I miss the days when the rules for army X was in army X's codex.
As opposed to "Okay, so the rules for your army are in in the codex except for this arbitrary pile of rules which is in the index and the rules for using those rules are in the Designer's Commentary and so intuitive that they require a flowchart. Now there are also these extra rules that we're releasing in Chapter Approved and also these other extra rules that we're releasing in these Marine Supplements campaign books. Oh, and did we mention that the rules that aren't in your codex are now in this other book called Legends, and they're legal in Matched Play but completely unsuited for it and thus we highly recommend that no one use them ever."
Please can you point out where the Index Wargear flowchart can be found with the current GWFAQs. The document you linked to may be on GW's servers, but it's definitely not on their website with the CURRENT FAQs.
Eligius wrote: I have an Ork Warboss in Mega Armour and an Ork Big Mek with Kustom Forcefield: I'm still going to use my Index options
Same here, until both of those units are in a physical book, preferably a codex.
I won't be using Legends myself but any one who want's to is free to do so. The lack of a KFF on the big Mek in that document is plenty of reason to ignore it for a book I already have which is still edition compatible.
I thought it was stupid in the first place and just opened the floodgates to abuse. They should have taken the heat and said sorry, we understand you want to use models that you bought 20 years ago, but the game has to evolve. If you really want it, use it to proxy an existing model in your codex with your opponent's permission.
Wayniac wrote: I thought it was stupid in the first place and just opened the floodgates to abuse. They should have taken the heat and said sorry, we understand you want to use models that you bought 20 years ago, but the game has to evolve. If you really want it, use it to proxy an existing model in your codex with your opponent's permission.
Well, luckily they didn't do that and provided Legends rules instead so you can still use most of your old models. There unfortunately are some omissions though.
p5freak wrote: I dont mind that GW removed the flowchart, but i do mind that its a stealth update.
EXACTLY!
They've started a precedent for being clearer and more transparent with the rules. Stealth moves are just bad old GW up to its standard tricks.
I personally welcome the legneds concept. New players I know had no way to get these models and started resorting to third party or expensive conversions. Having a clear and current ruleset is a must they just can't handle the clear part.
As an Ork player, kitbashing is not only encouraged but fun -- I'm not a great hobbyist (or interested in that side of it too much), but it was always fun to throw some stuff together for a conversion and it almost always was passable, because Orks are so hodge podge.
So losing a bunch of upgrades or models due to "not having the models" was really annoying. I can make my own Kustom Shootas on my Nobs, thanks.
I know this was a bit harder for other armies, though.
tulun wrote: As an Ork player, kitbashing is not only encouraged but fun -- I'm not a great hobbyist (or interested in that side of it too much), but it was always fun to throw some stuff together for a conversion and it almost always was passable, because Orks are so hodge podge.
So losing a bunch of upgrades or models due to "not having the models" was really annoying. I can make my own Kustom Shootas on my Nobs, thanks.
I know this was a bit harder for other armies, though.
Good thing you can just talk with your opponent (quite easily if they are a good friend) and ignore it.
Just like you can ignore the edicts of a man who doesn't even play the game.
Good thing you can just talk with your opponent (quite easily if they are a good friend) and ignore it.
Just like you can ignore the edicts of a man who doesn't even play the game.
Yeah I'll probably end up doing that anyway, it's not like its particularly OP.
I do hope GW gets its thumb out of its ass and eases up on this stuff, though. I get putting old models they haven't made in decades (or ever in some cases) away, but upgrades for an existing model just seems full on dumb *and* loses them money. If I have to buy extra kits to kit bash, it's a win win.
Galef wrote: The only Index options I used (Autarch wargear and Dread autocannons) made it to Legends just fine, so I'm good.
-
For tournaments my DA Librarians on bikes are now legends and unusable in tournaments but I can still use them in casual with most people at the flgs I play at. Once codecs came out without some units I pretty much assumed they were on deaths door and stopped converting units to index only options, I was expecting them to just kill index only units off completely rather than move some to legendary status.
Lance845 wrote: As for biker index units, just wait for the primaris bikes to show up. Then you will get a dozen biker lieutenants and all the other variations.
That new primaris land speeder looks interesting, reminds me a bit of a covenant revenant from halo reach.
People using Index/Legends arent usually the competitive type anyway. The few complaints I've heard from my gaming community about Legends are from the infrequent players anyhow, and for them, I'd just allow them to play their way.
Personally I think it's just better to adapt to GWs suggestions on things like Legends, Rule of 3, and Detachment limits, react, adapt, overcome. But I also realize a big part of the hobby is bitching about not getting that oompa loompa and a golden goose.
It's the "optional" part that people don't seem to understand.
Yep.
Additionally, the "Rule of 3" isn't. It's a suggested thing for tournaments that happens to have "rule" in the name.
It actually even doesn't. 'Rule of Three' isn't the real name of the suggestion. It is just a column in the Organised Event Guidelines saying: "number of times each datasheet can be included."
It's all very well grandstanding online and saying "well akchuaalalllllllllly they're optional rules" but they are (for some reason) treated as if they are real rules by the wider community so they're not at all optional for many of us who play (or played in my own case) pick-up games vs. strangers in a LGS.
Excommunicatus wrote: It's all very well grandstanding online and saying "well akchuaalalllllllllly they're optional rules" but they are (for some reason) treated as if they are real rules by the wider community so they're not at all optional for many of us who play (or played in my own case) pick-up games vs. strangers in a LGS.
Excommunicatus wrote: It's all very well grandstanding online and saying "well akchuaalalllllllllly they're optional rules" but they are (for some reason) treated as if they are real rules by the wider community so they're not at all optional for many of us who play (or played in my own case) pick-up games vs. strangers in a LGS.
Akchualllllly.
The trick I've found is to flip the script on the people who insist on these "optional" rules as being mandatory. Their reasoning usually includes such gems as "I'm practicing for a tournament!"(there was no tournament ) or that they somehow feel that "the game wouldn't be balanced" otherwise.
As soon as you start telling them that you want to play Urban Conquest or use the cityfight rules, suddenly people become more tractable.
amusingly the last pick up game I played was open play. my local GW was having a christmas party and a bucha us decided to just throw down and play,we didn't even balance around PL we just played what we had. (which lead the the blood angel player who'd brought a tank having an edge but it was all light hearted fun)open play thus does work, but you need to go in with the right mindset it's certainly not the game set I'd advise people to play normally, but it can be fun for a afterbnoon if you're not looking to be very serious.
Wayniac wrote: I thought it was stupid in the first place and just opened the floodgates to abuse. They should have taken the heat and said sorry, we understand you want to use models that you bought 20 years ago, but the game has to evolve. If you really want it, use it to proxy an existing model in your codex with your opponent's permission.
The issue is that this would have made more sense if the options removed were taken out for sensible reasons. They weren't, and that left many people high and dry.
I just bought/converted several models that are being put out to pasture by these legends changes. I just started back up when 8th came out so all of these purchases were done with a CURRENT RULE BOOK IN HAND, FROM GW (OR KITBASHED WITH GW KITS). None of this is 20 years old and if GW knew they were phasing them out they shouldn't have sold any of it once 8th hit (and GW knew they were phasing them out).
Several biker characters (DA libby, BA captain, SW cap)
regular sized tigarius
regular sized shrike
Dual AC forge world arms for my venerable dreads
and the aforementioned wolf guard bikers (haven't finished painting these yet...)
Hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours of painting gone for I'm not sure what reason. Is it really that hard to add the bike characters to one of the new codexes I'm paying 40 bucks for? Are twin-auto cannon dreads ruining 40k? They couldn't have spent the .000004$ on adding a line to the marine equipment list?
It wasn't that they were unbalanced (maybe the wolf guard bikers were a bit much but thunder wolf cavalry are sooooo bad) and if being unbalanced is a reason to remove something, boy do I have a list for you!
Some of the old as dirt stuff or weird one offs should go, unintended equipment combos should have been dealt with (stupid eldar and their stupid bikes) but my dark angel librarian on a bike never hurt no one, is fluffy as hell and now I can't use him in any of my games (only play ITC tournaments because I have way too much on my plate to develop and maintain a whole new social network so I can enjoy my hobby).
I'm not asking to use my 20 year old tiny metal demon price with wings but for stuff I bought this edition to be removed from legal play (no matter how they try to sugar coat it that is what they are doing for me) is BS, especially after they came out with the flow chart to reassure us that we can still use our models...
In regards to "restrictive house rules", it bears noting that GW has stated that Legends are not recommended for Matched Play. It's right there on the splash page for the Legends downloadable PDF. And I'm relatively certain that "rule of 3" was implemented to address balance issues with certain spammed units. If you choose to disregard recommendations because you don't like them, then I ain't gonna fault ya for it. Just don't be a donkey cave because other folks choose to go along with the recommendations put forward by the company that makes the game.
And as for "I just built all these models I can't use": unless you're playing SoB, every Faction has had a Codex for well over a year now. Did you not consider that, maybe, the units that didn't make it into your Codex weren't gonna be supported for much longer in this edition? How, exactly, should GW phase out old models and rules? I'm relatively certain that if they released a new edition that lacked options from this one, people would still complain about having just put together a bunch of stuff and not being able to use them now. Personally, I think 1+ years to use your models and start working on replacing them with options that "made the switch" to a Codex is plenty of time. I also believe that that thinking the options that didn't make it into a Codex were gonna stay in the game forever is being deliberately ignorant.
flandarz wrote: In regards to "restrictive house rules", it bears noting that GW has stated that Legends are not recommended for Matched Play. It's right there on the splash page for the Legends downloadable PDF.
I dont see anything saying legends are not recommended for matched play.
The Warhammer 40,000 Legends page contains datasheets and additional wargear options, definitive profiles that will live on their own dedicated page, enabling you to unleash your treasured classics in open, narrative and matched play games, with full points provided to help you balance your games.
Organised Play is not Matched Play. Legends rules are approved for Matched Play, as per the webpage and each PDF’s preamble. If your gaming group pretends it’s always a tournament that’s on them.
BrianDavion wrote: when they announced it they said tournies may not want to allow them
Again wrong. They said that they dont recommend them for organised play.
...Organised Play is GW’s shorthand for tournaments. You’re both saying the same thing. But it doesn’t change the fact these rules are fine for Matched Play.
Heck, in your group there’s nothing to stop you counting the flowchart as still applying and sub in the word Legends for Index. Or just use the Index and the Legends points (not that there are any changes between the two that I’m aware of). You have 8th-compatible rules, both players agree to use them, crack on! There are no fun police who’ll come and tell you off. BCB is an online persona who doesn’t even play 40K. He won’t pop round and smash your models, and what he thinks about your gaming choices is irrelevant anyway. Legends and the flowchart disappearance is completely not a worry for anyone with reasonable opponents to play against. If your group pretends they’re the weekly equivalent of the LVO and bans someone’s old and largely overcosted/uncompetitive models (because nothing game-breaking is in Legends tbh) then they’re a sucky group. Fact.
p5freak wrote: I dont mind that GW removed the flowchart, but i do mind that its a stealth update.
EXACTLY!
They've started a precedent for being clearer and more transparent with the rules. Stealth moves are just bad old GW up to its standard tricks.
I personally welcome the legneds concept. New players I know had no way to get these models and started resorting to third party or expensive conversions. Having a clear and current ruleset is a must they just can't handle the clear part.
It was not particularly stealth removal though when they announced the replacement(legends) months ago.
Who really thought flowchart was going to stay when legends does same thing?
Only thing that was surprise was them not removing flowchart same time legends came out. GW being GW they forgot that one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnnyHell wrote: Organised Play is not Matched Play. Legends rules are approved for Matched Play, as per the webpage and each PDF’s preamble. If your gaming group pretends it’s always a tournament that’s on them.
It's less of pretending it's always tournament and more of not wanting to go routine of:
"take all your models"
"go to FLGS"
"arrange game"
"sort of all the rules. legends? points? rule of 3? detachment limits? etc etc etc etc etc"
"come up with army list"
"play"
To avoid that you need standard way to game. Most obvious and convenient one being the tournament standard. Otherwise there's tons of things you need to sort out before game. Point size? What rules in use? What publication scenario will be rolled? Etc etc etc etc.
Fine if you have time but not everybody has time to sort all that and then create army list. Or interest to carry enough spare models they can get list for any rules you agree with. If you allow legends then opponent is in 100% equal right to ask for no rule of 3 for example which def has impact on army list.
flandarz wrote: In regards to "restrictive house rules", it bears noting that GW has stated that Legends are not recommended for Matched Play. It's right there on the splash page for the Legends downloadable PDF.
I dont see anything saying legends are not recommended for matched play.
The Warhammer 40,000 Legends page contains datasheets and additional wargear options, definitive profiles that will live on their own dedicated page, enabling you to unleash your treasured classics in open, narrative and matched play games, with full points provided to help you balance your games.
Huh. I wonder where it went. Cuz when Legends first dropped, I remember having an argument on this very site about it. Very well then. Carry on.
To avoid that you need standard way to game. Most obvious and convenient one being the tournament standard. Otherwise there's tons of things you need to sort out before game. Point size? What rules in use? What publication scenario will be rolled? Etc etc etc etc.
How about the normal matched play rules? What is so difficult about that? Using tournament suggestions outside tournaments is far from obvious.
Fine if you have time but not everybody has time to sort all that and then create army list. Or interest to carry enough spare models they can get list for any rules you agree with. If you allow legends then opponent is in 100% equal right to ask for no rule of 3
Sure.
for example which def has impact on army list.
How? You do understand that not using rule of three doesn't mean that you must use use more than three of same datasheets?
This is the same company that has made weird rules the entirety of its existence. Don’t expect fairness, transparency, or for decisions about rules to make sense. They’re inconsistent and really, not very good rules. The game is fun and cool, but not “good” in the sense that it’s well designed. If not for the incredible models and background, the game itself would not be worth playing. Trying to make 40k a “competitive” game as if it was designed to be balanced and even is forcing a square peg into a round hole. GLHF with that.
flandarz wrote: In regards to "restrictive house rules", it bears noting that GW has stated that Legends are not recommended for Matched Play. It's right there on the splash page for the Legends downloadable PDF.
I dont see anything saying legends are not recommended for matched play.
The Warhammer 40,000 Legends page contains datasheets and additional wargear options, definitive profiles that will live on their own dedicated page, enabling you to unleash your treasured classics in open, narrative and matched play games, with full points provided to help you balance your games.
Huh. I wonder where it went. Cuz when Legends first dropped, I remember having an argument on this very site about it. Very well then. Carry on.
It definitely was there when legends was released but it was also stealth updated.
When they released the flow chart it was accompanied by verbiage that you would still be able to use your models. If they just legended them when they made the switch from index and didn't go through the BS smoke show that was the index flow chart I wouldn't feel as swindled (and wouldn't have the BA or wolf guard bikers for sure).
Releasing the index with options they were planning to remove was a BS move as well. Planned obsolescence is a thing that most rational people have an issue with (literally against the law in some countries). Would have saved me from these expensive as hell FW dread auto cannon arms.
Pulling off the bandaid at that point would have been the fair thing to do. But they put out the flow chart with assurance that the models referenced would be fine so they could milk another year or so out of their old models (gotta sell the rest of those SM bikers before the new primaris ones come out, right?).
It's shady, exploitative and all of you defending it are siding with a multi-billion dollar company intentionally screwing it's customers. I mean, you don't know me from Adam and I'm sure there's some loyalty GW has built up over the decades but the lack of empathy from a lot of you is illuminating.
All of this being said if there were a good reason for GW removing this stuff I could still feel like what they did was for the best interest of the game. But bike characters and laz-cannon + AC dreads cannot be considered a balance issue and with all of the worthless/random marine units in the codexes and all of the rules released thus far in 8th GW is not trying to fight bloat in any way. I've yet to get an articulate and compelling reason for these changes and that's the worst part.
bananathug wrote: When they released the flow chart it was accompanied by verbiage that you would still be able to use your models. If they just legended them when they made the switch from index and didn't go through the BS smoke show that was the index flow chart I wouldn't feel as swindled (and wouldn't have the BA or wolf guard bikers for sure).
Releasing the index with options they were planning to remove was a BS move as well. Planned obsolescence is a thing that most rational people have an issue with (literally against the law in some countries). Would have saved me from these expensive as hell FW dread auto cannon arms.
Pulling off the bandaid at that point would have been the fair thing to do. But they put out the flow chart with assurance that the models referenced would be fine so they could milk another year or so out of their old models (gotta sell the rest of those SM bikers before the new primaris ones come out, right?).
It's shady, exploitative and all of you defending it are siding with a multi-billion dollar company intentionally screwing it's customers. I mean, you don't know me from Adam and I'm sure there's some loyalty GW has built up over the decades but the lack of empathy from a lot of you is illuminating.
All of this being said if there were a good reason for GW removing this stuff I could still feel like what they did was for the best interest of the game. But bike characters and laz-cannon + AC dreads cannot be considered a balance issue and with all of the worthless/random marine units in the codexes and all of the rules released thus far in 8th GW is not trying to fight bloat in any way. I've yet to get an articulate and compelling reason for these changes and that's the worst part.
The options are in the Legends. You can use them. They have not been removed. Get a grip.
bananathug wrote: When they released the flow chart it was accompanied by verbiage that you would still be able to use your models. If they just legended them when they made the switch from index and didn't go through the BS smoke show that was the index flow chart I wouldn't feel as swindled (and wouldn't have the BA or wolf guard bikers for sure).
Releasing the index with options they were planning to remove was a BS move as well. Planned obsolescence is a thing that most rational people have an issue with (literally against the law in some countries). Would have saved me from these expensive as hell FW dread auto cannon arms.
Pulling off the bandaid at that point would have been the fair thing to do. But they put out the flow chart with assurance that the models referenced would be fine so they could milk another year or so out of their old models (gotta sell the rest of those SM bikers before the new primaris ones come out, right?).
It's shady, exploitative and all of you defending it are siding with a multi-billion dollar company intentionally screwing it's customers. I mean, you don't know me from Adam and I'm sure there's some loyalty GW has built up over the decades but the lack of empathy from a lot of you is illuminating.
All of this being said if there were a good reason for GW removing this stuff I could still feel like what they did was for the best interest of the game. But bike characters and laz-cannon + AC dreads cannot be considered a balance issue and with all of the worthless/random marine units in the codexes and all of the rules released thus far in 8th GW is not trying to fight bloat in any way. I've yet to get an articulate and compelling reason for these changes and that's the worst part.
The options are in the Legends. You can use them. They have not been removed. Get a grip.
Yes, options that didn't make it into the Legends are a valid complaint. But those that Bananathug mentioned did as did overwhelming majority of Index-only stuff.
flandarz wrote: In regards to "restrictive house rules", it bears noting that GW has stated that Legends are not recommended for Matched Play. It's right there on the splash page for the Legends downloadable PDF.
I dont see anything saying legends are not recommended for matched play.
The Warhammer 40,000 Legends page contains datasheets and additional wargear options, definitive profiles that will live on their own dedicated page, enabling you to unleash your treasured classics in open, narrative and matched play games, with full points provided to help you balance your games.
Huh. I wonder where it went. Cuz when Legends first dropped, I remember having an argument on this very site about it. Very well then. Carry on.
It definitely was there when legends was released but it was also stealth updated.
It was an inconsistency and didn't say what GW wanted it to say (versus what the Legends PDFs say) and it was brought to their attention via Facebook. Legends is perfectly fine for Matched Play (i.e., games using the Matched Play rules) but is not recommended for Organised Play (i.e., tournaments which may or may not use the Matched Play rules). It wasn't really a 'stealth update' as the rules are in the PDFs.
The articulate and valid reason for removing them is that GW doesn't make those models anymore. Whether it's a good decision or bad is gonna be subjective, but that's the reason why those options didn't make it to Codex and why they're Legends (or just gone).
I ain't trying to defend GW's policies, or actions, but it'd be foolish to say that this change "came out of left field". There was time enough to prepare for the "loss" of these options, and more than ample evidence that they were gonna be "lost". That said, if you got a group that's cool with Legends and/or Index, than you're good to go. If not, you can either find a new group, or chalk it up as a loss and just admire your old models for their aesthetic value.
I believe the line was something like "Legends units can be used in matched play, but their points will not be updated and they will not be considered when balancing the game going forward." which inherently makes then something players are less inclined to accept on the table.
Lance845 wrote: I believe the line was something like "Legends units can be used in matched play, but their points will not be updated and they will not be considered when balancing the game going forward." which inherently makes then something players are less inclined to accept on the table.
When legends first released it said they will not be updated and are not recommended for matched play. This was different from what the actual pdf said where it said they were suitable for open, narrative, and matched play but not recommended for organized play. They corrected the website to match the PDFs at some point as this was what they intended for legends.
Lance845 wrote: I believe the line was something like "Legends units can be used in matched play, but their points will not be updated and they will not be considered when balancing the game going forward." which inherently makes then something players are less inclined to accept on the table.
Yes, it certainly would be completely unthinkable to play a game of 40K using point costs that are not perfectly balanced!
I prefer not to play with legends but I can see both sides of this. I think lack of acceptance in competitive events will eventually squeeze them out, though.
Yes, options that didn't make it into the Legends are a valid complaint. But those that Bananathug mentioned did as did overwhelming majority of Index-only stuff.
You're the one that worded as "get a grip" for people that put effort into models that are no longer allowed.
Martel732 wrote: I prefer not to play with legends but I can see both sides of this. I think lack of acceptance in competitive events will eventually squeeze them out, though.
So yet again the competitive scene is a pox upon the hobby.
Lance845 wrote: I believe the line was something like "Legends units can be used in matched play, but their points will not be updated and they will not be considered when balancing the game going forward." which inherently makes then something players are less inclined to accept on the table.
Yes, it certainly would be completely unthinkable to play a game of 40K using point costs that are not perfectly balanced!
What you are implying I agree with but is not the point.
The very moment GW says they won't be updating the points and they won't be considering them for what they call balance the real world impact is they become "less valid" then units that are not legends. In the same way that everyone consideres "open play" "less valid" then matched, legends just won't matter in the narrative of the future of the game.
The way people treat Organized Play suggestions they may as well be Matched Play rules. Look at the detachment limit and "rule of three" both of which are suggestions for tournaments that are taken as gospel for all matched play games ever.
If Legends aren't allowed in tournaments, I would guess that the vast majority of matched play games will also not allow them since the rule seems to be if it's done in tournaments it should be done in all Matched Play in the name of "balance"
Martel732 wrote: I prefer not to play with legends but I can see both sides of this. I think lack of acceptance in competitive events will eventually squeeze them out, though.
So yet again the competitive scene is a pox upon the hobby.
Why are people so quick to jump on the 'we hate competitive 40k' bandwagon? GW have said that legends will last forever but in an effort to balance the game for events they will no longer be printing them in anything else.
Competitive 40k makes it's own rules and you can still play whatever units you want. No need for the hysteria.
Martel732 wrote: I prefer not to play with legends but I can see both sides of this. I think lack of acceptance in competitive events will eventually squeeze them out, though.
So yet again the competitive scene is a pox upon the hobby.
Why are people so quick to jump on the 'we have competitive 40k' bandwagon? GW have said that legends will last forever but in an effort to balance the game for events they will no longer be printing them in anything else.
Competitive 40k makes it's own rules and you can still play whatever units you want. No need for the hysteria.
Martel732 wrote: I prefer not to play with legends but I can see both sides of this. I think lack of acceptance in competitive events will eventually squeeze them out, though.
So yet again the competitive scene is a pox upon the hobby.
I'm fine with legends being gone, though. So I don't see it as a pox. The game needs fewer choices, imo. The game also needs less power armor, but that's not happening.
Martel732 wrote: I prefer not to play with legends but I can see both sides of this. I think lack of acceptance in competitive events will eventually squeeze them out, though.
So yet again the competitive scene is a pox upon the hobby.
Why are people so quick to jump on the 'we have competitive 40k' bandwagon? GW have said that legends will last forever but in an effort to balance the game for events they will no longer be printing them in anything else.
Competitive 40k makes it's own rules and you can still play whatever units you want. No need for the hysteria.
See the post above yours.
Yes but that's not true though, just wild speculation. They make a distinction between organised play and matched play with allsorts of things like rule of 3, 3 detachments per 2k points, terrain features etc.
If you want to play with a legends unit just bring it along. If you're playing a casual game and someone says that they don't want you to use a legends unit then they're the ones being weird about it. Just like if you play someone now with a proxy or your marines/orks on 25mm bases. It would be a dick move to refuse to play someone unless you're at a tournement where the rules don't allow it.
Yes but that's not true though, just wild speculation. They make a distinction between organised play and matched play with allsorts of things like rule of 3, 3 detachments per 2k points, terrain features etc.
If you want to play with a legends unit just bring it along. If you're playing a casual game and someone says that they don't want you to use a legends unit then they're the ones being weird about it. Just like if you play someone now with a proxy or your marines/orks on 25mm bases. It would be a dick move to refuse to play someone unless you're at a tournement where the rules don't allow it.
Yes, I agree. But at leas on these forums a lot of people are in favour of such 'dick moves.'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: It's not a dick move to be tired of wolfguard bikers.
Martel732 wrote: I prefer not to play with legends but I can see both sides of this. I think lack of acceptance in competitive events will eventually squeeze them out, though.
So yet again the competitive scene is a pox upon the hobby.
Why are people so quick to jump on the 'we hate competitive 40k' bandwagon? GW have said that legends will last forever but in an effort to balance the game for events they will no longer be printing them in anything else.
Competitive 40k makes it's own rules and you can still play whatever units you want. No need for the hysteria.
Because despite competitive 40k having its own rules, those changes most of the time end up affecting nearly all things. That's why. It would be fine if competitive stuff was kept separate, but it's not. If tournaments ban legends, most normal everyday games will too.
I've mentioned my feelings on Legends elsewhere, but to reiterate: I'm fine with them. For now. GW has issues with balancing the stuff they're (supposed to be) accounting for. So I can only imagine what kind of balance issues will arise with stuff they're ignoring. So, my stance is that Legends is ok until it stops being ok.
Martel732 wrote: I prefer not to play with legends but I can see both sides of this. I think lack of acceptance in competitive events will eventually squeeze them out, though.
So yet again the competitive scene is a pox upon the hobby.
Why are people so quick to jump on the 'we hate competitive 40k' bandwagon? GW have said that legends will last forever but in an effort to balance the game for events they will no longer be printing them in anything else.
Competitive 40k makes it's own rules and you can still play whatever units you want. No need for the hysteria.
Because despite competitive 40k having its own rules, those changes most of the time end up affecting nearly all things. That's why. It would be fine if competitive stuff was kept separate, but it's not. If tournaments ban legends, most normal everyday games will too.
Which changes? And where are ypu playing that people are stopping you bringing 4 detachments to a friendly game?
The only thing that has been close to ubiquitous in my area is the rule of 3 and that is only as a rule of thumb. And to be fair in most cases it makes the game more interesting anyway. But I have played pleanty of games where we've brought 4 daemon princes or 5 units or aspect warriors etc.
There has always been guys who are WAAC but that's their problem. One time I was told I couldn't field my bloodletters because some were on 25mm and some on 32mm, which ended up with me playing someone else that evening. I suggest you do the same if someone has a problem with your chaos lord on bike.
Lance845 wrote: I believe the line was something like "Legends units can be used in matched play, but their points will not be updated and they will not be considered when balancing the game going forward." which inherently makes then something players are less inclined to accept on the table.
Yes, it certainly would be completely unthinkable to play a game of 40K using point costs that are not perfectly balanced!
Yeah, heaven forbid someone wants their units to be of appropriate value instead of spewing some garbage about the competitive scene ruining your unbalanced fun.
Custom heroes and vehicles were really fun actually, i ran a campaign with them. Everyone had a blast with those rules. I also made every run some of the Cities of Death rules too tho (Lucky hit, Obscured Targets, Soft/Hard terrain, Roads) not the missions/stratagem for them, just pulled out some of the good rules.
Everyone was given an option to level up 1 character each week and by the end we all had 2-3 legendary characters, you picked 1 option and roll a dice for the other to make it a bit more fun.
Evenw ith idex options, flow charts, blah blah, a good campaign can be way more fun with a few rule changes. Should try it sometime.
Yeah, heaven forbid someone wants their units to be of appropriate value instead of spewing some garbage about the competitive scene ruining your unbalanced fun.
Yeah, heaven forbid someone wants their units to be of appropriate value instead of spewing some garbage about the competitive scene ruining your unbalanced fun.
Wrong game for that man. It has never happened.
Way to miss the point as I about expected from someone like you.
Amishprn86 wrote: Custom heroes and vehicles were really fun actually, i ran a campaign with them. Everyone had a blast with those rules. I also made every run some of the Cities of Death rules too tho (Lucky hit, Obscured Targets, Soft/Hard terrain, Roads) not the missions/stratagem for them, just pulled out some of the good rules.
Everyone was given an option to level up 1 character each week and by the end we all had 2-3 legendary characters, you picked 1 option and roll a dice for the other to make it a bit more fun.
Evenw ith idex options, flow charts, blah blah, a good campaign can be way more fun with a few rule changes. Should try it sometime.
Yeah, optional rules like those and the matched play suggestions can be assets, as long as both players agree to use them beforehand.
Way to miss the point as I about expected from someone like you.
The game is not balanced to begin with, so Legends really do not change anything.
And when these rules were still in the Index, people were fine with using them, but now that these exact same rules are in the Legends, they're suddenly a balance problem. How on Earth does moving the same rules from a book to a PDF affect the balance? Do you also think it affects the balance whether my Space Marine codex is a physical one or the digital edition?
The balance issue arises from the old PDF being updated and accounted for in releases, and the new one being neither of those things.
It's (ignoring Rule of 3) not a fair advantage for every Faction. Orkz, for example, are better able to spam Battalions than most Factions, meaning they could have 45+ CP without breaking 1k points. And this isn't even getting into the unit issues that drove Ro3 to become a thing in the first place (Flyrants, etc.) and that's not even getting into how such a thing would work in the current meta (with IH Dread castles).
flandarz wrote: The balance issue arises from the old PDF being updated and accounted for in releases, and the new one being neither of those things.
It's (ignoring Rule of 3) not a fair advantage for every Faction. Orkz, for example, are better able to spam Battalions than most Factions, meaning they could have 45+ CP without breaking 1k points. And this isn't even getting into the unit issues that drove Ro3 to become a thing in the first place (Flyrants, etc.) and that's not even getting into how such a thing would work in the current meta (with IH Dread castles).
Remember, taking 58 Leman Russes is perfectly fair and balanced, but Man Emperor forbid you try to take 20 Flash Gitz.
Not being part of balance updates going forward means a couple of things.
One is they won’t amend the points. Hardly anything being sent to Legends will have competitive points vs abilities anyway. If anything, you’ll gimp your list by taking overcosted underpowered Legends stuff. If you’re a super competitive type you should welcome facing most Legends inclusions. This covers most of the stuff in the PDFs. There isn’t much that’s busted and will stay busted forever. Mostly it’s also-rans and flavourful but underpowered stuff, so not really an issue in practice.
The other possibility is unintended rules interactions. Writing rules with Codex models only in mind means a Legends model may become super smashing great all of a sudden, similar to the Iron Hands Leviathan Character combo because GW forgot FW was a thing. For Legends models there won’t be an FAQ to undo this if it happens, because GW’s assumption is that you’re not using Legends as the default. This is the only area of ‘worry’ (not that it’s actually worrying) that some folks might get upset about. It’s best to let something become an issue before deciding to freak out, and then you have to remember the solution will be to figure out a solution with your opponent as no FAQ will be forthcoming. Again, this isn’t actually an issue in practice.
The game is not balanced to begin with, so Legends really do not change anything.
And when these rules were still in the Index, people were fine with using them, but now that these exact same rules are in the Legends, they're suddenly a balance problem. How on Earth does moving the same rules from a book to a PDF affect the balance? Do you also think it affects the balance whether my Space Marine codex is a physical one or the digital edition?
Once upon a time when Forge World rules were obscure, Forge World models got a bad reputation because they fell into two categories:
* Expensive (monetarily) models with poorly maintained rules that cost too many points that only a rich fool would field
* Expensive (monetarily) models with poorly maintained rules that had ridiculous abilities that any power gamer would love
And if you were dealing with a stranger, you're going to assume the worst first.
It's only going to take a year until Chapter Approved comes out Legends is going to be this weird mix of "It's too bad they didn't reduce the points on that model" and "If you still have the antique, its points didn't change."
Which of those do you think someone's more likely to want to take down from the shelf?
This all seems like a storm in a teacup. On average models seem to cost less points over time. Following that trend, legends units are only likely to get weaker woth time.
Maybe one day a legendary unit may receive an unintended buff through some unplanned synergy, but lets deal with that problem when we get to it instead of throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Most dataslates are simple ctrl C ctrl V. Are we really arguing that changing from paper to pdf is going to throw things off balance? Or is the root of the problem that the ork skorcha vehicle now has dakka dakka dakka?
Yeah, heaven forbid someone wants their units to be of appropriate value instead of spewing some garbage about the competitive scene ruining your unbalanced fun.
Wrong game for that man. It has never happened.
Way to miss the point as I about expected from someone like you.
and yet their point was valid and yours was the typical "but muh balance" statement that prevents all of the game from being enjoyed and essentially keeps 2/3rds of the game buried.
Yeah, heaven forbid someone wants their units to be of appropriate value instead of spewing some garbage about the competitive scene ruining your unbalanced fun.
Wrong game for that man. It has never happened.
Way to miss the point as I about expected from someone like you.
and yet their point was valid and yours was the typical "but muh balance" statement that prevents all of the game from being enjoyed and essentially keeps 2/3rds of the game buried.
flandarz wrote: The balance issue arises from the old PDF being updated and accounted for in releases, and the new one being neither of those things.
It's (ignoring Rule of 3) not a fair advantage for every Faction. Orkz, for example, are better able to spam Battalions than most Factions, meaning they could have 45+ CP without breaking 1k points. And this isn't even getting into the unit issues that drove Ro3 to become a thing in the first place (Flyrants, etc.) and that's not even getting into how such a thing would work in the current meta (with IH Dread castles).
Remember, taking 58 Leman Russes is perfectly fair and balanced, but Man Emperor forbid you try to take 20 Flash Gitz.
Even stranger, I can take 3 squads of 20 Fulgurite Electro-Priests without an issue, but 4 squads of 5 would be a problem?
No point in throwing out every permutation of weirdness. It’s not a new rule, it fixes one problem by curbing worst spam lists and creates other oddities. That’s not new news.
JohnnyHell wrote: No point in throwing out every permutation of weirdness. It’s not a new rule, it fixes one problem by curbing worst spam lists and creates other oddities. That’s not new news.
Then why isn't it being handled directly? Or rather, why can't GW just admit they're too lazy to fix the fundamental problems behind Crawlers or Flyrants or Tau Commanders?
JohnnyHell wrote: No point in throwing out every permutation of weirdness. It’s not a new rule, it fixes one problem by curbing worst spam lists and creates other oddities. That’s not new news.
Then why isn't it being handled directly? Or rather, why can't GW just admit they're too lazy to fix the fundamental problems behind Crawlers or Flyrants or Tau Commanders?
For once I agree with you! Blanket solutions suck. If certain units are a problem, fix those units.
JohnnyHell wrote: No point in throwing out every permutation of weirdness. It’s not a new rule, it fixes one problem by curbing worst spam lists and creates other oddities. That’s not new news.
Then why isn't it being handled directly? Or rather, why can't GW just admit they're too lazy to fix the fundamental problems behind Crawlers or Flyrants or Tau Commanders?
For once I agree with you! Blanket solutions suck. If certain units are a problem, fix those units.
Same thing with the Deep Strike rules that basically killed Grey Knights too for example.
JohnnyHell wrote: No point in throwing out every permutation of weirdness. It’s not a new rule, it fixes one problem by curbing worst spam lists and creates other oddities. That’s not new news.
Then why isn't it being handled directly? Or rather, why can't GW just admit they're too lazy to fix the fundamental problems behind Crawlers or Flyrants or Tau Commanders?
Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.
Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.
Then limit how many of that specific unit you can take! JFC, it is not that hard, the already did it with the Tau Commander. (Not that it was a good way to fix that specific issue.)
JohnnyHell wrote: No point in throwing out every permutation of weirdness. It’s not a new rule, it fixes one problem by curbing worst spam lists and creates other oddities. That’s not new news.
Then why isn't it being handled directly? Or rather, why can't GW just admit they're too lazy to fix the fundamental problems behind Crawlers or Flyrants or Tau Commanders?
Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.
Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.
Then limit how many of that specific unit you can take! JFC, it is not that hard, the already did it with the Tau Commander. (Not that it was a good way to fix that specific issue.)
If you remember the first 6-9 months of 8th, GW did just that, fixed the problem units, but it was chasing the meta with rules patching many units left and right, thats why it was a blanket rule.
DE RWF, Storm Ravens, Razorbacks, Shadow Specters, Assassins, Tau commanders, Nids Flyrants, Necrons Pylons things, Chaos Mali lords, DE Court spam, Custodes Shield captains, etc.. there was well over 30+ lists that spam 1-3 units 6x it wasn't b.c GW was lazy, its b.c the core of 8th rules were bad.
When you give someone unlimited detachments and slots with soup... yeah its going to be a problem.
Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.
Then limit how many of that specific unit you can take! JFC, it is not that hard, the already did it with the Tau Commander. (Not that it was a good way to fix that specific issue.)
And how do you determine exactly which of those units need that limit and which don't? Play whack-a-mole? Isn't it much better for a system under going a lot of change to limit the number of variables you need to deal with globally rather than scatter shot?
And how do you determine exactly which of those units need that limit and which don't? Play whack-a-mole?
If the writers are unable to assess it otherwise, then yes.
Isn't it much better for a system under going a lot of change to limit the number of variables you need to deal with globally rather than scatter shot?
You can also limit variables by, say, removing Necrons and Space Marines from the game, but that wouldn't be a good idea either. Simple solutions for complicated problems rarely work.
And how do you determine exactly which of those units need that limit and which don't? Play whack-a-mole?
If the writers are unable to assess it otherwise, then yes.
Isn't it much better for a system under going a lot of change to limit the number of variables you need to deal with globally rather than scatter shot?
You can also limit variables by, say, removing Necrons and Space Marines from the game, but that wouldn't be a good idea either. Simple solutions for complicated problems rarely work.
Hyperbole!
Read what i wrote, they did play wack-a-mole, everyone hated it and it wasn't fixing the core issue, so thats why Ro3 was made, and it was very well received. You are acting like the Ro3 is a bad thing and everyone hates it. Its honestly the best core rule added later outside of cities of death, to bad that isnt a core rule set tho.
Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.
Then limit how many of that specific unit you can take! JFC, it is not that hard, the already did it with the Tau Commander. (Not that it was a good way to fix that specific issue.)
Almost as if GW needs to create some kind of organisation for your forces and a means to chart it. Now, what could they possibly call it?
JohnnyHell wrote: No point in throwing out every permutation of weirdness. It’s not a new rule, it fixes one problem by curbing worst spam lists and creates other oddities. That’s not new news.
Then why isn't it being handled directly? Or rather, why can't GW just admit they're too lazy to fix the fundamental problems behind Crawlers or Flyrants or Tau Commanders?
Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.
Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.
Then limit how many of that specific unit you can take! JFC, it is not that hard, the already did it with the Tau Commander. (Not that it was a good way to fix that specific issue.)
If you remember the first 6-9 months of 8th, GW did just that, fixed the problem units, but it was chasing the meta with rules patching many units left and right, thats why it was a blanket rule.
DE RWF, Storm Ravens, Razorbacks, Shadow Specters, Assassins, Tau commanders, Nids Flyrants, Necrons Pylons things, Chaos Mali lords, DE Court spam, Custodes Shield captains, etc.. there was well over 30+ lists that spam 1-3 units 6x it wasn't b.c GW was lazy, its b.c the core of 8th rules were bad.
When you give someone unlimited detachments and slots with soup... yeah its going to be a problem.
Hold up.
Necron Pylons? Really? I've never heard of a list with more than 3 Gauss Pylons. I'd love to see proof that it was being spammed in the same manner as everything else.
If you mean Sentry Pylons, they come in units of 1-3, I run 2 full units now, and have been working toward a third for years, since they came out. They're nothing like the huge LoW ones, and generally dismissed by Necron players, I run a fluff list for fun, so winning isn't as important for me as the story.
Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.
Then limit how many of that specific unit you can take! JFC, it is not that hard, the already did it with the Tau Commander. (Not that it was a good way to fix that specific issue.)
Almost as if GW needs to create some kind of organisation for your forces and a means to chart it. Now, what could they possibly call it?
Perhaps you coulld simply keep it simple and call it the "force orginization chart" or FOC for short?
.... nah thats crazy talk!
JohnnyHell wrote: No point in throwing out every permutation of weirdness. It’s not a new rule, it fixes one problem by curbing worst spam lists and creates other oddities. That’s not new news.
Then why isn't it being handled directly? Or rather, why can't GW just admit they're too lazy to fix the fundamental problems behind Crawlers or Flyrants or Tau Commanders?
Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.
That's just excusing bad internal/external balance. There is NO excuse.
JohnnyHell wrote: No point in throwing out every permutation of weirdness. It’s not a new rule, it fixes one problem by curbing worst spam lists and creates other oddities. That’s not new news.
Then why isn't it being handled directly? Or rather, why can't GW just admit they're too lazy to fix the fundamental problems behind Crawlers or Flyrants or Tau Commanders?
Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.
That's just excusing bad internal/external balance. There is NO excuse.
What fix do you propose that would be universally functional? Or are you going to claim that's not your job, and that GW should somehow make this unicorn rule you're positing MUST exist?
JohnnyHell wrote: No point in throwing out every permutation of weirdness. It’s not a new rule, it fixes one problem by curbing worst spam lists and creates other oddities. That’s not new news.
Then why isn't it being handled directly? Or rather, why can't GW just admit they're too lazy to fix the fundamental problems behind Crawlers or Flyrants or Tau Commanders?
Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.
That's just excusing bad internal/external balance. There is NO excuse.
What fix do you propose that would be universally functional? Or are you going to claim that's not your job, and that GW should somehow make this unicorn rule you're positing MUST exist?
Appropriate point costs for those units? Rule of Three wouldn't fix Havocs if they all magically got Chaincannons for free, would it?
JohnnyHell wrote: No point in throwing out every permutation of weirdness. It’s not a new rule, it fixes one problem by curbing worst spam lists and creates other oddities. That’s not new news.
Then why isn't it being handled directly? Or rather, why can't GW just admit they're too lazy to fix the fundamental problems behind Crawlers or Flyrants or Tau Commanders?
Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.
That's just excusing bad internal/external balance. There is NO excuse.
What fix do you propose that would be universally functional? Or are you going to claim that's not your job, and that GW should somehow make this unicorn rule you're positing MUST exist?
Appropriate point costs for those units? Rule of Three wouldn't fix Havocs if they all magically got Chaincannons for free, would it?
No, no, let's go with this. What's the point cost? Don't just say "appropriate" either. Give me a specific point cost for every single unit in the game that makes it perfectly balanced with every other unit in the game, while also being either spammable or not, with all options individually priced as you see fit. I'll wait.
Appropriate point costs for those units? Rule of Three wouldn't fix Havocs if they all magically got Chaincannons for free, would it?
Not sure what you intend to imply? That Havocs with free CC would be broken regardless of Ro3?
Exactly.
So let's say, for a second, they were released before Ro3. Instead of making the appropriate point cost for those units, and Havocs, they slap this fix on and call it a day.
If a unit is mathematically broken, it is broken regardless of how many you can take. Roboute before Codex 2.0 was broken and you could only take one of him!
JohnnyHell wrote: No point in throwing out every permutation of weirdness. It’s not a new rule, it fixes one problem by curbing worst spam lists and creates other oddities. That’s not new news.
Then why isn't it being handled directly? Or rather, why can't GW just admit they're too lazy to fix the fundamental problems behind Crawlers or Flyrants or Tau Commanders?
Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.
That's just excusing bad internal/external balance. There is NO excuse.
What fix do you propose that would be universally functional? Or are you going to claim that's not your job, and that GW should somehow make this unicorn rule you're positing MUST exist?
Appropriate point costs for those units? Rule of Three wouldn't fix Havocs if they all magically got Chaincannons for free, would it?
No, no, let's go with this. What's the point cost? Don't just say "appropriate" either. Give me a specific point cost for every single unit in the game that makes it perfectly balanced with every other unit in the game, while also being either spammable or not, with all options individually priced as you see fit. I'll wait.
I've done homebrew rules before. Even if I posted them you wouldn't bother to reply. To answer your question, I'd probably put a 15 point hike on Commanders and easily 20 for the Wings on a Tyrant, as GW never prices mobility correctly.
So let's say, for a second, they were released before Ro3. Instead of making the appropriate point cost for those units, and Havocs, they slap this fix on and call it a day.
If a unit is mathematically broken, it is broken regardless of how many you can take. Roboute before Codex 2.0 was broken and you could only take one of him!
Sure, no disagreement, but its a bit of a strawman.
Take Flyrants. Were they broken? Yes. Were they broken after Ro3? No.
So we had AM, Craftworlds, BA all out before LVO '18. CA'17 changed nothing. The pieces for soup and smash captains and ynnari (5 point Dark Reapers, even) were all there. But Flyrants dominated.
Then Ro3 hit. Adepticon '18 did not use Ro3 - dominated by Flyrants.
T'au, Necrons, DE, Custodes, Knights released.
And then Nova '18 - By this time Castellans and Ynnari were king. Flyrants were not to be found. Nothing changed for Flyrants until CA '18 when they went up by 20. This is still when turn 1 deepstrike was a thing.
They were totally capable of over running Ynnari, but at a limit 3? Not to be seen. That tells me they're awesome in large numbers, but struggle to form a cohesive list when you're limited and facing armies with layered strengths and need to bring other units that have distinct vulnerabilities.
It tells me that the Hive Tyrant wings upgrade was seriously undercosted, like character mobility options usually are. Seriously, did anyone ever field a foot Tyrant in a tournament?
Crimson wrote: It tells me that the Hive Tyrant wings upgrade was seriously undercosted, like character mobility options usually are. Seriously, did anyone ever field a foot Tyrant in a tournament?
They did not. What is the cost that would still keep it on the table, but not make it over-powered if Ro3 were not in effect? Factor in competition from GSC choices.
So let's say, for a second, they were released before Ro3. Instead of making the appropriate point cost for those units, and Havocs, they slap this fix on and call it a day.
If a unit is mathematically broken, it is broken regardless of how many you can take. Roboute before Codex 2.0 was broken and you could only take one of him!
Sure, no disagreement, but its a bit of a strawman.
Take Flyrants. Were they broken? Yes. Were they broken after Ro3? No.
So we had AM, Craftworlds, BA all out before LVO '18. CA'17 changed nothing. The pieces for soup and smash captains and ynnari (5 point Dark Reapers, even) were all there. But Flyrants dominated.
Then Ro3 hit. Adepticon '18 did not use Ro3 - dominated by Flyrants.
T'au, Necrons, DE, Custodes, Knights released.
And then Nova '18 - By this time Castellans and Ynnari were king. Flyrants were not to be found. Nothing changed for Flyrants until CA '18 when they went up by 20. This is still when turn 1 deepstrike was a thing.
They were totally capable of over running Ynnari, but at a limit 3? Not to be seen. That tells me they're awesome in large numbers, but struggle to form a cohesive list when you're limited and facing armies with layered strengths and need to bring other units that have distinct vulnerabilities.
It means that you couldn't take just three Flyrants to fight Ynari and Castellans for you to win with Tyranids. That's not exactly hard to figure out. If they made the Flyrant just 50 points with all upgrades but could only take one, Tyranids would not still show up in tournaments to fight those said armies. HOWEVER a 50 point Flyrant is still broken.
It means that you couldn't take just three Flyrants to fight Ynari and Castellans for you to win with Tyranids. That's not exactly hard to figure out. If they made the Flyrant just 50 points with all upgrades but could only take one, Tyranids would not still show up in tournaments to fight those said armies. HOWEVER a 50 point Flyrant is still broken.
Broken in a vacuum, but not broken enough, because it's power is restricted by that limit. Balance doesn't have to be all points.
It means that you couldn't take just three Flyrants to fight Ynari and Castellans for you to win with Tyranids. That's not exactly hard to figure out. If they made the Flyrant just 50 points with all upgrades but could only take one, Tyranids would not still show up in tournaments to fight those said armies. HOWEVER a 50 point Flyrant is still broken.
Broken in a vacuum, but not broken enough, because it's power is restricted by that limit. Balance doesn't have to be all points.
You're not serious are you? The power itself is broken, period, limits or not. Same reason Roboute was broken before Codex 2.0 even though the codex itself was bad, and you can only have one of him.
It means that you couldn't take just three Flyrants to fight Ynari and Castellans for you to win with Tyranids. That's not exactly hard to figure out. If they made the Flyrant just 50 points with all upgrades but could only take one, Tyranids would not still show up in tournaments to fight those said armies. HOWEVER a 50 point Flyrant is still broken.
Broken in a vacuum, but not broken enough, because it's power is restricted by that limit. Balance doesn't have to be all points.
You're not serious are you? The power itself is broken, period, limits or not. Same reason Roboute was broken before Codex 2.0 even though the codex itself was bad, and you can only have one of him.
Bobby is on another level. Tyrants aren't giant hide-able buff bombs.
If you could take one tyrant at 50 points and "freed" up 150 points for other 'nid stuff you would not struggle to defeat nids.
It means that you couldn't take just three Flyrants to fight Ynari and Castellans for you to win with Tyranids. That's not exactly hard to figure out. If they made the Flyrant just 50 points with all upgrades but could only take one, Tyranids would not still show up in tournaments to fight those said armies. HOWEVER a 50 point Flyrant is still broken.
Broken in a vacuum, but not broken enough, because it's power is restricted by that limit. Balance doesn't have to be all points.
You're not serious are you? The power itself is broken, period, limits or not. Same reason Roboute was broken before Codex 2.0 even though the codex itself was bad, and you can only have one of him.
Bobby is on another level. Tyrants aren't giant hide-able buff bombs.
If you could take one tyrant at 50 points and "freed" up 150 points for other 'nid stuff you would not struggle to defeat nids.
Bobby is not on another level. You said limits were a balance itself and I picked a pretty darn good example that proved your point wrong. There is a point value where things are not autotake and GW is simply too lazy to do it. You're still going to see max Flyrants or Crawlers simply because of that bad internal/external balance to even attempt to fight better armies.
So the answer is no, 3 Flyrants fully decked out for a total of 150 points is broken. It doesn't matter if you can "hide" them or not.
They did not. What is the cost that would still keep it on the table, but not make it over-powered if Ro3 were not in effect? Factor in competition from GSC choices.
I don't know Tyranids well enough to be able to answer this question, but this doesn't mean is not answerable. A competent Tyranid player could estimate a rough ballpark. Might require testing of course. And they did increase the cost of wings by 20 points, but of course because Ro3 exists, we cannot know whether that would have been sufficient fix for the problem!
The problem GW has always had with balance is that they only know how to swing a big pendulum, and they're often very slow at doing so.
I remember when the Wraithlord was still being "balanced" two editions after it was at its peak of power (3rd Ed).
As for the Flyrant, first they reduced how many you could take and then they went and increased its points as well. Chances are they'll make them worse somehow with the next revision as they scramble to fix something that hasn't been a problem in months.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The problem GW has always had with balance is that they only know how to swing a big pendulum, and they're often very slow at doing so.
the pendulum swings of power is hardly unique to GW, as anyone whose played a MMO can tell you.
Bobby is not on another level. You said limits were a balance itself and I picked a pretty darn good example that proved your point wrong. There is a point value where things are not autotake and GW is simply too lazy to do it. You're still going to see max Flyrants or Crawlers simply because of that bad internal/external balance to even attempt to fight better armies.
So the answer is no, 3 Flyrants fully decked out for a total of 150 points is broken. It doesn't matter if you can "hide" them or not.
My impression was one tyrant at 50 points. That's not changing anything. You still can't keep constructing these absurd strawmen and move the goal posts over to prove a point that exists only in this fiction you created.
You also can't be serious that a unit providing full reroll hits and wounds (until recently) with +3CP, a 2+/3++, and a resurrect is comparable to a flyrant that was half his cost and far worse in melee. Bobby was great when he got to buff loads of undercosted units that *cough* didn't worry about Ro3.
There is a point where things are not auto-take...and that's when the internet calls them trash.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The problem GW has always had with balance is that they only know how to swing a big pendulum, and they're often very slow at doing so.
the pendulum swings of power is hardly unique to GW, as anyone whose played a MMO can tell you.
Yeah, but Games Workshop have been doing this for at least 37 years, and they really haven't improved at all. Of course the reason for this is much the same reason that the public education system in Ireland failed to teach me Irish despite 15 years of lessons: because I simply didn't care to learn. Games Workshop's writers have always been more narrative driven, which suits me fine, but there has always been a vocal contingent of the community calling for a balanced, restricted ruleset to suit their competitive needs, and in the 33 years since Rogue Trader first dropped, they've never really got it, and I kind of doubt they ever will. In the absence of Games Workshop's supervision, it's up to the community to fill in that blank. Frontline Gaming seems to have made the best attempt so far, but until they go the whole way and start producing their own points values, the competitive community is going to continue to call for Games Workshop to fix my dudes, and those calls are largely going to go unheard while we continue to hand them heaps of money for books and plastic. No, the only way to make Games Workshop realize that they must produce a balanced ruleset suitable for competitive purposes is to stop handing them money until they do so, and yet this won't happen either, because despite the protestations and lamentations on these forums and elsewhere, the current ruleset actually is good enough for the purposes of the vast majority of the community.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The problem GW has always had with balance is that they only know how to swing a big pendulum, and they're often very slow at doing so.
They COULD assess points more frequently, but with almost a codex a month is that always wise or feasible? I doubt they'd dedicate the resources required to do it properly, either.
Ginjitzu wrote: Yeah, but Games Workshop have been doing this for at least 37 years, and they really haven't improved at all. Of course the reason for this is much the same reason that the public education system in Ireland failed to teach me Irish despite 15 years of lessons: because I simply didn't care to learn. Games Workshop's writers have always been more narrative driven, which suits me fine, but there has always been a vocal contingent of the community calling for a balanced, restricted ruleset to suit their competitive needs, and in the 33 years since Rogue Trader first dropped, they've never really got it, and I kind of doubt they ever will. In the absence of Games Workshop's supervision, it's up to the community to fill in that blank. Frontline Gaming seems to have made the best attempt so far, but until they go the whole way and start producing their own points values, the competitive community is going to continue to call for Games Workshop to fix my dudes, and those calls are largely going to go unheard while we continue to hand them heaps of money for books and plastic. No, the only way to make Games Workshop realize that they must produce a balanced ruleset suitable for competitive purposes is to stop handing them money until they do so, and yet this won't happen either, because despite the protestations and lamentations on these forums and elsewhere, the current ruleset actually is good enough for the purposes of the vast majority of the community.
I don't think GW ever earnestly tried before. Things were usually "close enough" (until 7th) with a little padding from the community. If you can't see a difference between now and then though I'm not sure what to tell you.
Ginjitzu wrote: Yeah, but Games Workshop have been doing this for at least 37 years, and they really haven't improved at all. Of course the reason for this is much the same reason that the public education system in Ireland failed to teach me Irish despite 15 years of lessons: because I simply didn't care to learn. Games Workshop's writers have always been more narrative driven, which suits me fine, but there has always been a vocal contingent of the community calling for a balanced, restricted ruleset to suit their competitive needs, and in the 33 years since Rogue Trader first dropped, they've never really got it, and I kind of doubt they ever will. In the absence of Games Workshop's supervision, it's up to the community to fill in that blank. Frontline Gaming seems to have made the best attempt so far, but until they go the whole way and start producing their own points values, the competitive community is going to continue to call for Games Workshop to fix my dudes, and those calls are largely going to go unheard while we continue to hand them heaps of money for books and plastic. No, the only way to make Games Workshop realize that they must produce a balanced ruleset suitable for competitive purposes is to stop handing them money until they do so, and yet this won't happen either, because despite the protestations and lamentations on these forums and elsewhere, the current ruleset actually is good enough for the purposes of the vast majority of the community.
I don't think GW ever earnestly tried before. Things were usually "close enough" (until 7th) with a little padding from the community. If you can't see a difference between now and then though I'm not sure what to tell you.
No, I mean I agree with you: they haven't ever earnestly tried before. Outside of 7th, they've only ever given an attempt at balance, but it's never really been their priority, and my points is, I don't think it ever will be. For the first time that I'm aware of, they have at least started giving lip service to the competitive scene with their, "tournament recommendations," but it really is only lip service. Games Workshop's priority has always been to be to provide a loose framework of rules, that allow you to use narrative to drive your games, and for this purpose, 40k is actually great, which is why I doubt that we'll ever see the balanced, restrictive game that competitive gamers want, come from Games Workshop.
Ginjitzu wrote: Yeah, but Games Workshop have been doing this for at least 37 years, and they really haven't improved at all. Of course the reason for this is much the same reason that the public education system in Ireland failed to teach me Irish despite 15 years of lessons: because I simply didn't care to learn. Games Workshop's writers have always been more narrative driven, which suits me fine, but there has always been a vocal contingent of the community calling for a balanced, restricted ruleset to suit their competitive needs, and in the 33 years since Rogue Trader first dropped, they've never really got it, and I kind of doubt they ever will. In the absence of Games Workshop's supervision, it's up to the community to fill in that blank. Frontline Gaming seems to have made the best attempt so far, but until they go the whole way and start producing their own points values, the competitive community is going to continue to call for Games Workshop to fix my dudes, and those calls are largely going to go unheard while we continue to hand them heaps of money for books and plastic. No, the only way to make Games Workshop realize that they must produce a balanced ruleset suitable for competitive purposes is to stop handing them money until they do so, and yet this won't happen either, because despite the protestations and lamentations on these forums and elsewhere, the current ruleset actually is good enough for the purposes of the vast majority of the community.
I don't think GW ever earnestly tried before. Things were usually "close enough" (until 7th) with a little padding from the community. If you can't see a difference between now and then though I'm not sure what to tell you.
No, I mean I agree with you: they haven't ever earnestly tried before. Outside of 7th, they've only ever given an attempt at balance, but it's never really been their priority, and my points is, I don't think it ever will be. For the first time that I'm aware of, they have at least started giving lip service to the competitive scene with their, "tournament recommendations," but it really is only lip service. Games Workshop's priority has always been to be to provide a loose framework of rules, that allow you to use narrative to drive your games, and for this purpose, 40k is actually great, which is why I doubt that we'll ever see the balanced, restrictive game that competitive gamers want, come from Games Workshop.
LOL the game rules suck for narrative scenarios. That is unless you think it's great narrative that a Raven Guard Captain can charge an Ork Warboss and kill him before anything happens T1 because everyone shot stuff first and Orks clearly need to wait for the Raven Guard to shoot first. For all the defending you people do for "but it's a narrative game", you don't seem to realize the rules are anything BUT narrative and telling a story.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: LOL the game rules suck for narrative scenarios. That is unless you think it's great narrative that a Raven Guard Captain can charge an Ork Warboss and kill him before anything happens T1 because everyone shot stuff first and Orks clearly need to wait for the Raven Guard to shoot first. For all the defending you people do for "but it's a narrative game", you don't seem to realize the rules are anything BUT narrative and telling a story.
I mean, while yes, situations often occur that make for poor narrative, more often than not, this isn't the case. Even your example is one that many narrative players would find fitting with the whole special ops/assassination theme of the Raven Guard, and remember, while narrative players will probably generally agree about the massive power difference between certain factions in the game (like, I can't imagine that you'll find a player anywhere that believes that Grey Knights are on a par with Iron Hands), remember that we don't feel beholden all of the official attempts at balance. It's really common for players I know to perform their own balancing (or even, dare I say, intentional imbalance) by agreeing to add or remove a big chunk of power level or command points or some such.
Look, I'm not saying the game shouldn't have a more balanced set of rules for competitive play; that would actually be great, and I would love for it to happen, because I wish everyone could enjoy this hobby the way they want to. I'm only trying to explain why I believe it won't ever be balanced: because as poor and all as the rules are for such a play style, most of the rest of us are still enjoying the game enough that we're happy to keep handing over money, and I don't see that as likely to change any time soon.
Ginjitzu wrote: Yeah, but Games Workshop have been doing this for at least 37 years, and they really haven't improved at all. Of course the reason for this is much the same reason that the public education system in Ireland failed to teach me Irish despite 15 years of lessons: because I simply didn't care to learn. Games Workshop's writers have always been more narrative driven, which suits me fine, but there has always been a vocal contingent of the community calling for a balanced, restricted ruleset to suit their competitive needs, and in the 33 years since Rogue Trader first dropped, they've never really got it, and I kind of doubt they ever will. In the absence of Games Workshop's supervision, it's up to the community to fill in that blank. Frontline Gaming seems to have made the best attempt so far, but until they go the whole way and start producing their own points values, the competitive community is going to continue to call for Games Workshop to fix my dudes, and those calls are largely going to go unheard while we continue to hand them heaps of money for books and plastic. No, the only way to make Games Workshop realize that they must produce a balanced ruleset suitable for competitive purposes is to stop handing them money until they do so, and yet this won't happen either, because despite the protestations and lamentations on these forums and elsewhere, the current ruleset actually is good enough for the purposes of the vast majority of the community.
I don't think GW ever earnestly tried before. Things were usually "close enough" (until 7th) with a little padding from the community. If you can't see a difference between now and then though I'm not sure what to tell you.
No, I mean I agree with you: they haven't ever earnestly tried before. Outside of 7th, they've only ever given an attempt at balance, but it's never really been their priority, and my points is, I don't think it ever will be. For the first time that I'm aware of, they have at least started giving lip service to the competitive scene with their, "tournament recommendations," but it really is only lip service. Games Workshop's priority has always been to be to provide a loose framework of rules, that allow you to use narrative to drive your games, and for this purpose, 40k is actually great, which is why I doubt that we'll ever see the balanced, restrictive game that competitive gamers want, come from Games Workshop.
LOL the game rules suck for narrative scenarios. That is unless you think it's great narrative that a Raven Guard Captain can charge an Ork Warboss and kill him before anything happens T1 because everyone shot stuff first and Orks clearly need to wait for the Raven Guard to shoot first. For all the defending you people do for "but it's a narrative game", you don't seem to realize the rules are anything BUT narrative and telling a story.
The raven guard stealthily crept up on the ork position and attacked from the shadows so they struck first. So hard to narrative out.
Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.
Then limit how many of that specific unit you can take! JFC, it is not that hard, the already did it with the Tau Commander. (Not that it was a good way to fix that specific issue.)
And how do you determine exactly which of those units need that limit and which don't? Play whack-a-mole? Isn't it much better for a system under going a lot of change to limit the number of variables you need to deal with globally rather than scatter shot?
I can't believe this needs explaining. You playtest. That's what the designers are supposed to do. GW's biggest problems are a complete inability to playtest properly and an insanely rapid release schedule without any form of overarching plan or guidelines to follow in army design. Combine that with an unhealthy number of different factions and you end up in the mess they are now. Unit limits are not exactly a new concept and other games manage them just fine.
Ginjitzu wrote: Yeah, but Games Workshop have been doing this for at least 37 years, and they really haven't improved at all. Of course the reason for this is much the same reason that the public education system in Ireland failed to teach me Irish despite 15 years of lessons: because I simply didn't care to learn. Games Workshop's writers have always been more narrative driven, which suits me fine, but there has always been a vocal contingent of the community calling for a balanced, restricted ruleset to suit their competitive needs, and in the 33 years since Rogue Trader first dropped, they've never really got it, and I kind of doubt they ever will. In the absence of Games Workshop's supervision, it's up to the community to fill in that blank. Frontline Gaming seems to have made the best attempt so far, but until they go the whole way and start producing their own points values, the competitive community is going to continue to call for Games Workshop to fix my dudes, and those calls are largely going to go unheard while we continue to hand them heaps of money for books and plastic. No, the only way to make Games Workshop realize that they must produce a balanced ruleset suitable for competitive purposes is to stop handing them money until they do so, and yet this won't happen either, because despite the protestations and lamentations on these forums and elsewhere, the current ruleset actually is good enough for the purposes of the vast majority of the community.
I don't think GW ever earnestly tried before. Things were usually "close enough" (until 7th) with a little padding from the community. If you can't see a difference between now and then though I'm not sure what to tell you.
No, I mean I agree with you: they haven't ever earnestly tried before. Outside of 7th, they've only ever given an attempt at balance, but it's never really been their priority, and my points is, I don't think it ever will be. For the first time that I'm aware of, they have at least started giving lip service to the competitive scene with their, "tournament recommendations," but it really is only lip service. Games Workshop's priority has always been to be to provide a loose framework of rules, that allow you to use narrative to drive your games, and for this purpose, 40k is actually great, which is why I doubt that we'll ever see the balanced, restrictive game that competitive gamers want, come from Games Workshop.
LOL the game rules suck for narrative scenarios. That is unless you think it's great narrative that a Raven Guard Captain can charge an Ork Warboss and kill him before anything happens T1 because everyone shot stuff first and Orks clearly need to wait for the Raven Guard to shoot first. For all the defending you people do for "but it's a narrative game", you don't seem to realize the rules are anything BUT narrative and telling a story.
While I don't disagree about the rules not being the best for narrative gaming, and I think GW doesn't actually do anything to help narrative gamers, you're missing the point of narrative play completely with this example. A narrative game isn't just a regular Matched Play game with a story bolted on, it's more of a collaborative exercise in creating an interesting scenario or story within the framework of the rules. In practice that usually means players work together to come up with a scenario and lists that will work for their proposed narrative. So if it would ruin the narrative to have the RG steamroll the Ork lines in T1 using thier usual tricks then the players just wouldn't do that. Of course, it's perfectly possible that the scenario and narrative they've created may call for just such a tactic to be used. Maybe the scenario is dealing with how an Ork force responds after the death of its leader and it's not about the Ork player "winning" the game but about how much damage they can do before the RG wipe them out. Or maybe slaying the Warboss merely allows the Orks to promote a Nob to become the new Warboss and the scenario simulates a RG force overextending itself against a green tide as their standard character assassination tactics prove ineffectual against a mob of unruly savages who just want to punch Space Marines in the face.
They did not. What is the cost that would still keep it on the table, but not make it over-powered if Ro3 were not in effect? Factor in competition from GSC choices.
I don't know Tyranids well enough to be able to answer this question, but this doesn't mean is not answerable. A competent Tyranid player could estimate a rough ballpark. Might require testing of course. And they did increase the cost of wings by 20 points, but of course because Ro3 exists, we cannot know whether that would have been sufficient fix for the problem!
It's not answerable.
Some units, like flyrants, become better the more of them you have. Mathematically speaking there is no point value where spamming flyrants isn't broken but taking one is still viable. You can either balance them around the concept that they will be spammed, or that they will be restricted in numbers. You either make them cost more points the more you have, or you simply cannot do it with a flat point cost.
Some units, like flyrants, become better the more of them you have. Mathematically speaking there is no point value where spamming flyrants isn't broken but taking one is still viable. You can either balance them around the concept that they will be spammed, or that they will be restricted in numbers. You either make them cost more points the more you have, or you simply cannot do it with a flat point cost.
I am super sceptical that this is actually the case. And even if it was, there only needs to be limitation for such unit, not all units. Cal them Rare Units, or something. Ro3 applies only to them. And actually, as battlefield roles basically mean nothing these days, I think it would be much better idea to remove them, and sort units into rarity brackets instead. I think AOS does something like that.
I can't believe this needs explaining. You playtest. That's what the designers are supposed to do. GW's biggest problems are a complete inability to playtest properly and an insanely rapid release schedule without any form of overarching plan or guidelines to follow in army design. Combine that with an unhealthy number of different factions and you end up in the mess they are now. Unit limits are not exactly a new concept and other games manage them just fine.
You answered your incredulity right there. It doesn't matter if they do playtest well, because they'll never have time to, office politics will reign, and snap judgments will be made. The release schedule is far too fast, but its what we want, isn't it? Can you imagine how the community would feel if have the books were still on index?
Now we have to see what GW does now that the books are done...so far...not good.
Some units, like flyrants, become better the more of them you have. Mathematically speaking there is no point value where spamming flyrants isn't broken but taking one is still viable. You can either balance them around the concept that they will be spammed, or that they will be restricted in numbers. You either make them cost more points the more you have, or you simply cannot do it with a flat point cost.
I am super sceptical that this is actually the case. And even if it was, there only needs to be limitation for such unit, not all units. Cal them Rare Units, or something. Ro3 applies only to them. And actually, as battlefield roles basically mean nothing these days, I think it would be much better idea to remove them, and sort units into rarity brackets instead. I think AOS does something like that.
Malefic lords are a prime example - good and efficient at what they did, but so cheap that you'd want more than 3, the moment they become expensive enough not to want more than 3, you want 0 because you move to the next best/cheapest option instead. Maybe that's an issue with soup, or FW/GW doing a horrid job of keeping rules updated, who knows. Either way there was a unit that was manageable with 3 but not able to be priced "accordingly" because you'll always want more than 3 or none.
Malefic lords are a prime example - good and efficient at what they did, but so cheap that you'd want more than 3, the moment they become expensive enough not to want more than 3, you want 0 because you move to the next best/cheapest option instead. Maybe that's an issue with soup, or FW/GW doing a horrid job of keeping rules updated, who knows. Either way there was a unit that was manageable with 3 but not able to be priced "accordingly" because you'll always want more than 3 or none.
Or a simpler answer: they increased their point cost too much. Also, the diminishing smites rule exits now, which seriously restricts the usefulness of spamming cheap psykers.
Malefic lords are a prime example - good and efficient at what they did, but so cheap that you'd want more than 3, the moment they become expensive enough not to want more than 3, you want 0 because you move to the next best/cheapest option instead. Maybe that's an issue with soup, or FW/GW doing a horrid job of keeping rules updated, who knows. Either way there was a unit that was manageable with 3 but not able to be priced "accordingly" because you'll always want more than 3 or none.
Or a simpler answer: they increased their point cost too much. Also, the diminishing smites rule exits now, which seriously restricts the usefulness of spamming cheap psykers.
So how many points are they worth? Universally ofc for the multitude variations of factions that can take them via souping.
Malefic lords are a prime example - good and efficient at what they did, but so cheap that you'd want more than 3, the moment they become expensive enough not to want more than 3, you want 0 because you move to the next best/cheapest option instead. Maybe that's an issue with soup, or FW/GW doing a horrid job of keeping rules updated, who knows. Either way there was a unit that was manageable with 3 but not able to be priced "accordingly" because you'll always want more than 3 or none.
Or a simpler answer: they increased their point cost too much. Also, the diminishing smites rule exits now, which seriously restricts the usefulness of spamming cheap psykers.
The cost was appropriate for the time. It no longer is, but GW isn't caring much about R&H at the moment. I suspect a codex is in their future.
Malefic lords are a prime example - good and efficient at what they did, but so cheap that you'd want more than 3, the moment they become expensive enough not to want more than 3, you want 0 because you move to the next best/cheapest option instead. Maybe that's an issue with soup, or FW/GW doing a horrid job of keeping rules updated, who knows. Either way there was a unit that was manageable with 3 but not able to be priced "accordingly" because you'll always want more than 3 or none.
Or a simpler answer: they increased their point cost too much. Also, the diminishing smites rule exits now, which seriously restricts the usefulness of spamming cheap psykers.
So how many points are they worth? Universally ofc for the multitude variations of factions that can take them via souping.
Malefic lords are a prime example - good and efficient at what they did, but so cheap that you'd want more than 3, the moment they become expensive enough not to want more than 3, you want 0 because you move to the next best/cheapest option instead. Maybe that's an issue with soup, or FW/GW doing a horrid job of keeping rules updated, who knows. Either way there was a unit that was manageable with 3 but not able to be priced "accordingly" because you'll always want more than 3 or none.
Or a simpler answer: they increased their point cost too much. Also, the diminishing smites rule exits now, which seriously restricts the usefulness of spamming cheap psykers.
Yeah they became some asinine point value. Aren't they like 60?
Malefic lords are a prime example - good and efficient at what they did, but so cheap that you'd want more than 3, the moment they become expensive enough not to want more than 3, you want 0 because you move to the next best/cheapest option instead. Maybe that's an issue with soup, or FW/GW doing a horrid job of keeping rules updated, who knows. Either way there was a unit that was manageable with 3 but not able to be priced "accordingly" because you'll always want more than 3 or none.
Or a simpler answer: they increased their point cost too much. Also, the diminishing smites rule exits now, which seriously restricts the usefulness of spamming cheap psykers.
So how many points are they worth? Universally ofc for the multitude variations of factions that can take them via souping.
I love when people try to bring up allies as though that affects costing too much. The only problem with that is bad internal + external balance. People might not be taking Whirlwinds for example because not only were they not good, but if you wanted artillery Guard has good options. If you nerfed the hell out of Guard Artillery, that doesn't make you take Whirlwinds, it just makes you not take either!
No, they're 80! A 30-point model getting a 50 point increase and suddenly becoming unusable isn't exactly the best possible example if one wants to demonstrate that issues cannot be fixed with point adjustments...
Thanks, so it being "unusable" is a demonstration of making a unit that's good enough to use but not spam? I mean it's almost like I said that they pointed them out of existence or something.
Sorry, but your example was silly. Of course over 150%price increase is going to make an unit unusable! There are plenty of units in the game, which are taken but not spammed. Ergo, such thing is possible. Also, there is nothing in Malefic Lords that make them somehow cumulatively better, quite the opposite. They're very similar to Primaris Psykers and those are taken but not spammed. There is no reason to think that a sane increase of making them fiftyish points would not have solved the problem.
Thanks, so it being "unusable" is a demonstration of making a unit that's good enough to use but not spam? I mean it's almost like I said that they pointed them out of existence or something.
Sorry, but your example was silly. Of course over 150%price increase is going to make an unit unusable! There are plenty of units in the game, which are taken but not spammed. Ergo, such thing is possible. Also, there is nothing in Malefic Lords that make them somehow cumulatively better, quite the opposite. They're very similar to Primaris Psykers and those are taken but not spammed. There is no reason to think that a sane increase of making them fiftyish points would not have solved the problem.
It was a giant point slap in the early days. Before smite nerf and before Ro3. If they had pointed them to 53 they still would have been taken en masse at that time. They SHOULD come down now, but GW has seen fit to not touch R&H at all.
Thanks, so it being "unusable" is a demonstration of making a unit that's good enough to use but not spam? I mean it's almost like I said that they pointed them out of existence or something.
Sorry, but your example was silly. Of course over 150%price increase is going to make an unit unusable! There are plenty of units in the game, which are taken but not spammed. Ergo, such thing is possible. Also, there is nothing in Malefic Lords that make them somehow cumulatively better, quite the opposite. They're very similar to Primaris Psykers and those are taken but not spammed. There is no reason to think that a sane increase of making them fiftyish points would not have solved the problem.
At no point did I assert that they wouldn't be unusable at that point, quite the opposite, I stated people would move onto the next most efficient choice for the same role/slot once it crossed the tipping point.
People took them because they were cheap smite and at 53 points, they would still be the cheapest smite chaos had access to iirc. So whilst academic, they would likely still have taken more than 3 if they wanted to smite spam.
That sentiment remains true until either the damage output from the smites becomes inefficient, or another option has a better statline/output doing the smiting for less.
For what it's worth I don't think I'd bother with a malefic lord for 53 points now, contributes less to my army than some other casters and a slightly cheap smite isn't enticing enough on it's own.
Thanks, so it being "unusable" is a demonstration of making a unit that's good enough to use but not spam? I mean it's almost like I said that they pointed them out of existence or something.
Sorry, but your example was silly. Of course over 150%price increase is going to make an unit unusable! There are plenty of units in the game, which are taken but not spammed. Ergo, such thing is possible. Also, there is nothing in Malefic Lords that make them somehow cumulatively better, quite the opposite. They're very similar to Primaris Psykers and those are taken but not spammed. There is no reason to think that a sane increase of making them fiftyish points would not have solved the problem.
It was a giant point slap in the early days. Before smite nerf and before Ro3. If they had pointed them to 53 they still would have been taken en masse at that time. They SHOULD come down now, but GW has seen fit to not touch R&H at all.
People took them because they were cheap smite and at 53 points, they would still be the cheapest smite chaos had access to iirc. So whilst academic, they would likely still have taken more than 3 if they wanted to smite spam.
Perhaps, but it is only a problem if the unit is too good for its points. I mean army with six malefic lords is inherently no more problematic than an army with three malefic lords and three birdgoat shaman things. And both are fine if they pay commensurate points for their effectiveness. Besides, smite spamming has serious diminishing returns now, as is spamming psykers who all choose their powers from same discipline. So this at least absolutely is a problem that did not require Ro3 to solve which was the original point of this whole tangent.
People took them because they were cheap smite and at 53 points, they would still be the cheapest smite chaos had access to iirc. So whilst academic, they would likely still have taken more than 3 if they wanted to smite spam.
Perhaps, but it is only a problem if the unit is too good for its points. I mean army with six malefic lords is inherently no more problematic than an army with three malefic lords and three birdgoat shaman things. And both are fine if they pay commensurate points for their effectiveness. Besides, smite spamming has serious diminishing returns now, as is spamming psykers who all choose their powers from same discipline. So this at least absolutely is a problem that did not require Ro3 to solve which was the original point of this whole tangent.
Very true they solved it another manner which was eloquent for the most part in comparison. I think rule of 3 is a necessary temp fix for them at present, it also allows design space to make something that is intentionally too good on the grounds you can't have too many. That of course is shady practice but they'll do what they'll do.
Thanks, so it being "unusable" is a demonstration of making a unit that's good enough to use but not spam? I mean it's almost like I said that they pointed them out of existence or something.
Sorry, but your example was silly. Of course over 150%price increase is going to make an unit unusable! There are plenty of units in the game, which are taken but not spammed. Ergo, such thing is possible. Also, there is nothing in Malefic Lords that make them somehow cumulatively better, quite the opposite. They're very similar to Primaris Psykers and those are taken but not spammed. There is no reason to think that a sane increase of making them fiftyish points would not have solved the problem.
It was a giant point slap in the early days. Before smite nerf and before Ro3. If they had pointed them to 53 they still would have been taken en masse at that time. They SHOULD come down now, but GW has seen fit to not touch R&H at all.
Gw didn't seem very interested in fixing most fw units prices in ca. At least malefic lords were a bit of a problem when they got their nerf. I still haven't heard a good explanation for why they nerfed the hellforged/relic super heavys.
Honestly I think they either forgot about most fw units or were just too lazy to fix them in ca.
Martel732 wrote: I'd be fine with a competitive/matched play FW ban. The leviathan dread has grown tedious in particular.
I would too TBH, it's pretty clear GW doesn't take FW into account when designing their codices. any tourny that bans legends should if they're being fair, ban FW
Martel732 wrote: I'd be fine with a competitive/matched play FW ban. The leviathan dread has grown tedious in particular.
I would too TBH, it's pretty clear GW doesn't take FW into account when designing their codices. any tourny that bans legends should if they're being fair, ban FW
Because feth CSM players amirite?
Contemptors are fine for loyalists though. I'll keep tilting at this windmill to highlight how daft a FW ban would be in today's game.
So you ban source of books that has least amount of balance issues and leave source of most balance issues.
There's reason why you don't see FW units dominating tournaments. Because compared to GW units they suck. GW doesn't allow resin models to be even decent and GW is the one doing the rules for FW models.
Martel732 wrote: I'd be fine with a competitive/matched play FW ban. The leviathan dread has grown tedious in particular.
I would too TBH, it's pretty clear GW doesn't take FW into account when designing their codices. any tourny that bans legends should if they're being fair, ban FW
So you have a complaint about ONE unit out of how many, when there are codex offenders that have been worse over the years?
I make a post complaining about how gw left many fw units massively overpriced and therefore uncompetitive and suddenly people start up the old ban fw chant again. Because we need to ban all those uncompetitive units just because of the leviathan.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I make a post complaining about how gw left many fw units massively overpriced and therefore uncompetitive and suddenly people start up the old ban fw chant again. Because we need to ban all those uncompetitive units just because of the leviathan.
Some of the people here are too dumb to math, unfortunately.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I make a post complaining about how gw left many fw units massively overpriced and therefore uncompetitive and suddenly people start up the old ban fw chant again. Because we need to ban all those uncompetitive units just because of the leviathan.
Hey, they want to ban the Legends too and those don't even have the Leviathan! 'Ban stuff for balance' brigade has never made much sense.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I make a post complaining about how gw left many fw units massively overpriced and therefore uncompetitive and suddenly people start up the old ban fw chant again. Because we need to ban all those uncompetitive units just because of the leviathan.
Hey, they want to ban the Legends too and those don't even have the Leviathan! 'Ban stuff for balance' brigade has never made much sense.
I don't know you could balance the game pretty easily with banning. Just ban everything except for tac marines.
The leviathan is actually a pretty good example of gw's lazy rules writing as the superior loyalist version is actually 6 points cheaper than the hellforged version. Although my numbers are coming from battlescribe as I haven't gotten to pick up ca 2019 yet so if I'm wrong correct me.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The leviathan is actually a pretty good example of gw's lazy rules writing as the superior loyalist version is actually 6 points cheaper than the hellforged version. Although my numbers are coming from battlescribe as I haven't gotten to pick up ca 2019 yet so if I'm wrong correct me.
Battlescribe is not a good basis for an argument. They're both the same cost and have always been as near as I can tell.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The leviathan is actually a pretty good example of gw's lazy rules writing as the superior loyalist version is actually 6 points cheaper than the hellforged version. Although my numbers are coming from battlescribe as I haven't gotten to pick up ca 2019 yet so if I'm wrong correct me.
Battlescribe is not a good basis for an argument. They're both the same cost and have always been as near as I can tell.
Thanks for straightening that out for me. But it still begs the question of whether they should have the same cost. The loyalist version has a better invul, the ability to be repaired by tech marines, and all the various rules advantages currently afforded by c:sm and the supplements.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The leviathan is actually a pretty good example of gw's lazy rules writing as the superior loyalist version is actually 6 points cheaper than the hellforged version. Although my numbers are coming from battlescribe as I haven't gotten to pick up ca 2019 yet so if I'm wrong correct me.
Battlescribe is not a good basis for an argument. They're both the same cost and have always been as near as I can tell.
Thanks for straightening that out for me. But it still begs the question of whether they should have the same cost. The loyalist version has a better invul, the ability to be repaired by tech marines, and all the various rules advantages currently afforded by c:sm and the supplements.
Why should the Leviathan cost more because of Techmarines repairing better than Warpsmiths? I'm not saying they should be the same points, but ultimately that's a bad argument.
Units aren't costed to external abilities. The only difference as you noted is the 4++ vs the 5++/4++ in melee, but then the Hellforged gets +1A (for double melee), can heal in melee, and doesn't cover half the table when it blows (half as often as the loyalist version).
Daedalus81 wrote: Units aren't costed to external abilities. The only difference as you noted is the 4++ vs the 5++/4++ in melee, but then the Hellforged gets +1A (for double melee), can heal in melee, and doesn't cover half the table when it blows (half as often as the loyalist version).
Erm.. they totally are. Every single time a balance discussion for CSM shooting happens it turns into *~But Cacophony~* *~But VOTLW~* Cultists cost more than guardsman for a year because of external abilities. Tau are balanced around markerlights/SP. Knights had their CP costs driven up across the board in response to CP batteries. Ynnari warped both DE and CWE costs. Gulliman had to be reworked because he was too strong of an influence on balance and was warping everything that he could touch in the codex. Thousand Sun DP cost more than CSMDP.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The leviathan is actually a pretty good example of gw's lazy rules writing as the superior loyalist version is actually 6 points cheaper than the hellforged version. Although my numbers are coming from battlescribe as I haven't gotten to pick up ca 2019 yet so if I'm wrong correct me.
Battlescribe is not a good basis for an argument. They're both the same cost and have always been as near as I can tell.
Thanks for straightening that out for me. But it still begs the question of whether they should have the same cost. The loyalist version has a better invul, the ability to be repaired by tech marines, and all the various rules advantages currently afforded by c:sm and the supplements.
Why should the Leviathan cost more because of Techmarines repairing better than Warpsmiths? I'm not saying they should be the same points, but ultimately that's a bad argument.
The hellforged leviathan can't be repaired period except by killing things in cc due to the machine malifica rule. Which brings up the problem of getting them into cc. Warpsmiths vs tech marines has nothing to do with it.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The leviathan is actually a pretty good example of gw's lazy rules writing as the superior loyalist version is actually 6 points cheaper than the hellforged version. Although my numbers are coming from battlescribe as I haven't gotten to pick up ca 2019 yet so if I'm wrong correct me.
Battlescribe is not a good basis for an argument. They're both the same cost and have always been as near as I can tell.
Thanks for straightening that out for me. But it still begs the question of whether they should have the same cost. The loyalist version has a better invul, the ability to be repaired by tech marines, and all the various rules advantages currently afforded by c:sm and the supplements.
Why should the Leviathan cost more because of Techmarines repairing better than Warpsmiths? I'm not saying they should be the same points, but ultimately that's a bad argument.
The hellforged leviathan can't be repaired period except by killing things in cc due to the machine malifica rule. Which brings up the problem of getting them into cc. Warpsmiths vs tech marines has nothing to do with it.
C'mon I expect better from you.
As much as slayer usually peddles some crap, machine malifica only kicks in when it kills something in melee, otherwise it can be healed as normal.
As much as slayer usually peddles some crap, machine malifica only kicks in when it kills something in melee, otherwise it can be healed as normal.
No.
"At the end of each turn in which a unit with this ability had slain any models in the fight phase, other than through overwatch attacks, roll a number of d6 equal to the number of models slain. Each of these dice that scores a result of 5+ heals one wound on the unit with this rule. Unit cannot be healed of wounds by any other means in the same turn this ability is used"
As much as slayer usually peddles some crap, machine malifica only kicks in when it kills something in melee, otherwise it can be healed as normal.
No.
"At the end of each turn in which a unit with this ability had slain any models in the fight phase, other than through overwatch attacks, roll a number of d6 equal to the number of models slain. Each of these dice that scores a result of 5+ heals one wound on the unit with this rule. Unit cannot be healed of wounds by any other means in the same turn this ability is used"
Yes.
Is this an errata I'm unaware of? My fw index says "this model cannot regain lost wounds by any other means ". And that's what it says on all the hellforged units data sheets not just the leviathan.
Nope just checked the latest faq. Still the same wording. Can't regain wounds unless it kills something in cc.
As much as slayer usually peddles some crap, machine malifica only kicks in when it kills something in melee, otherwise it can be healed as normal.
No.
"At the end of each turn in which a unit with this ability had slain any models in the fight phase, other than through overwatch attacks, roll a number of d6 equal to the number of models slain. Each of these dice that scores a result of 5+ heals one wound on the unit with this rule. Unit cannot be healed of wounds by any other means in the same turn this ability is used"
Yes.
Is this an errata I'm unaware of? My fw index says "this model cannot regain lost wounds by any other means ". And that's what it says on all the hellforged units data sheets not just the leviathan.
No idea it's on the version I have on my phone, my physical books atm home so can't check. Matches the one off the GW site from ages ago though:
Edit:
It's the opposite, they did an errata to stop it being healed. Seems dumb to me but confusion resolved.
Daedalus81 wrote: Units aren't costed to external abilities. The only difference as you noted is the 4++ vs the 5++/4++ in melee, but then the Hellforged gets +1A (for double melee), can heal in melee, and doesn't cover half the table when it blows (half as often as the loyalist version).
Erm.. they totally are. Every single time a balance discussion for CSM shooting happens it turns into *~But Cacophony~* *~But VOTLW~* Cultists cost more than guardsman for a year because of external abilities. Tau are balanced around markerlights/SP. Knights had their CP costs driven up across the board in response to CP batteries. Ynnari warped both DE and CWE costs. Gulliman had to be reworked because he was too strong of an influence on balance and was warping everything that he could touch in the codex. Thousand Sun DP cost more than CSMDP.
These are the arguments that the forum makes about inconsistencies or as to why a unit is worth it to them. That doesn't mean GW went out of their way to make those considerations. T'au is a different animal where markerlights are an army wide thing and may be considered.
If GW had a sense of balance through external buffs then Marines and Centurions wouldn't be what they are currently.
Daedalus81 wrote: Units aren't costed to external abilities. The only difference as you noted is the 4++ vs the 5++/4++ in melee, but then the Hellforged gets +1A (for double melee), can heal in melee, and doesn't cover half the table when it blows (half as often as the loyalist version).
Erm.. they totally are. Every single time a balance discussion for CSM shooting happens it turns into *~But Cacophony~* *~But VOTLW~* Cultists cost more than guardsman for a year because of external abilities. Tau are balanced around markerlights/SP. Knights had their CP costs driven up across the board in response to CP batteries. Ynnari warped both DE and CWE costs. Gulliman had to be reworked because he was too strong of an influence on balance and was warping everything that he could touch in the codex. Thousand Sun DP cost more than CSMDP.
These are the arguments that the forum makes about inconsistencies or as to why a unit is worth it to them. That doesn't mean GW went out of their way to make those considerations. T'au is a different animal where markerlights are an army wide thing and may be considered.
If GW had a sense of balance through external buffs then Marines and Centurions wouldn't be what they are currently.
The heretic leviathan and loyalist leviathan are used in different armies and gw does price things differently for different armies. That's why space marines pay more for lascannons than guard. Because a space marine is a better platform for the weapon than a guardsman.
Gw have already acknowledged the difference between csm and loyalists by making csm cheaper than tac marines.
Not to mention that that flat 4+ invul is definitely worth something.
The heretic leviathan and loyalist leviathan are used in different armies and gw does price things differently for different armies. That's why space marines pay more for lascannons than guard. Because a space marine is a better platform for the weapon than a guardsman.
Gw have already acknowledged the difference between csm and loyalists by making csm cheaper than tac marines.
Not to mention that that flat 4+ invul is definitely worth something.
They price lascannons different from guard to marines, but they don't price them differently from marines to CSM, do they?
They acknowledge that CSM suffer from a lack of doctrines, which is again an army wide buff.
+1A and half the explode chance is also worth something.
The heretic leviathan and loyalist leviathan are used in different armies and gw does price things differently for different armies. That's why space marines pay more for lascannons than guard. Because a space marine is a better platform for the weapon than a guardsman.
Gw have already acknowledged the difference between csm and loyalists by making csm cheaper than tac marines.
Not to mention that that flat 4+ invul is definitely worth something.
They price lascannons different from guard to marines, but they don't price them differently from marines to CSM, do they?
They acknowledge that CSM suffer from a lack of doctrines, which is again an army wide buff.
+1A and half the explode chance is also worth something.
Yes it's an army wide buff which means it affects the leviathan. Same for chapter tactics, unlike legion traits. And you only get the extra attack on the hellforged leviathan if you equip double close combat weapons and then manage to footslog it across the board to get in cc. At which point it'll most likely be bracketed.
And if it does make it into cc before dying I probably WANT it to explode.
Yes it's an army wide buff which means it affects the leviathan. Same for chapter tactics, unlike legion traits.
Traits also sit outside the "bubble". Doctrines are also over-done. Leviathans outside IH don't really benefit. When CSM get better traits (if, I suppose) the gap closes quite a bit.
And you only get the extra attack on the hellforged leviathan if you equip double close combat weapons and then manage to footslog it across the board to get in cc. At which point it'll most likely be bracketed.
And if it does make it into cc before dying I probably WANT it to explode.
Yes, but that is the beside the point. You're rationalizing the benefit of the trade-off. Whether or not the hellforged should be cheaper is debatable (and we should not forget it heals in combat).
Yes it's an army wide buff which means it affects the leviathan. Same for chapter tactics, unlike legion traits.
Traits also sit outside the "bubble". Doctrines are also over-done. Leviathans outside IH don't really benefit. When CSM get better traits (if, I suppose) the gap closes quite a bit.
And you only get the extra attack on the hellforged leviathan if you equip double close combat weapons and then manage to footslog it across the board to get in cc. At which point it'll most likely be bracketed.
And if it does make it into cc before dying I probably WANT it to explode.
Yes, but that is the beside the point. You're rationalizing the benefit of the trade-off. Whether or not the hellforged should be cheaper is debatable (and we should not forget it heals in combat).
I don't think the hellforged should be cheaper I think the loyalist version should be more expensive. They're both already pretty cheap for what they do.
And do you actually think an ability that requires you to get into cc is as useful as a 4+ invul?
I was just trying to point out that giving two units with different abilities in different armies with access to different buffs/strategems the same cost is lazy on gw's part.
JNAProductions wrote: It heals in combat, but with a worse invuln, worse strats, and no way of healing till it gets there, it's not gonna make it.
Yes, I understand. The same thing applied to a marine with a gun versus one with a chainsword. That 4++ is not quite as relevant on a 2+ save model unless people start taking higher AP (which, of course, marines get free).
Levis with drills smack A.Cents pretty well. If you wanted to run them then a couple levis, 3 melee helbrutes, a couple of flamer disco lords, and some plaguespitter PBCs would create a super durable army capable of taking down fliers and pushing forward with enough to get to combat.
JNAProductions wrote: It heals in combat, but with a worse invuln, worse strats, and no way of healing till it gets there, it's not gonna make it.
Yes, I understand. The same thing applied to a marine with a gun versus one with a chainsword. That 4++ is not quite as relevant on a 2+ save model unless people start taking higher AP (which, of course, marines get free).
Levis with drills smack A.Cents pretty well. If you wanted to run them then a couple levis, 3 melee helbrutes, a couple of flamer disco lords, and some plaguespitter PBCs would create a super durable army capable of taking down fliers and pushing forward with enough to get to combat.
Not quite relevant? It's durability is it's biggest strength. 2+ save with t8 means it's getting a 2+ save against most massed low strength fire which is going to be wounding on 5s at best and usually 6s. If you try higher strength and ap but lower vof weapons then that 4+ invul kicks in and t8 is still there meaning even lascannons are wounding on 3s. Throw duty eternal on it and park a tech marine next to it and it can pretty well be guaranteed to be pumping out 20 s7 ap-2 d2 shots hitting on 2s for the whole game. And yes all loyalist marines get better ap for free including the leviathan.
Meanwhile you want csm to march across the board soaking up fire and getting bracketed or destroyed.
As much as I hate it shooting is far stronger than combat in 8th. There's a reason everyone takes leviathans with storm/butcher cannons. And in that form the loyalist version is far superior.
JNAProductions wrote: It heals in combat, but with a worse invuln, worse strats, and no way of healing till it gets there, it's not gonna make it.
Yes, I understand. The same thing applied to a marine with a gun versus one with a chainsword. That 4++ is not quite as relevant on a 2+ save model unless people start taking higher AP (which, of course, marines get free).
Levis with drills smack A.Cents pretty well. If you wanted to run them then a couple levis, 3 melee helbrutes, a couple of flamer disco lords, and some plaguespitter PBCs would create a super durable army capable of taking down fliers and pushing forward with enough to get to combat.
Not quite relevant? It's durability is it's biggest strength. 2+ save with t8 means it's getting a 2+ save against most massed low strength fire which is going to be wounding on 5s at best and usually 6s. If you try higher strength and ap but lower vof weapons then that 4+ invul kicks in and t8 is still there meaning even lascannons are wounding on 3s. Throw duty eternal on it and park a tech marine next to it and it can pretty well be guaranteed to be pumping out 20 s7 ap-2 d2 shots hitting on 2s for the whole game. And yes all loyalist marines get better ap for free including the leviathan.
Meanwhile you want csm to march across the board soaking up fire and getting bracketed or destroyed.
As much as I hate it shooting is far stronger than combat in 8th. There's a reason everyone takes leviathans with storm/butcher cannons. And in that form the loyalist version is far superior.
But then you're talking about another ~60 points and regular CP spend. A Storm Cannon hitting a 4++ Levi does 6.6 damage and 8.8 to one with a 5++ - you're bracketed either way. And the only way something like that would work is if you have enough to get into their face early while the dreadnoughts hoof it.
I'm not making a claim to viability of lists and marines are clearly stupid strong right now, so I don't think it's a good practice to muse on their power level versus others at the moment.
Storm Cannon Levis are often hampered, in my experience, by terrain, low movement, and short range. There's more to the game than math.
Considering like 95% of the index entries are just copy paste to legends, I'll just keep using my index stuff there. Honestly pointing out they stealth removed something is a lot like saying GW are sneaky, if you haven't figured that out yet you;re late to the game.
JNAProductions wrote: It heals in combat, but with a worse invuln, worse strats, and no way of healing till it gets there, it's not gonna make it.
Yes, I understand. The same thing applied to a marine with a gun versus one with a chainsword. That 4++ is not quite as relevant on a 2+ save model unless people start taking higher AP (which, of course, marines get free).
Levis with drills smack A.Cents pretty well. If you wanted to run them then a couple levis, 3 melee helbrutes, a couple of flamer disco lords, and some plaguespitter PBCs would create a super durable army capable of taking down fliers and pushing forward with enough to get to combat.
Not quite relevant? It's durability is it's biggest strength. 2+ save with t8 means it's getting a 2+ save against most massed low strength fire which is going to be wounding on 5s at best and usually 6s. If you try higher strength and ap but lower vof weapons then that 4+ invul kicks in and t8 is still there meaning even lascannons are wounding on 3s. Throw duty eternal on it and park a tech marine next to it and it can pretty well be guaranteed to be pumping out 20 s7 ap-2 d2 shots hitting on 2s for the whole game. And yes all loyalist marines get better ap for free including the leviathan.
Meanwhile you want csm to march across the board soaking up fire and getting bracketed or destroyed.
As much as I hate it shooting is far stronger than combat in 8th. There's a reason everyone takes leviathans with storm/butcher cannons. And in that form the loyalist version is far superior.
But then you're talking about another ~60 points and regular CP spend. A Storm Cannon hitting a 4++ Levi does 6.6 damage and 8.8 to one with a 5++ - you're bracketed either way. And the only way something like that would work is if you have enough to get into their face early while the dreadnoughts hoof it.
I'm not making a claim to viability of lists and marines are clearly stupid strong right now, so I don't think it's a good practice to muse on their power level versus others at the moment.
Storm Cannon Levis are often hampered, in my experience, by terrain, low movement, and short range. There's more to the game than math.
I'm not talking about one vs the other I'm comparing their survivability. The loyalist version is super tough.
We're not talking about the same thing anymore. Later.
I'm not talking about one vs the other I'm comparing their survivability. The loyalist version is super tough.
We're not talking about the same thing anymore. Later.
We've come full circle. Super durable, because of external abilities which won't be factored into the cost...
Internal abilities like a superior invul and the ability to be repaired. If going from a 5+ to a 4+ invul isn't worth anything then why is one of knights best strategems one that does exactly that? And external abilities should be factored in when the units are being used by different armies with different codexes.
Damn it. Every time I think I'm out you pull me back in.
I'm not talking about one vs the other I'm comparing their survivability. The loyalist version is super tough.
We're not talking about the same thing anymore. Later.
We've come full circle. Super durable, because of external abilities which won't be factored into the cost...
External abilities absolutely should be factored into the cost of a unit in some cases. External abilities that are themselves abilities of other models or units shouldn't be, so the ability to repair Leviathans should be factored into the cost of whatever is doing the repairing. But things like Duty Eternal should influence the cost of units that can make use of it, especially with the way that strat in particular works as it has varying returns depending on the durability of the unit using it. That's all quite apart from the fact that one of the two Dreads is clearly better than the other, yet the points say the opposite.
I'm not talking about one vs the other I'm comparing their survivability. The loyalist version is super tough.
We're not talking about the same thing anymore. Later.
We've come full circle. Super durable, because of external abilities which won't be factored into the cost...
External abilities absolutely should be factored into the cost of a unit in some cases. External abilities that are themselves abilities of other models or units shouldn't be, so the ability to repair Leviathans should be factored into the cost of whatever is doing the repairing. But things like Duty Eternal should influence the cost of units that can make use of it, especially with the way that strat in particular works as it has varying returns depending on the durability of the unit using it. That's all quite apart from the fact that one of the two Dreads is clearly better than the other, yet the points say the opposite.
I understand your view in that the onus is on the enabler to carry the burden of the points (techmarine here), however repairing 3 wounds on a rhino is worth less than 3 wounds on a leviathan, which then makes it hard to work out how much that ability to repair should clock in at.
Here's a concept. How about duty eternal costs more cp for dreadnoughts with 10 or more wounds like rotate ion shields costs more for castellans? Helps with part of the issue at least.
I'm not talking about one vs the other I'm comparing their survivability. The loyalist version is super tough.
We're not talking about the same thing anymore. Later.
We've come full circle. Super durable, because of external abilities which won't be factored into the cost...
Internal abilities like a superior invul and the ability to be repaired. If going from a 5+ to a 4+ invul isn't worth anything then why is one of knights best strategems one that does exactly that? And external abilities should be factored in when the units are being used by different armies with different codexes.
Damn it. Every time I think I'm out you pull me back in.
I'm not saying the 4++ isn't valuable. I'm saying there are abilities that defray the difference - a little. Any additional difference is not going to be some large point drop that makes a difference in a list across one or two levis.
The really crazy stuff is in the double repairs and duty eternal.
Why would you factor an external ability into cost if the player might never use or get to use it? Why pay a tax for techmarine repair if you take no techmarines?
I'm not talking about one vs the other I'm comparing their survivability. The loyalist version is super tough.
We're not talking about the same thing anymore. Later.
We've come full circle. Super durable, because of external abilities which won't be factored into the cost...
Internal abilities like a superior invul and the ability to be repaired. If going from a 5+ to a 4+ invul isn't worth anything then why is one of knights best strategems one that does exactly that? And external abilities should be factored in when the units are being used by different armies with different codexes.
Damn it. Every time I think I'm out you pull me back in.
I'm not saying the 4++ isn't valuable. I'm saying there are abilities that defray the difference - a little. Any additional difference is not going to be some large point drop that makes a difference in a list across one or two levis.
The really crazy stuff is in the double repairs and duty eternal.
Why would you factor an external ability into cost if the player might never use or get to use it? Why pay a tax for techmarine repair if you take no techmarines?
That's why I suggested increasing the cost of duty eternal when used on dreadnoughts with 10 or more wounds.
And every chapter gets doctrines and chapter tactics for free.
That's why I suggested increasing the cost of duty eternal when used on dreadnoughts with 10 or more wounds.
And every chapter gets doctrines and chapter tactics for free.
I don't disagree, but that may put it out of reach for normal dreads. I would say 1CP for a model with 8 wounds or less and 2CP above that, but it'd be a long time before GW does a balance like that.
That's why I suggested increasing the cost of duty eternal when used on dreadnoughts with 10 or more wounds.
And every chapter gets doctrines and chapter tactics for free.
I don't disagree, but that may put it out of reach for normal dreads. I would say 1CP for a model with 8 wounds or less and 2CP above that, but it'd be a long time before GW does a balance like that.
Finally we agree on something. You're right though. Probably won't happen until the next big faq.
I'm not talking about one vs the other I'm comparing their survivability. The loyalist version is super tough.
We're not talking about the same thing anymore. Later.
We've come full circle. Super durable, because of external abilities which won't be factored into the cost...
Internal abilities like a superior invul and the ability to be repaired. If going from a 5+ to a 4+ invul isn't worth anything then why is one of knights best strategems one that does exactly that? And external abilities should be factored in when the units are being used by different armies with different codexes.
Damn it. Every time I think I'm out you pull me back in.
I'm not saying the 4++ isn't valuable. I'm saying there are abilities that defray the difference - a little. Any additional difference is not going to be some large point drop that makes a difference in a list across one or two levis.
The really crazy stuff is in the double repairs and duty eternal.
Why would you factor an external ability into cost if the player might never use or get to use it? Why pay a tax for techmarine repair if you take no techmarines?
I think them nerfing the double repair to not let you repair the same vehicle twice was a good change to the IH the amount of repairs they could do to a leviathan pre-faq was way to strong.
) or that they somehow feel that "the game wouldn't be balanced" otherwise.
Is this an errata I'm unaware of? My 
