This is a FAQ, not a CA. You will likely not see points changes, just answers to confusion about rules.
This is FAQ, they will not be introducing new chapter abilities or updating Greyknights.
The Castellan will likely not see any massive changes, like points, or weapons.
Guard will likely still be the same cost.
That being said:
I would like to see someone address what the strict definition of flyer is. Are they high up in the clouds, ala can't be assaulted by anything not a flyer, or are they hover tanks. If they are flyers, can I assume they are floating ABOVE the ruins, ala in LOS for shooting, or are they 5 feet off the ground behind it? I am sick of the "modeled for advantage" type of interceptors/suppressors/jetbikes. Either it's 5' off the ground and I can melee it, or it's 50' off, and I can't assault it without FLY.
I would like to see the Bolter rule made official, and somehow applied to Custodes, and non-RF weapons. Stalker rifles, and Auto-bolt rifles, looking at you. Not saying extra shots, but maybe overwatch help?
Finally, I want to see a judgement from GW on GK being overpowered, and nerfing them by restricting them to Paladin Squads only.
Not sure what your problem is with the definition of Flyers. It's clear and consistent (though not necessarily completely logical). You draw LoS from the model the same you would any other model in the game.
I think the bolter rules will be made official, as happened with other beta rules. I'd like to see the Fly rules they changed on the last FAQ (or was it the one before that?) changed a little bit. I'd also like to see GW address the current imbalance between soup and mono-faction armies in some way.
All I am hoping for is something to end CP farming/batteries. I don't care how extreme it is. It could be something like Brood Brothers where other detachments don't get traits and give half CP, it could be only spending CP generated from detachments on stratagems for that detachment, it could be only allowing Battalions or giving everyone a set amount of CP based on points for Matched Play for all I care. But this tumor needs to be removed once and for all.
Also, I think that GW needs to move beyond this "FAQs are only rule adjustments, CA is only points" garbage. Errata should be errata, plain and simple. Both should do whatever is needed, if that means points change in an FAQ or a datasheet gets updated in CA, so be it. The separation just allows things to dominate longer than they should and has no point to be a thing.
I'd like them to change their ruling about vertical distances in the movement phase, and how it interacts with fly:
- Distances for models with the fly keyword are measured diagonally between the starting point and the end point.
- For models that can't fly, distances are measured following the terrain: a 3" tall building is 2" away from you, you need to move 5" to get on top. So quite normal
And then allow the fly keyword to work in the charge and fight phases again.
Wayniac wrote: All I am hoping for is something to end CP farming/batteries. I don't care how extreme it is. It could be something like Brood Brothers where other detachments don't get traits and give half CP, it could be only spending CP generated from detachments on stratagems for that detachment, it could be only allowing Battalions or giving everyone a set amount of CP based on points for Matched Play for all I care. But this tumor needs to be removed once and for all.
Also, I think that GW needs to move beyond this "FAQs are only rule adjustments, CA is only points" garbage. Errata should be errata, plain and simple. Both should do whatever is needed, if that means points change in an FAQ or a datasheet gets updated in CA, so be it. The separation just allows things to dominate longer than they should and has no point to be a thing.
Keep in mind GW is in it to sell models. To that effect, they will likely never do anything to limit soup, because they want to encourage people with one army to buy allied units from another. I play Guard, but I saw Knights looked cool, so bought some of them. Custodes are cool, so I have some of them too. Space Marines? Sure, I have some of them too. If allies were discouraged like that, they'd see a reduction in sales, so they're not likely to do it. They actively encourage bringing allies in it seems. It's not going anywhere.
I'd like to see come change to the way CPs are generated. Preferably swapping the number that Battaltions and Battle-Forged grant. GW had Battalions correct at 3CPs at the start of 8E. Battle Forged should be what generated the biggest chunk of anyone's CPs. Heck, +3CPs per turn if your WL is alive would be a really cool thing for Battle-Forged to do
It wouldn't "hurt" allies at all, but it also wouldn't present such an obvious advantage for armies that can take a cheap Battalion to generate more CPs than a Mono-faction list
-------------------------------------------------- I'd also like the Bolter Discipline rule to become official, but with a slight change that incentivizes getting close somehow. Standing still should not be encouraged for frigging Marines! I think the best way to achieve this is to grant +1 shot, rather than doubling, in addition to getting double shots at half range as normal. So a Bolter Marine standing still would get 2 shots, but if they are at half range, they get 3 shots (RF1x2 +1).
This would also prevent Stormbolters/Twinbolter from getting 4 shots at 24" as they would only get 3 if stationary, Terminator, Biker, etc. But once you get within 12", those become 5 shots (RF2x2 + 1) ------------------------------------------------
The final thing I'd like to see if -1 to hit Traits addressed. Alaitoc, RG & AL could be changes to gaining Cover even in the open, or +2 if actually in Cover. Either something Cover related, or Cap Negative Hit modifiers to -2, OR grant everyone "6s always hit"
Darsath wrote: Errata to allow deployment from Night Scythes on the first turn.
Errata to allow drop pods to come in on turn 1. I never thought I would say it but I miss seeing drop pods on the table.
Perhaps an errata so that auxiliary detachments of any kind cannot take relics/whatever and do not unlock sub-faction specific stratagems.
Possibly an errata on move-blocking by supersonic flyers, seems not only weird but is being leveraged by flyer-spam lists in a way that I am fairly sure was unintended.
Oh and a bunch of minor FAQ stuff for interactions which are not always clear, I have sent a couple into the email address myself since the last FAQ drop for things that came up in games which we still could not quite figure out a week later
But really I neither expect or demand that much from this big FAQ. Earlier on in the edition they had some pretty urgent fixes to apply, now I think there is nothing too outrageous that needs a massive fix.
Galef wrote: I'd like to see come change to the way CPs are generated. Preferably swapping the number that Battaltions and Battle-Forged grant. GW had Battalions correct at 3CPs at the start of 8E. Battle Forged should be what generated the biggest chunk of anyone's CPs.
Heck, +3CPs per turn if your WL is alive would be a really cool thing for Battle-Forged to do
It wouldn't "hurt" allies at all, but it also wouldn't present such an obvious advantage for armies that can take a cheap Battalion to generate more CPs than a Mono-faction list
-
I don't know about the +3CP per turn for WL, but I like the idea of +5 for battle forged and +3 for Battalions. Make Brigades +10 while you're at it, so you don't unintentionally buff the Brigade + Castellan lists, and it sounds good to me.
Considering there isn't suppose to be any big changes in the FAQ, I hope that GW doesn't decide to change some aspect of the game based on the LVO or adepticon results, that somehow boomerang back to nerf GK. This is the only thing I hope to get out of the FAQ.
Galef wrote: I'd like to see come change to the way CPs are generated. Preferably swapping the number that Battaltions and Battle-Forged grant. GW had Battalions correct at 3CPs at the start of 8E. Battle Forged should be what generated the biggest chunk of anyone's CPs.
Heck, +3CPs per turn if your WL is alive would be a really cool thing for Battle-Forged to do
It wouldn't "hurt" allies at all, but it also wouldn't present such an obvious advantage for armies that can take a cheap Battalion to generate more CPs than a Mono-faction list
It feels like too big a change for a FAQ. Although they could try it out as a beta rule ahead of some possible 8.1 release
If so I would prefer something like
Warlord generates a number of CP per turn
3CP if your entire army shares all faction keywords with warlord (including specific exemptions such as Ratlings/Kroot etc as noted in codexes)
2CP if your entire army shares at least one faction keyword that is not Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, Ynnari or Tyranid with warlord
1CP otherwise
I can't see it happening in a FAQ but apparently GW are well aware that the balance between mono-faction armies and mash-ups is still not quite what the player base would like.
Yea, I think the biggest "systemic issue" that they could fix with a FAQ if they're not getting into points changes is the problem of small allied detachments fueling elite detachments with functionally unlimited CP.
The CP generation nerf was a helpful bandaid, but it's clear that the problem continues in almost every competitive format: Armies designed around having fewer CPs should have fewer CPs, and any army that is heavily disadvantaged because they don't have good strats for an elite CP-light army (Grey Knights for example) should be redesigned with better strats.
It's very clear from looking at the power of stratagems you can use on your Imperial Knight versus the power of stratagems you have on similar units who have access to cheap troops (See: Baneblades) GW intended certain armies' stratagems to be balanced around them having less CP.
Custodes, Blood Angels, and Knights were not designed to have 20CP and a regen every turn. They were designed to have more potent strats and a more limited pool. Allies allow a workaround and artificially increase the power of those factions, and repeatedly nerfing the units of those factions does nothing to address the core problem, which is perfect for a FAQ fix.
Simple, imperfect (but simple) blanket solutions could be:
-Detachments outside of your primary warlord's detachment generate 1/2 of the normal CP (the GSC Brood Bro rule, applied to everyone)
-You may only use Command Points generated by a particular codex's units (either from detachments or during the game) on stratagems from that codex. CPs you generate from being battleforged can be used for any codex.
I am not saying either of the two solutions above are the *best* possible solution, but they are a solution GW could implement without doing too much systemically to restructure the game.
Another change I'd like to see is a tweak to the Beta Reserves restriction.
We went from "only in your DZ turn 1" to "never on turn 1". I really think there could be a better in between. Restricting arrival of reserves on the first PLAYER turn would be more than fair. It would mean the player who got first turn is able to, ya know, GET FIRST TURN but not bring in any Reinforcements, but the player who goes second CAN bring in Reinforcements on their first turn in response.
IMO, this would make a huge difference in the first turn advantage. I mean, currently if you go second and have Reinforcements, you have to weather 2 whole opponent's turns before getting to use them! But, if you could bring in Reinforcements before your opponent, going second doesn't sting so bad
#1 - Modification to Beta Bolters.
#2 - Modification Flyers.
#3 - Modification to a few stratagems.
And that's really it. What I'd like to see is:
#1 - Beta Bolters stay the same.
#2 - Make it so that units without the Fly keyword ignore the base of a unit with the Flyer Battlefield Role when moving, charging, or making close combat attacks, and that such units can stand "under" such unit's bases in these situations, using wobbly model syndrome or similar.
#3 - Make it again so that units that can't reach a platform filled with enemy units can still make their close combat attacks against them by being counted as being in base-to-base contact while within 3" of the model's base vertically, and still within 1" of the model's base horizontally (attack up through a floor).
#4 - I know we don't see point cost changes in these things, but the Loyal 32 continues to have its presence felt very strongly. I just find it so hard to believe that Cultists keep getting nerfed, but the Guardsman remains untouched.
Imperial Knight invulnerable saves capped at 4++ as the short and dirty version.
Ion Bulwark changed to something else, like a single invul. re-roll per turn or so instead of +1 or so, as the more elegant version.
Also a generic version of Agents of Vect for all armies as a standard strat. Not gonna happen, but hey.
All Imperial Guard Orders should probably be converted to Stratagems. Having that retro-7th layer of special-snowflake rules on top of strats doesn't really do anything.
Leman Russ shooting twice should cost 2 CP like it does for everyone else.
How about changing flamers so that they can shoot at charging units regardless of how far away they started? I mean serously I shoot this giant gout of flames at a person if they start close to me but if they give me more time to react by starting farther away I get so confused that I don't fire at all. WTF?
I would be ok with this, however, I don't think it would help the abuse of it. Farseers can reroll 1 or both dice for 1 test per turn, so a WC8 power to them is roughly like a WC5-6 power for others.
I think a better fix would be to change the wording on Doom to only affect wounds caused by Asuryani units. That stops Dark Eldar from benefiting from Doom.
I would be ok with this, however, I don't think it would help the abuse of it. Farseers can reroll 1 or both dice for 1 test per turn, so a WC8 power to them is roughly like a WC5-6 power for others.
I think a better fix would be to change the wording on Doom to only affect wounds caused by Asuryani units. That stops Dark Eldar from benefiting from Doom.
-
And stops harlequins from abusing it. I'm convinced spamming haywire grenades at a doomed target is right up there with the 3++ Castellan in terms of broken overpowered things that need fixing.
I would be ok with this, however, I don't think it would help the abuse of it. Farseers can reroll 1 or both dice for 1 test per turn, so a WC8 power to them is roughly like a WC5-6 power for others.
I think a better fix would be to change the wording on Doom to only affect wounds caused by Asuryani units. That stops Dark Eldar from benefiting from Doom.
-
And stops harlequins from abusing it. I'm convinced spamming haywire grenades at a doomed target is right up there with the 3++ Castellan in terms of broken overpowered things that need fixing.
Agreed, although the former is an obvious response to the later. Remove the 3++ Castellans from the meta and packs of Haywire Harlies with Doomseers will start dropping off the meta too
I would be ok with this, however, I don't think it would help the abuse of it. Farseers can reroll 1 or both dice for 1 test per turn, so a WC8 power to them is roughly like a WC5-6 power for others.
I think a better fix would be to change the wording on Doom to only affect wounds caused by Asuryani units. That stops Dark Eldar from benefiting from Doom.
-
And stops harlequins from abusing it. I'm convinced spamming haywire grenades at a doomed target is right up there with the 3++ Castellan in terms of broken overpowered things that need fixing.
That said, spamming haywire grenades is only really up there when shooting a 3++ Castellan. Anything lighter than that, and it's not as stupendous.
Martel732 wrote: No strats, no relics, no warlord traits in the aux low slot.
Already is for Renegade Knights so would level the playing field.
Only issue with that is Guilliman and other LoW characters who cannot be fielded in anything but an aux slot.
I'd rather see it written such that, "no strats, relics, traits in an aux LoW slot unless another detachment from the codex in the same army grants at least 1 CP". So you can take Guilliman and still use strats and traits for him, so long as you've got another detachment of Ultramarines in the army go give 1 CP.
Would only really nerf Knights aux slot, which is the intent of this modification, so I think it's fine.
I don't want to get my hopes up for anything significant. I want to see specific rule changes that buff both useless rules (like reanimation protocols) and underwhelming units (like flayed ones) but that's too much to expect from an FAQ unfortunately.
All I think we will see are small tweaks to the overall game
Are you serious? Theyre still the best value in the game with those rules. Id still use them for sure. At 5pts, they should get no orders and no regiment like cultists. That change is actually insufficient.
It still bothers me that most people fixate on Doom for what's wrong with CWE.
It's a tool primarily aimed at the big offenders in the meta: Castellian + Soup lists are where it shines. Against lists without a massive LoW or Deathstar, it's really not that impactful.
Nerfing Doom won't help most other lists face Eldar. It's a good power, but it's hardly the only reroll-wounds in the game, and is only stronger than other reroll-wounds when you're shooting at a single target that takes most of your army to remove.
It's the to-hit-penalty stacking or the Flyer shenanigans or things like that that should be fixed. Nerfing Doom just buffs Castellan + Soup lists, which certainly don't need help right now.
Martel732 wrote: Perfect ambush only affects infantry. Cap gsc death beam at 8 mortal wounds. Make kellermorph 85 pts.
No strats, no relics, no warlord traits in the aux low slot.
Guardsmen go to 5 pts. Orders function on a 4+, conscripts get no orders.
Doom goes to wc 8.
So, for the rest of it I get "nerf everything that's not my army kthxbye" but what non-infantry GSC unit is abusing Perfect ambush in your mind?
Surely that strat is mostly being used with aberrants/acolytes, right?
Bikes with charges.
Also, don't you think ba have been hit enough? I also have some ig and they need nerfs badly.
....you think Bikes with demo charges is a "nerf guardsmen" level OP thing?
The ability to, for 3 command points, have a 50% chance of getting your bike units in range to throw demo charges for a further CP, assuming the opponent has zero screen, seems over the top to you?
This is why I tend to not be able to take your balancing opinions seriously. you're usually like "Reasonable call for nerf, reasonable call for nerf, CRAZY KNEEJERK NERF TO SOMETHING RANDOM, reasonable call for nerf."
I had to double check this to make sure I had it right, and I do.
So here's what you have to do:
Take a unit of bikers with demo charges, 5x of them is 75 points, pretty cheap.
Spend 3CP on A Perfect Ambush after you've deployed them outside of 9". Assume that your opponent has no screen on some kind of vehicle, let's say it's T7 Sv3+ like most vehicles.
Roll a 4 or better on the D6 for perfect ambush to get within 6".
use a 1CP stratagem to let those 5 models all throw their (once per game) demo charges.
5D6 demo charge shots, so that's 7.8 damage against a vehicle on average.
Wow! That is most certainly something on the same competitive level as kellermorph, guardsmen, doom eldar soup interactions, and knight castellans! Why, if I wanted to do that level of damage with other anti tank weapons like lascannons, I'd have to successfully wound with....two lascannons!
"Whatever the feth they want. I can't stop them."
Like what, specifically?
Certainly you're not complaining about a Tac squad getting Doomed. Because needing 15 Dire Avengers to kill a 5-man Tac squad, with Doom it only takes 10? Considering it takes a primary HQ and has a reasonable chance to fail, that doesn't seem that unreasonable.
Are your Rhinos dropping too quickly? Preds? Are you running some sort of LoW or Deathstar?
Galef wrote: Another change I'd like to see is a tweak to the Beta Reserves restriction.
We went from "only in your DZ turn 1" to "never on turn 1". I really think there could be a better in between.
Restricting arrival of reserves on the first PLAYER turn would be more than fair. It would mean the player who got first turn is able to, ya know, GET FIRST TURN but not bring in any Reinforcements, but the player who goes second CAN bring in Reinforcements on their first turn in response.
IMO, this would make a huge difference in the first turn advantage. I mean, currently if you go second and have Reinforcements, you have to weather 2 whole opponent's turns before getting to use them!
But, if you could bring in Reinforcements before your opponent, going second doesn't sting so bad
-
This, absolutely.
Also seconding (thirding? fourthing?) the call to do something about allied CP generation, allies should not be all benefit and no downside. Also, bumping Battalions to 5 CPs and Brigades to 12 CPs was a mistake.
And Bolter Drill needs tweaking so Autobolters and Stalkers aren't the wrong choice against every target.
For comparision:
10 "boltgun" BS3+ S4 AP0 shots shooting Marines:
"Normal": 10x(2/3)(1/2)(1/3) = 10/9, or about 1.1 dead Marines
"Doomed": 10x(2/3)(3/4)(1/3) = 15/9, or about 1.67 dead marines dead Marines
"Lt/Capt": 10x[(2/3)+(1/6)(2/3)][(1/2) + (1/6)(1/2)](1/3) = 245/162, or about 1.5 dead Marines
So Lt/Capt isn't quite as good as Doom for an individual target
Upsides of Doom:
-Shooter needn't be inside a bubble
-Is roughly 10% stronger (in this case
Upsides of Lt/Capt:
-Target needn't be within 24"
-Affects *all* targets of units inside the bubble, not just one
-No 17% chance to fail, even after using rerolls
-Not just shooting attacks
-Models are considerably better in CC
So Doom is, at best, 10% better. But with a 17% failure chance off the top (can't be CPed further). And drops to useless after the target dies. And comes on a model that does much worse itself.
The real problem is CWE is more powerful than SM. Because Lt/Captain is a *much* nicer buff than Doom, especially for the price.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Pick something other than guardsmen. Its probably expensive and fragile. Eldar have enough firepower already that they don't need this as an autocast."
Fine, Marines.
I've now spent a primary HQ to kill less than 2 Marines. Doom is doing about as much in this case as a Captain with a Combi Plas.
Bharring wrote: For comparision: 10 "boltgun" BS3+ S4 AP0 shots shooting Marines: "Normal": 10x(2/3)(1/2)(1/3) = 10/9, or about 1.1 dead Marines "Doomed": 10x(2/3)(3/4)(1/3) = 15/9, or about 1.67 dead marines dead Marines "Lt/Capt": 10x[(2/3)+(1/6)(2/3)][(1/2) + (1/6)(1/2)](1/3) = 245/162, or about 1.5 dead Marines
So Lt/Capt isn't quite as good as Doom for an individual target
Upsides of Doom: -Shooter needn't be inside a bubble -Is roughly 10% stronger (in this case
Upsides of Lt/Capt: -Target needn't be within 24" -Affects *all* targets of units inside the bubble, not just one -No 17% chance to fail, even after using rerolls -Not just shooting attacks -Models are considerably better in CC
So Doom is, at best, 10% better. But with a 17% failure chance off the top (can't be CPed further). And drops to useless after the target dies. And comes on a model that does much worse itself.
The real problem is CWE is more powerful than SM. Because Lt/Captain is a *much* nicer buff than Doom, especially for the price.
While I don't agree with Martel that Doom needs a Nerf, there are some things to consider: A) Shuriken weapons are NOT bolters. Rerolling to wound gives a sizable bump in how many 6s you roll and therefore more AP-3 B) The units that benefit most from Doom aren't always Craftworlders. DE Splinter weapons, Dissies, Harlie Haywire, etc all get significant bumps in efficiency and were NOT "calibrated" with Doom in mind, therefore the balance is off. Several DE and Harlie lists squeezing in a small detachment just for a DoomSeer should be evidence of how imbalanced this is
Restrict Doom to only benefit Asuryani units and 95% of the issue goes away.
Martel732 wrote: They can shoot twice. And get +1 to hit and wound. Its dumb all around.
Uh. No they can't?
A perfect Ambush allows you to shoot as if it's the shooting phase OR move D6", not one then the other. You can't use a different stratagem to move after deploying because of the "warptime" nerf FAQ, and you can't double shoot because the weapons are 6" range and you have to deploy outside 9". Also, demo charges are 1 use only anyway, so even if you could magically get into range and then use it...you can only throw the fething bombs one time, period.
You are completely and utterly ignorant as to what this combo does, how it works, how much it costs or how actually strong this is. Saying this is in any way OP or even good completely destroys your credibility on everything else you want nerfed.
You may as well have listed "nerf Blood Angels 5-man assault marine squads, they can use a stratagem to charge 3d6" and fight twice its so op"
Sure, there exists a stratagem that allows them to have +1 to hit and wound with grenade weapons. So you can punch that up to a WHOPPING single rhino-class vehicle destroyed by spending *only* 5CP (and a 50% chance for it to not work at all because you didn't get in range, and any screening units at all makes it basically impossible because if they deploy one 25mm base width farther back they need a 6 to get in range)
Martel732 wrote: They can shoot twice. And get +1 to hit and wound. Its dumb all around.
Uh. No they can't?
A perfect Ambush allows you to shoot as if it's the shooting phase OR move D6", not one then the other. You can't use a different stratagem to move after deploying because of the "warptime" nerf FAQ, and you can't double shoot because the weapons are 6" range and you have to deploy outside 9". Also, demo charges are 1 use only anyway, so even if you could magically get into range and then use it...you can only throw the fething bombs one time, period.
You are completely and utterly ignorant as to what this combo does, how it works, how much it costs or how actually strong this is. Saying this is in any way OP or even good completely destroys your credibility on everything else you want nerfed.
You may as well have listed "nerf Blood Angels 5-man assault marine squads, they can use a stratagem to charge 3d6" and fight twice its so op"
Sure, there exists a stratagem that allows them to have +1 to hit and wound with grenade weapons. So you can punch that up to a WHOPPING single rhino-class vehicle destroyed by spending *only* 5CP (and a 50% chance for it to not work at all because you didn't get in range, and any screening units at all makes it basically impossible because if they deploy one 25mm base width farther back they need a 6 to get in range)
As far as I can tell, Martel is a part of the "we don't understand it, but saw it happen vaguely once, so we better nerf it, since it isn't my army" crowd. Best to ignore all of them.
the_scotsman wrote: This is why I tend to not be able to take your balancing opinions seriously. you're usually like "Reasonable call for nerf, reasonable call for nerf, CRAZY KNEEJERK NERF TO SOMETHING RANDOM, reasonable call for nerf."
Banville wrote: I'd like proper clarification on the GSC '1st Turn Deepstrike' debate.
It's already been clarified by the GSCFAQ, I don't know what more they can do.
My dream scenario would be to forbid TITANIC units in matched play below a 3000 point limit, but that won't happen because GW need to keep selling two quid of plastic for two hundred.
I also would like to see a change to the CP system. CP should only be generated by detachments matching all of your Warlords faction keywords and you should only have access to your warlord's faction stratagems.
Artillery weapons firing at targets without LOS get -1 to hit.
12" minimum range for artillery weapons including Mortars.
Guard infantry become 5pts per model, Vets to 6pts but have carapace armour.
Primaris able to use Rhinos (counts as 2 models), Land Raiders, Razor backs etc.
Marines have 2A base,
All Marines and Guard can select a Chainsword for 1pt per model.
Sisters hand flamers same price as GS cults HFs Until sorted out Sisters AOF go back to Index version (same as Guard Crusaders....)
In an Army the only the Warlord's subfacton can have more than one Strategem player per turn.
Sisters and Marines Chapter Tacitcs effect [[sub faction]] vehicles etc.
Bharring wrote: For comparision:
10 "boltgun" BS3+ S4 AP0 shots shooting Marines:
"Normal": 10x(2/3)(1/2)(1/3) = 10/9, or about 1.1 dead Marines
"Doomed": 10x(2/3)(3/4)(1/3) = 15/9, or about 1.67 dead marines dead Marines
"Lt/Capt": 10x[(2/3)+(1/6)(2/3)][(1/2) + (1/6)(1/2)](1/3) = 245/162, or about 1.5 dead Marines
So Lt/Capt isn't quite as good as Doom for an individual target
Upsides of Doom:
-Shooter needn't be inside a bubble
-Is roughly 10% stronger (in this case
Upsides of Lt/Capt:
-Target needn't be within 24"
-Affects *all* targets of units inside the bubble, not just one
-No 17% chance to fail, even after using rerolls
-Not just shooting attacks
-Models are considerably better in CC
So Doom is, at best, 10% better. But with a 17% failure chance off the top (can't be CPed further). And drops to useless after the target dies. And comes on a model that does much worse itself.
The real problem is CWE is more powerful than SM. Because Lt/Captain is a *much* nicer buff than Doom, especially for the price.
While I don't agree with Martel that Doom needs a Nerf, there are some things to consider:
A) Shuriken weapons are NOT bolters. Rerolling to wound gives a sizable bump in how many 6s you roll and therefore more AP-3
B) The units that benefit most from Doom aren't always Craftworlders. DE Splinter weapons, Dissies, Harlie Haywire, etc all get significant bumps in efficiency and were NOT "calibrated" with Doom in mind, therefore the balance is off.
Several DE and Harlie lists squeezing in a small detachment just for a DoomSeer should be evidence of how imbalanced this is
Restrict Doom to only benefit Asuryani units and 95% of the issue goes away.
Martel732 wrote: They can shoot twice. And get +1 to hit and wound. Its dumb all around.
Uh. No they can't?
A perfect Ambush allows you to shoot as if it's the shooting phase OR move D6", not one then the other. You can't use a different stratagem to move after deploying because of the "warptime" nerf FAQ, and you can't double shoot because the weapons are 6" range and you have to deploy outside 9". Also, demo charges are 1 use only anyway, so even if you could magically get into range and then use it...you can only throw the fething bombs one time, period.
You are completely and utterly ignorant as to what this combo does, how it works, how much it costs or how actually strong this is. Saying this is in any way OP or even good completely destroys your credibility on everything else you want nerfed.
You may as well have listed "nerf Blood Angels 5-man assault marine squads, they can use a stratagem to charge 3d6" and fight twice its so op"
Sure, there exists a stratagem that allows them to have +1 to hit and wound with grenade weapons. So you can punch that up to a WHOPPING single rhino-class vehicle destroyed by spending *only* 5CP (and a 50% chance for it to not work at all because you didn't get in range, and any screening units at all makes it basically impossible because if they deploy one 25mm base width farther back they need a 6 to get in range)
As far as I can tell, Martel is a part of the "we don't understand it, but saw it happen vaguely once, so we better nerf it, since it isn't my army" crowd. Best to ignore all of them.
I'm hopeful power armor can get buffed, something akin to +1 save vs. ap0, 1 or reroll 1's, or reduce damage b 1.
I'd like to see the beta bolter rule become the bolter rule.
I'd like to see a ruling on Oblits, either 65, something in the middle, or 115.
I'd like to see command points mirrior age of sigmar, yo get one for each unit in your army, 1 +1 every turn if your leader is alive. This would curtail detachment abuse. I'd also like to see a cap on CP, in this case no matter what, you can never have more than 12 CP or something to that effect.
Bharring wrote: For comparision:
10 "boltgun" BS3+ S4 AP0 shots shooting Marines:
"Normal": 10x(2/3)(1/2)(1/3) = 10/9, or about 1.1 dead Marines
"Doomed": 10x(2/3)(3/4)(1/3) = 15/9, or about 1.67 dead marines dead Marines
"Lt/Capt": 10x[(2/3)+(1/6)(2/3)][(1/2) + (1/6)(1/2)](1/3) = 245/162, or about 1.5 dead Marines
So Lt/Capt isn't quite as good as Doom for an individual target
Upsides of Doom:
-Shooter needn't be inside a bubble
-Is roughly 10% stronger (in this case
Upsides of Lt/Capt:
-Target needn't be within 24"
-Affects *all* targets of units inside the bubble, not just one
-No 17% chance to fail, even after using rerolls
-Not just shooting attacks
-Models are considerably better in CC
So Doom is, at best, 10% better. But with a 17% failure chance off the top (can't be CPed further). And drops to useless after the target dies. And comes on a model that does much worse itself.
The real problem is CWE is more powerful than SM. Because Lt/Captain is a *much* nicer buff than Doom, especially for the price.
While I don't agree with Martel that Doom needs a Nerf, there are some things to consider:
A) Shuriken weapons are NOT bolters. Rerolling to wound gives a sizable bump in how many 6s you roll and therefore more AP-3
However, "reroll wounds" increases the damage Shurken weapons do to Marines by the exact same ratio as it increases LasBlasters/Bolters/etc; it's still a 50% increase in deadliness for to-wounds of a 4+. How quickly Shurikens delete Marines is seperate (although, as stated, it'd take 15 Dire Avengers, at 11ppm, to wipe a 5-man squad - for a unit shooting it's ideal target, that's about right - it takes 13.5 Marines to wipe a 5man DA sqaud).
B) The units that benefit most from Doom aren't always Craftworlders. DE Splinter weapons, Dissies, Harlie Haywire, etc all get significant bumps in efficiency and were NOT "calibrated" with Doom in mind, therefore the balance is off.
That's certainly unintended. And Harlie Haywire is one of the few places Doom gets to reach (or exceed) doubling the firepower vs a specific target. Which is basically the same as halving it's survivability. Which is *really* *really* good. But it only works because you're shooting a T8+ target. And Haywire is only super good because it's really hard to get through T8 3++ without it. And Doom only really matters because you're shooting most of your army at a *single target*.
Take any one of those things away, and it changes. Doom doesn't buff Harlie Haywire vs T7 as much. T8 models without an good ++ can be countered by anti-tank weapons. If you're only shooting a a unit or two at a target, you're not getting as much of a benefit.
Several DE and Harlie lists squeezing in a small detachment just for a DoomSeer should be evidence of how imbalanced this is
Restrict Doom to only benefit Asuryani units and 95% of the issue goes away.
-
I agree that it's better than it should be, especially for those other factions. My disagreement is in why it's so good.
It's so good because you can rely on running up against lists with one ideal target for it. It's so good because there are T8 3++ units in the game with too much firepower to ignore, too many wounds to burn through, and too many obsticles to CC. It's so good because you're definitely fighting a Knight.
Imagine a matchup versus the same list, but with a ton of Marine squads or mid-range vehilces instead of the Knight. What's doom going to do for you then? Not nearly as much.
Outside very specific matchups (such as the everpresent 3++ Castellan list), Lt/Capt does far more than Doom, far more reliably.
If the IoM soup with a 3++ Castellan weren't so meta, Doom wouldn't be so powerful. If the rest of Aeldari weren't so strong, Doom wouldn't matter so much.
Nerfing Doom buffs 3++ Castellans, and doesn't help most other lists much when they face Aeldari.
Martel732 wrote: They can shoot twice. And get +1 to hit and wound. Its dumb all around.
Uh. No they can't?
A perfect Ambush allows you to shoot as if it's the shooting phase OR move D6", not one then the other. You can't use a different stratagem to move after deploying because of the "warptime" nerf FAQ, and you can't double shoot because the weapons are 6" range and you have to deploy outside 9". Also, demo charges are 1 use only anyway, so even if you could magically get into range and then use it...you can only throw the fething bombs one time, period.
You are completely and utterly ignorant as to what this combo does, how it works, how much it costs or how actually strong this is. Saying this is in any way OP or even good completely destroys your credibility on everything else you want nerfed.
You may as well have listed "nerf Blood Angels 5-man assault marine squads, they can use a stratagem to charge 3d6" and fight twice its so op"
Sure, there exists a stratagem that allows them to have +1 to hit and wound with grenade weapons. So you can punch that up to a WHOPPING single rhino-class vehicle destroyed by spending *only* 5CP (and a 50% chance for it to not work at all because you didn't get in range, and any screening units at all makes it basically impossible because if they deploy one 25mm base width farther back they need a 6 to get in range)
There's a logical fallacy in there somewhere.
Its clear ive got two strats switched or gsc opponents have been misinterpreting their rules. Forget the bikes thing.
Martel732 wrote: They can shoot twice. And get +1 to hit and wound. Its dumb all around.
Uh. No they can't?
A perfect Ambush allows you to shoot as if it's the shooting phase OR move D6", not one then the other. You can't use a different stratagem to move after deploying because of the "warptime" nerf FAQ, and you can't double shoot because the weapons are 6" range and you have to deploy outside 9". Also, demo charges are 1 use only anyway, so even if you could magically get into range and then use it...you can only throw the fething bombs one time, period.
You are completely and utterly ignorant as to what this combo does, how it works, how much it costs or how actually strong this is. Saying this is in any way OP or even good completely destroys your credibility on everything else you want nerfed.
You may as well have listed "nerf Blood Angels 5-man assault marine squads, they can use a stratagem to charge 3d6" and fight twice its so op"
Sure, there exists a stratagem that allows them to have +1 to hit and wound with grenade weapons. So you can punch that up to a WHOPPING single rhino-class vehicle destroyed by spending *only* 5CP (and a 50% chance for it to not work at all because you didn't get in range, and any screening units at all makes it basically impossible because if they deploy one 25mm base width farther back they need a 6 to get in range)
There's a logical fallacy in there somewhere.
Its clear ive got two strats switched or gsc opponents have been misinterpreting their rules. Forget the bikes thing.
Pointing out logical fallacies as a means of argument is in itself a logical fallacy...
]
Bharring wrote: However, "reroll wounds" increases the damage Shurken weapons do to Marines by the exact same ratio as it increases LasBlasters/Bolters/etc; it's still a 50% increase in deadliness for to-wounds of a 4+. How quickly Shurikens delete Marines is separate.
I don't think it's fair to dismiss AP when discussing the potency of an ability to reroll wounds, especially when rolling a certain number does something special. So indicating those 2 things as separate is kinda pedantic. I was illustrating that Doom on Shuriken weapons does more than reroll wounds for Bolters.
But to your point, I would only want Doom restricted to just Asuryani units if Knight Invuls are capped are 4++ as well.
As far as I can tell, Martel is a part of the "we don't understand it, but saw it happen vaguely once, so we better nerf it, since it isn't my army" crowd. Best to ignore all of them.
It's not terribly hard to pop bikers up turn 2, move them turn 3, and poop demos out 6" with 2s to hit (Alpha). The KM can deal with screens easily enough.
I haven't played it so I can't comment on if it's broken or not.
Bharring wrote: However, "reroll wounds" increases the damage Shurken weapons do to Marines by the exact same ratio as it increases LasBlasters/Bolters/etc; it's still a 50% increase in deadliness for to-wounds of a 4+. How quickly Shurikens delete Marines is separate.
I don't think it's fair to dismiss AP when discussing the potency of an ability to reroll wounds, especially when rolling a certain number does something special.
So indicating those 2 things as separate is kinda pedantic. I was illustrating that Doom on Shuriken weapons does more than reroll wounds for Bolters.
But to your point, I would only want Doom restricted to just Asuryani units if Knight Invuls are capped are 4++ as well.
-
This is actually inaccurate: Reroll wounds does exactly as much to the same throughput of weapons, whether it's Shuriken or Bolters.
Shooting Bolters at a Doomed T4 target kills 50% more than non-Doomed
Shooting Shuriken at a Doomed T4 target kills 50% more than non-Doomed
If it takes you N guys to kill something with Boltguns, it takes you 2/3rds of N guys to kill something Doomed.
If it takes you N guys to kill something with Shuriken, it takes you 2/3rds of N guys to kill something Doomed.
The difference can be that it takes fewer Shuriken shots to kill Marines than Boltguns. But that should be wholly seperate from Doom. That'd be like saying a QuadLas pred gets more out of Doom than a Swooping Hawk - the increased amount it kills is more, sure. But you've increased it by a smaller factor (vs anything below T18).
Bharring wrote: However, "reroll wounds" increases the damage Shurken weapons do to Marines by the exact same ratio as it increases LasBlasters/Bolters/etc; it's still a 50% increase in deadliness for to-wounds of a 4+. How quickly Shurikens delete Marines is separate.
I don't think it's fair to dismiss AP when discussing the potency of an ability to reroll wounds, especially when rolling a certain number does something special.
So indicating those 2 things as separate is kinda pedantic. I was illustrating that Doom on Shuriken weapons does more than reroll wounds for Bolters.
But to your point, I would only want Doom restricted to just Asuryani units if Knight Invuls are capped are 4++ as well.
-
This is actually inaccurate: Reroll wounds does exactly as much to the same throughput of weapons, whether it's Shuriken or Bolters.
Shooting Bolters at a Doomed T4 target kills 50% more than non-Doomed
Shooting Shuriken at a Doomed T4 target kills 50% more than non-Doomed
If it takes you N guys to kill something with Boltguns, it takes you 2/3rds of N guys to kill something Doomed.
If it takes you N guys to kill something with Shuriken, it takes you 2/3rds of N guys to kill something Doomed.
The difference can be that it takes fewer Shuriken shots to kill Marines than Boltguns. But that should be wholly seperate from Doom. That'd be like saying a QuadLas pred gets more out of Doom than a Swooping Hawk - the increased amount it kills is more, sure. But you've increased it by a smaller factor (vs anything below T18).
That shouldn't be separate from Doom. That's half the point of the damned spell - to trigger more to wound procs.
Shurikens w/ doom are 50% better than bolters w/ doom.
I love that people are complaining about the GSC biker bomb without even knowing how it works.
Really shows the level of players at work...
You deploy the bikes outside of 3" using Lying in Wait. (2 cp)
You then get to shoot in the movement phase using Perfect Ambush. (3cp)
You get to throw 5 demo charges using Extra Explosives (1 cp)
You then get to throw another 5 demo charges in the shooting phase (1 cp)
Any of those 2 shooting attacks can benefit from Drive-By Demolitions for +1 to hit and wound (1 cp).
Yes its powerful, but the GSC player can only do it once and it costs 7 to 9 CP.
Plus you can screen against it.
Please don't talk balance when you don't even know how the thing your complaining about works.
Bharring wrote: However, "reroll wounds" increases the damage Shurken weapons do to Marines by the exact same ratio as it increases LasBlasters/Bolters/etc; it's still a 50% increase in deadliness for to-wounds of a 4+. How quickly Shurikens delete Marines is separate.
I don't think it's fair to dismiss AP when discussing the potency of an ability to reroll wounds, especially when rolling a certain number does something special.
So indicating those 2 things as separate is kinda pedantic. I was illustrating that Doom on Shuriken weapons does more than reroll wounds for Bolters.
But to your point, I would only want Doom restricted to just Asuryani units if Knight Invuls are capped are 4++ as well.
-
This is actually inaccurate: Reroll wounds does exactly as much to the same throughput of weapons, whether it's Shuriken or Bolters.
Shooting Bolters at a Doomed T4 target kills 50% more than non-Doomed
Shooting Shuriken at a Doomed T4 target kills 50% more than non-Doomed
If it takes you N guys to kill something with Boltguns, it takes you 2/3rds of N guys to kill something Doomed.
If it takes you N guys to kill something with Shuriken, it takes you 2/3rds of N guys to kill something Doomed.
The difference can be that it takes fewer Shuriken shots to kill Marines than Boltguns. But that should be wholly seperate from Doom. That'd be like saying a QuadLas pred gets more out of Doom than a Swooping Hawk - the increased amount it kills is more, sure. But you've increased it by a smaller factor (vs anything below T18).
That shouldn't be separate from Doom. That's half the point of the damned spell - to trigger more to wound procs.
Shurikens w/ doom are 50% better than bolters w/ doom.
Only when Shurikens without Doom are 50% better than Bolters without Doom.
Martel732 wrote: They can shoot twice. And get +1 to hit and wound. Its dumb all around.
Uh. No they can't?
A perfect Ambush allows you to shoot as if it's the shooting phase OR move D6", not one then the other. You can't use a different stratagem to move after deploying because of the "warptime" nerf FAQ, and you can't double shoot because the weapons are 6" range and you have to deploy outside 9". Also, demo charges are 1 use only anyway, so even if you could magically get into range and then use it...you can only throw the fething bombs one time, period.
You are completely and utterly ignorant as to what this combo does, how it works, how much it costs or how actually strong this is. Saying this is in any way OP or even good completely destroys your credibility on everything else you want nerfed.
You may as well have listed "nerf Blood Angels 5-man assault marine squads, they can use a stratagem to charge 3d6" and fight twice its so op"
Sure, there exists a stratagem that allows them to have +1 to hit and wound with grenade weapons. So you can punch that up to a WHOPPING single rhino-class vehicle destroyed by spending *only* 5CP (and a 50% chance for it to not work at all because you didn't get in range, and any screening units at all makes it basically impossible because if they deploy one 25mm base width farther back they need a 6 to get in range)
There's a logical fallacy in there somewhere.
Its clear ive got two strats switched or gsc opponents have been misinterpreting their rules. Forget the bikes thing.
IS there? Because if I take a 5-man blood angels assault squad with a thunder hammer on the sergeant and I spend 5CP on those suckers, I feel like I've got a much better chance of actually succeeding at getting into combat, and I do slightly more damage with them than the single-use demo charges.
Sure, I burn my most important two blood angel stratagems on a squad that is essentially a worse version of another squad I could be taking, but hey, we're talking about burning A Perfect Ambush on 75 points of freaking atalan jackals.
So it sure isn't a false equivocation fallacy, that's for sure. You are essentially calling for a nerf to min size blood angel assault squads based on the damage they do while burning 5 command points because you don't understand how that unit works in the context of an entire army. If anything, I'm being charitable, because I'm not claiming they can do something they literally cannot do for multiple reasons.
The internet needs a logical fallacy for "I don't have any counter-argument so I'm just going to say 'logical fallacy' and leave it there."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ordana wrote: I love that people are complaining about the GSC biker bomb without even knowing how it works.
Really shows the level of players at work...
You deploy the bikes outside of 3" using Lying in Wait. (2 cp)
You then get to shoot in the movement phase using Perfect Ambush. (3cp)
You get to throw 5 demo charges using Extra Explosives (1 cp)
You then get to throw another 5 demo charges in the shooting phase (1 cp)
Any of those 2 shooting attacks can benefit from Drive-By Demolitions for +1 to hit and wound (1 cp).
Yes its powerful, but the GSC player can only do it once and it costs 7 to 9 CP.
Plus you can screen against it.
Please don't talk balance when you don't even know how the thing your complaining about works.
Tell me, what does the sentence
"The bearer can only use this weapon once per battle"
mean to you?
Is that a sentence you figure is open to interpretation somehow?
Or did you just make a post berating people for not understanding a rules combo that you yourself are casually doubling the effectiveness of by missing that restriction?
Thats not what i meant. But please, keep ranting after i admitted there was a lack of full understanding on my part. Its really hard to keep track of everything they are burning for.
Ordana wrote: I love that people are complaining about the GSC biker bomb without even knowing how it works.
Really shows the level of players at work...
You deploy the bikes outside of 3" using Lying in Wait. (2 cp)
You then get to shoot in the movement phase using Perfect Ambush. (3cp)
You get to throw 5 demo charges using Extra Explosives (1 cp)
You then get to throw another 5 demo charges in the shooting phase (1 cp)
Any of those 2 shooting attacks can benefit from Drive-By Demolitions for +1 to hit and wound (1 cp).
Yes its powerful, but the GSC player can only do it once and it costs 7 to 9 CP.
Plus you can screen against it.
Please don't talk balance when you don't even know how the thing your complaining about works.
Tell me, what does the sentence
"The bearer can only use this weapon once per battle"
mean to you?
Is that a sentence you figure is open to interpretation somehow?
Or did you just make a post berating people for not understanding a rules combo that you yourself are casually doubling the effectiveness of by missing that restriction?
You take 10 bikes with demo charges to do it twice when you come down (like the list that got 2nd at Adepticon did).
If you only use 5 then you can skip the shooting in the movement phase and save yourself 4 CP.
Martel732 wrote: They can shoot twice. And get +1 to hit and wound. Its dumb all around.
Uh. No they can't?
A perfect Ambush allows you to shoot as if it's the shooting phase OR move D6", not one then the other. You can't use a different stratagem to move after deploying because of the "warptime" nerf FAQ, and you can't double shoot because the weapons are 6" range and you have to deploy outside 9". Also, demo charges are 1 use only anyway, so even if you could magically get into range and then use it...you can only throw the fething bombs one time, period.
You are completely and utterly ignorant as to what this combo does, how it works, how much it costs or how actually strong this is. Saying this is in any way OP or even good completely destroys your credibility on everything else you want nerfed.
You may as well have listed "nerf Blood Angels 5-man assault marine squads, they can use a stratagem to charge 3d6" and fight twice its so op"
Sure, there exists a stratagem that allows them to have +1 to hit and wound with grenade weapons. So you can punch that up to a WHOPPING single rhino-class vehicle destroyed by spending *only* 5CP (and a 50% chance for it to not work at all because you didn't get in range, and any screening units at all makes it basically impossible because if they deploy one 25mm base width farther back they need a 6 to get in range)
There's a logical fallacy in there somewhere.
Its clear ive got two strats switched or gsc opponents have been misinterpreting their rules. Forget the bikes thing.
Pointing out logical fallacies as a means of argument is in itself a logical fallacy...
]
It's only a logical fallacy if you do some form of the following:
"You said A therefore B. A therefore B contains a fallacy, therefore B is not true."
(The name for that is a Fallacy Fallacy or Metafallacy, depending on who you ask.)
That's not what Martel did. He told The Scottsman that he'd committed a fallacy somewhere (which he did, his post was a clear Ad Hominem and an Appeal to Extremes) and then backed off his position anyway because he couldn't be sure his group wasn't misreading rules somewhere.
He did not at all try to tell The Scottsman that he was wrong because of the fallacy.
Ironically in implying that Martel was wrong on the premise of a Metafallacy you committed one yourself and took the position that Martel should not have admitted his group could be reading the rules incorrectly.
I'd love to see a rule like AoS where charging units still get to move their charge distance regardless of whether or not they make it into CC. It doesn't make any sense to have the unit just stand still. Reminds me of an old Capital One commercial where a bunch of vikings just stop running towards each other in the middle of a battlefield.
Bolters deserve to be AP-1. Even with Bolter Drill they are underwhelming. Rocket propelled bullets shouldn't be bouncing off T-Shirts.
Improvements to fortifications would be nice. I occasionally use them in lists, but the horrendous BS is unnecessarily bad. If I want to protect infantry it often just makes more sense to stick them in a normal transport. They can't be buffed in any way so why not either let them use the embarked units BS or give them BS 4+ instead.
Would be good to get some more dynamic terrain rules and/or allow cover saves to stack (1s still always fail). If "hard-to-hit" modifiers stack, so should cover saves.
It's probably too much to hope for, but I'd also love it if the Haruspex got WS 3+ or re-roll 1's to hit. An average of 4 hits is pretty lackluster for a model that is supposed to be shoveling infantry into its mouth.
It would never happen, but
Eliminate all re-rolls from the game. Possibly the single biggest thing they could do to speed up the game. Just make the +1(or similar) to the relevant roll. Would hurt stats that need a 2+, but I'd be ok with that to having armies basically re-rolling dice in every phase.
Bharring wrote: However, "reroll wounds" increases the damage Shurken weapons do to Marines by the exact same ratio as it increases LasBlasters/Bolters/etc; it's still a 50% increase in deadliness for to-wounds of a 4+. How quickly Shurikens delete Marines is separate.
I don't think it's fair to dismiss AP when discussing the potency of an ability to reroll wounds, especially when rolling a certain number does something special.
So indicating those 2 things as separate is kinda pedantic. I was illustrating that Doom on Shuriken weapons does more than reroll wounds for Bolters.
But to your point, I would only want Doom restricted to just Asuryani units if Knight Invuls are capped are 4++ as well.
-
This is actually inaccurate: Reroll wounds does exactly as much to the same throughput of weapons, whether it's Shuriken or Bolters.
Shooting Bolters at a Doomed T4 target kills 50% more than non-Doomed
Shooting Shuriken at a Doomed T4 target kills 50% more than non-Doomed
If it takes you N guys to kill something with Boltguns, it takes you 2/3rds of N guys to kill something Doomed.
If it takes you N guys to kill something with Shuriken, it takes you 2/3rds of N guys to kill something Doomed.
The difference can be that it takes fewer Shuriken shots to kill Marines than Boltguns. But that should be wholly seperate from Doom. That'd be like saying a QuadLas pred gets more out of Doom than a Swooping Hawk - the increased amount it kills is more, sure. But you've increased it by a smaller factor (vs anything below T18).
That shouldn't be separate from Doom. That's half the point of the damned spell - to trigger more to wound procs.
Shurikens w/ doom are 50% better than bolters w/ doom.
Only when Shurikens without Doom are 50% better than Bolters without Doom.
Here's the thing, you're thinking in terms of %, I'm thinking in terms of actual numbers. More opportunities to trigger AP-3 is an obvious advantage over just regular bolters
If you cannot see that, I'm not sure why I keep responding.
But as I've said, Doom is a good power but I don't think anything needs to change about it other than the obvious oversight of it applying to non-CWE units.
It's just too easy to take this good power and make it disproportionately auto-take.
bullyboy wrote: Any thoughts to the FAQ dropping tomorrow morning? WHC content was pretty light today and I feel it has dropped on a Friday previously.
I'd expect it atleast 2 weeks after Adepticon, same as last time.
If it drops sooner then that its because they didn't see anything at Adepticon that warranted a reaction.
bullyboy wrote: Any thoughts to the FAQ dropping tomorrow morning? WHC content was pretty light today and I feel it has dropped on a Friday previously.
I'd expect it atleast 2 weeks after Adepticon, same as last time. If it drops sooner then that its because they didn't see anything at Adepticon that warranted a reaction.
Yeah, fingers crossed it's soon. It feels like forever since the last one.
Although I probably shouldn't get my hopes up. Recent FAQs seem to mostly address things no one was really expecting and sometimes ignore things that need to be fixed
bullyboy wrote: Any thoughts to the FAQ dropping tomorrow morning? WHC content was pretty light today and I feel it has dropped on a Friday previously.
I'd expect it atleast 2 weeks after Adepticon, same as last time.
If it drops sooner then that its because they didn't see anything at Adepticon that warranted a reaction.
Yeah, fingers crossed it's soon. It feels like forever since the last one.
Although I probably shouldn't get my hopes up. Recent FAQs seem to mostly address things no one was really expecting and sometimes ignore things that need to be fixed
-
I feel like they sometimes take the most random questions from people who never play either.
"Q: If a Dark Reaper is wearing pants, is it ok to assume it's Tuesday?
A: Only if the Dark Reaper is within 6" of the nearest Rhino."
bullyboy wrote: Any thoughts to the FAQ dropping tomorrow morning? WHC content was pretty light today and I feel it has dropped on a Friday previously.
I'd expect it atleast 2 weeks after Adepticon, same as last time.
If it drops sooner then that its because they didn't see anything at Adepticon that warranted a reaction.
Yeah, fingers crossed it's soon. It feels like forever since the last one.
Although I probably shouldn't get my hopes up. Recent FAQs seem to mostly address things no one was really expecting and sometimes ignore things that need to be fixed
-
I feel like they sometimes take the most random questions from people who never play either.
"Q: If a Dark Reaper is wearing pants, is it ok to assume it's Tuesday?
A: Only if the Dark Reaper is within 6" of the nearest Rhino."
Yeah, a lot of the questions they answer seem to be the sort of "What kind of idiot is asking this" but then realize it's done probably so some cheesehead doesn't try to argue RAW at a tournament. Like last FAQ there was a question that went something like:
Q: In a mission that uses the Acceptable Losses rule (the one that says you don't automatically win if you table your opponent), if I concede the game does my opponent still win?
A: Yes.
Now at face value, this seems like one of those ridiculous slowed questions. But consider if they didn't answer this, then someone could theoretically argue that if they were up on VP and conceded the game if their opponent would not be able to get enough VP to tie or win in the remaining turns, they could win the game even if they concede. Could you imagine the scandal if someone tried this gak at a major tournament?
Bharring wrote: However, "reroll wounds" increases the damage Shurken weapons do to Marines by the exact same ratio as it increases LasBlasters/Bolters/etc; it's still a 50% increase in deadliness for to-wounds of a 4+. How quickly Shurikens delete Marines is separate.
I don't think it's fair to dismiss AP when discussing the potency of an ability to reroll wounds, especially when rolling a certain number does something special.
So indicating those 2 things as separate is kinda pedantic. I was illustrating that Doom on Shuriken weapons does more than reroll wounds for Bolters.
But to your point, I would only want Doom restricted to just Asuryani units if Knight Invuls are capped are 4++ as well.
-
This is actually inaccurate: Reroll wounds does exactly as much to the same throughput of weapons, whether it's Shuriken or Bolters.
Shooting Bolters at a Doomed T4 target kills 50% more than non-Doomed
Shooting Shuriken at a Doomed T4 target kills 50% more than non-Doomed
If it takes you N guys to kill something with Boltguns, it takes you 2/3rds of N guys to kill something Doomed.
If it takes you N guys to kill something with Shuriken, it takes you 2/3rds of N guys to kill something Doomed.
The difference can be that it takes fewer Shuriken shots to kill Marines than Boltguns. But that should be wholly seperate from Doom. That'd be like saying a QuadLas pred gets more out of Doom than a Swooping Hawk - the increased amount it kills is more, sure. But you've increased it by a smaller factor (vs anything below T18).
That shouldn't be separate from Doom. That's half the point of the damned spell - to trigger more to wound procs.
Shurikens w/ doom are 50% better than bolters w/ doom.
Only when Shurikens without Doom are 50% better than Bolters without Doom.
Here's the thing, you're thinking in terms of %, I'm thinking in terms of actual numbers. More opportunities to trigger AP-3 is an obvious advantage over just regular bolters
If you cannot see that, I'm not sure why I keep responding.
But as I've said, Doom is a good power but I don't think anything needs to change about it other than the obvious oversight of it applying to non-CWE units.
It's just too easy to take this good power and make it disproportionately auto-take.
-
How is that different from a Lt/Captain being OP when buffing Aggressors?
The straight increase in number of removed models with those buffs is higher than the increased number of models removed with Doom.
Only when Shurikens without Doom are 50% better than Bolters without Doom.
The reality is that 12 hits means bolters kill 2 MEQ and shurikens with doom kill 4.5 MEQ.
Averages don't cover rolling hot with your dice and blowing away a unit - Doom just makes that easier to achieve.
How is that different from saying 12 Bolter hits kill 2 MEQ but 12 MeltaGun hits kill 10 MEQ?
Shuriken *is* deadlier to Marines within range - it's supposed to be better.
It comes in:
-12" range on a GEQ that costs twice that of a Guardsman - with the bulk of that cost being the gun
-18" range on a T3 4+ model at 11ppm - just 2ppm less than Marines for half the durability to small arms.
Shuriken per-shot *should* be deadlier. It's a lot costlier.
All the math is done shooting MEQ, why not GEQ? Surely there are more shots against GEQ than MEQ?
Because most people complaining on the forums care about MEQ. In part because DakkaDakka has always complained about the plight of MEQ. Also in part because GEQ generally have mit much better right now.
As the armor save gets worse, Shuriken and Bolt get closer. Against models without a save, Shuriken does no more damage, despite it's shorter range. And that's while costing more.
So of course people compare Shuriken vs Bolt against a heavily armored platform: it makes Shuriken seem OP.
Bharring wrote: However, "reroll wounds" increases the damage Shurken weapons do to Marines by the exact same ratio as it increases LasBlasters/Bolters/etc; it's still a 50% increase in deadliness for to-wounds of a 4+. How quickly Shurikens delete Marines is separate.
I don't think it's fair to dismiss AP when discussing the potency of an ability to reroll wounds, especially when rolling a certain number does something special.
So indicating those 2 things as separate is kinda pedantic. I was illustrating that Doom on Shuriken weapons does more than reroll wounds for Bolters.
But to your point, I would only want Doom restricted to just Asuryani units if Knight Invuls are capped are 4++ as well.
-
This is actually inaccurate: Reroll wounds does exactly as much to the same throughput of weapons, whether it's Shuriken or Bolters.
Shooting Bolters at a Doomed T4 target kills 50% more than non-Doomed
Shooting Shuriken at a Doomed T4 target kills 50% more than non-Doomed
If it takes you N guys to kill something with Boltguns, it takes you 2/3rds of N guys to kill something Doomed.
If it takes you N guys to kill something with Shuriken, it takes you 2/3rds of N guys to kill something Doomed.
The difference can be that it takes fewer Shuriken shots to kill Marines than Boltguns. But that should be wholly seperate from Doom. That'd be like saying a QuadLas pred gets more out of Doom than a Swooping Hawk - the increased amount it kills is more, sure. But you've increased it by a smaller factor (vs anything below T18).
That shouldn't be separate from Doom. That's half the point of the damned spell - to trigger more to wound procs.
Shurikens w/ doom are 50% better than bolters w/ doom.
Only when Shurikens without Doom are 50% better than Bolters without Doom.
Here's the thing, you're thinking in terms of %, I'm thinking in terms of actual numbers. More opportunities to trigger AP-3 is an obvious advantage over just regular bolters
If you cannot see that, I'm not sure why I keep responding.
But as I've said, Doom is a good power but I don't think anything needs to change about it other than the obvious oversight of it applying to non-CWE units.
It's just too easy to take this good power and make it disproportionately auto-take.
-
How is that different from a Lt/Captain being OP when buffing Aggressors?
The straight increase in number of removed models with those buffs is higher than the increased number of models removed with Doom.
Only when Shurikens without Doom are 50% better than Bolters without Doom.
The reality is that 12 hits means bolters kill 2 MEQ and shurikens with doom kill 4.5 MEQ.
Averages don't cover rolling hot with your dice and blowing away a unit - Doom just makes that easier to achieve.
How is that different from saying 12 Bolter hits kill 2 MEQ but 12 MeltaGun hits kill 10 MEQ?
Shuriken *is* deadlier to Marines within range - it's supposed to be better.
It comes in:
-12" range on a GEQ that costs twice that of a Guardsman - with the bulk of that cost being the gun
-18" range on a T3 4+ model at 11ppm - just 2ppm less than Marines for half the durability to small arms.
Shuriken per-shot *should* be deadlier. It's a lot costlier.
All the math is done shooting MEQ, why not GEQ? Surely there are more shots against GEQ than MEQ?
Because most people complaining on the forums care about MEQ. In part because DakkaDakka has always complained about the plight of MEQ. Also in part because GEQ generally have mit much better right now.
As the armor save gets worse, Shuriken and Bolt get closer. Against models without a save, Shuriken does no more damage, despite it's shorter range. And that's while costing more.
So of course people compare Shuriken vs Bolt against a heavily armored platform: it makes Shuriken seem OP.
Ok, but still, MEQ make up less than half of the likely infantry targets, while GEQ make up way more. Nids, Fire Warriors, Space Elves (Both types), Guard, GSC, Orks, these are all mainly GEQ right?
BrotherGecko wrote: Heavy bolters made Rapidfire 3 and affected by the new bolter rules
In order for it to become rapid fire it would have to be rapid fire 2. 6 shots seems like a bit much, but if they make that change I won't complain.
Considering stuff like the reaper chaincannon being heavy 8, I'd say rapid fire 3 wouldn't exactly be game breaking but might make tac squads a little better.
From personal experience, even against GEQ, Shurikens are great. Most of the time even GEQ have a 4+ if in cover. Taking that away with AP-3 makes a difference.
Rerolling wounds makes that chance higher. There is an exponential factor in there that I just can't explain, but seems obvious.
BrotherGecko wrote: Heavy bolters made Rapidfire 3 and affected by the new bolter rules
Yes, please YES! Or at the vey least make them RF3 for Astartes as part of the Bolter Discipline rule
And actually, if they change BD the way I hope they do (make it +1 shot instead of double) RF3 HBs would need to get within 18" for the double shots. Standing still you would only get +1 shot. So 4 shots if stationary, 7 shots if at half range.
BrotherGecko wrote: Heavy bolters made Rapidfire 3 and affected by the new bolter rules
In order for it to become rapid fire it would have to be rapid fire 2. 6 shots seems like a bit much, but if they make that change I won't complain.
Considering stuff like the reaper chaincannon being heavy 8, I'd say rapid fire 3 wouldn't exactly be game breaking but might make tac squads a little better.
That's a fair point.
I guess in that case the HB would be for stationary use and the chain cannon would be for more mobile use. I like it!
BrotherGecko wrote: Heavy bolters made Rapidfire 3 and affected by the new bolter rules
In order for it to become rapid fire it would have to be rapid fire 2. 6 shots seems like a bit much, but if they make that change I won't complain.
Considering stuff like the reaper chaincannon being heavy 8, I'd say rapid fire 3 wouldn't exactly be game breaking but might make tac squads a little better.
That's a fair point.
I guess in that case the HB would be for stationary use and the chain cannon would be for more mobile use. I like it!
l
The reaper costs however way more.
And a single HB costing less whilest nearly equally putting out the same output would be a bit insane no?
BrotherGecko wrote: Heavy bolters made Rapidfire 3 and affected by the new bolter rules
In order for it to become rapid fire it would have to be rapid fire 2. 6 shots seems like a bit much, but if they make that change I won't complain.
Considering stuff like the reaper chaincannon being heavy 8, I'd say rapid fire 3 wouldn't exactly be game breaking but might make tac squads a little better.
That's a fair point.
I guess in that case the HB would be for stationary use and the chain cannon would be for more mobile use. I like it!
l
The reaper costs however way more.
And a single HB costing less whilest nearly equally putting out the same output would be a bit insane no?
Even a secondary mode granted to Astartes by the Bolter Discipline rule to make their HBs RF2 would be an improvement. As it stands HBs are only useful with 1 stratagem, which Chaos doesn't even have
BrotherGecko wrote: Heavy bolters made Rapidfire 3 and affected by the new bolter rules
In order for it to become rapid fire it would have to be rapid fire 2. 6 shots seems like a bit much, but if they make that change I won't complain.
Considering stuff like the reaper chaincannon being heavy 8, I'd say rapid fire 3 wouldn't exactly be game breaking but might make tac squads a little better.
Considering the heavy bolter cost, that would make psycannon feel even worse then they are now. Would be a nice fix to heavy bolters for sure. More options that can actually be considered as being taken are good fot the game.
BrotherGecko wrote: Heavy bolters made Rapidfire 3 and affected by the new bolter rules
In order for it to become rapid fire it would have to be rapid fire 2. 6 shots seems like a bit much, but if they make that change I won't complain.
Considering stuff like the reaper chaincannon being heavy 8, I'd say rapid fire 3 wouldn't exactly be game breaking but might make tac squads a little better.
Considering the heavy bolter cost, that would make psycannon feel even worse then they are now. Would be a nice fix to heavy bolters for sure. More options that can actually be considered as being taken are good fot the game.
I think we need to fix base marines before specialist marines
BrotherGecko wrote: Heavy bolters made Rapidfire 3 and affected by the new bolter rules
As much as I'd love that, I think having my Leman Russes spit out 18 heavy bolter shots each would be a bit much.
That's the benefit of data slates. You can change it for Marines and leave it for others. Sure, you can argue about immersion and tanks as stable firing platforms. But for every argument that rolls that out, someone else can say Marine training and adaptability.
doom go to wc 6, squat BA, allow codex Astartes to be run as chaos, make the castellan have a 6+ invul that can’t be modified, and hit on 6’s no modifiers either, drop entire cost of model range CWE, Drukhari, and Harlequins, make ITC missions official, and tell BA players they need to buy new armies. BA models aren’t able to be used as counts as other chaos or Astartes army.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: doom go to wc 6, squat BA, allow codex Astartes to be run as chaos, make the castellan have a 6+ invul that can’t be modified, and hit on 6’s no modifiers either, drop entire cost of model range CWE, Drukhari, and Harlequins, make ITC missions official, and tell BA players they need to buy new armies. BA models aren’t able to be used as counts as other chaos or Astartes army.
Well, consolidating the Angels would go a long way to fix bloat and balance. I've been vocally advocating for that.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: doom go to wc 6, squat BA, allow codex Astartes to be run as chaos, make the castellan have a 6+ invul that can’t be modified, and hit on 6’s no modifiers either, drop entire cost of model range CWE, Drukhari, and Harlequins, make ITC missions official, and tell BA players they need to buy new armies. BA models aren’t able to be used as counts as other chaos or Astartes army.
Are you trolling or do you have a problem with Blood Angels?
Actually, I've advocated that BA should have been squatted by Nids. Keeping them around as is is kinda cruel. Makes more sense than Dante and Gman beating like a trillion bugs.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: OR we can just consolidate them and Dark Angels into the main codex...
With Space Wolves as well.
Make a Codex non-compliant book. Maybe some other chapters along the lines of the renegade rules for CSM.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Actually, I've advocated that BA should have been squatted by Nids. Keeping them around as is is kinda cruel. Makes more sense than Dante and Gman beating like a trillion bugs.
That ship has already sailed. Primaris is going to replace everybody.
BrotherGecko wrote: Heavy bolters made Rapidfire 3 and affected by the new bolter rules
As much as I'd love that, I think having my Leman Russes spit out 18 heavy bolter shots each would be a bit much.
That's the benefit of data slates. You can change it for Marines and leave it for others. Sure, you can argue about immersion and tanks as stable firing platforms. But for every argument that rolls that out, someone else can say Marine training and adaptability.
Yeah, screw that 1000%. The bolter rule not applying to sisters was BS enough, all of a sudden having our ONLY long range weapon be massively gakky in comparison to an army that already has multiple solid long range option would be a fething slap in the face. Especially after getting the laziest, trashiest, weakest, most anemic, uninteresting, piece of gak codex in the entire edition.
The removal of the Commander limit or at least spread it to other factions. Even changing it to "you get 3 total Commanders for all your detachments at 2k" instead of "only 1 per detachment" would make list building significantly less awkward while barely effecting balance. Named Commanders not counting against the Commander total would be also welcomed, but Tau are in a very good spot right now so that might be too much.
Given that they have messaged for us to not expect radical changes, I offer the following:
a. Limit GSC Mental Onslaught - perhaps with a cap on Mortal Wounds or degrading effectiveness with each Wound inflicted (+1 on the target's roll with each Wound or something)
b. Ratify Bolter Drill for Space Marines
c. Rein in Lootas a little (in how they interact with Strats)
d. Max 4++ save for Knights regardless of Stratagems
e. Doom and Jinx only works for Asuryani attacks/targets (this is a wish)
I would be ok with this, however, I don't think it would help the abuse of it. Farseers can reroll 1 or both dice for 1 test per turn, so a WC8 power to them is roughly like a WC5-6 power for others.
I think a better fix would be to change the wording on Doom to only affect wounds caused by Asuryani units. That stops Dark Eldar from benefiting from Doom.
-
On 8 i would expect that unit to be unable to use invul saves.
Bharring wrote: However, "reroll wounds" increases the damage Shurken weapons do to Marines by the exact same ratio as it increases LasBlasters/Bolters/etc; it's still a 50% increase in deadliness for to-wounds of a 4+. How quickly Shurikens delete Marines is separate.
I don't think it's fair to dismiss AP when discussing the potency of an ability to reroll wounds, especially when rolling a certain number does something special.
So indicating those 2 things as separate is kinda pedantic. I was illustrating that Doom on Shuriken weapons does more than reroll wounds for Bolters.
But to your point, I would only want Doom restricted to just Asuryani units if Knight Invuls are capped are 4++ as well.
-
That is hardly needed because there will be assassin in every top list. So it will be even harder for aeldar to get rid of knights, i mean +2 to cast is to much for just 85 pts model.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Given that they have messaged for us to not expect radical changes, I offer the following:
a. Limit GSC Mental Onslaught - perhaps with a cap on Mortal Wounds or degrading effectiveness with each Wound inflicted (+1 on the target's roll with each Wound or something)
b. Ratify Bolter Drill for Space Marines
c. Rein in Lootas a little (in how they interact with Strats)
d. Max 4++ save for Knights regardless of Stratagems
e. Doom and Jinx only works for Asuryani attacks/targets (this is a wish)
I'm going to agree with most of what your proposing, I'm not sure why 5ppm Guardsmen aren't on the list though.
The biggest issue with 8th edition right now though in my opinion is the CP generation system.
That needs to be fixed and strategums recosted as right now I can tell you their is a lot of strategums that in soup get spammed, yet in mono codex or just less min-max lists are almost unplayable overcosted.
I'm not saying no soup, but it also shouldn't be mandatory to include guard for CP to make any Imperial codex work.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Given that they have messaged for us to not expect radical changes, I offer the following:
a. Limit GSC Mental Onslaught - perhaps with a cap on Mortal Wounds or degrading effectiveness with each Wound inflicted (+1 on the target's roll with each Wound or something)
b. Ratify Bolter Drill for Space Marines
c. Rein in Lootas a little (in how they interact with Strats)
d. Max 4++ save for Knights regardless of Stratagems
e. Doom and Jinx only works for Asuryani attacks/targets (this is a wish)
I'm going to agree with most of what your proposing, I'm not sure why 5ppm Guardsmen aren't on the list though.
The biggest issue with 8th edition right now though in my opinion is the CP generation system.
That needs to be fixed and strategums recosted as right now I can tell you their is a lot of strategums that in soup get spammed, yet in mono codex or just less min-max lists are almost unplayable overcosted.
I'm not saying no soup, but it also shouldn't be mandatory to include guard for CP to make any Imperial codex work.
This. They need to reign in CP farms, full stop. It is probably the single worst thing in the game. Even worse than souping together factions or subfactions. Mostly because it seems like they balance stratagems based on the expected CP for an army e.g. Knights are assumed to have low CP so their stratagems are more powerful to compensate. This then gets thrown out the window since you just power it with the Loyal 32 and the "balance" of knights having few CP but strong stratagems is gone as now they have strong stratagems and lots of CP to use.
For the good of the game, it needs to be stopped somehow, whether it's banning soup, limiting CP, limiting the CP generated (e..g Brood Brothers for everyone) or something else.
Im all for upping guardsment to 5ppm, but they should really make it so that single codex armies gain a bonus to CP as well if they aren't gonna change the current CP generation method.
Add something to battle forged for example. "if your army consists of detachments that have completely the same Keywords, you gain an additional 3CP".
This would help a lot with curbing the loyal 32/rusty 17 problem.
Eihnlazer wrote: Im all for upping guardsment to 5ppm, but they should really make it so that single codex armies gain a bonus to CP as well if they aren't gonna change the current CP generation method.
Add something to battle forged for example. "if your army consists of detachments that have completely the same Keywords, you gain an additional 3CP".
This would help a lot with curbing the loyal 32/rusty 17 problem.
If a battalion is still 5CP +3CP wouldn't be enough it would probably have to be +6 or more to even remotely be worth it and this also punishes Drukari, Yannari etc just to fix a mainly Guard issue.
It's either all mono codex gets massive bonus CP or better yet fix the real issue.
Times change, models go obsolete. Even armies. This is an army that peaked in 3rd ed. Plenty of mileage.
Well that is great for you. But if someone started the army 6-12 months ago, then to expriance the goodness of 3ed they need to buy a time travel machine.
For the good of the game, it needs to be stopped somehow, whether it's banning soup, limiting CP, limiting the CP generated (e..g Brood Brothers for everyone) or something else.
ok, but if having chaff and CP is essenssial to the edition we have now, then taking away the ability would realy hurt the armies that can not get either of those on their own. The good armies would get worse, that is for sure, but the bad armies would get really bad.
Eihnlazer wrote: Im all for upping guardsment to 5ppm, but they should really make it so that single codex armies gain a bonus to CP as well if they aren't gonna change the current CP generation method.
Add something to battle forged for example. "if your army consists of detachments that have completely the same Keywords, you gain an additional 3CP".
This would help a lot with curbing the loyal 32/rusty 17 problem.
if a battalion is still 5CP +3CP wouldn't be enough it would probably have to be +6 or auch to even remotely be worth it and this also punishes Drukari, Yannari etc just to fix a mainly Guard issue.
It's not a "Guard" issue. It's a soup issue.
The fact that we saw two different iterations(Conscripts+Commissars-->Infantry Squads once Conscripts+Commissars got hammered) of this from the outset of 8th, and now also see a third(AdMech has made an appearance in a few spots) option? And we've seen similar soup issues with the Aeldari factions?
That tells you literally everything you should need to know. But for whatever reason it's always "Waah, waaah, waaah nerf Guard!" You want 5ppm Infantry Squads? You damn well better be supporting 6ppm Brood Brothers and Neophyte Hybrids.
Times change, models go obsolete. Even armies. This is an army that peaked in 3rd ed. Plenty of mileage.
Well that is great for you. But if someone started the army 6-12 months ago, then to expriance the goodness of 3ed they need to buy a time travel machine.
For the good of the game, it needs to be stopped somehow, whether it's banning soup, limiting CP, limiting the CP generated (e..g Brood Brothers for everyone) or something else.
ok, but if having chaff and CP is essenssial to the edition we have now, then taking away the ability would realy hurt the armies that can not get either of those on their own. The good armies would get worse, that is for sure, but the bad armies would get really bad.
You obviously didn't read the whole thing, the point is to fix the system then recost the strategums to be fairer under the new system.
Not just go no CP sharing and if your strategums where recosted around the cheap guard CP tough luck.
What stratagems were recosted for cheap guard CP? Or is that hypothetical?
What armies rely on CP farms to get stratagems? Not min/max them to get more like Loyal 32 powering a Knight, but actually rely on souping/CP farming in order to function?
Eihnlazer wrote: Im all for upping guardsment to 5ppm, but they should really make it so that single codex armies gain a bonus to CP as well if they aren't gonna change the current CP generation method.
Add something to battle forged for example. "if your army consists of detachments that have completely the same Keywords, you gain an additional 3CP".
This would help a lot with curbing the loyal 32/rusty 17 problem.
if a battalion is still 5CP +3CP wouldn't be enough it would probably have to be +6 or auch to even remotely be worth it and this also punishes Drukari, Yannari etc just to fix a mainly Guard issue.
It's not a "Guard" issue. It's a soup issue.
The fact that we saw two different iterations(Conscripts+Commissars-->Infantry Squads once Conscripts+Commissars got hammered) of this from the outset of 8th, and now also see a third(AdMech has made an appearance in a few spots) option? And we've seen similar soup issues with the Aeldari factions?
That tells you literally everything you should need to know. But for whatever reason it's always "Waah, waaah, waaah nerf Guard!"
You want 5ppm Infantry Squads?
You damn well better be supporting 6ppm Brood Brothers and Neophyte Hybrids.
Haven't had the displeasure of facing GSC yet to judge how they're balanced or not, but the issue with GSC as an outsider seams to be less in the model's points and more in the insane strategum stacking they can pull along with some undercosted weapons.
Haven't had the displeasure of facing GSC yet to judge how they're balanced or not, but the issue with GSC as an outsider seams to be less in the model's points and more in the insane strategum stacking they can pull along with some undercosted weapons.
For everything you lot complain about with regards to Infantry Squads? Neophytes and Brood Brothers are the same damn unit as the Infantry Squads.
Oh, and with the 'Bodyguard' ability native and a point higher LD.
Wayniac wrote: What stratagems were recosted for cheap guard CP? Or is that hypothetical?
What armies rely on CP farms to get stratagems? Not min/max them to get more like Loyal 32 powering a Knight, but actually rely on souping/CP farming in order to function?
The BA strategums were recosted based on captain smash's potential in Guard CP regen soup and post nerfs are a dead codex.
Knights strategums have been recosted for Castellen + guard and resulted in certain strategums being 50% of a pure lists CP on a single strategum.
Ultramarine named charictors are stuck with a dysfunctional manditory warlord trait thanks to an guard in imperial soup driven nerf.
GSC codex contains a specific rule to prevent guard CP generation shenanigans.
Wayniac wrote: What stratagems were recosted for cheap guard CP? Or is that hypothetical?
What armies rely on CP farms to get stratagems? Not min/max them to get more like Loyal 32 powering a Knight, but actually rely on souping/CP farming in order to function?
The BA strategums were recosted based on captain smash's potential in Guard CP regen soup and post nerfs are a dead codex.
Knights strategums have been recosted for Castellen + guard and resulted in certain strategums being 50% of a pure lists CP on a single strategum.
Ultramarine named charictors are stuck with a dysfunctional manditory warlord trait thanks to an guard in imperial soup driven nerf.
GSC codex contains a specific rule to prevent guard CP generation shenanigans.
The GSC codex contains that rule because the actual GSC book can do a very good approximation of a Guard Brigade from the outset.
Also, the Brood Brothers unit is literally built around you having a Guard Detachment with them since you can receive Orders from the Guard side of things. It was a whole big thing at launch since the Brood Brothers regiment tag allowed for Tempestus being ordered by Company Commanders and Ogryns/Bullgryns and Ratlings to actually receive Orders RAW.
Martel732 wrote: No, I think there needs to be legit less power armor in the game. I offer up BA as tribute.
What could have been a glorious exit against insurmountable bugs is now just going to be more NPCing for Abbaddon.
Ok, but what about people that actually bought the army. They wouldn't be able to use their models.
To remind GK players what could happen to them if they don't stop complaining!
(Totally kidding. In all seriousness, GW is more likely to go the GK route with a faction they want to squat than do the above. Even with Corsairs, they technically didn't remove the last few entries, and even FAQed them into less-hosed status - although they're still much worse off than GK.)
How is that different from saying 12 Bolter hits kill 2 MEQ but 12 MeltaGun hits kill 10 MEQ?
Shuriken *is* deadlier to Marines within range - it's supposed to be better.
It comes in:
-12" range on a GEQ that costs twice that of a Guardsman - with the bulk of that cost being the gun
-18" range on a T3 4+ model at 11ppm - just 2ppm less than Marines for half the durability to small arms.
Shuriken per-shot *should* be deadlier. It's a lot costlier.
Sorry - I get lost in the swirling arguments sometimes. My end is the lift of Doom. I think Shurikens are priced (mostly) fine.
Considering stuff like the reaper chaincannon being heavy 8, I'd say rapid fire 3 wouldn't exactly be game breaking but might make tac squads a little better.
RF2 would be appropriate without a cost increase. Then squads standing still get 4 shots if beta bolter applies.
I play with about 13-14 CP per army/game, and I think that's just fine. Why is there a massive hate boner for armies with tons of CP? It's not like CP is breaking the game. I'd say Knights breaking the idea of the game is far more pressing than an opponent being able to use a turn 3 stratagem because of CP batteries. Honestly, I think we have an over fascination with CP, as if it's the great boogeyman. It's not. CP is not breaking the game, and GW thinks so too.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I play with about 13-14 CP per army/game, and I think that's just fine. Why is there a massive hate boner for armies with tons of CP? It's not like CP is breaking the game. I'd say Knights breaking the idea of the game is far more pressing than an opponent being able to use a turn 3 stratagem because of CP batteries. Honestly, I think we have an over fascination with CP, as if it's the great boogeyman. It's not. CP is not breaking the game, and GW thinks so too.
Because when your stratagems are based around NOT having a ton of CP, and you can get a ton of CP to power it multiple times, it becomes a problem. When CP is such a hot commodity that it encourages CP farming, it becomes a problem.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I play with about 13-14 CP per army/game, and I think that's just fine. Why is there a massive hate boner for armies with tons of CP? It's not like CP is breaking the game. I'd say Knights breaking the idea of the game is far more pressing than an opponent being able to use a turn 3 stratagem because of CP batteries. Honestly, I think we have an over fascination with CP, as if it's the great boogeyman. It's not. CP is not breaking the game, and GW thinks so too.
I can't imagine having that much, I usually only have 4-6CP.
Then again, Necrons aren't doing well.
I'm not going to be forced to run a style of army I don't enjoy (battalions).
My whole collection is based around theme and lore, thus I tend to use Outriders and Spearheads.
The 8th ed Detachment system has rekindled my love of the game because I can finally run the lists I've been wanting to since 4th. They fit the lore and look amazing on the table.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I play with about 13-14 CP per army/game, and I think that's just fine. Why is there a massive hate boner for armies with tons of CP? It's not like CP is breaking the game. I'd say Knights breaking the idea of the game is far more pressing than an opponent being able to use a turn 3 stratagem because of CP batteries. Honestly, I think we have an over fascination with CP, as if it's the great boogeyman. It's not. CP is not breaking the game, and GW thinks so too.
The problem is that not all stratagems are good. Some stuff are a no-brainer, some are completely irrelevant. For example, if you play a hth focused tyranid list, you can simply not have enough CP, you can literally burn 10+ a turn and it will be barely enough. If you bring a shooty Kronos tyranid list, you can use single minded anihilation and perhaps pathogenic slime and that's about it. Stratagems among armies are also quite badly made. For example:
auspex scan: 2 CP to shoot reinforcements within 12" at -1 to hit.
Prescience (scourged csm stratagem): 2CP to shoot at reinforcements with 12" with no penalty.
Forwarned: 2 CP, shoot at reinforcement anywhere on the table if you're close to the farseer with no penalty.
The effect is the same in all of them if you just read at it, but the real effect on the table is of course super heavily unbalanced.
Eihnlazer wrote: Im all for upping guardsment to 5ppm, but they should really make it so that single codex armies gain a bonus to CP as well if they aren't gonna change the current CP generation method.
Add something to battle forged for example. "if your army consists of detachments that have completely the same Keywords, you gain an additional 3CP".
This would help a lot with curbing the loyal 32/rusty 17 problem.
if a battalion is still 5CP +3CP wouldn't be enough it would probably have to be +6 or auch to even remotely be worth it and this also punishes Drukari, Yannari etc just to fix a mainly Guard issue.
It's not a "Guard" issue. It's a soup issue.
The fact that we saw two different iterations(Conscripts+Commissars-->Infantry Squads once Conscripts+Commissars got hammered) of this from the outset of 8th, and now also see a third(AdMech has made an appearance in a few spots) option? And we've seen similar soup issues with the Aeldari factions?
That tells you literally everything you should need to know. But for whatever reason it's always "Waah, waaah, waaah nerf Guard!"
You want 5ppm Infantry Squads?
You damn well better be supporting 6ppm Brood Brothers and Neophyte Hybrids.
Who said they wouldn't support those units being 6 points? I haven't a clue what your deal is sometimes outside wanting your units to continue being broken.
I could get behind space marine heavy bolters being rapid fire 2 and falling under the astartes bolter rule. It needs to be a better support weapon because that is what it is. It doesn't need to be a heavy weapon like the other options because its just plainly not good for it.
As for IG heavy bolters? They can stay the same, puny arms and training. Even for tanks I'm betting the space marine has better targeting abilities.
As for SoB heavy bolters? Hopefully they will have their own way of being good. Otherwise, same as IG.
Grey Knights? Well they just need to be all around better so that is just their problem in general.
Who said they wouldn't support those units being 6 points? I haven't a clue what your deal is sometimes outside wanting your units to continue being broken.
Where are the constant slew of threads on Neophytes or Brood Brothers needing to be 6ppm?
Until soup is addressed or Guard Infantry Squads are 100% reworked? I don't give a single crap as to what you lot "think" the problem is. Anyone who was here at the start of 8th should remember that you lot were whining about Conscript Squads first, they got nerfed and then you promptly moved onto the next Guard unit that soup lists started bringing in to get their CPs.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I play with about 13-14 CP per army/game, and I think that's just fine. Why is there a massive hate boner for armies with tons of CP? It's not like CP is breaking the game. I'd say Knights breaking the idea of the game is far more pressing than an opponent being able to use a turn 3 stratagem because of CP batteries. Honestly, I think we have an over fascination with CP, as if it's the great boogeyman. It's not. CP is not breaking the game, and GW thinks so too.
I can't imagine having that much, I usually only have 4-6CP.
Then again, Necrons aren't doing well.
I'm not going to be forced to run a style of army I don't enjoy (battalions).
My whole collection is based around theme and lore, thus I tend to use Outriders and Spearheads.
The 8th ed Detachment system has rekindled my love of the game because I can finally run the lists I've been wanting to since 4th. They fit the lore and look amazing on the table.
So, I see your point. This is fine. I understand you are playing the game in such a way as to enjoy it, your way. That is awesome.
BUT, for everyone who does it like you, there are three people who think their Knights list with 3 models should get the same amount of CP as the IG player with 150 models. It's pointless to argue that CP is the problem. The problem is the way a person builds a list. I'm sorry my two BNs of Deathwatch and 1 vanguard get 13-14 CP. But guess what? I have zero vehicles or heavy units. All infantry. We all pay a price for our choices.
Every list pays a different price in some way. Complaining that the snowflake list that (royal you) chose to build is somehow deserving of the benefits of my list, is pedantic and a waste of time. I really wish my list included a Knight or Psychers with DOOM. But they don't. I don't get that. I get a ton of shooty infantry with 3++ saves and a bunch of CP. We all pay a price. CP doesn't need to be uniform. Just because you build a list doesn't get you a participation trophy.
Wayniac wrote: What stratagems were recosted for cheap guard CP? Or is that hypothetical?
What armies rely on CP farms to get stratagems? Not min/max them to get more like Loyal 32 powering a Knight, but actually rely on souping/CP farming in order to function?
Orks rely on CP farming to function. They rely on CP to make their Tankbustas, Lootas, and Boyz do obscene amounts of damage. Almost every ork list you see will be double batalion at a minimum, maybe brigade + battalion.
Also Guard/Knight armies sort of rely on it too. I play guard/knights, but I run ~1100 pts of Guard and ~900 pts of Knights in my list. I'm running House Terryn, which is pretty uncommon, but incredibly CP dependent. A single Knight Gallant (and I'm running two of them) can eat 8 CP in a single turn relatively easily. 1 CP to rotate ion shields to survive shooting, 2 CP to charge after advancing, 1 CP to re-roll the charge die or advance die, 3 CP to fight twice, and 1 CP to use Death Grip to try to kill a character. Is this powerful? Damn right! It's quite good! However, it also costs 8 CP, and places my Knight where it's most at risk of dying... close combat. It's not sitting back and relying on the 3++ save and being untouchable in melee because of massive screens. It gets in there, charges, does a lot of damage, and then dies in melee to a smash captain or something. Then it can pay 2 MORE CP, to fight again while dying, to try to kill the smash captain. That means I just spend 10 CP on my Gallant, to get it in there, do a lot of damage, and die. I kind of rely on the guard Brigade providing some of that CP, because it's impossible to power this thing without it. If I can't use the fight twice stratagem or the fight while dying stratagem, there's no reason to use Terryn over Krast, which gets in-built re-roll all failed hits, making it deadlier. Terryn's only really good when you pump CP into it's Gallants.
So there's an unconventional take on using Guard/Knights, where it's not loyal 32 pumping up a single knight, but rather a balanced army of nearly 50/50 guard/knights, where the Guard allow the Knights to actually be viable. Otherwise, a Gallant is probably unlikely to actually be worth it's 350 points, since it has no shooting and only 5 attacks, and can be screened out with chaff units.
BrotherGecko wrote: I could get behind space marine heavy bolters being rapid fire 2 and falling under the astartes bolter rule. It needs to be a better support weapon because that is what it is. It doesn't need to be a heavy weapon like the other options because its just plainly not good for it.
Honestly, the "heavy" bit is a misnomer it seems.
Said it elsewhere, I think that Suspensors would be a good option to come back allowing for Rapid Fire or Assault fire modes. I don't think that just flatout buffing Heavy Bolters all around is a great solution though.
Mainly because otherwise, you get this kind of thing:
As for IG heavy bolters? They can stay the same, puny arms and training. Even for tanks I'm betting the space marine has better targeting abilities.
The problem with this idea is that there's only one instance of a single Guardsman toting around a Heavy Bolter. Otherwise it's a "team" of two, mounting the weapon on a tripod with an ammo belt being fed in.
As for SoB heavy bolters? Hopefully they will have their own way of being good. Otherwise, same as IG.
Guessing they will.
Grey Knights? Well they just need to be all around better so that is just their problem in general.
Grey Knights and Deathwatch, IMO, suffer from being fluffed as these "highly specialized" groups but not having the opportunity to always fight against who they're specialized against.
But Deathwatch? They're actually able to succeed outside of those situations, since they're not also pigeonholed into being all Psykers and part of their whole schtick is flexibility.
It makes me think the best option for Grey Knights is to put them a bit more in line with Custodes than normal Marines. Give them the ability to split units into 'characters' via a Stratagem, things like that.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I play with about 13-14 CP per army/game, and I think that's just fine. Why is there a massive hate boner for armies with tons of CP? It's not like CP is breaking the game. I'd say Knights breaking the idea of the game is far more pressing than an opponent being able to use a turn 3 stratagem because of CP batteries. Honestly, I think we have an over fascination with CP, as if it's the great boogeyman. It's not. CP is not breaking the game, and GW thinks so too.
I can't imagine having that much, I usually only have 4-6CP.
Then again, Necrons aren't doing well.
I'm not going to be forced to run a style of army I don't enjoy (battalions).
My whole collection is based around theme and lore, thus I tend to use Outriders and Spearheads.
The 8th ed Detachment system has rekindled my love of the game because I can finally run the lists I've been wanting to since 4th. They fit the lore and look amazing on the table.
So, I see your point. This is fine. I understand you are playing the game in such a way as to enjoy it, your way. That is awesome.
BUT, for everyone who does it like you, there are three people who think their Knights list with 3 models should get the same amount of CP as the IG player with 150 models. It's pointless to argue that CP is the problem. The problem is the way a person builds a list. I'm sorry my two BNs of Deathwatch and 1 vanguard get 13-14 CP. But guess what? I have zero vehicles or heavy units. All infantry. We all pay a price for our choices.
Every list pays a different price in some way. Complaining that the snowflake list that (royal you) chose to build is somehow deserving of the benefits of my list, is pedantic and a waste of time. I really wish my list included a Knight or Psychers with DOOM. But they don't. I don't get that. I get a ton of shooty infantry with 3++ saves and a bunch of CP. We all pay a price. CP doesn't need to be uniform. Just because you build a list doesn't get you a participation trophy.
The point wasn't to just give everyone a flat 5 CP per 500 points and job done, it about balancing the interactions between codex's with 20+ CP in a list with points to spare and codex's with less than 10CP. If CP are universal and can be passed around freely the playing field on generating them needs to be fairer so that strategums can be costed appropriately.
1 strategum that affects the same unit
Let's say rotate ion on a castellen as it's the one everyone loves to hate.
In a pure knights list your maximum CP is 12 real lists are 9 CP. Turn 1 3CP that 33% of the total CP of the list gone. No regen or stealing CP ability in dex
Guard with a Castellen Ally
20CP(fairly sure it's possible) but I know 15CP is plus steal and regen so 21CP for the game
That same 3CP strategum on the same unit is now just 14% of the total CP.
The strategum and unit are the same but the cost just got halfed!!!
It the same crazy design where it less points to add the 32 for 5CP +regen and stealing than to turn my vanguard of marines into a battalion.
Who said they wouldn't support those units being 6 points? I haven't a clue what your deal is sometimes outside wanting your units to continue being broken.
Where are the constant slew of threads on Neophytes or Brood Brothers needing to be 6ppm?
Until soup is addressed or Guard Infantry Squads are 100% reworked? I don't give a single crap as to what you lot "think" the problem is. Anyone who was here at the start of 8th should remember that you lot were whining about Conscript Squads first, they got nerfed and then you promptly moved onto the next Guard unit that soup lists started bringing in to get their CPs.
The threads don't pop up because one has been an offender for a MUCH longer time and hasn't been fixed yet. Cults JUST came out so nobody cares as much.
I watched an interview with Nick N. Recently and he suggested they should change all Knights strategems the way Rotate Ion shields is. So it's cheaper for Questoris but more costly for Dominus class knights.
Haven't had the displeasure of facing GSC yet to judge how they're balanced or not, but the issue with GSC as an outsider seams to be less in the model's points and more in the insane strategum stacking they can pull along with some undercosted weapons.
For everything you lot complain about with regards to Infantry Squads? Neophytes and Brood Brothers are the same damn unit as the Infantry Squads.
Oh, and with the 'Bodyguard' ability native and a point higher LD.
Yeah, they just...don't get the ability to double their firepower coming off of a 30pt hq model.
You want a buff HQ for your gsc? You start at 65pts, and there's exactly one model in the whole game that does anything to boost ranged firepower.
Who said they wouldn't support those units being 6 points? I haven't a clue what your deal is sometimes outside wanting your units to continue being broken.
Where are the constant slew of threads on Neophytes or Brood Brothers needing to be 6ppm?
Until soup is addressed or Guard Infantry Squads are 100% reworked? I don't give a single crap as to what you lot "think" the problem is. Anyone who was here at the start of 8th should remember that you lot were whining about Conscript Squads first, they got nerfed and then you promptly moved onto the next Guard unit that soup lists started bringing in to get their CPs.
The threads don't pop up because one has been an offender for a MUCH longer time and hasn't been fixed yet. Cults JUST came out so nobody cares as much.
Funny how GSC were still a thing in Index format.
The only thing "new" is the mechanics for Cult Ambush having been reworked and Brood Brothers having been split out from Neophytes.
the_scotsman wrote:Yeah, they just...don't get the ability to double their firepower coming off of a 30pt hq model.
You do if you are using the "Brood Brothers" units instead of Neophytes.
You want a buff HQ for your gsc? You start at 65pts, and there's exactly one model in the whole game that does anything to boost ranged firepower.
How many buffs are there in the guard codex?
How many of those "buffs" are stackable?
If you "double your firepower specific to the Lasguns wielded by 9 out of the 10 models in the unit assuming you're not taking any Special or Heavy Weapons", you're not doing anything else to that unit unless: a) You're buffing them with Psykers. b) A specific Regiment(Catachan) with characters that grant rerolls. Straken lets you reroll failed Wound rolls when attacking enemy Monsters and Harker(an Elite choice) lets you reroll 1s in the Shooting phase. He grants +1A in CC. --Subnote: Since this will probably come up, yes there's also the Ministorum Priest who grants +1 to hits in CC. c) Taking a specific Relic and rolling a 4+. d) Taking a specific character(Yarrick), allowing rerolls of 1s OR all failed hit rolls when fighting Orks.
By comparison, I can get a hell of a lot more auras going with GSC. I understand that it's not as reliable of a mechanic as Orders are...but I also understand that they don't "lock out" other auras.
Who said they wouldn't support those units being 6 points? I haven't a clue what your deal is sometimes outside wanting your units to continue being broken.
Where are the constant slew of threads on Neophytes or Brood Brothers needing to be 6ppm?
Until soup is addressed or Guard Infantry Squads are 100% reworked? I don't give a single crap as to what you lot "think" the problem is. Anyone who was here at the start of 8th should remember that you lot were whining about Conscript Squads first, they got nerfed and then you promptly moved onto the next Guard unit that soup lists started bringing in to get their CPs.
The threads don't pop up because one has been an offender for a MUCH longer time and hasn't been fixed yet. Cults JUST came out so nobody cares as much.
Funny how GSC were still a thing in Index format.
The only thing "new" is the mechanics for Cult Ambush having been reworked and Brood Brothers having been split out from Neophytes.
the_scotsman wrote:Yeah, they just...don't get the ability to double their firepower coming off of a 30pt hq model.
You do if you are using the "Brood Brothers" units instead of Neophytes.
You want a buff HQ for your gsc? You start at 65pts, and there's exactly one model in the whole game that does anything to boost ranged firepower.
How many buffs are there in the guard codex?
How many of those "buffs" are stackable?
If you "double your firepower specific to the Lasguns wielded by 9 out of the 10 models in the unit assuming you're not taking any Special or Heavy Weapons", you're not doing anything else to that unit unless:
a) You're buffing them with Psykers.
b) A specific Regiment(Catachan) with characters that grant rerolls. Straken lets you reroll failed Wound rolls when attacking enemy Monsters and Harker(an Elite choice) lets you reroll 1s in the Shooting phase. He grants +1A in CC.
--Subnote: Since this will probably come up, yes there's also the Ministorum Priest who grants +1 to hits in CC.
c) Taking a specific Relic and rolling a 4+.
d) Taking a specific character(Yarrick), allowing rerolls of 1s OR all failed hit rolls when fighting Orks.
By comparison, I can get a hell of a lot more auras going with GSC. I understand that it's not as reliable of a mechanic as Orders are...but I also understand that they don't "lock out" other auras.
They were sorta a thing. However, because we didn't know how the codex would affect them, nobody really talked about them because of, let's be honest, how wonky the balance was with all the Index lists against each other. Some things were so absurd they might've been talked about a lot (Roboute's old price point, Commisar interactions with Conscripts), but we all knew that points were off for tons of units and we would need to wait for the codex.
Yeah, you can, because Brood brothers are literally a guardsmen copy/paste. And if you do take them, they don't have the <cult> keyword, and all auras in the GSC codex are <cult> coded.
BB's are guardsmen but instead of a regiment trait they get LOS and +1Ld. Also, you can only order them if you take an allied detachment for guard HQs, because you can't take BB company commanders in a GSC detachment, so there's that.
All that said, I would definitely think you'd increase their points value to 5 if guardsmen went up to 5. They're guardsmen. They have access to orders, even if they're awkward to get, and they have a bad <Regiment> but they do have one - if cultists are 5, BB's should definitely be 5.
On to Neophytes.
Neophytes are Guardsmen with the BB trait+a cult trait, which is nice and probably why they are 5 points. They cannot get orders. They have access to the following auras:
+1Ld and +1 to advance and charge. Clamavus, I think 40-ish points?
6++ FNP and reroll LD. Iconward, 65pts.
+1 to hit when shooting one particular enemy unit you select at the beginning of the phase. Alphus, 75pts.
+1 to hit in the fight phase and reroll 1s to wound against one particular enemy unit you select when deploying the HQ model. Primus, 75pts.
Reroll 1s to hit if the aura character has killed a model earlier in the phase. kellermorph, 65pts.
Fearless. Patriarch, 125pts? I forget.
I'd say to be the most fair and leave out subfaction-specific characters and orders, guardsmen have access to:
+1A in the fight phase: Priest, 35pts?
Reroll 1s to hit in fight and shooting: yarrick, I forget his points value, around 80?
Their choice of the whole orders list: commander, as low as 20pts.
Reroll failed morale: Commissar, 25pts.
Definitely less, but the buff characters out of guard are almost all cheaper than the buff characters out of GSC, and they give out buffs that are much more useful to a unit focused on shooting and holding objectives. Neophytes can't double advance, can't double their shooting, and even if you stacked up every available melee buff on them (reroll 1s to hit, +1 to hit, reroll 1s to wound) it's worse than the buff you get out of a priest, which doubles attacks and can in some circumstances be stacked with a double-attack order.
I think there's plenty of good reasoning behind neophytes and guardsmen being the same cost. Guardsmen are more limited in stats and unit construction, but more flexible in terms of the orders system. Yes, I can HAVE many good buffs on my neophytes, but I'm paying usually at least 65 points for each one I want to put down. I can't pay 30 points and just have my choice each turn of what I need - faster movement, better melee, better shooting.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, you can, because Brood brothers are literally a guardsmen copy/paste. And if you do take them, they don't have the <cult> keyword, and all auras in the GSC codex are <cult> coded.
BB's are guardsmen but instead of a regiment trait they get LOS and +1Ld. Also, you can only order them if you take an allied detachment for guard HQs, because you can't take BB company commanders in a GSC detachment, so there's that.
All that said, I would definitely think you'd increase their points value to 5 if guardsmen went up to 5. They're guardsmen. They have access to orders, even if they're awkward to get, and they have a bad <Regiment> but they do have one - if cultists are 5, BB's should definitely be 5.
On to Neophytes.
Neophytes are Guardsmen with the BB trait+a cult trait, which is nice and probably why they are 5 points. They cannot get orders. They have access to the following auras:
+1Ld and +1 to advance and charge. Clamavus, I think 40-ish points?
6++ FNP and reroll LD. Iconward, 65pts.
+1 to hit when shooting one particular enemy unit you select at the beginning of the phase. Alphus, 75pts.
+1 to hit in the fight phase and reroll 1s to wound against one particular enemy unit you select when deploying the HQ model. Primus, 75pts.
Reroll 1s to hit if the aura character has killed a model earlier in the phase. kellermorph, 65pts.
Fearless. Patriarch, 125pts? I forget.
I'd say to be the most fair and leave out subfaction-specific characters and orders, guardsmen have access to:
+1A in the fight phase: Priest, 35pts?
Reroll 1s to hit in fight and shooting: yarrick, I forget his points value, around 80?
Their choice of the whole orders list: commander, as low as 20pts.
Reroll failed morale: Commissar, 25pts.
Definitely less, but the buff characters out of guard are almost all cheaper than the buff characters out of GSC, and they give out buffs that are much more useful to a unit focused on shooting and holding objectives. Neophytes can't double advance, can't double their shooting, and even if you stacked up every available melee buff on them (reroll 1s to hit, +1 to hit, reroll 1s to wound) it's worse than the buff you get out of a priest, which doubles attacks and can in some circumstances be stacked with a double-attack order.
I think there's plenty of good reasoning behind neophytes and guardsmen being the same cost. Guardsmen are more limited in stats and unit construction, but more flexible in terms of the orders system. Yes, I can HAVE many good buffs on my neophytes, but I'm paying usually at least 65 points for each one I want to put down. I can't pay 30 points and just have my choice each turn of what I need - faster movement, better melee, better shooting.
t
Buffs on GSC also tend to be on auras or on better characters -- a 20 pt cc does nothing besides shout at one person, while the 75 pt alphus can move 12+", has a decent sniper rifle and a better statline.
Martel732 wrote: Ask marines how well expensive aura characters are working out.
They cause nerfs to everybody if the aura is too strong (see: Guilliman). If it's too weak, we ignore the aura and slap a jet pack and a hammer on the unit to fly it into something like a human missile (see: Smash Captains).
Oh my GAWWWWD STAHP WITH THE GUARD WHINING AND COMPLAINING.
Literally every thread on here at some point gets hijacked by butthurt math nerds complaining that their plastic toys can't do the same things as another's plastic toys. NOT EVERY THREAD needs to be about Guard v. Cultists/Nids/GSC/Rangers/whatever.
We get it. You are SUPER butthurt over Guard and CP. But obviously that is never changing, seeing as how we've gone two years of "changes/fixes/updates/nerfs/buffs" and none of them have addressed the cost of guard or the CP they generate.
Bharring wrote: Wishlist of mine:
IG, IK, SM, and AdMech non-special-characters may replace the IoM keyword with Chaos.
With a few other stipulations, of course.
Pure wishlisting, though.
Just so I'm clear, here - you want Chaos to have CSM, DG, 1kSons, RenKnights & Daemons - as well as access to everything in the IG, IK, SM (just core SM, or all Imperial SM?) and AdMech book bar named characters?
Haven't had the displeasure of facing GSC yet to judge how they're balanced or not, but the issue with GSC as an outsider seams to be less in the model's points and more in the insane strategum stacking they can pull along with some undercosted weapons.
For everything you lot complain about with regards to Infantry Squads? Neophytes and Brood Brothers are the same damn unit as the Infantry Squads.
Oh, and with the 'Bodyguard' ability native and a point higher LD.
Yeah, they just...don't get the ability to double their firepower coming off of a 30pt hq model.
You want a buff HQ for your gsc? You start at 65pts, and there's exactly one model in the whole game that does anything to boost ranged firepower.
How many buffs are there in the guard codex?
With two specials and two heavies they don't really need a CC.
55 points gets you 18 S3 shots for IS.
Or for 50+4+2 you get 6 S4, 4 S4 autohit, and 6 S3.
Haven't had the displeasure of facing GSC yet to judge how they're balanced or not, but the issue with GSC as an outsider seams to be less in the model's points and more in the insane strategum stacking they can pull along with some undercosted weapons.
For everything you lot complain about with regards to Infantry Squads? Neophytes and Brood Brothers are the same damn unit as the Infantry Squads.
Oh, and with the 'Bodyguard' ability native and a point higher LD.
Yeah, they just...don't get the ability to double their firepower coming off of a 30pt hq model.
You want a buff HQ for your gsc? You start at 65pts, and there's exactly one model in the whole game that does anything to boost ranged firepower.
How many buffs are there in the guard codex?
With two specials and two heavies they don't really need a CC.
55 points gets you 18 S3 shots for IS.
Or for 50+4+2 you get 6 S4, 4 S4 autohit, and 6 S3.
Move and shoot is not a problem with Cog. They also have +1LD, a 6++, and deepstrike/ambush. They can be given a 6+++ and +1 to hit.
And you can essentially cult reinforce a big blob into combat.
They're not better than IS, but let's not downplay their abilities.
I'm not? The entire point of my post was to point out how they are pretty much the same in terms of effectiveness, so it makes the most sense for both to be 5ppm.
I'm also a bit confused by your math here.
55 points for IS...so you're doing 1IS and 1/2 of a company commander? Then would that not be 37 S3 shots with FRSFRF?
and you're saying the neophytes here are at with 2 heavy stubbers and a web pistol, and you're granting them a subfaction trait because we're talking about Bladed Cog as well as an aura from a 75pt model, but I'm not seeing you including a subfaction trait for the company commander, and you're also not including any of the cost of the jackal alphus in their ability.
Also, many people are always quick to point out "but the company commander only buffs 2 units! The Jackal buffs any number of units because it's got an aura!" but they ignore the extra limitations on the alphus that does not exist on the CC.
The Alphus is limited to one per detachment, and if you're mixing detachments (say, because you want to pretend every GSC army has access to CTFAE charge bonuses and vect but you also want to pretend every bike squad is going to have the Rusted Claw stratagem and every Neophyte squad is going to have bladed cog) then her buff can only affect a fraction of your army. Also, her buff selects a single enemy unit to grant the hit bonus against, which works fine if your whole army is trying to shoot one single unit. But if you're up against something crazy that you never see in competitive play like six different infantry squads, the second you shoot one squad to death, your buff goes away.
Also if you want to get REAL technical, company commanders actually have faster movement than Jackal Alphus' if you use one of their orders on Move Move Move . Yes, she's got herself a sniper rifle that is 1/2 as effective as that most auto-include of space marine special characters, Sergeant Telion, and we all know what a terror of competitive play he's been, so something 1/2 as effective...wow, that's definitely something to be factoring in!
Just want to point that out in case anyone has forgotten that imperial guard basic infantry can all just decide to move faster than cars, jet packs, and motorcycles if they want to.
I'm not? The entire point of my post was to point out how they are pretty much the same in terms of effectiveness, so it makes the most sense for both to be 5ppm.
I'm also a bit confused by your math here.
55 points for IS...so you're doing 1IS and 1/2 of a company commander? Then would that not be 37 S3 shots with FRSFRF?
and you're saying the neophytes here are at with 2 heavy stubbers and a web pistol, and you're granting them a subfaction trait because we're talking about Bladed Cog as well as an aura from a 75pt model, but I'm not seeing you including a subfaction trait for the company commander, and you're also not including any of the cost of the jackal alphus in their ability.
Also, many people are always quick to point out "but the company commander only buffs 2 units! The Jackal buffs any number of units because it's got an aura!" but they ignore the extra limitations on the alphus that does not exist on the CC.
The Alphus is limited to one per detachment, and if you're mixing detachments (say, because you want to pretend every GSC army has access to CTFAE charge bonuses and vect but you also want to pretend every bike squad is going to have the Rusted Claw stratagem and every Neophyte squad is going to have bladed cog) then her buff can only affect a fraction of your army. Also, her buff selects a single enemy unit to grant the hit bonus against, which works fine if your whole army is trying to shoot one single unit. But if you're up against something crazy that you never see in competitive play like six different infantry squads, the second you shoot one squad to death, your buff goes away.
Also if you want to get REAL technical, company commanders actually have faster movement than Jackal Alphus' if you use one of their orders on Move Move Move . Yes, she's got herself a sniper rifle that is 1/2 as effective as that most auto-include of space marine special characters, Sergeant Telion, and we all know what a terror of competitive play he's been, so something 1/2 as effective...wow, that's definitely something to be factoring in!
Just want to point that out in case anyone has forgotten that imperial guard basic infantry can all just decide to move faster than cars, jet packs, and motorcycles if they want to.
Oh - I'm not attacking you or anything. I just wanted to temper language.
Yes - half a CC. 37 at 12", but they're not usually around for that. Cadians keep them still. Catachans MMM like jerks. MMM is great - better than deepstrike is some regards, but DS is pretty flexible, too.
The math is sans Jackal, because I'm not entirely certain she would be used to buff shooting against something they want to shoot unless they're carrying mini-mining lasers. The Jackal isn't a stellar sniper, but Sanctus and her can knock out some CCs reasonably well.
Flayed Ones are already more killy vs several targets for the price. The issue is that they can't reach combat quickly.
Hardly.
WS3+ S4 T4 A3 Sv4+ AP0... this is not a very killy statline and is worth 12ppm at most, and only that high because they can deep strike.
At their current cost they require a bump. Like getting the 4th attack back and better morale debuffs
To be fair, their abilities once they're in combat aren't that bad. Sure they die very easily, but they do get re-rolls to wound which makes them effective vs infantry. The problem is more around how they die quickly and have zero synergies within the codex. It's kind of a problem with Necrons as a whole though, not specifically flayed ones.
Flayed Ones are already more killy vs several targets for the price. The issue is that they can't reach combat quickly.
Hardly.
WS3+ S4 T4 A3 Sv4+ AP0... this is not a very killy statline and is worth 12ppm at most, and only that high because they can deep strike.
At their current cost they require a bump. Like getting the 4th attack back and better morale debuffs
To be fair, their abilities once they're in combat aren't that bad. Sure they die very easily, but they do get re-rolls to wound which makes them effective vs infantry. The problem is more around how they die quickly and have zero synergies within the codex. It's kind of a problem with Necrons as a whole though, not specifically flayed ones.
The thing is, I'm kind of fine with them dying easily. I just want to be able to field a squad 20 for under 250 points and have them throw out a stupid amount of attacks.
Flayed Ones are already more killy vs several targets for the price. The issue is that they can't reach combat quickly.
Hardly.
WS3+ S4 T4 A3 Sv4+ AP0... this is not a very killy statline and is worth 12ppm at most, and only that high because they can deep strike.
At their current cost they require a bump. Like getting the 4th attack back and better morale debuffs
You kinda forgot the whole they reroll to wound against everything but whatever. That alone makes them better than Scarabs, Wraiths, Praetorians, AND Lychguard vs quite a variety of targets.
Like I said, the issue is actually getting to combat.
Flayed Ones are already more killy vs several targets for the price. The issue is that they can't reach combat quickly.
Hardly.
WS3+ S4 T4 A3 Sv4+ AP0... this is not a very killy statline and is worth 12ppm at most, and only that high because they can deep strike.
At their current cost they require a bump. Like getting the 4th attack back and better morale debuffs
You kinda forgot the whole they reroll to wound against everything but whatever. That alone makes them better than Scarabs, Wraiths, Praetorians, AND Lychguard vs quite a variety of targets.
Like I said, the issue is actually getting to combat.
You don't need to tell me that Flayed Ones can do work against certain enemies (although better against a variety of targets is a stretch). You do need to justify that they are worth 17ppm.
Scarabs and Wraiths are both also good against certain enemies. The difference is, they are actually worth their points.
Bharring wrote: Wishlist of mine:
IG, IK, SM, and AdMech non-special-characters may replace the IoM keyword with Chaos.
With a few other stipulations, of course.
Pure wishlisting, though.
Just so I'm clear, here - you want Chaos to have CSM, DG, 1kSons, RenKnights & Daemons - as well as access to everything in the IG, IK, SM (just core SM, or all Imperial SM?) and AdMech book bar named characters?
...not just a no, but feth that noise.
We should just get Renegade Guard, Renegade Knight, and Dark Mechanicus Codices.
All you need to do to fix knights is when taking them in an Aux Super Heavy detachment i.e. only 1 knight, is make it so that this can only be a freeblade, i.e. no House Raven etc. available. this would limit some of the stratagems that super-buff the knights...
Personally, I'd like for renegades to be a playable faction.
As most people are doubtlessly aware, renegades in general are horribly overcosted. Their GEQ troops cost as much as guardsmen for a worse save, worse BS and WS, unreliable (but lower on average) leadership, and pay Guardsmen prices for weapons they shoot far less effectively. Those troops also don't get orders, or chapter tactics, or anything else worth noting. Their cultists are worse than the CSM cultists, for the same points. Their heavy weapons teams pay the same points cost as guard teams for their guns.. but have all the same issues as the standard GEQ troops.
Lastly, their rules don't even function. Entries refer to weapons lists which don't exist (Enforcers can choose from a non-existent pistol list..), weapons their entry cannot take, and plenty of other problems.
Dropping their Militia cost by 1-2 PPM, making functional weapon lists, and reducing the cost for most of their weapons would make them a functional force. They'd still be objectively worse than almost all armies due to a lack of chapter tactics & stratagems, but they'd at least be playable in a literal sense and semi-reasonably costed.
morganfreeman wrote: Personally, I'd like for renegades to be a playable faction.
As most people are doubtlessly aware, renegades in general are horribly overcosted. Their GEQ troops cost as much as guardsmen for a worse save, worse BS and WS, unreliable (but lower on average) leadership, and. Those troops also don't get orders, or chapter tactics, or anything else worth noting. Their cultists are worse than the CSM cultists, for the same points. Their heavy weapons teams pay the same points cost as guard teams for their guns.. but have all the same issues as the standard GEQ troops.
Lastly, their rules don't even function. Entries refer to weapons lists which don't exist (Enforcers can choose from a non-existent pistol list..), weapons their entry cannot take, and plenty of other problems.
Dropping their Militia cost by 1-2 PPM, making functional weapon lists, and reducing the cost for most of their weapons would make them a functional force. They'd still be objectively worse than almost all armies due to a lack of chapter tactics & stratagems, but they'd at least be playable in a literal sense and semi-reasonably costed.
Summed up pretty well, same can be applied to Corsairs aswell.
The Forgemaster wrote: All you need to do to fix knights is when taking them in an Aux Super Heavy detachment i.e. only 1 knight, is make it so that this can only be a freeblade, i.e. no House Raven etc. available. this would limit some of the stratagems that super-buff the knights...
Or make it so that Super Heavy Aux doesn't unlock stratagems. If you want to rotate dem onion shields you gotta commit to 3 knights.
The Forgemaster wrote: All you need to do to fix knights is when taking them in an Aux Super Heavy detachment i.e. only 1 knight, is make it so that this can only be a freeblade, i.e. no House Raven etc. available. this would limit some of the stratagems that super-buff the knights...
Or make it so that Super Heavy Aux doesn't unlock stratagems. If you want to rotate dem onion shields you gotta commit to 3 knights.
This would make sense. you can still run a knight w L32, just not as appealing if you also have to include 2 more knights if you want strats. would limit cheesefest at least.
Flayed Ones are already more killy vs several targets for the price. The issue is that they can't reach combat quickly.
Hardly.
WS3+ S4 T4 A3 Sv4+ AP0... this is not a very killy statline and is worth 12ppm at most, and only that high because they can deep strike.
At their current cost they require a bump. Like getting the 4th attack back and better morale debuffs
You kinda forgot the whole they reroll to wound against everything but whatever. That alone makes them better than Scarabs, Wraiths, Praetorians, AND Lychguard vs quite a variety of targets.
Like I said, the issue is actually getting to combat.
You don't need to tell me that Flayed Ones can do work against certain enemies (although better against a variety of targets is a stretch). You do need to justify that they are worth 17ppm.
Scarabs and Wraiths are both also good against certain enemies. The difference is, they are actually worth their points.
Yeah this is just it.
They're not killy enough to be that squishy for their points. 10 FO kill around 12 GEQ. So the 12 other GEQs waiting behind those first 12 just demolish them the next turn.
For a unit that regularly won't make their deep strike charges, it would be nice if they were cheaper, so you could throw them around more with less care, or better, so you could justify building up a more pricey delivery system.
In that sense, arguably just adding a single attack doesn't really make that much of a difference. But they were what.. 13 points in 7th? Still AP5 (nullifying 5+ saves) when AP was less important, and had 4 attacks and the same movement statistic as any other infantry. They certainly took a blow with the price hike and other changes transitioning into 8th.
Giving them +1A and AP-1 and suddenly the 10 FO kill 20 ork boys or 20 guardsmen or 10 space marines or 3 terminators. Now the enemy can't just sit back and deal with the ones that make their charge in an orderly fashion. He will have his flank molested if there are FO in play and need to adapt to the situation. Something you'd expect 2x10 FO for 340 pt should accomplish in the first place.
The Forgemaster wrote: All you need to do to fix knights is when taking them in an Aux Super Heavy detachment i.e. only 1 knight, is make it so that this can only be a freeblade, i.e. no House Raven etc. available. this would limit some of the stratagems that super-buff the knights...
Or make it so that Super Heavy Aux doesn't unlock stratagems. If you want to rotate dem onion shields you gotta commit to 3 knights.
I like both ideas. They seem simple yet effective.
I'm not? The entire point of my post was to point out how they are pretty much the same in terms of effectiveness, so it makes the most sense for both to be 5ppm.
I'm also a bit confused by your math here.
55 points for IS...so you're doing 1IS and 1/2 of a company commander? Then would that not be 37 S3 shots with FRSFRF?
and you're saying the neophytes here are at with 2 heavy stubbers and a web pistol, and you're granting them a subfaction trait because we're talking about Bladed Cog as well as an aura from a 75pt model, but I'm not seeing you including a subfaction trait for the company commander, and you're also not including any of the cost of the jackal alphus in their ability.
Also, many people are always quick to point out "but the company commander only buffs 2 units! The Jackal buffs any number of units because it's got an aura!" but they ignore the extra limitations on the alphus that does not exist on the CC.
The Alphus is limited to one per detachment, and if you're mixing detachments (say, because you want to pretend every GSC army has access to CTFAE charge bonuses and vect but you also want to pretend every bike squad is going to have the Rusted Claw stratagem and every Neophyte squad is going to have bladed cog) then her buff can only affect a fraction of your army. Also, her buff selects a single enemy unit to grant the hit bonus against, which works fine if your whole army is trying to shoot one single unit. But if you're up against something crazy that you never see in competitive play like six different infantry squads, the second you shoot one squad to death, your buff goes away.
Also if you want to get REAL technical, company commanders actually have faster movement than Jackal Alphus' if you use one of their orders on Move Move Move . Yes, she's got herself a sniper rifle that is 1/2 as effective as that most auto-include of space marine special characters, Sergeant Telion, and we all know what a terror of competitive play he's been, so something 1/2 as effective...wow, that's definitely something to be factoring in!
Just want to point that out in case anyone has forgotten that imperial guard basic infantry can all just decide to move faster than cars, jet packs, and motorcycles if they want to.
Oh - I'm not attacking you or anything. I just wanted to temper language.
Yes - half a CC. 37 at 12", but they're not usually around for that. Cadians keep them still. Catachans MMM like jerks. MMM is great - better than deepstrike is some regards, but DS is pretty flexible, too.
The math is sans Jackal, because I'm not entirely certain she would be used to buff shooting against something they want to shoot unless they're carrying mini-mining lasers. The Jackal isn't a stellar sniper, but Sanctus and her can knock out some CCs reasonably well.
If you're going to evaluate two units, evaluate them at the same range...so if you're going to do the infantry squad at 24", that neophyte squad gets....carry the one....
morganfreeman wrote: Personally, I'd like for renegades to be a playable faction.
As most people are doubtlessly aware, renegades in general are horribly overcosted. Their GEQ troops cost as much as guardsmen for a worse save, worse BS and WS, unreliable (but lower on average) leadership, and. Those troops also don't get orders, or chapter tactics, or anything else worth noting. Their cultists are worse than the CSM cultists, for the same points. Their heavy weapons teams pay the same points cost as guard teams for their guns.. but have all the same issues as the standard GEQ troops.
Lastly, their rules don't even function. Entries refer to weapons lists which don't exist (Enforcers can choose from a non-existent pistol list..), weapons their entry cannot take, and plenty of other problems.
Dropping their Militia cost by 1-2 PPM, making functional weapon lists, and reducing the cost for most of their weapons would make them a functional force. They'd still be objectively worse than almost all armies due to a lack of chapter tactics & stratagems, but they'd at least be playable in a literal sense and semi-reasonably costed.
Summed up pretty well, same can be applied to Corsairs aswell.
I have no objection to the army lists from the FW Index books getting a revision so they work (or so they make a bit more sense, in some cases) - I seem to recall that, as the story goes, no-one told FW about 8th edition until really late in the day, so they had to rush to produce the four books.
What I would object to is Chaos suddenly gaining the vast majority of at least four books of Imperial units, while still having 4 (technically 5) books of their own...
morganfreeman wrote: Personally, I'd like for renegades to be a playable faction.
As most people are doubtlessly aware, renegades in general are horribly overcosted. Their GEQ troops cost as much as guardsmen for a worse save, worse BS and WS, unreliable (but lower on average) leadership, and. Those troops also don't get orders, or chapter tactics, or anything else worth noting. Their cultists are worse than the CSM cultists, for the same points. Their heavy weapons teams pay the same points cost as guard teams for their guns.. but have all the same issues as the standard GEQ troops.
Lastly, their rules don't even function. Entries refer to weapons lists which don't exist (Enforcers can choose from a non-existent pistol list..), weapons their entry cannot take, and plenty of other problems.
Dropping their Militia cost by 1-2 PPM, making functional weapon lists, and reducing the cost for most of their weapons would make them a functional force. They'd still be objectively worse than almost all armies due to a lack of chapter tactics & stratagems, but they'd at least be playable in a literal sense and semi-reasonably costed.
Summed up pretty well, same can be applied to Corsairs aswell.
I have no objection to the army lists from the FW Index books getting a revision so they work (or so they make a bit more sense, in some cases) - I seem to recall that, as the story goes, no-one told FW about 8th edition until really late in the day, so they had to rush to produce the four books.
What I would object to is Chaos suddenly gaining the vast majority of at least four books of Imperial units, while still having 4 (technically 5) books of their own...
Why - Imperials would still have Custodes, Grey Knights and Sisters of Battle (plus Silence if that ever comes out) for their own books.
Those factions would probably have some rules in the form of models with faction Custodes, SoS and GK can never lose their imperial trait to gain the chaos, heretic astartes or demon trait.
Karol wrote: Those factions would probably have some rules in the form of models with faction Custodes, SoS and GK can never lose their imperial trait to gain the chaos, heretic astartes or demon trait.
That would be my point.
Couple this with a huge consoldation of the vast amount of duplicaiton and pretend unique units in the Marine codexes and that would be a great step forward.
named heros could also be done in a simular way. Either give them traits they can change. Or rename them in to stuff like heroic mounted space marine lord, and give the unit the option to either be a DW or Logan. Weapon options would be HMSML can either have a twin AC and HB or a Heroic weapon of Space Mariness. Foot HQs could be done the same. In fact it would help to bring the primaris version of the units more up front, as they with their new models every now and then, would be given a bigger plathora of rules.
A normal marine high apothecary would just be a way to play Corbulon, while primaris apothecaries could come with 2-3 different non weapon options. One could heal more wounds, other could be better at resurecting etc Both could be done with same models and maybe some arm or back pack change. no one would have to force people to pick up primaris, people would be doing it just because the units have better or more rules.
morganfreeman wrote: Personally, I'd like for renegades to be a playable faction.
As most people are doubtlessly aware, renegades in general are horribly overcosted. Their GEQ troops cost as much as guardsmen for a worse save, worse BS and WS, unreliable (but lower on average) leadership, and. Those troops also don't get orders, or chapter tactics, or anything else worth noting. Their cultists are worse than the CSM cultists, for the same points. Their heavy weapons teams pay the same points cost as guard teams for their guns.. but have all the same issues as the standard GEQ troops.
Lastly, their rules don't even function. Entries refer to weapons lists which don't exist (Enforcers can choose from a non-existent pistol list..), weapons their entry cannot take, and plenty of other problems.
Dropping their Militia cost by 1-2 PPM, making functional weapon lists, and reducing the cost for most of their weapons would make them a functional force. They'd still be objectively worse than almost all armies due to a lack of chapter tactics & stratagems, but they'd at least be playable in a literal sense and semi-reasonably costed.
Summed up pretty well, same can be applied to Corsairs aswell.
I have no objection to the army lists from the FW Index books getting a revision so they work (or so they make a bit more sense, in some cases) - I seem to recall that, as the story goes, no-one told FW about 8th edition until really late in the day, so they had to rush to produce the four books.
What I would object to is Chaos suddenly gaining the vast majority of at least four books of Imperial units, while still having 4 (technically 5) books of their own...
If done propperly a reworked IA13 with more options depending on demagogue and the issue would be solved, not even a need for traitor guard etc.
Darsath wrote: To be fair, their abilities once they're in combat aren't that bad. Sure they die very easily, but they do get re-rolls to wound which makes them effective vs infantry. The problem is more around how they die quickly and have zero synergies within the codex. It's kind of a problem with Necrons as a whole though, not specifically flayed ones.
There are some synergies, they just don't really help.
For example go Novokh for reroll hits. Go implacable conqueror for reroll charges. Use Veil of Darkness for a first turn charge or deep strike for a second turn charge (probably into a screen but thems the breaks). Activate disruption fields if facing T4 or T5 to make them S5 for 1CP.
3 attacks, rerolling hits, rerolling wounds.
The problem is you have no AP. So against regular old Tacticals/CSM, you are only getting 3*8/9*8/9*1/3=0.79 dead. Equals 10.27 points. For 17 points equals 60% return on your points. Against Guardsmen (sorry) its just 37% return on your points.
Which is pretty terrible for an all in synergised assault unit, that even with rerolls will fail a 9" charge about half the time.
So yeah. They either need to be about 12-13 points, or have more attacks/some AP. Or they need something like "from madness to murder, +2" to advance and charges". Potentially two of these.
I do find it interesting that we seem to be moving towards 7th edition, where any assault unit which doesn't have numerous special abilities to mitigate the base charge/overwatch rules is rubbish.
Its something for a new edition - but "if you fail a charge, you still move forward that many inches forward" would potentially be a major change to the game.
When you look at Necron points costs post-CA, they are now largely similar to 7th edition. Flayed Ones are one of the big outliers though. They are both significantly more expensive and less effective than in 7th. On that basis alone you can make a strong argument that they need to be buffed as well as see a points reduction.
-12 points
- +1 attack
- roll 3d6, discard lowest when charging INFANTRY
or
-14 points
- +1 attack
- AP-1
- roll 3d6, discard lowest when charging INFANTRY
The Forgemaster wrote: All you need to do to fix knights is when taking them in an Aux Super Heavy detachment i.e. only 1 knight, is make it so that this can only be a freeblade, i.e. no House Raven etc. available. this would limit some of the stratagems that super-buff the knights...
Or make it so that Super Heavy Aux doesn't unlock stratagems. If you want to rotate dem onion shields you gotta commit to 3 knights.
This would be good. I'd rather see it apply to ALL detachments that don't have one shared keyword (other than Imperium, Chaos etc.) with the detachment your warlord is in. Same with traits and relics. So Marines and guard, one of those detachments aren't getting traits, relics or unlocking strategems.
He'll, I'd prefer it to be TWO keywords (so no mixing different chapters in an army and all get their traits) but that might be too extreme.
Totally different track here, but I'd like to see an adjustment to sword and storm shield Custodes. As is the spear / misocordia combo is better and cheaper as well.
Well, these are probably more than would be addressed in an FAQ, but I'd like to see the following:
1: Get rid of the D3 almost entirely. It just doesn't produce enough of a range of variance to make it worth the time it takes. Retain it for Smite, but for shots and damage, just replace all instances of "d3" with "2"
2: All of the Warlord traits that allow a player to get back CP:
A: Either just have them grant a blanket bonus to CP -or-
B: Get rid of them entirely
Again, a time-saving measure. Also the mechanic for them is fairly swingy, so sometimes it'll be awesome, other times it'll be useless. Having it just grant a set amount of bonus CP will make it consistent, and consistent across detachments too. But also, because CP are so important, no one playing competitively is ever going to take anything else. So I'm actually in favor of just getting rid of it entirely so people start using the other Warlord Traits.
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: Well, these are probably more than would be addressed in an FAQ, but I'd like to see the following:
1: Get rid of the D3 almost entirely. It just doesn't produce enough of a range of variance to make it worth the time it takes. Retain it for Smite, but for shots and damage, just replace all instances of "d3" with "2"
2: All of the Warlord traits that allow a player to get back CP:
A: Either just have them grant a blanket bonus to CP -or-
B: Get rid of them entirely
Again, a time-saving measure. Also the mechanic for them is fairly swingy, so sometimes it'll be awesome, other times it'll be useless. Having it just grant a set amount of bonus CP will make it consistent, and consistent across detachments too. But also, because CP are so important, no one playing competitively is ever going to take anything else. So I'm actually in favor of just getting rid of it entirely so people start using the other Warlord Traits.
Bleh.
Variance is a big part of what makes 40K. If you feel like the game is taking too much time, you're playing too many points for the time you want to play.
Cynista wrote: When you look at Necron points costs post-CA, they are now largely similar to 7th edition. Flayed Ones are one of the big outliers though.
It's probably because of "Muh Resin" tbh, and that's not going away until Necrons get an infantry-wide model update (Why do just FOs when Warriors and Immortals have such similar designs?), RIP.
Personally I think Reanimation Protocols needs an extra little side-buff so that it's not just useless at bigger games, without becoming even more oppressive at smaller games. 1 or 2CP to put a wiped unit onto the Tomb World instead?
That might be more powerful, but taking away game interactions with your archetypal ability seems really off.
I like the Tomb World idea (saw it somewhere else) because it's a powerful ability (Tide of Traitors), but conditional on other models (Monoliths, Night Scythes etc.) that you can't really take in smaller games without sacrificing a bunch of other stuff.
The other option is to just accept the MEQ stat-line is dead and give Immortals T5 back.
It's not impossible to circumvent - You can just blow up the nigh-impossible-to-hide models with just 3+ armor saves. Hell, the Monolith is such a catastrophic waste of points i'm still not sure anyone would take it. If it STILL looks scary, make the stratagem cost 1CP more for each time you used it previously.
If you're going to evaluate two units, evaluate them at the same range...so if you're going to do the infantry squad at 24", that neophyte squad gets....carry the one....
3 shots at S3, 6 shots at S4.
Yes absolutely, but 16" is a lot easier when you have deepstrike over 12" on foot.
Darsath wrote: To be fair, their abilities once they're in combat aren't that bad. Sure they die very easily, but they do get re-rolls to wound which makes them effective vs infantry. The problem is more around how they die quickly and have zero synergies within the codex. It's kind of a problem with Necrons as a whole though, not specifically flayed ones.
There are some synergies, they just don't really help.
For example go Novokh for reroll hits. Go implacable conqueror for reroll charges. Use Veil of Darkness for a first turn charge or deep strike for a second turn charge (probably into a screen but thems the breaks). Activate disruption fields if facing T4 or T5 to make them S5 for 1CP.
3 attacks, rerolling hits, rerolling wounds.
The problem is you have no AP. So against regular old Tacticals/CSM, you are only getting 3*8/9*8/9*1/3=0.79 dead. Equals 10.27 points. For 17 points equals 60% return on your points. Against Guardsmen (sorry) its just 37% return on your points.
Which is pretty terrible for an all in synergised assault unit, that even with rerolls will fail a 9" charge about half the time.
So yeah. They either need to be about 12-13 points, or have more attacks/some AP. Or they need something like "from madness to murder, +2" to advance and charges". Potentially two of these.
I do find it interesting that we seem to be moving towards 7th edition, where any assault unit which doesn't have numerous special abilities to mitigate the base charge/overwatch rules is rubbish.
Its something for a new edition - but "if you fail a charge, you still move forward that many inches forward" would potentially be a major change to the game.
...you DO realize that kind of return is actually really good and only absurdly broken units make more than that, right?
If FOs were troops, I'd say there was no need to change anything. As it stands, taking a big ol' block of inconsistent Elites is just too heavy for a faction like Necrons. Also, the idea of having a block of twenty resin models makes my necrodermis crawl.
Here's a quick fix I see bandied around a lot. What do people think of making Scarabs and Flayed Ones troops?
Phaeron Gukk wrote: If FOs were troops, I'd say there was no need to change anything. As it stands, taking a big ol' block of inconsistent Elites is just too heavy for a faction like Necrons. Also, the idea of having a block of twenty resin models makes my necrodermis crawl.
Here's a quick fix I see bandied around a lot. What do people think of making Scarabs and Flayed Ones troops?
Would certainly ease the tax burden of the otherwise pricey codex.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: ...you DO realize that kind of return is actually really good and only absurdly broken units make more than that, right?
No, its good for shooting, but not for assault because assault units have the all or nothing charge phase, they therefore have to do more damage if everything goes right to be worthwhile. Or have rules such that everything goes right most of the time.
Even with a reroll you have about a 50% chance to fail a 9" charge (its a bit lower if you factor in burning CP having got a 6 but not dramatically so). In other words you have a 50% chance to do zero. The unit meanwhile has suffered overwatch. Then it gets shot or charged - or gets to eat another round of overwatch before it does anything.
You pick something like a genestealer. With a similar set of buffs (just stick a Broodlord nearby, have 10+ in a unit) you stand to get a 120% return versus Marines and a 64% return versus Guardsmen. They also have higher movement and can advance and charge, so have a better chance of getting across the table (and can bounce around with Kraken etc). Is the genestealer much tougher? Well its T4 with a 5++ versus T4 with a 4+, but the genestealer is 12 points so its a better deal.
On this basis you might think Kraken genestealers are a meta defining monster. Are they? Not obviously so no.
You could also compare with Ork Boys or Acolytes who don't have dramatically inferior damage output to flayed ones but are just 7 points a model and therefore will theoretically get a much higher return for your points. They are a bit more fragile - but again, 7 points to 17.
Another difference is that boyz, genestealers, acolytes, guardsmen, berserkers(?) etc. etc. can all be taken as troop choices. Even if they're not great they get you CP, they have objec. sec., they pay for your troop tax etc. etc. FOs have to be good in their own right and they really just...aren't.
Wayniac wrote: What stratagems were recosted for cheap guard CP? Or is that hypothetical?
What armies rely on CP farms to get stratagems? Not min/max them to get more like Loyal 32 powering a Knight, but actually rely on souping/CP farming in order to function?
Orks rely on CP farming to function. They rely on CP to make their Tankbustas, Lootas, and Boyz do obscene amounts of damage. Almost every ork list you see will be double batalion at a minimum, maybe brigade + battalion.
Most Ork tournament lists I see are Triple Battalion not double. Because Orkz are absolutely abysmal without 20+ CP. Our best unit in the game right now is the Loota bomb which is 20-25 Lootas (340-425pts) which you spend 1CP to Mob up, 2 CP to Dakkax3 on 5s, 2CP to shoot twice, 1 CP to Grot shield and 1 CP to CP reroll when you roll a 1-2 for number of shots. So on turn 1 you will spend between 5-7CP and turn 2-5 you will spend 4-6CP to make them worth taking, because if you don't they suck. Tankbusta's dont really benefit from CP because they have to stay in a trukk to survive past turn 1 and they can't use stratagems in them so they aren't used as much. Boyz also only really use CP to Green Tide and regenerate a messed up squad back to full strength.
Basically the entire ork codex isn't good but when you factor in stratagems we have a decent list. Damn shame that every competitive thing we have relies on CP spam.
Cynista wrote: Exactly what Tyel said. You have to compare them to other combat units and when you do, you see how woefully poor they are.
A Slugga boy, at 10 points less per model, puts out about the same damage as a FO but rerolls charges and has mob up.
Khorne Berzerkers, who Dakka lead me to believe nobody even uses, are the same price as FO's but significantly better
FO's also have inherent Deep strike, -1 to leadership tests for enemy units that they kill 1 model from, a 4+ save, so a 50% chance to survive compared to the Ork boyz 6+ save or 16.6% chance to survive, and inherent re rolls for failed wound rolls. Not to mention reanimation protocols. I'll agree though that they are overpriced, they could use a 2-3pt price cut, but don't short change their abilities. A better comparison is the fact that they are 4pts more expensive then a SM Tactical but have a worse save, are slower and have no ranged weapons.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ohh, and what I want to see is a clarification on how Loota's random shots and SAG random shots/strength interact with shoot twice stratagems.
Beyond that, most of the ork codex needs price changes and/or maybe a few more special rules, but no real issues with a FAQ needed.
FO's also have inherent Deep strike, -1 to leadership tests for enemy units that they kill 1 model from, a 4+ save, so a 50% chance to survive compared to the Ork boyz 6+ save or 16.6% chance to survive, and inherent re rolls for failed wound rolls. Not to mention reanimation protocols. I'll agree though that they are overpriced, they could use a 2-3pt price cut, but don't short change their abilities. A better comparison is the fact that they are 4pts more expensive then a SM Tactical but have a worse save, are slower and have no ranged weapons.
Deep strike is currently crap, and worth at most 2ppm. The leadership ability is pathetic and the better armour save is vastly outweighed by the extra bodies Orks will be fielding. This is without taking into account that Boyz (and all other comparable units mentioned) have their own, superior special rules. Which is why it's only really worth comparing stalines. I'm not short changing their abilities in the slightest - they are currently one of the worst units in the entire game
SemperMortis wrote: Ohh, and what I want to see is a clarification on how Loota's random shots and SAG random shots/strength interact with shoot twice stratagems.
Stuff like this annoys me because the rules are explicitly clear. It's like asking them "If I concede do I still lose?" or "What does double mean?" Asking them to clarify this just wastes their time.
What I would like to see? I think a rule that you can only use stratagems and relics from the codex which your warlord is from would do a lot to help balance soup.
Someone’s suggestion earlier in this thread that battle forged is 5 CP and battalion is back to 3 would also be great to somewhat help elite armies close the CP gap without allies.
What do I think will happen? Some beta rules become permanent maybe a new beta rule and some minor clarifications.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I would even make battle forged 6 cp
"Orks suck because they need to have a ton of CP to spam stratagems"... they are one of the horde armies. Running double or triple batallion is no problem for Orks.
Not saying that they are good or rebutting the rest. But I don't think is a problem that Orks are a CP hungry army when they can have CP to spare without a problem.
What I want is parity between the deep strikers and the scouts and all things that can scout move.
I know GW is testing out the rule about no deep strike on turn 1. But then how about scouts and scout move? Is it fair that scouts can then deploy within 9 inches before the game even starts but we can't deep strike on turn 1? Plus scouts can move and shoot normally after that. If they wanted to, they have a guaranteed charge. Not that scouts are built for charging, but even standing in front of a Gallant to render it next to useless since it can't move forward is a huge thing. I just find it unfair that if deep strikers aren't allowed to come in on turn 1, then why are scouts allowed to deploy where ever they want within 9 inches before the game even starts. Deep strikers don't even get a guaranteed charge off last time whereas for scouts, they get to move and charge after deployment, so they are almost guaranteed of a turn 1 charge if they wished to. We know scouts aren't really suited for close combat, but they are coming out with new versions of phobos armour in the future. You never know when GW might forget and launch a Phobos unit that is good in melee. I propose a rule that during the turn that scouts are deployed, they cannot move or charge. Shoot yes, they love to do that anyway. Narratively this works too, because once scouts gets into position, they usually stay there, until they need to retreat out of there.
Furthermore, the interaction of scouts against other scouts is all about who gets to deploy his scouts first. Now that we have missions where one side deploys everything first. What if both sides bring lots of scouts? The first one to deploy places all his scouts down, and by the time he is finished, the second to deploy find that his scouts are all wasted because essentially, there is nowhere on the board left he can place his scouts without being within 9 inches of an enemy scout. (The new infiltrator unit makes it worse, its 12 inches, not 9). So, he ends up being forced to deploy his scouts within his own deployment line. This is wrong and doesn't make sense.
Imagine scout to scout commander "ohh!!!! enemy has deployed their scouts already, so lets stay within our lines..."
I think scouts should be able to deploy within 2 inches of another scout type unit. The tactical value of scouts and similar units of that type are enormous, and I just feel that when both sides bring them, it shouldn't be a case of who gets to plonk down his scouts on the best real estate. This will also apply to anything which gets a scout move forward and such. So, hence, scouts still deploy, but cannot move or charge turn 1, and they still must deploy at least 9 inches from the enemy deployment zone. But other than that, even if they are other enemy scouts on the field, they are free to plonk themselves wherever as long as they stay 2 inches away from other scout units. That way, it won't be possible for a player deploying first to screen out the other player's scouts.
In conclusion, I propose that if the beta rules on deep strike and coming in from reserves are to be made actual rules, then scouts and any other similar unit similar to scouts really need to be looked at as well. They should not be allowed to move or charge on turn 1. And, it should be ok to deploy scouts within 2 inches of enemy scouts so that you don't have a situation of not being able to deploy the scouts you brought
Galas wrote: "Orks suck because they need to have a ton of CP to spam stratagems"... they are one of the horde armies. Running double or triple batallion is no problem for Orks.
Not saying that they are good or rebutting the rest. But I don't think is a problem that Orks are a CP hungry army when they can have CP to spare without a problem.
Except orkz don't run triple battalions with 270 boyz, they are running 2 to 4 full mobz of boyz and then filling out the other 5-7 troop slots with minimum squads of Grotz. And last time I checked grotz are good for....having a pulse.....and not for very long mind you.
And I do consider orkz being a CP hungry army as a problem, specifically when most of us want to get away from being forced to field a horde and get back to fielding a real speed freak army. Plus if you field 3 battalions you are only getting 18CP and if you run a loota bomb as i previously mentioned you are spending 5-7 of that turn 1 just for it to function and then 4-6 every turn thereafter, so if you get good rolls and never need the CP reroll you will be spending 6 turn 1 and 5 turn 2 and 3 JUST to make the loota bomb worth taking, so do the math, that is 16 CP to make 1 ork unit competitive for 3 turns. without CP that unit dies turn 1, and even if it doesn't it will be crap in the shooting phase, 20 lootas without Stratagems, average 40 shots, 17-18 hits and 5-6 wounds to a Knight a turn, give them their 4+ save and that is 5-6 damage a turn for a unit that costs as much as knights.
In my opinion, stratagems have been used by GW to band aid over their inability to properly balance units within the game or to find a way to bring bad units up to par.
1. Every army should have the same CP, regardless how many, and what detachments its composed of. If both armys are the same points they should have the same CP.
2. IK RIS should be capped at 4+.
3. Replace all D6 with 2D3. 2D6 with 4D3, etc.
4. MW should only happen on unmodified dice rolls. E.g. this weapon does one additional MW if you roll an unmodified wound roll of 6, instead of a wound roll of 6+. There are to many ways to add to wound rolls.
5. SM vehicles should benefit from chapter tactics. SM vehicles shouldnt get a penalty for shooting heavy weapons when moving, im ok if its limited to half speed. Why can havocs move at full speed, dont suffer that penalty, but a SM tank moving just 0,1" gets it ?
I agree that BA has been nerfed to death. The only unit that is worth playing are smash captains. But i dont see them getting unnerfed. It costs the same to redeploy a single JP assault marine, or a 15 model JPDC unit. Both are 2CP, thats ridiculous.
Necrons needs more point drops. RP is fine. A stratagem that lets necrons bring back a (slain) unit would be nice. Why can cultists and orks do it, but not the faction who can come back from death ? The 2 CP stratagem that lets you re-roll 1s on reanimation should be +1 to the roll. I have never ever used it, its not worth 2CP. Better synergy would be nice, why can necrons HQs only buff infantry ? Spiders can repair other vehicles but are unable to repair themselves, or each other, thats ridiculous. Imotekh should be able to hit characters with more than 10 wounds with his storm.
NERF genestealers. Being able to move 30+" and charge, pile in, and consolidate, and fight again in one turn is utterly ridiculous. Free AP-3 weapons ? WTF ?
1. Every army should have the same CP, regardless how many, and what detachments its composed of. If both armys are the same points they should have the same CP.
This would be a move in the right direction.
But I guess that GW still strongly supports soup and so this will hardly happen.
At least, one could restrict the use of CPs to the detachment which has generated it.
1. Every army should have the same CP, regardless how many, and what detachments its composed of. If both armys are the same points they should have the same CP.
This would be a move in the right direction.
But I guess that GW still strongly supports soup and so this will hardly happen.
At least, one could restrict the use of CPs to the detachment which has generated it.
Indeed, considering that even csm now got bonus cp speciality i think we will see more of that and less reigning in cp.
At least, one could restrict the use of CPs to the detachment which has generated it.
AM could still run two brigades for 24CP, and have a strong army. Necrons can only dream of having one brigade, necron elites suck, troop choices are very expensive. This doesnt fix the CP issue. Keeping track of what CPs belongs to what detachment makes the game more complicated.
At least, one could restrict the use of CPs to the detachment which has generated it.
AM could still run two brigades for 24CP, and have a strong army. Necrons can only dream of having one brigade, necron elites suck, troop choices are very expensive. This doesnt fix the CP issue. Keeping track of what CPs belongs to what detachment makes the game more complicated.
The idea keeps coming up, but I agree with you on that point. Detachment specific CP isn't happening, tracking it would be a pain.
p5freak wrote: 1. Every army should have the same CP, regardless how many, and what detachments its composed of. If both armys are the same points they should have the same CP.
Only if every army has the same model count too. If both armies are the same points, they should have the same model count.
Also armies should roll the same number of dice per attack. If armies are the same points, each attack should have the same amount of dice.
Also armies should have identical move stats. If armies are the same point, they should move identical distances.
Etc....
Seems a bit silly.
Not that there are no problems with CP, but having the ability to use your "list building" to make armies with fewer or more CP, with fewer or more models, with less or more offensive output, etc.. is kinda the nature of the game. Otherwise, why not just play (at least in tournament play) perfect mirror matches all the time (say, the ITC or even GW publishes a 2019 "tournament list" with the exact models and equipment in it, which tournament players all use for "perfectly fair games".. the rest is open play)
At least, one could restrict the use of CPs to the detachment which has generated it.
AM could still run two brigades for 24CP, and have a strong army. Necrons can only dream of having one brigade, necron elites suck, troop choices are very expensive. This doesnt fix the CP issue. Keeping track of what CPs belongs to what detachment makes the game more complicated.
The idea keeps coming up, but I agree with you on that point. Detachment specific CP isn't happening, tracking it would be a pain.
How so? I'd say usually armies consist of not more than 3 detachments. So you set 3 dice aside in different colors for each detachment showing you their CP. If you want take a 4th die for battleforged. Or simply write it down...
You know, in lotr every single HQ unit comes with 3 values that are limited in use so you have to keep track of what every single hero did/ how many points of might/will/faith they have spent. The game is not breaking down because of that.
NERF genestealers. Being able to move 30+" and charge, pile in, and consolidate, and fight again in one turn is utterly ridiculous. Free AP-3 weapons ? WTF ?
I was with you up until you mentioned needling genestealers. Yes they’re the best unit in the tyranid codex, but they’re hardly dominating the competitive scene. The insane movement requires a 250pt targetable hq,, 1 cp to double the advance roll and 3cp to fight again, in an army that eats cp like crazy. Because it requires stratagems, only one unit can do this per turn and due to the fragility of the unit, any additional units will die to a stale fart. In addition, once the unit drops below half health it loses a quarter of its combat effectiveness. Nerf genestealers and you kill tyranids as a codex
How so? I'd say usually armies consist of not more than 3 detachments. So you set 3 dice aside in different colors for each detachment showing you their CP. If you want take a 4th die for battleforged. Or simply write it down...
It makes the game more complicated, even if its only a tiny bit.
You know, in lotr every single HQ unit comes with 3 values that are limited in use so you have to keep track of what every single hero did/ how many points of might/will/faith they have spent. The game is not breaking down because of that.
Thats not a game i would want to play. Micromanagement sucks.
I was with you up until you mentioned needling genestealers. Yes they’re the best unit in the tyranid codex, but they’re hardly dominating the competitive scene. The insane movement requires a 250pt targetable hq,, 1 cp to double the advance roll and 3cp to fight again, in an army that eats cp like crazy. Because it requires stratagems, only one unit can do this per turn and due to the fragility of the unit, any additional units will die to a stale fart. In addition, once the unit drops below half health it loses a quarter of its combat effectiveness. Nerf genestealers and you kill tyranids as a codex
That targetable HQ can be hidden out of sight, or out of range. A basic infantry troop choice should not be able to outrun a supersonic flyer, and charge, and fight (again), with another 12" movement. The entire tyranid codex isnt dead when one unit gets nerfed.
Galas wrote: "Orks suck because they need to have a ton of CP to spam stratagems"... they are one of the horde armies. Running double or triple batallion is no problem for Orks.
Not saying that they are good or rebutting the rest. But I don't think is a problem that Orks are a CP hungry army when they can have CP to spare without a problem.
Yeah. 3 bat is easy. Of course that gives you about 2.5 turns at best before you are out.
How so? I'd say usually armies consist of not more than 3 detachments. So you set 3 dice aside in different colors for each detachment showing you their CP. If you want take a 4th die for battleforged. Or simply write it down...
It makes the game more complicated, even if its only a tiny bit.
You know, in lotr every single HQ unit comes with 3 values that are limited in use so you have to keep track of what every single hero did/ how many points of might/will/faith they have spent. The game is not breaking down because of that.
Thats not a game i would want to play. Micromanagement sucks.
Well... if that's too much micromanagement for you I wonder how you survive a single CC-phase in 40K. Also, you should never play with the Cities of Death or any terrain rules, really, they're much more complicated than keeping track of some points...
At least, one could restrict the use of CPs to the detachment which has generated it.
AM could still run two brigades for 24CP, and have a strong army. Necrons can only dream of having one brigade, necron elites suck, troop choices are very expensive. This doesnt fix the CP issue. Keeping track of what CPs belongs to what detachment makes the game more complicated.
The idea keeps coming up, but I agree with you on that point. Detachment specific CP isn't happening, tracking it would be a pain.
How so? I'd say usually armies consist of not more than 3 detachments. So you set 3 dice aside in different colors for each detachment showing you their CP. If you want take a 4th die for battleforged. Or simply write it down...
You know, in lotr every single HQ unit comes with 3 values that are limited in use so you have to keep track of what every single hero did/ how many points of might/will/faith they have spent. The game is not breaking down because of that.
You know there's also option of nerfing one unit to reasonable level and buffing others? I wouldn't mind lootas getting nerfed a bit if instead we would get orks that don't rely on unit that does in average with full cp usage 1+100+16.6666+36.1+6=159 dice rolls just to determine hits(averaging 54 hits). Then to wound and saves.
Sure that 1 unit is keeping orks playable but would be nice to have more variety or at least have crutch unit with less mind numbing rolling. When you literally need hundreds dices to resolve one units shooting...
1. Every army should have the same CP, regardless how many, and what detachments its composed of. If both armys are the same points they should have the same CP.
This would be a move in the right direction.
But I guess that GW still strongly supports soup and so this will hardly happen.
At least, one could restrict the use of CPs to the detachment which has generated it.
My fav is still start with x, each det taken reduces cp. Helps mono armies(codex and trait), gives reason to fill in slots rather than just taking new det and get cp as well
At least, one could restrict the use of CPs to the detachment which has generated it.
AM could still run two brigades for 24CP, and have a strong army. Necrons can only dream of having one brigade, necron elites suck, troop choices are very expensive. This doesnt fix the CP issue. Keeping track of what CPs belongs to what detachment makes the game more complicated.
The idea keeps coming up, but I agree with you on that point. Detachment specific CP isn't happening, tracking it would be a pain.
How so? I'd say usually armies consist of not more than 3 detachments. So you set 3 dice aside in different colors for each detachment showing you their CP. If you want take a 4th die for battleforged. Or simply write it down...
You know, in lotr every single HQ unit comes with 3 values that are limited in use so you have to keep track of what every single hero did/ how many points of might/will/faith they have spent. The game is not breaking down because of that.
40k already has plenty to keep track of. And I'm not saying I couldn't find a way to manage it, I'm saying GW, in my opinion, definitely won't want to add that layer of complexity to a game they've tried to make more accessible this edition.
Far more likely in my opinion would be limiting Strats to your Warlord's faction, and limiting CP generated by other factions in the same way as Brood Brothers.
My fav is still start with x, each det taken reduces cp. Helps mono armies(codex and trait), gives reason to fill in slots rather than just taking new det and get cp as well
I'd really like to see -1 to hit army-wide to become always on cover or +1 when in cover (whichever is equal to Sa'cea) and to have SM/CSM and flavours to get chapter tactics on ALL units, just like, well... ALL other armies.
Vector Strike wrote: I'd really like to see -1 to hit army-wide to become always on cover or +1 when in cover (whichever is equal to Sa'cea) and to have SM/CSM and flavours to get chapter tactics on ALL units, just like, well... ALL other armies.
Agreed on both.
With that nerf to the -1 to hit traits though, I'd probably also change the RG/AL strat to be a scout deployment, but limited to 1 unit for 1CP or 2 for 3CP. The current iteration is frankly awful given it costs CP. This sidegrade would give it a use, but stop the previous issue of it being spammable.
I actually think there isn't enough -1 in the game, given how lethal it is and how much of an inflation of double-shooting, double-fighting, etc.. we've seen.
I'd probably rather see a flat reduction in BS/WS to all armies, Marines/Eldar going to 4+, Tau/Guard to 5+, Conscripts/Orks going to 6+ and making -X to hit a bit more prolific.
Alternatively, every army should probably get some -1 activation strat for shooting and/or cc to combat double-activation strats as well as more units with a in-build ability to only take half the hits or something to balance out units with in-built double-shooting like Leman Russes.
The "structural" main problem with 40KIMO is that, Index-to-Codex" the buffs to offensive output of armies have far outpaced the buffs to defensive abilities (with the odd -1 being the rare exception), leaving very little between spamming hordes or spamming T7/T8 with good invuls.
Vector Strike wrote: I'd really like to see -1 to hit army-wide to become always on cover or +1 when in cover (whichever is equal to Sa'cea) and to have SM/CSM and flavours to get chapter tactics on ALL units, just like, well... ALL other armies.
Not Sa'cea (which has +1 Ld and one To Hit reroll per unit per shooting phase) but Dal'yth (has cover even in open ground if remained still).
Sunny Side Up wrote: I actually think there isn't enough -1 in the game, given how lethal it is and how much of an inflation of double-shooting, double-fighting, etc.. we've seen.
I'd probably rather see a flat reduction in BS/WS to all armies, Marines/Eldar going to 4+, Tau/Guard to 5+, Conscripts/Orks going to 6+ and making -X to hit a bit more prolific.
having 20/40pts models hiting on +4 with opponents possibly stacking a -1 to hit, seems like a very punishing thing for elite armies. And considering melee is always better for horde, elite armies may as well not exist.
Vector Strike wrote: I'd really like to see -1 to hit army-wide to become always on cover or +1 when in cover (whichever is equal to Sa'cea) and to have SM/CSM and flavours to get chapter tactics on ALL units, just like, well... ALL other armies.
A lot of armies don't get their "chapter tactic" on all models...
I mean it would totally be a lot fairer if it was the same way for everyone, but sm/csm aren't the lonely outlier you make them seem to be.
Vector Strike wrote: I'd really like to see -1 to hit army-wide to become always on cover or +1 when in cover (whichever is equal to Sa'cea) and to have SM/CSM and flavours to get chapter tactics on ALL units, just like, well... ALL other armies.
A lot of armies don't get their "chapter tactic" on all models...
I mean it would totally be a lot fairer if it was the same way for everyone, but sm/csm aren't the lonely outlier you make them seem to be.
Sunny Side Up wrote: I actually think there isn't enough -1 in the game, given how lethal it is and how much of an inflation of double-shooting, double-fighting, etc.. we've seen.
I'd probably rather see a flat reduction in BS/WS to all armies, Marines/Eldar going to 4+, Tau/Guard to 5+, Conscripts/Orks going to 6+ and making -X to hit a bit more prolific.
having 20/40pts models hiting on +4 with opponents possibly stacking a -1 to hit, seems like a very punishing thing for elite armies. And considering melee is always better for horde, elite armies may as well not exist.
I have to agree with Karol on this one. The last thing Marines and similar need is a nerf to the damage throughput of their infantry.
Sunny Side Up wrote: I actually think there isn't enough -1 in the game, given how lethal it is and how much of an inflation of double-shooting, double-fighting, etc.. we've seen.
I'd probably rather see a flat reduction in BS/WS to all armies, Marines/Eldar going to 4+, Tau/Guard to 5+, Conscripts/Orks going to 6+ and making -X to hit a bit more prolific.
having 20/40pts models hiting on +4 with opponents possibly stacking a -1 to hit, seems like a very punishing thing for elite armies. And considering melee is always better for horde, elite armies may as well not exist.
I have to agree with Karol on this one. The last thing Marines and similar need is a nerf to the damage throughput of their infantry.
It's only a nerf if you play static and don't take advantage of moving into the 12" range.
Because that -1 to hit as an army trait? It's accompanied by only extending to 12" or farther.
I wish for all "VS specific army" rules to have no effect in matched play. They belong in narrative play.
And no more CP sharing between different codexes. Having to keep track of 3pools of CP is not hard. GW can even sell army/codex specific CP tokens for those not being able to keep track.
Sunny Side Up wrote: I actually think there isn't enough -1 in the game, given how lethal it is and how much of an inflation of double-shooting, double-fighting, etc.. we've seen.
I'd probably rather see a flat reduction in BS/WS to all armies, Marines/Eldar going to 4+, Tau/Guard to 5+, Conscripts/Orks going to 6+ and making -X to hit a bit more prolific.
having 20/40pts models hiting on +4 with opponents possibly stacking a -1 to hit, seems like a very punishing thing for elite armies. And considering melee is always better for horde, elite armies may as well not exist.
I have to agree with Karol on this one. The last thing Marines and similar need is a nerf to the damage throughput of their infantry.
It's only a nerf if you play static and don't take advantage of moving into the 12" range.
Because that -1 to hit as an army trait? It's accompanied by only extending to 12" or farther.
Huh? I'm talking about the idea of worsening all BS scores by 1. It disproportionately hurts elite armies over hordes, and elite armies are already somewhat poor generally.
Vector Strike wrote: I'd really like to see -1 to hit army-wide to become always on cover or +1 when in cover (whichever is equal to Sa'cea) and to have SM/CSM and flavours to get chapter tactics on ALL units, just like, well... ALL other armies.
A lot of armies don't get their "chapter tactic" on all models...
I mean it would totally be a lot fairer if it was the same way for everyone, but sm/csm aren't the lonely outlier you make them seem to be.
about 1/2 of the codex does not get a trait: All marines, GSC, Sisters
Codex is wildly divided into sections that can have traits, but only if you take whole detachments out of just that small section of the 'dex: Daemons, Drukhari.
There doesn't seem to be a rhyme or reason or standard of power.
Drukhari have a subdivided dex but appear to have good CT's to make up for it.
Daemons have the same thing but with total garbage CTs.
GSC have CT'less vehicles but appear to have good CT's to make up for it.
Marines have CT'less vehicles but have garbage CT's.
Vector Strike wrote: I'd really like to see -1 to hit army-wide to become always on cover or +1 when in cover (whichever is equal to Sa'cea) and to have SM/CSM and flavours to get chapter tactics on ALL units, just like, well... ALL other armies.
A lot of armies don't get their "chapter tactic" on all models...
I mean it would totally be a lot fairer if it was the same way for everyone, but sm/csm aren't the lonely outlier you make them seem to be.
about 1/2 of the codex does not get a trait: All marines, GSC, Sisters
Codex is wildly divided into sections that can have traits, but only if you take whole detachments out of just that small section of the 'dex: Daemons, Drukhari.
There doesn't seem to be a rhyme or reason or standard of power.
Drukhari have a subdivided dex but appear to have good CT's to make up for it.
Daemons have the same thing but with total garbage CTs.
GSC have CT'less vehicles but appear to have good CT's to make up for it.
Marines have CT'less vehicles but have garbage CT's.
I don't get it.
Guard has a lot that doesn't, and even have a Drulhari esque section with Scions -- they can get a very specific trait ,but only if their detachemnt is all Scions
Commisars, L. commisars, Bullgryns, Ogryns, Bgryn Bodyguard, Astropath, Primaris Psykers, Weirdvane Psykers, Ratlings, Masters of the Fleet, Master of Ordinance, Valkyries, Vendetta's, Ministorum Priest, Crusaders and I think a few more don't get any Regimental Traits regardless
This could be super unpopular but in the case of speeding up the game, and balancing it in some instance, I'd change how FNP works and its equivalents.
Firstly all across the board become the same, no more 5+ for some and 6+ for others etc.
Then, for every 3 wounds/damage caused, flat ignore 1 of them, rounding down.
Get 10 bolter shots through the armour save, 3 are immediately ignored.
Get 2 through, none are ignored.
Get a damage 3 weapon through on to a vehicle, you take 2. Score a 6 for damage on a lascannon? You actually cause 4.
In the case of damage 2 weapons from multi shot weapons, or from a squad (overcharged hell blasters) combine all the damage caused and remove damage as necessary before allocating.
I know FNP spam is not a huge issue at the tournament level, but christ alive certain armies make the game slow (deathguard and shielf drone spam), or super frustrating for opponents when the dice are rolling above average hot.
It's only a nerf if you play static and don't take advantage of moving into the 12" range.
Because that -1 to hit as an army trait? It's accompanied by only extending to 12" or farther.
To elite armies, this is like saying we know your bad at shoting, but here try to do melee, something you are even worse at, as in w40k numbers>everything else.
Plus there is the problem of shoty armies with very powerful melee units. trying to get in to 12" range for an elite army means they will just get shot and charged on their opponent turn. that is double punishment for factions that are already weaker.
It also helps certain eldar units like reaper,s as they hit on +3 no matter what or anything that gets all round hit re-rolls like armies with gulliman.
I would like to see a rule for fast rolling lots of dice, or reducing the number to roll with a bonus somehow. When playing against horde armies 1000 dice rolls per game arent unusual. This takes A LOT of time.
Stux wrote: Huh? I'm talking about the idea of worsening all BS scores by 1. It disproportionately hurts elite armies over hordes, and elite armies are already somewhat poor generally.
I don't get it, how does it disproportionately hurt elite armies? If anything, it affects elite armies less, since 4+ -> 5+ is a 33% reduction while 3+ -> 4+ is a 25% reduction.
Stux wrote: Huh? I'm talking about the idea of worsening all BS scores by 1. It disproportionately hurts elite armies over hordes, and elite armies are already somewhat poor generally.
I don't get it, how does it disproportionately hurt elite armies? If anything, it affects elite armies less, since 4+ -> 5+ is a 33% reduction while 3+ -> 4+ is a 25% reduction.
Because elite armies rely on good BS to do anything, while hordes can just swamp you in weight of numbers. Remember you're shooting with 3 to 4 Guardsmen for every Marine too. It's more about the distribution and swingy it will be than just looking at the mean.
Kanluwen wrote: It's only a nerf if you play static and don't take advantage of moving into the 12" range.
Because that -1 to hit as an army trait? It's accompanied by only extending to 12" or farther.
Except you cant have your whole army in 12" of their whole army, so you are either strategically limited or just have to take it.
Its a stupidly powerful ability when compared to other chapter tactics.
Deep down I'd like all CTs for all factions to be redesigned together so they are all at the same power level and interest as say the GSC abilities. Rather than say "Alaitoc"->"Ulthwe"->"Sorry didn't realise this was a narrative game".
Also giving a significant buff automatically makes the units who miss out feel gimped. Mandrakes occasionally attract experiments but Scourge and Incubi just look sad. GSC genestealers are the latest non-unit. Triarch Praetorians are equally stupid. Points could fix these but it still feels bad.
Kanluwen wrote: It's only a nerf if you play static and don't take advantage of moving into the 12" range.
Because that -1 to hit as an army trait? It's accompanied by only extending to 12" or farther.
Except you cant have your whole army in 12" of their whole army, so you are either strategically limited or just have to take it.
Its a stupidly powerful ability when compared to other chapter tactics.
Deep down I'd like all CTs for all factions to be redesigned together so they are all at the same power level and interest as say the GSC abilities. Rather than say "Alaitoc"->"Ulthwe"->"Sorry didn't realise this was a narrative game".
Also giving a significant buff automatically makes the units who miss out feel gimped. Mandrakes occasionally attract experiments but Scourge and Incubi just look sad. GSC genestealers are the latest non-unit. Triarch Praetorians are equally stupid. Points could fix these but it still feels bad.
I love hearing things like this. Makes me happy to be building Militarum Tempestus. The army’s effective range is entirely in 12,” and it has the ability to get most models into range.
I had other things on my list but after noticing the rubric entry I just want my options back for them. Arbitrary nefs to already weak units are lame. If it's causing that much friction with 1k sons give theirs something more (besides troops and extra power).
I love hearing things like this. Makes me happy to be building Militarum Tempestus. The army’s effective range is entirely in 12,” and it has the ability to get most models into range.
Nice. Do they also cost 20/40pts per model?
I had other things on my list but after noticing the rubric entry I just want my options back for them. Arbitrary nefs to already weak units are lame. If it's causing that much friction with 1k sons give theirs something more (besides troops and extra power).
that is true. For example for a short time in the game we had a few units that had the old fly rule, by virtue of GW giving them worse fly before the fly nerf. Not a single of those units was breaking the game, and in case of units like primaris scouts, they still kind of a didn't get taken. GW hit them with the errata later on, only God knows why. the units didn't have fly, how they worked was plain writen in the unit rule descriptions. But I guess bad units have to stay bad no matter what.
I love hearing things like this. Makes me happy to be building Militarum Tempestus. The army’s effective range is entirely in 12,” and it has the ability to get most models into range.
Nice. Do they also cost 20/40pts per model?
I had other things on my list but after noticing the rubric entry I just want my options back for them. Arbitrary nefs to already weak units are lame. If it's causing that much friction with 1k sons give theirs something more (besides troops and extra power).
that is true. For example for a short time in the game we had a few units that had the old fly rule, by virtue of GW giving them worse fly before the fly nerf. Not a single of those units was breaking the game, and in case of units like primaris scouts, they still kind of a didn't get taken. GW hit them with the errata later on, only God knows why. the units didn't have fly, how they worked was plain writen in the unit rule descriptions. But I guess bad units have to stay bad no matter what.
dominuschao wrote: I had other things on my list but after noticing the rubric entry I just want my options back for them. Arbitrary nefs to already weak units are lame. If it's causing that much friction with 1k sons give theirs something more (besides troops and extra power).
What options are Rubrics missing that they used to have? At least as long as I've been playing, Rubric Marines have always:
-Had no weapon options
-Been lead by a psyker with a force weapon/pistol
-had inferno bolts+some kind of invuln save.
-Had an icon of Tzeentch (now Icon of Flame)
The 8th edition incarnation of rubric marines has the most weapon options of any iteration of Rubrics I've ever seen, as few as those are. The ability to swap the whole squad to warpflamers and add a soulreaper cannon is as option-heavy as they've ever been.
- CP farming addressed
- Balance offending and too stronKKK factions nerfed ( looking at you IG)
- Certain abuse, like - to hit stacking addressed
- Certain datasheets updated ( vanilla SM, if you make it cheaper it will be auto take, if you leave it like that its just NYEH, neeeds overhaul)
- Giving factions, ESPECIALLY early factions more ways to play ( SM, Admech) to make them more in depth
- Overperforming units and stratgems addressed ( Castellan is very hard to balance because of what it brings to the table if fed cp, but in a pure knight list its just OK)
Realistically speaking, I dont have too high hopes (no major point changes in big faq for sure, so maybe slight mechanics changes)
Apple Peel wrote: I love hearing things like this. Makes me happy to be building Militarum Tempestus. The army’s effective range is entirely in 12,” and it has the ability to get most models into range.
Apple Peel wrote: I love hearing things like this. Makes me happy to be building Militarum Tempestus. The army’s effective range is entirely in 12,” and it has the ability to get most models into range.
Apple Peel wrote: I love hearing things like this. Makes me happy to be building Militarum Tempestus. The army’s effective range is entirely in 12,” and it has the ability to get most models into range.
Uh... how?
Grav chutes?
You can't use them for most of your army though, 50% at best.
Apple Peel wrote: I love hearing things like this. Makes me happy to be building Militarum Tempestus. The army’s effective range is entirely in 12,” and it has the ability to get most models into range.
Uh... how?
Grav chutes?
You can't use them for most of your army though, 50% at best.
The other half could be in valkyries, theoretically.
Apple Peel wrote: I love hearing things like this. Makes me happy to be building Militarum Tempestus. The army’s effective range is entirely in 12,” and it has the ability to get most models into range.
Uh... how?
Grav chutes?
You can't use them for most of your army though, 50% at best.
The other half could be in valkyries, theoretically.
Sure, but if you don't get the first turn they won't be staying there long! Especially with nothing else to shoot at.
To break from the wishlisting a bit, here's something that's been discussed over on TheDarkCity.
A unit embarked within a transport with the Open-Topped rule shoot at an AdMech Kastelan Robot.
The Kastelan rolls a 6 for its invuln save, so the shot bounces back. Who takes the wound?
As written, the rule is pretty clear that the firing unit would, so the embarked unit would take a mortal wound. But, as this is, to my knowledge, the only rules interaction where a unit can take a casualty while they aren't on the table, I don't think this is intended.
onlyroad wrote: To break from the wishlisting a bit, here's something that's been discussed over on TheDarkCity.
A unit embarked within a transport with the Open-Topped rule shoot at an AdMech Kastelan Robot.
The Kastelan rolls a 6 for its invuln save, so the shot bounces back. Who takes the wound?
As written, the rule is pretty clear that the firing unit would, so the embarked unit would take a mortal wound. But, as this is, to my knowledge, the only rules interaction where a unit can take a casualty while they aren't on the table, I don't think this is intended.
Some clarification would be nice from the FAQ
I would say that just because it may be the only time it can happen doesn't mean it's unintended. In fact I would say this is probably the most intuitive result too.
Sure, anything like this where there is potential for confusion would still benefit from an FAQ though.
Can't use Valks in a Tempestus Army and retain their doctrine. The most you can get is a turn 2 9" deployment.
And before you say Volley guns, those are heavy. So make that hitting on 4s.
The only effective way to go Scions is to get three Tempestor Primes, and 3x Plasma Command Squads, DS them all, and watch your opponent gak their pants. Of course your opponent will then brush them aside if they aren't an idiot, so you are maybe getting 1 turn with them.
*****Might also add, this is total THAT GUY territory. Don't pull this unless you hate your opponent.
onlyroad wrote: To break from the wishlisting a bit, here's something that's been discussed over on TheDarkCity.
A unit embarked within a transport with the Open-Topped rule shoot at an AdMech Kastelan Robot.
The Kastelan rolls a 6 for its invuln save, so the shot bounces back. Who takes the wound?
As written, the rule is pretty clear that the firing unit would, so the embarked unit would take a mortal wound. But, as this is, to my knowledge, the only rules interaction where a unit can take a casualty while they aren't on the table, I don't think this is intended.
Some clarification would be nice from the FAQ
Its not the only situation where this can happen. Necron lychguard can do the same with a stratagem.
onlyroad wrote: To break from the wishlisting a bit, here's something that's been discussed over on TheDarkCity.
A unit embarked within a transport with the Open-Topped rule shoot at an AdMech Kastelan Robot.
The Kastelan rolls a 6 for its invuln save, so the shot bounces back. Who takes the wound?
As written, the rule is pretty clear that the firing unit would, so the embarked unit would take a mortal wound. But, as this is, to my knowledge, the only rules interaction where a unit can take a casualty while they aren't on the table, I don't think this is intended.
Some clarification would be nice from the FAQ
I would say that just because it may be the only time it can happen doesn't mean it's unintended. In fact I would say this is probably the most intuitive result too.
Sure, anything like this where there is potential for confusion would still benefit from an FAQ though.
See, the reason I say its unintended is that other interactions with embarked units go out of their way to make sure the unit is on the table before any models are removed. Take emergency disembarkation for instance. The process is very specific, once the transport is reduced to zero wounds, the Explodes roll is triggered, the unit inside disembarks onto the table, and only then are casualty rolls made and the transport removed.
But I agree, this very well could be intended, and it wouldn't cause too many issues if it was.
dominuschao wrote: I had other things on my list but after noticing the rubric entry I just want my options back for them. Arbitrary nefs to already weak units are lame. If it's causing that much friction with 1k sons give theirs something more (besides troops and extra power).
What options are Rubrics missing that they used to have? At least as long as I've been playing, Rubric Marines have always:
-Had no weapon options
-Been lead by a psyker with a force weapon/pistol
-had inferno bolts+some kind of invuln save.
-Had an icon of Tzeentch (now Icon of Flame)
The 8th edition incarnation of rubric marines has the most weapon options of any iteration of Rubrics I've ever seen, as few as those are. The ability to swap the whole squad to warpflamers and add a soulreaper cannon is as option-heavy as they've ever been.
From that perspective you are correct rubrics have more options then in the past. What I'm talking about are these:
-soulreaper access changed from 1 per squad, 2 if 20 to match 1k sons. i.e. 1 SRC per 10.
-removed force axe option. Again this is in line with 1k sons.
-did not add access to a second power which would have been in line with 1k sons.
I hate when they nerf units for no good reason. Especially when other more potent units exist internally which skews internal balance.The root of my complaint is that my rubrics are msu units modelled from FW legion mkIV recon squads with alpha legion pads and helmets with the soulreaper represented by aftermarket sniper rifles. Pisses me off these guys got worse arbitrarily. This after the forward operatives nerf which also hit them pretty hard.
Now I can see GW probably looked at 1k sons and decided they needed to have the better rubrics. Well they already did, as troops that also have additional psych power. But they still aren't good enough to see much play over tzaangors or daemons. So if any change was needed it should have been to give 1k sons the ability to take a heavy at 5 and a second at 10. Both incarnations should probably have this IMO. Not like rubric marines were being spammed competitively or will be now that they nerfed the analogue.
Meanwhile in csm as an elite only choice they were never competitive enough to begin with and now they're strictly worse.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Can't use Valks in a Tempestus Army and retain their doctrine. The most you can get is a turn 2 9" deployment.
Detachment, not army.
Nothing stopping you from bringing a Flyer Wing of Valkyries.
But the Tempestus Doctrine is a mess when it comes to how it interacts with Advisors and Auxilias, and hopefully at the least we see Valkyries added to the list of potential Tempestus bits.
onlyroad wrote: To break from the wishlisting a bit, here's something that's been discussed over on TheDarkCity.
A unit embarked within a transport with the Open-Topped rule shoot at an AdMech Kastelan Robot.
The Kastelan rolls a 6 for its invuln save, so the shot bounces back. Who takes the wound?
As written, the rule is pretty clear that the firing unit would, so the embarked unit would take a mortal wound. But, as this is, to my knowledge, the only rules interaction where a unit can take a casualty while they aren't on the table, I don't think this is intended.
Some clarification would be nice from the FAQ
What about units in a transport when the transport is destroyed?
Do you technically put them on the table first then roll the dice to determine how many you remove, or what? I forget what the order is for that.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Can't use Valks in a Tempestus Army and retain their doctrine. The most you can get is a turn 2 9" deployment.
Detachment, not army.
Nothing stopping you from bringing a Flyer Wing of Valkyries.
But the Tempestus Doctrine is a mess when it comes to how it interacts with Advisors and Auxilias, and hopefully at the least we see Valkyries added to the list of potential Tempestus bits.
If they made any changes to the doctrine rule, I would allow Scions to include Bullgryns and Sentiels. Man, LasSentinels with the Scion Exploding 6s? That would overnight make Sentinels valuable.
dominuschao wrote: I had other things on my list but after noticing the rubric entry I just want my options back for them. Arbitrary nefs to already weak units are lame. If it's causing that much friction with 1k sons give theirs something more (besides troops and extra power).
What options are Rubrics missing that they used to have? At least as long as I've been playing, Rubric Marines have always:
-Had no weapon options
-Been lead by a psyker with a force weapon/pistol
-had inferno bolts+some kind of invuln save.
-Had an icon of Tzeentch (now Icon of Flame)
The 8th edition incarnation of rubric marines has the most weapon options of any iteration of Rubrics I've ever seen, as few as those are. The ability to swap the whole squad to warpflamers and add a soulreaper cannon is as option-heavy as they've ever been.
From that perspective you are correct rubrics have more options then in the past. What I'm talking about are these:
-soulreaper access changed from 1 per squad, 2 if 20 to match 1k sons. i.e. 1 SRC per 10.
-removed force axe option. Again this is in line with 1k sons.
-did not add access to a second power which would have been in line with 1k sons.
I hate when they nerf units for no good reason. Especially when other more potent units exist internally which skews internal balance.The root of my complaint is that my rubrics are msu units modelled from FW legion mkIV recon squads with alpha legion pads and helmets with the soulreaper represented by aftermarket sniper rifles. Pisses me off these guys got worse arbitrarily. This after the forward operatives nerf which also hit them pretty hard.
Now I can see GW probably looked at 1k sons and decided they needed to have the better rubrics. Well they already did, as troops that also have additional psych power. But they still aren't good enough to see much play over tzaangors or daemons. So if any change was needed it should have been to give 1k sons the ability to take a heavy at 5 and a second at 10. Both incarnations should probably have this IMO. Not like rubric marines were being spammed competitively or will be now that they nerfed the analogue.
Meanwhile in csm as an elite only choice they were never competitive enough to begin with and now they're strictly worse.
This basically just falls under one of my rules to play by, which is "if a unit you've built and purchased is reliant on some kind of rules funkiness to be playable, don't do a surprised pikachu face when a rules change makes your build no longer legal."
Soulreaper access since the release of the Thousand Sons codex has gone from 5 to 10, and the fact that it was still 1 in 5 in the older CSM codex was something that was just updated for consistency most likely.
It always amazes me how year after year people are surprised and outraged by stuff like this. Like in 7th, how you could "technically legally" do a double wargear swap and get a Deathwatch Veteran with shotgun and boltgun at the same time, and you had people who went all in on that and converted 20-30 models to have that loadout, then they were all shocked and surprised when a FAQ came out making it illegal to do that.
Or how you could technically give the Big Shoota in an Ork Boyz squad to the boss nob, giving you a Big Shoota/Power Klaw nob and an extra boy could have a slugga/choppa.
Or how you could summon daemons with an imperial guard formation, and a guy who used to play at my club bought 800$ of guard and daemons and structured his entire army around that strategy, then promptly quit when 8th ed dropped.
If the current competitive meta build involves building every single member of a squad in a way that is not supported by the kit and requires kitbashing/3rd party bits then your army will probably not survive the next rules change.
Do you hear that, people with competitive Deathwatch armies with jump pack/thunder hammer/storm shield watch captains as HQs, Storm Bolter/Storm Shield veterans as troops, Twin Assault Cannon razorbacks as transports, and quad-lascannon dreadnoughts as anti tank support?
It's not going to happen, but I would greatly prefer it if you could find all of the updates for a given book in a single document. Currently you have to look at the FAQ, the Errata, and Chapter Approved, which is a major pain. 8th edition is rapidly becoming even more cumbersome to play than 7th was.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Can't use Valks in a Tempestus Army and retain their doctrine. The most you can get is a turn 2 9" deployment.
Detachment, not army.
Nothing stopping you from bringing a Flyer Wing of Valkyries.
But the Tempestus Doctrine is a mess when it comes to how it interacts with Advisors and Auxilias, and hopefully at the least we see Valkyries added to the list of potential Tempestus bits.
If they made any changes to the doctrine rule, I would allow Scions to include Bullgryns and Sentiels. Man, LasSentinels with the Scion Exploding 6s? That would overnight make Sentinels valuable.
It doesn't need to "allow" anything more like Bullgryns or Sentinels, it just needs to allow for Valkyries to not mess it up.
Valkyries absolutely do not mess up the Stormtrooper trait, I can't understand how people continue to argue that after they literally wrote a specialist detachment in Vigilus Ablaze where you take Scions and Valkyries together, with special rules for the Scions dropping out of the Valkyrie.
I also would like to see a change to the CP system. CP should only be generated by detachments matching all of your Warlords faction keywords and you should only have access to your warlord's faction stratagems.
Not going to happen. Nerfs Assassins right off the map.
dominuschao wrote: I had other things on my list but after noticing the rubric entry I just want my options back for them. Arbitrary nefs to already weak units are lame. If it's causing that much friction with 1k sons give theirs something more (besides troops and extra power).
What options are Rubrics missing that they used to have? At least as long as I've been playing, Rubric Marines have always:
-Had no weapon options
-Been lead by a psyker with a force weapon/pistol
-had inferno bolts+some kind of invuln save.
-Had an icon of Tzeentch (now Icon of Flame)
The 8th edition incarnation of rubric marines has the most weapon options of any iteration of Rubrics I've ever seen, as few as those are. The ability to swap the whole squad to warpflamers and add a soulreaper cannon is as option-heavy as they've ever been.
From that perspective you are correct rubrics have more options then in the past. What I'm talking about are these:
-soulreaper access changed from 1 per squad, 2 if 20 to match 1k sons. i.e. 1 SRC per 10.
-removed force axe option. Again this is in line with 1k sons.
-did not add access to a second power which would have been in line with 1k sons.
I hate when they nerf units for no good reason. Especially when other more potent units exist internally which skews internal balance.The root of my complaint is that my rubrics are msu units modelled from FW legion mkIV recon squads with alpha legion pads and helmets with the soulreaper represented by aftermarket sniper rifles. Pisses me off these guys got worse arbitrarily. This after the forward operatives nerf which also hit them pretty hard.
Now I can see GW probably looked at 1k sons and decided they needed to have the better rubrics. Well they already did, as troops that also have additional psych power. But they still aren't good enough to see much play over tzaangors or daemons. So if any change was needed it should have been to give 1k sons the ability to take a heavy at 5 and a second at 10. Both incarnations should probably have this IMO. Not like rubric marines were being spammed competitively or will be now that they nerfed the analogue.
Meanwhile in csm as an elite only choice they were never competitive enough to begin with and now they're strictly worse.
This basically just falls under one of my rules to play by, which is "if a unit you've built and purchased is reliant on some kind of rules funkiness to be playable, don't do a surprised pikachu face when a rules change makes your build no longer legal."
Soulreaper access since the release of the Thousand Sons codex has gone from 5 to 10, and the fact that it was still 1 in 5 in the older CSM codex was something that was just updated for consistency most likely.
It always amazes me how year after year people are surprised and outraged by stuff like this. Like in 7th, how you could "technically legally" do a double wargear swap and get a Deathwatch Veteran with shotgun and boltgun at the same time, and you had people who went all in on that and converted 20-30 models to have that loadout, then they were all shocked and surprised when a FAQ came out making it illegal to do that.
Or how you could technically give the Big Shoota in an Ork Boyz squad to the boss nob, giving you a Big Shoota/Power Klaw nob and an extra boy could have a slugga/choppa.
Or how you could summon daemons with an imperial guard formation, and a guy who used to play at my club bought 800$ of guard and daemons and structured his entire army around that strategy, then promptly quit when 8th ed dropped.
If the current competitive meta build involves building every single member of a squad in a way that is not supported by the kit and requires kitbashing/3rd party bits then your army will probably not survive the next rules change.
Do you hear that, people with competitive Deathwatch armies with jump pack/thunder hammer/storm shield watch captains as HQs, Storm Bolter/Storm Shield veterans as troops, Twin Assault Cannon razorbacks as transports, and quad-lascannon dreadnoughts as anti tank support?
What?
You insinuate my builds were abusive which they are not. Those examples you list are not the same thing man. Loyalist summoning daemons is not the same as deleting legal options from an entry. Or big shootas to boss nobz? How are you even equating those to deleting an option? You use conjecture to jump to the conclusion that I'm at fault for being upset my formerly legal units are now not.
What you listed is abusive or at least beardy and obviously should be addressed. I avoid that type of play. However this change was simply removing options from an entry to standardize with another dex. While I can see why they did it its still feels arbitrary to nerf something that didn't need it. Please don't make it seem like I'm at fault for building my models in a manner that I should have forseen would become illegal.
Lastly there is not competitiv build for rubric marines. If there was it would not require kitbashing. The kit was legal as written before the change. I chose to use FW models because I like them.
onlyroad wrote: To break from the wishlisting a bit, here's something that's been discussed over on TheDarkCity.
A unit embarked within a transport with the Open-Topped rule shoot at an AdMech Kastelan Robot.
The Kastelan rolls a 6 for its invuln save, so the shot bounces back. Who takes the wound?
As written, the rule is pretty clear that the firing unit would, so the embarked unit would take a mortal wound. But, as this is, to my knowledge, the only rules interaction where a unit can take a casualty while they aren't on the table, I don't think this is intended.
Some clarification would be nice from the FAQ
What about units in a transport when the transport is destroyed?
Do you technically put them on the table first then roll the dice to determine how many you remove, or what? I forget what the order is for that.
Lanlaorn wrote: Valkyries absolutely do not mess up the Stormtrooper trait, I can't understand how people continue to argue that after they literally wrote a specialist detachment in Vigilus Ablaze where you take Scions and Valkyries together, with special rules for the Scions dropping out of the Valkyrie.
They also sell you a Start Collecting set with a Commissar.
You're preaching to the choir about the intent, but the written bit unfortunately needs to be done better.
Lanlaorn wrote: Valkyries absolutely do not mess up the Stormtrooper trait, I can't understand how people continue to argue that after they literally wrote a specialist detachment in Vigilus Ablaze where you take Scions and Valkyries together, with special rules for the Scions dropping out of the Valkyrie.
So, I JUST read that. This is the direct result of rules bloat and over-saturation with rules. Anyway, ugly truth, still not used.
At this point, I suspect GW know their FAQs and Books are a mess but don't think they can pry people away from Battlescribe and "Sources" with better books, because why should I pay money for a product I have no confidence in?
BaconCatBug wrote: I also would like to see a change to the CP system. CP should only be generated by detachments matching all of your Warlords faction keywords and you should only have access to your warlord's faction stratagems.
That's a terrible idea. It would make mono DE almost unplayable.
dominuschao wrote: I had other things on my list but after noticing the rubric entry I just want my options back for them. Arbitrary nefs to already weak units are lame. If it's causing that much friction with 1k sons give theirs something more (besides troops and extra power).
What options are Rubrics missing that they used to have? At least as long as I've been playing, Rubric Marines have always:
-Had no weapon options
-Been lead by a psyker with a force weapon/pistol
-had inferno bolts+some kind of invuln save.
-Had an icon of Tzeentch (now Icon of Flame)
The 8th edition incarnation of rubric marines has the most weapon options of any iteration of Rubrics I've ever seen, as few as those are. The ability to swap the whole squad to warpflamers and add a soulreaper cannon is as option-heavy as they've ever been.
From that perspective you are correct rubrics have more options then in the past. What I'm talking about are these:
-soulreaper access changed from 1 per squad, 2 if 20 to match 1k sons. i.e. 1 SRC per 10.
-removed force axe option. Again this is in line with 1k sons.
-did not add access to a second power which would have been in line with 1k sons.
I hate when they nerf units for no good reason. Especially when other more potent units exist internally which skews internal balance.The root of my complaint is that my rubrics are msu units modelled from FW legion mkIV recon squads with alpha legion pads and helmets with the soulreaper represented by aftermarket sniper rifles. Pisses me off these guys got worse arbitrarily. This after the forward operatives nerf which also hit them pretty hard.
Now I can see GW probably looked at 1k sons and decided they needed to have the better rubrics. Well they already did, as troops that also have additional psych power. But they still aren't good enough to see much play over tzaangors or daemons. So if any change was needed it should have been to give 1k sons the ability to take a heavy at 5 and a second at 10. Both incarnations should probably have this IMO. Not like rubric marines were being spammed competitively or will be now that they nerfed the analogue.
Meanwhile in csm as an elite only choice they were never competitive enough to begin with and now they're strictly worse.
This basically just falls under one of my rules to play by, which is "if a unit you've built and purchased is reliant on some kind of rules funkiness to be playable, don't do a surprised pikachu face when a rules change makes your build no longer legal."
Soulreaper access since the release of the Thousand Sons codex has gone from 5 to 10, and the fact that it was still 1 in 5 in the older CSM codex was something that was just updated for consistency most likely.
It always amazes me how year after year people are surprised and outraged by stuff like this. Like in 7th, how you could "technically legally" do a double wargear swap and get a Deathwatch Veteran with shotgun and boltgun at the same time, and you had people who went all in on that and converted 20-30 models to have that loadout, then they were all shocked and surprised when a FAQ came out making it illegal to do that.
Or how you could technically give the Big Shoota in an Ork Boyz squad to the boss nob, giving you a Big Shoota/Power Klaw nob and an extra boy could have a slugga/choppa.
Or how you could summon daemons with an imperial guard formation, and a guy who used to play at my club bought 800$ of guard and daemons and structured his entire army around that strategy, then promptly quit when 8th ed dropped.
If the current competitive meta build involves building every single member of a squad in a way that is not supported by the kit and requires kitbashing/3rd party bits then your army will probably not survive the next rules change.
Do you hear that, people with competitive Deathwatch armies with jump pack/thunder hammer/storm shield watch captains as HQs, Storm Bolter/Storm Shield veterans as troops, Twin Assault Cannon razorbacks as transports, and quad-lascannon dreadnoughts as anti tank support?
What?
You insinuate my builds were abusive which they are not. Those examples you list are not the same thing man. Loyalist summoning daemons is not the same as deleting legal options from an entry. Or big shootas to boss nobz? How are you even equating those to deleting an option? You use conjecture to jump to the conclusion that I'm at fault for being upset my formerly legal units are now not.
What you listed is abusive or at least beardy and obviously should be addressed. I avoid that type of play. However this change was simply removing options from an entry to standardize with another dex. While I can see why they did it its still feels arbitrary to nerf something that didn't need it. Please don't make it seem like I'm at fault for building my models in a manner that I should have forseen would become illegal.
Lastly there is not competitiv build for rubric marines. If there was it would not require kitbashing. The kit was legal as written before the change. I chose to use FW models because I like them.
I did not at all insinuate your builds were "abusive" or that any of the technically legal builds I listed were "abusive". A current competitive deathwatch list with all those things I said is less competitive than a competitive guard+knight list no matter what you do with it. That doesn't change the fact that a person building that competitive deathwatch list is much, much more likely to see those options he's currently using deleted from the game than the person with the competitive guard list.
Guardsmen with lasguns, company commanders and knight castellans are basic unit options that are highly likely to stick around through the editions. Deathwatch built with index-only or not in the kit wargear are extremely likely to be deleted during a rules change.
Thousand Sons' wargear was set in 7th edition as 1 per 10, changed to 1 per 5 in the index and subsequent CSM codex, and then immediately changed back to 1 per 10 in the Tsons codex. Getting surprised and outraged over that getting changed back in CSM codex V2 is silly, because you had every indication that was coming.
Ditto with the index change with the force axe. Like, come on. If anyone is still surprised by weapon options that are not included in official kits going to index only, I don't know what to tell that person.
BaconCatBug wrote: I also would like to see a change to the CP system. CP should only be generated by detachments matching all of your Warlords faction keywords and you should only have access to your warlord's faction stratagems.
That's a terrible idea. It would make mono DE almost unplayable.
Would that be bad for the game though? I guess some DE players may not like it, but everyone else just would not care. And if GW thinks it would fix the game somehow, why not just do it? They did it with other armies or units this edition.
Lanlaorn wrote: Valkyries absolutely do not mess up the Stormtrooper trait, I can't understand how people continue to argue that after they literally wrote a specialist detachment in Vigilus Ablaze where you take Scions and Valkyries together, with special rules for the Scions dropping out of the Valkyrie.
They also sell you a Start Collecting set with a Commissar.
You're preaching to the choir about the intent, but the written bit unfortunately needs to be done better.
You have to read all the rules together.
A Militarum Tempestus detachment is a detachment with the Scion doctrine, per Vigilus Ablaze FAQ.
The only way to gain the Scion doctrine is to have a detachment which only has Militarum Tempestus units or units on the A&A list.
To nominate a detachment to be a Tempestus Drop Force, it must be a Militarum Tempestus detachment.
Therefore, it would be impossible to make a Valkyrie a Tempestus Drop Force Valkyrie unless it was exempted by the A&A list, as a Flyer detachment could not be nominated either.
This forces one to concede that the rules are written poorly, but units from the A&A list can be included in a Militarum Tempestus detachment without the detachment losing the doctrine. People that deny this are fickle gaks.
Apple Peel wrote: I love hearing things like this. Makes me happy to be building Militarum Tempestus. The army’s effective range is entirely in 12,” and it has the ability to get most models into range.
Uh... how?
Grav chutes?
You can't use them for most of your army though, 50% at best.
The other half could be in valkyries, theoretically.
Sure, but if you don't get the first turn they won't be staying there long! Especially with nothing else to shoot at.
Valkyries, Aerial Drops, and Taurox Primes. A pure Militarum Tempestus is using a mix of Max and min sized squads. A list usually won’t have more than 65 infantry, depending on how much you spend on Vehicles (forge world can make this bigger), as well is supporting characters lie Officer of the Fleet.
Lanlaorn wrote: Valkyries absolutely do not mess up the Stormtrooper trait, I can't understand how people continue to argue that after they literally wrote a specialist detachment in Vigilus Ablaze where you take Scions and Valkyries together, with special rules for the Scions dropping out of the Valkyrie.
RAW they do. Just because you dislike it doesn't make it any less true. GW also made it possible for Chaos to use Assassins and for units to be immune to being charged, and for flamers to be the best anti-aircraft weapons in the game. What GW "intends" is meaningless.
Lanlaorn wrote: Valkyries absolutely do not mess up the Stormtrooper trait, I can't understand how people continue to argue that after they literally wrote a specialist detachment in Vigilus Ablaze where you take Scions and Valkyries together, with special rules for the Scions dropping out of the Valkyrie.
RAW they do. Just because you dislike it doesn't make it any less true. GW also made it possible for Chaos to use Assassins and for units to be immune to being charged, and for flamers to be the best anti-aircraft weapons in the game. What GW "intends" is meaningless.
BaconCatBug wrote: I also would like to see a change to the CP system. CP should only be generated by detachments matching all of your Warlords faction keywords and you should only have access to your warlord's faction stratagems.
That's a terrible idea. It would make mono DE almost unplayable.
Would that be bad for the game though? I guess some DE players may not like it, but everyone else just would not care. And if GW thinks it would fix the game somehow, why not just do it? They did it with other armies or units this edition.
No reason DE couldn't be an exception to the rule, they're purpose built to be a tri-codex in a single codex. Make BCB's rule the rule, and then exclude DE from having to use it. Problem solved, and the DE faction stays unique!
Lanlaorn wrote: Valkyries absolutely do not mess up the Stormtrooper trait, I can't understand how people continue to argue that after they literally wrote a specialist detachment in Vigilus Ablaze where you take Scions and Valkyries together, with special rules for the Scions dropping out of the Valkyrie.
RAW they do. Just because you dislike it doesn't make it any less true. GW also made it possible for Chaos to use Assassins and for units to be immune to being charged, and for flamers to be the best anti-aircraft weapons in the game. What GW "intends" is meaningless.
read it and weep, go up a post.
I hate to be the one to say this but:
Vigilus Ablaze Designer's Commentary wrote:Q: For the purposes of the Tempestus Drop Force Specialist Detachment, what is a Militarum Tempestus Detachment?
A: A Militarum Tempestus Detachment is an Astra Militarum Detachment that has the Storm Troopers Regimental Doctrine.
RAI? Yes, it's absolutely 100% clear that Valkyries are not meant to detract from you getting the Storm Troopers Regimental Doctrine.
RAW? The argument can be made that yes, they do.
It's circular nonsense but it's what feeds some of the trolls in threads like these. The Vigilus Ablaze bit was effectively a RAI vs RAW perception filter.
BaconCatBug wrote: I also would like to see a change to the CP system. CP should only be generated by detachments matching all of your Warlords faction keywords and you should only have access to your warlord's faction stratagems.
That's a terrible idea. It would make mono DE almost unplayable.
If they worded it so only the detachments which share at least one keyword with the warlord (excluding Imperium,chaos and aeldari) wouldn't it work without killing drukhari? you'd still get the CP/strats for coven/cult/kabal. Or am i missing something?
Phaeron Gukk wrote: At this point, I suspect GW know their FAQs and Books are a mess but don't think they can pry people away from Battlescribe and "Sources" with better books, because why should I pay money for a product I have no confidence in?
If GW offered something even half as reliable for quick and easy review of stats, RAW, effects, and other information as Battlescribe it would be a miracle. But they don't, because they know people won't pay for something half as good as something that is already FREE.
All the non-Battlescribe purists out there can eat my shorts if you think that just because BS has minor flaws, it somehow justifies the spending of hundreds of dollars just to be able to get the codexes. Battlesribe has done more to train and entice new players than GW has for all of 8th edition.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: At this point, I suspect GW know their FAQs and Books are a mess but don't think they can pry people away from Battlescribe and "Sources" with better books, because why should I pay money for a product I have no confidence in?
If GW offered something even half as reliable for quick and easy review of stats, RAW, effects, and other information as Battlescribe it would be a miracle. But they don't, because they know people won't pay for something half as good as something that is already FREE.
All the non-Battlescribe purists out there can eat my shorts if you think that just because BS has minor flaws, it somehow justifies the spending of hundreds of dollars just to be able to get the codexes. Battlesribe has done more to train and entice new players than GW has for all of 8th edition.
GW only needs to do one thing to fix the rules mess : make easily accessible up-to-date rule pdf for each book they release and treat it like DnD does, bring the books you need to play (so if im using some vigilus detachments, i should have the up-to-date pdf in my possession.
They should give a free access to the up-to-date rules everytime you buy a physical book, or give players the choice to only purchase the electronic version.
It doesnt fix the fact that multiple sources are required to play (bare minimum being BRB and codex) but thats a "problem" that DnD also has yet you dont see people complaining. Things like Vigilus should be viewed as Expansions for the main game.
Basically i feel like the real problem with the rules mess is that FAQs and Errata arent consolidated
Phaeron Gukk wrote: At this point, I suspect GW know their FAQs and Books are a mess but don't think they can pry people away from Battlescribe and "Sources" with better books, because why should I pay money for a product I have no confidence in?
If GW offered something even half as reliable for quick and easy review of stats, RAW, effects, and other information as Battlescribe it would be a miracle. But they don't, because they know people won't pay for something half as good as something that is already FREE.
AoS' app is free with most of that information. There's very little that requires you to pay that isn't related to stuff that is intended for full Allegiances(read: "pure" Detachments).
All the non-Battlescribe purists out there can eat my shorts if you think that just because BS has minor flaws, it somehow justifies the spending of hundreds of dollars just to be able to get the codexes. Battlesribe has done more to train and entice new players than GW has for all of 8th edition.
Yeah, train them into having incorrect lists or just copy/pasting lists they've seen elsewhere.
PS:
Combat Roster is free from GW. Just because it doesn't give you stats and the stuff from Battlescribe does not mean it is "bad".
And let's be clear here:
Battlescribe doesn't have "minor flaws". At times, it has allowed for entirely illegal lists to be written. Gonna point back to when the Guard book dropped and people kept running a Cadian Spearhead of a Primaris Psyker with Relic of Lost Cadia.
Lanlaorn wrote: Valkyries absolutely do not mess up the Stormtrooper trait, I can't understand how people continue to argue that after they literally wrote a specialist detachment in Vigilus Ablaze where you take Scions and Valkyries together, with special rules for the Scions dropping out of the Valkyrie.
RAW they do. Just because you dislike it doesn't make it any less true. GW also made it possible for Chaos to use Assassins and for units to be immune to being charged, and for flamers to be the best anti-aircraft weapons in the game. What GW "intends" is meaningless.
read it and weep, go up a post.
I hate to be the one to say this but:
Vigilus Ablaze Designer's Commentary wrote:Q: For the purposes of the Tempestus Drop Force Specialist Detachment, what is a Militarum Tempestus Detachment?
A: A Militarum Tempestus Detachment is an Astra Militarum Detachment that has the Storm Troopers Regimental Doctrine.
RAI? Yes, it's absolutely 100% clear that Valkyries are not meant to detract from you getting the Storm Troopers Regimental Doctrine.
RAW? The argument can be made that yes, they do.
It's circular nonsense but it's what feeds some of the trolls in threads like these. The Vigilus Ablaze bit was effectively a RAI vs RAW perception filter.
So this leads me to another question: Who the hell cares if a paper thin army of 18" shooters gets a rarely if ever goes off ability? Oh my, you're 22 shots of S3 weaponry got an extra 3 shots! Look out for this Las weaponry, three more rounds of this and you might actually kill a single unit! That being said, that squad of Scions will be dead or fleeing by the end of your opponents turn.
RAI, RAW, doesn't matter. Give everyone the rule. Hell, give it to the Commissar: If you are building a master plan to SOMEHOW get all those squads inside Hotshot RF range and then pray that you roll straight 6's, go ahead. Go. NUTS. Because you will lose every time. And that's not the math talking, that's the experience. You build a list upon a prayer, you built a list to lose.
Would be a nice fix to heavy bolters for sure. More options that can actually be considered as being taken are good fot the game.
