If you love iconic units like Ravenwing Black Knights, you’ll love this update – these plasma-toting bringers of vengeance, for instance, have been dropped from 38 to 34 points.
Grey Knights are another set of Space Marines who’ve seen some significant reductions, across both characters and core units that every army uses. A member of a Strike Squad now costs, on average, a mere 17 points per model after you’ve kitted them out, while their Terminator counterparts will now come to around 35 points a model.
You can look forward to some less-seen units finding new niches. Triarch Praetorians, for instance, have seen a chunky reduction of 26 to 20 points when armed with rods of covenant, or 22 points when armed with voidblades and particle casters.
A number of options that our playtesters found were consistently overperforming have had their points nudged up. At 150 points, the Crimson Hunter Exarch remains a great choice, but is less of an “auto-include” – as is the Razorwing Jetfighter, now at 115 points.
So while I agree the CHE going up 15pts takes it out of "auto-include" territory, it does kind eff-up all my lists which do include 1 CHE as a mandatory 3rd Flyer for my detachment.
Everything in my list is pared down so much, I hardly have anything to drop for those points. Back to the drawing board
GK points reductions are basically worthless at this point as they are so far behind the curve as to be a negative in any army.
And hey, remember those units literally no one used? Guess what, now they are slightly less worthless.
I think the problem here is that dropping GK points is pretty much all they will do in a CA, the GK need a complete overhaul and that’s really only going to happen with a new codex.
GK points reductions are basically worthless at this point as they are so far behind the curve as to be a negative in any army.
And hey, remember those units literally no one used? Guess what, now they are slightly less worthless.
It's a 20% reduction. That's pretty huge. 15 points for a marine with a force weapon and a +1 cast / +1 deny (and then +2 for SB). Then add whatever they get in PA.
Daedalus81 wrote: It's a 20% reduction. That's pretty huge. 15 points for a marine with a force weapon and a +1 cast / +1 deny (and then +2 for SB). Then add whatever they get in PA.
'But the ship has already hit the Space Marine iceberg sir!'
Hrmm, a second book with all points values, not just adjusted ones. that's kind of a neat idea, though I wonder if it'll increase the cost much. CAs tend to have so little meat in them I might be interested in just the points value book.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Hrmm, a second book with all points values, not just adjusted ones. that's kind of a neat idea, though I wonder if it'll increase the cost much. CAs tend to have so little meat in them I might be interested in just the points value book.
The package of books is the same cost as the previous single book, only change is that they are 2 books now instead of 1, and now it will list all of the points.
GK points reductions are basically worthless at this point as they are so far behind the curve as to be a negative in any army.
And hey, remember those units literally no one used? Guess what, now they are slightly less worthless.
I think the problem here is that dropping GK points is pretty much all they will do in a CA, the GK need a complete overhaul and that’s really only going to happen with a new codex.
CSM expected to be fixed with a new codex too, then 2.0 released...
GK points reductions are basically worthless at this point as they are so far behind the curve as to be a negative in any army.
And hey, remember those units literally no one used? Guess what, now they are slightly less worthless.
I think the problem here is that dropping GK points is pretty much all they will do in a CA, the GK need a complete overhaul and that’s really only going to happen with a new codex.
CSM expected to be fixed with a new codex too, then 2.0 released...
Didn’t say a new codex would fix them just that points changes aren’t enough to fix GK so CA isn’t their answer, though it might help a little.
TheAvengingKnee wrote: Didn’t say a new codex would fix them just that points changes aren’t enough to fix GK so CA isn’t their answer, though it might help a little.
But CA COULD be used to fix GKs. A few points drops here and there, then give all GK units 1 simple ability for free: Psybolt Ammo. DW have SIA, Vanilla Marines have Combat Doctrines. So we have officially reached the point in which GKs should have Psybolt Ammo as standard on all units and not just a once pre turn, only 1 unit stratagem.
TheAvengingKnee wrote: Didn’t say a new codex would fix them just that points changes aren’t enough to fix GK so CA isn’t their answer, though it might help a little.
But CA COULD be used to fix GKs. A few points drops here and there, then give all GK units 1 simple ability for free: Psybolt Ammo. DW have SIA, Vanilla Marines have Combat Doctrines. So we have officially reached the point in which GKs should have Psybolt Ammo as standard on all units and not just a once pre turn, only 1 unit stratagem.
-
If they were going to do that they would do it in the GKPA not CA, I do hope the CA points changes make them at least friendly game playable though and that they get some more buffs soon.
It's a "bottom-tier army gets points reductions and people think that means something even though it doesn't because the other factions got points drops too" episode.
GK points reductions are basically worthless at this point as they are so far behind the curve as to be a negative in any army.
And hey, remember those units literally no one used? Guess what, now they are slightly less worthless.
It's chapter approved. It's about point changes. And isn't making units nobody uses at least slightly less worthless sort of the point?
If you were expecting CA to rewrite half the codexes in the game here...that's kinda on you.
Except, if you use FW, then feth you, so far
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BlaxicanX wrote: It's a "bottom-tier army gets points reductions and people think that means something even though it doesn't because the other factions got points drops too" episode.
well, we haven't seen all of it.
Yet. but considering the last one's were of that calibre that could happen.
I mean the feedback was preety clear on the PA2 side.
I mean the chorus of no fixed legion traits MUST'VE been Realized by now.
Then again GW is good at ignoring thins like these issues, hence why GK got no decent pricecut for such a long period of time. (not to mention FW armies )
I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I suspect that they didn't go far enough with points adjustments similar to CA:2017 and CA:2018.
The Eldar flyers definitely needed a points increase, but I don't think 150 is enough. I'm curious to see if the Wave Serpent is affected. It's wargear needs to be tripled at the very least.
TheAvengingKnee wrote: I liking the generic chaos marine points drop, the daemon prince w/ wings point drop and the war dog point drop, this will help my CSM list a bunch.
Not a fan of the wardog ones,
It steps heavily on the feet of dreadnoughts and certain daemonengines?
Alas we have not seen what happened to FW yet, but if last one is an indication that won't be a good thing this time aswel..
TheAvengingKnee wrote: I liking the generic chaos marine points drop, the daemon prince w/ wings point drop and the war dog point drop, this will help my CSM list a bunch.
Not a fan of the wardog ones,
It steps heavily on the feet of dreadnoughts and certain daemonengines?
Alas we have not seen what happened to FW yet, but if last one is an indication that won't be a good thing this time aswel..
I can see that, I’m not a fan of the forge fiend/ mauler fiend models so I use war dogs in their place in lists, I swapped out the legs with the ones from the onagar dunecrawler, they look nice and chaosy that way, still working on the conversion though.
TheAvengingKnee wrote: I liking the generic chaos marine points drop, the daemon prince w/ wings point drop and the war dog point drop, this will help my CSM list a bunch.
Not a fan of the wardog ones,
It steps heavily on the feet of dreadnoughts and certain daemonengines?
Alas we have not seen what happened to FW yet, but if last one is an indication that won't be a good thing this time aswel..
I can see that, I’m not a fan of the forge fiend/ mauler fiend models so I use war dogs in their place in lists, I swapped out the legs with the ones from the onagar dunecrawler, they look nice and chaosy that way, still working on the conversion though.
Oh i love the amirigers for conversions aswell, but imo instead of bringing them down, let there be a place for stuff like Hellbrutes, dreads and decimators for chaos.
This is my core issue with it, but as i said we have not seen what happened to these yet, so wait and drink coffee.
Alas we now know that AP-1 on a MEQ is about 1 pts accordingly to gw, what with CSM now beeing 11 pts, whilest tac marines are no 12.
TheAvengingKnee wrote: I liking the generic chaos marine points drop, the daemon prince w/ wings point drop and the war dog point drop, this will help my CSM list a bunch.
Not a fan of the wardog ones,
It steps heavily on the feet of dreadnoughts and certain daemonengines?
Alas we have not seen what happened to FW yet, but if last one is an indication that won't be a good thing this time aswel..
I can see that, I’m not a fan of the forge fiend/ mauler fiend models so I use war dogs in their place in lists, I swapped out the legs with the ones from the onagar dunecrawler, they look nice and chaosy that way, still working on the conversion though.
Oh i love the amirigers for conversions aswell, but imo instead of bringing them down, let there be a place for stuff like Hellbrutes, dreads and decimators for chaos.
This is my core issue with it, but as i said we have not seen what happened to these yet, so wait and drink coffee.
Alas we now know that AP-1 on a MEQ is about 1 pts accordingly to gw, what with CSM now beeing 11 pts, whilest tac marines are no 12.
One point is AP-1 in certain situations and much better rules.
Of course I bet GW thinks DttFE is a super dangerous rule and probably makes them worth it!
GK points reductions are basically worthless at this point as they are so far behind the curve as to be a negative in any army.
And hey, remember those units literally no one used? Guess what, now they are slightly less worthless.
It's a 20% reduction. That's pretty huge. 15 points for a marine with a force weapon and a +1 cast / +1 deny (and then +2 for SB). Then add whatever they get in PA.
An intercessor cost 17pts, and he has 2W and a better gun that always works at 24-30" and not 12". 35pts termintors cost twice as much as 2 intercessors, and that is half the fire power of two intercessors with half the wounds. Plus GK have access to a limited number of powers, gate on big unit, astral aim on something with a lascanon and a shield buff on a hero probably, after that those +1cast are used to cast 12" range 1MW smites. If somehow GK baby smite becomes a problem all marines will just start running master librarians with that 24" psychic hood.
But it is going to be interesting to see. My army is now 75pts extra from termintors and 20pts on strikes. 95pts, I don't know what to spend on. I do wonder if other armies are going to get big point drops like that too, or will GW just rise point costs for other armies. 2020 looks very interesting pre PA.
TheAvengingKnee wrote: I liking the generic chaos marine points drop, the daemon prince w/ wings point drop and the war dog point drop, this will help my CSM list a bunch.
Not a fan of the wardog ones,
It steps heavily on the feet of dreadnoughts and certain daemonengines?
Alas we have not seen what happened to FW yet, but if last one is an indication that won't be a good thing this time aswel..
I can see that, I’m not a fan of the forge fiend/ mauler fiend models so I use war dogs in their place in lists, I swapped out the legs with the ones from the onagar dunecrawler, they look nice and chaosy that way, still working on the conversion though.
Oh i love the amirigers for conversions aswell, but imo instead of bringing them down, let there be a place for stuff like Hellbrutes, dreads and decimators for chaos.
This is my core issue with it, but as i said we have not seen what happened to these yet, so wait and drink coffee.
Alas we now know that AP-1 on a MEQ is about 1 pts accordingly to gw, what with CSM now beeing 11 pts, whilest tac marines are no 12.
One point is AP-1 in certain situations and much better rules.
Of course I bet GW thinks DttFE is a super dangerous rule and probably makes them worth it!
I have remained without judgement, and will also ignore ATSKNF for Free and better traits, just baseline.
Atleast it is something comparatively. Yet since CSM are anyways just troop tax for the real heavy hitters i can't be mad really.
TheAvengingKnee wrote: Didn’t say a new codex would fix them just that points changes aren’t enough to fix GK so CA isn’t their answer, though it might help a little.
But CA COULD be used to fix GKs. A few points drops here and there, then give all GK units 1 simple ability for free: Psybolt Ammo. DW have SIA, Vanilla Marines have Combat Doctrines. So we have officially reached the point in which GKs should have Psybolt Ammo as standard on all units and not just a once pre turn, only 1 unit stratagem.
-
The same thing could be said for Skitarii Doctrina Imperatives, yet here we are.
Or Chimera Vox-Arrays.
oni wrote: The Eldar flyers definitely needed a points increase, but I don't think 150 is enough. I'm curious to see if the Wave Serpent is affected. It's wargear needs to be tripled at the very least.
Incremental changes are absolutely what they should be doing. a 15pt increase if good if other units, like the Serpent, also got 10-15ppm increase while at the same time, underperforming units, like Banshees, get decreases.
The net result is that BALANCED lists don't really change, but spammers have to make changes.
For Example, I have a casual list with 3x 5 CSM, but also 2x 15 Plague Bearers. As CSM are going down to 11ppm, and PBs are going to 8ppm (we assume), than in my particular list, I gained and lost 30pts, so it was a wash for me.
oni wrote: I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I suspect that they didn't go far enough with points adjustments similar to CA:2017 and CA:2018.
The Eldar flyers definitely needed a points increase, but I don't think 150 is enough. I'm curious to see if the Wave Serpent is affected. It's wargear needs to be tripled at the very least.
Thats just the base cost, 176 with Starcannons seems good but not overcosted or undercosted. If other units got a points drop I imagine we'll see the end of flyer spam anyway.
GK points reductions are basically worthless at this point as they are so far behind the curve as to be a negative in any army.
And hey, remember those units literally no one used? Guess what, now they are slightly less worthless.
It's a 20% reduction. That's pretty huge. 15 points for a marine with a force weapon and a +1 cast / +1 deny (and then +2 for SB). Then add whatever they get in PA.
An intercessor cost 17pts, and he has 2W and a better gun that always works at 24-30" and not 12". 35pts termintors cost twice as much as 2 intercessors, and that is half the fire power of two intercessors with half the wounds. Plus GK have access to a limited number of powers, gate on big unit, astral aim on something with a lascanon and a shield buff on a hero probably, after that those +1cast are used to cast 12" range 1MW smites. If somehow GK baby smite becomes a problem all marines will just start running master librarians with that 24" psychic hood.
But it is going to be interesting to see. My army is now 75pts extra from termintors and 20pts on strikes. 95pts, I don't know what to spend on. I do wonder if other armies are going to get big point drops like that too, or will GW just rise point costs for other armies. 2020 looks very interesting pre PA.
Primaris do not deepstrike or have force weapons or cast and deny with a +1 and do half the shots (better AP). Falchion GKs come down with as many attacks as Primaris. It seems like a pretty decent trade-off.
Yes, GK need spells, but I'm fairly optimistic that the "Psychic" part of PA might do that.
Crimson Hunter is a meta-delayed nerf. It was expected, but with Marines out and about, they aren't that hot anymore and probably could've used a point drop instead.
Before any other changes, this should add 124 points of room to the Militarum Tempestus army I’m making. More room and such and models to buy and paint, but I still like it.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Crimson Hunter is a meta-delayed nerf. It was expected, but with Marines out and about, they aren't that hot anymore and probably could've used a point drop instead.
Well it is one more squad. My army will get 95pts. for that I can get 5 GK strikes and have 10pts left over to buy extra gear, if GK ever get stuff that costs that much and is worth taking. So it is improvment .
Part of me wants to be excited. The other part remembers last year's CA. Poorly performing factions got some good focus then (such as Grey Knights) and it didn't really have any impact. I'm sceptical, but there are more things to be seen.
Daedalus81 wrote: A 2 point drop basically gives every 5 man CSM squad a free PG or AC. I'm not going to waste that opportunity.
You're right, that brings up four very important questions.
Yeah?
And?
So?
What?
Because.
Pew Pew.
Apple.
Pie.
I get that you think CSM wouldn't be fixed unless they were like... 8 points compared to current marines, but we all know that isn't sane or practical.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Darsath wrote: Part of me wants to be excited. The other part remembers last year's CA. Poorly performing factions got some good focus then (such as Grey Knights) and it didn't really have any impact. I'm sceptical, but there are more things to be seen.
Last time GK got a lot of character and weapon drops. The is the first time they're getting drops to Troops, so it won't make them meta, but the extra bodies might make them a little less helpless...barring the other marines
We haven't seen much yet, obviously. We don't know most of the big changes, or the context of how these changes match up with everything else. Just a reminder to remember last year's CA changes when reflecting on what is shown.
oni wrote: The Eldar flyers definitely needed a points increase, but I don't think 150 is enough. I'm curious to see if the Wave Serpent is affected. It's wargear needs to be tripled at the very least.
Incremental changes are absolutely what they should be doing. a 15pt increase if good if other units, like the Serpent, also got 10-15ppm increase while at the same time, underperforming units, like Banshees, get decreases.
The net result is that BALANCED lists don't really change, but spammers have to make changes.
For Example, I have a casual list with 3x 5 CSM, but also 2x 15 Plague Bearers. As CSM are going down to 11ppm, and PBs are going to 8ppm (we assume), than in my particular list, I gained and lost 30pts, so it was a wash for me.
-
Here's hoping.
My single Razorwing has gone up 10 points, but my nine Reavers are down three each....fingers crossed they don't hike my three up Talos too much...
I’d rather they bump the points on good units than drop the points on bad ones. Plus, it seems that every faction will get drops, so it’s not like any one faction is going to get all that far ahead of others (though maybe some will, but I dunno). All we’ve done is add more models to both sides for the same points. At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if a 1500 pt game now would be comparable in size to a 2000 pt game at the start of 8th.
Daedalus81 wrote: I get that you think CSM wouldn't be fixed unless they were like... 8 points compared to current marines, but we all know that isn't sane or practical.
No, actually, the fact that they dropped them to 11 indicates that no significant changes will be coming down the pipe for a long time. So this is it. Welcome to Chaos 2.0.
Chaos 2.0 cannot line up against their loyalist counterparts, period. It is an exercise in futility. The entire marine vs marine meta is over.
Chaos from here on out will not use marines, it will be janky soup lists that leverage cultists and daemons to deliver characters. I'm sure there will be a couple competitive lists in there, probably even some stuff that places at tournament. But the ~150 CSM models I have in my cabinet, I might as well turn them into ornaments to hang from the Christmas tree, they're done.
11 ppm Chaos marines will be good or not depending on the outcome of one of TWO rumours:
Rumour A - Cultists are going down to 4 ppm. If this is true, the minimum points costs of cultists will go down to 40 points, while Chaos Space Marine minimum will be 55 points. As such, Cultists would still be the preferred choice.
Rumour B - Guardsmen go up to 5 ppm (Cultists unchanged). If this is true, then the minimum points costs of cultists will remain unchanged at 50 points, only 5 points cheaper than the minimum squad of Chaos Space Marines. For 5 points, the benefits of the Chaos Space Marines starts becoming real; equal number of attacks in close combat that are higher strength and higher accuracy, much better armour, better morale, better weapon options.
Dandelion wrote: I’d rather they bump the points on good units than drop the points on bad ones. Plus, it seems that every faction will get drops, so it’s not like any one faction is going to get all that far ahead of others (though maybe some will, but I dunno). All we’ve done is add more models to both sides for the same points. At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if a 1500 pt game now would be comparable in size to a 2000 pt game at the start of 8th.
I understand the sentiment, but I'd rather the opposite.
I play 1500 games, and there isn't much fat in the lists to accomodate points hikes, particularly as I don't have many 'alternative options' in my Drukhari codex.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: None of this really changes the calculus for CSM. They still won't see the table.
It's almost as though GW doesn't get the issues with the codex they fething wrote.
A 2 point drop basically gives every 5 man CSM squad a free PG or AC. I'm not going to waste that opportunity.
You probably SHOULD waste it. A single Autocannon or Plasma Gun per 5 man squads is awful for weapon saturation. They're still awful models at 11 points, especially with non updates to their rules.
Also that still doesn't buy them a Chaincannon which is the best weapon for a min squad so they can do something meaningful.
Daedalus81 wrote: I get that you think CSM wouldn't be fixed unless they were like... 8 points compared to current marines, but we all know that isn't sane or practical.
No, actually, the fact that they dropped them to 11 indicates that no significant changes will be coming down the pipe for a long time. So this is it. Welcome to Chaos 2.0.
Chaos 2.0 cannot line up against their loyalist counterparts, period. It is an exercise in futility. The entire marine vs marine meta is over.
Chaos from here on out will not use marines, it will be janky soup lists that leverage cultists and daemons to deliver characters. I'm sure there will be a couple competitive lists in there, probably even some stuff that places at tournament. But the ~150 CSM models I have in my cabinet, I might as well turn them into ornaments to hang from the Christmas tree, they're done.
Sure, that's fair. I can't see people really running blobs of CSM, but I don't think much changes that, because they're bolter bois and nothing is charging Centurions, really.
As it stands now though it is 285 for a min battalion for 8 CP, which I think it even more efficient than what IS can do.
Point drops to weak units rather than hikes for powerful units has simple reason. Money. Price drops=more models can be sold. Hike=people need less models.
Just as always CA is just way to sell more models. Balance and good of game are secondary(or rather tertiary) considerations
Yarium wrote: 11 ppm Chaos marines will be good or not depending on the outcome of one of TWO rumours:
Rumour A - Cultists are going down to 4 ppm. If this is true, the minimum points costs of cultists will go down to 40 points, while Chaos Space Marine minimum will be 55 points. As such, Cultists would still be the preferred choice.
Rumour B - Guardsmen go up to 5 ppm (Cultists unchanged). If this is true, then the minimum points costs of cultists will remain unchanged at 50 points, only 5 points cheaper than the minimum squad of Chaos Space Marines. For 5 points, the benefits of the Chaos Space Marines starts becoming real; equal number of attacks in close combat that are higher strength and higher accuracy, much better armour, better morale, better weapon options.
I'm hoping Rumour B is true.
You're still going to take Cultists in scenario B because you claiming the shooting is better or the melee is better is not true for the price. 5-10 Bolter shots at BS3+ is worse than 10-20 Las shots at BS4+, and I can add the Heavy Stubber without even breaking that price point!
Daedalus81 wrote: I get that you think CSM wouldn't be fixed unless they were like... 8 points compared to current marines, but we all know that isn't sane or practical.
No, actually, the fact that they dropped them to 11 indicates that no significant changes will be coming down the pipe for a long time. So this is it. Welcome to Chaos 2.0.
Chaos 2.0 cannot line up against their loyalist counterparts, period. It is an exercise in futility. The entire marine vs marine meta is over.
Chaos from here on out will not use marines, it will be janky soup lists that leverage cultists and daemons to deliver characters. I'm sure there will be a couple competitive lists in there, probably even some stuff that places at tournament. But the ~150 CSM models I have in my cabinet, I might as well turn them into ornaments to hang from the Christmas tree, they're done.
Sure, that's fair. I can't see people really running blobs of CSM, but I don't think much changes that, because they're bolter bois and nothing is charging Centurions, really.
As it stands now though it is 285 for a min battalion for 8 CP, which I think it even more efficient than what IS can do.
At 11 pts you can do some shenanigans at lower point levels if you go full nuts with them. (RC, slaanesh,)
But that is heavy skew territorry.
Dandelion wrote: I’d rather they bump the points on good units than drop the points on bad ones. Plus, it seems that every faction will get drops, so it’s not like any one faction is going to get all that far ahead of others (though maybe some will, but I dunno). All we’ve done is add more models to both sides for the same points. At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if a 1500 pt game now would be comparable in size to a 2000 pt game at the start of 8th.
I understand the sentiment, but I'd rather the opposite.
I play 1500 games, and there isn't much fat in the lists to accomodate points hikes, particularly as I don't have many 'alternative options' in my Drukhari codex.
You can always adjust the point limit. If things go up, but you want to take the same units then you can play 1750 pts. The inverse is not so true, there is a hard limit as to how cheap you can make things, ie 0. The closer you get to 0 the less room there is for balancing units.
Hypothetically, if all the points in the game doubled, would you play at 1500 pts or 3000 pts?
Yarium wrote: 11 ppm Chaos marines will be good or not depending on the outcome of one of TWO rumours:
Rumour A - Cultists are going down to 4 ppm. If this is true, the minimum points costs of cultists will go down to 40 points, while Chaos Space Marine minimum will be 55 points. As such, Cultists would still be the preferred choice.
Rumour B - Guardsmen go up to 5 ppm (Cultists unchanged). If this is true, then the minimum points costs of cultists will remain unchanged at 50 points, only 5 points cheaper than the minimum squad of Chaos Space Marines. For 5 points, the benefits of the Chaos Space Marines starts becoming real; equal number of attacks in close combat that are higher strength and higher accuracy, much better armour, better morale, better weapon options.
I'm hoping Rumour B is true.
You're still going to take Cultists in scenario B because you claiming the shooting is better or the melee is better is not true for the price. 5-10 Bolter shots at BS3+ is worse than 10-20 Las shots at BS4+, and I can add the Heavy Stubber without even breaking that price point!
Because shots are all that matters?
5 T4 2+ wounds in cover versus 10 T3 5+ wounds? Not to mention you won't ever get those 20 shots until 12".
Nevermind that 5 bolter shots and 10 autoguns do:
2.2 vs 2.5 wounds to T3
1.7 vs 1.7 wounds to T4
1.1 vs 0.8 wounds to T7
Seems like a pretty narrow space to be "better". So, maybe you'll edge it out with a heavy stubber...that is heavy and will hit on 5s... And realistically speaking the CSM will be double those numbers more often.
For CP fueling you'd still take Cultists most likely.
And CP is really the lifeblood if you play mono CSM.
So even if CSM would be better i'd assume you'd still use cultists if you end up cheaper, for more hammer units and threat saturation.
Otoh, it's atleast nice that gw aknoledged that CSM are worse then Vanilla SM:
Daedalus81 wrote: Seems like a pretty narrow space to be "better". So, maybe you'll edge it out with a heavy stubber...that is heavy and will hit on 5s... And realistically speaking the CSM will be double those numbers more often.
It's not about the shooting at this point. It's about paying for something that doesn't perform, whether it be Cultists or Marines. If I'm going to pay a troop tax for something that just sits on an objective and dies I might as well pay for Cultists.
Daedalus81 wrote: Seems like a pretty narrow space to be "better". So, maybe you'll edge it out with a heavy stubber...that is heavy and will hit on 5s... And realistically speaking the CSM will be double those numbers more often.
It's not about the shooting at this point. It's about paying for something that doesn't perform, whether it be Cultists or Marines. If I'm going to pay a troop tax for something that just sits on an objective and dies I might as well pay for Cultists.
Preety much, also there's still the fact that stratagems prefer big units for baseline CSM units.
Daedalus81 wrote: Seems like a pretty narrow space to be "better". So, maybe you'll edge it out with a heavy stubber...that is heavy and will hit on 5s... And realistically speaking the CSM will be double those numbers more often.
It's not about the shooting at this point. It's about paying for something that doesn't perform, whether it be Cultists or Marines. If I'm going to pay a troop tax for something that just sits on an objective and dies I might as well pay for Cultists.
Preety much, also there's still the fact that stratagems prefer big units for baseline CSM units.
Which in that case the Strats are better used on Elite units rather than the base troop.
Yarium wrote: 11 ppm Chaos marines will be good or not depending on the outcome of one of TWO rumours:
Rumour A - Cultists are going down to 4 ppm. If this is true, the minimum points costs of cultists will go down to 40 points, while Chaos Space Marine minimum will be 55 points. As such, Cultists would still be the preferred choice.
Rumour B - Guardsmen go up to 5 ppm (Cultists unchanged). If this is true, then the minimum points costs of cultists will remain unchanged at 50 points, only 5 points cheaper than the minimum squad of Chaos Space Marines. For 5 points, the benefits of the Chaos Space Marines starts becoming real; equal number of attacks in close combat that are higher strength and higher accuracy, much better armour, better morale, better weapon options.
I'm hoping Rumour B is true.
You're still going to take Cultists in scenario B because you claiming the shooting is better or the melee is better is not true for the price. 5-10 Bolter shots at BS3+ is worse than 10-20 Las shots at BS4+, and I can add the Heavy Stubber without even breaking that price point!
Because shots are all that matters?
5 T4 2+ wounds in cover versus 10 T3 5+ wounds? Not to mention you won't ever get those 20 shots until 12".
Nevermind that 5 bolter shots and 10 autoguns do:
2.2 vs 2.5 wounds to T3
1.7 vs 1.7 wounds to T4
1.1 vs 0.8 wounds to T7
Seems like a pretty narrow space to be "better". So, maybe you'll edge it out with a heavy stubber...that is heavy and will hit on 5s... And realistically speaking the CSM will be double those numbers more often.
When people are gonna point AP-1 through on, or just ignore cover because Imperial Fists and Iron Warriors? Yeah I'm not buying it.
Also if you're camping an objective it's unlikely you need to move with the Heavy Stubber, which is already 36" for range.
No you're trying too hard to justify Chaos Marines are somehow worth the cost. They're REALLY not worth it even at 11 points.
Daedalus81 wrote: Seems like a pretty narrow space to be "better". So, maybe you'll edge it out with a heavy stubber...that is heavy and will hit on 5s... And realistically speaking the CSM will be double those numbers more often.
It's not about the shooting at this point. It's about paying for something that doesn't perform, whether it be Cultists or Marines. If I'm going to pay a troop tax for something that just sits on an objective and dies I might as well pay for Cultists.
Preety much, also there's still the fact that stratagems prefer big units for baseline CSM units.
If you're setting on an objective wouldn't it be better to be T4 2+ and LD8 over T3 5+ and LD6?
Daedalus81 wrote: Seems like a pretty narrow space to be "better". So, maybe you'll edge it out with a heavy stubber...that is heavy and will hit on 5s... And realistically speaking the CSM will be double those numbers more often.
It's not about the shooting at this point. It's about paying for something that doesn't perform, whether it be Cultists or Marines. If I'm going to pay a troop tax for something that just sits on an objective and dies I might as well pay for Cultists.
Preety much, also there's still the fact that stratagems prefer big units for baseline CSM units.
If you're setting on an objective wouldn't it be better to be T4 2+ and LD8 over T3 5+ and LD6?
If we're talking units standing still the Cultists get 10 S3 and 3 S4. The CSM get 10 S4 at a better BS. It doesn't seem like a distinction worth being concerned about.
If we're talking units standing still the Cultists get 10 S3 and 3 S4. The CSM get 10 S4 at a better BS. It doesn't seem like a distinction worth being concerned about.
So if they're standing still, why is the Heavy Stubber moving in your previous scenario? If they're standing still, why pay more for only 24" of effectiveness?
And if we're just clearing units like in your first sentence, why pay more?
More importantly, why are you trying to justify a bad unit just like you did with Warp Talons before? Is it hard to accept some units are just useless and that's the end of it?
Dandelion wrote: I’d rather they bump the points on good units than drop the points on bad ones. Plus, it seems that every faction will get drops, so it’s not like any one faction is going to get all that far ahead of others (though maybe some will, but I dunno). All we’ve done is add more models to both sides for the same points. At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if a 1500 pt game now would be comparable in size to a 2000 pt game at the start of 8th.
I understand the sentiment, but I'd rather the opposite.
I play 1500 games, and there isn't much fat in the lists to accomodate points hikes, particularly as I don't have many 'alternative options' in my Drukhari codex.
You can always adjust the point limit. If things go up, but you want to take the same units then you can play 1750 pts. The inverse is not so true, there is a hard limit as to how cheap you can make things, ie 0. The closer you get to 0 the less room there is for balancing units.
Hypothetically, if all the points in the game doubled, would you play at 1500 pts or 3000 pts?
I don't play in a vacuum, I play at the points limit of my local scene, so I can't just choose to play 1650 instead.
Karol wrote: Well it is one more squad. My army will get 95pts. for that I can get 5 GK strikes and have 10pts left over to buy extra gear, if GK ever get stuff that costs that much and is worth taking. So it is improvment .
Its an improvement but not enough to compare them with SM / Primaris.
Regarding the Daemon Prince decrease, I certainly hope this applies to ALL datasheets of Daemon Princes whether CSM, Tson or DG. The precedent was set in the last FAQ that these 3 are all the same Datasheet for the purposes of the Ro3.
It would be counter to that FAQ to give each a different points cost if they are "all the same datasheet"
Daedalus81 wrote: If you're setting on an objective wouldn't it be better to be T4 2+ and LD8 over T3 5+ and LD6?
You're not counting on their durability, you're counting on forcing your opponent to focus on other things. If they want your obsec dead, the difference in effort to remove Cultists vs Marines is negligible.
Daedalus81 wrote: If you're setting on an objective wouldn't it be better to be T4 2+ and LD8 over T3 5+ and LD6?
You're not counting on their durability, you're counting on forcing your opponent to focus on other things. If they want your obsec dead, the difference in effort to remove Cultists vs Marines is negligible.
Not neglieble but considering how brittle csm armies are...
Daemon Princes should probably all be the same, though ideally they lock psychic powers to Codexes as they did with Eldar (e.g. a Thousand Son's warptime or null zone only benefits other Thousand Sons, etc..).
Galef wrote: Regarding the Daemon Prince decrease, I certainly hope this applies to ALL datasheets of Daemon Princes whether CSM, Tson or DG. The precedent was set in the last FAQ that these 3 are all the same Datasheet for the purposes of the Ro3.
It would be counter to that FAQ to give each a different points cost if they are "all the same datasheet"
They aren't and certainly DG and ts ones don't need it compared to the others.
Karol wrote: Well it is one more squad. My army will get 95pts. for that I can get 5 GK strikes and have 10pts left over to buy extra gear, if GK ever get stuff that costs that much and is worth taking. So it is improvment .
Its an improvement but not enough to compare them with SM / Primaris.
I do not know that. It is a free squad. I will ask the shop owner if he still has the 5 man strike squad for sale. If I don't buy the CA, I could buy them.
Fingers crossed that Terminators of all stripes get another reduction and Aggressors get bumped up. Assault Centurions are too cheap now as well, and I can't believe I'm saying that.
The base-line Predator has no business being more expensive than a Vindicator.
Reivers ... really can't come down in price any, and price isn't their problem in the first place. Being a troop profile in the Elite slot with no weapon upgrades to make them worth using is their problem.
The Leman Russ Demolisher needs a bump. I don't begrudge them the updated Demo Cannon so much, but double-tapping with that gun for less than a regular Russ is barking insanity.
All of the Daemon troop choices are over-priced.
The basic Custodian Guard and Wardens are over-priced. So is the Contemptor dread.
Dandelion wrote: I’d rather they bump the points on good units than drop the points on bad ones. Plus, it seems that every faction will get drops, so it’s not like any one faction is going to get all that far ahead of others (though maybe some will, but I dunno). All we’ve done is add more models to both sides for the same points. At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if a 1500 pt game now would be comparable in size to a 2000 pt game at the start of 8th.
I understand the sentiment, but I'd rather the opposite.
I play 1500 games, and there isn't much fat in the lists to accomodate points hikes, particularly as I don't have many 'alternative options' in my Drukhari codex.
You can always adjust the point limit. If things go up, but you want to take the same units then you can play 1750 pts. The inverse is not so true, there is a hard limit as to how cheap you can make things, ie 0. The closer you get to 0 the less room there is for balancing units.
Hypothetically, if all the points in the game doubled, would you play at 1500 pts or 3000 pts?
I don't play in a vacuum, I play at the points limit of my local scene, so I can't just choose to play 1650 instead.
Couldn’t you talk to whoever decides the point limits then? If everything went up in points, I’m sure he or she would be open to the suggestion. I mean, 1500 points is just as arbitrary as 1790 pts, the only difference is how big of a game you want.
Daedalus81 wrote: Seems like a pretty narrow space to be "better". So, maybe you'll edge it out with a heavy stubber...that is heavy and will hit on 5s... And realistically speaking the CSM will be double those numbers more often.
It's not about the shooting at this point. It's about paying for something that doesn't perform, whether it be Cultists or Marines. If I'm going to pay a troop tax for something that just sits on an objective and dies I might as well pay for Cultists.
Preety much, also there's still the fact that stratagems prefer big units for baseline CSM units.
If you're setting on an objective wouldn't it be better to be T4 2+ and LD8 over T3 5+ and LD6?
Not for the price and for lower offensive output.
The offense is actually a lot higher. 12" rapid fire rarely happens. The melle is also significantly in the CSM favor as well - so at short range the lack of ranged damage is made up for in melle. at 5/11 there is basically no reason to take a cultist over a CSMimo.
So basically gw is just saying that csm are inferior to loyalist marines? The fact that they're cheaper means gw has no plans on giving them better rules in comparison to loyalists.
So there you go. Fought in the hh. Survived 10000 years in the eye of terror. Not as good as thin blooded 20 umpteenth founding loyalists.
It's even worse when you look at the new ba rules coming in pa3. Gw has a definite bias.
Really hoping standard CSMs and Chosen get a point decrease, along with Obliterators and Cult Marines, they just all seem too expensive for what they do.
Gadzilla666 wrote: So basically gw is just saying that csm are inferior to loyalist marines? The fact that they're cheaper means gw has no plans on giving them better rules in comparison to loyalists.
So there you go. Fought in the hh. Survived 10000 years in the eye of terror. Not as good as thin blooded 20 umpteenth founding loyalists.
It's even worse when you look at the new ba rules coming in pa3. Gw has a definite bias.
The Newman wrote: Fingers crossed that Terminators of all stripes get another reduction and Aggressors get bumped up. Assault Centurions are too cheap now as well, and I can't believe I'm saying that.
The base-line Predator has no business being more expensive than a Vindicator.
Reivers ... really can't come down in price any, and price isn't their problem in the first place. Being a troop profile in the Elite slot with no weapon upgrades to make them worth using is their problem.
The Leman Russ Demolisher needs a bump. I don't begrudge them the updated Demo Cannon so much, but double-tapping with that gun for less than a regular Russ is barking insanity.
All of the Daemon troop choices are over-priced.
The basic Custodian Guard and Wardens are over-priced. So is the Contemptor dread.
Min assualt cent squad is comparable in cost to a redemptor dread.
They move half as fast.
They have less range
Less wounds
Less toughness
A +1 save
Way more attacks
Way more total shots of less quality.
They are perfectly balanced when you compare them to a redemptor. Know what they aren't auto include when they can't deep strike into opponents face? Because you will NEVER use their CC stats without spamming the unit. Assault cents are just too slow to use. It is the stratagems and warlord traits that make them broken - so remove those.
Dev cents are actually overcosted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: So basically gw is just saying that csm are inferior to loyalist marines? The fact that they're cheaper means gw has no plans on giving them better rules in comparison to loyalists.
So there you go. Fought in the hh. Survived 10000 years in the eye of terror. Not as good as thin blooded 20 umpteenth founding loyalists.
It's even worse when you look at the new ba rules coming in pa3. Gw has a definite bias.
CSM have been driven mad with hatred and daemonic influences. It certainly decreases their abilities compared fresh marines who are much better supplied and stoic and can control themselves better. Something I'd like to see is the ability to take a chainsword for 1 point on their standard bolter CSM in addition. This way wed have them costing the same with the SM unit shooting better (on turn 2 maybe) and the CSM assaulting better (on turn 2 maybe). Would be perfectly fair.
Xenomancers wrote: Spiky 17 went down 30 points. That is a big deal. Or basically you get free autocannons on all your 5 man marine units.
Again, you're better served by Cultists so you can get weapons and units that actually kill stuff.
55 points compared to 50 is pretty much nothing. ESP if you are getting +3 CP for that detachment. They survive better - and they also shoot better if stationary. Also getting benefit from traits. If Alpha legion (seems to be another good choice) they are MUCH more survivable than cultists.
I will say, the ineffectiveness of the standard Chaos Space Marine compared to the standard Loyalist Space Marine is really stupid, and doesn't make much sense.
Xenomancers wrote: 55 points compared to 50 is pretty much nothing. ESP if you are getting +3 CP for that detachment. They survive better - and they also shoot better if stationary. Also getting benefit from traits. If Alpha legion (seems to be another good choice) they are MUCH more survivable than cultists.
RC is the *only* situation where that math works, and that assumes the rumor about cultists going back to 4ppm is false, which, if true, shoots that whole theory in the foot.
More importantly, why are you trying to justify a bad unit just like you did with Warp Talons before? Is it hard to accept some units are just useless and that's the end of it?
LOL, ok.
Let's play a game. Below are two tables. Each has a set of data for one of 3 units (Cultists, CSM, and Bolt Rifle Primaris). No traits or bonuses. These units are all the same total price (5 point cultists, 11 CSM, 17 primaris). Any fractional models are still counted, so 3.2 Primaris would get 3.2 and 6.4 shots respectively. Each mode is a different position within the battlefield (i.e. RF range, moving, etc).
The first table is damage dealt by the unit. Damage dealt numbers have been multiplied by a common factor to prevent backing into the result. Please rank the units A,B, and C as to which you think is best. Please also determine which you think is Cultist, CSM, and Primaris.
The second table is damage received by the unit. Please rank units D, E, and F as to which you think it best. Please also determine which you think is Cultist, CSM, and Primaris.
Darsath wrote: I will say, the ineffectiveness of the standard Chaos Space Marine compared to the standard Loyalist Space Marine is really stupid, and doesn't make much sense.
It's really not. It probably comes down to gear. Astartes are well supplied by the imperium. The dark mechanicus pales in comparison to the imperium. Ammo/optics are all much better for standard marines. Not to mention stable psychology. Standard astartes should be better soldiers than CSM. CSM should be better bezerkers.
As an Ork player, I'll just say that if you don't want 11ppm CSMs, I'll be happy to take that pricetag and stat line off your hands and slap it on my Nobz. :p
Xenomancers wrote: 55 points compared to 50 is pretty much nothing. ESP if you are getting +3 CP for that detachment. They survive better - and they also shoot better if stationary. Also getting benefit from traits. If Alpha legion (seems to be another good choice) they are MUCH more survivable than cultists.
RC is the *only* situation where that math works, and that assumes the rumor about cultists going back to 4ppm is false, which, if true, shoots that whole theory in the foot.
I don't believe the rumor. It's a win win ether way though. My black legion will be really happy with 50 points being saved on cultists.
The Newman wrote: Fingers crossed that Terminators of all stripes get another reduction and Aggressors get bumped up. Assault Centurions are too cheap now as well, and I can't believe I'm saying that.
The base-line Predator has no business being more expensive than a Vindicator.
Reivers ... really can't come down in price any, and price isn't their problem in the first place. Being a troop profile in the Elite slot with no weapon upgrades to make them worth using is their problem.
The Leman Russ Demolisher needs a bump. I don't begrudge them the updated Demo Cannon so much, but double-tapping with that gun for less than a regular Russ is barking insanity.
All of the Daemon troop choices are over-priced.
The basic Custodian Guard and Wardens are over-priced. So is the Contemptor dread.
Min assualt cent squad is comparable in cost to a redemptor dread.
They move half as fast.
They have less range
Less wounds
Less toughness
A +1 save
Way more attacks
Way more total shots of less quality.
They are perfectly balanced when you compare them to a redemptor. Know what they aren't auto include when they can't deep strike into opponents face? Because you will NEVER use their CC stats without spamming the unit. Assault cents are just too slow to use. It is the stratagems and warlord traits that make them broken - so remove those.
Dev cents are actually overcosted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: So basically gw is just saying that csm are inferior to loyalist marines? The fact that they're cheaper means gw has no plans on giving them better rules in comparison to loyalists.
So there you go. Fought in the hh. Survived 10000 years in the eye of terror. Not as good as thin blooded 20 umpteenth founding loyalists.
It's even worse when you look at the new ba rules coming in pa3. Gw has a definite bias.
CSM have been driven mad with hatred and daemonic influences. It certainly decreases their abilities compared fresh marines who are much better supplied and stoic and can control themselves better. Something I'd like to see is the ability to take a chainsword for 1 point on their standard bolter CSM in addition. This way wed have them costing the same with the SM unit shooting better (on turn 2 maybe) and the CSM assaulting better (on turn 2 maybe). Would be perfectly fair.
Oh give me a fething break. Crazier than death company? You're average flesh tearer? Carcharadons?
Even the purer legions like night lords or alpha legion?
I retract that assertion. They cost too much as min squads paying the troop tax, but I get the distinct impression that's not really what you should be doing with them.
Xenomancers wrote: Spiky 17 went down 30 points. That is a big deal. Or basically you get free autocannons on all your 5 man marine units.
Again, you're better served by Cultists so you can get weapons and units that actually kill stuff.
55 points compared to 50 is pretty much nothing. ESP if you are getting +3 CP for that detachment. They survive better - and they also shoot better if stationary. Also getting benefit from traits. If Alpha legion (seems to be another good choice) they are MUCH more survivable than cultists.
Only as Red Corsairs, which get no benefits of being a Legion.
Daedalus81 wrote: If you're setting on an objective wouldn't it be better to be T4 2+ and LD8 over T3 5+ and LD6?
You're not counting on their durability, you're counting on forcing your opponent to focus on other things. If they want your obsec dead, the difference in effort to remove Cultists vs Marines is negligible.
No, it is not negligible. If a repulsor rattles off all it's secondary and tertiary weapons (pod, icarus, 2 ihs, thb, hogc, 2 sb, 2 frag) at CSM in cover it kills 4.7 (so @ 18"). If it does the same to cultists in cover it kills 14.5, which is enough to kill two units with morale or to wipe a bigger unit.
So, of course, if we're looking at a singular scenario of whether or not a unit holds an objective and ignore the rest of the battle field then, yes, both these units die. But the nuance is that the CSM actually have a chance on the bell curve to survive and the cultists have none and, should the SM player be plucky, could wipe multiple cultist units.
The number of shots available in an army are finite. If that Repulsor does not direct all of the listed weapons at the CSM they have an even greater chance to survive. The cultists do not. In fact the HOGC and 2 IHS are enough to clear a 10 man of cultists assuming they're not willing to spend 2 CP on sticking, but then your exposure is super limited, because almost any gun can tackle straggling cultists where the same is not really true for CSM.
Galef wrote: Regarding the Daemon Prince decrease, I certainly hope this applies to ALL datasheets of Daemon Princes whether CSM, Tson or DG. The precedent was set in the last FAQ that these 3 are all the same Datasheet for the purposes of the Ro3.
It would be counter to that FAQ to give each a different points cost if they are "all the same datasheet"
They aren't and certainly DG and ts ones don't need it compared to the others.
Whether DG/Tsons need the decrease compared to the CSMDP or not is irrelevant. They can't be the same, yet pay different points. The addition of Faction traits, relics, Psychic powers, etc is what makes them fit into their respective Codices, and are basically just added on to the existing model. It's no different than taking an UM Captain and a Salamander Captain in the same list. The both play differently due to their Chapters, but they are both Captains
To give them different costs should also mean they are treated as different datasheets in ALL respects, included Ro3.
To give them different costs should also mean they are treated as different datasheets in ALL respects, included Ro3.
-
Rule of 3 has no fixed wording. It's not a hard-and-fast rule. It's an event-recommendation that TOs are explicitly encouraged to adapt and tinker with as they see fit. Whether different points (or even the current status-quo) would mean DPs are limited to 3 or 3 per Codex is ultimately still up to each individual TO (assuming they even adopt GW's event recommendations mostly unchanged).
I retract that assertion. They cost too much as min squads paying the troop tax, but I get the distinct impression that's not really what you should be doing with them.
Points serve as a balancing tool. If unit A cost 100 points and does X, unit B shouldn't cost 100 points and do X+Y+Z regardless what the name of unit B is.
If your beef is with the rule of 3 and it's application to demon prices that's another can of worms but points cost needs to be at least tangentially related to on table abilities/effectiveness.
I'd love for marine units to have different point values. RG assault cents cost 80, WS 70 oh ultras you get them for 55. With the power of the new doctrines, chapter tactics and strats GW is throwing around now a days it seems to be the only way to balance units that have wildly different effective strength based on the buffs they can combo.
The gulliman tax on marines is the same thing but in this case it is even harder to balance because there is no gulliman model to nerf to at least try to balance this out.
Daedalus81 wrote: It's a 20% reduction. That's pretty huge. 15 points for a marine with a force weapon and a +1 cast / +1 deny (and then +2 for SB). Then add whatever they get in PA.
'But the ship has already hit the Space Marine iceberg sir!'
This. We've already torn a hole through 4 watertight compartments with the Space Marine supplements.
That said, nothing says we can't keep the pumps going to try to keep buoyancy for a little longer. I'll welcome a strike squad cost reduction.
To give them different costs should also mean they are treated as different datasheets in ALL respects, included Ro3.
-
Rule of 3 has no fixed wording. It's not a hard-and-fast rule. It's an event-recommendation that TOs are explicitly encouraged to adapt and tinker with as they see fit. Whether different points (or even the current status-quo) would mean DPs are limited to 3 or 3 per Codex is ultimately still up to each individual TO (assuming they even adopt GW's event recommendations mostly unchanged).
I am specifically referring to the FAQ the calls out CSM/DG/Tsons DPs specifically. It doesn't matter what codex they are from, if using the Ro#, you can only even have 3 DPs period. If that is how GW wants it, fine, but they should not then give each a different points cost.
Basically what I am says is one of 2 things need to happen: A) All DPs get dropped in point via CA or B) Only CSMs get dropped in points, but the above FAQ be likewise revoked
But want is more likely to happen and continue the inconsistency is: C) Only CSMDP get a points drop, but the FAQ stands
Points serve as a balancing tool. If unit A cost 100 points and does X, unit B shouldn't cost 100 points and do X+Y+Z regardless what the name of unit B is.
If your beef is with the rule of 3 and it's application to demon prices that's another can of worms but points cost needs to be at least tangentially related to on table abilities/effectiveness.
I agree, but my "beef" isn't with Ro3 or CA in particular, but with inconsistency as a whole. The DP specific Ro3 treats DPs of any color as the same datasheet. CA should too, or both Ro3 and CA should treat them as different
The Newman wrote: Fingers crossed that Terminators of all stripes get another reduction and Aggressors get bumped up. Assault Centurions are too cheap now as well, and I can't believe I'm saying that.
The base-line Predator has no business being more expensive than a Vindicator.
Reivers ... really can't come down in price any, and price isn't their problem in the first place. Being a troop profile in the Elite slot with no weapon upgrades to make them worth using is their problem.
The Leman Russ Demolisher needs a bump. I don't begrudge them the updated Demo Cannon so much, but double-tapping with that gun for less than a regular Russ is barking insanity.
All of the Daemon troop choices are over-priced.
The basic Custodian Guard and Wardens are over-priced. So is the Contemptor dread.
Min assualt cent squad is comparable in cost to a redemptor dread.
They move half as fast.
They have less range
Less wounds
Less toughness
A +1 save
Way more attacks
Way more total shots of less quality.
They are perfectly balanced when you compare them to a redemptor. Know what they aren't auto include when they can't deep strike into opponents face? Because you will NEVER use their CC stats without spamming the unit. Assault cents are just too slow to use. It is the stratagems and warlord traits that make them broken - so remove those.
Dev cents are actually overcosted.
1) Did I mention Centurion Devastators? [/any character played by Samuel Jackson ever]
2) The Redemptor is an interesting comparison. I think you're evaluating it wrong, but it's interesting. Removing those Strats / Traits isn't going to happen in CA though.
The Newman wrote: Fingers crossed that Terminators of all stripes get another reduction and Aggressors get bumped up. Assault Centurions are too cheap now as well, and I can't believe I'm saying that.
The base-line Predator has no business being more expensive than a Vindicator.
Reivers ... really can't come down in price any, and price isn't their problem in the first place. Being a troop profile in the Elite slot with no weapon upgrades to make them worth using is their problem.
The Leman Russ Demolisher needs a bump. I don't begrudge them the updated Demo Cannon so much, but double-tapping with that gun for less than a regular Russ is barking insanity.
All of the Daemon troop choices are over-priced.
The basic Custodian Guard and Wardens are over-priced. So is the Contemptor dread.
Min assualt cent squad is comparable in cost to a redemptor dread.
They move half as fast.
They have less range
Less wounds
Less toughness
A +1 save
Way more attacks
Way more total shots of less quality.
They are perfectly balanced when you compare them to a redemptor. Know what they aren't auto include when they can't deep strike into opponents face? Because you will NEVER use their CC stats without spamming the unit. Assault cents are just too slow to use. It is the stratagems and warlord traits that make them broken - so remove those.
Dev cents are actually overcosted.
1) Did I mention Centurion Devastators? [/any character played by Samuel Jackson ever]
2) The Redemptor is an interesting comparison. I think you're evaluating it wrong, but it's interesting. Removing those Strats / Traits isn't going to happen in CA though.
They really are comparable. Both offensively and defensively. Cents just have a lot more damage up close but with no practical way of getting there. UNLESS - you magically teleport them there with sneaky stratagems/WL traits that shouldn't exist. Straight up. Remove those strats or prevent cents from using them. Assault cents just got dropped in points. They were unplayable before. They will still be played even with a points hike if you can teleport them turn 1 for the cost of free.
Don't worry. I'm sure the tyranids "half" (probably more like 25%) of the book will be just as good.
The trait is slightly better. Nothing to write home about. I'm quite curious how much more expensive DC Intercessors will be and if they'll be allowed to go to 15 models. The doctrine is good, but turn 3. If they have a strat to get it early it will be quite scary.
They don't have Cents or 11" flamers so that's good, I guess. The other upside is BA will probably run a ton of infantry, maybe?
Daedalus81 wrote: If you're setting on an objective wouldn't it be better to be T4 2+ and LD8 over T3 5+ and LD6?
You're not counting on their durability, you're counting on forcing your opponent to focus on other things. If they want your obsec dead, the difference in effort to remove Cultists vs Marines is negligible.
No, it is not negligible. If a repulsor rattles off all it's secondary and tertiary weapons (pod, icarus, 2 ihs, thb, hogc, 2 sb, 2 frag) at CSM in cover it kills 4.7 (so @ 18"). If it does the same to cultists in cover it kills 14.5, which is enough to kill two units with morale or to wipe a bigger unit.
So, of course, if we're looking at a singular scenario of whether or not a unit holds an objective and ignore the rest of the battle field then, yes, both these units die. But the nuance is that the CSM actually have a chance on the bell curve to survive and the cultists have none and, should the SM player be plucky, could wipe multiple cultist units.
The number of shots available in an army are finite. If that Repulsor does not direct all of the listed weapons at the CSM they have an even greater chance to survive. The cultists do not. In fact the HOGC and 2 IHS are enough to clear a 10 man of cultists assuming they're not willing to spend 2 CP on sticking, but then your exposure is super limited, because almost any gun can tackle straggling cultists where the same is not really true for CSM.
Maybe I'm too late to this conversation, but why are people discussing CSM vs cultists without factoring in the CSM having a heavy weapon? Backfield cultists aren't contributing much. CSM will cost a bit more but can. And Combi weapon + reaper CSM closer up actually do something.
Don't worry. I'm sure the tyranids "half" (probably more like 25%) of the book will be just as good.
The trait is slightly better. Nothing to write home about. I'm quite curious how much more expensive DC Intercessors will be and if they'll be allowed to go to 15 models. The doctrine is good, but turn 3. If they have a strat to get it early it will be quite scary.
They don't have Cents or 11" flamers so that's good, I guess. The other upside is BA will probably run a ton of infantry, maybe?
oni wrote: I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I suspect that they didn't go far enough with points adjustments similar to CA:2017 and CA:2018.
The Eldar flyers definitely needed a points increase, but I don't think 150 is enough. I'm curious to see if the Wave Serpent is affected. It's wargear needs to be tripled at the very least.
They likely hold back from too wide of a swing entirely because of the lead time.
Maybe I'm too late to this conversation, but why are people discussing CSM vs cultists without factoring in the CSM having a heavy weapon? Backfield cultists aren't contributing much. CSM will cost a bit more but can. And Combi weapon + reaper CSM closer up actually do something.
Because if the unit cant take all special / heavy weapons then it's trash. Or so the logic goes.
I don't understand why some people are saying that DG and TS shouldn't get price decreases. Maybe PM should be a point or two more expensive than regular CSM, but nothing more, and TS aren't even really a fully formed army.
More importantly, why are you trying to justify a bad unit just like you did with Warp Talons before? Is it hard to accept some units are just useless and that's the end of it?
LOL, ok.
Let's play a game. Below are two tables. Each has a set of data for one of 3 units (Cultists, CSM, and Bolt Rifle Primaris). No traits or bonuses. These units are all the same total price (5 point cultists, 11 CSM, 17 primaris). Any fractional models are still counted, so 3.2 Primaris would get 3.2 and 6.4 shots respectively. Each mode is a different position within the battlefield (i.e. RF range, moving, etc).
The first table is damage dealt by the unit. Damage dealt numbers have been multiplied by a common factor to prevent backing into the result. Please rank the units A,B, and C as to which you think is best. Please also determine which you think is Cultist, CSM, and Primaris.
The second table is damage received by the unit. Please rank units D, E, and F as to which you think it best. Please also determine which you think is Cultist, CSM, and Primaris.
I'm curious is it the order of: primaris, csm, cultist on the ABC table and then: primaris, cultist, csm on the DEF table?
Also how do you explain how unit A is so much more efficient at killing GEQ?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So DttFE shouldn't cost anything because it's situational but ATSKNF should because...? This isn't 7th edition.
The real problem is that points are not granular enough to properly represent things. You can say "X rule should cost Y points" but then it often isn't actually worth it. For example, look at the difference in amount of rules between a CSM and a plague marine. The PM is a few extra points in return for +1T, 5+++, and more. How much is either of those rules worth? Its a trick question. The answer is that it doesn't matter because neither unit is good.
And that's what it comes down to at the end of the day. In a perfect world, Tacs and CSM would line up better. And in previous editions they sort of did. But now there's far too many variables due to all the extra faction rules. At this point we've got band aid rules on top of band aid rules. And the only way we're gonna get these weak units back to useful is...even more bandaid rules. So let's not sweat the details.
Most competitive games achieve balance by limiting the amount of variables. Standard points value, standard terrain, standard mission format, standard units that are approved for competitive play. Why not try that?
More importantly, why are you trying to justify a bad unit just like you did with Warp Talons before? Is it hard to accept some units are just useless and that's the end of it?
LOL, ok.
Let's play a game. Below are two tables. Each has a set of data for one of 3 units (Cultists, CSM, and Bolt Rifle Primaris). No traits or bonuses. These units are all the same total price (5 point cultists, 11 CSM, 17 primaris). Any fractional models are still counted, so 3.2 Primaris would get 3.2 and 6.4 shots respectively. Each mode is a different position within the battlefield (i.e. RF range, moving, etc).
The first table is damage dealt by the unit. Damage dealt numbers have been multiplied by a common factor to prevent backing into the result. Please rank the units A,B, and C as to which you think is best. Please also determine which you think is Cultist, CSM, and Primaris.
The second table is damage received by the unit. Please rank units D, E, and F as to which you think it best. Please also determine which you think is Cultist, CSM, and Primaris.
While Im not the target of this message, I would love to know which is which, great job on the graph btw.
Yoyoyo wrote: Most competitive games achieve balance by limiting the amount of variables. Standard points value, standard terrain, standard mission format, standard units that are approved for competitive play. Why not try that?
That's basically what early 8th was with Indexes (although those had stat balance issues.) But more because it'd be a whole different game.
The overall concept of having a game where a bunch of factions have essentially the same base units (marines of many types and chaos marines) and then have their own various special units and special rules on top of that is fine. The problem is that not all those factions are receiving updates to new rules at the same time, and the rules each faction is getting aren't necessarily well written. In other words, the concept of the game is fine. The problem is the execution. The solution is to push for better balanced rules, not to switch to an entirely different game, or to say that nothing can be fixed because it's not a 100% competitive game.
I'm curious is it the order of: primaris, csm, cultist on the ABC table and then: primaris, cultist, csm on the DEF table?
Also how do you explain how unit A is so much more efficient at killing GEQ?
Nada. Note the second table is models lost through damage and morale.
How can you think standardisation isn't a part of that? 40k players will lose games based purely on the amount of terrain on the table and the type of deployment. And that's a factor that's completely outside of anything to do with the specific factions and army rules.
How can you think standardisation isn't a part of that? 40k players will lose games based purely on the amount of terrain on the table and the type of deployment. And that's a factor that's completely outside of anything to do with the specific factions and army rules.
I never said that I don't think standardization is a part of that. The thing I'm arguing for IS a type of standardization:
Standardize the power of Faction Traits
Standardize marines having doctrines, or an equivalent
Standardize that there are bonuses for being mono-faction instead of soup
Standardize Chaos marine infantry with Loyalist marine infantry (meaning: give Chaos something equivalent to doctrines in power)
I am advocating standardization of rule strength in general. But making everything identical is unnecessary and will kill the game.
40k doesn't need to become 100% competitive. It just needs to get better at doing what it's already doing. It needs to follow through on the changes its already making. And we are starting to see that. The new sisters have traits and faction wide rules more along the lines of the new SM codex than the old. Nids are getting a custom trait builder, etc. I assume we'll see more of this going forward.
I am pretty much in line with your way of thinking. But I'm sure you can recognise that as long as 40k is only, say, 90% competitive -- there as those people who are going to go full into exploiting that broken 10% to the fullest extent that they can.
If it's just about wanting new content, I also get it. You could say the jealously and salt we've seen on Dakka in regards to the SM supplements is a testament to the efficacy of GW's marketing via rules content.
Yoyoyo wrote: I am pretty much in line with your way of thinking. But I'm sure you can recognise that as long as 40k is only, say, 90% competitive -- there as those people who are going to go full into exploiting that broken 10% to the fullest extent that they can.
If it's just about wanting new content, I also get it. You could say the jealously and salt we've seen on Dakka in regards to the SM supplements is a testament to the efficacy of GW's marketing via rules content.
Oh yeah, for sure there's always going to be people complaining. But there can be a lot less of it. Right now, the various factions stretch from D lists all the way to A+ lists. We're never going to get everyone to all be A+, but if the range was B to A+ instead of D then that'd solve a lot of issues.
The Newman wrote: Fingers crossed that Terminators of all stripes get another reduction and Aggressors get bumped up. Assault Centurions are too cheap now as well, and I can't believe I'm saying that.
The base-line Predator has no business being more expensive than a Vindicator.
Reivers ... really can't come down in price any, and price isn't their problem in the first place. Being a troop profile in the Elite slot with no weapon upgrades to make them worth using is their problem.
The Leman Russ Demolisher needs a bump. I don't begrudge them the updated Demo Cannon so much, but double-tapping with that gun for less than a regular Russ is barking insanity.
All of the Daemon troop choices are over-priced.
The basic Custodian Guard and Wardens are over-priced. So is the Contemptor dread.
Min assualt cent squad is comparable in cost to a redemptor dread.
They move half as fast.
They have less range
Less wounds
Less toughness
A +1 save
Way more attacks
Way more total shots of less quality.
They are perfectly balanced when you compare them to a redemptor. Know what they aren't auto include when they can't deep strike into opponents face? Because you will NEVER use their CC stats without spamming the unit. Assault cents are just too slow to use. It is the stratagems and warlord traits that make them broken - so remove those.
Dev cents are actually overcosted.
1) Did I mention Centurion Devastators? [/any character played by Samuel Jackson ever]
2) The Redemptor is an interesting comparison. I think you're evaluating it wrong, but it's interesting. Removing those Strats / Traits isn't going to happen in CA though.
They really are comparable. Both offensively and defensively. Cents just have a lot more damage up close but with no practical way of getting there. UNLESS - you magically teleport them there with sneaky stratagems/WL traits that shouldn't exist. Straight up. Remove those strats or prevent cents from using them. Assault cents just got dropped in points. They were unplayable before. They will still be played even with a points hike if you can teleport them turn 1 for the cost of free.
Again, those strats are not going to go away in CA.
Quite frankly Assault Centurions with Hurricane Bolters do just fine at range compared to Aggressors, they trade raw shot output for maximum range (not an insignificant tradeoff when Aggressors are usually overkill if they can't reach at least two targets) and being even more absurdly dangerous to charge into. I take Aggressors if I have a way to shut off the restriction on Fire Storm, I take Centurions otherwise.
About time CHE saw an increase. But to be honest with the PA buff that's 15 makes like no difference..
Think they should have been 25pts at least in all honesty.
However if WS goes up also it will mean you will have to double down on CHE.. Because despite its increase its still an auto-take which is very ironic considering they have called it out. Thus lists become even more reliant on the over performing unit but being able to take less other stuff...
By increasing the Ws you would basically kill any build outside of CHE spams unless there are some significant drops elsewhere..
Harlies being 1 more point than storm guardians.. What on earth!? Its almost like They want everyone to soup apart from marines... because marines don't need to soup and are doing mariney things just fine...
Yea, I was just doing a double take on the harlequin troupes supposed point reduction. It says 9->7pts. This may be a typo because as far as I know they are still 13 points. I do think they need a significant drop to keep up with other melee units in the game outperforming them, including wyches.
Argive wrote: About time CHE saw an increase. But to be honest with the PA buff that's 15 makes like no difference..
Think they should have been 25pts at least in all honesty.
However if WS goes up also it will mean you will have to double down on CHE.. Because despite its increase its still an auto-take which is very ironic considering they have called it out. Thus lists become even more reliant on the over performing unit but being able to take less other stuff...
By increasing the Ws you would basically kill any build outside of CHE spams unless there are some significant drops elsewhere..
Harlies being 1 more point than storm guardians.. What on earth!? Its almost like They want everyone to soup apart from marines... because marines don't need to soup and are doing mariney things just fine...
I'm beginning to think the same. Pr seemed to spread out what few good rules it had amongst the various eldar factions. I'm not an eldar player so I could be wrong.
I do play csm and faith and fury definitely spread the rules out amongst the legions. It seems gw wants csm to run mixed war bands instead of pure legions.
Although that could work it's not what I'd like personally.
I'm curious is it the order of: primaris, csm, cultist on the ABC table and then: primaris, cultist, csm on the DEF table?
Also how do you explain how unit A is so much more efficient at killing GEQ?
Nada. Note the second table is models lost through damage and morale.
I meant to say cultists, csm, primaris for DEF units. So it looks like primaris are quite efficient for their points and being troops? Are you going to tell us which one is unit A?
flandarz wrote: As an Ork player, I'll just say that if you don't want 11ppm CSMs, I'll be happy to take that pricetag and stat line off your hands and slap it on my Nobz. :p
I would be content enough for that price on Burna Boyz.
I look at this way, I'm gonna run Chaos Space Marines when I play my Black Legion. I just like 'em more than cultists. Is good enough to make it a hard choice for a player looking for optimization? I don't know, but I am leaning towards probably not. The sad fact is that a basic Chaos Space Marine even with all the crazy marine buffs is still just a little better than 2 cultists but certainly can't be pointed that low. They just don't have the damage output to be scary like other things you could get with the extra points or fuel with more CPs. The people saying that if an opponent wants a squad of 5 man squad of Chaos Space Marines dead are right. It isn't a whole lot of resource allocation to make that happen. It is like the Tau to the Imperium, it just isn't worth the trouble to destroy them most of the time. I will say that a ten man squad of CSM (I got that Leadership buff to make it not as dumb) is a bit more effort to delete, but ultimately I know I am still throwing good points at bad units. Like I said, I am gonna run Chaos Space Marines good or bad. With the points drop, I am going to feel less bad about running 3 ten man squads. But I am going to run those 3 ten man squads complete with a couple of heavy bolters to keep the classic CSM feel.
Same goes for Reivers when I am playing Space Marines. I am going to run at least a squad of Reivers and usually two. I don't know if there is even a ppm for Reivers that works given they are an Elite Slot. Games Workshop could make them like 14 points per model (provided the rule of 3 is used) while making their Grav Chutes and Grapplers a point each and outside certain chapters, I still don't know if that is going to make much of a difference. I still think Reivers either/or need to be a Troop Choice (even if that is a Successor Chapter Trait) or get some real melee weapons even if just for the Sergeant.
I am with Galaf on this one. I don't think the point drops are going to make 'competitive' players start using a lot of these units. But players like me feel less dumb by always including them in our armies.
flandarz wrote: As an Ork player, I'll just say that if you don't want 11ppm CSMs, I'll be happy to take that pricetag and stat line off your hands and slap it on my Nobz. :p
I would be content enough for that price on Burna Boyz.
I look at this way, I'm gonna run Chaos Space Marines when I play my Black Legion. I just like 'em more than cultists. Is good enough to make it a hard choice for a player looking for optimization? I don't know, but I am leaning towards probably not. The sad fact is that a basic Chaos Space Marine even with all the crazy marine buffs is still just a little better than 2 cultists but certainly can't be pointed that low. They just don't have the damage output to be scary like other things you could get with the extra points or fuel with more CPs. The people saying that if an opponent wants a squad of 5 man squad of Chaos Space Marines dead are right. It isn't a whole lot of resource allocation to make that happen. It is like the Tau to the Imperium, it just isn't worth the trouble to destroy them most of the time. I will say that a ten man squad of CSM (I got that Leadership buff to make it not as dumb) is a bit more effort to delete, but ultimately I know I am still throwing good points at bad units. Like I said, I am gonna run Chaos Space Marines good or bad. With the points drop, I am going to feel less bad about running 3 ten man squads. But I am going to run those 3 ten man squads complete with a couple of heavy bolters to keep the classic CSM feel.
Same goes for Reivers when I am playing Space Marines. I am going to run at least a squad of Reivers and usually two. I don't know if there is even a ppm for Reivers that works given they are an Elite Slot. Games Workshop could make them like 14 points per model (provided the rule of 3 is used) while making their Grav Chutes and Grapplers a point each and outside certain chapters, I still don't know if that is going to make much of a difference. I still think Reivers either/or need to be a Troop Choice (even if that is a Successor Chapter Trait) or get some real melee weapons even if just for the Sergeant.
I am with Galaf on this one. I don't think the point drops are going to make 'competitive' players start using a lot of these units. But players like me feel less dumb by always including them in our armies.
Yeah I know. As someone who purposefully plays without alitoic airwing any point drops are sorely welcome. The rest of the codex is simply not efficient.. One or two over performing over efficient entries carrying the army... And that's an internal balance issue across all the books. With some books just much better of than others in this regards.
NurglesR0T wrote: Fact is the CSM book is not a competitive book - minor point adjustments is not going to change the fact that the output in the codex is weak.
given that CSMs never got some sort of "mono codex buff" I wonder if GW's vision for the army is that they use soup. I mean even the base CSM codex has some deamons in it
ArcaneHorror wrote: I don't understand why some people are saying that DG and TS shouldn't get price decreases. Maybe PM should be a point or two more expensive than regular CSM, but nothing more, and TS aren't even really a fully formed army.
The issue is, this is in Context with daemonprinces, and neither ts nor dg ones need the drop.
The only ones might needing that are csn and daemon ones.
More importantly, why are you trying to justify a bad unit just like you did with Warp Talons before? Is it hard to accept some units are just useless and that's the end of it?
LOL, ok.
Let's play a game. Below are two tables. Each has a set of data for one of 3 units (Cultists, CSM, and Bolt Rifle Primaris). No traits or bonuses. These units are all the same total price (5 point cultists, 11 CSM, 17 primaris). Any fractional models are still counted, so 3.2 Primaris would get 3.2 and 6.4 shots respectively. Each mode is a different position within the battlefield (i.e. RF range, moving, etc).
Spoiler:
The first table is damage dealt by the unit. Damage dealt numbers have been multiplied by a common factor to prevent backing into the result. Please rank the units A,B, and C as to which you think is best. Please also determine which you think is Cultist, CSM, and Primaris.
The second table is damage received by the unit. Please rank units D, E, and F as to which you think it best. Please also determine which you think is Cultist, CSM, and Primaris.
I've highlighted why this is an exercise in futility.
flandarz wrote: As an Ork player, I'll just say that if you don't want 11ppm CSMs, I'll be happy to take that pricetag and stat line off your hands and slap it on my Nobz. :p
I would be content enough for that price on Burna Boyz.
I look at this way, I'm gonna run Chaos Space Marines when I play my Black Legion. I just like 'em more than cultists. Is good enough to make it a hard choice for a player looking for optimization? I don't know, but I am leaning towards probably not. The sad fact is that a basic Chaos Space Marine even with all the crazy marine buffs is still just a little better than 2 cultists but certainly can't be pointed that low. They just don't have the damage output to be scary like other things you could get with the extra points or fuel with more CPs. The people saying that if an opponent wants a squad of 5 man squad of Chaos Space Marines dead are right. It isn't a whole lot of resource allocation to make that happen. It is like the Tau to the Imperium, it just isn't worth the trouble to destroy them most of the time. I will say that a ten man squad of CSM (I got that Leadership buff to make it not as dumb) is a bit more effort to delete, but ultimately I know I am still throwing good points at bad units. Like I said, I am gonna run Chaos Space Marines good or bad. With the points drop, I am going to feel less bad about running 3 ten man squads. But I am going to run those 3 ten man squads complete with a couple of heavy bolters to keep the classic CSM feel.
Same goes for Reivers when I am playing Space Marines. I am going to run at least a squad of Reivers and usually two. I don't know if there is even a ppm for Reivers that works given they are an Elite Slot. Games Workshop could make them like 14 points per model (provided the rule of 3 is used) while making their Grav Chutes and Grapplers a point each and outside certain chapters, I still don't know if that is going to make much of a difference. I still think Reivers either/or need to be a Troop Choice (even if that is a Successor Chapter Trait) or get some real melee weapons even if just for the Sergeant.
I am with Galaf on this one. I don't think the point drops are going to make 'competitive' players start using a lot of these units. But players like me feel less dumb by always including them in our armies.
Yeah I know. As someone who purposefully plays without alitoic airwing any point drops are sorely welcome. The rest of the codex is simply not efficient.. One or two over performing over efficient entries carrying the army... And that's an internal balance issue across all the books. With some books just much better of than others in this regards.
Yea, even 15 is to much for codex flyers. CHE with lances now(assuming lances stay the some price) is 190 pts for 4 shoots. It`s really look to much for 12 wound T6 paper flyer, since most good list can kill min 2 per turn.
The banshee 2 pts is looking irrelevant, because i would gladly pay 10 more points to get the unit actually kill something. It`s like GW never learn, they made scorpions 11 pts and still noone used them, the price was never the real problem.
I hope for harlies players that weapons will also become cheaper, 2 pts is not enough to make the troupe good., having in mind SM release. Intercessors are as good as them in most cases without needing to pay 10 extra points.
To give them different costs should also mean they are treated as different datasheets in ALL respects, included Ro3.
-
All the GK vehicles have different rules then normal marine ones, but when GW decided to hike the price of regular marine stuff, they hiked our too. just saying.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So DttFE shouldn't cost anything because it's situational but ATSKNF should because...? This isn't 7th edition.
Shows how bad the rule is. If you add any cost to it then CSM is overpriced vs non-imperium. If you don't they are underpriced vs loyal. It's basically rule that's impossible to balance unless all factions whom it applies to get equally good counter rule at which point cost is 0 for both.
NurglesR0T wrote: Fact is the CSM book is not a competitive book - minor point adjustments is not going to change the fact that the output in the codex is weak.
given that CSMs never got some sort of "mono codex buff" I wonder if GW's vision for the army is that they use soup. I mean even the base CSM codex has some deamons in it
Or they came too early and nobody had come idea with mono bonus by the time GW got around to chaos. GW has habit of mid edition paragrim shifts which results in wonky balance when arbitarily codex switches to whole new different type of game(necrons in 7th ed for example)
How can you think standardisation isn't a part of that? 40k players will lose games based purely on the amount of terrain on the table and the type of deployment. And that's a factor that's completely outside of anything to do with the specific factions and army rules.
I think there's also a factor folks aren't considering.
Players also lose games based purely on the decisions they make. By trying to remove every factor, we've reached a point where the most important decisions today are what list you bring and what secondaries you select if playing ITC. Hardly an indication of skill if both those things happen before the first die is tossed.
But it makes for compelling discussion and arguments on forums so we're all okay with that I guess.
I think there's also a factor folks aren't considering.
Players also lose games based purely on the decisions they make. By trying to remove every factor, we've reached a point where the most important decisions today are what list you bring and what secondaries you select if playing ITC. Hardly an indication of skill if both those things happen before the first die is tossed.
But it makes for compelling discussion and arguments on forums so we're all okay with that I guess.
So, Grey Knight players are losing games not because their book is objectivly bad, but because they just don't know how to play well? Does it work like that for people who don't play ITC and just rulebook missions?
I think there's also a factor folks aren't considering.
Players also lose games based purely on the decisions they make. By trying to remove every factor, we've reached a point where the most important decisions today are what list you bring and what secondaries you select if playing ITC. Hardly an indication of skill if both those things happen before the first die is tossed.
But it makes for compelling discussion and arguments on forums so we're all okay with that I guess.
Sure. But that is why you have sufficiently large samples to average it out.
Over 50 or 100 or 200 games, just as many people will make a stupid decision with an Iron Hands army as they do with a Grey Knight army, and roughly as many will have a stroke of genius and pull a brilliant move.
Given the underlying rules are balanced, both armies should come out equal win percentages, etc.., etc. within the margin of error of a given sample size.
Lemondish wrote: Players also lose games based purely on the decisions they make. By trying to remove every factor, we've reached a point where the most important decisions today are what list you bring and what secondaries you select if playing ITC. Hardly an indication of skill if both those things happen before the first die is tossed.
But it makes for compelling discussion and arguments on forums so we're all okay with that I guess.
I personally think a wargame has to have some kind of fundamental logic to it. What's the mission in the scope of the campaign? What kind of forces would logically be committed to an action? What would you consider the victory condition?
That's regarded as narrative but it's truer to life. An infantry company is not going to engage a bunch of tanks in open ground, they're going to fortify themselves in a city where you can prepare better defensive positions and take advantage of the limited visibility of armour. It also means a force with less firepower can take on a force with more firepower, through canny positioning and tactics. Melta is a close-range weapon, it's suited for ambushes at close range. Not suicidal charges across open ground like WWI armies going over the top.
I agree with your point Lemondish, but people like the metrics of competition. That's very difficult to measure if everything is heavily scenario-based. So I don't see competitive formats changing that anytime soon.
More importantly, why are you trying to justify a bad unit just like you did with Warp Talons before? Is it hard to accept some units are just useless and that's the end of it?
LOL, ok.
Let's play a game. Below are two tables. Each has a set of data for one of 3 units (Cultists, CSM, and Bolt Rifle Primaris). No traits or bonuses. These units are all the same total price (5 point cultists, 11 CSM, 17 primaris). Any fractional models are still counted, so 3.2 Primaris would get 3.2 and 6.4 shots respectively. Each mode is a different position within the battlefield (i.e. RF range, moving, etc).
The first table is damage dealt by the unit. Damage dealt numbers have been multiplied by a common factor to prevent backing into the result. Please rank the units A,B, and C as to which you think is best. Please also determine which you think is Cultist, CSM, and Primaris.
The second table is damage received by the unit. Please rank units D, E, and F as to which you think it best. Please also determine which you think is Cultist, CSM, and Primaris.
I'm curious is it the order of: primaris, csm, cultist on the ABC table and then: primaris, cultist, csm on the DEF table?
Also how do you explain how unit A is so much more efficient at killing GEQ?
I'm also curious what is meant by "No traits or bonuses". Don't cultists not get chapter tactics, and that is a drawback to them? Also, don't space marines get like 4-5 different abilities nowadays? Also, aren't we comparing a 30" range band to a 24" range band to a 12" range band, or have we picked a range the 3 units are operating in? Given that none of the rows contain a number, then 0, then 0, it doesn't seem like you're taking pains to represent the main turn 1 advantage enjoyed by the primaris marine, who does not need to move to deal full damage to something in the opponent's deployment zone turn 1.
To answer the question, I say A primaris, B CSM, C Cultist, D cultist, E csm, F primaris.
To give them different costs should also mean they are treated as different datasheets in ALL respects, included Ro3.
-
All the GK vehicles have different rules then normal marine ones, but when GW decided to hike the price of regular marine stuff, they hiked our too. just saying.
Well, they had to do something to stop the menace that is Grey Knights .
I think there's also a factor folks aren't considering.
Players also lose games based purely on the decisions they make. By trying to remove every factor, we've reached a point where the most important decisions today are what list you bring and what secondaries you select if playing ITC. Hardly an indication of skill if both those things happen before the first die is tossed.
But it makes for compelling discussion and arguments on forums so we're all okay with that I guess.
So, Grey Knight players are losing games not because their book is objectivly bad, but because they just don't know how to play well? Does it work like that for people who don't play ITC and just rulebook missions?
I never mentioned Grey Knights, Karol. Down boy.
What I was saying is that blaming terrain and mission structure for not providing an "even playing field" is absurd.
Everyone here will get far better if they learn to play better rather than blaming terrain and dice. 100% guaranteed.
the_scotsman wrote: I'm also curious what is meant by "No traits or bonuses". Don't cultists not get chapter tactics, and that is a drawback to them? Also, don't space marines get like 4-5 different abilities nowadays? Also, aren't we comparing a 30" range band to a 24" range band to a 12" range band, or have we picked a range the 3 units are operating in? Given that none of the rows contain a number, then 0, then 0, it doesn't seem like you're taking pains to represent the main turn 1 advantage enjoyed by the primaris marine, who does not need to move to deal full damage to something in the opponent's deployment zone turn 1.
Cultists do not get trait bonuses, as per updated CSM Codex. My point I had made on page 2 was merely that there is a discussion again to be had over whether or not 5 Chaos Marines are better value than 10 Cultists for a mere 5 points difference (which is not yet confirmed anyways). I honestly think that if I had 5 points floating about, I'd definitely consider changing one unit of Cultists into Chaos Space Marines. I just recently had a funny battle of a terrible Chaos List vs a terrible Guard list. Very short synopsis of the lists was that I had Abaddon and 5x 10-man units of Chaos Space Marines in Rhinos plus a unit of Obliterators (Black Legion, because that's what they're modeled as), and my opponent fielded Catachans (that's what they're modeled as) with 1 Tank Commander, 1 Baneblade, and everything else was pretty much infantry squads with flamers or melta guns. I won the match, and with that many bad units running around the field, you got to see in full display the power of Hateful Assault. Why? It doubled the number of attacks that I generally made; so more chances for 6's as well for DttFE. My Chaos Marines were charging and taking charges from Catachans and were WINNING the ensuing close combats, rather than drawing them out.
As such, I can see myself now upgrading one of my three units of Cultists to a basic Chaos Marine squad if I had 5 points to spare, because they will survive better against a lot of things in the game, and if my opponent is bringing cultists or rippers or something small and gribbly, the Chaos Marines will be able to more effectively fight them back.
Lemondish wrote: What I was saying is that blaming terrain and mission structure for not providing an "even playing field" is absurd.
I just pulled up an anecdote using Google:
Franky from FLG talked about an experience he had at a ITC major he recently attended. He brought his Drukhari army that seemed to do really well in testing. Every time he went to a table for a game there was not nearly enough terrain, and the terrain that was there was not high enough at all. So the sails on his ships were always seen since they count for LOS now, so most of his vehicles would die and he'd be tabled by turn 2 or 3. If the TO has set up table properly and used the amount and type of terrain that FLG reccommends (the guys who helped design and test 8th edition) then this game would of been much more enjoyable for both people; do you think the guy with the gunline enjoyed tabling his opponent on turn 2? Maybe, but most likely not, and the guy who got tabled turn 2 didn't even get a chance to play the game.
Terrain has a huge effect on the game. Scotsman was talking about Intercessors shooting 30" at Cultists across deployment zones, isn't this contingent on if there is screening terrain and clear fire lanes? What about Magnus getting a LOS blocker to get all his survival buffs going? Blaming terrain and dice won't make you play better, but it's 100% a factor in how armies perform.
Lemondish wrote: I think there's also a factor folks aren't considering.
Players also lose games based purely on the decisions they make. By trying to remove every factor, we've reached a point where the most important decisions today are what list you bring and what secondaries you select if playing ITC. Hardly an indication of skill if both those things happen before the first die is tossed.
But it makes for compelling discussion and arguments on forums so we're all okay with that I guess.
It depends on what you consider to be skill.
I mean I'd argue in something like MTG, the skill is overwhelming in the deck building - rather than "do I do X or Y" from the often very limited set of options available to me.
40k has always had a list building element and as I see it this will always happen barring major changes.
You could say everyone should play a mirror match - and then it would all be about target priority and manoeuvring rather than list building. (I'd also say it would largely come down to who goes first - like chess - but you can try to build rules to counteract that).
But in reality, since target priority is just learned maths too (in order to optimise your probabilities) what you end up doing is reducing the game down to luck. Or who can roll dice better.
Which is what you would expect, because you are not measuring an athletic ability - you are measuring knowledge.
I'm also curious what is meant by "No traits or bonuses". Don't cultists not get chapter tactics, and that is a drawback to them? Also, don't space marines get like 4-5 different abilities nowadays? Also, aren't we comparing a 30" range band to a 24" range band to a 12" range band, or have we picked a range the 3 units are operating in? Given that none of the rows contain a number, then 0, then 0, it doesn't seem like you're taking pains to represent the main turn 1 advantage enjoyed by the primaris marine, who does not need to move to deal full damage to something in the opponent's deployment zone turn 1.
To answer the question, I say A primaris, B CSM, C Cultist, D cultist, E csm, F primaris.
Yes, they get tons of abilities. This exercise is built to do two things. First, to remove bias from and second, to highlight the differences between base units.
There are certainly battlefield considerations to be made about units -- one set of those numbers is under a condition that would be less likely to happen for that unit than it would for the others. The exercise isn't really about Primaris, but I needed a third option to obfuscate and it's really interesting to see people's responses.
EDIT: correction - remove bias based on name recognition, because bias is still driving expectations.
Lemondish wrote: What I was saying is that blaming terrain and mission structure for not providing an "even playing field" is absurd.
I just pulled up an anecdote using Google:
Franky from FLG talked about an experience he had at a ITC major he recently attended. He brought his Drukhari army that seemed to do really well in testing. Every time he went to a table for a game there was not nearly enough terrain, and the terrain that was there was not high enough at all. So the sails on his ships were always seen since they count for LOS now, so most of his vehicles would die and he'd be tabled by turn 2 or 3. If the TO has set up table properly and used the amount and type of terrain that FLG reccommends (the guys who helped design and test 8th edition) then this game would of been much more enjoyable for both people; do you think the guy with the gunline enjoyed tabling his opponent on turn 2? Maybe, but most likely not, and the guy who got tabled turn 2 didn't even get a chance to play the game.
Terrain has a huge effect on the game. Scotsman was talking about Intercessors shooting 30" at Cultists across deployment zones, isn't this contingent on if there is screening terrain and clear fire lanes? What about Magnus getting a LOS blocker to get all his survival buffs going? Blaming terrain and dice won't make you play better, but it's 100% a factor in how armies perform.
I mean, it kind of isn't. That's part of the problem with 8th edition, shooting is either all or nothing. There's no difference between a unit firing across an open field and a unit drawing LOS to one single model in the enemy unit in the gap between two tanks thru a window modeled in a building standing between the firer and target. A unit can be 99.999% obscured by terrain and unless they are "Fully on or within!" they gain ZERO benefit to defense in the base game.
I've built and painted multiple tables worth of every terrain series GW has produced either now or in the near past. None of it features appreciably large sections of pure LOS block. Also, none of them tend to have ground floors, which to me makes the current terrain system based around binary "Either completely obscured or you are totally un-obscured" and "All model in the unit must be fully on or within" absolutely asinine to me. From a business standpoint alone this seems like GW just handing their business to competitors who do produce terrain that works with 8th ed (and I cannot help but notice that tiny little detail that the ITC sells a series of MDF terrain featuring large amounts of blocking walls, all of which is on bases....) And from a playability standpoint it actually adds an enormous amount of subjectivity to LOS declarations which is supposedly the reason why the previous "% Obscured" system was removed. People declaring shooting attacks have a huge incentive to tilt their head slightly one way or another to see an arm or a foot on a single model in the enemy unit, because it's often the difference between 0 damage and totally removing a whole unit.
Very simple replacement suggestion appropriate for a mass battle game like 40k:
Declaring Line of Sight works as now, but weapons, banners, antennae and wings on models cannot be targeted.
Draw a straight line between the firing model and target while checking the range. The line should be drawn from the center of the firing model to the center of the target model. If this line crosses 1 terrain feature or model without the INFANTRY, BEASTS or SWARM keyword that is not a part of the firing or target unit, the target is Obscured. If the line crosses 2 such features or models, the target is Highly Obscured. Bonuses are cumulative.
Obscured: +1 to the target's Sv rolls. Does not affect invulnerable saves.
Highly Obscured: -1 to the firer's hit rolls for this attack.
Not Online!!! wrote: So killteam? in essence?
I mean yeah that would probably work quite well.
Basically, with the addition of the +1sv rather than just a -1 to hit and a long range thing.
Would probably also exempt TITANIC units from ever claiming cover.
I'm not claiming it's a perfect system, but piggybacking a simplified cover system on top of something you'll already be doing (measuring range) would be a damn sight better than messing around with "wholly on or within" nonsense.
Not Online!!! wrote: So killteam? in essence?
I mean yeah that would probably work quite well.
Basically, with the addition of the +1sv rather than just a -1 to hit and a long range thing.
Would probably also exempt TITANIC units from ever claiming cover.
I'm not claiming it's a perfect system, but piggybacking a simplified cover system on top of something you'll already be doing (measuring range) would be a damn sight better than messing around with "wholly on or within" nonsense.
not to mention that antenasor horns or sails don't give and take Los.
Galas wrote: TBH 5 Alpha Legion chaos space marines in cover are much better than 10 Cultists for camping objetives.
I agree, and for a scant 10 more points, you can give those CSMs either a HB or Autocannon. While not fantastic at damage output, it's far more than 10 cultists can throw out and allows those CSM to contribute in some way instead of just sitting there. I mean if the AC manages to kill a single Primaris Marine, it's paid for itself
Not Online!!! wrote: So killteam? in essence?
I mean yeah that would probably work quite well.
Basically, with the addition of the +1sv rather than just a -1 to hit and a long range thing.
Would probably also exempt TITANIC units from ever claiming cover.
I'm not claiming it's a perfect system, but piggybacking a simplified cover system on top of something you'll already be doing (measuring range) would be a damn sight better than messing around with "wholly on or within" nonsense.
not to mention that antenasor horns or sails don't give and take Los.
Yes. This. Now.
Isn't this basically cities of death as well? But without terrain rules?
Not Online!!! wrote: So killteam? in essence?
I mean yeah that would probably work quite well.
Basically, with the addition of the +1sv rather than just a -1 to hit and a long range thing.
Would probably also exempt TITANIC units from ever claiming cover.
I'm not claiming it's a perfect system, but piggybacking a simplified cover system on top of something you'll already be doing (measuring range) would be a damn sight better than messing around with "wholly on or within" nonsense.
not to mention that antenasor horns or sails don't give and take Los.
Yes. This. Now.
Isn't this basically cities of death as well? But without terrain rules?
Quite similar, yet KT also has -1 for over half the range of the weapon on shooting, which would also help imo, especially since even more infantry now runs around with 30" guns. (exception to precision rifles ). Its a great system and i can honestly reccomend you if you are fed up with the killyness of 40 k and the lack of meaningfull manouverability, to add these rules.
the_scotsman wrote: I've built and painted multiple tables worth of every terrain series GW has produced either now or in the near past. None of it features appreciably large sections of pure LOS block. Also, none of them tend to have ground floors, which to me makes the current terrain system based around binary "Either completely obscured or you are totally un-obscured" and "All model in the unit must be fully on or within" absolutely asinine to me. From a business standpoint alone this seems like GW just handing their business to competitors who do produce terrain that works with 8th ed (and I cannot help but notice that tiny little detail that the ITC sells a series of MDF terrain featuring large amounts of blocking walls, all of which is on bases....) And from a playability standpoint it actually adds an enormous amount of subjectivity to LOS declarations which is supposedly the reason why the previous "% Obscured" system was removed. People declaring shooting attacks have a huge incentive to tilt their head slightly one way or another to see an arm or a foot on a single model in the enemy unit, because it's often the difference between 0 damage and totally removing a whole unit.
Not Online!!! wrote: So killteam? in essence?
I mean yeah that would probably work quite well.
Basically, with the addition of the +1sv rather than just a -1 to hit and a long range thing.
Would probably also exempt TITANIC units from ever claiming cover.
I'm not claiming it's a perfect system, but piggybacking a simplified cover system on top of something you'll already be doing (measuring range) would be a damn sight better than messing around with "wholly on or within" nonsense.
not to mention that antenasor horns or sails don't give and take Los.
Yes. This. Now.
Isn't this basically cities of death as well? But without terrain rules?
Yeah, minus the two dozen odd stratagems, the +1AP for higher ground (Unnecessary, the tactical advantage of being up high is very considerable) and the +2 to sv "hard cover"
And the need to agree with your opponent pre-game on what each piece of terrain is and how you claim cover from it. Gaining cover is just folded in to gaining Obscurement and is determined at the same time as measuring range rather than the current system of determine LOS/Determine range/determine if you have cover.
If I were to flesh the system out, I'd probably include stuff like "Ignore terrain features within 2" of the firer" and
Not Online!!! wrote: So killteam? in essence?
I mean yeah that would probably work quite well.
Basically, with the addition of the +1sv rather than just a -1 to hit and a long range thing.
Would probably also exempt TITANIC units from ever claiming cover.
I'm not claiming it's a perfect system, but piggybacking a simplified cover system on top of something you'll already be doing (measuring range) would be a damn sight better than messing around with "wholly on or within" nonsense.
not to mention that antenasor horns or sails don't give and take Los.
Yes. This. Now.
Isn't this basically cities of death as well? But without terrain rules?
Quite similar, yet KT also has -1 for over half the range of the weapon on shooting, which would also help imo, especially since even more infantry now runs around with 30" guns. (exception to precision rifles ). Its a great system and i can honestly reccomend you if you are fed up with the killyness of 40 k and the lack of meaningfull manouverability, to add these rules.
Hopefully gw will incorporate similar rules into the rumored 9th edition.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Sure. But that is why you have sufficiently large samples to average it out.
Over 50 or 100 or 200 games, just as many people will make a stupid decision with an Iron Hands army as they do with a Grey Knight army, and roughly as many will have a stroke of genius and pull a brilliant move.
Given the underlying rules are balanced, both armies should come out equal win percentages, etc.., etc. within the margin of error of a given sample size.
But currently they do not. Not even close.
We have a category of Marine players on this board who simply don't acknowledge data, so this is kind of a futile point to make to some people. Marines could take the top 50 spots at the next 50 tournaments and they would still turn around and say everything is working as intended.
the_scotsman wrote: [snip]
I mean, it kind of isn't. That's part of the problem with 8th edition, shooting is either all or nothing. There's no difference between a unit firing across an open field and a unit drawing LOS to one single model in the enemy unit in the gap between two tanks thru a window modeled in a building standing between the firer and target. A unit can be 99.999% obscured by terrain and unless they are "Fully on or within!" they gain ZERO benefit to defense in the base game.
[/snip]
GW did quietly change the terrain rules so if you're hugging an obstacle the squad gets cover. I'd need to check, but I think shooting through windows in a ruin isn't a thing you can do anymore either.
It's true, the terrain rules are really, really not good enough.
Some people found the 4th ed "terrain height levels" too complicated and unintuitive, but they made terrain far more useful, and thus maneuvering far more important.
the_scotsman wrote: [snip]
I mean, it kind of isn't. That's part of the problem with 8th edition, shooting is either all or nothing. There's no difference between a unit firing across an open field and a unit drawing LOS to one single model in the enemy unit in the gap between two tanks thru a window modeled in a building standing between the firer and target. A unit can be 99.999% obscured by terrain and unless they are "Fully on or within!" they gain ZERO benefit to defense in the base game.
[/snip]
GW did quietly change the terrain rules so if you're hugging an obstacle the squad gets cover. I'd need to check, but I think shooting through windows in a ruin isn't a thing you can do anymore either.
If you can find that second one in any kind of GW doc I'd love ya. Sadly I think you're probably thinking of the popular ITC houserule that first floors of ruins always block LOS, but often I can't even convince people to play the official GW supplement rules Cities of Death.
Also, "obstacle" type terrain rules do exist in the rules in the form of "Statuary" (Imperial Statuary is the only terrain of this type in the base rulebook, but other stuff like the Deathworld Forests have used the same framework for claiming cover) whereby you get cover if your unit is wholly within 3" and 25% or more obscured by the terrain piece.
However, this still leaves some significant issues because often units are too large to fit Wholly Within 3" since the redefinition of wholly within (they reversed a FAQ ruling so now Wholly Within now means that every part of the base must now be within 3", rather than the prior clarification that said "Every model in the unit must be within 3")
So, a large rock or pile of scatter terrain (you know, like the new Zone Mortalis stuff, or the new Ork terrain that came out with Speed Freeks, or the newish Sector Mech shipping containers) only has any effect on the game at all if either
A) your unit is so small it can entirely hide out of LOS behind the terrain
B) your unit is small enough that it can cluster behind the terrain, with all the bases within 3", and at such an angle that no single squad member is less than 25% obscured.
If one guy is visible, or doesn't fit, or you're 4" away from the terrain, your opponent can shoot at you as if you were standing in an open field.
More importantly, why are you trying to justify a bad unit just like you did with Warp Talons before? Is it hard to accept some units are just useless and that's the end of it?
LOL, ok.
Let's play a game. Below are two tables. Each has a set of data for one of 3 units (Cultists, CSM, and Bolt Rifle Primaris). No traits or bonuses. These units are all the same total price (5 point cultists, 11 CSM, 17 primaris). Any fractional models are still counted, so 3.2 Primaris would get 3.2 and 6.4 shots respectively. Each mode is a different position within the battlefield (i.e. RF range, moving, etc).
The first table is damage dealt by the unit. Damage dealt numbers have been multiplied by a common factor to prevent backing into the result. Please rank the units A,B, and C as to which you think is best. Please also determine which you think is Cultist, CSM, and Primaris.
The second table is damage received by the unit. Please rank units D, E, and F as to which you think it best. Please also determine which you think is Cultist, CSM, and Primaris.
I'm curious is it the order of: primaris, csm, cultist on the ABC table and then: primaris, cultist, csm on the DEF table?
Also how do you explain how unit A is so much more efficient at killing GEQ?
I'm also curious what is meant by "No traits or bonuses". Don't cultists not get chapter tactics, and that is a drawback to them? Also, don't space marines get like 4-5 different abilities nowadays? Also, aren't we comparing a 30" range band to a 24" range band to a 12" range band, or have we picked a range the 3 units are operating in? Given that none of the rows contain a number, then 0, then 0, it doesn't seem like you're taking pains to represent the main turn 1 advantage enjoyed by the primaris marine, who does not need to move to deal full damage to something in the opponent's deployment zone turn 1.
To answer the question, I say A primaris, B CSM, C Cultist, D cultist, E csm, F primaris.
Since no one else seems willing to take this on here's the detail.
Spoiler:
Obviously spotting the differences in damage taken was pretty easy, but I find it pretty telling that people assumed the unit that did the most damage were Primaris. Let's validate the numbers real quick. 5 CSM are 55 points, which is 3.2 Primaris.
CSM:
5 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 1.5
Primaris
3.2 * .666 * .666 * .833 = 1.2
The cultists were 10.6 models plus a heavy stubber (so a bit of mathematical advantage since I should have run it as 9.6 plus stubber). They did lots of damage at 12", but like the CSM this is a more difficult scenario to make use of especially considering the original scenario was considering the usefulness of these units as objective holders.
In any case, the CSM produce 25% more damage than Primaris. Clearly that gets made up by their 30" range on top of all the bonuses they can get. AND they're more durable according to the table above, right? Well, not if we tie it to points lost:
Spoiler:
CSM have a 7 "point" disadvantage with D1 weapons, but a 14 point advantage when D2 enters the picture. Of course, none of this means CSM are better or approaching being as good as Primaris.
What it does tell me is two things:
1) People that take CSM as objective holders over Cultists are not making a poor choice and, in context, CSM are not "trash". (The calculus changes if cultists go back to 4, but not terribly - and changes again if CSM get good traits)
2) Bias is a hard thing to shake and even when the names of units were removed people still assumed the biggest number must be Primaris.
I’d say it tells us very little as it’s not grounded in reality. Intercessors have a greater range and multiple, powerful rules affecting their damage output and durability. CSM less so. Cultists not at all. Not to mention the fact that it is literally impossible to take ‘10.6 cultists’. Then there are the questions of use of cover, ease of hiding a unit outside of LOS, maximum threat range etc
CSM are considered rubbish in the context of the current meta where everyone is gearing to kill marines and cheap, CP generating bodies are king.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I’d say it tells us very little as it’s not grounded in reality. Intercessors have a greater range and multiple, powerful rules affecting their damage output and durability. CSM less so. Cultists not at all. Not to mention the fact that it is literally impossible to take ‘10.6 cultists’. Then there are the questions of use of cover, ease of hiding a unit outside of LOS, maximum threat range etc
CSM are considered rubbish in the context of the current meta where everyone is gearing to kill marines and cheap, CP generating bodies are king.
This is already addressed within the post. I'm WELL aware you can't take 10.6 cultists, but if you want an "apples to apples" math comparison - there it is.
Everyone is gearing to kill marines...cheap bodies for CP...
10 Cultists - 50 points. 5 CSM 55 points.
Do you realize that for 3x5 CSM and 2 Warpsmiths - 285 points - I can get 8 CP? That's 36 points per CP. 3x10 IS and 2 CC is 38 points per CP.
Do you realize that Cultists in cover die at 5 to 6 times the rate of CSM except where its an anti-marine weapon and they still die more easily?
10 Stalkers on turn 1 shoot CSM in cover:
10 * .666 * .5 * .666 = 2.2 * 11 = 24 points
And Cultists:
10 * .666 * .666 = 4.4 * 5 = 22 points
Stop the press. CSM lost two more points. GARBAGE!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alextroy wrote: The really sick thing is the fair comparison for Range would be 3 Autobolt Rifle Intercessors.
Autobolts would require the Intercessors to be in cover and have their target in range, which is unlikely, which means they're moving forward and will be in range of more enemy guns. 5 such Intercessors move up and shoot CSM and kill maybe one. For 88 points I get 7 CSM - one with a PG. Lets say you killed one.
So CSM lost 1 11 point model and the Intercessors lost 1 17 point model. Obviously these are averages. The PG can knock an entire model on its own if it gets through.
More importantly, why are you trying to justify a bad unit just like you did with Warp Talons before? Is it hard to accept some units are just useless and that's the end of it?
LOL, ok.
Let's play a game. Below are two tables. Each has a set of data for one of 3 units (Cultists, CSM, and Bolt Rifle Primaris). No traits or bonuses. These units are all the same total price (5 point cultists, 11 CSM, 17 primaris). Any fractional models are still counted, so 3.2 Primaris would get 3.2 and 6.4 shots respectively. Each mode is a different position within the battlefield (i.e. RF range, moving, etc).
The first table is damage dealt by the unit. Damage dealt numbers have been multiplied by a common factor to prevent backing into the result. Please rank the units A,B, and C as to which you think is best. Please also determine which you think is Cultist, CSM, and Primaris.
The second table is damage received by the unit. Please rank units D, E, and F as to which you think it best. Please also determine which you think is Cultist, CSM, and Primaris.
I'm curious is it the order of: primaris, csm, cultist on the ABC table and then: primaris, cultist, csm on the DEF table?
Also how do you explain how unit A is so much more efficient at killing GEQ?
I'm also curious what is meant by "No traits or bonuses". Don't cultists not get chapter tactics, and that is a drawback to them? Also, don't space marines get like 4-5 different abilities nowadays? Also, aren't we comparing a 30" range band to a 24" range band to a 12" range band, or have we picked a range the 3 units are operating in? Given that none of the rows contain a number, then 0, then 0, it doesn't seem like you're taking pains to represent the main turn 1 advantage enjoyed by the primaris marine, who does not need to move to deal full damage to something in the opponent's deployment zone turn 1.
To answer the question, I say A primaris, B CSM, C Cultist, D cultist, E csm, F primaris.
Since no one else seems willing to take this on here's the detail.
Spoiler:
Obviously spotting the differences in damage taken was pretty easy, but I find it pretty telling that people assumed the unit that did the most damage were Primaris. Let's validate the numbers real quick. 5 CSM are 55 points, which is 3.2 Primaris.
CSM:
5 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 1.5
Primaris
3.2 * .666 * .666 * .833 = 1.2
The cultists were 10.6 models plus a heavy stubber (so a bit of mathematical advantage since I should have run it as 9.6 plus stubber). They did lots of damage at 12", but like the CSM this is a more difficult scenario to make use of especially considering the original scenario was considering the usefulness of these units as objective holders.
In any case, the CSM produce 25% more damage than Primaris. Clearly that gets made up by their 30" range on top of all the bonuses they can get. AND they're more durable according to the table above, right? Well, not if we tie it to points lost:
Spoiler:
CSM have a 7 "point" disadvantage with D1 weapons, but a 14 point advantage when D2 enters the picture. Of course, none of this means CSM are better or approaching being as good as Primaris.
What it does tell me is two things:
1) People that take CSM as objective holders over Cultists are not making a poor choice and, in context, CSM are not "trash". (The calculus changes if cultists go back to 4, but not terribly - and changes again if CSM get good traits)
2) Bias is a hard thing to shake and even when the names of units were removed people still assumed the biggest number must be Primaris.
As I already said, even without upgrades (which I couldn't tell with the Cultists having the Heavy Stubber in the first place as I initially tried to calculate and couldn't get anything correct) Primaris can be Stalkers for free or Autos for 5 points total.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lemondish wrote: I fear Daedalus spent a lot of time trying to teach something to a poster that doesn't seem to even play 40k.
I do, and clearly more than you based on your unit biases.
Not Online!!! wrote: Why not use 11 cultists to get the clearer picture in your first exemple?
Using parameters set by others earlier in the discussion as a stubber was offered as a useful upgrade. The cultists would suffer more mathematically without it.
As a Chaos/DG/Daemons player, nice to see Cultists go to 4 ppm, but the increase of Plaguebearers to 8 ppm really hurts and seems unwarranted, especially against new Marines. Nice to see Possessed go to 17 ppm as well, seems like that makes them decently useful. The drop on Deathshroud Terminators is nice as well.
Wait, does this mean the the cost for an Inquisitor to get an Incinerator has dropped from 20(the just released WD) to 9(the GK and Inquisition section)?
The base cost of a Chaos Terminator now matches the base cost of a Loyalist one, so instead of complaining about how their Terminators cost more for no ____ing reason they'll have to complain about how poorly Terminators compare to the Loyalist's new Primaris toys instead.
The Newman wrote: The base cost of a Chaos Terminator now matches the base cost of a Loyalist one, so instead of complaining about how their Terminators cost more for no ____ing reason they'll have to complain about how poorly Terminators compare to the Loyalist's new Primaris toys instead.
We're beyond points cost now. The layered and free buffs across your range and pulling in 6 different directions have made points costs impossible to properly balance unless they adjust per Chapter
The Newman wrote: The base cost of a Chaos Terminator now matches the base cost of a Loyalist one, so instead of complaining about how their Terminators cost more for no ____ing reason they'll have to complain about how poorly Terminators compare to the Loyalist's new Primaris toys instead.
Nah that's ok. We'll keep our deep striking/some of the best looking models in the game (that goes for all three marks) terminators.
Eldarain wrote: We're beyond points cost now. The layered and free buffs across your range and pulling in 6 different directions have made posts costs impossible to properly balance unless they adjust per Chapter
WELL maybe there shouldn't be that many Supplements with that many Strats and Relics and there shouldn't be that many codices to begin with.
Add a single attack to the profile for possessed and they would be actually pretty good I would think... it’s about time they messed with something on the data sheet instead of adding stratagems/formations/HQ units that bring them from crap to mediocre... I just wish that they tooled something besides the points cost. They honestly should be like Berzerkers except tougher, faster, more expensive, and should output less attacks than the Berzerkers. (Overall slightly or moderately crappier Berzerkers when all those deviations are compared together). But still enough that people really don’t want possessed in their gun lines... because D3 attacks goes from crap to decent very erratically... and the decent part only happens if you are lucky 2 out of 6 turns...
The Newman wrote: The base cost of a Chaos Terminator now matches the base cost of a Loyalist one, so instead of complaining about how their Terminators cost more for no ____ing reason they'll have to complain about how poorly Terminators compare to the Loyalist's new Primaris toys instead.
Nah that's ok. We'll keep our deep striking/some of the best looking models in the game (that goes for all three marks) terminators.
You keep your ugly lore ruining primaris.
I'm talking about stats and game performance. Aesthetics and lore are irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion (i.e. "here are some of the new points values, discuss), and in that context either Terminators need to get cheaper or Aggressors and Assault Centurions need to get more expensive or both.
(I don't want to derail the thread but I'm not a big fan of the current Terminators. It's the way they're posed rather than anything wrong with the design of the armor, I liked the old metal ones just fine.)
The Newman wrote: The base cost of a Chaos Terminator now matches the base cost of a Loyalist one, so instead of complaining about how their Terminators cost more for no ____ing reason they'll have to complain about how poorly Terminators compare to the Loyalist's new Primaris toys instead.
Nah that's ok. We'll keep our deep striking/some of the best looking models in the game (that goes for all three marks) terminators.
You keep your ugly lore ruining primaris.
I'm talking about stats and game performance. Aesthetics and lore are irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion (i.e. "here are some of the new points values, discuss), and in that context either Terminators need to get cheaper or Aggressors and Assault Centurions need to get more expensive or both.
(I don't want to derail the thread but I'm not a big fan of the current Terminators. It's the way they're posed rather than anything wrong with the design of the armor, I liked the old metal ones just fine.)
Yeah I know. But you were taking a jab at chaos players so I took one back.
As far as stats/performance goes we're not getting primaris so I see no reason to worry about that. The problem is all the rules loyalists have gotten recently that other factions haven't gotten equivalents of.
Before c:sm got those primaris weren't that big of a problem.
Eldarain wrote: We're beyond points cost now. The layered and free buffs across your range and pulling in 6 different directions have made points costs impossible to properly balance unless they adjust per Chapter
That looks like the way they are going.
Marines have different points costs for different chapters in this CA.
Just look at the few DA spoilers. The basic marine cost seems to be 11.
So GW thinks GK strikes should cost more then 1ksons. Interesting, maybe they are really making a huge book with rule for GK to use. Because the point changes look strange. If everyone gets their point costs cut, then the cuts only matter to top and mid tier armies. The bad ones will stay bad.
Karol wrote: So GW thinks GK strikes should cost more then 1ksons. Interesting, maybe they are really making a huge book with rule for GK to use. Because the point changes look strange. If everyone gets their point costs cut, then the cuts only matter to top and mid tier armies. The bad ones will stay bad.
Strikes have the same problem loyalist Terminators do - they pay for having weapons that are pretty good for both shooting and close combat and therefore end up being pretty bad at both due to cost. If GW insists on sticking to fixed costs for wargear they're going to need to start slashing the base cost of things like GK to compensate but they seem reluctant to do that for some reason. I agree with you about the points cuts. I don't think constantly reducing the cost of almost everything is they way to go as it just leads to a further increase in damage output.
Karol wrote: So GW thinks GK strikes should cost more then 1ksons. Interesting, maybe they are really making a huge book with rule for GK to use. Because the point changes look strange. If everyone gets their point costs cut, then the cuts only matter to top and mid tier armies. The bad ones will stay bad.
Strikes have the same problem loyalist Terminators do - they pay for having weapons that are pretty good for both shooting and close combat and therefore end up being pretty bad at both due to cost. If GW insists on sticking to fixed costs for wargear they're going to need to start slashing the base cost of things like GK to compensate but they seem reluctant to do that for some reason. I agree with you about the points cuts. I don't think constantly reducing the cost of almost everything is they way to go as it just leads to a further increase in damage output.
And an increase in sales as people are forced to buy models to fill in gaps...
Karol wrote: So GW thinks GK strikes should cost more then 1ksons. Interesting, maybe they are really making a huge book with rule for GK to use. Because the point changes look strange. If everyone gets their point costs cut, then the cuts only matter to top and mid tier armies. The bad ones will stay bad.
Strikes have the same problem loyalist Terminators do - they pay for having weapons that are pretty good for both shooting and close combat and therefore end up being pretty bad at both due to cost. If GW insists on sticking to fixed costs for wargear they're going to need to start slashing the base cost of things like GK to compensate but they seem reluctant to do that for some reason. I agree with you about the points cuts. I don't think constantly reducing the cost of almost everything is they way to go as it just leads to a further increase in damage output.
And an increase in sales as people are forced to buy models to fill in gaps...
Considering the broad strokes of the point decreases is , all in all considering , quite significant.
I had a marine based CSM list with 55 CSM in it. The list is allready now 110 pts cheaper, that is literally a whole other CSM squad.
Not to mention that the 30 cultist blob also got cheaper by 30 pts aswell.
And that is just expected model cuts, not to go into detail on some special weapory.
I also doubt that Havocs will remain 14 ppm aswell.
Unless ndks or draigo went down in points, my army has 95 free points now, so I have enough to buy a 5 man strike squads extra, if interceptors droped to 17pts per model and not stayed at 20, I could buy a unit of them too.
not sure how a unit of 5 dudes is going impact the army though, specially as all armies seem to get point drops.
I wouldn't be suprised if some people just didn't start to play 1850games or 1900pts, just to not buy extra models.
Karol wrote: So GW thinks GK strikes should cost more then 1ksons. Interesting, maybe they are really making a huge book with rule for GK to use. Because the point changes look strange. If everyone gets their point costs cut, then the cuts only matter to top and mid tier armies. The bad ones will stay bad.
Strikes have the same problem loyalist Terminators do - they pay for having weapons that are pretty good for both shooting and close combat and therefore end up being pretty bad at both due to cost. If GW insists on sticking to fixed costs for wargear they're going to need to start slashing the base cost of things like GK to compensate but they seem reluctant to do that for some reason. I agree with you about the points cuts. I don't think constantly reducing the cost of almost everything is they way to go as it just leads to a further increase in damage output.
And an increase in sales as people are forced to buy models to fill in gaps...
Considering the broad strokes of the point decreases is , all in all considering , quite significant.
I had a marine based CSM list with 55 CSM in it. The list is allready now 110 pts cheaper, that is literally a whole other CSM squad.
Not to mention that the 30 cultist blob also got cheaper by 30 pts aswell.
And that is just expected model cuts, not to go into detail on some special weapory.
I also doubt that Havocs will remain 14 ppm aswell.
Chosen should come down as well. But then again raptors didn't. My contemptor will be at least 8 points cheaper thanks to the drop on chainfists.
Still hoping for a drop on the fellblade. They dropped the wraithknight so that's one non ik/ck low down. Didn't make the eldar players happy though. Always want more.
They don't have 2 wounds, but the inferno bolter is free, so they clock at a a total of 16.
Not sure how I feel about that in the face of 14 point PMs...
not good.
I mean rubrics allready were a tough call for in the context of the competitors.
Now PM are cheaper , have just a better profile and ability overall and alot more usefull dakka options.
They don't have 2 wounds, but the inferno bolter is free, so they clock at a a total of 16.
Not sure how I feel about that in the face of 14 point PMs...
not good.
I mean rubrics allready were a tough call for in the context of the competitors.
Now PM are cheaper , have just a better profile and ability overall and alot more usefull dakka options.
The gun is better and the psychic ability is useful. The T5, 5++, the melee ability, and support characters just punch me in the nuts a bit.
I hope the Soulreaper went down. I have no reason to those models.
More than a primaris marine for that POS is just silly. They have friggen 1 base attack.
Daermons got mad point drops. Go for all choas!
Crons got drops...including their best units...They will likely be OP now.
Looks like every space wolf unit got drops. Plus they will be getting doctrines and super doctrines soon. Will likely overtake Ironhands as top spot while naturally Ultra marines will be the worst chapter in the game. Just like every eddition previous to this.
Don't see any knight drops here. Those could be big.
No IG points here...could also be big.
No tau points here...heard they had a lot of their weapons getting cheaper (maybe good for crisis suits?) With riptides and shield drones going up it's a wash though. They will still be strong.
Really can't wait to see the final product here but I am saddend.
Really all I want for Christmas is storm ravens and landraiders to get points drops and be playable. Looks like they will be overlooked. (mainly because they are the only heavies GK can really utilize)
They don't have 2 wounds, but the inferno bolter is free, so they clock at a a total of 16.
Not sure how I feel about that in the face of 14 point PMs...
PM is obviously worth more than 14 points. Whatevers.
Rubric is still going to be pretty good with all that high AP 1 damage coming out of marines these days. They dropped 2 points as well I think too. Magnus also dropped. Now that Daemon price isn't autoinclude...You might be be taking a magnus in their place. Personally I'd rather play with magnus anyways.
More than a primaris marine for that POS is just silly. They have friggen 1 base attack.
They also have a jump pack, 2 lightening claws, 5+ invul, daemon keyword and the ability to shut off overwatch. So 19 points of equipment plus a t4 body and an awesome special ability.
At 19 points and the ability to almost guarantee charges with EC and Night Lords, I can see them being really competitive.
Xenomancers wrote: Seriously warp talons 19 points? More than a primaris marine for that POS is just silly. They have friggen 1 base attack.
What should the points a unit with these stats be? -- Deepstrike, A3, AP2, reroll wounds, ignore overwatch, DttFE, and a 3+/5++.
Daermons got mad point drops. Go for all choas!
Obliterators are down 20...*sigh*
Looks like every space wolf unit got drops.
Except TWC
PM is obviously worth more than 14 points. Whatevers.
Rubric is still going to be pretty good with all that high AP 1 damage coming out of marines these days. They dropped 2 points as well I think too. Magnus also dropped. Now that Daemon price isn't autoinclude...You might be be taking a magnus in their place. Personally I'd rather play with magnus anyways.
Eh. The points are a bit of a wash. PM are better at taking hits despite the Rubric's rule. It's really just the cheaper caster.
Xenomancers wrote: Seriously warp talons 19 points? More than a primaris marine for that POS is just silly. They have friggen 1 base attack.
What should the points a unit with these stats be? -- Deepstrike, A3, AP2, reroll wounds, ignore overwatch, DttFE, and a 3+/5++.
Daermons got mad point drops. Go for all choas!
Obliterators are down 20...*sigh*
Looks like every space wolf unit got drops.
Except TWC
PM is obviously worth more than 14 points. Whatevers.
Rubric is still going to be pretty good with all that high AP 1 damage coming out of marines these days. They dropped 2 points as well I think too. Magnus also dropped. Now that Daemon price isn't autoinclude...You might be be taking a magnus in their place. Personally I'd rather play with magnus anyways.
Eh. The points are a bit of a wash. PM are better at taking hits despite the Rubric's rule. It's really just the cheaper caster.
Magnus dropped? Wow...how much?
DttFE is worth 0 points and you forgot the key part of their Ignore Overwatch ability: they gotta come from Deep Strike.
Crons got drops...including their best units...They will likely be OP now.
Which mad drops did Daemons get? Most of the units that got drops were bad. Depending on if FWCSM get nerfs the Chaos faction could be going into the pooper for a few months until the best SM sub-factions get another nerf (if they get another nerf).
Which of the best Cron units got buffed? Tesla Immortals and TBs, Destroyers, Doomsday Arks, Doomscythes did not get buffs. Depending on CWE and Drukhari changes Necrons could be tier 1 (just below certain tier 0 SM sub-factions), but I don't think your comment was accurate.
I mean they may still be fragile (although a lot less than they were) - but at what point on Warp Talons are people just saying "never never never"? 19 points seems reasonable to me.
I still think the weakness is "we deep strike in, and then we charge, oh no the charge dice refuse to cooperate no matter what stratagems I use" - and now the unit is a sitting duck that achieved nothing. But thats true for most DS->Assault units.
If this is correct big blobs of possessed seem like the way to go. I felt they were borderline there anyway.
There's an interesting subset of CSM players who are staunchly opposed to any kind of risk/reward mechanic.
No psychic powers, no assaulting (because you might fail charges), no summoning, definitely no daemon weapons... basically the ideal is to set up a gunline with full rerolls and passive army-wide bonuses, and take as much randomness out of the game as possible.
I assume this has something to do with the pathology of loss aversion. Still, is it not a little bizarre to involve yourself so deeply with an army called Chaos when you have such deep repugnance towards any kind of unpredictability in the first place?
Yoyoyo wrote: There's an interesting subset of CSM players who are staunchly opposed to any kind of risk/reward mechanic.
No psychic powers, no assaulting (because you might fail charges), no summoning, definitely no daemon weapons... basically the ideal is to set up a gunline with full rerolls and passive army-wide bonuses, and take as much randomness out of the game as possible.
I assume this has something to do with the pathology of loss aversion. Still, is it not a little bizarre to involve yourself so deeply with an army called Chaos when you have such deep repugnance towards any kind of unpredictability in the first place?
That subset exists for all factions. It just seems worse for chaos because most of what we do falls under that category.
As opposed to loyalist marines who generally do that whole gun line reroll no randomness thing you described.
It may have something to do with some of the moronic randomness we had to deal with in previous editions as well.
And the only bad about the talons new cost is raptors didn't get a buff as well. If chosen don't get a drop it'll be annoying.
and you forgot the key part of their Ignore Overwatch ability: they gotta come from Deep Strike.
I don't see the problem when I'd run them Raptorial with a Smash Lord, anyway.
Someone said PM are still 16 points. Has anyone seen a good copy?
Which is all extra CP to spend on the squads and to get that Warlord Trait.
And yes DttFE is worth 0 points in the Marine meta. It could've been removed entirely and honestly nobody would've noticed and, if they did, nobody would care.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yoyoyo wrote: There's an interesting subset of CSM players who are staunchly opposed to any kind of risk/reward mechanic.
No psychic powers, no assaulting (because you might fail charges), no summoning, definitely no daemon weapons... basically the ideal is to set up a gunline with full rerolls and passive army-wide bonuses, and take as much randomness out of the game as possible.
I assume this has something to do with the pathology of loss aversion. Still, is it not a little bizarre to involve yourself so deeply with an army called Chaos when you have such deep repugnance towards any kind of unpredictability in the first place?
Then why pay for as though you were consistently benefitting from those like they weren't random, or why would you take a Daemon weapon when all the other Relic weapons are just better?
Necron best units: tesla immortal(no change), dda(no change), doom scythe(no change). Out of about 1600 pts of any competive necrons only change was overlord got about 14 pts or so cheaper. WEEEEEEEEEE! What a change! And most of the remaining points go often to destroyers(no change) and rest to scarabs(no change).
Gee. OP as if. Competive lists barely changed. Maybe extra tesla immortal if you didn't already field 3x10. Competive necron list gets very little out of this. For casual games internal balance got BIT better but for competive lists nothing major changed.
What you think necron best units are? Praetorians? Joke. Lychguard? Joke. C'tans aren't hot either and doubtful these point drops make them either.
The Newman wrote: The base cost of a Chaos Terminator now matches the base cost of a Loyalist one, so instead of complaining about how their Terminators cost more for no ____ing reason they'll have to complain about how poorly Terminators compare to the Loyalist's new Primaris toys instead.
Nah that's ok. We'll keep our deep striking/some of the best looking models in the game (that goes for all three marks) terminators.
You keep your ugly lore ruining primaris.
I'm talking about stats and game performance. Aesthetics and lore are irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion (i.e. "here are some of the new points values, discuss), and in that context either Terminators need to get cheaper or Aggressors and Assault Centurions need to get more expensive or both.
(I don't want to derail the thread but I'm not a big fan of the current Terminators. It's the way they're posed rather than anything wrong with the design of the armor, I liked the old metal ones just fine.)
Yeah I know. But you were taking a jab at chaos players so I took one back.
As far as stats/performance goes we're not getting primaris so I see no reason to worry about that. The problem is all the rules loyalists have gotten recently that other factions haven't gotten equivalents of.
Before c:sm got those primaris weren't that big of a problem.
You took that as a jab at Chaos players? Chaos Termies were more expensive for no reason. That was a legitimate complaint. It isn't anymore after CA 19, so the next obvious complaint is the same one Loyalists who've done the math have been making for a while; why is a Terminator almost the same price as an Aggressor when three Aggressors are blatently better than five Terminators. That's an even more legitimate complaint for Chaos than it is for Loyalists since Chaos doesn't have the option to take the new overpowered crud.
Necron best units: tesla immortal(no change), dda(no change), doom scythe(no change). Out of about 1600 pts of any competive necrons only change was overlord got about 14 pts or so cheaper. WEEEEEEEEEE! What a change! And most of the remaining points go often to destroyers(no change) and rest to scarabs(no change).
Gee. OP as if. Competive lists barely changed. Maybe extra tesla immortal if you didn't already field 3x10. Competive necron list gets very little out of this. For casual games internal balance got BIT better but for competive lists nothing major changed.
What you think necron best units are? Praetorians? Joke. Lychguard? Joke. C'tans aren't hot either and doubtful these point drops make them either.
It will be based on the confused rumour that tomb blades went down 7 points.
Its somewhat amazing how you can watch one set of rumours - and any mistakes - be repeated in half a dozen places on the internet.
Are Ravenguard Centurions worth it without the WL trait and stratagems? After all - it's just more traits and CP.
Well, of course, one would say -- they're silly good. Are they silly good for the points when they're walking across the field with no help at all? (probably a bit, because 4 2+ T4 wounds is just silly at 30 points)
There isn't a lot better than the nurgle daemon fist. The others are situationally useful. As in, "will I need this in the games I am about to play" useful. Lots of stuff falls under this umbrella. It doesn't make them bad. It means you pick them with more care then something you mindlessly spam as much as you're allowed to.
Xenomancers wrote: No tau points here...heard they had a lot of their weapons getting cheaper (maybe good for crisis suits?)
All I want for christmas... Is a cheaper Ghostkeel
What's the business sense in making the coolest model in the army so damn weak anyway. Needs to come down at least 30-40 points after wargear/ Ion Raker/ Burst Cannons/ Drones are added.
Daedalus81 wrote: Are Ravenguard Centurions worth it without the WL trait and stratagems? After all - it's just more traits and CP.
Well, of course, one would say -- they're silly good. Are they silly good for the points when they're walking across the field with no help at all? (probably a bit, because 4 2+ T4 wounds is just silly at 30 points)
There isn't a lot better than the nurgle daemon fist. The others are situationally useful. As in, "will I need this in the games I am about to play" useful. Lots of stuff falls under this umbrella. It doesn't make them bad. It means you pick them with more care then something you mindlessly spam as much as you're allowed to.
It isn't 30 points after wargear just remember that.
It isn't 30 points after wargear just remember that.
For sure, but so do Terminators and they're 23 points for half the wounds.
4 wounds, plus layered rules, plus a points cost as if they didn't get either of the first two things creates quite a mess on a unit with the combined wounds of a knight, but compartmentalized. That on top of armor requiring anti-tank, but where few things wound them on 2s to a point where shooting a lascannon at them is no easier than shooting it a knight, but with way more risk, because of the aforementioned compartmentalization.
The fix on Centurions is probably to give them native deep strike (which dilutes the RG ability perk) but up their points a respectable chunk.
Or not have the stupid successor chapter tactics in the game full stop (sorry Aeldari) and price things on the basis individual chapters are real factions now. I can't see that happening though.
Movement issues are real - but even a topped out loadout at say 13 points for wound with T5 2+ save seems a bit good, even before various perks you can boost it with.
Tyel wrote: The fix on Centurions is probably to give them native deep strike (which dilutes the RG ability perk) but up their points a respectable chunk.
Or not have the stupid successor chapter tactics in the game full stop (sorry Aeldari) and price things on the basis individual chapters are real factions now. I can't see that happening though.
Movement issues are real - but even a topped out loadout at say 13 points for wound with T5 2+ save seems a bit good, even before various perks you can boost it with.
None of the successor abilities break them whatsoever. Unless you think the 11" Flamers are broken, in which case I dunno what to tell ya.
It isn't 30 points after wargear just remember that.
For sure, but so do Terminators and they're 23 points for half the wounds.
4 wounds, plus layered rules, plus a points cost as if they didn't get either of the first two things creates quite a mess on a unit with the combined wounds of a knight, but compartmentalized. That on top of armor requiring anti-tank, but where few things wound them on 2s to a point where shooting a lascannon at them is no easier than shooting it a knight, but with way more risk, because of the aforementioned compartmentalization.
Which is why you add all the points together before the comparison. It's 54 I think for the Hurricane + Flamer loadout? Keep in mind of course Terminators aren't good, so making Centurions almost 80-100 points (which we just had happen!) doesn't provide incentive to take Terminators.
Could Centurions be 60 with that loadout? Probably. Are they super good? Hell yeah. Are they game breaking though? Nah.
Also you provide a problem that has to do with a core system issue (the wounding process not being granular whatsoever), which is not their issue specifically. Lascannons are wounding Necron Lords and Monoliths at the same rate after all.
Poxwalkers dropping down to 4 points each is why I have finally built up 30 of them and plan to paint them all this weekend. First time I will be properly using contrast.
Sumilidon wrote: Poxwalkers dropping down to 4 points each is why I have finally built up 30 of them and plan to paint them all this weekend. First time I will be properly using contrast.
Are we sure abut that one though? The leaked DG pages are very blurry, and so my money is on them dropping to 5 at best. 2 point drop for a normal 6 point troop seems a bit excessive/hopeful. Not that I personally won't be buying lots of them* if 4 points is true.
*well a proxy since I can't stand the normal poxwalker model for some reason.
Sumilidon wrote: Poxwalkers dropping down to 4 points each is why I have finally built up 30 of them and plan to paint them all this weekend. First time I will be properly using contrast.
Are we sure abut that one though? The leaked DG pages are very blurry, and so my money is on them dropping to 5 at best. 2 point drop for a normal 6 point troop seems a bit excessive/hopeful. Not that I personally won't be buying lots of them* if 4 points is true.
*well a proxy since I can't stand the normal poxwalker model for some reason.
photos I've seen are quite clear. Poxwalkers are 5ppm now. Not 4 not 6
Yoyoyo wrote: There's an interesting subset of CSM players who are staunchly opposed to any kind of risk/reward mechanic.
No psychic powers, no assaulting (because you might fail charges), no summoning, definitely no daemon weapons... basically the ideal is to set up a gunline with full rerolls and passive army-wide bonuses, and take as much randomness out of the game as possible.
I assume this has something to do with the pathology of loss aversion. Still, is it not a little bizarre to involve yourself so deeply with an army called Chaos when you have such deep repugnance towards any kind of unpredictability in the first place?
I mean you've just described the dominant playstyle of 8th.
It's not really surprising that people are gonna think in those terms. Maybe the design of the edition is just bad if it flattens the outcomes and differences with a bunch of reroll auras
Which is why you add all the points together before the comparison. It's 54 I think for the Hurricane + Flamer loadout? Keep in mind of course Terminators aren't good, so making Centurions almost 80-100 points (which we just had happen!) doesn't provide incentive to take Terminators.
Could Centurions be 60 with that loadout? Probably. Are they super good? Hell yeah. Are they game breaking though? Nah.
Also you provide a problem that has to do with a core system issue (the wounding process not being granular whatsoever), which is not their issue specifically. Lascannons are wounding Necron Lords and Monoliths at the same rate after all.
Yea, I cant reccomend a good point value for them even though Centurions break even D3 weapons.
Can we all agree, Logan on Storm Rider pts drop is a net gain for everyone ? Santa, your time has come, again. Sleigh all in the name of the all Father !! Then deliver unto the enemy coal, for they were very bad.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Can we all agree, Logan on Storm Rider pts drop is a net gain for everyone ? Santa, your time has come, again. Sleigh all in the name of the all Father !! Then deliver unto the enemy coal, for they were very bad.
It's not really surprising that people are gonna think in those terms. Maybe the design of the edition is just bad if it flattens the outcomes and differences with a bunch of reroll auras
That was intentional and I completely understand, people want to win of course. But it doesn't mean we should embrace the playstyle if we consider it bad design. An ostensibly social game being predictably decided on stovepiped, list-building min-maxing at home and P2W model purchases rather than interactions between the players is gonna be a disaster.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Can we all agree, Logan on Storm Rider pts drop is a net gain for everyone ? Santa, your time has come, again. Sleigh all in the name of the all Father !! Then deliver unto the enemy coal, for they were very bad.
Well it is officially the Christmas season.
Guess chaos and xenos were bad this year.
Yes and I am sorry about that, but it seems GW have a nice and naughty list. I mean just ask the orks in Orktober, seems all they got were the tricks and smelling of feet and nothing at all good to eat.
It's not really surprising that people are gonna think in those terms. Maybe the design of the edition is just bad if it flattens the outcomes and differences with a bunch of reroll auras
That was intentional and I completely understand, people want to win of course. But it doesn't mean we should embrace the playstyle if we consider it bad design. An ostensibly social game being predictably decided on stovepiped, list-building min-maxing at home and P2W model purchases rather than interactions between the players is gonna be a disaster.
yeah, and steroids are bad, there for sportsmen never use them. What is next, no stealing in office and no funelling lucrative contracts to family members?
The game costs too much for people to risk buying in to a bad army, and hoping that others will buy in to a bad one too. You practily require a total noob with knowladge buy in to an army with a limited budget, for someone to end up with a new bad army. The only other way to get a bad army is to own a good one and GW nerfing it to death. But then good luck getting any sympathy from people you were beatting for months.
Still no GK page leaked, only the weapon stuff we share with sisters and inquisition. Makes me anxious.
Karol wrote: yeah, and steroids are bad, there for sportsmen never use them. What is next, no stealing in office and no funelling lucrative contracts to family members?
If you want to be respected -- no, you don't use steroids, steal from your work, or engage in nepotism.
What kind of bizarre argument is that to justify FOTM nonsense in 40k? I assume you're playing for fun rather than because you need to win tourney payouts to feed your kids.
It's not really surprising that people are gonna think in those terms. Maybe the design of the edition is just bad if it flattens the outcomes and differences with a bunch of reroll auras
That was intentional and I completely understand, people want to win of course. But it doesn't mean we should embrace the playstyle if we consider it bad design. An ostensibly social game being predictably decided on stovepiped, list-building min-maxing at home and P2W model purchases rather than interactions between the players is gonna be a disaster.
yeah, and steroids are bad, there for sportsmen never use them. What is next, no stealing in office and no funelling lucrative contracts to family members?
The game costs too much for people to risk buying in to a bad army, and hoping that others will buy in to a bad one too. You practily require a total noob with knowladge buy in to an army with a limited budget, for someone to end up with a new bad army. The only other way to get a bad army is to own a good one and GW nerfing it to death. But then good luck getting any sympathy from people you were beatting for months.
Still no GK page leaked, only the weapon stuff we share with sisters and inquisition. Makes me anxious.
You're so freaking jaded Karol it's hilarious. GW has already told us Strike Squads are becoming 4 pts cheaper, probably all your other units are getting the same or bigger drops.
Yoyoyo wrote: There's an interesting subset of CSM players who are staunchly opposed to any kind of risk/reward mechanic.
No psychic powers, no assaulting (because you might fail charges), no summoning, definitely no daemon weapons... basically the ideal is to set up a gunline with full rerolls and passive army-wide bonuses, and take as much randomness out of the game as possible.
I assume this has something to do with the pathology of loss aversion. Still, is it not a little bizarre to involve yourself so deeply with an army called Chaos when you have such deep repugnance towards any kind of unpredictability in the first place?
Competitive play has always resolved around removing randomness where possible because you need to win multiple games in a row and for that you need consistency.
Some ability to lessen it is fine, problem is GW has gone well overboard this edition by giving away to many means.
You're so freaking jaded Karol it's hilarious. GW has already told us Strike Squads are becoming 4 pts cheaper, probably all your other units are getting the same or bigger drops.
that is just termintors and strikes, and it would be interesting, if other factions didn't get point drops for buckets of units too. GK were worse then other armies, before GW started doing 2.0 books. If all armies get point drops, then it would be as if no one got point drops. Last year it was the same way. GK said that GK point drops are going to be huge, that multiple units are going to get them, and in the end it was armies like tau and IG that got the best point drops. Isn't just a GK thing either. necron players already saw their point drops, and they don't seem to be extremly happy about them.
Then there is a more personal gripe I have. My army has one 5 man unit of strikes, there rest is in termintor armour, and termintors aren't getting the same kind of point drop as strike do. So I would have to buy a lot of boxs to actually use the point drops to full effect. And if I had the money for it, I would never spend them on GK. Instead of buying 6 boxs of strikes, I would buy a space marine army. Same or similar money, much better rules.
Karol wrote: yeah, and steroids are bad, there for sportsmen never use them. What is next, no stealing in office and no funelling lucrative contracts to family members?
If you want to be respected -- no, you don't use steroids, steal from your work, or engage in nepotism.
What kind of bizarre argument is that to justify FOTM nonsense in 40k? I assume you're playing for fun rather than because you need to win tourney payouts to feed your kids.
You don't do or follow professional sports or politics do you?
And it is not a bizzar argument. To me the bizzar argument is that, just because a rule is bad for people with not top tier armies or books, others are sudddenly going to not use the best options that exist. There is zero chance of that happening. And I say it as someone whose army is clearly one of the worse in 8th ed.
Ah and I don't play tournaments either, neither do most people I play against. I mean maybe it is different in countries where a months salary can buy multiple armies, but here the avarge is 450$. If I went, and I actualy did following the advice given to me on this very forum, to ask for people to use bad models to play against my army, the reactions ranged from ignore to laughing.
GK Terminators down 7, Paladins down 6, GMNDK down 20 and NDK down 30. GW doesn't hate you, they're just a bit incompetent sometimes and they can't wrap their heads around how a balanced game might be best for everyone.
Gordoape wrote: What do Chaos players think about all the points drops there? Seems really nice to me for generic chaos/black legion.
is there a compiled list of these somewhere? I don't plan to do much in 40k since it's still a clusterfeth but I spent a few hundred when the new chaos stuff came out so the drops may let be build a serviceable if causal army I can sometimes use in friendly games.
Gordoape wrote: What do Chaos players think about all the points drops there? Seems really nice to me for generic chaos/black legion.
Nothing, i doubt it will pan out, considering the general drops overall. Infact i doubt gw s capability.
Also r&h remained absolutely unchanged.
There's really not that many drops overall though, nothing like last year. For example, Marines got no changes and Guard got very few. CSM may have gotten more than any other faction. Not to say that they didn't deserve it of course. Drukhari took a couple nerfs and that's it.
Some of these units are probably still not competitive, some are now really good (Obliterators) and some it's not really clear to me (Abbadon). It's nice to see Chaos Marines down 2 points even if they're probably still no good.
Wayniac wrote: Huh looks like nearly everything I have went down. That's a good thing I guess?
Haha yeah I know that this forum is fully committed to 100% doom and gloom all the time, but I mentioned CSM because on their face the changes look pretty comprehensive. Obviously going against SM is a big hill to climb but there's a meta aside from playing Space Marines.
Not Online!!! wrote: I am still flabergasted why the WORSE CULTISTS remain 5 pts in the worse army...
Like why?
Also why not do something for the fw indexes in general...
Oh they DID! The fething ASTREUS dropped 100.
Not fellblade. Not falchion. Not even typhon or Cerberus.
If things become too cheap we can just go down to 1850 again, I don't really see it being a huge issue. The bigger issue IMO is the lack of granularity between 3-5 pts.
Not Online!!! wrote: I am still flabergasted why the WORSE CULTISTS remain 5 pts in the worse army...
Like why?
Also why not do something for the fw indexes in general...
Oh they DID! The fething ASTREUS dropped 100.
Not fellblade. Not falchion. Not even typhon or Cerberus.
So Chaos Spawn are 20 points for 5 wounds at T5... wow.
I mean, maybe in ITC with some secondaries they aren't worth it but outside that , I see them as great units to just annoy your opponent, tie down stuff, etc... 300 points for 75 R5 wounds.
Not Online!!! wrote: I am still flabergasted why the WORSE CULTISTS remain 5 pts in the worse army...
Like why?
Also why not do something for the fw indexes in general...
Oh they DID! The fething ASTREUS dropped 100.
Not fellblade. Not falchion. Not even typhon or Cerberus.
The fething ASTREUS.
I am done.
Screw that.
Cultists dropped to 4.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well, I enjoyed my gsc being half decent after the codex while it lasted. I guess someone killed a space marine with an aberrant at gwHQ while they were making the points changes lol.
+15 points for a fething stop sign, +3pts for aberrant bodies, doubled the cost of demo charges, hefty whack to Keler...but hey I guess that 49% win rate was just too op.
But hey now you can spend more dollars than points on Ridge runners. Woooo, another gsc unit below the 1$/pt ratio!!
Not Online!!! wrote: I am still flabergasted why the WORSE CULTISTS remain 5 pts in the worse army...
Like why?
Also why not do something for the fw indexes in general...
Oh they DID! The fething ASTREUS dropped 100.
Not fellblade. Not falchion. Not even typhon or Cerberus.
The fething ASTREUS.
I am done.
Screw that.
Cultists dropped to 4.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well, I enjoyed my gsc being half decent after the codex while it lasted. I guess someone killed a space marine with an aberrant at gwHQ while they were making the points changes lol.
+15 points for a fething stop sign, +3pts for aberrant bodies, doubled the cost of demo charges, hefty whack to Keler...but hey I guess that 49% win rate was just too op.
But hey now you can spend more dollars than points on Ridge runners. Woooo, another gsc unit below the 1$/pt ratio!!
Yeah R&H not being touched is pretty stupid. Good thing the leaks make getting what you need easy to procure because I'm thinking I'm not giving them a cent for this year's CA.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Yeah R&H not being touched is pretty stupid. Good thing the leaks make getting what you need easy to procure because I'm thinking I'm not giving them a cent for this year's CA.
The whole dropping almost every low except the hellforged/relic ones has me seriously thinking of just going all battlescribe all the time.
Galas wrote: So Chaos Spawn are 20 points for 5 wounds at T5... wow.
I mean, maybe in ITC with some secondaries they aren't worth it but outside that , I see them as great units to just annoy your opponent, tie down stuff, etc... 300 points for 75 R5 wounds.
Yea I quite liked spawn at 25 even if grotesques were better.
Galas wrote: So Chaos Spawn are 20 points for 5 wounds at T5... wow.
I mean, maybe in ITC with some secondaries they aren't worth it but outside that , I see them as great units to just annoy your opponent, tie down stuff, etc... 300 points for 75 R5 wounds.
Yea I quite liked spawn at 25 even if grotesques were better.
Also that apostle price is more palatable
Well except you play r&h then you pay 33 pts still, because gw is stupid and can't proveread.
Yeah, chuffed about this if it happens. I love the models and if I can squeeze some more in without having to miss out on as many Boyz as I want, this is great.
Galas wrote: So Chaos Spawn are 20 points for 5 wounds at T5... wow.
I mean, maybe in ITC with some secondaries they aren't worth it but outside that , I see them as great units to just annoy your opponent, tie down stuff, etc... 300 points for 75 R5 wounds.
Yea I quite liked spawn at 25 even if grotesques were better.
Also that apostle price is more palatable
Well except you play r&h then you pay 33 pts still, because gw is stupid and can't proveread.
I know it's not the solution for tournaments...but do you play with people who would really give a gak if you put your cultists at 4 points, and your spawn at 20, etc? I feel like outside of a tournament you could "common sense" change a lot of R&H. If you're that die-hard about it and can't wait for the rather inevitable plastic launch...just fix it.
I know it's not the solution for tournaments...but do you play with people who would really give a gak if you put your cultists at 4 points, and your spawn at 20, etc? I feel like outside of a tournament you could "common sense" change a lot of R&H. If you're that die-hard about it and can't wait for the rather inevitable plastic launch...just fix it.
I don't dabble in R&H so I couldn't say if it's wise to have super cheap spawn alongside guard stuff, but I think it's a combination of lazy and potential future plans for a codex for R&H (based around the new models).
I know it's not the solution for tournaments...but do you play with people who would really give a gak if you put your cultists at 4 points, and your spawn at 20, etc? I feel like outside of a tournament you could "common sense" change a lot of R&H. If you're that die-hard about it and can't wait for the rather inevitable plastic launch...just fix it.
I don't dabble in R&H so I couldn't say if it's wise to have super cheap spawn alongside guard stuff, but I think it's a combination of lazy and potential future plans for a codex for R&H (based around the new models).
Considering the infantry is overpriced by20-25% , no.
Also I am more annoyed because of the fact that the obvious changes didn't happen.
Well, in a 2000 pt infantry GK army, you have 200 pts left after the revision.
Not a bad move by GW.
But the lowering of points, especially for the GKSS (from 21 to 17), was inevitable.
I wonder that it didn't came out earlier.
Moreover, I wonder when battlescribe will have the pt changes updated.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, in a 2000 pt infantry GK army, you have 200 pts left after the revision.
Not a bad move by GW.
But the lowering of points, especially for the GKSS (from 21 to 17), was inevitable.
I wonder that it didn't came out earlier.
Moreover, I wonder when battlescribe will have the pt changes updated.
Probably not until like a week after it releases. It's technically not out yet.
For a year strikes cost more then interceptors. For a year, GW forgot that it costed the psycannon on a razorback as if it was a heavy psycannon. Never fixed it. not in the CAfaq/errata, not in the spring or autum FAQ. I wonder if they change it now.
In general I think the only rules they really read, are those for new stuff they worked for. If they are just doing a copy paste, and on top of it they don't have data from people playing the army a lot, they just miss stuff. I mean who at the studio is suppose to stand up and tell them they made an error?
I for one certainly cannot see what sort of criteria GW is making changes by.
Looking at the IG changes, they made russ tanks inexplicably cheaper, made Mortars expensive enough that they're never going to be seen again, decided the Wyvern of all things needed a nerf, made Astropaths cheaper again, and none of the units that really need help and never see the table got any help at all, while Tank Commanders remain criminally undercosted.
I think they're operating by Ouiji board. It's certainly not gameplay feedback.
Vaktathi wrote: I for one certainly cannot see what sort of criteria GW is making changes by.
Looking at the IG changes, they made russ tanks inexplicably cheaper, made Mortars expensive enough that they're never going to be seen again, decided the Wyvern of all things needed a nerf, made Astropaths cheaper again, and none of the units that really need help and never see the table got any help at all, while Tank Commanders remain criminally undercosted.
I think they're operating by Ouiji board. It's certainly not gameplay feedback.
In general I agree that its hard to see what drives the changes other then 'we have a surplus of model X, go make it cheaper so we sell some'. Tho you can justify Leman Russes by saying they are never taken, its always Tank Commanders, and if GW thinks they are not undercosted then the basic Leman Russ is to cheap.
Mortar teams were criminally undercosted.
Not a clue why Astropaths needed to be cheaper when they were already a really cheap way to get some psykers for denial into a IG army.
The LR shouldn't be more expensive than the Demolisher now that the Demo cannon went from Heavy d3 (d6 on units of 5+ models) to a straight Heavy d6. Not saying the LR should have gone down necessarily.
Althought with what happened with the Marine suppliments practically everything else getting cheaper does bring things closer to being in line. I fully expect there to be another hot-patch to bump Marines up a notch or two in the not-too-distant future. Probably after the Christmas sales.
Marines don't need pts increases, they need rules adjustments, which is what the FAQs are for anyways, I don't expect any rules changes before LVO. After the LVO we'll probably know how the meta settles and exactly what changes would be fair, GW can implement changes in a month or two after that since they don't need to do a production run and can implement the rules immediately after proofreading them (ha ha). If BA become a boogieman it might not make any sense to nerf Intercessors, Flyers, Repulsor Executioner, Eliminators, TFC, Aggressors and Assault Centurions which I think are currently the strongest SM units, but probably a side-note in a BA army.
TFC is probably the most common unit, but only partially because of its pts, it'd probably still be taken if it was 20 more pts at least as once to use the Stratagems it has.
Dont think mono BA is gonna take over the meta. Cant see how due to how the new rules dont solve the 2 BA weaknesses, handling enemy screens and lack of cheap CP. But imperial or astartes soup with BA might on the other hand. If it does I hope they just make the offending rules only available to mono BA instead of nerfing the whole faction to the ground.
vict0988 wrote: If BA become a boogieman it might not make any sense to nerf Intercessors, Flyers, Repulsor Executioner, Eliminators, TFC, Aggressors and Assault Centurions which I think are currently the strongest SM units, but probably a side-note in a BA army.
TFC is probably the most common unit, but only partially because of its pts, it'd probably still be taken if it was 20 more pts at least as once to use the Stratagems it has.
That's not how balancing works, If the current SM's lists are dumpstering everyone (and from the looks of it they mostly are) then they need to be brought back in line, regardless of whether or not BA uses different units to dominate aswell or even more (those units obv need to brought in line aswell).
If you just nerf what the #1 army brings without realising that the #2 army is also unhealthy for everything below it your not going to get a somewhat balanced field.
vict0988 wrote: If BA become a boogieman it might not make any sense to nerf Intercessors, Flyers, Repulsor Executioner, Eliminators, TFC, Aggressors and Assault Centurions which I think are currently the strongest SM units, but probably a side-note in a BA army.
TFC is probably the most common unit, but only partially because of its pts, it'd probably still be taken if it was 20 more pts at least as once to use the Stratagems it has.
That's not how balancing works, If the current SM's lists are dumpstering everyone (and from the looks of it they mostly are) then they need to be brought back in line, regardless of whether or not BA uses different units to dominate aswell or even more (those units obv need to brought in line aswell).
If you just nerf what the #1 army brings without realising that the #2 army is also unhealthy for everything below it your not going to get a somewhat balanced field.
On the other hand, the #2 army might not be as oppressive once #1 is removed because other lists might be able to handle #2, but not #1.
vict0988 wrote: If BA become a boogieman it might not make any sense to nerf Intercessors, Flyers, Repulsor Executioner, Eliminators, TFC, Aggressors and Assault Centurions which I think are currently the strongest SM units, but probably a side-note in a BA army.
TFC is probably the most common unit, but only partially because of its pts, it'd probably still be taken if it was 20 more pts at least as once to use the Stratagems it has.
That's not how balancing works, If the current SM's lists are dumpstering everyone (and from the looks of it they mostly are) then they need to be brought back in line, regardless of whether or not BA uses different units to dominate aswell or even more (those units obv need to brought in line aswell).
If you just nerf what the #1 army brings without realising that the #2 army is also unhealthy for everything below it your not going to get a somewhat balanced field.
Let's assume BA Assault Marines become the new hotness and they don't make any use of the units I mentioned, then it would not make sense to nerf Assault Marines and the units I mentioned, instead GW should nerf the things that make the units I mentioned OP and the things that make Assault Marines OP. Otherwise, you end up with each unit only being viable within a single sub-faction, you might like WS bikes being more pts-efficient but I think we can agree that other sub-factions should be able to field bikes in some capacity without being ridiculed in the list forum right?
BA could hypothetically counter SM while being bad against certain other armies, so you could have a situation where BA are technically OP because they have a 52+% win-rate against every faction and 80% win-rate against SM and thus sort of keep them in check. Nerfing number two could hurt balance more than it helps unless properly tested and you account for how it is going to affect the meta.
vict0988 wrote: If BA become a boogieman it might not make any sense to nerf Intercessors, Flyers, Repulsor Executioner, Eliminators, TFC, Aggressors and Assault Centurions which I think are currently the strongest SM units, but probably a side-note in a BA army.
TFC is probably the most common unit, but only partially because of its pts, it'd probably still be taken if it was 20 more pts at least as once to use the Stratagems it has.
That's not how balancing works, If the current SM's lists are dumpstering everyone (and from the looks of it they mostly are) then they need to be brought back in line, regardless of whether or not BA uses different units to dominate aswell or even more (those units obv need to brought in line aswell).
If you just nerf what the #1 army brings without realising that the #2 army is also unhealthy for everything below it your not going to get a somewhat balanced field.
Let's assume BA Assault Marines become the new hotness and they don't make any use of the units I mentioned, then it would not make sense to nerf Assault Marines and the units I mentioned, instead GW should nerf the things that make the units I mentioned OP and the things that make Assault Marines OP. Otherwise, you end up with each unit only being viable within a single sub-faction, you might like WS bikes being more pts-efficient but I think we can agree that other sub-factions should be able to field bikes in some capacity without being ridiculed in the list forum right?
Ah you mean it like that, my bad.
Yes the rules for SM's in general are the problem (Doctrines + super Doctrines + Shock assault is to much) not the units themselves per say.
vict0988 wrote: If BA become a boogieman it might not make any sense to nerf Intercessors, Flyers, Repulsor Executioner, Eliminators, TFC, Aggressors and Assault Centurions which I think are currently the strongest SM units, but probably a side-note in a BA army.
TFC is probably the most common unit, but only partially because of its pts, it'd probably still be taken if it was 20 more pts at least as once to use the Stratagems it has.
That's not how balancing works, If the current SM's lists are dumpstering everyone (and from the looks of it they mostly are) then they need to be brought back in line, regardless of whether or not BA uses different units to dominate aswell or even more (those units obv need to brought in line aswell).
If you just nerf what the #1 army brings without realising that the #2 army is also unhealthy for everything below it your not going to get a somewhat balanced field.
On the other hand, the #2 army might not be as oppressive once #1 is removed because other lists might be able to handle #2, but not #1.
That is not the case here. We know Marines are oppressive, to pretty much everyone.
Vaktathi wrote: I for one certainly cannot see what sort of criteria GW is making changes by.
Looking at the IG changes, they made russ tanks inexplicably cheaper, made Mortars expensive enough that they're never going to be seen again, decided the Wyvern of all things needed a nerf, made Astropaths cheaper again, and none of the units that really need help and never see the table got any help at all, while Tank Commanders remain criminally undercosted.
I think they're operating by Ouiji board. It's certainly not gameplay feedback.
In general I agree that its hard to see what drives the changes other then 'we have a surplus of model X, go make it cheaper so we sell some'. Tho you can justify Leman Russes by saying they are never taken, its always Tank Commanders, and if GW thinks they are not undercosted then the basic Leman Russ is to cheap.
Mortar teams were criminally undercosted.
Not a clue why Astropaths needed to be cheaper when they were already a really cheap way to get some psykers for denial into a IG army.
I can understand the leman russ to some degree, however gw killed it's place with the sizecreep and prevalence of knights and antiknight lists.
I believe the wyvern got the kick due to the vigilus doubleshooting,but that is my guess.
Overall it feels wierd,also why nerf normal ogryns!?!
A lot of things for a Militarum Tempestus list went down, as I look. Tempestor Primes are now 35 points. Troop Scions are 7 points. Astropaths are down. Lascannons are down in case your Valks had those.
Yeah screw paying money for this product. Again. They really don't want my money for their rules it seems.
Buy sm, 3 models for 50+CHF.
What you don't think that is good value?
Too bad./J
Honestly i feel that that race to the bottom is becoming clear, margins on sm must be higher therefore force sales of sm and screw xenos or fw for that matter, also screw csm because how dare you demand an actual working baseline, play soup you pleb.......
hey last year CA had the point cost of a psycanon on a razorback bumped as if the razorback had a heavy psycannon, that a NDK can carry. People pointed it out to GW whole year, and they didn't fix it.
So I would say GW often can't even copy paste properly.
This is already addressed within the post. I'm WELL aware you can't take 10.6 cultists, but if you want an "apples to apples" math comparison - there it is.
I assume you're playing for fun rather than because you need to win tourney payouts to feed your kids.
