically a trait in their book that says they cannot have a Warlord except as a Specialist Detachment when the army includes non-Guard Detachments)cannot include special characters and add half the CP value for the Detachment.
The other solution is to adjust the cost of a single unit that has proven to be problematic repeatedly. I love how Guard apologists would rather light the entire game on fire than acknowledge a problem with a single unit in their own codex. So Commissars and Conscripts got nerfed...almost two years ago, clearly you have been cursed, GW is clearly out to get you.
Because the problem isn't with the damn infantry squads!
Seriously, you people keep focusing upon Infantry Squads and ignoring the reason they're there:
To feed cheap CPs into the armies to do other things and add "board control".
Kanluwen wrote: Stop trying to "fix" Guard until you're willing to sit down and realize that soup needs to be addressed first.
As Lord Commander of the Guard apologists I understand your position.
However, I disagree, you're supposed to pay more for those troops. Just like Chaos did when they increased the cost of Cultists, just like Orks did when they adjusted the cost of Boyz, strangely, they were able to *somehow* soldier on, so my answer to you would be to, soldier on.
There are some Ork players who won't stop whining about Guard being less points while ignoring they have higher Toughness, variable squad sizes, and generally aren't useless in CC.
Cultists having their cost increased was a mistake--but at the same time, you have variable squad sizes for them and they are meant to be chaff for the army. The common refrain was "Cultists should be just like Conscripts!"...but quite a few Guard players were trying to get Conscripts nerfed in a more sensible way that left them with a viable role.
T3 BS/WS5+ S3 1W LD3-4, M6" with a 6+ save and both maybe having a weapon called "Improvised Firearms" with 18" Assault 2 S2 0AP 1D .
That's what Conscripts and Cultists should be for a 3ppm unit--just with Cultists getting the option for CCW+pistols and specials for every 1 in 10.
Again, what you're proposing involves re-writing, re-working, and re-costing every codex, unit and model in the game as well as all the stratagems.
Nope, it really doesn't.
Literally all that needed to happen is what happened with GSC and their "Brood Brothers" special rule. Any Guard Detachments you take in a non-Guard army(one led by a non-Guard Warlord--and give Guard specifically a trait in their book that says they cannot have a Warlord except as a Specialist Detachment when the army includes non-Guard Detachments)cannot include special characters and add half the CP value for the Detachment.
The other solution is to adjust the cost of a single unit that has proven to be problematic repeatedly. I love how Guard apologists would rather light the entire game on fire than acknowledge a problem with a single unit in their own codex. So Commissars and Conscripts got nerfed...almost two years ago, clearly you have been cursed, GW is clearly out to get you.
Because the problem isn't with the damn infantry squads!
Seriously, you people keep focusing upon Infantry Squads and ignoring the reason they're there:
To feed cheap CPs into the armies to do other things and add "board control".
We already proved Infantry to be a mathematical problem. What more do you want?
Continuity wrote: As a chaos player, I would happily pay 5pt for guardsmen with MMM, the take cover stratagem, and literally no guns
No, you wouldn't. You people constantly say this and yet ignore that it will never be "5pts for guardsmen with MMM".
You're having to pay also for the Officer issuing the Order and he is having to be sat within range, and "Take Cover!" requires the unit to be getting shot at.
We already proved Infantry to be a mathematical problem. What more do you want?
Math doesn't mean jack when you're chasing metas. Anyone and everyone with two brain cells to rub together should know that nerfing Infantry Squads will do nothing but harm Guard armies and change the Loyal 32 to whatever quippy name you scrubs come up with for the replacement.
Kanluwen wrote: Math doesn't mean jack when you're chasing metas. Anyone and everyone with two brain cells to rub together should know that nerfing Infantry Squads will do nothing but harm Guard armies and change the Loyal 32 to whatever quippy name you scrubs come up with for the replacement.
The issue with the Loyal 32 is that they are cheap, generate lots of CP, have a LOT of dakka and are good at capping objectives. If you "force" everyone to move to AdMech battalions, you lose half of their appeal since the Rusty 17 can't cap objectives effectively and have poor dakka. They also have half the wounds.
Kanluwen wrote: No, you wouldn't. You people constantly say this and yet ignore that it will never be "5pts for guardsmen with MMM".
Yes, I would. How do I know this? Because I would take them at 5ppm with no orders and no synergy whatsoever. Why? Because even then, they are better than Cultists.
Furthermore, your convoluted solution would have cascading effects across the every Imperial Codex in the game, unless you're really naive enough to say that none of the Imperium armies were built with the idea of Guard allies in mind. I mean, I guess you could say that, but that is putting some amazing willpower into your confirmation bias. We won't even mention that increasing the cost of Guardsmen would accomplish the same thing with a far simpler solution.
So again, suck it up, soldier on. You are not being oppressed.
Kanluwen wrote: No, you wouldn't. You people constantly say this and yet ignore that it will never be "5pts for guardsmen with MMM".
Yes, I would. How do I know this? Because I would take them at 5ppm with no orders and no synergy whatsoever. Why? Because even then, they are better than Cultists.
Furthermore, your convoluted solution would have cascading effects across the every Imperial Codex in the game, unless you're really naive enough to say that none of the Imperium armies were built with the idea of Guard allies in mind. I mean, I guess you could say that, but that is putting some amazing willpower into your confirmation bias. We won't even mention that increasing the cost of Guardsmen would accomplish the same thing with a far simpler solution.
So again, suck it up, soldier on. You are not being oppressed.
Dude calm down. First you call him generalfield Marshall of the apologists and now you step even further out and claim that he complains about beeing oppressed whilest all he has done is counter arguing your points.
Kanluwen wrote: No, you wouldn't. You people constantly say this and yet ignore that it will never be "5pts for guardsmen with MMM".
Yes, I would. How do I know this? Because I would take them at 5ppm with no orders and no synergy whatsoever. Why? Because even then, they are better than Cultists.
No, you wouldn't. You'll say you will on the internet but when push comes to shove---you aren't doing it.
And again:
Why shouldn't they be better than Cultists? They're Guardsmen, part of an actual fighting force rather than a bunch of hooligans that are driven in front of the main advance as bullet sponges.
Furthermore, your convoluted solution would have cascading effects across the every Imperial Codex in the game, unless you're really naive enough to say that none of the Imperium armies were built with the idea of Guard allies in mind. I mean, I guess you could say that, but that is putting some amazing willpower into your confirmation bias. We won't even mention that increasing the cost of Guardsmen would accomplish the same thing with a far simpler solution.
You might want to talk with the game designers then, because that's what they say they do.
I mean, you lot constantly whine about playtesting and "how did they miss X, Y, Z!". The answer is because they're building the game around pure armies, not the watered down trash that you people run.
And no actually, "increasing the cost of Guardsmen" wouldn't accomplish the same thing except for garbage soup lists. It screws up purely Guard armies(which I literally put a safeguard in as part of my "convoluted solution") to protect the trash that people who are doing nothing but chasing the meta are fielding.
So again, suck it up, soldier on. You are not being oppressed.
And you're not being nerfed by having your bullet sponge unit losing their access to traits they never should have had in the first place. Suck it up, traitor on.
And you're not being nerfed by having your bullet sponge unit losing their access to traits they never should have had in the first place. Suck it up, traitor on.
Are you honestly arguing that cultists should be more expensive and trait less compared to guardsmen?
And you're not being nerfed by having your bullet sponge unit losing their access to traits they never should have had in the first place. Suck it up, traitor on.
Are you honestly arguing that cultists should be more expensive and trait less compared to guardsmen?
Nope.
I'm arguing that they never should have had traits in the first place--just like Conscripts never should have. Both should have been cheap units(3pts) with garbage stats and a garbage S2 AP0 1D weapon that had a short range and Assault instead of RF. The whole point of those units literally should have been to take up space and maybe hurt something.
I'm also willing to wildly speculate at this point that we're going to see the Renegade Guardsmen profile that we have in Blackstone Fortress and the Beastmen potentially make an appearance in the updated CSM book.
What better way to differentiate between Cultists and Renegade Guardsmen than one having access to traits and the other not? I mean, would it not make sense for the Renegade Guardsmen to have training that has 'adapted' to what the Legions they fight alongside of do?
And you're not being nerfed by having your bullet sponge unit losing their access to traits they never should have had in the first place. Suck it up, traitor on.
Are you honestly arguing that cultists should be more expensive and trait less compared to guardsmen?
Nope.
I'm arguing that they never should have had traits in the first place--just like Conscripts never should have. Both should have been cheap units(3pts) with garbage stats and a garbage S2 AP0 1D weapon that had a short range and Assault instead of RF. The whole point of those units literally should have been to take up space and maybe hurt something.
I'm also willing to wildly speculate at this point that we're going to see the Renegade Guardsmen profile that we have in Blackstone Fortress and the Beastmen potentially make an appearance in the updated CSM book.
What better way to differentiate between Cultists and Renegade Guardsmen than one having access to traits and the other not? I mean, would it not make sense for the Renegade Guardsmen to have training that has 'adapted' to what the Legions they fight alongside of do?
No, disagree the cultists in the csm are a catch all name and in case of some legions are better trained then others. Cough al cough.
Also traitor guardsmen need to go in a propper lost and the damned /R&H list.
Not Online!!! wrote: Dude calm down. First you call him generalfield Marshall of the apologists and now you step even further out and claim that he complains about beeing oppressed whilest all he has done is counter arguing your points.
He countered my point with exactly what I said would happen, a wildly convoluted solution in service to his own desperate need to preserve the state of his precious guard, at the expense of the rest of the game. I find his arguments and stances to be utterly disingenuous, he would literally light every other codex in the game on fire to keep Guardsmen at 4ppm.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: No, you wouldn't. You'll say you will on the internet but when push comes to shove---you aren't doing it.
Also, I would, every day of the week and twice on Sunday, it's not even vaguely close.
Not Online!!! wrote: Dude calm down. First you call him generalfield Marshall of the apologists and now you step even further out and claim that he complains about beeing oppressed whilest all he has done is counter arguing your points.
He countered my point with exactly what I said would happen, a wildly convoluted solution in service to his own desperate need to preserve the state of his precious guard, at the expense of the rest of the game. I find his arguments and stances to be utterly disingenuous, he would literally light every other codex in the game on fire to keep Guardsmen at 4ppm.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: No, you wouldn't. You'll say you will on the internet but when push comes to shove---you aren't doing it.
Also, I would, every day of the week and twice on Sunday, it's not even vaguely close.
Jesus can you two stop, take a step back and actually consider the others argument?
Kanluwen has a point guardsmen beeing 4 ppm is not an issue for a mono guard army. In fact most IoM armies are also not built with ally consideration, even Knights.
The problem is fundamentaly at the core mechanic of CP / soup interaction.
However, guardsmen could easily be pushed to 5 ppm if we consider the cultist to be his equal. If GW goes through with the nerf for them in regards to traits this would however not be justifiable for IG squads to stay at 4 ppm.
Not to mention that Conscripts would finally see play again at 4 ppm if infantry would be moved up.
However gw has recently pushed down veterans to 5 ppm in order to promote people using them, completly disregarding the fact that at 6ppm as a Troop choice they would've seen play.
Not Online!!! wrote: Kanluwen has a point guardsmen beeing 4 ppm is not an issue for a mono guard army. In fact most IoM armies are also not built with ally consideration, even Knights.
The problem is fundamentaly at the core mechanic of CP / soup interaction.
This solution is called 9th edition. Perhaps we advocate for a solution that is not 9th edition before we light this entire edition on fire, perhaps we take the utterly radical step of adjusting a single model's points before we toss the entire edition in the trash can.
I also disagree on the problem, CP/soup interaction is the boogieman that's supposedly in your closet, it's a red herring. Furthermore, radically re-writing it instead of adjusting the points on one obviously problematic model is like euthanizing your dog because it crapped on your carpet.
Not Online!!! wrote: However, guardsmen could easily be pushed to 5 ppm if we consider the cultist to be his equal.
I do not, not even close, give them a 5+ save and you take a small step towards even, then you have to add +1 LD, then you might start to get close. But that doesn't come close to accounting for the vast disparity in weapons availability. That doesn't even touch on orders by the way, which I'm aware comes at a tax. Of course, providing LD for Cultists currently has a significantly higher tax.
They are much closer to Storm Guardians than they are to Chaos Cultists.
Not Online!!! wrote: If GW goes through with the nerf for them in regards to traits this would however not be justifiable for IG squads to stay at 4 ppm.
This is not a matter of going through, this is printed and done.
I'm open to the idea of increasing the cost of Company Commanders also, bump them up to 45 ppm I think that solves a lot of problems also. Veterans at 5ppm is absurd also, that just boggles the mind when looking at Chaos Cultists.
This solution is called 9th edition. Perhaps we advocate for a solution that is not 9th edition before we light this entire edition on fire, perhaps we take the utterly radical step of adjusting a single model's points before we toss the entire edition in the trash can.
I also disagree on the problem, CP/soup interaction is the boogieman that's supposedly in your closet, it's a red herring. Furthermore, radically re-writing it instead of adjusting the points on one obviously problematic model is like euthanizing your dog because it crapped on your carpet.
First, stop delegtimising all arguments about soup and cp interaction as a Red Hering, seriously you Start to sound like a broken record and it is considered a Totschlag argument, one which can not be argued against because it supposedly drafts from a higher legitimiced position (E.g. Arguing with the Bible).
It is regarded as impolite and used only by people not beeing capable to argue propperly.
Also so long ion bullwark exists so long you can not argue that soup was intended for balance and that therefore we should balance according to soup. Because clearly gw doesn't.
Secondly: we don't have this yet black on white that all legions will suffer from the Mere Mortals rule. So stop this instant putting it up as a strawman.
Thirdly: yes there can be a valid argument made between 5 ppm guardsmen and 5 ppm cultists, mainly based around traits, auras and imunity of morale aswell as weapons. So yes the comparison holds closer then you think.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Yeah, Cultists without any traits at 4 points is totally equal to 4 point Infantry with traits. Makes sense. Totally.
Pretty sure I said traitless Cultists should be 3ppm, same as Conscripts(who should absolutely lose <Regiment>, be bumped to a 6+ save, and "Raw Recruits" should be dealing with them using nearby LD rather than receiving Orders) and that both units should have their guns reduced to a S2 AP0 1D 18" Assault 2 weapon.
And you're not being nerfed by having your bullet sponge unit losing their access to traits they never should have had in the first place. Suck it up, traitor on.
Are you honestly arguing that cultists should be more expensive and trait less compared to guardsmen?
Nope.
I'm arguing that they never should have had traits in the first place--just like Conscripts never should have. Both should have been cheap units(3pts) with garbage stats and a garbage S2 AP0 1D weapon that had a short range and Assault instead of RF. The whole point of those units literally should have been to take up space and maybe hurt something.
I'm also willing to wildly speculate at this point that we're going to see the Renegade Guardsmen profile that we have in Blackstone Fortress and the Beastmen potentially make an appearance in the updated CSM book.
What better way to differentiate between Cultists and Renegade Guardsmen than one having access to traits and the other not? I mean, would it not make sense for the Renegade Guardsmen to have training that has 'adapted' to what the Legions they fight alongside of do?
No, disagree the cultists in the csm are a catch all name and in case of some legions are better trained then others. Cough al cough.
And yet you would be better off to have Renegade Guardsmen and Cultists in the book to open up some more options. Much like how GSC had their "catch-all name" of "Neophyte Hybrids" broken up into "Hybrids" and "Brood Brothers" to represent the difference.
Also traitor guardsmen need to go in a propper lost and the damned /R&H list.
Kanluwen wrote: Stop trying to "fix" Guard until you're willing to sit down and realize that soup needs to be addressed first.
As Lord Commander of the Guard apologists I understand your position.
However, I disagree, you're supposed to pay more for those troops. Just like Chaos did when they increased the cost of Cultists, just like Orks did when they adjusted the cost of Boyz, strangely, they were able to *somehow* soldier on, so my answer to you would be to, soldier on.
Again, what you're proposing involves re-writing, re-working, and re-costing every codex, unit and model in the game as well as all the stratagems.
The other solution is to adjust the cost of a single unit that has proven to be problematic repeatedly. I love how Guard apologists would rather light the entire game on fire than acknowledge a problem with a single unit in their own codex. So Commissars and Conscripts got nerfed...almost two years ago, clearly you have been cursed, GW is clearly out to get you.
I think this pretty clearly shows you don't know what the feth you're talking about. The points increase to boyz resulted in a mass drop of boys in list to be replaced by grots as better CP farms/screen, while boys themselves are taken based sole to the ability of an individual list to throw them across the board with Tellyporta/Da Jump/Dead Sneaky. The reason Orks players "soldier on" is because most people want to play the game even with weakened armies, not because we collectedly decided 7 point orks was a fair change.
And yet you would be better off to have Renegade Guardsmen and Cultists in the book to open up some more options. Much like how GSC had their "catch-all name" of "Neophyte Hybrids" broken up into "Hybrids" and "Brood Brothers" to represent the difference.
Still disagree, instead i would go about to split off seperate units from them: AL gets Saboteurs / agents which would be scout equivalent.
IW would get quasi traitor guard. (equipment wise atleast)
The rest should get cultists.
That is how it should be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pretty sure I said traitless Cultists should be 3ppm, same as Conscripts(who should absolutely lose <Regiment>, be bumped to a 6+ save, and "Raw Recruits" should be dealing with them using nearby LD rather than receiving Orders) and that both units should have their guns reduced to a S2 AP0 1D 18" Assault 2 weapon.
Nope that suggestion still is bad. Also shows that the simplification of the S to T value was a bad thing overall.
Not Online!!! wrote: First, stop delegtimising all arguments about soup and cp interaction as a Red Hering, seriously you Start to sound like a broken record and it is considered a Totschlag argument, one which can not be argued against because it supposedly drafts from a higher legitimiced position (E.g. Arguing with the Bible).
It is regarded as impolite and used only by people not beeing capable to argue propperly.
Actually, red herring is totally different. The equivalent to your Totschlagargument would be the appeal to authority logical fallacy, at least as you've defined it in your example of appealing to Biblical authority.
But sure, let's take it from the standpoint of 15+ years of directly managing game designers and in that entire period, you never make a huge system change before you see what the small change can accomplish, simple as that. What you are proposing is a massive change, again, shooting your dog for crapping on the carpet. This is basically tossing the edition out entirely without stopping at the 'maybe we should adjust this one thing' along the way.
Not Online!!! wrote: Also so long ion bullwark exists so long you can not argue that soup was intended for balance and that therefore we should balance according to soup. Because clearly gw doesn't.
So now we're shifting the goalposts (logical fallacy seems to be the theme)? RK vs IK pretty much sums up the balance issues there, no need to even look further. Hell, it was obvious to me the moment I looked at a Castellan compared to a Lord of Skulls. No soup required. IK have been underpriced since the moment the Codex dropped. That's an entire other rabbit hole to dive into.
Not Online!!! wrote: Secondly: we don't have this yet black on white that all legions will suffer from the Mere Mortals rule. So stop this instant putting it up as a strawman.
We do have it in black and white, imagining that this will somehow apply only to Black Legion is willfully disregarding the obvious. We can comfortably infer that this will apply to the rest of the Legions.
Not Online!!! wrote: Thirdly: yes there can be a valid argument made between 5 ppm guardsmen and 5 ppm cultists, mainly based around traits, auras and imunity of morale aswell as weapons. So yes the comparison holds closer then you think.
Morale immunity is locked to 1 special character for 240 (or more?) points that I then have to dedicate to babysitting Cultists (I'm sure this is what they intended for Abaddon the Babysitter) and 1 Legion Warlord trait. I would love to have a sub-50 point character I could dedicate to Cultist babysitting, that would be amazing.
And yet you would be better off to have Renegade Guardsmen and Cultists in the book to open up some more options. Much like how GSC had their "catch-all name" of "Neophyte Hybrids" broken up into "Hybrids" and "Brood Brothers" to represent the difference.
Still disagree, instead i would go about to split off seperate units from them: AL gets Saboteurs / agents which would be scout equivalent.
IW would get quasi traitor guard. (equipment wise atleast)
The rest should get cultists.
That is how it should be..
I must have missed that part where the Blood Pact were part of a Iron Warriors warband, or the Chosen of Nemeroth were IW derived (since they did use traitor guard that were quite effective at killing Titus dead as a door knob repeatedly...). If anything, based on what I know of the Iron Warriors, the current representation of cultist actually makes more sense as the IW view their mortal forces as disposable (also each other, but their mortal forces more so) and use them as meat shields and minefield cleaners.
Cultist basicly have the same problem as the chaos codex as a whole: meant to represent a very broad selection of different people, which is then stripped down to their least interesting elements of each for the rules. highly trained mortal chaos soldiers do exist outside of the context of Alpha Legion (again, the Blood Pact) and they deserve to be represented as much as the angry rabble up-riser .
Not Online!!! wrote: First, stop delegtimising all arguments about soup and cp interaction as a Red Hering, seriously you Start to sound like a broken record and it is considered a Totschlag argument, one which can not be argued against because it supposedly drafts from a higher legitimiced position (E.g. Arguing with the Bible).
It is regarded as impolite and used only by people not beeing capable to argue propperly.
Actually, red herring is totally different. The equivalent to your Totschlagargument would be the appeal to authority logical fallacy, at least as you've defined it in your example of appealing to Biblical authority.
But sure, let's take it from the standpoint of 15+ years of directly managing game designers and in that entire period, you never make a huge system change before you see what the small change can accomplish, simple as that. What you are proposing is a massive change, again, shooting your dog for crapping on the carpet. This is basically tossing the edition out entirely without stopping at the 'maybe we should adjust this one thing' along the way.
Not Online!!! wrote: Also so long ion bullwark exists so long you can not argue that soup was intended for balance and that therefore we should balance according to soup. Because clearly gw doesn't.
So now we're shifting the goalposts (logical fallacy seems to be the theme)? RK vs IK pretty much sums up the balance issues there, no need to even look further. Hell, it was obvious to me the moment I looked at a Castellan compared to a Lord of Skulls. No soup required. IK have been underpriced since the moment the Codex dropped. That's an entire other rabbit hole to dive into.
Not Online!!! wrote: Secondly: we don't have this yet black on white that all legions will suffer from the Mere Mortals rule. So stop this instant putting it up as a strawman.
We do have it in black and white, imagining that this will somehow apply only to Black Legion is willfully disregarding the obvious. We can comfortably infer that this will apply to the rest of the Legions.
Not Online!!! wrote: Thirdly: yes there can be a valid argument made between 5 ppm guardsmen and 5 ppm cultists, mainly based around traits, auras and imunity of morale aswell as weapons. So yes the comparison holds closer then you think.
Morale immunity is locked to 1 special character for 240 (or more?) points that I then have to dedicate to babysitting Cultists (I'm sure this is what they intended for Abaddon the Babysitter) and 1 Legion Warlord trait. I would love to have a sub-50 point character I could dedicate to Cultist babysitting, that would be amazing.
Again you are (willfully?) missinterpreting.
My argument is that you always claim Red herring, as soon someone points to soup, which is a delegtimising tactic / Totschlag argument. Therefore stop it.
Secondly: so be it i demand a radical change but to this time stay at a our dog exemple, he now has cancer ( stratagems) and a viral Infection ( cp soup interaction) .
Thirdly, you blatantly claimed before allies were considered in balance, i confronted you with a trait that in combination with a stratagem is only balanced by ammount of available cp.
How come then, if your statement is true that it is not balanced in soup? Also moving goalposts, this is not, this is a specific argument scenario that points to a obvious flaw in your logic.
Fourth: try to be informed, the cheapest total morale imunity can come on a 55ppm model. So wrong again.
And yet you would be better off to have Renegade Guardsmen and Cultists in the book to open up some more options. Much like how GSC had their "catch-all name" of "Neophyte Hybrids" broken up into "Hybrids" and "Brood Brothers" to represent the difference.
Still disagree, instead i would go about to split off seperate units from them: AL gets Saboteurs / agents which would be scout equivalent.
IW would get quasi traitor guard. (equipment wise atleast)
The rest should get cultists.
That is how it should be..
I must have missed that part where the Blood Pact were part of a Iron Warriors warband, or the Chosen of Nemeroth were IW derived (since they did use traitor guard that were quite effective at killing Titus dead as a door knob repeatedly...). If anything, based on what I know of the Iron Warriors, the current representation of cultist actually makes more sense as the IW view their mortal forces as disposable (also each other, but their mortal forces more so) and use them as meat shields and minefield cleaners.
Cultist basicly have the same problem as the chaos codex as a whole: meant to represent a very broad selection of different people, which is then stripped down to their least interesting elements of each for the rules. highly trained mortal chaos soldiers do exist outside of the context of Alpha Legion (again, the Blood Pact) and they deserve to be represented as much as the angry rabble up-riser .
I mainly stated in equipment and mostly due to their manufacturing standards and the one book about honosue and the two marines that blow up the daemoncuba, that said Yeah I belive IW would probably still Fall under worse then IG squad after giving it another thought.
Is that really your argument? I just want to be sure.
Yes, because he is objectively wrong in his statement about morale immunity which he claimed is only on a 240 pts + model.
I never stated that it would be a good idea, mostly because if you want to have a babysitter atleast pick one with a decent aura (read Chaos Lord) which incidentaly is 74 (?) don't have the book on me. So still vastly cheaper.
Not Online!!! wrote: [spoiler]Yes, because he is objectively wrong in his statement about morale immunity which he claimed is only on a 240 pts + model.
I never stated that it would be a good idea, mostly because if you want to have a babysitter atleast pick one with a decent aura (read Chaos Lord) which incidentaly is 74 (?) don't have the book on me. So still vastly cheaper.
Actually I did point out the Iron Warriors Warlord trait, but I get it, reading requires effort.
Not Online!!! wrote: [spoiler]Yes, because he is objectively wrong in his statement about morale immunity which he claimed is only on a 240 pts + model.
I never stated that it would be a good idea, mostly because if you want to have a babysitter atleast pick one with a decent aura (read Chaos Lord) which incidentaly is 74 (?) don't have the book on me. So still vastly cheaper.
Actually I did point out the Iron Warriors Warlord trait, but I get it, reading requires effort.
Ahh my bad, i was decived by your terrible Argumentation before that is based solely to delegitimising all critics off soup.
Not Online!!! wrote: Actually I did point out the Iron Warriors Warlord trait, but I get it, reading requires effort.
Ahh my bad, i was decived by your terrible Argumentation before that is based solely to delegitimising all critics off soup.
May i beg your Pardon.
Yes, well I do prefer to try to fix things with wrenches instead of explosives, there's generally more control on one as opposed to the other.
Also, you should really avoid using an appeal to authority example to refer to a red herring, confusing your logical fallacies is terribly obtuse.
Totschlag arguments do not just appeal to authority, they can.
The correct Termini it seems is :thought-terminating cliché.
Basically an argument that tries to stop all arguments.
In your case invalid delegtimisation.
Also if you find this obtuse never read Hegel.
Also fixing a problem with explosives can yield better results than a wrench, if your problem is a Rock on a mountain pass street. Also blowing up things, atleast here, is more controlled then the wrenches.
