Some ik imperial coast will see their costs in points change
A lot of tau weapons will drop in points. (*)
A lot of entry Fw will see their costs in points completely reviewed.
Rumors about the increase of the talos of 18pts. (*)
The drone shield goes to 12pts. (*)
So far. All is not confirmed yet ... some are still just rumors. (*)
If this is true I think I stand for all Orks everywhere when I say; what the actual feth are GW thinking making Grots 4ppm?! If this turns out to be true I'm done. This edition is over for me.
If this is true I think I stand for all Orks everywhere when I say; what the actual feth are GW thinking making Grots 4ppm?! If this turns out to be true I'm done. This edition is over for me.
Some ik imperial coast will see their costs in points change
A lot of tau weapons will drop in points. (*)
A lot of entry Fw will see their costs in points completely reviewed.
Rumors about the increase of the talos of 18pts. (*)
The drone shield goes to 12pts. (*)
So far. All is not confirmed yet ... some are still just rumors. (*)
If this is true I think I stand for all Orks everywhere when I say; what the actual feth are GW thinking making Grots 4ppm?! If this turns out to be true I'm done. This edition is over for me.
Its to encourage players to use more boys and to nerf grot farms, I would think. Personally I would decrease boyz to 6 ppm as well to make absolutely sure players get the hint, but whatever.
Are shield drones currently less than or more than 12pts?
Also, for those who don't read French, this
The marine smc elites of each god pass to 2pv (*)
Means that elite, Cult dedicated (Noise Marines, Berserkers, etc) Chaos Marine units have 2 wounds each. SMC = Space Marines du Chaos = Chaos Space Marine PV = Points Vitale = Wounds.
Woooooow, what a huge tau nerf, to make drones 12 pts. Makes much sense when at the same time tau weapon costs decrease. A single shield drone who can reduce any amount of damage to 1 MW should cost 50.
A lot of entry Fw will see their costs in points completely reviewed.
this eaither means "we realize Bill was drunk when he did the FW points costs, we'll be reviewing these so FW tanks are actually pointed sanely" or they mean "So we're going to add a few hundred points onto the leviathan dread"
Means that elite, Cult dedicated (Noise Marines, Berserkers, etc) Chaos Marine units have 2 wounds each.
SMC = Space Marines du Chaos = Chaos Space Marine
PV = Points Vitale = Wounds.
So, updated datasheets for cult marines. That's pretty amazing for Emperor's Children or World Eaters players as they can take cult marines as troops. Assuming they don't also get a significant points increase as well.
Gotta encourage folks to go out and buy all that old garbage stock before they drop the all new all trade marked new Emperors Children and World Eaters and change all their gear entirely like Death guard
I'm mostly joking before someone gets to bent outta shape.
I can see some SM stuff going up in points, my prime candidates for points increases are:
1. Executioner laser turret (at least 10-15pts)
2. Thunderfire Cannons (at least 5-10pts)
3. Leviathan Gun arms (can see at least 20pts here)
4. Marneus Calgar (perhaps 30ish points, as he is superior to Guilliman)
5. Iron Father Ferrios (minimum 10pts for what he brings)
Glad to see them addressing the shield drone/plaguebarer spam. Drones up 12pts is quite steep but I was hoping at least more on the plaguebarers, unless they do other nerfs (such as increasing the cost of making them have +1 invun. by unit size?) Glad to see the dicordants go up, thar thing was way to good for the points.
I can see Berzerkers/Plague Marines/Noise Marines getting a points hike if they effectively get +1 wound, but Rubrics? They seem pretty balanced if they got +1 wound for the points...
Dr. Mills wrote: I can see some SM stuff going up in points, my prime candidates for points increases are:
1. Executioner laser turret (at least 10-15pts)
2. Thunderfire Cannons (at least 5-10pts)
3. Leviathan Gun arms (can see at least 20pts here)
4. Marneus Calgar (perhaps 30ish points, as he is superior to Guilliman)
5. Iron Father Ferrios (minimum 10pts for what he brings)
Glad to see them addressing the shield drone/plaguebarer spam. Drones up 12pts is quite steep but I was hoping at least more on the plaguebarers, unless they do other nerfs (such as increasing the cost of making them have +1 invun. by unit size?) Glad to see the dicordants go up, thar thing was way to good for the points.
I can see Berzerkers/Plague Marines/Noise Marines getting a points hike if they effectively get +1 wound, but Rubrics? They seem pretty balanced if they got +1 wound for the points...
We're really unlikely to see Space Marines changes in CA at all, printing time is too long. CA2018 had like an eight month lead up time.
Dr. Mills wrote: I can see some SM stuff going up in points, my prime candidates for points increases are:
1. Executioner laser turret (at least 10-15pts)
2. Thunderfire Cannons (at least 5-10pts)
3. Leviathan Gun arms (can see at least 20pts here)
4. Marneus Calgar (perhaps 30ish points, as he is superior to Guilliman)
5. Iron Father Ferrios (minimum 10pts for what he brings)
Glad to see them addressing the shield drone/plaguebarer spam. Drones up 12pts is quite steep but I was hoping at least more on the plaguebarers, unless they do other nerfs (such as increasing the cost of making them have +1 invun. by unit size?) Glad to see the dicordants go up, thar thing was way to good for the points.
I can see Berzerkers/Plague Marines/Noise Marines getting a points hike if they effectively get +1 wound, but Rubrics? They seem pretty balanced if they got +1 wound for the points...
Why would feirros go up? He doesn't do anything post FAQ. Most IH players dropped him from their lists unless they ran a bunch of infantry (not many do)
All space marines and equivalent elite infantry should be 2W base anyway like how Stormcast and Chaos warriors are 2W in Age of Sigmar.
It makes them feel much more elite, when ever I play 40k at the moment a regular space marine feels barely better than a guardsman. The 2 wounds for cult marines is a good move for GW, hopefully it will make them viable.
Nazrak wrote: Any source for this or is it just wild speculation?
French people. Not the guy who is always right with his rumours, but he hasn't denied the points....
French guys only found those "rumours" somewhere on the internet (in English first) ... Dakkadakka in fact. They just took seriously the ridiculous topic on the General board about Cult CSM getting 2 Wounds ...
Also the french rumour monger went kinda crazy because his "leaks" reached the international community and dakkadakka. Too much publicity and he didn't like it at all so for now, he is not saying anything anymore ...
It's only wild speculations. We don't even have a source for all the Xeno stuff !
EDIT :
Here's one of the source for the Chaos part :
Spoiler:
So yes, only speculations and expectations. Nothing more.
Damn.. no rumours for CWE tweak? I'm still holding out hope for: Rangers being able to Infiltrate properly & Point drops to EVERYTHING apart from WS, and hiking CHE points lol.
Nazrak wrote: Any source for this or is it just wild speculation?
French people. Not the guy who is always right with his rumours, but he hasn't denied the points....
French guys only found those "rumours" somewhere on the internet (in English first) ... Dakkadakka in fact. They just took seriously the ridiculous topic on the General board about Cult CSM getting 2 Wounds ...
Also the french rumour monger went kinda crazy because his "leaks" reached the international community and dakkadakka. Too much publicity and he didn't like it at all so for now, he is not saying anything anymore ...
It's only wild speculations. We don't even have a source for all the Xeno stuff !
EDIT :
Here's one of the source for the Chaos part :
Spoiler:
So yes, only speculations and expectations. Nothing more.
That picture is from me, on my Facebook page. Some jackass cropped out my page name and there spread it all over Discord and other places without attribution. I took the rumors based on what I had heard or read second-hand from those who had spoken with people who know what changes are coming. I can't confirm any of it directly.
All that said, the stuff from the French forum (which I haven't seen) looks somewhat different from what I posted. I hadn't heard anything about Magnus or Mortarion or grots.
Its to encourage players to use more boys and to nerf grot farms, I would think.
Personally I would decrease boyz to 6 ppm as well to make absolutely sure players get the hint, but whatever.
Ah so you admit you care nothing for game balance. Check.
Argive wrote: Damn.. no rumours for CWE tweak? I'm still holding out hope for: Rangers being able to Infiltrate properly & Point drops to EVERYTHING apart from WS, and hiking CHE points lol.
Just a small modest wishlist….
So our 6 months per decade of CWE not being the best army in the game would be over huh?
Its to encourage players to use more boys and to nerf grot farms, I would think.
Personally I would decrease boyz to 6 ppm as well to make absolutely sure players get the hint, but whatever.
Ah so you admit you care nothing for game balance. Check.
Ah, so you admit you care about nothing but meaningless whining. Check.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rydria wrote: All space marines and equivalent elite infantry should be 2W base anyway like how Stormcast and Chaos warriors are 2W in Age of Sigmar.
It makes them feel much more elite, when ever I play 40k at the moment a regular space marine feels barely better than a guardsman. The 2 wounds for cult marines is a good move for GW, hopefully it will make them viable.
Ah, so you admit you care about nothing but meaningless whining. Check..
Ah so another who has no idea whatsoever about game balance. But okay go ahead. Try and explain how 6 pts boyz and 4 pts grots are appropriate. As it is now grots are only barely better survivability wise vs S4+, less advantage vs S3, lose cultures, have lousy morale(so makes that survivability advantage even less), no offensive...
Anybody who thinks grots should be 4 pts is a joke as a game designer. And if boyz go to 6 pts that's even more of a joke as internal balance as grots would literally just die.
But go ahead. Try to defend that. Make yourself a clown if you wish
Anybody who thinks grots should be 4 pts is a joke as a game designer. And if boyz go to 6 pts that's even more of a joke as internal balance as grots would literally just die.
isnt that what grots are supposed to do?
I'm not sure if these points are good/bad/indifferent but I'm curious as to what would you suggest?
Sunny Side Up wrote: I hear the new Chapter Approved will also have revised rules for the upcoming plastic Thunderhawk.
.. you might wanna be extra clear if you're joking, given the pre-order for plastic sisters is up saturday we're offically in "IT COULD BE ANYTHING NEXT!" territory
Nazrak wrote: Any source for this or is it just wild speculation?
French people. Not the guy who is always right with his rumours, but he hasn't denied the points....
French guys only found those "rumours" somewhere on the internet (in English first) ... Dakkadakka in fact. They just took seriously the ridiculous topic on the General board about Cult CSM getting 2 Wounds ...
Where did you find this information? It neither says it in the topic or is referred anywhere else on the French forum as far as I can see.
As for Kikass, he became annoyed because Valrak mentioned him by name in a video (which i understand) but at the end of the day it's incredibly petty to want to keep rumours only for your own nationality. If you don't want other people to find them, don't post them on the internet I guess.
E - as to the naysayers, there's often no smoke without fire. The rumours might be false but the French forum has so far proven a source of 100% perfect rumours.
Nazrak wrote: Any source for this or is it just wild speculation?
French people. Not the guy who is always right with his rumours, but he hasn't denied the points....
French guys only found those "rumours" somewhere on the internet (in English first) ... Dakkadakka in fact. They just took seriously the ridiculous topic on the General board about Cult CSM getting 2 Wounds ...
Where did you find this information? It neither says it in the topic or is referred anywhere else on the French forum as far as I can see.
As for Kikass, he became annoyed because Valrak mentioned him by name in a video (which i understand) but at the end of the day it's incredibly petty to want to keep rumours only for your own nationality. If you don't want other people to find them, don't post them on the internet I guess.
E - as to the naysayers, there's often no smoke without fire. The rumours might be false but the French forum has so far proven a source of 100% perfect rumours.
I think it wasn't so much wanting to preserve them only for his nationality, as figured that so long as the rumors where on a french site GW'd not notice. The assumption that there are no biligual people out there and you can say something to french speakers without worrying that the Anglophones will know what your saying has tripped up LOTS of people in the past who should know better.
Most of it is garbage with the exception of a few things and some of the new Marine stuff making the Leviathan super strong. But if they increase it any more its just going to be a 14W knight for the same points.
Lets hope they dont mess up, theyve not had a good track record with FW points the last few years!
A lot of entry Fw will see their costs in points completely reviewed.
this eaither means "we realize Bill was drunk when he did the FW points costs, we'll be reviewing these so FW tanks are actually pointed sanely" or they mean "So we're going to add a few hundred points onto the leviathan dread"
Maybee they will realise that a militia member is NOT worth 4 pts like a guardsmen, finally, after what 2 years?
Rinion wrote: Curious and nervous about the FW points changes!
Most of it is garbage with the exception of a few things and some of the new Marine stuff making the Leviathan super strong. But if they increase it any more its just going to be a 14W knight for the same points.
Lets hope they dont mess up, theyve not had a good track record with FW points the last few years!
Back in August they said there was a 'big announcement' coming regarding FW. I was really hoping that would mean revamped rules for all the FW index units, possilbly made available for free online alongside the upcoming 'Legends' rules.
With Chapter Approved pre-order and a WHW studio preview on the same weekend I have my fingers crossed for the end of the month...
Rinion wrote: Curious and nervous about the FW points changes!
Most of it is garbage with the exception of a few things and some of the new Marine stuff making the Leviathan super strong. But if they increase it any more its just going to be a 14W knight for the same points.
Lets hope they dont mess up, theyve not had a good track record with FW points the last few years!
Back in August they said there was a 'big announcement' coming regarding FW. I was really hoping that would mean revamped rules for all the FW index units, possilbly made available for free online alongside the upcoming 'Legends' rules.
With Chapter Approved pre-order and a WHW studio preview on the same weekend I have my fingers crossed for the end of the month...
If FW ends in legends, which will be coming, then that meanst that these units there will be marked as a suggestion like RO3, meaning that you might not be able to field them anymore.
If FW ends in legends, which will be coming, then that meanst that these units there will be marked as a suggestion like RO3, meaning that you might not be able to field them anymore.
I didn't mean they'd become Legends (most FW stuff is still in production!), just that I hoped the rules would be made available online in the same way. They've already confirmed that the main 40k studio is now handling 40kFW rules; I understand that's where the Knight & Custodes updates came from earlier this year. Would be nice for everyone else to get the same treatment.
A lot of entry Fw will see their costs in points completely reviewed.
this eaither means "we realize Bill was drunk when he did the FW points costs, we'll be reviewing these so FW tanks are actually pointed sanely" or they mean "So we're going to add a few hundred points onto the leviathan dread"
Maybee they will realise that a militia member is NOT worth 4 pts like a guardsmen, finally, after what 2 years?
guardsmen are udnerpointed, this we know to be a fact.
A lot of entry Fw will see their costs in points completely reviewed.
this eaither means "we realize Bill was drunk when he did the FW points costs, we'll be reviewing these so FW tanks are actually pointed sanely" or they mean "So we're going to add a few hundred points onto the leviathan dread"
Maybee they will realise that a militia member is NOT worth 4 pts like a guardsmen, finally, after what 2 years?
guardsmen are udnerpointed, this we know to be a fact.
And? Militia is still worse then conscripts even.
So regardless how you cut it, MIlitia is not worth 4 pts.
And the comparison torwards Guardsmen comes from the fact that Militia was Guardsmen stats with worse morale but for 1pts less allways. Infact in 7th they were even worse and only cost 3pts with upgradability to guardsmen stats for guardsmen prices.
If FW ends in legends, which will be coming, then that meanst that these units there will be marked as a suggestion like RO3, meaning that you might not be able to field them anymore.
I didn't mean they'd become Legends (most FW stuff is still in production!), just that I hoped the rules would be made available online in the same way. They've already confirmed that the main 40k studio is now handling 40kFW rules; I understand that's where the Knight & Custodes updates came from earlier this year. Would be nice for everyone else to get the same treatment.
A lot of entry Fw will see their costs in points completely reviewed.
this eaither means "we realize Bill was drunk when he did the FW points costs, we'll be reviewing these so FW tanks are actually pointed sanely" or they mean "So we're going to add a few hundred points onto the leviathan dread"
Maybee they will realise that a militia member is NOT worth 4 pts like a guardsmen, finally, after what 2 years?
guardsmen are udnerpointed, this we know to be a fact.
And? Militia is still worse then conscripts even.
So regardless how you cut it, MIlitia is not worth 4 pts.
And the comparison torwards Guardsmen comes from the fact that Militia was Guardsmen stats with worse morale but for 1pts less allways. Infact in 7th they were even worse and only cost 3pts with upgradability to guardsmen stats for guardsmen prices.
my point is I'd rather see guard given a price bump to 5 or 6 PPM.
A lot of entry Fw will see their costs in points completely reviewed.
this eaither means "we realize Bill was drunk when he did the FW points costs, we'll be reviewing these so FW tanks are actually pointed sanely" or they mean "So we're going to add a few hundred points onto the leviathan dread"
Maybee they will realise that a militia member is NOT worth 4 pts like a guardsmen, finally, after what 2 years?
Issue comes from scalability. Is IG trooper 33% better than militia? Is 3pts militia really same value as other 3 pts models?
GW really, really, really should like triple cost of everything and play 6k games. Would give more room for point differences.
the_scotsman wrote: Seems like CA2019 is perfectly positioned to destroy the meta, if it truly was sent to the printer before the marine supplements.
Heavy nerfs to the few mono builds that can stand up to supplement nonsense, and we would be seeing a solidly 90+% marine meta.
on the other hand buffs applied in the right areas could help factions that are currently struggling. if, for example, chaos elite troops get 2 wounds that makes them a little better at soaking fire from AP -2 bolt rifles.
Rinion wrote: Curious and nervous about the FW points changes!
Most of it is garbage with the exception of a few things and some of the new Marine stuff making the Leviathan super strong. But if they increase it any more its just going to be a 14W knight for the same points.
Lets hope they dont mess up, theyve not had a good track record with FW points the last few years!
Back in August they said there was a 'big announcement' coming regarding FW. I was really hoping that would mean revamped rules for all the FW index units, possilbly made available for free online alongside the upcoming 'Legends' rules.
With Chapter Approved pre-order and a WHW studio preview on the same weekend I have my fingers crossed for the end of the month...
If FW ends in legends, which will be coming, then that meanst that these units there will be marked as a suggestion like RO3, meaning that you might not be able to field them anymore.
Nothing so far has indicated legends includes models with existing rules. Just the stuff that has legacy rules BUT NO MODELS ON SALE.
Last time I checked FW units are in still sale. GW knows sales would drop stone dead if they were banned from being able to play. That's why they cram everything into 40k rules even when it doesn't make sense and just breaks the system trying to cope with units that arent' suitable for the scale to begin with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Latro_ wrote: 4pts grots wont stop grot farms, it'll mean someone will drop a smasha gun and a couple of lootas here and there.
It will make them dead. No point taking grots over boyz then. They aren't broken good anyway. As it is they are only barely tougher per points against some weapons and that's not factoring leadership but when you realize that killing 5 grots means 50-50 losing whole squad and killing 6 means 83% chance to kill all 10...They are not tough at all. They have zero offensive power. They dont' benefit from culture. IG conscripts are bad for 4 pts yet they are waaaaaaaaaay better than grots.
Argive wrote: Damn.. no rumours for CWE tweak? I'm still holding out hope for: Rangers being able to Infiltrate properly & Point drops to EVERYTHING apart from WS, and hiking CHE points lol.
Just a small modest wishlist….
Points changes to models across the board doesn't fix the core issue Craftworlds have with their internal balance. The codex needs a rewrite to balance things.
On the topic of Craftworlds, a lot of the index options will be going to warhammer legends which is a pretty big hit to how Eldar work competitively. Losing wargear like banshee masks, reaper launchers, warp jump generators impacts the options to just hawk wings on the Autarch.
Pretty pathetic that as time goes on GW has managed to make the game less balanced lol. I fully anticipate CA19 to kneecap the only builds still able to participate with new marines.
The perfect analogy for GW rules development truly is "The old lady who swallowed a spider"
I am OK with making errors, but this dated model of printing patches needs to die in a fire. They need to make a living document online that folks subscribe to for rules, codexes can be for background and narrative expansion with a hobby section.
A lot of entry Fw will see their costs in points completely reviewed.
this eaither means "we realize Bill was drunk when he did the FW points costs, we'll be reviewing these so FW tanks are actually pointed sanely" or they mean "So we're going to add a few hundred points onto the leviathan dread"
Maybee they will realise that a militia member is NOT worth 4 pts like a guardsmen, finally, after what 2 years?
guardsmen are udnerpointed, this we know to be a fact.
And? Militia is still worse then conscripts even. So regardless how you cut it, MIlitia is not worth 4 pts. And the comparison torwards Guardsmen comes from the fact that Militia was Guardsmen stats with worse morale but for 1pts less allways. Infact in 7th they were even worse and only cost 3pts with upgradability to guardsmen stats for guardsmen prices.
my point is I'd rather see guard given a price bump to 5 or 6 PPM.
is a guardsmen worth 6 pts? I agree with doubling the points cost for more granularity.
A lot of entry Fw will see their costs in points completely reviewed.
this eaither means "we realize Bill was drunk when he did the FW points costs, we'll be reviewing these so FW tanks are actually pointed sanely" or they mean "So we're going to add a few hundred points onto the leviathan dread"
Maybee they will realise that a militia member is NOT worth 4 pts like a guardsmen, finally, after what 2 years?
Issue comes from scalability. Is IG trooper 33% better than militia? Is 3pts militia really same value as other 3 pts models?
GW really, really, really should like triple cost of everything and play 6k games. Would give more room for point differences.
IG trooper is wsbs 4+. Militia is 5+. IG trooper has a fixed morale value Milita has d6+2 Ig has a 5+sv, Milita has a 6+ Yeah, it is about right. Of course if you take the IG guardsmen as mesaurement bar. and yes doubling or trippling would do wonders probably for the game.
A lot of entry Fw will see their costs in points completely reviewed.
this eaither means "we realize Bill was drunk when he did the FW points costs, we'll be reviewing these so FW tanks are actually pointed sanely" or they mean "So we're going to add a few hundred points onto the leviathan dread"
Maybee they will realise that a militia member is NOT worth 4 pts like a guardsmen, finally, after what 2 years?
A lot of entry Fw will see their costs in points completely reviewed.
this eaither means "we realize Bill was drunk when he did the FW points costs, we'll be reviewing these so FW tanks are actually pointed sanely" or they mean "So we're going to add a few hundred points onto the leviathan dread"
Maybee they will realise that a militia member is NOT worth 4 pts like a guardsmen, finally, after what 2 years?
And a GROT is?!
Not fieldable, the issue is not the Grot but the fact gw decided to drop guardsmen and not adequatly improving militia to a 4 pts Modell.
Which they btw never were. (4th too 7th)
The solution is simple double prices, then balance propperly.
But gw rather throw out more marines And not even fix the csm traits in what amounts to 10 books in 8th edition.
Argive wrote: Damn.. no rumours for CWE tweak? I'm still holding out hope for: Rangers being able to Infiltrate properly & Point drops to EVERYTHING apart from WS, and hiking CHE points lol.
Just a small modest wishlist….
Points changes to models across the board doesn't fix the core issue Craftworlds have with their internal balance. The codex needs a rewrite to balance things.
On the topic of Craftworlds, a lot of the index options will be going to warhammer legends which is a pretty big hit to how Eldar work competitively. Losing wargear like banshee masks, reaper launchers, warp jump generators impacts the options to just hawk wings on the Autarch.
I think we can all agree that CWE, Daemons, Death Guard, and CSM could use fundamental codex re-designs. I don't hold out hope for CSM given that they have releases 3 update publications for them in the past 9 months, none of which fixed the fundamental problems or the shortcomings relative to SMs.
I am not sure about CWE, since they also just got a supplement that gave them some neat new options. Sort of the same boat as CSM. But CWE don't have the outdated codex design problems that CSM do.
Tyranids have a really good and interesting codex. They just can't stand up to the shooting of other armies, especially given the lack of invul saves. Really more of a problem with shooting armies being too good in 8th rather than anything else. Maybe you could fix Tyranids with points cuts.
Grey Knights I have no idea what to do. I think shock assault and bolter discipline helped a bit. They have a few pretty good units. Hard to balance them without making Imperial soup better. I think if they did a second round of cutting points on all terminator-type models (maybe 2 ppm across all codexes) it would work.
Argive wrote: Damn.. no rumours for CWE tweak? I'm still holding out hope for: Rangers being able to Infiltrate properly & Point drops to EVERYTHING apart from WS, and hiking CHE points lol.
Just a small modest wishlist….
Points changes to models across the board doesn't fix the core issue Craftworlds have with their internal balance. The codex needs a rewrite to balance things.
On the topic of Craftworlds, a lot of the index options will be going to warhammer legends which is a pretty big hit to how Eldar work competitively. Losing wargear like banshee masks, reaper launchers, warp jump generators impacts the options to just hawk wings on the Autarch.
Yeah Once legends go I don't think we will see any Autarchs on the field again lol. With 4 attacks and a crappy re-roll 1s(now mostly redundant with master crafters), he's not in a good spot..
If CHE gets an overdue hike and all the stuff that's gone up in points over the last 2 years due to ynnari fire twice stuff I think we would be in a good spot.
Yes some new warlord traits, relics, and strats are needed also but it would allow for CWE to really bring all sorts of units and nothing being particularly OP everything has its strengths and weakness as it should be. CHE is a relly hard crutch because everything else, particualry troops is stupidly overpriced. I stand by my belief a point drop to things like DA, PLs, Avatar, aspects, Wraithguard would allow for a different look. For me souping in DE or Harlies is not an answer... The airwing has been a strong part of the meta for ages, there is a reason for that and that is because it's by far the most hilariously efficient option... Make other stuff more efficient is a good start.
Red Corsair wrote: I am OK with making errors, but this dated model of printing patches needs to die in a fire. They need to make a living document online that folks subscribe to for rules, codexes can be for background and narrative expansion with a hobby section.
This. 100% this. I would really like to see one living document that just gets updates. I know there are some that dont want to go digital, but I think at this point it just makes sense to do. Maybe have a option to order a physical copy like Drive Thru RPG does for players who rather have the hard copy in hand.
Red Corsair wrote: I am OK with making errors, but this dated model of printing patches needs to die in a fire. They need to make a living document online that folks subscribe to for rules, codexes can be for background and narrative expansion with a hobby section.
This. 100% this. I would really like to see one living document that just gets updates. I know there are some that dont want to go digital, but I think at this point it just makes sense to do. Maybe have a option to order a physical copy like Drive Thru RPG does for players who rather have the hard copy in hand.
Code in the book to access the digital version or for a 3 month sub or something. Sign me up!
Not Online!!! wrote: I agree with doubling the points cost for more granularity.
No need. Just make some models only available on bundle of 2. If someone complains about not being able to take 19 conscripts instead of 20 or 18... ignore him?
Regarding grots - it seems like a bad idea, but then there is the conundrum of using survivoship bias in point changes. Either you increase grots, because you see them a lot or you drop everything else, because they don't get used enough.
Unit X hasn't been seen for a year - drop it's points. But unit X was already good - people didn't choose it, because of the perceived meta. And then they drop it again later, because we're still not seeing it, but the end result is the unit becomes so cheap that it becomes meta-defining itself and then you start another wave of issues.
Sometimes it is better to increase the cost of over-performing units than to reduce the cost of under-performers. That way you get to unveil the units hiding at the line between used and unused. This only gets more complex with things like grots, because they're serving a defined purpose that other units do not accomplish.
Last years CA was much more about cutting points, so my guess is a lot of points reductions again. Only some of the most used units will get increases. Plaguebearers make sense, as Chaos always gets its best unit nerfed in CA. SM will surely stay unchanged as DE and other late codices did last year.
I agree only nerfing the strongest units would be the easier way to balance the game, but that would also mean the worst units will stay crap tier forever. With points reductions there is atleast hope for them.
Daedalus81 wrote: Regarding grots - it seems like a bad idea, but then there is the conundrum of using survivoship bias in point changes. Either you increase grots, because you see them a lot or you drop everything else, because they don't get used enough.
Unit X hasn't been seen for a year - drop it's points. But unit X was already good - people didn't choose it, because of the perceived meta. And then they drop it again later, because we're still not seeing it, but the end result is the unit becomes so cheap that it becomes meta-defining itself and then you start another wave of issues.
Sometimes it is better to increase the cost of over-performing units than to reduce the cost of under-performers. That way you get to unveil the units hiding at the line between used and unused. This only gets more complex with things like grots, because they're serving a defined purpose that other units do not accomplish.
And the marine meta doesn't help...
And here i thought you were supposed to HELP gw sales
Grots at the same cost of a guardsmen or termagant is hilariously bad.
Previous posts already covered it, but I echo the sentiment of just how bad the system of printed errata is. CA19 will hammer factions and units that performed well months ago and now may struggle or even be completely rolled over by the new power level of the marine books.
I wonder if they will be compelled into an emergency errata to CA19 like with the iron hands book.
Dendarien wrote: Grots at the same cost of a guardsmen or termagant is hilariously bad.
Previous posts already covered it, but I echo the sentiment of just how bad the system of printed errata is. CA19 will hammer factions and units that performed well months ago and now may struggle or even be completely rolled over by the new power level of the marine books.
I wonder if they will be compelled into an emergency errata to CA19 like with the iron hands book.
you know what ca is? A bad balance patch witha paywall from a team that only looks at it about 2-4 days at most and is mostly concerned when the next bunch of marine rules need to get out.
Rather than altering points in CA each year, why not reserve it for actual rules, and just make a pdf available on the resource page with NOTHING but units/gear and points values. Precisely useless without a book of some sort, so it preserves sales, but also easy to reference (or print out and carry around) to keep up to date. Plus, it would let you update EVERYTHING easily, and whenever it needed it, not just once a year.
Domandi wrote: There is absolutely no way a grot is worth 4 points. If GW wants to stop grot farms/180 grot lists, then they need to make other options more viable.
That's not how they operate. Note the repeated bludgeoning the Cultists have taken that "improved" Chaos Marines.
Daedalus81 wrote: Regarding grots - it seems like a bad idea, but then there is the conundrum of using survivoship bias in point changes. Either you increase grots, because you see them a lot or you drop everything else, because they don't get used enough.
Unit X hasn't been seen for a year - drop it's points. But unit X was already good - people didn't choose it, because of the perceived meta. And then they drop it again later, because we're still not seeing it, but the end result is the unit becomes so cheap that it becomes meta-defining itself and then you start another wave of issues.
Sometimes it is better to increase the cost of over-performing units than to reduce the cost of under-performers. That way you get to unveil the units hiding at the line between used and unused. This only gets more complex with things like grots, because they're serving a defined purpose that other units do not accomplish.
And the marine meta doesn't help...
You know your white knighting has reached epic proportions when you're trying to convince people that a T2, S2, W1, 6+ save model is worth 4ppm and the same as an Infantryman.
Grots are taken for one reason - Grot Shields. Apart from that they are the cheapest unit wound for wound.
GW have lost their minds and Orks will cease to exist in a competitive setting if this is true.
Daedalus81 wrote: Regarding grots - it seems like a bad idea, but then there is the conundrum of using survivoship bias in point changes. Either you increase grots, because you see them a lot or you drop everything else, because they don't get used enough.
Unit X hasn't been seen for a year - drop it's points. But unit X was already good - people didn't choose it, because of the perceived meta. And then they drop it again later, because we're still not seeing it, but the end result is the unit becomes so cheap that it becomes meta-defining itself and then you start another wave of issues.
Sometimes it is better to increase the cost of over-performing units than to reduce the cost of under-performers. That way you get to unveil the units hiding at the line between used and unused. This only gets more complex with things like grots, because they're serving a defined purpose that other units do not accomplish.
And the marine meta doesn't help...
You know your white knighting has reached epic proportions when you're trying to convince people that a T2, S2, W1, 6+ save model is worth 4ppm and the same as an Infantryman.
Grots are taken for one reason - Grot Shields. Apart from that they are the cheapest unit wound for wound.
GW have lost their minds and Orks will cease to exist in a competitive setting if this is true.
I'm 100% on board with not making grots 4ppm. That is very stupid doubly so if orks are not buffed in other areas. However I don't think it would kill orks competitively. I think you are over reacting, but let me be clear I really, really don't want them nerfed.
Rinion wrote: Curious and nervous about the FW points changes!
Most of it is garbage with the exception of a few things and some of the new Marine stuff making the Leviathan super strong. But if they increase it any more its just going to be a 14W knight for the same points.
Lets hope they dont mess up, theyve not had a good track record with FW points the last few years!
Back in August they said there was a 'big announcement' coming regarding FW. I was really hoping that would mean revamped rules for all the FW index units, possilbly made available for free online alongside the upcoming 'Legends' rules.
With Chapter Approved pre-order and a WHW studio preview on the same weekend I have my fingers crossed for the end of the month...
If FW ends in legends, which will be coming, then that meanst that these units there will be marked as a suggestion like RO3, meaning that you might not be able to field them anymore.
Oh no....the mark of suggestion. The most powerful and incorporial of the Chaos marks. Who gives a flying feth if that happens? I know that some think that a suggestion (like the suggestion of 3)is a set in stone type thing, but you can always choose not to follow it.
Rinion wrote: Curious and nervous about the FW points changes!
Most of it is garbage with the exception of a few things and some of the new Marine stuff making the Leviathan super strong. But if they increase it any more its just going to be a 14W knight for the same points.
Lets hope they dont mess up, theyve not had a good track record with FW points the last few years!
Back in August they said there was a 'big announcement' coming regarding FW. I was really hoping that would mean revamped rules for all the FW index units, possilbly made available for free online alongside the upcoming 'Legends' rules.
With Chapter Approved pre-order and a WHW studio preview on the same weekend I have my fingers crossed for the end of the month...
If FW ends in legends, which will be coming, then that meanst that these units there will be marked as a suggestion like RO3, meaning that you might not be able to field them anymore.
Oh no....the mark of suggestion. The most powerful and incorporial of the Chaos marks. Who gives a flying feth if that happens? I know that some think that a suggestion (like the suggestion of 3)is a set in stone type thing, but you can always choose not to follow it.
Cheap troop infantry is poison for the game. They make CPs too easy to acquire, they make skew lists better, and encourage slow play.
The fact that these armies don't have a better option than to fill out detachments with grots, cultists, etc sucks and should definitely be addressed, it doesn't change the fact that allowing horde lists to also function as cheap CP farms is bad.
Or they can just remove CP farming altogether and make it a set amount. There are too many stratagems, imo. The game could use a lot of trimming and moving strats back to being unit-abilities and datasheets. CP generation, imo, should be rare and more conditional rather than something you build into. Like, one army could generate CP whenever they kill an enemy unit, another can get a point of CP whenever they successfully cast psychic powers. Hell, why not base command points on objectives, so for every turn you hold an objective, you generate CP?
The current system just doesn't work that well, as it affects army lists way too much and forces players to take a certain combination and quantity of units, and some armies at worse at farming CP than others. Its just a clunky, restrictive system that isn't really fun to deal with.
Rinion wrote: Curious and nervous about the FW points changes!
Most of it is garbage with the exception of a few things and some of the new Marine stuff making the Leviathan super strong. But if they increase it any more its just going to be a 14W knight for the same points.
Lets hope they dont mess up, theyve not had a good track record with FW points the last few years!
Back in August they said there was a 'big announcement' coming regarding FW. I was really hoping that would mean revamped rules for all the FW index units, possilbly made available for free online alongside the upcoming 'Legends' rules.
With Chapter Approved pre-order and a WHW studio preview on the same weekend I have my fingers crossed for the end of the month...
If FW ends in legends, which will be coming, then that meanst that these units there will be marked as a suggestion like RO3, meaning that you might not be able to field them anymore.
Oh no....the mark of suggestion. The most powerful and incorporial of the Chaos marks. Who gives a flying feth if that happens? I know that some think that a suggestion (like the suggestion of 3)is a set in stone type thing, but you can always choose not to follow it.
You need the group for that.
no, you just need people who understand the difference between a suggestion and a rule.
Sign of a good compromise is when nobody's happy. It's interesting to me the amount of salt surround CA given that just a few years ago you basically had your codex and those were your points come hell or high water for at the very least 2 years.
Not saying the current format is perfect, but multiple mass FAQ's and points updates every year seem to me like a nice enough boon to be passable.
Then again I'm garage-hammer through and through so their changes aren't affecting my ability to win a local heat or whatever it is competitive players do.
Before anyone totally loses their gak over this, these rumours seemingly have no source. I’d be amazed if GW make grots 4 ppm unless they’re making changes to infantry across the board, which in turn seems unlikely.
phillv85 wrote: Before anyone totally loses their gak over this, these rumours seemingly have no source. I’d be amazed if GW make grots 4 ppm unless they’re making changes to infantry across the board, which in turn seems unlikely.
We are talking about Dakkadakka. The average member wants to yell for the hell of it. There is no credible source at all for 99% of these rumours but people still want to argue. This is what the "internet culture & behaviour" look like nowadays (= a trashbin)
phillv85 wrote: Before anyone totally loses their gak over this, these rumours seemingly have no source. I’d be amazed if GW make grots 4 ppm unless they’re making changes to infantry across the board, which in turn seems unlikely.
We are talking about Dakkadakka. The average member wants to yell for the hell of it. There is no credible source at all for 99% of these rumours but people still want to argue. This is what the "internet culture & behaviour" look like nowadays (= a trashbin)
You left out people complaining about other people's discussions, dismissing it as mere 'yelling...'
So rather than changing the way CP, battalions or brigades work, or the insanely overpowered strategem stacking combos that have promulgated like weeds the last two years and continue to get worse let's nerf grots. Makes total sense and will clearly fix the balance.
Toughness 2. 6+ armor save. 12" range pistol 1.
That people are literally only getting them to fill mandatory battalion slots should tell you everything about the state of the game.
phillv85 wrote: Before anyone totally loses their gak over this, these rumours seemingly have no source. I’d be amazed if GW make grots 4 ppm unless they’re making changes to infantry across the board, which in turn seems unlikely.
We are talking about Dakkadakka. The average member wants to yell for the hell of it. There is no credible source at all for 99% of these rumours but people still want to argue. This is what the "internet culture & behaviour" look like nowadays (= a trashbin)
You left out people complaining about other people's discussions, dismissing it as mere 'yelling...'
To be fair someone complaining about the rumor literally stated that anyone that disagreed with them was a clown.
If pre-preemptively asserting anyone that disagrees is a moron isn't picture perfect internet toxicity I don't know what is.
TedNugent wrote: So rather than changing the way CP, battalions or brigades work, or the insanely overpowered strategem stacking combos that have promulgated like weeds the last two years and continue to get worse let's nerf grots. Makes total sense and will clearly fix the balance.
Toughness 2. 6+ armor save. 12" range pistol 1.
That people are literally only getting them to fill mandatory battalion slots should tell you everything about the state of the game.
I think you are underestimating the value of 3 ppm infantry that has a (short) ranged attack, can used to push out deep strikes, screen against assaults, and benefits from strong Ork morale negation and can benefits from big mek shield. Plus of course the insanely strong grot screen strat. I could see grots going up to 4 ppm. I agree that termagaunts or some other models may seem better pound for pound but orks overall are doing extremely well compared to some of those other factions.
Of course, guardsmen are also grossly undercosted at 4 ppm regardless what happens to grots.
Some ik imperial coast will see their costs in points change
A lot of tau weapons will drop in points. (*)
A lot of entry Fw will see their costs in points completely reviewed.
Rumors about the increase of the talos of 18pts. (*)
The drone shield goes to 12pts. (*)
So far. All is not confirmed yet ... some are still just rumors. (*)
If this is true I think I stand for all Orks everywhere when I say; what the actual feth are GW thinking making Grots 4ppm?! If this turns out to be true I'm done. This edition is over for me.
Good
Mortarion and magnus points down, Yeah they are way too expensive, however Magnus is better than Morty, Morty is way too overpriced
Grots, Blame the peeps who where running 80 grots
2 Wound God Marines woot that's great, if it does not include any points increases.
Disco Spam - won't effect me never used as my narrative meta is No Vehicles.
Tau need BS rated weapons, e.g. current prices for Commanders, an decrease suit weapons costs for everything else.
Bad
Plaguebearers aren't even good any more (space marine meta), The new style is horrors that split as -1/-2 doesn't matter in re-roll everything or auto hit meta New SM Bring, an 4+/3+ INV is good vs everything. This nerf is way out of date.
Talos wut far as I know no one takes this unit...
Shield Drone nerf is bad, yeah the army is strong, however not unbeatable seems an out of date change.
Good
Mortarion and magnus points down, Yeah they are way too expensive, however Magnus is better than Morty, Morty is way too overpriced
Grots, Blame the peeps who where running 80 grots
2 Wound God Marines woot that's great, if it does not include any points increases.
Disco Spam - won't effect me never used as my narrative meta is No Vehicles.
Tau need BS rated weapons, e.g. current prices for Commanders, an decrease suit weapons costs for everything else.
Bad
Plaguebearers aren't even good any more (space marine meta), The new style is horrors that split as -1/-2 doesn't matter in re-roll everything or auto hit meta New SM Bring, an 4+/3+ INV is good vs everything. This nerf is way out of date.
Talos wut far as I know no one takes this unit...
Shield Drone nerf is bad, yeah the army is strong, however not unbeatable seems an out of date change.
Plaguebarer spam is still an issue. Not everyone uses marines so the argument is rediculous. It's just a very, very annoying suoerbuff stack that can just daisy chain between objectives and take stupid amounts of shots to kill.
Talos nerf is a head scratcher. Can anyone with Drukhari experience fill us in if this is justified or not?
Shield drone nerf is a long time coming. It's a super annoying to any army.
I've noticed you think both the nerfs you listed as being "out of date" with the meta. News flash - they aren't. T'au still spam shield drones and plaguebarer spam is still bring used. Or are you just booty blasted that the big bad marines haven't had nerfs reveled yet or still salty over the IH?
Daedalus81 wrote: Regarding grots - it seems like a bad idea, but then there is the conundrum of using survivoship bias in point changes. Either you increase grots, because you see them a lot or you drop everything else, because they don't get used enough.
Unit X hasn't been seen for a year - drop it's points. But unit X was already good - people didn't choose it, because of the perceived meta. And then they drop it again later, because we're still not seeing it, but the end result is the unit becomes so cheap that it becomes meta-defining itself and then you start another wave of issues.
Sometimes it is better to increase the cost of over-performing units than to reduce the cost of under-performers. That way you get to unveil the units hiding at the line between used and unused. This only gets more complex with things like grots, because they're serving a defined purpose that other units do not accomplish.
And the marine meta doesn't help...
You know your white knighting has reached epic proportions when you're trying to convince people that a T2, S2, W1, 6+ save model is worth 4ppm and the same as an Infantryman.
Grots are taken for one reason - Grot Shields. Apart from that they are the cheapest unit wound for wound.
GW have lost their minds and Orks will cease to exist in a competitive setting if this is true.
You know your inability to comprehend a complex idea without resorting to calling it white knighting is getting old.
Nowhere did I say it was a good idea. I expressed why it is complex. Take a pill or something. Or maybe pause and read more slowly. Jesus you people are fething exhausting.
Dr. Mills wrote: Talos nerf is a head scratcher. Can anyone with Drukhari experience fill us in if this is justified or not?
Sort of. They're very strong but you don't necessarily see them in that many competitive lists because they bleed ITC points really badly at the moment.
18 points feels like overkill to me but an increase is probably justified.
Dr. Mills wrote: Talos nerf is a head scratcher. Can anyone with Drukhari experience fill us in if this is justified or not?
Sort of. They're very strong but you don't necessarily see them in that many competitive lists because they bleed ITC points really badly at the moment.
18 points feels like overkill to me but an increase is probably justified.
Win-win! You take less of them and give up fewer points!
I love the throw people under the bus mentality. Mono dex guard armies haven't been crushing all before them for quite a long time. The cost of a guardsman is fine, the core game mechanics are broken with allies and command points, that's pretty clear to see.
Pricing up grots is about as dumb as up pricing cultists which I didn't agree with either. A guard is not worth 6 pts for damn sure. Once you start rocking them up that high why not just use strom troopers ? People need to take a breath and calm down. I mean I feel as bad as anyone marines ever need to fear a guardsman on the battle field but mono guard infantry costs are fine. Aside from conscripts they need to be brought back to usable state as opposed to triple nerfed into nothing.
Some of GW's adjustments seem to be based on 'this behavior is a deviation from what these armies are 'supposed' to look like.
We saw the same kind of adjustments when cultists got bumped, but I guess they figure with bonus attacks for marines and other adjustments, cultists won't be taken to excess anymore.
So, since there are stories about ork armies that are majority grots with specialty units, they have to be 'fixed.' At least that's where this line of thought seems to be going.
A lot of entry Fw will see their costs in points completely reviewed.
this eaither means "we realize Bill was drunk when he did the FW points costs, we'll be reviewing these so FW tanks are actually pointed sanely" or they mean "So we're going to add a few hundred points onto the leviathan dread"
I hope it means "holy feth we actually thought a fellblade was worth two baneblades? What were we smoking?".
Good
Mortarion and magnus points down, Yeah they are way too expensive, however Magnus is better than Morty, Morty is way too overpriced
Grots, Blame the peeps who where running 80 grots
2 Wound God Marines woot that's great, if it does not include any points increases.
Disco Spam - won't effect me never used as my narrative meta is No Vehicles.
Tau need BS rated weapons, e.g. current prices for Commanders, an decrease suit weapons costs for everything else.
Bad
Plaguebearers aren't even good any more (space marine meta), The new style is horrors that split as -1/-2 doesn't matter in re-roll everything or auto hit meta New SM Bring, an 4+/3+ INV is good vs everything. This nerf is way out of date.
Talos wut far as I know no one takes this unit...
Shield Drone nerf is bad, yeah the army is strong, however not unbeatable seems an out of date change.
Plaguebarer spam is still an issue. Not everyone uses marines so the argument is rediculous. It's just a very, very annoying suoerbuff stack that can just daisy chain between objectives and take stupid amounts of shots to kill.
Talos nerf is a head scratcher. Can anyone with Drukhari experience fill us in if this is justified or not?
Shield drone nerf is a long time coming. It's a super annoying to any army.
I've noticed you think both the nerfs you listed as being "out of date" with the meta. News flash - they aren't. T'au still spam shield drones and plaguebarer spam is still bring used. Or are you just booty blasted that the big bad marines haven't had nerfs reveled yet or still salty over the IH?
@DR Mills
I understand vs some armies PBs are good, however the updated rules are adding in more ways to ignore -Hit penalties, not just New SM.
Personally I do not have any issue with the current number of drones this seems to be a left field nerf, as they have gone down in points to the current value and are not back up, this flip flopping is lame in my view. The drones are not really an issue, it's the things behind the drones that's the issue. What again we really have to wait an see because it all depends on "how much" is the weapon points decreases. If it is significant then drones would have to go up anyway as they could have way more shield drones. However the key issue as in "events" the rule of 3 kinda limits the drone spam. Tau are not as common as many other armies, so this is why my context was in. Note: I know about Socal, I would argue that was the player not the list.
@Brian
As someone said GW have a thematic view of the battlefield, taking the 80 grots instead of boys is obviously not working as intended. As it is just allowing orks to castle up and shoot the entire game. Most of the current armies or design is about getting you to move up the board to take ground / objectives/etc. Older editions had the sit still and shoot until win plan.
this is the same reason why thunder hammers went to 40 points. It wasn't because of the players who had one smash captain, it was the players who ran 3! etc. GW changes things not just because of power scale but usage.
A lot of entry Fw will see their costs in points completely reviewed.
this eaither means "we realize Bill was drunk when he did the FW points costs, we'll be reviewing these so FW tanks are actually pointed sanely" or they mean "So we're going to add a few hundred points onto the leviathan dread"
I hope it means "holy feth we actually thought a fellblade was worth two baneblades? What were we smoking?".
as I said thats my hope.The cynic in me however wonders if instead they'll look at the Levi dread and be all "Ohh we missed this one! NERF FOR YOU!"
A lot of entry Fw will see their costs in points completely reviewed.
this eaither means "we realize Bill was drunk when he did the FW points costs, we'll be reviewing these so FW tanks are actually pointed sanely" or they mean "So we're going to add a few hundred points onto the leviathan dread"
I hope it means "holy feth we actually thought a fellblade was worth two baneblades? What were we smoking?".
as I said thats my hope.The cynic in me however wonders if instead they'll look at the Levi dread and be all "Ohh we missed this one! NERF FOR YOU!"
That's my fear as well. Nerfing all leviathans just because they are super good in some armies seems unfair to armies in which they are simply good.
A more sensible move would be an increase in points to stormcannons/butcher cannons.
I've still yet to hear an explanation why the fw super heavys were made so expensive other than "buy more knights ".
Kitane wrote: Grots are trash compared to mere termagants at 4 points. Rippers can rip grots to pieces and they aren't even 4 points per wound.
If there's a problem with the grot shield stratagem, then nerf the stratagem and not the grots.
Guardsmen, yeah, they have no business being 4 points per model.
And the stratagem isn't that good even. All it does is make opponent shoot the grots first which isn't that good. I have had the 15 lootas repeatedly blown apart despite 60 grots standing front. When you kill grots on 2+(don't shoot the orks, shoot the grots fist) they die fast. As it is I rarely make any rolls with it. Somebody fires at lootas for token to draw out CP, then everything pours fire at the grots until they are dead and then blow the lootas.
It's even easier stratgem to bypass than rotate ion shield which at least is fully effective with solo knight to protect(if you have multiples each that's just as good to destroy as other it's practically useless stratagem)
Red Corsair wrote: I am OK with making errors, but this dated model of printing patches needs to die in a fire. They need to make a living document online that folks subscribe to for rules, codexes can be for background and narrative expansion with a hobby section.
This. 100% this. I would really like to see one living document that just gets updates. I know there are some that dont want to go digital, but I think at this point it just makes sense to do. Maybe have a option to order a physical copy like Drive Thru RPG does for players who rather have the hard copy in hand.
Note he had worse suggestion than just digital(which is more inconvenient to find stuff and then you run out of battery at the inconvenient time). Subscribtion. So you don't anymore own rules but are completely at the mercy of GW. GW decides you don't play the game anymore and you don't play it at all. You have no option as the rules go poof. Not cool.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Or they can just remove CP farming altogether and make it a set amount.
There are too many stratagems, imo. The game could use a lot of trimming and moving strats back to being unit-abilities and datasheets.
CP generation, imo, should be rare and more conditional rather than something you build into. Like, one army could generate CP whenever they kill an enemy unit, another can get a point of CP whenever they successfully cast psychic powers. Hell, why not base command points on objectives, so for every turn you hold an objective, you generate CP?
The current system just doesn't work that well, as it affects army lists way too much and forces players to take a certain combination and quantity of units, and some armies at worse at farming CP than others. Its just a clunky, restrictive system that isn't really fun to deal with.
Currently I feel Kill Team and Age of Sigmar have better CP rules than 40k. I think it is only a question of time when 40k will see similar mechanics.
TedNugent wrote: So rather than changing the way CP, battalions or brigades work, or the insanely overpowered strategem stacking combos that have promulgated like weeds the last two years and continue to get worse let's nerf grots. Makes total sense and will clearly fix the balance.
Toughness 2. 6+ armor save. 12" range pistol 1.
That people are literally only getting them to fill mandatory battalion slots should tell you everything about the state of the game.
I think you are underestimating the value of 3 ppm infantry that has a (short) ranged attack, can used to push out deep strikes, screen against assaults, and benefits from strong Ork morale negation and can benefits from big mek shield. Plus of course the insanely strong grot screen strat. I could see grots going up to 4 ppm. I agree that termagaunts or some other models may seem better pound for pound but orks overall are doing extremely well compared to some of those other factions.
Of course, guardsmen are also grossly undercosted at 4 ppm regardless what happens to grots.
What strong ork LD negation? They have bloody LD4. They don't have LD bonus of the ork boyz have. You have unit of 10 and kill 5 you are 50-50 your entire unit dies. You kill 6 and on 2+ unit is dead. If you take 30 and imagine the runtherd is good it's not that cost effective to begin with and...well you need like 6 unit of grots anyway so that's 180 grots. If they are 10 strong then it's actually gets fairly trivial to get to the lootas with any fast moving unit and any T1 chargers will simply be able to ignore the grot screen. Shoot at one unit and whoom you have clear path.
And insanely strong...Hahahaha. It could be good but T2 models die in droves. Killing 60 ain't no trouble. Seriously if you struggle to kill 60 T2 models then frankly your lists SUCK and there's no army you can even win to begin with. At that point grot screen is LEAST of your troubles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ThatMG wrote: Grots, Blame the peeps who where running 80 grots
Ah so people who dare to bring not even overpowered troops are to blame. Yea right.
Some of GW's adjustments seem to be based on 'this behavior is a deviation from what these armies are 'supposed' to look like.
We saw the same kind of adjustments when cultists got bumped, but I guess they figure with bonus attacks for marines and other adjustments, cultists won't be taken to excess anymore.
So, since there are stories about ork armies that are majority grots with specialty units, they have to be 'fixed.' At least that's where this line of thought seems to be going.
Tons of grots for cannon fodder is actually pretty darn fluffy thing...
Also if GW has issue with boyz not being used maybe it's because ork boyz aren't that good at 7 pts...It's as if the 7 pts nerf was bad to begin with.
ThatMG wrote: this is the same reason why thunder hammers went to 40 points. It wasn't because of the players who had one smash captain, it was the players who ran 3! etc. GW changes things not just because of power scale but usage.
That kind of game design is ass backwards though.
If the problem was the Smash Captain they should have fixed that. Instead they're just penalised the people who didn't take Smash Captains by increasing the price of a piece of wargear. They are constantly making decisions in a vacuum without any real thought given to the knock-on effects. They treat symptoms rather than root causes.
TedNugent wrote: So rather than changing the way CP, battalions or brigades work, or the insanely overpowered strategem stacking combos that have promulgated like weeds the last two years and continue to get worse let's nerf grots. Makes total sense and will clearly fix the balance.
Toughness 2. 6+ armor save. 12" range pistol 1.
That people are literally only getting them to fill mandatory battalion slots should tell you everything about the state of the game.
I think you are underestimating the value of 3 ppm infantry that has a (short) ranged attack, can used to push out deep strikes, screen against assaults, and benefits from strong Ork morale negation and can benefits from big mek shield. Plus of course the insanely strong grot screen strat. I could see grots going up to 4 ppm. I agree that termagaunts or some other models may seem better pound for pound but orks overall are doing extremely well compared to some of those other factions.
Of course, guardsmen are also grossly undercosted at 4 ppm regardless what happens to grots.
H.B.M.C. wrote: If the problem was the Smash Captain they should have fixed that. Instead they're just penalised the people who didn't take Smash Captains by increasing the price of a piece of wargear. They are constantly making decisions in a vacuum without any real thought given to the knock-on effects. They treat symptoms rather than root causes.
Okay, and how you propose to do that? If they raised cost of captains instead, they would penalize everyone, even a guy with something fluffweak like generic chainsword/bolter captain. The only way they have with the dumb, backwards armory system is to hit the offending weapon, and it will stay that way until they go back to vastly superior 5th edition system of bespoke wargear costs.
H.B.M.C. wrote: If the problem was the Smash Captain they should have fixed that. Instead they're just penalised the people who didn't take Smash Captains by increasing the price of a piece of wargear. They are constantly making decisions in a vacuum without any real thought given to the knock-on effects. They treat symptoms rather than root causes.
Okay, and how you propose to do that? If they raised cost of captains instead, they would penalize everyone, even a guy with something fluffweak like generic chainsword/bolter captain. The only way they have with the dumb, backwards armory system is to hit the offending weapon, and it will stay that way until they go back to vastly superior 5th edition system of bespoke wargear costs.
Say, uh, how much does a Jump Pack/Bike cost on a character? you know that thing that makes smash captains work? I wouldn't know, other factions didn't get to keep mobility options for their HQs, but it seems like that's a thing you control that would be a good way to nerf smashcaptains without affecting literally any other unit or build of captain.
H.B.M.C. wrote: If the problem was the Smash Captain they should have fixed that. Instead they're just penalised the people who didn't take Smash Captains by increasing the price of a piece of wargear. They are constantly making decisions in a vacuum without any real thought given to the knock-on effects. They treat symptoms rather than root causes.
Okay, and how you propose to do that? If they raised cost of captains instead, they would penalize everyone, even a guy with something fluffweak like generic chainsword/bolter captain. The only way they have with the dumb, backwards armory system is to hit the offending weapon, and it will stay that way until they go back to vastly superior 5th edition system of bespoke wargear costs.
It's as if giving extra rules for weapons and units without adjusting point costs for adding rules would be bad idea to begin with...Who would have thought of it!
It's the problem with GW giving free special rules not factored in point costs. Make those elements that make smash captain be more pricey. If you have weapon that costs X and then have weapon+1 then it should cost more than X.
Say, uh, how much does a Jump Pack/Bike cost on a character? you know that thing that makes smash captains work? I wouldn't know, other factions didn't get to keep mobility options for their HQs, but it seems like that's a thing you control that would be a good way to nerf smashcaptains without affecting literally any other unit or build of captain.
GW almost always underprices the mobility options for characters, jump packs, bikes, wings for Daemon Princes and Hive Tyrants jetbikes for seers etc. It is weird. Then these options become pretty much mandatory even in a semi-competitive setting. Now, the thunder hammer was probably a tad too cheap compared to the fist previously, but some of the 'smash tax' should have gone to the jump pack instead. People have already switched to 'slash captains' with a jump pack and the Teeth of Terra.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Or they can just remove CP farming altogether and make it a set amount.
There are too many stratagems, imo. The game could use a lot of trimming and moving strats back to being unit-abilities and datasheets.
CP generation, imo, should be rare and more conditional rather than something you build into. Like, one army could generate CP whenever they kill an enemy unit, another can get a point of CP whenever they successfully cast psychic powers. Hell, why not base command points on objectives, so for every turn you hold an objective, you generate CP?
The current system just doesn't work that well, as it affects army lists way too much and forces players to take a certain combination and quantity of units, and some armies at worse at farming CP than others. Its just a clunky, restrictive system that isn't really fun to deal with.
Currently I feel Kill Team and Age of Sigmar have better CP rules than 40k. I think it is only a question of time when 40k will see similar mechanics.
Yeah, I've said it for a long time that how the CP generation is handled is the biggest core flaw in the current edition. Many of the issues stem from it, and then we get awkward kludges to deal with the symptoms instead of the core cause.
Some of GW's adjustments seem to be based on 'this behavior is a deviation from what these armies are 'supposed' to look like.
We saw the same kind of adjustments when cultists got bumped, but I guess they figure with bonus attacks for marines and other adjustments, cultists won't be taken to excess anymore.
So, since there are stories about ork armies that are majority grots with specialty units, they have to be 'fixed.' At least that's where this line of thought seems to be going.
Well that in combination with CP generation is a huge issue.
GW assumes a good CSM army is based on CSM and not cultists.
GW assumes a good Ork army is based on Boyz of any colour and not grotz.
*good beeing the terminus in a wierd absttract thought on how the basic army supposedly has to look here in the eyes of GW
Well that in combination with CP generation is a huge issue.
GW assumes a good CSM army is based on CSM and not cultists.
GW assumes a good Ork army is based on Boyz of any colour and not grotz.
*good beeing the terminus in a wierd absttract thought on how the basic army supposedly has to look here in the eyes of GW
Then they probably shouldn't have written a system where being able to fill troop slots as cheaply as possible is a significant benefit. But as long as that idiotic system remains in place, the Troop and HQ units cannot be costed based on their stats alone.
ThatMG wrote: this is the same reason why thunder hammers went to 40 points. It wasn't because of the players who had one smash captain, it was the players who ran 3! etc. GW changes things not just because of power scale but usage.
That kind of game design is ass backwards though.
If the problem was the Smash Captain they should have fixed that. Instead they're just penalised the people who didn't take Smash Captains by increasing the price of a piece of wargear. They are constantly making decisions in a vacuum without any real thought given to the knock-on effects. They treat symptoms rather than root causes.
There's nothing "wrong" with Smash Captains. They're just a little effective. Increasing TH costs makes it so other weapon options aren't oppressive and the model itself isn't screwed over. Now, that cost is probably representative of them taking a relic. Is that really an issue? I doubt it.
Say, uh, how much does a Jump Pack/Bike cost on a character? you know that thing that makes smash captains work? I wouldn't know, other factions didn't get to keep mobility options for their HQs, but it seems like that's a thing you control that would be a good way to nerf smashcaptains without affecting literally any other unit or build of captain.
What about a jump captain with a power sword? There are plenty of ways around needing jump. Jump is just the easiest to deploy.
Generally speaking, GW has a weird design gap, where there are models that really want to fill a battlefield role that is lesser than Troop, but that's as low as their scale goes. Several things like Grots make more sense in something more along the Elite/Fast Attack slots, but don't fit those descriptions. In a lot of ways, Grots should probably be declared Dedicated Transports.
LunarSol wrote: Generally speaking, GW has a weird design gap, where there are models that really want to fill a battlefield role that is lesser than Troop, but that's as low as their scale goes. Several things like Grots make more sense in something more along the Elite/Fast Attack slots, but don't fit those descriptions. In a lot of ways, Grots should probably be declared Dedicated Transports.
Maybe units like grots or conscripts shouldn't take up slots at all? Like, there's no limit as to how many of them you can field, they just cost points? It would certainly kill CP farms.
Infantry Squads need platoons again. That would help kill CP farms as well, as it would be more expensive to fill out slots with them.
TedNugent wrote: So rather than changing the way CP, battalions or brigades work, or the insanely overpowered strategem stacking combos that have promulgated like weeds the last two years and continue to get worse let's nerf grots. Makes total sense and will clearly fix the balance.
Toughness 2. 6+ armor save. 12" range pistol 1.
That people are literally only getting them to fill mandatory battalion slots should tell you everything about the state of the game.
I think you are underestimating the value of 3 ppm infantry that has a (short) ranged attack, can used to push out deep strikes, screen against assaults, and benefits from strong Ork morale negation and can benefits from big mek shield. Plus of course the insanely strong grot screen strat. I could see grots going up to 4 ppm. I agree that termagaunts or some other models may seem better pound for pound but orks overall are doing extremely well compared to some of those other factions.
Of course, guardsmen are also grossly undercosted at 4 ppm regardless what happens to grots.
Those overpowered Grots.
Yes, they are. It isn't a matter of their gun or their stats, but their strategic and mechanical uses in the game system.
They're 'game the game' units, and the closest thing GW has to a policy on that is 'people shouldn't do it' and a shrug.
LunarSol wrote: Generally speaking, GW has a weird design gap, where there are models that really want to fill a battlefield role that is lesser than Troop, but that's as low as their scale goes. Several things like Grots make more sense in something more along the Elite/Fast Attack slots, but don't fit those descriptions. In a lot of ways, Grots should probably be declared Dedicated Transports.
Maybe units like grots or conscripts shouldn't take up slots at all? Like, there's no limit as to how many of them you can field, they just cost points?
It would certainly kill CP farms.
Or they should be given a rule that they don't count for the mandatory slot filling.
Infantry Squads need platoons again. That would help kill CP farms as well, as it would be more expensive to fill out slots with them.
Kanluwen wrote: Or they should be given a rule that they don't count for the mandatory slot filling.
This. Grotz, Conscipts, even Nurglings and Rippers should just not count for filling mandatory slots. Still require them to use said Troop slots, but you need to fill your mandatory slots first (so 3 OTHER Troops in a Battalion for example).
Do that, and those units can be as cheap as they need to be and not affect CP generation.
Kanluwen wrote: Or they should be given a rule that they don't count for the mandatory slot filling.
This. Grotz, Conscipts, even Nurglings and Rippers should just not count for filling mandatory slots. Still require them to use said Troop slots, but you need to fill your mandatory slots first (so 3 OTHER Troops in a Battalion for example).
Do that, and those units can be as cheap as they need to be and not affect CP generation.
-
and basically never taken (apart from nurglings)...
LunarSol wrote: Generally speaking, GW has a weird design gap, where there are models that really want to fill a battlefield role that is lesser than Troop, but that's as low as their scale goes. Several things like Grots make more sense in something more along the Elite/Fast Attack slots, but don't fit those descriptions. In a lot of ways, Grots should probably be declared Dedicated Transports.
Maybe units like grots or conscripts shouldn't take up slots at all? Like, there's no limit as to how many of them you can field, they just cost points? It would certainly kill CP farms.
Or they should be given a rule that they don't count for the mandatory slot filling.
Infantry Squads need platoons again. That would help kill CP farms as well, as it would be more expensive to fill out slots with them.
No, they really don't and no, it really wouldn't.
What's wrong with platoons? They were a unique, IG specific rule that made them distinct from any other army. How would platoons not stop CP farming? Instead of paying, what, 120 points for filling out the minimal troops requirement, you now have to pay about 300 points. If you make it so that conscripts don't fill up slots or count towards minimal requirements, then CP farming wouldn't be so easy to do.
Kanluwen wrote: Or they should be given a rule that they don't count for the mandatory slot filling.
This. Grotz, Conscipts, even Nurglings and Rippers should just not count for filling mandatory slots. Still require them to use said Troop slots, but you need to fill your mandatory slots first (so 3 OTHER Troops in a Battalion for example). Do that, and those units can be as cheap as they need to be and not affect CP generation.
-
and basically never taken (apart from nurglings)...
Grots would still be useful for shields and screening. CP batteries isn't their only use. This is why I hate the current system - it degrades every unit to "can I use this to make CP", which is a terrible mindset to encourage, as it devolves list building and strategy into a numbers game of who can spam the most stratagems.
Kanluwen wrote: Or they should be given a rule that they don't count for the mandatory slot filling.
This. Grotz, Conscipts, even Nurglings and Rippers should just not count for filling mandatory slots. Still require them to use said Troop slots, but you need to fill your mandatory slots first (so 3 OTHER Troops in a Battalion for example).
Do that, and those units can be as cheap as they need to be and not affect CP generation.
-
Seems like a potentially good idea, but it could hurt Orks at the same time getting forced into 3x10 or 6x10 boyz.
Yes, they are. It isn't a matter of their gun or their stats, but their strategic and mechanical uses in the game system.
They're 'game the game' units, and the closest thing GW has to a policy on that is 'people shouldn't do it' and a shrug.
This is a good point. Grots can cost the same thing as something else while having a drastically weaker statline if another rule gives them a significant purpose those other units cannot use. I honestly don't have a strong opinion either way on this one, but its worth remembering that there's more to balance than making units "cost right" in a vacuum.
LunarSol wrote: Generally speaking, GW has a weird design gap, where there are models that really want to fill a battlefield role that is lesser than Troop, but that's as low as their scale goes. Several things like Grots make more sense in something more along the Elite/Fast Attack slots, but don't fit those descriptions. In a lot of ways, Grots should probably be declared Dedicated Transports.
Uuuh seeing orks need minimum 2 bat's to work requiring about 1200 pts for troops then is...harsh.
Kanluwen wrote: Or they should be given a rule that they don't count for the mandatory slot filling.
This. Grotz, Conscipts, even Nurglings and Rippers should just not count for filling mandatory slots. Still require them to use said Troop slots, but you need to fill your mandatory slots first (so 3 OTHER Troops in a Battalion for example).
Do that, and those units can be as cheap as they need to be and not affect CP generation.
-
Sure. Just give those then other troop options. Or change cp system from more dets is more cp
What's wrong with platoons? They were a unique, IG specific rule that made them distinct from any other army.
Not really. It was a mechanism that was added to allow for you to circumvent the troop choices and to allow for your Heavy and Elite slots to be untouched with 'organic' items such as Heavy Weapon Squads.
Which are a thing that get complained about now, and you want to allow for them to get taken as part of a mandatory Troops choice?
How would platoons not stop CP farming? Instead of paying, what, 120 points for filling out the minimal troops requirement, you now have to pay about 300 points. If you make it so that conscripts don't fill up slots or count towards minimal requirements, then CP farming wouldn't be so easy to do.
Anytime I've made a suggestion that would stop CP farming cold(things like Guard Detachments can't provide CPs for non-Guard Detachments, requiring Auxiliary Detachments instead of allowing for these big Detachments to be taken as Allies, etc)--the immediate and visceral reaction is "THAT DOESN'T MATTER! IT'S NOT THE CP ONLY, IT'S THE CHEAP BODIES!".
And if you swap it to that, guess what the next attempt will be for CP farming? 5 man Scion Suicide Squads!
Well, IG do seem pretty cost effective for 4 ppm. They may be T3, but they do have a 33% chance of negating damage from small arms fire, and can have a high RoF with orders. They should probably be 5ppm, or have worse armor.
Then again, with GW upping the RoF on weapons, to the point that there's now a heavy weapon on an infantry platform that has 8 shots and can be taken multiple times, they probably need to be that cheap right now.
Yeah, that's true, they'll just find another option to farm CP. The CP system needs to be rebuilt completely, really. Linking it to detachments was a mistake.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Well, IG do seem pretty cost effective for 4 ppm. They may be T3, but they do have a 33% chance of negating damage from small arms fire, and can have a high RoF with orders. They should probably be 5ppm, or have worse armor.
Or you can accept that you're not going to get to outright ignore armor anymore.
Or that to have that "high RoF", they're losing every other benefit that could potentially be gained from Orders.
Or that there's a limited range on that Order, which albeit is larger than if someone were to have an aura--but the downside is that there's no layering without a specific Relic and that without a specific Regimental Warlord Trait it only affects a single target.
But we've been over this for who knows how long. Grass is always greener on the other side to someone who doesn't actually understand the way the mechanisms work. There are people who still think that Scions can take Orders from <Regiment> Officers.
Then again, with GW upping the RoF on weapons, to the point that there's now a heavy weapon on an infantry platform that has 8 shots and can be taken multiple times, they probably need to be that cheap right now.
Said before, saying again:
Guard need a complete, 100% overhaul as to what the standard Guard Infantry Squad consists of now that Skitarii exist.
It would be cool to see things like Grots, Conscripts, etc. gain a new keyword like Chaff or something similar. Any unit with that keyword takes up it normal slot, but doesn't count against the minimum requirement or only counts as half a unit.
EnTyme wrote: It would be cool to see things like Grots, Conscripts, etc. gain a new keyword like Chaff or something similar. Any unit with that keyword takes up it normal slot, but doesn't count against the minimum requirement or only counts as half a unit.
Maybe <Expendable> would be a better term.
Because that's what they are.
EnTyme wrote: It would be cool to see things like Grots, Conscripts, etc. gain a new keyword like Chaff or something similar. Any unit with that keyword takes up it normal slot, but doesn't count against the minimum requirement or only counts as half a unit.
You don't need a keyword.
There's literally a fricking rule on the Conscripts that could be expanded for this: Raw Recruits
Giving similar rules that prevent units from benefiting from certain aspects of the army that are troublesome, such as "A Grot's Life"(Gretchin) or "Gibbering Hordes"(Nurglings) would be far, far simpler.
TedNugent wrote: So rather than changing the way CP, battalions or brigades work, or the insanely overpowered strategem stacking combos that have promulgated like weeds the last two years and continue to get worse let's nerf grots. Makes total sense and will clearly fix the balance.
Toughness 2. 6+ armor save. 12" range pistol 1.
That people are literally only getting them to fill mandatory battalion slots should tell you everything about the state of the game.
I think you are underestimating the value of 3 ppm infantry that has a (short) ranged attack, can used to push out deep strikes, screen against assaults, and benefits from strong Ork morale negation and can benefits from big mek shield. Plus of course the insanely strong grot screen strat. I could see grots going up to 4 ppm. I agree that termagaunts or some other models may seem better pound for pound but orks overall are doing extremely well compared to some of those other factions.
Of course, guardsmen are also grossly undercosted at 4 ppm regardless what happens to grots.
Those overpowered Grots.
Yes, they are. It isn't a matter of their gun or their stats, but their strategic and mechanical uses in the game system.
They're 'game the game' units, and the closest thing GW has to a policy on that is 'people shouldn't do it' and a shrug.
They are undercosted ablative wounds that are holding up overcosted units/armies. Most Tau units are still overcosted when you compare them to other armies so the price difference is due to access to drones. Both casual and competitive units. A Riptide with ATS and TL/VT costs roughly the same as a CSM Leviathan with Butcher cannons and stripped off meltaguns. A DC Ravager or a single missileside. A Y'Vahra with ATS and TL or a Knight Errant with autocannons.
If anything increasing the cost of drones is going to make Tau lists even less varied than they already are. Crisis will be harder to protect so they are only going to be more of a suicide unit even with weapon cost reductions. Y'Vahras are already over 100pts more than a Riptide and burn through drones faster as a direct result of their range, this will only make it worse. Broadsides are more efficient than crisis at missiles, can take non-LOS secondary weapons, and don't require sacrificing a weapon slot to take support systems. Riptides are long enough range to keep the drones relatively far away from small arms fire, better novacharge options, and has access to branched nova while the FW variants do not. Commanders almost never rely on SP so they will be even more important now. What exactly is this accomplishing other than competitive tau lists now have 20% less drones?
DominayTrix wrote: What exactly is this accomplishing other than competitive tau lists now have 20% less drones?
Other than satisfying non-Tau players with zero understanding about the total lack of coherent rules and internal balance in the Tau Codex?
Nothing at all.
LunarSol wrote: Generally speaking, GW has a weird design gap, where there are models that really want to fill a battlefield role that is lesser than Troop, but that's as low as their scale goes. Several things like Grots make more sense in something more along the Elite/Fast Attack slots, but don't fit those descriptions. In a lot of ways, Grots should probably be declared Dedicated Transports.
Maybe units like grots or conscripts shouldn't take up slots at all? Like, there's no limit as to how many of them you can field, they just cost points?
It would certainly kill CP farms.
Infantry Squads need platoons again. That would help kill CP farms as well, as it would be more expensive to fill out slots with them.
create a new troop type: "Chaff" you can take 2 chaff units for every 1 troop. it'd force you to take your basic troops, but allow you to pad your army out with chaff units
so If I was running a CSM army, I'd take ohh... 6 5 man CSM squads, and then toss 12 cultists squads down. the cultists wouldn't generate command points, etc, they'd just be bullet sponges.
IMHO it'd work nicely for units like grots and cultists, which... let's face it, aren't part of the ordered order of battle for chaos and orks. they're just fodder thrown ahead to soak up bullets for the troops you give a damn about
Uuuh seeing orks need minimum 2 bat's to work requiring about 1200 pts for troops then is...harsh.
10 Boyz costs 200 points?
I think he means maxed out squads
(30*7)*6 = 1260
I know what he means; I'm just pointing out that 1200 is far from "minimum". The minimu is 420 for two battalions. The 840 you're spending beyond that nets you 120 boyz that do a lot more than just give out CP. If they're not.... don't buy them.
Uuuh seeing orks need minimum 2 bat's to work requiring about 1200 pts for troops then is...harsh.
10 Boyz costs 200 points?
I think he means maxed out squads
(30*7)*6 = 1260
I know what he means; I'm just pointing out that 1200 is far from "minimum". The minimu is 420 for two battalions. The 840 you're spending beyond that nets you 120 boyz that do a lot more than just give out CP. If they're not.... don't buy them.
10 boyz are useless. They need to be taken in massive squads to be even remotely effective. Hence tnevas point.
TedNugent wrote: So rather than changing the way CP, battalions or brigades work, or the insanely overpowered strategem stacking combos that have promulgated like weeds the last two years and continue to get worse let's nerf grots. Makes total sense and will clearly fix the balance.
Toughness 2. 6+ armor save. 12" range pistol 1.
That people are literally only getting them to fill mandatory battalion slots should tell you everything about the state of the game.
I think you are underestimating the value of 3 ppm infantry that has a (short) ranged attack, can used to push out deep strikes, screen against assaults, and benefits from strong Ork morale negation and can benefits from big mek shield. Plus of course the insanely strong grot screen strat. I could see grots going up to 4 ppm. I agree that termagaunts or some other models may seem better pound for pound but orks overall are doing extremely well compared to some of those other factions.
Of course, guardsmen are also grossly undercosted at 4 ppm regardless what happens to grots.
Those overpowered Grots.
Yes, they are. It isn't a matter of their gun or their stats, but their strategic and mechanical uses in the game system.
They're 'game the game' units, and the closest thing GW has to a policy on that is 'people shouldn't do it' and a shrug.
So in other words, the game mechanic of overpowered strategems and min troop requirements need to be changed, not T2 models with no offensive capability that are nothing more than easily shot off the board meatshields. Got it.
Rather than changing any of those gamey mechanics, nerf a unit that has historically been utterly useless and considered suboptimal for years and is literally only taken to fill the requirements of those gamey mechanics.
You should work for GW.
Let's be honest, no one put any thought to this change beyond looking at the usage stats and swinging a hammer blindly.
Also, have you considered shooting at them with literally anything, for example boltguns, lasguns, etc? They literally are T2 with a 6+ and Ld4. I'm pretty sure you could try shooting at them. They're three points of literally nothing but a wound.
Mr Morden wrote: Basic Guard need a massive review in terms of models and rules
New models including other regiments and women
bring back options such as close combat weapons, carapace armour etc etc.
Currently they are slightly too cheap IMO - especially when compared to Cultists.
TBF 5 pts and NO trait is territorry you shouldn't even start to compare to imo.
(altough there is still a worse kind of cultist, the R&H cultist, that is stradled with the same but additionally has not even fixed morale )
TedNugent wrote: So rather than changing the way CP, battalions or brigades work, or the insanely overpowered strategem stacking combos that have promulgated like weeds the last two years and continue to get worse let's nerf grots. Makes total sense and will clearly fix the balance.
Toughness 2. 6+ armor save. 12" range pistol 1.
That people are literally only getting them to fill mandatory battalion slots should tell you everything about the state of the game.
I think you are underestimating the value of 3 ppm infantry that has a (short) ranged attack, can used to push out deep strikes, screen against assaults, and benefits from strong Ork morale negation and can benefits from big mek shield. Plus of course the insanely strong grot screen strat. I could see grots going up to 4 ppm. I agree that termagaunts or some other models may seem better pound for pound but orks overall are doing extremely well compared to some of those other factions.
Of course, guardsmen are also grossly undercosted at 4 ppm regardless what happens to grots.
Those overpowered Grots.
Yes, they are. It isn't a matter of their gun or their stats, but their strategic and mechanical uses in the game system.
They're 'game the game' units, and the closest thing GW has to a policy on that is 'people shouldn't do it' and a shrug.
So in other words, the game mechanic of overpowered strategems and min troop requirements need to be changed, not T2 models with no offensive capability that are nothing more than easily shot off the board meatshields. Got it.
Rather than changing any of those gamey mechanics, nerf a unit that has historically been utterly useless and considered suboptimal for years and is literally only taken to fill the requirements of those gamey mechanics.
You should work for GW.
Let's be honest, no one put any thought to this change beyond looking at the usage stats and swinging a hammer blindly.
Also, have you considered shooting at them with literally anything, for example boltguns, lasguns, etc? They literally are T2 with a 6+ and Ld4. I'm pretty sure you could try shooting at them. They're three points of literally nothing but a wound.
TedNugent wrote: So rather than changing the way CP, battalions or brigades work, or the insanely overpowered strategem stacking combos that have promulgated like weeds the last two years and continue to get worse let's nerf grots. Makes total sense and will clearly fix the balance.
Toughness 2. 6+ armor save. 12" range pistol 1.
That people are literally only getting them to fill mandatory battalion slots should tell you everything about the state of the game.
I think you are underestimating the value of 3 ppm infantry that has a (short) ranged attack, can used to push out deep strikes, screen against assaults, and benefits from strong Ork morale negation and can benefits from big mek shield. Plus of course the insanely strong grot screen strat. I could see grots going up to 4 ppm. I agree that termagaunts or some other models may seem better pound for pound but orks overall are doing extremely well compared to some of those other factions.
Of course, guardsmen are also grossly undercosted at 4 ppm regardless what happens to grots.
Those overpowered Grots.
Yes, they are. It isn't a matter of their gun or their stats, but their strategic and mechanical uses in the game system.
They're 'game the game' units, and the closest thing GW has to a policy on that is 'people shouldn't do it' and a shrug.
So in other words, the game mechanic of overpowered strategems and min troop requirements need to be changed, not T2 models with no offensive capability that are nothing more than easily shot off the board meatshields. Got it.
Rather than changing any of those gamey mechanics, nerf a unit that has historically been utterly useless and considered suboptimal for years and is literally only taken to fill the requirements of those gamey mechanics.
You should work for GW.
Let's be honest, no one put any thought to this change beyond looking at the usage stats and swinging a hammer blindly.
Also, have you considered shooting at them with literally anything, for example boltguns, lasguns, etc? They literally are T2 with a 6+ and Ld4. I'm pretty sure you could try shooting at them. They're three points of literally nothing but a wound.
whilest yes, that is correct i also managed to strangle my opponent to death with R&H chaff. (which is worse by virtue of higher pricetag)
Never underestimate a model that just exists on a 25 slotta base, especially when flags , auras and psy get involved.
TedNugent wrote: So rather than changing the way CP, battalions or brigades work, or the insanely overpowered strategem stacking combos that have promulgated like weeds the last two years and continue to get worse let's nerf grots. Makes total sense and will clearly fix the balance.
Toughness 2. 6+ armor save. 12" range pistol 1.
That people are literally only getting them to fill mandatory battalion slots should tell you everything about the state of the game.
I think you are underestimating the value of 3 ppm infantry that has a (short) ranged attack, can used to push out deep strikes, screen against assaults, and benefits from strong Ork morale negation and can benefits from big mek shield. Plus of course the insanely strong grot screen strat. I could see grots going up to 4 ppm. I agree that termagaunts or some other models may seem better pound for pound but orks overall are doing extremely well compared to some of those other factions.
Of course, guardsmen are also grossly undercosted at 4 ppm regardless what happens to grots.
Those overpowered Grots.
Yes, they are. It isn't a matter of their gun or their stats, but their strategic and mechanical uses in the game system.
They're 'game the game' units, and the closest thing GW has to a policy on that is 'people shouldn't do it' and a shrug.
So in other words, the game mechanic of overpowered strategems and min troop requirements need to be changed, not T2 models with no offensive capability that are nothing more than easily shot off the board meatshields. Got it.
Rather than changing any of those gamey mechanics, nerf a unit that has historically been utterly useless and considered suboptimal for years and is literally only taken to fill the requirements of those gamey mechanics.
You should work for GW.
Let's be honest, no one put any thought to this change beyond looking at the usage stats and swinging a hammer blindly.
Also, have you considered shooting at them with literally anything, for example boltguns, lasguns, etc? They literally are T2 with a 6+ and Ld4. I'm pretty sure you could try shooting at them. They're three points of literally nothing but a wound.
whilest yes, that is correct i also managed to strangle my opponent to death with R&H chaff. (which is worse by virtue of higher pricetag)
Never underestimate a model that just exists on a 25 slotta base, especially when flags , auras and psy get involved.
He's not underestimating them. He's simply stating that increasing their points by a third to 4ppm is one of the most stupid kneejerk reactions ever to have jerked because Grots, regardless of their 'strategic and mechanical use in the game' aren't worth 4ppm. They are clearly, undeniably, worse than every other 4ppm model in the game. Even with Grot shields. Even with their CP farming abilities. If they go up, every other low cost troop in the game needs to go up. Including Cultists, Conscripts, Infantry, Storm Guardians, Gaunts etc
One of the biggest issue with GW games is that their model design is mostly restricted to measurements of DPS and durability. It leads to masses of units with overlapping purpose that result in the most efficient one being taken.
Grots are one of the few units that are "inefficient" but have a unique battlefield role that makes them worth taking regardless. This is a GOOD thing. The game needs more of it. Grots can be worse than Guard even if they cost the same as long as they are good at the job they're designed for. That's not to say I think they SHOULD cost the same as Guard, just that only determining their cost on the basis of their combat capabilities is the fastest way to min-max most of the game out of consideration.
He's not underestimating them. He's simply stating that increasing their points by a third to 4ppm is one of the most stupid kneejerk reactions ever to have jerked because Grots, regardless of their 'strategic and mechanical use in the game' aren't worth 4ppm. They are clearly, undeniably, worse than every other 4ppm model in the game. Even with Grot shields. Even with their CP farming abilities. If they go up, every other low cost troop in the game needs to go up. Including Cultists, Conscripts, Infantry, Storm Guardians, Gaunts etc
Do all of those units gain the ability to shield more valuable targets?
He's not underestimating them. He's simply stating that increasing their points by a third to 4ppm is one of the most stupid kneejerk reactions ever to have jerked because Grots, regardless of their 'strategic and mechanical use in the game' aren't worth 4ppm. They are clearly, undeniably, worse than every other 4ppm model in the game. Even with Grot shields. Even with their CP farming abilities. If they go up, every other low cost troop in the game needs to go up. Including Cultists, Conscripts, Infantry, Storm Guardians, Gaunts etc
Do all of those units gain the ability to shield more valuable targets?
No. Nor do Grots.
The ability to shield 1 (one) valuable INFANTRY target (not targetS) is provided via a stratagem that can only be used once per phase and only against shooting attacks.
Are Orks ‘valuable’ targets costed as if they are shielded by Grots and that explains their universal lack of durability for their price (T4, 6+)? Yes, I think so.
Much like Tau, Orks require a full rewrite of most of the codex if we lose our ability to effectively shield against damage for our elite units. This is a nerf, and only a nerf to our competitive build in the Marine meta and it will simply make Orks less able to compete.
As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?
He's not underestimating them. He's simply stating that increasing their points by a third to 4ppm is one of the most stupid kneejerk reactions ever to have jerked because Grots, regardless of their 'strategic and mechanical use in the game' aren't worth 4ppm. They are clearly, undeniably, worse than every other 4ppm model in the game. Even with Grot shields. Even with their CP farming abilities. If they go up, every other low cost troop in the game needs to go up. Including Cultists, Conscripts, Infantry, Storm Guardians, Gaunts etc
Do all of those units gain the ability to shield more valuable targets?
No. Nor do Grots.
The ability to shield 1 (one) valuable INFANTRY target (not targetS) is provided via a stratagem that can only be used once per phase and only against shooting attacks.
Are Orks ‘valuable’ targets costed as if they are shielded by Grots and that explains their universal lack of durability for their price (T4, 6+)? Yes, I think so.
Much like Tau, Orks require a full rewrite of most of the codex if we lose our ability to effectively shield against damage for our elite units. This is a nerf, and only a nerf to our competitive build in the Marine meta and it will simply make Orks less able to compete.
As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?
Tenth Company force. It’s fluffy. In the case of Blood Angels, Scout army is also fluffy.
TedNugent wrote: So rather than changing the way CP, battalions or brigades work, or the insanely overpowered strategem stacking combos that have promulgated like weeds the last two years and continue to get worse let's nerf grots. Makes total sense and will clearly fix the balance.
Toughness 2. 6+ armor save. 12" range pistol 1.
That people are literally only getting them to fill mandatory battalion slots should tell you everything about the state of the game.
I think you are underestimating the value of 3 ppm infantry that has a (short) ranged attack, can used to push out deep strikes, screen against assaults, and benefits from strong Ork morale negation and can benefits from big mek shield. Plus of course the insanely strong grot screen strat. I could see grots going up to 4 ppm. I agree that termagaunts or some other models may seem better pound for pound but orks overall are doing extremely well compared to some of those other factions.
Of course, guardsmen are also grossly undercosted at 4 ppm regardless what happens to grots.
Those overpowered Grots.
Yes, they are. It isn't a matter of their gun or their stats, but their strategic and mechanical uses in the game system.
They're 'game the game' units, and the closest thing GW has to a policy on that is 'people shouldn't do it' and a shrug.
So in other words, the game mechanic of overpowered strategems and min troop requirements need to be changed, not T2 models with no offensive capability that are nothing more than easily shot off the board meatshields. Got it.
Rather than changing any of those gamey mechanics, nerf a unit that has historically been utterly useless and considered suboptimal for years and is literally only taken to fill the requirements of those gamey mechanics.
You should work for GW.
Let's be honest, no one put any thought to this change beyond looking at the usage stats and swinging a hammer blindly.
Also, have you considered shooting at them with literally anything, for example boltguns, lasguns, etc? They literally are T2 with a 6+ and Ld4. I'm pretty sure you could try shooting at them. They're three points of literally nothing but a wound.
whilest yes, that is correct i also managed to strangle my opponent to death with R&H chaff. (which is worse by virtue of higher pricetag)
Never underestimate a model that just exists on a 25 slotta base, especially when flags , auras and psy get involved.
He's not underestimating them. He's simply stating that increasing their points by a third to 4ppm is one of the most stupid kneejerk reactions ever to have jerked because Grots, regardless of their 'strategic and mechanical use in the game' aren't worth 4ppm. They are clearly, undeniably, worse than every other 4ppm model in the game. Even with Grot shields. Even with their CP farming abilities. If they go up, every other low cost troop in the game needs to go up. Including Cultists, Conscripts, Infantry, Storm Guardians, Gaunts etc
Considering where cultists stand atm i don't think so if this exemple would indeed be true, but generally i am also not opposed to a general hike in price of infantry.
Regardless i think, like most here btw, that this is ridicoulus but i also think that this situation has more to do with the general sizecreep that happened and the core mechanics of CP, detachments and stratagems.
As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?
FWIW, I consider Scouts the #1 example of the problem.
He's not underestimating them. He's simply stating that increasing their points by a third to 4ppm is one of the most stupid kneejerk reactions ever to have jerked because Grots, regardless of their 'strategic and mechanical use in the game' aren't worth 4ppm. They are clearly, undeniably, worse than every other 4ppm model in the game. Even with Grot shields. Even with their CP farming abilities. If they go up, every other low cost troop in the game needs to go up. Including Cultists, Conscripts, Infantry, Storm Guardians, Gaunts etc
Do all of those units gain the ability to shield more valuable targets?
No. Nor do Grots.
The ability to shield 1 (one) valuable INFANTRY target (not targetS) is provided via a stratagem that can only be used once per phase and only against shooting attacks.
Are Orks ‘valuable’ targets costed as if they are shielded by Grots and that explains their universal lack of durability for their price (T4, 6+)? Yes, I think so.
Much like Tau, Orks require a full rewrite of most of the codex if we lose our ability to effectively shield against damage for our elite units. This is a nerf, and only a nerf to our competitive build in the Marine meta and it will simply make Orks less able to compete.
As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?
Tenth Company force. It’s fluffy. In the case of Blood Angels, Scout army is also fluffy.
It’s no more, or less fluffy than a few Meks banding together with a bunch of Grots and Lootas. That is actually a thing that happens in the fluff.
He's not underestimating them. He's simply stating that increasing their points by a third to 4ppm is one of the most stupid kneejerk reactions ever to have jerked because Grots, regardless of their 'strategic and mechanical use in the game' aren't worth 4ppm. They are clearly, undeniably, worse than every other 4ppm model in the game. Even with Grot shields. Even with their CP farming abilities. If they go up, every other low cost troop in the game needs to go up. Including Cultists, Conscripts, Infantry, Storm Guardians, Gaunts etc
Do all of those units gain the ability to shield more valuable targets?
No. Nor do Grots.
The ability to shield 1 (one) valuable INFANTRY target (not targetS) is provided via a stratagem that can only be used once per phase and only against shooting attacks.
Are Orks ‘valuable’ targets costed as if they are shielded by Grots and that explains their universal lack of durability for their price (T4, 6+)? Yes, I think so.
Much like Tau, Orks require a full rewrite of most of the codex if we lose our ability to effectively shield against damage for our elite units. This is a nerf, and only a nerf to our competitive build in the Marine meta and it will simply make Orks less able to compete.
As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?
Tenth Company force. It’s fluffy. In the case of Blood Angels, Scout army is also fluffy.
It’s no more, or less fluffy than a few Meks banding together with a bunch of Grots and Lootas. That is actually a thing that happens in the fluff.
Is it given special attention in the ork codex? In the Blood Angels codex, it gets a section describing the occurrence of Scout armies.
He's not underestimating them. He's simply stating that increasing their points by a third to 4ppm is one of the most stupid kneejerk reactions ever to have jerked because Grots, regardless of their 'strategic and mechanical use in the game' aren't worth 4ppm. They are clearly, undeniably, worse than every other 4ppm model in the game. Even with Grot shields. Even with their CP farming abilities. If they go up, every other low cost troop in the game needs to go up. Including Cultists, Conscripts, Infantry, Storm Guardians, Gaunts etc
Do all of those units gain the ability to shield more valuable targets?
No. Nor do Grots.
The ability to shield 1 (one) valuable INFANTRY target (not targetS) is provided via a stratagem that can only be used once per phase and only against shooting attacks.
Are Orks ‘valuable’ targets costed as if they are shielded by Grots and that explains their universal lack of durability for their price (T4, 6+)? Yes, I think so.
Much like Tau, Orks require a full rewrite of most of the codex if we lose our ability to effectively shield against damage for our elite units. This is a nerf, and only a nerf to our competitive build in the Marine meta and it will simply make Orks less able to compete.
As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?
Tenth Company force. It’s fluffy. In the case of Blood Angels, Scout army is also fluffy.
It’s no more, or less fluffy than a few Meks banding together with a bunch of Grots and Lootas. That is actually a thing that happens in the fluff.
Is it given special attention in the ork codex? In the Blood Angels codex, it gets a section describing the occurrence of Scout armies.
Your case for proving something is lore accurate is to provide a quote from the most recent codex?
Yes, they are mentioned specifically. It’s a MASSIVE part of the Snakebite lore. Not that it matters - I could make the same argument of almost any competitive list. Do Eldar only take flyers when they go to war? No? Maybe if GW actually buffed Eldar units they wouldn’t have to?
He's not underestimating them. He's simply stating that increasing their points by a third to 4ppm is one of the most stupid kneejerk reactions ever to have jerked because Grots, regardless of their 'strategic and mechanical use in the game' aren't worth 4ppm. They are clearly, undeniably, worse than every other 4ppm model in the game. Even with Grot shields. Even with their CP farming abilities. If they go up, every other low cost troop in the game needs to go up. Including Cultists, Conscripts, Infantry, Storm Guardians, Gaunts etc
Do all of those units gain the ability to shield more valuable targets?
No. Nor do Grots.
The ability to shield 1 (one) valuable INFANTRY target (not targetS) is provided via a stratagem that can only be used once per phase and only against shooting attacks.
Are Orks ‘valuable’ targets costed as if they are shielded by Grots and that explains their universal lack of durability for their price (T4, 6+)? Yes, I think so.
Much like Tau, Orks require a full rewrite of most of the codex if we lose our ability to effectively shield against damage for our elite units. This is a nerf, and only a nerf to our competitive build in the Marine meta and it will simply make Orks less able to compete.
As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?
Tenth Company force. It’s fluffy. In the case of Blood Angels, Scout army is also fluffy.
It’s no more, or less fluffy than a few Meks banding together with a bunch of Grots and Lootas. That is actually a thing that happens in the fluff.
Is it given special attention in the ork codex? In the Blood Angels codex, it gets a section describing the occurrence of Scout armies.
Your case for proving something is lore accurate is to provide a quote from the most recent codex?
Yes, they are mentioned specifically. It’s a MASSIVE part of the Snakebite lore. Not that it matters - I could make the same argument of almost any competitive list. Do Eldar only take flyers when they go to war? No? Maybe if GW actually buffed Eldar units they wouldn’t have to?
“As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?”
I was just informing you that scout armies are fluffy, as you seemed not to know. Now you won’t complain about heavy scout inclusion not being fluffy, won’t you?
He's not underestimating them. He's simply stating that increasing their points by a third to 4ppm is one of the most stupid kneejerk reactions ever to have jerked because Grots, regardless of their 'strategic and mechanical use in the game' aren't worth 4ppm. They are clearly, undeniably, worse than every other 4ppm model in the game. Even with Grot shields. Even with their CP farming abilities. If they go up, every other low cost troop in the game needs to go up. Including Cultists, Conscripts, Infantry, Storm Guardians, Gaunts etc
Do all of those units gain the ability to shield more valuable targets?
No. Nor do Grots.
The ability to shield 1 (one) valuable INFANTRY target (not targetS) is provided via a stratagem that can only be used once per phase and only against shooting attacks.
Are Orks ‘valuable’ targets costed as if they are shielded by Grots and that explains their universal lack of durability for their price (T4, 6+)? Yes, I think so.
Much like Tau, Orks require a full rewrite of most of the codex if we lose our ability to effectively shield against damage for our elite units. This is a nerf, and only a nerf to our competitive build in the Marine meta and it will simply make Orks less able to compete.
As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?
Tenth Company force. It’s fluffy. In the case of Blood Angels, Scout army is also fluffy.
It’s no more, or less fluffy than a few Meks banding together with a bunch of Grots and Lootas. That is actually a thing that happens in the fluff.
Is it given special attention in the ork codex? In the Blood Angels codex, it gets a section describing the occurrence of Scout armies.
Your case for proving something is lore accurate is to provide a quote from the most recent codex?
Yes, they are mentioned specifically. It’s a MASSIVE part of the Snakebite lore. Not that it matters - I could make the same argument of almost any competitive list. Do Eldar only take flyers when they go to war? No? Maybe if GW actually buffed Eldar units they wouldn’t have to?
“As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?”
I was just informing you that scout armies are fluffy, as you seemed not to know. Now you won’t complain about heavy scout inclusion not being fluffy, won’t you?
A throwaway paragraph in the most recent codex does not a fluffy army make, youngling.
Are they only included in Ba lists? No. Well I never!
He's not underestimating them. He's simply stating that increasing their points by a third to 4ppm is one of the most stupid kneejerk reactions ever to have jerked because Grots, regardless of their 'strategic and mechanical use in the game' aren't worth 4ppm. They are clearly, undeniably, worse than every other 4ppm model in the game. Even with Grot shields. Even with their CP farming abilities. If they go up, every other low cost troop in the game needs to go up. Including Cultists, Conscripts, Infantry, Storm Guardians, Gaunts etc
Do all of those units gain the ability to shield more valuable targets?
No. Nor do Grots.
The ability to shield 1 (one) valuable INFANTRY target (not targetS) is provided via a stratagem that can only be used once per phase and only against shooting attacks.
Are Orks ‘valuable’ targets costed as if they are shielded by Grots and that explains their universal lack of durability for their price (T4, 6+)? Yes, I think so.
Much like Tau, Orks require a full rewrite of most of the codex if we lose our ability to effectively shield against damage for our elite units. This is a nerf, and only a nerf to our competitive build in the Marine meta and it will simply make Orks less able to compete.
As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?
Tenth Company force. It’s fluffy. In the case of Blood Angels, Scout army is also fluffy.
It’s no more, or less fluffy than a few Meks banding together with a bunch of Grots and Lootas. That is actually a thing that happens in the fluff.
Is it given special attention in the ork codex? In the Blood Angels codex, it gets a section describing the occurrence of Scout armies.
Your case for proving something is lore accurate is to provide a quote from the most recent codex?
Yes, they are mentioned specifically. It’s a MASSIVE part of the Snakebite lore. Not that it matters - I could make the same argument of almost any competitive list. Do Eldar only take flyers when they go to war? No? Maybe if GW actually buffed Eldar units they wouldn’t have to?
“As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?”
I was just informing you that scout armies are fluffy, as you seemed not to know. Now you won’t complain about heavy scout inclusion not being fluffy, won’t you?
A throwaway paragraph in the most recent codex does not a fluffy army make, youngling.
Are they only included in Ba lists? No. Well I never!
You can call anything a throwaway paragraph, but it does not make you correct. Do you really want me to pull up codex-compliant chapter structure diagram as well and spoon-feed it to you?
He's not underestimating them. He's simply stating that increasing their points by a third to 4ppm is one of the most stupid kneejerk reactions ever to have jerked because Grots, regardless of their 'strategic and mechanical use in the game' aren't worth 4ppm. They are clearly, undeniably, worse than every other 4ppm model in the game. Even with Grot shields. Even with their CP farming abilities. If they go up, every other low cost troop in the game needs to go up. Including Cultists, Conscripts, Infantry, Storm Guardians, Gaunts etc
Do all of those units gain the ability to shield more valuable targets?
No. Nor do Grots.
The ability to shield 1 (one) valuable INFANTRY target (not targetS) is provided via a stratagem that can only be used once per phase and only against shooting attacks.
Are Orks ‘valuable’ targets costed as if they are shielded by Grots and that explains their universal lack of durability for their price (T4, 6+)? Yes, I think so.
Much like Tau, Orks require a full rewrite of most of the codex if we lose our ability to effectively shield against damage for our elite units. This is a nerf, and only a nerf to our competitive build in the Marine meta and it will simply make Orks less able to compete.
As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?
Tenth Company force. It’s fluffy. In the case of Blood Angels, Scout army is also fluffy.
It’s no more, or less fluffy than a few Meks banding together with a bunch of Grots and Lootas. That is actually a thing that happens in the fluff.
Is it given special attention in the ork codex? In the Blood Angels codex, it gets a section describing the occurrence of Scout armies.
Your case for proving something is lore accurate is to provide a quote from the most recent codex?
Yes, they are mentioned specifically. It’s a MASSIVE part of the Snakebite lore. Not that it matters - I could make the same argument of almost any competitive list. Do Eldar only take flyers when they go to war? No? Maybe if GW actually buffed Eldar units they wouldn’t have to?
“As to those that have said this change is to encourage fluffy options - is it fluffy for every SM list to have Scouts instead of tacs? Why aren’t they nerfed?”
I was just informing you that scout armies are fluffy, as you seemed not to know. Now you won’t complain about heavy scout inclusion not being fluffy, won’t you?
good luck with that one. Marines use the right tool for the right job....right? Scouts offer a bunch of advantages on the battlefield.
Note that I am not defending loading up on scouts to game the game, that's just lame.
keep in mind as an advance scout force for Marines scouts making up the bulk of a marine force can make some sense. that said, I think even GW thinks scout spamming is lame while aknowledging that for some people the idea of running a marine advance rtecon force is a fun concept. hence vanguard marines.
It’s a shame GW are so against just making CP’s equal to everyone’s lists no matter what you take. Just give everyone, like, 12 or whatever is a good number. Would put a stop to this cheap infantry spamming instantly.
Upping grot points to 4ppm will do nothing for the standard 3 batallion lists with smasha spam (assuming this is the only change); you lose 90 points, which is 3 smasha guns. It hurts, but does not kill this list. Current competitive lists already field a bunch with Boyz anyway, so these lists aren't affected as much. You're just adding a tax to CP spam, which be around 60 points (3 large units of boyz which seems to be common), which is 3 smasha guns. Whoopy.
If its accompanied by other changes elsewhere, then it's probably a wash anyway. It doesn't really fix the problem.
What it does, though, is make other lists *even worse* to field.. So competitive Ork meta gets even more boring than it already is. Spam smasha guns + feed your SSAG. What an exciting army to play.
Orks are also a CP hungry army. With the suggestions above, if Orks could only realistically field 2 batallions, I'm pretty sure you kill the army competitively. Or if that 3rd batallion is so expensive (spending 120 extra points on boyz which literally do nothing, because 9 boyz + a Nob is zero threat to any real army), then you can just blow them out anyway. Without the horde of CP we get, a bunch our units basically stop being effective enough to compete.
It would be nice if Boyz were a more tempting troop choice outside of 30 man blobs, or 10-12 in a trukk (which is another 64 point tax), but they aren't. Frankly, it's rather sad that Boyz are mostly for distraction and not for killing anymore, due to how comparatively weak PKs are this edition *and* how how much easier it is for armies to blow up a 30 man squad in 1 turn of shooting.
I just sincerely hope if this change happens, the 80% of the codex which sees zero use in competition gets a nice point drop. If you look at competitive lists, which of these fields a single vehicle outside of a Mek Gun?
boyz are not appealing when bog standard marines move 6", have 3+/3+/3+ and 30 inch range rapid fire -1.
You could, idk, look at SSAG, the ridiculous strategems and maybe change focus into standard elites like Nobs, MANz, Kommandos, burna boyz, etc. Maybe make all those sweet buggies worth a crap.
Or, you can do this after being confused that the strategems in the book (shoot twice, 5+ auto hits, attack twice, teleport a Gorkanaut, 3D6 vehicle charge, etc) are the focus.
Whatever you do, don't actually try to balance the book. Just bang your face into a wall.
I’m just biding my time waiting to see Necron points go back up now all you see in normal tournament builds is 3 doomsday arks, 3 doomscythes and Imotekh. Not looking forward to that reveal...
Compettive Ork lists are usually running three units of 30 boyz and 30-60 gretchin. Armies with more than four units of boyz are unplayable because of chess clocks and no rule support for moving hordes efficiently. Considering how we don't have any other troops choices how is that a bad thing? Who else is use two types of troops in fairly equal
The only other ways to field troops - boyz riding a battlewagon, bonekrusha or trukks are worthless due to boyz not actually being worth their 7 points per model when they lose the green tide bonus and the PK being a joke weapon this edition.
There simply is no point in carting a unit across the board to have it kill two intercessors and then die.
Orks in general have to have at least 13 CP to operate (so two battalions), even in a casual setting, since the stratagems are what allows us to super-charge our inferior weapons to kill enough of the enemy army so they don't wipe us of the board despite low durability of most of our units (4+ saves on vehicles and expensive characters, 6+ saves on expensive elite infantry, no invulnerable saves for anyone outside of the KFF, easily sniped characters). The grot shield stratagem is the only reason why lootas and flash gits are seeing play - mind you, a single unit per army, because unprotected they have no chance of surviving a single turn.
Now you'll say "But hold on jidmah, gretchin and boyz are very durable for their points!". That's true, but the other truth is that neither boyz nor gretchin are ever going to win you a game. Plus no one likes to play with or against an army that slugs 100+ boyz across the board.
So when you want to run any other archetype but shooty orks or green tide - for example a buggy and biker list or a dread mob - the only way to do so is by putting a ton of gretchin in that list. Because you won't have enough points for all those fancy toys if you use mobs of 30 boyz - as tneva pointed out, those are quite expensive.
So, how to make people take less gretchin?
- Make trukkboyz work. People love those, if they were even remotely worth their points, they would see play, and they would be cheaper alternatives than the 210+ point mobs
- Make battlewagons worth using again. You can't charge out of them, mobs of 20 lose their green tide bonus to overwatch and the damn thing is both too slow and too expensive. A mob of 20 should be able to fight on equal footing with a unit of 5 primaris marines.
- Make nobz troops. Right now nobs rival boyz in efficiency, but there is no real reason to take them. Making them troops would surely make them appear on the battlefield more often, and they fit in any transport to support archetypes currently only viable in casual play.
Galas wrote:I dont think ork players wallets can sustain for their army to be made cheaper point wise. With the exception of the stompa.
Anything but gretchin, boyz and mek guns could have a points drop without straining anyone's wallet. Most models are more expensive than they have been in 5th, plus most units are insanely expensive since you can't really field anything as minimal units.
Tiberius501 wrote: It’s a shame GW are so against just making CP’s equal to everyone’s lists no matter what you take. Just give everyone, like, 12 or whatever is a good number. Would put a stop to this cheap infantry spamming instantly.
They're trying a carrot system. AoS is the one that relies on sticks to force list composition. Personally, of the two, I think the 40k system is more fun to play with, since the carrots are pretty easy to build into.
Kurgash wrote: I’m just biding my time waiting to see Necron points go back up now all you see in normal tournament builds is 3 doomsday arks, 3 doomscythes and Imotekh. Not looking forward to that reveal...
Necrons should be fine they have been consistently towards the bottom. I'm kinda worried about Tau since they were doing well a few months back when CA was probably printed. Doesn't help that FLG has their thumb on the scale and they have a well deserved reputation for hating Tau. As much as Reece and ITC are a pillar of the community I really wish they would excuse themselves from balance discussions if they are that heavily biased.
LunarSol wrote: Personally, of the two, I think the 40k system is more fun to play with, since the carrots are pretty easy to build into.
Generally I agree, but some "carrots" are too easy for certain factions to get than others.
Which is why I really like the idea of making certain chaff units REALLY cheap, but not count for minimal slots. For example 2ppm Grots could be easily spammed as a horde for tactical reasons, but NOT be used as CP batteries. Same with 3ppm Conscripts. And you could potentially expand this concept to Rippers, Nurglings and MAYBE Chaos Cultists. Make these units ridiculously, overpoweringly cheap so they can be easily spammed, but make them not count as minimum Troops so you still have to take "proper" Troops in those slots like Boyz, Chaos Marines, Gaunts, Plaguebearers etc
But after list building, they are still Troops with all the benefits that comes with
LunarSol wrote: Personally, of the two, I think the 40k system is more fun to play with, since the carrots are pretty easy to build into.
Generally I agree, but some "carrots" are too easy for certain factions to get than others.
Which is why I really like the idea of making certain chaff units REALLY cheap, but not count for minimal slots. For example 2ppm Grots could be easily spammed as a horde for tactical reasons, but NOT be used as CP batteries. Same with 3ppm Conscripts.
And you could potentially expand this concept to Rippers, Nurglings and MAYBE Chaos Cultists. Make these units ridiculously, overpoweringly cheap so they can be easily spammed, but make them not count as minimum Troops so you still have to take "proper" Troops in those slots like Boyz, Chaos Marines, Gaunts, Plaguebearers etc
But after list building, they are still Troops with all the benefits that comes with
-
One option is to take a page from AoS and make them only count as troops under specific Kulturs or Hives or Dynasties or what have you that don't otherwise have the best traits. This would make it worthwhile to build one of your detachments as an easy carrot, but wouldn't be worth using as your only troop option in the army.
LunarSol wrote: Personally, of the two, I think the 40k system is more fun to play with, since the carrots are pretty easy to build into.
Generally I agree, but some "carrots" are too easy for certain factions to get than others.
Which is why I really like the idea of making certain chaff units REALLY cheap, but not count for minimal slots. For example 2ppm Grots could be easily spammed as a horde for tactical reasons, but NOT be used as CP batteries. Same with 3ppm Conscripts.
And you could potentially expand this concept to Rippers, Nurglings and MAYBE Chaos Cultists. Make these units ridiculously, overpoweringly cheap so they can be easily spammed, but make them not count as minimum Troops so you still have to take "proper" Troops in those slots like Boyz, Chaos Marines, Gaunts, Plaguebearers etc
But after list building, they are still Troops with all the benefits that comes with
-
One option is to take a page from AoS and make them only count as troops under specific Kulturs or Hives or Dynasties or what have you that don't otherwise have the best traits. This would make it worthwhile to build one of your detachments as an easy carrot, but wouldn't be worth using as your only troop option in the army.
This is something I think AOS does far, far better than 40k. The much simplified battlefield role system.
Most factions have 1-2 base battleline units, and you unlock other units as battleline by taking certain characters as your general or by being certain subfactions. That maeans you get better control over who can have a spam list and what their abilities are.
If this is true I think I stand for all Orks everywhere when I say; what the actual feth are GW thinking making Grots 4ppm?! If this turns out to be true I'm done. This edition is over for me.
What? You mean Orks didn't get enough time in the sun being competitively viable (not meta defining, but viable) for the first time since 5th edition 10 years ago? You mean Xenos paying guardsman prices for models which are - at best - half as useful isn't fair? You think our grotz deserve to be more PPM efficient than Renegades and Heretics, the joke infantry of 8th?
I hear so much banter about how expensive GW's models are that when I finally get around to trying their games I'm rather shocked at how reasonable they are compared to other major games in the industry.
mortar_crew wrote: I will be reglementary ecstatic if the Emperor Children get
anything interesting this time but I am not holding my breath.
Here's hoping. But I'm not expecting much, if GW stays true to form, our "new" rules will be either re-worked old rules or nerfed versions of the loyalists rules.
LunarSol wrote: Personally, of the two, I think the 40k system is more fun to play with, since the carrots are pretty easy to build into.
Generally I agree, but some "carrots" are too easy for certain factions to get than others.
Which is why I really like the idea of making certain chaff units REALLY cheap, but not count for minimal slots. For example 2ppm Grots could be easily spammed as a horde for tactical reasons, but NOT be used as CP batteries. Same with 3ppm Conscripts.
And you could potentially expand this concept to Rippers, Nurglings and MAYBE Chaos Cultists. Make these units ridiculously, overpoweringly cheap so they can be easily spammed, but make them not count as minimum Troops so you still have to take "proper" Troops in those slots like Boyz, Chaos Marines, Gaunts, Plaguebearers etc
But after list building, they are still Troops with all the benefits that comes with
-
One option is to take a page from AoS and make them only count as troops under specific Kulturs or Hives or Dynasties or what have you that don't otherwise have the best traits. This would make it worthwhile to build one of your detachments as an easy carrot, but wouldn't be worth using as your only troop option in the army.
This is something I think AOS does far, far better than 40k. The much simplified battlefield role system.
Most factions have 1-2 base battleline units, and you unlock other units as battleline by taking certain characters as your general or by being certain subfactions. That maeans you get better control over who can have a spam list and what their abilities are.
If this is true I think I stand for all Orks everywhere when I say; what the actual feth are GW thinking making Grots 4ppm?! If this turns out to be true I'm done. This edition is over for me.
What? You mean Orks didn't get enough time in the sun being competitively viable (not meta defining, but viable) for the first time since 5th edition 10 years ago? You mean Xenos paying guardsman prices for models which are - at best - half as useful isn't fair? You think our grotz deserve to be more PPM efficient than Renegades and Heretics, the joke infantry of 8th?
Entitled much.
I'm very sorry sir, how dare I even think that I might expect balanced units. I will cease such foolish thoughts in future.
Kurgash wrote: I’m just biding my time waiting to see Necron points go back up now all you see in normal tournament builds is 3 doomsday arks, 3 doomscythes and Imotekh. Not looking forward to that reveal...
Necrons should be fine they have been consistently towards the bottom. I'm kinda worried about Tau since they were doing well a few months back when CA was probably printed. Doesn't help that FLG has their thumb on the scale and they have a well deserved reputation for hating Tau. As much as Reece and ITC are a pillar of the community I really wish they would excuse themselves from balance discussions if they are that heavily biased.
T'au have been a top tier army for a long while now.
They've gotten nothing but buffs and have gotten better over the course of 8th edition.
For your conspiracy theory to actually make sense, T'au would have to have gotten worse over the course of 8th, not better to the point that they regularly win tournaments and are one of the top tier armies in the game.
These kind of posts always make me scratch my head.
Unless I really suck at counting, Tau have been about as often in top placings as armies like GSC or Orks. They have simply been one of many armies that have a tournament-viable build.
Competitive Tau are pretty damn good. They've been continuously flying under the radar with other nerfs going on. Triptide lists are brutal to play against.
Jidmah wrote: Unless I really suck at counting, Tau have been about as often in top placings as armies like GSC or Orks. They have simply been one of many armies that have a tournament-viable build.
1st place SoCal open, 1st place Nova, 3rd place Bay Area Open.
There are top placings, and then there are big tournament top placings - and the tau are still taking 1st in major tournaments against the nuMarines, even if their best list is the opposite of fun.
Jidmah wrote: Unless I really suck at counting, Tau have been about as often in top placings as armies like GSC or Orks. They have simply been one of many armies that have a tournament-viable build.
1st place SoCal open, 1st place Nova, 3rd place Bay Area Open.
There are top placings, and then there are big tournament top placings - and the tau are still taking 1st in major tournaments against the nuMarines, even if their best list is the opposite of fun.
See, this is what confuses me about competitive players. If it isn't fun why would you play it?
On the topic: if they do bring down the points on the fw super heavys what would they cost them? Would they bring them back to where they were in 7th and are currently in hh at about 550 for a fellblade? 395 for a Cerberus/typhon?
If those are fair in hh why not in 8th? (Actually a fellblade is 525 in hh).
Tau kind of live off the interaction of shield drones and riptides. It’s basically about being able to shoot the enemy without being shot back. They’ll have a few troops for CPs and either commanders or broadsides.
So I don’t think that overall the army is in a good place. I’ve got loads of Tau but I’ve never used them in 8th because it just doesn’t seem like any fun.
As for the rest of these rumours, who knows. If they decide to upgrade CSMs to having Primaris profiles then that would make sense, at least from a gameplay perspective, as Primaris feel (to me) like they have the stats marines always should have had. It sucks that CSMs are still gimped in comparison and that the new CSM book did nothing to fix them.
Orks are in sort of the same place as Tau. They’ve got a lot of units in their codex that are unusable and approximately one good build. That’s not a healthy place for a codex.
Arguably the same is true of Eldar, but they have so many units that there are enough decent ones to make at least a couple of different types of army. I thought it was sad that they released the army set a month or so ago containing some really nice new (and some very old) models – none of which is remotely competitive at the moment.
If those are fair in hh why not in 8th? (Actually a fellblade is 525 in hh).
Howabout the obvious. Different game, different rule. Why marines cost 12 pts and not 30 like 2nd ed?
True but hh is more like 7.5. Tac squads are 125 for 10 which works out to 12.5 per model. Pretty close. Fellblade was 540 in 7th. It's rules didn't get twice as good in 8th.
It would also be nice if they brought in some of the list organization rules from hh. Like no low below 2000 points.
If those are fair in hh why not in 8th? (Actually a fellblade is 525 in hh).
Howabout the obvious. Different game, different rule. Why marines cost 12 pts and not 30 like 2nd ed?
True but hh is more like 7.5. Tac squads are 125 for 10 which works out to 12.5 per model. Pretty close. Fellblade was 540 in 7th. It's rules didn't get twice as good in 8th.
It would also be nice if they brought in some of the list organization rules from hh. Like no low below 2000 points.
not gonna happen pal, knights are there to be sold.
If those are fair in hh why not in 8th? (Actually a fellblade is 525 in hh).
Howabout the obvious. Different game, different rule. Why marines cost 12 pts and not 30 like 2nd ed?
True but hh is more like 7.5. Tac squads are 125 for 10 which works out to 12.5 per model. Pretty close. Fellblade was 540 in 7th. It's rules didn't get twice as good in 8th.
It would also be nice if they brought in some of the list organization rules from hh. Like no low below 2000 points.
not gonna happen pal, knights are there to be sold.
You keep running at your r&h windmill and I'll keep running at my fw low windmill.
Dogged pursuit of a cause is what makes dakka what it is.
They DID finally make the hellforged versions relentless.
Kurgash wrote: I’m just biding my time waiting to see Necron points go back up now all you see in normal tournament builds is 3 doomsday arks, 3 doomscythes and Imotekh. Not looking forward to that reveal...
Necrons should be fine they have been consistently towards the bottom. I'm kinda worried about Tau since they were doing well a few months back when CA was probably printed. Doesn't help that FLG has their thumb on the scale and they have a well deserved reputation for hating Tau. As much as Reece and ITC are a pillar of the community I really wish they would excuse themselves from balance discussions if they are that heavily biased.
T'au have been a top tier army for a long while now.
They've gotten nothing but buffs and have gotten better over the course of 8th edition.
For your conspiracy theory to actually make sense, T'au would have to have gotten worse over the course of 8th, not better to the point that they regularly win tournaments and are one of the top tier armies in the game.
These kind of posts always make me scratch my head.
Those two statements aren't mutually exclusive. Competitive Tau live and die by Savior Protocols. They are by far the best ablative wounds in the game and can compensate for how overcosted the majority of the codex is. As long as savior protocols is unchanged then Tau lists will just use the most cost effective drone and probably 20-30 of them. Just like when gun drones went up 50% and shield drones were the most cost effective. Riptides are probably fine bordering on a little underpowered once you remove drones from the equation. Levi Dread vs Riptide, Knight Errant vs Y'Vahra, Dissie Ravager vs MissileSide, Smash Captain vs Fusion Coldstar, Ionhead vs Tank Commander, Devilfish vs Raider etc etc. The Tau unit is usually worse by a significant margin UNTIL you take into account savior protocols. Most factions have lists that would be strong bordering on oppressively strong when you can staple on ~30 ablative wounds for 300pts. Doesn't matter if the wounds are shield, marker, or gun drones.
Kurgash wrote: I’m just biding my time waiting to see Necron points go back up now all you see in normal tournament builds is 3 doomsday arks, 3 doomscythes and Imotekh. Not looking forward to that reveal...
Necrons should be fine they have been consistently towards the bottom. I'm kinda worried about Tau since they were doing well a few months back when CA was probably printed. Doesn't help that FLG has their thumb on the scale and they have a well deserved reputation for hating Tau. As much as Reece and ITC are a pillar of the community I really wish they would excuse themselves from balance discussions if they are that heavily biased.
T'au have been a top tier army for a long while now.
They've gotten nothing but buffs and have gotten better over the course of 8th edition.
For your conspiracy theory to actually make sense, T'au would have to have gotten worse over the course of 8th, not better to the point that they regularly win tournaments and are one of the top tier armies in the game.
These kind of posts always make me scratch my head.
Except Tau started the edition as one of the worst armies in the game, with Commander/Drone spam the only viable build, the codex made things better but not by a lot and it was last years Chapter Approved that really jumped them up. I think the FLG bias can be ignored, the real worry is the CA would have gone to the printers months ago, before the Marine codex came out and it wouldn't surprise me if Broadsides and Riptides, along with CHE, get hit with the nerf bat, leaving Marines the only viable competitive army.
I must admit to zoning out and skim reading the last few pages after I came across several posts with bits akin to “but guardsmen/conscripts”.
IMO, I can see GW doing the following –
Grots and Shield Drone points changes. Why? Playing vs 120-200 grots isn’t fun for anyone, likewise, playing against 50-70 shield drones. It is completely irrelevant whether that means they go to the same cost of another unit in another codex that has completely different stats and/or weapons. It all depends on the rest of the codex.
Spamming these 2 units is also likely not in GWs perceived view of what the armies should look like, play like and be like. If you still want a Grot based army there are options with grot tanks, killa kans etc etc etc. To GW, and pretty much every Ork player, the “pictured army” if one of Boyz, crazy contraptions and the odd Grot meatshield. As much as we all hate to admit it, non-competitive play is a big part of the player base. Besides, as someone said, spending an extra 90 points on 90 Grots isn’t exactly the end of the world.
CSM God specific units going to 2 wounds, would be pretty interesting, but I doubt that’ll come in CA. It’s also mean that the elite Terminators (SOT and DG ones) would need a bump up to 3 wounds.
FW needs a big points overhaul. If they are finally getting around to it, then, great! Some popular units will increase in cost, without a doubt, but hopefully many reduce. We all expect the Levi to increase in cost, but who knows by how much.
Not expecting any points changes for units in the SM codex.
If Magnus does get a points drop, then he could be interesting – though, regardless of by how much, he’ll still die turn 1 if you aren’t going first.
Kurgash wrote: I’m just biding my time waiting to see Necron points go back up now all you see in normal tournament builds is 3 doomsday arks, 3 doomscythes and Imotekh. Not looking forward to that reveal...
Necrons should be fine they have been consistently towards the bottom. I'm kinda worried about Tau since they were doing well a few months back when CA was probably printed. Doesn't help that FLG has their thumb on the scale and they have a well deserved reputation for hating Tau. As much as Reece and ITC are a pillar of the community I really wish they would excuse themselves from balance discussions if they are that heavily biased.
T'au have been a top tier army for a long while now.
They've gotten nothing but buffs and have gotten better over the course of 8th edition.
For your conspiracy theory to actually make sense, T'au would have to have gotten worse over the course of 8th, not better to the point that they regularly win tournaments and are one of the top tier armies in the game.
These kind of posts always make me scratch my head.
Those two statements aren't mutually exclusive. Competitive Tau live and die by Savior Protocols. They are by far the best ablative wounds in the game and can compensate for how overcosted the majority of the codex is. As long as savior protocols is unchanged then Tau lists will just use the most cost effective drone and probably 20-30 of them. Just like when gun drones went up 50% and shield drones were the most cost effective. Riptides are probably fine bordering on a little underpowered once you remove drones from the equation. Levi Dread vs Riptide, Knight Errant vs Y'Vahra, Dissie Ravager vs MissileSide, Smash Captain vs Fusion Coldstar, Ionhead vs Tank Commander, Devilfish vs Raider etc etc. The Tau unit is usually worse by a significant margin UNTIL you take into account savior protocols. Most factions have lists that would be strong bordering on oppressively strong when you can staple on ~30 ablative wounds for 300pts. Doesn't matter if the wounds are shield, marker, or gun drones.
This is exactly right. The Tau codex is full of pretty unimpressive units. It is saved by the fact that some of them cannot be targeted, at all. Things like Ionside lists with Longstrike have long since disappeared.
If you want to fix the codex you have to change saviour protocols, not the points cost of one of the units that can do it. People will just take something else, because that’s all you can do with Tau.
I personally think 8th is a big improvement over 7th edition, but there are a couple of problems. Getting rid of universal special rules is definitely one of them, in my opinion. Now we have quite a few units with rules that do something similar to saviour protocols (those nurgle terminator guys, ogryn bodyguards and so on) but they all work differently, which is confusing for everyone.
It’s the same with infiltrate. Where once we had a single rule (and scout I guess) we now have all kinds of people sneaking around the battlefield, all using different rules to do so. Some get a pre-game move, some get to deploy forwards, some deep strike, GSC might be blips or might appear out of nowhere, and so on. You can easily have a single army where there are three or more different rules being used to represent people sneaking forward into position.
Nobody brings 70 Drones, usually a competitive list has 30 or so, some lists bring 40 of them.
As a longtime Tau player let me tell you that I hate the Savior Protocols and the kind of lists it forces in order to be competitive. Nerf that and you suddenly have to rewrite half our Codex because it has no internal balance of any sort. But beware: removing/nerfing Drones means lowering the survivability of the army as a whole and in order not to send Tau to the bottom tier you need to boost something else.
Boost shooting (better profiles, lower points, ...)? Then 1st turn alpha strike becomes even a bigger issue and you have melee-centric army players complaining about being shot off the board if they don't go first. That was Tau in 7th ed.
Boost mobility (jump-shoot-jump, higher movement characteristic, new strats)? Then you have people complaining that it sucks to play against an army that hides behind terrain after shooting (same as before, like in 7th ed).
Boost melee or psychic? What melee or psychic?
If you feel bad to play against Tau because of the survivability given by Drones (and I do, as I played many mirror matches and I agree it sucks), be ready to hate Tau because they get even shootier or mobile.
You can also hope for Tau to be nerfed into oblivion but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Tau are still the best selling faction in 40K after SM.
Nonsense. You could remove Drones from the Tau Codex without substitute and bring up Riptides by 20% in point costs and the army would still be vastly superior to things like Ynnari.
Aenar wrote: Nobody brings 70 Drones, usually a competitive list has 30 or so, some lists bring 40 of them.
As a longtime Tau player let me tell you that I hate the Savior Protocols and the kind of lists it forces in order to be competitive. Nerf that and you suddenly have to rewrite half our Codex because it has no internal balance of any sort. But beware: removing/nerfing Drones means lowering the survivability of the army as a whole and in order not to send Tau to the bottom tier you need to boost something else.
Boost shooting (better profiles, lower points, ...)? Then 1st turn alpha strike becomes even a bigger issue and you have melee-centric army players complaining about being shot off the board if they don't go first. That was Tau in 7th ed.
Boost mobility (jump-shoot-jump, higher movement characteristic, new strats)? Then you have people complaining that it sucks to play against an army that hides behind terrain after shooting (same as before, like in 7th ed).
Boost melee or psychic? What melee or psychic?
If you feel bad to play against Tau because of the survivability given by Drones (and I do, as I played many mirror matches and I agree it sucks), be ready to hate Tau because they get even shootier or mobile.
You can also hope for Tau to be nerfed into oblivion but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Tau are still the best selling faction in 40K after SM.
Overestimation on average drone count, my bad!
As for a more mobile, shooty T'au, i'd personally welcome it as opposed to the current form T'au have to go towards. If the reduction in some weapon costs does come through, then it might allow for some more varied builds to fill the gaps.
Kdash wrote: Grots and Shield Drone points changes. Why? Playing vs 120-200 grots isn’t fun for anyone, likewise, playing against 50-70 shield drones. It is completely irrelevant whether that means they go to the same cost of another unit in another codex that has completely different stats and/or weapons. It all depends on the rest of the codex.
The vast majority of competitive lists are running 30-60 gretchin in minimal units though. There are only a few lists doing really well with a full flood, and those are usually run by the one guy who so good at playing orks, he can pretty much get away with anything (a battlewagon full of flash gits, for example). In any case, the ork codex just has two troops choices and both of those come in sizes of 30 and have a 20+ model horde bonus, so two battalions have the potential to become 180 models no matter what. You can't punish an army for bringing its troops in the exact way they are supposed to be used.
Spamming these 2 units is also likely not in GWs perceived view of what the armies should look like, play like and be like. If you still want a Grot based army there are options with grot tanks, killa kans etc etc etc. To GW, and pretty much every Ork player, the “pictured army” if one of Boyz, crazy contraptions and the odd Grot meatshield. As much as we all hate to admit it, non-competitive play is a big part of the player base. Besides, as someone said, spending an extra 90 points on 90 Grots isn’t exactly the end of the world.
Spending an extra 90 points just means bringing 90 points less of all those over-costed units you summarized under "crazy contraptions", making the game less fun both for the enemy and the ork player. If you want less gretchin on the board, providing alternatives to mobs of 30 boyz(see my previous post) and reworking the army to rely less on CP (ie. buffing units with little to no stratagem support) is the solution. Right now it's pretty much "pay 90 points for 5CP and you get a bunch of gretchin for free", that any ork player would gladly drop if possible.
Aenar wrote: Nobody brings 70 Drones, usually a competitive list has 30 or so, some lists bring 40 of them.
As a longtime Tau player let me tell you that I hate the Savior Protocols and the kind of lists it forces in order to be competitive. Nerf that and you suddenly have to rewrite half our Codex because it has no internal balance of any sort. But beware: removing/nerfing Drones means lowering the survivability of the army as a whole and in order not to send Tau to the bottom tier you need to boost something else.
Boost shooting (better profiles, lower points, ...)? Then 1st turn alpha strike becomes even a bigger issue and you have melee-centric army players complaining about being shot off the board if they don't go first. That was Tau in 7th ed.
Boost mobility (jump-shoot-jump, higher movement characteristic, new strats)? Then you have people complaining that it sucks to play against an army that hides behind terrain after shooting (same as before, like in 7th ed).
Boost melee or psychic? What melee or psychic?
If you feel bad to play against Tau because of the survivability given by Drones (and I do, as I played many mirror matches and I agree it sucks), be ready to hate Tau because they get even shootier or mobile.
You can also hope for Tau to be nerfed into oblivion but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Tau are still the best selling faction in 40K after SM.
I don't know. Nerf saviour protocolos, make drones only be able to be bought as add-ons to other units in max numbers of 2 for small suits and maybe 4 for big ones. Make things a little cheaper. And from there adjust. Make Hammerheads and Ionsides shot twice, etc...
As a Tau player thats what I would do to make Drones and Saviour protocols a nice little thing that only Tau do instead of the crunch and vital part of the army it is now.
Kurgash wrote: I’m just biding my time waiting to see Necron points go back up now all you see in normal tournament builds is 3 doomsday arks, 3 doomscythes and Imotekh. Not looking forward to that reveal...
Necrons should be fine they have been consistently towards the bottom. I'm kinda worried about Tau since they were doing well a few months back when CA was probably printed. Doesn't help that FLG has their thumb on the scale and they have a well deserved reputation for hating Tau. As much as Reece and ITC are a pillar of the community I really wish they would excuse themselves from balance discussions if they are that heavily biased.
T'au have been a top tier army for a long while now.
They've gotten nothing but buffs and have gotten better over the course of 8th edition.
For your conspiracy theory to actually make sense, T'au would have to have gotten worse over the course of 8th, not better to the point that they regularly win tournaments and are one of the top tier armies in the game.
These kind of posts always make me scratch my head.
Those two statements aren't mutually exclusive. Competitive Tau live and die by Savior Protocols. They are by far the best ablative wounds in the game and can compensate for how overcosted the majority of the codex is. As long as savior protocols is unchanged then Tau lists will just use the most cost effective drone and probably 20-30 of them. Just like when gun drones went up 50% and shield drones were the most cost effective. Riptides are probably fine bordering on a little underpowered once you remove drones from the equation. Levi Dread vs Riptide, Knight Errant vs Y'Vahra, Dissie Ravager vs MissileSide, Smash Captain vs Fusion Coldstar, Ionhead vs Tank Commander, Devilfish vs Raider etc etc. The Tau unit is usually worse by a significant margin UNTIL you take into account savior protocols. Most factions have lists that would be strong bordering on oppressively strong when you can staple on ~30 ablative wounds for 300pts. Doesn't matter if the wounds are shield, marker, or gun drones.
TBH those comparison are of Tau units vs units that are universically to be considered from very good to OP/broken, so is not a bad thing that a Riptide is worse than a Leviathan Dreadnought, the problem is that the Leviathan is soo good.
Kurgash wrote: I’m just biding my time waiting to see Necron points go back up now all you see in normal tournament builds is 3 doomsday arks, 3 doomscythes and Imotekh. Not looking forward to that reveal...
Necrons should be fine they have been consistently towards the bottom. I'm kinda worried about Tau since they were doing well a few months back when CA was probably printed. Doesn't help that FLG has their thumb on the scale and they have a well deserved reputation for hating Tau. As much as Reece and ITC are a pillar of the community I really wish they would excuse themselves from balance discussions if they are that heavily biased.
T'au have been a top tier army for a long while now.
They've gotten nothing but buffs and have gotten better over the course of 8th edition.
For your conspiracy theory to actually make sense, T'au would have to have gotten worse over the course of 8th, not better to the point that they regularly win tournaments and are one of the top tier armies in the game.
These kind of posts always make me scratch my head.
Those two statements aren't mutually exclusive. Competitive Tau live and die by Savior Protocols. They are by far the best ablative wounds in the game and can compensate for how overcosted the majority of the codex is. As long as savior protocols is unchanged then Tau lists will just use the most cost effective drone and probably 20-30 of them. Just like when gun drones went up 50% and shield drones were the most cost effective. Riptides are probably fine bordering on a little underpowered once you remove drones from the equation. Levi Dread vs Riptide, Knight Errant vs Y'Vahra, Dissie Ravager vs MissileSide, Smash Captain vs Fusion Coldstar, Ionhead vs Tank Commander, Devilfish vs Raider etc etc. The Tau unit is usually worse by a significant margin UNTIL you take into account savior protocols. Most factions have lists that would be strong bordering on oppressively strong when you can staple on ~30 ablative wounds for 300pts. Doesn't matter if the wounds are shield, marker, or gun drones.
This is exactly right.
No, it really isn't. He basically cherry picked the number 1 top tier option from 5 other sources to compare to the Tau roster. Any rational, honest person would look at that same list of comparisons and realize Tau have a very strong choice in nearly every slot, sometimes several. Not only that, the army only has to do one thing well, shooting, which just so happens to be the best phase in the game when trying to remove the enemy.
That said there are definitely some stupid things in the Tau codex, like how on earth is a burst canon 8 points? Basically the tau wargear point section needs to die in a fire and be rewritten almost entirely. Along with Savior Protocols.
Kurgash wrote: I’m just biding my time waiting to see Necron points go back up now all you see in normal tournament builds is 3 doomsday arks, 3 doomscythes and Imotekh. Not looking forward to that reveal...
Necrons should be fine they have been consistently towards the bottom. I'm kinda worried about Tau since they were doing well a few months back when CA was probably printed. Doesn't help that FLG has their thumb on the scale and they have a well deserved reputation for hating Tau. As much as Reece and ITC are a pillar of the community I really wish they would excuse themselves from balance discussions if they are that heavily biased.
T'au have been a top tier army for a long while now.
They've gotten nothing but buffs and have gotten better over the course of 8th edition.
For your conspiracy theory to actually make sense, T'au would have to have gotten worse over the course of 8th, not better to the point that they regularly win tournaments and are one of the top tier armies in the game.
These kind of posts always make me scratch my head.
Those two statements aren't mutually exclusive. Competitive Tau live and die by Savior Protocols. They are by far the best ablative wounds in the game and can compensate for how overcosted the majority of the codex is. As long as savior protocols is unchanged then Tau lists will just use the most cost effective drone and probably 20-30 of them. Just like when gun drones went up 50% and shield drones were the most cost effective. Riptides are probably fine bordering on a little underpowered once you remove drones from the equation. Levi Dread vs Riptide, Knight Errant vs Y'Vahra, Dissie Ravager vs MissileSide, Smash Captain vs Fusion Coldstar, Ionhead vs Tank Commander, Devilfish vs Raider etc etc. The Tau unit is usually worse by a significant margin UNTIL you take into account savior protocols. Most factions have lists that would be strong bordering on oppressively strong when you can staple on ~30 ablative wounds for 300pts. Doesn't matter if the wounds are shield, marker, or gun drones.
This is exactly right.
No, it really isn't. He basically cherry picked the number 1 top tier option from 5 other sources to compare to the Tau roster. Any rational, honest person would look at that same list of comparisons and realize Tau have a very strong choice in nearly every slot, sometimes several. Not only that, the army only has to do one thing well, shooting, which just so happens to be the best phase in the game when trying to remove the enemy.
That said there are definitely some stupid things in the Tau codex, like how on earth is a burst canon 8 points? Basically the tau wargear point section needs to die in a fire and be rewritten almost entirely. Along with Savior Protocols.
Its a variety of both. I don't think Raiders and Knight Errants are "top tier competitive units" and they aren't being compared to top tier Tau units. Meanwhile the other top tier units are being compared to the Tau top tier units. Cherry picking would involve using bad tau units like anything with the word "rail" in it, trying to compare sniper drones to eliminators, or breachers vs IG Squads.
Kurgash wrote: I’m just biding my time waiting to see Necron points go back up now all you see in normal tournament builds is 3 doomsday arks, 3 doomscythes and Imotekh. Not looking forward to that reveal...
Necrons should be fine they have been consistently towards the bottom. I'm kinda worried about Tau since they were doing well a few months back when CA was probably printed. Doesn't help that FLG has their thumb on the scale and they have a well deserved reputation for hating Tau. As much as Reece and ITC are a pillar of the community I really wish they would excuse themselves from balance discussions if they are that heavily biased.
T'au have been a top tier army for a long while now.
They've gotten nothing but buffs and have gotten better over the course of 8th edition.
For your conspiracy theory to actually make sense, T'au would have to have gotten worse over the course of 8th, not better to the point that they regularly win tournaments and are one of the top tier armies in the game.
These kind of posts always make me scratch my head.
Those two statements aren't mutually exclusive. Competitive Tau live and die by Savior Protocols. They are by far the best ablative wounds in the game and can compensate for how overcosted the majority of the codex is. As long as savior protocols is unchanged then Tau lists will just use the most cost effective drone and probably 20-30 of them. Just like when gun drones went up 50% and shield drones were the most cost effective. Riptides are probably fine bordering on a little underpowered once you remove drones from the equation. Levi Dread vs Riptide, Knight Errant vs Y'Vahra, Dissie Ravager vs MissileSide, Smash Captain vs Fusion Coldstar, Ionhead vs Tank Commander, Devilfish vs Raider etc etc. The Tau unit is usually worse by a significant margin UNTIL you take into account savior protocols. Most factions have lists that would be strong bordering on oppressively strong when you can staple on ~30 ablative wounds for 300pts. Doesn't matter if the wounds are shield, marker, or gun drones.
This is exactly right.
No, it really isn't. He basically cherry picked the number 1 top tier option from 5 other sources to compare to the Tau roster. Any rational, honest person would look at that same list of comparisons and realize Tau have a very strong choice in nearly every slot, sometimes several. Not only that, the army only has to do one thing well, shooting, which just so happens to be the best phase in the game when trying to remove the enemy.
That said there are definitely some stupid things in the Tau codex, like how on earth is a burst canon 8 points? Basically the tau wargear point section needs to die in a fire and be rewritten almost entirely. Along with Savior Protocols.
Its a variety of both. I don't think Raiders and Knight Errants are "top tier competitive units" and they aren't being compared to top tier Tau units. Meanwhile the other top tier units are being compared to the Tau top tier units. Cherry picking would involve using bad tau units like anything with the word "rail" in it, trying to compare sniper drones to eliminators, or breachers vs IG Squads.
Thing is, Tau do not have the best shooting in 40k at the moment, in terms of damage output. Marines do. Tau can win those fights because the marines’ shooting only hits drones.
Ultimately the meta has shifted a lot since the codex came out. When Castellans emerged they pretty much removed vehicles that didn’t have either an invulnerable save or penalties to hit (or both) from competitive play. Things like hammerheads have neither, so they don’t work at all, and they’ve only got worse now Imperial Fists are a thing.
And yes, the wargear section of the book is nonsense. Crisis suits – supposedly a mainstay unit - are a dreadful mixture of an overpriced body with ineffective weapons attached. There are tons of other examples.
But the issues with Tau and others aren’t going to be fixed by tinkering with points. A more fundamental rewrite is needed. It would be good, for example, if the once-feared plasma rifle was less of a complete joke.
Personally I'm fine with saviour protocals and Drones coming in units. The problem here is shield drones specifically, having a 4++ and 5+++ makes them stupidly resiliant as an ablative wound to Riptides for 10pts each, I would very much like to see their numbers limited, say to a max of 4 in a Tac unit and 1 for the add on's to infantry units and 1 per battle suit for those that can take them.
Beyond that there needs to be points changes for many of the weapons, Riptides could do with their main guns having the points swapped around so the Ion Accelerator becomes a more attractive option that the jack of all trades HBC, though a few need an outright rewright (no one is ever taking a Railgun for the Hammerhead whilst it remaines 1 shot and D6 damage).
Jidmah wrote: Unless I really suck at counting, Tau have been about as often in top placings as armies like GSC or Orks. They have simply been one of many armies that have a tournament-viable build.
1st place SoCal open, 1st place Nova, 3rd place Bay Area Open.
There are top placings, and then there are big tournament top placings - and the tau are still taking 1st in major tournaments against the nuMarines, even if their best list is the opposite of fun.
See, this is what confuses me about competitive players. If it isn't fun why would you play it?
Why on earth would you want to play something that isnt fun? I mean if playing lame lists is fun, I dont want to know what fun is then.
Spoiler:
On the topic: if they do bring down the points on the fw super heavys what would they cost them? Would they bring them back to where they were in 7th and are currently in hh at about 550 for a fellblade? 395 for a Cerberus/typhon?
If those are fair in hh why not in 8th? (Actually a fellblade is 525 in hh).
If those are fair in hh why not in 8th? (Actually a fellblade is 525 in hh).
Howabout the obvious. Different game, different rule. Why marines cost 12 pts and not 30 like 2nd ed?
True but hh is more like 7.5. Tac squads are 125 for 10 which works out to 12.5 per model. Pretty close. Fellblade was 540 in 7th. It's rules didn't get twice as good in 8th.
It would also be nice if they brought in some of the list organization rules from hh. Like no low below 2000 points.
not gonna happen pal, knights are there to be sold.
You keep running at your r&h windmill and I'll keep running at my fw low windmill.
Dogged pursuit of a cause is what makes dakka what it is.
They DID finally make the hellforged versions relentless.
Jidmah wrote: Unless I really suck at counting, Tau have been about as often in top placings as armies like GSC or Orks. They have simply been one of many armies that have a tournament-viable build.
1st place SoCal open, 1st place Nova, 3rd place Bay Area Open.
There are top placings, and then there are big tournament top placings - and the tau are still taking 1st in major tournaments against the nuMarines, even if their best list is the opposite of fun.
See, this is what confuses me about competitive players. If it isn't fun why would you play it?
Why on earth would you want to play something that isnt fun? I mean if playing lame lists is fun, I dont want to know what fun is then.
Spoiler:
On the topic: if they do bring down the points on the fw super heavys what would they cost them? Would they bring them back to where they were in 7th and are currently in hh at about 550 for a fellblade? 395 for a Cerberus/typhon?
If those are fair in hh why not in 8th? (Actually a fellblade is 525 in hh).
If those are fair in hh why not in 8th? (Actually a fellblade is 525 in hh).
Howabout the obvious. Different game, different rule. Why marines cost 12 pts and not 30 like 2nd ed?
True but hh is more like 7.5. Tac squads are 125 for 10 which works out to 12.5 per model. Pretty close. Fellblade was 540 in 7th. It's rules didn't get twice as good in 8th.
It would also be nice if they brought in some of the list organization rules from hh. Like no low below 2000 points.
not gonna happen pal, knights are there to be sold.
You keep running at your r&h windmill and I'll keep running at my fw low windmill.
Dogged pursuit of a cause is what makes dakka what it is.
They DID finally make the hellforged versions relentless.
That was my point. If you find min/maxing fun do it. But if someone actually says their list isn't fun why play it?
And I'm not sure if I'm more Don Quixote or Sisyphis.
The vast majority of competitive lists are running 30-60 gretchin in minimal units though. There are only a few lists doing really well with a full flood, and those are usually run by the one guy who so good at playing orks, he can pretty much get away with anything (a battlewagon full of flash gits, for example).
In any case, the ork codex just has two troops choices and both of those come in sizes of 30 and have a 20+ model horde bonus, so two battalions have the potential to become 180 models no matter what. You can't punish an army for bringing its troops in the exact way they are supposed to be used.
Spending an extra 90 points just means bringing 90 points less of all those over-costed units you summarized under "crazy contraptions", making the game less fun both for the enemy and the ork player.
If you want less gretchin on the board, providing alternatives to mobs of 30 boyz(see my previous post) and reworking the army to rely less on CP (ie. buffing units with little to no stratagem support) is the solution. Right now it's pretty much "pay 90 points for 5CP and you get a bunch of gretchin for free", that any ork player would gladly drop if possible.
This is correct.
As I said before, if the current Ork list is still effective, paying 90 more points for grots won't kill it. All that'll do is make other lists *worse*. Orks already struggle with competitive builds, like other armies. They basically have one.
It's also odd to penalize Orks for buying MSU of troops just like every other army, when they aren't even oppressive. Orks occasionally make Top 4 finishes like other high-top tier armies and don't seem to be warping the meta.
If the arguments here are for casual play, I assure you, casual players are fielding tons of Boyz and *not* worrying about CP farming nearly as much.
It's just a bad change all around. You want diversity of lists? Make Trukks cheap as chips. Same with Battlewagons and Bonebreakers. Consider making Nobs troops, so we can also do a more elite focused army. Drop all the buggies 20-30 points.
The codex has plenty of potential, its just hamstrung by overcosted units and a power creep meta.
1. You lose.
2. You alter your army to make it more effective.
3. Profit! Or not.
Non-fun armies are the fault of the rules writers, not the players. If fun stuff doesn’t work, or if non-fun stuff is much more effective, then people will use non-fun stuff.
If those are fair in hh why not in 8th? (Actually a fellblade is 525 in hh).
Howabout the obvious. Different game, different rule. Why marines cost 12 pts and not 30 like 2nd ed?
True but hh is more like 7.5. Tac squads are 125 for 10 which works out to 12.5 per model. Pretty close. Fellblade was 540 in 7th. It's rules didn't get twice as good in 8th.
It would also be nice if they brought in some of the list organization rules from hh. Like no low below 2000 points.
not gonna happen pal, knights are there to be sold.
You keep running at your r&h windmill and I'll keep running at my fw low windmill.
Dogged pursuit of a cause is what makes dakka what it is.
They DID finally make the hellforged versions relentless.
He , i mean that is absolutely valid, and considering the fact that a minotraur f.e. pays for 3 basilisks and is strictly worse then 2 i totally agree. I just feel like, running at windmills and running at concrete reinforced windmills is a slight difference, altough not sure which off us got the one that is reinforced.
If those are fair in hh why not in 8th? (Actually a fellblade is 525 in hh).
Howabout the obvious. Different game, different rule. Why marines cost 12 pts and not 30 like 2nd ed?
True but hh is more like 7.5. Tac squads are 125 for 10 which works out to 12.5 per model. Pretty close. Fellblade was 540 in 7th. It's rules didn't get twice as good in 8th.
It would also be nice if they brought in some of the list organization rules from hh. Like no low below 2000 points.
not gonna happen pal, knights are there to be sold.
You keep running at your r&h windmill and I'll keep running at my fw low windmill.
Dogged pursuit of a cause is what makes dakka what it is.
They DID finally make the hellforged versions relentless.
He , i mean that is absolutely valid, and considering the fact that a minotraur f.e. pays for 3 basilisks and is strictly worse then 2 i totally agree. I just feel like, running at windmills and running at concrete reinforced windmills is a slight difference, altough not sure which off us got the one that is reinforced.
You don't always have to win the fight. Just make sure they know you were there.
And they remembered fw low existed for one faq at least.
Imagine if R&H got a brief rule update blurb like the one-page precodex updates in CA2017. Tweak a bit of the wording of the way that the army functions, give a strat or two, a warlord trait, a relic...
I wonder what the minimum amount of changes it would take to save R&H from the FW rule-writing dungeons. I'm certainly not expecting a full beta codex like with Sisters in CA2018, but I bet a page or two of quality of life improvements would go a long way.
All of which is kinda a moot point, because I doubt CA2019 will touch the subject, but in terms of the non-points content of the book it'd be nice. I know a lot of the discussion/rumors has been about rumored points changes--have we heard about the other content?
We can probably expect another set of 12 missions for Matched Play, but I wonder what else GW will include in CA this year.
Kdash wrote: I must admit to zoning out and skim reading the last few pages after I came across several posts with bits akin to “but guardsmen/conscripts”.
IMO, I can see GW doing the following –
Grots and Shield Drone points changes. Why? Playing vs 120-200 grots isn’t fun for anyone, likewise, playing against 50-70 shield drones. It is completely irrelevant whether that means they go to the same cost of another unit in another codex that has completely different stats and/or weapons. It all depends on the rest of the codex.
Spamming these 2 units is also likely not in GWs perceived view of what the armies should look like, play like and be like. If you still want a Grot based army there are options with grot tanks, killa kans etc etc etc. To GW, and pretty much every Ork player, the “pictured army” if one of Boyz, crazy contraptions and the odd Grot meatshield. As much as we all hate to admit it, non-competitive play is a big part of the player base. Besides, as someone said, spending an extra 90 points on 90 Grots isn’t exactly the end of the world.
CSM God specific units going to 2 wounds, would be pretty interesting, but I doubt that’ll come in CA. It’s also mean that the elite Terminators (SOT and DG ones) would need a bump up to 3 wounds.
FW needs a big points overhaul. If they are finally getting around to it, then, great! Some popular units will increase in cost, without a doubt, but hopefully many reduce. We all expect the Levi to increase in cost, but who knows by how much.
Not expecting any points changes for units in the SM codex.
If Magnus does get a points drop, then he could be interesting – though, regardless of by how much, he’ll still die turn 1 if you aren’t going first.
I'm not sure GW perceived view of the game is the loyal 32 but no one is expecting a 1-2ppm increase for guardsmen and a 10-20pt increase for units that can issue orders to prevent cp batteries.
People talk about Tau being competitive, but Knights/AM was fighting tau last game of socal on the top table because it is still highly "competitive"
If those are fair in hh why not in 8th? (Actually a fellblade is 525 in hh).
Howabout the obvious. Different game, different rule. Why marines cost 12 pts and not 30 like 2nd ed?
True but hh is more like 7.5. Tac squads are 125 for 10 which works out to 12.5 per model. Pretty close. Fellblade was 540 in 7th. It's rules didn't get twice as good in 8th.
It would also be nice if they brought in some of the list organization rules from hh. Like no low below 2000 points.
not gonna happen pal, knights are there to be sold.
You keep running at your r&h windmill and I'll keep running at my fw low windmill.
Dogged pursuit of a cause is what makes dakka what it is.
They DID finally make the hellforged versions relentless.
He , i mean that is absolutely valid, and considering the fact that a minotraur f.e. pays for 3 basilisks and is strictly worse then 2 i totally agree. I just feel like, running at windmills and running at concrete reinforced windmills is a slight difference, altough not sure which off us got the one that is reinforced.
You don't always have to win the fight. Just make sure they know you were there.
And they remembered fw low existed for one faq at least.
I have given them multiple times Feedback, at the start of 8th, after 50 and then last time at 74 matches.
I got ignored, until i out of a joke demanded a refund, which got faster an answer then i thought possible.
...
...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Benionin wrote: Imagine if R&H got a brief rule update blurb like the one-page precodex updates in CA2017. Tweak a bit of the wording of the way that the army functions, give a strat or two, a warlord trait, a relic...
I wonder what the minimum amount of changes it would take to save R&H from the FW rule-writing dungeons. I'm certainly not expecting a full beta codex like with Sisters in CA2018, but I bet a page or two of quality of life improvements would go a long way.
All of which is kinda a moot point, because I doubt CA2019 will touch the subject, but in terms of the non-points content of the book it'd be nice. I know a lot of the discussion/rumors has been about rumored points changes--have we heard about the other content?
We can probably expect another set of 12 missions for Matched Play, but I wonder what else GW will include in CA this year.
How about, i dunno, reimplement all the lost units?
Or maybee, ya know reimplement the prototraits we had, aka demagogue devotions.
Honestly 8th isnt that fun to me anymore, AOS is just so much more fun. The only thing that will bring me back to 8th at this point is a huge point decrease for my Harlequins, or Corsairs are back. Seeing GW doesnt like to support either of the 2, this CA wont bring me back most likely.
For Harlequins, Troupes are trash, they need -2,-3pts each, shadwoseers are way to costly as well (they seem to think -1 to be wound aura is good on T3 infantry... its not), Void and star weavers needs to go down 10pts at least. If troupes, shadowseer, and star/voidweavers all goes down i'll play more 8th other than the 1-3 games a month i do (thats very little for me, i play 2-4x a week, sometimes 2-3 games a day).
Seeing as i havent heard a single rumor about harlequins even for PA, i'm not hopeful for this CA.
Remember everyone last year they said they finish writing CA around June. So CA 2019 is not gonna address any of the problems we have right now. It will fix the problems we had since the beginning of this year. So if the issue you have was there around Jan-May its very like CA 2019 will address it. If it wasn't well than you will have to wait until CA 2020.
There is a slim chance that they learned from last year and wrote the marines codex with the CA changes in mind, thus rolling out a marine army that is fits in with the power-level of post CA/PA armies.
Jidmah wrote: There is a slim chance that they learned from last year and wrote the marines codex with the CA changes in mind, thus rolling out a marine army that is fits in with the power-level of post CA/PA armies.
Jidmah wrote: There is a slim chance that they learned from last year and wrote the marines codex with the CA changes in mind, thus rolling out a marine army that is fits in with the power-level of post CA/PA armies.
Yes, you can stop laughing now
Chapter Tactics have already confirmed this not to be the case.
Chapter Approved is written way before Marines were released. Its why I don't buy it, its literally paying for rules that are instantly out of date.
superbit415 wrote: Remember everyone last year they said they finish writing CA around June. So CA 2019 is not gonna address any of the problems we have right now. It will fix the problems we had since the beginning of this year. So if the issue you have was there around Jan-May its very like CA 2019 will address it. If it wasn't well than you will have to wait until CA 2020.
If the follow the same thing they've introduced to AoS this year, then there will be a seperate pdf with point changes for the newer factions, so it migth still happen
Jidmah wrote: There is a slim chance that they learned from last year and wrote the marines codex with the CA changes in mind, thus rolling out a marine army that is fits in with the power-level of post CA/PA armies.
Yes, you can stop laughing now
Chapter Tactics have already confirmed this not to be the case.
Chapter Approved is written way before Marines were released. Its why I don't buy it, its literally paying for rules that are instantly out of date.
In theory, nothing prevents them from looking at and testing with the finished marine book even if it's not released.
In practice, the codex teams hard-reset their brains by downing a mug of citadel plastic glue before starting on a new one.
it's certainly possiable they could release updated Chapter tactics for all the other armies in it. assuming each faction has on average 5 subfactions, that's about 10 or 11 factions they'd need to do, so really only 10 (maybe less if they are creative with layout) pages. sounds like a lot but the sisters beta dex in CA 2018 was about 20 or so. I personally doubt they'll do it, but GW could certainly if they where of a mind to update army traits in chapter approved.
BrianDavion wrote: it's certainly possiable they could release updated Chapter tactics for all the other armies in it. assuming each faction has on average 5 subfactions, that's about 10 or 11 factions they'd need to do, so really only 10 (maybe less if they are creative with layout) pages. sounds like a lot but the sisters beta dex in CA 2018 was about 20 or so. I personally doubt they'll do it, but GW could certainly if they where of a mind to update army traits in chapter approved.
GW could do a lot of things, but they’ve made it clear that unless you wear power armour they aren’t really interested at the moment. Not to mention the likely scenario that they would prefer to charge factions individually for any substantial update - ala supplements and campaign books. Besides, I believe they have stated that Chapter Approved is for points changes, not rule changes.
So in essence I doubt very much they’ll do this. They’re too busy nerfing those way over performing Grots.
One thing I wanted to say is tau are only good in the hands of the best players of that faction. If you look at the data from other player they have issues.
The tau codex has some serious design issues. The current riptides + commanders + drones list is just a symptom of a larger problem. Also drones promote a not interactive playstyle. E.g. if I shoot you useful dudes all I do is kill drones. Players can hide drones from anything but guard. SM can't deal with the amount of drones tau field.
Drones are not fun to play, neither with nor against. I can't wait for a shakeup in the Tau meta in order to play different units with a different playstyle.
An Actual Englishman wrote: GW could do a lot of things, but they’ve made it clear that unless you wear power armour they aren’t really interested at the moment.
Woah what a change from when they were so invested in releasing new models for orks but didn't care about sisters despite then wearing power armor!
Well right now GW has this to say about power armor wearing Sisters:
"We produced a huge number of this box, but even our optimistic estimates didn’t anticipate the full scale of the demand."
And this to say about Orktober:
"..."
Wow incredible! Woah.
Aenar wrote: Drones are not fun to play, neither with nor against. I can't wait for a shakeup in the Tau meta in order to play different units with a different playstyle.
Crossing my fingers that FSE get a good supplement to mix up the T'au gameplay.
Heck, bringing back the mobile gameplay rather than this non fluff compliant, pseudo Guard style castling would be good. Viorla can do it a bit but could do with some love.
With CA coming out most likely in a few weeks time Is it usually this quiet rumour and news-wise? Maybe all the attention is currently being pulled by PA but I get the, completely unjustifiable, feeling that the book may not be a whole lot of anything...
Mixzremixzd wrote: With CA coming out most likely in a few weeks time Is it usually this quiet rumour and news-wise? Maybe all the attention is currently being pulled by PA but I get the, completely unjustifiable, feeling that the book may not be a whole lot of anything...
Yeah just over 2 weeks till release and no leaks is weird. Maybe it's because pa is sucking up all the oxygen.
BrianDavion wrote: it's certainly possiable they could release updated Chapter tactics for all the other armies in it. assuming each faction has on average 5 subfactions, that's about 10 or 11 factions they'd need to do, so really only 10 (maybe less if they are creative with layout) pages. sounds like a lot but the sisters beta dex in CA 2018 was about 20 or so. I personally doubt they'll do it, but GW could certainly if they where of a mind to update army traits in chapter approved.
GW could do a lot of things, but they’ve made it clear that unless you wear power armour they aren’t really interested at the moment. Not to mention the likely scenario that they would prefer to charge factions individually for any substantial update - ala supplements and campaign books. Besides, I believe they have stated that Chapter Approved is for points changes, not rule changes.
So in essence I doubt very much they’ll do this. They’re too busy nerfing those way over performing Grots.
Not all power armour is created equal, GKs and to a lesser degree DW can attest to that.
BrianDavion wrote: it's certainly possiable they could release updated Chapter tactics for all the other armies in it. assuming each faction has on average 5 subfactions, that's about 10 or 11 factions they'd need to do, so really only 10 (maybe less if they are creative with layout) pages. sounds like a lot but the sisters beta dex in CA 2018 was about 20 or so. I personally doubt they'll do it, but GW could certainly if they where of a mind to update army traits in chapter approved.
GW could do a lot of things, but they’ve made it clear that unless you wear power armour they aren’t really interested at the moment. Not to mention the likely scenario that they would prefer to charge factions individually for any substantial update - ala supplements and campaign books. Besides, I believe they have stated that Chapter Approved is for points changes, not rule changes.
So in essence I doubt very much they’ll do this. They’re too busy nerfing those way over performing Grots.
Not all power armour is created equal, GKs and to a lesser degree DW can attest to that.
Actually... all power armor is equal. Some is just more equal than others.
I still don't find this rumour believable. Games Workshop has done too much recent damage to afford such a big mis-step. I give it a 5% chance of happening, and only because of the source.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: I'm mainly a marine player and please god don';t drop good marine unit points. Please, PLEASE, don't do this. They're already so very good. STAHP IT
KurtAngle2 wrote: Considering the sheer incompetence of Game Designers at GW, they might have buffed Marines even more whilst nerfing other armies
The last ca nerfed a lot of units that didn't need to be nerfed.
So yes whilest unfortunate it is possible, i hope not but frankly i'd not be surprised if it happened.
Darsath wrote: I still don't find this rumour believable. Games Workshop has done too much recent damage to afford such a big mis-step. I give it a 5% chance of happening, and only because of the source.
if its more like AOS V 2 that would be ok by me.
CA did some wierd stuff last time like buffing Tank Commanders
Darsath wrote: I still don't find this rumour believable. Games Workshop has done too much recent damage to afford such a big mis-step. I give it a 5% chance of happening, and only because of the source.
if its more like AOS V 2 that would be ok by me.
CA did some wierd stuff last time like buffing Tank Commanders
I think widening the gap is the opposite of what CA is meant to do.
This whole marine codex stinks of some kind of weird release pipeline feth-up.
I almost wonder if the new SM Codex was originally supposed to come out after Chapter Approved 2019 and Psychic Awakening (where other factions are getting little tweaks and buffs).
Quasistellar wrote: This whole marine codex stinks of some kind of weird release pipeline feth-up.
I almost wonder if the new SM Codex was originally supposed to come out after Chapter Approved 2019 and Psychic Awakening (where other factions are getting little tweaks and buffs).
I suppose we'll find out soon enough what's going on behind the scenes.
Due to the nature of how CA is written in advance, I think it's very reasonable to expect changes that would address what the game was like months ago before marines:
Cheap infantry like guardsmen and grots up in points
Negative hit modifiers
Flyers
Plaguebearer nerf of some kind
The only hope right now is GW didn't lower marine costs as the book would be released prior to CA19.
Unfortunately I think this CA could be a massive dump of fuel on the current fire. Maybe there will be a bunch of early errata to CA like the IH supplement. But if that's required it just further begs the question of why are players paying for outdated balance patches?
I would love to be wrong and for GW to show some foresight with the changes, but I'm skeptical. Definitely holding off on any model purchases until I see CA19.
I suspect if marines have their points lowered it will be more "blood angels, darks angels, space wolves your points are now x" x being "in line with codex SM
Not Online!!! wrote: I do still also hope for csm equivalents to see a pts drop.
Alas
I can't imagine them not updating the points costs for marines from the "other marine books"
I can. That's a direct, normal result of having different marine codex. But I am all in favor of consolidating all of them in a marine codex, possibly with supplements.
Well, one ray of hope for CSM is that they just got a new plastic kit. So while they aren't loyalist Space Marines, GW still may want to move some unit and this throw them a bone on some points drops
Or not. They're just as likely to think "it's a new kit, it will sell regardless of being balanced"
Quasistellar wrote: This whole marine codex stinks of some kind of weird release pipeline feth-up.
I almost wonder if the new SM Codex was originally supposed to come out after Chapter Approved 2019 and Psychic Awakening (where other factions are getting little tweaks and buffs).
Pa was obviously meant to come after sm 2.0. The black templars stuff in faith and fury proves that.
I have a question: if Cult Marines are getting 2 wounds now, doesn’t that mean DG termies and stuff should go up a wound as well? Potentially in their next codex. Damn, that would make them nutso survivable.
CA does not update costs of factions which had a codex release recently.
Yeah, it could happen that there is an exception to ONE of those points, but all together? Not going to happen.
The rumors going around right now are obvious fakes, crafted just to stir the community. Man, in the past you needed to be much smarter when forging fakes, now people are willing to believe everything...
Sumilidon wrote: SM need a serious points drop - I'm just not winning convincingly enough
Sure. Just a pity we'll have the same odd confusion we had last year when there were two separate sets of point values for Orks in the autumn Codex and in CA, because "two separate teams" in that 10-people office were working on them separately without communicating, lol.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tiberius501 wrote: I have a question: if Cult Marines are getting 2 wounds now, doesn’t that mean DG termies and stuff should go up a wound as well? Potentially in their next codex. Damn, that would make them nutso survivable.
Depends on which 2-wound cult marines rumour you're talking about.
Do you mean the rumour of Noise Marines getting two wounds in their summer Emperor's Children release with Fulgrim and some weird Slaanesh Marine Cavalry unit?
Do you mean the Cult Marines getting two wounds in the Slaanesh vs. Black Templars box with a Primaris Emperor's Champion mini rumour?
Do you mean the Cult Marines get a two wounds in a Chaos Marines Codex 2.0 do-over (2.5?) rumour?
Do you mean the Cult Marines get two wounds in PA2: Faith and Fury rumour?
Do you mean the Cult Marines get two wounds in Chapter Approved rumour?
If the rumors are true lol. So marines get stronger still, and guard get nerfed as well as ad mech. Oh man, can't wait. What a bunch of..insert angry words here.
While I do worry about more marines points drops, thinking about it there are a few units that are not taken due to their cost.
Prime example being Hellblasters. Easily killed but are rediculous expensive per model. If I was to repoint them, they would drop to the cost of an intercessor marine currently, and all gun option stay the same cost of the plasma incinerator, so you can easily swap out different types without paying a 2pts tax on the heavy plasma incinerator that nobody uses.
Everybody is going crazy about marines getting point drops, being OP etc..... Marines were bottom tier for 2 years (even with new model releases, which is tragic) while IG, eldar, dark eldar, demons, tau and a lot of other factions were dominating the 40k scene and were auto win against marines . Now that GW gave them a very much needed boost and brought them more in line with those armies and maybe made them better from some of them (eldar/ dak eldar are still better if you ask me) everybody started crying... Everybody else is ok to ride the power creep train but marines are not allowed to...
Ok they went over the top with iron hands (flavor of the month like what happened with knights, dark eldar, alatoic eldar , etc) but all the other chapters have still overcosted units and their rules are not broken good...
PS1 : I dont play vanilla marines by the way , i play space wolves and i am struggling for years to win a casual game with more than 1 or 2 models on the board and not be "auto loose" if i go second.
PS2: The point drops in marines will probably be the adjustments for SW,BA and DA to bring them in line with the new SM codex points (SM codex was probably written after CA2019 so there wont be major point changes) and point drops for the ridiculously overcosted special units (looking at you thunderwolves,wulfen, frost weapons and many more)
You brought an example of realigning datasheets that existed in multiple versions in various publications, but the most updated intercessor datasheet had already been publicated elsewhere.
Never before CA has changed a specific rule or a profile. That is what FAQs are for.
lonewolf81 wrote: Everybody is going crazy about marines getting point drops, being OP etc..... Marines were bottom tier for 2 years (even with new model releases, which is tragic) while IG, eldar, dark eldar, demons, tau and a lot of other factions were dominating the 40k scene and were auto win against marines . Now that GW gave them a very much needed boost and brought them more in line with those armies and maybe made them better from some of them (eldar/ dak eldar are still better if you ask me) everybody started crying... Everybody else is ok to ride the power creep train but marines are not allowed to...
Codex Marines were not 'bottom tier', ever. Their most competitive build(s) placed in the top 4 semi regularly even before their shiny new codex and the win rate for certain sub factions was above 50%. Which is exactly like all other factions in the game, more or less. The issue was that Brother Captain Dornson who plays pure IF wanted HIS boys to be best, so did Chaplain Rides-a-bike of the WS and so on and so forth. For some reason marine players seem to believe that they are entitled to more than every other faction in that each of their sub factions should also be top tier, competitive choices.
GW have reacted as strongly as they have (made all Marines OP) in my opinion because of the relentless whining that we've had for the past 18 months while marines weren't OP by the biggest proportion of the player base.
Finally - don't get confused on the current meta. Codex marines are absolutely broken. Their competitive stats reflect this. If they aren't fixed, and by fixed I mean nerfed, heavily, the game will suffer. I shared this in the Ork thread but FYI Marines make up 25% of all players at a tournament on average yet they make up 45% of all players that go 4-0 at a tournament on average. Insane numbers. Iron Hands, even if we discount all data before their nerf, are a joke - roughly 10% of all players at events but 27% of all players who go 4-0. Marines are absolutely fethed and they are literally breaking the competitive scene.
lonewolf81 wrote: Everybody is going crazy about marines getting point drops, being OP etc..... Marines were bottom tier for 2 years (even with new model releases, which is tragic) while IG, eldar, dark eldar, demons, tau and a lot of other factions were dominating the 40k scene and were auto win against marines . Now that GW gave them a very much needed boost and brought them more in line with those armies and maybe made them better from some of them (eldar/ dak eldar are still better if you ask me) everybody started crying... Everybody else is ok to ride the power creep train but marines are not allowed to...
Ok they went over the top with iron hands (flavor of the month like what happened with knights, dark eldar, alatoic eldar , etc) but all the other chapters have still overcosted units and their rules are not broken good...
PS1 : I dont play vanilla marines by the way , i play space wolves and i am struggling for years to win a casual game with more than 1 or 2 models on the board and not be "auto loose" if i go second.
PS2: The point drops in marines will probably be the adjustments for SW,BA and DA to bring them in line with the new SM codex points (SM codex was probably written after CA2019 so there wont be major point changes) and point drops for the ridiculously overcosted special units (looking at you thunderwolves,wulfen, frost weapons and many more)
Riiiiiight. Marines of all flavour from normal codex absolutely dominating tournaments even more than eldars ever did(imperium soup was still generally king) is fine and dandy. Whopedopedoo. Oh and past wrong does not make bigger wrong right.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Marines are absolutely fethed and they are literally breaking the competitive scene.
And before people chime in with the "well then don't play competitive" lines, this kind of imbalance between armies is terrible for all types of play as it makes balancing out narrative scenarios, casual and campaign play much more difficult.
Trying to play out a narrative scenario where some defenders are desperately trying to hold the line against an overwhelming attacking force doesn't work when the defenders stomp the attackers because even though the attackers had double the points, the defenders were 3 times as powerful. It also doesn't work when the attackers just sweep aside the defenders with no effort.
The story of the Defence of Rorke's Drift, for example, would not have been improved by giving either side chainguns.
First of all if you are referring to guilliman castle as marines doing well the previous years and everything else being garbage ...dude please...
Tournaments will always spam the flavor of the month .... how many lists where doing well using IG 32 and imperial knight detachments, alatoic flyer spam, dark eldar ravager spam when they were the top dogs... 98% of the tourney lists?
It is the marines time to be the flavor of the month that's all
Outside of the tournament lists (which i personally hate because they are WAAC and they are expected to be when prizes are involved) marines got a much needed boost with some of them (iron hands) being over the top like black heart /prophets of flesh dark eldar, alatoic eldar,IG, castellans etc when they first came out. This always happened and always will happen... you have to be the lucky faction to get the flavor of the month until it gets nerfed...
the bottom line is marines needed the boost.. some of them got more than they deserve but you cant put every marine chapter in the same basket (like GW did with the nerfs cause of guilliman)
An Actual Englishman wrote: Marines are absolutely fethed and they are literally breaking the competitive scene.
And before people chime in with the "well then don't play competitive" lines, this kind of imbalance between armies is terrible for all types of play as it makes balancing out narrative scenarios, casual and campaign play much more difficult.
Trying to play out a narrative scenario where some defenders are desperately trying to hold the line against an overwhelming attacking force doesn't work when the defenders stomp the attackers because even though the attackers had double the points, the defenders were 3 times as powerful. It also doesn't work when the attackers just sweep aside the defenders with no effort.
The story of the Defence of Rorke's Drift, for example, would not have been improved by giving either side chainguns.
I stated that i am lucky as in my friend and diehard IH literally does not want to touch the supplement, but even then, i did run a Mass assault CSM list arround RC and no shortage of Corsars.
Whereas that list has little problems against most factions, depending on terrain, marines turn that so hard on it's head that i normally don't even get to recycle anymore.
and yes that list includes 55 CSM and 30 cultists.
I find that ammount of firepower disgusting and the added insult that the equivalent units are BETTER and CHEAPER, even tough they are literally or should literally be interchangabel outright stupid.
First of all if you are referring to guilliman castle as marines doing well the previous years and everything else being garbage ...dude please...
Tournaments will always spam the flavor of the month .... how many lists where doing well using IG 32 and imperial knight detachments, alatoic flyer spam, dark eldar ravager spam when they were the top dogs... 98% of the tourney lists?
It is the marines time to be the flavor of the month that's all
Outside of the tournament lists (which i personally hate because they are WAAC and they are expected to be when prizes are involved) marines got a much needed boost with some of them (iron hands) being over the top like black heart /prophets of flesh dark eldar, alatoic eldar,IG, castellans etc when they first came out. This always happened and always will happen... you have to be the lucky faction to get the flavor of the month until it gets nerfed...
the bottom line is marines needed the boost.. some of them got more than they deserve but you cant put every marine chapter in the same basket (like GW did with the nerfs cause of guilliman)
Same thing goes for the other armies you cited in your previous post. Eldar, Orks, Tau, Guard, GSC and other well-performing armies over the last year did so by using one particular build and ignoring 80-85% of the available units in their codex.
SM are completely out of balance right now and they'll get nerfed, sooner or later. It's simply the way GW balancing works.
Chapter Approved may not be the place for it, as the Codex and the Supplements are very recent, but in the Spring FAQ they'll get the Castellan treatment.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Marines are absolutely fethed and they are literally breaking the competitive scene.
And before people chime in with the "well then don't play competitive" lines, this kind of imbalance between armies is terrible for all types of play as it makes balancing out narrative scenarios, casual and campaign play much more difficult.
Its also a really, really stupid argument. I only play competitively ruled games with my group and I only play Orks. Am I supposed to just stop playing? Great suggestion lol. You're absolutely right in that it hurts all game types too.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Marines are absolutely fethed and they are literally breaking the competitive scene.
And before people chime in with the "well then don't play competitive" lines, this kind of imbalance between armies is terrible for all types of play as it makes balancing out narrative scenarios, casual and campaign play much more difficult.
Its also a really, really stupid argument. I only play competitively ruled games with my group and I only play Orks. Am I supposed to just stop playing? Great suggestion lol. You're absolutely right in that it hurts all game types too.
Yeah but the current “ competitive” scene don’t actual play 40k they play ITC which due to it’s slant towards just wiping the opponent off the board has balance issues separate to actual 40k. I personally think that under no circumstances should GW be balancing there game to favour a 3rd parties house rules rather than you know the actual rules. Sadly the ITC guys have there feet well under the table as play testers, to’s, retailers and in some cases players not that there’s a number of conflicts of interest there but I mean personally I would not pay to take part in a tournament where a number of players have had months of play testing rules that in some cases everyone else’s has had a couple of weeks to test.
Anyway if you go watch some battle reports involving marines even the dreaded pre nerf IH you will see that they when playing the actual game they lost about as often as they won only in ITC style games did the skew more towards winning. But hey the game should definitely only balanced around house rules and not the objective based game.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Marines are absolutely fethed and they are literally breaking the competitive scene.
And before people chime in with the "well then don't play competitive" lines, this kind of imbalance between armies is terrible for all types of play as it makes balancing out narrative scenarios, casual and campaign play much more difficult.
Its also a really, really stupid argument. I only play competitively ruled games with my group and I only play Orks. Am I supposed to just stop playing? Great suggestion lol. You're absolutely right in that it hurts all game types too.
If you also stop posting the yes pleases stop playing
First of all if you are referring to guilliman castle as marines doing well the previous years and everything else being garbage ...dude please...
Everything else wasn't garbage, Guilliman parking lot was simply the strongest average codex marine list.
Tournaments will always spam the flavor of the month .... how many lists where doing well using IG 32 and imperial knight detachments, alatoic flyer spam, dark eldar ravager spam when they were the top dogs... 98% of the tourney lists?
No mate, this is wrong. Ynnari are the closest comparable army in terms of their performance to Marines. They MAXED OUT at 7% of the meta. At their peak. Their average was 5%. No faction has had the representation and the strength of marines. That is part of the problem. Even Ynnari haven't seen the same level of success as marines.
the bottom line is marines needed the boost.. some of them got more than they deserve but you cant put every marine chapter in the same basket (like GW did with the nerfs cause of guilliman)
Again, this is where you are wrong. Every single codex marine subfaction is over performing bar none. All of them. Some, like Iron Hands, Raven Guard and Imperial Fists are better than others, but they are all broken. Let that sink in man - each and every supplement book is over performing.
Is this a surprise, really? They've given one faction triple the stratagems, double or triple the relics, they can take multiple warlord traits in the same army and all of these things are better than other factions' equivalents anyway. This was obvious.
First of all if you are referring to guilliman castle as marines doing well the previous years and everything else being garbage ...dude please...
Everything else wasn't garbage, Guilliman parking lot was simply the strongest average codex marine list.
Tournaments will always spam the flavor of the month .... how many lists where doing well using IG 32 and imperial knight detachments, alatoic flyer spam, dark eldar ravager spam when they were the top dogs... 98% of the tourney lists?
No mate, this is wrong. Ynnari are the closest comparable army in terms of their performance to Marines. They MAXED OUT at 7% of the meta. At their peak. Their average was 5%. No faction has had the representation and the strength of marines. That is part of the problem. Even Ynnari haven't seen the same level of success as marines.
the bottom line is marines needed the boost.. some of them got more than they deserve but you cant put every marine chapter in the same basket (like GW did with the nerfs cause of guilliman)
Again, this is where you are wrong. Every single codex marine subfaction is over performing bar none. All of them. Some, like Iron Hands, Raven Guard and Imperial Fists are better than others, but they are all broken. Let that sink in man - each and every supplement book is over performing.
Is this a surprise, really? They've given one faction triple the stratagems, double or triple the relics, they can take multiple warlord traits in the same army and all of these things are better than other factions' equivalents anyway. This was obvious.
Ya know, on the warlord trait front, the New CSM warlordtraits and all, that should put up/ prop up what is there to compete again, are limited by 1 if you don't play AL.
But sure these warlordtraits make everything allright again and fixing the borked traits is not necessary after that....
SeanDrake wrote: Yeah but the current “ competitive” scene don’t actual play 40k they play ITC which due to it’s slant towards just wiping the opponent off the board has balance issues separate to actual 40k. I personally think that under no circumstances should GW be balancing there game to favour a 3rd parties house rules rather than you know the actual rules. Sadly the ITC guys have there feet well under the table as play testers, to’s, retailers and in some cases players not that there’s a number of conflicts of interest there but I mean personally I would not pay to take part in a tournament where a number of players have had months of play testing rules that in some cases everyone else’s has had a couple of weeks to test.
Anyway if you go watch some battle reports involving marines even the dreaded pre nerf IH you will see that they when playing the actual game they lost about as often as they won only in ITC style games did the skew more towards winning. But hey the game should definitely only balanced around house rules and not the objective based game.
If only there were tournaments that didn't use ITC rules so we could see if Marines are also broken using 'traditional' 40k rules. If only this data was recorded and shared with people. Wait. It is?! And all that data points towards marines also over performing in those competitive circles?! Well I never.
In some way I can agree that ITC is a format that rewards too much the killing power of an army. Killing the enemy its is own reward. You are destroying the capacity of your opponent to play the game and attack you. But if at the same time I destroy the imperial knight of my opponent that is 1/4 of is army I'am rewarded 4 victory points then the hill becomes even harder to climb back for a balanced game.
I'll always say that the ETC way is the best way (Eternal War Mission + Maelstrom of War mission + Discard the cards you can't accomplish because is impossible + All d3 victory points are 2) or just CA 2018 missions.
ITC based competitive players being part of the play test has me more or less expecting no real resolution to balance in 40k.
A lot of the answers can be found in re-pricing things people love to be far more expensive, but it's not going to happen because people are stuck at the idea of running 2k points and don't see the need for meaningful opportunity cost to special weapons or units.
Or we could take the axe to bloated unit line ups and thin out the design space a bit.
None of which I see coming from the ITC community or competitive players in general.
No. They did not need this big. What's wrong in boosting them to EQUAL level? Why marines suddenly NEEDED to be brokenly good?
Why on earth you WANT any army to be brokenly good? What's your take on it? GW giving you share of profit if you help them on the process?
As i said in a previous post.. iron hands are brokenly good all the others are eldar/dark eldar level good...
Also i dont care about ITC and other house rule stuff.. i play regular 40k and a dark eldar army for example can still erase a SM army (other than IH) in one turn of shooting and they are more resilient with all the invu saves and the FNP across the board, plus they are super cheap for what they do... why dont you cry about eldar or dark eldar .... why didnt you cry when they "auto won" marines the moment they deployed their army on the board...did you share any profit back then?
I play wolves not vanilla (i hope we get a similar treatment and all other armies that need it) but i was tired of marines in general being at the bottom for so long even though they had new units released... anyone who denies it wasnt playing 40k
Space Marines have already been meta in 8th edition before their new Codex and supplement. That's more than some factions have gotten, and they don't get as much as a sniff of a change to come.
No. They did not need this big. What's wrong in boosting them to EQUAL level? Why marines suddenly NEEDED to be brokenly good?
Why on earth you WANT any army to be brokenly good? What's your take on it? GW giving you share of profit if you help them on the process?
As i said in a previous post.. iron hands are brokenly good all the others are eldar/dark eldar level good...
Also i dont care about ITC and other house rule stuff.. i play regular 40k and a dark eldar army for example can still erase a SM army (other than IH) in one turn of shooting and they are more resilient with all the invu saves and the FNP across the board, plus they are super cheap for what they do... why dont you cry about eldar or dark eldar .... why didnt you cry when they "auto won" marines the moment they deployed their army on the board...did you share any profit back then?
I play wolves not vanilla (i hope we get a similar treatment and all other armies that need it) but i was tired of marines in general being at the bottom for so long even though they had new units released... anyone who denies it wasnt playing 40k
SM (vanilla) have been ultra competitive for years. In 7th they were the most broken faction along with eldar, way more annoying even than tau since they had tons of overpowered combos to choose from. In this edition they have been competitive for a significant period since many armies got their codex only after some time. For example I got my first and my main codexes (drukhari and orks) 10 months and a year and a half after the SM one. SM have been good even before the supplement, at least soups with 60-70% stuff of SM (lists with just a small detachment of SM aren't SM armies), but also some pure builds. I've always had the impression that many SM players need to try the game using real average armies, they'll learn a lot.
In my opinion SM should have stayed with their first 2017 codex till the new edition, with CA and FAQs to adjust stuff that needed corrections.
Take the SW codex, many players consider it garbage but it just needs a few points adjustments, that's all. Of course in an era of broken stuff they look terrbile and ultra competitive players don't pick them up simply because SW are not a faction anymore, just a part of a huge one. In this conditions it's hard to justify a mono subfaction at ultra competitive levels unless that faction is utterly broken. But as a SW player I think our codex is exactly how other SM codexes should be in terms of competitiveness, just with a few small buffs and corrections eventually.
"Space Marines were at the bottom for so long", and other jokes you can tell yourself Have I been the only one to see invisible deathstars and free (FREE!) transports, or was it all a dream?
Aenar wrote: "Space Marines were at the bottom for so long", and other jokes you can tell yourself Have I been the only one to see invisible deathstars and free (FREE!) transports, or was it all a dream?
TBH, 7th was a nightmare.
One bad cookie in a group bringing some of the issue things or formations could mean that fun fast left.
Aenar wrote: "Space Marines were at the bottom for so long", and other jokes you can tell yourself Have I been the only one to see invisible deathstars and free (FREE!) transports, or was it all a dream?
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
I see we're on to the part in the narrative where the fact that Space Marines of all types that weren't Deathwatch had sub-40% winrates for months is swept under the rug.
Aenar wrote: "Space Marines were at the bottom for so long", and other jokes you can tell yourself Have I been the only one to see invisible deathstars and free (FREE!) transports, or was it all a dream?
Marines sucked through the whole 8th edition and now that they boosted them you bring up the 7th edition hahaha... Gw shouldn't boost grey knights then cause they were broken during 5th edition... I rest my case
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I see we're on to the part in the narrative where the fact that Space Marines of all types that weren't Deathwatch had sub-40% winrates for months is swept under the rug.
Indeed. People like to gloss over that fact.
The fact that marines came back so strong really rustled some people's jimmies to an extent its all they ever talk about. Marines had no viable builds as a vanilla force unless it included Guilliman - as it was painfully obvious marines were balanced around him.
Now that the supplaments and Codex v2 are here, I'm hoping every army gets a similar boost (because by golly some desperately need it!) but the constant diriding of marines, Marine players and the rules is beginning to be an all consuming force on DakkaDakka, and just makes for boring discussion.
Can y'all please stop bumping the thread to discuss the history of space marine rules. I'm sure many other people are waiting for CA 2019 leaks, not 7E rules.
And before any smart-ass comes along, the thread is still top when I'm posting this so I'm not bumping it
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I see we're on to the part in the narrative where the fact that Space Marines of all types that weren't Deathwatch had sub-40% winrates for months is swept under the rug.
Indeed. People like to gloss over that fact.
The fact that marines came back so strong really rustled some people's jimmies to an extent its all they ever talk about. Marines had no viable builds as a vanilla force unless it included Guilliman - as it was painfully obvious marines were balanced around him.
Now that the supplaments and Codex v2 are here, I'm hoping every army gets a similar boost (because by golly some desperately need it!) but the constant diriding of marines, Marine players and the rules is beginning to be an all consuming force on DakkaDakka, and just makes for boring discussion.
Bit of an oversimplification there isn't it? It isn't that they are mad marines are suddenly super viable, instead they are mad that marines HAD a viable build even if it was only G-Man. They absolutely did need a buff, but vanilla marines had a viable build and the non-vanilla ones who actually do have the worst winrates didn't get anything. Marines can't be shoehorned into a single competitive build, but other armies have been repeatedly nerfed out of the competitive scene even if that's their only viable build. Combine this with the fact that we had 3 straight months of marinesturbation and yeah people are going to resent marine players who think they are the only ones who had to go months without a strong competitive list. Especially when GW has a terrible track record for balancing/releasing anything that isn't Imperial this edition.
From a more positive perspective, I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people on dakka are much more positive in person and dakka provides a nice place to scream into the void. Just like how marine players spammed dakka for months on how weak marines were, people are going to spam dakka as marines are buffed for months on end. Of course people are going to complain if the once a year point adjustments dictate that months of marine dominance will turn into a year of dominance with no end in sight. This is no different from "lol Castellans are don't need point adjustments" that happened last year.
Bit of an oversimplification there isn't it? It isn't that they are mad marines are suddenly super viable, instead they are mad that marines HAD a viable build even if it was only G-Man. They absolutely did need a buff, but vanilla marines had a viable build and the non-vanilla ones who actually do have the worst winrates didn't get anything. Marines can't be shoehorned into a single competitive build, but other armies have been repeatedly nerfed out of the competitive scene even if that's their only viable build. Combine this with the fact that we had 3 straight months of marinesturbation and yeah people are going to resent marine players who think they are the only ones who had to go months without a strong competitive list. Especially when GW has a terrible track record for balancing/releasing anything that isn't Imperial this edition.
From a more positive perspective, I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people on dakka are much more positive in person and dakka provides a nice place to scream into the void. Just like how marine players spammed dakka for months on how weak marines were, people are going to spam dakka as marines are buffed for months on end. Of course people are going to complain if the once a year point adjustments dictate that months of marine dominance will turn into a year of dominance with no end in sight. This is no different from "lol Castellans are don't need point adjustments" that happened last year.
I personally dont mind the vanilla marine codex, its the supplements that really took it over the top. And them getting even more good rules in faith and fury really was too much. The main reason that i personally am pissed off at marines is that most releases this year have either been marines or overshadowes by marines.
Look at blood pf the phoenix, yeah its a cool box with new plastic sculpts for long-demanded models. Oh wait, lets make a gakky boxset out of it and overprice it. While were at it, we should also release the IF and Sally supplements at the same time. Lets not forget about the impulsor while were at it. Thats how this year has felt for me as a non-marine player. We get crumbs while marines get a full bread factory. The fact that marines have also started doing things that are "the thing" other armies do better than these armies really pisses me off. How is a 47pts techmarine healing stuff better than belisarius cawl himself? Why do marines get For the greater good? Why do marines get a cloud of flies-ish ability? Why do marines get assault vehicles while admech's higgins boat neither flies not has the assault rule (It was fething marketed as a hovering open-topped transport yet we got neither of these rules...)?
And now stupid abilities that got dumped on marines : WHy do they get ignore LOS snipers? (yea yea, their ammo is gak, thats not the point) Why do they get an infiltrating dreadnought?
its tiring, and its not just on dakka that people complain, at my LGS, everyone is very vocal as to how stupid marines are right now and how unfun they are to play against.
The SM Vanila book alone was really strong. Ya all got the free buffs and even points drops ya wanted for marines and yet people were still saying marines were trash...(remember xenomancers goin on about how because repulsor went up 20 pts it made marines trash?) Because layering free rules with no downsides on wholesale, is just not enough apparently..
The supplements were just totally unnecessary and have swung the ball out the park. And yes its OP broken gak..wholesale.. The other armies mentioned that enjoyed the "well this is op" spot were tied to 1-2 units and specific builds and combos and relied largely on soup. And the players playing those factions dont enjoy having one unit being head over heels better than anything else. This is different..
The sentiment isint so much "bohoo my army should be better than your army" its I want everyone to have a fair fight without having to use the same units every effin game and get nice kits.. Then we all prosper and all have better games and our communities grow thanks to variety. Isint it obvious?
Back on topic of CA2019, is there a date confirmed for this floating around ? Must be getting on soon.
Argive wrote: I don't even know why this is a debate lol..
The SM Vanila book alone was really strong. Ya all got the free buffs and even points drops ya wanted for marines and yet people were still saying marines were trash...(remember xenomancers goin on about how because repulsor went up 20 pts it made marines trash?) Because layering free rules with no downsides on wholesale, is just not enough apparently..
The supplements were just totally unnecessary and have swung the ball out the park. And yes its OP broken gak..wholesale.. The other armies mentioned that enjoyed the "well this is op" spot were tied to 1-2 units and specific builds and combos and relied largely on soup. And the players playing those factions dont enjoy having one unit being head over heels better than anything else. This is different..
Back on topic of CA2019, is there a date confirmed for this floating around ? Must be getting on soon.
Ive heard the release was around december 7th, no idea if its official or not.
Blackie wrote: In 7th they were the most broken faction along with eldar, way more annoying even than tau since they had tons of overpowered combos to choose from.
In what reality??
Because you know, in this one, it was '500 points of free transports, place all units inside, then pray to Emperor the Eldar/Tau/Mechanicus conclave won't manage to blast you off the board in 6 turns (even thought it often happened) and you somehow manage to squeak a win by camping objectives'. And please, anyone who thinks Riptidewing (something so broken even Eldar allied it in) or infinite drone recycling that hid off the board in opponents turn was in any way OK (instead of being one of the worst, most broken, garbage trash mechanics in the entire 30 year history of the game) is so far divorced from any semblance of balance the opinion is not only instantly discardeable, but also very strong indicator that something completely opposite to it was the truth instead. And these two were far from the only broken stuff Tau could do, to the point that even if you deleted that gak Tau would be still stronger than everyone but Eldar...
Aenar wrote: "Space Marines were at the bottom for so long", and other jokes you can tell yourself Have I been the only one to see invisible deathstars and free (FREE!) transports, or was it all a dream?
The only joke here is the entitlement of xeno players who think being broken junk twice as strong as everyone else is natural, balanced state of things
The invisible death star that could never catch most eldar/tau units, relied on single gimmick Eldar could dispel/Tau could shot off the board instantly despite invisibility - that one? Death star that was way weaker than seerstar or Tau off-table drones? Never mind LOW of both factions? The free transports that bought SMhalf a turn before either faction could table them with laughable ease?
I have no idea how weak or biased memory you need of something that happened just 3 years ago, but please, nothing in SM book came in any way near eldar jetbikes/aspects or broken Tau suits, and that's before considering ""balanced"" riptidewing with allied eldar knights/psykers to boost them to autowin levels, no matter what opponent did...
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I see we're on to the part in the narrative where the fact that Space Marines of all types that weren't Deathwatch had sub-40% winrates for months is swept under the rug.
This is simply a lie. Ultras had above 50%, for example and just off the top of my head.
For the love of god, stahp. The constant derailing of threads into whinging about marines getting more than the other factions is getting so old. We know. Let’s move on, please. This has been going on for like 5 pages now.
